Better Transit in Pierce County: The T Line

101 Replies to “Better Transit in Pierce County: The T Line”

1. Wow. This is a lot. Thanks for your thoughtful work!

   A couple immediate questions, without diving into supporting docs.

   1. How would T-Link integrate with Central Link at 10 and Commerce?

   2. Can T-link really climb that hill up Pac Ave?

   1. Answered below.

2. I think the most important change here is to not end 1 Line at Tacoma Dome. It needs to go further into Downtown — or it needs to stop well before it crosses the Puyallup River with a more strategic technology like the T Line or conversely a train that can operate faster or on single tracks or on non-electrified tracks being considered. After spending $4B, Link will be slower than the current express buses.

   I see any cancellation of an East Tacoma station mostly as a way to save money. However the TDLE project is still looking at a budget shortfall bigger than a station cancellation would be, plus the tribe is dancing with ST mainly to get a station close to their casinos.

   The ugly truth is that the Link technology of four car trains with drivers and catenaries is not optimal in every setting. In particular, it’s expensive for what the public gets in Pierce County.

   1. I would offer that integrating Tacoma Link should not be considered a new extension, but instead the capstone element of the Link Spine project as originally intended and promised to Pierce County voters. Regional trains should be going to Downtown Tacoma, and Sound Transit should be transparent about journey times from Sea-Tac/Westlake to Tacoma City without it. Tacoma-Pierce County officials should be probing these matters, just as they did in the past. If we must build Link to Tacoma, it should go to actual Tacoma and utilize the existing semi-exclusive right-of-way built for that purpose.

      4-car consists do introduce physical complications, but it can be delivered. Alternatively, the 2-car integration as originally planned by Sound Transit could move forward, with 4-car peak-hour trains ending at Tacoma Dome and all other trains serving Tacoma City. It does beg the question: is there sufficient demand for 4-car regional trains on frequent headways to Tacoma Dome that would make it financially sustainable?

      Should regional trains terminate at the Dome as planned, the T Line must become a far more robust and attractive service and feature an upgraded Dome stop. I am not confident that we are working toward this.

   2. If the gap issues could be inexpensively resolved, it would be brilliant if the T line trains could stop at the Tacoma Dome 1 Line platforms and share TDLE 1 Line tracks for a few miles. That could open up lots of other extension opportunities like a shared T Line/ 1 Line track to Fife crossing over the Puyallup River with the T Line then branching off at the SR 167 crossing to reach Downtown Puyallup, the Fairgrounds and South Hills Mall areas.

      In lieu of that, an E-BART style cross platform transfer is what’s ideal for Tacoma Dome. Honestly, the station planning at Tacoma Dome was done mostly neglecting how it interfaces with T-Link, PT buses and the station area’s walkable destinations. The station alternatives obsessed about where to put rail platforms but didn’t seem to step back to assess the overall rider flow to other destinations and transit services.

      1. All costs being relative, the gap issue can be inexpensively resolved one way or another. Tacoma-Pierce County would not be seeking a tunnel like Bellevue or new stations like Seattle. Presuming the use of 1-Line vehicles, we would be requesting modest platform modifications to (finally) secure level boarding for Tacoma Link and a minimal horizontal gap. Our eight T Line trams would be sold and replaced with wider vehicles, possibly those made by Siemens that are used on the 1-Line. The T Line could either get a voltage conversion to 1.5kV, have dual voltage trams, or possibly even run battery along integrated segments of higher voltage (although this is perhaps less ideal).

         The original Sound Transit/Pierce County subarea rail vision was not fully defined in the past, but it was always integrated. That allowed for light railway expansions that seamlessly connected the subarea and allowed for a diversity of service options.

         Charlotte, NC, is an example of a system where street running and semi-exclusive light rail lines operate the same (Siemens) equipment.

3. Hello Cam, these are good questions that deserve further analysis. These concepts have not been formally explored since 2011 or earlier.

   1. The challenge of this proposal is not getting 1-Line trains to Downtown Tacoma—that is comparatively straightforward and more a function of geometry. Regional trains could ramp down from the aerial viaduct at Tacoma Dome Station, use a level junction to access Tacoma Link, and then operate as local trains to downtown. The main challenge, rather, is the reversal of trains for their journey back to Sea-Tac that avoids disruption to the T Line. There are two leading solutions: reverse on a pocket track set into the center of Commerce Street, or use an off-street facility. My preference is off-street with an island platform station, accessed by a level junction, which also provides contingency capacity at the terminal end of the system. As you will see in the plans, some T Line stations could either be shut down or relocated. Future T Line vehicles would need to be selected to ensure greater compatibility with existing 1-Line vehicles. Current widths differ by mere inches, and T Line trams would need to allow for level boarding with minimal gaps between the vehicle floor and platform edge. Does that mean wider vehicles, or does that mean using tram gap-filler devices at integrated stops? There are options to consider.

   2. There are two rail alignments from the city center to reach the Lincoln District, both of which hosted historic streetcar lines. I only show one option now, Delin Street, which would be a sustained major grade. The easier option is Jefferson Avenue, but I deleted it as I wanted to showcase the pivotal Union Station connection. Jefferson Avenue misses it in favor of Convention Center Station. In a hypothetical integrated scenario, it would also make it impossible to send T Line trains from Lakewood/Tacoma Mall to the airport. Still, it should be on the table. Ultimately, my goal with such proposals is not necessarily to pinpoint what is right or wrong, but to identify alternatives that convey a path forward. That can be tricky.

   In 2011, Sound Transit analyzed the Delin Street route and did not immediately eliminate it, although further refinement could uncover complications. The agency stated, “Grades in this segment (via Delin St.) do not exceed the vehicle max of 9%, but there are stretches where the grade is between 5%-9%. Significant grading and retaining wall structures would be required from Pacific Ave to Delin St due to grade differential and sloping terrain. Based on street configuration and high traffic volume, operation of a streetcar through this segment may require traffic impact mitigation and be operationally difficult. Construction may be more difficult due the possible maintenance of traffic work restrictions. Additional study is necessary. Segment crosses two existing bridges (I-5 on Delin and S 38th Streets), need to evaluate feasibility”.

   1. Yeah, I recall Delin was used in the streetcar network (and the site of the greatest streetcar disaster in Tacoma history), so it was able to handle that grade 100 years ago.

      Did you consider extending MLK across Yakima bridge, or even connecting the mall via the TCC terminus? I’m not sure they would be better, just curious.

      1. Cam, yes, but only conceptually. There are obvious terrain challenges between Hilltop, Yakima Avenue and Lincoln District. This could (probably) be overcome, but it would require lots of money, property takings, and at least one major bridge—likely a few presuming the light railway cannot use existing bridges. For these reasons I largely dismiss the idea but it is an interesting alternative pathway toward the Mall.

         If you visit this earlier story article about transit issues unfolding in Tacoma and navigate to Chapter 4, you’ll find a mapped extension from Hilltop to Lincoln District. Note that, even here, a 6th Avenue extension to TCC is ideal for Tacoma connections. With a southerly extension, it would allow for Proctor District to Tacoma Mall service via Lincoln District, with TCC to the Dome operating over 6th Avenue.

4. Troy,

   As always, great analysis and legwork.

   Let’s assuming T-Link and C-Link can be fully integrated,. Why do you advocate for an integration rather than a same-station transfer? The proposed transfer at Tacoma Dome is mediocre, but if ST pivoted to a transfer at East Tacoma or SFW stations and built something much more tightly integrated could that be a better outcome than full integration? I look at the BART-eBART transfer at Pittsburgh as a template, where the transfer is timed & physically convenient, and the regional wayfinding treats the Yellow Line as a single line.

   1. Integrating T & C Link will be very disruptive. Building the tie-in at a new station (E Tacoma or SFW) will result in near minimal disruptions to existing operations for both T & C Link.

   2. T-Link’s stop spacing and long term ridership demand are better met by a 1-vehicle train. Running the 4-car train through Pierce (really, anywhere south of FW) is overkill and burdens Pierce with unneeded operating cost. As long as T-Link equaled (or exceeded) the frequency of C-Link, Pierce voters/taxpayers are better off running a T-Link streetcar. Same logics holds for Link through downtown Tacoma or a branch to S Tacoma Mall.

   2a. ST can built T-Link extensions to both TCC and the Mall, operating them as two lines that merge at Tacoma Dome and interline to E Tacoma (or SFW). Both of these branches can be adequately served by good frequency of a single Link train.

   3. Placing the transfer at E Tacoma means that the speed penalty of the T-Link streetcar is negligible. Riders still benefit from C-Link’s higher speed once Link turns north and the stations are much farther apart, while benefiting from T-Link’s superior at-grade station access within Tacoma.

   3a. If T-Link is two lines (1 downtown, 1 to the mall), the frequency between Tacoma Dome and the transfer station is very high, so that the transfer penalty from C-Link to Sounder/Amtrak will be minimal.

   4. Tacoma Dome’s station footprint is much smaller and avoids vertical conveyance. A future junction for a branch to Tacoma Mall can run at grade under 705, same as the current alignment.

   4. Introducing a forced transfers at/near the county line is politically powerful. While an engineer may consider the county like an artificial distinction, my transit expertise is Finance. Have a clean break between modes at the county line makes the financial – and therefore political – accounting much cleaner. Pierce riders can have full access to C-Link but the Pierce voters/taxpayers can wash their hands of any cost overruns (capital or operating) on C-Link. (Similarly, King & Snohomish taxpayers need not worry about any cost issues with T-Link).

   1. For 4, would that mean we don’t have to contribute the the crappy and unnecessary 2nd tunnel?

      1. Seems like it, yes.

      2. Yes, that is the exact kind of capital investment Pierce would be able to avoid.

   2. Another option would be for C-Link to terminate at Federal Way or South Federal Way, and for T-Link to come out to meet it. You’d probably need an elevated platform addition at Federal Way, but it’s on redevelopable land or freeway ROW anyway. That would also be compatible with extending the T-Line to SeaTac.

