News and commentary from the past week.

Reminder: most transit agencies will be running Sunday service on Labor Day (Sept. 7). Check your local agency’s rider alerts.

News:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

60 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: between the rails”

    1. I can’t. It shows up on the list but then it doesn’t load. It starts to, but then it seems to reload and get stuck in an infinite loop involving loading and arranging pages. It is clearly broken.

      Reply

  2. Fare gates. Because throwing nearly a hundred million dollars at increasing farebox recovery minimally is going to be remotely cost-effective.

    Can’t wait for these to break regularly too!

    Reply

      1. You mean the article that has a section disputing that ST’s assumptions about fare recovery increases are valid, linking back to an article on this very blog which details how said assumptions are not borne out by the publicly-available data? That article?

        It wouldn’t be the first time ST overestimated returns and then had to amend future revenue projections.

        Reply

    2. BART saw a precipitous drop in crime and maintenance issues after completing its station hardening program with better gates. The advantages aren’t just with farebox recovery, and I think discourse needs to consider those advantages to a gated system. It could also allow for fewer station security staff to be needed for similar effects, thus saving money on personnel.

      Reply

    3. Sound Transit is in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If it doesn’t install fare gates, people will complain it doesn’t take fare enforcement seriously. If it installs them, people like you will complain it’s a waste of money.

      This has been an issue ever since Link started. There were calls to install fare gates, but ST said they would cost more than it was losing from the 3% evasion rate. Since 2020 the evasion rate has risen, complaints about fare evasion have risen, and prominent media sources are loudly demanding ST install fare gates now. ST may be bowing to this unofficial pressure, but it may also be right that the cost-benefit ratio has changed as fare evasion has increased, gate technology has evolved, and more cities have installed gates so there’s more US experience with them and maybe be a more competitive market for the gates.

      Reply

      1. The problem was exacerbated when the State Supreme Court barred fare enforcement from requiring passengers to show ID. They somehow did not find that failure to show proof of payment constituted reasonable grounds to believe the passenger did not pay.

        Reply

        1. I’ve been baffled by the teen exemption.

          What equity idea prompted the change from just giving them cards?

          It seems like the inevitable result was ST looking bad

        2. The youth-ride-free program is a state program, but not actually a requirement of any agency, unless that agency is accepting money from the state’s Climate Action Fund. That said, the law was written to cap how much Metro could get.

          The monorail is not eligible for that funding, so they are only partially participating because the City asked them to.

          I don’t know if ST is getting any money from that pot.

    4. There are commentators on this blog saying their observation is nobody around them pays, so they’ve stopped paying because they don’t think it’s fair for them to when nobody else does. The data contradicts this since the majority do pay, and fare checks find the majority have paid. And people don’t realize that non-tappers may have a Link ticket they bought at a TVM round trip.

      Anyway, we shouldn’t get caught up in whether fare gates are worth the installation cost or not. What matters is mobility: where the trains go and the stations are, how often they run, and how reliable they are. Fare gates are a side issue, so let the political consensus do what it wants. There’s an inconvenience issue with leaving your card at home or it stops working or you lose in en roue or the time it takes to open the gate makes you miss your train. That’s a bigger issue. But metros around the world have turnstyles and gates and still have a high level of mobility and client satisfaction, so it is possible.

      And to the extent that fare gates or a nominal fare keep out criminals, obnoxious people, drug users, and non-destinational riders out, that’s a good thing. There’s evidence that this is likely.

      Reply

      1. It is a side issue but it is also quite possible that ST doesn’t make their money back. In which case, it was a waste of money. It is quite possible it leads to fewer officials on the trains themselves. While not officially security guards, they have a similar impact. It will also probably be slower for riders (entering and exiting the station). None of these are terrible things but they aren’t good, either.

