Montreal’s Wellington Street is pedestrianized in the summer. (Oh The Urbanity!)

The 405 and 167 freeway rebuild. (Build Core) Managed toll lanes, Stride upgrades.

Horse-drawn buses are the ancestor of modern buses. (J Draper)

As a reminder, STB is hosting Seattle Transit Trivia today (Monday). Round 1 starts at 10am. Full details are available here.

This is an open thread.

57 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Montreal Pedestrian Street & 405 Rebuild”

  1. LAX, again.

    I traveled to Los Angeles again this week and tried 2 different public transit options for the trip between LAX and the7th St./Metro Center Station in downtown LA (DTLA). Previously, I had tried the K Line to the E Line pathway and shared my complaints about slow street running and “just-missed” connections that pushed my trip time to almost 90 minutes. This time I used the C Line to the J Line on my inbound trip, and the A Line to the C Line on my outbound trip.

    Just for reference, here’s the Metro Rail and Busway map: https://cdn.beta.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/09224824/26-1362_map_GM_Master_DCR-2-copy.pdf

    Arriving at LAX still requires riding the street-running bus connection between your terminal and the LAX Metro Transit Center station. It’s about a 10-minute ride depending on your arrival terminal and traffic conditions. Thankfully, the LAX Automated People Mover (LINXS) is scheduled to open in October which will connect all the terminals with the parking lots, rental cars and the LAX Metro TC.

    The C Line/J Line Path (Inbound)
    The C Line runs on 13-minute headways most of the day. It’s a 15-minute ride to the Harbor Freeway transfer point if the line isn’t running single track operations at rush hour due to maintenance (yes, it was). The J Line is a BRT line that uses the Harbor Transitway on the 110 to get to DTLA. The transfer point is under the 105 and in the middle of the 110 that absolutely defines the term “concrete jungle”: dark, soaring overpasses, thunderous traffic noise, dirt and blowing soot. It’s amazing as a one-time experience, but it would be hellish as a daily routine. J Line buses are standard 45-foot coaches (don’t bring heavy luggage), but they run every 4-10 minutes. This trip took about 70 minutes.

    A Line/C Line (Outbound)
    On the map, this pathway looks to be the longest. In reality, it may be the quickest. The A Line bogs down horribly in street traffic near DTLA, but once it elevates at Slauson, it moves pretty quickly to the Willowbrook/Rosa Parks transfer point. Headways are 8-10 minutes most of the day and if you are bringing more than a carry-on bag, this is likely your best option.

    All options for traveling between LAX and DTLA are slow and require a transfer. Expect your trip to take 60-90 minutes, but the cost is only $1.75. Of course, not everyone is heading to DTLA, so there are many other options that may work out better, depending on your final destination. Good luck!

    I recommend this video for perspective on the LA rail system: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=uptin+media+%24120+billion&mid=FA8129AB08E173767077FA8129AB08E173767077&churl=&FORM=VIRE

    1. The LAX SkyLink is one of the biggest rail project development disasters I’ve ever read about. It’s 99.6% done with no opening date and in imminent risk of financial shutdown. It should have opened several years ago — and frankly should have been built at least 25 years ago.

      LAX traffic congestion is epic and it’s truly tragic that it’s not open.

    2. Like our region, LA has had some game-changing new rail line segments open that are somewhat transformative. And there will be an upcoming pause in openings of new lines once LAX SkyLink and D Line westward open to complete the latest expansion round.

      The D Line (Purple Line) extension is becoming the ultimate east-west trunk when it finally opens to UCLA in the next year (hopefully). Of course, the LAX trek won’t be great until the K Line extension makes it to at least Wilshire (D) and then to Hollywood (B). It’s still a few decades off (2047-2049), as is the Sepulveda Line.

    3. Last time I went to LA. I missed my Flyaway bus outside Terminal 2 by a few steps. Then I decided to take my chance to walk to Terminal 5. I ended up beating that Flyaway bus by 5 minutes.

    4. C/J transfer amazing in a “I can’t believe they expect humans to use this” or “this is pretty cool, but would probably get old after a few days.”

