Today’s the big day. At today’s Sound Transit (ST) Board Meeting, the Board will offer amendments to the Draft Plan released in March. Today is the single most consequential day in shaping what will be the final plan adopted in June. Will timelines change? Will new projects be added or projects cut? We’ll be tweeting at @seatransitblog, and the feed will be embedded here. Follow along from 1:30pm-4:00pm!

34 Replies to “ST3 Liveblog”

  1. I’ve been watching with the sound off. I’m fascinated by the tics of the three pairs of white hands behind the speakers.

  2. Should Cross Kirkland Corridor become a trail or a light rail track. I remember when trains would use the East side Rail Corridor. I miss those days and would leave to see it continue to be used as a rail Corridor. Especially in the gridlocked Eastside area.

  3. Comments at the meeting are overwhelmingly supportive of ST3, and most are on message as far as TOD, infill stations, etc are concerned.

    Good stuff! The damage from Kirkland NIMBYs appears to be contained to Kirkland – everybody else is on board, with a few pushing for parking, etc.

      1. Sure. But we could have had a much less supportive public comment session. ST pays attention to the political winds; I’m glad to see the main message was “more good rail, please!”

    1. Sigh. I live exactly in the NIMBY-dominated part of Kirkland. Slow 255s with someone’s butt in my face… forever!

      1. Yeah just wanting Kirkland to align with other cities and be more supportive of light rail.

  4. Zach said 2033 for Ballard but Murray said 2035 at the meeting. Which one is right?

    1. Looks like it’s 2035. I think it’s important that if STB posts incorrect information (which is bound to happen sometimes), especially about a contentious issue, that they issue a correction.

  5. As an Issaquah resident, I’m disappointed the South Kirkland line is being called an extension of the Issaquah-Bellevue line. I would rather see the line running as Issaquah-Bellevue-Redmond and South Kirkland being a spur of East Link coming from Seattle. However, I think this is pretty irrelevant for the next 20 years because South Kirkland is going to emerge from Wilburton no matter the operational setup.

    1. I disagree. There’s a lot more people traveling from Redmond to downtown Seattle than Redmond to Issaquah. Even with a transfer, Redmond->Issaquah trips will be faster quicker than they are today.

  6. I’m surprised Renton went for a freeway station at 44th street rather than Park drive. Clear prioritization of suburban riders over the more urban Landing. I don’t oppose 44th, I just think Park drive would be better – wouldn’t mind seeing all 3 to serve Renton (including the South Renton one)

  7. So this is the updated timeline I compiled from the tweets (plus the presumptive Ballard correction):

    Remaining ST2

    Angel Lake 2016
    Northgate 2021
    Lynnwood 2023
    East Link 2023
    Des Moines 2024


    Redmond 2024
    Federal Way 2024
    Tacoma 2030
    West Seattle 2030
    130th 2031
    Graham 2031
    Boeing Access 2031
    Ballard 2035
    Everett 2036
    Issaquah 2041

  8. Sub area ridership is brilliant. The majority of costs will fall on North King, as is eminently fair sine the majority of riders inn the tunnel will originate in North King. This will still the suburban “they’re stealing our money for Seattle” complaint. Excellent!

    1. I wonder if they’re calculating ridership for the tunnel or the tunnels? Snohomish county riders will do as much as Pierce county and South King riders to push the existing tunnel over capacity, and thus require the new tunnel. But since we happen to be connecting the new one to Tacoma/Ballard and the old one to West Seattle/Everett, ridership in the new tunnel will be disproportionately s-king/Pierce heavy.

      The most equitable route, I think, would be to divide costs based on ridership in both tunnels – but SnoCo is the most cash strapped subarea, so this would likely introduce budgetary problems.

  9. Pleasantly surprised to not see a Paine Field spur. Pleasantly surprised to not see more parking garages. Surprised for them to not talk about provisional projects…

    I think it will pass.

    Curious about infill stations… Are they going to have center platforms? That might make some long disruptions to cut up existing rails….maybe shut down for a whole summer??? side platforms would be easier with less disruption but would be less desired in the long term….

      1. Yes, I am happy is does. There was so much talk about a separate spur line that I thought that is what they were going to go with. This is superior.

      2. The current plan takes out the two best parts of the Paine detour, the 99 station (great connectionwith SWIFT) and then coming up Evergreen way.

        Thankfully, both those can be fixed after the vote

  10. It looks like they want to study Kirkland-UW-Ballard via 520. I’m guessing that would eliminate stations at Children and U-Village. Station at 130 would probably exclude LR to LCW anytime in the future.

    1. I think U village is possible with an elevated station above the existing UW station, run the line grade separated up Montlake, have a station around 45th and Montake, and turn and tunnel and have an underground station with the existing University village station. There’s a steep grade there at 45th which should work well as a tunnel portal

Comments are closed.