        Reply

        1. I thought the gates were partially in lieu of fare inspectors, which would mean fewer visible ST employees on trains.

      2. The payment rate seems to depend heavily on the route. The worst, in my experience, seems to be the 36. I have noticed very few people paying on that one. If I took the 36 every day, I would start to feel like a sucker paying, too.

        Although if we’re talking about Link specifically, I haven’t noticed many people failing to pay on that.

        Reply

        1. I ride the 36 a ton and think payment rates vary by what portion of the route you’re on (fewer people paying downtown and until you cross the bridge, more people paying in the neighborhood). I get my ORCA card through work, so I don’t really have an opinion about feeling like a sucker for tapping, but I still feel like I can’t relate to that. I pay fares on transit because that’s the general expectation and the right thing to do, I’m really not too concerned with what other people do. Sure, they should also pay the fare but I’m not gonna be sore about it if they don’t.

    5. BART and Vancouver sky train have them as well as Paris, London, Tokyo, Taiwan….we can figure this out. Seattle is the broken anomaly, not the standard bearer. I mean we can’t even keep escalators working or fund the system expansion. So why would anyone believe Seattle has stumbled on what to do with dare compliance when it has one of the worse in the world.

      Reply

  3. I noticed recently that the Eastbound rails on I-90 are about a foot higher in elevation than than the westbound ones, at least on the floating section. Why?

    Reply

  4. Comparing King County Metro 270’s Schedule with 271’s, I noticed a couple things.

    It looks like on top of losing 10-minute peak headway, 270 also finishes roughly an hour earlier than 270 on both directions. At U District, the last eastbound weeknight trip was 10:22 pm vs. 9:30 pm now. At Bellevue TC, the last UW-bound 271 trip left approximately 10:20 pm vs. 9:30 pm now. That was spoken. Between Bellevue TC and UW, 271 used to run 66 trips per weekday per direction. 270 now runs 60 trips per weekday per direction with roughly two taken away from late night and 4 taken away from peak period.

    Also, by looking at timepoints, it doesn’t seem like 270 taking Bellevue Way speed thing up at all. The most recent 271 schedule estimated that last UW-bound 271 trip took roughly 24 minutes from Bellevue TC to U District (15th Ave NE & NE 42nd S). The new 270 schedule shows that last UW-bound 270 trip takes roughly 27 minutes.
    However, it is also possible that Metro generally loosen 270’s schedule because 271 wasn’t doing very well meeting its timepoints.

    Reply

    2. The 2 Line exists now, so it’s not like there’s no way to get to the U-District or Bellevue after 9:30pm. So there’s an argument to shift some hours to Link feeders or areas that don’t have Link. And the 270 is serving an apartment area while the 271 served mansions, so that’s several times more potential riders.

      The 271 was also in the top 5 underserved corridors that Metro will add to when it gets more resources. The 270 likely inherits that priority. Or at least some it, since the 2 Line is an alternative now that wasn’t available before.

      Reply

      1. Then you can just make the argument that 270 shouldn’t exist because Link can cover that during the day too. It is not a coverage route. It serves a very specific demand between Downtown Bellevue and UW much faster than light rail.

        Not saying that Medica is more worth serving than Bellevue Way. I just don’t think 270 is the right service here.
        Bellevue Way north of NE 8th can be better served by extending a route coming from south such as 556 to South Kirkland P&R.
        Also, NE 8th is not that dense yet. Except two complexes near SR 520, most of the apartments are south of NE 17th from which biking and walking to Downtown Bellevue might be very competitive options for some people. 270 is just not that good of option for that short of distance especially it is usually full of people between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520.

        I think 270 just skip the part between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520. It should do the loop like 532/535 do and then enter freeway via 112th Ave NE HOV3-only ramp similar to what 556 did before.

        Reply

        2. I think 270 just skip the part between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520.

          There are two issues with that. First, riders on Bellevue Way would have to backtrack. They had to before but that doesn’t mean it was good routing.

