New Link station and new Amtrak trains! Pinehurst Station opens today, and Amtrak Cascades has begun running new Airo trains.

Week Without Driving is October 1-8, 2026. Transit Trekker and King County Parks are leading a Transit Trek on Maury Island tomorrow.

News and commentary headlines from the past week.

News:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

80 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Block Party”

    1. Dumb idea. All a city needs to do is research which is the most effective type of intersection crosswalk paint design and color, and do that. And I believe that’s a white zebra style crosswalk, with reflective white paint. And those four Bellevue crosswalks did not have that design.

    2. It’s an interesting experiment.

      I’m familiar with all four intersections, and what they all have in common is that drivers at those intersections routinely exceed the speed limit by over 15mph. I think speed cameras would be more effective.

      1. Speed cameras and a road diet I think. The colorful crosswalks are total safety theater when the roadways are clearly unsafe-by-design for pedestrians.

    4. Maybe they took a junket over to Seattle, and looked at the colorful crosswalks over here.

  3. Once RapidRide J completes sometime next year, are there any other transit expansions/improvements/service boosts we can expect before 2030?

    Seems to me all that’s left in near term is Seattle transit levy, ‘Keep Pierce Moving’ (if it passes), and full rollout of Airo trainsets.
    Oh and we are expecting more LRVs for link, supposedly by Q1 2028 according to March 2026 System Expansion?

    1. Here’s the current plan, by year:

      2027: Seattle Transit Measure “Hop On Board” begins (10 years). “Keep Pierce Moving” service improvements begin (if passed). RapidRide I replaces Route 120. RapidRide J replaces Route 70. Community Transit and Everett Transit merge. Airo trains replace all Cascades trainsets. Construction of TDLE begins. SODO busway closes?
      2028: Stride S1 (Burien to Bellevue vis I-405) and S3 (Shoreline to Bothell via SR-522) open. Construction of Graham Street Station (Link 1 Line) begins. Construction of RapidRide K begins. Final delivery of additional Series 2 LRVs brings 4-car trains to regular 2 Line service.
      2029: Stride S2 (Bellevue to Lynnwood via I-405) opens. Construction of TDLE begins. Construction of RapidRide R begins? “Urbanist Mayor” Katie Wilson runs for re-election.
      2030: Rapidride K opens. Swift Green Line Extension (to Bothell) opens. Construction of EVLE begins.
      2031: Graham Street Station opens. Swift Gold Line opens. Construction of Swift Silver Line (Airport Road to Cathcart Way) begins.
      2032: RapidRide R replaces Route 7. Construction of BLE (SODO to Seattle Center) begins. Seattle Transportation Levy is up for renewal.
      2033: Sounder North ceases operations. Series 3 LRVs begin entering service on Link lines.
      2035: WSLE opens. TDLE opens. The events depicted in I, Robot (2004) occur.
      2036: Seattle Transit Measure renewal is on ballot.
      2037: EVLE (Lynnwood to Everett Industrial) opens. Swift Silver Line opens. Construction of EVLE (Everett Industrial to Everett Downtown) continues.
      2039: TCC Tacoma Link Extension opens (if ST can close $20M affordability gap).
      2040: Final delivery of Series 3 LRVs.
      2041: EVLE (Everett Industrial to Everett Downtown) opens. The Spine is complete. TCC Tacoma Link Extension opens (if ST cannot close current affordability gap).
      2042: BLE (SODO to Seattle Center) opens.
      2045: The events depicted in Ready Player One (2018) occur.
      2046: End of current ST3 Long Range Financial Plan. Elder Millennials turn 65.
      2050: South Kirkland to Issaquak Link (4 Line) opens.
      2053: As depicted Star Trek, WWIII ends (having started ~2026), the “Post-Atomic Horror” begins, and all lawyers are killed.
      2060: BLE (Seattle Center to Market Street) opens.
      2062: Seattle Monorail turns 100. Elder Gen Z turn 65.
      2063: Zefram Cochrane (Star Trek) achieves warp speed faster than light.

