The rush to reach West Seattle

89 Replies to “The rush to reach West Seattle”

1. Sparrman took the CEO position vowing to shorten construction timelines, and his former employer has the contract for WS station-area TOD planning. We’re seeing how the new sheriff in town means business.

2. Lol for closing the sodo busway their plan is to detour buses over to 4th and 6th? Or how are buses supposed to enter 6th avenue there for that bus station? Or like I’d imagine most would just continue on 4th.

   The only bus I can think about is the 50 might use 6th avenue.

   1. For one, a lot of the buses in the busway are scheduled to be truncated/replaced by Link (590, 594, possibly 177, notably not 595).

      177 might actually stay given Link capacity issues and Metro Connects indicating an intention to continue FW service after Link, and a ST document (I think a draft 2024 SIP) indicated 595 won’t be truncated.

      That leaves 101, 102, 150, 177, 595 from I-5 and 50 from Columbia Street. For the 50, moving to 6th Ave seems perfectly acceptable, and maintains the transfer to both lines.

      For the rest, I don’t see why they can’t exit at Seneca like similar routes 143 (suspended), 162, 577, 578, and 592. This usually saves a few minutes in fact, unless riders are going south of Seneca. In this case, the Dearborn street exit could be another option. Southbound things are trickier with the Edgar Martinez on-ramp, which has no transit/HOV priority and is metered. It would be wise for agencies to investigate the feasibility of using the James street on-ramp, if that saves time. Still, in my experience, the E. Martinez ramp is roughly the same time as the busway and the Spokane on-ramp even with the metering.

      Also, considering how little duplicated off-peak Metro service can be cut with FW Link, it would be wise for Metro to consider truncating the 101 and 150 at Rainier Beach to free up more service to connect to Link. If that’s done, that’ll few up most of the remaining trips in the busway.

      I think what seals the deal for me though is that the busway is existing dedicated ROW for transit in a space where we need new ROW for a new Link line. Even if additional property acquisition is required, transferring the street to Link would save enormous amounts of money, and the question is, is the SODO busway in a post-Link environment worth this amount. It’s really hard to imagine the answer is yes. If it is, then honestly it might be cheaper to build a bus viaduct over the new Link tracks.

      1. So basically:

         1) A lot of riders from West Seattle will be forced to transfer.
         2) Riders from Renton will see their express bus delayed.
         3) Riders from Tacoma will be forced to transfer.

         That is a lot of riders being delayed so that a handful of riders in West Seattle (who live close to the stations) will have a ride that is a bit faster. OK, the riders from Tacoma aren’t being delayed for West Seattle Link, but still. It would not surprise me in the least if transit ridership goes down after West Seattle Link is built.

      2. > I think what seals the deal for me though is that the busway is existing dedicated ROW for transit in a space where we need new ROW for a new Link line. E

         It doesn’t really save that much money actually. The at grade approach is 500~600 million the elevated one that preserves the sodo busway was 700~800 million so for around 150 million they are removing the busway.

         Not that 150 million savings isn’t useful — but they’ve added medium tunnels costing hundreds of millions in west seattle and even for interbay suggested this more expensive tunneled station alignment. Basically they’re using the sodo busway savings just to tunnel unnecessarily not actually use it for riders benefits

      3. I think what seals the deal for me though is that the busway is existing dedicated ROW for transit in a space where we need new ROW for a new Link line.

         But you are wrong. “We” do not “need new right of way for a Link line.” At some time in the distant future, if the Bypass is built, “we” may need the two lanes of the busway “for another Link line”. But certainly not with Lines 1 and 3 only feeding it.

         The RV is limited to ten trains per hour per direction West Seattle will NEVER fill more than policy headways at six four-car trains per hour per direction. Sixteen trains per hour in each direction is easily within the capacity of the existing line. Yes, Lander and Holgate would probably need to overpass the trackway, and Lower Royal Brougham should be closed between the Greyhound Station and tracks, but whoop-te-doo. That’s at the outside $100 million, and results in better east-west traffic flow in SoDo.

         Quit drinking the ST Kool-Ade. Their ridership projections were already inflated in 2016 when the express system was dying of over-crowding. Those buses are long gone and the bus stops downtown for the remaining far-South suburban services are pretty empty.

         ST wants to spend $4 billion to make the transit experience for 90% of West Seattle riders worse. Don’t encourage them.

      4. The SODO operation has never gotten the analytical attention that it deserves in any ST planning study.

         The only thing that ST considered was creating four surface tracks with new over crossings for Kander and Holgate. Then, they started moving around the existing platform location — but not moving the existing track to create center platforms (which seems rather odd to do one but not the other).

         *****

         Tom is right that really only two tracks and a center platform is needed. The busway could be useful as a location for a bypass track if it was ever needed — and with only occasional use it wouldn’t affect the buses. The trickiest part is designing around the sloping curve south of Lander — but there is no reason why the entry tracks to the OMF can’t be where the West Seattle branch begins as opposed to where the current busway is. (It’s not discussed much but ST has planned a costly tail track to connect the west Seattle tracks to the OMF anyway. If the West Seattle tracks actually ran across the OMF, it would be easier to do driver seat swaps during shift changes anyway.)

         In this scenario the busway remains intact.

         *****

         There is another solution that could be considered if ST did insist on four tracks through SODO. That is to add two aerial tracks above the current surface tracks. I would suggest an operational change to that — to instead put the northbound lines on the surface tracks with the southbound lines above them. A modest realignment of the current tracks could create a center platform at the surface.

