This article is brought to you by Colman Park.
One Saturday this month I decided to visit Colman Park by only frequent transit (so not the 27 or 14). I’d been to Colman Park a few times before, taking the 27 to the end and and using the pedestrian underpass under Lake Washington Blvd to the park. I found the park extends quite a way and has several different parts. This time I decided to see if I could get there by frequent transit. I took the 8 to the I-90 trail, which has a cluster of parks around MLK. The bus stop was at South Massachusetts Street at the south end of that cluster. Immediately I had to walk up a very steep hill from 27th to 31st. 31st is where the 14 runs, and overlooks the park, and has a park entrance. The entrance had a big stairway down. I didn’t want to go down those stairs and back up after I’d gone up a steep hill that I’d have to go back down again, so I settled with just looking down at the park. It was a sea of bare trees with whitish bark. (Birch trees?) And beyond that, beautiful Lake Washington and the Cascade foothills.
I turned around and visited a couple other parks I’d passed along the way: a P-Patch garden with Seattle Tilth signs, and a dog-walking park in a canyon (Blue Dog Park).. Then I went west on the I-90 trail. It was blocked off at Judkins Park Station (under construction), so I took a more northerly trail route. The previous time I’d been on the trail, it went along the eastern side of Beacon Hill and Daejon Park, a Korean park with a gazebo, and then on to the 12th Avenue bridge (Jose Rizal Bridge). I’d left the trail there and walked across the bridge to Jackson Street, but I’d seen a sign that the trail continued to SODO. I wanted to see that last part of the trail. But this time the trail didn’t go to Beacon Hill at all. I was on another branch. So I decided to go to bus 7. The trail ended at a large arterial. “Which arterial is this? It looks like maybe Rainier.” And it was Rainier, just north of the I-90 freeway entrance. So i was conveniently at the 7, although the bus stop was a long block from the trail exit.
Does anyone have other thoughts about Colman Park, or the other parks in the Central District/North Rainier?
In other news:
Bothell’s new downtown is pretty yimby. ($)
King County’s highest- and lowest-income neighborhoods. ($)
The Washington-Oregon I-5 bridge gets a federal grant. ($)
Toronto needs a bus revolution. (RMTransit video) At 5:47 he compares Seattle’s express and RapidRide bus networks.
This is an open thread.
I wanted to share this video about the Central Subway travel times. The similarities of it with DSTT2 are obvious to me:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwvuwyYQLc
It’s terrible when we spend billions and get no travel time advantage between station entrances.
It should be watched by those who think that DSTT2 is a good idea
Because, just like the DSTT2, the tunnel is not about short trips, but allowing riders from outside the tunnel stations to access those stations. If you don’t value those trip pairs (a tunnel station to a station elsewhere in the network), then you won’t value the tunnel.
Well I mean given that the central subway has awful ridership we can see not many are valuing those trip pairs
Indeed. Wasn’t defending it, just pointing out that complaining the Central Subway is slow for short trips is like complaining Link is slow between downtown & the Airport – the complaint is a misunderstanding of the goal of the project.
If you want quick trips within adjacent urban neighborhoods, don’t built a bored tunnel with deep stations. ST isn’t trying to serve short trips within urban Seattle, so it is logical that the DSTT is bad at that goal.
Both Muni and Link (ST 1 +2) are Stadtbahn – short tunnels in the core with long surface tails, with core frequency supported by running multiple lines* with different surface tails. For Seattle’s DSTT1 and SF’s Market Street subway this works well, but both city’s 2nd tunnel operate only a single line frequency and are too deep to serve quick trips.
I like the Central Subway because the rest of the T-Third Street line already existed and the direct connection of the core is very beneficial for those riders; the subway should be judged in the context of the utility of the T line overall. I am expecting ridership to improve once urban San Francisco catches up to the rest of the world with a post-covid recovery.
The WSBLE, on the other hand, has none of the virtues of the T-line. The suburban tails to WS & Ballard are not on the surface and therefore immensely expensive to build. Seattle needs to either dramatically reduce the cost of the tails or switch to a different mode** that merits a high cost of construction*** – either approach would be valid but currently the city is pursuing neither.
*ST1 delivered good core frequency by interlining buses and one rail line. ST2 will have good core frequency by interline two Link lines, but during our current period of construction the frequency is poor.
** For example surface stations like in Rainier or Bel-Red, or shallow open cut & cover stations like the HBLR or NLR light rails in NJ. These are example of actual “light rail”, not the “light metro” that is ST’s current design standards for ST3 station.
*** For example, a small but high frequency automated train.
Interesting video but I think the trip pair samples are a bit flawed. He should do a comparison of the 30 or 45 Bus from Caltrain to Chinatown Rose Pak station (not Union Square) during typical traffic. That’s where you’ll see the Central Subway dominate over the other modes.
I would like to see that comparison too. Rose Pak is also very deep — so the advantage may not be as good as one hopes.
I would note that even in this video the Downtown starting point is halfway between the two Metro platforms at Union Square and Powell Street. Had the starting point been moved a block, the comparisons would shift. For example, had it begun at the cable car turnaround, the existing Metro N-Judah path would be more comparable to the Central Subway path. Had the end point actually been Union Square itself, Central Subway would also fare much better on travel times.
I think that the bigger importance of the video is however the attention it gives to looking at entrance-to-entrance travel times. In this whole ST station location debate, ST Board ignores asking for this. Considering how many times comments make this very point, not asking for this seems to be deliberate avoidance.
Not really there was an article I remember reading and just double checking on google maps. Sure it’s 19 minutes by bus vs 14 if you head directly to that same station (from cal train). But head to the bus stop right before it and they are both around 16 minutes.
If you head north by a couple stops to north beach then it’s 19 minutes by subway versus 24 minutes bus but now you have to walk 7 minutes with the subway. Or transfer to another bus but now it’s not faster
It’s really only faster if you head specifically to the station
The newer residential developments just south of Judkins Park will add thousands of new residents that live in small spaces and will enjoy these nearby parks. It’s missing a good walkable village commercial district to tie it all together though.
looking at that development grand street commons https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/03/14/grand-street-commons/ it looks like it’ll add some retail space
https://www.djc.com/news/re/12125541.html browsing the construction website it seems it might add a grocery store?
> seven-story, 271-unit building with 28,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and 271 underground parking spaces. For now, the commercial space is indicated as one large bay on Rainier; that’s enough space for a small-format grocery store — as is indicated on renderings — or a large drug store. A truck loading dock is indicated on State, along with the garage entrance.
(this is from 2019 so the plans have changed since submitted)
On the other hand it looks like there’s already a QFC, safeway on rainier nearby and an amazon fresh/cvs to the north so I’m a bit curious to see what would actually open.
“… it looks like there’s already a QFC, safeway on rainier nearby and an amazon fresh/cvs to the north …”
The QFC is about a half-mile from the Grand Street Commons. The other two stores are at least a mile away, which is a pretty far walk and generally too far for most.
It’s a good question though about market shares though. I think that the area in general could benefit from having a Trader Joe’s, and it would be close enough to the freeway to also get Mercer Island driving shoppers. Of course, TJ’s are notorious for being parking and loading zone nightmares no matter where they go so a developer would probably have to explicitly expect TJ’s before seeking development approvals.
I think commercial villages do best when there is a whole variety of adjacent businesses including coffee, several restaurants and other things. That makes the place a destination hub as opposed to a stand-alone business.
I thought about Trader Joe’s but thought it’s be unlikely since they typically choose higher income areas.
> Of course, TJ’s are notorious for being parking and loading zone nightmares
Ironically it makes TJ a good fit since the parking lot is small.
There’s PCC and metropolitan market but that’s even less likely.
I guess Trader Joe’s might be the best fit after all? The other alternative djc talked about was drug store but I doubt any new drug stores are opening after so many bartell closing
It is an interesting triangle. Jackson and Rainier have plenty of places. That part of 23rd or MLK — not so much. The freeway cuts through the middle of it. It left some nice parks, but 31st seems like it the only area with shops (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LJC5WPNNqvuJorQ68). That area kind of has that Madrona vibe, where it wouldn’t surprise you if it just drifts into the land of big houses and maybe an apartment here or there but instead has a nice restaurant, places to get coffee, and so forth.
RossB: shops appear along the former streetcar lines. They were on Beacon, Rainier, 23rd , and 31st avenues South. The bus service on MLK Jr. Way South north of Mt. Baker was a recent addition in June 1997 and violates the service guideline on route spacing.
“The bus service on MLK Jr. Way South north of Mt. Baker [the route 8 extension] was a recent addition in June 1997 and violates the service guideline on route spacing.”
Interesting, so we don’t have to have qualms about deleting it if the 8 is split (the Uptown-Madison Park concept).
My preferred option for reaching Colman Park on frequent transit is to ride Link to Mt. Baker station and walk the rest of the way. Mt. Baker Blvd. to Mt. Baker park makes for a very scenic walk, plus you get to use the ped bridge to bypass the traffic lights at MLK and Rainier. Once you reach Lake Washington, the lower entrance to Colman Park is just right around the corner.
Yeah, I would probably take Link, the 7, 8 or 48 depending on where I started from. Since I usually start from the north end, I’m already on Link, and would just stay on it. It is a nice park if you want a workout — a lot of gain. Any walk can be easily extended in just about any direction for some interesting things to look out. You are never too far away from public transit (unless you overdo it and realize you are at the far end of Seward Park and your feet are tired).
I do the first part of that, from Mt Baker Station to Mt Baker Blvd, and down the park to the beach. Then I sometimes go north along the lake to the 3 or 2. That passes the Colman Park entrance.
That sounds like a good route. Going up Colman (from the water to 31st) is pretty good too (I think I did that a couple years ago). That area up there close to the Bradner Gardens Park is pretty cool too. It will be nice to make good loops involving the Judkins Park Station when that is built.
This issue with going this way to Colman Park is it’s a long way to walk just to get to the park entrance, longer than waiting for the half-hourly 27.
Yeah, it depends a lot on what you are trying to do. It is like going to Volunteer Park from downtown. You may want to go to the tower or botanical garden and not spend a lot of extra time getting there. On the other hand, if you just want a pleasant walk then the neighborhood surrounding it has its charms, and can easily be incorporated into a nice walk. In the first case, you are probably taking the 10 from downtown, while in the second case you would take light rail (or even just the first bus on Pike headed up the hill).
Same with this. If you want to get to the waterfront, and walk along it, then the 27 seems like the way to go. If you want to walk through the park (top to bottom) with a minimal amount of extra walking, the 14 seems like a good option. If you want to incorporate more walking, then Link, or any of the other buses (7, 8, 48, etc.) make sense depending on your starting point.
Taking the 14 or 27 from downtown is another option, if you can time them.
One of the things we started doing during COVID was trying out all of the walks listed in the Seattle Stairway Walks book. There’s a ton in the Colman/Leschi/Madrona area, with lots of transit and trip-chaining potential.
For folks wanting to find more stairways, there’s a UW professor who has mapped even more public stairways in the city than are listed in the book.
Very cool. Thank you for the links.
> Does anyone have other thoughts about Colman Park, or the other parks in the Central District/North Rainier?
Kinda wish say judkins park fields’ were upgraded a bit or maybe more basketball/tennis/pickleball stuff on the i90 park lid. It’s nice but a bit boring? Granted the current area also does have less people nearby so I’m not faulting the park for allocating resources based on usage.
I guess other stuff happening for park trails/roads:
* the ‘fight’ over lake washington boulevard over the car free weekends/ adding bike lane. It’s interestingly under the jurisdiction of Parks and Rec not SDOT.
* i90 trail is adding lights
* when I last talked to SDOT they said they were looking into changing Cheasty Boulevard and Mt Baker Boulevard to make them more walkable somehow better than just a road for cars. Though they didn’t really seem to have much good answers besides speed bumps
Just a screed on the Lake Washington Blvd closure:
The segment that is being considered for closure is over a mile in an area where there is no housing (and no multi-family housing for at least 1/3 of a mile inland) nor employment (except a handful at the Rowing Center). The primary user would not be commuters nor residents who are running errands nor school children going to a nearby school (the nearest schools are separated by steep hills). Unlike most other bicycle facilities in Seattle, it would be strictly a recreational trail and most users would be long-range bicyclists who do not live anywhere near the roadway and likely not even in the neighborhood. It’s a project mainly for hardcore long-distance bicyclists!
Meanwhile, the rerouted traffic would be shifted to 38th Ave S, which is a very narrow residential street and it runs a block from an elementary school. The city recently added speed bumps and that’s already pushing traffic to nearby parallel residential streets that have parked cars leaving only enough room for cars going one way at a time. (And let’s not forget that Rainier Ave S just west of this has had a lane become BAT lane, already diverting more traffic to 38th Ave S in recent years.)
I believe that the chosen solution for now has been to look to speed reduction actions on the roadway.
In a similar way, Seattle chose to spend money building an adjacent bicycle facility on Lake Washington Blvd in the Arboretum area a few miles further north. Should Seattle have also closed this stretch of the same roadway instead? Most of this discussed closure stretch has ample room for a separate bicycle facility like in the Arboretum so that to me looks like the better solution.
Isn’t the Burke-Gilman mostly a recreational trail?
> Unlike most other bicycle facilities in Seattle, it would be strictly a recreational trail and most users would be long-range bicyclists who do not live anywhere near the roadway and likely not even in the neighborhood. It’s a project mainly for hardcore long-distance bicyclists!
You can read the community engagement comments, most of the supporters of the bike lane or other adding speed bumps/stop signs are not long distance bicyclists
https://engage.seattleparksandrec.com/en/projects/lake-washington-boulevard/1?idea_map_id=e7e13d39-6ecd-4451-9d91-cbe14067fc4d
> The segment that is being considered for closure is over a mile in an area where there is no housing
If the segment did have housing and commercial wouldn’t it be even harder to close a lane? Ive seen many argue
A) there’s too much car traffic so one shouldn’t close since it’ll move to other roads
And then at the same time
B) lake Washington is so much faster since there’s fewer cars
Under this logic what magical scenario would it ever be acceptable to add the bike lane then?
The segment that is being considered for closure is over a mile in an area where there is no housing (and no multi-family housing for at least 1/3 of a mile inland) nor employment (except a handful at the Rowing Center). The primary user would not be commuters nor residents who are running errands nor school children going to a nearby school (the nearest schools are separated by steep hills).
If that is true, then it doesn’t add much value as a car road. Might as well turn it into a bike path. I get that people might want to go out on a “Sunday Drive” but I think it is better (for everyone else) to take that trip on a bike.
“The segment that is being considered for closure is over a mile in an area where there is no housing”
If the segment did have housing and commercial wouldn’t it be even harder to close a lane?
Yes, absolutely. There are basically two categories of road here. The study area is Seward Park to Colman Beach (along the waterfront). Close to Seward Park, there are houses with driveways off of the boulevard (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vehPsJpKyXrSMSdD9). It isn’t like they have two driveways, or could access their house from an alleyway — this is the only way they can access their house by car (or truck).
To the north end, however, things are different. From what I can tell, the dividing line is 49th. [Note: Describing this is a bit confusing, because the boulevard is basically north-south, but since it follows the shore, turns east-west in places.] North of the 49th & Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/JbwVaG8CwqnFk3pK7) there are no home driveways along the road. It is this area (the northern one) that should be the easiest to fix. Unfortunately, there are a couple access issues, both on the water side. Up north there is the Mount Baker beach, and to the south there is the boat launch. Fortunately, both are fairly close to the intersecting streets, so carving out automobile access would not be that hard.
It is the area to the south that is more challenging. People need to be able to access their property (by car and truck). It does seem possible though, to have a narrow one-way road (for car access) along with bikes using the other lane. The key is that people no longer treat the boulevard as a through-road. This can be accomplished fairly easily by just blocking it off in places. For example, consider 49th & Lake Washington Boulevard again. As mentioned, there would be no reason for cars to travel the boulevard north of there. However, cars do need to access the houses along the boulevard between 49th and 50th. So, put a big metal post on the boulevard, just to the west of the intersection. Drivers heading north on 49th can turn left (into the parking lot) or turn right, onto the boulevard. But the drivers can’t go far, because as luck would have it, there is nothing between 50th and 51st. So the road that went right onto the boulevard only went right a very short distance before turning right again. Basically the driving path is this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/nMu24xq4yVAvbz5C6. In areas which are longer (where there are several blocks in a row with driveways off the boulevard) you reverse direction at every intersection. It is one way, but changes at every block, which means you are forced off the road after one block of travel.
The end result is that people have access to their property, and very few people would drive past their house. Their would be little reason to. Meanwhile, people would have a nice (and quite scenic) bike path. Compared to many of the projects here, it is fairly simple. Again, it gets a bit messy with driving access to the water, but other than that, it should be fairly easy, if the city wasn’t bogged down worrying about inconvenienced drivers.
“…it should be fairly easy, if the city wasn’t bogged down worrying about inconvenienced drivers.”
No you are missing a major point. It’s pushing traffic into a residential area with narrow streets that are not designed to carry even local through traffic . 38th Ave S is a former residential street turned into collector. This impacts people who live in this neighborhood.
Actually, streets like Genesee and Wilson are much wider as historic streetcar streets making the safety impact of increased traffic much less. Access could easily been granted for a few dozen homeowners by making the road one way and give half over for a bicycle track.
It is closing the part north of the rowing center that is the most disruptive because the next street that is a reasonably safe width is an over-subscribed Rainier Ave and drivers have already been shifting away from Rainier as BAT lanes get created and congestion on it has been much worse. Rainier is just so far west that drivers are going to look to use the very narrow parallel streets in south Mt Baker.
No you are missing a major point. It’s pushing traffic into a residential area with narrow streets that are not designed to carry even local through traffic.
I’m not missing anything.
