Everett Link planning has expanded to two dozen alternatives for the six stations, one provisional station, and the maintenance base (“OMF North”) in the extension north of Lynnwood Station, according to Stephen Fesler in The Urbanist. (Thanks to Anonymouse for the link.) We just covered this extension two weeks ago, but the opinions continue to multiply. The linked article has a chart of the alternatives and some diagrams of the potential station areas. Fesler is especially concerned about the number of property takings.
Take it away, commentators. On-topic comments for this article are on Everett Link or the area north of Lynnwood Station. Other topics belong in the previous article (“Transit Fare Holiday”) or a future open thread.
IF they build this fiscal nightmare, at least run on the surface north of SR 526 on Evergreen Way with several stations between there and downtown Everett. Make the thing something other than a twisted, circuitous commuter rail line to Seattle.
Evergreen Way is seven lanes wide south of 41st. There’s is room for a trackway in the center like on Martin Luther King Jr Way while preserving two through lanes in each direction.
The thing is, Link is almost certainly not going farther north than downtown Everett. So this is that “end of the line” region in a smaller city that is perfect for surface transit; there are no “through riders” headed from somewhere else to a different somewhere else to be “delayed” by the surface speeds and more frequent stations. It can be a collector / distributor for the long hauls to the south and a local transit spine for Everett.
It might be necessary to split the trackway at 41st with southbound on Rucker and northbound on Colby, and it makes sense to turn east at Hewitt (eastbound) and California (westbound). The terminal could fish-hook back next to the BNSF tracks at Everett Station by descending to the lower level. If the eastbound track on Hewitt were next to the north curb, it could swing out of the roadway and descend just east of Broadway. Similarly, the westbound (railroad south) track would stay low through the Broadway overpass then rise to the Lombard overpass, curve into the northbound lane (which would be closed to cars) and then turn left into the southside lane on California. I’m pretty sure that the Lombard overpass would have to be rebuilt to carry the load, but that’s a pretty insignificant cost in the grand scheme of things. .
I’d have stations at SR526 of course, which has the High School, then at Madison, 52nd, and just south of 41st. In the separated section there would be stations at 37th or so, and between Pacific and Wall both directions, and then after the turn at Angel of the Winds both directions and then at Everett Station. Yes, you have to get Everett’s buy-in for the development along Evergreen to morph into a much more residential section and allow the neighborhood between 41st and Pacific to be renewed in order to get the benefit of a transit spine.
This solves the problems of the several modest activity centers in downtown Everett well. The station area is SURROUNDED by parking lots. It’s a loser of a location for a single site station and any single selection is going to leave other centers far from it.
P.S. The same thing should happen in Tacoma, but to do more than note that will get me an “OT”.
I think you are trying to solve the “design by electeds” non -transit-riding logic.
Simply put, there was such an obsession to reach Downtown Everett that no elected wanted to discuss adding any costs like more stations on the last segment. Thus, the rollout is almost four miles between the end station and the next one. All of this using a technology that is adapted from streetcars and has a max speed of 55 mph.
Unfortunately, both ST and the Urbanist won’t discuss revisiting the general number of stations. It’s stuck as a base assumption.
Given the extremely low ridership north of Mariner —driven by a longer travel time as well as having just two (or optionally three) interim stations before Everett Station (at locations that are not only hubs today but in locations generally poor for both pedestrian accessibility as well as park-and-ride intercepting), one would think that there would be a push to improve the segment’s productivity. But no! That’s what was in the referendum so that’s what they believe must be built (never mind the referendum was titled “representative” in that referendum).
Discussing more platform locations in Everett would also be important if ST wanted to assure that optional infill stations can be added later. But that’s not happening either in the larger discourse.
I think the Link route in Everett highlights two points:
1. The primary goal of Suburban Link is commuter rail to downtown Seattle or UW, not intra-subarea transit.
2. As Ross has pointed out, based on subarea revenue the problem was always going to be that once Link got to Everett it was out of money for intra-Everett Link.
Personally I look at the decision to run Link to Everett and understand it politically (animal spirits and an inferiority complex) but can’t understand it from a transit point of view. Unless of course millions more move to this region and to Everett in the next 20 years before transit and transportation will look totally different, although ironically that is when Everett Link will open. But we must “plan for the future” even though the only certainty we have learned recently is we have no idea what the future will look like.
