Focus on SLU and Ballard

149 Replies to “Focus on SLU and Ballard”

1. These are all good suggestions (especially a single downtown tunnel and First Hill crosstown route) – but I feel confident none will happen because of the way Sound Transit is governed. On this site people argue for good decisions for transit customers and outcomes, but the board was set up to ensure capital dollars and real estate investment would be spread throughout a sprawling region, focused on a single-minded commitment to get light rail quickly to Everett and Tacoma. The board debate (with decisions made by subarea caucuses out of the public view) has never been focused on what’s best for transit customers or outcomes because the board is constituted with local officials whose charge is to enforce the regional agreement around “equitable” investment and bring home the local goodies attached to the regional Christmas tree.

   In my view you can always predict the outcome from an agency by looking at governing structure and incentives of the decision-makers. And in the Puget Sound we have always chosen federated approaches to regionalism governed by local officials with local interests in distributing regional money to local interests. There has rarely been a voice for transit customers or outcomes at that table. If we had a regionally elected ST board we would have an entirely different set of outcomes, and transit outcomes would have a center stage role in electing the board. Frankly we’d have a very different transit system. Until there’s a change in governance I don’t see how any of the sensible ideas in this post can occur.

   1. Quasimodal,

      Would a regionally elected board have the power to pull the plug on the whole damn thing? Because the ST3 vote lost in Pierce County and it wasn’t a huge winner anywhere but Seattle. A regionally elected board would actually give more power to the suburbs than the original vote did.

      Sound Transit was built to resist change. That’s both a good thing and a bad thing.

   2. There is a broader subarea political aspect to this, as other subareas are on the hook to contribute to DSTT2. Then there is the SeaTac connectivity to Snohomish and the Eastside that becomes much easier with this idea as well. So this is about much more than North King.

      1. Yeah, canceling the DSTT2 would be right “first step” to light rail realignment, because it gives something to outer subareas right away, letting them keep funds for projects actually in their own subareas.

         The problem might not be getting Pierce County or other outlying area board members on board…. it would be Mayor Bruce and Executive Dow not signing off on it. Seattle gets money from the other subareas for another tunnel (and the urban renewal project Mayor Bruce is counting on for flipping worn out City and County buildings into a transit hub with housing and retail built in).

         Seattle pols love the 2nd tunnel idea. I’d be hard to convince them to give that up.

      2. Cancelling DSTT2 would potentially allow the total cost of ST3 to go down, thus shortening the high-tax period. The cost increases have stretched the total construction period to beyond 2041. This could allow it to go back the other direction to some extent.

   3. True. But, the fiscal crisis of Sound Move led the board to make major changes. Could the fiscal and technical challenges of ST3 lead to major changes? The current course is to do the low ridership west line first and operate it as SODO shuttle. Martin points out that the best ST3 project is delayed. ST3 is getting worse with the split of the CID transfer point. Some boardmembers point this out.

      ST3 takes funds from all subareas for the second tunnel. If it is not provided, presumably, the outer subarea funds could be used in those areas. All projects need more funding. Service needs more funding.

      See the one tunnel paragraph. ST staff argues that DSTT would be overwhelmed by passenger load if not for the parallel second tunnel. The very short headway provided by three lines reduces the waits and allows the platforms to clear faster.

      1. Just a note that the DSTT is barely over capacity in the pre-Covid commute-heavy forecasts.

         The overcrowding easily goes away by going to 2.5 minute frequency from 3 minute frequency apparently assumed in the DEIS. It can also go away by simply buying paired cars with driver cabs only at one end in 2040 – or better yet a fully walk-through train vehicle that many European cities use.

         Since the ridership jumps only between University St and ID-C, it appears to me that the overcrowding is a algebraic fluke by assuming that most riders will get off Third Ave buses and use Link. ST won’t disclose if Third Ave buses are overcrowded or not in a No Build scenario.

         The more I’ve looked at this issue, the clearer it appears to me to be a mathematical anomaly that can be solved a number of cheaper ways than a $4B second tunnel.

         Finally, the ultimate proposal here to build what I’ll call a CSTT (Central Seattle Transit Tunnel) is seemingly a better ultimate solution for overcrowding. That’s because the Beacon Hill tunnel is expected to be a crowded segment on a per train basis. Plus East Link trips to First Hill and Ballard could use the eventual CSTT.

      2. “a fully walk-through train vehicle”

         Imagine ST in 2040 adopting 2040 an improvement that spread internationally in the 2000s — and that being praised as one of the faster moves in American transit.

         Can we document an earlier date for the spread of walk-through metros? I think BART has always been walk-through with doors passengers can open, but BART is not a typical urban metro (i.e., it’s not MUNI with many city stations).

      3. I chose 2040 simply because it’s 30 years after 2010 so it will be time to consider changing the original fleet anyway. I agree that it could be earlier.

      4. “ You can always drive to Everett Station P&R.”

         Just a note that while Everett Station will be 33 minutes from Lynnwood City Center Station (and 60 minutes from Westlake so it will take longer to get from Everett to Lynnwood than from Lynwood to Westlake). Compare that to ST Express 512 at 22 minutes today between Everett and Lynnwood.

         And South Everett P&R as well as the Everett Mall area will be entirely skipped by Link.

   4. We in north Snohomish county; Everett, Tulalip, Marysville, Arlington.. desperately need some rail services.. like yesterday!

      1. Everybody would love to have trains everywhere, but do you have the ridership to fill not just a few seats, but enough to cover some of the operating expenses? Sounder North has had low ridership, Link may run more often but take longer. Ultimately it would be great to run trains from Olympia to Arlington, but until then we may want to build up ridership with better bus services. Express bus service will be faster than the currently planned Link service.

      2. @Ron,

         It’s coming, at least in the form of a Link extension into Everett. It is not the route I would have picked, and it won’t be useful to me personally, but it will get there. Just wish the wait wasn’t so long.

         As per other rail services to other SnoCo cities, there have been proposals over the years, but I don’t see much of a path forward in the near term.

         But the plan is for SnoCo to get more rail, and it is coming soon. First this year in the form of Lynnwood Link opening, and latter with another Link extension.

      3. The Tulalip outlets, retail, and casinos are definitely a big enough regional job center and activity hub center to justify high quality transit. I know quite a few people who had to quit their jobs there because they kept having to take expensive Ubers to Everett. Light rail is probably an over-kill, but it needs to be something better than a local bus running every 50-60 minutes that is on top of another long bus ride if you’re coming from the light rail or 51X busses. I’m thinking in terms of a Swift BRT line here. Unfortunately, Community Transit only seems interested in extending Swift along State Ave. (serving lots of vacant lots, agriculture/construction and car/RV oriented businesses) up to the park and ride lot at Smokey Point and making only incremental improvements to the local bus lines that serve Tulalip.

      4. I disagree that Everett link would serve Snohomish counties mobility needs well, and the cost for potential usage is abhorrent. The Swift gold line between Everett and Marysville is a good idea finally extending Swift north of Hewitt and up the Broadway corridor

         IF capacity needs become so strained in Everett – marysville -Arlington travel that there needs transit solutions with capacity beyond a bus then the BNSF rail line would be the way to do it. Work with WSDOT and BNSF to have Sounder service between Everett station and central marysville and up to Arlington. I’m not advocating for this now but it is something that would be a much less expensive decision than Everett link were transit capacity needs ever to reach that point because it fundametally utilizes preexisting infrastructure and can have service very very soon. Currently the capacity constraints don’t exist however, so I yield to my point of supporting the swift gold line

      5. Everett link by itself the idea wasn’t too bad/expensive

         A straight shot on i5 mainly at grade isn’t that expensive. Or alternatively going up pacific highway atgrade/elevated if they wanted more location connections.

         But instead they have this huge detour out to Paine field. Its like a 6 mile detour

      6. “I disagree that Everett link would serve Snohomish counties mobility needs well,”

         You can always drive to Everett Station P&R. As crazy as that sounds from a car-reduction perspective, that was part of Snohomish’s reason for wanting Everett Link. The idea was that people from northwest Snohomish County and Skagit County would drive to Everett Station and take Link to Paine Field or Seattle or wherever they’re going. It would supposedly reduce the car congestion between Everett and Paine Field. Ha ha ha.

      7. If we were on a rail ultimatum here as a means of serving towns throughout Snohomish county (even though I think limiting ourselves to just that mode is quite reductive)

         Simply based on connecting established towns throughout Snohomish county I feel like a less capital intensive commuter rail would have higher potential than link. From downtown Everett using existing tracks you can serve both north Snohomish county along the I-5 corridor and east Snohomish county along the US-2 corridor

         In a way I would love for this to work. I would travel ALL the time between Everett and Snohomish growing up. I loved visiting that town all the time. The rail right of way is also much more direct downtown – downtown than US-2 is. But obviously I can’t count on absolute demand necessarily existing to justify rail as of now so as a transit advocate I would say that the right of way should be preserved (which it will as it’s a mainline but the Arlington branch maybe needs more safeguards) and that we should try improve bus service between these towns to build the kind of demand over time that would at some point in the future warrant high order transit expenditures

         Link would never do this but also has no reason to do this. ST has been designed to cover each geographical constituency as much as possible. ST boundaries stop at north Everett in either direction so there is no incentive to do this. But from a pure transit service incentive of course these trips are still made by community transits express buses because transit exists outside of sound transit

      8. Rail has two advantages: capacity and the route itself. In some cases, the train route offers up something that the regular street grid does not. It often gets right into the heart of town. In that sense, Snohomish County does offer up some nice options.

         The biggest problem is that we don’t own the tracks (and the tracks are used a lot by freight). Otherwise it would make sense to run trains every so often in Snohomish County. But with the current system, it is extremely expensive.

         As far as capacity goes, it isn’t need for the vast majority of Snohomish County trips (if any, really). Is there any bus in Snohomish County that runs every three minutes and is still crowded? I don’t think so. In contrast, Metro has had many routes like that.

         To be fair, if you make a route fast, you increase demand, and next thing you know, there is that kind of demand. Even so, I don’t think there is any place in Snohomish County that has that kind of demand.

      9. A straight shot on i5 mainly at grade isn’t that expensive. Or alternatively going up pacific highway atgrade/elevated if they wanted more location connections. But instead they have this huge detour out to Paine field. Its like a 6 mile detour.

         Except the detour is designed to pick up enough riders so that the rail is actually worth it. Unfortunately, this is a common problem throughout the U. S. and Canada. When it comes to new rail, there are only so many options and none of them are good:

         1) Run by the freeway. Cheaper, but you don’t pick up that many riders. It offers little improvement over just running express buses. For a lot of the riders, it is worse. In effect you are delaying Everett to Seattle riders so that you can provide better service from Everett to Ash Way. The problem is, only a couple dozen people take that second trip.

         2) Deviate to serve places along the way. Same basic idea, except there are a lot more people going from Downtown Everett to Paine Field than Downtown Everett to Ash Way. Unfortunately, costs go up, and you still don’t have that many riders for those shorter trips.

         3) Try to somehow get a combination that works (a little bit of both perhaps). Again, this just won’t work.

         Mass transit built from scratch really only makes sense in areas that are really dense and close together. Rarely do these stretch out for a very long distance. You need a city as big as L. A. if not New York for that. We are nowhere near as big.

         In contrast, leveraging existing infrastructure can work quite well in those environments. This basically means express buses and commuter rail. The latter has issues around here because we don’t own the rails. If we did (and it wouldn’t hammer our freight system) we would have a lot more trains on our existing tracks.

      10. IF capacity needs become so strained in Everett – marysville -Arlington travel that there needs transit solutions with capacity beyond a bus then the BNSF rail line would be the way to do it.

          I agree, but wow, is that a big “if”. I just don’t see that happening. Marysville has grown like crazy the last decade or so. So has the entire SR 9 corridor as well. But it has largely just sprawled. There is no density. Marysville went from about 5,000 people to 70,000 in forty years. Some of that was annexation, but still. The same sort of thing happened in Ballard. The difference is, Ballard has density, and to this day, downtown Marysville really doesn’t look that different. Don’t get me wrong — downtown Marysville is fine. It clearly isn’t hurting, and a lot of it (e. g. the civic center) is right along the railway line. But this sort of landscape just isn’t good for mass transit: https://maps.app.goo.gl/as1Ttevb3jkjTPZX7.

          Downtown Arlington has a little more, but it still small potatoes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/JsgYgzh5mSVhgJMb6). I’m always struck by this phenomenon. It is common in the U. S. and Canada, but probably unheard of in Europe. Walk around downtown Auburn, Marysville, Arlington and Snohomish and you have no idea how big the surrounding city is. They really don’t look that different, even though Snohomish is tiny compared to Auburn or Marysville. It isn’t where they draw the lines, either. Snohomish is pretty compact, whereas Marysville isn’t.

          In contrast, consider the town of Benavente Spain — a place I picked by random on a map. It turns out there are only 20,000 people (well less than half the number of Marysville). But look at it: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZUgV1vTR1mqS5NQe7. Zoom in and it is clear the apparent density from the air is no illusion: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CUdwhpfqAXgsTvYbA. It is dense as all get out. Cities that are bigger have bigger downtown areas. For example, this is a city of roughly 100,000 people: https://maps.app.goo.gl/quvJRbysDvCGA9Yn8. The downtown area matches the size of the city. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen that much in the U. S. and Canada.

          So much of Snohomish County is low density sprawl — the type of areas that are far more appropriate for buses than trains.

      11. Ross I totally agree with your point on urban form and density. Sprawl is just quite untenable (and expensive) to serve

          Even from the operation efficiently of a bus you can see that the service benefits from density to serve nodes that “anchor” demand

          This is why I hope this years sessions we can pass some comprehensive zoning reform and possibly work on protecting Urban Growth Boundaries from being weakened

          While I’m of course mostly hoping extremely expensive neighborhoods in Seattle see housing supply increased through legalizing density, there is sprawl and cost of living problems happening in nearly every town across the state, and especially along the I-5 corridor that would similarly benefit from zoning reform so I do hope the reforms will apply to such towns as well

      12. “It is common in the U. S. and Canada, but probably unheard of in Europe. Walk around downtown Auburn, Marysville, Arlington and Snohomish and you have no idea how big the surrounding city is”

          Is it? First, can you explain what you mean? What struck me about Glasgow and Dublin was, I couldn’t see how the cities could possibly fit their 1 to 1.5 million population and jobs. They’re all two-story or so. Coming from the US I couldn’t imagine how they could manage without a few highrises or midrises for all their office workers, not to mention their hundreds of thousands of residents.

          I got part of an answer in Hamilton, Scotland. The night coach from London makes a “Y” at Hamilton to serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are both 30-60 minutes away in different directions. The long-distance bus continues to one of the them, and a short-run bus goes to the other. I don’t remember which one or whether it was always the same. Hamilton looks more like an American suburb: newer but still lowrise. So part of Glasgow’s population overflow must live there.

      13. I agree John, with all of your points.

          Switching gears to what Mike wrote:

          “It is common in the U. S. and Canada, but probably unheard of in Europe. Walk around downtown Auburn, Marysville, Arlington and Snohomish and you have no idea how big the surrounding city is”

          Is it? First, can you explain what you mean?