First of all, there is an important thing to understand: Traffic is not finite. Some trips just disappear. It is an obvious corollary of the induced demand (or induced traffic) idea. If adding road capacity ultimately leads to more congestion, then shrinking roads will eventually lead to less congestion. Guess what? It works! Look at Amsterdam. Drivers are often forced way out of their way for a simple driving trip. In contrast, people taking transit, on foot or on bikes can go quickly and directly to their destination. The result: Fewer people drive, and there is less congestion.
In this case, we should back up and wonder who is using the road. Local residents? Of course, but very few. There are just very few people close to that part of the lake. It does, however, make sense as a driving shortcut (https://maps.app.goo.gl/E8rvvype2SkziimX8). Notice that the trip started on Rainier Avenue (in the south) and ends at MLK (in the north). The logical way to make that trip is to drive north on Rainier, then angle right onto MLK, and you are there. Yet Google is telling me that the fastest way to make that trip is via Lake Washington Boulevard. If that is true of that trip, what if you are headed to Madison Park? What if it is rush-hour, and there is congestion on Rainier or MLK? This makes using this automobile shortcut even more attractive. Eventually, of course, you get congestion on the boulevard, because of all of those people trying to avoid congestion elsewhere as well as plenty who want their shortcut.
Well sorry, the system should not be designed to favor cars. Doing so actually makes it worse for cars. Automobile infrastructure is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. The more we use it, the worse it gets. The more we favor it, the worse the outcome, for everyone — even drivers. This is not intuitive, but then neither is the tragedy of the commons (or induced demand). But that is the situation.
Of course we need to be careful about replacing one shortcut with another. People shouldn’t be able to drive quickly through the residential streets. In this case though, there is very little work that needs to be done, simply because there aren’t a lot of other options. It is pretty much the standard way (the big arterials like MLK, Rainier and 23rd) and this shortcut.
“This makes using this automobile shortcut even more attractive.”
That’s a feature; not a bug.
This points to the lack of understanding of the role of auto short cuts. It’s not a freeway but a 25 mph street (admittedly where drivers go faster than that). Its used mostly by residents who live somewhere on the corridor. That short cut feature removes cars from narrow residential streets as well as Rainier Ave a mile further east. That actually frees up Rainier to function more like an urban village street and makes neighborhood streets much safer to cross.
Eliminating vehicle capacity makes more sense where there is dense urban life and frequent transit. Send the cars away from the urban village setting — and over to this short cut!
And don’t forget that my ultimate suggestion is for a new facility adjacent to LWB. It is a much easier effort here than building a new bicycle facility in or near Rainier.
> Eliminating vehicle capacity makes more sense where there is dense urban life and frequent transit. Send the cars away from the urban village setting — and over to this short cut!
There is no “eliminating” vehicle capacity. more people will just choose to drive taking up the capacity. LWB is just inconvenient enough with its alignment currently that the route only becomes faster once there’s enough traffic in rainier.
> And don’t forget that my ultimate suggestion is for a new facility adjacent to LWB. It is a much easier effort here than building a new bicycle facility in or near Rainier.
A) the parks and rec doesn’t want to widen the road.
B) if this was a bike facility from the beginning and the ask was reversed, would you be asking to build a new road?
I guess either way once they add lots of stop signs and speed bumps it should make LWB a much less attractive role as an alternative traffic route.
This type of closure has worked extremely well in Portland, and many local residents really like not having to deal with so much through traffic. Admittedly, this isn’t done to streets as wide as Lake Washington Blvd though.
SE Clinton was used for a long time by traffic wanting to avoid SE Division, two blocks north, so this tiny neighborhood street was always having traffic speed through it.
Not today, because over the past 10 years there have been additions:
+ A diverter at SE 31st prevents through road traffic except bikes and similar.
+ A similar one at SE Chavez has a traffic light to cross or turn onto this busy road.
+ Somewhat more recently, this one was put at SE 17th
+ Pandemic restaurant seating was installed on Clinton just west of SE 26th Ave in 2020, though Google hasn’t visited the street since 2019. This also blocks road vehicles but allows everything else through.
Assorted other, similar barriers have been put in place on a number of streets where through traffic has been a problem. It’s quite remarkable how few barriers make a huge difference in the level of through traffic.
Vancouver BC has some residential intersections they’ve turned into two L-shaped streets, so one might go south-west and the other north-east, to block through traffic. Maybe some of those would help?
I doubt there are many trips for which it is advantageous to divert from Rainier to 38th Ave. S. Unless you’re coming from the south and live in the area, you’d be better off staying on Rainier even it it takes a minute or two longer, since Rainier is a diagonal and 38th would just take you out of your way. And if you live in the area, you probably already used 38th when going or coming from points south because it is the most direct route. 38th itself looks like two lanes with parking on one side, not an uncommon configuration for residential arterials in Seattle. Since there’s not much *there* along LWB to begin with, mainly recreational car trips same as with the bike trips, there may not be much thru traffic to divert to 38th in the first place?
Its used mostly by residents who live somewhere on the corridor.
How do you know that? I listed an example that is not in the least bit obscure. Again, Google told me — as a driver — that instead of staying on the main corridors (Rainier and MLK) I should use Lake Washington Boulevard. This is Google, which estimates travel time, and is well aware of how long it takes to drive on the various streets. It wasn’t a weird time, either. It will tell me that pretty much all day long. Maybe not late at night (when you could make all the lights on the big arterials) but that is pretty much it.
Since it works for that trip, it in turn works for many other trips (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t9rnDPKiMNnFY9789). Holy cow, that is 23rd! That is west of MLK! Oh, and look how the top two destinations use Lake Washington Boulevard. They don’t even suggest using Rainier/23rd! The only other suggestion is the freeway, which is considerably slower, even when freeway traffic is “lighter than usual”. I haven’t even included Madison Park, or anywhere east of MLK (https://maps.app.goo.gl/58rrQRKkCWXffNuh8). It is the same idea, in reverse (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPJUuAXF1R47HdcLA). Look at that — the destination is literally west of MLK — at the western edges of Rainier Beach — and Google is sending me via the boulevard. When I write about it being a “shortcut” I don’t mean trips close to the lake. I mean a good chunk of the city.
Clearly just from a timing standpoint it is an attractive option. But it also just plain attractive! If I was driving and it was even close I would go that way. You can drive for miles without traffic lights or stop signs. On a nice day, you have views. I’m sure it is used by locals, but there are very few locals. There are way more people that would be attracted to it as a shortcut. Not that many people live close to the boulevard, and even fewer live within a few blocks of the lake.
I doubt there are many trips for which it is advantageous to divert from Rainier to 38th Ave. S.
Exactly! Look, I get it. Lake Washington Boulevard probably does get a few people off the side streets. But mostly it attracts people who would otherwise use the main arterials. If I was in Rainier Beach and wanted to get to Montlake it wouldn’t even occur to me to use Lake Washington Boulevard and yet Google — software that dictates driving patterns for a very large percentage of the population — is recommending that.
Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that they completely close Lake Washington Boulevard to cars (on a long term basis). Also imagine that no one switches to biking or taking transit. What happens? A lot of cars use Rainier and MLK. Pretty much all of those people I mentioned. Meanwhile, the people who live to the east (and there aren’t that many of them) either go all the way to those same streets, or they switch to using streets like 38th. The increase in car traffic on streets like 38th would be minimal. This makes sense: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1fAxTvMT4E7Jdx9T9. This does not: https://maps.app.goo.gl/r2jEjA9cmVeXu9kp7.
Even if it did, the next step is to make sure that it doesn’t (by somehow diverting traffic). Yes, this means step after step of diversion, but that is how you do it. In this case though, there is very little to do. That is because Lake Washington Boulevard is useful for so many people who cut through the neighborhood, and nothing else around it is.
Vancouver BC has some residential intersections they’ve turned into two L-shaped streets, so one might go south-west and the other north-east, to block through traffic. Maybe some of those would help?
Yes, absolutely. We have them too. Capitol Hill is a great example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/12s7d3wCdZqxFh3T7. Works great.
In this case though, you wouldn’t need to do much, if anything. Once you prevent people from using it as a long-distance shortcut (e. g. from Montlake to Rainier Beach) there would be a lot less driving east of the main arterials.
“What happens? A lot of cars use Rainier and MLK. ”
You’re thinking about 2023 Ross. In 2024, SDOT is cutting MLK capacity by eliminating one travel lane in each direction for two PBLs. The project just started construction .
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike-program/protected-bike-lanes/mlk-protected-bike-lane
And SDOT is eliminating a travel lane in Rainier imminently so it can be used by buses.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transit-program/rainier-ave-s-bus-only-lane
These two projects when combined will make both streets less attractive to drivers and will create backups. When a lane southbound on Rainier has been closed recently, the traffic was so bad that it backed up the I-90 off ramp and cars were a a standstill inside the Mt Baker tunnel!
That will send more drivers to LWB and to 38th Ave S than exists today. North Rainier Valley is about to get a 50 percent reduction in street capacity and that makes your assumptions that drivers will shift to Rainier and MLK look pretty silly. The only through street not proposed for capacity reduction is 38th Ave S, which is 25 feet wide with street front parking for homes without driveways.
This type of closure has worked extremely well in Portland, and many local residents really like not having to deal with so much through traffic.
Yes, and we have some of the same things as well. It is really an international thing (it is common in Europe). If you look at the “Not Just Bikes” videos you can see how Amsterdam has a lot of things like that. The result: Way less traffic. Way fewer people drive. Way more people bike and take transit.
It is really counterintuitive. It took me a while to wrap my head around it. The less direct you make driving, the more people use alternatives, and ultimately, the less traffic you have. Of course you want to make those alternatives good. If the bus or tram is struck in traffic, it isn’t a good alternative and you are probably hosed.
But there is a tendency in America to want to have all modes be direct and fast. We want bike lanes *in addition to* direct driving routes. We want mass transit *as well as* freeways. The problem is, this doesn’t work very well. You end up with lots of people driving, and as a result, a lot of traffic, and of course people killed by cars. Your bike paths and transit aren’t used that much, and since so many people are using cars, this strains the public agencies as well.
From an automobile standpoint, all you really need is access. It doesn’t have to be fast or direct, but this isn’t Venice — cars (and trucks) need to access various places. Once you accept that is all you really need for automobiles, things get easier.
One challenge is managing bike and bus paths. Quite often, the road is not wide enough to have bike lanes, bus lanes and a general purpose automobile lane.
The other challenge is evolving to that system. Do it out of order, and it becomes a mess. For example, I am now convinced that the long term solution to Aurora is that it become one general purpose lane each direction. But if you did that tomorrow, a significant number of cars would move to side streets, like Linden. So that would mean applying those sorts of fixes, to prevent people using those streets as long-distance alternatives to Aurora. That is a long, arduous task. It is like plugging a dam. You are constantly fixing leaks until it just doesn’t make sense as an alternative.
Thus you really need an interim solution (which is basically what we are currently evolving towards). There are still a lot of direct automobile pathways, they are just on major arterials, and will have fewer and fewer lanes. We need to prevent people from using side streets, but it doesn’t need to be at an extreme level, simply because the main route for driving is fairly straightforward.
That is why I am so adamant about this particular area. Lake Washington Boulevard doesn’t have many alternatives, other than the major arterials (where we want the cars). A lot of the roads already have the fix, either because it was applied by the city, or just the result of the natural (or the case of I-90, the unnatural) geography.
“What happens? A lot of cars use Rainier and MLK. ”
You’re thinking about 2023 Ross. In 2024, SDOT is cutting MLK capacity …
That will send more drivers to LWB and to 38th Ave S than exists today.
Which is why I want LWB closed!
Consider another street for a second: Seward Park/Wilson/50th. With the LWB open, traffic flows that way: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zQQPWuB7qYNp2FvV8. Again, this is 2023. This is with or without traffic. As traffic gets worse on MLK/Rainier, traffic on that street will increase. Unless the boulevard is closed! Then it doesn’t make sense to go that way.
The same is true of 42nd/43rd: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ynhZMSa4qbvvzHVF7. The same is true for various side streets to the north as well. Notice how the north end of that trip involves going on East Lake Washington Boulevard up the hill to 32nd, all to get back onto the main street (Madison). Further north and you go on McGilvra. Further east and you are winding your way up Leschi/Frink Park (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nhwr7ach6gwDfbNQ7). All of this to take advantage of the major through-route that is Lake Washington Boulevard. All of that goes away — a lot of streets become a lot quieter — if you close off part of Lake Washington Boulevard to cars.
I understand your concern about 38th, but there is a limit to how far out of the way drivers will go before they just endure driving on the main road (or find some other way to get there, like ride a bus). LWB is not out of their way. It is literally a shortcut in many, many cases. With or without traffic, it is the faster way.
38th is not. 38th is indirect. Again, if it really does get too crowded, then by all means, we should apply the same approach so that 38th is worse as an alternative. But relatively few people will use it, simply because it is such an indirect way to get there. They will use Rainier/MLK not because it has excess capacity, but because it is the most direct way to get there. At least it would be, if they closed Lake Washington Boulevard.
Anyways for now the park isn’t really looking into adding bike lanes and is moving forward with slowing down cars with stop signs and speeds bumps.
> Informed by the Short-Term Recommendations in the Lake Washington Boulevard Visioning Process and Recommendations Report created by the Lake Washington Blvd Task Force, the Lake Washington Boulevard Renovations Project aims to improve sidewalks and pedestrian paths to be ADA-compliant and increase safety by adding stop signs, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and other traffic calming infrastructure. In this project phase, Seattle Parks and Recreation *will not be installing a dedicated bike lane*.
This should make lake washington boulevard much less of an alternative for most far-ish car trips. Or if they do end up taking it at a hopefully safe enough speed bikes can still use it (though kinda doubt lol)
Either way even if the boulevard continues being focused for cars as a “limited freeway” it should still be fixed. As the following notes, the boulevards current design has a high rate of unusual accidents compared to the rest of Seattle, notably many in the “other” category.
> The following information is on traffic collisions along Lake Washington Boulevard S between Lake Park Dr S at Mt. Baker Beach Park and S Juneau St at Seward Park between January 2015 and April 2022. The Boulevard’s historic design, its present uses, and driver behavior result in unusual collision patterns within the City of Seattle with a very high share of single-vehicle, bicycle, and head-on collisions.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/Stay%20Healthy%20Street/LWB%20Visioning%20Process%20Final%20Report.pdf#page=30
> The most common collision location is the long stretch between Mt. Baker Beach and Stan Sayers Park, where there are no homes and very few destinations. The other common locations are the points in the Boulevard where it curves following the lakeshore. These locations have poor visibility and can be difficult for an impaired or distracted driver to negotiate without leaving the roadway.
> “Other” collisions consist of a mix of single vehicle, backing, and truly uncategorizable collisions. Generally they make up less than 10% of the collisions in a given area throughout the city, but they make up half of the collisions along Lake Washington Boulevard. The “Other” collisions along LWB are single vehicle collisions.
increase safety by adding stop signs, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and other traffic calming infrastructure.
This should make lake washington boulevard much less of an alternative for most far-ish car trips.
Hopefully, yes. Google puts the average speed at over 25 MPH (at least through a good chunk of it) which is blazing fast for the city. If that can be dropped to 20, or hopefully 15, then it would be a lot better. If going that way takes an extra five minutes, a lot fewer people will go that way.
It may still be dangerous for bikes though. Speed humps and stop signs tend to get drivers to go fast and slow. Average speeds are definitely reduced, but top speeds can be similar. Part of the problem is that people just aren’t used to driving a slow and steady pace. They tend to prefer going fast and then slow. For example, consider a case where there are a lot of pedestrians walking on the street. You only need to pull up a block or so to drop someone off (e. g. at a train station). The thing to do is drive walking speed (around 2 MPH) but I’ve seen idiots go 10 MPH, then slam on their brakes. To them, 10 MPH is slow. Not in that case though — it is way too fast.
Same goes with a biking street. Set the speed limit at 20 MPH and you are bound to get people who go 25 and more. Speeding cameras won’t help, since folks will complain if they get a ticket going 25 in a 20. Drivers don’t treat the speed limit as the actual limit — they treat it as the goal. I think the thing to do is set the speed limit at 15 MPH, and enforce it with cameras. If you go 25 you definitely get a ticket, which means no on goes 25 (after a while).
It is a lot of work, but it can be effective. It would be a lot simpler (and more effective) if they simply closed the street to cars.
> Hopefully, yes. Google puts the average speed at over 25 MPH (at least through a good chunk of it) which is blazing fast for the city. If that can be dropped to 20, or hopefully 15, then it would be a lot better. If going that way takes an extra five minutes, a lot fewer people will go that way.
I agree it’d work, though the speed limit decrease was not voted favorably by the Lake Washington Boulevard Task Force. The park department (as far as I know) isn’t going to implementing speed limit decreases.
> Reduce speed limit on Lake Washington Boulevard to 20 mph (from existing 25 mph). (5 in support, 5 opposed)*
(Page 25 has the votes for proposals)
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/Stay%20Healthy%20Street/LWB%20Visioning%20Process%20Final%20Report.pdf#page=25
Kinda wish say judkins park fields’ were upgraded a bit
The museum is interesting. Other than that, it isn’t much of a destination park, but that is just the nature of it. It is kind of small, and either next to or over the freeway. It makes for a nice stretch of green space to walk through, but it isn’t going to be like Seward Park.
Ross I think you may be confusing Judkins with some of the other parks close by. Judkins has baseball diamonds up top, also used for football and soccer, and then green space leading down to the spray park. Then on the lid there is the skate park and bike polo, then the I90 trail before the someday-open light rail station. It gets quite a lot of use. But definitely not as big as Seward.
Yeah, I’m basically talking about the set of parks. Judkins, Jimi Hendrix, Sam Smith. They are fairly similar and adjacent. It makes for a good place to walk through (and an excellent place to bike through). It is a fine set of neighborhood parks, but there isn’t enough “nature”, if you will, to make it a destination walking park in my mind (like Seward, Discovery, Carkeek, etc.). Some of it is the size, but also the design. Frink/Leschi is roughly the same size, but a lot more woodsy (it has various trails that offer a lot of loops). The greater Judkins Park area is a lot more open.
