Sound Transit plans to build an infill station at Boeing Access Road (BAR) in Tukwila, in addition to the Graham street infill station. To start the public engagement, Sound Transit opened an online open house and will host an in-person event on Wednesday, July 16th, nearby. Again, they suggested two locations: (A) next to the Sounder tracks along BAR or (B) a bit further south along East Marginal Way South.

Area of potential future BAR station facing north along E Marginal Way South. Photo: Martin Pagel.

Tukwila has been advocating for this station for a long time for local buses to transfer to Link. Some people have been pushing for a Sounder connection with Link, but Tukwila Sounder Station seems to be so close that another station doesn’t make sense. Building the station along the busy Boeing Access Road would only make sense if it would allow for a Sounder transfer.

Area opposite of potential future BAR station facing west along BAR. Photo: Martin Pagel.

Otherwise, a station along East Marginal Way would allow for easier bus transfers. Buses could turn around along S 112th St. Cyclists could access the station from the Green River Trail. It may even allow for future TOD, currently it is surrounded by commercial warehouses.

Potential BAR station locations, from Sound Transit’s Open House website.

Station Area Potential

(This section written by Mike Orr.)

I rode the 124 down East Marginal Way to see the western station alternative, and took Link back to see the eastern alternative.

The western station area on East Marginal Way has some space for walkable development. Both sides of the street have large industrial buildings. The Duwamish River passes 1 1/2 blocks away on the west. That could allow a triangular row of housing to Tukwila International Blvd, and an expansion of the existing tiny riverfront park beyond it. The east side has space for one row of buildings and then ends in green space, highway ramps, and the railroad tracks. One of the existing lots has a small fleet of FedEx and other trucks parked in it. There’s also a Tukwila Public Works building, and Seattle police recreational facilities. We’d have to evaluate how important it is to keep those businesses there, and how much pushback from the cities there might be to relocating the government facilities.

The eastern station alternative is in the middle of a highway overpass. Boeing Access Road turns into a viaduct connecting four stroads, I-5, all their cloverleaf ramps, the south end of King County airport, and the railroad tracks below. Any TOD is unimaginable. The station exit would be the elevated viaduct sidewalk. Walking west to East Marginal Way, you’d go a quarter mile past the airport and highway ramps.

Boeing Access Road is a highway viaduct connecting four stroads, I-5, all their cloverleaf ramps, and the railroad tracks, with no room for anything else. The eastern station alternative is in the middle of that no man’s land. Any TOD there is unimaginable. It would have to come up to the viaduct, and its foundations would be where trees now stand.

I also checked Aviation High School and the new Tukwila Village at 144th, which would be involved in any bus restructures.

The high school is a mile north of the station, adjacent to the Museum of Flight’s second building on the west side of East Marginal Way.

Tukwila Village is three miles south of the station. It has four large apartment buildings, one of which is senior apartments. Across the street is two drugstores, Walgreens and Bartells. I looked for a supermarket in that plaza but there doesn’t seem to be one. The Tukwila Library is there too. East of the apartments is a high school, middle school, and pool. Beyond that is I-5.

Bus restructures

Metro’s long-range plan has a few concepts for this area. In the 2050 network, route 1047 would be like the current RapidRide A from Federal Way but extended north to BAR and Rainier Beach Link stations. Route 1049 would replace the 150 from Kent and Southcenter to BAR and Rainier Beach stations, and would be a RapidRide candidate. (The RapidRide reprioritization report contradicts this, as the 1049 would continue to downtown. (page 60)) Route 1088 would replace the 124 and 107. It would start at International District Station, go south like the 124 to BAR Station, then go east/southeast like the 107 to Rainier View and Renton. Metro would not change the 101, which goes express from downtown Seattle to Sunset Way and Renton. Some STB commentators would like to truncate it at BAR or Rainer Beach Stations, but Metro has consistently said no, but in the long-range plan and in the 2014 recession cuts.

Please visit the website or the open house for details. The survey on the online open house will be open until July 28.

50 Replies to “Boeing Access Road Station Project”

  1. Unless there’s a massive reinvisioning of the area, this is an absolute dud. It’s nowhere close to most Boenig facilities and definitely not within walking distance of the Museum of Flight. Shuttles to/from either would be a private endeavour paid for by Boeing. And rerouting the 124, which would be an easy step, is not enough of an incentive to convince areas workers to ditch their car and choose a 2-seat tansit ride.