         What would that do?

         The crossing gates would go down less frequently on Lander and Holgate. That’s because there are 20 trains crossing at peak hour today but only 16 to 18 with the new operation as two directions of 1 Line is replaced by only one direction of 1 Line and one direction of 3 Line. Clever scheduling could even create simultaneous northbound crossings further reducing the gate drops.

         All same direction transfers would be same level crossings with 16 doors across from 16 doors. Easy peasy transfers!

         Opposite direction transfers would require only one level change up or down.

         And importantly the busway remains intact in this scenario too!

         *****

         In both of these cases it becomes easier to phase construction. Tom’s scenario could tie into the existing junction into the OMF. In my scenario, the only long-term closure would be the station itself as single tracking would only be required between the crossovers above 6th Ave S and just north of Holgate (easily allowing for trains every 10 minutes and maybe every 8). Considering that ST already is going to require a long term closure of the current SODO platforms to build the glass palace that includes moved platforms to even the existing station anyway, it doesn’t appear worse.

         *****

         I really have to wonder what alternative reality the ST rail designers live in. Closing the busway and buying lots more parcels in SODO seems to be what they insist on doing. It’s considerably more expensive and creates a worse transfer experience not only for the two Link lines but also for the buses still they could be on the busway.

         ST wants to spend hundreds of millions on this station only to make things worse for riders!

3. It’s just stunning to me that there still is no published new ridership projections given to the public for discussion since the preferred relocation of the transfer station from CID to Pioneer Square. And no projection of the interim ridership projection for the West Seattle stub either.

   How can ST justify glass cathedrals that few may be using? They are on a huge spending spree for a party that will almost certainly have fewer guests. They truly haven’t yet awakened from their expensive dreaming.

4. Jefferson Square is a parking lot with an ugly, brutalist strip mall attached. Good riddance.

   1. And that Safeway is the worst grocery store in the area. I’d be happy to see that spot refreshed!

      1. I tend to agree, but should our transit/tax dollars pay for replacing this huge complex?

      2. You mean the last affordable grocery store in north admiral? Yeah, guess it makes sense to raze that.

      3. Correcting Rob: this is the Jefferson Square Safeway, not the Admiral one. And yeah…it’s and awful store.
         Surprised to see this article rely on comments by the NIMBY crew in the WSB comment section. The objectors are the loud minority. There was much more robust pro transit voice in that space before the votes passed. It makes sense that only the dissenters keep jawing away… the pro voices had our position push through in the voting process. I do agree about toning down the entryways though.

      4. I’d like to introduce you to the Othello and Rainier Beach Safeways…

5. Anyways it’s probably moving forward to be built. The only way it could be stopped is if the FTA refuses the grant, but I find it unlikely.

   1. The FTA share has been declining over time since the 1970’s. Plus FTA now seems to just fork over a fixed amount so that any overages end up being paid in other local or state ways.

      I’m not sure losing FTA funds could stop it at this point. If they did pull funds, ST could easily just postpone the Avalon Station or the Alaska Junction Station. Or they could pursue grade crossings like they did in the Overlake area.

      What FTA could do is not recommend the project, giving ST a giant black eye. It may not impact the budget to the point of killing it, but it would reveal the cavalier nature of building a project that has such a terrible impact on ROI and no significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

      I suspect that ST is trying to make the project as expensive as possible and as visually appealing as possible at this stage. Then, they can cut back later — or shift money for Ballard + DSTT2 to West Seattle and plead for more money for Ballard Link + DSTT2 later. So the next news I’m expecting is a very greatly increased project cost estimate.

      1. “I suspect that ST is trying to make the project as expensive as possible and as visually appealing as possible at this stage.”

         How would making it expensive benefit ST? All the added costs are in pursuit of something else: pleasing those who think West Seattle Link is necessary, avoiding impacts to West Seattle Golf Course, avoiding an unsightly aboveground station at the Junction, minimizing construction impacts in Chinatown, keeping Link away from the Port and Fishermans’ Terminal, helping the county unload a white elephant office building, etc.

         Note that only the first one sees Link as something positive. The last one leverages the project for an unrelated purpose. The rest of them see Link as something negative.

      2. “How would making it expensive benefit ST? ”

         A few ways because it paints more of a worst case financial scenario…

         1. It reduces the appearance of cost overruns later.
         2. It messages to FTA that either their portion is smaller or that they should get more with the same proportion.
         3. It easily allows them to shift money from Ballard+DSTT2.
         4. It makes it easier to do some cost cutting later in value engineering.
         5. It makes it easier to shift money for the inevitable additional design tweaks that the neighborhood wants.

         Of note is the cable stayed bridge idea. It cost lots more money. Such a bridge design is not needed because the crossing isn’t that far to warrant it. It would instead be a vanity idea — that could be scrapped to save costs later.

      3. “It easily allows them to shift money from Ballard+DSTT2.”

         If that postpones or eliminates CID/N and DSTT2, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. A useless West Seattle-SODO shuttle that duplicates bus routes is better than destroying the connectivity between southeast Seattle/SeaTac and northeast Seattle and the Eastside. They’re finally getting a substantial Link improvement, only to have it taken away in thirteen years. And for what, to go to Ballard and SLU where fewer people and come from compared to all the destinations in the northeast and east?