          Sure. Maryville is a city of over 70,000 people. Near as I can figure, this is the downtown: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YsvYzf8795reLJjC9. (You can try “street view, or 3D to get an idea of the heights”.) This really give you no clue as to the size of the city. It could just be a small spot close to the freeway. Walk a half mile in any direction and you still have no idea. You still have houses, so I guess it isn’t that small, but the same thing could happen if you were in Darrington. It is only when you go miles and miles from the city center, and realize that the density is probably increasing (ever so slightly, while remaining fairly low) that it becomes clear that the city is actually pretty big.

          If anything, Arlington has a more impressive downtown area, despite being much smaller. Only 20,000 people live there, but it has a commercial strip that is fairly lively (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EP5Xu8c6n2zGHXZ29).

          What struck me about Glasgow and Dublin was, I couldn’t see how the cities could possibly fit their 1 to 1.5 million population and jobs. They’re all two-story or so.

          First off, density does not equal height. It is very common in European cities to have the kind of density that you find in Brooklyn. There are brownstone neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are extremely dense — as dense as Belltown — despite being only three stories high. Paris is taller, but Paris is also famous for being quite dense despite lacking any skyscrapers (in the center of the city).

          But second, Dublin has some tall buildings: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6dQpHa6TUX5TsNh89. No, it isn’t Chicago, but the city isn’t that big, and it isn’t that kind of city. Same with Glasgow: https://maps.app.goo.gl/nG1pKzYX7cXfWZSQA. There are big buildings. Even without seeing those buildings if you walk around a bit it becomes obvious that the place is really big. You would never think you are in a tiny city.

          In contrast, look at Phoenix. Here is the downtown area: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xCShPUNsU4VY8GhT9. You can see some skyscrapers (it is definitely downtown) but you can also see that they die out fairly quickly. They aren’t replaced by high density housing (e. g. the type you see in Brooklyn or Europe) but by single family houses. You could be here within about a 20 minute walk from what Google says is the center of the Downtown Phoenix, and assume you are close to the edge of town. At this point, you have no idea how big the city is. The only clue is the skyscrapers, but then again, maybe the city abandoned them (a modern day Detroit). With such a dramatic drop off in population, there is no way you would guess the city holds about 4 million people. The place (again, about a mile from the center of downtown) looks nothing like Dublin or Glasgow, even though Phoenix has way more people.

          I was mainly focused on smaller cities, but the idea is the same. There are lots of places in America where the dominant landform is low-density development. Sometimes it spreads out a little bit, sometimes it spreads out for miles and miles. The dense areas are largely independent of how much it spreads.

2. Ah, no. Just no.

   From the post above….

   “As conditions have changed during the pandemic, the Sound Transit Board should prioritize ST3 construction projects with the highest ridership potential while maximizing the value of their existing infrastructure and preparing for other high ridership opportunities. That way Sound Transit will be able to serve as many riders in the region as possible and help reduce the region’s reliance on fossil-fuel-based vehicles.”

   Nice idea, except that’s not what the ST3 vote mapped out. Sound Transit is a three County rail spine system providing regional mass transit. Building a kick-ass subway system in the Seattle City limits isn’t the Sound Transit grand master plan. A kick ass subway for Seattle is actually a better idea than the crap Sound Transit is building. But votes have consequences…. if you voted “yes” on ST3, you can’t bitch about what’s being built now…. because you approved it.

   Politically, Sound Transit needs to build from the outside in. Tacoma, Everett and East King want the damn light rail the voters approved…. years ago. No, we’re not waiting for Ballard. Ridership numbers are meaningless here…. What really matters is that there are more Sound Transit board members from outside of Seattle that there is from Seattle. By design, so Seattle doesn’t srew over the other subareas.

   Is anybody who’s reading this actually believe this “Ballard first” plan could actually happen? How? Because it’s politically impossible (no matter if it makes sense or not…. that’s another question. )

   1. STB needs to lay out what’s best for passengers and the most transformative in making the region more transit-oriented, regardless of how politically possible it is. That way it can be a reference point of what we’re missing — why our ridership is so low and our vehicle-miles traveled so high. And it serves as a concrete vision to try to convince politicians and others to move toward it. People need something they can picture, so they can see how it relates to their trips and other trips. If STB doesn’t step up to provide this, who will?

      The proposal is constructed to be as compatible with ST3 and ST’s preferred plans as possible, with easily-separable parts so that some parts can go forward without the rest. Ross, Frank, and I collaborated on the article, and it’s a consolidation of ideas we’ve been publishing for over a year. There’s been an integrated vision among the editors of a single tunnel and Ballard automation and serving First Hill (“Spring Station”). The newcomer is the tail southeast, first suggested by Frank, later adopted by the others, as an interesting innovation that would solve a lot of transit problems. We present all of this here for consideration and debate. We’ve published parts of it over several articles, but I thought it needed putting together in one article, and reminding people of some of the earlier ideas that may have been forgotten.

      ST would have to run it by their lawyers to confirm how much is within scope of the ST3 ballot measure and legislative authorization, but that’s what we’re asking Sound Transit to do. The most must-serve parts of the Ballard Link project are: (A) connecting Westlake to SLU and Ballard, (B) extending it to Midtown, (C) serving the CID neighborhood. And add: (D) West Seattle Link must connect the West Seattle Junction to CID and Westlake. So let’s look at these:

      (A) is completely fulfilled.

      (B) depends on either: 9th & Madison being in scope of a “Midtown downtown” station, or being in a “second phase” authorized by a future vote.

      (C) depends on being in scope or a future vote. I’m somewhat skeptical of CID Station not being must-serve: it’s a major multimodal transfer point, and Rainier & Jackson is geographically and psychologically a different transit market. So this seems to be the weakest part of the proposal. But again, a second phase can do anything.

      (D) is completely fulfilled. We have separate suggestions about replacing West Seattle Link with BRT, but that’s beyond the scope of this article. In this article we accommodate ST’s preferred West Seattle plan.

      We’re arguing that a Ballard-Westlake stub line is compatible with ST3, and that automating it is compatible too. Again look at “A”: the most must-serve part of Ballard Link is connecting Ballard to SLU and Westlake. We’re doing that. If ST can’t afford to do its entire Ballard/DSTT2/CID-N/West Seattle concepts, it will have to truncate or defer some things. Ballard-Westlake is a feasible unit for downscoping.

      Automation would save money, helping with budget issues. It does that by having smaller stations, smaller trains, and not needing drivers. The technologies allow higher frequency for lower cost, meaning Ballard could be served every 2 to 5 minutes. The Vancouver Skytrain does that, as do other automated lines. High frequency means better transfers, more feasible trip pairs, and a more satisfied public.

      A 2.5 minute three-line frequency in the existing downtown tunnel (DSTT1) may require capital improvements to the tunnel to maintain reliability. ST argued in 2016 that it would. But that would be much less expensive than building a whole second tunnel.

   2. “Is anybody who’s reading this actually believe this “Ballard first” plan could actually happen? How?”

      Considering the current plan is West Seattle First, it seems like Ballard First wouldn’t be such a problem.

   3. if you voted “yes” on ST3, you can’t bitch about what’s being built now…. because you approved it.

      Bullshit.

      My guess is the vast majority of people who voted for ST3 would have supported anything. Seriously, look at the way people voted (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/planned-light-rail-areas-big-backers-of-sound-transit-3/). You had people in places like the Central Area and Fremont — clearly overlooked and screwed-over by the process — still voting overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal. You had people in the suburbs with stations very close to their homes voting against it. If you were to ask voters a simple “Transit: Yes or No” question, it would break pretty much the same way.

      That is because voters had no real choice. They didn’t have a half dozen proposals (with “build nothing” being one of them). They had “Build This — Yes or No”. It wasn’t clear at all what would happen if we voted no. Would they come up with a different proposal, or simply build nothing? No one had any idea, which is why the vote had little to do with the specific proposal, and everything to do with general support for transit and Link (which was likely at a zenith at that point).

      Politically, Sound Transit needs to build from the outside in.

      That is ridiculous. No one builds that way. That would be a profoundly stupid way to build things. Tacoma to Federal Way only makes sense if you actually build Federal Way to Seattle. Same with Everett to Lynnwood. I guess we are seeing that now with East Link, but no one actually thinks it is ideal.

      Oh, and since we are talking about votes, you seem to forget that Pierce County voted against ST3! Why on early should be build something that Pierce County clearly doesn’t want! You have it completely backwards. We should build what it makes sense to build, and then revisit stupid proposals (like Everett Link, Tacoma-Dome Link, and Issaquah to South-Kirkland-Park-and-Ride Link). Hopefully after revisiting those proposals, they can come up with better plans, just like we have here for Seattle.

      Oh, and no one is suggesting that any other county chip in for Ballard Link. This would be paid for with King County money (even though plenty of other areas would benefit). Why the hell would Pierce or Snohomish County residents complain about Seattle building something that is far more useful to the city? Do you think they would just be bitter because Seattle decided to build something useful, and they continue with their poorly thought out projects?

      1. > Politically, Sound Transit needs to build from the outside in.

         > That is ridiculous. No one builds that way. That would be a profoundly stupid way to build things. Tacoma to Federal Way only makes sense if you actually build Federal Way to Seattle. Same with Everett to Lynnwood. I guess we are seeing that now with East Link, but no one actually thinks it is ideal.

         Hawaii and California hsr are building that way lol, though yeah it’s kinda a bad strategy since it’s led to many problems with it getting harder to reach the downtown

      2. WL: California HSR contributed significantly to Caltrain electrification and track improvements as they will someday use them. That’s pretty much building in the core city (admittedly though not the last mile to the Sakesforce Transit Center). Unlike the Central Valley segment, the CalTrein segment will have faster electric trains sometime later THIS YEAR.

      3. @WL,

         I concur. Building from the outside in is pure nonsense.

         ST Link is a fairly new system, yet it is 4th best in the nation for total ridership. And it is number one in the nation for ridership per mile. That is pretty darn successful.

         With the more suburban extensions I expect Link ridership per mile to drop, but total ridership will still increase dramatically.

         Link will soon be #1 or 2 in the nation for total Light Rail ridership — probably this year if the current LLE schedule holds.

         Success like that is hard to argue with.

      4. Lazarus, Ballard/lowerQA/SLU could continue to build out ridership. A central tunnel, too! None of the other ST3 projects would add much but drive up operating expenses.

      5. @Martin,

         Tacoma is the 3rd most populous city in the state, and it is likely to become the 2nd most populous city in the next decade or so. Connecting Tacoma to the rest of the system with fast, reliable LR is a no-brainer.

         Everett is the 8th most populous city, but it is also spread out a bit more. Connecting it to the rest of the system will not be as productive, but it is their tax dollars and this is what they have been promised. And “not as productive” can still be good enough to justify the expense.

         ST’s state mandated mission is to provide fast, reliable rail transportation on a regional scale. That is what ST is doing with ST2 and ST3, and it is not in our purview as Seattle residents to change ST’s mission to focus on “Seattle first” at the expense of our regional partners.

         Regional problems require regional solutions, and transportation is clearly a regional problem.

      6. Delaying suburban extensions is not the same as canceling them.

      7. Ross Bleakney,

         Let me confess that I don’t really know much about transit planning. I do, however, have a very good understanding of Sound Transit. I’ve been involved in local politics for 40 years and I understand that Sound Transit is really a special taxing district and a political animal. So it’s never been about “good transit planning” as much as “local politics”. Most posters on this blog have difficulty coming to terms with that. That doesn’t matter however. Sound Transit is going to do whatever the board votes on, our opinions and input be damned.

         Let me let you in on a little secret…. When local pols need something, when they’re trying to get something passed or get elected, you can be part of the process. The promises flow like the Puyallup River in Spring. But once candidates are in office, good luck having any influence over them. Sound Transit is about the most insulated institution in Puget Sound, save for the Police Unions. Good luck changing those!

         Do you really believe the Sound Transit Board reads any of the posts here? How about the Urbanist, Crosscut or Publicola ? And even if they did, would it make any difference? That ST3 vote was really “one and done”. We are completely stuck with whatever the the board comes up with.

         From your post above….

         “That is because voters had no real choice. They didn’t have a half dozen proposals (with “build nothing” being one of them). They had “Build This — Yes or No”. It wasn’t clear at all what would happen if we voted no. Would they come up with a different proposal, or simply build nothing? No one had any idea, which is why the vote had little to do with the specific proposal, and everything to do with general support for transit and Link (which was likely at a zenith at that point).”

         So voters were so in love with light rail they gave government a blank check and new taxing district? for 30 + years? On a single public vote?

         Thanks for pointing out why the right move was a “no” vote. I’m going to say this again. There’s no use in bitching about Sound Transit policy if you voted yes. You can call “Bullshit!” on me a thousand times, it won’t affect the Sound Transit board. They aren’t listening to you. (or me) or Martin.

      8. tacomee, you argue the futility of discussing alternatives to Sound Transit decisions. You claim that no one with real influence reads this blog or its comments, which may or may not be true. But that is true, then what, please tell me, is the point of this blog and its commentariat? If no one of consequence is reading this blog or similar advocate outlets, then why do you see fit to tell the commentariat that their arguments are useless? What would you have the Seattle Transit Blog be about, instead?

      9. There’s no use in bitching about Sound Transit policy if you voted yes.

         You’ve written that a lot. I have two things to say about that:

         1) That is irrelevant. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up like it is important. It isn’t.

         2) It is absurd. Every citizen — regardless of how they voted, or whether they voted at all — has the right to ask their representative for a change in policy. That is how a republic works.

         It really doesn’t matter how someone felt about ST3 before — or this particular project either. Maybe they changed their mind, once they found out more about it. Maybe the changes on the ground (and their have been plenty) is enough for them to consider alternatives. Maybe they never considered the alternative being suggested here, and find it more appealing.

         Personally, I opposed ST3, but the one major project I felt had merit was Ballard Link. With the various changes (and the second tunnel) I no longer feel that way. In contrast, I think this proposal has merit. One of the keys is automation. Another is the route (initially stopping at Westlake, but heading towards First Hill). I’ve always felt like Ballard Link was a bit fragile, and needed to be done “just right”. In contrast, this particular proposal can have a lot more flaws and still be a good project. The trains will be a lot more frequent, which makes a big difference. The cost will be lower, making it a better value. I also think that the odds of flaws go down as the stations become smaller (with smaller, automated trains). It is just a much better project.

      10. “Do you really believe the Sound Transit Board reads any of the posts here?”

          Dow Constantine and his staff read it because he said so in a transportation forum talk. Claudia Balducci has occasionally commented here. Some of the other board members probably read STB but I don’t know exactly who. Some Seattle councilmembers and Metro and SDOT and ST staff read it. Mike Lindblom reads it and it’s input for the issues he writes about. They may not read every comment but they know the general direction of the articles. So they know what we’re saying; it just doesn’t translate into the actions we want because they’re also weighing other factors. But occasionally we can generate a large enough public movement to convince some politicians and get something done. There’s no reason not to keep trying.

          And as I said above, it’s important to articulate what the right direction or transit best practices are even if we can’t convince the politicians. Because it serves as a reference document that people can compare to the status quo, and it shows that another direction is possible.

          We also outline implementation details and tradeoffs that give the agencies a partly-formed plan and a head start if they ever become open to it someday. Just because they aren’t open to it now doesn’t mean they never will be. Public attitudes might change, and new people get into office and become the decision makers. We’re getting four new people on the ST board right now, and we’re looking to see how they may differ from their predecessors.