Are there any plans to enable Route 48 to start/end at the foot of Mt Baker Station?
I was curious about that a couple weeks ago and sadly the short answer is no.
The longer answer is a very qualified maybe depending on whether Sound Transit/King County Metro wants to move the Mt Baker Transit center and how the new affordable housing is built and if it leaves enough space left over for a bus transit center.
Most likely moved to the south parking lot spot
> King County Metro, Seattle Department of Transportation, and Sound Transit have all expressed interest in providing better pedestrian, bicycling, and bus-to-light rail transfer connections to the Mount Baker light rail station for over a decade. A potential relocation of the King County Mount Baker Transit Center and layover to this site has been considered to facilitate safer pedestrian bus-to-light rail transfers. Possible use of part of the site for this purpose has been evaluated by the forementioned agencies, but has not advanced beyond high level planning efforts. Relocation of the transit center to the site is challenging from multiple perspectives, and co-locating bus transfer and layover space near a large affordable housing development with ground floor child-care and early learning uses warrants more investigation.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Housing/Funding%20Opportunities/2023/MountBaker/Mt_Baker_Infrastructure_Study.pdf (2023 page 39)
@Mike Orr,
Just ditch the bus and take LR to Mt Baker Station. From there you can walk all the way to Colman Beach with only moderate elevation change. Distance is about a mile.
Once there you have a choice for the return: a) back the way you came, b) up the hill to the Picardo Patch and over the ridge, or c) part way up the hill and then the long, flat route through the tunnel to Jimi Hendrix Park.
There are lots of variations.
In the future the easiest way to get to Colman Park will be to take LR to JPS and then walk through the tunnel. Hang a right when you exit at the East Portal Viewpoint.
I have gone through the trail tunnel to the edge of Lake Washington. I’m fuzzy on how you get up/down to it, and last time I came north from Colman Park the access up was closed for construction. I didn’t even think about it this time. If there’s just a moderate stairway and short hill from the trail to Lake Washington Blvd, that might be a good way in the future.
It looks to me like if you go through the portal (from the west) then you end up going down a bit before you reach Irving, and then have to walk up to get to Lake Washington Boulevard there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/v66ezoeaQNRnaRVVA). That could work, but I would probably only use the tunnel as a way to get down to the water (like you said, unfortunately that is blocked right now). I would rather stay on the surface, and access Colman Park from the top (where there are stairs, and nice trees, etc.). 31st isn’t too hard to cross in most places. You do have to go up and down a bit, but that looks to be the case with the tunnel option as well.
Regarding taking frequent transit to visit Colman Park, I’m a bit confused, perhaps by the parameters or your definition. Metro #14 doesn’t fit here? Couldn’t you just take this route to the southern entrance of Mt. Baker Park and walk northward?
Fwiw, when I first moved to Seattle from NYC in the late 80s, when most Metro routes were far from frequent I might add, I lived for about a year just a couple of blocks east of Franklin HS. I would walk our dogs thru these two parks on occasion. Typically, I just walked from the house up S Mt Baker Blvd, crossed S McClellan St and entered the park(s) from there. Sometimes I just strolled along Lk Washington Blvd S to mix things up. Vehicular traffic always seemed to be traveling too fast for the nature of the road through there. That probably remains the case today, though I haven’t been there in quite some time to personally attest to that.
Frequent is every 15 minutes or more. The 14 is frequent weekday daytime but I was going on Saturday. I’m putting together a list of parks on frequent transit, so it was partly for that. Taking the 14 to the south end of Mt Baker Park is not much shorter than walking from Mt Baker Station.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification!
Good luck with your endeavor (and Happy Holidays).
Yeah, that makes sense. It is crazy that the 14 isn’t frequent on the weekends. It performs really well.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/014#weekday
Routes 1 and 14 have headways of about 15/15/30/30/30, peaks, midday, evening, Sat, Sun.
“It is crazy that the 14 isn’t frequent on the weekends. It performs really well.”
It was 30 minutes until the wave of midday upgrades. I thought it was still a low-ridership coverage route on the 31st segment. Jackson Street gets spillover ridership from the 7 and 36, and it’s the only Jackson route between Rainier and 31st.
Interesting Urbanist editorial this morning:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/12/22/op-ed-quick-ceo-ousting-points-at-deficiencies-in-the-sound-transit-board/?feed_id=1885&_unique_id=6585cf2620fda&fbclid=IwAR1HYz7ihFyXVsd6TR56OqRfWQlmgoUvRjrCz_KUTxI9wspD_0s2OIAWm44_aem_AQ2A89XCUI8-O5UEqyk2GwmZ7o8YYDOH3DXfb50AfVRhV0wqA8YCI_nzVcHGgo3g1YuKI_ls2wh8HJb5tHRNaCuF
It challenges transit advocates to propose ways to restructure the Sound Transit Board.
Should this get its own post? I don’t mind if this becomes one.
This is a very important article, and a good service by the author and The Urbanist. It might even rate an open thread of its own, since it really is really the heart of the matter. ST’s problem is leadership and decision-making, starting at the top.
Nah, important articles are published in the Seattle Times…. not the Urbanist. Nobody in City, County or regional government knows who Doug Trumm is or cares about his opinion.
With that said, Sound Transit is bulletproof. The way it was set up by State government, the way it’s funded party by the Feds and the ST3 vote… make changing it’s structure close to impossible. Mayor Bruce and Executive Dow control much (everything maybe?) that Sound Transit does in Seattle. Why on earth would those two give up power? This is Mayor Bruce’s chance to have his vision for “downtown renewal” and but his stamp on Seattle for decades to come with the second tunnel project. Why don’t you email his office and ask the mayor to step aside for some elected transit board?
I voted no on ST3 because I understood it would likely turn into a political shit show in less than 10 years. And here we are.
Cruickshank is sharp. But several factors were omitted; it is quite complex. The RTA and ST governance stems from the Legislature in the early 1990s. At the time, I thought high capacity transit authority would have been better given to single counties; the each of the three ST counties are about twice as large as the three TriMet counties together; they are vast. But the Legislature did not trust King County; Ruth Fisher, the Transportation chair was from north Tacoma; she knew she wanted Seattle yes votes to get better transit in Pierce County. The three-county federated structure seems to have naturally led to the ST spine worship, a capital focus, and the other issues listed by the op ed. It praises Joni Earl; but note she succeeded by getting the wrong things done; south-first Link delayed the much higher ridership leg. She led while the freeway alignments were selected. Link is an awkward mode for such a long system; more use of intercity bus would have been better. But ST has three infinite huge streams of revenue; they will continue; is there a rush to make poor decisions? I hope they focus less on capital delivery and more on service delivery; that is the opposite of the Crunican committee focus. Even the op ed assumes the ST3 projects are sound; they do not seem sound to me. I hope the board changes the DSTT2. Elected officials do not have to directly experienced in transit to make wise decisions any more than in waste water; they need to have good advisors, democracy, and trust. Too often the ST decisions seemed to have been gamed. More open decision making may help. The press is important (e.g., Lindblom, Urbanist, and STB). I expect both good and bad transit decisions can be made by a variety of governance methods.
Thanks for the link. My vote would be for this subject matter to get its own blog entry.
Yeah, there are several options as I see it:
1) Appointed board. How they are appointed, and how they serve would be important. I think ideally they would have a limited term, and have to be impeached or recalled to be removed. Otherwise you just have lackeys (although likely lackeys with more relevant experience).
2) Elected board. Works for me, for the reasons given. One question is whether it is a paid position. I would make it one, with a decent salary (I would also pay the port commissioners and the school board too though). It still might be a stepping stone for some; so be it. The Sound Transit budget is massive. The decisions they make are largely permanent. Do a great job there and you deserve credit which you are welcome to apply to your next political job.
3) WSDOT. This could work, but ultimately it would basically mean the legislature decides what they do which means it isn’t that different than now (meet the new boss, same as the old boss …).
I think either the first or second option could work well. The second is fairly simple — we know what we are getting — but I understand why people are hesitant. You are more likely to get a demagogue, although with the first option you are more likely to have collusion and corruption.
What about half of the Board as option 1, and half of the Board as option 2? Let’s get the best of both options!
I do think that there needs to be a separate way we build extensions though. That’s needed no matter what the Board structure is. There could be merit to WSDOT being tasked to oversee construction but not do the earlier planning steps.
Several years ago, ST was viewed as a paragon of building projects. That’s all changed beginning with the escalator debacle and the many extension delays and long disruption periods. Now they look like a badly run bureaucracy filled with amateurs. .
The Urbanist article makes good points. A lot of the problems stem from the board’s actions, attitudes, and unwillingness to do or consider various things. Maybe STB should more directly target the board as being dysfunctional and needing reform. I’m not sure yet how or what.
A few specific points:
– The legislature created Sound Transit so that the state wouldn’t have to be directly involved in deciding the alignment or other other regional political issues. Moving ST under WSDOT might cause as many problems as it solves. But moving construction to WSDOT has some appeal.
– Many of us have been suspicious of switching to an elected board, because in the 2000s it was pushed by transit-haters and density-haters hoping to get their people onto the board. Maybe that time has passed.
– Joni Earl is the best CEO ST has had. If it’s because of her experience as an exurban city manager, that’s interesting.
– There have also been calls to bring Link and bus operations in-house rather than contracting to Metro, CT, and PT. I’m not convinced there’s a compelling reason to, since those agencies are bus experts.
Was there ever consideration to add an East Link Station on the east side of Mt Baker ridge near Lake Washington Blvd and Colman Park? I can see how it wouldn’t add much ridership given today’s nearby land uses and bus network. In an alternate land use and bus network universe it could make some sense though.
Although a theoretical exercise here, I think there is value in exploring what alternative scenarios for station locations like this. Too often we debate what places “deserve” a station and not enough defining how to create new station areas. How many housing units and maybe retail space and maybe some sort of attraction would it take to have made a Link station north of Colman park a reasonable idea?
I think it is about as good as you can get. It is basically in between 23rd and Rainier, which are the main arterials and buses in the area. Density generally decreases as you get closer to the water. You could change up the zoning, but you still have very steep hills (and the water itself). If you put it in between 23rd and 31st you are fairly far away from Rainier (and the 7). If you were on that corridor and headed to the East Side you would be forced to either backtrack (to CID) or walk a long ways. MLK has the 8, but that may change — I don’t see bus service on that part of MLK as essential.
I would say the big weakness is not trying to add another station between Judkins Park and downtown. Judkins Park is fine, but it won’t be a great station. Between the freeway and the surrounding parks (which are due in part to the freeway) there aren’t that many people who are nearby. In contrast, a station at Rainier & Jackson would be quite good. Very urban, with a ton of crossing buses in the area. At that point, you could slide the Judkins Park Station to the east a bit, and it would be fine. I’m still not sure I would, but it would definitely be an option. Of course adding the station at Rainier & Jackson would change the nature of the project, and likely cost more.
Oh i think a good case could have been made for two East Link stations in Seattle. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I was thinking of this as a second one.
Certainly the current location probably optimal in our single station reality.
Part of the failing of ST advance planning is that we pick station locations right away. The system would work better if we could at least ask “How many stations” along with “where should it be”.
Even now, consider how different our Ballard and West Seattle plans would have been if we had first said that each area gets two stations rather than the 1 and 3 that we currently assume. Consider how lopsided the station number is considering that all the three West Seattle stations are expected to attract fewer riders than the single Ballard station does.
Part of the failing of ST advance planning is that we pick station locations right away.
I agree. We also pick general pathways right away. We commit to an idea long before we know whether it will pan out. In rare instances (like the UW, downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue) the area is so big that committing to those neighborhoods in some fashion is a good idea. But in most of the rest of the city it just isn’t.
Adding a station at Rainier and Jackson should certainly be a long-term goal, but I really don’t see how it would be done with East Link and still access the existing tunnel. It would require a big loop with a flat “top” (the north side of the loop) for the station.
Maybe if Bellevue-Seattle ridership is greater than expected (and some way to accommodate more trains on the floating bridge is developed), the line we’d all like to see from Westlake through First Hill could be extended down that way with that Rainier and Jackson station and then merge with East Link in the curve south of Dearborn. However, we want automated trains on the First Hill extension and East Link is at-grade along 112th, fortunately with an underpass to switch sides south of East Main. So maybe the automated trains could run through downtown Bellevue and reverse at the Wilburton MF? Since the ROW is fenced along 112th, it’s possible to run automated along there and through the Bellevue Tunnel. It would be a nice enhancement for people to be able to go to First Hill and SLU directly from downtown Bellevue. In fact, that might be the more popular “all-day” route.
I think it would have had a bit more density if the freeway exit at 35th Ave S still existed. Not saying if it’s necessarily good or bad but what probably would have happened
https://youtu.be/e0kOqm4LdMg?si=fHlGE3NlpH0vx4AW&t=4m
> How many housing units and maybe retail space and maybe some sort of attraction would it take to have made a Link station north of Colman park a reasonable idea?
I mean it’s really constrained with the water and the hills. Probably like 3/4 story apartments along the length of lakeside Ave S to even consider it and even then I’m not sure if it’s worth it.
Maybe if leschi market was a bigger draw or if there was some popular beach it might make more sense
Oh sorry misread I thought the proposed second station would be after exiting the tunnel portal.
> Link station north of Colman park a reasonable idea?
Itd be really expensive to dig there to build a station. You’d need at least some cluster of 5/6/7 story apartment buildings to make it worthwhile. I guess if you want exact comparable numbers I can dig them up for the existing urban villages
Interesting that there was an exit there at 35th. I did not know about that one! I knew about Empire Way (MLK) but not this one too.
I could have envisioned a series of mid-rise view condos running between 31st and the water. I could also see how the neighbors would never allow for that. Eliminating the interchange ensured the single family density we now have.
Had the area evolved differently ( like some developer bought up blocks around that interchange and put something like upscale U Village there in the 1950’s), the additional station idea would have been on the table.
“Itd be really expensive to dig there to build a station.”
Couldn’t the new platforms be installed at the east portal of the existing tunnel? I’m not sure how much room would be available for platforms.
No, there was no consideration of an additional station in Seattle. When East Link was being designed, most people including transit fans saw Judkins Park as a throwaway station to avoid excessively wide stop spacing, with little benefit to North King.
Originally East King was going to pay for everything east of Intl Dist station including Judkins Park Station, because Judkins Park Station only existed because the Eastside wanted a Link line. At the time there was little on 23rd or North Rainier and little hope in an upzone. But then Bellevue wanted a tunnel in front of City Hall, and begged North King to pay for Judkins Park Station and west of it to free up East King money for the tunnel, and North King did.
Later, during the ST3 debates, when more housing was actually being built around Judkins Park, transit fans began to realize that Judkins Park Station had more benefits than they’d given it credit for. It would be an attractive way to get between Rainier Valley and the Eastside, avoiding the three more stations transferring at Intl Dist. And with entrances at both Rainier and 23rd and with MLK just four flat blocks away, it would be a viable transfer for all those bus routes, not just the 7.
There used to be another I-90 entrance east of Rainier. I don’t remember whether it was at MLK or 23rd. It was eliminated when the Hadley bridge was built and the west end of I-90 was finished in the 1980s. At the time there were a few complaints that losing the entrance would be inconvenient for residents east of Rainier, but it happened anyway and they adjusted.
@al and Mike
> How many housing units and maybe retail space
> At the time there was little on 23rd or North Rainier and little hope in an upzone
I checked the Seattle gov website and was kinda surprised there is no Judkins park station planning/upzoning like for northgate, 130th or mt baker.
https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-initiatives
There is north rainier urban area but nothing specific for Judkins park station. Seems like a pretty missed opportunity
Seattle has been getting gradually more pro-density the past four decades.
In the 1960s two highrises went up in Madison Park and one on Beacon Hill. Opposition to those got the city to restrict zoning further to prevent any more. That’s why they’re all alone and Seattle is not like Chicago. There’s also the US tower next to U-District Station; it may have been one of the last ones too.
In the 1980s the 76-story Columbia Center opened, and opponents ran the “CAP initiative” to limit further downtown buildings to 40 stories.
The rest of Seattle was two-story, including Broadway and the U-District and Ballard. The only significant highrise/midrise clusters were on First Hill and in Belltown, and those couple of office buildings south of Northgate Mall.
In the 1990s Seattle started making forays into density, and a few urban villages with condos appeared.
In the 2010s nimbys proposed switching to a district-based city council, and got the districts drawn to maximize single-family influence by splitting multifamily areas to dilute their power. It was assumed the the new council would put the brakes on growth. But relatively pro-urban candidates won in the new district, most surprisingly in far north Seattle. It turned out that even many single-family homeowners agreed that Seattle needed more infill housing and walkable areas. So the new council continued the urban village strategy and allowed it to go slightly taller and wider.
Around 2020 renters reached the 50% threshold, so now renters are the majority of Seattle residents.
And that’s where we are now.
Just took the 255 and Link from Kirkland to Capital Hill. 30 minutes, door to door, including transfer overhead. Look forward to the day when the 1 and 2 line are both running and the 520 lid is finished, when every trip can be like this.
I think I’ve ranted about this on another open thread, but I’ll say it again here.
A lot of the problems with public transit in general, I think, stem from the fact that the industry as a whole lacks a lobbying consistency that is laser-focused on making transit efficient and useful.
Instead, we have this dichotomy where people on the left support anything vaguely resembling transit, whether it makes sense or not, while people on the right oppose anything vaguely resembling transit, whether it makes sense or not.
We see this phenomenon with both politicians and voters. With politicians, it’s why we are prohibited from importing buses and trains from other countries which are better designed and cost less than our own industry. With voters, it’s why transit measures pass or fail based on how well the general left and right are mobilized, not on the actual merits of the measure itself. The whole thing is very frustrating.
I agree it hurts a lot to see it’s either
A) city with little money and little political will for transit just building roads only
Or
B) city that supports transits wastefully spending their transit dollars.