      Edit: added CT projects.

      1. You forgot Swift Green Line is extended in 2030, Swift Gold Line opens in 2031, and Swift Silver Line opens in 2037.

      2. Also why are you including fictional things like movies and stuff? The point of this timeline is to list transit expansions in the Puget Sound area, not Gen Z and Millennials and stuff like that.

        Ballard Link will open to Market St in 2042 if funding is secured, if not it will open in 2060.

        Also include the new 517 from Everett to Seattle in 2027 and how it will shift nightlife travel patterns up in Snohomish County.

        4. The point of this timeline is…

          You don’t get to define the purpose of other people’s comments. Perhaps my point was not the same point you would have made; you’re more than welcome to compose your own summary timeline.

        5. I like Nathan’s time line and very much appreciate the effort and the media references sprinkled throughout

        6. “I like Nathan’s time line and very much appreciate the effort and the media references sprinkled throughout”

          Yes, and the fictional things I guess are a sense of humor.

        2. Is the SODO Busway closure West Seattle Link – related? If so, I thought everything was still in planning stages?

        3. WSLE includes expansion replacement of much of the SODO busway with railway. Presumably the busway will close once construction starts, which is currently slated for next year. There is much skepticism that construction will actually start next year, though, but ST is still working on the Long Range Financial Plan update for 2027-2047.

    2. The Community Transit-Everett Transit merger, if it happens, would start yielding better service starting in March 2028.

        2. I am surprised that how fast they are progressing this now. Does ET have some kind of budget problem that forces them to take this step all of sudden?

        4. “Does ET have some kind of budget problem that forces them to take this step all of sudden?”

          While there’s a budget deficit by City of Everett, merging ET into CT has felt like an inevitability for awhile.

          It made sense to have ET as a seperate agency 57 years ago as Snohomish was primarily Everett and a series of little towns and farmland between it and Seattle.

          Nowadays, its an inefficient use of resources to have 2 different transit agencies that could be better efficiently served by 1.

          While there’s valid concerns about Paratransit service, tho in my opinion the City of Everett could fund city specific service if they’re that concerned about it. Snohomish County residents would greatly benefit from merging as it would make traversing SnoCo easier on transit without the weird CT ending most bus service at Everett city limits to not step on ETs toes. Alongside the fact that the gravity of the population center has shifted a lot over the years from Everett in the 20th century to South SnoCo along I-5 & I-405. Nearly half of the county’s population lives south of Everett’s city limits, and likely will become nearly half within the next 10-20 years as more people move into South SnoCo.

        5. @Nathan. Not the county council. It’s the CT board that takes the cation along with the city.

  4. There are TWO $10B questions the ST Board has never asked. The other is whether Ballard could be delivered as planned if West Seattle was postponed, thus serving 6-7 timers more riders two decades sooner?

    As to the first, I seem to recall Ed Murray had an over-my-dead-body view of elevated LRT downtown during his time as mayor.

      1. They didn’t study elevated alignments through downtown, which is the main point of departure with the anonymous proposal on The Urbanist.

        1. But they did study surface alignments, which would have been even less expensive than elevated. So they bracketed the full range of comparative potential costs.

    2. The other is whether Ballard could be delivered as planned if West Seattle was postponed, thus serving 6-7 timers more riders two decades sooner?

      They did, in early days of the Enterprise Initiative (see “Approach 2”: https://www.theurbanist.org/sound-transit-ideas-stop-short-of-delivering-rail-to-ballard/)

      Deferring WSLE only got BLE to Smith Cove. Apparently the section from Seattle Center to Smith Cove is expected to cost as much as all of WSLE.

      1. I suppose I was too narrow in that “postponement” framing. The whole approach shows a decided lack of curiosity and creativity. Let’s think about how questions they did not ask.

        What if they took out WSLE altogether? No bonding & debt service, no vehicle costs, no future operating costs? How might that have changed the picture?

        What if they assumed three FFGA’s of relative larger value spread across three projects (Ballard, Everett, Tacoma) instead of four FFGAs of lesser value spread across four projects and a longer time span?