    I’d much rather see ST spend the funds improvements elsewhere in the system.

    1. I agree. This seems like a complete waste of money. How many daily riders will this station even get?

    2. I think it has potential, but it would require connections to the HOV lanes of I-5 and/or Sounder. That would greatly increase the price, but would also increase ridership. Here is how I see the ridership potential:

      1) Park and Ride/Drop off. There are probably enough people in the general area to generate a few hundred riders.

      2) Walk-up/TOD. Looks really bad. The station next to the railroad tracks looks about as bad as you can get. The Marginal Way option has some potential for TOD, but still not a lot.

      3) Local feeder buses (with a restructure). I think it is likely you would end up with some sort of ‘X’ pattern. Buses from Renton cross over the freeway and skirt Boeing Field. Buses from Tukwila cross over the freeway and head to Rainier Beach. As Mike mentioned, the various Metro long range ideas reflect this. I don’t think the 101 will be truncated. Nor do I think the 150 will be truncated, unless someone (ST or Metro) also runs an express version as well. The A extension seems quite plausible, but those making the connection to Link can use a lot of other stations. So it basically feeds the area between TIBS and BAR. A bus from Skyway to Boeing would be controversial, as riders would lose their connection to Rainier Valley. It would offer some benefits but unlike say, a bus from Lake City to the 130th station, the trip to downtown would not be significantly faster. There would be some riders heading south (e. g. Georgetown to SeaTac) but not that many. Overall I don’t see this as being an easy restructure, nor do I see that many riders benefiting from it.

      4) Freeway bus connection. This would only work with the first option. You would have a freeway bus station connected to the train station. The buses would get back on the freeway (like Yarrow Point). Thus riders from the 101 and 150 would continue to have their express to downtown, but would also have a fast connection to Link (for Rainier Valley or Beacon Hill).

      5) Sounder Connection. Same idea, but with Sounder.

      Overall I just don’t see a lot of riders. I think it would add up, but to a few hundred, not thousands. You get more riders with connections to the freeway buses or Sounder, but that greatly increases the cost. Even then there are trade-offs. The station next to the freeway is ideal for bus connectivity but terrible for walk-up riders. A station on Marginal Way would not only rule out the freeway-bus/Sounder idea, but it would also be worse for those in Skyway trying to connect to Link.

      In general I am very supportive of infill stations, but this one just doesn’t look very good.

    3. To be fair, nothing within Boeing is within walking distance of anything else in Boeing. Miles and miles of surface parking sewer will do that.

      I’d rather see early delivery of S Federal Way Station, which will help reduce local resistance, and all the associated legal costs, of building the new train base.

  2. This station is a waste of money.
    The Eastern location has zero homes within a half mile walk, and the marginal way alternative has about 10 homes half a mile away. Residential TOD is hopeless: adjacent to a shooting range which isn’t going away (SPOG) and an airport makes for a place few people want to live.

    With the sole exception of the green river trail on the other side of the river (which doesn’t even directly connect to the bridge over the river) the area is an unwalkable wasteland with very few sidewalks. All businesses in walking distance seem to have plenty of parking, meaning their employees and customers probably drive (especially since the area is served by two highways and multiple stroads).

    The only hope for ridership is bus transfers, but only 1 bus line passes by, and truncating that to force transfers wouldn’t even save passengers any time to downtown seattle. Hypothetical bus lines to take advantage of the station are not good justification, especially given how far behind Metro is in funding rapidride lines and service frequency.

    There will be a 300 car garage. Aside from those riders, I doubt even 100 more daily riders will come. This station is a terrible waste of money and a waste of time for riders passing through who have an extra minute of travel for the stop. Cancel it, and if needed to appease Tukwila, build that 300 car garage at Tukwila International Boulevard station instead.

