Sound Transit is collecting feedback on the Chinatown-ID station for ST3 starting with an open house tonight. Much has been written about the various options, but it seems clear that the only option even remotely acceptable to the neighborhood is “4th Avenue Shallow.” Even that may be a bridge too far, per Naomi Isaka’s reporting in the Times:
The slightly less destructive path would be on Fourth Avenue, but even that option would create havoc for about 10 years by redirecting traffic through the neighborhood and constructing a massive staging area there. Advocates fear displacement of businesses and residents would inevitably follow.
Shallow 4th is also $500M more expensive than Shallow 5th. If the extra money and construction impacts resulted in a better rider experience, it might be worth it. But making people walk a block and 80 feet below ground to transfer isn’t a very rider-centric outcome either (although it’s better than some of the other options!).
Still, since the Sound Transit board has made it clear that they are open to studying more options and everything on the table has a serious downside, I’ll make one more plug for putting the station at Rainier & I-90 on the edge of the CID. This opens up a possible First Hill station for Midtown and preserves the primary benefit of a second transfer location.
When I last presented this concept there was some legit concern about a Beacon Hill shuttle. Based on some suggestions from readers, I’ve thought about how it might work as a branch line instead.
If this sounds appealing to you, now would be the time to let Sound Transit know.
Is it too cynical to say that individuals at meetings have absolutely no impact on Sound Transit?
I’ve seen and talked with many individuals who have provided very good comments on similar unstudied alternatives for CID second set of platforms — and it has gotten nowhere. The comments didn’t even make it into the WSBLE comment summaries published by ST.
So at this stage, I expect this meeting‘s comments to be summarily ignored after public input staff thank them for their comments before forgetting them. Not even the engineers on the project will even be shown the comments.
Sorry to be so cynical but it’s what I’ve come to expect from ST.
CID comments seem to have gotten some play
Because the mayor got involved?
I agree Jack, Harrell is not somebody ST can ignore. WSBLE is entirely in his city, and I don’t think he lives in West Seattle or Ballard, which are seen as fairly privileged communities.
The proposed tunnel design suggests the business stakeholders were working with Harrell and ST, and Harrell was making sure their concerns were heard.
Now Harrell is making sure the CID is heard.
I don’t know who is advising Harrell on DSTT2 and WSBLE. I doubt it is Spotts. He is too new and does not have a lot of expertise on this project and has said little publicly.
It can’t help ST when transit advocates who do know about light rail and normally support any transit spending if there is some marginal benefit are so opposed to the proposed design from a transit user’s perspective.
Even if (a huge if) there was the money for DSTT2 and WSBLE what Harrell (or his advisor) would read on this blog is that after 10 years of disruption downtown as mayor transit would not be better, which means business would not be better.
Mayors generally don’t ask what will make their tenure horrible but make their successor’s tenure in 10 years better, but in this case Harrell can’t see the benefit in 10 years.
If I could tell Harrell anything it would be look at the charade the “realignment” was. There are politicians who are only concerned about their tenure. If anyone doesn’t think ADDING Graham St. and 130th St. stations, that naturally have exploded in cost, and claiming extending project completion concurrently with ST taxes for five years in a high inflation environment creates new net revenue ($6 to $10 billion) doesn’t equal either ST 4 or SB5528 isn’t paying attention.
I think the Board thinks it equals SB5528. Harrell needs to make it perfectly clear to the Board it means ST 4, and they will have to risk their political careers selling ST 4, which of course they won’t do, which means the DEIS is a waste of time, which is what Harrell’s stakeholders really want to hear, certainly for this design.
Doesn’t the 4th avenue viaduct need to be torn down and replaced sometime in the next few decades anyways? If so, the years of disruption will happen regardless of what ST decides, and so it makes a lot of sense to put a station there. Walking a block underground to transfer is not bad compared to some of the labyrinthine transfers that you find in other large cities.
Seattle isn’t a large city though, at least not yet. With only three lines, we don’t have a good excuse for long transfers.
Exactly.
The new tunnel doesn’t actually add capacity. For that, we would need to run the trains a lot more often, and that means burying or elevating the lines in both Bellevue and Rainier Valley. If we run trains every six minutes — something we don’t do now — we are OK sharing the tunnel.
Meanwhile — and this is very important — the new tunnel will be much worse for riders. It will be worse for riders who transfer, and it will also be worse for riders who happen to be on that line, and want to use a downtown station. There are fewer stations on the new tunnel and they are much farther from the surface. Now that we know that, it doesn’t make sense to build it (if it ever did).
No station between First Hill and Judkins Park? Not even at S Jackson St or Yesler Way?
The shuttle looks like it is going to add serious operational complexity. Is there room at SODO and Mt. Baker to add extra track(s) so that it doesn’t utilize the same track as the through trains?
Frank’s idea here is not optimizing cost. It doesn’t seem any better access to me than an alternative merely skipping a CID stop for Line 1. Yet it would be very costly to implement, and the SE Seattle construction disruption would be just as long as the proposed CID disruption..
Given the low demand in West Seattle, Line 3 trains in Frank’s concept could operate with the two branches having equal service to Mt Baker or West Seattle and there still would be no overcrowding.
The one value-added thing about the alternative is serving First Hill — but there are many other ways to do that.
I think that the most logical alternative that needs to be studied is having 3 lines operate in the current DSTT. That optimizes transfers, eliminates miles of disruptive tunnel construction, saves several billions, and opens years earlier for a one seat West Seattle ride.
Let’s look for any DSTT2 to be built for higher speed intercity and regional rail instead.
No station between First Hill and Judkins Park? Not even at S Jackson St or Yesler Way?
Good point. This is why I think Frank’s idea is good, but not for now. Here is what I suggest instead:
Step One: Interline through downtown. It is quite likely that this will be just fine for a very long time. It may be all we can afford.
Step Two: In the distant future, build a second downtown tunnel, similar to the one Frank suggested. It would have more stations between Judkins Park and Westlake, to maximize coverage.
This is what cities do, all over the world. A second downtown tunnel should add new functionality along with capacity relief on the other line. For example, consider the “Relief Line”, in Toronto. It is worth reading the history. Its main goal was to increase capacity downtown (thus the name). But at the same time, it was also designed to add some coverage. It eventually evolved to be called “Ontario Line” as it does a lot more than simply reduce crowding.
But there is another key element mentioned in Wikipedia. Long before Toronto broke ground on the new line, they changed their trains, to increase capacity. This is something we could do as well. They also added automatic train control to increase capacity — again, something we could do. It really should be viewed as three steps:
1) Interline.
2) Increase capacity.
3) Build a second downtown tunnel with significant additional coverage.
That has been the big flaw with this proposal from the very beginning. The new tunnel adds nothing in terms of coverage. Ever project disrupts the neighborhood, but the neighborhood gets something out of it. In this case, like every other part of downtown, there is no value to the new station for people in the I. D. They would be much better off with all the trains being interlined.
This makes sense to me. Our trains are still rather short, so if we will be running into capacity problems, I think we should be looking into lengthening the platforms and trains first, before building another line downtown.
It wouldn’t necessarily require expanding the platforms. We could do what Toronto did, and simply change the trains themselves. Toronto’s new trains have full open gangways, which increased capacity by 10%.
It might be even simpler, and change the seat layout. That means more standing, but more capacity. But one of the better options is to change the signaling mechanism, which would allow more capacity than we are planning on using. Unless we bury (or elevate) the trains in Rainier Valley and Bellevue, the additional tunnel won’t actually add capacity. The time to add that new tunnel is then.
@Christopher Cramer: Link’s platforms aren’t really short at all. They’re longer than most of Paris’s lines (Which have 60/75/90 meter) platforms, and not far off London (many) averages.
But because of the way that the platforms are set up now, it’s very much possible to lengethen platforms while upgrading platform acess.
But the process is going to be as expensive as building DSTT2, and more disruptive to existing service, which is why I favor DSTT2 first.
Thanks for saying that FDW. Link platforms are not too short. The only US urban rail system that seems to have much longer platforms is BART.
The confusion is probably that many observers only count the number of cars in each train rather than the train length so four cars sounds “short”. Link uses long light rail vehicles that have two bends in each car. Most urban subways use shorter cars with open gangways and no bends. Thus an eight-car train in Chicago’s Subway is about as long as a four-car Link train, for example (estimating from Google map aerials). Even a BART car is shorter than a Link car so that a four-car Link train is about the same length as a six-car BART train.
@AL S. : No, Link is middle of pack. New York, DC, and Montreal have platforms longer than Link across the board. Boston (Red/Orange), Toronto(1/2), Los Angeles (Red/Purple) are in same category like Chicago.
But Articulated Trains are pretty standard Internationally, with trains consisting of separate vehicles being an antiquated practice that should go away.
“Thus an eight-car train in Chicago’s Subway is about as long as a four-car Link train,”
I noticed that a while ago. I used to lament how puny Link was compared to full-sized subways with 9 or 10 cars. Then one day I realized those cars are half as long as Link’s. ST should call them 8-car trains.
Pretty much, like the platform lengths are pretty good and as you say similar to other systems. Like I remember being in Brussels and platforms felt similar in size to ours. The big changes needed is getting bigger trains, either single large platform length train with open gangway or just a train with a single couplet that it’s then just 2 large open gangway train cars. Alongside shifting seating arrangements around to be more bench seating
The problem is getting ST on board, they’ve been on some level stubborn to adopt longer open gangway trains for operation and maintenance reasons even though they are a touch flimsy. They only way I see them changing is if their hand is forced into it from constant crush loading during rush hour.
If ST is unwilling to change or pay for new light rail designs, could we just add a 5th car? Maybe too simplistic. Let me know. If you added a 5th car, the nose and tail of the train would stick out past both sides of the station. If you had 5 car trains programmed to keep the most forward and the most rearward doors closed you could get an extra 100-200 capacity without buying any more specialized equipment. There are 3 more doors on both sides. The 3 center cars would not be affected. Not a perfect solution, but might work during rush hour or game days.
The problem is getting ST on board, they’ve been on some level stubborn to adopt longer open gangway trains for operation and maintenance reasons even though they are a touch flimsy. They only way I see them changing is if their hand is forced into it from constant crush loading during rush hour.
ST isn’t interested in higher capacity trains because they aren’t needed. I agree with them. There is no need now — hell, they don’t even run the trains every six minutes.
There is a tremendous amount of excess capacity. There are a number of things that can be done long before we need to do anything extremely expensive, like adding a second tunnel, or making the platforms bigger. These include all the things we’ve mentioned: open gangways, better frequency, different seat layout, etc.
I think it is also quite reasonable to add a fifth car. As Jimmy James points out, this can be done without open gangways. Basically half of the doors on front car and half of the doors on back car are inaccessible. That is very clever, but I would add trains with open gangways first. Then things are much simpler. The last train car can only be accessed via the adjacent car. This type of setup makes more sense with commuter rail (or intercity rail) but since we are building a metro/commuter rail hybrid, it is quite reasonable.
For example, someone boards the train at SoDo, headed to Lynnwood. It is 5:30 PM, and the train is already getting crowded. They make their way all the way to the very back car, where they find a seat. As the train makes its way through downtown, it gets more and more crowded (and people spill into that last car). Being young, the Lynnwood rider gives up the seat for an older person. As the train gets to Capitol Hill, people start moving north, out of that car. By the time the train leaves the U-District station, the Lynnwood rider has a seat again. As the train gets to Mountlake Terrace, they move forward to the next car, which also has seating. The train was very crowded at times (carrying more than a third more riders than our current trains) and yet the Lynnwood rider only had to stand (in a crowded train car) for a small part of their trip.
The main thing to keep in mind is that this new tunnel won’t add capacity unless we also add capacity in Rainier Valley or Bellevue. That won’t happen unless we elevate the lines or bury them. There are far easier, less disruptive things we can do to add capacity, including just simply running the trains more often.
Just out of curiosity, how many low floor light rail systems in America have open gangways? Used like a Metro, not a streetcar system. I think low floor vehicles make it more difficult and more expensive to achieve these things.
I also agree with Ross that open gangways is a very important improvement. Just not on our existing trains. The trains ST bought cannot even couple a Kinkisharo-Mitsui teain set to a Siemens train set. That is nuts. My understanding is that every car in Portland can be paired up with another regardless of age. We should be pushing ST to buy open gangway cars now. Because it seems like it takes 15 years to make a decision at all. But converting the ones we have now would be a waist in my opinion.
Jimmy: you’re impression about TriMet MAX car compatibility is wrong.
100 (Bombardier with ABB traction systems), 200 and 300 (Siemens with custom controls to be compatible with the Bombardier cars) series TriMet cars can operate together, and 400 and 500 series cars (which are off the shelf Siemens S70 series) can operate together. There is no compatibility between the control systems of off the shelf cars and the 3 older series of cars.
They have the same couplers and are able to tow one type of out of service car with the other. That’s it.
At some point a break with past control systems has to be made, unless you are willing to work with parts that grow increasingly difficult to obtain, and/or are expensive to build new because the systems aren’t off the shelf products.
Just out of curiosity, how many low floor light rail systems in America have open gangways? Used like a Metro, not a streetcar system. I think low floor vehicles make it more difficult and more expensive to achieve these things.
Asking if America has something transit related is bound to give you a discouraging answer. The U. S. (and to a lesser extent Canada) is just way behind when it comes to transit. For example, the rest of the world has stop spacing of roughly 400 meters. But if you ask how many bus routes in America are like that, the answer would be “very few”, making it look like it is something radical. What is common in America in not necessarily standard, nor is it good. The same is true of open gangways (https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/04/06/when-american-transit-agencies-ignore-the-worlds-move-to-open-gangways/).
To answer your question, I believe that Ottawa and DC both low floor trams with open gangways. Here is a good explanation of why Ottawa’s rolling stock would be a good model for us: https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/12/23/double-link-an-open-gangway-vehicle-concept/. You are right that running low floor trains as a metro is a mistake (and unusual) but we are stuck with it, and fortunately, there are companies that can build what we want.
Oh, and I understand why folks want to address this sooner rather than later, but as I see it, this is unnecessary. It only makes sense to do this when our existing trains are getting old, or we have capacity problems. It is quite possible that we will build our entire system and not have capacity problems, making a lot of these ideas moot. Like today, we will be begging ST to run the trains more often, not wishing we could.
@Glenn. Thank you for clarification.
@Ross. Thank you for the link.
I can’t think of a single entity anywhere that has ordered open gangway light rail cars, and in fact light rail and streetcars with gangways of any type have been rare for some decades. There’s nothing that would make it impossible to do. The low floors at the center have no impact on the ends of the car. It would be difficult with 100% low floor cars, but only one operator in Canada and nobody in the USA has those.
The difficulty comes with what to do about the cabs at the end. A complete fold-away cab gets complicated, but has happened in such cases as the Danish Flexliner. Big systems like the London Underground or NYCTA subway order cab cars and intermediate non-cab cars. It means you lack the flexibility of simply closing off one end of an intermediate car to create a shorter train.
What you see among European streetcar lines is a move towards longer cars, which provide the functionality of open gangways without the complexity of fold-away cabs or having enough cab cars facing the right direction. Alstom Citadis has been built to 178 feet in length (Dublin) and variations of the package have 55 mph maximum speed, with variations with higher maximum speeds. CAF and Siemens have similar length products. However, that means having a shop that can maintain such a car.
@Glenn — Yes, I put longer train cars in the same category as gangways between cars. Either way you are replacing empty space. There is a scale as well. For example, two long train cars are better than four. I could also see two long train cars with cabs only on the far ends. Even if you can’t go between the two train cars, you have dramatically reduced the wasted space, especially if the cabs are beyond the platforms. This seems like a high degree of customization, but in the train world this is common (especially for an agency like us). We will have a top five system by distance (in North America) and likely the longest light rail line by a very wide margin. Unless we plan on running the trains rarely, we will need a lot of trains, which means we can afford some degree of customization.
Might be time for a “Better BLE” STB post, since ST’s design consultant, HNTB, is apparently totally ineffective at coming up with clever alignments that balance of rider needs with feasibility.
I’ve posted ideas for a better Ballard station, and the City’s concerns with the alignment along Elliott may be enough to force ST to reconsider the Smith Cove-Interbay alignment. I’ve been holding off on writing it up for a few reasons, but maybe now’s the time to try my hand at a Page 2 post.
Also, a good-looking 45-story, 400-unit apartment building is going to design review on the exact parcel that’s ST’s preferred location for the Denny station, which would make acquisition and construction on that parcel very expensive. Similar to the land value problems that arose when ST’s assumed terminus of WSLE at a strip mall turned into a 300-unit apartment building.
https://web8.seattle.gov/SDCI/ShapingSeattle/buildings/Details/3037081-LU
These kinds of decisions should ideally be settled before the public vote, so people can have a better idea of what they’re getting and for what cost. Once the vote is made, you just build it.
asdf2: of course, after the Sound Move vote, many projects were not built; a partial list: NE 45th Street, First Hill, South Graham Street Link stations; I-90 two-way busway; NE 85th Street center access ramps; two-way north Sounder. The ST3 measures has fiscal issues; the DSTT2 may be the mostly costly piece; folks are learning of its flaws. The costs have changed and may change again; the revenue streams continue.
This is why I’ve always had a problem with ST3. It was rushed. Years more of advance planning was needed.
In particular, no tunnel south of Westlake was ever studied prior to the packaging for the vote. Even the West Seattle studies included using DSTT. The DSTT2 cost estimates were slapped together quickly — and were wildly off.
No study on improving DSTT capacity as an option was ever issued either.