        How about both?

        What is the cost of putting the three biggest projects in line behind WSLE and its assumed multi-billion dollar federal grant request? In other words, what are the risks associated with sustaining federal funding ant an high cost share across four big projects when leading with the weakest investment, versus shelving that and leading with the strongest investment?

        We don’t know the answers to these questions because they were not asked by the policy makers. But they remain relevant and worth asking because of the truly marginal benefit of the WS investment for its price point.

        And finally, a question I don’t recall being addressed fully: What would it take to deliver the full Ballard investment as close as possible to the original timeline? Like, if that was your highest priority, what would it take to get it done? The public never got the benefit of seeing any of this debated fully and transparently. Instead, we got a bum’s rush headlong into a lousy investment that sets the rest of the program back.

        I’m glad the Urbanist is probing on a less expensive profile. And…. The debate over the merits of the WS investment should continue because unless and until there is a federal commitment to the project, it isn’t really a done deal. Nor should it be,

        1. What if they took out WSLE altogether? No bonding & debt service, no vehicle costs, no future operating costs? How might that have changed the picture?

          That’s what “defer” meant. They’d finish environmental review and design and then wait for future money.

          What if they assumed three FFGA’s of relative larger value spread across three projects (Ballard, Everett, Tacoma) instead of four FFGAs of lesser value spread across four projects and a longer time span?

          Assuming FFGA = Fully Funded Grant Agreement from FTA; it’s not reasonable to assume individual grant amounts would increase or decrease based on total number of FFGAs.

          What is the cost of putting the three biggest projects in line behind WSLE and its assumed multi-billion dollar federal grant request?

          WSLE (and I think EVLE) are the only projects with formal RODs from FTA. It’s not clear when other projects might receive their RODs. ST’s logic concluded it’s dumb to shelve their only project that’s close to shovel-ready just to wait for other projects to achieve FTA approval, if they ever get it. I think the implication is that the other projects are may be too weak to receive strong recommendations for FTA grants under the current federal administration. But the public won’t know until the formal review processes are finished.

          We don’t know the answers to these questions because they were not asked by the policy makers.

          Maybe these questions weren’t asked exactly as you’ve phrased them, but most of them were asked. On the other hand, sometimes the answer is obvious enough that the question doesn’t need to be asked.

          What would it take to deliver the full Ballard investment as close as possible to the original timeline?

          It require taking an extra ~$10B in revenues from other subareas and allocating it to North King between now and 2041. It’d mean deferring at least two, likely three of the five Link extensions assumed under ST3. Basically, we’d get BLE and one other extension (Everett or Tacoma or West Seattle or Issaquah) by ~2040. This obvious if you review the 2026 Long Range Financial Plan.

        2. The ST Board recently committed a lot of money into moving the West Seattle extension forward. I hope they don’t feel trapped by the sunk cost fallacy if other parts of that project’s funding, such as FTA grants, fail (which they probably should, considering the dubious cost/benefit that any objective analysis would reveal).

          In any event, I see that there’s a community forum scheduled on the Ballard Extension scheduled for Oct. 19, where many of the ST decision-makers will be present (Dow Constantine, Girmay Zahilay, Ryan Mello, Katie Wilson, etc.) Could be a good opportunity to ask some of these questions.

        3. Generally, the FTA share through the New Starts (FTA) grants for costly urban rail projects has been shrinking for some time. It’s no longer going to sink or save a project. It more likely will just delay a project by a few years — if the capital funding is driven by local taxes and bonding capacity like ST.

          The Biden administration wisely arranged for no interest loans for ST. Given the shrinking share of Federal grants, the loans are probably the best way to move projects along. And of course to never ever let MAGA run our country again.

          One threat that concerns me is Graham St infill station. It should open before the two stations in West Seattle. It’s so much easier and quicker to build.

          One undiscussed truth of West Seattle Link is that it’s relatively useless until 3 Line trains can run through the DSTT. The stub will get very light use until then.