6. I can’t believe how ST is so intent to double down on such an ineffective SODO station design. Now that it’s so apparent (after 2023) that the transfers in the preferred alternative are so terrible (even getting worse with each chapter in the planning saga) at CID and Westlake, this is the easiest place for same direction riders to transfer between the 1 Line and the 3 Line.

   Since ST is willing to move the existing platforms, just do it right! There is no logical cost-effectiveness reason to have three platforms there – and the hassle of every transferring rider (how many thousands ST never discloses) walking to a single escalator to cross over and return to another single escalator (assuming it’s not turned into stairs for budget reasons) is needless because of a terrible station layout.

   ST should design the station for same direction level transfers. Period. It could be done with a large center platform for all trains with two tracks, or two large center platforms for four tracks. But building three platforms for four tracks is terrible functionality as well as it greatly increases the odds that an escalator or elevator will be out of service.

   PS. I realize that advocates are still hoping for a shallow 4th Ave station. However, that seems highly unlikely because of the many funding and construction impact issues surrounding it. But even if those are overcome, the need to lay out SODO station differently still exists.

   1. “ST should design the station for same direction level transfers. Period. It could be done with a large center platform for all trains with two tracks, or two large center platforms for four tracks.”

      Amen to that. +100 for your comment.
      My god, ST planners, wake the hell up!

      1. Thanks!

         I don’t think that residents of North Seattle, Shoreline and Snohomish County get how this transfer difficulty will affect them and generations after them when trying to get to SeaTac, especially with luggage!

         It’s not just a SE Seattle issue.

   2. Al, there will never be a need for four tracks between SoDo and wherever the West Seattle line goes. WS will never in a thousand years need any more than six four-car tph. The RV can’t handle more than ten, because of the grade crossings. That’s sixteen tph which the existing tracks can easily handle. That is a train every six minutes from the RV with a train from WS somewhere in that six minute gap dueing three out of five of the gaps.

      PLEASE don’t give them any “encouragement” to build a new station. The current station is perfectly adequate, and if they want to upgrade it to a center platform, that could happen for not much money. It wouldn’t even disrupt the busway very badly. It would require “line of sight” single-laning or a demand actuated light for extra safety for a year or two tops.

      Not building this pretentious SkyCastle and the second trackway would probably pay for Delridge Station.

      1. ST no longer allows design of new at grade pedestrian track crossings. This is why they have the design they have. It is a very expensive design criteria. I’ll let others decide if it’s worth the safety (and liability) benefits.

      2. That design decision is completely within the control of Sound Transit. ST is not stuck with the constraint.

      3. Even if this is “official policy” from now on, it seems silly. They are no plans to retrofit the stations that have level crossings (and that includes stations that are about to open like East Main and Judkins Park). Furthermore, there is very little (if anything) that is being done to make them safer. People have been calling for gates for quite some time now, and instead of putting money into that, they are going to build really big, expensive stations that will make transfers much worse. It would make way more sense to just retrofit the existing stations so they are safer, and then apply the same technique for SoDo.

7. Bus connectivity:

   Note what happens with RapidRide C near Avalon Station. It’s moved from 35th to Fauntleroy.

   Also note how RapidRide H northbound is given a big detour loop around the Delridge station.

   1. Notice too that the Alaska Street stop diagram has room for just two buses — and the ones shown are not articulated even though that’s the only bus type used by RapidRide C. That seems like a pretty huge problem because as shown only one longer articulated bus at a time would be able to stop at the station.

8. The diagrams do not describe what’s happening underground. How many escalators are provided? How much vertical distance (and walk time) will the station users need to travel inside the station? Will Alaska Junction Station have a mezzanine?

9. IMO, the only thing that West Seattle really needs for connecting to the rest of the city is a genuine, all the way. from start to end, BUS ONLY lane. Ripping the heart out of the “downtown” of West Seattle is just not right. Especially when you consider how many West Seattle residents are miles from the terminal, and will have to use busses to go there. So, you are looking at two, maybe three transfers to go anywhere that can now be done with a one seat bus ride. Building this light rail to West Seattle will be building a monument to inconvenience and time wasting for decades to come. Just a bit of thought to installing a real, bus only lane to connect to SR99, with a bit of creative engineering for the bridge access would help ensure the utility and effectiveness of the use of busses.

   1. There’s a perfectly good street to put Link on or over, Faunteroy Way.

   2. Exactly. It wouldn’t require that much work either. There are already bus lanes much of the way. To solve the weave problem (and the West Seattle Bridge to 99 problem) probably would cost a couple hundred million or so. Heck, you might just solve it with ramp meters.

      It really doesn’t take much before the weak link in the operation becomes West Seattle itself, something the light rail line completely ignores. If I’m trying to get from High Point to the station (on the 21) I have to deal with traffic getting there. Same with much of the RapidRide C. A lot of the bus stops are off to the side of the road, which means the bus has to spend extra time merging before it can get going again. Heck, just fixing the ridiculous little button hook at the Alaska Junction would likely save more time than the train will. Notice that cars don’t have to do that. It is just backwards.

      No one has really sat down and thought “How can I make transit for West Seattle better — what is the best value for the money?”. Instead they focused on building an extremely-expensive yet not-very-useful rail line.

   3. I will echo what Mike said. Fauntleroy itself is the natural place to put light rail (elevated and/or at grade). This is obvious to anybody who has access to a map. Keep it simple! Why is this not being seriously considered at all?

