On May 9, Sound Transit’s System Expansion Committee received a progress update (pdf) on the yet-to-be-opened portion of East Link, currently operating as the abbreviated 2 Line between South Bellevue and Redmond Technology Station. Although the opening of the connection between South Bellevue and Seattle is currently scheduled for late November 2025, Ryan Packer at The Urbanist quotes Ron Lewis, Sound Transit’s Executive Director of Design, Engineering and Construction Management, as saying “We don’t have a day to waste, and this summer is critical.”
As the schedule notes, Systems Integration Testing could start sooner in the year if the systems installation contractor is able to complete their work ahead of schedule. With Lynnwood Link’s systems integration testing finishing this month (pdf), and systems integration testing underway early for the Downtown Redmond Link Extension, any early starts for these critical steps would be extremely welcome.
Re-work Remaining
First revealed in 2022 (pdf), East Link’s connection across Lake Washington has been delayed by the need to replace much of the trackwork installed between South Bellevue Station and the CID. Namely, poor workmanship on the construction of cast-in-place concrete plinths (which support the rails above the original I-90 roadway), sporadic failure of pre-cast lightweight “Dual Blocks” (a form of railroad ties which support and connect the rails on the floating bridge), and the discovery of stripped rail fastener bolt inserts (meant to shield the concrete bridge from stray current from the railway).
The contractor has completed replacement of the 19,500 nylon rail fastener bolt inserts, demolished 95% of the 5,707 plinths needing replacement, and finished rebuilding 80% of the plinths as of May 6. Replacement of the Dual Blocks is ongoing, with a total of 85 blocks being identified for replacement due to spalling and cracks identified during inspection. Over 8,800 Dual Blocks were manufactured for East Link via a custom mass production process, with approximately 7,500 reportedly installed on the floating bridge.
Although overhead and other systems could be completed before the plinth and dual block replacements are done, any delays to trackwork will cascade down the schedule.
To keep the project moving, the Sound Transit Board is expected to release $41M of the $134.9M remaining in the construction budget for East Link. In 2015, East Link was baselined with an estimated total cost of $3,677.2M.
An open question is whether Sound Transit (and by extension, its taxpayers) can expect to be reimbursed for the cost of rework that’s delayed East Link from its original opening in 2023, but it is clear that the focus is on getting the line open in its entirety as soon as practicable. Mediation talks for determining responsibility for the costs of rework are reportedly scheduled for Fall of this year.
Thanks for the update. It’s hard to have a lot of confidence in the late 2025 date sticking given that there is no additional float. Regardless, it was good to not see any major new issues called out in the presentation.
I also noticed in the Urbanist article that the Redmond extension is now listed as “on track to open next spring”. If correct, that’s also a slip since the published date for revenue service was the very end of 2024.
I believe the informal opening schedule on ST’s side has been for Redmond Link to opening in “Spring 2025” since last year, even though the capital progress reports all still have late December as the target opening date with a few days of float left.
Last year (September) I did some similar napkin calculations
> There are total of 5,707 plinths and by July 13, 2023 they had planned to finish fixing 2,446, but instead had only fixed 1,381 basically half the speed. So there was still 4,326 plinths to fix back then. They are going at a pace of 27 plinths per week.
> Given 4,326 plinths / (27 plinths per week) would be 160 weeks plus July 23, 2023 or August 6, 2026 would be the plinth completion date. And then they’d still need another 6 months for testing.
> I’m not sure why the projected opening is Spring 2025 when it is basically impossible. Unless if I’m reading the document/doing math wrong, they’d need to triple the rate of plinth repairs to around 90 per week to get it done by Fall 2024 (buffer of 6 months for testing).
https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/09/06/breaking-down-east-link-starter-line-ridership/#comment-917294
It looks like they did increase the plinth construction rate but they did still need to test afterwards
From the picture on the I-90 bridge you can see that the most complicated parts (expansion section where the bridge portion merges with the land part) still needs to be finished. So even if most of the plinths are done, if the most complicated ones are not, that presents a huge risk for further delays.
You are completely misreading the documents.
Full East Link is expected to open at the end of 2025.
Redmond Link is expected to open in Spring of 2025.
Lazarus I copy pasted comments made last year. Back then the projection for the full east link in 2023 was spring 2025.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/12/09/east-link-light-rail-delayed-to-spring-2025-but-could-arrive-earlier-with-starter-line/
> Under a baseline expansion scenario presented by staff:
> Lynnwood Link would remain on-time with an expected opening of mid-2024.
> The full East Link line (Judkins Park to Redmond Technology Station) would be delayed from mid-2023 to Spring 2025.