          While ST promised WSLE last year for 2032 and moved it to 2035 after the April update vote, I don’t think the stub will open to at least 2037 or 2038. The tall Duwamish bridge requires lots of steel and concrete and the Alaska Junction Station is pretty difficult to excavate.

          I’m expecting ST to break down DSTT2 phasing further to get it to the County building first. West Seattle interests want to get Downtown directly without changing trains! So I’m thinking that the 1 Line severing (1 Line from SODO to Tacoma Dome only) will happen about 2042 if not earlier — a need that seems inevitable to even begin the DSTT2 track construction.

          And i predict that ST will continue to ignore how they’re kicking out SE Seattle, SeaTac and South King riders out of the DSTT so the West Seattle riders can get their relatively more empty direct downtown train — even though the ridership from West Seattle will be merely 20-30 percent of Tacoma/ SeaTac/ South King and SE Seattle riders .

          The shoe I’m actually expecting will be dropped in a few years. ST will say that they need to terminate 1 Line trains at SODO to begin DSTT2 construction — so that the trains to/ from West Seattle stations can run through Downtown from day 1.

          All with a badly designed SODO station because transfers will require 2 level changes.

        4. I agree with Nathan and ST. There’s no guarantee that shelving WSLE will help BLE with its Federal funding, or even its ROD approval. That said, pruning BLE has already been granted the Sound Transit imprimatur in order to keep it moving forward.

          They’re just pruning the wrong end.

          By starting the TBM’s at the Elliott Avenue portals and ending their bores somewhere around Sixth and Seneca ST could save somewhere on the order of $5 to $7 billion, even maintaining full-length operater-driven LRV trains with 500 foot stations.

          First, there is roughly a billion to be saved by not building the parallel trackage for Line 3 south of Stadium and the Skycastle at Lander. A couple of hundred million should suffice to create a southbound divergence junction at the top of the ramp up at Forest Street, a northbound merge junction under the South Lander Street bridge and a nicer but not palatial station with a center platform at SoDo.

          Another four to six billion would be saved by not boring DSTT2 between South Massavhussetts and Seneca, and not digging two very deep stations along it.

          That’s five to seven billion stone cold in the freezer, and probably much more in YOE terms.

          New Westlake can then be much shallower saving significant amounts because it doesn’t have to set up the deep dive to the minus 50 foot “Midtown” station. Shallower is much better for both costs and convenience. The same would be true for Denny Way; again shallower is cheaper.

          The last couple of billion can come from scaling the Ship Canal crossing to something appropriate for a short metro line like BLE with likely minimum headways greater than five minutes. That money saver is a new, mid-level opening bridge in the Fourteenth Avenue right-of-way shared with autos.

          The Link tracks would be on the west side of a five lane bridge with three lanes on the east side for northbound autos. This bridge would be the first thing built on the project, with the trackway temporarily covered with a roadway so that southbound traffic can be diverted from the old bridge which can then be revamped or replaced. When finished, a protected bikeway would be on the west side of the bridge and three southbound lanes on the east side. Traffic would have three lanes inbeach direction, which might make a significant part of the crossing eligible for State highway funding.

          The Maintenance Facility would be on the west side of Balmer Yard just north of The Magnolia Bridge. A single-track bore could connect the much shallower tube under Westlake or Sixth Avenue and the station bos at Third and Pine using the Stewart Street ROW which has oblique intersections with Third and Westlake. It would be used to move cars needing heavy maintenance to and from Forest Street.

          Alternatively, cars needing heavy maintenance could be shifted by a switch engine to and from a connection into Forest Street via the freight spur that passes directly next to it.

          This is doable under the budget for BLE, and it offers future practical extension into First Hill because it is relatively shallow at Pine.

        5. I would be extremely happily surprised if any of the Link projects break ground before 2029. The unfortunate truth is ST can’t afford the project without federal grants, and unless ST can convince the FTA to consider the expansions equivalent to freeway expansion projects and also gets the current administration to forget the “S” in “WSLE” stands for Seattle, ST’s not going to get the billions it needs in federal support (the same billions that WSDOT gets for freeways).