ST just chose to declare DSTT capacity as a problem and declared that the sole solution was a second tunnel — without disclosing deep stations and difficult transfer paths between the lines until after the vote.
Seeing the new C/120/etc bus stop across from the south end of the ferry docks reminded me of how The Urbanist once advocated bringing West Seattle Link up the west side of the SODO district. Those ferry docks sure could use much better transit connectivity.
Maybe CID is already adequately connected to the transit network.
Another advantage of a “Ferry Station” routing is going up 1ST Ave. through SoDo. Probably nobody is going to convince me that SoDo benefits from having a second station in the same location as the existing station. Presumably you’re deep enough to hit the planned transfer station below current Westlake, and shallow enough to avoid intersecting the 99 tunnel? Otherwise, perhaps Pioneer Square – Ferry could work as the downtown transfer hub, with some enclosed moving walkways (take some space from the cars if needed–they have plenty of space on the new waterfront highway!)–might be no more painful than one-block-over-and-80ft-down option at 4th Ave?
It seems that major transfer points are something that should really be established *before* planning out the rest of the lines? Instead, it seems to be a weird situation where public comment is solicited about the transfers, but comments that prioritize the rider experience will likely be ignored.
The car tunnel is not deep enough when it crosses First to put a train tunnel above it. You would have to go on the surface, and First South between Yesler and Jackson is not wide enough for reserved lanes.
See below for the inexpensive option that (mostly) interlines.
The better downtown hub would have been Pioneer Square, using the already excavated hole from the former City Hall building. If only that we’re looked at back at ST3 that *already excavated* city back next to an existing station on 3rd would not be in the process of being filled in today as the parking/foundation of a new skyscraper.
Much of East Link was reconfigured — at least on the eastside — well after the vote in 2008. It is hard to say, “Once the vote is made, you just build it” for ST 3 because it isn’t affordable, the routing and design were not clear in the levy, and it is foolish to think citizens, neighbors and stakeholders pay enough attention at that stage to organize and formulate their concerns and objections. Build what? Issaquah to S. Kirkland, when that line is universally mocked, because eastsiders barely voted for it.
It also doesn’t help that ST has been badly exposed as the emperor with no clothes since 2016.
The DEIS process is ideally designed to avoid lawsuits, and to mitigate large public projects that presumably have a public good greater than the ramifications (unless like Mercer Island you foolishly sign off on those SEPA permits with ST, a very dishonest agency). The basic problem with WSBLE is that is not the case. The cost, projected ridership, and disruption to a downtown that is in crisis is not worth WSBLE even if it were affordable. WSBLE is just transit for transit’s sakes. This is truly a case of “build it and they will come” is delusional.
DSTT2 has four big problems:
1. It is based on phony capacity issues based on inflated ridership through downtown Seattle, and that was pre-pandemic. There is no capacity issue through downtown today, at any time, and East Link will double capacity through the downtown core north (and ST could just run more trains through DSTT1 right now if the demand were there, which it is not). The future regional population growth does not support DSTT2, especially with WFH.
2. Four other subareas are supposed to contribute somewhere between $275 million and $550 million each — depending on whether the actual cost or 2016 cost estimate for DSTT2 is used — when anyone reading the 2021 subarea report can see three subareas don’t have that money, and now realize not only is there not a capacity issue through downtown there was never was going to be, and areas south might get shunted to DSTT2 for West Seattle riders to take DSTT1 (all 400/day of them). How do you tell Tacoma or Everett they will not get extensions to their “major” cities, but Seattle will get two tunnels with their money.
3. The disruption to a downtown core that is reeling from the loss of work commuters and decline of retail is massive, and over a decade long. DSTT2 might get completed but no one will be there to ride it. There is little point to a station at CID if there is no CID when it opens.
4. DSTT2 is not good transit. The station locations are not ideal, and are very deep in stations that are not restricted to riders in a city that has a safety perception issue (for good reason).
Because most on this blog are transit fans they look at the design problems with WSBLE and DSTT2. I look at the financials and the politics. IMO Link is about one millionth as important to the region as a vibrant and revitalized downtown Seattle. That is why I think the queen on the chessboard for the station at CID and all of WSBLE, (and is reflected in the proposed DEIS design for DSTT2 that minimizes disruption to stakeholders and businesses but creates a very expensive and not good transit tunnel) is Bruce Harrell. After all, WSBLE runs through his city. I think Harrell will take every opportunity to put the knife in WSBLE, especially if it benefits him politically.
This is what I think some on this blog are missing: merchants and businesses in the CID (and downtown core) don’t want transit riders. They want folks who drive to the CID, which is why they keep asking for more parking. Because people who drive to Uwajimaya or wherever spend more. It is why Uwajimaya spent a fortune on an undergroup and surface parking lot. They see 3rd Ave., and as merchants know what SDOT won’t admit: transit killed 3rd, and 3rd was the sacrificial lamb because transit along some north/south avenue downtown is a necessity, and there really is not a way to mitigate that except by migrating that harm to other avenues that are barely surviving.
CID is only the first stakeholder group downtown to object to DSTT2 (and shock and suprise Dow Constantine wants to put a huge new shelter in the CID). Amazon and every other stakeholder will have objections, and so will West Seattle and Ballard, unless we build a $12 billion DSTT2. Then wait until the outcry from Tacoma to RV if those riders are shunted to DSTT2. The CID has “equity” on its side which is a very powerful political tool in Seattle. North of CID the stakeholders have money, an even more powerful tool but usually wielded in private.
Even though WSBLE from end to end is STUPID the one way to get it done financially and politically is interlining DSTT1, and avoiding major political problems in Ballard and West Seattle by doing those projects last, and maybe never. Period. Harrell is looking at Bellevue as his prime competition, and understands Bellevue (and Redmond) do not see transit as critical to their commercial and retail vibrancy because they don’t really care when East Link opens as long as construction does not affect growth over the next 10 years. Who cares about disruption on 112th or in neighborhoods like Wilburton and The Spring District?
The merchants in The CID are no different than Kemper Freeman in their business model if not as rich: how to attract the customers who will spend the most, without shutting down the roads that bring those customers to them.
If the CID wins this fight it probably spells the end of DSTT2. Where WSBLE goes from there who knows. Really who cares?
While I tend to agree that DSTT1 could handle the three lines, with the proper upgrades that are cheaper than building DSTT2, I tend to disagree that WFH is an argument to reduce the planned transit capacity through downtown Seattle. At this point, we’re pretty much past the point where pandemic fear and WFH are existential threats to transit (and cities in general). In fact, peak hour NB trains have been getting pretty crowded at UW and U District stations, volume at Northgate is very high during the peak hours, especially park-and-ride and bus transfers, and the Lynnwood extension can be expected to be very popular as I-5 congestion continues to worsen. Most jobs still cannot be done remotely, and companies are realizing there are real disadvantages to an all remote workforce, and even the hybrid approach creates it’s own unique management challenges. Additionally, many people who WFH happen to do so with home being in the City, and use transit for non-work trips.
” I tend to disagree that WFH is an argument to reduce the planned transit capacity through downtown Seattle”.
Eliminating DSTT2 definitely reduces transit “capacity” through downtown Seattle. I agree with Ross’s three step approach:
1. Interline with DSTT1 (which still doesn’t solve the design issues in West Seattle and Ballard).
2. Increase capacity in DSTT1, which is already planned with East Link, can be done simply by increasing frequency of trains, and can be done with technology including going driverless. Would a rider rather have a second tunnel or more trains per hour in the tunnel station they are standing in?
3. See where Link ridership is in 10 and then 20 years through downtown Seattle. Lots can change in 10 or 20 years, just like the last 3 years. If the ridership is there, then build another tunnel (although no other areas are getting tunnels). At that time there may be better technology for building tunnels, better technology may make a smaller or more shallow and less disruptive tunnel just as efficient, and the planners will have a better understanding of where the riders are coming from and going to in order to determine the route. Or citizens will have moved on to a completely different mode of transportation. Who knows.
A second tunnel will take a ST 4, and to pass a ST 4 the need will need to be there because most voters don’t vote for a transit project they don’t ride or anticipate riding. I think ST 3 was the last “build it and they will come” Link project voters will approve, certainly in the ST taxing district, which is why I doubt the Issaquah to S. Kirkland line will get built even though the subarea has the money for it, assuming the projected cost of $4.5 billion is even remotely correct (since there are no tunnels in the design I am aware of and most of the line runs over public right of ways or green spaces).
I think most subareas now realize the claimed needed capacity for DSTT2 was never actually true, even pre-pandemic, and was a ruse to force them to pay half of a VERY expensive tunnel when all their Link lines are on the surface.
Those subareas along with downtown stakeholders (and Harrell) make DSTT2 problematic politically. The loss of downtown workers due to WFH is just one factor among many, but a 60% reduction in white collar workers commuting to downtown Seattle is something that must be considered in future transit projects, especially ones as expensive as WSBLE. If one thing surprised me it was how few travelers from West Seattle would actually switch to transit even with upper bridge closed.
I think in many ways Harrell agrees with you. Give him time to make downtown Seattle such a popular destination DSTT1 is maxed out so a DSTT2 is necessary before making it more difficult for him with a decade of downtown disruption when the patient is on the gurney.
How about adding 2A: Open gangway vehicles on some trains to increase capacity? A train could hold 10-25 percent more riders (depending on the vehicle layout) if there weren’t two driver cabs on every train car.
It’s so much cheaper and easier to gradually change the vehicles than to excavate new deep stations.
@Al — Exactly, and that is just one way to increase capacity (and exactly what Toronto did).
But I feel that this capacity situation misses the point. This is important, so I will put it in bold. The new tunnel will not increase capacity, unless we bury or elevate the lines in Bellevue and Rainier Valley.
In both cases, the trains are not allowed to go more often than every six minutes. Keep in mind, the current train — which serves the busiest section we will ever build (UW to downtown) — only runs every eight minutes.
But if we run the trains every six minutes, that means that we have six trains an hour from Bellevue, SeaTac and West Seattle. That means a train running under downtown every two minutes, at most. As it turns out, the existing tunnel can handle trains every 90 seconds.
The new tunnel doesn’t really add capacity unless we bury or elevate the line in Rainier Valley or Bellevue. The time to build that new tunnel is then. If, in the distant future (after investing in new trains and a new signaling system) we find that the trains are just too crowded, we can then bury (or elevate) the lines in Rainier Valley or Bellevue AND build a figure out how to build a new tunnel downtown. That new tunnel should not be just about capacity, but should improve the network, not degrade it. It should have numerous new stations, adding coverage in the greater downtown area. For example, take Frank’s excellent suggestion, but add more stations with urban stop spacing (e. g. stations at Jackson, Cherry, James, Madison).
“Really who cares?”
what a way to end another 1,000-word comment on the transit/land-use special interest blog.
“Because most on this blog are transit fans they look at the design problems with WSBLE and DSTT2. I look at the financials and the politics.”
ok
“one way to get it done financially and politically is interlining DSTT1”
that’s a design solution to the design problem.
if the design were good, it would be worth the financials and the politics. since the design is bad, it’s not worth either.
Well, Nathan, I doubt many eastsiders care what happens to WSBLE. They don’t care about what happens with East Link. Or folks in other subareas. Why would they, except their contribution to DSTT2? According to Martin 400 West Seattle drivers will switch to WSBLE. That means the rest don’t really care. Do you care about their driving experience?
“if the design were good, it would be worth the financials and the politics. since the design is bad, it’s not worth either.”
You miss my points.
One, the money isn’t there for WSBLE, no matter how “good” the design is. What “financials” are you talking about. Floating a ST 4 to complete WSBLE? Then you would find out how many voters in the ST taxing district care about WSBLE. A SB5528 Seattle levy at $10 billion. Ok, but don’t complain when rents soar.
Two, SEPA is all politics, and the stakeholders are much more powerful than transit riders, which is pretty obvious from the proposed design. Their definition of a “good” design for DSTT2 is no disruption to their businesses, especially in the current retail environment in downtown Seattle. For them there is no good design for DSTT2 unless they don’t see it, hear it, or taste it. Be like the mole people.
But you make a good point. Why does someone like me even comment on WSBLE, except out of morbid curiosity? Especially without my subarea’s contribution to DSTT2, I could not care less what happens with WSBLE. I would have no standing. For the vast majority of voters in the ST taxing district they would wonder what you are even talking about if you raised WSBLE.
I am just saying I don’t see the money for DSTT2, and the stakeholder’s vision of a “good” design has nothing to do with a good transit experience or design. You totally misunderstand the stakeholders’ definition of a “good design” because they don’t care about transit. You think they do. So where do you go from there, especially if you are mayor of Seattle. What is a “good” design for Harrell when his constituents he is desperately trying to revitalize tell them a good design is no design.
The “Beacon Hill spur” should be labeled as Line 4, and Line 4 should run from Northgate to SeaTac. We might as well make it a useful line.
That’s interesting. Extend it south so that the riders from the north end don’t entirely lose their one seat ride to the airport.
That could work, but there are a couple considerations. First, there are two ways to do this:
1) Interline south of Mount Baker. The problem with this is that trains can’t run more than every 6 minutes down Rainier Valley. This would limit the Ballard train to every 12 minutes at best. Even if we solve that problem, this is a reverse-split. We double the frequency where there is less demand, which is not a good idea.
2) End the Ballard line at Mount Baker, and let the existing line work like it does now. This is a reasonable thing to do, as Mount Baker is a decent terminus. You will have made all the necessary rail connections, along with many bus connections.
The issue at that point is the time it takes for a train to get from one end to the other. Remember, that was the whole reason the south end trains are slated to be sent to Ballard is to avoid a train going from Tacoma to Everett. That is too long for a driver.
There are several ways to deal with that potential problem. One is to simply not extend the line that far. Another is to turn back the trains before they go that far. It doesn’t make sense to double up service all the way to Everett. So send the Redmond train to Everett, and the other train to Lynnwood or Northgate. This works for me.
I think rather than replace the shuttle with a sorta-3-line, they should run a 5 line from West Seattle, to Beacon Hill/Mt. Baker, then north to First Hill & Ballard. This would provide a lot of useful service, including:
– Doubling up on frequency from Ballard to First Hill to Mt. Baker, while splitting frequency before the train starts to run at-grade on MLK
– Doubles frequency within West Seattle, and giving one-seat rides from WS to both the DSTT and First Hill
– Runs two lines in both the DSTT and First Hill tunnels, making sure both expensive tunnels are fully utilized
The tricky things here are the junctions, since at both Mt. Baker and SODO station (if served, rather than skipped) the train would need to exit the opposite direction it entered. Both the Mt. Baker and SODO junctions would have to be torn up and rebuilt (or just built, in the case of Mt. Baker) so there is an opportunity to make a full wye at SODO. For Mt. Maker, there could be an elevated u-turn track that connects south of the station before it goes to grade level (there is one of these at Gateway station on the Portland MAX). In this case the turnaround could be a single track since both movements of the 5 line could be southbound to northbound.
Alternatively, this could be done with no turnaround trackwork or full WYE in SODO if it is acceptable to simply back trains in reverse direction of the station after serving it, much like what happens at terminus stations. This would allow it to cheaply serve both SODO and Mt. Baker, at the cost of requiring two train operators for some or all of the trip, and briefly blocking both directions of travel for the crossover.
Actually a West Seattle, Beacon Hill, First Hill, Ballard line has other advantages if it is built. The big reason is that it can be a stand alone line.
That means short, frequent, automated trains like SkyTrain could be operated.
The only interface would need to be Beacon Hill (well setup for center platform transfers) and that tunnel which would need to be operated for two types of trains.
The problem is however political. West Seattle expects trains to CID and Third Avenue. I’ll also note that SE Seattle and CID are both part of heavily less wealthy Asian community and Frank’s scheme severs the direct connections for the community so that’s another equity political problem.
I’m convinced that they will kick Line 1 out of the DSTT as soon as West Seattle link is ready because Tacoma to Lynnwood or Tacoma to Everett is just too long for one driver to drive. I fully expect ST to stop the south line at SODO before DSTT2 opens. It’s just one more reason why transfers at SODO need a better concept for the thousands that will transfer there in the current line concept.
Line 1 trains will not turn back at SoDo. They’ll continue to Northgate and use the tail track expensively with double cabbing. There just aren’t enough riders from West Seattle to dump the full trains from the south there.
I would prefer Line 1 to go to Northgate. I don’t want Line 1 to have its northern terminus at SODO. I’m in the three line for DSTT camp at least through 2040. However, I see ST summarily ignoring this solution of going to Northgate in all of their planning.
I’m mainly saying that the official ST3 scenario of a West Seattle stub seems dubious operationally once Lynnwood, Federal Way and Tacoma Dome extensions open — and especially if Everett Link opens before DSTT2. Line 1 will be so long that it will need two drivers.
[Fixed]
Frank, this idea is ridiculous operationally and you’re wrong to even propose it without disclosing how awful it would be for everyone with real service pattern numbers and connection to bases.
I see no major operational issue. During peak, when the trains are frequent, the SoDo to Mount Baker stub operates as a stand-alone line. It means riders have to transfer, but they don’t have to wait long (since, by definition, the other trains are frequent). By frequent I mean every six minutes. This would mean that trains headed to Redmond or West Seattle run every six minutes, and they combine for 3 hour service from downtown to Northgate (or even Lynnwood).
During midday, the trains run every ten minutes. You have a branch, followed by another branch. This would be done in a 3, 3, 4 pattern (which means high frequency on the main part of the system — downtown to UW). If you were at a particular shared station (e. g. Pioneer Square) it would look like this:
1:00 PM — Train heads to West Seattle.