Yes, I think people are confusing different projects. We reported two weeks ago that cross-lake service is expected in “late 2025”. Downtown Redmond is expected in spring 2025, and is a simple elevated extension without complications, so it will probably be on time.
That “late 2025” is December, which means it could easily slip into 2026 due to longer repair work, further complications on the bridge or bridge-adjacent segments, or staffing during the holiday period.
I understand that there was a horrific stabbing yesterday that caused this yesterday, and it’s understood that it’s unexpected that there is some kind of interruption. But why is service between 3 light rail stations shut down for half a day whenever anything happens inside or within a small radius of a light rail station?
Seems like a bureaucratic thing where service is a huge afterthought. ST or SPD doesn’t know what to do? There isn’t a procedure? Shut down light rail so nobody can get blamed.
This isn’t how it should work in a city with real transit or where it costs $75 for an uber across the city with unreliable bus service.
Want to add that if something happens on the tracks I understand service has to be stopped. I’m talking about in or outside a station only. The cap hill station access can be shut down and still have trains go through it.
The murder at Capitol Hill Station yesterday did happen literally on the tracks.
I heard from a couple eyewitness accounts that it happened on the landing or in the stairwell.
Seattle times article doesn’t say.
And I just heard link was shut down because Biden was driving on i5!
Are people really going to plan to use link if there are surprise shutdowns every day or two along with planned service reductions the entire summer?
Part of the attack/murder happened on the tracks. Here’s a witness …
https://youtu.be/bZq9e9D7Umw?si=zV_yw0QMi_UWhg0d
This Capitol Hill stuff is all off-topic.
Thanks, Sam. Please shift all non-East Link discussion to the most recent Open Thread.
I remember WL posting his calculations last year. Since then others have raised the same concerns. I agree a 2025 opening date across the bridge is unlikely and part of the unstated season for the ELS . With the issues re: post tensioning the bridge I would think at least 6 months of testing will be necessary.
To Sam’s comment that this Capitol Hill stuff is off topic, try telling that to eastsiders.
PS. East Link across the bridge to downtown Bellevue was originally scheduled to open in 2020
Actually the shuttle was pretty comical. It worked in the end but:
Going from SeaTac to Shoreline via Northgate. Didn’t know about the outages
At about the stadium there was a message about “this is a 1 line train to Westlake. The train will terminate at Westlake.” No explanation so I look online and it says there is a shuttle bus from Westlake to UW. A lot of confusion from the college aged kids coming home from a concert so I wasn’t the only one.
When I get out of the Westlake station there is a sign the says link shuttle bus and points right, seems to be pointing down the street. But nowhere was there a shuttle stop sign so I stayed out by the station entrance.
After 10-15 minutes a shuttle bus comes. The driver says he doesn’t know if he’ll stop at Capitol Hill or not when asked, he has to talk to his boss. We start driving a few blocks away in traffic for 5 minutes, then circle back to the Westlake station and pick more people up. After that we start heading to Capitol Hill. The driver announces we will be going to Capitol Hill and then U District (we didn’t it was UW).
Overall from Westlake to UW station it took 45 minutes to an hour. I guess reasonable given the circumstances but it was confusing and not communicated well.
Am I the only one who thinks, in the big picture, it doesn’t matter if the 2 Line crosses the lake a little early, on time, or a little late? Link is going to last 100+ years. Build it right, not quick. The starter line was pushed to open early, and now elevators in 4 out of 8 stations aren’t working.
ELSLis still in the burn-in period. That is when you expect to see these problems. Usually they have extra staff on hand for just this reason.
I hope they make their target of late 2025 for opening ELE. If for no other reason than it improves things from IDS to Lynnwood.
They are building it right, which is why it’s delayed. Are the elevators broken, or taken out of service for maintenance?
“Are the elevators broken, or taken out of service for maintenance?”
We don’t know. It’s unlikely the elevators would be as bad as the UW and Capitol Hill escalators were, or that ST would procure light-duty elevators after that. And, while one or two elevators are usually out somewhere (mostly SeaTac and Mt Baker), it’s unusual for four to just fail simultaneously. On the other hand, it’s hard to believe ST would schedule routine maintenance on four station’ elevators simultaneously.
It’s already three years late. Still, for people who have to make a workaround itinerary (like I do), it doesn’t matter that much if it’s 3-6 months earlier or later. Cross-lake and Eastside transit is no worse than it has been for over a decade. The Starter Line adds some new trip options, so that’s still exciting for a while.
I was more bothered by the UW-to-UDistrict gap lasting 4 years and stretching to 6, because the gap was short enough that you could walk or almost walk to Campus Parkway or Stevens Way, so it was so-near-and-yet-so-far. In contrast, when you encounter the 550 in a half-hourly period (or when 8 daytime runs are canceled, effectively making it half-hourly), you can’t walk ten miles across the lake (unless your name is asdf2), so you just accept the barrier.