> A lot of the problems with public transit in general, I think, stem from the fact that the industry as a whole lacks a lobbying consistency that is laser-focused on making transit efficient and useful.
I’m not quite sure why there is no national agency actually/why the FTA is so weak.
For a concrete example the San Jose BART extension changing from cut and cover stations to deep bore ones (tripling the cost). It’s one thing for San Jose to ask for that but then for the FTA to blindly fund it.
I’ve been looking at the Downtown Bellevue Station in detail and am pretty disappointed. It looks as if a rider will not be able to walk straight north out of the station onto the south sidewalk of NE 6th, but instead will have to climb the stairs or ride the escalator to the “overpass” above the entrance to Bellevue City Hall. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6155375,-122.1921122,3a,59.2y,209.59h,104.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shtR_3a290SfqIQ0AhJlNXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
How egregious is this? Sure, many people will prefer the stairs to the street, which is pretty steep, but wow, how much would it have cost to put a little ramp to the sidewalk behind the guys in the photo instead of raising a barrier?
Also, the vertical movement diagram shows only escalators at the 112th Street end. Deja vu all over again.
> Also, the vertical movement diagram shows only escalators at the 112th Street end. Deja vu all over again.
It’s the other way around, there’s escalator and stairs at the 110 ave end but only stairs at the 110th ave end. (Elevator on both ends)
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/styles/carousel_images_desktop/public/2022-04/Bellevue-Downtown-Vertical-20220408.png
> How egregious is this? Sure, many people will prefer the stairs to the street, which is pretty steep, but wow, how much would it have cost to put a little ramp to the sidewalk behind the guys in the photo instead of raising a barrier?
I agree would prefer just to have an open walk onto it. Though granted others have called for more barriers with turn style gates so the fence there does allow for better retrofitting of gates at the west/east ends.
I did find the original open house documents for the “Downtown Bellevue” station
https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/03/28/downtown-bellevue-open-house/
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/march-2014-60-design-milestone-downtown-bellevue-segment-open (pdf of powerpoint)
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/20140505_DowtownBellevue_Sum.pdf (comments)
And actually someone in the comments called out exactly what you said:
“At the Bellevue downtown station, or any other station, which at any point crosses the grade of a sidewalk, should allow for at least emergency exits for wheelchairs and such people, allowing them to go directly from the platform out onto existing city sidewalks, or in the case of the downtown station a possible new sidewalk on the south side.”
Though most people were commenting more on an underground passage over to the bellevue transit center (the bus one) to the west.
ST and Bellevue probably saw it as a safety issue. They may have thought that it’s better to funnel riders to crosswalks at that location.
I will also note that all transferring bus riders will need to cross 110th traffic to reach the Bellevue Transit Center. To me, it’s similar to the Mt Baker Transit Center situation except 110th carries less traffic.
Oh let’s not forget that there isn’t a good pickup zone for Downtown Bellevue either. I think that it is going to be messy! At least pickups will be easier at the East Main and Wilburton Stations.
Yeah, they really should have extended the platforms 100 feet into the tunnel so that stairs and elevators could be added in the plaza south of the transit center.
Glenn wins the thread. “Yes!” to extending the platforms west. However, to get across 110th the southside platform (northbound track) extension would have had to dip down eight or ten feet to pass under the tracks. It would not be safe to have a pedestrian crossing of the tracks in that curve to and from a tunnel.
When I was clearing out my relative’s apartment last year and getting rides to/from the transit center, we stopped at the Microsoft garage entrance south of the TC, or at the church lot off 8th. With construction, pedestrian access to the TC is limited; e.g., you can’t come from the north except on the other side of the street.
The original plan was to put the station under 110th with entrances on both sides and a mezzanine. When ST reached a deal with Bellevue to pay for the short tunnel, the station was moved to its current location just outside the portal and the mezzanine was eliminated.
It’s pretty much a standard process for ST to do this last minute rider inconvenience for cost savings tactic as the final middle finger to riders just before construction and after the FEIS. It’s how Lynnwood Link lost escalators and got narrower platforms in another example.
I understand when cost cutting is needed. The problem comes in when ST completely eliminates ever adding station enhancements back in the future. The claim is that anything optional must be scrubbed from the plans to keep the FFGA valid. For stations, I think it’s terribly irresponsible since there is no debate about whether it can be added back (process) and that the station will be used so there’s little risk in it being a wasteful investment (substance).
I get why there isn’t a pedestrian connection built to the BTC. I’m not sure at this point if there is enough room to add it back. I’m not even sure that ST could have reserved vertical space to add it in the future.
Because the Link station has side platforms, I do think that it may be still possible to add a non-mezzanine connection under 110th from the “inbound” side platform to the BTC — and a pedestrian track crossing at the end of the platform (like at East Main Station) could then provide full pedestrian access from both sides into the BTC. It may require narrowing NE 6th St but that’s not a fatal flaw. It of course would be exchanging a street crossing with a rail crossing for half of the riders so I’m not sure if the benefit would be worth it.
A second and much cheaper and quicker solution is to repurpose NE 110th to make it more undesirable to use for drivers to get from NE 4th to NE 8th. It’s kind of been done at Beacon Hill and even the Renton TC streets have elements of this. It doesn’t eliminate the conflict but it would help considerably.
If looks to me as though the track runs basically north-south under the plaza just west of City Center Plaza, yes? If so, then no need for anything special, even for the south track. Not ideal, but better than trying to cross a busy street. Just drill a huge hole at the appropriate location in one of the pointlessly broad sidewalks.
Perhaps a pedestrian crossing at the west end of the platform would be safe enough. Eastbound trains go straight for about a hundred feet after making the curve, and they’re stopping for the platform. The westbound are starting right there where the operator could see anyone crossing unsafe, so I hope they dig that pedestrian tunnel.
Why not add a BTC stop pair at 112th Avenue NE? The I-405 bus routes could have much shorter transfer walk.
WL, you’re right. I got the colors backward.
I just looked at the diagram. There’s no down escalator at Bellevue Transit Center??? This is the second largest downtown in the Link network and one of the biggest transfer points. It’s probably second or third in the entire Link network alongside downtown Seattle and the U-District. All the department stores have two-way escalators because they know customers expect them and will take their money elsewhere if the store cuts corners like that. But Sound Transit just leaves out basic components like that, like the DSTT did in the 80s. I can barely use stairs anymore so I’ll have to take the elevator up.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/dec/21/is-amtrak-cascades-a-new-commuter-option-from-vancouver-into-portland/
Anyone know who owns the tracks across the Columbia and into Portland? Might heavy rail be a viable alternative to the CRC monstrosity?
BNSF. The bridge was built by SP&S when the Northside route was opened about 1908. NP originally crossed the Columbia using a car float between Kalama and St Helens for its Portland-Tacoma traffic, but they then built down to Vancouver in order to use the new bridge. SP&S was half-owned each by GN and NP.
And “No”, heavy rail is inadequate as a replacement for the I-5 crossing, though it might be useful to Silicon Rainforest over Cornelius Pass. Transit gets a tiny percentage — less than 1 — of the travel across the river. Destinations in Portland are too spread out for efficient transit usage, especially since downtown has withered as a job center.
“Transit gets a tiny percentage — less than 1 — of the travel across the river.”
This is where “Current service is not optimal service” applies. Ridership is low because transit is so limited and inconvenient.
Transit across the river currently consists of several express buses that connect nowhere to the downtown Portland transit mall, a bus that wanders through northeast Portland before connecting a parking lot near a gas station in eastern Vancouver to a transit center surrounded by freeway exits, and a bus route that wanders through two shopping centers before connecting MAX yellow line to downtown Vancouver.
It could be made somewhat better by an improved regional train service of some sort, but it would need extensive changes. Eg, the existing Amtrak station is not particularly accessible to anything other than auto traffic, and if there is a long, slow freight train going through isn’t particularly accessible by auto traffic either. The Columbia and Willamette River draw bridges would make it unreliable unless the track is raised higher.
The proposed MAX line isn’t much better. It would connect a bunch of parking lots in north Vancouver to several freeway interchanges, and not really serve anywhere in Vancouver where people want to go that well.
The best solution would be a tunnel under the river and into Vancouver itself. There’s no interest in doing this.
Actually, Mike, the express service is pretty good. It doesn’t go straight to Silicon Rainforest, but destinations there are pretty spread out, hence hard to serve.
But to downtown Portland the service is excellent, with shoulder lanes in the worst-congested segments, at least southbound to Portland when schedule-keeping is most important. And the buses are very nice, with “commuter” style seats on about half the fleet.
I mean originally the light rail would have gone more into downtown Vancouver, WA
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Screenshot-2022-04-22-10.32.43-AM.png
But it seems there’s pushback from the Washington state side that doesn’t want light rail so it’s staying close to the freeway
Tom: the express bus service to Portland is fine. It served the transit mall and Pill Hill.
The from part is the problem.
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center is a parking lot by a gas station. There’s a couple restaurants and a nail salon sorta walking distance away, but there just isn’t much there.
The evening and weekend bus connects this nowhere to Parkrose Transit Center, but since we don’t have freeway stops or HOV lanes, the routing is cumbersome and there’s really nothing at Parkrose. It’s a transit center island in a sea of of traffic.
Route 105 does at least connect downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver (which the new MAX line wouldn’t), but it’s half hourly weekday only. It’s nothing like ST express.
Bottom line is current routes make a three seat ride necessary for a huge portion of the cross river transit demand.
Interesting stuff. Thanks.
Glenn – has travel at rush hour moderated or smoothed across the day over the Columbia river bridges as much as we’ve seen in Seattle due to WFH? I get the sense that Seattle is heavier on white collar jobs than Portland.
Glenn, I certainly agree that there is very little “walk-up” ridership on the expresses. It’s park-n-ride through and through. But there’s almost no place in Vancouver with sufficient density to have a genuine trip-pair with some place in Portland sufficient to support all-day point-to-point service.
Personally I think that extending two of the three Vine lines (there will be on on Highway 99 in a couple of years) to Hayden Island Station (once it’s built) would be a much better use of funds than extending MAX all the way to downtown Vancouver. The buses can climb hills that the engineers designing the replacement bridge think are too steep for LRV’s, so the transitway can be better integrated into the new structure. That would save a sizable amount of money. It’s also possible to envision some sort of ramp at least southbound from I-5 to the approach to such a busway that would allow the expresses to bypass what will likely still be a congested crossing when the next bridge opens.
It will be better, because lanes will be wider and there will be breakdown lanes, so a flat tire won’t stop one lane. But it won’t be free-flowing because there will be only three general traffic lanes, which is what exists now.
If the buses can get around it, more’s the better.
If Washington County gets its way with the “Northwest Connector” that would be a great way for express buses to go to Silicon Rainforest. If they used the busway perhaps it could have a connection to the new roadway at least southbound.
@Tom T,
“ The buses can climb hills that the engineers designing the replacement bridge think are too steep for LRV’s, ”
This is a false trope that has been debunked so many times that I don’t even know why it keeps showing up. It’s just not true.
The grade capability of LRV’s is 7 to 8 degrees. The max design grade for the interstate highway system is 4 to 6 degrees. So LR LRV’s actually have more grade capability available to them than do buses operating on freeway lanes.
No, the problem with LR and the CRC is that the new bridge won’t be a draw span and therefore I-5 will be substantially higher in the vicinity of the I-5 and SR 14 interchange than the current interchange. This is necessary fallout of the relatively limited grades allowed on our freeway system and the necessity of using a high bridge for vessel clearance.
As LR to Vancouver is supposed to serve DT Vancouver, and would ideally have a landing in the vicinity of Main/Washington and 5th/6th, there is a mismatch between the elevation of I-5 as it enters Vancouver and the elevation of DT Vancouver when LR would ideally start being at grade.
But this mismatch is purely the result of the high replacement bridge and its limited design grade. LR actually has more grade capability than the freeway it will be running on.
Lazarus, it’s true that the Brown Line in Pittsburgh and the Dolores Park hill on the J Church in San Francisco are right at 10%, and the J Line at least continues to operate. But the FTA is pretty adamant that new construction for LR should be no more than 4%, similar to the FHWA’s requirements for freeways.
Argue with them.
@Tom T,
While it is certainly true that minimizing gradients is always good design practice (regardless of technology or application), it is most certainly not true that the FTA has mandated a cap of 4% on LR gradients.
The current max gradient on Portland Max is 7%. This gradient is FTA approved and is in operation every day. This gradient far exceeds the max gradient that will be used on the CRC replacement bridge.
@myself,
My kingdom for an edit button. That should be 7%.
Still far in excess of what the CRC will be designed to,
@Lazarus — Fixed (I think)
The Portland Siemens vehicles are rated for 7%. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:3ce5a359-5933-4f0b-8877-6e9aa3df13bd/low-floor-light-rail-vehicle-packet.pdf#page=19
And actually Sound Transit design document allows for 8%. Though I think one has to add additional power and it has to be straight (no turns) so generally they try to limit to 5%.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/design-criteria-manual-may-2021.pdf
Just because MAX vehicles are capable of climbing eight degrees doesn’t mean they do. Where in the MAX system are there grades greater than four percent, except the Steel Bridge approaches?
They are certainly “main line”, but they are speed limited to ten miles per hour, hardly equivalent to the proposed I-5 crossing.
MAX is speed limited through the steel bridge for a number of reasons, but none of those are due to the grades which are 8%, not 8 degrees).
There are plenty of places where light rail lines have fairly steep hills. Beaverton to Cedar Hills is in the 6% range, as an example. The red line operates a route graded for buses, and has a series of steep sections where it operates at fairly high speed. Eg, the section where it goes under I-205 northbound is similar to that found on the Steel Bridge approaches. From the Parkrose transit center, it must plunge immediately under Sandy Blvd and the Union Pacific, then climb over the southbound freeway, then plunge back down to ground level.
The Green Line has roller coaster sections too. Eg, between Fuller and Flavel, the line climbs up over a freeway interchange, and must do so in a block and a half of track.
The Orange Line climbs over a cloverleaf in a very short distance at the Tacoma station, but it’s slow there due to a 10 mph curve needed to fit it into the existing interchange.
@Glenn in that other city,
You are correct. The speed restrictions on the Steel Bridge are not related to the approach gradients in any way.
It’s also worth noting that the max gradient currently in use on the Portland Streetcar system is 8.75%, and that this gradient is also FTA approved.
But none of the gradients on a future CRC will be anywhere near this steep. The CRC will be a fairly benign affair with very limited gradients designed to accomadate large traffic volumes. The grade capability of LR will not be a design constraint.
I’ve always liked how the Vancouver Expo Line swoops down and up in the air around Main Street station. What grade is that, and what is the steepest grade on Link? (Not the limit, but the actual alignment.)
BART has something interesting that, while it’s not a change of elevation, it emerges from the tunnel between Oakland and Berkeley for a brief period. I’ve always liked that view, even if it just seems to be a highway crossing.
Glenn, thank you for listing the places where MAX climbs steep grades. I was not implying that the approach gradients are the reason that they trains on the Steel Bridge move slowly. There is a speed limit posted that you can see from inside the trains. And there are those big bumps at the lift span gaps that one would not want to cross at a very high speed.
As for the basic point that the trackway will be designed for 4 percent grades, we can argue all we want with the engineers designing the Interstate Bridge Replacement structure about how MAX can follow the same profile as a bus, but they don’t think so, and that’s what matters. They are taking the same position as “The Board” at Sound Transit: my way or the highway.
By far the best idea is to extend two of the three Vine lines across the bridge to a new Jantzen Beach terminal station. That would give five minute headways from 6 AM to 8 PM and seven/eight other times. They can’t do that now because the traffic messes up the schedule too badly. But if they were in a busway they’d be perfectly reliable.
With a little bit of ingenuity at each end the express buses could use the busway, at least southbound. But Portland wants MAX to cross the river, and they’ll get their way, because they essentially have a blocking veto. They really don’t want ANY increase of capacity for rubbler-tired vehicles, so they can take their marbles and go home if they don’t get their way on the transitway.
The biggest problem, by far, is that the new bridge is overbuilt. Way too many ramps, lanes, you name it. The cost is way too high. First step is to make it small.
At that point light rail is a possibility, but my guess is HOV lanes would work just fine. You need at least one bus that connects to the heart of Portland, and another that connects to the north end of MAX. Vancouver seems to have that, in the 60 and 105. The 60 provides a shuttle to Delta Park (the second to last stop on the light rail). The 105 connects the downtown areas of both cities (so far as I can tell) while also connecting to other buses in Vancouver.
It looks to me like the biggest problem is lack of service. The 60 is OK, but the 105 only runs weekdays, and even then, infrequently. Riders are pushed onto the 60, and then MAX. This works for some trips, but is a big delay for others. To get to the middle of Portland (where Google puts it, anyway) will take you an extra half hour via the 60/MAX. Some of that is the transfer and extra waiting, but even if the trains were extended, the express would be significantly faster for a lot of trips.
It comes down to money. If they can extend MAX over the bridge to Vancouver fairly cheaply, then sure, it definitely adds value. Otherwise, you are likely a lot better off with what they have now, but just running the 105 more often. There are also routing options as well. For example, the 31 runs every half hour. It could be extended to Portland, and then run opposite the 105 (if the 105 ran every half hour). As of right now though, there just aren’t many express buses to Portland.
Unfortunately, this is common. Way too often we try and leapfrog these things. Instead of spending a bit more money so that Vancouver and Portland can be tied together well (arguably better than if they extended MAX) we pursue a very expensive extension. It is possible that an extension will get a lot of riders, but clearly the agencies involved don’t feel that way (otherwise they would be running the expresses more often).
But again, the most important thing is that the bridge be scaled down.
Since most of this thread seems to be about east link apparently Bellevue wants to build some TOD near the wilburton stations. The city of Bellevue bought the sites ahead of time.
> The vacant west site is tucked between City Hall and Bellevue Downtown Station, facing 112th Avenue Northeast. That offers about 35,150 square feet.