   4. I wouldn’t call the junction Safeway site the “heart” of downtown West Seattle.

      And no… NO more transit alternatives of ANY kind that rely on existing bridge infrastructure.

10. When is the next community outreach event for the WS Link Extension? It would seem to me that repurposing the funds towards electric buses with increased service levels and more dedicated bus lanes would be a better solution. While light rail is one transit option, a good transit plan utilizes the best fit for the circumstance rather than forcing light rail. It’s also worth pointing out that this Link extension is not going to service the people who need access to light rail service, as that population has been pushed south to White Center and Burien. Folks living in N. West Seattle all have sufficient access to the city and no longer benefit from a transit plan that was approved almost a decade ago.

    1. [sexual metaphor]

       The word you were looking for was simply “serve”. “Service” as a synomym for “serve” is another pretentious bastardization of simple English vocabulary.

       1. I agree with your observations about the transit solution.

       2. “Service” as a verb is appropriate for cars (“I got my car serviced today”) and livestock (“the rooster serviced several hens”). So yes, Tom, you are correct. But you are also being a bit pedantic. John used the word “service” three times in the paragraph (once as a verb, once as a noun and once as an adjective). Given that, it is understandable that he kept using the same word especially since the word is perfectly legit when applied to other nouns (cars and livestock).

    2. Busses might arguably be “not what voters approved,” whereas running the light rail along Fauntleroy, at grade as much as possible and terminating at grade, bus stops two horizontal traffic lanes from the platforms, would most definitely be consistent with ST3. You’re avoiding almost all of the community push back related to demolishing buildings and creating an “elevated eyesore.” You’re ending the line “facing south” for a potential (if unlikely) southward extension. You’re saving a ton of money, which is both financially necessary and appropriate given the lower expected ridership. Is Sound Transit really this out of touch? What the hell don’t they get???

       1. This is nonsense. Running light rail at grade is completely unusable as the cars drive into trains all the time. The trains are forced to go at car speeds. It limits frequency, it provides no alternative right of way.

          Elevated is the right way. It is best that the transit riders have a nice view.

       2. George, Brandon isn’t suggesting that Link go down Avalon like the predecessor streetcars did. I believe he would still the line run along the West Seattle Freeway as planned and then duck under 35th, Gennessee and Avalon Station in order not to wreck that crucial trio of intersections that feed the freeway — he can correct me if I’m wrong. But if I’m reading him correctly he would then surface the trackway and put a station somewhere betwen Avalon and Alaska, with the opportunity to continue south along Fauntleroy.

          This has the advantage that only one station would be built on the plateau, but that station might not have sufficient capacity to handle all the bus transfers.

          So “No, you wouldn’t be running light rail at grade”, other than right within the station, where we want them to go slowly…..

          No, it wouldn’t be right in the heart of the Junction business district, but it would be within a short walk of it, very close to the big buildings at Alaska and Fauntleroy and a reasonable walk to back 35th and Avalon.

          The big question is would people agree to transfer in the middle of Fauntleroy and how safe would it be? It would be better to put a surface station around the curve on Alaska, but that means you’ve essentially created a transit street.

       3. Tom, if you look at the latest design, Sound Transit plans to turn Alaska into a transit street anyways, but just for buses to serve the LR station

       4. I’ve suggested that the Avalon and Alaska Junction stations be merged into one under Fauntleroy between Alaska and Oregon (with entrances at 39th and Alaska, and 37th and Oregon). Why?

          1. It appears easy to divert traffic onto other streets during construction.
          2. Avalon Station is forecast to get very low ridership.
          3. Hundreds of millions can be saved and the platforms can be less deep, making bus transfers involve fewer steps.

          I guess that diagonal distance is long enough for close with a surface station, which would save even more money. But that may be a closure too much for West Seattle interests.

          Anyway, I know ST will ignore the suggestion. They instead want to build glass palaces that look great in brochures — but ST seemingly doesn’t care about how many riders actually use a station nor how difficult the transfer path will be for those riders.

          This gets at the big missing elephant in the room: The forecasted daily boardings for each station are missing from the discussion presentation . Incredibly, the presentation actually gives percentages of how people are expected to get to each station, but not the total number of station boardings — even though ST can’t determine percentages without knowing the total forecasted daily boardings! A quarter of riders making bus transfers at a station expecting 1000 boardings is just 250 a day, while the same percentage of a station with 8000 boardings is 2000 a day. That’s a glaring difference that clearly has design implications!

          It’s clear that ST hasn’t been transparent here. They know the total — and are embarrassed to reveal it because it would be so obvious about the billions being spent only to get a small number of riders that will still be using buses for part of their trip anyway.

       5. Martin, is that true? It looks like there are four bars in the diagram for each crosswalks crossing Alaska, so I concluded that there will be “Red Lanes” at the curb with general vehicle access in the middle lanes. Do you know for certain that Alaska will be closed to private vehicles (except maybe delivery trucks) between California and Fauntleroy?

          How else is SDOT proposing to get traffic from the end of the West Seattle Freeway at 35th and Fauntleroy over to California? Would they make people “drive around” via Edmunds and Oregon? I can’t imagine that folks living on those streets would be happy about that, although they are both kind of “arterial-ish” now (i.e. they have yellow dashed lines down the middle).