I know it’s not fair or accurate to blame the out of service 2 Line station elevators being out of service on the starter line segment opening before the full 2 Line. And my comment about not pushing to open things early is directed more at the public than ST. Nobody should be advocating or pushing for the Downtown Redmond extension to open in late 2024 instead of the spring of 2025. Open it when it’s ready.
As an Eastsider who’s eager to ride the train to downtown Redmond, I’m happy to have it open when it’s ready; just, I’d like them to work expeditiously to get it ready.
(And I’m still upset that there won’t be stations at 51st St and 60th St.)
The Board Motion to expand the plinth replacement contract noted that the contractor is working 24 hours, 6 days a week, to replace the plinths as fast as possible.
Nobody should be advocating or pushing for the Downtown Redmond extension to open in late 2024 instead of the spring of 2025. Open it when it’s ready.
“Open when it is ready” means opening early. It’s like a restaurant when the waiter asks: “Do you want your salad when it is ready, or with your meal?”
This is basically how the starter line opened. The initial plan (after the plinth problem) was to bring the salad out with the meal. But transit riders (led by Balducci) wanted the salad as soon as it was ready. Sure, it is just a salad, but some people like salad. A lot.
Same goes for the Downtown Redmond Station. Downtown Redmond benefits as much from the starter line as it does the connection across the lake — if not more. Downtown Redmond to Downtown Bellevue (as well as the places along the way) is much improved by Link. In contrast, Downtown Redmond to Downtown Seattle (via Link) is nothing special.
Yes, the current Starter Line terminates short of a major city. A significant portion of would-be riders can’t use it to get to downtown Redmond, or have to make a time-consuming transfer to the B or 545. Sammamish riders parking at Marymoor Village can’t use it. It’s like when U-Link terminated at Husky Stadium; it created a dilemma for getting to the U-District or Roosevelt.
Lazarus, when was the last time you heard of half the elevator bank of a new high-rise failing during its “burn-in”?
Enquiring minds want to know.
About 3 years ago. With one of the buildings my wives company built.
ST uses the same subcontractors for elevators and escalators that the rest of the industry uses. And they get similar results. The only real difference is the environment ST equipment is subjected too.
OK, I’m completely surprised that developers would put up with that level of slop, but I guess it happens.
@TT,
It happens. You don’t really know if all the sensors, safety breakers, etc are properly set until the system is put under real world operating conditions. And often brackets and such aren’t properly tightened and loosen under early cyclic loads.
Reference the “bathtub curve”. It’s sort of a simplistic way of looking at the phenomena, but it gets the point across.
The World Cup is coming in 2026, with Seattle hosting about a half-dozen games. East Link has to be up and running to handle the loads of people based on the Eastside (visitors and locals) going to the games.
One of the related topics at hand is the World Cup coming to Seattle.
One pitch both Seattle / King County gave to the federation was that the East Link would be completed by that time.
Do the plinths have to be replaced in tandem, or can ST complete one track (and turn on the power) so that East OMF light rail vehicles can reach the 1 Line sooner?
I happen to think that the date that vehicles can cross Lake Washington is a very significant opening date. No one seems to talk about it though.
I would assume that it would add significant logistical difficulty to have one track be fully operational for deployment/return of Link trains, which would delay the opening of the rest of the line even further.
The date vehicles can cross Lake Washington is very important for system-wide operations, but I don’t know if it’s worth upending the rework schedule to move that up a few months or weeks.
Regardless of whether or not a single track connection is viable, the date that trains can reach the OMF still appears to be significant for system operations (a date a few months before revenue service begins).
One track doesn’t need to be 100% operational for cars to get across the lake.
In 1990, freight service to TriMet’s Ruby Junction shop was suspended to build a bike path on the former line. So, the new low floor cars had to be delivered to Orenco, which happened before the tunnel through the west hills was fully completed.
To move cars between the two line segments, they finished one track first, and while all the operating details (finishing the zoo station, installing electrification, getting signals installed, etc) cars were moved through the tunnel on this track at low speed using a trackmobile.
This allowed TriMet to remove the troublesome MAX lifts something like a year before the tunnel was completely ready for service.
I don’t see why they couldn’t do the same thing for Link if they just need to move cars over the lake.
But Tri-Met is a bus operator. What do they know about running a Spine?
(/snark)
One track doesn’t need to be 100% operational for cars to get across the lake.
I don’t think anyone disputes that point.