> The roughly L-shaped east site, in Wilburton, is at 515–555 116th Ave. N.E., also bounded by the tracks to the north and the freeway to the west. It’s a few steps south of Wilburton Station, and offers about 4.2 acres
https://www.djc.com/news/re/12161056.html
Also they’d connect the two sites with the proposed pedestrian/bike bridge around 6th Ave (next to the link tracks) to cross i405
“The vacant west site is tucked between City Hall and Bellevue Downtown Station, facing 112th Avenue Northeast. That offers about 35,150 square feet.”
I thought that was a park. It was before Link, but they’re going to develop it?
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6147664,-122.1910415,3a,75y,300.42h,69.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s89LkX0-us084IIZwA_iIWw!2e0!5s20080701T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Checking google maps it seems it’s always been an empty ground lot overrun with trees, at least since 2008 which is the farthest back I can go. It’s now been cleared of anything and is an empty dirt lot, I’m guessing it might have been used as a staging ground for link light rail as well?
Though I decided to check other documents. The grand connection one on page 16 https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_document/2023/Catalyst%20Crossing%20-%20Concept%20Work.pdf#page=16
Actually does propose a park there, so maybe Bellevue city hall changed their mind and now want to build an apartment or office building instead?
Thanks for finding this, WL! I couldn’t find any plans when I looked.
There is merit to public spaces amidst tall buildings. I’m reminded of City Hall Plaza in San Francisco or Rockefeller Center in New York or Boston Commons and Copley Square or the various circles in DC. The important thing is for them to be iconic/ memorable and active. Statues/ acitptures and fountains really help, like The Bean and Buckingham Fountain in Chicago. It can make a great city awesome!
Would Bellevue rise to that challenge? Would a wildly wealthy area resident be benevolent enough to fund it? Not yet.
There’s a big central park six blocks away. I know people who think it’s the best park in the region.
The Bellevue Downtown park is nice, as you say, Mike!
With such a large Downtown, it’s nice to have two! San Francisco has Union Square, Civic Center Plaza, Maritime Plaza, Salesforce (Transbay Terminal) Park and Yerba Buena Gardens all within walking distance of each other in its core, for example.
The new plan is to have the second park be the freeway lid, though idk where that bundle of money is coming from.
(Also merry xmas)
How should the Portland metro be understood? How do Vancouver, Beaverton/Hillsboro, Gresham, and other suburbs compare in terms of potential bidirectional all-day trips? Which ones fulfill a similar role as Bellevue, Lynnwood, Everett, Kent, Federal Way, or Tacoma?
If it had a world-class transit network, what would travel time between central Vancouver and downtown Portland be? I picture Portland as right on the southern border of the Columbia, but when I take Amtrak or Grehound it takes a surprising half hour from the northern short of the Columbia to Portland Union Station. How much of that is real geographical distance and how much is transit slowness? It seems to take an inordinate amount of time to get from one side of Hayden Island to the other, and from the southern short of the Columbia to Union Station.
And when I tried to go to Jantzen Beach once when some people said they were going there that day, I think I took the 6 to it, and it took a long time and was rather slow. Or maybe I took MAX Yellow and transferred? I don’t remember if I’ve been on that line. It still seemed to take a long time, and that’s only partway to Vancouver. And then when I got to the Jantzen Beach terminus, I couldn’t find a beach, just a big box power center. Is there a beach?
I also have a friend who had a house off Mill Plain Blvd in Vancouver. He sold it around 2010 so it doesn’t matter now and I don’t remember exactly where it was, just that it was a single-family block with redevelopment potential. I later read about BRT on that street. So if MAX were extended to Vancouver, would it have a station there?
It’s about 8 actual miles from downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver. It’s by a long ways Portland’s most populous suburb. There is a significant amount of density in downtown Vancouver, with a good diversity of types of density (retail, residential and commercial) that to me seems a better mix than Bellevue. It doesn’t have the huge tracts of exclusive office space downtown Portland has. Maybe take Bellevue, remove the tallest of office buildings, and replace them with about a square mile of 15 floor residential, with a bunch of the smaller retail, and the Port of Tacoma just west of downtown instead of Lake Washington?
Once out of downtown Vancouver, the sprawl is pretty spread out. Maybe going from Bellevue directly to the Kent Valley, without any major downtowns such as Kent and Sumner. Just random housing tracts, warehouses and commercial space with huge parking lots and no real reasoning into what got put where.
The existing express bus service from downtown to downtown is a bit like replacing the 550 with the 372: half hourly, daylight hours only. The regular connection that runs from the end of the MAX line to downtown Vancouver with the 271, only make the environment around the transfer station a bit like University Village Shopping Center, only separated from the station by a freeway interchange, and with the schedules timed so that a bus or train is leaving two minutes before the other arrives, maximizing the required transfer time.
The current bridge proposal would need to be so high that you can’t even build a LR station next to the bridge, it would be too high. It would also be quite steep making it difficult to bike across or even to take a truck across. The designers claim that slow trucks will need extra lanes. That will require that all the interchanges need to be upgraded, too. If they would consider building an immersed tunnel like VancouverBC and SanFrancisco did, then it could be shallower and allow all interchanges to be reused and LR and active transportation lane could be added. I’m stunned how Portland and Vancouver and both states will allow such monstrosity to be built. https://twitter.com/BOrtblad (Seattle engineer) has been advocating for a tunnel for a long time.
Martin: agreed! 100%
They found this out the first go-round:
• You can’t build a short bridge because it blocks river traffic carrying theoretical tall structures made by a metal fabricator upstream.
• You can’t build a tall bridge because it blocks two runway approaches.
• If you put MAX in a tunnel, you can put that close to where stuff actually is, rather than connecting a bunch of nothingness.
I don’t get why the answer isn’t then to build multiple bridges? One short bridge with a drawbridge to support local access traffic & bike & ped, where the occasional opening of the drawbridge is acceptable, and then a high bridge (or tunnel) for the I5 through traffic. And then yes to your point on rail – it needs a distinct river crossing, whether that’s a standalone Max crossing or a heavy rail option that leverages the BNSF crossing.
The reason there are so many axuillary lanes is the traffic from SR14. Shift the SR14 traffic to the “local” bridge, where drivers can merge onto I5 after they cross the river; it’s much cheaper to built merging lanes on land than over a river.
Notably the federal government noticed the same issue and it might still be a drawbridge.
> I-5 Bridge Replacement Program will also study drawbridge option
Federal officials requested the study; program officials say fixed-span still far more likely
https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/mar/10/i-5-bridge-replacement-program-will-also-study-drawbridge-option/
I don’t get why the answer isn’t then to build multiple bridges? One short bridge with a drawbridge to support local access traffic & bike & ped, where the occasional opening of the drawbridge is acceptable, and then a high bridge (or tunnel) for the I5 through traffic.
Yes, that is basically the “Common Sense” proposal:
1) Replace the BNSF bridge.*
2) Take the old I-5 bridge between Hayden Island and Vancouver and turn it into a pedestrian/bike/transit bridge with only one general purpose car lane.
3) Build a new I-5 bridge next to the existing one.
4) Build a new small bridge (with good pedestrian/bike/transit options) between the mainland and Hayden Island. **
* Right now, a lot of boats can clear the middle of the existing I-5 bridge, but then they have to make an ‘S’ to get under the railroad bridge. When the water is running high, this is a problem. This causes the I-5 bridge to open more often then it should. By rebuilding the railroad bridge, ships can go right down the middle, which means fewer I-5 openings. Their proposal has since changed, but this part of the video explains the BNSF bridge issue quite well.
** Their proposal is to have MAX go over the new bridge to Hayden Island. I’ve read two versions — one that has MAX ending there, another that goes over the old I-5 bridge to Vancouver. Like so many things, it depends on cost. I don’t see a great reason to extend MAX to Vancouver — I think the combination of an express (Vancouver to Downtown Portland) and a local connection (Vancouver to the north end of MAX) is adequate.
One key element to this proposal is that it can be done in stages. I would change the order slightly:
1) Build the new BNSF Bridge.
2) Fix the existing I-5 bridge from a seismic standpoint.
3) Add tolls.
It is quite possible you would be done at this point. Tolls (which are a given) can have a huge effect on traffic. If they still feel the need for a new bridge, the go ahead with the other steps (2, 3, 4 above). Doing so would be better overall, it would just cost more money.
“ and then a high bridge (or tunnel) for the I5 through traffic. ”
The problem is the high bridge part. It’s the same problem as last time: you can’t put a high bridge there as it would encroach into the airport space of two different airports. You might be able to get them to abandon Pearson Airpark in Vsncouver, but PDX is a different matter.
Take a ruler and draw a straight line on the map extending out 5 miles from the runway ends at PDX and Pearson, and you’ll see the problem better.
Even the existing bridge falls outside current FAA regulations, if it were to be built now.
This why I think they’ll eventually wind up having to build a tunnel. It’s the only way to avoid both river traffic and the airport approaches.
> This why I think they’ll eventually wind up having to build a tunnel. It’s the only way to avoid both river traffic and the airport approaches.
There’s zero chance they will build a tunnel. It will cost very very large sum of money to build so many lanes.
I mean even say Boston’s tunnel (the underwater one) only has 4 lanes in total and so is Norfolk’s only with 4 lanes. Unless if you want to narrow it to only 4 lanes to make it even remotely in the realm of being financially possible they aren’t tunneling it.
AJ, Bob Ortblad suggested fixing up the existing bridge for pedestrians, LR and cycling and building a small, immersed tunnel for cars.
WL, I’m surprised the feds added a drawbridge option but not a tunnel option.
> WL, I’m surprised the feds added a drawbridge option but not a tunnel option.
I’m not surprised at all, the cost of a tunnel approach is incredibly expensive. ODOT/WSDOT want to build a 8/10 (and most likely expandable to 12) lane bridge. While even norfolk or boston could only afford a 4 lane (2, 2-lane) tunnel for their waterways.
There’s zero chance the federal government is going to propose some massive most likely multiple tunneling project that will provide of 150~164 feet road width
WL, why would you think a bridge would be cheaper? It’s much easier to build tunnel segments on land, float them along the river and drop them into a dredged channel than it is to drill bridge posts far into the river mud to reach solid ground as Bob pointed out: https://twitter.com/BOrtblad/status/1736470582655627673
The freeway studies for the immersed tunnel cost a lot more than that estimate
I’m not saying it would be cheaper to tunnel. I’m just saying a high bridge concept was rejected in the past by the FAA. Unless that has somehow been modified to fit their envelope, don’t expect a high bridge at that specific location.
That would cost a fortune to tunnel so many 8/10 lanes across the river. If portland suddenly found itself with a couple tens of billions much rather they just build a normal drawbridge/high bridge and use the left overs to build a subway system.
Martin, I think you may not know about the deep trench underneath the Columbia River scoured out by the Missoula Floods 14,000 years ago. The river isn’t very wide between Vancouver and Hayden Island, and the “bottom” isn’t very deep, but that “bottom” consists of alluvium which has accumulated in the last 14,000 years. As the oceans rose from glacial melting, the tidal zone was pushed farther and farther up the river, until today its influence can be noted as far upstream as Beacon Rock, twenty-five miles east of the I-5 crossing. The bed rock at the bottom of the trench is actually another sixty to one hundred feet deeper than the “river bottom”.
The existing bridges have concrete supports which give the appearance of great solidity, but they are actually supported not by bedrock but by piles which spread out through the alluvium in a fan shape under and around each pier. It is my understanding that one thing which will make the replacement bridge so expensive is the need to dig through the alluvium using caissons.
I don’t know that it is true, but I expect that the BNSF bridge has the same engineering underneath it, and that is why it has not been replaced or significantly upgraded in 115 years.
Unless a “floating” tunnel were built with tethers to the actual flood riverbed, a tunnel would have to dive that hundred plus feet, making the length pretty long.
The portals would be too far north to serve downtown Vancouver and too far south to serve Hayden Island.
In any case, I would personally not want to travel through a tunnel which was “floating” in alluvium.
At the points in question, the Columbia River is dredged to a depth of about 35 feet, and thus a tunnel would have approaches shorter than the proposed bridge.
Even the deepest parts, which are downstream by the Port of Vancouver, are in the 50 foot range.
https://usa.fishermap.org/depth-map/columbia-river/
So you believe that the alluvium is dense enough to support an ordinary bored tunnel, even in a liquefaction event caused by a subduction-zone quake? That would certainly be great if true, but a lot of engineers have raised doubts about it. Enough it seems that the tunnel has been written off by the Crossing projects both times.
Tom, yes, building a bridge will be extremely challenging! Also they can only do construction during times there are no salmon running which is only a few months each year which will turn this into a LONG construction.
When the state asked WSP for an engineering study on an immersed tunnel (not a bored one!), the alluvium didn’t appear to be an issue. I believe other such tunnels have been built under such conditions, many in earthquake zones. WSP totally miscalculated the amount of dredging necessary and the shipping paths so that they had to retreat their study, but the river bottom seemed to be just fine. Do you remember who determined this to be a problem?
I dredge-and-drop tunnel might work, because the segments could be made to achieve neutral bouyancy. But the engineering staff rejected any and all tunnels, claiming that they would cost twice what a bridge will. A tunnel has been embargoed by the EIS, so at this point there’s nothing to be done except choose the No Build option, which is simply not going to fly with Olympia.
Puget Sound legislators want a second seismically stable bridge crossing the Columbia River connecting the I-5 to the north and south, in order to protect the food supply for Western Washington.
And, No, I do not know whe the person or persons who determined that a tunnel was not viable economically was or is.
“A dredge …”
Doesn’t the Fraser River tunnel sit on on the riverbed, not the bredrock?
@AJ
Yes. The George Massey Tunnel is a submerged tube tunnel that sits in a trench in the sedimentary material of the south branch. IIRC, the province did some seismic work in the late oughts but the tunnel is still at risk due a liquefaction event. A replacement is currently in the works, I believe expanding the tunnel to six lanes from four currently.
Fun fact: Queen Elizabeth II “christened” the tunnel’s opening in 1959. One of my SILs got to witness the event as a young girl. :)
It sounds like relocating, buying out or simply giving the middle finger to the fabricator is the most reasonable option. And also demanding the width remain within a few feet of the the current bridge. Highway expansion should never be on the table with our world burning.
That was attempted the first time. It would definitely be nice to do that. However, the last round of Columbia River crossing stuff wound up in trouble due to objections from the Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard due to that particular fabricator.
The deference given water traffic is really quite something sometimes.
Cam, there will be three through lanes in each direction, which is what the existing bridges have, a pair of “auxiliary” lanes between Marine Drive and Mill Plain I believe, and a pair of transit-only lanes between Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver. New capacity on the bridge will come from those auxiliary lanes plus the breakdown lanes on both sides, which will mean that a fender bender doesn’t take a lane out of service for an hour or two.
Is this a great environmental crime? I don’t think so. Oregon is not adding any capacity to the south, so not that many additional cars will be making the trip. Clark County’s job profile is improving monthly.
I didn’t say it was an environmental crime. I said it was a highway, it was vastly expanding, and that’s something we shouldn’t be doing.
And if you think those breakdown lanes and auxiliary lanes won’t be restriped after a few years people looking at brake lights, I’ve got a bridge for sale between Brooklyn Heights and the FDR that’s a steal and has your name on it. I’ll even give you a 12% cut on the congestion pricing.
@Tom
It has a lot more space than it might seem. Most likely it’ll be around 76 (or 82?) feet for each span. Honestly the total width of the bridge is a bit hard to find out seemingly 152 in some documents and 176 in others though I guess it’s still under design.
> That all totals up to 76 feet per span, or 152 feet total, not counting the gap between the two spans. Add in the extra pair of lanes and it would be 88 feet per span, and 176 feet total.
Even with an auxiliary lanes and 2 full shoulder lanes they could easily draw in another general lane for 4 general lanes.
https://media.kgw.com/assets/KGW/images/eb79d303-392c-4cf6-b90c-044da3439698/eb79d303-392c-4cf6-b90c-044da3439698_1920x1080.jpg
If it’s the widest variant of 88 feet per span one could easily have 6/7 lanes in each direction by having 11 feet lanes and still have a shoulder lane.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/interstate-bridge-replacement-costs-scale-oregon-considers-funding/283-81f3174e-819a-4753-9145-907c6bba854d
I said it was a highway, it was vastly expanding, and that’s something we shouldn’t be doing.
Exactly. The problem is very simple: It is way too big! It is a massive expansion, not a simple replacement. The expansion is completely unnecessary. It will be paid for with tolls, and as soon as they start tolling, people will go around (via I-205). Ryan Packer’s reporting is quite clear: this is a boondoggle. It is way too big. It needs to be scaled down, even if it means losing the MAX expansion (which itself it not a good value).
It is interesting reading the various plans for the “Common Sense Alternative” (https://justcrossing.org/2022/06/01/the-common-sense-alternative/). It is a much better solution than what they plan on building (and much better than what that group originally proposed) but I’m not sure I would even spend that much. You would have a new freeway (with HOV lanes) for express travel. At that point, you don’t need to extend MAX. You still have the express bus from Downtown Portland to Vancouver (105) and the bus from Vancouver to the north end of MAX (60). Anything else is overkill. Hayden Island only has 2,000 people. By extending MAX you basically just change the point at which Vancouver riders transfer from the 60 to the train.
But that is really just a quibble. The “common sense” proposal makes way more sense than what they are proposing. The main thing they need to do is scale it down, at every opportunity.
Thanks for the link, Ross. I hadn’t seen the JustCrossing site before. A reasonable alternative to the kneejerk teardown and expand we often see with these kinds of projects.
Ross, Cam, I like the JustCrossing idea, too, but I don’t see how it completely avoids “rebuilding several interchanges” on the Washington side. Unless SR14 is to continue to be connected to the existing bridges, there will have to be a new interchange built between the new roadway and it.