The nutty part in all of this is transit advocates want four separate rail lines connecting Everett and Seattle. 1, Sounder N Line. 2, Amtrak. 3, Link. 4, Then, HSR.
“ The nutty part in all of this is transit advocates want four separate rail lines connecting Everett and Seattle. 1, Sounder N Line. 2, Amtrak. 3, Link. 4, Then, HSR.”
Huh? I see this as something non-transit-riding elected officials want as opposed to “transit advocates”. I often see comments here discussing discontinuing Sounder North as well as seeing light rail north of Mariner as wasteful given its current design and slower technology to serve the low forecasted number of riders, for example.
While redundancy in transit is great, I agree that these technologies are all being viewed independently which I would call either stupid or fiscally irresponsible.
Daniel, the summertime climate is collapsing across the southern tier of states. It is happening even faster than the most pessimistic modelers were willing to say. Yes, the residents aren’t going to give up their Sunbelt winters, but they will have to have northern summer homes.
Attractive mid-rise condos between Seattle and Everett will be financially “doable” for many of them, and land is relatively cheap up that way. In Everett north of 41st the housing stock is pretty old and ripe for your favorite bugaboo, gentrification.
Mike is afraid of building for four-month residents, but what’s wrong with that? They won’t all be four-monthers and there are large parts of Arizona and Florida which did that for snowbirds for decades and prospered.
Also, please note that I began the comment “IF they build this fiscal nightmare…”. The original comment is an attempt to make lemonade out of sour lemons.
Al, you are right about the goal.
This seems like such an obvious opportunity to improve ridership while actually saving construction costs, I just had to show specifically how Light Rail technology running in at-grade reservation is perfect for this stretch of Link. It would do a better job of serving all of “downtown Everett” which is pretty unfocused.
Yes, it would clearly cost more to operate because of the greater running time between SR 526 and Everett Station.
“The primary goal of Suburban Link is commuter rail to downtown Seattle or UW, not intra-subarea transit.”
The electeds contradict that. They said it’s also for commutes to Everett Industrial Center jobs. They envision a large percent of Boeing-area employees switching to transit. Whether or not that’s realistic, that’s what they say. If they did want to go straight to downtown Seattle as fast as possible, they’d ditch the EIC and put it on I-5.
“The nutty part in all of this is transit advocates want four separate rail lines connecting Everett and Seattle. 1, Sounder N Line. 2, Amtrak. 3, Link. 4, Then, HSR.”
Daniel gets urbanists wrong; Sam gets transit advocates wrong.
1. Link northern terminus somewhere between Lynnwood and Mariner (128th). Frequent BRT beyond that.
2. Finish the remaining four Swift lines. Extend the Green to UW Bothell. Add frequent local service on other routes.
3. Amtrak. Keep existing service. Explore 110 mph medium-speed service with more runs. (Definitely south of Seattle. I don’t know how feasible it is north of Seattle.)
4. Link to Everett. (If the ST board won’t approve #1.)
100 (low priority). Sounder North. Cancel it. Replace it with #1 from Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Everett to the nearest Link stations.
200 (even lower). High-speed rail. Replace it with #3.
A few transit advocates support high-speed rail in the northwest, but I’d say at least half don’t. Hardly any transit advocates support Sounder North. It’s Snohomish County politicians that are keeping Sounder North running.
Sounder South has a strategic transit purpose, because it goes through the center of the South King County population, and already has higher ridership. Sounder North has no strategic purpose, because Mukilteo and Edmonds lose half their walkshed to the Sound, and the bulk of those cities have to go out-of-direction to get to the stations. Everett has ST Express and will eventually have Link, and few Sounder riders.
“Mike is afraid of building for four-month residents, but what’s wrong with that?”
I’m afraid of four-month single-family houses with yards. If they all live in condos. that’s less of an issue. Some of them may be coming from Florida condos.
There’s also Suncadia if they’re car-dependent and want a single-family house. There’s also the Tri-Cities, Spokane, Wenatchee, and Moses Lake.