          As an aside, why is there no entrance on 41st either north OR south of Alaska? There’s obviously going to be a Mezzanine under the intersection of 41st and Alaska, and it will have to extend outside the intersection’s footprint a little way to allow the escalators from the head houses to land in it and the escalators down to access the platform. There could at least be inexpensive stair access from 41st north and south of Alaska a la Manhattan streets. Put glass doors at the bottom to keep cold air out of the Mezzanine.

       6. Tom, if you review the pictures on the WSBlog post, they showed an Alaska St concept which was bus only. They did not post that poster board on their website.

11. Great piece, Martin! I had just read the WS blog pieces talking about the businesses that would be “displaced”, to use one of ST’s favorite terms, at Delridge. I worked for a few years in the little office park right next to Nucor (and spent more money than I care to admit at the Delridge location of Uptown Espresso) so I’m pretty familiar with that neighborhood. What a waste this whole project is…..a vanity project for the county executive.

    BRT-like service is the most that’s needed for WS into the foreseeable future.

    Keep spreading the word about everything that is wrong with moving forward with West Seattle Link. This is just utter foolishness.

    1. Thanks, Tlsgwm, I worked in that office park, too, and spent too much money at Uptown, my son still works underneath.

    2. a vanity project for the county executive

       Nailed it, Tlsgwm. Spot on.

       I wonder why he isn’t running for governor this cycle. He’ll be past his prime by the time Ferguson lets go.

12. [ah]

    We should be supporting this project, not picking it apart at this point. The FEIS is coming this summer and then we are full steam ahead. Those of you suggesting alternate routes like Fauntleroy completely miss the point of this extension. It’s going to the Junction because that IS the destination and that is where the housing density is going to be. Yes, there will be disturbance but that will happen with any massive infrastructure project. Nobody will be complaining when you have a 10 minute traffic-free ride to downtown and your property values have all increased.

    1. I think a lot of people will complain when they are forced off their bus right at the point where the trip was about to get fast and instead have to spend a lot of time walking to and waiting for the train. Oh, but I guess in exchange for making the travel time to most locations a lot longer they will have a great connection to … SoDo?

       But I agree with you on one point. Property values for a handful of people will rise considerably. Cha-ching! $$$

       1. I wish we could see the ad hominem and judge for ourselves whether his point is well made. There’s nothing so satisfying as being attacked for questioning the Plutocrats.

    2. I hope at least some of Mark P’s comment is deleted as an ah attack.

       1. Are we supposed to ignore the history and underlying agenda/biases of writers on this site?

    3. Mark, you don’t understand what a blog is if you think everyone on it must share the same opinion on every topic.

       1. I think you are confusing a blog with a town square. I know exactly what a blog is. It’s a gathering of people who are like-minded with similar goals who want to advance and progress the blog topic. This is supposed to be a blog that supports transit development, of which rail based transit is the premium kind. Instead time is spent tearing it down and questioning it, forcing agencies to spend time and money reevaluating everything, and pushing back against reasonable change. It’s no wonder this city is decades late on high capacity rail transit, too many people hemming and hawing and reevaluating everything 1000 times.

       2. Anyway, Mark, it sounds like you are passionate about West Seattle, and may even be a resident. I’m not. I never go there, and will leave it to others to discuss its transit needs. I have an idea. Why not write a post of your own about this WS Link topic? Or write a rebuttal of this post? I’m sure this blog would welcome a guest post from you.

       3. @Mark

          It’s a transit blog not a blindly rail advocacy blog. If you just want to support rail without talking about how it’d actually work there’s Seattle subway for that.

          The west Seattle rail has lots of flaws with transfers. Even after 2040 for many riders they’d be forced to 3 seat transfers with the rapidride c truncated at Alaskan junction

    4. “ It’s going to the Junction because that IS the destination and that is where the housing density is going to be. “

       I think it needs to be mentioned that single family zoning literally begins about 500 feet south and 500 feet west of the Alaska Junction southern headhouse. It’s not located in the middle of the high density area but is further south and west of the middle point of the density.

       Would you support allowing 65 or 85 feet of apartments for another two blocks to the south and west of this station?

       1. “Would you support allowing 65 or 85 feet of apartments for another two blocks to the south and west of this station?”

          Absolutely. The fact that we are not upzoning more in the station areas is a travesty.

    5. “Those of you suggesting alternate routes like Fauntleroy completely miss the point of this extension. It’s going to the Junction because that IS the destination and that is where the housing density is going to be.”

       Fauntleroy Way is going to the Junction. If you want the final station closer to Alaska Street, that doesn’t mean it can’t go on Fauntleroy on the way to it. Fauntleroy Way would reduce cost and property takings.

13. We’d be better off lighting $4B on fire than building this project, instead investing whatever it takes for much better bus service to West Seattle, while finding some other excuse to fulfill Dow’s urban renewal dreams involving our beleaguered county properties.

    West Seattle Buses can take people directly downtown, just as they do today. With buses, most people will have a shorter, faster trip with no transfers to get downtown. More trips and routes can easily be added. They can use the West Seattle Bridge (which has a bus lane!) and SR 99, which we also spent a few billion on recently.

    The carbon impact of West Seattle Link will never be paid off in human history because the net impact will always be negative. All new buses will be electric by the time this project is done so the fuel argument is a wash. The redundant guideway and all the digging for this project, the destruction of habitat and taxable, useful real estate, are all avoidable, by not building the project.