      11. “Success like that is hard to argue with.”

          The notion that past success of the original Link line legitimizes not questioning future decisions makes no sense to me.

          The original starter line has been proven as a good investment since studies done in the 1970’s. It was delayed mainly because of local funds not being matched and not because the route would not be successful. It was proposed for 20 years before Sound Moves, and the UW campus wasn’t fully served for another 24 years after that.

          Connecting a dense Downtown (one of the most expensive and limited parking situations in the US) with one of the largest undergraduate campuses in the US (also with limits to parking) should be “successful”. Both areas have a long legacy of good transit use before Link opened. If this corridor wasn’t successful, then no rail transit project should ever be built.

          Taking a look at the history is however what to me makes ST3 so badly done. Unlike Sound Moves and prior studies, ST was not developed with an eye to valuable transit. It instead was a committee drawing lines and loosely relying on or downright ignoring flawed cost and ridership forecasts.

          And the success of Link is on the back of using the DSTT, which Metro developed. Had ST not had the DSTT, the effort would simply not have happened at the price it was.

          And even if the ridership has been predictably high, the inability to maintain station conveyances or to subject riders to major closures for repairs of a fairly new system (opened only 14 years) continues to tarnish ST to this very month.

      12. Ultimately, we post and comment here because we like to talk about transit. And if the network isn’t what we want and the politicians won’t listen to our suggestions, we like to complain about that. Isn’t that why you’re here?

      13. Nathan D.

          OK, let’s talk about Seattle Transit!!!! (and Greater Seattle Transit)

          Metro… Metro and even more Metro. Seattle will never be completely served by light rail, so buses are always #1. Here’s what needs to be done to fix the bus system.

          1. Stop lying about the “driver shortage”. Tell the truth! What we have is a “driver pay shortage”. Raise driver and staff pay by 25% across the board, hire better people and make the system work. How do we pay for that? Well, we can debate that but we must agree that without a better workforce, the system is what it is right now.

          2. Focus on rider experience systemwide. Transit needs to be cleaner and safer. The flat fare idea certainly helps. Sure, all of this costs money, but do you want good transit or not?

          3. Realize that State Law makes Sound Transit rail regional transportation, not a local subway for less than 5% of Sound Transit taxing district. The fact that Martin & Company would even think the rest of a 3 county system would put outlying projects and hold for their “inner city spur line” to Ballard shows how myopic this blog is. Like anybody from Everett would even think about signing on to a plan like this!

          4.Don’t pit transit systems against each other. Build a robust bus system and add in light rail to it. Do not let Metro or other bus transit agencies truncate bus routes and dump riders into light rail stops to save money. As the light rail lines are built out father, the end of line riders will take up more and more seats, leaving inner city buses to move people around in Seattle. Who wouldn’t rather have a 1 seat bus ride vs. a 2 seat bus/train transfer? See point #3 about rider experience.

          5. By State law, and the fact at possession is 9/10th of the law, those light rail seats really belong to the outlying district riders. If I’m at Roosevelt Station and the train is packed from north bound riders… it’s a bad thing for me, but a good thing for Puget Sound. Seattle will need to learn to share, at least if Sound Transit is doing things right!

      14. “5. By State law, and the fact at possession is 9/10th of the law, those light rail seats really belong to the outlying district riders. If I’m at Roosevelt Station and the train is packed from north bound riders… it’s a bad thing for me, but a good thing for Puget Sound. Seattle will need to learn to share, at least if Sound Transit is doing things right!”

          Turning some trains back before they reach the end station to give closer-in station riders room is done all over the world every day. Even ST 1 Line trains leaving SeaTac after 11:45 only go as far as Stadium.

          So it’s a reasonable solution that can be theoretically possible to implement any time as long as the track siding and signal system can accommodate it. It can even be done on an as-need basis like for sporting events and festivals rather than be in published schedules.

          I used to be more concerned about this but this whole partial work from home evolution reduces the overcrowding surges relative to daily ridership.

          I think you meant “southbound riders from north of the station” rather than “north bound riders”. If a rider is at Roosevelt station and wants to get on a northbound train, crowding almost always won’t be a problem because more riders heading north will get off at Roosevelt when compared to getting on.

      15. Al S.

          Yeah, I got that completely backwards…. north enders riding south is correct.

          And yes! to turnouts and adding more trains… I’d rather have just one working north/south train built the right way than a spur to Ballard and West Seattle. Buses will handle those destinations just fine. The worst is non-working rail on multiple lines…with no money or goodwill to fix things.

          But no! to letting Metro dump riders into the rail line to save money. That’s just going to clog the whole damn system and make commuting bad. More funding for Metro is the solution.

      16. Indeed, I wasn’t here back then, but it seemed that a vote against ST3 was a vote against rapid transit expansion, rather than a vote for a potentially better package. E.g., there was no well planned Seattle-centric alternative to point to as a viable alternative. I bet Seattle would have voted to approve such a package, but it was not available at the time. Perhaps voters in the future might approve it as an alternative to a ST4? It could probably even be automated since it’s not tied to conventional light rail. That would make the ST3 “spine” much more useful than, say, lines to Renton, Woodinville, and Mill Creek.

      17. tacomee, I enjoy your comments. Keep it up!

      18. @Lazarus,
          I understand the significance of Tacoma. It’s also a big spreadout city and Tacoma Dome isn’t close to much else. As Tacoma grows, the need for local bus lines will grow as the T line will only serve a small part of the city. I feel adding BRT lines will be far more important than TDLE as long as some of these bus lines connect to Link such as in Federal Way or KD station. It doesn’t matter much whether you transfer at TD or FW or KD.

      19. Connecting Tacoma to the rest of the system with fast, reliable LR is a no-brainer.

          Maybe so, but though Link may be “reliable” (if infrequent) but it will never be “fast”.

          Nor does it, nor will it, serve anywhere in Piece County worth counting the beans necessary to build a BRT station.

      20. Regional problems require regional solutions, and transportation is clearly a regional problem.

          Yep. And Link LR, is not a “regional solution”. It’s too slow and too expensive to operate for that great a distance.

      21. We can discuss “greater Seattle transit” in an open thread, but for a short answer:

          “Raise driver and staff pay by 25% across the board”

          I could support something like that if others who know more about this than I do recommend it. I don’t know drivers’ current salaries, how 25% would compare to private driving jobs or other industries, or how much of the problem is really due to salary.

          “Focus on rider experience systemwide.”

          Of course. Timm focused on this as much as she could, but she mostly looked at current day-to-day experience rather than the longer-term design issues of bad train-to-train transfers or no down escalators. Or maybe she recognized those but was unable to influence them. In any case the ST board needs to incorporate riders more into the design process and operations process and listen to what they say.

          “The fact that Martin & Company would even think the rest of a 3 county system would put outlying projects and hold for their “inner city spur line” to Ballard shows how myopic this blog is.”

          It comes down to weighing transit effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and affordability on the one hand vs other factors on the other. A competent transit agency should obviously prioritize those three. The fact that ST apparently won’t is a political problem in ST. We need to say what the right thing is, both because we might be able to influence it now, or in the future, or to document how bad the situation is without it.

          “Don’t pit transit systems against each other. Build a robust bus system and add in light rail to it.”

          This seems to contradict your previous points. In any case, the Link issue is about Link, not Metro.

          “Do not let Metro or other bus transit agencies truncate bus routes and dump riders into light rail stops to save money.”

          That’s part of transit best practices. Link is predicated on bus truncations, and all the agencies’ long-term plans are based on it. Unwinding that would require reversing decisions going back years. In any case, this is a large issue which is too much for this thread. We can discuss in an open thread where bus truncation make sense; at what thresholds.

          “those light rail seats really belong to the outlying district riders.”

          I don’t even understand that. We can discuss it in an open thread.

      22. Tacoma is the 3rd most populous city in the state, and it is likely to become the 2nd most populous city in the next decade or so.

          This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of mass transit. You are confusing it with high speed rail. Mass transit connects neighborhoods — high speed rail connects cities. High speed rail from Seattle to Tacoma or Seattle to Spokane definitely adds value. But mass transit to Spokane (the second biggest city in the state) is just plain silly.

          You need to two things to have a successful mass transit system: Density and Proximity. Unfortunately, Tacoma has neither. Tacoma, for all its charms, just doesn’t have the density to support a major investment in rail. This is why the county has the good sense to pursue BRT projects along its busiest transit corridors (instead of another silly streetcar). Worse yet, between Seattle and Tacoma everything is low density. It would be unusual for a city this size to be different. You have to a be a mega-city to have growth like that, and the smallest city of that type is probably L. A. (and we are definitely not L. A.). If you look at a density map of the state of Washington, what is striking is that almost all the density is within the city of Seattle. There is some in Bellevue, and a handful in other places (including Spokane and Tacoma) but very little overall. In contrast, if you look at L. A. (or New York) you can find long stretches of density that extend outward. Yet even New York, Paris and London didn’t build a mass transit system out that far. This itself should tell you something. Link — serving a fairly tiny metropolis — will extend farther from the center of the city than the New York Subway, the Paris Metro, or the London Underground (or Overground!).

          It is really the wrong tool for the job. We should stop pretending that we are New York City. We don’t have density spreading out that far. The best thing for Tacoma is to improve transit *within* Tacoma. The best way to connect Tacoma with Seattle is making the trains and/or buses faster and more frequent.

      23. @tacomee

          The labor shortage is certainly a pay/conditions issue, I don’t think anyone disagrees. A new contract was approved this August. I’m hoping we see staffing/service rebound early this year.

          https://kingcountymetro.blog/2023/08/16/king-county-metros-largest-union-approves-3-year-labor-contract-with-higher-salaries-and-expanded-training-opportunities/

      24. “This is why the county has the good sense to pursue BRT projects along its busiest transit corridors (instead of another silly streetcar).”

          This shows a change of mind. In the 1990s Pierce advocated for a six-line Tacoma Link throughout the city of Tacoma. The T Line was supposed to be the first. Another line went to East Tacoma, and one probably went down Pacific. Later Pierce chose to extend the first line but put BRT on Pacific. Future city lines will presumably be BRT.

          Seattle did something similar. Mayor McGinn recommended streetcars on Westlake to Ballard, Eastlake to the U-District or Northgate, and Rainier-Jackson. Later Mayor Murray downgraded all those to RapidRide.

          Transit fans did something similar too. Some of us advocated strongly for Ballard Link, and for ST3 to make it a reality. But ST’s poor designing of the alignment has caused so many problems that it may be better to fall back to buses than to build ST’s current preferred alignment.

      25. “I wasn’t here back then, but it seemed that a vote against ST3 was a vote against rapid transit expansion, rather than a vote for a potentially better package.”

          Our history was voting against the 1912 Bogue subway, then waiting sixty years to get Forward Thrust on the ballot, then waiting twenty-five years to get Link on the ballot. We were afraid of that happening again and losing the chance for a subway in our lifetime.

          “there was no well planned Seattle-centric alternative to point to as a viable alternative”

          It’s state tax ceilings. The Monorail authority was only allowed to raise $1 billion, which wasn’t enough for its Ballard-West Seattle line, much less more Seattle lines. Part of it was gutted when an initiative reduced car tabs to $30. And in any case, it wouldn’t have free transfers to Metro, so I’d stayed in Ballard I’d have pay twice for a 2-seat ride, or stay on the 15/D looking up at the Monorail track I really wanted to be on.

          The county-based transit agencies don’t even have that much spare capacity, and Seattle can only raise so much in sales and property taxes. The only one who could get the big money was Sound Transit. That’s why everything is leveraging off it. Seattle has no alternative; Snohomish has no alternative; Pierce has no alternative. The monorail tax capacity is still there unused, but it can only raise $1 billion.

3. Your idea has my endorsement. I could suggest a few refinements but it’s generally ok. The Westlake station 3D layout challenge is messy in particular although a smaller station would. Make it easier to build.

   As much of a waste as WSLE seems for productivity, I don’t see ST changing course on building it. I think you will thus need to show three lines in the DSTT to sell this idea for political reasons. That also would provide time to add a new alternative to BLE EIS. It seems relatively straightforward to add an EIS alternative that shrinks most corridor stations, adds an OMF or track connection, adds grade crossings in SODO, and enhances the DSTT to add more trains. Maybe it could help improve the station depths on the corridor. Then there is the ugly reality of not needing six minute trains to the Eastside and West Seattle although I don’t see the need for it given current Link ridership patterns during the day.

   Getting a ridership forecast is to me a quick and relatively cheap way to explore the benefits. ST has not used its analysis tool effectively in general in recent years for making decisions , and ST could benefit from more analysis from it in general.

   The idea has to be embraced by a wide variety of interests or it’s dead in the water, as Quadimodal suggests. To that end, it would be a huge win for the CID construction opponents. Amazon may like it too. Those are probably the two groups that could best lobby to put the idea on the table. The next step is probably to get other interests to sign on to the idea first before knocking on the doors of ST Board members.

   I am not however calling it impossible because ST doesn’t have the money to build the current preferred alternative. It may even evolve with some value engineering after an EIS. It might help to highlight the extension south of Westlake as a dashed line since the full build would be more costly than what ST currently proposes — and to propose station names like First Hill, Harborview and Little Saigon-Pratt Park that could have broader appeal.

   1. “Getting a ridership forecast is to me a quick and relatively cheap way to explore the benefits. ST has not used its analysis tool effectively in general in recent years for making decisions , and ST could benefit from more analysis from it in general. ”

      We’ve been asking ST for years to reevaluate its ridership estimates in light of the post-covid changes in travel patterns. We’re still waiting.

   2. Al, West Seattle will never have a need for greater than “policy” headways, so that means just six trains per hour per direction, even in the peak period. Eight per hour from the East Side and eight per hour from the RV and you have twenty-two trains per hour, of just a bit less than one every three minutes. If ST can’t manage that, they need to turn in their spike maul.

      West Seattle is the MBTA “C” line, the SFMTA Church, and the DART Westmoreland branch.

      There’s a business model for service to West Seattle, but it requires surface operation from the edge of the plateau to the Alaska Junction.

      1. I’m thinking more like 6-WS, 8-Eastside and 10-RV/ SeaTac. That’s because Federal Way and Tacoma Done extensions will add riders.

         In light of post-COVID demand, it maybe could be 6-6-8 for awhile. I think people forget that work from home was emerging before COVID and it’s never going to be like 2010 again in terms of the percent of workers traveling at peak because of it.

         The thing is ST won’t even study any of these things presented in the post. They won’t study reconfiguring where lines go, nor automation, nor peak demand. Heck they won’t even study this overcrowding issue in their forecasts to see whether or not these riders will be on Third Ave buses anyway or how the overcrowding on paper can be eased without this expensive nearby second very deep tunnel that will take 3-5 minutes to reach and/ or get out of.

         Bluntly put, ST is culturally prioritizing stubbornness. ST seems to care more about real estate owners more than riders by not looking into these very proven, cost saving, time saving, litigation saving ideas presented in Martin’s post. They get so excited to use ST (especially ST funds) as a way to accomplish other things that are tangential to the concept .