      1. I agree. SeaTac does not seem to me like the obvious turnaround spot. It is definitely a candidate, but I could see other options.

      2. Just to clarify: is the idea that an integrated T Line would run 1 or 2-car trains off-peak to Federal Way, whereas peak-hour 4-car trains would operate from (somewhere north of) Downtown Seattle to Tacoma Dome? I see the obvious merit of that. It ties together the big employment pairs down here, it right-sizes this segment of railway to demand, and it provides more destination pairs for the T Line while serving the broader regional need. It makes sense.

         The major demerit is the loss of direct, all-day, Tacoma to Sea-Tac service. Securing this pairing is the long-standing Pierce County subarea goal and the impetus for Tacoma Dome Link. While terminating at Sea-Tac admittedly adds reversing complications that need to be better understood—and which could result in additional rail/station infrastructure in the constrained environment there—I think it is the more politically savory option over Federal Way.

         Reach for Sea-Tac.

      3. If you invest in interoperability, which basically means replacing the T-Link rolling stock with C-Link rolling stock, then the force transfer really could occur anywhere and flex depending on ridership and political requirements (e.g. a Tacoma-SeaTac 1 seat rides).

         My suggestion was to NOT make the investment in interoperability but move the transition point between C & T-Links to improve the transfer point and unlock a few other benefits.

   3. These proposals try to remain tethered to foundational Sound Transit goals, existing rail infrastructure, ongoing project development, and the needs of Pierce County. There already is a limited appetite to explore new Link options here, so I am doubtful that anyone would jettison the Tacoma Dome Link Extension for an undefined alternative. TDLE is well into the environmental review phase as a full light railway that will accommodate 4-car trains. Unless some major development happens, it is coming. Alternative possibilities that do not acknowledge this truth, regardless of their merit, are not things that I spend much time on.

      So, we could terminate trains at Tacoma Dome. Fine, but we then need a strong T Line system to support it, one that I argue should operate over 6th Avenue to TCC. Our buses should also not be deviated to serve the Dome, as the connection to the T Line should qualify as their connection to the broader light rail system. If ST4 ever funds a railway to the Mall, it should come in the form of a T Line extension. As soon as possible, we should seriously consider integration as part of these scopes of work. If there was a logical means of integrating the railways as part of TDLE, I would strongly support that effort, even if it is throwing good money after bad to some degree. But hey, I am not the one who proposed light rail from Sea-Tac to Tacoma, and if it is going to Tacoma then it should reach the actual city.

      Only heavy rail Sounder needs to stay at the Dome (since we gladly put a highway where the Union Station platforms were). Light rail exists literally to serve urban environments like Tacoma at-grade.

      1. Fair – I’m trying to reframe the “Link from Sea-Tac to Tacoma” policy goal by pointing out that to serve Pierce’s two TDLE station areas with T-Link at-grade stations is better than C-Link eleveated stations. C-Link under Sound Transit’s ST3 engineering standards lacks the at-grade virtures of the light rail alignment delivered in ST1 & ST2. I’d be concerned that if the ST Board instructed staff to convert the T-Link alignment into C-Link, staff would insist on full grade seperations and a complete rebuild of the line, wherease if the ST Board instructured staff to convert the TDLE alignment between Tacoma and SFW into a T-Link alignment, the stations would actually be better and cheaper than the current proposed C-Link stations.

         Either way, there needs to be integration. Full interoperability is a plausible option. A mediocre transfer at Tacoma Dome is the current plan. I am proposing a 3rd option of an excellent transfer elsewhere along the TDLE alignment (FW to SFW will most certainly remain C-Link if only to access OMF-S, so the plausible transfer points are SFW, Fire, E Tacoma, or the Dome)

      2. That’s actually interesting thought. Run T-Link at-grade center-running up 99 to SFW.

         Pierce would then get a substantially cheaper TDLE-lite, and save all the money they would have been having to pay for tunnel in Seattle they would get worse than no benefit from.

         Pierce could then use the hundreds of millions in savings potentially on BRT, or if that isn’t allowed, T-link extension to TCC and/or Lincoln and the mall. Or even upgrading Sounder tracks.

      3. The savings would probably be billions, not millions, actually, right?

      4. For Pierce, at any rate. The rest of the subareas would have to pony up for the 2nd tunnel, or realize they couldn’t afford it and go back to a 1-tunnel solution. Win win.

      5. I’d estimate the savings at ~$0.3B in 2024-ish dollars. Pierce would avoid a new station at Tacoma Dome and have a much smaller station at E Tacoma, with a Link station is generally ~$100MM each. The streetcar ROW is certainly cheaper than elevated C-Link, even with some of the savings invested back into the existing T-Link alignment (Troy’s “Upgrade the Track Capacity of the T Line”), but there is still a need to create a ROW on most of the segment – running the streetcar in mixed traffic is a non-started.

         My thought was to mirror the heavy rail grade: the streetcar can run at-grade until Portland Ave, allowing for the East Tacoma station to be at grade, saving $0.1B, but then cross over Portland Ave and remain elevated to cross the Puyallup river. The train could then drop to at-grade along Pacific, but given all the truck track and the existing TDLE, I would just remain elevated along whatever the C-Link alignment would have been until it arrives at the transfer station, My thought was to put the transfer at Fife, as the SFW to Fife segment will be >4 miles between stations, which is a distance where the higher speed of C-Link is meaningful.

         Plus there are the O&M savings, paying for 1-car trains to run every 6~8 minutes rather than 4-car trains. Also, the O&M would go Pierce unions, not KCM unions, which is a sizable savings as well.

      6. The need for grade separation is an interesting one, no matter if it’s T-Link or C-Link. Given the Fife floodplain and soil issues, I’m not enough of an expert to assess if it would reduce costs much or not — but I do caution that it may not save much. And I would hate to ride a train when the tracks may get wobbly or uneven when used due to poor soils.

         https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/03/02/fife-floodplain-fiasco-pushes-sound-transit-to-delay-tacoma-dome-light-rail/

      7. Can South Federal Way be made into a good transfer station? I.e., have a variety of nearby businesses that passengers could stopover at to fulfill their errands or take a break. Like a cafe/newsstand, quality sandwich shop where you can be in and out in ten minutes, supermarket, library, restrooms, etc.

5. The Tacoma East/Puyallup District stuff is very interesting stuff. I only knew about the casinos (driving by on the freeway), not the plans for a whole entertainment district, and I suspect for many people it is the same. I also didn’t realize the proposed Link station is on the wrong side of the freeway to really serve the casino (Vancouver’s River Rock Casino, this is not). Frequent BRT seems like the most obvious option, but if it politically has to be rail, T-Link seems to be the only way to actually serve the casino and also serve the District without having to run the rail *and* a bus. I wonder if the tribal leaders might get on board with this!

   1. I genuinely do not know why East Tacoma Station is a feature of our current plans.

      We can do better than this.

      1. I thought it was there for the bus transfer, so that R41 riders heading east don’t need to backtrack?

      2. This is indeed an often promoted benefit, but the 41 goes immediately to Tacoma Dome from the proposed East Tacoma Station stop, paralleling the future Central Link. The backtracking that we would eliminate for relatively few riders amounts to 2 maybe 3 minutes of travel time, maximum, and costs a couple-hundred million dollars. A giant chunk of East Side-bound Link riders would be transferring to the 41 regardless, so the transfer being executed at TDS or ETS is not particularly impactful. A new bus-only lane is proposed for Puyallup Avenue for eastbound trips out of TDS, further reducing the transfer penalty. Besides, if the alternative East Tacoma span station is not built, it would be far safer to transfer at TDS than to cross the dangerous Portland Avenue.

      3. I always thought East Tacoma station was part of the agreement to run across tribal land. A station there not only makes Tacoma EQC really close (closer than even Fife EQC?) but sets up an opportunity for other things like hotels or retail on tribal land.

         Generally, casinos are high-activity places (including lots of employees with varying shift hours) with all-day and all-evening traffic, so they are well suited to having frequent rail transit. I wouldn’t be surprised if any hotel built near Link gets courted hard by EQC, especially those south of Seattle.

         Anyway, one pitch to get the tribe on board for interlining is that it would make the casino easier to directly reach from all over Pierce County as opposed to only Tacoma Dome.

      4. The EQC Casino is currently very car-centric. They have several massive parking structures, and are right on I-5. I tried to ride my bike there once, and was asked to leave.

         I did read the transportation section of the tribe’s comp. plan, and they say all the right things about transit and walking and biking. But I’m not sure they are truly dedicated to that, if they can’t even manage a small bike rack on their wide, wind-swept covered patio.

         They are currently building an entertainment district next to the casino, with sportsfields, museum, admin offices and such. They also are expanding on the Tacoma waterfront, with a destination restaurant and a seaplane agreement where Kenmore Air is now running flights out of Commencement Bay. So maybe they will try to make it more non-car accessible. I won’t hold my breath, however.

      5. It must be said that any changes to mobility infrastructure in the area, or which may (in)directly impact the Puyallup Nation, should be done in partnership with the Puyallup—no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

         The point being made is that East Tacoma Station is a bad station in a poor, constrained location. Not much can be done to change that context, regrettably. There are also genuine alternatives to explore, and if stakeholders wanted to have those conversations, I believe we could secure better transit service and real connections in exchange for a deletion of the station.

         I am not aware of any agreement or MOU between ST and the Puyallup that mandates a station at East Tacoma. I may simply be unaware of it, of course. Regarding Central Link, I would imagine that the Puyallup have a stronger interest in the siting of Fife Station and the development near it—and for good reason. It is a much better station in a much better location—an exciting TOD opportunity.

         Like much of Link in the South Sound as it is now scoped, you have to ask: who exactly is East Tacoma Station supposed to serve, and how does it help them more than the alternatives or even existing services? If you don’t have a compelling answer, that is a problem.

   2. Wasting money on a car is similar to wasting money in a casino, so EQC may be right that most of their high-paying clients are drivers. Still, they could design the parking and building so that it has the same amount of parking but has a short unencumbered pedestrian path to the transit station.