1:03 PM — Train heads to Redmond.
1:06 PM — Train heads to Mount Baker (via Beacon Hill).
1:10 PM — Train heads to West Seattle (etc.)
It is clear that the ST design for DSTT2 is terrible. Ross tells us that a northbound branch to Ballard can be engineered and constructed somewhere downtown. I just do not agree.
Yes, southbound can be done at Third and Pine, or even probably at Fourth if the southbound platform is shortened a bit. But northbound is severely constructed by new building foundations all along the east side of Third and south side of Pine.
What works is to bore a single-track tunnel just east of the BNSF tunnel following the profile of the existing tunnel with left-side mined platforms exactly parallel to Pioneer Square and University/Seneca Street. Follow the center of the public right of way in order to avoid foundations and tie backs.
The public right of way of old Westlake Boulevard reaches Fourth between Pike and Pine. t that point the alignment would deviate into that public right of way to go north to Ballard via one of the planned routes.
Since the new tunnel would have to dive under the Westlake Center Station box, it would be possible to stack the southbound tunnel above it under Westlake, including the Denny Way station, staying well within the public right of way.
That would make for superb transfers to or from northbound new tunnel trains. A rider would simply spend or descend twenty-five feet to or from the new platform, from either existing platform.
If it does not work to merge southbound within the existing station box, then the southbound tunnel should diverge at Stewart where the angle is considerably wider than 90 degrees with a left-side platform immediately to the west of Westlake. Again, the tunnel would follow the center of Stewart and then Third south to Pine.
This would completely remove the troublesome New International District Station and the expensive portions of Midtown and New Westlake, the Mezzanines. Mining ten foot wide platforms with a few elevator shafts to buildings on the surface would be much cheaper than current plans.
Obviously it would make sense to have underground connections between the two pairs of northbound platforms to facilitate access up and downhill.
This could be done within the available budget.
Let it be said that if something so unorthodox as having service for one Line split into two tunnels is rejected, stubbing BLE is the best option, at least for now.
The first clause should end in “is rejected”.
P. S. The schedule northbound from IDS for this, assuming that East Link and Federal Way Link are each limited to six minute minimum headway’s would be: 00 Line 2 (Lynwood DSTT), 02 Line 1 (Ballard new tunnel), 04 Line 3 (Everett DSTT), 06 Line 2, 08 Line 1, 10 Line 3.
Peak service would be 00 Line 2, 03 Line 1, 05 Line 3, 10 Line 2, 13 Line 1, 15 Line 3…..
This would mean a 4-2-4-2 pattern for the main stem to Lynwood, but in the base service periods it would be an even 5-5-5-5 tempo.
Looking at the ridership demand, West Seattle branch by itself does not appear to ever need more than 10 minute Link service — even at peak times. The three station boarding forecasts combined are not that high, and a single four-car train can carry about what 8 articulated buses carry.
The ST2 EIS work all assumed 8 minute trains at peak times including East Link.
Crowded urban rail systems around the world usually merely squeeze in additional trains at peak times to ease overcrowding rather than keep symmetrical timetables once frequencies are as good as 10 or 15 minutes.
For Link, a base service at 3.3 minutes with additional trains as needed seems to be a good way to operate. ST could squeeze in 1 additional peak train for Line 1 and have trains every 2.5 minutes, or squeeze in two additional peak trains for Lines 1 and 2 and have trains every 2.0 minutes.
I would be in favor of interlining through DSTT1, and re-envisioning Ballard link as an extension that splits off from the main line north of U District station and heading to Ballard along 45th/the metro 44 corridor. The money saved on not needing DSTT2 could easily pay for this.
SLU and LQA are the only major station areas lost that were identified in the original ST3 proposal. The SLU streetcar could get some upgrades with signal prioritization, and turning Westlake into a pedestrian/transit street. Adding the CCC could actually make this attractive.
For LQA, the monorail is probably sufficient in conjunction with converting Thomas to a transit street, which I believe SDOT was looking into. Could even use DSTT2 savings to fund a tunneled (cut and cover) busway through the Seattle Center with a shallow station along Lenny Wilkens. This could even be designed for a future conversion to a rail line (metro 8)?
Ideally ST would study a new DSTT2 for the future when capacity constraints actually are actually realized. This would serve to Ross’s point of expanding both coverage and capacity. This study should look into extending into north Seattle, either along the 15th Ave NW, Aurora, or Greenwood corridors. ST could then plan for this extension with excellent transfers to the metro 44 subway.
I like that idea. I am ambivalent when it comes to the Ballard Line. I think it is by far the best major project with ST3, but that says more about the general weakness of ST3 than it does the strength of Ballard Link. I also think things have gotten worse over time. Everything is more expensive, and many of the proposals are significantly worse than what was sent to the voters. The Ballard Station is moving the wrong direction (literally). The Dravus Street Station may be a few blocks away from Dravus, making the main purpose of the station (as a bus intercept) more difficult. The Uptown Station is fine, but it isn’t ideal. The other stations are way too deep. As a result, the Aurora Station — designed to interface with the Aurora buses — may be too awkward to actually work. Riders headed downtown will simply stay on the bus. Even those taking a train south may transfer later. The Denny Station is too deep and too far west. If you are already on that line it is fine, but it won’t be worth transferring to. Likewise the Midtown Station. While it wouldn’t make sense to transfer to use the Westlake or CID station, it is worth pointing out that these will be significantly worse for riders than the existing stations.
Speaking of transfers, these will be terrible. All of this greatly weakens the value of the line. What looks fairly good on paper just won’t be that good. I do think there is value in speeding up the Ballard-Uptown-Downtown connection, but not at this cost, and not with the big flaws. We are probably better off just running more buses, and speeding them up.
In contrast, a Ballard-UW Line dramatically changes the transit network north of the ship canal. The speed difference is so large that even if they don’t get the details straight, it would still work (both for transfers and walk-up riders). I’m mentioned this before, but a subway would be faster than driving, at noon. That is clearly not the case with most of the trips on the proposed Ballard Link, with the exception being Uptown to downtown (which can be done via the monorail).
I think we are going to have to replace the monorail soon. It’s 60 years old! Refurbishment and more vehicles is great, but it’s a unique system and replacement vehicles must be bespoke.
A good option that I see is to move the monorail to be a museum or tourist piece and replace the aerial tracks with tracks for a transit vehicle that can be easily extended and replaced as well as run faster.
The monorail would have been a spectacular addition to the waterfront (say Colman Dock to Pike Place) but I think that opportunity has past.
The monorail was designated a local historic landmark a couple of decades ago (https://www.historylink.org/File/4159). I’m not sure if that status precludes removing removing them from service.
According to the article that Michael Ligot provides, only the train vehicles were ultimately landmarked in 2003. Plus, the system was modified in 1988 at Westlake so that’s not original to 1962 anymore.
Historic transit vehicles have been moved in many places.
Has there been something more recent? I don’t think so.
Since capacity is likely not going to be a constraint in North Link, this could be a viable solution, but do be aware that you really can’t junction anywhere south of the park at 50th, and northbound has to belly out and dive for at least a block to get under the existing tubes, so there will be a pretty big deviation to the north; it won’t be along 45th. You could diagonal under the Latona district to get back to 45th and maybe have a station at 52nd and Latona. To do this would require six stations: Latona, Wallingford/Stone Way (Woodlawn?), Aurora/Fremont, 48th and Eighth NW, Leary Way and 14th/15th, and “Central Ballard” (Leary and Market). I think it could be at grade west of the portal on the west side of Phinney Ridge.
Yes, that would require two lanes from Leary. Since the train would be on the surface, it might someday continue north of 24th to 60th, though that would mess up Market getting over to 24th. Maybe 22nd as a “transit mall”?
I agree that there are challenges digging a vault into both existing tunnels, but the construction impacts in the U District around 50th would not be as great as a whole new tunnel would be in the CID. I’m not sure what turn radius is required, but with slower speeds a sharper curve could be achieved that places the first station around 45th/Wallingford. I was envisioning something similar to what ST did a conceptual study on in 2016 (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/C-02_BallardtoUDist_FTemp.pdf), though this could certainly be modified to add or remove stations, or even tunnel down to lower Fremont.
The allowed curve depends on what you are willing to tolerate for speed. The walking speed curves in the SoDo shop building are as sharp as many street intersections. It means added time because the entire train needs to take the curve, so a 4 car train taking a 10 mph curve would seem to the passengers to take an eternity.
Casey, it’s not entirely the diameter of the curve that pushes the north point of the deviation farther than might seem necessary, but also that the north-to-west track has to drop at least twenty-five feet, and probably thirty, to underrun the existing tubes. Grant, it’s downhill in a waterproof tunnel, so “tractive effort” isn’t an issue, but the faster at the bottom, the broader the turning radius.
Sure, you could skip Latona, but as a completely out-of-the-box thought, “What about 53rd and Roosevelt?” Much ink has been spilled here lamenting the lack of a “North U-District” station between UDS and Roosevelt. U District density is basically unbroken all the way to 65th. Yes, it wanes somewhat, but there is lots of opportunity for redevelopment there. This could be that station, without irritating the potentates of SnoHoCo.
Grant, it wouldn’t have great connectivity to the north — folks would go south first to go north — but the reversal would be cross-platform. Also, it would have half the service of Roosevelt.
But if the disruption of an added connection in the north portion of the U District is chosen, at least give them a station.
I’ve been advocating exactly that busway tunnel you mentioned for a few years from time to time as an alternative to BLE. I think it would vastly improve a Ballard tramway, too, by bringing it lower to LQA.
It seems like such an obvious improvement, I’m surprised nobody else has liked it. I’m sure you haven’t noticed that it has been mooted before. Good for you for coming up with it too. Thank you. With you mentioning it too, some of the regulars may consider it.
Have they considered a shallow station on 5th Ave north of Jackson? Far fewer businesses to disrupt, empty lots along there available for staging, and could still have a direct underground pedestrian connection across Jackson to the existing CID station.
I too have wondered if the CID options should be expanded to move the station vaults north or south.
For example, I could see an aerial station above the tracks north of Fourth/ Jackson, with them diving into the hill where the firehouse is just north of there. That would save blocks of digging. There could be north-south walkways under Jackson that could connect to long escalators up to platforms. A variation to this would be for ST and the railroad to work with a private developer to build a skyscraper on top of the station and tracks on that block so that all the parties could make profit from the investment.
Alternatively, a new Fourth Ave viaduct could be build above the tracks just west of the viaduct today, and the platforms could be slid north or south a block or two depending on the best placement. It seems easier to build if the existing viaduct could remain in place until the new one opens just to the west. If only they could do some backroom negotiations with the railroad to get the air rights to build that.
ST treats the CID as if any block can be taken out — while not considering any alternative that uses the “dead space” above the tracks west of Fourth. Even if the railroad gets hundreds of millions, it seems easier and cheaper to construct the station this way if the air above the tracks can be used.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/king-county-scraps-plans-to-build-homeless-services-hub-near-cid/
This suggests the CID has some political clout. Maybe the new shelter can go in Ballard or West Seattle since each will have light rail transit.
Send the new shelter to Bellevue, instead of trying to build another shelter in a historically marginalized minority community. Build some new county jails in North Bend. Spread the wealth. The Eastside can’t pocket all the benefits of our metropolitan area and externalize all the undesirables of the entire county to Seattle proper. All the social services and emergency housing for the junkies are in Seattle. There’s nothing magical about the Eastside, they are just good at making sure 95% of these social services stay in Seattle.
I still find it bizarre that the downtown tunnel is to be considered too crowded at what will be 15 trains per hour, when there are systems out there running double that.
I’d build the basic track structure as the Chiachiere plan, except:
• Build expanded turning facilities at Northgate.
• Turn Everett trains at Mt Baker
• Turn Tacoma Trains at Northgate.
The above items keep everyone on the same line as they are currently using.
• Add a third Y leg at Stadium, and put West Seattle trains on the line to Judkins Park, route them to First Hill, SLU and Ballard.
This prevents riders from significantly altering their current routing, except West Seattle and Ballard riders will have to transfer somewhere. However, there aren’t anywhere near as many West Seattle riders having to transfer as there would be Line 1 riders trying to get onto West Seattle and East Link trains.
This also helps the transfer situation because East Link riders can get to SLU by completely bypassing the core downtown stations by transferring to West Seattle – Ballard trains.
Supposedly, the most overcrowded part of the line in terms of passenger estimates will be Capitol Hill to Westlake. As such, a need for a second transit tunnel in terms of passenger capacity is there, not the core of downtown. If that is the case, there need to be as many trains as possible running through the current DSTT so they can continue to UW. Separating out the West Seattle and Ballard traffic and making that the separate line helps maintain the most capacity where it is actually needed.
Given unlimited budget, it would actually be preferable to figure out how to add a 520 Montlake station, transfer station at Capitol Hill, and get something over to Belltown, but there’s no way to do all that with a single line.
So are you saying that WSBLE would go (northbound, showing junctions and neighborhoods only) Alaska Junction, SoDo, Stadium, some as yet undefined (and high in the air) junction with East Link somewhere around Airport Way, another junction somewhere around 13th or 14th Avenue and I-90 toward the north through First Hill and Lower Capitol Hill, a new set of platforms at Capitol Hill then west through SLU, LQA and Interbay to Ballard?
Or did you mean to turn southward to shared use of Judkins Park before looping back north?
Also, would you continue the line on north to that new Montlake station and head west from there, avoiding a junction in the existing tunnel?
If the City were willing to upzone the areas of First Hill and Capitol Hill for such a line, it would be useful, for sure, but you might get major pushback from West Seattle and Ballard about running around downtown.
I don’t think there is a way to hit all the areas that need it with a single line, it’s just that if there is to be a second DSTT, it would be good if that were put where the actual passenger overcrowding is going to be.
A U-shaped line was actually in ST’s long range plan or WSBLE’s earliest candidates, although it went further east on Jackson-23rd-Denny. An ST staff said one person had suggested it at an open house. The board was bewildered by it and doubted people would ride it, and nobody stepped up to defend it so the board deleted it.
“If the City were willing to upzone the areas of First Hill and Capitol Hill for such a line”
The parts around Broadway and 12th are already upzoned and have been getting denser. This isn’t a case where the area is low-density and unsuitable for rail. Link is because of the existing population needs it, not just for future growth. Maybe the eastern part to 23rd should be upzoned, but how much? I could see it like Bellevue Ave with 70-story buildings. On the other hand, serving Garfield HS, Little Saigon, and eastern Capitol Hill as-is would also be worthwhile.
I didn’t understand this line at first either, thinking most people would transfer downtown and be frustrated it detours so much. And it would make West Seattle to Ballarc worse. But that’s not a major trip pattern. Going from West Seattle or downtown to east Jackson or 23rd would also be a singificant travel pattern. And going from West Seattle to 15th on Capitol Hill wouldn’t be that much of a detour, and even detouring to Broadway might be tolerable to avoid a transfer. Likewise, it would connect Ballard, Interbay, and Uptown to Broadway, 15th, the Garfield HS area, and transfers to the 48. And it would solve the problem of no rapid transit to the top of Capitol Hill, so you get off at Capitol Hill Station and have to walk uphill or transfer to a bus.
(This is similar to the Queen Anne alternative for Ballard, which would have made the top of Queen Anne an elevator ride away, solving its transit access problem in one step, and connecting it to both downtown and Fremont. Queen Anners weren’t interested enough to advocate for it; they didn’t want anything that would bring growth.)
70 stories EAST of Broadway, down to 23rd? If density and/or housing or even TOD were the goals I could see allowing the same zoning in SLU and Belltown from Broadway WEST to downtown.
My concern is that scale of building massing would destroy the unique character of Broadway which is one of the very few vibrant retail villages in Seattle, and Seattle has more than sufficient zoning capacity under its current zoning to meet its GMPC housing growth targets for the next 22 years. when those future population growth estimates probably will prove to be high post pandemic.
If the goal is to manufacture the ridership for a WSBLE line or DSTT2 I don’t think those are financially viable without some external funding source (ST 4 or SB5528) and each neighborhood along any line will put up the same fight the CID is waging. Passing SB5528 for WSBLE won’t be easier if neighborhoods along the line are told upzoning and Donald Trump style development are part of the plan.
If politics is a consideration I would wait to see future Link ridership before upzoning sensitive ecosystems like Capitol Hill and ST has the money to build any of this because transit capacity is certainly not an issue today, and if it were then run more trains. Getting into a zoning fight with Capitol Hill or any area along this route — which couldn’t start until after the update to the comp. — plan is adopted in 2024 right when supposedly East Link will double frequency on this line would be to say the least contentious.
Generally every neighborhood or community or business interest I have seen has valued their unique character over Link.
The goal here is to:
1. Retain as much train throughput in the current DSTT as possible, because the place that is estimated to have the most passenger demand is Westlake to UW. The twin DSTT proposal runs only Eastside and West Seattle trains through the current tunnel, which may not be enough for the highest ridership section.
2. Retain existing destination pairs.. With the existing DSTT2 plan, Rainier Valley and other riders from the south lose easy access to downtown, and have to use much deeper stations.
3. Put 3 lines through the existing DSTT, as ST seems to have capacity for that.
4. Use as much existing line as possible. By using the existing East Link line between Stadium and Judkins Park for the West Seattle to Ballard trains, it avoids building a new line from Mt Baker to Judkins Park.
5. It avoids a new tunnel in the exceedingly problematic and expensive downtown core.
6. It reduces some crowding and entanglement at some transfer locations. Eg, Eastside to SLU transfers would happen at Judkins Park, not Westlake. West Seattle to Eastside transfers happen at Judkins Park or Stadium, not Stadium or Westlake.