         It’s notable that ST put out a working paper on gondolas but not this. I believe that’s because that they know in their hearts that Martin’s proposal here is superior for rider experience, ridership numbers and construction disruption — yet are too lazy and arrogant to admit it.

         It was shocking to me how quickly the newest preferred alternative came out of left field. It still hadn’t been publicly revealed what it will do to ridership!

      2. “ST is culturally prioritizing stubbornness”

         Sam, you might want to start thinking about about what a stubbornness award might look like, some kind of mascot or souvenir.

4. > In this environment Sound Transit should focus on the Ballard line, and postpone the others until demand justifies the construction and operation.

   I disagree. The delay of the ballard line is more about the high cost and waiting for funds to accumulate than anything about doing it first.

   > Rather than building a second downtown tunnel with only a single additional Midtown station and redirecting the 1 Line through that tunnel, Frank had proposed to extend the Ballard line to serve First Hill

   This is even more expensive than the current alignment.

   Sound Transit really just needs to face reality and scale down the ballard alignment and scrape the tunnel. I don’t really see it reaching ballard at this point if it attempts a second downtown tunnel probably only reach interbay.

   I’m still a proponent of just going back to the other at-grade alternatives https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/04/sound-transit-presents-st3-options/ and keeping it a west seattle to ballard line.

   1. At grade transit lines isn’t what the fine voters of Seattle voted for. Can you imagine having a Ballard town hall meeting and telling the residents the train is going to be cutting though their neighborhoods? You think the CID threw a hissy fit? The old coots in Ballard would be going to Limback Lumber for pitchforks and torches! SUBWAY or NO WAY!!!!! Ballard is NOT getting ripped off!!!!

      Going back to the pre-vote ST3 sales pitch…. does it surprise you that much of it is pie in the sky? And that it’s near impossible to reel any of the “promises” back in?

      1. > Going back to the pre-vote ST3 sales pitch…. does it surprise you that much of it is pie in the sky? And that it’s near impossible to reel any of the “promises” back in?

         I’m not calculating based on promises but what is the financial reality. One can promise anything. ballard would think a bit differently if it was proposed to end the tunnel at uptown and not reach ballard.

         The real problem is that sound transit did not actually do “realignment” in 2021 and just blew it’s contigency funds rather than actually redesigning the route when it ran out of funds.

         Aka what austin did https://www.kut.org/transportation/2023-03-21/austins-light-rail-plans-have-shrunk-here-are-five-new-options

      2. WL,

         The problem with “financial reality” is everybody has a different version of that that means. However, everybody’s version has somebody else taking in the shorts.

         Sound Transit is 100% a political beast. It cannot change its stripes. I’m pretty sure the ST board could are less what the STB crew wants.

      3. > Sound Transit is 100% a political beast. It cannot change its stripes. I’m pretty sure the ST board could are less what the STB crew wants.

         shrug, I mean sure but it’ll have to face reality when it comes time to pay the bills. If it was financially possible to build ballard link tunnel as currently envisioned I wouldn’t be talking about alternatives.

      4. WL

         Well, the Sound Transit solution is always going to be the same…. move the time table back as the cost goes up. I’d be the first to agree it’s not a great solution, but it allows the ST Board and staff to just blame inflation and no make any hard choices.

      5. tacomee, you’re probably correct, and that is a real tragedy. An at-grade terminal station at Market and one of the diagonal streets between Leary and 15th would make access much easier for everyone in “downtown” Ballard. And running on the surface south of the Ship Canal would add no more than one or two minutes to the time to the tunnel portal, because the trains can’t run at fifty-five down a median. But whoop-te-do, the riders have saved those two minutes when they accessed the train at grade.

         Now I grant that an at-grade station is not compatible with an automated system. You can’t have automated trains running on a street railway. So that’s a “gotcha” stopping super-frequent headways.

         But the truth is that if Frank’s extension south of Westlake were built for Link-standard LRV’s instead of Skytrain-like Light Metros some of the trains could continue on down Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and maybe end in Renton. It would require overpassing four or five arterials and banning left turns across the tracks, but that wouldn’t be that expensive.

         If South King County ever does “boom”, it’s going to boom in the now-empty places, which are mostly along I-5, so maybe sometime not far in the future the Duwamish Bypass will start to look pretty good to the region. That would mean that most trains from TIBS and south would take the bypass and maybe one train every fifteen minutes would use the existing line from the Airport north.

         All far-in-the-future speculation, but it does mean that Frank’s extension might be perfectly compatible with standard Link equipment.

      6. “If South King County ever does “boom”, it’s going to boom in the now-empty places”

         Did you mean non-empty places? Past success generates future success. Kent and Renton are particularly successful in attracting residents and industrial employers, and their governments are acting to address their problems. They may not be acting in the most effective way but at least they’re acting. Auburn is growing too and I assume it’s on a similar trajectory business-wise.

         A lot of South King County’s transit problems are geographical. It’s a large population spread out over a large area. Link serves the 99 corridor (sort of), but the population center is east of that in the Sounder corridor and further east. Sounder doesn’t provide all-day or frequent service, so that limits general transit use. The distances make it hard for buses to serve with reasonable travel time, especially for Seattle-Kent-Auburn trips. Local bus frequency within the south county is gradually improving but is still behind neighborhoods like West Seattle (probably the most similar Seattle neighborhood). These are all issues the south county governments need to address.

         The south end is at a geographical disadvantage compared to the north end. From Westlake, Lynnwood is the distance of north Kent (240th). Everett is the distance of the Pierce-King border. Tacoma is further than that. Between Everett and Westlake are the major job/activity centers of Lynnwood and North Seattle and particularly UW. The south end has no counterpart, and Link misses the largest cities of Kent/Renton/Auburn. The south end is more industrial (less walkable) and blighted by more highways. These are all built-in problems the south county cities have to work around to generate success. They’re doing it slowly in their own way.

      7. No, Mike, I meant “the empty places”, because they don’t have NIMBY Neighbors putting the kibosh on density. The sort of employment that Kent and Auburn host is industrial sprawl that is ridiculously expensive to serve by transit. Since their residential areas are east of their centers, they will always be poorly served by Link, except for Tacoma trips.

         Yes, while putting the train along the freeway may have saved a few hundred million dollars (though the Buried Bridge is gonna chew up a lot of that), it would have been better to run on SR99 with 1/2 mile stations roughed in. So yes, there are lost opportunities. But, there’s nothing to prevent the areas around 272nd and Highline from growing. At least put ped crossings across I-5 at 240th and just north of 272nd and upzone between the freeway and Military Road.

         Also, add rough-ins for two stations between South Federal Way and Fife.

      8. Tom Terrific,

         Here’s why transit in Europe works and fails in Seattle.

         In Europe, there would be an above ground train station At U-Dub (on campus) and from there the train would run above ground all the way to Everett. West Seattle and Ballard would have above ground light rail…. if they had rail at all.

         If ST3 would have planned above ground trains over most of Seattle, it would have never passed the voters. Does Ballard really need a subway? Once again, Sound Transit is a political animal…

      9. tacomee, while above ground can work in West Seattle and Ballard, it could never have worked between the south end of downtown and somewhere between UW and Roosevelt. The physical barriers come hard and fast every quarter mile of the way for that distance.

         Again, you don’t understand that the physical world to be served should determine the transit technology chosen to serve it. A subway is 100% required and 200% supported by the ridership between the points along the way.

         An analysis of the cost, complexity and impact of weaving a surface line through the Lake City Way interchange with I-5 showed that it was cheaper to keep drilling, even with one more underground station, ST chose to put the tunnel portal at 93rd instead of the original plan of 60th.

         So Link simply has to be a subway between Northgate and CIDS. Since there was a need for a line through Southeast Seattle and surface could work there, the specific technology chosen with low-floor LR vehicles with catenary power distribution. It makes sense as a compromise between Northgate and Rainier Beach. Stations are frequent enough that the low top speed isn’t a fatal flaw.

         But beyond those limits it is.

      10. You’re right, Tom. Beyond those limits, light rail does not deliver needed travel times. It also does not tie together the region in a way that a modern “heavy” rail system could have.

          I believe that the extensions far beyond Sea-Tac were the death knell for any alternative rail tech. It would require a transfer and deprive Pierce and South King riders of their direct airport connection, which is probably a non-starter. Still, it is interesting to consider what could have been.

      11. “In Europe, there would be an above ground train station At U-Dub (on campus) and from there the train would run above ground all the way to Everett.”

          This depends on the region and country, and is strictly conjecture because vast expanses of low density single family housing and surface parking lots such as exists between Northgate and Everett doesn’t exist to such a vast extent.

          However, if we were to use southwest Berlin as an example, most likely what would happen is Link would have been extended to Edmonds. Edmonds would exist as a dense downtown with multiple 5 floor apartments and condos above commercial buildings (Eg, Potsdam, where Berlin S-Bahn ends). Service north of Edmonds would be served by a merger between Amtrak Cascades and Sounder, operating trains a minimum of every half hour, at an average of 70 mph including station stops, over an existing mainline.

      12. Troy, would you consider an eBart style same-line transfer prohibitive?

      13. For me personally, no. But it would be a big political ask to forgo a light railway that promises a direct connection from the airport to at least Tacoma Dome, which has a draft EIS being published shortly, and which has been in various stages of planning since the late 1980s, in lieu of a heavy rail passenger line that has no planning or design behind it, adds FRA complexity that is not well understood for this area or particularly scenario, and which would compel a transfer in not-really-convenient Federal Way.

          The real debate to come is where and how the Link Spine shall end in the Tacoma area.

      14. If you look at the 2019 ridership estimates article for 2040, final graphic. It shows Link ridership between Federal Way and Tacoma to be about 1/4 that of SeaTac to Seattle.
          https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/01/30/link-riders-2040/

          What I have propesed in the past is:
          • Build Tacoma Link with much smaller stations than the 4 car trains currently planned. There’s no need for them, even in the optimistic 2040 ridership estimate of pre-pandemic 2019. I propose single car trains are sufficient, given the approximate 1/4 ridership level estimated.
          • With the money saved, rebuild Tacoma Link to fit single car Link trains. They’re 8 inches wider and somewhat longer, and the substations would need slight alteration for a somewhat higher voltage.
          • Operate these Tacoma trains as far north as makes sense. If Line 1 is operating at 6 minute headways, Rainier Valley can’t take any more trains, but maybe they could go as far as Rainier Beach? Definitely they could go as far as TIBS, where there are a host of potentially useful transfers. There’s enough space there to build a separate station and layover space.

          This makes downtown Tacoma to the airport a one seat ride, which is what Tacoma was actually originally wanting. Tacoma to Seattle passengers would still need to transfer someplace, but they can do so at numerous other locations than Tacoma Dome, and have numerous other places they can transfer. A bunch of 5 seat rides become 3 seat rides, due to the elimination of Tacoma Dome as a required transfer point for those from everywhere else in Tacoma.

          Getting back on the topic at hand, this prevents the Line 1 four car trains from having to go all the way to Tacoma, allowing them to be decoupled from the Ballard and DSTT2 proposal, so they can continue to provide through service from Rainier Valley to Northgate and Lynnwood.

          Ballard could then be built as a separate line, as described in the article above, separate from Tacoma.

          The big losers would be anyone commuting from the park and ride lot at Tacoma Dome to downtown Seattle when Sounder isn’t operating. This seems like a very small number of riders, considering even a one seat ride on Link is going to be slower than the express buses were. I know the express buses are busy, but most of those people don’t seem to originate at Tacoma Dome, but transfer from something else that would be vastly improved if the line went to downtown Tacoma.

      15. “It makes sense as a compromise between Northgate and Rainier Beach. Stations are frequent enough that the low top speed isn’t a fatal flaw.”

          You forget that it will eventually extend to Angle Lake and eventually Federal Way and Tacoma. That low speed leads to an hour-long travel time.

      16. “if we were to use southwest Berlin as an example, most likely what would happen is Link would have been extended to Edmonds”

          Why not Lynnwood, which is just a little further. Downtown Edmonds is in a dead-end hole. If you mean Highway 99, that’s not downtown Edmonds. Lynnwood is central to the entire south Snohomish population, so why stop at Edmonds seemingly arbitrarily?

      17. Glenn, the discussions of where Link should terminate in Pierce County are of great interest to me. I have written much about the history of light rail to Tacoma, the origins of Tacoma Link, and the failure to consider a rail systems integration after ST2 in 2008. I am on the record noting that, at the very least, the original Tacoma Link Extension should be integrated into the regional system as it was planned and designed to do. Worthy of note, the original stations of Tacoma Link were designed by Sound Transit to be scalable up to 2-car trains when that integration occurred (and I have documented how 4-car trains could also be accommodated).

          With regards to planning after the completion of Tacoma Dome Link and a presumably forthcoming ST4, I believe that integration remains valuable. There are a variety of pathways for which that could occur and they should be evaluated. For train lengths, we know that 4-car trains are going to Federal Way. They are almost certainly going to Tacoma Dome, too, absent some major change of plans. I feel that 4-car trains should then also travel into the city center via Tacoma Link, but that is not likely to happen despite the feasibility and merit.

          Regardless, an integrated railway could allow for 1 or 2-car trains to travel from Tacoma Community College (TCC) or Downtown Tacoma to Sea-Tac, providing for a wide variety of service scenarios. This would be similar to the original Sound Transit light rail vision for the subarea. Plus, with a T Line expansion toward Lakewood using integrated tech, regional connections from there to the airport can also occur, as well as a Lakewood to TCC trip through Downtown Tacoma.

          Basically, Pierce County deserves https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjwMIMDshQ6iFEsICrKusmUj8iDMtgF1/view?usp=drive_link for its investments and patience.

      18. Corrected link here. Sorry about that!

      19. “if we were to use southwest Berlin as an example, most likely what would happen is Link would have been extended to Edmonds”

          Why not Lynnwood, which is just a little further.

          Because Lynnwood doesn’t have existing railroad tracks. If you look at the lines outside Berlin, they are largely (if not entirely) based on old railroad tracks. It is like commuter rail, but with more frequency. This sort of thing is quite common.

          What makes it a bit unusual in Berlin is that rather than just connect to a central station, or a handful of them in the city, they essentially made a hybrid metro system. For example, the S1 (a line in the S-Bahn) operates over:

          * the Prussian Northern Railway, opened in 1877
          * a short section of the Berlin-Szczecin railway, opened on in 1842
          * the Nord-Süd-Tunnel, opened in 1936 and 1939 (in stages)
          * the Wannsee Railway, opened in 1874 and 1891

          The only section that didn’t piggy-back off of a train line that was built in the 19th century was the Nord-Süd-Tunnel. This is the part of the line that is basically a metro (or subway). From what I can tell, there are ten stations. One on each side of the “ring” (the part of the system that looks like a dog) and eight in between. There is a branch, so I might have the line wrong. Here is a map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Nord-S%C3%BCd_Tunnel#/media/File:Karte_berlin2b_nsbahn.png. Note that the top and bottom of that ring at that point is about five miles. So basically a station every half mile. It is also worth noting that this complements the U-Bahn, which is more of a traditional subway, with stops closer to together. Yet the stops on the line serving distant rural communities are still not that far apart (in the city). In contrast, other than the downtown stations (that were built before Link) our stations are much farther apart (everywhere).