  2. The second video is a pretty good 30,000′ overview. It’s the first time I’ve heard of the concept of 167 & 405 being treated as a single N/S corridor. Makes sense.

    I drove north yesterday from Bellevue to Everett. The size of the NE 85th project is mind blowing. The excavation now extends south all the way to NE 70th on/off ramps. To the north there is construction as far as the pedestrian bridge at 100th. Looks like they’ve completed a substantial portion of the transit level of this $0.3B layer cake. Many of the sign bridges are now in place.

    At Brickyard/522 the construction is also making noticeable progress. Looks like most of the curb and asphalt for the “transit center” are in place. I’m surprised that wasn’t the last piece completed so that it could be used for construction staging. I’ll have to plan a trip to UW Bothell sometime and take a closer look.

    There doesn’t seem to be much noticeable progress at Bothell Everett Highway. It’s likely there is a lot happening that just isn’t visible while driving 405 and navigating the chicane.

      1. The Legislature waited so long to set up funding for the I-405 portion that combining the two (SR167/I-405) was inevitable. However, this let’s them chop the “master plans” into various sub projects so the total multi billion dollar price tag doesn’t show up as double digits in the media.

        Limited access freeways are basically “build it and they will come”, or more precisely, “they will sprawl and drive in their SOVs”.

    2. “The excavation now extends south all the way to NE 70th on/off ramps. ”

      That might be fish passage-related.
      NE 85th interchange doesn’t really go far beyond the interchange. Although it seems like a gigantic interchange, its footprint is smaller than the cloverleaf there before.

    3. The second video is a pretty good 30,000′ overview.

      I agree. I like the perspective and the quote at the end.

      If it works, the East Side gets something more reliable than the freeway it has today. If it doesn’t, the region may spend billions and still be left asking the same question. Can you actually fix congestion here? Or only decide who gets through it faster?

      Great question(s) Josh. First of all, you can’t fix congestion unless you are willing to toll everyone. I don’t see that happening. But you can fix congestion for transit riders and (large) car pools. But even then it may be difficult. It somewhat depends on how many people are willing to pay. The fact that WSDOT believes one HOT lane (per direction) is not enough is a very bad sign. It suggests that you reach an induced demand inflection point with HOT lanes as well as regular lanes. This could mean that the buses are less effective, as they wouldn’t be particularly fast. Then again, there is a simple solution — make one lane HOV-4 (or even just bus-only) and keep the other as HOT-2 .

      As for the effectiveness of bus service along the corridor, it depends on what happens with the rest of the network. The Stride plans are a good first step but they have obvious flaws (that the author mentioned). For example, assume I’m trying to get from a typical part of Tukwila to Factoria. I can drive to TIBS or even Renton to a park and ride. Then what? Take the Stride Line to Downtown Bellevue followed by a bus heading back the other way? Or maybe I take Stride to a freeway station and then take the 111 to South Bellevue and then head the other direction. Or I drive to Renton and catch the 240, which is stuck in traffic. I think most people in that situation would just drive. There has to be a bigger investment in bus service than Stride 1 and 2 but I don’t see ST being the least bit interested (or King County being able to afford it).

      1. 2 continuous HOT lanes is more than just increased capacity. It helps smooth out all the merge points which otherwise bottleneck the entire system. This will be especially important for buses trying to merge back onto 405 SB and have to immediately pull the substantial grade up to Brickyard. Having two lanes also lets you get around someone going 10mph slower than all the rest of the traffic.

        I believe the original goal was to keep traffic in the HOT lanes moving at a minimum of 35mph. That’s not really “rapid” considering the length of the Stride routes. At least they have tools (tolls & increase HOV#) and infrastructure to work with. Whether there’s a will to keep the buses moving is yet to be seen. I imaging WSDOT will continue the strategy of slowly increasing tolls at a rate the frog doesn’t realize he’s being boiled.

        1. 2 continuous HOT lanes is more than just increased capacity. It helps smooth out all the merge points which otherwise bottleneck the entire system.