7. You avoid some of the costs because the new line doesn’t have to have 4 car stations to accommodate the longer trains on the other lines. Witness TriMet building the entire Better Red project for less than the ST 130th Street station.
8. Reduce crowding on the DSTT lines. On the map, it might look like either this or the Chiachiere plan causes more people to transfer, but if the new stations are 200 feet deep, then people will probably transfer anyway to be closer to the surface, leading to more crowding on the remaining trains in that tunnel. My concept would result in more trains in the existing DSTT.
9. Rather than spend money duplicating the existing tunnel, use the construction money to add more destinations.
I meant 7-story, not 70-story. Bellevue Avenue has had 7-story buildings since at least the early 2000s. Broadway was stuck at 4 stories until much later, and developers refused to replace 1-2 story buildings with 4 stories, so the standalone Safeway and QFC stores remained vacant after they closed. Finally the city upzoned, and 6-story mixed-use buildings quickly replaced them. In the meantime in the lot north of them (the head of Broadway where the 49 turns), a 4-story building went up under the old rules. So two floors of housing are missing that could have been there.
The recent buildings across from the college are similar, as are the ones at the Link station, and others north of the Broadway Market. So whatever Daniel is afraid of losing is already gone, in some cases over a decade ago.
Mike, if you feel the character of Capitol Hill was lost long ago with the very mild upzone to 6 to 7 stories in limited areas then why not upzone Capitol Hill to the same density as First Hill, SLU, and Belltown, which is around 40 stories. If a four story building left 2 stories of housing on the table, with a 40 story height limit four stories leaves around 38 stories on the table.
If zoning for density is the holy grail despite the fact Seattle does not need to upzone any zone to meet its GMPC housing targets through 2044 then Broadway or 15th) to 1st Ave. is the obvious area to upzone because Capitol Hill is so under zoned. Plus it would really gentrify the area between 15th and Broadway that is a little “eclectic”. Why is Capitol Hill zoned 6 to 7 in limited areas (and SFH in others) when First Hill to the south, UW to the north, and Belltown to the west, have much greater density? (Hint: politics).
Sure the Capitol Hill neighborhood association would barbecue you for suggesting such an upzone, and I would agree with them. A good rule of thumb is an area’s zoning is related to the resident’s political pull, and the desire of the residents. Does everywhere in the entire region need to resemble Bellevue Way?
Too often transit advocates and progressives are willing to destroy the fragile fabric of a zone — especially a rare vibrant retail zone in Seattle — simply to manufacture ridership for transit or for some strange ideological reason when destroying a neighborhood like Capitol Hill won’t create affordable housing, or manufacture the ridership to meet ST’s crazy ridership estimates, and is not necessary to meet Seattle’s GMPC future housing growth targets.
You convince the Capitol Hill groups to upzone Capitol Hill — for any reason — let alone to 40 stories then you might have a chance at upzoning the SFH neighborhoods which would create even less affordable housing and manufacture zero transit ridership, and are politically powerful.
West Seattle – Ballard link has the most ridership potential but is one of the most expensive single projects in ST history only being eclipsed by the entire ST3 package itself and being nearly the same cost as the entire ST2 package
The cost is bonkers
I find it curious that Frank’s Line 1 proposal almost parallels the FHSC. To me, that begs an initial question: Should the FHSC be expanded to make this connection, perhaps with some grade separated segment replacements?
More broadly, I realize that subways are generally better for faster travel, but is it really faster if the stations are deep and the destinations are close? If it takes 3-5 minutes to get from the surface to the platform at one station and 3-5 minutes to get back to the street at the destination station, is a deep subway that advantageous — especially when the rail trip requires a transfer taking another 4-5 minutes as well as waiting for another train? I look at how long it takes to get from Denny/Westlake to Capitol Hill and realize that the station walking at each end and for the transfer and it looks like that alone is 10-15 minutes even without counting the time waiting for and riding on the trains.
An incremental solution using Link technology is often what people first propose, but a two dimensional representation in a map ignores the basic challenge of central Seattle being an area of elevation changes and steep hills.
Rather than always assume Link trains for a proposal, I think the better solution is to look at central Seattle circulation needs and travel times more broadly, and consider alternatives that fully provide a system of efficient connectivity at a reasonable speed (speed for the rider including station access times in addition to train times). This has been missing from the ST3 planning — and even SDOT planning for at least a decade. Looking at expansion as a three dimensional challenge (especially underground) could shift what is the more effective set of projects.
I look at the extra billions required for DSTT2 south of Westlake as well as Frank’s proposal here and can’t help wonder how much better the funds could be spent if ST puts the three lines in the existing tunnel — and enhance connectivity in Central Seattle in other ways. Then, if extra capacity is needed, don’t push people 80-100 feet under the street but look at other supplemental capacity closer to the surface.
The time it takes to get between the surface and the station depends on how fast one is capable of walking up and down the escalators. UW station and Capitol Hill station, it takes me about 2 minutes each direction, if the escalators are not crowded. For someone that has to stand, rather than walk, on the escalators, it’s going to take longer.
Yes, although I believe that walking on an escalator is not considered safe.
The UW Station is 95 feet deep. Capitol Hill Station is 75 feet deep.
The proposed DSTT2 Downtown Seattle stations are about this deep if not more. Using the preferred options, Westlake is proposed at 135 feet deep. Midtown is proposed at 170 feet deep. Denny is set at 125. The “shallow” CID platforms are still down 90-115 feet. SLU is at 120 feet deep. Even Seattle Center is at 85 feet deep.
These are not convenient for short trips around Downtown. It appears that they will take a rider longer than UW does for the most part.
We’re talking DEEP.
That’s why I really feel that even something like Frank proposes here will have this depth problem. I realize that engineering would need to estimate the depths but I don’t see them getting better under the top of First Hill.
I talked to some ST designer at the open house and he said that there are so many skyscrapers downtown with deep parking garages and foundations, that it really makes it difficult to build another tunnel unless you go deep or fit it under an existing ROW. That may even create challenges to Frank’s proposal. Also, going up from a deep Westlake station to the top of First Hill won’t be easy using existing Link technology, ST1 decided it can’t be done. It might be better to consider other technologies for the Ballard line such as maglev which can handle 10% gradient and then just terminate the line at Mt Baker.
Was Harrell or Constantine at the meeting. My guess is no because this is such a hot “equity” political issue. Would have loved it if someone from the audience had shouted out, “where does the other $10 billion come from”?
Yes this is true.
There are other factors like the AWV tunnel and the hills and the existing DSTT too.
Then there is the challenge of 400 foot platforms at each station.
There are not merely design challenges. They are at a scale significant enough that suggests that a broader look at Downtown circulation is needed rather than merely move DSTT2 and it’s stations around.
Not only does a Link station have to be 400 ft long, it has to be straight and practically flat whereas other cities/technologies allow for more flexibility.
“Was Harrell or Constantine at the meeting.”
Boardmembers have never been at open houses that I recall. This is a time for staff to gather input from the public. The board gets the results later in a board meeting.
Did anyone go to the open house? How did it go?
Good attendance from the ST Board as there was an Expansion Committee meeting right before. Presentations were really short (by the CID-rethink project manager Laurie, deputy mayor, ST CEO etc), no public questions, but lots of attendance from local residents (incl. translators) and some officials from the city (Sara Maxana) etc
Daniel, Constantine has not had much presence at ST Board meetings since he got reelected. Claudia Balducci was already heading out on her bike when I arrived, I briefly talked to Kent Keel. I did not see Harrell even though he and Joe McDermott are members of the Expansion committee.
There were several stations for input and discussion mostly on how the new station could be aligned with the goals of the CID. Another one was focused on alternative locations. One could be further South where both lines are already stacked upon each other but the ST person I talked to was concerned that there may not be 400 feet of straight line available whereas I suggested that this could be a great location for a new transit mall with office space or apartments above as there are plans to redevelop this area anyways. (North of Royal Brougham Way, I believe there is a 500 ft stretch)
If you want your input heard, ST is doing another survey: https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7059074/WSBLE-CID-Further-Studies-Survey
Thanks Martin!
My first thoughts for survey feedback are: ‘Transit riders are community members, workers, and patrons. There’s too much focus on keeping the station away from the community to avoid “negative impacts”. But having a station that’s conveniently close to neighborhood businesses and bus transfers is essential. It’s standard practice in all the countries represented in the CID. A 5th Avenue shallow station is the shortest walk to the most destinations and transfers. Alternatives on 4th and deep stations reduce the walkshed, which should be recognized as a negative factor.’
I don’t have a problem with the temporary impact if it adds long term value. The problem is, this doesn’t. I keep going back to this as the fundamental failing of the new tunnel. It doesn’t add value. In fact, it makes things worse for almost all riders of the new tunnel. The stations at Westlake and I. D. will be worse than the existing stations, no matter where they decide to put them. The single station at “Midtown” is not as good as the two stations at University Street and Pioneer Square. You have to be headed practically above the station to prefer the new tunnel. Even then, with the excessive depth, you might prefer one of the existing stations. These are all existing riders, who have a worse experience because of the new tunnel.
Then there are riders who want to transfer. Right now, a lot of south-end riders take the train to the UW, Roosevelt and Northgate. That will go away. They will be forced to transfer. This transfer will be terrible. Thus existing trips will be much worse in downtown as well as elsewhere.
In contrast, look at what Toronto is building. They had real crowding, instead of the theoretical, maybe, you-never-know kind of crowding folks are worried about here. After increasing capacity with better trains and better signalling, they decided to build a “relief” line.
And what a relief line it is! The Ontario Line will not only reduce crowding on the main line, but it will add significant coverage in various parts of Toronto. It won’t force riders into bad transfers, or otherwise make their commutes worse. Transfers will be very good, and more than anything, worth making.
If we really need relief from the crowding, this is what we should do. Toronto is just following standard practice — we aren’t. We are building a second tunnel for no good reason, which is it isn’t worth the money, let alone the disruption.
“But having a station that’s conveniently close to neighborhood businesses and bus transfers is essential. It’s standard practice in all the countries represented in the CID. A 5th Avenue shallow station is the shortest walk to the most destinations and transfers.”
Mike, I think the CID would respond that there is already a station there, one that serves as a junction for riders from the north, south, and in the future the east. This line is not even close to capacity, and may never reach capacity post pandemic, and in three years when East Link opens will naturally double in frequency. They might also point out the businesses you reference and want to visit were built with their sweat and blood, well before transit.
Ross looks at DSTT2 and/or WSBLE from the perspective of whether either provides good transit, or makes sense transit wise, which is a classic essential public facilities analysis when a community objects to a proposed public project (public benefit vs. harm to community), but the CID stakeholders look at the issue more personally: does a DSTT2 (SECOND) station and the 10 years of construction (whether the station is on 4th or 5th because closing 4th effectively closes 5th) benefit them in the short or long term. They don’t think it does, and based on likely ridership I have to agree. The current station serves everyone from Tacoma to Everett to Redmond with plenty of capacity. What more do transit advocates want?
I don’t think it helps when it takes ST forever to build anything, and during construction the site looks like a war zone. On Mercer Island ST has been building the roundabout to serve the bus intercept for around 7 months, and it has been a war zone. There have been at least five different temporary lane configurations on N. Mercer Way, and the latest half round about is too tight to allow buses from the west to exit onto 77th and then turn onto N. Mercer Way eastbound, so all the cars at the light have to back up to allow the bus to turn. Talk about a white elephant post pandemic and post eastside transit restructure. We will have a roundabout that won’t be needed until 2025 at the earliest, and in the meantime can’t accommodate buses from the west.
The other thing I don’t think helps ST’s cause is when the ST reps at these public meetings all look like they just graduated from college and their urban studies course. I have been to dozens of these “public meetings” from ST to the WSF in which the stakeholders are broken up and shunted from booth to booth with someone from ST who knows nothing, and Al is correct: it is a charade. ST’s reps manipulate the responses for the summary, no one on the Board reads the comment summaries let alone the comments themselves, and then cull the ones they want, and present them to the Board at a public meeting.
This time however the CID is organized, and Harrell is very, very skeptical about this project (who wouldn’t be after Balducci’s bombshell), in part because he knows this contentious process will be repeated at every proposed station from the CID to Ballard. Sure the CID has “equity” on their side, but that just means they don’t have money and need equity. Amazon doesn’t need equity, neither does the Chamber, nor any of the neighborhoods north of the CID. The Queen Anne neighborhood assoc. litigated the MHA forever, and I doubt public transit is on the top of their list.
One of the main reasons to spend the money to build a tunnel in an urban setting is to avoid disruption. That was pretty easy with the Viaduct tunnel (which is now experiencing financial issues due to low use post pandemic to the tune of around $27 million/year) because it went under the former Viaduct, not up 5th.
What will be interesting to see is if the CID’s objection to a second station — thus proving transit is not everyone’s vision of a benefit — begins the process to reevaluate WSBLE from the ground up, or whether ST ignores the CID, or proposes some lame mitigation (cash), which would mean this tragic play will have to continue until Harrell and the Board have a show down over ST 4 or SB5528, with the four other subareas wanting to kill their contribution to DSTT2.
Even if WSBLE and DSTT2 were FANSTASTIC transit we would be having this debate for a tunnel along 5th because light rail really does not benefit businesses very much. The fact it is terrible transit should have made this debate unnecessary. You can’t have essential public facilities debate if the public facility provides no benefit.
“I think the CID would respond that there is already a station there, one that serves as a junction for riders from the north, south, and in the future the east.”
It won’t serve the south when WSBLE is built. It will serve West Seattle.
“This line is not even close to capacity, and may never reach capacity post pandemic”
The issue isn’t capacity, it’s access from all directions.
“the businesses you reference and want to visit were built with their sweat and blood, well before transit.”
Think about that again. There were streetcars in place when those businesses were started. Chinese immigrants came to work on railroads. There weren’t streetcars when Maynard built their first plats, but there were soon later. Transit-oriented cities modernize and upgrade their networks, and having a regional station steps from the most destinations is exactly what they do, so that the most people will use transit and find it convenient.
“On Mercer Island ST has been building the roundabout to serve the bus intercept for around 7 months, and it has been a war zone.”
If it had been built when I-90 was completed in the 80s it wouldn’t be a war zone now. That could have happened if Forward Thrust had passed.
“Harrell is very, very skeptical about this project”
You’re assuming a lot about Harrell. During the election you said he won because of his commitment to the police, that “safety is the only issue”. Later you said it’s because he’s against upzoning. Now you say he’s skeptical about this project. If so, he could tell the board, and then there would be one boardmember who publicly wants something other than ST3 as planned.
“this contentious process will be repeated at every proposed station from the CID to Ballard”
If it had, it would have started already. Other stations have been built with more or less contention sometimes, but they were built. There’s no indication the other stations will be as contentious as this one.
If the station is built at 4th or a couple blocks north or south, Harrell will declare victory and call it a day. It will still be a CID station, just a less effective one, the way a 14th Ballard station would be less effective than 15th or 20th. Fortunately the distances proposed for the CID station are less out of the way than for the Ballard station.
“Even if WSBLE and DSTT2 were FANSTASTIC transit we would be having this debate for a tunnel along 5th because light rail really does not benefit businesses very much.”
It would bring more customers. Good transit has the potential to bring the majority of customers, as it does in many cities.
“I think the CID would respond that there is already a station there, one that serves as a junction for riders from the north, south, and in the future the east.”
It won’t serve the south when WSBLE is built. It will serve West Seattle.
But only if we build it that way. It should interline, so that is serves all of those places.
“I have been to dozens of these “public meetings” from ST to the WSF in which the stakeholders are broken up and shunted from booth to booth with someone from ST who knows nothing, and Al is correct: it is a charade. ”
Thanks for also seeing this. It amazes me how local agencies and even transit advocates conflate public outreach (multi-lingual, number of meetings held) with public involvement (eliciting constructive feedback and adjusting proposals based on that feedback). They collectively have convinced many local people that this is normal by calling it their approach to the “Seattle process” — which is the strategy to let flakes and whiners vent while summarily ignoring more constructive comments that are mixed in. Then the real impact is only happening by interest groups behind the scenes. The quality of public feedback in Seattle is terrible yet so many think it’s good or even awesome because the agencies say that it is.
These are sure signs of a charade:
1. Only one (or two very similar) build alternatives.
2. Meetings with more time allocated to presentations than feedback and discussion, with discussion time being heavily restricted.
3. Lack of elected officials attending and listening to opinions.
4. Dedicated public involvement staff running the meeting, with no technical expertise in the discussion.
5. Lack of interactive feedback besides token “scribing” that gets summarily ignored as Daniel describes.
6. Lack of discussion and recordable choices on valid tradeoffs (cost, time, user benefits and costs).
7. Targeted meeting noticing to cater to a specific group (like bicyclists or property owners) while not telling the public at large (even not telling SE Seattle Link riders that ST plans to sever service to Third Ave and North Seattle at their Link stations, or not telling North Seattle residents that they are severing a direct airport train).
The latest incarnation — the “racial equity toolkit” — is a continuation of this. It talks about “equity” while kicking poorer residents of color from SE Seattle and South King out of the DSTT trains so wealthier people from West Seattle can use it instead — with absolutely no recognition that the bias pervades the WSBLE. What good is a toolkit anyway when it’s an afterthought after the idea has already been assembled?
Al, very good summary on how ST’s public outreach program works, it’s essentially a marketing effort: they try to convince the public that ST has their concerns in mind. No real input is collected or only used selectively.
There were a few technical people on hand to have a technical discussion, but at the end they just referred to the young note takers.