    1. FWIW, there is a bridge connection via 112 st, which has bike lanes (albeit bike lanes that are currently routinely blocked by parked cars, based on Google Maps.) This connection can definitely be improved. The only other “access” from the trail to Link is apparently TIBS, and that’s via Southcenter Blvd. which is a wider stroad without bike lanes and with a narrow sidewalk. Your transfers to the 124 bus would also be achieved by having the bus take a jog along 112th st to Marginal Way and stopping on the street without entering a time consuming station loop (and giving the bus some signal priority). IF Tukwilla is committed to redevelopment is in the plans and improving the ped/bike/bus access in the area, the Marginal Way option has some potential, perhaps it might overtake Beacon Hill station, which has surprisingly little surrounding it. However if they want to just plop a station in there without making other changes, it would be very wasteful.

    1. That does seem better in every way, other than the connection to Sounder and I-5 buses. But that may be a pipe dream anyway. It sucks to have a missed connection, so I can see why someone would want a station where I-5, Sounder and Link cross. But actually making the connection is not part of this project, nor do I know of any plans for it.

      If you assume that there will be no connection, then the area you pinpointed is much better. Not only would you get a lot more walk-up riders, but you would get a lot more riders from feeder buses. Not only from the west, but the southeast (e. g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/V8TM89cFC3tM58Fu5). I could see a nice restructure. The A is extended south along TIB, then heads east at 144th to connect to the station. The 124 (coming from Georgetown) would head east on 144th as well, then take over the southern tail of the 128. The 124 could just be truncated at TIBS at that point. Unlike BAR, you aren’t trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Various improvements to the network come fairly cheaply and easily. This means that not only is it easier to get to Link, but it is easier to get to places Link doesn’t serve.

      Yeah, that just looks better.

    2. The only other alternative in Tukwila that would do much is a station close to the freeway interchange, with s long walkway or gondola to the mall formerly known as Southcenter. I’d still vote for early SFW Station delivery over all of these.

    3. It’s a 15 minute walk from 144th/Link to TI Blvd, while it’s a 17 minute walk from 114th/TIB to the current Link station, so unless Tukwila will do a midrise upzone around the new station area (e.g. Shoreline’s Link station upzones), I’m not sure that an additional station at 144th really does much for Tukwila.

      If you want to give Tukwila an alternative infill station, put an Stride station on 405 right at Andover West for a connection to Southcenter, plus there’s some real density (and city hall) north of 405.

      1. There’s also the apartments in the NE corner of the i5/i405 interchange.
        Aka like Southcenter view condominiums and other apartments. https://maps.app.goo.gl/9k6jKWtdhiNYq2j16

        It definitely isn’t a perfect infill station, but it at least has some apartments around 10/15 minutes walk away and plenty of land that could be built later. Unlike either of the boeing access road stations.

        > If you want to give Tukwila an alternative infill station, put an Stride station on 405 right at Andover West for a connection to Southcenter, plus there’s some real density (and city hall) north of 405.

        I would like that the most, however it seems quite complicated to build it there. Brandon from the Urbanist had a similar idea.

        https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3LjiqO8pQbxYBsocHdOFJHhInhXRtFr50pDNNtwSMUZxWA3NwH2izQp_F-mlPQ3Z-BfXZPo3aM0FfgvNuehn-KEsYYNZTqooHlcChRtra5wxMXTjWDL988GZyKnRx4agfbXs5ty_
        https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/06/22/reimagining-southcenter/

      2. There’s also the apartments in the NE corner of the i5/i405 interchange.
        Aka like Southcenter view condominiums and other apartments. https://maps.app.goo.gl/9k6jKWtdhiNYq2j16

        Yes, that is what I referenced in my comment up above (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/07/11/boeing-access-road-station-project/#comment-935640). Look, I get it. Ideally you want everything, like the U-District Station, which is:

        1) A major destination
        2) Has high residential density
        3) Has excellent feeder buses

        But we can’t have everything when it comes to these stations. There are no major destinations along the way, and the potential for high residential density next to the freeway is small. But being closer to other destinations still makes a big difference. Having apartments fairly close (a long walk or a quick bus ride) is better than them being a long ways away. Look at Northgate. Right next to the station there is basically nothing. It is a long walk to North Seattle College. Hundreds of people walk across that bridge all the time. It is a long walk to the apartments on Fifth. Hundreds of people walk or ride the bus from there.