It includes extending the Vine lines across the river, which makes by far the most transit sense to me, but of course downtown Vancouver retailers don’t like the thought of their potential customers riding by on one bus to Jantzen Beach.
But by the time the bridge is replaced (or amplified) of course, downtown retailers will be completely fixated on the condo dwellers all around them and won’t give a diddly-damn about the folks living along Fourth or Mill Plain on those buses to cheap Jantzen Beach stores.
The schematic is pretty skimpy on how the new roadway diversion transitions into the new bridge. It can’t look anything like the image.
Ross, Cam, I like the JustCrossing idea, too, but I don’t see how it completely avoids “rebuilding several interchanges” on the Washington side.
It doesn’t completely avoid redoing interchanges, it just reduces the amount of work dramatically. Here is a picture for the interchanges that will be redone with the CRC plan: https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/image-27.png. A lot of this is being done because the bridge will be much taller.
In contrast, the “Common Sense” plan will be roughly the same height. They get away with that by rebuilding the BNSF bridge. This dramatically reduces the number of openings, even though the bridge won’t be much taller.
You still need to rebuild the main interchange in Vancouver. Slide 16 of this shows this: https://justcrossing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CSAvIBR.pdf. So you are still doing a major overhaul in that part of Vancouver, but doing nothing to the north of there. Likewise, you still need to rebuild the interchange in Hayden Island, but nothing else in Portland. So basically two interchanges instead of seven.
To me the key is the BNSF bridge. Once you fix that, you don’t have as many openings. After that things can evolve, piece by piece. Fix the existing bridge, so it won’t collapse during an earthquake. Toll it. Spend a bit extra to run the 105 every 15 minutes. At that point, you might actually be done. If not, then go ahead and do the rest (built a new I-5 bridge, retrofit the old one, build a new bridge from the south to the island, extend MAX, etc.). But focus on seismic improvements, tolling and the new BNSF bridge first.
By the way, the feds basically don’t want to deal with BNSF, which is nuts. I get that it means negotiating, and I have no idea what leverage the federal government has, but BNSF has an incentive to fix the bridge as well. It is old. They like money. Pay to fix the bridge and offer them 10 million and the lawyers can be golfing by noon.
“downtown retailers will be completely fixated on the condo dwellers all around them and won’t give a diddly-damn about the folks living along Fourth or Mill Plain on those buses to cheap Jantzen Beach stores.”
Do downtown Seattle and Bellevue retailers not care about their non-downtown-condo dwelling customers? I bet most of their owners and staff don’t live in downtown condos but come from all over the region. Why does it matter what downtown retailers think about people who shop at cheap Jantzen Beach stores? Cities and the public shouldn’t base public infrastructure decisions on just what downtown retailers want? Downtown retailers may not see UW or Harborview as mattering to their bottom line, but they’re still important to the region as a whole.
More on Julie Timm’s departure, plans for an interim CEO, and search for a full CEO and a “mega capital project delivery officer”.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/three-things-we-learned-from-sound-transits-ceo-exit-deal/
Saw a video flyover of Federal Way Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sBY0YVe_t8 (Oct 19, 2023), also noticed we haven’t talked about it much versus lynnwood/east link (well understandable since they are opening sooner).
Poked around and saw federal ways’ “town center” plan mainly just 2 blocks, though will add 900 housing units. I don’t see any plans for the rest of the ‘downtown area’ though?
https://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/developer-explores-scenarios-for-city-center-project-in-federal-way/
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-us-california/5c6895ec2325ca0a539a2dfb35b1c5f4293d8f8e/original/1686938168/a45bbea0bb27d70d95790dea2f012217_2d_site_plan.png?1686938168
South federal way is also undergoing planning https://youtu.be/fTCqWzwQao0?si=QVsKxFK283mC75vZ&t=910 though note that is part of tacoma dome link extension so that’s a decade away. Though while does want to build some multi family housing places all of it 2 blocks away from the station and leaves all the land near the station as commercial only.
Yeah, there isn’t much there at the moment. Basically mall-adjacent, with many empty parking lots that need to be zoned and built for substantial multi-family. Federal Way is not keeping up with its housing needs, and this is the place to build much, much more housing to address those needs.
Federal Way Station area could evolve a number of different ways. It’s too bad that getting across 320th is so scary and wide.
I think that “Town Center” is just the name of a specific project. There will also be ST’s TOD project once the Link construction work is down, which is ~1 full block (
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/creating-vibrant-stations/transit-oriented-development/federal-way-downtown-tod )
The SEIS (from 2015) has a few good maps that visualize what the city considers the re-developable downtown. Roughly 324th-312th (so ~11 blocks long) and Pacific-23rd (5~6 blocks?), though I would imagine the west side of Pacific is also well within TOD.
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/city-center-redevelopment
thanks for the information. looks pretty exciting.
@Al S.
Federal way is moving forward with their ‘city center access’ project. Wish I had seen this a bit earlier, as it is already in final design. It is unfortunately a bit mainly a freeway connection expansion project, though it will added some protected bike lanes, transit lanes (albeit from expansion) and a new way across i-5 so some benefits.
They are building a situation similar around university district like ne 50th and ne 45th with ramp crossovers. The original bridge S 320th will have bus lanes while the new bridge S 324 will have bike lanes (also interestingly all roundabouts)
* Building an I-5 overcrossing at S 324th Street from 23rd Avenue S to Weyerhaeuser Way S for people to walk, bike, or drive.
* Making road improvements on S 324th Street from SR 99 to 23rd Avenue S.
* Modifying the S 320th Street interchange.
* Adding access to I-5 at S 324th Street with roundabouts at freeway on- and off-ramps.
* Building two new roundabouts on S 324th St, at 23rd Avenue S and Weyerhaeuser Way S.
* Providing high occupancy vehicle lanes on S 320th Street from SR 99 to Military Road S.
* Adding shared-used paths and regional trail connections, including a potential connection to the BPA Trail.
Simple picture at https://www.cityoffederalway.com/page/city-center-access-project
Detailed picture on page 27
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Department/PW/Street%20Systems/Project%20Folder/CCA_Final%20Phase%2030%20Community%20Outreach%20Summary_05%2025%2022.pdf#page=27
> Federal Way Station area could evolve a number of different ways. It’s too bad that getting across 320th is so scary and wide.
The center city access project doesn’t seem to make it any easier to cross 320th. Besides rebuilding the sidewalk on the west side of 23rd Ave S. It didn’t really seem to take into account walking from the light rail to the mall (south of S 320th) much.
Building a brand new bridge at 324th, claiming it’s for bike and ped basically connecting a parking lot to a parking lot, is just a bizarre use of funds. It’s for cars. Period.
Why wouldn’t they build it north of 320th where the locus of housing and commercial development will be?
I’ve been meaning to try to bike on the BPA trail. Unfortunately, it ends before it gets useful for me, not completing the connection to Tacoma, 509 and the tideflats, even though there appears to be a right-of-way available. So the only way to get there is to climb a steep hill with fast cars and no shoulder.
South of 320th likely simply because East of I5 but north of 320th is (mostly) outside of FW City limits. Connecting to Weyerhaeuser way is useful; I assume FW City is looking for development between I5 and North Lake, and that development is likely to be industrial/warehouse uses that will leverage the expanded road network.
Noth of 320, 317th is the HOV access, and the next option is extending 312th to connect to Military road, but Military Road already has a crossing of I5 at 304th.
Yeah, I just find it disingenuous to suggest it’s for peds and bikes. If it were, it would be connecting to the station, not a parking lot. But in reality, there just isn’t much to the east to connect to for bikes and peds. Commercial with massive parking lots, and a little bit of suburban tract housing beyond the lake. The interurban is way over past 167, and they won’t attempt to connect to that.
That said, there really is no way across I-5 for bikes and peds. Barely a shoulder, much less a sidewalk on 320th, so they are checking a box. There is a sidewalk at 288th, and there is a sidewalk at Porter Way. Almost 10 miles with no way to cross I-5.
That’s criminal.
Guys, I agree that the 324th overcrossing and interchange is a vehicle project with ped/ bike elements rather than a ped/ bike access project.
I agree it does nothing to improve pedestrian access across 320th between the Link platform and the corridor.
It’s important to highlight that 320th has eight lanes in total to cross and cars move quite fast. Because it is so wide, it takes a long time to have the walk countdown finish. The signals already take a few minutes to fully cycle, and if a pedestrian gets to the beg button just a second too late, they are likely waiting for up to three minutes to cross 320th. Even then, with so many turn lanes with vehicles, it seems pretty scary for a pedestrian to use.
It leaves me wondering if there is a separate unpublished redevelopment of Federal Way Commons afoot that includes a pedestrian crossing of 320th. 320th crossing such an obvious barrier to station access that it’d be surreal to ignore the problem.
In 2022, the City of Federal Way approved funds for a feasibility study regarding constructing a “dip” in 320th to facilitate construction of a pedestrian overpass: https://docs.cityoffederalway.com/WebLink/edoc/896889/05-17-2022%20The%20Dip.pdf?dbid=0&repo=CityofFederalWay
I can’t figure out if that feasibility study is still in progress, or if it ever started, or whatever happened with it, though.
aha! I found a presentation from January 2023 which listed the following timeline for the 320th Dip feasibility study:
Q4-22 & Q1-23: Consultant Scoping / Selection / Contracting
Q1-23 & Q2-23: Data Collection / Consultant Research
Q3-23: Project Feasibility Analyses
Q4-23: Alternatives Evaluation
Q4-23: Cost Analysis
Q1-24 & Q2-24: Summarize Findings / Documentation
Q3-24: Report to Council
https://docs.cityoffederalway.com/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=1839147&dbid=0&repo=CityOfFederalWay
Thanks for the research, Nathan.
Digging a 320th grade separation for a surface street staying at grade is a decently good idea. Usually it’s the pedestrians for to climb over streets and this is the other way around.
It still isn’t perfect. It is southwest of the platform and there is lots happening to the southeast too. It also still requires crossing a street, but at least it’s a local street. I also like how it connects the TOD strategies to the west of the station, creating a better connected district.
It looks costly. I have to wonder what utilities have to be moved under 320th to dig this. It’s too bad that a different and cheaper pedestrian circulation plan wasn’t figured out beforehand. It looks like it could also be a messy set of construction impacts.
Interesting. They do (the planners, I would guess) seem to understand the problem with parking lots and lack of density. Though the weird concern regarding seeing the mountain from the performing arts center getting into this document is seriously concerning.
Actually, is the station spanning 320th with entrances on both sides of it?
“Actually, is the station spanning 320th with entrances on both sides of it?”
No it isn’t. The station is entirely north of 320th. Only tail tracks cross 320th.
I’m not sure why ST didn’t simply extend the center Link platform about 150 feet to a new entrance/ exit head house south of 320th. It would have seemed much easier and quicker than digging a dip for 320th. It probably comes down to ST wanting to keep the station costs down and FW not bargaining to get it.
On the other hand, the dip does serve a dual purpose of improving pedestrian access/ environment to the station as well as to the town center. A platform extension would have primarily benefited Link access but not local circulation.
Sad, I wrote a longer comment but it got lost to the void weird wordpress posting :(.
The dip was probably too expensive, the initial study was at 50 million, but probably ended up costing like 100 million.
Anyways, federal way is moving forward with cheaper alternative not the dip. https://www.cityoffederalway.com/bids/21st-ave-s-and-s-320th-st-signal-and-ped-improvements
They posted a bit this month december 4 to 21 and got some bids around 1.1 to 1.3 million for the at-grade pedestrian crossing.
On a meta note, might be nice to have a federal way thread sometime. There’s quite a lot of interesting information kinda scattered around.
“might be nice to have a federal way thread sometime.”
Good thought. We’ve had semi-open threads on Pierce and Snohomish Counties and the Eastside, but not on the South King County Link corridor.
I hadn’t thought it was going south of 320th, but then I actually looked at it in google maps, and saw the tail and was confused. Seems like a pretty massive missed opportunity.
You would have thought the mall would have wanted their patrons to have easy access. Another reason the board shouldn’t be all pols.
@ Cam: “Seems like a pretty massive missed opportunity.”
Yeah! Just one of many! ST gets a D for the many thoughtless station circulation ideas around the new ST2 and ST3 stations. People point to the deafening John Lewis bridge at Northgate as if it’s some sort of innovation when it appears to be expected to anyone who rides Link — which demonstrates the poor state of circulation thinking from this agency. But we are all acutely aware that if a rider isn’t on a train it doesn’t matter and that leads to inconvenient things like CID-N and deep SLU stations.
It’s still fixable technically in my opinion! It would require that the tail track segment be reengineered just south of FW platforms to
enable a gap wide enough for a pedestrian walkway between the two tracks over 320th to a new head house / entrance (think an aerial version of the Cal Anderson Park head house at Capitol Hill).
The problem comes down to interest and money. If a powerful pro-transit developer got hold of Federal Way Commons and planed several 10-20 story buildings (think Crystal City VA) they would consider footing the relatively modest bill. The dreamer in me could even see a tall building with trains running through the atrium like the Disneyworld Monorail through the Contemporary Resport. However, I don’t see FW or ST willing to spend money unilaterally on making that design change.
“might be nice to have a federal way thread sometime.”
“Good thought. We’ve had semi-open threads on Pierce and Snohomish Counties and the Eastside, but not on the South King County Link corridor.”
We’ve said so much here that I don’t know there’s enough for a separate article, especially when there are no new certainties or plans not mentioned here to feature.
Thanks for the video WL. I wouldn’t say it is anything new, but it does show the various issues involved in building the thing. My first reaction is how long the thing is, which got me to look it up again — holy cow, 7.8 miles. It manages to be close to the freeway, but it is easy to see why construction costs are so high. In parts they can leverage the flat ground next to the freeway, but there are still miles of elevated tracks, as well as lots of bridges and overpasses. By being close to the freeway it appears like land acquisition costs were fairly low, but construction costs were high.
This explains (at least in part) all of the various delays. There are only three stations (holy cow, only three stations for a 7.8 mile extension) but it isn’t cheap. A lot can go wrong (and did). Oh well.
When the dust settles, it will — like Lynnwood Link — serve mainly as a bus intercept. There will be some TOD (six story buildings with lots of parking) and the college is an actual destination (rare for these suburban extensions). There will also be plenty of parking (at each station). But mainly it will connect riders with buses. In my opinion this was essential (just as it was in the north). You need to be able to quickly connect I-5 bus service (from the south) to Link. Whether it could have been done far cheaper (and sooner) is another issue. I have another though, but I’ll split that into another comment.
> Thanks for the video WL. I wouldn’t say it is anything new, but it does show the various issues involved in building the thing.
Thanks, I sometimes kinda wonder if it’s worth it including all these links, but it’s happy knowing some are using them so I’ll continue doing so.
> When the dust settles, it will — like Lynnwood Link — serve mainly as a bus intercept.
Yeah it is a large amount of elevated sections, the land there is a lot poorer than I expected with low water tables and landfills.
One big questions about Federal Way Link is what happens to the ST Express buses? Do they all just get truncated at Federal Way TC? That will happen to the north (at Lynnwood) but I see some significant differences:
1) The destinations to the north are bigger. The UW is a much bigger destination than SeaTac. Other destinations in the north (e. g. Capitol Hill) are bigger as well. This means that a higher proportion of riders from the south would prefer the express.
2) The time penalty to transfer to Link instead of a downtown express is bigger to the south. From the north, the express lanes reverse, and buses are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. From the south, you have HOV lanes the whole way, all-day long. The only time you have a big delay is during rush hour (peak direction).
3) Sounder is a better alternative from Tacoma than it is from Everett.
4) There are a lot more riders from Tacoma than there are Everett.
Given all this, I think it makes sense to do something unusual: truncate the buses at Federal Way during peak, and run them into downtown Seattle the rest of the day. The assumption being that folks from Tacoma will just take Sounder when it is running. If they miss the train, they can always take a bus to Federal Way and then Link, but they may just wait for the next Sounder. In midday the 594 would still stop at the Federal Way Transit Center (so riders could take Link to the airport or Rainier Valley) but the bus would keep going (so they have a significantly faster trip to Seattle).
Doing this would save some money (although not as much as truncating all the buses). The 586, 590, 592, and 595 only run during peak. Not as much as they used to, but it adds up. They are also way more likely to be delayed (which increases costs). Peak-only service tends to be more expensive as well (since you are paying for extra drivers during only part of the day). If we ever get back to the point where we are running these buses frequently because of crowding, then truncating them at Federal Way will save even more. Meanwhile, the rest of the day you have an ideal setup. You have both an express from downtown to downtown, but the ability to easily transfer to Link along the way. Run those buses every fifteen minutes (which is what they would be running if not for the driver shortage) and it is a good system. Given the change to more of an “all-day, everywhere” ridership pattern (instead of a 9-5 commuter one) this would be my preference.
Is there merit to connect to Kent, Renton or even Bellevue with an ST south Sound Express bus route being extended rather than a route merely truncated at FW or KDM?
“what happens to the ST Express buses? Do they all just get truncated at Federal Way TC?”
In ST2 they would have been truncated at KDM according to the three planning scenarios January 2016. Since then there has been nothing.
Metro Connects in 2016-2020 had Metro taking over the 577, and a new Metro express route replacing the 578 as downtown-Kent-Auburn (thus providing the missing Kent express service). It was unclear on the map whether it would serve the future Renton TC on the way or go directly from I-5 to 167. A Metro rep said it was undecided whether they’d be all-day half-hourly expresses or peak only.
The 574 was the only route that would be retained, and ST has mused extending it to Westwood Village to backfill the part of the 560 that Stride 1 won’t serve.
“The time penalty to transfer to Link instead of a downtown express is bigger to the south.”