“The other thing I don’t think helps ST’s cause is when the ST reps at these public meetings all look like they just graduated from college and their urban studies course. I have been to dozens of these “public meetings” from ST to the WSF in which the stakeholders are broken up and shunted from booth to booth with someone from ST who knows nothing, and Al is correct: it is a charade. ST’s reps manipulate the responses for the summary, no one on the Board reads the comment summaries let alone the comments themselves, and then cull the ones they want, and present them to the Board at a public meeting.”
Do you actually believe this Daniel?
Are you saying that WSF, WSDOT, and any agency operates in secret, or with a pre-determined outcome?
I guess you sharing Senator Horn’s insight as to getting things done was reliant upon working the politics early in the process is true.
All of this will show in the EIS, comments, documents, etc.
I’ll use your color commentary as a lead in to responding to Al S’s bullet points, using my experience on the I-405 Corridor Program Citizens Committee as examples:
1. Only one (or two very similar) build alternatives.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m seeing more than 1 choice in ST’s documentation (usually 3 or more), although the CID options have that classic Seattle topographical constraint of ‘we need to put it near the most logical place for a transit hub’, and that’s where it was historically. Maybe Frank Chiachiere’s “out of the box” thinking will stimulate some other options. (sometimes those off-the-wall suggestions have a grain of truth that actually dovetails with another option and makes that option more viable (guilty as charged))
2. Meetings with more time allocated to presentations than feedback and discussion, with discussion time being heavily restricted.
Most people showing up for public meetings aren’t as well versed in the details as the transit nerds here, so they need to be brought up to speed. One of the interesting things I discovered at the I-405 Citizens Committee meetings, which all had time set aside for someone from the public (not a committee member) to express an opinion, was that we on the committee, and even from our information from the technical staff (Steering Committee in the I-405 Program)…
Had Already Thought Of That.
It’s not that we didn’t welcome input, but the regular citizenry doesn’t always follow these things as close. (I liked it when it supported my position, especially)
3. Lack of elected officials attending and listening to opinions.
Which elected officials? The ones representing a particular stakeholder’s viewpoint? All of them? How many meetings should they attend?
4. Dedicated public involvement staff running the meeting, with no technical expertise in the discussion.
So, when I have a complaint about the crappy software I’m using I should be able to be transferred to the programmer that wrote the application?
(That assumes that they actually speak one of the 7,000+ languages spoken and written in the world, as opposed to computer-geek-speak)
The dedicated ‘public involvement staff’ are the ones who are getting paid. Given that the people who work their day job developing the technical data are no doubt salaried, it’s extra work for them. For the I-405 and SR-520_Bridge projects, the public meetings did include those technicians. I’ve spoken with a number of them. In fact, they all had to ‘serve time’ attending the public meetings (for the I-405 program at least).
In order to ‘share the pain’, they did rotate through those staff members. Since I was attending almost every public meeting (in addition to the Citizens Committee ones, I would find out if one of those people was going to be at a meeting, and would be told “Oh yeah, ‘so-and-so’ developed that, and he’s going to be at the Renton meeting.
It’s by chance that you could run into that particular person at a meeting.
(and in one case, a citizen’s questions about the ERC weren’t getting answered, and I was happy to give her answers that the staff person wasn’t able to readily supply. (with a surprising reply from said citizen))
Are you suggesting they be on-call 24/7?
5. Lack of interactive feedback besides token “scribing” that gets summarily ignored as Daniel describes.
Is this inside information from Daniel? Maybe he has more gems from Senator Horn to share? (at least from my perspective concerning the I-405 corridor)
6. Lack of discussion and recordable choices on valid tradeoffs (cost, time, user benefits and costs).
Look, even my cursory glances (for ST3 projects) at the presentation data show the costs, time, and ‘user benefits and costs’. I spent 2+ years giving my and my advocacy group’s viewpoint to the I-405 EIS development.
When the original scoping meetings for Sound Transit (1) were being developed, it had all sorts of public involvement. It’s only after the initial options were developed that it seemed to others who didn’t care at the beginning that ‘things were dreamed up’.
7. Targeted meeting noticing to cater to a specific group (like bicyclists or property owners) while not telling the public at large (even not telling SE Seattle Link riders that ST plans to sever service to Third Ave and North Seattle at their Link stations, or not telling North Seattle residents that they are severing a direct airport train).
What are you talking about?
These meeting notices are all on the Sound Transit website.
How many individual hands are you expecting ST to hold?
I remember one of the complaints of the media-relations staff members for the I-405 program, was that they’d give all the information to all the local media, newspapers, TV, radio, etc. and to her, it never felt like it got passed on. Remember, the news carries it “If it bleeds… [It leads]”
“4. Dedicated public involvement staff running the meeting, with no technical expertise in the discussion.
So, when I have a complaint about the crappy software I’m using I should be able to be transferred to the programmer that wrote the application?”
Sometimes there is an engineer there. There should always be. It’s their project the open house is about. Some feedback depends on the public talking with engineers to clarify technical issues.
Jim, certainly different agencies do a varying job when it comes to public input.
Also, 405 is an existing highway with right of way being expanded. WSBLE is a rail transit project pretty much on completely new right of way (and including the purchase of new transit vehicles) that must be bought or taken (including many hundreds of residents displaced). That pretty much suggests that many more alternatives should be considered.
Look at the Midtown Station history. It appeared out of thin air in 2016. No studies. It was simply put on the ST3 map. Later, First Hill residents tried to move it less than 1000 feet away and the Board summarily declared it to be “incompatible with ST3” even though original Ballard and West Seattle station sites were just as far apart. It’s like there was this secret backroom player creating the outcome.
I could get into bullet points to counter each of your comments. I don’t see the need for that. The circumstances speak for themselves. I have been at and often talk with people who have been at transportation project meetings where the lead engineer or designer made the presentation and answered questions rather than junior PR staff, as an example.
Instead let me ask this: Did anyone besides an elected official or wealthy stakeholder interest significantly influence the design of the project beyond a mitigation for adjacent property impacts?
“First Hill residents tried to move it less than 1000 feet away and the Board summarily declared it to be “incompatible with ST3””
ST said multiple things about that at different times. First it said it was out of scope for ST3 (because downtown is a regional destination promised in the ballot measure). Then it said it was premature to consider it at that stage of the EIS process: there would be time to advocate for it later in the process. Then that time came and ST said, “Too late, you should have suggested it earlier.”
“Do you actually believe this Daniel?
“Are you saying that WSF, WSDOT, and any agency operates in secret, or with a pre-determined outcome?
“I guess you sharing Senator Horn’s insight as to getting things done was reliant upon working the politics early in the process is true.
“All of this will show in the EIS, comments, documents, etc.”
Yes Jim, I believe this, and why the proposed design for DSTT2 is terrible for the one group who needs it and will use it: transit riders. Because transit riders were never at the table during the “scoping process”.
Jim Horn was my state senator when I was tasked by my neighborhood on Whidbey from moving the Keystone Ferry Terminal one mile south to accept Issaquah Class ferries. He taught me some very good lessons:
1. The legislature allocates funding for only two years. Without the money there is no project. Every two years.
2. The only folks in the legislature who care are the legislators who serve that district and need those votes. Luckily Mary Margaret Haugen and Lynn Kessler were very powerful.
3. The process isn’t so much nefarious but flawed. The young Turks in the agency desperately want to get the green light because then they have tens of millions, or even billions, to spend, which gives them job security and makes them important in their fields.
4. If you get to the DEIS you are too late. Better to politically end the funding before getting to a DEIS because the cake is baked by that time, and suing under the EIS is very hard and expensive.
5. No one reads the public comments, especially if there are thousands, and as usual they will be all over the board. The agency prepares a “summary” of each comment, but the summary often has little correlation to the comment. The Board or legislators never even read the comment summaries.
Maybe you had more success getting WSDOT to listen to your concerns re: 520 and 405. I never participated in either since both had so many powerful stakeholders involved, and I knew from personal experience 405 needed to be widened and 520 replaced.
Luckily for me the ferry project was beyond stupid and “only” $80 million, and I was able to show the folks who turned out at the public meetings (many not hosted by WSF) and their legislators that one ferry every 90 minutes would devastate their tourism industry that are based on a 45-minute table turnover so WSF could repurpose their ferries if another ferry went down on a more important route (and as Horn told me, every other route is more important than this route that he called “from nowhere to nowhere, although beautiful”. So the funding was killed before a DEIS. Afterward Horn told me the rest of the legislature were ecstatic when Haugen and Kessler said their districts did not want the $80 million, only to find out they wanted a new terminal at Keystone and new electric class ferries (ahead of their time).
ST is a different beast because it is a separate agency, and I have been through their public process for Mercer Island many times, from station design to bus intercept design. A totally pointless process, because ST even admitted the projects were at “65% design completion” before they were even presented to us, which to them means 95% and no changes are possible. I have NEVER met an agency as arrogant as ST, which of course was before the pandemic and the emperor was shown to have no clothes. I have also never seen an agency fall so far so fast as ST, which today looks vulnerable and stupid.
Just look at the proposed design for DSTT2 and ask yourself who came up with that, because someone did? Transit riders? Obviously not. The CID? Obviously not. The Chamber and downtown property owners and businesses, and neighborhood groups. Bingo. They don’t care about tunnel depth or transfer times. THEY DON’T WANT CAR TRAFFIC AFFECTED. PERIOD.
The way the process works is the agency begins a “scoping process” in which it reaches out to powerful stakeholders, whom they do listen to (think Bellevue). I don’t care if this is ST, WSF or just the Mercer Island Parks Dept. (which is why we formed a parks commission to include the citizens in the scoping process). These agency staff, as you note, hate dealing with the public, whom they believe are unqualified to have an opinion. Then they begin a design based on those stakeholder comments. Then they go back to the stakeholders. All well before anything is provided to the public.
By the time the DEIS is begun the agency is vested in its design. There may be more than one proposal but there is always a favored design. It is a matter of ego for the agency staff. It also is what the powerful stakeholders want. No one will ever read the public comments and they have no legal force. The Board won’t even read the summary of the public comments.
Only when a neighborhood like the CID publicly calls ST racist does it get the Board’s attention. And Harrell’s, who actually is on the side of the Chamber and stakeholders who believe revitalizing downtown Seattle is issue number 1 through 10 because that is where the money is. Harrell isn’t out there shouting we must make WSBLE and DSTT2 better for transit riders, and that was never his campaign. No one on the Board reads this blog, and if they did and were honest they would tell those on this blog obviously DSTT2 was never designed to benefit transit riders, because they are not a stakeholder, and if you think Harrell is not aware of that you are fooling yourself.
The only fly in the ointment for ST is the stakeholders’ preferred design is not remotely affordable based on the subarea’s ST tax revenue, and the four other subareas are beginning to question their contribution, which they were told was based on capacity, not that they would be shunted onto the WSBLE/DSTT2 line for their $275 million to $550 million contribution they don’t even have for their own projects.
The Board came up with a phony “realignment” when Rogoff started to go public with the capital funding issues (the operational funding issues still haven’t been addressed), but that was just numbers on a page. You can’t begin digging a tunnel you can’t possibly afford unless you know you have the money, or can get it.
So what is the solution? Interlining? Interlining is the obvious solution because capacity is not and probably never will be an issue post pandemic? But interlining only makes sense if the rest of the route is: 1. affordable; 2. good transit; and 3. won’t result in a fight with every neighborhood along the line.
No, a stub from West Seattle to Sodo is the solution, as phony as the realignment, and let the next Board figure out the rest of the design and the funding.
“No one on the Board reads this blog”
Constantine reads it at least semi-regularly; he said so publicly at a transportation panel forum. He said he often prints out articles and takes them to his staff and says, “This! Can we do this?” Balducci has commented once or twice. Some Seattle councilmembers and former mayors probably read it, although I don’t remember for sure. Politicians and agency staff who read it tend to comment rarely or never, for conflict-of-interest or reelection or job reasons. They don’t necessarily read every comment but they know the articles’ general directions. They may even be reading your last comment.
I am told Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, visits our comment section to read my thoughts on transit and urbanism.
@ Daniel
“The process isn’t so much nefarious but flawed. The young Turks in the agency desperately want to get the green light because then they have tens of millions, or even billions, to spend, which gives them job security and makes them important in their fields.”
So let me get this straight. You don’t like the decisions that were made, so the idea now is to say that the staff is responsible for skewing the data in order to come to a given political end. Sounds like good trumplican strategy, if you don’t like the results of the vote, then attack the integrity of the election official. Got it.
“Maybe you had more success getting WSDOT to listen to your concerns re: 520 and 405. I never participated in either since both had so many powerful stakeholders involved, and I knew from personal experience 405 needed to be widened and 520 replaced.”
Actually, the I-405 program had NOTHING that I thought was important included. I was fairly certain in the beginning that light rail through the whole corridor was premature based on population density. What I was aware of was the ROW of the Woodinville subdivision, which BNSF was still using at the time. What surpised me was how Frickin’ EXPENSIVE expanding I-405 was! Not only that, I realized how short lived that “congestion relief” was, it was only a 15 year solution. However, the payback was within the cost/benefit time span of 30 years (20 years of use, based on the assumption back then that the project would be completed in 2012.
“There may be more than one proposal but there is always a favored design. It is a matter of ego for the agency staff. It also is what the powerful stakeholders want. No one will ever read the public comments and they have no legal force. The Board won’t even read the summary of the public comments.”
You have proof of this?
“These agency staff, as you note, hate dealing with the public”,
I hope you’re not quoting me on this, because what I said was:
“Given that the people who work their day job developing the technical data are no doubt salaried, it’s extra work for them. For the I-405 and SR-520_Bridge projects, the public meetings did include those technicians. I’ve spoken with a number of them. In fact, they all had to ‘serve time’ attending the public meetings (for the I-405 program at least).
In order to ‘share the pain’, they did rotate through those staff members. ”
Unlike you, Daniel, they just can’t Send the Bill to the Client.
Read that again, if I’m working my day job developing specifications am I supposed to attend, or be on call, for every public meeting?
Even in IT, I was on-call for systems, but the user community didn’t have my home phone.
“…whom they believe are unqualified to have an opinion. Then they begin a design based on those stakeholder comments. Then they go back to the stakeholders. All well before anything is provided to the public.”
Again, you don’t like the decisions made, so you attack the integrity of the staff.
Having known and worked with some of the ST staff (in a previous life), and working with ST, WSDOT, and other consultants on the I-405 Program, (even the ones I didn’t share perspectives with,) I have great respect for the integrity of their work.
@ Al S
“Instead let me ask this: Did anyone besides an elected official or wealthy stakeholder interest significantly influence the design of the project beyond a mitigation for adjacent property impacts?”
Yes, For I-405 it was the Executive Committee (the elected officials of the municipalities involved) that made the decisions (and some from the Steering Committee such as state agencies like the DNR).
In the case of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association NIMBYs, they got Jesse Tanner, then mayor of Renton to submit the request that the ERC be taken out of the study. That killed any use of that corridor. Hell, they could have run BRT through the corridor, but the train wasn’t the point, it was another “Back Yard” to contend with. Funny thing is, the expansion of I-405 took about a dozen properties in that neighborhood, since the extra lanes don’t quite fit in the WSDOT ROW.
Someone, and I don’t know who, got Kemper Freeman’s “Reduce Congestion Now” project taken out of the process early on.
So, tell me again, who are the people in the back room running things?
“So let me get this straight. You don’t like the decisions that were made, so the idea now is to say that the staff is responsible for skewing the data in order to come to a given political end. Sounds like good trumplican strategy, if you don’t like the results of the vote, then attack the integrity of the election official. Got it.”
It depends Jim on the project. I was thrilled when the proposal to move the Keystone Ferry south was scrapped, because it was such a bad decision, although impacts to the environment or local businesses was not a concern of the WSF subgroup pushing the idea, and IMO using false assumptions. You yourself later in your same post complain about the 405 and 520 projects, and the “NIMBY’S at Kennydale. Does that make you a Trumplican? Yes, I think a lot of the planning, estimates, and proposed projects like WSBLE are poor decisions, and according to this blog I am not alone on that.
“Unlike you, Daniel, they [government staff] just can’t Send the Bill to the Client.
“Read that again, if I’m working my day job developing specifications am I supposed to attend, or be on call, for every public meeting?
“Even in IT, I was on-call for systems, but the user community didn’t have my home phone.”
I am not sure what point you are trying to make Jim. If government staff don’t want to spend a few nights a year meeting with the public over huge projects that legally require these public meetings then find another job within the agency, or a job outside of government. Do you think Microsoft employees never work nights. Or me? Should we just abolish these public meetings, or eliminate public comment because staff has to work a night or two per year?
I also disagree with your premise that because staff are at a meeting at night (because the taxpayers have to work during the day to fund these projects) their decision making cannot be questioned.
Look at the huge number of citizens who volunteer throughout the year. For example, on MI there are: the planning commission, the design commission, the utility board, the parks commission, various equity groups, the arts council, plus the council who often spend their own money to get elected and serve for free. At least on MI, most of these volunteers make much more than government staff, and work several hours/night weekly or bi-weekly, on some pretty technical issues. That doesn’t mean their decision making can’t be questioned.
The whole point of these commissions and boards and councils and public meetings is to question the decision making. We are not debating the amount of oxygen in the concrete for an interstate (an issue I have litigated when I -90 was rebuilt) but things like station location, design, routing and so on. Transportation decisions, including transit, just like zoning, is simply a political decision, and this isn’t the Soviet Union. The citizens and taxpayers are the final decision makers.
