As part of ST3, Sound Transit plans to build an infill station at Graham Street between the Columbia City and Othello stations. To start the public engagement, Sound Transit opened an online open house and will host an in-person event on Tuesday, July 16th, nearby.
The Graham Street Station had been under consideration for quite a while. I’m glad this very diverse neighborhood will be served with a separate stop as both adjacent stops are quite far away. With the help of Puget Sound Sage, the neighborhood developed a vision document in 2019. It pointed out many opportunities for this community and also a lack of transportation and the hope to get a light rail station soon. The open house is soliciting input on station access and whether the station should be placed north or south of the Graham Street intersection. As there is more commercial activity on the north side, I would favor that side.
MLK has had a large number of traffic fatalities. Both SDOT and Sound Transit have worked on improvements. The Sound Transit System Expansion Committee will discuss further work this Thursday. I do expect that Sound Transit will apply learnings from such fatalities when planning this infill station. I hope they not only add the additional warning signs as they did at the Columbia City Station, but at least the gates they installed at East Main Station for the 2 Line. Even better, they could put Graham Street into an underpass underneath the light rail line and MLK. Then riders could use the underpass to access the station platforms without having to cross MLK and cars would not interfere with trains either though it would make it more difficult for cars to turn from Graham Street to MLK and vice versa.
Please visit the website or the open house for details. The survey on the online open house will be open until July 28.
Any chance of King County Metro using Graham St. Station as an opportunity for a mini bus restructure? In particular, the most direct street route between Georgetown and Rainier Valley is Graham, so it would make sense to run an east/west bus along that segment.
How to make such a bus integrate with existing routes, though, is not immediately clear. Routes 50 or 107 could move to Graham, but not without sacrificing coverage to the existing service area. Route 50 could be extended westward from Othello Station to take Graham to Georgetown and terminate there. That would avoid coverage sacrifices, but increases the cost of running the route, which means the frequency of some route would have to drop to pay for it, either the 50 itself, or elsewhere in the system, which is not appealing.
Probably, the path of least resistance is to just open Graham St. Station without any new bus connections, but the lack of an east/west bus on Graham has got to be annoying for people living on Graham, and it would be nice to do something about it.
It would certainly be worth commenting about on the open house. Obviously ST can’t make Metro do anything, but it might be nice for ST to consider bus integration into the station planning.
The quickest way for South Park and Georgetown to connect to Rainier Valley is a gondola (once constructed, but not in terms of construction lead time, SEPA, etc). It also has the lowest headway, except compared to getting in one’s automobile, or on one’s bicycle, or picking up the e-scooter you stashed.
That said, Metro route 60 does the job decently via Beacon Hill Station, and without SWIFT-like stop spacing.
The fastest way for Georgetowners to catch Link south will presumably be via Metro route 124 serving Boeing Access Rd Station. But that might also become a faster path to most of Rainier Valley than the 60.
But a bus route along Graham St, if the topology and street width work, would be the fastest connection between most of Rainier Valley and Georgetown. Even that might break upon the shoals of SEPA.
A pie-in-the-sky idea might be a STBD-funded route connecting Fauntleroy with Seward Park, via South Park, Georgetown, and Graham Street.
It’s so close to the Boeing Field runway that I don’t see the FAA allowing gondola wires in Georgetown.
Yes, Al, FAA won’t allow a gondola in the flight path, but a gondola could be built between Georgetown along Graham to the station and to Seward Park. An alternative however would be a gondola from South Seattle College, to Georgetown, to the VA Hospital, the Columbia City Station, Genesee Park to Lakewood. As long as the Georgetown station would be right in the flight path, no gondola wires would get in the way of airplanes.
@Martin:
Here is the overlay district map.
https://seattle.gov/dpd/research/GIS/webplots/Airport_height_map_(page_1_of_2).pdf
Pretty much all of SE Seattle is inside that inner oval, with Georgetown entirely covered in a more restrictive inner landing approach zone that appears to be sloping.
I can’t comment on how tall gondola towers would be and the height allowed would be different based on elevation (and distance if it’s in the landing zone). However, a tower in Georgetown or on Beacon Hill looks pretty challenging the closer to the runway it is.
Keep in mind that when it’s low clouds or foggy and an airplane is moving fast, pilots can’t see obstructions or the runway very easily until the plane is quite low.
I suspect that even the VA Hospital faced some height restrictions because of this. And that’s not in the flight path like Georgetown is. The VA complex is barely above the surrounding tree canopy.
Finally there are high voltage towers that cross Beacon Hill diagonally above the Chief Stealth trail. That would need addressing for any gondola to be built. They run above Industrial Way and barely enter the outermost corner of the inner landing zone.
good point, the towers wouldn’t need to be very high, but the power lines will certainly make it more complicated.
Given route 50’s relatively poor ridership which then hampers frequency, I don’t think a strict east-west bus route will be the best path. But rather another L route; heading south from downtown seattle and then heading east to graham.
Assuming we had extra resources I’d say a minor branch off of 124 or 60 might work.
For a cost neutral restructure the only thing I could think of is maybe having the metro flex vans run along the graham if they don’t have any calls
Given route 50’s relatively poor ridership
Ridership on the 50 is average (not good, not bad). At least it was before the pandemic, and that was before it crossed the railroad tracks at Lander. Routes like the 50 — that don’t connect to a major destination — are more sensitive to frequency. If I lived in Magnolia I could endure the 24, even though it runs every half hour. At least it gets me right downtown. Likewise the infrequent 31 connects me directly to the UW. In contrast, the 50 is far more reliant on transfers, and thus frequency.