        6. I admire your willingness to give the ST Board the benefit of the doubt for having done their due diligence, which i take as good faith interest in moving the program forward. My point is they haven’t. They — and we — are the proverbial frogs being boiled in a soup that binds us to WSLE, a dog of a project that makes all other projects in the program harder to deliver and later to open.

          On the first point, I don’t think you’re quite right on what “defer” meant. They deferred construction, but did they also defer fleet and operating costs? ST is required by law to have a balanced financial plan. And if they were assuming they would eventually deliver WSLE once they had construction $$, they would have to include those additional costs, which are substantial and permanent. I assume they stayed conservative, which meant keeping those costs in their financial plan. Did anyone ask?

          Have you gone to school on the CIG program? I have. Federal shares fluctuate on a percentage basis. Total grant values fluctuate with total project costs. Once upon a time ST assumed they’d get $600 million for U-Link, and ended up with $813 million. Why? Because the cost went up a little, and FTA required them to carry higher reserves. And they decided to forego a grant for Northgate. In lieu of shooting for a bigger grant for Lynnwood. Those decisions were contemporaneous. They always carry assumptions in their financial plan about grant revenues. Those assumptions are inputs to the financial model that determines program affordability, and can be altered/adjusted in total amounts, numbers grants received, and in timing of cash flows. The federal funding side of this equation is ALWAYS a moving target, so respectfully your observation is incorrect.

          And think about this. WSLE is the weakest link in the chain from a competitiveness standpoint. What if they spend the next 2-3 years trying to get a federal grant and fail? They will have set back the rest of the program that amount of time. If I’m Russell Vought at OMB, WSLE is a fat, easy target to kill in a deep blue state.

          “It’s dumb to shelve their only shovel-ready project” is precisely what they want us to think. That’s the boiled frog right there. They want everyone to go along because it’s ready, not because it’s a good idea.

          Look at the history of decisions— at each critical moment they said, well, let’s spend a bit more on design so we can address those issues & risks. Let’s do a bit more work. Pretty soon, it’s too far along to slow down. I find that whole line of reasoning hogwash. It’s little more than gaslighting. It shifts debate away from whether a project is a worthy investment. Groupthink by another name, and your answer imply your inside the group. Again, respectfully, take a step back and look at this with the eyes of someone form outside the region icons to it for the first time.

          And on the last point, no, they did not look hard into what it would take to deliver Ballard. They did not take an unconstrained, zero-based look at the project. This is in part why the Urbanist piece is so interesting, because it actually DOES start to tackle the question that way.

          What IF they glided at elevated? What IF they looked at more places to do surface profiles? What IF they went back to either of the bridge options? They ONLY looked at fitting the Cadillac version of the project into the plan.

          Decidedly uncreative. They are not pursuing Ballard as if their lives depended on it. They’re are not pursuing it with the vigor of a group intent on figuring out how to do the program functionally in our lifetimes. They are pursuing it in a way that allows them to keep WSLE going first in line. Which in my humble opinion is planning and financial malpractice.

        7. Decidedly uncreative.

          Agreed. The big problem is that they aren’t willing to start over. It is quite reasonable to say “Oops. We thought that was going to be cheaper. Back to the drawing board”.

          But they never seem to do that. They simply forge ahead, with a Pollyanna attitude despite evidence to the contrary. This the best of all possible projects, despite the fact that it won’t be as good as originally planned, won’t carry that many riders, won’t save them that much time and will now, obviously, cost a fortune. This is not perseverance — it is stubbornness.

          The stubborn attitude extends to every project. WSLE is obviously a bad value and putting it first makes the situation worse. But the second tunnel is obviously flawed. It offers no additional downtown coverage while making many trips worse. (If the second tunnel covered First Hill there would be a lot more people saying it is worth it.) But remember, Ballard Link is flawed as well. This is not a line from Ballard to the UW (the line that even ST thought would carry more riders). Ballard Link is not as fundamentally strong as that line, let alone something like Downtown to the UW. As a result, it can’t tolerate the flaws that ST is more than willing to add. As with West Seattle (and its measly two additional stations) we are left fighting for a clearly flawed line.