In this case though, the weak link (no pun intended) is the work on the plinths. Everything else is done. I would assume that work on the plinths would be suspended while trains rolled by on the adjacent track. If they are working 24 hours a day on this problem (and it sounds like they are) then this is a delay. It might not be a huge delay, but it would be a delay. It is also possible that working in this manner (work on one track, finish it, verify it can handle slow trains, etc.) delays things as well. It might be significantly faster to just work in the way they have planned. The delay to East Link might not be huge, but it could be weeks, maybe months.
Meanwhile, it isn’t clear to me that the OMF problem is that big. The proposal for dealing with crowding after Lynnwood Link looks symbolic, and not useful. It is quite possible that ST ran the numbers, and realized that crowding won’t be an issue. They have no interest in actually providing a bus alternative that would be popular (and save people time). But they were already contractually obligated to provide express bus service, so they will run pointlessly redundant buses.
There are trade-offs, but it is quite possible that delaying East Link even just a little bit is much worse than connecting to the OMF sooner.
Ross, it seems that the movement of cars could be made as a train a few times a day. Any given point on the other trackway would be stopped for perhaps fifteen (?) minutes. I expect that there are “breaks” that total fifteen minutes every few hours.
Could they not be the same “breaks”?
Of course, that depends on the motive power used. A trackmobile could probably pull only one or two cars up the grades at either end of the bridge.
@Tom — I don’t know how long it would take to send the trains over (I don’t know what the physical headway limits are). People have talked about the bridge itself being a limit (but I have no idea).
If this was a normal project (like the one that Glenn wrote about) then it wouldn’t matter. But if they are really working 24/7, then some workers are taking breaks while others are working on the railroad (all the live long day). [Sorry, couldn’t help it.]
Basically I’m just imagining how it could complicate things. It might not be an issue at all, but other issues might.
The plinth schedule suggests that the segment from Judkins Park to IDS will be completed much sooner than the Lake Washington Bridge approaches will be.
If the bridge crossing schedule gets pushed further away, should a Westside 2 Line from Judkins Park to Lynnwood open early? There is a very long third track between the two stations that could accommodate extra trains, and ST has already looked at adding trains to meet anticipated demand when Lynnwood Link opens.
It looks like the service could start as early as next spring as opposed to sometime in 2026 (if the East Link opening day can’t be met).
Considering the frequency reduction they’re contemplating for Lynnwood Link due to the lack of cars to run the entire 1 Line, I think IDS to Judkins Park should absolutely open earlier than the cross lake, if it proves to be a significant difference. It would be advantageous to all the connecting bus service in that part of Seattle, as well as everyone using Line 1. It would let frequency be as initially planned for both.
@Glenn,
They aren’t considering a frequency reduction for standalone Lynnwood Link. Frequency will be 8 mins, same as the current baseline for the rest of the line.
To achieve this they will use distributed storage and gap trains . It’s a messy, brute force approach, but ST is confident it will work.
IDS to JPS will not be available. That stretch of track is directly impacted by the plinth problem, and last I heard was one of the later sections of track to be repaired.
That’s not what Al S. noted in the schedule.
Well, Lazarus, maybe the panjandrums at ST could reorganize the schedule? Just a wee bit, of course. Nothing too strenuous or more taxing than having the work inspectors oversee a different stretch of track.
Google Maps can help them find the trackway.
It is very good to hear that the contractor is on the trackway 24 hours a day most every day. Hooray!
ST thought it would have to run at less than 8-minute peaks due to lack of train storage space until the east base is accessible, but they later found a way to preserve the current service level.
@Lazarus:
The schedule listed in the presentation (see the article above) says that the IDS/D2 segment plinths are 80 percent complete, and the JPS section is 87 percent complete. To me, that implies that they are approaching completion.
Meanwhile the east and west approaches to the bridge are reported as 32 and 34 percent complete. If these is a schedule delay, that segment looks much harder to finish quickly and seems to be the cause of the possible delay..
Hence, that is why I speculate that maybe JOS could open sooner if the bridge approaches get delayed longer. Sure if it wasn’t a long delay I wouldn’t mention it — but now we may be looking a much longer delay.
Finally, simulated service will be running before opening day anyway. That simulated service will likely carry riders between IDS and Lynnwood before Line 2 opens across the lake. So it seems safer to me to test and then operate the 1/2 Line segment, making sure the branching is operating correctly before the full line opens.
@Al S,
You are conflating construction phasing with some sort of evidence of construction progress. They are not the same thing. Look at the last column, “% Actual vs Planned”.
If you look at the last column you will see that the D2 section is actually running slightly behind the West Approach on progress vs planned, where as it is slightly ahead of the East Approach.
But the numbers are small and not really indicative of something to drive large scale changes in the plan.
As per opening MI with Redmond Link. It won’t be ready. Plinths are just one component that needs to be completed before that section can handle passengers. They still have track installation, catenary, and systems to install and validate.