    The second downtown tunnel should also be cancelled, and instead we should run trains as frequently as we can (which is a lot) through the existing tunnel, which benefits everyone. In this scenario we will have a surplus of money (and no shortage of time actually) to plan and build an excellent automated, higher-frequency line with smaller-scale (stations) ala SkyTrain in Vancouver BC from Westlake (or First Hill, or wherever) to Ballard.

    In this scenario, you can still get from UW to the Rainier Valley or Airport without a transfer. And we don’t bust up our existing downtown hub.

    There, Sound Transit, fixed it for you…

    1. One tunnel for downtown does not work. You need redundancy. How often is the downtown tunnel blocked or closed? Seattle will grow, you need the capacity and the reliability. I have lived in a city with two downtown lines and it is absolutely a requirement. Here only having one is a big limitation. Sometimes you just have to get the core infrastructure done.

       1. The second tunnel is a completely separate concern from West Seattle.

          I mean even if we built the second tunnel, we could just have it be Ballard to Seatac (Tacoma), and then Lynnwood (Everett) to Redmond. There’s really no rationale for it to go to West Seattle.

       2. When I’ve studied the proposed track layout details in SODO, I see that ST is not designing them to make trains changing tracks between lines easy — and it may even be impossible without a loop around the OMF. It appears that trains actually will not be able switch back and forth between the two tunnels because both northbound and both southbound tracks aren’t placed next to each other. The only way I am seeing for riders to get “redundancy” is to make an actual transfer between trains on foot — and the transfer station designs are horrible in many ways.

          So when a track is blocked, ST isn’t designing things so that a train can just shift to another tunnel going in the same direction. Instead they will have to use a single track for both directions in either tunnel — even if we have DSTT2..

          The lack of crossover tracks in the DSTT would go a long way to reducing the problem of single tracking during incidents. I’ve never seen ST suggest adding crossover tracks in the DSTT — even as basic as a high-level concept study.

          So the “redundancy” argument rings hollow with me. It seems to be a PR spin but not a design objective.

       3. * The addition of crossover tracks in the DSTT …

       4. The new tunnel portal is located to the east of the existing tracks.

          If you wanted a both tracks in the same direction they’d need to dig two tunnels* both west and east of the existing tracks. Then you could have the two northbound tracks and two southbound tracks. Aka it’s similar to how the CID tracks to east link work.

          *or one larger tunnel and then having a separate smaller tunnel

       5. Speaking of East Link, 2 Line trains will be completely unable to use DSTT2 as currently designed. DSTT2 would begin several blocks south of stadium Station and Line 2 veers off at CID. Line 2 trains even have to reverse inside CID Stdtion idk g the newly built center track to reach the central OMF.

       6. Idk g = using

       7. You can still use just two tracks between Stadium and SoDo and not have a level crossing of the northbound Spine main for southbounds from DSTT2. How? By using the pocket at Stadium (probably extended south a bit) for the rising southbound portal from DSTT2. The north bound portal to DSTT2 would simply diverge and dive at about the same point on the other side of the right of way. No, you can’t do these sorts of precision excavations with a TBM; gasp! you’d have to dig it carefully like New Yorkers! And maybe the northbound Spine main has to rise a few feet to make the upward gradient for the Line 1 trains (in ST’s plan) less arduous.

          But, as everyone who’s a “regular” knows, I don’t want them to do this! I want them not to build DSTT2, at least, not south of New Westlake and maybe a little stub for TBM retrieval. Ideally they wouldn’t build West Seattle either. But if they insist on spending $4 billion worsening the transit experience of 90% of West Seattle riders, they can create a “flying” junction for merging DSTT2 with the existing tracks if they will only listen!!!!

          The diversion to West Seattle from the southbound RV track can occur on the upgrade south of Lander and the merge from West Seattle can take the bike path south of Lander and merge with the northbound RV track in the current Lander footprint. I grant that this would force a single-lane section south of Lander for busway lines, but there aren’t very many of them left, and the ones from I-5 south are probably largely going to disappear with Federal Way Link. A signalized one-way would almost always not delay a given bus more than thirty seconds.

          In a pinch northbound buses could turn off Spokane at Sixth, turn left at Lander and enter the busway there on a street level “shoo-fly”; Lander itself would have to overpass the transitway because there will be many more trains.

          All that will require a shutdown to add the turnouts, and during that time a previously laid “bulge” where the current southbound platform at SoDo could be tied in and a center platform placed where the current southbound track is located today. The northbound platform could stay open for bus transfers from Sixth if ST so desires, or it could be closed and only the center platform would operate.

          This would give you “stand-where-you-are” for in-line transfers to a different destination than where one’s origin train was destined and “cross-the-platform” for reversing transfers like West Seattle-RV or the airport. IOW, transit Valhalla!

          This is MASSIVELY less expensive than ST’s vacuous SkyCastle Behind the PO Garage and retains the busway relatively unmolested after the construction period. ST’s SkyCastle plan would permanently erase it. I expect that folks in Burien and Renton will not be happy if they do.

       8. George,
          I lived in Munich with a single S-Bahn tunnel handling 800,000 riders a day. We’re far from that! If we build a 2nd tunnel, it shouldn’t just be for redundancy, but also to attract more ridership as https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/01/10/focus-on-slu-and-ballard/ suggested.