          So Berlin basically has a fairly thorough metro/subway, with fairly standard stop spacing (the U-Bahn). They also have a hybrid system, that leverages old, existing rail lines (with various branches) which connect to a subway-style system inside the city (the S-Bahn). The result is very good coverage inside the city, and very good service for those outside it. They spent a lot of money inside the city, and not that much outside it. Yet they pretty much cover it all.

          In contrast, we’ve built a bizarre system that you will only find in America. The inner-city subway system is poor. Coverage is weak. The lines outside don’t leverage the existing rail line but are basically built from scratch. This dramatically pushes up the cost. In response to the high cost (and expected low ridership) they cut corners. So instead of rethinking the problem, they cut down on the number of stations, and put them close to the freeway (where land is cheap). This sort of system is sadly quite common in America, and unheard of elsewhere. The result is something that doesn’t work very well, and is certainly a bad value.

          To be fair, it would be difficult to build something like what Berlin built, simply because we don’t own the railroad. So nationalizing the railroads would likely be the first step. But another problem is that we have developed our suburbs and satellite cities around the freeways more than the rail. I agree that there is great merit to an all-day, frequent rail line to Edmonds (with plenty of stops along the way). But to get to Mike’s question, what about Lynnwood?

          Simple answer: Buses. At some point the rail system needs to have a good interface to buses from the suburbs, because that is the best way to serve them. They lack the density and are way too spread out to serve any other way. So the subway system (our “U-Bahn” if you will) needs to go out further than it would normally, just to allow for a good intercept for the buses. Once you do that, there is little need to go farther out. The “S-Bahn” (running on existing tracks) becomes a bit of a bonus.

   2. The delay of the ballard line is more about the high cost and waiting for funds to accumulate than anything about doing it first.

      Right, but the high cost has everything to do with the scope. This decreases the scope considerably by:

      1) Ending the Ballard Line at Westlake.
      2) Having smaller, automated trains (and thus smaller stations).

      “Frank had proposed to extend the Ballard line to serve First Hill”

      This is even more expensive than the current alignment.

      Maybe, but that misses the point. This can be built piece by piece. Initially you go from Ballard to Westlake. That’s it. That is considerably cheaper than going from West Seattle to Ballard (which is basically the point at which any of the Seattle project becomes worthwhile). Yes, I know that the plan is to build West Seattle Link first, but since it would be a stand-alone stub (ending at SoDo) it provides little value. With Ballard to Westlake, you actually have a good line, even if nothing ever gets built after that.

      Later you extend into First Hill. Even one station adds a lot of value. With just one station, you are still quite a bit cheaper than Ballard to West Seattle.

      Eventually you keep going, and add more stations, like Yesler Terrace and Jackson/CID. Given that you have postponed West Seattle Link indefinitely, it isn’t clear when you have actually spent more money than WSBL. West Seattle Link will not be cheap. It will cost around 4 billion (just to get to SoDo). Maybe the new tunnel (and stations) from Westlake to Mount Baker costs more than that, maybe they cost less.

      Sound Transit really just needs to face reality and scale down the Ballard alignment and scrape the tunnel.

      Agreed, and that is what this does. It builds things in the proper order. You start with Ballard to Westlake. If that is all we build, so be it. Not what I would build first, but it is way better than then the current plans. Building a West Seattle stub and then waiting decades before anything after that is a really bad idea. Start by adding the most value, which is Ballard to Westlake.

      Then an extension to First Hill. Then an extension further south to connect to both of the other lines. Then, finally, West Seattle Link (with the trains going in the existing tunnel).

      If West Seattle Link gets built before the First Hill extension, so be it. That is out of order, but at least a good long term plan. The second tunnel is a really bad idea that has only become worse as prices have escalated.

      1. “ I know that the plan is to build West Seattle Link first, but since it would be a stand-alone stub (ending at SoDo) it provides little value. ”

         I would argue the West Seattle to SoDo provides a net negative value, since all but a tiny few riders will have to transfer at least once to get anywhere useful, and for a significant majority it turns a single seat ride into a three seat ride.

      2. My idea is to just copy say SF muni or Los Angeles blue/gold line. build the at-grade alignment first and then whenever you actually have the capacity problems and money then build the tunnel later.

         la regional connector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Connector

   3. I think Ballard link can stay grade separated if we just use DSTT instead of building a whole new tunnel downtown. Such a decision immediately leaves open the idea of shallow construction in many areas where it would have previously been impossible with the DSTT2 approaches. And it would be so much better for riders making transfers and just trying to access the tunnel at all

      Forward thrust had planners back in the 1960s plan for a train running every 1.5-2 min in the tunnel. What we need is far better service within the existing tunnel. The idea that we must spend billions of dollars on a second tunnel because sound transit is convincing itself that trains can only run every 4 minutes at best through DSTT is completely out of line with our financial reality. I’d support addressing the frequency limitations outside of downtown like RV or east link before ever supporting a DSTT2 which is terrible for riders

5. This is very well presented, Martin. Thank you and your co-authors for distilling a consensus of what seems at least acceptable to almost everyone consistently active here on the blog. The extension to “Spring Station” is probably even within the scope of ST3 as ratified by the voters.

   So far as the long term extension on through First Hill and down Rainier, it’s a good idea, but it’s really not clear at all how it might be paid for. There will be no “ST4”, that’s a slam-dunk. South King and Pierce are going to be bitterly disappointed with Tacoma Link’s ridership and will be landslide-sized “No!” votes. East King is going to feel suckered by the silliness of Issaquah-South Kirkland. And Snohomish will have exactly what it wants. Their voters and leaders might regret wasting all that money north of Lynnwood, but any possible future needs will be met by Swift, not Link.

   And the biggest irony is that it would run the modern, automated Skytrain-like Ballard-First Hill line smack into a street railway at a weak terminal in Mt. Baker. Maybe transfers could be well integrated there, but it would highlight the poor choice of technology for a regional Light Metro. The “local” line would be a generation ahead of the “regional” one.

   1. So far as the long term extension on through First Hill and down Rainier, it’s a good idea, but it’s really not clear at all how it might be paid for. There will be no “ST4”,

      I agree, but I think it is also quite possible that the legislature gives the county or city the right to build its own mass transit system (especially after it is clear that the other counties are done). The main thing is, this can be extended piece by piece. In that sense, it is like Northgate Link. They could have added each station two years apart and each one would have been worthy of a huge celebration. U-District Station: Hurray! Roosevelt Station: Hurray! Northgate Station: Hurray! That is true here as well. It is pretty easy to imagine the Ballard line ending at Westlake, or any place southeast of there, while still adding lots of value. In contrast, the current plans are to build the West Seattle Line ending at SoDo, which means that Seattle doesn’t really get anything worthwhile out of ST3 until the whole thing is complete.

      1. Ross, I agree with what you write and we can hope that the Leg will see the value and prudence, but Seattle Envy is a metastatic disease that infects most other parts of Washington. It’s currently in remission in Snohomish County, because WFH has made life very good there and, damn, there aren’t any companie to WFH for up there.

         But it’s growing in the rest of state; negative biomarkers are soaring.

      2. Ross do you mean legislature allows the county to use or start up a non sound transit fund/agency?

         I believe subareas are now allowed to raise funds individually (say north king for north king projects) where before a system wide vote was necessary

      3. “I believe subareas are now allowed to raise funds individually (say north king for north king projects) where before a system wide vote was necessary”

         No, it’s still a single tax district. The tax rate must be the same across all of it per the state constitution, and everyone must have an equal vote in any changes. Subarea equity is just an accounting show to track how many subarea dollars “benefit” the subarea.

         To allow subareas to have different tax rates and different votes, you’d have to split the tax district. Some people (including me) have advocated for that, but no politician has taken it up, and there’s no study of what the implications would be for Sound Transit. Would the agency have to be split into five agencies? Would only subarea boardmembers be able to vote on taxes and policies for a subarea? Is the board ready to cope with that change in boardmember relations and procedures? Would the legislature have to pass a law to allow splitting? None of these has been answered.

6. Anyone who believes 57,000 daily riders is not thinking critically. The entire population of Ballard is less than half that.

   1. If they hadn’t decided to bypass the 50K or so in QA and Fremont, then maybe it would be work the billions. As it is now, upgrade the bus and call it a day.

   2. Ballard isn’t the only station. Places like SLU and LQA will generate a fair number of riders. Even Interbay could be reasonably busy if it were built in a way allowing the 24 and 33 to be restructured.

      You also have to look beyond Ballard. The D and the 40 are both pretty crowded buses, even now. Those would feed into this line.

   3. What’s the time savings of transferring from an D with upgraded dedicated lanes and signal priority vs. transferring to link. I would guess minimal to negative.

      I thought we weren’t supposed to build trains until the buses were maxed out and running every 2 minutes.

      1. “I thought we weren’t supposed to build trains until the buses were maxed out and running every 2 minutes.”

         That’s just some people’s threshold.

      2. Ballard has been appropriate for rail for two decades. Americans overestimate the population and density required for effective subway and bus lines, or how full buses or trains have to be, and underestimate how many people actually board them per service hour (they aren’t all on simultaneously), and underestimate how much ridership would increase if we had more effective service.

         For this reason, I supported the Ballard line. But ST has so misdesigned it after the vote that it threatens to not be effective. (E.g., the unprecedentedly long tunnel-to-tunnel transfers downtown, which would negatively impact northeast Seattle, Capitol Hill, and the Eastside, to southeast Seattle and SeaTac airport — and make them worse than they’ll be in ST2.) Given that, we may have to fall back to a non-ST bus alternative for Ballard. That would be better than the status quo, but not as good as we could do. This proposal is to make the Ballard project as good as possible, as inexpensive as possible, and as effective in serving passengers as possible.

         Also, remember that it takes ten years to plan and build an underground line, (or at least two years for a surface tram — if ST were as fast as its international counterparts). So we have to start building it before the buses reach capacity or melt down in bus bunching. Otherwise there will be a gap between when buses become unusable and leave people behind and when the rail line opens or is upgraded.

7. Ballard line would have been more successful if it went from SLU to Seattle Center and then cut under QA hill (or follow Aurora) to Fremont and then west to Ballard along Leary. Interbay and Magnolia are not it.

   1. Sound Transit isn’t going to build at First Hill nor QA hill. Both stations would have been incredibly deep. Queen Anne’s elevation is like 400+ feet, unless you want to build a 300-foot deep station it’s not happening. First Hill has all sorts of other trouble as well with i-5 and the soil conditions.

      https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-plz4/Seattle/?center=47.62236%2C-122.30272&zoom=13

   2. Cable-pulled rail vehicles (incline, counterbalance, funicular) were used for many decades were used to transport riders up Queen Anne Hill and First Hill. The technology has even been enhanced in recent years too — including many systems that are automated and work like diagonal elevators. They usually operate at frequent intervals in urban settings since there are usually just two stations.

      They tend to move relatively slowly, so it works best with distances under 1 or 2 miles.

      With Link at the “bottom”, adding back a cable- pulled connection is technically possible and can be built by ST, Metro or SDOT (or any other city). It probably would need to be aerial but most can be built with a single track except where trains pass in the middle.

      Of course, an automated one would probably need to be on an aerial structure of some sort. The cables also make a whirring sound when moving. However the vehicles can be relatively lightweight and won’t cause much vibration or noise. There are cable-pulled transit tunnels but they can be costly even though the diameter needed is much less than what light rail vehicles need.

      One advantage of a long trunk line like Link is that a short-distance cable system can be useful anywhere on the line to connect to a station. As long as the transfer walk is easy, riders will think of it more like riding an elevator (usually also a cable powered vehicle) as opposed to making a line transfer.

      PS. Gondolas are similarly cable pulled and can also be considered.

   3. “Ballard line would have been more successful if it went from SLU to Seattle Center and then cut under QA hill (or follow Aurora) to Fremont and then west to Ballard along Leary.”

      That was option D in the alternatives analysis. We advocated for it but ST chose Interbay instead. It would have had a station under Queen Anne & Boston, thus solving the access problem for getting to upper Queen Anne.

   4. Doesn’t the D Line (Downtown to Interbay to Ballard) have almost the same ridership as the route 40 (Downtown to SLU to Fremont to Ballard)?

      Also, maybe ST should build a tunnel under QA hill, but rather than have it go all the way through the hill, build it in a U-shape, with it going in the side of the hill, making a U in the hill, then popping back out a 1/4 mile further up the road, with no stations in the tunnel portion itself, only stations at the tunnel openings.

      1. I have the numbers for 2016 and 2022

         2016: D line 14,300, 40 route 11,400
         2022: D line 7,666, 40 route 6,383

         Granted it’s a bit misleading as there’s a lot more routes parallel that also go to fremont with the 62 and kind of the rapidride E

8. You are going to have to do better than telling people in Tacoma to go pound sand….

   Breaking the promises made in ST2 could be politically disastrous in the long run. ( Unless there was a change that would benefit the Pierce county subarea.)

   I’m in my 40s , I feel like I will be long gone from the earth by the time this finished.

   Stuff like this will worsen voter apathy.

   1. With this concept, Pierce winds up with more funds to do what it wants because they wouldn’t need to contribute to the second downtown tunnel.

      Considering the current Tacoma plan connects Tacoma Dome ( where almost nobody lives or works) to SeaTac sometime after Ballard gets built, and really doesn’t work well for most trips, it’s hard to imagine the existing plan not leading to worse apathy.

   2. Hello!

      It’s always good to see another Tacoma voice drop by this blog and add a non-Seattle focused opinion.

      On the subject of voter apathy towards public transit, I’m afraid it can’t get any worse. ST3 managed to pass, but there will never be an ST4 because Sound Transit pretty much destroyed all the good will with cost overruns and late delays.

      Politically, I believe Pierce Transit is pretty much dead as well. Sound Transit certainly kicked a lot of dirt into the PT grave with the T-line delays and cost overruns and the whole BRT boondoggle. As far as public transit, it’s all uphill in Tacoma for long, long while.

      What most posters on this board fail to realize is transit in King County is also underwater. For decades, it was easy enough to raise taxes to support Metro. I don’t believe that’s even politically possible now. There are some transit geeks who think Seattle can get the State legislature to allow Seattle to build its own inter-city light rail besides Sound Transit. I doubt changing the law will happen and even if the State did give it green light…. they’d be no State funding for it. I can’t see King County or even Seattle voters supporting a tax increase for transit now. Seattle also elected a new Council that isn’t going to want expand transit spending. It’s all about housing and public safety for the next decade or two.

      Sound Transit killed the golden goose.

      The big mistake you’ll always read on this board is “Euro thinking”. Posters look at the transit in Europe and think. “why not Seattle?”. The truth is Seattle is nothing like out friends across the Atlantic. Seattle, in many ways, is “California North”. Our mass transit system will end up looking more like L.A or Oakland than Berlin. It’s just who we are.

      1. A light rail extension to Downtown Tacoma is one of the foundational elements of the entire Sound Transit program. Without light rail to Tacoma, you don’t get the support of Ruth Fisher and you don’t get the RTA. Say what you will about a Link Spine, but Pierce County has been incredibly consistent over the *decades* with its singular focus: bring light rail trains to Tacoma from the airport. Political leaders here don’t touch the project because it is incredibly sensitive. It will never go away without huge external pressures acting on it.