6. Thanks Troy, your knowledge of Pierce and Tacoma and transit is very impressive. I don’t understand everything you wrote but will give you my 30,000 foot view as someone who lives in east Pierce Co.

   Pierce Co. doesn’t have a lot of people. Not much has any density or will have any density. A lot today has none.

   I wish Tacoma and Pierce would follow Bellevue and plan as though Seattle does not exist. Bellevue is across the bridge but the eastside is planning as though Seattle does not exist. Everything in Tacoma like Link is about going north to Seattle despite the distance. Tacoma’s planning would have been much better off if Seattle had never existed.

   Someone on this blog asked why folks in Pierce don’t go to Seattle rather than Tacoma. The reasons are the cost of everything in Seattle, cost of parking, the dense areas like Capitol Hill and Ballard are spread out, the time of trip, we don’t work in Seattle, and Seattle is too fancy and posh and I think not as authentic as Tacoma at least for me. Tacoma is actually working class. I feel uncomfortable in Seattle shops or bars just like a lot of Seattleites feel uncomfortable in Tacoma wearing all black.

   I see folks moving into Pierce and Tacoma from the Seattle area. One group is renters who can no longer afford the rent up north. What they learn is apartment buildings in Pierce are rough with your neighbor cooking up Meth (which is why you can afford it) and you need a car. Or couples looking for a single family house preferably in Tacoma now that they can work from home or commute to Seattle or Bellevue 1-2 times/week. Their dream is Capitol Hill of the 1970’s fixing up old craftsman style houses and yards in urban single family neighborhoods with a Broadway nearby. Not multi-family housing in their neighborhood. They are more NIMBY than in Seattle, and came from Seattle. If you can buy a house in Seattle you don’t move to Tacoma, but you want the same thing.

   Tacoma definitely needs more money and gentrification and the pols are chasing that money hard. But it always changes a place like Tacoma, although so far slower than you would think.

   Folks in Pierce are poor. Inflation is killing us. We can’t even pass school levies let alone levies for buses when so few take transit. Even King Co. doesn’t pass transit levies even when they commuted on transit and they have way more money than Pierce. I don’t see a transit levy passing in Pierce and it is risky to develop a transit plan that relies on passing a transit tax.

   For transit to work it has to be walkable at least on one end. In Pierce one end was always downtown Seattle, and the other end park and rides. I don’t think you can change the park and rides, but I wish the other end was Tacoma and not Seattle. Plan transit for Pierce like Seattle never existed and see what you come up with. I think if Sounder went to downtown Tacoma and ran more often that is all the north/south transit Pierce needs since Sounder at least hits Auburn and Kent.

   Anyway just my thoughts. I have no idea whether Pierce can afford Link just to Tacoma Dome let alone past the Dome and it will be a great waste of money especially since I think over time fewer Pierce folks are going to take the trip to Seattle and vice versa.

   1. “Bellevue is across the bridge but the eastside is planning as though Seattle does not exist. ”

      How is the Eastside planning as if Seattle doesn’t exist? The 2 Line Starter Line is a temporary expediency. The 554 reroute, Stride 1 and 2, and Issaquah Link are for better intra-Eastside connectivity, which should happen anyway. These don’t replace Eastside-Seattle trips; they complement it, and also allow 2-seat rides between more parts of the Eastside and Seattle. That benefits people living/working/shopping in both Seattle and the Eastside.

      “Someone on this blog asked why folks in Pierce don’t go to Seattle rather than Tacoma.”

      I asked whether folks in South King County really go to Tacoma that much. Obviously folks in Pierce go to Tacoma if they can, because Seattle is over an hour away by transit, and none of the plans address that.

      “Their dream is Capitol Hill of the 1970’s fixing up old craftsman style houses and yards in urban single family neighborhoods with a Broadway nearby.”

      There may be people who want that, but they’re not our focus. Our focus is on people willing to live in walkable multifamily, or variations such as close-together houses, multigenerational households, or row houses. If they simply want a large-lot detached house to renovate and maybe flip for a profit, then (1) they’re part of the problem, and (2) they have 70% of the land to choose from.

      “Folks in Pierce are poor. Inflation is killing us. We can’t even pass school levies let alone levies for buses when so few take transit.”

      I don’t know how much inflation is killing Piercians, but the inability to pass levies started long before the 2022 inflation. Good investments in transit would allow people to be less reliant on cars, which would lower their expenses. People who resist even inexpensive transit investments are forcing everybody to use the most expensive transportation mode and are tying up land in large parking lots and wide streets, which both drives up the cost of housing and makes places unwalkable.

      1. Mike, I think both east King Co. businesses and transit are planning as though Seattle does not exist. You list some transit examples. Work from home, Amazon and other companies opening eastside offices and moving eastside employees there, essential facilities like major hospitals, transit among eastside cities from Redmond to Bellevue to Kirkland to Issaquah, and much lower levels of eastsiders driving to or taking transit to Seattle all show a shift in planning in which someone living on the eastside never has to travel to Seattle.

         Instead they want to get to other eastside cities. East Link was planned in 2008. The world is a different place and ridership on East Link from the eastside to Seattle is estimated to be around half rider estimates in 2008, maybe less.

         I would like to see Pierce and Tacoma (and S. King which is much more like Pierce than Seattle) do the same. Imagine there is no Seattle, and plan so no one from these areas has to go to Seattle. I am not saying Seattle is a bad place. I am saying the concept that all roads and all trains lead from Pierce to Seattle has resulted in bad planning in Pierce, especially considering the distance.

         It was never Seattleites spending 60-90 minutes going to Tacoma, but always the other way around. We need to stop that. A UW campus, major hospitals, more employment, better connectivity within Pierce and S King are ways to plan so no one in Pierce HAS to go to Seattle.

         I mean doesn’t it strike you as strange that Pierce is paying billions and billions to run Link from Seattle TO THE TACOMA DOME. IT DOESN’T EVEN GO TO TACOMA. And Seattle folks on this blog think that is normal or fair.

         I agree Pierce folks are reluctant to pass levies and have been for about forever BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. Inflation has not helped. My point was I don’t think it makes sense to create a transit system that assumes Pierce Co. Passes a transit tax.

         Can someone clarify something Cam said. Last post someone explained to me Pierce Co. and the three other subareas have to pay half the cost of the second tunnel through Seattle, and Seattle pays half. So for Pierce that is around 12.5%. But someone posted the cost of the tunnel is now $4 or $5 billion. At $4 billion that is around $500 million just for Pierce. Jesus, there is Troy’s Pierce transit tax right there.

         And not only doesn’t Tacoma get a single tunnel we DON’T EVEN GET LINK TO DOWNTOWN TACOMA.

         Like I said Pierce would have been better off if Seattle never existed. We would have planned much differently like the Eastside is doing. Pierce should still do that.

      2. “I mean doesn’t it strike you as strange that Pierce is paying billions and billions to run Link from Seattle TO THE TACOMA DOME. IT DOESN’T EVEN GO TO TACOMA.”

         We’ve been saying this for a long time. The fault is Pierce politicians. The Pierce delegates on the ST board, and the mayors and councilmembers of Tacoma and other cities, wanted C-Link to terminate at Tacoma Dome and later go to Tacoma Mall. They rejected calls to put that money and Sounder money into intra-Pierce transit instead (more T lines, Stream lines, Stride feeders to Federal Way, or other things).

         “And Seattle folks on this blog think that is normal or fair.”

         No, we don’t. It’s only the Pierce politicians and the ST board who think that.

         “both east King Co. businesses and transit are planning as though Seattle does not exist.”

         You can call it that if you want, but it’s the same as a complete intra-subarea AND inter-subarea network. You need both. Both together is better than one or the other. Seattle has the same issue: it needs to improve its local and mid-level transit links between neighborhoods. Large Seattle neighborhoods are comparable to Eastside cities, so it’s the same kind of thing.

         “I agree Pierce folks are reluctant to pass levies and have been for about forever BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR.”

         They’re shooting themselves in the foot by doubling down on car-dependent solutions. It’s not clear that they’re too poor for a Pierce Transit levy; they probably just think they are. And again, investments in Pierce Transit would allow them to reduce driving and their number of cars, which would save them more money than the levy would cost.

         “Last post someone explained to me Pierce Co. and the three other subareas have to pay half the cost of the second tunnel through Seattle, and Seattle pays half.”

         My understanding is that each subarea pays proportionally for its number of trains in both tunnels. That may add up to North King paying half, or it may not. (North King is Seattle, Shoreline, and Lake Forest Park.)

      3. Isn’t the current plan to put the 2 richest subareas (North King and East King) in the existing tunnel, and South King and Pierce in the new tunnel?

         If that is the case, the method of who pays what should be revised because South King and Pierce will be paying substantially more than the value they derive from the 2nd tunnel, solely because they are being booted out of the existing, paid-for tunnel. Am I misunderstanding this perceived injustice?

      4. “ If that is the case, the method of who pays what should be revised because South King and Pierce will be paying substantially more than the value they derive from the 2nd tunnel, solely because they are being booted out of the existing, paid-for tunnel. Am I misunderstanding this perceived injustice?”

         It’s not just lower value. It actually makes service worse for all 1 Line riders. That is not only Pierce and South King, but it’s also SE Seattle too.

         I also feel like ST was disingenuous when it presented the ST 3 map in 2016 by implying that transfers would be easy.

         And of course SODO transfers could be easier if they would just change the way the station is laid out.

      5. “Isn’t the current plan to put the 2 richest subareas (North King and East King) in the existing tunnel, and South King and Pierce in the new tunnel?”

         That was the original proposal, but it was changed to avoid putting all the burden on Ballard/Rainier, South King, and Pierce. It’s not their fault that ST arbitrarily chose to put this line in the new tunnel instead of another line or combination.They have no control over ST’s tunnel allocations.