14. We should probably have an article outlining why exactly west Seattle link is worse for most transit users compared to the existing buses. I think weve discussed this in comments but not actually in an article

    1. How about: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/11/12/west-seattle-now-vs-light-rail/

       1. Thanks, my bad; I’m not sure why I forgot about that one.

       2. While that article is good, it ignores cost. This is one of the issues that comes up repeatedly. I don’t think people really get how expensive West Seattle Link is, and what we could do with the money if we spent it on transit alternatives. I don’t either. That is why making a comparison is difficult. But imagine two scenarios:

          1) Add loads of bus lanes throughout West Seattle. Fix the (relatively small) issues between West Seattle and downtown. Run the two RapidRide buses (the C and H) every six minutes in the middle of the day. Have the 21 follow the faster route to downtown and run it every 7.5 minutes. Send the 125 to Alki and run it every 7.5 minutes. Run the 128 and 22 every ten minutes. Resurrect coverage buses like the 37 and run them every fifteen minutes in the middle of the day (not just rush hour). Do that for the next fifty years.

          2) Implement the ST3 plan.

          For the vast majority of riders the first plan is better. Now maybe that wouldn’t be possible for the same amount of money, but it wouldn’t shock me if it was. Link really is that expensive.

          Unfortunately, folks aren’t really thinking in those terms. They are assuming the same basic network we have, and ignoring the biggest problem in West Seattle: frequency. For the vast majority of riders the bridge is just fine. It is definitely slower than ideal during rush hour, but that effects a relatively small number of riders. The biggest problem (by far) is that the buses are infrequent. Holy cow, the 125 only runs every half hour, even when South Seattle College is in session! That is crazy. The 50 only runs every twenty minutes. We are spending a fortune dealing with what is a relatively small problem while we ignore the biggest issue with transit in West Seattle.

       3. Thinking about ST in terms of its mandate to serve Regional Centers as defined by the PSRC: https://www.psrc.org/media/2650

          The voters approved a wild rail expansion package in 2016 that gives ST a mandate to build rail to West Seattle, but West Seattle is the only terminus of such an investment that is not a Regional Center. I guess there’s a “manufacturing industrial center” on the Duwamish, but does WSLE really serve that area?

          Without going back to the ballot box, how could ST be legally justified in delaying construction of WSLE to build bus lanes?

       4. Perhaps in the same fashion that ST substituted a streetcar as a tradeoff for not building a LR station on First Hill as planned in Sound Move.

15. As a Lake Forest Park Resident involved in our own fight with ST, the overriding issue is not with mass transit which most people agree on and approve, it is with the mis-management of our tax money they spend without accountability. Maybe a better idea to work toward is to repeal the tax going to ST and develop a more accountable Agency with ELECTED board members instead of appointed ones… after all, the ST Board members are there as a SECOND part time job and are not accountable for any decisions made. So we see a group that is inflexible and may not be rushed to look for innovative methods if transit. Why do we need double buses? Light rail is good for a spine north and south, but transversing over difficult topography looks like a maintenance nightmare. ST should focus on the ridership experience from point to point… look at the innovative electric SMALL buses/vans that Bellevue is using… no alteration to existing roadway needed. Our tax money should be respected and used wisely. Covid changed us all and permanently…

    1. I agree with all of your points, except maybe the idea of smaller buses. Small buses have their place, but big buses are there because lots of riders use the bus (at least part of the day). But yeah, the root of the problem is the way the board is configured. I agree that starting over would be preferable to following the path we are on now. A lot of us (myself included) have been trying to fix ST3 as best we can (e. g. automated trains to Ballard) even though we admit that some aspects to it can’t be easily fixed. Completely redoing the whole thing (including the board) would certainly be something to consider, although I’m not sure how politically feasible it is. Unfortunately too many people see proposals in overly simple terms (pro-transit or anti-transit) as opposed to whether the specific proposal is worthwhile or not. If there was a vote to scrap ST3 (and scrap the makeup of the board) I would probably favor it for the reasons you mentioned — it is just a bad way to spend money on transit.

    2. What’s really needed on the Board now are people who understand what ST is building and operating.

       We are still in a transition mode where the current Board not only has no time to focus on issues, they have token interest in building something for the riders.

       The quickest solution is to require all ST plans to be reviewed by a committee of users that don’t include Board members . That committee could be appointed by the current Board. ST instead set up a committee of “stakeholders” for WSBLE that are predominantly developers, building owners, large employers and neighborhood advocates. No one is wearing the “hat” of a rider or driver.

       Without such a committee, the Board is representing the riders in theory and they do a bad or at the very least lazy job of it.

       We are on the precipice of the public viewing ST differently. Once all the ST2 projects open, day to day operations will take front and center. The days of flashy architectural renderings of multiple stations will be greatly reduced. The “feel good” vibe of pretty maps and charts will give way to the realities of living with the system that’s built. Open comment time will be a parade of frustrated riders more and more. One could even see how a current Board member in 2028 will be more stressed under the burden of increased operational complaints and not want to even participate in Board meetings.

16. I’m sort of a casual enthusiast, but… To me it seems like the “cancelling West Seattle in favor of Ballard” for light rail is a bit… I guess vague? With how bloated the light rail development process is at this time, I’m just not sure that exchange would pan out. I am in favor of more simple rail lines and stations of course. ST timelines are arcane and along with the dark arts of 2045 ridership projections, I think building the projects that balance simplicity, usefulness and efficiency as quickly as possible is the best solution. That is to say: I’m worried that ST’s pioneer square/Chinatown fumble is going to derail many further transit conversations and agendas. I do think in general rail lines are notably usable for their simplicity & permanence (even with a transfer), where bus travel can feel chaotic, unreliable, and mercurial. This may be more emotional than logical but I think it does factor in to ridership. We shouldn’t make bloated stations anymore. But I think waffling is always the danger with Seattle transit. Time is of the essence, in my opinion.