         What is also true is that the facts on the ground have changed considerably since 1996 and, along with it, local voter support:

         The deliberately isolated rail investment that is the Tacoma Link starter line in Downtown Tacoma will now not be integrated into the regional system, which is what it was planned, designed, and built to do. That means Pierce County Link intercepts exactly zero major buslines in the county, and buses will have to deviate to serve it. The highest value stations south of Sea-Tac are to be skipped. Not even Pacific Avenue is reached. We get the objectively lousy East Tacoma Station in its place (which should be cancelled in lieu of a T Line extension to Portland Avenue, in my opinion).

         The biggest travel market pair of the corridor in Pierce County, Federal Way to Downtown Tacoma, will now not be served as light rail trains are to end at the Dome.

         We rejected ST3 in 2016, which funded Tacoma Dome Link, whereas we had approved ST1 & ST2. The reputation of Sound Transit has deteriorated tremendously since 2016, particularly in response to mandatory RTA fees and Hilltop Link cost overruns, construction impacts, and schedule delays.

         The costs of Tacoma Dome Link have nearly doubled or will double over those promised to the voters. Maybe more, who knows anymore. A revised estimate is forthcoming.

         Post-Covid ridership losses will further erode the ridership of the extension which was, in my opinion, always dubiously high in its projections.

         So while Pierce County may have been bullish on light rail to Tacoma in 1996, the appetite has clearly lessened. We have a more fiscally conservative voter base here and there is presumably a ceiling on what level of transit investment can or should be supported. I think the project might eventually find itself on shaky ground, even as it continues marching forward through its environmental reviews.

         For these reasons, we should at least have a Plan B ready in case the project does falter, or develop a better understanding of how the project shall serve the County when it is completed at whatever extraordinary cost we end up with.

      2. @tacomee,

         “ What most posters on this board fail to realize is transit in King County is also underwater.”

         I’m not sure “underwater” is the right term, but I think it is clear that Metro is under financial stress. And maintaining high subsidy express type routes that “look” like rail is not helping them. They need to pivot more to a feeder role and let ST do the heavy lifting with more efficient LR. Because clearly Metro’s current path is unsustainable, and the voters have a bit of ballot fatigue setting in.

         “There are some transit geeks who think Seattle can get the State legislature to allow Seattle to build its own inter-city light rail besides Sound Transit.”

         I think the more productive path would be to allow for a sub-area overlay for North King. Essentially, given a regional ST package has passed, allow North King to increase their taxes and allow for an expanded ST system in NK.

      3. Lazarus,

         The pay scale for blue collar jobs at Metro is a decade behind. Drivers make more money, much more, driving a cement truck than a city bus. There isn’t a “driver shortage”, there’s a “driver pay shortage”….. the same with mechanics and all the support jobs. Metro needs to shut up and pay up if wants to expand…. or even not shrink.

         Metro’s response will be to figure out how to stick as many riders on the light rail as possible and just have less bus coverage. Makes sense for Metro, but does it for riders? Adding transfers in the system has a negative impact on rider experience and decreases ridership. This works for Metro however. More transfers, less riders, less drivers, less money. The trouble is that solutions for Metro’s financial mess don’t serve the public. No matter… just blame it on the pandemic and work from home.

         State law prevents any Sound Transit subarea from raising taxes for projects only in their subarea outside the Sound Transit master plan. There has been talk in State government about changing this, but it never happened. Now that the State has a huge housing problem… transit issues are no longer on the front burner.

         I also highly doubt voters in North King County would support a tax increase for public transit. I don’t even think such a vote would win right now in Seattle City limits. The world has just moved on from mass transit… COVID is the perfect reason not to ride buses or trains… just ask any medical professional.
         Work-from-home is the future, along with neighborhoods with walkable business districts that don’t need parking nor transit.

         Take the Lincoln District in Tacoma… before Lincoln Hardware closed down, locals could simply buy most everyday needs by walking. I did for years and years. We have all that good Southeast Asian food. Safeway. a pharmacy, 2 jewelry stores, Two great bars, a Mexican bakery, the coolest clothing store in town, a couple of coffee shops…Connie’s donuts. Why would anybody have to leave?

         I love the Lincoln District!

         Much of Seattle already has great walkable neighborhoods without more transit or density. Houses in Wallingford cost like, 2 million, but that’s because it’s such a great walkable neighborhood. Adding cracker box apartments to it doesn’t make it better.

         If you want to talk about true urbanism, real community, walkable neighborhoods…. I’m down! Stupid billion dollar transit projects and stack-and-pack transit oriented development nobody wants to live in, 7 story buildings of “apodments” and neighborhoods completely devoid of children and old people… count me out.

         Since I moved to Ogden UT, I’ve met a whole bunch of young people are actively trying to make this City into a more walkable, livable, human scale place. This means by starting small businesses, shopping at small businesses, lobbying City Council for more ADUs, buying houses and actually building ADUs… building community gardens… heck, Ogden even has a free top of the line electric bus service to most of the town!

         What I hear on this blog is people wanting the government to do things to build the City they want. “If only we had a subway system and thousands of units of social housing”….. there’s not a lot of personal investment, not a lot “skin in the game”. I’m afraid that “skin in the game” is the only way things move forward in America. Getting the government to do what you want is like herding cats. And Sound Transit is the absolute worst.

         But I miss T-Town and loath to sell our apartments there. I always thought I’d be retiring there. But that window seems to be closing

      4. They [King County Metro] need to pivot more to a feeder role and let ST do the heavy lifting with more efficient LR.

         What are you suggesting, specifically? There is basically nothing in the north end. There are a handful of buses that run on I-5, and go to First Hill (because Sound Transit tragically failed to put a station there). Even so, we are talking about a tiny portion of the bus routes (and it wouldn’t surprise me if they completely go away in the future). It is mostly Community Transit that runs buses from the north into downtown.

         To the south there is a lot more. The 101 and 150 run all day long. There are peak expresses like the 102, 162, 177 (which go downtown) and 193 (which goes to First Hill). This offers up some possibilities, like:

         1) Send the 101 and 150 to Rainier Beach. This would save a considerable amount of service time, although my guess it would be very unpopular.

         2) Truncate some of the expresses at SeaTac. This would be odd, since Sound Transit isn’t willing to to that. It would save some money, but not nearly as much as ST would save. It seems a lot easier for them to simply wait until Federal Way Link gets here, at which point the express buses could be cancelled.

         That would leave First Hill buses at the most. I personally don’t like any of the First Hill express routes, and believe the problem should be solved by improving transit on First Hill itself. But the savings from eliminating the First Hill express buses would be minimal (a small side benefit).

         The only way to save a considerable amount of money is to truncate the 101 and 150 at Rainier Beach. Is that what you are suggesting?

      5. “A light rail extension to Downtown Tacoma is one of the foundational elements of the entire Sound Transit program. ”

         The proposed line doesn’t go to downtown Tacoma. Furthermore, the proposed routing is through the second tunnel, so the current Tacoma line can’t be built until after Ballard gets built anyway, or at best at the same time.

      6. Glenn in Portland,

         The whole “Tacoma to Ballard” line will get built at the same time because the subarea funds are spread across the whole line. Pierce County and South King County funds can’t be used in Ballard… by law. And also common sense.

         I have a friend who used to work in the City government of Federal Way…. they have a saying in that town’s city hall. “There’s the right way, the wrong way and then there’s the Federal way.” Sound Transit works like that… it has its own funky messed up operations plan nobody can challenge…. the “Sound Transit Way” I guess. We’ll all have to live with it…

      7. I can’t see King County or even Seattle voters supporting a tax increase for transit now.

         Nonsense. The politics of the region haven’t changed that much. Seattle voters will overwhelmingly support additional money for transit. Last time the vote for additional Metro funding got an 80% ‘Yes’ vote. Holy cow, 80%!

         In contrast, the last time the county had a vote for additional money for Metro, the vote failed. It is quite possible that this is just the state of things in the county (politically). It is also possible though, that as the East Side has become more urban (i. e. as more of the new residents have moved to more densely populated areas) the county itself might vote for more money. Until then, the county representatives (and the county chief) decide, and I’ve seen nothing in the makeup of the council to suggest they want to reduce transit funding.

         It is quite possible that things will continue more or less as they are now. Metro will have adequate funding (not great, but not terrible) while Seattle pays extra, for a better network. Personally, I think the biggest problem is the routes themselves, although more funding always helps.

         There are some transit geeks who think Seattle can get the State legislature to allow Seattle to build its own inter-city light rail besides Sound Transit. I doubt changing the law will happen and even if the State did give it green light…. they’d be no State funding for it.

         Do you mean “intra-city” or “inter-city”? I don’t think anyone in Seattle is the least bit interested in building light rail to other cities (not after East Link). In contrast, there is definitely interest in building rail inside Seattle.

         You are right, it is unlikely there would be any state funding for it. But that is largely true of most of the projects in the past. Each area pays for their own set of projects (although the feds will sometimes chip in). So Seattle paying for it themselves would really be nothing new. It would require a change in state law (and a vote) but that is about it.

         Most likely, any additional rail is far into the future though. There is very strong support for building the “Move Seattle” type projects. This means enhancing the various bus corridors (adding bus lanes, etc.). There simply wasn’t enough money to do that last time, although we are still getting some of the improvements that were promised. What people are most likely to support is additional service for Metro, and additional infrastructure improvements for the buses (as two separate ballot proposals).

      8. > The proposed line doesn’t go to downtown Tacoma. Furthermore, the proposed routing is through the second tunnel, so the current Tacoma line can’t be built until after Ballard gets built anyway, or at best at the same time.

         Tacoma dome link extension doesn’t need the Ballard tunnel. It was supposed to open 2030 (5/7? Years before Ballard) until realignment and the landslide occurred.

         They’ll just either run long trains from Everett to Tacoma or run some truncated form of Everett to SeaTac and Tacoma to lynnwood etc…

      9. I want to correct the record (and my memory): ST2 was rejected in Pierce County by a vote that split virtually down the middle. That “approval” I was recalling must not have been a final vote count.

         Pierce County was already starting to sour on Sound Transit in 2008. But for Pierce County, I’ll take a roughly 50/50 as something of a win.

         —-
         Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 (ST2)
         APPROVED 124,856 — 49.08%
         REJECTED 129,536 — 50.92%

   3. @Michelle D,

      Exactly. It seems that the view of many of the “urbanists” on this blog is that, now that Seattle has theirs, the rest of the region should just pound sand while Seattle improves their system at the expense of regional transportation.

      And I’m sorry, but telling the good people of Tacoma that forced bus transfers to LR at FW, Star Lake, or TIBS is good enough for them and they should just be patient is a bit condescending. .

      Tacoma has a lot going for it, and it should only get better in the future. People on this blog should get out and experience it.

      Tacoma has been promised a connection to the regional LR system. They should get it.

      1. They’ll “get it”, alright. In the shorts. Link to the Tacoma Dome will be less useful than the old Tacoma Interurban that’s now a bike path. At least the interurban went into downtown Tacoma.

         If TDLE (properly pronounced “Tiddly” O so appropriately) it is ever actually extended into downtown Tacoma it might then serve some useful purpose, but absent that and major development along the route, with an added station in Milton and massive upzoning in Fife, it will be the laughingstock of North American rail lines.

         Ditto the extension to Everett as now planned.

      2. I don’t think rail to Tacoma is a bad thing. I think Link is just the wrong technology (especially too slow), and that the resulting designs are not efficient.

         ST expects Tacoma Dome to Federal Way stations will take 20 minutes! That’s with no median running operations and just three stops in between.

         I am personally convinced that a battery electric train from JBLM or DuPont to a cross platform transfer at South FW or Fife is the way to go. It would provide Link access for most of Pierce County. The trains can operate much faster. The transfer time penalty would be more than erased with faster speeds. It would be a Pierce County “spine” with two-way productivity.

         The system could be built to allow for an eventual rail extension to Olympia. If Link was extended to JBLM and Olympia, the cost would be very costly and be relatively slow as Link technology. It just won’t happen using Link technology. On the other hand, a faster technology to these places would be a profound improvement in connectivity.

         So to me, the question becomes not whether a transfer will be needed but where a transfer will be needed. Right now, they are planned at Tacoma Dome. Moving that transfer point to South Federal Way or Fife would just be shifting where to transfer (since few are going to Tacoma Dome directly outside of events). Of course, going just one more 3/4 mile further than Tacoma Dome would better connect UW-Tacoma and southern Downtown would be better but the countywide impact would be minor.

         Finally, imagine how such a line could allow for a restructure of connecting buses! From a Stride line on SR 512 between Lakewood and a Link terminus to a Stream Rapid bus line from Spanaway to Tacoma Mall to this line and on to TCC, services can access a range of stations rather than have to get a bus to Tacoma Dome or East Tacoma.

      3. And I’m sorry, but telling the good people of Tacoma that forced bus transfers to LR at FW, Star Lake, or TIBS is good enough for them and they should just be patient is a bit condescending.

         Wait, what you saying? Are you suggesting that we keep the express buses from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle? I’m fine with that.

         Or are you suggesting that it makes a huge difference whether they are forced to transfer at the Tacoma Dome instead of Federal Way? If so, why?

         Folks don’t seem to get it: The Link extension south of Federal Way will not serve Downtown Tacoma! That means the vast majority of riders have to transfer at the Tacoma Dome. For many, this means two transfers, just to get on the train.

         I don’t think you understand how a mass transit system works. The train is not magic. For people who used to take the 41 downtown, life is not better. They are forced to make a transfer, and it takes longer to get downtown. However, trips to Roosevelt, the UW and Capitol Hill are much better. These destinations are where the value is added. These destinations more than make up for the inconvenience of losing the 41.

         Now consider Tacoma Dome Link. Getting from Tacoma to Seattle will be slower. Even getting from Downtown Tacoma to Federal Way will even be slower. But getting to Fife and South Federal Way will be quite a bit better. That is what Pierce County is paying for: the ability to quickly move along the Tacoma Dome/Portland Avenue/Fife/South Federal Way corridor. Would that really be a big loss? Of course not.

         The best thing for Tacoma riders would be if they ended Link in Federal Way, and continued to run the express buses to Seattle, but stopped at Federal Way along the way. Run the express buses more often (which ST promised a while back) and you have a good system. Getting to the airport (or Highline CC or Rainier Valley) still requires a transfer (as it would with Tacoma Dome Link) but at least the express to Seattle is both fast and frequent. Sounder helps as well (when traffic is an issue) even if it requires a transfer as well.

         Of course the main thing Tacoma needs is transit improvements inside Tacoma itself. That was the plan with the BRT line, but that project appears to be dead.

      4. Tom Terrific,

         You might want stay in your lane here. Nobody in Fife cares what you think of light rail coming to their city. Really dude. Don’t be a hater. And you take a shot at poor Everett in your closing remarks… Jesus! Please feel free to share any other po’dunk places you personally don’t deserve the light rail they’ve been taxed for.

      5. For a guy who’s just moved to Salt Lake City, where there are both a local street tram system and a regional commuter “heavy rail” line, you sure are ignorant about which transit technologies work best in a given situation. Everett to Lakewood (and eventually Dupont) is REALLY similar to Provo to Ogden. Really similar.

         You haven’t read me saying anything against Sounder. So I’m not against “rail to Tacoma”. I’m against slow, street-rail technology to Tacoma.