      6. Wait, now I am really confused.

         Pierce and S King have to pay for their own tunnel through Seattle that continues to Ballard and transfer to it before downtown Seattle. And Seattle and E King will continue to use the old tunnel that goes to Capitol Hill, UW, Northgate and Lynnwood without a transfer and so they don’t have to contribute to the second tunnel because “their trains” don’t use it?

         And Mike is saying Pierce politicians insisted on this when there is now way Pierce can come up with $2 billion for a second tunnel for Seattle.

         Pierce should have know that when they got into bed with Seattle they would get screwed.

         Why can’t Pierce get out of ST and get our subarea loans back and actual transit that benefits Pierce. We don’t need more transit taxes. We just need our ST money back and let Seattle pay for a second tunnel.

      7. “Pierce and S King have to pay for their own tunnel through Seattle”

         No, all subareas are sharing the cost of the second tunnel. They aren’t being discriminated against based on which lines are in which tunnel.

         “And Mike is saying Pierce politicians insisted on this when there is now way Pierce can come up with $2 billion for a second tunnel for Seattle.”

         Pierce politicians insisted on Central Link to Tacoma Dome. They didn’t specifically ask for a second tunnel or to be in the second tunnel, but they didn’t raise any objection to it, and they rejected all our suggestions for less expensive alternatives. We’ve suggested putting three lines in the existing tunnel and canceling the second tunnel,. (Ballard wouldn’t be in the tunnel so it would transfer at Westlake.), or an automated Ballard-West Seattle line that would only need a smaller tunnel and trains (thus less expensive but with 2-3 minute frequency), or truncating C-Link at Federal Way and having frequent express buses from there.

      8. Mike, HOW are they sharing the cost of a second tunnel. You originally said a subarea’s share would be based on the number of “their trains” that used the second tunnel. Then Cam pointed only S King and Pierce will use the second tunnel so how does Seattle or the Eastside pay if their trains use the original tunnel.

         Why isn’t Seattle paying for a second tunnel that goes through Seatttle to Ballard. If this is so beneficial for the region why isn’t Seattle paying for a Link tunnel under Tacoma? Or just Link TO Seattle.

         It just goes to show Link is a rip off of Pierce.

      9. I think, overall, there has been a steady weakening of the value of Central Link as it heads south from Rainier Beach Station. We know that the railway will compete poorly with ST Express bus times to Downtown Seattle, especially in a universe with better managed HOV lanes. That means the line should have emphasized subarea connections, I argue. Well, we lost at least one good infill station from the original International Boulevard alignment into Tukwila, and we lost good infill stations by failing to use SR509/SR99 toward Fife, which I think was a historic error. To then terminate the railway nearly two miles away from Tacoma City, a major urban center of Washington State whose connection by light rail is a bedrock goal of the RTA, is inconceivable. It is distressing to consider the impact of the second Seattle tunnel on the value and performance of the line.

         While Sound Transit was the caretaker of the long-range plan and the source of subject-matter expertise, I largely don’t blame the agency for most of these developments. Perhaps the agency could have pushed back more, but these were political decisions made by local political actors and which kept the ball rolling—for better or for worse. It now is what it is. How can we make the best of it is what I want to know.

      10. With the addition of Ballard and West Seattle Link, the second tunnel is considered essential. A lot of us disagree with that assessment. To me that is the biggest problem (not that everyone has to chip in for it). The obvious alternative is to run more trains through the existing tunnel. But that too would cost money. Having all the agencies chip in for that would make sense.

          Another alternative would be to provide West Seattle with a bus-based alternative. If the buses ran on the surface then it is hard to justify this as the type of thing that every area should chip in for. The other agencies aren’t chipping in for West Seattle to SoDo — they are chipping in for SoDo to Westlake.

          In contrast if the buses ran in a brand new tunnel then Seattle could make the case that everyone should chip in. In other words Seattle can basically say “Well, the alternative is to run in the existing tunnel but that would screw up the trains and since all the trains go through the tunnel, everyone should pay for this new tunnel”.

          This is the reasoning behind the work and just shows how hard it is to figure out a fair system based on subarea equity. In general the areas outside Seattle benefit a lot more from the infrastructure inside then the other way around. For example imagine a Link line from Lynnwood to the county line (more or less Mountlake Terrace). Better yet, go a bit farther south. So that means a line from Lynnwood to 185th. For that matter imagine it going all the way to Everett. So Everett to 185th. Do people in Seattle benefit? Not really. What about the opposite? What about a train from Mountlake Terrace to Seattle (with various stops along the way). Does Snohomish County benefit? Absolutely. They have been running express buses to the UW and Downtown Seattle for decades now. They can truncate them both at Mountlake Terrace or at the very least get rid of the express buses to the UW (which are now truncated at Northgate).

          Pierce County is a little different. They benefit a little bit from Link within Seattle. Someone trying to get from Tacoma to the UW is better off with the train (although the buses were pretty good). Tacoma to Capitol Hill is definitely better, but not that many people make that trip (it is a long ways). East Link seems to add value but a frequent express from Federal Way (let alone Tacoma) would seem to benefit them more. Federal Way Link helps those south of there in the same way that Lynnwood Link helps those to the north. You have a much better bus connection, and you avoid having the bus get stuck on the way into Seattle. But as it turns out, Link from Tacoma will be really slow. When Sounder is running (during rush hour) it is faster (and a lot more comfortable) than Link. When Sounder isn’t running (in the middle of the day or at night) buses are faster. Federal Way Link adds stops along the way (like the airport and Highline Community College) but that is about it.

          Which brings us back to the tunnel. Should Pierce County pay for a Downtown Seattle tunnel given that very few people from Pierce County will ride Link from Pierce County to Downtown Seattle? In terms of the various subareas, Pierce County seems to get the least out of the new tunnel (or added capacity in the old one). You could make a stronger argument that Pierce County should chip in for Federal Way Link instead.

      11. The cost is based on each subarea’s number of trains in BOTH tunnels. As a rough estimate, Pierce, Snohomish, and East King each have 3 shares (their group of trains). North King has 9 shares (all 3 groups of trains).

          “Why isn’t Seattle paying for a second tunnel that goes through Seatttle to Ballard.”

          Because it’s ST’s arbitrary choice which lines to put in which tunnels. If ST changes its mind, should the entire tunnel cost switch to different subareas?

          “If this is so beneficial for the region why isn’t Seattle paying for a Link tunnel under Tacoma?”

          Because downtown Seattle is the center of the network and where all lines transfer to each other. If Tacoma didn’t exist, Seattle would say ho hum. If Seattle didn’t exist, Tacoma and Bellevue would have much smaller economies and jobs and amenities. So a metro needs to converge on the central downtown, and that benefits all cities in the network.

      12. If Seattle didn’t exist, Tacoma and Bellevue would have much smaller economies and jobs and amenities. So a metro needs to converge on the central downtown, and that benefits all cities in the network.

          I see your overall point and I agree with assessment as far as Seattle and Bellevue is concerned. But Tacoma is a different matter. About 18% of the people in Bellevue work in Seattle. This is higher than the number that work in any other city (Bellevue itself is 10%, Kirkland is 4.6%, etc.). In contrast Tacoma is by far the most popular city for employment for those who live in Pierce County. About 16% of the workers in Pierce County work in Tacoma. Seattle is way down on the list (after South Hill, Lakewood, Puyallup, Parkland, etc.). It only works out to 2.4%.

          There are other ways in which cities are tied. The East Side has businesses that are very much tied to those in Seattle. Tacoma has some of that, but my guess is a lot less. From a cultural standpoint there is some linkage. But my guess is it is just so far to get from Pierce County to Seattle that not that many sports fans make the trip, let alone take in something involving the arts. In contrast someone from the East Side wouldn’t hesitate to go to a sporting event, or something like Folklife. There are the UW campuses, but that is about it. While not what it was back in the day, Bellevue remains a suburb of Seattle. Tacoma, on the other hand is far more independent.

          If you want to talk particulars I do think there are cases where it would make sense for Pierce County to chip in for Seattle infrastructure. For example if they added a Belltown station for Sounder. This would be a big benefit to Pierce County riders. The problem with asking Pierce County to chip in for an improvement (if you can call it that) to Link in Downtown Seattle is that very few people from Pierce County will take advantage of it. If they keep the express buses then Pierce County doesn’t get much out of the second tunnel. If they get rid of the express buses then you are asking them to chip it for something that is much worse than what they have now, let alone what they would have if there wasn’t a driver shortage (e. g. buses running every 15 minutes all day long from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Tacoma).

      13. @Troy — I agree with last comment (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/05/28/better-transit-in-pierce-county-the-t-line/#comment-932774). It is the same basic problem with the spine that people mentioned way back when (http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/02/14/news-roundup-geeks/#comment-292594). Things may have gotten worse in subtle (and not so subtle) ways, but the fundamentals were just bad.

          I also agree with Mike’s comment: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/05/28/better-transit-in-pierce-county-the-t-line/#comment-932754. We (on this blog, not your blog) are trying hard to work within the parameters set by ST3 even though we feel like many aspects of it were a bad idea to begin with. It is a strange argument to be making, especially in this day and age (when people are all too comfortable making oversimplified statements).

          I do think that Pierce County is in the worst shape. In most cases you have projects that are just not worth the money. In the case of Pierce County you have project that are not worth the money, and actually worse than the system they have now (let alone the system they would have if there wasn’t a driver shortage). Fifteen minute all-day express buses from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Tacoma all-day long sounds pretty good. Extend buses late into the night and it sounds really good.

          In contrast Link to the Tacoma Dome gets you very little. If you truncate the buses (which is really a given if the train makes it to Tacoma) then people going back and forth from Tacoma to Seattle are worse off. Of course the same is true with Federal Way Link, which is why it will be very interesting to see what ST does when Link gets that far. The plan has been to truncate, but doing so makes life worse for a lot of riders. It seems quite possible that this would in turn get a lot of people to question the value of any extension (especially an extension that doesn’t go to Downtown Tacoma). Throw in the vast majority of existing (and potential) transit riders that stay within Pierce County and I could see a major rethinking of Tacoma Dome Link. At that point I see folks either looking for clever ways to put lipstick on this pig (as you’ve suggested) or just doing what is obvious (put the money into local bus service, express bus service, and Sounder).