        I’m not saying this is in the same league, but it has that sort of thing going for it. Even if almost all the ridership comes from feeder buses, this is still a lot better. There are important considerations when it comes to feeder buses:

        1) You want it to enhance the network.
        2) The cost of serving the station should be a consideration.
        3) Proximity matters, even for feeder buses (it effects total travel time).

        In this case it all works out. This would enhance the network (if we did as I suggest above). You get rid of the terrible out and back detour of the 128. The 124 still connects to Link while also connecting to the buses WL mentioned. The 124 would also connect to the 150. No more of this crap: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4AgDBovPPqrbuvUm7. Notice that trip takes over an hour via transit and you can get there in 12 minutes by car (and 18 on a bike). The network is better and also more efficient (since the 128 is straightened out). You’ve got one little section where the buses double up, but that is exactly where you want a lot of service. You’ve got a middle and high school there (a real attraction) as well as plenty of apartments close to the library (which is also an attraction).

        No, it isn’t great, but it is a lot better than BAR.

  4. Can someone please explain why the light rail hugs i5 and sr 518 in Tukwila? Why didn’t they just build it down Tukwila International Boulevard? Was it a cost cutting measure or did Tukwila oppose it?
    Seems like it would’ve provided way better access to light rail in Tukwila if they did that originally instead of putting in this near-useless infill station in the only spot in Tukwila that isn’t hugging a freeway.

    1. > Can someone please explain why the light rail hugs i5 and sr 518 in Tukwila? Why didn’t they just build it down Tukwila International Boulevard? Was it a cost cutting measure or did Tukwila oppose it?

      Tukwila blocked it, originally was going to run down Tukwila international boulevard at grade similar to mlk. Or before that another alternative was to go to southcenter but then it had a complicated time getting back to seatac so that one was culled.

      Sound Transit then just went ahead with the freeway alternative instead.

    2. You can read the original proposal 1999 if you want.

      https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/sound-transit-board-achieves-historic-milestone-selecting

      Tukwila:
      The route will be elevated from Boeing Access Road and continuing along Pacific Highway S. (SR-99/Tukwila International Blvd.) passing over the Duwamish River and the SR-599 interchange area. It will then come to surface level in the median of SR-99 continuing south to the SeaTac city limits. A new station will be built at S. 144th St.

      In a separate resolution, the board committed to have further analysis done on a new route proposed by the City of Tukwila.SeaTac:
      From surface level on SR-99 the route will become elevated near S. 154th St. crossing over SR-518, then continuing south along the west side of Washington Memorial Park north of the Sea-Tac International Airport terminal. It will continue southeast along the west side of Sea-Tac Airport’s planned intermodal transportation center, then proceeding along the west side of International Boulevard (SR-99). The route will cross S. 188th St. on elevated structure, continuing south on the east side of 28th Ave S. to S. 200th St. Stations will be located at S. 154th St. (elevated with a surface park-and-ride facility), Sea-Tac Airport’s planned North End Airport Terminal (NEAT) and S. 200th St. with a park-and-ride facility.

      2. The $1.86 billion was in 1999 dollars, adjusted to now is more around $3.55 billion 2024 dollars. Though granted, they cut away the university district segment after running out of money.

        But yes, I think many people fail to realize if the rainier valley segment wasn’t at-grade there probably wouldn’t be a link today. It would have been heavily truncated even more.

    3. Yeah, that is the problem. You build a subway line that hugs the freeway and you end up with really bad station options. You might get decent ridership from people who take feeder buses or drive to the station, but that is about it.

    4. The original proposal would have been surface on Intl Blvd and Southcenter Parkway (154th). Tukwila objected to rebuilding Tukwila Intl Blvd, which it had just beautified. And it objected to taking a corner of Southcenter’s property. That led to the segment being elevated and routed to the airport freeway.

      1. From the 2023 Seattle Times Mike Lindblom article, Be bolder to get light rail done, expert panel tells Sound Transit.

        “The experts encouraged Sound Transit to consider wielding its power as an “essential public facility” in state law, rarely used, to preempt local jurisdictions.

        Sound Transit invoked that doctrine in 2002 to override the Tukwila City Council, which wanted a costlier route serving Southcenter mall and threatened to withhold permits. Instead, the agency with federal consent picked a more direct, cheaper path along the freeways toward Tukwila International Boulevard and the SeaTac/Airport Station.”