Redmond Link is already in validation testing, the MI section is nowhere near ready for that.
If it was possible to open Judkins Park Station much sooner than the rest of the line then yes, it should. I would not expect a ton of riders from Judkins Park to downtown (and places north) but enough to justify the service cost (which would be minimal).
Free m what I’ve seen, the track is being finished from east to west.
It’s gonna get messy for st when their co pletion/opening starts to push up aflgainst the world cup soccer games in 2026. Personally I have zero confidence but I’m kind of a crank when it comes to sound transit..
Curiously, the chart implies that the plinths are finished through Mercer Island.
Should Mercer Island Station open at the same time the two Downtown Redmond stations open? I doubt it would pick up many riders — but it could allow for a bus shuttle to Seattle.
In my opinion, no. Too much churn and too little gained for too short of a time. To review here, the 550 provides frequent bus service along Bellevue Way. This means there would be several options, none of which sound great.
* Option A: 550 truncated at Mercer Island (i. e. it runs from Downtown Seattle to the island). No other changes.
Advantages:
1) ST might be able to run the 550 as often as East Link (every ten minutes). Eastbound it could be timed.
Drawbacks:
1) Vast majority of 550 riders have to transfer.
2) Service along Bellevue Way is much worse.
* Option B: 550 stops at Mercer Island and then runs express to Downtown Bellevue.
Advantages:
1) A lot of riders get a faster trip on the 550.
Drawbacks:
1) Service along Bellevue Way is much worse.
* Option C: 554 is sent to Downtown Bellevue via Bellevue Way. 550 stops at Mercer Island then runs express to Downtown Bellevue.
Advantages:
1) A lot of riders get a faster trip on the 550.
2) Issaquah/Eastgate riders get more frequent service to Downtown Bellevue.
Drawbacks:
1) Issaquah/Eastgate have to transfer twice to get to Seattle.
There are other variations. For example they could apply the bus restructure for East Link but run a “bus bridge” (a truncated 550). This has similar drawbacks to Option A and C (lots of transfers) and it means less frequent service (since they have to come up with money for the bus bridge).
I just don’t see it. If this was a long term situation then it would be worth considering a major restructure, but that isn’t the case.
The main logistical issue with using Mercer Island as a bus bridge is there is no way to turn the buses around to go back to Seattle. Both bus stops are east of the roundabout.
Two options I suppose are continuing east to Factoria and using the underpass to turn around, or continuing to S. Bellevue to turn around which means very few riders would get off on Mercer Island, like today.
Another issue I have raised before is how unpleasant the station will be on Mercer Island. It is 35’ below grade between 8 lanes of I-90 without the newer quieter concrete with narrow platforms that are partially covered to allow the noise to escape up the vertical concrete walls. Don’t look for any greenery or daylight.
ST would have never built a station on Mercer Island if East Link didn’t have to cross the Island, the city was not enthusiastic about a station so wanted it hidden, so ST spent as little as possible building basically a dungeon of a station. Forcing riders on the 550 to transfer to Link on Mercer Island would be very unpopular. For the same reasons, when the full East Link opens I don’t think many folks from Issaquah going to Seattle will want to take a bus to Mercer Island to transfer (although they drive to the park and ride). If a lot do they will demand their one seat bus back that goes from Issaquah to Eastgate to Mercer Island directly to downtown, not the circuitous route the 554 takes today. Almost no one is going TO Mercer Island so why transfer there. I think Mercer Island will be mainly a drive through station post pandemic.
I agree with Ross that now is not the time for ST to force unpopular transfers on riders because East Link is five years behind schedule. The beauty of the ELSL is it is voluntary right now. Let riders discover when ELSL is the better option. No one is complaining about ELSL, especially riders on the 550, so why open a can of worms. ST can’t afford to look arrogant on the Eastside because it is five or six years behind schedule.
The problem right now is the ELSL is rarely the better option compared to the 550, or just driving. Transferring at S. Bellevue is hardly better than transferring on Mercer Island and the ELSL serves too many stations today that have few attractions. The one stop, downtown Bellevue, is on 112/110th. Unless a ton of transit riders are headed to Louis Vuitton at The Bravern.
It might get better with downtown Redmond but even ST estimates boardings at that station will be the same as Mercer Island (3000) although I think actual boardings will be higher in Redmond because of town center development and lower on Mercer Island because it will be a lightly used bus intercept.
The final issue with a bus bridge is Eastsiders will go oh shit, East Link isn’t going to open across the bridge for a very long time, or never, because why start an annoying bus bridge if the full East Link opens in late 2025 and we all know ST never tells us this stuff in real time, so we better plan for that, and I don’t think that is the conversation Balducci was hoping for when opening the ELSL.