That has always been the problem with Federal Way and Tacoma Dome Link. When I first compared them, Link would be some 15 minutes slower than the 577 or 594. ST said at board meetings that I-5 would inevitably get increasing congestion that would slow down the buses. When I recalculated it around 2022, it looked like that has already happened. If I remember, Westlake-Tacoma Dome Link was competitive full time, and Westlake-Federal Way was competitive peak hours. That still leaves Federal Way off-peak, but that’s arguably not enough riders to justify a parallel express bus, and their Link travel time would still be under an hour (55 minutes, as opposed to 35 minutes on the 577 at noon).
But what ultimately happens depends on political decisions by the South King and Pierce board members. If they’re strong on “suburbanization of poverty” equity they might keep the buses running. Unless they don’t have money for that, or drivers, or they start thinking about more frequent feeders to Federal Way from more places.
I can see why they haven’t yet. Steep, and lumber mill to fight with, and a bunch of encroachments, with the faint sound of banjos in the distance.
But it would huge to connect it to future 167 trail.
I few months back I saw a Link LRV being towed on Lynnwood Link Extension just south of the new 148th St Station. Progress!
Now it appears that ST has done the same thing on Federal Way Link Extension, and has also done some dynamic envelope testing and self powered testing:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0nNUubxg4F/
The text says that this FWLE testing is being done to support LRV storage needs for when LLE opens in 2024, but I find it odd that there isn’t any serious discussion of a FWL Starter Line at least as far as Highline.
Bellevue gets an ELSL for their rich tech workers, but FW doesn’t even get a one station starter line in support of their workers and students? What happened to “equity”?
Or does the crossover situation not support a FWLSL?
A starter line and an extension phase are two different things. Splitting Federal Way Link into two phases would cost more money and divert staff resources for months. East Link is in a unique situation because it’s the middle part that’s delayed, the intact tail is seven miles long, the second largest downtown is inside it, both downtown Bellevue and Microsoft have an unusually large percent of transit commuters, and there’s a psychological water barrier that makes the Eastside feel like a self-contained unit.
It’s like if Lynnwood to Ash Way had some kind of structural delay but Ash Way to Everett were ready to go, except that that segment has nothing like downtown Bellevue or Microsoft. And in the south, the comparison would have to be between South Federal Way and Tacoma Dome since there isn’t any station between South Federal Way and Fife. Neither Everett-Ash Way or Tacoma Dome-South Federal Way have much of a transit market on their own; it’s all about going beyond them.
However, KDM was a distinct phase in ST2 so there must be some existing planning that can be dusted off. ST2 was originally going to go to 272nd (Redondo) since there wasn’t enough money for 320th (Federal Way). In the 2008 crash Link was truncated at 200th, then re-extended to 240th (KDM), scheduled to open in 2023. When ST3 passed, it merged 240th into the 320th project, so that both would open in 2024. That schedule slipped again, and there’s now a viaduct issue and a base issue that haven’t been fully resolved. So ST could unmerge the projects again and open KDM early. It might be considering that on the back burner, but it may take a compelling reason to get the board to do it. “Community college jobs” is not a compelling reason in itself. (It’s not UW.) “Another P&R” is not compelling if Angle Lake is still unfull after the pandemic. “Transfers from Kent” is problematic because it would still be slower than the 150, and the KDM-Kent-132nd RapidRide is still unfunded. The most compelling reason I can think of is if the viaduct redesign can’t be completed by 2025 or 2026. It also depends on how much money South King has, since it’s the poorest subarea.
I agree the starter line vs extension are very different things, but interestingly staff used the term “start line” for an earlier opening of the KDM station.
Slide 10:
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2023/Presentation%20-%20EastLink%20Starter%20Line%20R2023-06%2001-26-23.pdf
A more recent presentation shows FWLE as a single opening. It may be staff doesn’t have capacity for an additional opening window (as Mike speculates) or it might be too early for the board to need to make a call – aside from the one long-span segment the capital work continues to move forward, and operations staff is presumably focused on OMF-E, East Link, and Lynnwood Link readiness.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2023/Presentation%20-%202024%20Project%20Openings%20Readiness%2007-27-2023.pdf
I suspect the discussion is punted to next year because a decision from the board in the short term is irrelevant, and waiting a few more quarters give staff better guidance on two key facts – 1. timing on the I90 crossing opening; given how tight train capacity will be after Lynnwood opens, I’m very skeptical KDM would open before I90 does, and 2. timing delay of the long span bridge. It’s also possible there will be another hiccup that will make the early opening moot.
@AJ,
You are correct. The distinction that Mike tries to make between “starter line” and “extension” is not one that ST makes themselves. They have used the term “starter line” before when addressing the possibility of a partial FWLE opening to KDM. I stuck with the ST terminology to avoid confusion, but it is just semantics anyhow.
As to Mike’s other concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree. The testing they are doing now to allow for operating LRV’s to KDM for storage is exactly the same type of testing they would need to do as part of the verification phase testing to carry passengers. And the simulated service testing that is required before carrying passengers could be done simultaneously with the same simulated service testing on LLE. This would actually be more efficient and cost effective than doing it twice. And an extension should be more cost effective to bring into service than an isolated segment anyhow.
As to his comments about there being now compelling reason to open the station early, I’m sure the good people of Federal Way would disagree. They have every right to expect their concerns to be considered and addressed to the same level and degree as the tech workers in Bellevue/Overlake.
And I won’t denigrate anyone who attempts to better themselves by getting a college education — no matter what school they go to. Yes, the UW is a great university, but that doesn’t mean that the students at Highline aren’t also worthy of our attention and support.
But if the crossover configuration doesn’t support an early open to KDM, then that would be a showstopper. I just don’t know that answer.
“I’m sure the good people of Federal Way would disagree. They have every right to expect their concerns to be considered and addressed to the same level and degree as the tech workers in Bellevue/Overlake.”
Why are you comparing everybody in southwest King County with the tech workers on the Eastside? That’s like saying Central Link is only for downtown Seattle office workers, or that Link opened in 2009 only because of them. Have the people in South King urged their board representatives about opening KDM early? I haven’t heard much about it.
@Mike Orr,
“Why are you comparing everybody in southwest King County with the tech workers on the Eastside?”
Ah, because ST for some reason has decided to support the tech workers of Bellevue/Overlake with an early starter line, but for some reason they haven’t decided to support Federal Way with an early open – even though the line to KDM will be ready and available.
My question is “why?”
They don’t have enough trains already for lynnwood extension, I doubt they’d want to extend it further though it is just one train.
More importantly (and a bit annoyingly) sound transit always does a six month testing period so they’d have to go through the entire process for one station.
I’m not sure about the track situation but yes there’d need to be a crossover just north of KDM station for them to extend it. Or lowered frequency on the line for waiting for the train to come back up after going past Angle Lake
Double checked the video of the flyover.
Crossover tracks exist just north of KDM, so that shouldn’t be an issue.
https://youtu.be/2sBY0YVe_t8?si=5AycvTL82mGtKEeH&t=69
Regarding the rest of the tracks, the most recent document I found was:
> In 2024, the portion of the track between Angle Lake and the Kent Des Moines stations will be substantially complete, Bonjukian* said. Portions of the new track south of Angle Lake are fully functional now. Sound Transit has been testing the tracks with trains (sorry, no passengers until 2026).
*Anna Bonjukian, Sound Transit’s acting principal construction manager.
(Posted today! december 28, 2023) https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article282942328.html
It seems opening the KDM station early might be completely possible after all since both the crossover exists and the tracks are almost ready. The only last blocker will be not enough vehicles since there is no South OMF. Though it is just one more station length and technically they could run shorter trains.
@WL,
They have more than enough trains to support LLE and a KDM starter line, they just need somewhere to store them. That is why they are activating the track from Angle Lake to KDM — for storage.
The 6 months of testing is not an ST requirement. It is a Federal requirement. Roughly speaking, if is 2 months of fit and function testing (verification) and 4 months of simulated service.
The video I linked to in my original post shows LRV’s operating on the FWLE under their own power. And, if you look closely, you can see the little envelope extenders typical of dynamic envelope testing. So that means they are at least doing some of the testing required of the 2 month verification phase.
So progress.
“ST for some reason has decided to support the tech workers of Bellevue/Overlake with an early starter line”
Just because you say it’s for tech workers doesn’t mean it is.
In case you haven’t noticed, tech workers are jobs. Jobs and retail and services are what downtown Bellevue has a lot of, and Redmond Tech has a lot of jobs. The workers, customers, and clients there disproportionately take transit. Those are all reasons for the East Link starter line, without claiming it’s “for” tech workers as if the rest of the Eastside’s population doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter.
@Mike Orr,
Last I knew the people of Federal Way were pretty hard working and actually had jobs too.
It’s the worksites. Bellevue and Redmond Tech have a dense cluster of worksites. Federal Way doesn’t have that density in either worksites or residents, so a train station can’t serve as many passengers. If Federal Way fully builds out its downtown vision and attracts employers with a lot of jobs in a small space, then it might be similar someday. But Federal Way has had fifteen years to grow a visible downtown and has done nothing; it just has vaporware plans like Lynnwood. Maybe they will someday, but they’re sure slow about it.
In any case, if South King constituents want KDM to open early, they need to start saying so publicly and to their ST reps. Are there any South King residents in the comment section here who want it? The Eastside is getting its starter line because a movement of residents, politicians, and business leaders pushed for it. Stride 3 (522) was included in ST3 because residents and politicians in the area pushed for it, and they’re also part of the reason ST3 was accelerated and passed. What have we heard from South King? (A) Sounder. (B) Federal Way. (C) Renton-Burien. If they want to rally behind KDM as an interim step to Federal Way, now is a good time to start.
If Federal Way fully builds out its downtown vision and attracts employers with a lot of jobs in a small space, then it might be similar someday. But Federal Way has had fifteen years to grow a visible downtown and has done nothing; it just has vaporware plans like Lynnwood.
Yes, and some of the plans were quite grand. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Federal Way, and you can see it. I just don’t see this happening. The era of suburban offices is over. Before the pandemic, we were seeing how businesses were moving towards the city. Amazon kept moving closer and closer to the center of downtown. Weyerhaeuser moved from Federal Way to downtown Seattle. Holy cow — Weyerhaeuser! The very nature of their business is rural, and yet the moved to the heart of the big city. Of course there are companies like Microsoft or Google that have no interest in moving. They are sticking with their suburban headquarters. But even they have opened more and more offices closer to the center of the city (in Bellevue).
It is all about convenience, and the competition for workers. Way more people can get to Amazon campus in a half hour than can get to Federal Way. Back in the day, the selling point was reverse commuting, or moving to the suburb that contained the office. But both ideas both have their flaws.
Reverse commuting often requires driving as well as traffic. Lots of times it involves heading downtown, and then continuing through it (which means a terrible commute). Reverse commuting often lacks good transit options. Obviously it would be pretty good in Federal Way, but again, way more people could get to downtown Seattle (by bus or train) in a half hour.
The idea of moving to a suburban campus city (e. g. Mountain View) held some appeal back in the day as well. Unfortunately, costs skyrocketed in those areas. Redmond is no longer a cheap alternative to living in Seattle — it is just as expensive. Part of the appeal was simply living in the suburbs. It is no coincidence that the suburban-office growth period was precisely at the time cities got a bad rap. Now things have reversed. The biggest complaint about cities now is that they are too expensive. So is a front row ticket to see Taylor Swift — clearly they are popular. The best way to deal with the popularity of cities is to allow more growth (which in turn means way more people live there). Over the last decade, Seattle grew faster than the suburbs (even with the very restrictive limits on growth in Seattle). This trend shows no sign of reversing.
Another problem is two-income professional households. Tech companies often called their offices a “campus”, as if you were in college. That might work for the person working there, but it doesn’t work for their partner. Imagine a programmer married to a nurse. The programmer might be happy with the opportunities in Mountain View, but not the nurse. A job downtown just offers more opportunity for people to live in various places in the region.
Then, on top of all of it, you have the pandemic. It is possible that office employment in Seattle reaches a natural limit, and pushes up the cost in Bellevue, which also reaches a limit, which then makes building in places like Federal Way and Lynnwood more attractive. Given the overall lack of demand for office space, I don’t see it. The trend towards working from home started before the pandemic, and has accelerated. Companies want people in the office, but that doesn’t mean 9-5 every day.
I could definitely see satellite offices in places like Federal Way and Lynnwood, but I don’t think we will see 20 story buildings, ever. I think the best these cities can hope for (in terms of office employment) is something similar to Factoria, not Downtown Bellevue.
In what way is Federal Way qualitatively different than Bellevue, beyond having substantially more rich people? They are both close to the water, and have easy access to outdoor recreation. Bellevue is closer to Seattle as the crow flies, but if there is any traffic at all on the bridges, it’s a wash time-wise.
If Microsoft ended up headquartered in Des Moines, I could easily see the rich people haven’t gravitated to Federal Way.
Bellevue is centered around a mall. That could be any place.
“In any case, if South King constituents want KDM to open early, they need to start saying so publicly and to their ST reps.”
This is not a reasonable expectation. We shouldn’t be making these kinds of decisions based on the squeaky-wheel principle. We should be making decisions based on metrics such as ridership and equity.
If you look at median household income of South King, it is clearly very poor, compared to the rest of the county. That means that people there have far less time to be politically engaged and have the time of insider connections that allow someone in Bellevue to get traction with getting what I suspect will be a pretty low-ridership starter line to be fast-tracked.4
You simply can’t expect a bus driver in Kent or Federal Way to have either the time or the political savvy to make their will known and get a starter line approved.
That’s bad governance if you expect that.
> In what way is Federal Way qualitatively different than Bellevue, beyond having substantially more rich people?
I was a bit curious so checked the statistics (this is from 2010).
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/guidance-centers-target-mode-split.pdf#page=7
If we just go by over city population it’s not too bad bellevue with 120k and federal way with 90k. However unfortunately if we compare what is actually next to the city center core (next to the stations) it gets a lot worse.
https://www.psrc.org/media/3761 (federal way regional center statistics)
* 200 arces
* population: 0
* jobs: 3,186
* land use: 80% commercial
https://www.psrc.org/media/3756 (bellevue downtown regional center statistics)
* 400 arces
* population: 7,147
* jobs: 38,856
Even worse from 2000 to 2010 there was actually a decline in jobs in federal way “center” from ~4000 down to 3,186.
Though to be fair to federal way they’ve drawn their regional center boundaries to not include stuff west of aurora which would include a lot more retail and apartments.
I’ll try to find some more recent data as 14 years is a pretty long time for change.
In what way is Federal Way qualitatively different than Bellevue, beyond having substantially more rich people?
It is a lot closer, and has a lot more development.
From Downtown Bellevue to Seattle does require you to go a bit north or south (or take a boat) to get to Seattle, but even with that you are much closer. At best Downtown Bellevue is as far away as Tukwila, or maybe Renton. Federal Way is significantly farther.
The other big difference is that there is a very large downtown area. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense to run the train there. It is generally pretty sprawling, and with the low density of Mercer Island and the lake itself, there is very little in between. Sure, things could have evolved differently. Microsoft could have located in Downtown Seattle; then Bellevue (and Redmond might have looked like Federal Way. But that isn’t how things went down. Bellevue has skyscrapers, and Federal Way doesn’t (nor will they, anytime soon).
Oh, and Bellevue does have more dense neighborhoods than the other suburban cities. Most of the density is found in Seattle itself, with Bellevue a distant second, and every place else in the region having very little. Things can change, but the trend has been towards the dense areas getting denser.
I agree, Bellevue had the first mover (and Microsoft) advantage. I’m only saying there isn’t anything substantially different from Bellevue that would hinder Federal Way from substantial growth, if the right circumstances catalyzed it.
It’s not likely in the near future, but it isn’t impossible either. Bellevue 50 years ago was essentially Federal Way.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/10292019_bellevues_133322.jpg?d=1024×661
@WL — You can play around with employment data with https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. It pretty much confirms what you wrote though. Federal Way peaks out at somewhere between 9,000 to 14,000 jobs per square mile. Bellevue peaks out at between 57,000 to 90,000.
If you look at population density data, using https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html and find much the same thing, although it is a more tedious process. It used to be they listed various density ranges up to 100K (per square mile). Now they stop at 10,000 (making much of the region look similar). You have to click on the little blocks to find the numbers. Still, Federal Way has only one census block over 10,000 (it has 18,000 ppsm). Bellevue has a half dozen census blocks over 10,000 ppsm, including four blocks next to each other (close to downtown Bellevue). The biggest of these is 34,000 people per square mile. Thus Bellevue has quite a bit more people living in dense areas, as well as a lot more people working in dense areas.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/10292019_bellevues_133322.jpg?d=1024×661
Sorry. FW:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/585838375016e17cbf72a92b/1488246848539-09KWMNXJQU01MU1EHU25/Web28.jpg
@RossB
“It used to be they listed various density ranges up to 100K (per square mile). Now they stop at 10,000 (making much of the region look similar).”
Yeah, I liked the older graphic presentation better. I’m not sure when they made the change or for what purpose, but I strongly prefer the older version. Idk. Maybe they thought the additional brown/rust color variations made the mapping presentations overly complicated, but in my opinion, when it comes to the high population centers, I think it’s helpful to see the gradations of density in the various census blocks encompassing said urban regions.
I’m only saying there isn’t anything substantially different from Bellevue that would hinder Federal Way from substantial growth, if the right circumstances catalyzed it.
It’s not likely in the near future, but it isn’t impossible either. Bellevue 50 years ago was essentially Federal Way.
Yeah, and in 1910 Edmonds and Kent had over 1,000 people. Renton had 2,500 and Everett had about 25,000. Meanwhile, Bellevue had 150. The thing is, Edmonds, Renton and Kent don’t have big downtown areas. Even Everett’s Downtown is tiny compared to Bellevue. Yes, it is possible that any one of those cities could have boomed, but they didn’t. The likelihood that Federal Way will see the kind of growth that Bellevue saw seems very slim. It is worth noting the key reasons that Bellevue boomed:
1) It boomed when suburban offices were booming across the country.
2) Microsoft decided to locate in Redmond and became huge.