I think the tougher issue (with any restructure) is just finding a route that makes sense. The service hours have to come from somewhere. Sometimes you can adjust a few things and it is revenue neutral or even save some hours. I don’t see that here.
For example, consider a branch of the 50. The eastern part seems fairly weak (compared to the rest of it). I could see buses running every half hour by Seward Park while the rest of the route runs every 15 minutes. But that comes at the expense of the connections with Link and the 7. Each branch would connect to those (major) routes, but the stops are different, and now each branch runs half as often.
Similarly, a branch of the 60 means less frequency on the existing route (south of the branch point). South Park would lose out. I’m not sure it is worth it. Same idea with branching the 124 (riders from Georgetown heading downtown lose out).
I think the best bet is a new route. The cheapest option I see is one that starts at Beacon Hill Station, heads south on 15th and turns on Graham until Rainier. I’m not sure how it would turn around. It looks short enough to handle a live loop, which would work well in the area. The bus could do a loop involving Orcas and Graham. So basically this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/eToR69wRNSsvFaEdA. That means even more buses on 15th Avenue South (which doesn’t necessarily need it) but so be it. I guess to a certain extend this could be considered a branch of the 107, since it might end up doubling frequency on Swift.
Another option for the eastern tail would be for this new bus it to take over the tail of the 50 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/59bYYeJPjob1EaaXA). This would only make sense if they could find layover space for the 50 somewhere around Orcas and wanted to run these buses at different frequencies. For example I could see the shorter 50 every fifteen minutes and this bus every half hour (or every 20 minutes).
@asdf2:
Yes I agree that connecting this station with another bus route towards the west would seem nice but in the long run I think other transit services would be better places to spend the resources. .
There are some nearby destinations that maybe could benefit from service in more directions. Ali Kurose Middle, Co Lam Pagoda, some nearby community centers and the “Empire Way Shopping Center” come to mind. But the Beacon Hill single family housing starts pretty close to MLK and Georgetown is height limited because of Boeing Field so it will never be a dense TOD.
Unless localized interests make a pitch for adding east-west bus service, it looks pretty doubtful.
Looking at the map, I think I came up with one option: shift the 107 to take Graham->Rainier, rather than Beacon->Henderson, then avoid loss of coverage on the south part of Beacon by extending route 36 to Rainier Beach (to reduce cost, given that the 36 is a frequent route, the extension could be served by only every other bus).
However, the place where this idea goes to die is when I recall that the 36 is a trolley bus, so therefore, cannot be extended without huge expense to build new trolley wire that would cost more than it’s worth. So, just like how trolley wire ensures that upper Queen Anne will never have a bus to Fremont, it ensures that Georgetown will never have a direct bus to the Rainier Valley.
I can imagine similar issues arising with battery buses. For example, if Metro invests millions in installing a rapid charger at the end of a bus route, what happens when, at some point, it makes sense to extend the bus route another mile or two? Short of spending millions to move the charger, extending the route becomes impossible.
Shift the 107 to take Graham->Rainier, rather than Beacon->Henderson, then avoid loss of coverage on the south part of Beacon by extending route 36 to Rainier Beach.
Then you have to find a bus to backfill Myrtle. Myrtle is relatively dense (New Holly). In contrast, the southern part of Beacon Avenue (served by the 107) is not. The frequencies are appropriate now.
The only place there is “waste” (for want of a better word) is on the main corridors. For example the 107 doesn’t really add anything to 15th NE. For riders along that corridor, the 107 is the bus they catch when they expected to catch the 60. But I don’t see a good alternative. In general I don’t think there is a good revenue neutral way of providing service along Graham. I think any changes would likely come from other neighborhoods.
Great idea for Cleveland HS students that live in the valley!
Another station to slow down service through MLK… When the systen is “complete”, won’t headways from the south be reduced to every 12 minutes – including peak? What a long, lousy route that will be overcrowded and slower and likely be prone to delays due to the at-grade nature in MLK.
The next major capital project for the next generation should be placing Link underground and under Rainier Ave.
ST is planning for 6-minute headways all day on all routes in the 2040’s, when ST3 is finished.
Taking Link off-grade in the Rainier Valley will certainly be a complicated project.
More likely to get a Georgetown / Duamish bypass for southend commuters than disrupt the RV for a second time, I reckon.
I’ll take that bet. A bypass has all sorts of issues that folks often ignore. There are all sorts of options (most of them bad) such as:
1) The Rainier Valley train ends at Rainier Beach. Now the folks who have had a connection to SeaTac (and other south end destinations) for decades are suddenly told “tough shit”. At best they run a bus from Rainier Beach to the airport. But that particular section is extremely fast now (with only one stop in between). This is a big degradation for riders on Beacon Hill or Rainier Valley.
2) The Rainier Valley train ends at TIBS. I guess this is better, but not much better. There is nothing at that station. You’ve basically turned a lot of one-seat rides into two-seat rides. You are also running this new train quite a ways (see below).
3) The bypass is double tracked (both directions) from where they come together (at Boeing Access Road) all the way to SeaTac. This works, but holy cow that is a lot of money for not that many riders.