          But that is related to the number of cars in those lanes. In other words, there are enough cars in these special lanes to make merging difficult on a regular basis. I’ve driven in HOV lanes that just fly. So much so that I do feel uncomfortable driving the typical 65 mph when folks are basically stuck in the right lane (and thus I’m the one driving ten miles slower). Or I’ve had the occasional merge and thought “Come on man…” as I slow from 60 to 50 (oh, the horror). [snark]. But I’ve also driven in HOV lanes that are only marginally better than the main roads. I don’t drive 405 enough to know what it is like. To be clear, I have no doubt this will help — I’m just saying that if fewer people were actually using the HOT lanes it wouldn’t be needed. This in turn means that there is a good chance that both lanes will fill up.

          As you mentioned, it also depends on whether WSDOT views toll lanes as a way to make money or a way to make transit and carpools faster. It is easy to think they are one and I can see how you might pull that off but that seems like a narrow window that might disappear with enough wealthy drivers.

        2. HOV and now HOT (express) lanes are curious features. They seem best when freeways only have three lanes in one direction. That’s because many cars through the day have at least two passengers. So without tolls and exiting, the density of 2+ HOV vehicles approaches a typical freeway lane adjacent to it. That’s especially true if there are four regular lanes and one HOV lane. To me, HOV lanes are only mathematically effective at 3+ HOV if the freeway is wide like with 5 or 6 lanes total in one direction.

          So the ugly truth is that they just add freeway capacity in a less offensive way as I see it. If a state DOT wants more freeway lanes it is politically easier to charge money for them or offer them to 2+ HOVs.

          Finally, the toll revenue should be subsidizing some transit services in the corridor. It’s surreal to me that Strude is paying for hundreds of millions to take advantage of the Express lanes rather than the toll revenue from those lanes offsetting the cost to build or operate Stride. In particular, adjacent park and ride garages should be built from Express lane toll revenue.

        3. It’s really hard to know what the demand will be when 2 continuous HOT lanes are completed. Right now the section with 2 lanes backs up because of where it chokes down at both the north and south. The $20 maximum toll is in effect quite often but doesn’t actually get traffic flowing. I suspect that if they raised the rate to $40 it would make little difference. When people see that the toll lanes aren’t any faster (sometimes slower!) they aren’t going to pay $2 let alone $20. There’s not that many rich people paying high tolls. Most of the pay as you go is trade workers who’s time is literally money. Raising the minimum occupancy would cut the number of people using the HOV exemption. But I don’t think it reasonable to have variable occupancy. Of course they sort of have that now like on weekends when the sign says “Toll lanes free for all”. But it has to be an all or none. And when they are free is not when there’s a congestion problem.

          I think there are people at WSDOT that realize transit is the only way 405 is going to work to keep the HOT lanes moving at 35mph+. If there is simply too many cars clogging it up then could I guess make one lane into a form of BAT lane. Holy congestion Batman! Keeping freight moving should be a priority. Semi trucks stuck in traffic are bad for everyone. The all have transponders already for the weigh stations so charging them a toll would be easy and the cost of the toll, even if it’s really high is better for the bottom line than being stuck in traffic.

        4. One thing that really makes a mockery of HOV-2 is Uber. Even though your trip is creating more VMT than simply driving your own car by yourself, taking Uber grants you access to the HOV lane because the driver adds a second occupant.

          This also raises another interesting point. In a future where Uber and Waymo are competing against other for freeway trips, Uber will have access to the HOV lanes while Waymo won’t. Whether intended or not, having your taxi driver being a human instead of a computer shouldn’t have anything to do with your HOV eligibility, yet the law, as written today, says it does.

        5. Even though your trip is creating more VMT than simply driving your own car by yourself

          I’m not convince that’s true. Say I take transit to work. Then in the middle of the day I have to go to a client and take Uber. Then I take transit home in the evening. That’s less VMT than if I’d driven to work that day because I had a client visit.

          If I just use Uber to go to work instead of driving then the driver coming to pick me up has created more VMT than if I had my own car at home and drove myself. But for Uber to work it has to have a driver already close by and it has reduced the footprint of the parking required by my employer. Also there is the likely potential of ridesharing with another person that wouldn’t be an option if you drove your own personal vehicle.

          Interesting point about Waymo potentially being unable to use an HOV lane. I think regular taxis (i.e. Yellow Cab) are allowed to use the HOV lane even if they have no passengers as they are treated as transit; just like a bus can use the HOV lane even when its “To Terminal”.