   2. I agree that transit in Pierce County should be mainly focused on intracounty, not regional transit, as that’s where most of the ridership is. Even if we had a world class transit system, this would still be true.

      I also agree that inter-city and regional transit would be much better served by more frequent sounder runs than by Link, and even by buses. Even though ST Express buses are marginally faster than Sounder now, and have greater flexibility, that won’t be true in the future, as I-5 slides towards a giant parking lot, and ST forces 2 and 3 transfers onto PC regional riders.

      Part 2 of this series is focused on trains, so there needs to be a strong regional component, because regional transit is, at this point, the only place where trains make sense in PC.

      I don’t agree with much of your societal over -generalizations. But that’s not terribly important.

      1. Even though ST Express buses are marginally faster than Sounder now, and have greater flexibility, that won’t be true in the future, as I-5 slides towards a giant parking lot, and ST forces 2 and 3 transfers onto PC regional riders.

         ST Express buses are faster than Sounder in the middle of the day. This is why the combination of Sounder (during rush hour) and ST Express (the rest of the day) is so good. Riders get a fast ride either way. Furthermore, the only time you will ever get a lot of riders (enough to justify a Sounder run) is during rush hour. Not only that, but because BNSF charges more and more per train run, a MARC style system (with plenty of trains between the two cities in the middle of the day) would be extremely expensive. The cost per rider would be extremely high.

         It is also quite possible that I-5 will finally adopt HOV-3 instead of HOV-2 lanes. But instead of just being “HOV-3”, they will be “HOT-3”. So drivers willing to pay big bucks can go fast, while those in buses (and carpools) will go fast as well. The general purpose lanes may well be a big parking lot, but it won’t matter to the buses.

         The most likely reason that the buses would get worse is if ST shifts service away from the buses and towards Link. This would be worse for riders.

7. “This blog consequently aims to bridge two conflicting views: it opposes the expansion of the railways in Pierce County, but for those lines that exist or are voter approved, the County should do everything it can to ensure that they improve the transportation system.”

   This is what I’ve been saying for a long time about several Link projects and bus restructures: we need to pursue both ideals and pragmatics and not confuse the two. An ideal is Troy’s Link+bus network. Pragmatics is trying to influence an agency’s next decision (to choose be best alternative), or to get it to address low-hanging fruit (something the agency might be open to). That may lead to supporting two mutually-exclusive strategies at once; e.g.,

   A. No DSTT2. Or if it must be built, better transfers than CID/N-S.
   B No Tacoma Mall extension. Or if it must be built, put it on the T Line, or BRT.
   C. No Issaquah line, instead BRT. Or if it must be built, put the stations in the most useful places.

8. I like the idea of using T-Link to get to Tacoma Mall through the Lincoln District. I don’t see the usefulness of using four-car Link trains to go to Tacoma Mall. And we all see how fickle the mall economics can collapse quickly.

   The main negative is the travel time to get there. Every time a light rail car turns in a median it’s going to be delayed a bit. Plus the trains cannot zoom on narrow streets like they can on a street designed for higher volumes like MLK in Seattle.

   1. This is correct. It would be a community-scaled transit route, like what you might see on the tails of San Francisco’s Metro in that city’s outer neighborhoods. Such local transit is what is needed here. The railway would have sophisticated stations, transit signal priority, and preferably key segments of semi-exclusive rights-of-way. It would be a very, very expensive bus on rails (almost literally so, as our smaller T Line vehicles have virtually identical passenger capacity to an articulated bus).

      Of course, it would also be dramatically cheaper than a Central Link extension up the industrial hillside, a major project that would avoid the Lincoln District and serve no urban center well.

      So, in my opinion, make it BRT or deliver a T Line extension to the Mall (and beyond).

      1. If we took a lane for transit on 38th through Lincoln District, either tram or BRT, it would really allow that business district to blossom. As it is, they are increasing density through multi-family, with 3 different 5 over 1s going in near 38th and G. Calming that road down will only accelerate to infill development near that corridor.

         Easily getting to the mall and downtown, if it’s high frequency, would maybe do have some small benefit as well. ;)

      2. Under ST3, a study for a light rail extension to the Mall is funded. That study should happen as soon as possible, particularly as it could directly influence alignment choices into TCC and the Tacoma Dome (should it be a T Line railway). The City should assert its preference for serving the Lincoln District as part of this analysis.

         As further evidence of the need for better planning and right-of-way preservation that would pair with it, two critical properties are being developed into multi-family residential that would likely block Central Link’s best path under I-705 and toward the Mall: 209-233 E 26th St, and 301-323 E 26th Street.

      3. Just permitted or broken ground? Trax bankruptcy bodes ill for developments down there.

         What are my opportunities for advocacy?

      4. The project nearer to the station has clearly broken ground, but I am not closely following either of them. I saw the projects listed on a board created for the Puyallup Avenue Complete Streets open house yesterday. The project closer to 705 was news to me, but it is also not a surprise.

         With regards to advocacy, I frankly don’t know. Make some noise to disturb the policy inertia. At this point, perhaps it is helpful to ask City leaders and the Pierce County delegation to Sound Transit pointed questions about these projects, their cost, and how they supposedly benefit the area—in very clear terms—relative to other options. “How does a $5 billion railway from Tacoma Dome to Federal Way, which dramatically worsens transit trip times to virtually everywhere and forces transfers to reach connections downtown, help my family in Tacoma? Why are we not investing transit in our most productive transit corridors? Can these rail lines become Stride fixed-guideway trolleybus lines instead?”

         However, if you watched the recent May 14, 2024, City Council Study Session with Sound Transit, which is recorded, you’d see that some council members were apparently unaware that ST Express exists. That’s where we are.

      5. The Study Session can be viewed by clicking here.

   2. Agree – running the Link to the Mall as T-Link makes good sense. Looking at Troy’s map at the end of the post, the green, blue, and red lines may never happen if TDLE is built as-proposed, but the purple and orange lines could certainly still occur as a two line T-Link system with ST expansion to TCC, the Mall, and the Tribe.

      However, why not run it through the Nalley Valley? ST owns the ROW, and running is reserved ROW Nalley Valley before turning to run at-grade (along Pearl?) south to the mall (and beyond?) is a excellent use of the light rail/streetcar mode.

      There should still be a frequent route running through the Lincoln District, but given the abscence of any existing rail ROW, that can be a frequent bus route that intersects with T-Link both downtown and near the mall.

9. With compliments to a reader who reached out, I want to note that there is a glaring omission in this piece. It relates to span of service for the T Line, which is rather poor when compared to the 1-Line—particularly Sundays. While this article conceives of a future T Line system that is of high quality—inferring a useful span of service—such things need to be clearly articulated and requested in the Pierce County subarea. We need good transit service here that starts early and runs late, to include the weekends. We have places to go in the evenings and on Sundays.

   If the T Line is to satisfy the objective of serving Tacoma City by light rail, its schedule should become equally as robust as the 1-Line. Furthermore, buslines that interconnect with the T Line should not require deviations to the 1-Line at the Dome to qualify for ST3 (or future) capital funds.

   The T Line is either qualifying light rail or it is not.

10. ✴️ ☠️ 🐴

    It’s never going to happen.

11. Really interesting! I’ll be back with questions and thoughts for sure, but a quick note: Tacoma Link is on the Seattle Subway vision map you linked to. :)

    1. Thank you for this comment. The intent of the passage is to note that the vision map does not include Tacoma Link in the regional light rail system, despite being the first line built for that system. To your point, the text can be read as saying it does not represent Tacoma Link whatsoever, which it does. I’ll consider some ways to clarify that and then edit on my site.

12. There should be (needs to be) a lightrail link between the Tacoma Dome/downtown and South Tacoma station.

    There’s massive residential density and commercial growth intended for the South Tacoma mixed-use center and Tacoma Mall subarea, plus thousands more vehicle trips per day estimated to/from the pending megawarehouse there… so more transit options connecting that area are a must.

    1. Hello HeidiGS!!!

       That’s a good idea. Light rail for the sections of town that are changing. Adding density. New businesses. The places with a vision for growth. Good thinking!

       Let’s get one thing perfectly clear about everything Troy is planning here. Most all the money serves only a small slice of the City. Downtown to 6th Ave. That happens to be the richest and Whitest part of Tacoma. Maybe the rest of the City gets light rail…. but only after the richest White neighborhoods get it first. That means never. East Tacoma is where programs run out of money as Marty Campbell says.

       The problem with this blog is twofold. First it’s always solving problems with other people’s money. That works for mass transit but not housing. Second there’s absolutely no longer term vision or actual urban planning. What you’re saying HeidiGS is there is an opportunity to build something new (and different) in South Tacoma. You get it. Troy doesn’t. His vision of Tacoma is myopic…. it’s his neighborhood mostly the way it is… served by light rail!

       The reason light rail will never go down 6th Ave is that the businesses there have said no a thousand times. This sort of rail plan just pisses them off. No means no.

       Tacoma is never going to adopt anything Troy wants. We have elections and our elected officials already said no to all of this. No means No Troy! No light rail down 6th Ave. It’s already been decided. Please, for the love of God, let it go.

       1. Despite the commenter Tacomee’s strangely pointed response to these concepts, it does give voice to a feeling that some Tacomans have about the North End neighborhood, whose southerly border is 6th Avenue. The feelings are rooted in the City’s racist, discriminatory land-use and real estate practices that largely benefitted the North End before the Civil Rights Movement, and which concentrated marginalized communities within their redlined districts—especially our Black Tacomans. Even in the largely blue and green-zoned North End, black homeowners were targeted with precision redlined districts, just as they were in virtually every American city. This is a real and awful history, with present day implications, and I am not here to change anyone’s feelings on the matter. What I do want to offer are insights and nuance into the present-day composition of Tacomans using Census data, and how that composition may differ from our understanding of what populations of Tacomans live where. That may challenge our understanding of how things are, or of what constitutes an equitable investment. Our city is a complex mixture of lots of people. It is often not just black or white, rich or poor.