4) The tracks merge at around Boeing Access Road. This saves quite a bit of money, but it is a reverse branch. You are running trains every five minutes from TIBS to Federal Way so that you can have decent frequency on the other two lines. This section will likely perform very poorly (in terms of ridership per service hour) and now you are spending twice as much money on it. This also brings up other issues, such as …
5) What does the bypass do when it gets to Seattle? Presumably it goes to Ballard. Otherwise we are basically building a second tunnel so that we can have the bypass. Going to Ballard is fine — it is good to double up frequency there. Except assuming we went with option number 4 (above) it means the trains branch and then converge again. Good luck with that. The only way to pull that off is if they take the same time to get there (which we know won’t be true) or the difference matches the headway just right. For example, imagine two trains going south from Ballard. They are running five minutes apart. Both are going to SeaTac. The train via Georgetown takes ten minutes while the train via Rainier Valley takes twenty. Great. Except what if the trains are running every fifteen minutes apart downtown. That would mean a 12.5 minute gap, followed by a 2.5 minute gap. Not only is this bad for users but you run into issues with allowable headways. This sort of thing (slow and fast trains mixing) happens all the time with intercity trains. It is rare for rail systems (for this reason).
Then there is the lack of potential stations along the way. You’ve got Georgetown, and that is about it. You’ve got miles and miles of track and only one new station.
In contrast if you buried (or elevated) the line in Rainier Valley you add all sorts of value. The train would be faster and hopefully more frequent, which means everyone along the line — including those in Rainier Valley — would come out ahead (unless the stations are really deep). Personally I like the idea of running via Rainier Avenue (which is what they should have done from the beginning). This means several new (and better stations). Either way you free up space on MLK. You could add both bike lanes and bus lanes. MLK would also be more pleasant. It still might not be worth the money, but the bypass definitely isn’t.
Branch could end at Rainier Breach but still run a [1 car driverless train] shuttle between RB station and TIBS (or BAR) station to connect to the new main line.
Also, the RV line could run north from Mt Baker station, run along Rainier/Boren to serve First Hill and operate as a standalone line, not a branch. There could then be a frequent shuttle running SoDo-Beacon Hill-Mt Baker (with that part of the system also functioning as the OMF access for this First Hill/Rainier Valley line).
But the most likely reason for a Dwamish bypass is if there is sufficient demand in the Seattle core to need to add a 4th line that runs through Seattle, either interlined with the Ballard branch (doubling TPH on that segment) or by creating a 3rd alignment north of Seattle (e.g. Aurora). So it only makes sense in the context of expanding the overall system.
Maybe have the express go through the existing tunnel 1, and the local (Rainier Valley) go through the new tunnel 2 to Ballard. Is that possible?
The other proble with the Duwamish Bypass concept is that it’s not a straight line either. Someone in the comments here once worked out the actual time savings, and it wound up being in the 3 minute range.
If the goal is faster speeds from downtown Seattle to south King County, you could make the BNSF main line one hell of a railroad for the amount of money the Duwamish Bypass would take, and benefit a whole lot more people.
@Glenn
Even though I’m against the bypass idea, the estimates I’ve seen the individual trip save more than 3 minutes.
From Frank’s calculations it saved 7 minutes; the real problem is that one would probably have to wait for every other train since half of the trains would be sent to rainier valley mitigating most of the travel time benefit with one waiting for the next train.
“””
To estimate how long the bypass would take, we need a straight, grade separated section of track to compare it to. Northgate-to-Mountlake-Terrace is perfect, about the same distance and also featuring two stops. Sound Transit says NGT-MLT will take 9 minutes, so the bypass saves 7 minutes in the best case. But remember that the RV line still exists, which means that only every other train (or so) will use the bypass. Now our time savings is down to at most a couple of minutes, as the average trip will involve more waiting time on the platform.
“””
https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/11/10/duwamish-bypass-lots-of-bucks-little-bang/
The beneficiaries of a Duwamish Bypass — South King and Pierce — didn’t lift a finger when ST deleted it from the long-range plan in 2014 as not needed. Not even for faster Tacoma Dome service.
I see more as shelved than deleted similar to the BAR Sounder Station. I see it coming back at some point, but probably at a farther off point when the system is more built out.
I don’t really see how it would operationally work well.
Perhaps before there were so many branches it might have kinda worked with say Everett to SeaTac via rainier valley and then Lynnwood to Tacoma via the bypass.
But now with a branch to west Seattle and east link adding yet another branch down the duwamish now south of Seattle there would be four branches
A Duwamish Express should be considered and could work really well. In answer to Ross’s core question, what to do with the RV line, it should be extended further south via MLK to a new terminus in downtown Renton, with a at least two stations in that city and another in Skyway.
Beyond that, the switch, guideway, track and system across I-5 should be retained and maintained for system resiliency.
A direct connection from downtown to the airport should be built through Sodo. I’d look at transitioning over to 4th at Industrial Way and then to E. Marginal, connecting back into the existing guideway at Boeing Access Rd. Stations could be considered at Lucille for beer drinkers, Museum of Flight and perhaps elsewhere.
Would have to be fully grade-separated to achieve travel time efficiencies for better access to from points south, and to the airport from downtown.
Another pie-in-the-sky option would be to develop a branch to Renton, with transfers at BAR, using the existing bridge over the railways and I-5 to either continue Link down MLK (aka SR 900) or use Bangor to get over to Renton Ave, then use Rainier to connect to the South Renton Stride station.
It’s too bad that there isn’t funding for the needed technical and cost assessments to create the most viable “bypass” options. We still don’t know if it’s easier and cheaper to rebuild MLK, follow I-5, follow Airport Way, follow East Marginal Way, follow SR 99, follow SR 519 or a combination.