I will say ST is unique, having attended many different open meetings by different agencies. The staff are usually not very technically competent, and often the surveyors are an outside consulting firm that knows nothing about engineering, or the project really.
ST is also unique in how arrogant and incompetent it is. It derailed a train killing and maiming passengers, and East Link is now delayed until at least 2025, and the past CEO was fired for dishonesty ironically for calling out the Board on capital project cost estimates and future operations funding deficits when he wasn’t even here when the dishonest ridership and cost estimates were invented for ST 2 and 3.
In my experience the reps. from WSDOT that have appeared before the MI council have been much less arrogant, much more qualified, much less “certain”, except that certain eastside corridors like 405 are simply oversubscribed and need more capacity, and as AL notes you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what that means: widen 405, and add more HOT lanes, no matter what the cost because those roads and highways are the lifeblood of the eastside, although you may disagree.
1. “It won’t serve the south when WSBLE is built. It will serve West Seattle.”
I agree with Al this is a terrible and inequitable idea. What you are saying is: 1. we are spending billions and billions to build a tunnel and second station at CID for West Seattle; and 2. when complete the folks from Tacoma to the RV have to transfer. Without DSTT2 none of that happens.
2. “The issue isn’t capacity, it’s access from all directions.”
DSTT2 was sold to the other subareas on the basis the additional capacity from DSTT2 would be necessary based on inflated ridership estimates. DSTT1 serves every area. If the purpose is access from “all directions” which means West Seattle then why are the other subareas paying for that?
3. “this contentious process will be repeated at every proposed station from the CID to Ballard”
“If it had, it would have started already. Other stations have been built with more or less contention sometimes, but they were built. There’s no indication the other stations will be as contentious as this one.”
Look at the original proposed design for DSTT2. Do you think transit riders came up with that design? No, the stakeholders from the CID to Ballard came up with it. As usual the CID did not get an invite to those early meetings. Unless you like the route and design of DSTT2 from a transit rider’s point of view.
4. “If the station is built at 4th or a couple blocks north or south, Harrell will declare victory and call it a day. It will still be a CID station, just a less effective one, the way a 14th Ballard station would be less effective than 15th or 20th. Fortunately the distances proposed for the CID station are less out of the way than for the Ballard station.”
Assuming there is the money, if you close 4th (or 5th) anywhere along this stretch for ten years you close both effectively due to congestion. Harrell can’t call it a victory if the CID is not satisfied, and the CID doesn’t want a station on 4th or 5th near the CID. But you may be right this will be ST’s fallback position, which will make the other stakeholders bolder about changes to station location and design, but I doubt Harrell will take victory lap.
5. “You’re assuming a lot about Harrell. During the election you said he won because of his commitment to the police, that “safety is the only issue”. Later you said it’s because he’s against upzoning. Now you say he’s skeptical about this project. If so, he could tell the board, and then there would be one boardmember who publicly wants something other than ST3 as planned.”
Harrell did win because of public safety and the homeless issue, and a huge percentage of his voters came from SFH zones that Gonzales promised to upzone. And revitalizing the downtown. Harrell was silent during the campaign when it comes to transit. Transit simply was not an issue in the election. Harrell and the city have let ST know their design preferences through downtown Seattle for DSTT2. If a SB5528 levy is necessary Harrell will have to agree and vigorously support a huge tax increase for it to pass. I saw the influence of Kemper Freeman on East Link. WSBLE and DSTT2 run exclusively through Seattle. So I think most other Board members will defer to Harrell on DSTT2 and WSBLE. The Board pretty much deferred to Bellevue and Freeman when it came to the routing of East Link through Bellevue.
6. “It would bring more customers. Good transit has the potential to bring the majority of customers, as it does in many cities.”
Then why doesn’t East Link run along Bellevue Way between Main and NE 8th? According to the Simon rep. transit is how shoplifters get to his malls. A little harsh (especially pre-pandemic) but the point is you think like a transit booster. Developers and small businesses don’t. Plus they already have a station that serves an area from Everett to Tacoma to soon Redmond, although my guess is they would tell you the majority of their customers come by car. Otherwise the preferred alternative for CID stakeholders would not be no station anywhere near the CID for DSTT2.
“Then why doesn’t East Link run along Bellevue Way between Main and NE 8th? ”
Kemper Freeman, a man who was basically acting like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick in regards to East Link. He couldn’t understand why people would visit a mall via public transit and chasing that data throughout the first part of the process as they were gathering data. Even though anyone with any common sense would realize that he’s being dumb about this and any other mall developer would’ve been pleased at getting the transit access. It is after all more people with money to spend. It’s still funny to me how the luxury mall Bravern is more transit accessible than the middle class mall that Bellevue Square. Really shot himself in the foot there on his personal tirade against Sound Transit.
CID have a station that will only serve north to Everett and east to Redmond. The existing line from the south winds up getting screwed over, no matter where you put it due to the depth.
Just a couple of questions come to mind.
1) How long will it take to build and make operational the necessary railway between Mt. Baker and the Ballard spur?
2) How much cumulative passenger time will this major revision add to commutes from as far away as Federal Way to jobs in SODO?
Finally, the map doesn’t distinguish between new and existing trackways, but the entire extant SODO trackway seems to have been abandoned, as well as existing stations, in this rendering. Perhaps a typo?
The existing track through SoDo would be used for West Seattle and Mt Baker – SoDo – UW trains.
Using this proposal, you could transfer at either Judkins Park or Mt Baker to get to downtown stations, or at Mt Baker to SoDo or Stadium.
This likely saves time over the SoundTransit proposal, as that proposal puts the passengers from Federal Way, etc into a tunnel that is very, very deep and it would likely take quite a lot of time to get from the train to the surface.
In this map, you would have to change trains at Mt Baker or Judkins Park, but the transfer should be much easier as it should only be a matter of ≈20 foot elevation change at the transfer point rather than ≈200 feet.
A SODO transfer is easier in the ST WSBLE plans than either CID or Westlake is. In one alternative, it’s just a single escalator ride of 30 feet.
This is why I keep saying that SODO needs level transfers heading in the same direction.
Everybody wins, I guess, except everyone who is on a train today from the South End bound for the CID.
Why am I not surprised?
The kicker, though, is that it looks like there is no imaginable timeline for the Baker-to-Westlake branch that will serve West Seattle on a reasonable timeframe.
Let’s be very clear about the horrible reaction that South King Subarea would have on receiving the information that their riders will have to transfer to East Link or an Everett train to reach Downtown or the U-District having just ridden through the slowest and least reliable stretch of track in the system.
Not a happy group of voters!
If faced with a station that is nearly twice the depth of the Capitol Hill station, which is what they would likely get (at best), would they wind up deciding to transfer to the more shallow line anyway?
A 30 foot vertical transfer between frequent lines isn’t too bad. People do it all the time on busy metro lines all over the world. It’s basically just another elevator or escalator stage that is instead horizontal. E.g., the huge numbers of Skytrain passengers that transfer at Commercial / Broadway to go one stop west to VCC Clark. In fact, if ST actually designs the stations well (I’m not optimistic at this point) the transfer at Judkins Park, SoDo or Mt Baker could be even shorter than what is at Commercial Broadway.
They’ve known since 2008 they’d have to transfer to the Eastside at CID, switching to an opposite-direction train. And they’ve known since December 2015 that they’d have to transfer to the U-District when DSTT2 opens, going from one CID station to the other. Those were in the ST2 and ST3 ballot measures. What’s new in Frank’s proposal is transferring to downtown, and changing all the transfer stations.
In 2008 ST promised that the transfer would be easy, now it becomes clear that the 2nd tunnel will have to be deep down and access will suffer and transfers will be painful and slow even if you’re able bodied, if not, it might become impossible.
Yes, Frank’s proposal may introduce more transfers, but those would be simple, it might still make sense, but I feel a single tunnel would provide the best transfer experience, I would rather keep our underground clear and accelerate an HSR tunnel which by the way could also provide superior regional rail service to Tacoma and Everett.
ST never promised it would be easy. Otherwise it would have renovated CID Station to be center-platform. Then people wouldn’t have to go up to the surface and back down to get an opposite-direction train from South King County to the Eastside and back, or if they change their mind mid-trip or miss their station and have to go back. We assumed the new platforms would be near the old platforms somewhere at the same level.
I certain,y agree about the overly deep stations in the ST3 proposal, Glenn. But the comment was made in the context of Frank’s proposal; that’s why it’s at the “comment” level, not a “reply”.
Folks transferring to Capitol Hill or northward would be advantaged by this plan; they’d surely get “far enough ahead” of any train to which they might have transferred at either Mt. Baker or Judkins Park. There are only two stations between Mt. Baker and Westlake on Frank’s route but six on the existing line. At Judkins Park the corresponding figures are one and three. Plus, at Weztlake one would “get” all U-Link trains there rather than half at Judkins and a quarter at Mt. Baker.
So folks riding “through” would wait until Westlake.
But folks headed to any of the other three downstairs would have to “bet” which station to choose.
Ditto southbound from University/Seneca or Pioneer Square. Folks would “prefer” an East Link train, because it would have no stations between IDS and Judkins Park, making “time to train” much shorter than the three stations on the Beacon Hill line. But if someone arrives at the platform just after an East Link departs, and the next train by is a Beacon Hill, what to do? A train at the platform is worth two in the timetable; the next East Link might be delayed and this stub train might just barely make it to Mt.Baker in time.
Line One needs to serve downtown, in the original tunnel. The Westlake-First Hill-Judkins-Mt. Baker line on this map can be the seed of a future Metro Eight that connects to Ballard via Capitol Hill.
If the trains are scheduled so infrequently that making the transfer is a problem, then maybe DSTT2 isn’t necessary? However, if it is an issue, web based trip planners should be able to get people to the right transfer point.
Line 1 definitely should serve the existing tunnel, but unfortunately no current plan does that.
So, if ST is unwilling to expand capacity in the existing tunnel, what is the best way to make things suck as little as possible for those shuffled to an extremely deep tunnel?
The Beacon Hill/Mt. Baker branch would run only every 20 minutes if lines are running at a base frequency of 10 minutes. Ditto West Seattle, of course. ST is not going to “up” Line 3 to five minute headways north of SoDo so that the two- and three-station stubs dividing there can be every ten minutes each.
We need to say clearly that, given the changes in peak hour demand, a second tunnel will not be needed in 2045. Maybe it will be needed in 2055, but that would be made clear in 2030 by crowding on a three-line system (Redmond-Lynnwood, West Seattle-Lynnwood, and Federal Way-Northgate).
If that system is not showing stress with six-minute headways at the peaks on each line, then DSTT1 can certainly accommodate the extensions to Everett and Tacoma.
Ballard can be handled by a stub Link (or other technology) line or with a short bus tunnel from Third and Cedar to a portal at Republican and Elliott and full-time bus lanes from there north on Elliott and 15th West.
The truth is, West Seattle could be handled with buses for a hundred years given the resistance to increased density in the neighborhood. Lynnwood Link can’t handle the capacity required with just East Link trains running north of Northgate, so something has to be the tail of those trains, so maybe West Seattle gets a shiny thing that is really a long reversing tail.
Or, trains could be reversed using the outer loop of the Maintenance Facility.
To run two lines down the existing tracks would require overpasses at both Lander and Holgate and that Lower Royal Brougham be closed, but those are pretty cheap compared to an elevated guideway over the busway.
It seems to me that this new tunnel is not really about capacity. It’s got to be more about a belief that South Lake Union needs light rail service. Otherwise this horrible new tunnel would have already been tossed out for all of the negative reasons Ross spells out above.
I say let the street car be SLU solution it was supposed to be, and if you need to upgrade it then do so. You can then give up the notion of forcing a new tunnel through downtown in a location that is bad, and doesn’t work well.
Jas, the ST person I talked to said it’s all about connecting Seattle Center and Ballard. I guess you could make the street car corridor transit-only, but it would still need to stop often for cross traffic.
An elevated automated train or maglev could replace the streetcar, cross Hwy99, follow Mercer and meet the needs far earlier and more affordably.
Thank you for proving my point. Divorce the tunnel idea from whatever happens north of downtown, and other ideas present themselves.
And once you do that a second tunnel becomes superfluous.
The first ST3 proposal had West Seattle Link and a Ballard streetcar. The STB editorial board and transit fans blew their top and said if Ballard doesn’t get Link, they wouldn’t vote for ST3. Ballard is Seattle’s fourth-largest urban village, the largest one not on ST2 Link, especially if you include adjacent Fremont. And Ballard and the 45th corridor is high-ridership, below-average car use, eager for rapid transit, willing to pay for it, and strong advocates of it.
The original advocates wanted the Ballard-UDistrict line, and pushed for accelerating ST3 to get that. Mayor McGinn joined the movement for ST3 Ballard wanted a Ballard-downtown line instead. ST2 included a half-dozen corridor studies for the next step, including Ballard-downtown and Ballard-UW. McGinn got ST to accelerate the Ballard-downtown study, and paid ST to also study an SLU streetcar extension on Westlake to Ballard at the same time. The other subareas said, “Hey, we want to accelerate our ST3 projects too.” That’s how ST3 got moved to 2016 instead of vaguely in the 2020s maybe.
The representative alignment was a compromise with a Ballard station at 15th. Originally it was going to be routed via Belltown. In early 2016 the city suddenly realized there were highrises in SLU and it needed high-capacity transit. That should have been obvious in the 2000s but everybody missed it including transit advocates. So the city pushed ST to reroute Link via SLU instead, and because ST defers most to cities and counties, it did so. So we got an SLU alignment with Interbay and a Ballard 15th station.
After ST3 passed things deteriorated. ST’s preferred alternative has downtown transfer stations 100+ feet deep, devastating what should be the most important aspect of a multi-line system: good train-to-train transfers so you can get anywhere on the network easily. The Port got ST to consider a Ballard 14th station to get it away from their property and Fisherman’s Terminal 14th is effectively 10 blocks from the center of Ballard at 22nd, because 15th to 14th is three blocks wide. That’s half the walkshed distance right there. Stations are supposed to be at the center, so there’s a good 10-block walkshed all around it, but that’s swallowed up just getting from the center to the station. CID businesses started wanting to move the station away from 5th to 4th. There are probably negatives about the preferred West Seattle alignment and SLU Station but I don’t remember exactly. And the cost of WSBLE rose significantly.
So all that deterioration makes me wonder if that kind of ST3 Ballard is worth it. If it’s not close to the center of Ballard, and the downtown transfers are worse than anything we could have imagined, then what’s the point? The point of Link is fast travel time to/from Ballard and convenient station and transfer locations. If we can’t have that, how is Link better than the D? Or at least, sufficiently better for its cost. And a bad alignment now makes it hard to have a good alignment later.
Then with the expense of DSTT2 and the awful transfer stations, it makes interlining look better and better. “Interlining” as I understand it means falling back to another ST3 alternative, retrofitting DSTT1 for maximum 1.5 minute frequency instead of the current 3 minutes. That would allow a third and potentially fourth line in the tunnel, without having to build a second tunnel. It would be much cheaper than a second tunnel, lowering the cost and allowing for more amenities. And the CID could avoid a second station construction.
There’s still the problem of connecting the Ballard line at Westlake. It could have gone out through Convention Place Station, but that right-of-way is now filled in with the Convention Center expansion foundation. So we could fall back to previous study scenarios, a line terminating at Westlake with a transfer. It was studied that way, although it was never intended to operate like that. But it could. Then Ballard would have the burden of all the transfers to get to the rest of Link. But that hasn’t been studied as an operational possibility, or the impact on ridership, or reasonable access to SLU, and it’s unknown where the platform would be or how long the transfer would be.
Other scenarios like Frank’s Mt Baker alternative, a First Hill alternative, or skipping CID2 Station, seem pie-in-the-sky. They’re all amateur suggestions with no studies behind them to verify their claims or cost. They would contradict promises in the ballot measure. There’s little chance ST will consider them.
All that makes me back into the idea of a Westlake-Ballard streetcar after all. That would solve the problem of how to branch at Westlake when Convention Place is filled in. It would be less convenient and slower than an ideal subway, but if Link is going to be so bad it won’t be fast or convenient anyway to get to Ballard, then maybe we should write off Ballard and northwest Seattle as a rapid transit sector (as it would have been without ST3) rather than pretending we have it. In that case, a good surface streetcar would be at least some improvement. “Good” meaning exclusive transit lanes. The built part of Westlake already has it partly, and the unbuilt part could have it, and Leary Way could too if cars could give up some space. (You know, like the 14th Avenue streetcar was a century ago in that wide median.) Of course, another alternative would be to just improve the D, by giving it transit lanes and eliminating the Uptown detour. (A station on Denny Way would also serve part of Uptown and Seattle Center, like the 24’s stop does.)
It seems to me that ST needs to instruct HNTB to reanalyze the cost and impacts required to splice the Ballard line into the current DSTT, either at the curve between University and Westlake, or between Westlake and Capitol Hill.
If interlining BLE is truly infeasible, then yes, an at-grade streetcar would basically be a return to the representative alignment (at-grade) for the Interbay-Ballard section, and would likely have to go to war freight over ROW capacity issues as the only ROW wide enough to handle an at-grade train would be the ramp down from Denny.
But it gets back to my open question: does anyone think the ST Board is willing to diverge so far from the representative alignment without a mandate from Seattle voters?
All that makes me back into the idea of a Westlake-Ballard streetcar after all.
Yeah, I hear you. To be fair, it wasn’t really a streetcar like the Seattle streetcars, but more like light rail running down Rainier Avenue. Reasonably fast, but not as fast as a grade separated line. It would also be big trains (Link trains).