        Mike, according to the Lindblom article, Tukwila wanted a Southcenter routing, but Sound Transit that wanted to bypass it to save money.

      3. It was both.

        Tukwila wanted it routed from tukwila international boulevard over to use interurban Ave to Southcenter and then a flyover to cross I5 back to SeaTac. Sound transit didn’t have enough money so only moved to route it along i5

      4. I’m curious about your, and others, opinion on this …. Let’s say it’s a few decades ago, and the 1 Line alignment hasn’t been decided on yet. And no city like Tukwila, no neighborhood, or businesses, will object to anything. And ST has a choice between the current alignment, or one that swings over to Southcenter Mall, then turns west up to TIBS and SeaTac. Which alignment would you prefer? The more direct one to the airport, or the one that detours Southcenter mall first?

        (And this isn’t a trick question. I am honestly curious). My vote is it should go to Southcenter. But I imagine some people here might see that as a time-wasting detour.

      5. WL, you say it was both, but in Mike’s telling, Sound Transit wanted to go to Southcenter. In Lindblom’s article, Sound Transit said it would be too expensive to go to Southcenter. Both can’t be true. Either ST wanted Link to go to Southcenter, or it didn’t. Mike Lindblom seems to be saying Tukwila wanted a Southcenter Link, but ST wanted the less expensive freeway alignment.

      6. If you want to read the old alternatives

        > In the Tukwila segment, two alternative alignments will be
        evaluated. One alignment would use Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) between the SeaTac city limits and Boeing Access Road. The second alignment would travel east from State Route 99 along State Route 518 and continue east past Southcenter Mall. The line would proceed north along Interurban Avenue to I-5 at Boeing Access Road.

        They ended up in the literal “middle” with the i5 routing instead. I’ll caution and note back then that link was more like portlands 2 train car not 4 train car.

        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-11-18/html/97-30212.htm

        > Which alignment would you prefer?

        I’d prefer the tukwila international boulevard option, but if I had to choose between the i5 or the inter urban to Southcenter I’d choose the latter to reach Southcenter

      7. @Sam

        > WL, you say it was both, but in Mike’s telling, Sound Transit wanted to go to Southcenter. In Lindblom’s article, Sound Transit said it would be too expensive to go to Southcenter. Both can’t be true.

        What both of them are saying is again true. There were 2 alternatives the tukwila international boulevard one and the interurban one (south center) the latter was quickly dropped due to cost cutting. Then tukwila felt cheated that it was skipping Southcenter and didn’t want it on tibs so suggested the freeway route alternative.

        Regarding the sound transit board I was not there for it but at least from news articles and the voted documents:

        > King County Executive Ron Sims and Metropolitan King County Council members Greg Nickels, Cynthia Sullivan and Rob McKenna – tried to get the board to adopt the Southcenter route. They were outvoted by representatives from Pierce and Snohomish counties. Pierce County is eager to extend the line south to Federal Way and Tacoma in the future, and objected to the extra cost and travel time of going to Southcenter.

        https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?slug=2946359&date=19990226&query=Sound%2BTransit%2Blight%2Brail

        lol maybe I’ll write a short article on the history about this so I don’t need to keep posting about this and clear it up for others.

      8. “And ST has a choice between the current alignment, or one that swings over to Southcenter Mall, then turns west up to TIBS and SeaTac.”

        Southcenter of course. That’s where thousands of shoppers are. A station on Andover Park West would allow a north-south feeder like the 150 to access the “retail city” south of the mall, and continue to the north Kent industrial area and downtown Kent. That’s several times more than anything near Tukwila Intl Blvd station. (Except for a P&R. Never forget the P&R.)

        I’ve always wanted the line to serve Southcenter.

      9. “They were outvoted by representatives from Pierce and Snohomish counties. Pierce County is eager to extend the line south to Federal Way and Tacoma in the future, and objected to the extra cost and travel time of going to Southcenter.”

        So there’s no Southcenter station for the same reason there are no more Capitol Hill stations.