        6. My understanding is that only a small percentage of Uber rides are individual legs in trips where most of the distance is covered by transit – especially trips long enough to justify use of a freeway HOV lane. Rather, most of the trips are people who want to avoid transit entirely (at least for that trip), and are willing to pay.

        7. I will admit to very little understanding of Uber trips. The one time I’ve used it was coming back from a train trip to Portland where we’d parked at MI but because Cascades was delayed (heat dome) we ended up back at King Street Station after transit had shut down for the night. The Uber ride back to MI was about as much as a one person fare for Cascades from Portland to Seattle. Uber is not cheap like it used to be when they were trying to gain market share (and market price for the stock). But I’ll go out on a limb and say it would be more expensive now to Uber than just pay the 405 Lexus Lane toll if you own a car and can park at work for free.

          I’ll add that from that Portland experience almost everyone getting off the train that night had arranged a ride share since transit was no longer an option. I’m glad I was traveling with my son who (of course) has a smart phone and was able to load the Uber app while we were approaching Seattle. Otherwise I would truly have been stuck at King St until morning since our only car at the time was at MI P&R so calling the wife wouldn’t have helped. Taking transit, it’s not just a job; it’s an adventure.

        8. “So the ugly truth is that they just add freeway capacity in a less offensive way as I see it.”

          I think that’s exactly what it is.
          I believe before current administration, most planning effort that adds a general-purpose lane to a congested urban freeway is not well supported. Many state DOTs have this kind of self-awareness (whether they like it or not) that simply proposing to add general-purpose lane(s) is too controversial.

          Even in place like Georgia and Florida, the focus shift to express lane. Another reason is that this type of project can be potentially funded by P3.
          For a period of time in Georgia, all they were thinking about was how to sell their express lane plan to investors. To make the proposal more appealing, some of them considered allowing trucks to use the toll lane facility.

      2. There’s also the question of how much housing and office or factory space is induced to develop within the walksheds of the transit stations. Kirkland has zoned the area around the 85th St. Station for significant development. It just has to happen. Will Rose Hill meet the development expectations, or will it become a suburban version of Rainier Valley?

        1. The success of every single Stride and Link station on the Eastside is predicated on good land use in the station walkshed, except perhaps S Bellevue which will forever be a P&R plus bus intercept.

      3. “Then again, there is a simple solution — make one lane HOV-4 (or even just bus-only) and keep the other as HOT-2 .”

        It won’t work if there is no dedicated access for HOV-4.
        Making HOV lane occupancy restriction more restricted will only work if the HOV lane is fully separated from the general-purpose facility. And Occupancy restriction is super discrete and less flexible than tuning the toll price, but I think there is a limitation of this statement. The theory that dynamic price works better is based on the assumption that the price can actually influence demand in a predictable way. I think it is just like transit ridership is not that sensitive to cost of driving in the short-term, people’s behavior doesn’t change that dynamically to the toll price from day to day. It takes longer impact to actually change mode choice.

        Also, where freeway gets congested is not its basic segment far away from any interchange. In other words, it is not I-405’s 3-lane capacity south of I-90 that fails I-405, it is many of I-405’s merge segments like the one at Southport and Coal Creek Parkway that fail it. So I think some kind of solution that adds direct-access will help ease poor performance of HOV without requiring adding a lane. In I-405 Renton-to-Bellevue section, they are building two express lane only interchange south of I-90 to address the issue.

        The issue with single lane manage lane facility is that it operates under a compromised capacity compared to general-purpose lanes for two reasons:
        1) Because of the pass limitation for single lane facility, two-lane freeway has higher per-lane capacity than single-lane facility under the same free-flow speed. That means designating one lane as HOV lane probably does more harm than good especially for a freeway that barely has HOV only ramp.
        2) Single lane HOV or other type of managed lanes’ speed is still correlated to the general-purpose lanes if it is buffer-separated, meaning if there is a congestion on general-purpose lanes, single-lane manage lane’s speed can be impacted as a result of driver’s behavior even if HOV lane has no capacity issue. On the contrary, 2-lane same kind of speed reduction impact is not seen on 2-lane manage lane facility.