         Instead, if you actually read all the comments, you’d have seen that I’ve been advocating for ST to pay for a second main track with several cross-over sets on the UP line between Black River Junction and East Tacoma Tower for years. Troy has as well, and maybe he’s OK to you because he’s a Piercer, too.

         Since ST would own the new track, it could give both BNSF and UP free wheelage on that track, in trade for UP not charging BNSF for wheelage on its own, at least up to the tonnage that it (UP) hauls on the ST track. BNSF would end up having to pay a modest amount since it has more trains between Seattle and Tacoma, but I expect it would jump at the chance to use the much less complex UP trackway — there are many fewer switching leads from it — to get its through trains to Tacoma.

         As a result, the cost of “slots” on the BNSF line would fall sufficiently to make all-day Sounder a practical solution or at least, more frequent trains during the times of high traffic on the freeways. And of course, WSDOT could raise the HOV requirement to 3+ and enforce it which would make the HOV lanes into reliable busways.

         Or, as an alternative to better Sounder, adopt Al’s idea of extending not a Link trackway from Federal Way to Tacoma Dome but a single-track-with-sidings heavy rail trackway from East Tacoma Tower to Federal Way. But, please, please, please, Al, drop the “battery multiple unit” idea. Batteries are a necessary evil for buses and cars because they wander, but for a freaking train, where there’s a dedicated trackway that isn’t going off somewhere new occasionally, hang wire and don’t tote the weight of the batteries around. Catenary isn’t cheap, but it isn’t ruinously expensive either.

         I grant that North Sounder is a much less attractive alternative for Ellie than is South Sounder for Tiddly, but the single-track-with-sidings EMU’s can make sense up there, as well. You get higher speeds, and greater capacities for a given train length with MU equipment, and if the sidings are all built on the same side, the line can be double-tracked relatively inexpensively at a later time. Jeebus, ST isn’t even considering running down SR99 north of Casino Road, using the one advantage Light Rail technology has over other forms of rail — street running — to serve South Everett decently.

         Instead, the consultants want to make yet another grand excavation and fill extravaganza alongside the freeway at which people can marvel. Oy-vey! If they’re going to spend a billion grading and building supports there, at least put a fast train on it!

         An MU system also could probably be extended to Marysville more easily than could Link.

   4. I’m not sure why we are discussing Tacoma on a blog post that has nothing to do with Tacoma, but we might as well continue I guess. Here is what I would do with Tacoma Dome Link money if I didn’t build it:

      1) Increase service in general (transfer money from ST to Pierce Transit).
      2) Fully build out the Pierce County BRT network.
      3) Add a few Sounder runs.
      4) Increase the frequency of the express buses. Have them stop at Federal Way on the way to Seattle.

      That is about it. Prioritizing and building these projects is not trivial. You need strong management. The first BRT plan was shelved mainly because Sound Transit was unwilling to take a lane. They bumbled some other things as well — I think we need different people involved. Meanwhile, Sounder service is expensive — at some point it isn’t worth the money (and we are better off just running the buses). Ridership outside of peak was also terrible (in which case, buses are a better value). But I have no doubt that as long as they avoid big snafus (like the failed Stream project) diverting money would lead to a much better system, in the short and long term.

      One of the big projects with Tacoma Dome Link is that when it is all over, Pierce County is left with crap: A mass transit system that doesn’t even connect to the biggest destination in the Pierce County (Downtown Tacoma) along with inadequate funding for the buses that make up the bulk of transit ridership in the county. A light rail trip to Seattle would take an extremely long time (Sounder and/or the buses will be faster) while serving a handful of relatively minor destinations along the way. You’ve basically got the airport, Highline Community College, and Rainier Valley. That’s it. None of these attract that many riders. Right now, despite the excellent connection to Downtown Seattle and the UW, SeaTac only gets around 6,000 riders. That’s it. I have no idea how many Highline attracts, but it can’t be that many. The destinations along the south end of Link are too few, and too small in general to attract that many riders — especially given the awkward connection to the rest of the system. There will only be four stations south of Federal Way — it is not like it will directly serve a significant number of riders.

      Tacoma Dome Link was based on a big misunderstanding of how mass transit works. It isn’t for connecting distant cities — it is for connecting nearby neighborhoods. There are two major things you need to get enough riders to justify the extremely high cost of a brand new rail system like the one we are building: density and proximity. Unfortunately, Tacoma Dome Link has neither. The stations are too far apart, and there is too little density along the way.

      1. Ross Bleakney,

         Let’s get straight about what we’re talking about here first– it’s the Tacoma to Ballard light rail line, with a 2nd tunnel in downtown Seattle. That’s been the Sound Transit plan for how many years? And name one board member who’s publicly ever said ST needed to look at any alternative?

         Honestly, I’m not a big fan of this line… but it is what it is.

         You can go ahead and join your friend Martin is some make-believe transit land where Seattle can do whatever it likes with light rail, but this not reality.

         At this point in time, there’s no way Pierce County or our friends in South King County would opt out of light rail. Not going to happen. And Seattle isn’t giving up on a second tunnel paid for partly by other subareas.

         Think of Sound Transit light rail projects as a cake in the oven…. it’s going to years to bake and the cost is ridiculously high… but there’s no remixing the batter now.

      2. The great irony of Tacoma Dome Link is that it was flatly rejected by Pierce County voters, and yet it bumbles forward under the pretense of realizing some vague “promise” to Pierce County residents. It is a promise that we did not even want to commit ourselves to. Worse, it is now a promise that cannot be honored with regards to schedules and costs. Oops, it is billions over budget and multiple years delayed! No worries, though, for that promise has become a handcuffed commitment to the project regardless of its cost or consequence.

         It does sort of feel like entrapment. However, the County is part of Sound Transit and agreed to the terms of raising funds. Also, the local projects of ST3 were selected by elected officials, so voters aren’t fully off the hook. It just speaks to Tacomee’s broader point of the agency being a political animal, particularly when it seems so unresponsive to the mandate of a subarea.

         Criticizing people who dislike the TDLE would be more impactful had Pierce County voters not already expressed their disapproval. But we did just that in 2016. Few seem to like it, except for those whose jobs or influence are in some way tied to its construction.

         Presumably, there will eventually be a direct rail connection from the Tacoma Dome Park-and-Ride to Sea-Tac Airport, and that mobility option adds value. But that value comes at a truly steep cost using limited tax dollars that could have been put to use in far more productive ways. And we all know that money doesn’t grow on trees, especially in Pierce County.

      3. I thought a pos station magically became a great station by calling it a bus intercept. Let’s call Tacoma Dome Station a bus intercept.

      4. That is the great shame: Tacoma Dome Station is not a bus intercept. Buses have to be deviated to serve it.

      5. Only from the south? For buses coming from the west and north, it’s a logical terminus for a route (through run with a route heading down Portland Ave?). It’s only problematic for Route 1 on Pacific Ave and for express buses on I5, right?

      6. AJ, if your goal was to reduce service duplication, build a grid network to allow for convenient transfers, and maximize limited resources, as has been the planning objective for Pierce Transit since at least its 2017 restructure, then no, Tacoma Dome Station would not be a good bus intercept.

         However, if we were accepting of route tails and deviations for most local buslines, then sure, anything can be workable. But it isn’t a good bus intercept beyond for those buses it was planned to serve: those heading from Tacoma to Seattle and the few local routes that pass by.

         The real intercept is Tacoma Link, which actually picks up Route 1, Route, Route 3 and virtually all of the others to Downtown Tacoma.

      7. For buses coming from the west and north, it’s a logical terminus for a route (through run with a route heading down Portland Ave?). It’s only problematic for Route 1 on Pacific Ave and for express buses on I5, right?

         Not really. Consider the 2, the second most popular bus route in the Pierce Transit system. It starts in Lakewood, heads north on Bridgeport Way until 19th, then takes a right, heading east towards downtown. At that point it is a straight shot on 19th (which is good) until it reaches Market. It then has two choices. Take a right and head south towards the Tacoma Dome, or take a left and head towards north to the heart of downtown. It should be obvious that the bus should do what it is doing now, and head downtown.

         I should point out that the 1 and 2 carry about 1/4 of the overall ridership in Pierce County. So the fact that neither bus is well suited to serve the station is a major drawback.

         It is also worth mentioning that not every bus goes downtown. For example the 10 serves north Tacoma and connects it to the community college. But it also has some unique coverage. Thus riders have to take that bus and then transfer to get downtown. For most riders, the best choice is to transfer to — you guessed it — the 1 or the 2.

         So it is really the south and the east where it is awkward to serve the station. That is a big part of the region.

         Then there is the cost. For example, the 28 is a straight-shot down 12th. It is a fairly short route. It takes less than a half hour before it does a live-loop and heads back. It is easy to see how the bus could be altered to instead go south, to the Tacoma Dome. But this would be a substantial increase in the time it takes to complete that route. At best you are extending a bunch of buses to the Tacoma Dome, forming a “spine” through downtown. The irony, of course, is that such a spine would make the streetcar especially redundant. But the biggest issue is that building such a spine would be expensive for an agency that really struggles to pay the bills. Even if you did all that, it would be very awkward for several buses. Either they make big detours, or they end up looping around. Buses like the 2, 3, 45, 57 could be extended to serve the Tacoma Dome fairly easily, but the bus would end up practically doubling-back on itself, which is not good at all.

         For the vast majority of riders, the Tacoma Dome is not convenient. Yes, the buses can detour o be extended in some way to serve it, but it would be costly, with very little benefit other than that connection.

      8. Let’s get straight about what we’re talking about here first– it’s the Tacoma to Ballard light rail line, with a 2nd tunnel in downtown Seattle. That’s been the Sound Transit plan for how many years?

         Not that long, really. For a very long time the plan was to have the West Seattle trains go to Ballard, while the Rainier Valley trains (AKA Tacoma trains) stay the same. The second tunnel concept is also fairly new. Various aspects of the new tunnel are even newer (and have happened since the vote). A lot of the assumptions about the second tunnel (relatively low cost, “world class transfers”) are now clearly wrong. Sound Transit has made fairly substantial changes since the vote — they simply need to rethink a key aspect of it if they want a decent, cost effective system.

         This is not a major shift, actually. That is one of the key aspects of this proposal. There are a lot of people who think that ST3 should simply be abandoned. Finish the work that has been started, and then shift all the money to buses. That is not what is being proposed here. This retains every major aspect of the plan people voted for. You can build West Seattle Link, Tacoma Dome Link, Everett Link and Issaquah Link if you want. You still have the same stations in Ballard. A First Hill Station can essentially replace the “Midtown” station, which means that in some ways, this is actually closer to what was originally proposed than what the board is seriously considering.

         In any event, this would be better for riders from the south. Instead of the train going to Ballard, it would continue to go to Capitol Hill and the UW. Whether the train ends at Federal Way or continues to the Tacoma Dome is largely irrelevant to this post. Either way, Pierce County — like Seattle — would be better off with this plan.

      9. Ross, what you wrote about the local PT buses is equally true for Sounder or Al’s MU alternative, though it at least serves Lakewood. Essentially, given that downtown Tacoma is on a neck of land, the express buses are the best solution for Tacoma-King County service, period end of story. Well, except for the possibility of upgrading the T-Link tracks and stations sufficiently to host Tiddly up to City Hall. That would make the end of Line 1 very similar to the west end of Tri-Met’s Blue Line at Hatfield in Hillsboro or east end in Gresham. It would be great! and it’s transit malpractice that it isn’t designed to do that now.

      10. Absolutely Ross, that is spot on. And thank you for contextualizing with the Route 2, which I omitting by accident above.

          For all of these major County buslines, the Downtown Tacoma sections are the best performing. And of course they are—for all the known reasons that make urban transit services a success everywhere.

          That cannot be said of Tacoma Dome. In fact, over 8 in 10 users of Tacoma Dome Station today *drive alone* to reach it from places all over the county. Tacoma Dome is not some naturally occuring transit-rich environment. No, it is a park-and-ride facility with vast, free garages that serves Pierce County’s suburban commuters well. It was not constructed to be the terminus of any local railway, either light or heavy.

      11. At this point in time, there’s no way Pierce County or our friends in South King County would opt out of light rail.

          Today, no. But who knows what tomorrow will bring. Pierce County voters voted against ST3. Federal Way actually voted against it as well (although just barely). Southeast King County (Auburn, etc.) was even more against it. Do you really think they like the idea more now? If anything, it is the opposite.

          Given the lack of public support, and everything that has happened since (a pandemic, massive cost overruns, etc.) it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the region just abandons Tacoma Dome Link. There are various excuses they could use (e. g. the reduction in commuting) although in this case, they really don’t need to use any. People voted against it. Time to shift the money into more worthwhile projects (like bus service).

          My guess is Federal Way Link will be a turning point. It won’t happen right away. Folks will be happy to cut the ribbons and ride the train from there. But Sound Transit has some very tough choices to make with regards to the express buses. If they terminate them all in Federal Way, people will realize that the trains are significantly slower. If they keep them, ridership will be relatively low. Either way, the assumption that “trains are always better” will be destroyed. At that point, someone should be able to make a very good case that the best thing for the region is just better bus service.

      12. Ross, what you wrote about the local PT buses is equally true for Sounder

          Yes, absolutely. Although with Sounder you have the possibility of running special peak-only buses. For example, consider the 1 — or at least the south end of the 1 on Pacific. This was the part that was going to be replaced by BRT. The most controversial aspect to the routing was the detour to the Tacoma Dome. But assume for a second that Sounder only runs during peak. That means that the only time that you need to detour is during peak. Except during peak is also when the bus gets the most riders. Have the main Stream line follow the current path of the 1 (directly to downtown). Then run an additional bus line along Pacific directly to the station (ending there). It would only run during rush hour. This isn’t that expensive, and it is a time of day where both buses would pick up a decent number of riders.

          This sort of thing has been common for decades in King County. Prior to Link, buses ran along SR 522 to downtown. During peak, buses would come as often as every three minutes. During that time, Metro also ran express buses to First Hill. Might as well. This relieves some of the crowding on the other bus, while providing some riders with an express to First Hill.

          There is another benefit to this approach. The connection between Sounder and the bus can be timed. The bus starts at the Tacoma Dome, which means that it doesn’t leave the station until folks have had a chance to get from the train to the bus. Timing things the other way is of course trickier (you have to allow some “float”) but you can at least gear the run around Sounder. In that sense, it would be like the bus that will go from Mukilteo to Lynnwood Link. Get off the ferry and there is the bus, waiting for you.

      13. Such a shuttle connecting the POBS service to Downtown Tacoma to Sounder during peaks is a good idea. The busses will run much more quickly than T-Link.

          But it’s still a three seat ride. Sounder can’t get better by going to Downtown Tacoma, so I guess it’s the best solution available. It’s way cheaper than extending all the north and west buses to The Dome.

9. > postpone the others until demand justifies the construction and operation.

   Regarding Tacoma link or not, it’s not really relevant to the second transit tunnel. Like even if sound transit decided not to extend beyond federal way, why would those funds go towards expediting a second transit tunnel In Seattle.

   Even if let’s say we (collectively) decide express service there is not needed. For example with Tacoma region why wouldn’t they say fund the brts or at least more frequent local routes. Or even with sounder even if it’s really expensive they could try double tracking it and having some half hourly all day service.