If there is one main difference I see in Eastsiders, at least where I live, is none of them ride transit for the fun of it. They take transit because they have to, and would prefer to be driving. So they are very sensitive to things that make their forced transit trip more annoying than it already is, like weird transfers or bus bridges that truncate at nowhere because ST is so many years behind schedule. Same reason the 554 will continue to Bellevue Way when East Link fully opens, and some may demand a one seat peak bus from Issaquah to Seattle after East Link fully opens, and no one will want to transfer on Mercer Island. . Just depends which is better, faster and more convenient. ,
I don’t mean to suggest that ST should open Mercer Island early. I’m simply raiding it as a possibility as a question.
It appears that we are approaching the fourth 2 Line delay to get across Lake Washington in just two years. Early in 2022 we were expecting the opening in summer of 2023 (about 16 months away). If 2025 can’t be met, that’s another 19 months! I get why it is delayed. I’m only highlighting that this roughly 18 month wait would be the fourth one. This severely undermines ST’s credibility about telling the public what’s going on. I get moving the date one or twice, but four times? It’s looks very bad for ST to have the same moving target opening date that we did two years ago! Will opening be delayed to 2028? The way that ST is going with delays it’s a reasonable outcome to ponder.
Anyway, ST seems to still not know how to design stations well generally. They’re slowly getting better – but it’s still bad. Building side platforms at many 2 Line stations, not allowing room for future escalators or elevator installations, not paying more attention to platform noise and building awnings that aren’t continuous or in some cases not even reaching far enough to protect train doors — basic design mistakes that appear to have minor budget savings but at its core is bad for riders and station maintenance.
Anything new looks great! But these basic station design choices are really thoughtless for actual daily rider use.
If a westside 2 line to Judkins Park opens before the bridge, that would create a naming dilemma for ST. There would be two disconnected lines known as the 2 Line. Is that tolerable?
If they operated the 2 Line to Judkins Park, I can’t see why they wouldn’t operate a bus bridge between Judkins-Mercer-South Bellevue, thus completing the line. I assume that operational mode is part of their planning for when the floating bridge may be unsafe to cross by train.
It’s not going to happen. JPS will open with the rest of the 2-Line.
What about if the Lake Washington crossing keeps getting delayed? We are approaching the fourth “18 months away” moved opening date in the last two years.
After the long Hilltop delay and now this — both due to bad construction, ST doesn’t appear able to manage building correctly.
I think anxiousness and impatience over the full 2 Line’s opening is causing people to dream-up all these unrealistic stopgap ideas, most of which make no sense. Just be patient.
People said the same thing about the East Link Starter Line. Just be patient (and it won’t happen). In any event, put aside a bus restructure (which I don’t think makes sense) and consider the extensions on their own merits:
1) Downtown Redmond (extension of starter line)
2) Mercer Island (extension of starter line)
3) Jackson Park (branch of main line)
The first and third would seem to add the most riders per hour of service. They are in the same ballpark as the starter line itself.
The idea that it doesn’t matter is silly. Of course it matters. People are being negatively effected because of the delay. It is a different thing but I know people who are considering buying a car because the 130th Station is being added two years after Lynnwood Link. They routinely have to go from Lake City to Bitter Lake, and that part of the Metro restructure won’t happen until then. If we can improve things earlier we should.
The big question is the timing. With the starter line we knew it was going to be quite some time before the line was connected to Seattle. The same is true with these stations. No reason to open a station early if it is cheaper to wait a couple days and open it with the main station. But six months? Twelve months? Different story.
I’m someone who also thought the ELSL should have waited and opened with the full 2 Line, so we’ll just have to disagree on this. I think people should be patient and wait for things to open when they are supposed to open. Lynnwood, then Downtown Redmond, then the full cross-lake 2 Line. I think most of the interim ideas I’ve seen here aren’t good.
@Sam,
My main concern with the ELSL was that it would delay the opening of LLE, which is clearly much more important. But ST found a way to open ELSL without impacting LLE. So good job ST!
As to these other starter lines, they are mainly just misplaced bus-think.
With a bus you have a pre existing road. All you need is a bus stop sign, maybe some paint, a bus, and a driver. Bingo! You’re in business! It’s a simple world!
Rail isn’t nearly that simple, and there is a lot of work that has to be done to activate any stretch of track. And there is a lot of additional testing that has to be done anytime you tie new track into the old. It almost never makes sense to make multiple, minor extensions to a given line in close succession.
And sometimes you physically can’t anyhow. Systems that are designed to operate in an integrated, contiguous fashion can’t always be broken up into multiple discrete segments. Light Rail isn’t a bus.