      11. “They were outvoted by representatives from Pierce and Snohomish counties. Pierce County is eager to extend the line south to Federal Way and Tacoma in the future, and objected to the extra cost and travel time of going to Southcenter.”

        This is the primary reason that the board should not be solely politicians and county representatives but should also have some transit advocates on it. The board always seem to focus to cost, etc. than transit usability. We can already see them doing it again with the new ID station.

      12. > This is the primary reason that the board should not be solely politicians and county representatives but should also have some transit advocates on it. The board always seem to focus to cost, etc. than transit usability. We can already see them doing it again with the new ID station.

        It’s a bit more complicated than that. The issue was also really around Tukwila not wanting it on Tukwila Boulevard due to community impact as well.

      13. “This is the primary reason that the board should not be solely politicians and county representatives but should also have some transit advocates on it. ”

        I’ve long argued that every major capital commitment should not even make it to the Board unless a special committee of riders, drivers and security specialists sign off on it first. Rather than have a generic “Stakeholders” committee a “Rider Experience” expert committee with teeth is badly needed. Without such a review, we will remain destined to keep making bad transit decisions.

      14. “The issue was also really around Tukwila not wanting it on Tukwila Boulevard due to community impact as well.”

        Not having a Southcenter station and Kent transfer is a community impact as well. They look at impacts but ignore the impacts to transit riders.

        If Tukwila were really to prioritize non-drivers, it would: (A) Have a Southcenter Link station already, (B) make sure all bus routes run at least every 15 minutes including evenings and weekends, (C) build City Hall so it’s not up a hill behind a surface parking lot from an F stop, (D) extend Tukwila Village’s density to the entire area from 154th to 140th. (I assume the part north of that is needed for industrial, and 133rd-140th doesn’t have cross streets.), (E) migrate at least some of the freestanding big-box stores to multistory buildings with structured parking in a smaller footprint like Northgate North.

  5. A station’s productivity lies in its access. This one has:

    – Connectinng rail transit. No Sounder or Cascades platform is proposed.

    – Connecting bus transit. There isn’t a plan for big changes. There isn’t a plan for I-5 HOV access. Without a major route restructuring that results in more than a Route 124 stop (even with a RapidRide A extension) there isn’t enough local transit going there to add lots of riders.

    – Destinations with walking or bicycle paths. There aren’t really any destinations within a quarter mile of the platform.. And there aren’t any ideas to add safe multi-use trail connections to nearby areas. And the location right at the end of a runway means severe building height limits for TOD.

    – Parking. There is some, but 300 spaces isn’t enough to generate lots of riders.
    Unless the plans greatly expand the parking quantity that would add no more than a few hundred boardings each day.

    This gets into the fundamental problem of not having minimum ridership generation requirements for adding a Link station. Instead a line item is added into a bigger package in a political process to add a station as if stations are some relatively inexpensive feature that only needs a political justification to get built.

  6. What would be a better use of the funds for this station in South King?

    1. More escalators and exits at other Link stations? For example, the direct connection between Link and Stride at TIBS had a new walkway over SR 518 cancelled. Or maybe an upgrade in the KDM area.

    2. Adding a stop on Stride on 405 at SouthCenter?

    I could add other ideas (Rainier Beach or South Renton) but they wouldn’t be in South King.

    It’s also not enough money to do something like add a new transit service like a gondola.

    Of course the station funds may just backfill the added funds needed for OMF South or TDLE.

    1. Another option is to move the station. I think 144th is the best bet (as WL mentioned).

    2. Backfilling the money needed for “structure C” (that bridge they’re building near KDM due to unstable soil) would be the most responsible.

      Building the 300-car garage at TIBS instead might be more politically expedient, since tukwilla will still get their extra parking.

      1. Is the TIB P&R full?

        Is this really about 300 parking spaces in north Tukwila? I never heard Tukwila or ST mention parking as a reason for the station — or that there would even be parking — until these comments.

  7. ” a station along East Marginal Way would allow for easier bus transfers” – would it? For a station, extending RR-A to BAR (or Rainier Beach) and truncate the 124 at BAR (using the cloverleaf ramps as the turnaround) would place both A and the 124 bus stops right at the station. The forced transfer between the A & 124 simply moves from TIBS to BAR, and the A might actually be better if the loop through TIBS goes away.