   I understand debating the merits of the current pierce county projects and perhaps spending it on alternatives within the sub area but I dont agree at all with taking that money and spending it on Seattles tunnel.

   1. WL,

      Woah! Those are fightin’ words! Everybody must bow to the Emerald City.

      Because Seattle builds a second tunnel with other subarea’s money and federal money…. there is no way, no way, no way Mayor Bruce gives that up.

      1. If we get rid of it, then every agency saves money. It isn’t like the city is making a profit out of the second tunnel. It still costs Seattle quite a bit, even if the other subareas (and the feds) are chipping in a bit.

   2. WL, you’re missing the point. “DON’T BUILD THE SECOND TUNNEL!” is the point. It saves billions — for all subareas — and years of chaos in Midtown and the International District.

      1. I grant that the Armchair Daydreaming of mentioning Frank’s extension did muddy the waters a bit. But it was only mentioned as a possible future extension, not as a replacement for any other project.

      2. I interpret what the article wrote and quoted it. I understand that skipping the tunnel will save money — then why is it suggested to postpone the other extensions?

         Where exactly is the other sub areas transit money going if you’re both saving money on skipping the tunnel and also postponing their extensions? Either 1) the money postponed is going to the tunnel 2) the article was incorrect in talking about postponing them 3) some unknown projects in the sub area the money is going.

         I understand it was a bit daydreaming but when one says to postpone extensions and then talks about another Seattle subway tunnel how wouldn’t one interpret it to mean taking Tacoma and Everett transit dollars for Seattle?

      3. If Tiddly Links and / or Ellie were “postponed” it would only be because the SA wasn’t raising enough money. Waiting to build the stretch between South Federal Way and Tacoma until Link gets to South Federal Way from the north is a “no brainer”. It would be REALLY useless.

         If Martin was actually proposing delaying Tiddly and Ellie longer than after the link to the larger system is in place and Pierce or Snohomish has a credit within ST just to use the money for Bleee, he was wrong to propose that. It’s illegal and bad politics.

         But I don’t think he meant that. His point is that the distant cities need to face the reality that construction costs are far outpacing any increase in revenues, so no project is going to complete on time.

         Given that reality, perhaps the outer SA’s would prefer to defer their extensions and use buses in the interim, until their urban ridesheds can really fill the trains enough to make the capital investment worthwhile. ST can buy the essential land — the routes are chosen — but just accumulate money in the meantime until the funds can meet the requirements.

         In the meantime perhaps some value engineering can be applied to the plans.

      4. “ridesheds” not “rides heads”

      5. why is it suggested to postpone the other extensions?

         Because the author didn’t stick to the subject at hand. I helped edit the post, and if I had to to it over again, I would ask to have that sentence removed. I didn’t think people would fixate on it so much (or come to bizarre conclusions). It is a completely different subject. If anything, the case for postponing the other extensions is weaker if we cancel the tunnel. If we cancel the tunnel, then there is more money for the other subareas to build the other extensions.

         Mostly I would remove it because it runs completely contrary to the title: Focus on SLU and Ballard. Yet here we are: People are focusing on other subjects (like Tacoma transit).

         And “focus” does not mean “shift money”. What it does mean is that everyone on the board — including those in other areas — should focus on this piece. It is that important. It is essential for the well being of Sound Transit as an agency. If it fails, then we will have a very large, expensive, difficult to maintain system with relatively low ridership.

         I realize the board is often provincial. Many live in their own little fiefdoms, and they are comfortable scratching each others backs, as it were. But once in a while, folks take a larger look at the system, and do the right thing. Way back when, Sound Transit realized they couldn’t build ST1. They had to cut things short. The mayor of Edmonds, of all places, was the one who suggested we run a line from the U-District to Rainier Valley. His argument — which is sound — is that it was bound to get the most riders (and by far the most riders per mile). He was absolutely correct, of course. If we had done that, ST would have had a lot more riders and a lot more money a lot sooner. A lot more people — from the entire region — would have benefited.

         Well, the same thing is true here, and the stakes are higher. UW to downtown rail was inevitable. None of the projects in ST3 are. If we screw it up, we could be left with a really poor system, while we wonder why folks wanted to build a second tunnel in the first place.

10. Whoa up! “Focus[ing] on Ballard” does not mean “”Abandon Tacoma, Everett and Issaquah!” It means “Defer West Seattle and the Second Tunnel south of Westlake in order to build the more useful South Lake Union and Lower Queen Anne line as far as it can be afforded ” It’s about North King’s projects. It will save money for all the other sub-areas.

    If Pierce County wants to spend its hard-earned, scarce transit funds on Tiddly Links, so be it. It’s your money.

    Even casual readers know I think that both Tiddly and “Ellie” are follies of bad planning. [“Who’s ‘Ellie’, Mr. President?”], but, again, it’s your money folks. There are thousand of “experts” and “consultants”, and sundry “General Contractors” eager to part you from it.

    So quit with the Seattle Envy class warfare and start listening to what the ONLY truly disinterested voices in the region have to say about these stupendous yet only marginally useful projects.

    The folks at STB have no economic axes to grind. We’re not developers looking to gentrify an up and coming neighborhood. We’re not political consultants rooting around for our next bureaucratic perch in the Deep State.
    We’re not journalists panting for that Pulitzer “scoop”.

    We actually ride the effing busses and trains. And most of us are happy to share the ride with all and sundry, subject to personal whims and twitches about cleanliness and presentability. So cool it with the Bolshy Bloviations,,,,,,, please.

    Maybe Martin got a little over his skis about speeding up “Bleee!”, but the august presence of our old friend Sub-Area Equity means that Piercers, SoKings and SnoHomers are protected from The Borg.

    1. Correct, Tom, I’m saying: “We may be better off with high frequency bus lines until the ridership supports construction of high frequency rail”. That means focusing on building ridership in ALL regions with more bus service. Rather than funneling all sub-area dollars into the Link spine, Sound Transit should focus on Express and BRT service to provide higher frequency transit services now, rather than only building out rail services which won’t run as often, force more transfers, take longer and will be mostly empty as feeding buses will run infrequent.

       1. @Martin,

          “We may be better off with high frequency bus lines until the ridership supports construction of high frequency rail”

          This is exactly the kind of myopic thinking that has traditionally held Seattle back on transportation.

          It’s exactly the basis of the arguments people used to defeat forward thrust. If we hadn’t voted that down we would have had a heavy rail system in his city since the 70’s, yet people claimed we weren’t big enough, would never generate the ridership, and would be saddled with an expensive. White elephant.

          And it is exactly the type of argument people made against ST1. That measure eventually passed, and now we have the 4th highest ridership system in the nation and the system with the highest ridership per mile.

          And it is the same argument people made against ST2 and ST3.

          These extensions are simple extensions to an existing system. They are not as costly or as complicated as what we have already built in Seattle, or are planning to build. We shouldn’t delay them just to spend more money in the urban core.

       2. What’s missing in the entire discussion of Link expansion is a non-biased discussion of ridership and travel time in 25 years for every project.

          As noted earlier, Link is a streetcar technology with a 55 mph max speed. It’s great for some things — and terrible for others. It’s great for cost effective surface or median operation but terrible for long tunnels and deep stations. It’s great for trips under 10 miles and terrible for trips over 30 miles.

          That’s the case with any transit technology. Every technology has pros and cons. Every technology choice should be made carefully in each corridor. Link (like any other transit technology) does not fit every circumstance. Only a simpleton or a vehicle salesman would believe otherwise.

          For this reason, I dispute what Lazarus implies as why ST3 will be a good investment (just because the current system is productive). The ST3 Link project forecasts consistently point to very unproductive ridership and travel times worse than today’s express buses in many instances. There are a string of regional destinations within walking distance on the current system; ST2 adds some more — but SLU and Seattle Center are the only things added for Link service in ST3 that will be important to directly reach regionally. Martin saying that a shorter automated line should be the priority is a very rational analytical action on many levels.

          Even ST3 extensions to Everett and Tacoma would even be awesome if every station was zoned for 8 story buildings that have key destinations at a minimum for a half mile around a station entrance and stops were only a mile apart. But they’re not. It’s instead several widely spaced stations with parking structures for as much as 45 minutes on the line segments.

          It’s often pointed out that elected officials don’t like to change course as it makes them look indecisive or flip-flopping. However, there has been much fact finding since 2016 as ST3 projects get further into the design and analysis process. There should be no shame for an elected official to redirect ST3 funds to something that accomplishes the mobility vision of ST3 corridors with cheaper to build (and operate) and higher speed technology that can open years earlier for bonding and constructability reasons.

       3. “We may be better off with high frequency bus lines until the ridership supports construction of high frequency rail”

          This is exactly the kind of myopic thinking that has traditionally held Seattle back on transportation.

          It’s exactly the basis of the arguments people used to defeat forward thrust.

          That is simply not true. It is worth noting that Forward Thrust had money for buses as well. It included BRT for West Seattle. There was a strong consensus for the mass transit plan. “While some members of Forward Thrust, notably the head of the Rapid Transit Committee, wanted more roads and enhancement of the bus system, most agreed with Ellis about mass transit.”

          It failed because people didn’t want to spend money on transit. “Forward Thrust interviews after the election found that voters were concerned about three things: the steep costs, the impact on their taxes, and the uncertainties about obtaining additional funding.” “… the freeways were simply not sufficiently congested to persuade property owners to take on more taxes or for suburbanites to pay to give up their cars.”

          Yet it still got over 50% of the vote. Of course it is possible that they could have shifted more money for the buses, and less for the trains, but that doesn’t mean it would have been more successful.

          The Forward Thrust subway was a fairly traditional subway. The line out to Renton was a bit long, but I assume took advantage of the existing rail lines (or at the very least, cheap industrial land). Even so, it really isn’t that far from Downtown Seattle. It is about ten miles — definitely within the range of a conventional subway line. Even the East Side lines were the same way. It branched with one line ending at Eastgate (not Issaquah) and the other at Overlake (not Redmond). In every direction — in every way — it was a fairly routine subway system.

          ST3 is the opposite. It really has only one section that even comes close to being a conventional mass transit plan: Ballard Link. Everything else follows the freeways. West Seattle Link is close, but offers no significant advantages over an express bus (there are no stations along the pathway that is currently an express). Everett Link and Tacoma Link are just really, really far from the city. They serve low-density areas with minimal all-day demand. Often they make the same mistake, and stick too close to the freeway. Issaquah Link really takes the cake. It won’t even directly connect riders to downtown Seattle! Riders from various parts of Issaquah will largely ignore it if they are heading to Seattle. Kirkland gets service by name only. That station is very close to the freeway. Even folks in Downtown Kirkland heading to Downtown Bellevue would be better off with an express bus.

          With the exception of Ballard Link, it is the type of system that you just don’t find in countries that are good at transit. It is precisely the type of system that is common in America. This American-style system, however, has failed miserably every time it has been tried.

          Quotes are from here: https://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Articles/Mullins/ForwardThrust.html

       4. “now we have the 4th highest ridership system in the nation and the system with the highest ridership per mile.”

          That may be true for light rail but not for all the subways in the US. Link is unique among light rails: it has the most grade separation by far, the highest cost by far (because of the grade separation), and the widest stop spacing. All that leads to higher ridership because it allows it to compete better with cars, but it’s not cost-efficient in terms of capital costs compared to heavy rail for the same route and stations, and it misses out on the higher capacity and speed heavy rail would provide.

       5. I agree with all of your points Al. Link is just the wrong tool for the job. Most of ST3 is just a really bad value, and that was clearly the case even before recent events. Ballard was by far the most cost effective project in terms of cost per rider (https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/). In terms of cost per rider-time saved, it is even better. With many projects, a lot of riders will actually spend more time getting to their destination then they did before. The transit agencies will be able to save money (by shifting their service elsewhere) but that means spending billions to save millions. There are so many ST3 projects that are a terrible value.

          Of course ridership estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. They can be way off. But if anything, ST’s original estimates great exaggerated ridership. Long distance commuter trips (i. e. the basis of so much of ST3) has fallen considerably. Despite being an urban transit line, West Seattle Link is based on the same type of commuter. The only time where the train is faster than a bus (thus perhaps making up for the transfer) is during rush hour. We simply don’t live in that world anymore. Transit ridership is much more “all-day, everywhere”, and you can see that in the numbers for Link. Downtown Link ridership is way down, despite overall ridership being up!

          Speaking of downtown, the estimates for Ballard Link could also be way off, simply because they expect very high numbers within downtown itself. But what if they don’t materialize, as riders become disinterested in the awkward transfers, and the really deep stations? Even in Ballard itself the train will may prove to be less popular than expected as riders prefer staying on the (faster than ever) 40, rather than transfer. The details matter for Ballard Link probably more than they do for anything ST has ever built, and as of right now, things do not look good. The plans call for an infrequent train, with very bad transfers to the main line, and fairly poor stations.

          We have an example of that sort of thing right under our nose in Rainier Valley. If you were to look at a Google Transit map (or really any transit map) it will show the train, as well as every station. You can look up the average speed and see that the 7 is fairly slow, being stuck in traffic quite a bit. You might think that the “light rail” is similar, only to find that it is actually quite fast — more like a regular mass transit line in terms of average speed. Given all that, you would except middling ridership on the bus, and much better ridership on the train.

          But that isn’t the case. Ridership on the 7 is actually higher than the Rainier Valley station ridership (combined). Of course it isn’t a fair comparison — the 7 includes other places, I’m comparing total ridership versus just the stations, etc. But the point is, they are relatively close to each other, despite Link being much faster. For a lot of riders, the convenience (and better frequency) of the 7 makes up for the slower speed. Link ridership is also down considerably in the valley (as it is for every station but Capitol Hill) while ridership on the 7 is up. This again suggests that people aren’t just taking transit to get downtown (as the 7 is a bad choice during rush hour).

          The various flaws with Rainier Valley Link are really not that big of a deal. It hurt ridership and the overall health of the transit system, but not that much. With Ballard Link though, it could be a huge blow. If Ballard fails to get the high ridership that folks hoped it would get, then we will be in a heap of trouble.

          The only way I see Ballard being a success is with the type of changes suggested here. Automate the trains so that they come frequent enough to be worth the transfer. Build smaller, better stations. Eventually extend up to First Hill — offering riders a direct connection that simply doesn’t exist right now (e. g. Uptown to First Hill). It is essential to do Ballard Link right, and this is the way to do it.

    2. Yeah, exactly. People are getting way too carried away when it comes to the second sentence. This post has nothing to do with the projects to the north, south or east. It has everything to do with Seattle. This is proposing a major change in design for Seattle. Basically, everything outside the city can be built or not built. Whatever.

       We generally try to stick to one subject for each post (especially since we have trouble generating posts). That is the case here. If someone wants to make a case that we should cancel projects like Tacoma-Dome Link that would be a different post. It would delve into the subject in great detail (something this post does not). Notice that Sounder is not mentioned. Express bus service is not mentioned. There is no way you would propose getting rid of Tacoma Dome Link without mentioning the express buses or Sounder. Thus this post does not propose that. It is completely agnostic on the subject.

       The only reason that sentence — the one sentence that mentions Tacoma Dome Link — is in there is to emphasize the importance of Ballard Link. From a ridership standpoint, Ballard Link is not only the biggest project in the city, but the biggest project of ST3. It is hugely important.

Comments are closed.