So activating MI or JPS before Full ELE just isn’t going to happen. Not with the supposed phasing of RLE and Full ELE openings. It just doesn’t make sense, even if it could be done.
The one exception might be a one station Federal Way Link extension to KDS. The reason that extension is different is that it will already be in non-revenue service in support of LLE and distributed storage. That makes it a bit of a unique situation. Most of the work is done, all you need is storage and staff.
Lazarus, agreed. My comment about everyone should just be patient and wait was motivated by numerous previous comments made by different people that stuck me as being either unnecessary, or in some case, just plain nutty. Here’s a few ideas commenters have made lately …
– Create a new ST Express route going from Overlake Village station to the UW.
– Create a new bus route going from Factoria to the UW, via Bellevue Way, and bypassing the Bellevue TC.
– Truncate the route 550 at Mercer Island.
– Extend the B Line to South Bellevue.
– Open Judkins Park station early.
– Open Mercer Island station early.
– Run the 550 back and forth across the bridge between M.I. and Judkins Park.
Anyway, these are the types of ideas that made me say everyone needs to be patient, stop with all the bizarre ideas, and simply wait until the full 2 Line opens. I appreciate the creativity, but most of these idea make zero sense.
@Sam,
Ya, I don’t even read some of those posts in their entirety. Once they go off the rails (pun intended) in paragraph one, there is essentially zero chance that they will get back on track in subsequent paragraphs.
And, as I said, the only one-station extension that might make sense is a Federal Way Link Starter Line to KDM. But that is a unique situation since the line will have been in non-revenue operation in support of distributed storage for 6 to 18 months. Depending on when you decide to open the FWLSL.
And even that is still a big “if”.
Sam, you have conflated ideas about permanent restructure ideas about future bus routes with ideas about temporary service changes to make light rail potentially more useful (admittedly speculatively).
The underlying common message here is that you seem to believe that both Metro and ST are above constructive criticism.
I and everyone else understands that building rail systems and bus route structures aren’t easy. However, asking questions about looking to other alternatives is a reasonable thing for any taxpayer to ponder.
I disagree with you both about considering the JPS early opening. That’s because ST has had to cobble together a host of awkward things to accommodate the trains on the west side of Lake Washington. Opening that track even without crossing the lake would obviously be a huge relief valve to the well-publicized storage challenge. Plus it would put two lines north of IDS, which is where the short-term overcrowding concerns are located as described in ST’s own load diagrams.
Plus, it puts an additional testing step in place as the 1/2 Line split must be tested — and so ST can test that operation without the pressure of also getting service across the lake.
So opening JPS and the Westside part of 2 Line has apparent potential benefits.
To me, the issue is more a matter of timing. If ST can make the 19 month deadline (December 2025) sure it’s fine to wait. However this opening date has been pushed over and over again since 2022. And ST internally knew about the problem in 2019 but didn’t even tell the Board — and more importantly staff was so incompetent and arrogant about their own capabilities that they believed it wasn’t a problem for three years. At this point, ST’s credibility on schedule is mostly gone. And ST still has not told the Board or the public what the new opening date should be; only that again they can’t make the 2025 date. So regardless of whether JPS opens early or not, ST staff still looks like they can’t do their jobs well.
So rather complain about posters trying to make lemonade out of lemons, maybe you both should complain about how ST staff has effectively been repeatedly lying about the East Link schedule for five years now.
All I said was I believe people’s impatience over the arrival of the full 2 Line is causing them to come up with stopgap ideas that, in my opinion, are unnecessary. Not sure how that fits the definition of conflate.
A commenter who travels from Overlake Village to the UW recently said it’s a hassle for him to take the 2 Line from OVS one stop to RTS, then transfer to a westbound 542. So, he said until the 2 Line crosses the lake, ST should create a new Express bus route that goes from OVS to the UW. I wouldn’t say that new bus route idea is making lemonade out of lemons.
“All I said was I believe people’s impatience over the arrival of the full 2 Line is causing them to come up with stopgap ideas that, in my opinion, are unnecessary.”
And you included extending the B to South Bellevue or favoring Bellevue Way K alternatives. Those are long-term issues after the full 2 Line opens. Metro can’t make such large RapidRide modifications within a year and without additional service hours.
Different people have differing levels of patience for the East Link stub and full 2 Line service, and some will inevitably offer suggestions for more interim expresses or such, that others will think aren’t necessary or that they throw a local corridor (Bellevue Way) under the bus. That’s natural for a situation such as this where interim stopgap Link service is being deployed for a time.
I think people should be patient and wait for things to open when they are supposed to open.
Except they won’t! ST is way behind.
Besides, that is silly. If Northgate Link could open a year ahead of time do you think we should wait, just because that was the schedule? Seriously?