3) Bellevue is roughly half way between Redmond and Seattle.
4) Bellevue is not very far from Seattle.
Any one of those things is different, and Bellevue looks like Federal Way. But Could they happen again? Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. The odds are very much against it. The suburban office boom is over. Microsoft went from Albuquerque to Bellevue to Redmond. Amazon went from Bellevue to Beacon Hill to Downtown Seattle. San Fransisco proper used to lag the rest of Silicon Valley in tech — that isn’t the case anymore.
Even if a company (or companies) decided to locate in the suburbs somewhere, why would they choose Federal Way? There is nothing special there. You can say the same thing about Bellevue (let alone Redmond) but that is my point. It was not inevitable. It’s proximity gave it a much better chance than places farther away, but Renton could have easily boomed instead.
In contrast, it was very easy to predict that South Lake Union would boom. It is half way between the UW and the old downtown. Paul Allen knew this, and thought it was going to boom in biotech. He had the right geography, but the wrong field (it turned out to be more software — silly Paul).
But there are at least a dozen suburbs that are as likely to grow as Federal Way is. Renton, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Tukwila — they are all closer. Hell, there is no reason it would have to be outside the city. We are now seeing new skyscrapers in the U-District (since the city allowed them). It is quite possible that the U-District quickly dwarfs Bellevue. What if they allowed large office towers in Rainier Valley, Fremont or Ballard? I’m not saying that is likely, but it seems way more likely than a particular suburb like Federal Way suddenly booming.
I mean one can even look at the repeated failed past plans for federal way.
They attempted once in 2006 to rezone and garner development but nothing really got built (like sure some retail stores changed) but no apartments built. Then they tried again in 2015, it’s been almost a decade and still no apartments. https://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/city-center-redevelopment
Now it’s 2024 and now on the third time trying again https://engagefw.com/downtown
I mean for comparison look at Alderwood Mall it’s got apartment next door. Or say even Lynnwood, northline village is already under construction for the past couple years https://www.lynnwoodwa.gov/Projects/Private-Development/Northline-Village and Federal Way is still in the design phase with there’s.
I’m not even quite sure how they did so much planning for the past 20/30 years and still have approved a single apartment in that zone yet.
Yes, that’s what Bellevue was like in the early 80s when I was at Bellevue High School and lived a few blocks south of there. Then in the 90s the highrises started appearing. What I didn’t know until much later was the densification was planned in the 70s, twenty years before it started being visible on the ground.
If Federal Way had followed the same trajectory when ST2 was being planned in the 2000s, the first wave of taller buildings would be appearing now.
“We shouldn’t be making these kinds of decisions based on the squeaky-wheel principle. We should be making decisions based on metrics such as ridership and equity.”
Ideally yes, but that’s not how Sound Transit is structured. It sees its mandate as building what the subareas want, particularly what the city governments want. So we need to show that a substantial number of subarea residents and cities want this. And opening KDM early is consistent with ridership and equity anyway.
There’s a larger regional reason why Bellevue grew. In the 1960s and 70s, King County decided to channel growth to the Eastside. That’s why Forward Thrust had a fan shape to Lake City, Renton, Redmond, and Issaquah. Sotuh King County was still transitioning from rural and wasn’t expected to get much growth, but then sprawl got out of control and Kent became an industrial haven. Meanwhile in Eastside densification, Kirkland went first with its waterfront condos, which must have been in the 70s and 80s. Then Bellevue came in with the highrises in the 90s, Redmond came in with the Microsoft campus, and then in the 2000s and 2010s Kirkland got back to its downtown, Redmond to its downtown, and Kirkland to Totem Lake.
Even if Federal Way wasn’t intended for growth in the 70s, it’s now a regional growth center, so it’s expected to densify and nothing is legally stopping it.
@Mike Orr,
“ Bellevue and Redmond Tech have a dense cluster of worksites. Federal Way doesn’t”
You are fundamentally missing the big picture. Not everyone will be traveling *to* KDM for work, many riders will be traveling *from* KDM for work, and these riders still count in the greater scheme of things. And there are plenty of jobs along the 1-Link line.
Additionally, Highline College has approx 16,000 students (not including support staff), and students are typically more transit dependent than tech workers in Bellevue. Having fast, reliable transit to get to school without needing to transfer to a bus — or use a bus at all — will be life changing for these students.
But look at the actual numbers. The last I saw KDM was expected to draw 3000 daily riders, which is fully HALF of what the entire 6-station ELSL is expected to generate. And this is just with one additional station. That is pretty powerful.
Now there are some problems with that 3000 figure — it is pre-COVID, and it is not for KDM as a standalone terminus. But the kind of jobs that many FW residents are commuting to are less affected by COVID and WFH than tech jobs, and student ridership is also less affected by WFH. So the estimate probably isn’t far off.
Additionally, as an interim terminus ridership at KDM would actual be higher than the 3000 estimate.
So I’m betting that the 3000 rider figure is probably pretty good, if not a bit low.
That is pretty good ridership compared to the full ELSL. It definitely should be considered. Especially since ST needs to activate that part of the line anyhow to support Lynnwood Link.
You are fundamentally missing the big picture. Not everyone will be traveling *to* KDM for work, many riders will be traveling *from* KDM for work, and these riders still count in the greater scheme of things.
I don’t think anyone is missing the big picture. People started comparing the East Side with Federal Way, and asking “What is the difference?”. I will state it once again: population density and employment density. The East Side has more of both.
The only significant destination on the Federal Way Extension is Highline College. That is why I agree completely with Al — Sound Transit should look into extending as far as Kent-Des Moines Station (which really should be called Highline College Station) even if going to the other stations takes longer. This adds a fair amount of value. It may not be worth it, but like the East Side Starter Line, it might pencil out.
Other than the college, the primary value of Federal Way Link is that it will finally connect well to the freeway express buses. As a result, ST can save money running the buses. This gets complicated fairly quickly, but there is plenty of opportunity to improve frequency considerably, even if some trips require a transfer (and are a bit slower as a result).
Other than that, you add value, just not a lot. There are only three stations. There isn’t much population density around any of them. It is a long ways to Seattle. This will improve the trip to SeaTac and other Link destinations south of Downtown of Seattle, but that is not that many riders. The main benefit of Federal Way Link will be the connection to the college, and the ability to run the buses more efficiently (and thus more often).
“Highline College has approx 16,000 students (not including support staff), and students are typically more transit dependent than tech workers in Bellevue.”
You did it again: you reduce the entire cities of Bellevue and Redmond to tech workers, even though they’re a minority of residents/visitors in the cities.
Yes, of course Highline has a large cluster of students/staff/visitors like all major colleges do, and other people live in southwest King County and can take Link. Those are all good reasons to open KDM early. The difference is that people in the Federal Way Link corridor can take the A a few miles to Angle Lake and access most of Link. People in the Eastside can’t as long as the middle is delayed. And Eastside politicians and businesses prioritized pushing for a starter line. That’s what South King County needs to do if it wants it, and I haven’t seen any sign that it has done so.
This raises a larger issue. Everything about Link, RapidRide, Stride, and ST Express is years late. Northgate Link was supposed to open in 2020, East Link in 2021, Lynnwood Link in 2022, and Federal Way Link in 2023 if I remember. Instead the interim periods have been years longer than expected, and ST and Metro have done little to provide additional interim service to compensate, and interim Link opening phases could be another strategy. I’ve been a passenger through all this. The gap between UW station and U-District Station was supposed to be 4 years, and we had to take a bus to UW Station during that, but then it got extended to 6 years. Bellevue was supposed to have Link 2 years ago, but I’m still riding the 550, which drops to half-hourly Sundays and evenings and doesn’t go east of Bellevue TC. RapidRide G was supposed to open around now but is still several years away. So everyone’s living in this long interim period and having to make do with transit that isn’t improved. ST and Metro and King County should think more about that, and provide more interim solutions. KDM Station could be one such solution.
Yay to the fact that ST figured out that the FWLE delay could offer a way for the non-revenue-service segment down to KDM to store the needed train sets. I pointed out this as a possible solution several months ago. The way that ST was hysterical about needing places to store trains was surreal to me with such an obvious solution being available. The trains would not be “in service” south of Angle Lake and that means that less testing time would be needed to be used only for storage .
Unlike others, I think a one station extension to KDM has merit. There is nothing on I-5 encouraging Link use, and the visibility of the parking garage from the interstate at KDM acts like 50 billboards. On top of this, the new Veterans Way connection to the east will offer a new way to connect Downtown Kent. Finally, it could be marketed for airport connectivity as SeaTac vehicle traffic is predictably tedious.
To me, it boils down to timing and station opening dates. If the new Link bridge south of KDM is to be delayed until something like late 2026 or 2027, I say “do it”! However, if the result isn’t even a year delay it probably isn’t that valuable of a pursuit.
It also may boil down to vehicle availability. Recently ST said that they were short on train sets once FW fully opens along with the other extensions. The arrival time of new train sets may control when KDM opens as well as all of FWLE. ( Of course, light rail ridership is down considerably in the US so it seems possible for ST to acquire some vehicles meant for other systems to meet the need sooner.)
I agree that storing trains on the elevated south of Angle Lack is pretty much a “no-brainer”, but it will require some temporary finagling.
First, how do the operators get to and from the parked trains? Consider this: the trains enter Angle Lake on their last run from the north and discharge passengers. For the first train, both trackways to the south are open and unoccupied. So, easy-peasy, just go forward four car lengths, shut the train down, exit and walk back to the station on the other track, which is still empty.
Let’s be really optimistic and assume that the first train is removed from service fairly early in the evening so that there is almost zero chance that the next train to be removed needs to go out of service. So the driver makes it back to the station platform easily and without much hassle, though they have to walk carefully because they’re on a railroad track.
When the next train to be store arrives, it is brought in to the other platform, discharges passengers and can move directly forward into the empty track, proceed those same four car lengths, shutdown and deboard.
Uh-oh, there’s a train in the way. The operator certainly can’t walk on the outside of the train. That would be far too dangerous, even assuming that the structure sticks out far enough beyond the sides of the train cars for walking. No, the operator has to walk down the narrow slot between the two parked trains. That is not going to be acceptable to the union. There is at least one overhead support in every train length that the operator would have to worm around.
In the morning, of course, the opposite would be true; the operator of the first train would be squeezing past that/those overhead supports.
So what that means is that the trains will have to be backed in. The operator of the last southbound train would pull in, shut down the lead cab, walk the train to the north end, reboard, enter the northbound control cab, boot the train, and back down the track to the parking place. The operator would have to walk only the distance from the closest door of the train back to the platform. That is a much less onerous trip than an complete train walk.
Second, there will have to be temporary fencing at the south end of Angle Lake Station to keep people from entering the station, stepping off the platform down to track level and graffiting or otherwise damaging the parked trains.
If K-DM is really to be ready enough to park trains there next year, two trains could be parked there as well, only with the ones outside the station being to the north of the platforms.
That would be a total of sixteen LRV parking spots which should close the gap.
You also have the problem of getting the operators back to wherever they need to go.
If it’s only 16 cars we’re talking about, just put them all on one track.
Put a hi-rail vehicle on the other.
When a train arrives, disconnect the southern car and an operator takes that one into storage. The train then departs per usual as a 3 car train. The second operator then runs the car as far south as needed. When it gets as far down as needed, the operator gets out, gets into the hi-rail truck, and is driven to the station. It’s then possible for them to return north to their origin on the next train.
The next train will be on the wrong track. So you have to ignore that one, and there’s probably not enough time to deal with it anyway.
Next train gets the same treatment and becomes a 3 car train.
When you’ve taken as many as necessary, the two extra operators take the hirail truck back to the OMF.
You’d have to make sure everything stored there is the same car type, so the whole process can be reversed. It’s not entirely simple, but it prevents having a bunch of operators stranded at the end of the line.
How long does it take to disconnect a Link car? Can it really be done on an active line without holding up trains behind it?
The coupling and uncoupling happens at the last station on the line, and this would be happening during the normal layover time. They’re 100% automatic couplers. When they do it on MAX at an intermediate station (I’ve been on trains where they replaced a car mid-route) it takes less than a minute.
I think a one station extension to KDM has merit.
I agree. Highline College is one of the few Link destinations between Tacoma and Seattle. It also works fairly well from a network standpoint. Riders from south of there could take the A and Link to get downtown, and spend less time on the A. The 165 connects to the main part of Kent and a few parts of Des Moines. If there was a way to connect the HOV lanes of the freeway to it, I would just end the line there. In any event, I agree with you, it comes down to cost. If it can open sooner at little cost, then it should.
I think it’s important to remember that using track south of Angle lake is only a temporary condition. The need goes away when trains can reach the East OMF. Also, it could even be that some or all of trains placed here are spares that get occasionally used rather than put into daily operation.
While there certainly are maneuvering challenges to put more than maybe four train sets there, it hopefully wouldn’t last very long and all of the trains hopefully wouldn’t be needed every day.
Using the Hi-Rail and stringing all the cars out on one track is a great solution. I was wondering how the Hi-Rail gets back down to the next pickup position, but then figured out that it is being operated by that “second operator” you mentioned.
Very slick. I think it can work.
Ross, there is a way to make a connection to and from the HOV lanes. I’ve argued for years now for it. The thing is that it requires that the freeway be widened by two lanes south of 240th and a little way to the north to come back to the new alignment through the K-DM interchange.
It would also require that a bus-only bridge be built at least half way across I-5. If you go that far, though, you might as well finish it and make a bus-only access to and from the east side of I-5, missing the HUGE headaches between I-5 and SR99 along K-DM.
Oh, let me be clear. This 240th bridge is only appropriate if extension south of K-DM Station is canceled. I think that’s why you made your observations an “if”.
@Tom — Yes, there are other ways to connect the HOV lanes of the freeway to Link (south of SeaTac). I feel like the connection is essential. But as I wrote a while ago, I don’t think it was necessary to go to Federal Way to do it. Again, there is value in going that far, but holy cow, it is expensive. It will now cost over $3 billion. I’m sure they could have made that connection for way less than that.
KDM (Highline College) makes a good terminus. But if the goal was simply to connect to Link as cheaply as possible, it seems like they could do it a bit south of Angle Lake. It would likely require widening the freeway, and building a big ramp (as you suggest to the south). But there are all sorts of options.
The more I think about it, the more I think that your idea seems like the best value. I don’t think it costs that much for Link to get to KDM (most of the money was spent going south of there). A transit bridge over 240th would add a lot of value, as it avoids congestion on 516. It would be a bit of a detour, but seeing as it would mean serving the college (and Link) while avoiding traffic, a worthy one. KDM then becomes the southern terminus of Link. Buses from the south (e. g. Tacoma) end there, or stop there before continuing to Seattle. This is what you want with a connection point. It is like how various buses terminated at the UW. You can transfer to Link (to get downtown) but a lot of people are just headed there. In contrast, places like Mercer Island and Federal Way are smaller destinations. It would also mean that if they did continue with the express buses, the bus would go from Downtown Seattle to Highline College to Tacoma. That sounds much cheaper, and in many ways better than what they are building.
Have some happy news for yall the orca mobile tap to pay is coming closer . :)
https://x.com/TheORCACard/status/1740052740510826951?s=20
(Video of a phone taping to pay for orca, no specific timeline yet though)
This might be a question people have answered on here before, but how does distribution of PugetPass revenue to transit agencies work. I know with agency specific passes it goes directly to the agency with likely a small amount set aside for admin costs for ORCA. Curious if anyone knew this answer.
> ORCA Regional PugetPass is a monthly regional pass that allows for travel on bus, light rail or train services within the region on one or more participating agencies’ transit services. A regional pass is valid for payment of trip fares ranging in value from $0.50 to $5.75 and the agencies price the pass based on the value of 36 monthly trips, or $9 per month for every $0.25 in pass value. Funds received from the purchase of regional passes are allocated in proportion to the total value of services used on each agency during the period in which the pass is valid.
page 10
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2018/2017%20Fare%20Revenue%20Annual%20Report.pdf#page=10
I’m guessing how it works in detail but most likely if person A uses say 50 dollars worth of services (based on regular ticket) from king county and person B uses 80 dollars worth of services from sound transit and both pay say 60 dollar monthly passes it’s probably just proportionally sent out to each agency.
total 120 actual dollars then times 50/130 ~= 46 dollars sent to king county
and then for sound transit would be 120 dollars * 80/130 = 74 dollars sent to sound transit.
They probably use some slightly more complicated formula for transfers etc… but this is my best guess.
Yes, it’s proportional based on usage. I assume it adds up all the taps and their nominal fares, even transfers which aren’t directly charged. Otherwise it would penalize the second leg of a two-seat ride, which could lead to one agency getting no revenue even though it’s half the trips.
Any thoughts about Bothell?
I like its access to the Burke Gilman trail, but the quality of bus service there could be better. The 522 is decent for going to Seattle, but service to Bellevue, Kirkland, and Lynnwood is poor. The 230 would be a nice bus route for the area if Metro bothered to run it at reasonable frequency, but at once an hour, it becomes borderline unusable.
I’ve only been there a couple times but it seems interesting how they are building their core. Took a peak at documents online:
Shows how they’ve approved townhouses (2010s) and apartments around bothell way/main st the “downtown subarea”
https://www.bothellwa.gov/323/Downtown-Subarea-Plan-Regulations
Though interesting it seems they are copying kirkland’s totem lake strategy and want to also place a lot of the apartments and offices more to the north at canyon park
https://www.psrc.org/media/3757 (canyon park)
https://www.bothellwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11708/Planning-Commission-Study-Session-Presentation–6-17-20#page=7 shows apartments for land use suggested, also discusses BAT lanes for bothell everett way at canyon park.
Sad looks like barely anyone is commenting on their comp plan (2024) https://engagebothell.com/en/ though I guess not too surprising since it’s a much smaller town.
In the city council meetings (2023) they are also discussing some of the downtown core visions. https://www.bothellwa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07192023-980#page=42 has a fancy rendering.