    1. I think you use a key word here: bloated.

       I think it’s possible to build a West Seattle Link without such grandiose stations. I think Avalon could be dropped or at least deferred. Alaska Junction tracks could be shortened by a few hundred feet and maybe more.. Maybe it should stop at Avalon and the further tunnel gets built when it’s possible to add more than one station. A cable stayed bridge is literally monumental overkill. SODO design is not only grandiose but less practical for users who must make two level changes to make the most common transfers.

       WSBLE could mean West Seattle Bloated Link Extension!

    2. I like simplicity & permanence and avoiding bloat like West Seattle and a second parallel downtown tunnel. We would just focus on small new stations in SLU/Ballard for smaller automated trains. Much cheaper to build. It might even be possible to prefabricate stations and place such small station on top of existing roads (e.g. Elliott Ave) which would mean less land acquisitions and buses could stop right underneath without detour.

17. I think many people just don’t really think about how transit riders will actually use light rail when built. They just equate shiny trains with better.

    They also don’t realize that all the buses will be truncated at Alaskan Junction and Delridge.
    > Most RapidRide, frequent, and express routes from Burien, White Center, High Point, and other areas south of Alaska Junction would end at Alaska Junction or continue to Alki Beach via Alaska Junction

    I mean from west seattle to fremont it’ll be from a 2 seat ride to a 4 seat ride rather than rapidride C and then 40; One will have to take rapidride C, transfer at Alaskan Junction, then transfer again at Sodo, and then get off again at westlake to 40.

    And even after it’s no longer a stub it’d still be a 3 seat ride with rapidride C transfer to alaskan junction and then transfer again at westlake. Which is considerably bad when you consider most transit riders are using rapidride C and D and so will incur the transfer penalty and waiting for another vehicle.

18. Martin – in this article and on much of your gondola propaganda, you reference the destruction of the heron colony. This is not true. If you look at the engineering drawings you would see that the heron colony are south of the impacted greenbelt. I wonder what other stretches you are making in your article. Can you provide references for what wetlands exactly will be destroyed? Can you provide references for what public trails exactly will be destroyed?

    1. Environmental impacts such as the impacts to the Heron colony and other ecosystems are documented in the Draft EIS from 2022, section 4.2.9.3, page : https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/4b-wsble-drafteis-chapter4-4.2-aff-env-env-consequences-west-seattle-202201.pdf

       Technical reports backing up the findings are in Appendix N.4, https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/17a-wsble-drafteis-ecosystemstechreport-202201.pdf

       1. Thanks, Nathan! I showed the city’s slide, they also identified these issues. It’s not that the colony itself is directly impacted, but the construction would certainly impact them, see local rules for herons:
          “Great blue herons and their nests are protected under RCW 77.15. 130 (Protected fish or wildlife — Unlawful taking), and great blue heron nesting colonies are listed as a WDFW Priority Species. by contacting Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.”

          Statewide, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends a permanent, year-round buffer of 300 meters (984 ft) from the perimeter of the great blue heron colony. These management recommendations can be found in Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife”

19. The WS stub to Alaska Junction just doesn’t make sense. Constantine seems to want it for parochial reasons. What we should do is take Link down Delridge Way to White Center, Burien, and Renton (replacing the F Line which is hobbled by a highway-oriented street grid). The C Line works well enough for its corridor. Taking an H Line alignment would serve lower-income people who need it and denser neighborhoods that merit rail more, as well as Burien which has been doing commendable land use work for a small, lower-income suburb. Crossing over to Renton would not only open huge TOD opportunities at Southcenter but decentralize some transfers and add badly needed redundancy/resilience to the system.

    ST too often makes a bad decision and then adds increasing layers of lipstick in a doomed effort to fix it (MLK at-grade). In West Seattle, it’s not too late to wake up and pull the plug on a bad decision–and build something better instead.

    1. Jon, yes, once in a tunnel at the Junction, extending the line further south to serve more diverse neighborhoods will be very expensive and therefore won’t happen in the foreseeable future. A route along Delridge or 35th would be much better but it would still require a huge high guideway and new Duwamish bridge along the West Seattle viaduct.
       Another option would be to build a line straight south from SODO through Georgetown and South Park connecting to the existing line in Tukwila, the so called “Duwamish bypass”. You could then redirect all the existing bus lines or even build a gondola line up the hill to White Center/Westwood or South Seattle College for higher frequency.

20. Whenever it’s OPM (Other People’s Money), politicians – of which transit managers and board members are – extravagance is no object when it comes to wasted space and art as opposed to the more-practical, e.g., way finding from Husky Stadium to the myriad of bus stops and routes that blow the minds of transit novices and regulars alike. Unfortunately, seldom do transit staff take seriously what folks like those commenting here offer, which often are excellent feedback from those who actually use the service! But, alas, humility is too often in short supply for these folks. SMH at how this region has spent so much money on a sub-par train that travels slower than airport trains and that is beset with temporary shutdowns, single tracking, unexpected maintenance, etc. that give a hit to any semblance of reliability.

Comments are closed.