Or are you saying they should open in the order they are supposed to open. That is reasonable, since the planning was based on that. ST had to do extra work to open this starter line early. Fair enough.
So you are proposing that Lynnwood Link should not open until East Link opens. After all, that was the plan. The two projects are tied together; opening early causes all sorts of logistical problems. Just be patient. Sorry, but that is absurd.
Look, I believe that the 130th Station should open with the rest of Lynnwood Link. That is the sensible approach. It makes life much easier for everyone. The Metro restructure is much simpler (no two-phase BS). ST doesn’t have to do as much work. But I don’t think they should delay Lynnwood Link until 130th is done. Do you?
We should expand as quickly as possible, and weigh the costs with the benefits. The idea that it doesn’t matter when things get built is absurd. Opening Judkins Park early would definitely help riders (who were promised the station by now). Whether it is worth it or not depends on complicated logistical questions that none of us can answer (in the same way we had no idea what it would take to open the starter line). But they should be considered just as the starter line was considered.
@Al S,
“ Opening that track even without crossing the lake would obviously be a huge relief valve to the well-publicized storage challenge.”
No it wouldn’t. It would actually be the opposite, it would make the storage problem worse.
What are you proposing, that ST run a turnback line from JPS to NGS? ST Ops already took the overlay option off the table a long time ago. So that is a no go.
So full interline to LTC? That makes the storage problem worse, not better.
And ST already claims to have solved the storage issue using distributed storage. So why solve the same problem twice? It just adds churn and chaos to a situation that is already difficult enough.
And ST needs to be focusing on opening Full ELE anyhow. Sometimes it is best to simply focus on the important things first.
Note: I still think there is a way to use on overlay type turnback line to both reduce the storage problem and relieve crowding, but once ST said they had solved the problem using distributed storage, then so be it. Decision made.
If it works, don’t mess with it. And we are only talking about a few months difference between opening to JPS and opening all the way across the lake. It’s just not worth it.
@Lazarus.
I said that opening the TRACK would be a relief valve. You say that having access to more TRACK would make things worse.
I stand by my opinion. I’m really hard-pressed to see how adding at least a mile of TRACK — including a third layover track — makes things worse as you say.
“And you included extending the B to South Bellevue or favoring Bellevue Way K alternatives.”
This would also contradict Metro’s concept of rerouting the B to the U-District à la the 270. It can’t go both northwest to UW and south to South Bellevue. Changing the concept should require study and deliberation, not just tacking it on now without much thought. I’m still in favor of a 270+NE 8th Street line, as it would be a productive east-west grid corridor. (The concept assumes splitting the B at Crossroads, so that the north-south portion would become a different line from Redmond to Eastgate.)
A Redmond to Eastgate Rapid Ride would be a great addition. So splitting the B makes a lot of sense. The only possible loss would be that riders in the stretch between RTS and Redmond T/C would have to transfer to go west. But most of them will at RTS anyway since it will be so much faster on Link.
Folks who make a part of the two legs of the “L” (like from NE 20th and 156th NE to somewhere around 130th NE and NE 8th) will lose out by splitting.
I have no idea how many riders that might be.
“The only possible loss would be that riders in the stretch between RTS and Redmond T/C would have to transfer to go west… (like from NE 20th and 156th NE to somewhere around 130th NE and NE 8th)”
The longer the distance, the more Link is compelling and transfers are OK. Also, residential-only areas get fewer riders than mixed commercial/residential areas. 8th Street between 120th and 156th is residential. My relative lived in the middle of it at 124th. We took the B to downtown Bellevue and sometimes to Crossroads. Occasionally they’d take it to Overlake Village for senior events, but drove for shopping. When we lived east of Crossroads, we shopped at Overlake Village, but it’s not as important from 124th. I’ve never been north of OV much because historically there wasn’t much there and I haven’t gotten into the habit since. But Microsoft workers would commute to there. Still, there are more Microsoft workers near 156th and everywhere else than near 8th. So the L-shaped B has a minor advantage but not major. Its original primary purpose was to connect Crossroads to both downtown Bellevue and Redmond without the cost of two lines. Now that growth on 148th-156th NE and SE has occurred since then, it makes more sense to split the routes. The B is surprisingly slow west of 156th, so few people really want to take it from OV/Redmond to there, both because there’s little in the middle, and because of the travel time through it to downtown Bellevue. So the advantages of the existing L-shaped alignment exist but are minor.
It’s always a tradeoff to split an L-shaped route, but in this case I think the advantages outweigh the advantages. The most important thing is that both routes go to Crossroads, which they will do. And transfers can be mitigated with high frequency and good stop locations. Transfers from the 48 to the G//2/8/11 are not a model.