        Also, I’d argue how the induced demand is induced sometimes is also misleading sometimes. I think some people tend to overplay highway expansion’s role in induced demand conversation. Some urbanists claimed you widen the road so more people would drive, but I think the reality is there is relatively constant amount of people who are driving. When you widen a road, they just change their route, like shifting from I-5 to I-405 in this case. Often time, it is impossible to measure induce demand when you are not including the entire region to the calculation. But there is one thing that for sure will cap induced demand, which is to make parking expensive at destination. People keep driving because of cheap parking not because of I-405 is not congested.

        1. I can understand the induced demand argument when the widening is at the developing edge of an urban area or when the corridor connects a big downtown to the developing suburbs.

          I don’t think of 405 as fitting either category. The corridor is already pretty urban and has been for at least a few decades. There are low density areas north of Bothell but there are midrise buildings at many places between Totem Lake and Tukwila. I guess it could be argued that it’s a radial path to Downtown Bellevue — except there are so many jobs along the corridor including the ends (especially Boeing and SeaTac) that I don’t see the radial argument as having much effect.

          I see that the operational separation of traffic on 405 is good for safety. I cringe when I see drivers hopscotch across all the (even 4 or 5 lanes at once) on I-5 only to do it again within a half mile. There are some reckless, impatient drivers out there.

          I would have preferred that our freeways have long distance and short distance lanes separated by physical barriers like the reversible I-5 lanes in north Seattle (unfortunately one way at a time) or the New Jersey Turnpike. The Express lanes begin to create that effect. By restricting the number of lanes that a driver can swerve into (like only able to change two lanes at most in one maneuver) the road seems safer.

        2. I’d argue how the induced demand is induced sometimes is also misleading

          Yes, the demand is what it is. People wanting to get to work during “rush hour”. People aren’t going to decide they are now going to do their grocery shopping at 7AM instead of 1:00 in the afternoon because the freeway is moving at 30 mph instead of 20 mph. What the “induced demand” really results in is a compression or expansion of the peak demand period. You add more lanes people leave for work at 7:30AM instead of 7AM. The net result of adding more GP lanes is just more time when capacity far exceeds demand; which is most of any 24 hour period. If you could just deliver people like Amazon packages we’d have plenty of freeway capacity. Order on Sunday and we can deliver you to work “sometime” next day. Now if drone delivery becomes a thing…

        3. “People aren’t going to decide they are now going to do their grocery shopping at 7AM instead of 1:00 in the afternoon because the freeway is moving at 30 mph instead of 20 mph.”

          I disagree. If the shopping trip isn’t urgent, and your life isn’t super busy, it’s easy to reschedule shopping to a future time when the freeway is less congested. This might mean going during the evening or weekend, for example.

          Even social events that have fixed times, congestion still has an impact in people’s decision on which events to go to. For instance, maybe you go to a concert on a Saturday evening, rather than Friday evening, to avoid dealing with afternoon rush hour.

          When you build a whole bunch of new lanes, people get lazy and want to do everything during peak times… until it gets congested again. That is induced demand.

        4. I disagree. If the shopping trip isn’t urgent, and your life isn’t super busy, it’s easy to reschedule shopping to a future time when the freeway is less congested. This might mean going during the evening or weekend, for example.

          No disagreement at all. Yeah, you go shopping (choice timing) “during the evening or weekend”. You don’t, since you have a choice, contribute to the span of induced demand we call “rush hour”. By definition, if your trip isn’t “urgent” then you are not part of the rush hour demand.

        5. “I would have preferred that our freeways have long distance and short distance lanes separated by physical barriers like the reversible I-5 lanes in north Seattle (unfortunately one way at a time) or the New Jersey Turnpike.”

          AI S,

          I am afraid this will exacerbate suburbanization. Physical separation requires extra shoulder which takes extra right of way. Because it is more restrictive, it might have some unintended operational issue. That’s why you barely see this kind of system in the US although there are many urban freeways that have more than 5 lanes per direction.