          I want transit access for as many Tacoma-Pierce County residents as possible, and buses are so obviously the ideal tool for that purpose. However, we have been given a big dumb train as our mandatory tool to serve some people, and right now only one line is partially paid for: an extension of the T Line to TCC. I did not choose that rail project nor its prioritization ahead of any other corridor in the city.

          My interest in the T Line project stems from the related BRT 1 (Stream) project on Pacific Avenue. Not only did its alignment get truly bizarre in Downtown Tacoma, but it also deleted the popular 6th Avenue section of Route 1. I use the route as an East Sider to access Central and West Tacoma and the transit connections there—like so many others in this part of the city. Route 1, which has long been our busiest transit line, is an essential mobility workhorse for the South Sound. It has its roots in Tacoma’s first permitted busline dating back to 1936.

          You’d think if Route 1-Pacific was converted to BRT, then it’s remainder Route 1-6th Avenue would be next, right? No. Despite 6th Avenue and Mildred Street being our most productive segment of transit per mile beyond Downtown Tacoma, 6th Avenue was not included in Pierce Transit’s BRT plans. The City of Tacoma was not pressing for it either, despite the transit corridor moving thousands of Tacomans each week. The remainder “Route 1 North” would simply terminate at Commerce Street, severing its historic connection to Pacific Avenue and regional transit (which is to retreat to Tacoma Dome). Even more unusual, due to inadequate planning here, two modes of high-capacity transit were then identified for 19th Street to TCC: BRT by Pierce Transit and a street railway by Sound Transit. In our transit deprived area, that makes little sense. Both corridors are deserving of investment. One corridor should not be hosting two high-capacity, high-frequency transit lines, particularly the anti-urban street that is listed as part of the City’s “Auto Priority Corridor”.

          Pierce Transit’s Route 2, the second busiest line in its system, is an excellent busline that climbs directly uphill from Downtown in a way that conventional trains never could. It goes through Hilltop and eventually connects some of our largest educational and employment centers. It directly links University Place and Fircrest to Downtown Tacoma, so it is of regional importance. This corridor is ideal for bus rapid transit, and yet Sound Transit’s representative alignment on 19th Street to TCC has already deprived the line of smart BRT upgrades.

          For Sound Transit, as I have documented extensively, original plans were focused on 6th Avenue because the corridor is a dominant transit artery, is pedestrian-focused, linear, compact, and because it is reasonably close to the roundabout climb on Stadium Way. The whole walkshed along Stadium Way is compromised due to the steep hillside—even the mayor is on record saying it isn’t great—but at least it would get trains to the best corridor for that mode, 6th Avenue. That was the going assumption until the City elected to divert the line down MLK Jr. Way for reasons largely unrelated to effective transit. The 6th Avenue option was otherwise very popular with Tacoma citizens. I have talked with numerous political figures, business owners, their staff, residents, and local transit users and the concept continues to have a nearly universal appeal.

          Today, we have an opportunity to get high-frequency transit on 6th Avenue through ST money (as the 19th Street option is only a ballot representation and has not been validated in any formal capacity), and high-frequency transit on 19th Street through PT money. Both projects are either programmed into current long-range plans or were in the recent past. Furthermore, by serving 6th Avenue and Mildred Street with Sound Transit, we can 100% eliminate the bus service on that corridor, which Pierce Transit calculated as being nearly 45,000 annual service hours. This can be redeployed into other bus corridors, benefitted thousands more people. To me, this seems like a win-win situation, representing either a 60% or 165% increase in the number of Tacomans served by high-frequency transit. Who wouldn’t want that?

          Well, some object to this idea. They do so largely for two reasons. One, some people think that serving 19th Street by BRT instead of trains is taking away a promised public good, instead of viewing it as a generic mode swap. The ballot representative alignment has become understood as a guarantee. Second, others think any investment in the North End, even if it is into the peripheral 6th Avenue, is an inequitable investment—regardless of the fact that this would be a public mass transit line going beyond it to Mildred Street and TCC.

          For the first item, if you think BRT or buses are lesser than streetcars, then I just profoundly disagree. Buses are great and can be made incredible. People will carry their prejudices about them, however. For the second item, 6th Avenue is hardly Beverly Hills, and it has little relationship to the water view mansions near the Proctor District. It is an old working class urban district with a wide variety of business and services. Not too long ago I wrote about the composition of people in the walksheds of 6th Avenue and 19th Street. Yes, 6th Avenue is whiter and wealthier overall relative to 19th Street, but the difference is not striking. The difference amounts to a few percentage points. Over the last few decades, Black Tacomans of the Hilltop area and 19th Street have been leaving, and it is undergoing a historic evolution of its demographic makeup. Furthermore, 6th Avenue and Mildred Street have substantially greater numbers of people of all races and incomes and backgrounds that, in total numbers, far exceeds those of 19th Street. It not only has more rich people and more white people, it also has more Black people, more veterans, more disabled people, more low income people, more Asian people, more car-free households, etc. It just has far more people. Residents of Hilltop also have desires or a need to go to 6th Avenue, Mildred Street, and the full width of the TCC campus. I argue that they would be incorporated into a better T Line that is primed for future expansions under this plan.

          My equity lens seeks to serve as many Tacomans by transit as possible in an efficient manner, regardless of mode. This is especially true for our vulnerable and historically marginalized populations. I think this plan does that, in a transparent manner, and paints a path forward that has not been articulated for Pierce County in the past. If we are going to have a T Line, make it great. If we are going to have a $5 billion railway to Tacoma, make it go to the city center—and put bike lanes on its new Puyallup River bridge. These systems should be responsibly overlayed onto an excellent Pierce Transit network that does most of the mobility legwork and is well funded. That is what I want.

          What is Tacoma-Pierce County’s formal, comprehensive vision for its transit? I don’t know, but this plan—or parts of it—is one option to consider.

       2. I sense you really want better transit, Troy. I think that’s great! I also think the 6th Ave/ Pacific bus makes sense. I was saddened that the Stream planning had to deviate the route to Tacoma alone to mitigate the terrible Tacoma Dome site layout (just move the Link platform 500 feet west , dang it) and continue on 6th!

          I also understand the comments by many that rail line choices in Pierce have not been very strategic. They’re expensive and take several years to build, making local businesses suffer for a very long period of time. And a route like T Zlunk that doubles back several blocks away seems pretty silly.

          A good and productive bus route on a neighborhood commercial street does not usually merit a streetcar or rail route though. Trains don’t have the flexibility that a bus has to start and stop and pull around parking cars and delivery trucks that anre common on a lively neighborhood commercial street. Even in Seattle, streets like Rainier, California and Ballard Avenues don’t have visions for streetcars or light rail for a reason.

          I really do like the idea of getting more productivity out of Link tracks by overlaying shorter trains and using those trains for extensions.. However, the real power of rail is when it can be fast with stops mostly further than a half-mile apart! It’s what motivated the use of faster freeway corridors between stations in lieu of old rail corridors (yet I wish the stations were better sited). Even RapidRide D is on 15th and not Ballard Ave.

          It’s why I have suggested elsewhere in this post to look at key destinations with an eye to connecting them. Local buses serve corridors; rail should connect destinations that are further apart.

          Every transportation mode has its best situations and others where it isn’t useful. It’s like how it would be silly to fly between SeaTac and an Olympia or drive to Miami from Tacoma or ferry from Bellingham to Tscoma.

    2. This thread is for HeidiGS’s suggestion to address growth areas at Tacoma Mall and South Tacoma. Demographic issues and nimby opposition can be in a separate thread.

13. No open thread this morning because Nathan is away and I’m swamped with a work deadline. The Pierce County series continues tomorrow with a look at bus infrastructure, and the news roundup will come when it’s ready.

14. “ Pierce Co. doesn’t have a lot of people. Not much has any density or will have any density. A lot today has none.”

    Certainly, Pierce County is very low density in the developed areas. However, it does have over 928K residents. That is a lot of people — more than Snohomish, more than the Eastside and more than the City of Seattle. That deserves good transit.

    The next fact is that major destinations in Pierce are not attracting large volumes of activity, as well as they are not centralized in a walkability sense or even linear. If the county revolved around Downtown Tacoma it would be different but the greater downtown area feels smaller than Spokane (a county with only 551K residents).

    I think these are the core dilemmas: How does a transit system serve a very large lower density area without a strong hub? How should it serve short-distance trips, trips across the county or trips to major hubs like SeaTac and Seattle? And how important is transit speed?

    It’s always tempting to begin by drawing rail extensions and new routes. But every technology and corridor objective has implications for system layout.

    My sense is that the biggest missing transit travel need is to connect across the county with frequent, faster transit. ST addresses bigger regional hub connectivity (JBLM excepted although it’s decentralized ) and the current bus system serves local trips (albeit without enough funding). But that is just my armchair perspective. Is this correct? If so, then that gap needs to be explicitly prioritized in the system discussion.

    Then I think that spending money laying rail and all that necessary structure under the ground to prevent it from sinking into the ground needs proven ridership levels using rubber tires first. Even if there was consensus to lay rail, it doesn’t happen quickly (noting that ST3 passed in 2016 with the corridor stated in ST2 in 2008, and TDLE opening is pushed back to around 2035). Keep in mind that if ST didn’t have strong day-long Express ridership over these past few decades that TDLE wouldn’t be on the table.

    I thought that Stream was channeling an important missing need (longer intra-county trips) but too difficult to design. Plus I see TDLE as a train that is getting stuck in financial quicksand (ballooning costs for little travel time benefit along with impending further burden of contributing to underbudgeted DSTT2).

    A good compromise may be to walk away from the specific Stream corridor and end TDLE in Fife for now, and use the leftover billion (more or less) as the seed for building a suite of projects (bus lanes, bus freeway ramps) that would enable faster and more frequent intra-county bus service. Once that new system is laid out, then I think it will be clearer what long-term rail investments to make to enhance its productivity.