          Second, it costs money. If ST covered it with the 556 it would be great (since ST has more money to work with). This would be a logical extension, since it mimics Issaquah Link (but with more stops). But if Metro pays for all of it then you would see worse headways (somewhere) than we have right now.

        3. Bellevue Way is pretty dense. At 10th NE you are still basically downtown and yet it is way too far to walk to the transit center. At 12th you have apartment complexes. These continue off and on. It is a mix. There is plenty of low-density housing but some relatively high density housing as well. There is value in connecting this area to the UW. Of course we’ll see. Eventually we’ll get some ridership data to see how many people along there are taking advantage of the faster trip to the UW.

        4. “Bellevue Way north of NE 8th can be better served by extending a route coming from south such as 556 to South Kirkland P&R.”

          I agree, or even extend the 556 to Kirkland Downtown so the extension is at least worth it.

        5. “Not saying that Medica is more worth serving than Bellevue Way. I just don’t think 270 is the right service here.”

          I would push to redirect the 270 to Medina via the old 271 routing and the 556 to Kirkland TC via Bellevue Way so there’s more of a grid network in the Eastside.

      2. Downtown Bellevue is an awkward geography. The dense designated core extends just a bit too far from the Link stations to the north and west. And NE 8th is a very wide crossing obstacle like a river or a freeway. It’s not so far that it needs a new transit investment like a streetcar but it’s not a negligible distance either.

        Adding underground passageways or aerial passageways would be helpful — but would also be expensive, disruptive and controversial. The same would be true for changing the roadway profiles to create unobstructed pedestrian connectivity (somewhat like how Chicago elevated Wacker Drive or Seattle elevated streets near Pioneer Square).

        I think Bellevue is currently too stingy and unimaginative to consider changing what’s there today to make walkability easier for the broader area.

        The issue is seemingly well-understood. Good solutions have just not emerged. Bellevue is still struggling to make a 405 lid for pedestrian connectivity to the east happen — and that to me seems rather obvious, less disruptive and straightforward.

        Reply

        1. Aerial passageways are already in place. Bellevue Place and Lincoln Square developments include 2nd floor pedestrian bridges that are open to the public 24/7, even with the private space is closed. This is smart policy by city of Bellevue and can be extended with some of the other mega projects. Kemper may not have liked transit, but he did know how to design a welcoming pedestrian environment that extends across several arterials .
          https://www-djc-com.ezproxy.spl.org/stories/images/20260901/BellCol_Kemper%20map%202017_big.jpg

          As you mention, is the urban core needs to grow several blocks to the east and south, placing the the Link stations more central. Growing East is underway but could be a bit more ambitious; lidding 405 or at least providing ped crossings at all blocks (NE 2nd and SE 1st are missing) is good but not essential. Growing south is not on the table now but should once there is political will.

          Finally, to provide transport for those unable or unwilling to walk on foot. With autonomous vehicles, perhaps dust off the PRB concept for something that circulates downtown?
          https://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/belvue.htm

        2. Yes at least Kemper Freeman has provided pedestrian bridges and that’s a good thing. Still, they are intended to connect only the properties that they own and not tie into Link nor the Bellevue TC several blocks away.

          Downtown pedestrian systems have been built elsewhere to mixed success. Montreal, Edmonton and Toronto are good but their success is driven by brutal winters. Minneapolis is similar. Cincinnati’s lost its luster. Houston’s feels like a rat maze.

        3. Downtown Bellevue is not an awkward geometry. DT Issaquah, Renton, Lynnwood, and Tacoma are. But DT Bellevue, west of 405, is almost a perfect square. (Main to 12th, and 100th to 114th). And at just over a half a square mile, it’s fairly compact. The only question is how best to serve it with transit.

        4. “Downtown Bellevue is not an awkward geometry. DT Issaquah, Renton, Lynnwood, and Tacoma are.”

          I said “geography” and not “geometry”, Sam. I see them as different things. NE 8th is pretty wide and kind of scary to walk across, for example. The slope change on NE 6th west of the Bellevue TC is also awkward. Those are geographical challenges rather than geometrical ones.