It’s the same thing with connecting Renton, where SR 900, I-405, Strander Blvd or even a bored tunnel under Skyway could be viable.
@Al S,
How many billions of $$$ do you think this region should spend so that the richer, whiter people from the northend can get to the airport a few minutes faster without having to look at the poorer, less white people from the RV? And is that really the best use of scarce transportation dollars.
Na. Seems to me that a better way to spend those dollars would be to improve the existing line through the RV. Improving safety while increasing track speeds would benefit all users of the line. And improved safety would also benefit those residents of the RV who never use the system. It’s a win-win all around.
Increased speed would also reduce the amount of resources ST needs to operate the line. So ST would win too.
Lazarus, The “bypass” isn’t about getting folks north of downtown Seattle to the airport faster, it’s about getting folks from south of Rainier Valley to downtown Seattle faster.
It’s also to serve the Duwamish industrial center, Georgetown, and South Park with high-quality, high-frequency transportation. Are you against building Link to these underserved communities?
The problem is the cost. It would provide faster trips for those south of Rainier Valley, but not that much faster. The time savings mainly come from not stopping (very often) along the way. But not stopping very often means that you aren’t adding many riders. It adds value, but very little considering the enormous cost.
I don’t understand your attack on me , Lazarus. All I said was that we should get an idea of what the costs and benefits are. It’s just good information to have going forward. I even specifically mentioned upgrading Link in the RV as an option. Further, several of the other corridors I mentioned do serve neighborhoods with lower incomes.
What’s really white privilege is building Issaquah Link before connecting Renton (both in the East King subarea).
That’s where the ST thinking is.
I have also made the point several times that is SE Seattle residents would suffer if the 1 Line got too crowded before it reached MLk — and that no investment seems warranted unless that happens. What good is train service if you can’t squeeze into a train?
Yeah I’m offended that you accusing me of things I did not say. It’s really uncalled for and flat wrong when I’ve often said just the opposite.
Al. S., I read Lasarus’ “How many billions …” comment, and I don’t consider that to be an attack on you.
The obvious “Duwamish Bypass” option everyone seems to be missing is a simple Sounder transfer at Boeing Access Road. Of course this would only make sense if Sounder ran all day service. I am not sure how much time this would actually save, but it wouldn’t require nearly as much infrastructure as a separate light rail line, and would maintain existing connectivity for the Rainier valley.
“Of course this would only make sense if Sounder ran all day service.”
If Sounder ran every half hour, the time you save bypassing Rainier Valley, you’d lose waiting for Sounder. Sounder would have to run every 10 minutes to overcome that.
I’ve long felt that the Duwamish Bypass would not reemerge as a project unless or until the 1 Line is overcrowded on the MLK segment. At that point, SE Seattle riders would complain that they can’t get on a Link train and would support adding a second bypass service.
I doubt FWLE would trigger this problem — but it might. We will have a clue in two years.
TDLE is a more likely trigger — but that is delayed until 2035 at the earliest.
“I’ve long felt that the Duwamish Bypass would not reemerge as a project unless or until the 1 Line is overcrowded on the MLK segment.”
You have to approve the project ten years before the 1 Line reaches capacity; otherwise there’s not enough time to plan and build it. Plus you’d have to add time for it to fit into an ST# phase. And you’d have to convince South King and Pierce to pay for part it; otherwise you’d be displacing a higher North King priority.
Certainly some anticipation is good planning, Mike.
I just don’t see anything that would warrant rapid ridership increases except opening extensions and their related bus restructures. I would expect a bump in ridership on Link with each new extension — but in the intermediate years I don’t think we will see the rate of increase that we saw between 2010 and 2020.
First of all, much of that ridership increase was inside Seattle where the bulk of existing transit trips are made and new stations were opened. Then, Seattle had a surge of about 20,000 new residents a year in the last decade.
But most importantly, it’s easier to get a 33% increase from 30K to 40K than to get a 33% increase from 90K to 120K (assuming no added stations and bus restructures). A more likely annual growth would be adding 10K more riders a year outside of extension openings but that kind of annual growth even feels unsustainable. Most transit systems plateau on demand unless some major unforeseen crisis attracts more transit riders.
As far as 1 Line demand goes, ST would probably first look at how many more trains can be practically run if the line got too overcrowded. Then ST could propose higher capacity vehicles. Then they might look at a different operational pattern at peak times. They could even look at setting fares higher at peak times to encourage some riders to shift the times that they travel. Then there are possible reliever trains that can be put on reserve.
So I think it’s improbable that trains would suddenly overflow like a jug of water one month. The pains of overcrowding would almost certainly provide warning several years if not a few decades in advance of reaching packed capacity, and there are several ways like I mentioned to add some capacity if needed. I think that an overcrowding outcry would also not occur overnight; it would instead grow gradually and ST would implement less costly and faster implementation solutions first.
How is ST’s financial situation, and inability to deliver new lines within a country mile of its forecast costs, likely to affect this project?
Unlikely to affect the project much. At-grade light rail stations are really cheap.
> The most recent cost estimate for the S Graham St Infill Station project is $118 million in 2023$. The most recent cost estimate for the S Boeing Access Rd Infill Station project is $261 million in 2023$. (1)
The S Boeing Access road infill station might have more problems being elevated — but even then it is relatively affordable.
For context one of the downtown deep tunnel stations cost like a billion.