          That is what is crazy about all of this. Imagine we get them to reverse course but otherwise continue with the current plan. Ballard Link goes first. Hurray! But what then? They put a station at 14th. The other stations are similarly flawed, including the ones downtown. Nothing is automated as they use the same light rail trains inside what is essentially a light metro. To get from the heart of Ballard to downtown first requires a bus ride along Market. Those along 15th have to wait for their bus to turn and drop them off somewhere close to the station. Buses funnel riders to an industrial zone instead of the medical/cultural hub in the area. This is not like a train to the Central Area (much faster even if it doesn’t get that many riders). It is not that much faster than an all-day 15 or 18. For a lot of trips it is slower. What is true of Ballard is true of every other station. This is what we are fighting for? This is what we are willing to thrash Chinatown for (again)?

          Forget it. Start over. If Ballard Link (let alone West Seattle Link) was much cheaper then it would be a worthy project. But it isn’t. The assumptions that went into the decision making were wrong, and it isn’t close. The cost estimates are off by a huge amount. These projects are simply not good, let alone the thing we should build next. Time to start over.

      2. Do you think ST CEO for life Dow Constantine would allow Ballard to jump West Seattle?

        2. Never in a million years. He’s from West Seattle. Was elected to the legislature and the county council from there. He promised his peeps he’d deliver. And now he’s making good with his little stub — at everyone else’s gargantuan expense.

    3. I cannot imagine any scenario where it’s possible to pay for the entire length of Ballard Link in this century. Cancelling West Seattle Link wouldn’t be nearly enough. I think it will probably go to Queen Anne, but no farther.

      Judging by what we’ve built so far, elevated rail seems to be nonstarter anywhere other than right next to a major highway. There are constant complaints about the MLK route, but nobody ever seems to suggest making it elevated.

      2. Make Westlake the south terminal and use an opening bridge in the Fourteenth ROW. This makes it possible within the current budget for SoDo to Seattle Center Station

        See my detailed post just above.

      3. I cannot imagine any scenario where it’s possible to pay for the entire length of Ballard Link in this century.

        It depends on what you mean by “the entire length”. Ballard to SoDo? No way. Ballard to Westlake? Sure. Smaller stations (with automated trains) would likely save them a bundle. Not going south of Westlake would as well. They should also open up the planning and not assume that 14th is the best option. It is quite possible that given what we now know, going east (24th) is now cheaper. This was ruled out (for arbitrary reasons) early on.

        This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem with ST planning. They make initial estimates and then focus on those areas. Once those options prove to be too expensive, they choose only between those options instead of backing up and considering other, earlier options they initially ignored or eliminated. It is true at both the micro and macro level. Maybe we should build Ballard-UW instead of Ballard Link. Or maybe we simply can’t afford to build anymore rail. It is just too expensive and not worth it anymore. We don’t have the density to support it, other than the areas that already have it. Focus our efforts on improving the bus system, especially since they are likely to carry most of the riders no matter how much we spend on rail. It is also quite likely that buses will be automated long before any of the major projects get built, completely changing the dynamic.

        Wouldn’t that be something. We build West Seattle Link. Meanwhile, buses across Europe and finally the United States get automated. The cost to run buses plummet, dramatically. We might as well run the 15 and 18 frequently, all day long (along with the RapidRide D). West Seattle neighborhoods have frequent buses running downtown as well. The Third Avenue Transit mall extends to Uptown with branches through South Lake Union at both Westlake and Fairview. At that point I don’t see why anyone would want to spend a fortune on a second downtown tunnel and a couple of new stops. West Seattle Link remains a stub.

    4. There are interesting points in the elevated proposal, but finding a right of way on a north-south street out of just six candidates seems quite difficult. Fifth Avenue is O.U.T. The powers that be want their genteel boulevard. Sixth doesn’t go through, Third has the transit tunnel under it, and First? That’s a VERY big hill.