          Although a lot of toll lanes are called express lane, they don’t always have wider interchange spacing. Toll lanes are just a trade off for not able to toll all the lanes. I think in perfect world, tolling the entire freeway is the most effective solution to what toll lanes like the one on I-405 is trying to deal with. Separating all lanes into two set of facilities is usually less efficient.

        6. “I cringe when I see drivers hopscotch across all the (even 4 or 5 lanes at once) on I-5 only to do it again within a half mile.”

          You have to that to get from 520 to the Mercer Street exit because one of the entrances/exits is on the left. When I was a kid living in Bellevue we went to Seattle Center a few times a year so my mom did that. (Back when the bridge toll was 25 cents cash.) I often leaned forward when I was riding, and on that stretch my mom always pushed me back almost in a panic and said “Stay back!” so that she could see through the right window while changing all those lanes.

        7. “People wanting to get to work during “rush hour”. People aren’t going to decide they are now going to do their grocery shopping at 7AM instead of 1:00 in the afternoon because the freeway is moving at 30 mph instead of 20 mph.”

          Induced demand is adding nonessential VMT (more choice trips), not when you do your essential trips or what time you travel. Your work commute and your primary supermarket trip are essential, and depending where you live there may be no transit alternative. People know the freeways are annoyingly congested during certain hours, so they shift trips to other times when they can. If they switch their primary supermarket trip to a previously-congested hour because it’s no longer congested, that doesn’t matter because their total VMT is still the same. Induced congestion is when you do ADDITIONAL choice trips on top of that, trips you wouldn’t have done at all or would have used transit, or when you do two trips separately that you could have combined into one chain trip.

          There’s also a sense that more freeway capacity makes it possible for more people to live in single-family neighborhoods in the suburbs, so that influences whether you move there, but that’s a long-term decision and is more of a secondary issue in induced demand. If the house is built, somebody will live there and probably drive for their trips, even if it isn’t you, regardless of whether the freeway is widened or not.

        8. Even for essential supermarket trips, congestion still matters. It impacts how much effort people make into consolidating their shopping into a few big trips, rather than going back out to the store every couple of days because they forgot something. It also influences whether people choose to drive 8 miles to shop at a Costco, or one mile to shop at a QFC.

      4. toll revenue from those lanes offsetting the cost to build or operate Stride.

        WSDOT is funding all of the direct access interchange improvements. A good chunk of that money was generated from HOT lane tolls. WSDOT also owns many P&R lots. Not sure about toll revenue but gas tax has to go into road maintenance/improvements. It can’t legally be used to subsidize transit. I think the HOT lane toll revenue was constrained similarly to bridge tolls which means the money has to be spent on the corridor where it was generated. And that doesn’t include transit subsidies. However, transit is indirectly subsidized by not having to pay sales tax or fuel taxes. Or excise tax on vehicles.

        1. Other states allow it. Is the WA state law from a referendum or just a legislative action? If it’s the latter, it can be modified to allow for transit subsidies. ST budget estimates are over $1B for Strides 1 and 2.

          The impact would seem more notable for Link extensions. Express Lane tolling (I5 and/or SR 509) between Federal Way and Tacoma could free up money to run Link into Downtown Tacoma. It could reduce a likely Link funding gap to Everett too. Even the 99 tunnel tolls could somewhat offset the cost of building DSTT2.

          Of course ST seems to run through money like they’re planning a big Golden ballroom for wealthy donors. It may be good that this revenue source is not available to them.

        2. My recollection is the gas tax for roads only carve out dates back to when it was originally written into law. It’s certainly not from a referendum. Any attempt to “steal” gas tax for transit would certainly be overturned by a referendum even without Tim Eyman being able to turn a profit from it. Same thing for bridge tolls. The only way you get the votes to pass it are to dedicate the funds to the associated project. Otherwise, like you mentioned, it just gets siphoned off into something like the ST slush fund. Kinda like the Climate Commitment Act adding 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Where has that money gone? A few bike helmets for kids and… ? That’s a big chunk of change. Please point me to the effective transit projects it has funded.

        3. @ Bernie:

          I see tolls to fund transit as different than gas taxes to fund transit. They both are really user fees as opposed to general taxes so some restrictions on their use is appropriate. But if gas taxes or tolls can be used ton pay for a tow truck service available to quickly clear a congested freeway (after an accident), then a similar argument that a bus service is needed to help clear a congested freeway seems pretty reasonable to me.