(1) https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2023/Presentation%20-%20Infill%20Stations%20Project%20Dev%20Services%20Contract%20M2023-101%2011-09-23.pdf
Anyways on a larger note, this is the advantage of at-grade light rail it is very affordable to construct and build. I know Lazarus really likes to talk about how “deep tunneled light rail” won, but we’ll see if Sound Transit is actually able to pull off building Ballard Link and it’s deep tunnels and expensive stations.
Anyways on a larger note, this is the advantage of at-grade light rail it is very affordable to construct and build.
It is also why at-grade rail should have lots of stations. There is always a trade-off with stop spacing. The more you add the easier it is to get to a station. But each time you add a station you make the train a bit slower. The faster the train can run, the more of an impact this has. In this case the train is already traveling relatively slowly, since it is on the surface and there is crossing traffic. Thus not only is it relatively cheap to add stations, but the cost/benefit (from a system standpoint) is much better. We should err on the side of too many stations in Rainier Valley, not too few.
There is another consideration. The closer the existing stations are to each other, the less of an impact a new station has on the overall travel time. That is because the train doesn’t reach top speed anyway. A station midway between TIBS and Rainier Beach has a bigger impact on travel time than another station in Rainier Valley. Graham is a worthy station and we should look at more in Rainier Valley.
There is another advantage to having good station spacing in Rainier Valley. With enough stations, you don’t need a shadow (a bus that runs along the same pathway). Or at most this shadow is coverage only — serving places that are just too far away from any other transit. Buses like that can be less frequent, which allows Metro to put the money into buses that get more riders.
Seattle TBD.
Also, a roundabout intersection.
Anyway I really want this station to happen.
The station is one of those small scale good ideas that inadvertently makes solving the bigger MLK safety goal harder.
To me, the best way to add the station but not have massive and costly grade separation is to move the station a few hundred feet northward (centering on Raymond Street — with the pedestrian crossing there replaced by two at either platform end).
Graham has lots of turning movements and pedestrians already. Pedestrians have long waits at the signal because the signal needs to give them lots of time to walk across, so they get impatient — and are more likely to get hit! A crossing a block north may even give allow the crosswalk signal to run for one direction only depending on the design.
A big problem is that there are lots of buildings on the west side of MLK there. The east side has fewer buildings and one of them is used by the post office so taking it would not displace a business or home. If ST was willing to scoot the northbound tracks and traffic lanes only to the east a few yards, this station could be added as a center platform station without touching the buildings on the west side.
A variation on this would be to raise the northbound traffic lanes enough to allow for a pedestrian undercrossing at Raymond Street to reach the platform. It would make the street even safer from traffic — but it might get a vagrants loitering underneath. It may not be worth the extra effort even without the vagrant risk.
Even though it may sound impractical at first, its big advantage is that it’s safer for everyone! That includes Link operations. The more things added to that intersection the bigger the risk that some accident happens and Link service has to stop — even if the train isn’t involved.
A footnote is that trains would move slower through the intersection so that seemingly makes a train accident less likely. However there have been fatalities by Columbia City Station so that argument may not be valid.
Graham has lots of turning movements and pedestrians already.
OK, but that is an argument for adding a station there. It would mean that those people — those existing pedestrians — would be safer. The safest place in Seattle to ride a bike (on an arterial) is probably Fremont. Why? Because there are so many people riding bikes there. Same goes for pedestrians. There is power in numbers. Graham would also get safety improvements. For example right now (from what I can tell) it is perfectly legal to make a right on red. If they do any work at all in that area, that would be banned.
To me, the best way to add the station but not have massive and costly grade separation is to move the station a few hundred feet northward (centering on Raymond Street — with the pedestrian crossing there replaced by two at either platform end).
OK, except there are no cross streets there. You could add them (for both ends of the station) but the problem is that Raymond doesn’t go through. This means that people have to walk farther to the station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/gPZp1NrQutA8hHe69, https://maps.app.goo.gl/XG2VeZEkkpJPg9zx8). Notice that in both these cases a person starts very close to Raymond, but since Raymond doesn’t go through, they have to go around. In contrast, consider a station that has entrances at Raymond and Graham (one of the options). There would be nothing stopping them from using the entrance at Raymond. But they could also use the entrance at Graham, which a lot of people would prefer. In that respect it would be like Othello. You can access the station via Othello, or the much quieter Myrtle. (The difference being Myrtle actually has a good pedestrian walkway in both directions).
That is one of the reasons why the southern approach is just a bit better. The entrances would be at Graham and Angel Place. Angel Place/Morgan goes through (east/west) quite a ways. For example this is pretty much a straight shot: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xzW36GH4jWy8cySDA. As the crow flies it is about 500 meters and the walking distance is similar. In contrast this is a similar trip if the station was to the north (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mMivQNyWM52YFDC38). Going to the north adds extra walking for people. Going even farther north (away from Graham) would add to that walk.
“For example right now (from what I can tell) it is perfectly legal to make a right on red. If they do any work at all in that area, that would be banned.”
Maybe also ban left turns one or both directions to speed up the pedestrian wait times. There are two arterials parallel to MLK, Beacon to the west and Rainier to the east. Get cars in the habit of using those to travel north or south off of Graham.
And please, please, get rid of the right turn only lanes. People driving treat reds as yields in those. That’s criminal so near a middle school.
@ Ross:
The users of the stations need pedestrian paths. It’s the traffic that needs streets that cross MLK.
@ Cam:
As someone who lives nearby, I can say that if left turns are banned it will just push local traffic to do stupid things on. Orcas and Holly are the nearest parallel streets to Graham and each one is 5-6 city blocks from Graham. Certainly people could turn right on one of those streets and make a U-turn but I’m not sure if local drivers would do it.