      So, it’s between Second and Fourth. Second has almost as bad a hill down around Madison/Marion/Columbia as does First. And a transfer from Second to Westlake Center would be pretty gruesome.

      So, it’s Fourth as a “least-bad choice”. And let’s be honest: most people read or listen to music on transit; “the VIEW!” gets old after a few rides. So the tunnel uglies are pretty much a non-issue after the first few rides, and the stations are (relatively) warm, dry and windless.

      Much is made in the article of ways that money will be saved. Bravo! But by not digging DSTT2 a Ballard Stub saves five to seven billion. I’m not going to go through the litany, but if ST were willing to make the radical change to an all-elevated line through downtown Seattle, they have NO defense against considering The Stub.

      The way it saves money is primarily by having smaller stations since it would be automated and have platform doors to thwart holders. It it doesn’t need to shed lots of elevation to be still underground at Main Street, the new platforms at Westlake can be much shallower. Put it on Sixth and it can be extended south along Sixth to Seneca and turn uphill under the freeway to serve First Hill [sometime in the future].

      1. “Fifth Avenue is O.U.T. The powers that be want their genteel boulevard.”

        Who said that? They haven’t been asked, nor have they expressed an opinion. Calling the car sewer south of Pine Street a “genteel boulevard” is ridiculous: I bet nobody along the corridor thinks of it like that. The opposition to elevated on any avenue is probably about equal.

        1. Since the early 1980’s Fifth Avenue has been off the table as a transit spine, even a Monorail extension. Since the CT buses are now gone, does it have any service south of Stewart at all?

        2. “Since the early 1980’s Fifth Avenue has been off the table as a transit spine”

          Do you have any evidence of this? Of officials deciding this, or more than just one politician’s opinion?

          “Since the CT buses are now gone, does it have any service south of Stewart at all?”

          The 545.

        3. The “evidence” is in the minutes of the meetings that adopted the design for DSTT. Fifth Avenue was –and largely still is — Seattle’s “High Street”, the place where premier shopping and offices are located. The owners of those enormous skyscrapers south of Spring will never allow an elevated railway on Fifth Avenue.

          And they are “The Deciders”.

  5. I’ve noticed more people are paying their fares. It seemed like half of passengers were bypassing this; now, everybody seems to be paying. Is enforcement working?

    2. I actually get checked every once in a while now (more often on link than kcm). I think for a lot of riders they will pay if they fear a chance of getting fare checked

  6. Great that Metro can monetize emissions savings from its electric buses. But why must trolley routes run SO LONG with diesel buses after construction disrupts the wires?. It’s hard to believe that it has been years (and will be years still to go) that Route 12 will operate fully diesel even though all but two blocks of its route are under active trolly wire. Why can’t closing this gap be prioritized to reduce diesel emissions, and why not consider just running the trolleys off wire for that two blocks or even all the way to the end of the route and then reconnect there? It’s well within the range of the batteries on the trolley buses, and has been demonstrated by running the 43 and the 49 for off wire portions due to the 520 construction

    1. Metro appears to be allergic to incorporating off-wire segments into trolleybus operations. This may be a carryover from when the buses had very limited battery capacity, but now they can (theoretically) operate for several miles without overhead power.

      I assume there are other issues, but where there’s a will, there’s a way.

    2. Metro started getting trolleybuses that could run a mile off-wire in the 2010s, and the latest models can go several miles. Metro has been studying whether to allow it in regular route configurations (as opposed to unexpected outages) for a decade and still can’t make a decision. It’s just afraid to use the feature it bought and paid for.

      At the same time, filling in wire is a capital project that has to be budgeted and scheduled among the hundred other capital projects Metro is doing. So it takes years.

      1. Shorter version: Metro hates maintaining the overhead. So why would they prioritize putting two blocks back?

      2. Another assertion without evidence. Not building it wouldn’t make a difference in how much effort Metro puts in to maintaining the total wire network.