“I just had to show specifically how Light Rail technology running in at-grade reservation is perfect for this stretch of Link”
Of course it is, just like it would be between Federal Way and Tacoma Dome. (There, Tom, I went off-topic for you.) There’s no good place for rail north of Mountlake Terrace or south of Federal Way, but the least bad place is on arterials that at least have the physical possibility of urban villages around the stations, either immediately or later. Highway 99, Evergreen Way, and Broadway are all wide and publicly-owned land that would be suitable for a surface tram segment.
The only reason I don’t champion things like this is a desire not to throw energy into a futile cause. If I saw a willingness among the decision-makers to consider it, I’d flood them with advocacy. But I don’t. And that’s the problem with rail projects in the northwest, the decision-makers have the wrong priorities.
I know a number of snow birds from this area. Most have kept their SFH up here despite constant moaning about upkeep and then have a SFH in Palm Springs or Phoenix. A few have condos in Hawaii. As Mike notes, one dwelling sits empty half the year. But these are not transit folks anyway. They keep cars in both homes.
We have a house on Whidbey. Our community has several couples who winter in Palm Springs and summer on Whidbey.
To be able to split homes requires someone to have retired or WFH and the kids out of K-12, and money. So I don’t see a lot of folks from the south buying a second home up here, and if they do they prefer non-urban areas near the water or a lake. The key is whether you know anyone in both communities. If you just want to travel Airbnb gives you more flexibility and less upkeep.
For decades folks said LA was too hot for folks to live in, and that was before AC. Young people feel there is more vibrancy and job opportunities in the south today, lower taxes, less crime, and many just can’t take the long, dark cold winters in the north. I have a lawyer friend who got a good job in Anchorage but just couldn’t handle the winters. The reality is more folks from this area winter in the south than the other way around, so a net loss of residents for half the year.
Considering the geographic size of the three county ST taxing district I think this region would need close to 10 million more residents to make suburban Link pencil out, which ironically would highlight how little urban Link we have when Seattle would likely be 2 million residents or more with Link to a sliver of that.
The last five years have shown flat regional population growth, and if anything de-urbanization so what so you see is probably what you get. You don’t spend $152 billion on ST on the hope millions more move to this area. The problem with “planning for the future” is more often than not the future is different than expected.
“That’s what was in the referendum”
The thing is, the ST3 budget and the inter-subarea balance was scaled to fit the number of stations. So increasing costs to move the alignment a mile east or west may be within scope, but increasing costs to add stations is arguably not what we voted for.
“Discussing more platform locations in Everett would also be important if ST wanted to assure that optional infill stations can be added later. ”
Definitely. There’s no reason not to future-proof it for potential infill stations. Especially if the station spacing is wider than Link’s typical 1-2 miles.
“As Mike notes, one dwelling sits empty half the year. But these are not transit folks anyway. They keep cars in both homes.”
The issue is the land these part-time houses use up. The long utility lines/services that city-dwellers are subsidizing. And if they’re next to urban villages or between them, they’re blocking more people from living in that space and making them walk/bus/drive further around these empty houses. If the houses are on the exurban edge, then they’re gobbling up agricultural/rural land, harming the environment, and the worst kind of sprawl.
Mike, our place on Whidbey has a community well and each house has its own septic system. So these semi-rural areas are not being subsidized by the “big city” on Whidbey.
And although there are many agricultural areas on Whidbey many have been subsidized by grants and The Nature Conservancy I have worked for. You really can’t grow crops on the beach. Or in a forest. Don’t forget: every farm was once a forest.
Island Co. is quite poor. Not surprisingly most of the waterfront property is owned by residents of King Co. Which is why Island Co. raises all its tax revenue through property taxes. Now who is subsidizing whom?
Folks don’t want to retire to the city like Seattle, especially if they come from out of state. These folks just won’t move the needle when it comes to transit was my point. And the reality is they can afford to own two homes and leave one vacant half the year.
So don’t build a transit system around them.
I’m thinking of future house construction, not existing houses. Existing houses are full. There are a few existing units available for buyers, but not enough for thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of heatstroke-birds to move to Pugetopolis. That would have to all be new construction.
When I said the exurban edge, I meant Arlington, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, Spanaway, Bonney Lake, etc. Within the three-county area. Not Whidbey Island. I’m also thinking of the three-county area, not Whidbey Island. Pugetopolis is where we live and can say most confidently what exactly it needs. I’m assuming Whidbey Island will remain as-is. In that case, there also won’t be tens of thousands of available houses for heatstroke-birds.