    1. In the previous Introduction article, an ArcGIS map representing the proposed investments of this series is included (see it by clicking here).

       Review the layers of the map. You will find that I created three Census data layers that helped inform my proposals: a total jobs count by block group, a jobs density by block group, and a population density by block group. This allows you to see the spatial distribution of jobs and people in Pierce County.

       I completely agree that the county has weaker centers and corridors today. However, they can be nicely teed up for future success with smart transportation investments.

       1. I think it would help to go back to the drawing board and look at some things. First list the top 17 walkable destinations in Pierce County — employment, shopping, education or whatever. Add to that up to 3 other destinations in King County. Those destinations are just as important as gross density is.

          Then calculate the estimated total transit travel time between each activity pair. ,lThat includes in-vehicle time, wait time and transfer time. Look at the rider travel time today versus use transit with this proposal. Then compare that with the overall distance to come up with effective average rider speed to ride transit to get between them.

          It’s a lot of what-ifs to fill out 400 combinations but it would help to illustrate the value in your proposal. The network should improve travel time for riders as a primary goal. Better travel time benefits existing riders and attracts new ones.

          The big tragedy of TDLE is that it doesn’t improve rider travel times. That’s the basic problem with much of ST3. It actually makes many worse! The ST Board summarily ignored this and instead figuratively played with crayons ( literally with DSTT2) on a map— and are now laminating their $50B (?) crayon drawing.

          So prove them wrong — at least for Pierce County!

       2. “You will find that I created three Census data layers that helped inform my proposals: a total jobs count by block group, a jobs density by block group, and a population density by block group. ”

          This is great! As usual, you answer my questions before I ask them.

    2. How does a transit system serve a very large lower-density area?

       Buses. As many buses as you can afford.

       Troy’s approach is to assume that the powers that be rejected that idea and want trains. If you are going to have trains, then you might as well try to make the most out of them, and that is the reasoning behind Troy’s proposal.

    3. The primary issue is those 928K residents. That’s more than San Francisco, Seattle, or Dusseldorf. It’s too many to leave with 30-60 minute transit as if it’s Mt Vernon or Vashon Island. There are many corridors and neighborhoods that can support 15-minute full-time transit. You just have to look at the commercial districts and multifamily buildings to see what should be well connected with each other. If Tacoma really is a major draw for the rest of the county, people need a way to get there, and between Tacoma neighborhoods. The idea that the Proctor district is emerging with walkability and destinations but don’t count on transit because it barely exists and is not coming, is wrong.

       Since the area is adverse to midrise/highrise density, a bus approach is indicated. Get those buses up to 15 minutes. It a larger T-Link expansion is desired, get at least some of the bus routes first even if the rest proceed in parallel.

       For intra-Pierce expresses and limited-stop routes, I don’t know what’s needed. It depends on what an acceptable travel time for Tacoma-Lakewood, Tacoma-Puyallup, Tacoma-Spanaway and such is, and whether full-stop routes can reach it. How long should it take to get from downtown Tacoma to Lakewood TC if that’s just part of your trip? People think a 20-30 minute trip is good, and when it approaches an hour that’s getting bad.

       Link in Pierce County is more something that’s happening in spite of good-transit advice rather than because of it. So if it’s going to happen anyway we have to work around it, and try to get the stations in the most useful places we can.

       All this would require a significant increase in Pierce Transit funding, and it would be the lead agency. Sound Transit would help fulfill the more regional parts of the plan, whether Link, express feeders, or Stream-like investments. But it should help fulfill a comprehensive Pierce County transit plan, not be a few lines in a vacuum. Pierce Transit has reasonable long-range plan, so that’s a starting point, and Troy is unveiling an alternative plan.

       The main bottleneck and the biggest thing that would need to happen, is for Pierce politicians to embrace a major improvement to overall transit, and to outline a strategy to get it funded and approved, and be serious about following up on it.

       “I thought that Stream was channeling an important missing need (longer intra-county trips) but too difficult to design”

       It’s not any more difficult than RapidRide G or the Swift lines. It just had an inadequate budget, and politicians unwilling to convert GP lanes to transit-priority lanes like the project envisioned. So the solution is to fix those.

    4. Tacoma is 223,859 population. I would argue Tacoma is pretty good density for Pierce Co. which is 1.7k sq miles.

       It is the rest of Pierce that is very undense. Which is why I think what is critical is east/west connections to Tacoma, not north south to Seattle.

       Look at East King. It is around half of King Co. so around 1.1k sq miles. It has I-90 and 520 going east/west, as well as most of East Link. That is what Pierce needs. You can’t go east/west and most of the population centers live on an east/west axis.

       I would end Link in Federal Way. I mean what is the huge difference to Tacoma of ending Link in Federal Way or Tacoma Dome, except around $4 BILLION.

       It’s like Seattle designed our transit system. We need to begin to forget about connecting with Seattle. We have Tacoma and very few other areas in Pierce will have the density for transit so park and rides to the city it will be, like in Shoreline and the Eastside.

       1. “It’s like Seattle designed our transit system. We need to begin to forget about connecting with Seattle.”

          It was Pierce and Snohomish who pushed so hard to be included in Sound Transit and to put a Tacoma-Seattle-Everett-Redmond spine above all else. The first downtown tunnel was built by King County. A light or heavy rail network could have been built by King County too. But what the region asked the legislature for was tax authority for was a multi-county network. 4/5 of the region’s population and representatives are outside Seattle, and the legislature was partial to suburban commuter interests, so that’s the kind of network we got. It’s not Seattle imposing its vision or demands on the region.

       2. Even Tacoma itself has surprisingly low density. I say surprising because it definitely feels like a real city. But if you look at the census data, there is surprisingly little that is as dense as a typical single-family Seattle neighborhood. It is way below the point where rail makes sense.

          If you can’t justify rail inside the city then you sure as hell can’t justify a line like Tacoma Dome Link. It isn’t even light rail (i. e. it doesn’t run on the surface and is thus cheap to build). It is basically a metro — AKA a subway — an extremely-expensive mass-transit system with only a handful of stops. There is no set of stops big enough to justify the cost. Tacoma isn’t that dense and the areas outside them — even to the north — aren’t that dense. If Federal Way looked like Downtown Bellevue then I could see it, but it doesn’t. Holy cow, we can just look at how many buses go between these areas (very few). In contrast, the most successful parts of Link are trips that buses covered already and were very crowded (Northgate to Downtown, Northgate to UW, Roosevelt to UW, Roosevelt to Downtown, etc.). Link made many of these trips (e. g. Northgate to Capitol Hill) much, much faster. Since this basically follows the freeway and will require a transfer for almost everyone in Tacoma, there is basically none of that. It is just a bizarre leapfrogging of mode and investment.

          If not for Seattle itself the idea would be laughable. But it doesn’t work well for getting to Seattle! Commuter rail is faster when it runs and express bus service is faster when commuter rail doesn’t. It is a bizarre misunderstanding of what a metro is really good at, or when light rail (a niche system) works really well. It was designed by amateurs who meant well, but had no idea what to build.

    5. Checking density maps I only see a couple pockets of density:

       Namely Tacoma downtown, University of Puget Sound, apartments near Tacoma Mall, and lastly apartments to the east of the i5 and highway 512 intersection. above 4k people per sq km

       The rest of the census tracts are mostly at 1k people per sq km.

       https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#10/47.3770/-122.3808
       https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=a1926cb43e844c3f82275917d6eab47a

    6. Al S.

       Not only does your thinking here make sense….. it’s really in realm of what’s politically possible. After Hilltop, there’s not much support for tearing neighborhoods from Hell to breakfast for years building another rail project. Most pols I know are seeing buses in a brand new light.

       1. “Most pols I know are seeing buses in a brand new light.”

          When will this be large enough to be visible without a microscope?

       2. I think most pols in Tacoma look at the Hilltop light rail as folly…. the time and cost overruns were politically painful.

          Then ST messed up the whole #1 Rapid Ride or whatever the cool kids are calling it now. That isn’t helping. ST is toast in Pierce County… it’s all over but the crying. It’s only a matter of time before the GOP led County government sues Sound Transit. Lots of stuff will be possible with Trump in office again.

          I believe there is support for a levy to help bus transit in Tacoma proper…. but not the County. If Troy actually wanted to help transit in T-town, he could get that levy on the ballot. My political guy (a campaign professional) believes a pro Tacoma Transit bus levy would pass by 3-5%. This was over drinks last Summer.

       3. “I think most pols in Tacoma look at the Hilltop light rail as folly”

          They’re the ones who chose it! They’re the ones who can cancel it.

       4. County council is 5-4 blue. The next executive is very likely Ryan Mello, a progressive who also manages to get things done. Hard to see Tacoma from Salt Lake.

       5. Cam
          Yeah, even as someone living in Denver at the moment, I’m more optimistic for Tacoma than deeply cynical about it. Nothing is set in stone forever and the city is getting better bit by bit as someone who was born and raised in Tacoma, graduated from a Tacoma High School, and live part of his 20s off and on in Tacoma. It’s not the same place it used to be 20 or 30 years where people wrote it off as a place not worth improving.

          Shoot for the moon. And if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.

15. Forgive me if you’ve answered this already, but how exactly will same direction transfers work at SeaTac? Is the plan to expand the station, or to just have the trains drop people off and then turnaround (thus overlapping for a little bit)?

    1. This is not answered and presently unknown. I wonder if Sound Transit ever produced plans that organized a Sea-Tac connection since their early system concepts considered it an option.

       Today, I’d imagine the least disruptive option would be the addition of one or two terminal tracks on a parallel guideway there, potentially giving at least one direction an easy transfer. Others would transfer through the covered mezzanine. Of course, Sea-Tac’s island platform means that easy, same-direction transfers are not guaranteed.