I remember one of the open houses. During the meeting, I asked a representative which option he would build. He didn’t want to answer (it wasn’t his place) but if I really wanted to know, he preferred the surface option. It had the best ridership per dollar numbers. I get that, but I also wonder if it saved people that much time (another major factor).
One of the interesting things about that corridor is that many of the improvements that would have gone along with a surface line will be added anyway, as part of the 40 improvement. Add off-board payment, and you’ve achieved much the same thing. Then the question is whether you have too many buses (and need a train). Maybe, maybe not. But that is one of those “good problems to have” in my book. If the buses are running every six minutes during the day, but have to run every couple minutes during rush hour to deal with crowding, I can deal with that. We can always run express buses.
Which brings me back to the D. It is not an express. It diverts to Uptown. The diversion is definitely justified, but an express just skips it. Imagine if the 18, 40 and D run every 12 minutes, and all have off-board payment. They would all be synchronized with each other, which means that the 24th and 15th/Elliot corridors have six minute headways. If you miss the express, you can get a bus that takes a different (still fairly fast) way to downtown.
You would definitely want to invest in bus infrastructure. The 40 is actually somewhat lucky, in that the approaches to the Fremont Bridge are fairly short. This means the bus can get fairly close to the opening when the bridge is up. The Ballard Bridge is much harder to deal with. However, it will have to be replaced (maybe before Link ever gets to Ballard) which means that it is possible to have the same sort of treatment. We could also just take a lane. This seems radical, but in a few decades could seem normal. Meanwhile, you could move the Dravus bus stop to under the street. The Uptown area is more challenging, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you could do a lot with just paint and signal priority.
The fact that we are second-guessing Ballard Link at this point is telling. It was by far the best major project in ST3. It performed the best in the metrics, as well as amateur assessments (like mine). It is just a lot different than every other project. West Seattle Link forces a transfer for the vast majority of riders right when the old bus was about to make the exact same trip, taking roughly the same amount of time. Everett and Tacoma Dome rail are commuter rail lines with subway costs. Again, in many if not most cases, people would prefer their express buses, let alone the express buses that billions could buy.
But Ballard Link still fills me with ambivalence. Done right, and it certainly adds considerable value. I’m just not sure they can do it right.
“But it gets back to my open question: does anyone think the ST Board is willing to diverge so far from the representative alignment without a mandate from Seattle voters?”
No, Nathan. However, if Seattle voters are asked to pass a SB5528 levy to complete WSBLE/DSTT2 then I think the voters would have the opportunity for a mandate, before the vote of course.
The key to the proposed design for DSTT2 is that it reflects the desires of all the stakeholders except transit riders (and the CID). That is how this process works: the cake is baked before the citizens and lowest stakeholders — whether transit riders in Seattle or citizens on Mercer Island — are asked for their opinions, which are never listened to at this stage. If you want changes at the DEIS you are too late unless someone files a lawsuit or has a very strong public equity argument like the CID because the agency is too vested in “their” design.
It seems to me that ST needs to instruct HNTB to reanalyze the cost and impacts required to splice the Ballard line into the current DSTT, either at the curve between University and Westlake, or between Westlake and Capitol Hill.
Agreed. I think that should be the first priority.
If interlining BLE is truly infeasible …
Then I’ll eat my hat. Seriously though, I’m prepared to cross that bridge when we come to it. There are a number of different options.
But it gets back to my open question: does anyone think the ST Board is willing to diverge so far from the representative alignment without a mandate from Seattle voters?
No. And this goes back to what Mike wrote. A lot of these ideas are just pie in the sky. I’ve warmed to Frank’s idea, but with or without additional stations, I think it is unrealistic. I think much of ST3 is a bad use of funds. West Seattle, Issaquah, Everett and Tacoma Dome Link are all bad proposals. I would scrap them all. If that means also scrapping Ballard Link (which has gotten worse) then so be it. But I seriously doubt that is politically possible.
What I do think is possible is to interline the trains downtown. I also think the Ballard station can be moved further west, to 20th. Both may have engineering issues, but my guess is that they won’t. From a political standpoint, it is quite likely both would be quite popular. They don’t deviate very far from the representative alignment. It might not be a great use of funds, but at least it would be a big improvement over what we are (at this point) planning on building.
Dissecting this discussion is important. It gets at the heart of several bad outcomes from the process in 2016:
1. DSTT2 drawn as a two dimensional line on a map.
2. No one openly discussing the problem in the CID because there wasn’t enough time to do that.
3. No general assessment of value added to the various corridors. Corridors except the DSTT2 segment listed in ST2 as also-rans because their value was always diminished.
4. The assumption that the only rail option worthy of discussion is 400-foot-long light rail trains with a 55 mph max speed.
5. The assumption that the existing subway cannot be breached.
6. The assumption that the frequency of trains cannot be less than 3 minutes.
7. The assumption that the ST station locations and transfer points are set in granite.
8. The assumption that several segments must be underground.
To this day, the ST party line remains as if these are biblically directed by some god that the Board and staff blindly worship.
So which assumption to question first?
1. The easiest one to assess is simply changing the current corridor to be a single automated frequent one that connects West Seattle to Ballard — along with shorter station vaults and better ability to change elevations. It basically keeps the ST3 map in place and thus is the most “consistent with ST3”.
2. Opening up the vertical profiles to added aerial segment options. Again, this does not deviate from ST3 as far as I can tell. The stations and lines remain the same.
3. ST should study expanding the train capacity. Would simply replacing vehicles for more capacity eliminate the need for DSTT2? We speculate that it would help but we don’t know how much. It’s a heck of a lot cheaper to buy new train vehicles than to bore deep tunnels.
We should get answers to these three things first as all other changes have these attributes as potential variations and any of these things can save billions.
With that information, then options that shift a station or two can be assessed. These include:
– Interlining the three lines south of CID into the DSTT.
– Possibly opening a track connection to go to SLU and further as far as Ballard.
– Moving the Downtown transfer point to Capitol Hill or University Street to see if it has technical advantages. (Consider how moving Midtown to Fourth/ Spring for University Street transfers could even enable the Westlake stop to move to near Fourth and Lenora giving closer access to Belltown and the Amazon HQ.)
– Operating Ballard-Downtown as a stub line and examining if there are more ways to make that happen.
I see the role of streetcars as compensating for the ridiculous station depths required to get around Downtown as well as offloading Downtown underground overcrowding. I’m skeptical that the forecasts actually accounted for the depths because they weren’t revealed until after the initial forecasts were released. ST has not revealed an answer to this basic question even though the original purpose and need is entirely based on projected overcrowded trains.
The remaining item is disclosure of what invisible hands are vested in the current process. Are building owners lobbying behind the scenes to protect their recent investments? Some of the ST choices seem only explainable because some entity is being catered to. I’ve not seen any visible outrage by nearby owners declaring any preferences — which frankly I find rather disturbing because their silence speaks volumes. Who are they and what are they asking for behind closed doors? With the impacts affecting real estate values something is surely going on.
Al, the two fundamental issues with ST3 and WSBLE/DSTT2 are:
1. ST 3 in 2016 was primarily designed to fund the completion of ST 2, which required offering every subarea some project to get their votes whether it made transit sense or was affordable or not. So the projects like Issaquah to S. Kirkland were just pie in the sky designs on paper that looked cool.
2. Money would not be an issue because there would be a ST 4.
Of course, the major stakeholders are lobbying behind the scenes, but they hire lawyers and lobbyists to make sure their concerns are addressed. Whether it is the Chamber, property owners, Amazon, or Ballard and West Seattle, they all basically have the same desire: they don’t want any disruption or loss of car access during construction. Like a miracle, when completed WSBLE will magically appear out of the ground ten years later with a station entrance.
The downtown stakeholders are claiming that years and years of construction downtown will be the final nail in the coffin for downtown, and unfortunately, they may be correct, and there really isn’t any point to any of Link unless downtown Seattle is vibrant, because that is the densest area of the region, and where 2/3’s of Seattle’s tax revenue comes from, and where all the tunnels are designed to run through.
We can live without WSBLE and/or DSTT2, but the region really can’t thrive without a vibrant downtown Seattle. Harrell is working hard on crime and homelessness, and no doubt next up is luring the office worker back and revitalizing retail, but years and years of construction when Bellevue is booming is not what he needs.
“ST 3 in 2016 was primarily designed to fund the completion of ST 2”
It was to finish the Spine and add WSBLE. Snohomish and Pierce were adamant that they’d been paying into ST since the 1990s to get Everett and Tacoma Dome, and they didn’t want to wait any longer. Seattle wanted Ballard and West Seattle, because Seattle. Those were what drove pursuing ST3 in 2016. I was there and saw it. Without ST3, ST was planning express buses from the ST2 termini: Kent-Des Moines, Lynnwood, and Redmond Tech. There was no discussion of accelerating ST3 just to get to Federal Way and downtown Redmond. It was all about Everett, Tacoma Dome, Ballard, West Seattle, and maybe the three Stride lines. ST could have had a small ST 2.1 to just complete Federal Way, downtown Redmond, and maybe Ash Way, but nobody ever brought it up that I heard.
“So the projects like Issaquah to S. Kirkland were just pie in the sky designs on paper that looked cool.”
It wasn’t just a filler. One ST boardmember who was Issaquah’s mayor had been agitating for it since the early 2010s, years before anybody thought of accelerating ST3. He didn’t have a timeline for it; he just wanted it to be the next East King project. He was the only one who was vocal about any Eastside expansion beyond ST2. So when it came time to choose projects, Issaquah got in line first, because nobody else was pushing for any others. There were ideas that ST2 had funded studies for — UW-Redmond, UW-Kirkland, Renton-Bellevue — but nobody was championing them or any others. Just Issaquah.
“Money would not be an issue because there would be a ST 4.”
The first ST3 proposal was a 15-year plan as ST1 and 2 had been. It would finish Federal Way and downtown Redmond, build West Seattle Link and a Ballard surface line, extend Snohomish to Mariner or Ash Way, and maybe complete Tacoma Dome. That’s the one transit fans blasted, and Snohomish said, “No, we really want Everett and Paine Field now.” So ST went back and expanded it to a 25-year plan, to fit Everett and a grade-separated Ballard line into it. Those were previously assumed to be in ST4, but ST pulled them into ST3, to avoid a second vote on them later. Why undergo two votes and campaigns when you can put them all into one, and then be assured they’ll be done?
After that, ST4 became vague again. Snohomish and Pierce already have projects lined up: extending Link to Everett College and Tacoma Dome as the ultimate termini. It’s unclear what North King, East King, or South King would ask for. The presumed next project in South King was the West Seattle-Burien-Renton extension. But when its study came out and said it would cost a lot and have little ridership, the board got quiet about it. So I don’t know whether it would pursue it now or not, or how strongly. North King is swarming with amateur suggestions but nothing from the politicians or board. East King hasn’t articulated anything it wants. There’s a vague idea of extending Issaquah to downtown Kirkland and Totem Lake, or bringing a UW line to them, but nobody has been pursuing it. The politicians have been, “Let’s finish ST3 because there’s so much still to do, then we’ll think about ST4 later.”
Thanks for the valiant effort to combat DT’s disinformation campaigns.
“North King is swarming with amateur suggestions but nothing from the politicians or board.”
Probably because Ballard-UW, the actual best rider/$ project that was reviewed in prep for ST3, would need some sort of “balancing” project in South Seattle to justify making the whole city pay for it. Simultaneously, if the city somehow got high-majority State or Federal funding for B-UW, central and south Seattle would balk that they were left out of it (and rightfully so, imo). However, other than a Georgetown Bypass or elevating/trenching Rainier Valley, there aren’t really any other Good projects to do south of Downtown.
Oh, and your point about balancing is a good one. That is a big reason we are in this mess. Of the major projects they looked at within the city, Ballard to UW and Ballard Link performed the best. But two lines to Ballard? Unacceptable. It is also why no one is looking at replacing the 7 with light rail (because “Rainier Valley already has light rail”). They could have looked at a Metro 8 route (even one that looks similar to what Frank proposed, but with more stops) along with Ballard to UW, but they didn’t. In the interest of balancing, they insisted on having West Seattle Link, even though it is particularly poorly suited for rail (and particularly well suited for BRT). Sigh.
The big problem is that the people in charge have no idea what is important when it comes to transit, and think they do. They could delegate, but they don’t. They simply push ideas based on geography (as if we were building community centers).
” However, other than a Georgetown Bypass or elevating/trenching Rainier Valley, there aren’t really any other Good projects to do south of Downtown.”
That is a pretty blanket statement Nathan, especially for someone who lives in Ballard and wants N. King Co. to spend $20 billion on WSBLE. That attitude from N. Seattle is exactly why I doubt a SB5528 levy for WSBLE would pass, and it would have to be a very large levy so West Seattle and Ballard folks can have an underground $20 billion line with a second station at CID for when they want Asian food. Even without federal money for WSBLE, the inequitable allocation of light rail between north and south Seattle is so obvious even I can see it.
However, other than a Georgetown Bypass or elevating/trenching Rainier Valley, there aren’t really any other Good projects to do south of Downtown.
I remember someone from the Urbanist had an intriguing idea. Build a new (underground or elevated) line down Rainier Avenue and have it replace the existing surface line. Then run the surface line as a streetcar. The 7 performs quite well from a ridership per mile standpoint, especially given its slow speed.
Other than that sort of thing, there really aren’t any good projects. The Georgetown Bypass is ridiculous. There is nowhere near the ridership per mile to justify it. In general there simply isn’t a lot of density in the south end other than Rainier Valley, and that cuts off fairly quickly at the city border. The south end of Seattle also has fewer destinations. Way more people want to go to the UW than anywhere south of downtown. There are plenty of people that live south of Seattle, but they are very spread out, and thus not well suited for rail service.
In contrast, Seattle itself just has more density and more destinations. The Central Area has way more density than anything outside of Seattle and a handful of places on the East Side. But mostly you just have moderate density areas that spread over a wide swath of the city. Rail helps in this case, by complementing the bus service. This is the basic argument for UW to Ballard rail. You’ve got decent density along the way, along with a major destination in the UW. But the key is that you would have an outstanding east-west transit line (faster than driving at noon) to go with the fast north-south bus lines (5, D, E, etc.).
Ross, yes, Wallingford might be the only viable east/west rail line as all others may be too short.
The 7 would make a challenging elevated line as historic Columbia City and Hillman City are too tight, building a tunnel would be expensive. I think it would be more doable to add car underpasses under the existing line.
While I agree that the Duwamish bypass won’t make sense by ridership itself, I still think it would be worth considering it as part of a solution:
1. Increase frequency to Seatac, add an APM or gondola to serve South Center to TIBS
2. pick up additional ridership from Georgetown and South Park and the Boeing plant
3. Add a feeder gondola to serve Greenbridge, White Center, Westwood, and downtown Georgetown (and relief some riders from RR C/H)
3. Redirect the current RV line and extend it to Skyway and Renton and the Landing along Renton Ave which would also get the line closer to Rainier Beach (current station is way too far west) or along Hwy900 but then you would need a gondola or funicular to Skyway center up the hill.
4. Serve Hwy 167 and 169 with BFT lines terminating at that line in Renton as those valleys will absorb a lot of growth in the coming years.
As you can mostly use existing ROW and run some of it at ground level and other elevated, the cost would be reasonable and the total ridership may justify the project.
What flavor of relish do you prefer, Ross? If ST thinks it has to build through downtown Seattle at depths greater than 100 feet, it is going to say, “we can’t do this”, even to a plunging tube just north of University Street. It Third didn’t have that new 26 story building in the northeast quadrant of Third and Pike, it might have worked fifteen years ago, but it’s there now.
Ballard-Downtown (and Ballard-UW for that matter) should be four- or five-section low-floor Citidis (or equivalent) trams. It should run on the surface from Cedar south. How far and where would be a big political battle, I’ll grant you. Between Cedar and Elliott it should go in a tunnel — which can start out as a bus tunnel very soon — and then use center-running transit-only lanes at least to Leary and then up Leary to Market. The bridge might have to be at 14th and it might would have to open to get down to the street on Leary, but such a system would serve Ballard new and old much better. A branch could go on up 14th to 65th with a single track terminal station on a tail over to 15th as well, if the neighborhood wanted to build up.
Upgrade Shilshole and 46th to be the West Ballard to Fremont and east major street, It connects much better to 24th anyway.
This is “proper-sized” transit for Ballard.
I’ll address your ideas one by one:
1. Increase frequency to Seatac, add an APM or gondola to serve South Center to TIBS.
That makes no sense. Sound Transit won’t run the train to SeaTac every six minutes with Rainier Valley — why would it run it more often without it? SeaTac doesn’t have that many riders (and many of them come from Rainier Valley). Build a bypass and it will run every ten minutes (if that).
2. Pick up additional ridership from Georgetown and South Park and the Boeing plant.
Right, and my point is that these are tiny.
3. Add a feeder gondola to serve Greenbridge, White Center, Westwood, and downtown Georgetown (and relief some riders from RR C/H)
OK, now you are getting silly. These aren’t major destinations, and neither are the Link stations. These would not be cheap gondolas, and they wouldn’t get that many riders.
4. Redirect the current RV line and extend it to Skyway and Renton and the Landing along Renton Ave which would also get the line closer to Rainier Beach (current station is way too far west) or along Hwy900 but then you would need a gondola or funicular to Skyway center up the hill.