If someone is going to Beacon Hill, the only other nearby cross street is Orcas. And if someone is driving to I-5, Graham ends near the only ramps serving SE Seattle between BAR and Columbian Way (a four mile distance). Eliminating left turn lanes may provide room for platforms — but it would result in vehicles making several more turns in the neighborhood as opposed to just one. And you admit that turns are where the greatest danger is. How is turning one turn into as many as two or three more safer?
@Al
The city already has ‘official’ make right turn for left turn areas.
Heading northbound on Mlk way if you want to make a left on Dawson you exit early onto 35th ave, follow the “U-turn route” sign, and then make a left turn onto Dawson from 35th ave.
> How is turning one turn into as many as two or three more safer?
I’m not exactly sure what Cam’s argument is, but speaking for myself left turns on arterials are definitely more dangerous. Left turns on smaller 2 lane roads are safer; granted in this case the existing left turns are protected not unprotected
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5545382,-122.2895295,3a,88.3y,356.23h,93.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFoEhmW1_uZn6R6S6TJUnig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFoEhmW1_uZn6R6S6TJUnig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D356.23264857701747%26pitch%3D-3.937925076325868%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
The users of the stations need pedestrian paths. It’s the traffic that needs streets that cross MLK.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting new pedestrian pathways on Raymond? If so, that would likely be extremely expensive. You would have to buy up a bunch of land, and then build new pathways (on steep ground in some cases). When you are done, you would have the same entrance as if you put the station between Graham and Raymond.
Why do all that when you have a perfectly good pedestrian crossing (and pathway) to the south. This goes, right now: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ziFTpkMrPbTDeRf98. This does not: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zfCJ9uhQsDYJt6zW9.
Guys, you seem to propose things that are not looking at the context of the station area. They are generic solutions. You might as well live in NYC and give advice.
I live not too far away. Do you travel this area often? I do. I see what happens around the station. There are many low income people who make their living doing jobs at off hours that often require driving. It’s not a white collar commute-to-downtown fantasy world. People are out at 11:30 pm going to MacDonalds or AM/PM on this corner.
Ross, there are lots of places where the street right of way is unbuilt in this area. Adding pedestrian paths is not costly if the right of way is there. But you’re not realizing that. Even if it isn’t possible, my solution is only less than 300 feet further and the exclusive crosswalk signal will be a shorter wait and safer crossing than squeezing in a walk phase amidst all the other traffic movements. .
WL, in many places the left turn restrictions around Seattle are often where an alternate route is reasonable. As I mentioned, Graham is crucial to moving east from MLK so it’s one of the four key intersections on MLK where Link runs . The surrounding streets are quite narrower than lots of other local Seattle streets too.
I get that you’re throwing out ideas in an attempt to be helpful — but every solution needs to be considered in context.
Frankly, I’m curious about what the closest residents and businesses think. Even my idea may not be liked by them. They are the ones that have the biggest stake here.
Unprotected left turns are extremely dangerous. This is rather intuitive, and there is plenty of data supporting it (https://www.adlergiersch.com/blog/pedestrians-higher-risk-left-turns/#_ftnref1). Controlled left turns are a different matter. I don’t think they are particularly dangerous, but they definitely delay traffic. There are several considerations:
1) How easy it to make three right turns? Eastbound to northbound is pretty easy. Folks would turn right on 38th and then right again on Eddy. Going the other way requires more work (going right on 32nd and right on Orcas).
2) Are there bad “side effects” of having people take three rights? In this case, yes. That “pretty easy” turn means that more cars are merging onto MLK (a fast road) instead of making a controlled turn. That turn is essentially the same as a “right on red”. Drivers are focused on their left, looking for a place to merge. They might not notice a pedestrian walking from their right until it is too late. The other direction isn’t great either, as 32nd is not an arterial.
3) Are there other alternatives to making three rights? Sometimes a wide street allows U-Turns, for example. These have their own risks and/or potential delays. In any event, this is not a good option for Graham.
4) Does this help transit? In this case it is not clear that it does. On the one hand this would reduce the likelihood that Link (or the 106) gets stuck at a stop light there. On the other hand, Link has signal priority, and Graham may be considered a minor street. If you banned left turns here you would probably want to do that to all of the cross streets. It is also worth noting that as of now, Graham has no bus service.
In this case I don’t think it is worth it. Controlled left turns definitely make the traffic light cycle longer, but it seems like a small price to pay here. In general I would put eliminating them way down on the list. From a safety standpoint, getting rid of uncontrolled left turns is much worse. I wrote about that in a different blog recently: https://d5seattle.org/safer-routes-to-ingraham-high-school/.
From a traffic standpoint, the key is making the buses faster. Getting rid of controlled left turns would do that, but not nearly as much as adding bus lanes. I would consider getting getting rid of controlled left turns after we added miles of bus lanes. I would also do that in a widespread manner, and spread the word. There are plenty of people who figure it out quickly (take three rights — let Google navigate, etc.) but there are a lot of people who would do some profoundly stupid things if they can’t make a left like they always have.
It sounds to me like ST is also considering what sort of property takings might be required to maintain width of MLK at Graham street, if maintaining vehicle throughput capacity along MLK is a priority of the community there.
Al, you seem to be the most knowledgeable commentator on the subject; would you prefer ST eminent-domain the houses around Raymond, or some set of businesses on one of the corners of MLK and Graham? ST will also probably need a staging yard for construction; which property should they take for that?