If we did build a lot of houses on Whidbey Island, that would all be rural sprawl. NO! We can expand Seattle, Everett, Tacoma, Bellingham, etc with INFILL housing. Not build sprawl-burbs in rural areas and small towns. If small towns want to expand, they can grow a the walkable streetcar-suburb way like they did a hundred years ago.
Aren’t snowbirds and heatstroke birds/sunbirds two sides of the same coin? Some of my neighbors move to their homes in the south from fall until spring. That’s a snowbird. But then every spring, as it starts to heat up down there, they return to their homes up here. So, it seems like a snowbird, by definition, also has to be a sunbird.
I realize that people can own two or more homes. However I also see that only about 4-5 percent of adults do in surveys.
However, I would expect they many of these are view condos, vacation condos with pools or sunbelt homes including manufactured housing. There is also a pretty big market for renting out these houses when unoccupied or letting relatives reside in them. I’ve met people who bought condos for their kids attending college, for example.. Finally, people inherit houses and don’t sell them off quickly.
So I don’t see this as a big deal. It’s well within a general vacancy rate for apartments except in tight markets.
A bigger deal to me are the investment condos and homes. It drives up houding prices because it’s more common than second homes.
“Unless of course millions more move to this region and to Everett in the next 20 years before transit and transportation will look totally different”
The proposed Everett Link doesn’t even make sense under those conditions. About the only purpose the proposed Link line serves is to give people a great view of the exterior walls of the Boeing 747 production buildings. Practically speaking, it would be downright dangerous to even attempt to get to Boeing or anything else from the proposed stations.
Mike Orr,
“If we did build a lot of houses on Whidbey Island, that would all be rural sprawl. NO! We can expand Seattle, Everett, Tacoma, Bellingham, etc with INFILL housing. Not build sprawl-burbs in rural areas and small towns. If small towns want to expand, they can grow a the walkable streetcar-suburb way like they did a hundred years ago.”
I’ve worked construction most of my life. I’ve been a part of high dollar kitchen remodels, total house remodels, tore down perfectly good 3 bedroom houses to build 7 bedroom houses…. much of this this stuff made little financial sense or environmental sense. But we all work for money and I was happy for the work.
If the money wants sprawl-burbs, that’s what’s going to happen. If rich people decide to build more houses on Whidbey Island…. the only thing that can stop them are the rich people already living on Whidbey, with NIMBY fake environmental zoning regulations. And even that won’t work long term. You can’t stop money.
I’ve spent most of my life in sub 1000 sq ft houses in walkable City neighborhoods. (Lincoln District, Tacoma ). It’s a lifestyle I actually like. The rich people I’ve worked for? No way they’d want my lifestyle. Money calls the shots.
The real reason the USA has a housing shortage is easy to understand… the square footage of the average house keeps going up and the construction industry can only build so many square feet a year….. add to that lower square ft but really expensive condos (a Seattle speciality!) and there you are.
I’m not sure how anybody squares what’s happening in the housing market with anything Sound Transit has planned in Everett. Other than Amtrak, why on earth would a town half the size of Tacoma needs any commuter rail?
P.P.S. ST’s stated aim to build a parking structure at Everett Station iscridiculous beyond words. The station is not central, but it is at least adjacent to the center of Everett. Don’t drag cars driven by people whose ultimate destination is elsewhere into the Everett CBD, making the ramp delays greater for those who want to be in Everett worse.
Also, it is no place for a regional express bus iintercept. That function should take place at Mariner if the Boeing Bulge is built or at 526 and Evergreen Way if a straighter route is chosen.
Certainly service between the I-5 and SR2 corridors and downtown Everett should be the primary target of base service in north and east Snohomish County. But commuter expresses would ideally bypass the congestion of downtown and Link’s detour if built in favor of a transfer somewhat to the south.
“I think you are trying to solve the “design by electeds” non -transit-riding logic.”
Yes!!!
They are literally throwing away the best transit innovation staff have come up with in the past five or more years. And saying North King got expensive features, so we want some too. They should look at what would serve the most Snohomish residents for the largest percent of their trips, and then look at secondary shuttles to the industrial companies’ blocks.