Yeah, except as I mentioned, there really isn’t enough ridership to justify that. I’m not saying it wouldn’t do OK, but Renton doesn’t have a lot of density. They are also well served with the express buses to downtown. People in Renton don’t want to be forced into taking the train at Rainier Beach — why would they want to be forced into taking a train that is even slower (and starts in Renton)? Oh, and while connecting the Seattle part of Rainier Valley to the south is laudable, existing transit just doesn’t get that many riders. The north part of the 106 basically carries the south. Density just isn’t that high outside of the city (and it is farther away from the major destinations).
4. Serve Hwy 167 and 169 with BFT lines terminating at that line in Renton as those valleys will absorb a lot of growth in the coming years.
Again, these are areas with relatively few people, far from the urban core. They are areas where bus lines directly to the nearest big destination (downtown Seattle) makes more sense. If we end up building those lines, then sure, it makes sense to terminate the buses there. But spending billions so that you can save a tiny amount in future service hours (while delaying transit riders) is simply not a good use of money. Just spend the money on express bus service, and better local bus service (which, like most of suburban Seattle, is underfunded).
This is one of my biggest complaints about the current path we are on. If you look at some of the Link projects, they clearly made sense. Experts from around the globe would have pointed at UW to downtown as an obvious Link corridor. Existing transit service was very good, and very popular. In contrast, much of the region has poor transit that performs poorly. This is not a chicken and egg problem. Build great transit and it will still perform poorly. It is the opposite of the Metro 8 (a notoriously slow bus that still outperformed extremely fast express buses). That is because the 8 ran through very dense areas (still does, just a bit faster).
It also featured the fundamental advantage of major mass transit projects, which is the very high combination of trips. UW-Link was not just about downtown to UW, it was also about Capitol Hill to the UW, and downtown to Capitol Hill. Holy smoke, they only added two stations, and got thousands of riders from the various combinations. Northgate Link just accelerated that process. Northgate to downtown during rush hour is now slower than it was when the 41 ran. But every other trip got a huge number of riders. We knew they would, just by looking at existing (very slow) bus trips (e. g. the 67 from Northgate to Roosevelt and the UW).
But by every metric, none of the projects you mentioned make sense. The ridership per mile of the corridors is terrible. Even adjusting for bad service they are terrible. This calls for a giant leap-frog in terms of spending and quality of transit, when none is justified. Rather than spend a fortune on a huge subsidy for a handful or riders, it makes sense to provide decent bus service for way more people. Sure, it still isn’t that many people, and it is still a huge subsidy, but it is still a much better use of money.
There really is a step to these things that folks seem to ignore:
1) Run buses.
2) Run them more often.
3) Make them faster.
4) Build rail.
You go through these steps when you have the ridership to justify it. We did this in the north end. The UW buses were very busy, and over time became extremely fast and frequent. It was only when we reached the limitation of that system that it made sense to switch to rail. Nothing is at that level in the south end, other than maybe Rainier Avenue (which only now is being slated for faster speeds). None of the projects you listed is at that level, nor even close.
Ross, you might be right that ridership won’t pencil out for these extensions, but we should do the math. Constantine keeps saying that we need the WSLE, not because we need to serve WS but the area further South and I’m saying that the Duwamish bypass and RV redirection could accomplish the same thing earlier and more efficiently.
You’re saying 8min headways through RV are plenty atm, but how much ridership do we expect from KDM and FW, terminating Tacoma buses in FW, and S1 connecting Renton and Burien to TIBS? Will that be substantial enough that we need to increase Link frequency through the RV? RV capacity is certainly limited – in fact we may reach that limit sooner than we reach the limit of the DSTT! I think at least we should have a plan on how to address the RV limit before we get there. (not having as many commuters to downtown will certainly help)
You keep coming back with more buses serving downtown directly. That means more buses, more maintenance, more OMTs, and more drivers – to avoid such expense – is there an opportunity to terminate more buses to southern Link stations like the Northgate (and soon Lynnwood) did in the North? The current RV detour doesn’t make that very attractive. A Duwamish bypass however may bring enough time savings to make it attractive and would extend the capacity in the South for decades to come.
Ross, you might be right that ridership won’t pencil out for these extensions, but we should do the math.
Yes, absolutely. But if you do the math with the existing publicly available data, it doesn’t pencil out. There is no existing corridor with ridership-per-mile that would even come close to being what is generally accepted to be the point where you add rail. The population density is low. The travel patterns are geared towards downtown, not destinations along the way. It is a long distance. By every conceivable metric, it fails.
You’re saying 8min headways through RV are plenty atm, but how much ridership do we expect from KDM and FW, terminating Tacoma buses in FW, and S1 connecting Renton and Burien to TIBS?
I’m saying that is what Link runs now. It would be ideal if Link ran every six minutes, but ST feels it isn’t necessary. I don’t expect a huge increase as it extends further south. No system in the world operates that way. You do gain ridership, but not that much. You don’t get much in the way of a network effect (Fife to Tibs will get you practically nothing). You largely shift ridership, which is what happened when Link ended at Angle Lake instead of SeaTac. Ridership at SeaTac went down. This is striking, given that SeaTac is actually one of the bigger destinations south of downtown. But that wasn’t enough to make up for the fact that it was no longer the southern terminus. Riders coming from the south simply shifted from getting Link at SeaTac to getting Link at Federal Way. The same sort of thing will happen as Link marches to the south. If I’m wrong, and the train really does get crowded, there is always express buses, which brings me to the next point:
You keep coming back with more buses serving downtown directly. That means more buses, more maintenance, more OMTs, and more drivers – to avoid such expense.
Yes, absolutely. But keep in mind, this is worse-case scenario. This is assuming that our system is so crowded during rush hour that the trains can’t handle the load. It is highly unlikely this crowding will occur during the rest of the day, for the reasons mentioned elsewhere. There just aren’t huge numbers of people going from Fife to Othello. Keep in mind, this is how things operate now in the north end, and it has nothing to do with crowding. During rush hour, the bus from Everett (the 511) goes right into downtown Seattle. The rest of the day, riders transfer at Northgate. I’m not saying that is the right approach, but it is definitely a reasonable one if crowding ever becomes an issue.
The point is, paying for express buses is expensive, but paying for a major mass transit system is a lot more expensive. It doesn’t make sense to spend billions to save thousands. Spending billions on rail only makes sense if you have strong all-day demand along the corridor, and there is simply nothing like that in the area you mentioned.
For example, consider the 101. It performs better than most south end buses, which is to say, it is average (for Metro). It runs frequently and very fast. It is a major connector for the region to Seattle. But it carries less than 5,000 riders a day (before the pandemic). That just isn’t enough riders to justify rail.
The problem with grand plans like this is they aren’t a cost effective way to create a good transit network. They often create a system that works for a handful, but is overall very poor. Look around the country and you can see many examples (in Dallas, Denver, Sacramento, etc.). These are all places that suffer from very infrequent buses *and* trains. They spent too much money on the trains (while putting them in the wrong place) and when the riders didn’t show up, they didn’t have enough money to fund good bus service.
Consider the 105. This is one of the better suburban bus routes (by “suburban” it means a bus that doesn’t go downtown or the UW). It is quite cost effective, even if it doesn’t carry nearly as many riders as a typical Seattle bus. Not only is ridership good, but I’m sure it is a very good lifeline for low income Renton users. It also serves the network well — essentially extending the distance of the 101 (which in turn increases ridership on the 101). Overall, it is a very good route. But it only runs every half hour. That’s a problem. To many riders, the bus is useless. For a spontaneous trip, it just doesn’t work. For riders who work a shift (e. g. at a grocery store or clinic) it may not work either. You run the chance of arriving 20 minutes early for your shift, and having to wait 20 minutes after your shift for your bus home. That is just too much time out of your day.
The problem is, if we invest in major, very expensive projects like the ones you propose, chances are, the 105 is stuck with half hour service. There just isn’t enough money to go around, especially since Renton (like all cities) face other expenses. At the very least we should improve bus service in the region before we look to spend billions on something that most experts would agree would not get that many riders.
Ross, I agree we shouldn’t just build capacity because politicians like to cut ribbons, but focus on building ridership. To me that means we should spend the $4b expanding our network rather than building DSTT2 and continue to build ridership. If we increase bus frequency, this may also increase ridership on Link and if buses can’t handle it, we may want to look at cable driven feeders to Link before we expand Link.
You say you would like to see 6min headways through RV. Can RV even handle that or would this block cross-traffic? If we get to that point, yes, we can run a few Express buses during commute, but if RV gets maxed out, what would you suggest at that time?
Rainier Valley operated at 6 minute headways during peak periods in the past. I forget the exact circumstances. If I remember right, they cut it to 8 when they did the UW extension because they never wanted a train to have the potential to stop in the tunnel while trains changed tracks, and the station spacing is quite a bit further between Capitol Hill and UW vs University Street to Westlake. So, if they needed to always be able to hold a train at the platform at Capitol Hill, they needed longer headways.
Or something like that.
Yeah, the headway limit in Rainier Valley is 6 minutes. I believe it will be the same in Bellevue. In both cases it is set by the city, in the interest of cross traffic. There is no physical limit. If the city decided they didn’t care (cross traffic be damned) they could run the trains more often.
The main reason they don’t is because they don’t need the capacity. ST is capacity driven. That is why they don’t run trains every 6 minutes all day, or even 8. During peak they figured 8 would be enough, and my guess is, with peak ridership being way down, could probably just run the trains all day at 10.
This gets into another issue. You only need the kind of capacity we are talking about at peak. Peak ridership is down way more than overall capacity (which is why Sounder, for example, has been hurt way more than Link). It is quite likely this will continue, although maybe not to the current degree. Eventually I expect plenty of peak commuters returning, just not as many as existed before. Not only have some people shifted to working from home, but many have shifted to working fewer days at the office, or short days (surrounding non-peak periods). I’ve worked at software companies that had a very flexible schedule, but expected people to work “core hours” (in the middle of the day) to enable good face-to-face communication. This would tend to “flatten out” the ridership.
Which is to say that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if ten years from now, they just run the trains every ten minutes, all day long (especially if they have financial problems). That would leave transit advocates (like us) pushing for better frequency not because the trains are crowded, but because it means less waiting.
The tunnel isn’t at all about capacity, because ST’s own ridership numbers say that the most overcrowded part of the line will be UW to Westlake – a section that gets trains removed from it if the DSTT2 is built.
This is one reason why I keep trying to come up with a solution that is further north, such as the reverse C shaped line that would be Ballard – SLU – Montlake 520 Bus Transfer station and then Capitol Hill, Judkins Park – West Seattle. Or various other options that actually tries to give passengers on that section of line an alternative routing.
There has to be a better way of serving SLU and Seattle Center than with a pointless second tunnel through downtown that makes life worse for a huge number of existing Link riders.
Glenn I agree that ST has been remiss clearly stating why they need an extra $3-4B to build the DSTT2 portion of the WSBLE.
Actually, the DEIS does quantitatively explain that the DSTT trains will be overcrowded between Pioneer Square and CID.
However, that “no build” does not test how running more trains or adding capacity by redesigning the vehicles makes that problem yes. ST did not introduce an “enhanced no build” into the alternatives. I’m not even sure that the peak service in the no build is at 3:00 minutes. It may be at 3:45 minutes.
Further, ST did not explain how some people may choose to use a bus or streetcar on the surface. If trains got too crowded, riders would simply shift to parallel surface transit for the short trips rather than ride on those trains and go down into the tunnel . The overcrowding seems to be a mathematical output that isn’t sensitive enough to mode shifting from rail to bus.
Anyway, the forecasts that were on the STB post in 2020 showed that Beacon Hill to SODO would be more crowded on a per train basis than north of Westlake to Capitol Hill. It’s here:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
“ST did not explain how some people may choose to use a bus or streetcar on the surface. If trains got too crowded, riders would simply shift to parallel surface transit for the short trips rather than ride on those trains and go down into the tunnel .”
That actually happened before Link when the 71/72/73X got overcrowded; people switched the 43, 49, and 70 as overflow. That added 10-15 minutes to the travel time. Now the difference is even starker:
UDistrict-Westlake (noon weekday):
– Link: 8 minutes
– 49: 32 minutes
– 70: 32 minutes
UDistrict-Capitol Hill:
– Link: 5 minutes
– 49: 22 minutes
Capitol Hill-Westlake:
– Link: 3 minutes
– 10: 11 minutes
– 49: 9 minutes
For shorter trips like U-District to 10th & Miller or U-District to Fairview & Mercer, Link doesn’t serve at all, so all those riders are already on the 49 or 70.
For Beacon Hill to SODO, buses don’t serve it. The closest would be to take the 36 to CID and any of the buses (or Link) south to SODO.
Beacon Hill-SODO:
– Link: 3 minutes
– 36 + 101: 13 + 15 = 28 minutes plus transfer time
– 36 + Link: 13 + 2 = 15 minutes plus transfer time
– Walking: 30 minutes (?) via Beacon Ave-Holgate Street. Google Maps refuses to show this route; it insists on going north to Dearborn Street taking 55 minutes. Does the viaduct not have a sidewalk or is Google Maps bozo?
Mike, I was more thinking of people going just one or two stops in the DSTT, like a Sounder rider. ST doesn’t explain how many Sounder riders use Link to get somewhere Downtown in their forecasts. We can only speculate How many Sounder riders would hop a surface bus if Link got too crowded.
Al, good point. If I arrive from Ballard at Westlake, I won’t transfer to another tunnel to get to Pioneer Square, I would rather take a bus or CCC. So Ballard might as well be a separate line.
I was more thinking of people going just one or two stops in the DSTT
Prior to U-Link, you could see those numbers. They were significant. I believe they actually went down as the buses were kicked out of the tunnel. This seems odd, but made sense if you focused on frequency. When the tunnel was shared with buses and trains, riders new they didn’t have to wait long. They would often take a train, just because it happened to arrive when they did. After the buses got kicked out, transit within the tunnel was no longer frequent. The train would get you there, but you might have to wait ten minutes. So riders switched to surface options that were slower, but more frequent.
This suggests that a lot of the capacity concerns are misguided. The new tunnel won’t help. It just doesn’t make sense to go very deep into a tunnel, then wait maybe ten minutes to go a relatively short distance. Staying on the surface is faster. This is especially true if you have to walk several blocks to get to the station. There aren’t that many stations, which makes the new downtown tunnel line not especially great for moving people *within* downtown, one of the stated needs for a new tunnel. You are far better off with surface transit.
Mike focused on urban trips (e. g. UW to downtown). Al mentioned trips within downtown. But there is a third type of trip: Suburbs to downtown. It is this third type of trip that is especially well suited for express buses. This trips tend to be very peak oriented. The numbers aren’t huge, but with the other two, can overwhelm a system (especially downtown).
For example, the train may keep picking up commuters, from the Tacoma Dome to downtown. Bit by bit, they keep coming on, and very few get off. By the time the train gets to SoDo, it is stuffed.
There are a number of ways to solve this problem. You can buy trains with higher capacity. You can bury or elevate the trains on Rainier Valley, so they can run more often. But you can also just run more express buses from the southern suburbs. Running express buses is expensive, but are not nearly as expensive as building a new line. They are also quite popular. Even today, most of the express buses from Snohomish County skip Northgate, simply because the riders prefer the express right to downtown. Truncations are done because it saves the agency money, not because no one would ride the express. The 41 would still get lots of riders if Metro ran it (especially during rush hour, when the express lanes run in its favor).
I think we share the same skepticism about the DSTT capacity assumption, Ross.
That said, Sounder riders are suburb to Downtown riders too. It’s only the Link part of the trip that is internal to Downtown.
OK, fair enough Al. I just think Sounder riders taking Link to other parts of downtown are a relatively small subset of those that take Link within downtown. There is no “surge” of Link riders from what I can tell (by looking at old data). My guess is most riders go to the surface and just walk, while most of the other riders take the bus.
Meanwhile, the tunneling machines for extending SkyTrain from VCC to the Broadway neighborhood have arrived. They intend to have the line in operation in 2024.
Two years from start of tunneling to opening day.
Whereas projects for ST3, such as this awful DSTT2 tunnel, have been argued about for 3 times that.
This open house for the neighborhood disruption to the CID? SkyTrain doesn’t seem to be causing that level of disruption with this extension, and besides it will be done pretty quickly so disruption won’t be that long where it does happen.
Pardon me while I go bang my head against the wall at how much better, faster, and this entire project might have been if the USA could get its hands on international transit talent.
Sigh.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/article/21283242/tunnel-boring-begins-on-vancouvers-broadway-subway-project
By the way:
It might be worth starting a screaming in pain article featuring a link to the above as the main feature.
Vancouver and TransLink do almost everything better.
While Vancouver is proceeding with tunnel and preparing their Burnaby gondola, if you care about gondola specifics, Los Angeles just published the DEIS for their Dodger Stadium / Chinatown / Union Station gondola: https://www.metro.net/projects/aerial-rapid-transit/
Quick comparison on carbon footprint of construction of the WSLE vs the LAART gondola: ST estimates WSLE construction will generate 614,000 tons of carbon, http://www.LAART.la will take 3,792 tons. WSLE construction will take 5 years, LAART will take 2 years.
Canada has a less aredous ER process compared to the US, they also have a less nutty process to getting federal funding, which is to say that they just give it to them without as much hassle as the US transit grant process. Which is often the case with other countries, Canada does have a problem in terms of political hot potato in Ontario and Quebec but things seem to be improving in that regard
Oh, the Broadway extension has been discussed and analyzed for a while.
This is actual construction time, after all the planning. The tunnel machines just arrived a few days ago. Two years from the arrival of the tunnel machines to opening, That’s construction logistics more than environmental policy.
Of course, if they open late then that’s a different story.