    BAR might actually because an important bus node if KCM has several east-west routes pass over I5 there.

  8. Something isn’t adding up. The comment section says a BAR station doesn’t make sense. Then why would Tukwila want it? Why would any city want a light rail station that makes zero sense?

    1. Because it is better than nothing and they haven’t considered the alternatives.

    2. I think Tukwila sees it as an anchor that encourages more development along TIB. As with many ST projects, development strategies drive more local interest.

      The actual ridership is of little interest to any city with a guaranteed light rail station that every train will stop at, regardless of demand (as long as they have some). It’s an overarching problem with many ST3 stations. It’s also why I think ST should adopt a policy to not build any station unless enough ridership can be guaranteed (with a higher minimum for a tunnel station).

      I’m expecting Tukwila to prefer EMW over BAR for this reason. BAR site is there because that’s where the original site was and that’s where a Sounder platform is possible.

    3. “Then why would Tukwila want it?”

      Because Tukwila is a car-oriented suburb and thinks it wants it. It thinks people will ride feeder buses to Tukwila Village and the Museum of Flight and Aviation High School. It hasn’t given any other reason. Car-oriented cities often have unrealistic ideas about what transit passengers will do, and how many people at the cities’ featured destinations will flock to transit if the matches the city’s drawing. The politician sho

      It’s like when Renton politicians had a vision about The Landing becoming the next Fremont. In order to do that, you need Fremont-like destinations, density and atmosphere. A Target with a surface parking lot and similar buildings is not it. The politicians showed no inclination to change the nature of the big-box neighborhood, or any understanding of what makes Fremont successful. They just envisioned microbrew pubs and people flocking to them. In big box strip malls?

  9. While neither of these options are going to be hugely productive, E Marginal has always struck me as better than BAR, there is at least the prospect of redevelopment.

    If I had to put a station in this general area it would be at 133rd St serving the Gateway office park. But failing that I’ll take E Marginal.

  10. “an expansion of the existing tiny riverfront”

    I meant the tiny riverfront park. I added the missing word.

  11. It would make sense if they are doing this since King County was planning on building a new Jail and Courthouse in that area south of Boeing Field. They will need to help build a better transportation infrastructure in that part for the increase of traffic. They were planning on doing this prior to the Pandemic but put on hold also due to Police City in Atlanta. We need to replace the aging King County jail in downtown. Pull the courthouse from away the violence of Pioneer Square and build a better commute down there.

  12. I feel like ST is going through the motions with this infill station but has no expectation to ever build this station. The result will seem to be a real estate purchase and maybe a design contract — and that’s it.

    Lots of the frustration seems to surround past decisions about the SouthCenter area. To me, that’s the multi-year, open-ended study that’s needed. The SouthCenter area has changed since those initial ST choices. There is a crazy amount of new transit around there that doesn’t connect or connects very poorly. The area is even starting to get tall buildings so it’s a major concentrated destination that’s also somewhat spread out. A systems concept is needed before any more project investments get designed.

    1. Who’s arguing against the station? Just us in the comments section. I don’t see business leaders or politicians arguing against it, so I don’t see what would make ST not build it. It thinks it’s a voter mandate. That’s what it always says when we suggest dropping something, moving a station, or canceling Sounder North. “The voters expect us to stick to the plan.”

      1. “I don’t see what would make ST not build it.”

        Money, money, money! Even South King has other things in ST3 that are underfunded. So I don’t see it opening without a development that depends on making it a higher priority. The region makes conscious choices to defer projects for several decades in all sorts of settings because of money (520 is still not done; 509 and 167 gap closures are just programmed in this decade — with tolls).

        130th Station happened because of a push to build it as much as necessary before Lynnwood Link opens to minimize later disruption. Otherwise it would be delayed too.

        Assuming the BAR Station does get built, it would be worthwhile to have ideas to maximize its benefit if possible. It’s in such an inaccessible location that it’s very hard to add much benefit without building other things like access ramps and overpasses that probably cost more than the station itself at the end of the day. And that’s one tragedy we’re all trying to minimize.

        As our history seems to teach us, it takes organized opposition to abandon an idea. It only takes a lack of advocacy to defer it for decades.

Comments are closed.