        If Metro hates maintaining the overhead, it could have dieselized the entire network in the 2010s when it was debating whether to renew the trolley fleet. Or it could have said no to filling in wire, and not put the project on its list, where it reappears every year until it’s finished.

        1. So, I will concede that “hates” is perhaps too strong a word, but “considers it a PITA” is not. Metro continues trolleybus lines because the City strongly prefers them and makes a big noise east time termination is proposed.

          The City does so for energy and air quality reasons and because the neighborhoods through which the trollies pass love the quiet and have political punch (the 7 possibly excluded).

          I have to say, Mike, that you are perhaps too idealistic about politics. Decisions are not made in City and County Councils or State and Federal Legislatures for valorous reasons. Well yes, occasionally when there is no cost telecteds do the truly optimal thing.

          But the vast majority of decisions are made to keep rich and/or particularly vocal communities happy so that incumbents get re-elected.

          For instance, buses on Yesler used to be ETB’s for a couple of decades after the cable car was retired. But as the area above I-90 gentrified into today’s premier neighborhood, the wires came down. The folks there apparently preferred their Lake views without overhead more than they wanted quiet buses. For a while ione hour headway service except during peaks handled that.

  7. Any Pierce Transit riders interested in writing sharing their perspective on Pierce County’s Prop 1? If so, please email contact at seattletransitblog.com

  8. The push to Reconnect Fremont across Aurora, with “five new signalized, at-grade crossings at N 38th, N 41st, Motor Place, N 46th, and N 50th, plus two new E-Line bus stops at N 38th and N 50th.”

    I strongly support the new bus stops, and probably an at-grade crossing at either 41st or Motor. (The others already have underpasses.)

    1. I think the missing stop at 38th is really glaring. A crossing in the SLU area would be nice as well (maybe Aloha?)

    1. “Routes 106 and 107 will not directly serve downtown Renton.”

      Hmm.

      And the 105 still won’t go west of Renton TC. When will Metro fix this problem it acknowledges in Metro Connects? It supposedly wants to split the 106 at Rainier Beach and attach the eastern part to the 105. So when will it do it? Or is it just pretending it wants to?

      1. I think this is something they would do as soon as new Renton Transit Center open with or without S1 open on time.

        S 3rd and 4th still feel like a better corridor to connect among 105/106/107 to me. Even if they want to send all the route terminating at South Renton Park and Ride (aka new Renton TC), they could still route 105 there via S 3rd/S 4th and Rainier Ave S.

        They should extend 106 or 107 to new Renton TC via the route 101 does today and make 101 skip Downtown Renton. 101 feels like the kind of route that has more park and ride passengers.
        As for 105, they should extend 105 from Downtown Renton to new Renton TC via Rainer Ave. In this way, 106 or 107 can still make transfer with 105 along S 3rd and S 4th. There will be less bus terminating at Downtown Renton and almost no one gets hurt.

        1. Do you mean sending the 106/107 via 2nd/3rd-Grady-TC rather than Rainier-TC? Wouldn’t that route take something quite a bit longer to get to/from the new Renton TC?

          For the 101, there’s an existing P+R in downtown Renton. But yeah I agree, most riders are probably using the P+R anyway, and could probably shift to S Renton without much trouble.

          I’d like to see the 105 through-route with something (105-101?)

        2. “Wouldn’t that route take something quite a bit longer to get to/from the new Renton TC?”

          Yes but 101 is doing the same today and it seems justified.
          This way at least it forms a better transfer point with 105 and still covers Downtown Renton.

          I think whether this is a good/bad idea depends who are taking 106/107 these days. Are they mostly coming from parking garage or they are mostly from Downtown Renton or other buses.

    2. I think 105/106/107 make more sense to stay on 3rd/4th but I Line is ok to end at South Renton Park and Ride. The initial plan does the opposite.

  10. “Clyde Hill Brokers Deal to Settle Growth Plan Complaint”

    Shouldn’t they be busy dealing with their own existential crisis right now?

      1. Isn’t Clyde Hill broke AF? I read somewhere that their government will soon face bankruptcy unless they can get residents to vote for a tax increase

Comments are closed.