Similarly, the City will be listening to these discussions well, and upzoning will be required by state law around the station. How far should this upzoning go?
Where will or should ST draw the line on “betterments” around this station?
It seems to me that connecting Juneau through on the west side and adding a crossing on MLK would be relatively cheap and straightforward? It would be a bit out of the way but that doesn’t really matter unless you are travelling directly east or west. As far as I can tell there are more destinations and housing to the north, and the north side has slightly better spacing between Othello and Columbia City
> WL, in many places the left turn restrictions around Seattle are often where an alternate route is reasonable. As I mentioned, Graham is crucial to moving east from MLK so it’s one of the four key intersections on MLK where Link runs . The surrounding streets are quite narrower than lots of other local Seattle streets too
It’s practically just a jersey left, and on mlk way it already exists for dawson street. I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be considered for graham, it’s a pretty simple idea.
> I live not too far away. Do you travel this area often? I do. I see what happens around the station
I’m not sure why there’s this trend of gatekeeping talking about of a topic due to proximity. Feel free to explain extra details but if you want to gatekeep discussion you might as well just not comment at all. Are we going to start posting the mileage distance of our homes/workplace for each topic and defer to the one closest? Sure, us in Seattle probably know more about the city than say someone from Vancouver, but to go neighborhood by neighborhood is ludicrous.
> It sounds to me like ST is also considering what sort of property takings might be required to maintain width of MLK at Graham street, if maintaining vehicle throughput capacity along MLK is a priority of the community there.
I think it mainly depends on if they want to keep the left turns or not. But anyways in the original document:
“””
This project would construct a new station on Martin Luther King Way between Graham Street and Morgan Street along the existing Central Link light rail line. This project would affect approximately 1/3 of a mile of Martin Luther King Way.
Widening of Martin Luther King Way to accommodate the station and tapering to the north and south of the station
Modifications to existing sidewalks, landscaping, drainage, utilities and street lights along Martin Luther King Way in the station vicinity
New pedestrian signal
Modifications to the Martin Luther King Way/Graham Street intersection
Property acquisition required for this proposed infill station.
“””
@ Nathan:
Yes. I just was surveying the area a few minutes ago.
First of all, I saw a beat-up car make a left turn from MLK a few blocks away — across the tracks where there was no turn pocket or left turn signal phase. It was pretty risky. But stupid people do it.
There definitely isn’t enough room for a platform if the left turn pockets are eliminated. The pockets are no longer than 100-150 feet and a platform needs a full 400 feet. So real estate will be needed unless a through lane on MLK is taken for a platform. I’ll add that even with two through lanes, some traffic couldn’t clear a light and had to wait for the next one. ST could propose reducing MLK to one lane but it’s problematic.
It’s definitely easier to take property on the east side of MLK than on the west. The west side has lots of buildings abutting the sidewalk. There is even a retaining wall at some spots. The east side between a Graham and Juneau only has the post office and the Empure Way Shopping Center as the big properties with a Chevron on the corner. South of Graham there is a Starbucks drive-through and many residential properties within the first 20-30 feet from MLK so displacement could be an issue widening MLK to the east South of Graham.
This is one reason why I suggested jogging MLK between Graham and Juneau eastward as well as the northbound tracks, and putting in a center platform station that wouldn’t require a pedestrian to cross right at Graham Street.
Otherwise ST will have to do lots of messy property shaving.
Even if it isn’t possible, my solution is only less than 300 feet further and the exclusive crosswalk signal will be a shorter wait and safer crossing than squeezing in a walk phase amidst all the other traffic movements.
You don’t seem to get it. You don’t have to cross at Graham. Just because one entrance is on Graham, doesn’t mean you have to use it. You can always walk to the other entrance (at Raymond). But the fact is, some people might prefer Graham.
I do get it, Ross.
I just think it’s safer to not encourage Link riders to cross MLK at Graham. It’s not because I’m stupid. It’s because I hate to see people get killed by a train because they choose to cross at an intersection with so many things going on. More accidents creates more train delays too.
It’s exactly what happens at Alaska, which is a corner that I cross often. People see that no cars are coming and a train is in the distance, so they cross against the light. Then some driver makes an abrupt turn — and someone dies or gets carted to the ER.
The MLK safety problem has been discussed many times on STB. Why design a new station with the same safety problem?
I just think it’s safer to not encourage Link riders to cross MLK at Graham.
What about the other pedestrians? Are you saying we should close off the crossing at Graham because it is too dangerous? I’ve seen this done, and the results are terrible. People jaywalk. A lot of people just give up on walking. You enter a car-dependency cycle that is really bad. We are way better off making that crossing as safe as possible for everyone.
People are going to walk across MLK at Graham for many reasons. There safety is just as important as the safety of those who ride Link. Those who want an alternative that takes them well out of their way can use it, but a lot of people will choose the crossing at Graham because it is shorter. There is a limit to how far people will walk. There is also a perception issue. If a place seems needlessly far away it is worse.
Consider a trip to the middle school. If the station is oriented to the south, riders have a couple options. They can use Graham or Angel. With Angel they would use 39th and cross Graham at the crosswalk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/S7uz7HGwxnKZXrwj8). This is far more pleasant, and I could see how someone would want to go that way. They still have to cross Graham itself, but the city might improve that crossing (there may be crossing guards before and after school right now anyway).