“The thing is, Link is almost certainly not going farther north than downtown Everett. So this is that “end of the line” region in a smaller city that is perfect for surface transit; there are no “through riders” headed from somewhere else to a different somewhere else to be “delayed” by the surface speeds and more frequent stations. It can be a collector / distributor for the long hauls to the south and a local transit spine for Everett.”
Very well said, and true even if Link ends up with a few stations north of downtown.
Looking at the existing alternatives, seems like there are two conflicting goals – serve the existing transit node, with all of the associated infrastructure and synergies, and then service the walkable urban downtown of Everett, which theoretically will be a cluster of 10~20 story buildings by the time Link gets here. Why not just do both? If it’s a 1/2 mile spacing between EVT-A and EVT-D, and a modest incline to boot, why not just serve both?
A simillar logic applies in Paine Field. Build both SWI-C (perhaps a bit closer to 100th) and SWI-A, they are far enough apart to do different things (one focuses on what should become a 2 runway airport with national service, other focuses on Boeing & Seaway TC). Relative to the current baseline plan, run Link at-grade all the way from Evergreen to until in needs to take the turn onto 526 to create the ‘savings’ to fund two stations.
Yes. Surface stations can be $30 or $40 million dollars; the SkyCastles are upwards or $200 million. So there can be many more at the surface for less total expenditure.
Sure, it can be overdone; half-mile spacing south of 526 is too frequent.
So far as “if there are a few stations north of downtown”, if your idea of EVT-D and EVT-A were adopted, using the existing passenger short-cut trench to get over to Broadway would work in that direction, too. But going to Everett Station first would remove the redevelopment options of Evergreen and Rucker/Colby.
Yes – and the cost savings of a simple at-grade station multiply: by avoiding vertical conveyance, multiple surface stations can have the same operating cost as a single elevated station.
I’m generally pessimistic on the Evergreen alignment north of 526 because the TOD corridor is skinny, given both the topography and the current land use. For example, a station at 41st is constrained by both the canyon to the west and the cemetery to the east; even with a total upzone the walkshed is still limited. Long skinny TOD corridors are best served by a frequent bus (SWIFT blue already serves?) that can have closer stop spacing than Link. Also, there are many many more cross streets, so unlike Airport Rd Link will need to be elevated.
I don’t know Everett well enough to comment on the alignment between EVT-D and EVT-A. I just read the commentary on the two alternatives and it struck me that the pro/con list indicated there are two distinct needs probably best served by two distinct stations. Spacing wise, wouldn’t be much different than how Bellevue has East Main and then Bellevue TC.
@AJ
VTA has never built light rail along their most important corridor — along El Camino Real.
Also I think EVT-C is fine, it isn’t actually that far from the existing Everett Station. On google maps its around 600~700 feet. Which is the same transfer distance as the proposed CID transfer station or Pioneer Square 2nd station.
Especially considering the low frequency of North Sounder.
“VTA has never built light rail along their most important corridor — along El Camino Real.”
Isn’t that the case with CT on Pacific Highway/Evergreen Way in Snohomish, too? The parallel is striking to me.
I think the Urbanist is a bit off base about saying that stations should be in the middle of streets. Almost universally, none of these station diagrams have mezzanines. That keeps the costs of stations lower as well as reduces the vertical distance between the station entrance and the platform. Kudos to ST for being more modest on this aspect.
Of course, ST designs this without and grade crossings or stations that sit in the ground. It’s instead designed like higher speed rail with the grade separated stations — but for trains going just 55 mph max. It’s what I see as the basic disconnect of building stations for higher speed trains that are going to be forever served by a slower technology. It’s like spending money buying a high performance sports car that will never ever get ridden on a freeway or higher speed rural highway.
Is it possible that when it gets to the value engineering stage that more segments and stations will land on the ground? This may be the 11th hour strategy to save costs in the future. The Overlake surface segment occurred for cost saving reasons as an example.
Yes strongly to this, especially the last paragraph. There are very long stretches of elevated structure around Payne that could easily be at-grade in reservation, with side-platform, at-grade stations like through the RV. There’s not even a station across from the air terminal! It’s one “alternative” out of three, because ST can only “afford” one station near Payne and Boeing.