        4. @ Al S.
          It may seem reasonable to you. Try selling it to voters outside the Seattle liberal core. Of course if you can just get all of the Democrats on board it doesn’t matter what the rest of the State thinks. Hence, the CCA; which again I ask, has delivered what?

        5. if gas taxes or tolls can be used ton pay for a tow truck service available to quickly clear a congested freeway (after an accident)

          I’m not sure, actually doubt, if the owner of vehicles cleared by WSDOT get off Scott free. For sure the vehicle is going to be towed to an impound lot which has hefty fees to recover your car. And which impound lot it gets towed to probably is based on a kickback scheme to WSDOT. In the end it’s probably the insurance companies that sort it out and pay the bill. If your uninsured you probably lose the car. Which, if you’re uninsured is probably worth less than the cost of towing let alone any at fault damages to other cars.

        6. If WSDOT can use toll money to pay for some of its projects, won’t it ask less from the state in a way that there will be more available to transit agencies?

        7. If WSDOT can use toll money to pay for some of its projects,

          My understanding is toll revenue goes 100% toward nothing but WSDOT projects. As a fiscal restraint it only affects how fast which projects can move forward.

          @Ross
          You should fact check me on this.

        8. “gas tax has to go into road maintenance/improvements. It can’t legally be used to subsidize transit.”

          It can’t go into rail infrastructure. It can go into bus infrastructure on a highway.

        9. “Other states allow it. Is the WA state law from a referendum or just a legislative action?”

          The gas tax issue comes from the early 20th century when the railroads were robber barons, charging monopoly prices. The legacy infrastructure was railroads and streetcars. The automobile lobby wanted to build lots of roads for cars, both highways and local streets. And nobody wanted those robber barons to get a penny of public money.

          So they got a constitutional amendment passed saying gas tax money can be used only for “highway purposes” — not rail, and not local streets. The ferry routes were defined as highways so that gas tax money could go to ferries. It was all before the era of government-owned metros or commuter rail or BRT, so it didn’t foresee them. Since buses are more like cars, they’re a compatible highway purpose, so including gas-tax-funded express bus infrastructure is OK. The prohibition is primarily against rail.

          But even though WSDOT can use the money for express-bus stations, it doesn’t want to, because it wants to spend it on road-miles for cars, because there’s more demand for freeway expansion than it can provide. So it will include bus stations in the master plan as a “complete street” approach, but it wants somebody else to pay for the bus station construction.

        10. “Any attempt to “steal” gas tax for transit would certainly be overturned by a referendum even without Tim Eyman being able to turn a profit from it.”

          The issue is whether a judge rules it an unconstitutional non-highway purpose. There’s disagreement among lawyers on whether the rail provision really applies to something like Link; it all depends on a court’s interpretation. Eyman had a winning streak in the 2000s but since then his success has been mixed, so it’s not a foregone conclusion that an anti-transit referendum/initiative would pass now. But that’s neither here nor there since a referendum/initiative can’t override a constitutional amendment.

          And yes, I think the state lawyers and some judges are arguing that the gas tax can fund rail infrastructure if the project clearly says it’s for rail infrastructue when the legislature approves it. Assuming it’s otherwise highway-like: a trunk route that’s higher-capacity or more express than a local streetcar.

        11. The i405 tolls can technically pay for transit actually but they have to be along the corridor aka stride 1 would count. Though to clarify WSDOT traditionally does not typically fund operations

          The larger problem is that most of the toll money is already pledged to pay off the loans used to build the new toll lanes built in the first place.

          It can go into bus infrastructure on a highway.

          It can go into adjacent stuff sometimes as well. Like improvements on a parallel road or like for example the sr 520 bike trail.

          For the sr167 study they looked at like improving auburn way with like complete street stuff as well (better sidewalks bike lanes) it just needs some nexus or reason back to the original freeway. Though of course can’t be too far from the corridor

          Anyways so WSDOT typically just builds the capital improvements for the transit like the center job/etl ramps. If you look at their presentations they claim it can be a revenue generator by allowing more to use the ETL system and capture more money. So that helps bring down the effective cost the state needs to bring.