Now imagine if the station straddled Raymond. You would have a mid-block crossing somewhere towards the north end of the mall. The walk would be something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AnPCBxims9mzni9U7. You don’t cross the street, but I count three driveways where an inpatient driver could easily hit someone. If you are pulling out into MLK, you are looking to the south, and might not see someone walking from the north. So not is the station farther away, but it is not necessarily safer.
It is quite likely that the safest option is to actually cross at Graham & MLK. Someone has to be performing an illegal maneuver to put a pedestrian at risk there. Again, this is assuming they ban right-on-red (which is a safe assumption). So either they ignore that law, or they run a red light. Yes, this happens. In contrast, it is perfectly legal to make a right turn onto MLK from the parking lot.
The best thing to do is put (one entrance) where it is most convenient, which is Graham. Then work on making Graham safer.
This is absolutely correct. Middle-schoolers simply take the most direct route. In Albuquerque, they even built a chain-link to stop jaywalking. It lasted 6 months, and it was in tatters.
ST and Seattle naively designed the MLK corridor without thinking pedestrian safety though. Then people have died and horrific accidents have happened. The blame gets put on the car or train drivers — but not the thoughtless design. It’s more than just the station; it’s the overly wide street that ends up about 90 feet wide or more. That then has led to band-aid solutions that come from “working” to make the intersection safer — yet all the bells and flashing signs don’t ever get at the core design flaw of an overly wide street.
That’s what happened. Why repeat it at Graham so that it is designed the same way? This is the opportunity to design it safer from the outset! Move the station to a place that’s safer to cross! Build a center platform to help narrow the overly wide street! Maybe even try to solve the other design flaws at the intersection as part of the infill station project!
I think a good case could even be made to push for some sort of station grade separation even if it means deferring the station several more years! Build it safely from the outset; don’t build it in safely to begin with and attempt to do cosmetic “fixes” later!
Walter Graham (Graham Street), Carson Boren (Boren Ave), and Ira Woodin (Woodinville), chillin at Alki Point.
https://www.writesofway.org/s-graham-street/#:~:text=This%20street%20was%20named%20for,unfortunately%20died%20six%20years%20later.
The best option is to go to the south, not the north. It is fairly close — there isn’t a huge difference — but the south is a better option overall. Just to back up here, it is highly likely that this will have two entrances on either end of the platform (like Othello or Columbia City) and not just one (like Rainier Beach). One of the entrances will be off of Graham. The other entrance will be in middle of the block. Ideally these are pedestrian-only crossings. As luck would have it there are two existing ones — one at South Raymond Street (to the north) and one at South Angel Place (to the south). Thus it really comes down to which (pedestrian-only) crossing is better.
The main difference is that existing east-west pedestrian pathways connect to Angel, but they don’t connect to Raymond. You can see this on a map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SYWrFBC1bHHRYfUs9 versus https://maps.app.goo.gl/YkTbLwpL9CambZ9P6. This reduces the effective walkshed of going north. The city could create a new pathway, but this would not be trivial. This is the view looking west: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SCJSCBNwfBtxGzNW7. You would have to run a path next to that fence and up the little hill. To the east it is even more difficult. Based on the King County Parcel View (https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/) it is all private land in there. Specifically the area between Graham, Juneau, 39th and MLK. Thus you can’t easily have a pathway west of the playfield unless you take someone’s property. I would rather spend money on other projects in the area.
Without a pedestrian throughway, riders have to walk farther. If you are a few block east or west of the Angel crossing, you have a nice, pleasant, short walk to the station. If you are a few blocks east or west of the Raymond crossing, you have to work your way down to Graham and use that entrance (or walk even farther to the Raymond crossing).
The one advantage of going north is that it spreads out the stations a little bit better. Graham is closer to Othello than it is Columbia City. But the stations are so far apart I don’t think it matters that much. If anything, I could see a future station at Orcas, in which case orienting the Graham station to the south and the Orcas station to the north would be ideal.
All of this largely ignores the (relatively little) density that exists in the area. I think it is quite likely that the various places around the station add density (like a lot of other places in Seattle). Rainier Valley hasn’t had that much TOD (for reasons that get pretty complicated) but I expect that will change in the future.
“Rainier Valley hasn’t had that much TOD (for reasons that get pretty complicated) but I expect that will change in the future.”
Wait. What? The TOD in the Rainier Valley has been extensive. Most recently near the Judkins Park station it’s mind blowing what’s getting ready to open. 20 years ago there were almost no buildings over 2 floors.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Rainier Valley has been booming lately, but most of that has been on Rainier Avenue, not MLK. Given the fact that Link has been on MLK for decades now the growth along MLK — compared to the rest of the city — has been quite slow. Areas with nothing special in terms of transit (e. g. Ballard, Greenwood, Fremont) have grown faster.
As I wrote, the reasons are complicated. One was how ST bought (and then resold) the property when they built Link. There were a lot of tiny odd-shaped lots. Another issue is the way people view Rainier Valley. They consider it the slums. At the same time, it doesn’t have the advantage of proximity (like the Central Area). The big attractions tend to be to the west. That is where you have more of a cultural history (and with it a more interesting streetscape) as well as the water (and the various parks). I’m not saying that there hasn’t been growth around the stations, but it is nothing compared to what happened in Roosevelt, Northgate and the U-District over a much shorter amount of time.
Likewise, there just isn’t much density next to Graham, but I do expect it to pick up, and look more or less like Othello in a few years (and I expect Othello to continue to grow). My point being that someone could look at the Rainier Valley stations and go “meh, there isn’t much there”. That is changing, slowly, and I expect Graham to change as well.