       A 200′ southerly platform expansion toward the pocket track could be possible, with Central Link trains reversing on the crossovers north of the station. That would be a complex project to design and manage, but a clever option if deemed practical.

       The through-running of T Line trains past Sea-Tac to a pocket track or reversing loop is also conceptually possible, although requiring some deadheading and potentially additional infrastructure.

16. Troy,

    I’ve read your rail plan and I’m honestly not impressed. You think you’re doing work, but….. this isn’t the sort of work that gets anything done. It isn’t even helping fix the lame transit system we’re currently stuck with.

    Have you got a single elected official to endorse any of this? Have you even tried? Have you shared your grand light rail plans with the business owners of 6th Ave? Do you have a letter of support signed by any business owners? Anybody actually? One dude with a plan is a recipe for change.

    You want to walk from say, Southern Kitchen to Tacoma Boys and get 20 business owners to endorse this? ….. Take that to the Sound Transit Board and maybe something could happen. Until you do the political legwork on this…. why even discuss it?

    Walker hates you, doesn’t she? Doesn’t return email? There is a way to get things done though the right channels. This isn’t the way.

    1. “I’ve read your rail plan and I’m honestly not impressed. You think you’re doing work, but….. this isn’t the sort of work that gets anything done. It isn’t even helping fix the lame transit system we’re currently stuck with. Have you got a single elected official to endorse any of this? Have you even tried?”

       Where’s your plan? In order to get elected officials to endorse something, you have to have something to endorse.

       “Have you shared your grand light rail plans with the business owners of 6th Ave?”

       Troy has published this plan for a while now and is trying to convince politicians and business leaders and residents in Pierce County to adopt it. I don’t know who specifically he’s talked to. Turning the plans and attitudes around 180 degrees will obviously take months and years. Troy’s original article and this copy of it is an early step to spread the word, not something you do after you get the endorsements. It’s something you do in order to get the endorsements.

    2. And you’re focusing on 6th Avenue alone when it’s an entire citywide/countwide network proposal.

17. tacomee: “That’s a good idea. Light rail for the sections of town that are changing. Adding density. New businesses. The places with a vision for growth…. Most all the money serves only a small slice of the City. Downtown to 6th Ave. That happens to be the richest and Whitest part of Tacoma.”

    Transit most needs to serve the areas that are the most walkable and have the largest existing variety of destinations. That’s where the most people can use it, and where it can benefit the largest percent of residents and visitors. It’s our vision so it should reflect our values. (“Our” mean Troy’s and mine and those who support it. I’m supporting it because I’m not qualified to make a better one.)

    You’re saying we should skip the highest-ridership area because of demographics? Demographics change over time; specific businesses change over time; but the level of transit potential remains long-term.

    It’s important to serve existing denser/walkable areas because they’re proven. New areas may not really develop, or may not get as much variety, or may have too many garages and overscaled modernist buildings to be inviting. It;’s why we had to serve the Ave and Broadway and why we should serve Real Ballard, because they’re proven successful. The Spring District is still unproven. 15th Ave W hasn’t shown that it can attract pedestrians as much as 22nd-24th. Roosevelt Way in the U-District hasn’t shown it can attract pedestrians as much as University Way. We need to serve the longstanding successes and expand from there, not put all our eggs into future development areas that may or may not pan out.

    “The problem with this blog is twofold. First it’s always solving problems with other people’s money.”

    We’re arguing for collective action that benefits everyone in the area, and for basic infrastructure. That’s what governments and taxes are for. Waving it away as “other people’s money” for “our private/parochial interests” results in a sucky living environment forever.

    “Second there’s absolutely no longer term vision or actual urban planning.”

    That’s what we’re trying to get the politicians to do. We’re doing it because they aren’t. So that we can show the politicians and the public what they could have.

    “The reason light rail will never go down 6th Ave is that the businesses there have said no a thousand times. This sort of rail plan just pisses them off. No means no.”

    When the MLK alternative was chosen over 6th Avenue, it was for equity and to serve future development. It wasn’t because 6th Avenue said no. You’re talking about a subset of current businesses and people who go there. Why should they be able to make the decision for everybody, and deprive the other businesses/residents/visitors of normal transit access that cities have? Other people in STB comments have said they want to take frequent transit to 6th Avenue. So the number is larger than zero. They should be deprived because some businesses are hostile?

    1. Oh Mike Orr,

       You just don’t get it. The reason light rail went to Hilltop wasn’t because of equity and future development. It’s because the business owners on 6th Ave said “Fuck No!” really loud and many, many times. That has not changed.

       What you and Troy don’t have is what GW Bush called “The Vision Thing”. 6th ave has said no to upzoning time and time again. They’re currently fighting it now. It is what it is. It’s a sort of walkable neighborhood where the home owners and businesses do not want change. Except for a Trader Joes. They’ll take a Trader Joes but only if it has parking.

       https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/planning_and_development_services/planning_services/one_tacoma__comprehensive_plan/one_tacoma__map_index

       Look at the growth maps put out by the City Government. Where is the planned growth? Tacoma Mall and the South End have open land to develop …. and open minds to change. So does the Lincoln District and Eastside. That’s where the train should go. Build the neighborhood you want there. Nobody is standing in the fucking way, Mike. Have some vision here.

       You may think I just hate Troy’s rail plans, and you’d be right. But not as much as the 6th Ave NIMBYs hate them. No means No.

    2. “The reason light rail went to Hilltop wasn’t because of equity and future development. It’s because the business owners on 6th Ave said “Fuck No!” really loud and many, many times.”

       That’s not what I heard, and not what the ST board said. If they didn’t want 6th Avenue or there was too much opposition, they could have just canceled the extension and not put it anywhere.

    3. We could do everything except 6th Avenue, and it would still be good.

18. Pierce Transit’s long-range plan. “Destination 2040”, Appendices, page 6 (in appendix B).

19. I love everything that’s laid out here, especially as I’ve ditched the car in favor for busses. Great article.

    All of these alternatives seem significantly more cost efficient and useful for the whole community. Though how feasible are they? Is there any way Sound Transit revises their plans for something else, or Pierce County steps up?

    It feels like Pierce County is begging for better connectivity, and it’s starting to feel like we may never get it.

20. Does the OMF issue need discussing? OMF-S cost is about half of TDLE.

    The more that T-Link gets expanded, the bigger the OMF needs to be for T-Link vehicles. And the current T-Link facility in East Tacoma looks tough to expand.

    So one solution might be to convert T-Link vehicles so that they can be operated on C-Link tracks and serviced out of OMF-S. That is a compelling argument for creating interlined capabilities no matter what service plan results. Then it becomes a small project to create platform gaps that fit the vehicle widths.

    At that point, the operational possibilities become much more flexible given reversing tail track locations in South King. T-Link nonstop to SeaTac? Future C-Link branching to Downtown Kent instead? The new opportunities would be many.

21. SoundTransit’s own ridership estimates in 2019 show ridership of the 1 line south of Federal Way to be around 1/4 that north of SeaTac.

    Therefore, I’m not sure there’s much point in running the 4 car trains south of Federal Way.

    I’d just run your proposed Tacoma- SeaTac trains all day, at a frequency to match Line 1. Plan the schedule so that northbound, the T line trains go through 2 minutes before the 1 Line trains, and southbound the 1 Line trains go through 2 minutes before the T line trains. This results in minimal delay for those needing a connection to go further in either direction.

    Due to limited space at SeaTac, the end point and layover space may need to be at Tukwila.

    The T Link cars are 8 inches narrower than Central Link cars, so to adapt T Link to accept C Link cars, it may be necessary to move a few trackside structures. The catenary poles down the center between the two tracks by the courthouse are one example. To solve that, the poles would have to be moved to trackside, as done on MAX along NE Holladay Street. It’s not difficult, but something that would need to be done to integrate the two.

    1. Doesn’t reversing require going into a pocket track to avoid blocking other trains, especially with layovers and driver breaks? So they can’t just terminate anywhere; the station would have to be designed for it. And adding a side track spur to an existing elevated station sounds expensive.

       1. Expensive, you say? Just add it to the tab!

          In all seriousness, due to past choices—especially the failure to honor City of Tacoma staff recommendations that no expansion of Tacoma Link occur before its conversion to the Central Link standard—it is necessary for Pierce County to spend more to secure tolerable regional transit outcomes. I acknowledge that this is a big pill for many to swallow. It may preclude integration despite its relative affordability and clear benefit. Regional trains would thus end at a parking garage on Tacoma’s industrial edge and we will be told how marvelous it all is.

          However, if we were to embark on a Link revisioning here, a system split at Sea-Tac on an integrated light railway makes sense. Sound Transit planners were once tracking on it. Presuming 2-car integration, we right-size consists to demand and get 4-car Tacoma Dome-North King trips during peaks. 1 or 2-car trains then provide more off-peak travel options in the South Sound. The Sea-Tac connection works to insulate our half of the system from disruptive shocks emanating from the Rainier Valley or elsewhere. A Federal Way transfer delivers many of these benefits too, though it has reduced appeal. If this concept requires a new elevated station track or two, or some other civil feature, then let’s work that out. This specific piece of infrastructure would constitute an enhancement with systemwide value.

          How much did City of Bellevue pay for their curvaceous little tunnel again? Rhetorical question. If only Pierce County was so brazen in its visioning.

          A complete tangent: it seems like an incredible oversight that East Link’s bridge over I-405 does not include bike-ped facilities. The pricy Grand Connection would be obsolete had it been included. I think I flustered some City staff during the 2-Line opening when I asked, “Why didn’t we just put the path on that new rail bridge behind you?” Let’s avoid the same error in Pierce County and explore such options for the Puyallup River crossing.

       2. Indeed. Right now the only way for a walker or biker to cross the river at all is Lincoln St bridge, which is back-back semi trucks most of the day, incredibly dangerous, and way out of the way of all but those moving frieght.

          I don’t know what it takes to reverse the T-line, but it needs to go all the way to Tukwila, that might provide the added benefit of the connection to the F, and 2 seat ride to Burien and Bellevue.

Comments are closed.