The agency is going to build this Forever Detour to serve three shifts worth of Boeing workers daily (using shuttle buses)?????
What folly.
There is a really good case study of what happens when you run light rail through a suburban office park: VTA light rail.
And if anyone thinks that it the problem ends when the capital costs are spent and the segment opens, they are seriously mistaken. Here’s a recent VTA article discussing the hard choices ahead for them.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-silicon-valley-transit-agency-vta-future-may-be-falling-off-the-rails-light-rail-train/
Curiously, ST shows up in this article as one of the highest cost per revenue car hour in the US. That’s fine because the system today is quite productive, but these extensions aren’t going to get the ridership per mile that the 1 Line gets today.
Paine Field.
The whole light rail extension to Everett is folly. But I still appreciate your effort to try to make lemonade here.
“The agency is going to build this Forever Detour to serve three shifts worth of Boeing workers daily (using shuttle buses)?????”
It’s not just to physically serve them. It’s just as much to attract more employers to the industrial district. There was a case before ST3 where a German company (Siemens?) was considering building a factory there, but when they asked Snohomish officials about the district’s high-capacity transit plan, they were shocked to hear that there was none, that the plan was just lots of free parking and road lanes. They were shocked because this wouldn’t be allowed in Germany: every new industrial center needs to be on an existing S-Bahn station or comparable, or have a new station/extension/shuttle planned for it, or a BRT alternative, or such. So the company stopped considering the site. That shook Snohomish and Everett officials, and they vowed to have a transit plan, so that they wouldn’t lose companies like that. That’s part of why Swift Orange was the second Swift line and was extended to Boeing, and why Snohomish and Everett are so keen on the “Boeing Bulge” as Tom puts it.
The Siemens example is a good illustration about what the problem is. It’s about checking the box, being able to say that the general area of a proposed factory site has high capacity transit so that companies who care about such boxes being checked don’t get lost. The fact that Link still won’t serve the area well and everyone will still drive as if it didn’t even exist doesn’t matter because that’s too low level for company executives to notice. So, they check the “site has high capacity transit box”, build the factory with enough parking for every employee to commute in a separate car, everyone is happy.
VTA and Everett Link *should* be trying to do the same thing (provide high quality transit in an environment that is evolving from suburban to urban), but they fail differently. VTA is kneecapped with Silicon Valley’s horrible & ossified land use patterns, while Link still has the hope that Snohomish will actually grow alongside Link. VTA is very squiggly, with lots of cross streets; Link at-grade down Evergreen Way north of 526 would be similarly slow. But Airport Road is decidedly different, straight & fast with limited intersections; at-grade operations should be able to operate at solid speeds with minimal disruptions.
“It’s like spending money buying a high performance sports car that will never ever get ridden on a freeway or higher speed rural highway.”
Maybe a better analogy is that it’s like building an interstate freeway for golf carts.
No, that’s what PRT or Hyperloop is, like the San Jose airport-Diridon PRT. That will run parallel to an existing light rail line. Because suburban tech brilliance.
I think the Urbanist is a bit off base about saying that stations should be in the middle of streets. Almost universally, none of these station diagrams have mezzanines.
That is neither here nor there. If you ran in the middle of the street, you could still skip the mezzanines. It would mean saving even more money, and disrupting businesses even less. The station could still be above ground, which means you wouldn’t use much street space at all.
It is reminiscent of the Tacoma BRT project (and the Urbanist compared the two as well). It would have been much cheaper to just take a lane for the Stream BRT in Tacoma. This would have been better for businesses as well. But instead they wanted to widen the street, which costs a lot more. Now, because of increasing costs, the project is all but dead.
I agree that ST could skip the mezzanines if the stations were at grade in a median.
However the cost saving is more being at grade than where the rails run. Yes it conceptually would save on land acquisition if the stations were in the median — but it often isn’t possible to have the tracks and a platform (or two) in the median without taking land on the side. It really depends on how much width is available and what is happening with adjacent properties.
I think another challenge for Everett is that median stations and tracks really disrupt driveway access to businesses that face the street even if the right of way is there. Even U-turns can be geometrically difficult if the pavement isn’t wide enough.