          They’re currently looking at actually considering a direct access ramp at Kent near Smith street and also at Renton on maple street

        12. “It can go into bus infrastructure on a highway. ”

          “It can go into adjacent stuff sometimes as well. Like improvements on a parallel road or like for example the sr 520 bike trail.”

          Yes, I meant related to a highway. Entrance ramps are essential for a highway to function. A trail fulfills laws that you can’t just prohibit pedestrians from a freeway without giving them an alternative route if none exists — to avoid situations like the old 520 bridge. Improving a parallel road might be able to be construed as benefiting the highway and its users. The interstate system has a few segments signed e.g., “I-90 Business Loop” that are really parallel boulevards through city centers. I’ve only seen them in small towns, so maybe it was cases where the local government couldn’t afford them in its own.

        13. Business Loop” that are really parallel boulevards through city centers. I’ve only seen them in small towns

          Isn’t there a business loop in DT Portland?

        14. 405/167 toll revenue is funding the HOT buildout, which is fine. There are additional access points (Renton’s Southport exit is a great candidate) plus a mountain of debt that will keep that toll revenue tied up for decades.

          I think the more interesting & compelling opportunity for toll revenue to explicitly fund transit is the Tacoma Narrows bridge. IIRC, WaLeg has used general funds to pull forward the date for the tolling to end (2033 per Google). I’d advocate for going the opposite direction – extend the tolling out into the future and use the incremental funding to pay for transit between Purdy/Gig Harbor and Tacoma. This is how Golden Gate Transit is funded in Marin County is funded. Having this toll fund some version of the 595 is good policy and good politics.

  3. Link Westlake-South Bellevue now: 21 minutes. The 240, 249, and Trailhead Direct were at the bus stop. No passengers on the latter two; I didn’t see the 240’s. I’m waiting for the 226. The 203 also stops here. Four people are waiting for those two. At least 20-30 people got off the train. I didn’t see how many went to the garage.

  4. [Ed. This is spam but I’m keeping it because it’s so artistic.]

    It’s interesting to see how pedestrianizing Wellington Street is reshaping urban life during the summer. It makes me wonder how much more connectivity and community engagement could be fostered if other streets adopted similar models. Also, the history of horse-drawn buses is a fascinating nod to where public transit began—definitely a reminder of how far we’ve come!

  5. I recently notice that some of the vinyl seating insert seems detached from the metal part of the seat. When I sat on it, it has this bubbling feeling.

    1. They are meant to be relatively easily replaceable. Presumably they use snap-in pegs, and I would assume loose seats result from unruly riders attempting to tear them off.

  6. If STB wrote a post consisting of nothing but falsehoods, would the bot accept them, and incorporate them into an eloquently written comment, or would it correct the falsehoods?

    And when I say falsehoods, I mean extreme falsehoods, like Seattle doesn’t have buses or trains, only rickshaws, and it never gets below 120 degrees here, etc. I’m pretty sure the bot would just write a very articulate comment on our rickshaws and hot days, correct?

    2. We’ll know on April Fool’s Day if Sam contributes a fake article. Or maybe a preposterous Friday Roundup. Do you have any topic ideas? Saying we have rickshaws or the minimum temperature is 120 degrees Fahrenheit would only be two sentences — not enough for an article.

      If we did say Seattle has rickshaws (human-powered carriages), I wonder if the bot would pull in the e-rickshaw movement in India (motorized carriages) that we covered in the Transit in India movie.

    3. I normally don’t do April Fool’s Day pranks here. I think I did just one. I announced I would be joining the STB writing staff. That I had been asked many times, but had to decline, etc. One commenter was outraged by the news, but then another commenter told him to check the date.

  7. It’s interesting to see how much Wellington Street transforms in the summer with pedestrianization. It really allows for a different urban experience compared to the usual hustle and bustle. I wonder if these initiatives are influencing other infrastructure projects like the 405 rebuild — managed toll lanes could really change commuter behavior. It’s a reminder of how connected all these pieces are in creating a more livable city. see here

Comments are closed.