          Renton and Issaquah are actually pretty flat. Tacoma has a steep hillside in Downtown. Lynnwood has huge stroads throughout. So they aren’t perfect — and are spread out. So I agree that they’re not great.

          From a transit hub, it’s the walking distance that matters — and it’s usually better as a circle rather than a square when it comes to geometry. And if two Link stations are close enough together, a better geometric shape is more like a peanut profile with overlapping circles.

        5. I do like your idea of adding underground of aerial passageways. Perhaps an aerial one could go from the Bellevue TC to the mall, but if it’s not a covered, movable walkway, I don’t see the point, as the NE 6th street pedestrian walkway is a pretty good way to make that walk.

          I was up at the BTC on Monday, and did overhear a couple of people at Bay 12 asking the route 270 driver how to get to Bellevue Square. He said he didn’t go there, and that they should take the route 249 (which they just missed, so they had a half hour wait).

        6. I meant to write geography, but it came out geometry. It may have auto suggested it. Not sure. Bellevue seems to be addressing some of the things you’re talking about, but they are going in the direction of partnerships with BellHop shuttle, Bellevue Light Rail Shuttle, and recently allowing Lime e-bikes and scooters.

        7. I have to say that the transit shuttles help. One problem is that there’s a certain distance where walking is more difficult but a transit shuttle isn’t far enough to justify waiting.

        8. A (relatively) cheap band-aid for walkability could be landscaped refuge medians, similar to Mercer & Fairview in Seattle. Not a perfect solution but they help cut a huge crosswalk into two medium crosswalks.

        9. “The only question is how best to serve it with transit.”

          Open BRT. That’s it.

    3. I don’t think the shift to Bellevue Way is because it’s supposed to be faster. I think it’s because there’s a low-income apartment complex there, so there’s more demand.

      Reply

      1. Yeah, if they wanted a faster route they would just go via 405. Bellevue Way is just the logical choice for killing two birds with one stone. You cover a relatively dense area and you still provide a fairly fast, consistent route between Downtown Bellevue and the UW. There is also another advantage to the new routing: Riders can transfer at the freeway station. Consider someone trying to get from Redmond to the UW: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y3JNrE5fjthuxxhd7. Ideally they catch the 542. But when they showed up (ten minutes after noon) they have a long wait for that bus. They are better off taking the 545 and transferring to a bus headed to the UW. In this case they take the 255 but with the 270 running often they have more chances of a quick transfer.

        The routing really isn’t the problem. The service level is. This connects the second and third biggest destinations in the region and yet the bus isn’t that frequent.

        Reply

        1. “The routing really isn’t the problem. The service level is. This connects the second and third biggest destinations in the region and yet the bus isn’t that frequent.”

          And, the reason why the service level is so poor is because, in the mind of Metro’s planners, it’s only unique coverage is Bellevue, therefore, it’s primary function is just a shortcut. The problem is, there are numerous other routes in Bellevue with evening/weekend service equal to or better than the 270, with much less ridership potential. On Saturday night, the 249 is running with the same hourly crap frequency as the 270, for example. Does Metro really believe that the 270 and 249 are of equal importance?

          I understand that, upgrading the 270 with the current service budget might mean that some other corridors might lose their evening service, but if it’s something like Medina, where everybody has plenty of money for cars and Uber, that seems like a very small price to pay. After all, Medina would still get service during the day to get the not-quite-old-enough-to-drive-but-have-parents-too-busy-to-drive-them teenage children to school and back.

        2. I cannot think of many reasons someone who frequently go to UW would lease an apartment somewhere outside Downtown Bellevue where rents are more expensive.
          Rental housings in the vicinity of Downtown Bellevue is only attractive for those who go to work/school in the eastside. Therefore, I don’t think it is a big deal for Bellevue Way north of NE 12th not having direct service to UW.