I think that it maybe could have been solved by ending all of the Link trains at Mariner (or going to South Everett and ending there), and putting in a shorter-length surface tram system that connects Downtown, Everett Mall area and the employment district and even Paine Field called the E Line. It’s a bit analogous to Tacoma so it may not be such a good ridership situation. It would need study but I can’t see the rider forecasts being any worse that what’s currently proposed.
“median stations and tracks really disrupt driveway access to businesses that face the street even if the right of way is there.”
So how do other countries manage to have successful tram lines without destroying businesses? ST and Snohomish could start by researching that. They could also research how those cities manage to increase walk-up customers coming from the line, to compensate for any diminishment of car access, or even to surpass it.
I agree that ST could skip the mezzanines if the stations were at grade in a median
They could skip the mezzanines if the stations were elevated too. You just cross the street to get to the station. Of you have a center platform with a crossing (like Judkins Park). The main thing is, it was clear that ST didn’t want to take a lane with any of this. That pushes up the costs, and means that businesses will be kicked out.
A station in the roadway doesn’t mean it has to be in the middle. It can be on the side. After taking a lane, the road just gets moved a little. I have a feeling there is an assumption by the folks building this that they shouldn’t disrupt the existing traffic flow, which is very similar to what happened with Stream. The result is a line that is way more expensive and disruptive than it should be.
Of course running on the surface should be an option in places. It is light rail after all. But even if they insist on making it all elevated, they could do better. That is what The Urbanist is getting it. Personally, I think Everett Link is bound to be a bad project, but I agree with them that ST could at least put better lipstick on the pig.
If they insist on adding Everett, I would rather have them go elevated in the median with either center platform accessible in the median or outside platforms accessible via pedestrian bridge from the sidewalk – no mezzanine.
An elevated line can be automated at a later date, more challenging with at grade lines and MLK has enough accidents that I would avoid another at grade line unless it is separated from the roadway as it is in Spring district.
Martin, yes, the trackway on King Boulevard is inadequately protected. MAX has an excellent system. It has sizable bollards every ten yards or so connected by a heavy-duty free-swinging chain between. No car could wander through it from the adjacent lane. Maybe one coming full bore from a minor side-street, blasting through the stop sign and ramming it head on might break through, but a glancing blow from something in the adjacent lane would not.
MAX trains are occasionally stopped by some eejit who runs a cross-street red and gets T-boned, but very rarely does anyone trespass from the adjacent lane.
Occasionally someone even runs into the side of the train. That requires Olympic-class stupidity.
“I think the Urbanist is a bit off base about saying that stations should be in the middle of streets.”
I don’t care if they’re in the middle or on the edge. Just two transit lanes like on MLK or European trams.
The LA Blue line between downtown and Long Beach is mostly surface on the side of a stroad, but has overpasses at major intersections to avoid level crossings. This could be a model. Elevated at intersections would be less expensive than elevated all the way.
Yes. LA was a bit smarter about strategic grade separations rather than the entire line. It can be done.
I would like to see something similar for MLK but the devil is in the details. For example, build new grade separated track and stations for Graham and Othello simultaneously. It looks way too expensive and complex to get done so it sits in the fantasypart of my brain.
When I rode the Blue Line in the 1990s I was sad it was slower and less capacious than BART, in a region that has four times the population and is the second-largest in the US. But to satisfy Everett’s and Tacoma’s desires for Link in the most justifiable way possible, it should be considered.
Mike, glad to hear that condos are OK for four-month residents. That makes the most sense to me also. So far as increased costs for multiple stations, if the tracks are at-grade, stations are long, more elaborate bus shelters. You can do ten for the price of one ST SkyCastle.
And so far as those Eastern Washington places you mentioned, they’re getting hotter, too. It won’t be as bad as the Sunbelt, of course. The angle of incidence is 10 degrees lower. It’ll be plenty hot over there, and windy!, but fortunately, much less humid than the Gulf states. More like Old Arizona, but without the charm of Saguaros.
In any case, I doubt many “Sunbirds” will choose EWa. Bend/Redmond OR? Very likely; they already are. But Shoreline and SnoHoCo have lots more to do than Bend.
Blue in Long Beach is a good comp for what Link should look like in Everett.
Mike, South LA has nowhere near the financial power that the Bay Area does. They DO have a macho heavy rail line, but it serves Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley.