  5. When the Jackson Street bridge over BSNF railway needs to be replaced, it will apparently need to be 3-7 feet taller: https://www.theurbanist.org/railroad-demands-cloud-seattles-path-to-replacing-aging-jackson-street-bridges/

    Future reconstruction of the bridge to be taller would apparently require reconstruction of the roadway in front of Union Station, as well, and probably impact 4th Avenue South.

    Reconstruction of this bridge (and associated difficulties coordinating with BNSF) were a major reason why the 4th Avenue Shallow option for BLE has largely been scrapped (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/11/16/ballard-link-extension-4th-ave-shallow-is-dead-long-live-5th-ave-diagonal/).

    Reply

    1. The vertical clearance at King Street Station should not need to be any different from the vertical clearance provided by the Great Northern Tunnel. It’s beyond time to nationalize the freight roads.

      Reply

    2. I have to wonder if there’s any way to consider moving the freight tracks to a new tunnel. That would free up the existing GW tunnel for a complete overhaul for the next century — with it being exclusively used for passenger trains in some form.

      The advantage of moving freight tracks to a new tunnel is that they don’t need stations Downtown like passenger trains would. It’s the deep station vaults that make things like DSTT2 so costly.

      I get that there are no plans nor funds to do this. It would require sensitive negotiations with BNSF. There are no plans to how this would benefit train riders. But it certainly would change the discussions about Downtown Seattle rail transit — and with DSTT2 with Ballard Link the price tag is big enough ($15B-$20B) that a game-changing strategy could pencil out.

      Reply

      1. BNSF isn’t even replacing the Salmon Bay Bridge, it’s just rehabbing it for another half-century of use. BNSF, as we know it, would never abandon the GN tunnel. If it were nationalized, though…

        Reply

        1. There’s no way through Puget Sound from Everett to Auburn except the BNSF tunnel. NP’s line through Bellevue is a trail or gone. The waterfront trackage that the heritage trolley used is out of service. It’s important to move freight between Vancouver BC and points south of Seattle, and the “detour” through Spokane is at least 600 miles farther.

          So EVEN if BNSF were nationalized, that bore would still be very important.

        2. “There’s no way through Puget Sound from Everett to Auburn except the BNSF tunnel.”

          The WA HSR folks suggested a long bored tunnel under central and north Seattle.

          A wise engineer I once knew said most civil projects are not impossible; they’re just expensive.

    4. If it’s just the bridge, can’t the tracks be simply lowered by that 3-7 feet one at a time? It would hamper operations during construction but it looks less disruptive than elevating the roadway would be.

      Reply

      1. You’d need 300-700 feet on each side to achieve 1% grade, and BNSF would never go for it. The whole point is that it’s flat between King Street and the waterfront, so forcing a 3-7 foot dip just for a bridge is an absolute non-starter.

        Reply

    5. I would read that as BNSF’s initial negotiating position and a way to leverage the city in some other way. Those bridges have existed almost the entire time BNSF and their predecessors have had a railroad there, and the tunnel is right there so there’s not much in the way of a reasonable argument for raising them 3 to 7 feet. I think this is just BNSF saying “we aren’t interested in you doing this project”

      Reply

      1. Absolutely true that BNSF has no interest in allowing a variance from their vertical clearance requirements for a new bridge. Possibly the most obstinant company in North America.

        Reply

  8. Very happy to see the fare gates. It doesn’t matter if they call it a pilot or if the feelings crowd didn’t want to say what Bart already made clear: fare gates reduce crime and reduce maintenance which are cost savings on top of the added revenue. Sound Transit is too scared to collect the data because of what it will show but Bart did the country a favor by just saying the quiet part loud. That’s the type of leadership courage we need to see more of.

    Reply

    2. SF Muni always had fare gates Downtown. They left them working even when they officially went to proof of payment. Of course, Muni also has station agents to approve paper transfers.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.