My positive (very charitable) spin is the EIS is assuming elevated and then value engineering will arrive at 30% design, with at-grade operations more palatable once the politicians see the $$s over budget.
I have not seen the Board being concerned about budget, they rather keep collecting taxes for longer. I would hope they would be more prudent and rather add the infill stations to increase ridership so that operating cost won’t bankrupt Sound Transit.
I was reading the latest (May 2023) capital program progress report from Sound Transit last night and noticed this little tidbit for the Everett Link extension project:
” *This project is in development and project report will be updated quarterly effective June 2023.”
The same note is made for Ballard Link and West Seattle Link. So is one to assume that, going forward, ST is only going to give us quarterly (rather than monthly) updates for the ST3 projects?
A generous assumption would be that the monthly progress reports will focus on under-construction capital projects, and projects in the planning/permitting/design stages will only get quarterly updates.
Or ST is thinking it can reduce staff workload by only doing quarterly reports as ST2’s projects wrap up.
It’s a curious report, Tlsgwm. It’s full of schedule details, opening dates and costs for Everett Link and the other projects.
I won’t get off topic as this is not an open thread, but there are several tidbits that when combined with other tidbits paints an interesting picture of the Capital program. Things like the Ballard schedule, a small 60 day gap between Lynnwood Link opening and East Link tracks activated for testing and the lack of action on BAR and Graham.
Oh… the map doesn’t show the WSBLE preferred alternative yet.
I would point out that I’m not just worried about property takings, I’m worried about several dimensions here:
1. The serious level of families and jobs that would be unnecessarily displaced by alignment and station choices
2. Over-engineering stations that ultimately won’t serve their communities well
3. Wasting money on bad alignment and station choices means money can’t be put into additional project elements that benefit Snohomish County residents
On top this, EVLE is already on course to be significantly over-budget and that should be recognised now rather than later because throwing money at needlessly expensive choices will mean these projects will get delivered much later than has been promised even in realignment. Snohomish County has waited long enough for LRT and their elected leaders shouldn’t be making them wait longer just because of bad policy choices of their own making.
Exactly. As you wrote before, there are similarities with Tacoma BRT (Stream). In both cases they are proposing they take more property than they need to, which means:
1) It is more expensive than it should be.
2) It is tougher on locals than it should be.
It is just a lose-lose all around. Throw in unnecessary station amenities, and there is no money left for things that really matter.
Thanks for clarifying all your concerns. We probably agree on more than we disagree.
The first segment of E-Link should have been kept at adding 3 stations to Mariner, not too dissimilar an extension as Northgate was, but without tunneling. It could’ve been completed in about a decade from now. The politicians, who are catering to Boeing, changed that so that it goes there in the first segment. Boeing is reportedly paying for an overpass, but nobody will answer me whether it will go to Seaway TC or to the Boeing employees’ parking lot. My guess is that “no answer” means the latter, since telling the truth evades public employees. As to why Boeing would offer this, that seems odd, as Boeing already has a shuttle bus system of its own, which came with opening Seaway.
The politicians are now using the low-income nature of the Casino Road community as their new reason for keeping this time and money wasting dogleg. Commuters from north of this area will be adding the equivalent of 2 weeks on a train to sightsee this area, and they’ll be paying higher fares due to the longer distance this entails. However, ST won’t even run its 513 express buses along West Casino Road like they do through much-wealthier downtown Bellevue, which they’ve done for the past 20+ years, and they could do this today. That suggests that this area is only important if you work at Boeing.
County Executive Somers is the driving force behind this dogleg. He’s been a no show for invitations to ride BRT at least a few times in the past 15 years, his mind is set, and he’s strong-armed anybody who’s asked why is this circuitous route needed. It was “on camera” when someone who asked why can’t there be a spur to Everett Mall got immediately talked to by one of his surrogates.
Since the dogleg has won, ST is blowing a golden opportunity to serve Paine Field, the region’s secondary airport, which only ET does today, even despite it not being within city limits, with a meandering route 8 that stops with 250 feet of the terminal. CT expects their passengers to endure a weather-swept walk 1/2 mile uphill on a 6 foot wide sidewalk. Planners love “transit corridors” and serving “job centers,” which doesn’t necessarily mean “destinations,” unless one is abled-bodied.