On July 18, the Seattle Design Commission met with Sound Transit to review its proposed design (pdf) for the West Seattle Link Extension‘s high bridge over the Duwamish and its landing at Pigeon Point. Although the cable-stayed bridge design had been spotted at a station planning open house event earlier this year, this meeting and design review provides the public its first real look into ST’s preferred design for what may end up becoming a new defining feature of Seattle’s southern skyline.
The Route
The proposed design was developed for Sound Transit’s Preferred Alternative for the West Seattle Link Extension, or WSLE, which its Board selected in July 2022, and includes a high bridge south of the West Seattle Bridge connecting SODO to West Seattle via Pigeon Point. The preferred route takes over the SODO Busway south of SODO station, gradually climbing and curving over the Spokane Street Viaduct to reach the high bridge over the Duwamish. The route lands on Pigeon Point just south of the West Seattle Bridge and curves around the Point to Delridge Station adjacent to the Nucor Steel Plant.
Climbing from SODO
Based on conceptual design plans from the original West Seattle-Ballard Link Extension (WSBLE) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published in 2022, the trains would climb from under a new roadway overpass at Lander Street to about 75 feet above the SODO Busway, and then cross about 50 feet over the Spokane Street Viaduct in a sweeping turn towards West Seattle. Although the WSBLE design documents indicate the route would dip slightly between the Spokane Street overpass and the high bridge over the Duwamish, these rendering appear to indicate a decision to keep the route level.
To build the elevated guideway, Sound Transit envisions using a mix of short-span elevated guideway structures and long-span bridge sections as it has done on each of the previous Link extension projects. The result will be a style of high-standing elevated guideway that’s become familiar to the region.
Renderings of the SODO Guideway (By Sound Transit)
Rendering of the elevated guideway rising and curving over the Spokane Street Viaduct. 
Rendering of the elevated guideway from East Marginal Way, facing east toward SR-99. 
Rendering of the elevated guideway over the Spokane Street Viaduct, facing east from the West Seattle Bridge. 
Rendering of the elevated guideway, facing west from the Columbian Way ramp to West Seattle.
The Duwamish Crossing
Once the train crosses SR-99, the mapped route becomes a seemingly straightforward crossing over the Duwamish Waterway and Harbor Island, with the bridge reaching nearly 175 feet above sea level to allow for the same vertical clearance allowed for ships passing under the West Seattle Bridge. Sound Transit also identified a need to avoid putting bridge piers in the Duwamish Waterway, necessitating a more complex long-span bridge structure.
Sound Transit considered four types of bridges:
- Segmental Box Girder, common to previous Link extensions and similar to the West Seattle Bridge
- Continuous Steel Truss, similar to the Ship Canal Bridge
- Cable-Stayed, a style not yet used on a significant bridge in the Seattle region, but used for transit bridges in Vancouver, BC, and Portland, OR
- Hybrid Extradosed, a combination of box girder and cable-stayed styles
Ultimately, Sound Transit chose to move forward with preliminary engineering on the cable-stayed design, resulting in a 1,690-foot-long bridge with a 970-foot center span flanked by two 360-foot spans. The spans would be supported by diamond-shaped pylons through which trains would “thread the eye” of two 374-foot-tall needle-like tower standing on either side of the western fork of the Duwamish Waterway.
Of course, choosing such a design opened up another complication: they intrude on airspace limitations set by the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, to protect aircraft landing at Boeing Field. Sound Transit considered shorter towers reaching only 342 feet in height, but apparently was able to conduct an airspace study and coordinate with the FAA to get preliminary approval of the taller design.
The Design Commission found the cable-stayed bridge design striking and exciting, and an opportunity to join our peer cities of Vancouver and Portland in having this prominent style of bridge.
Renderings of the Duwamish Crossing (By Sound Transit)
Aerial view looking southeast toward Mount Rainier 
The eastern pylon as viewed from the West Seattle Bridge 
Potential lighting options at night, viewed from above West Seattle 
Aerial view from above SODO, facing West Seattle 
View of underside of the bridge from Harbor Island, facing West Seattle 
Ground view from the Duwamish River, looking toward Elliot Bay.
Under the Bridge
In SODO and on Harbor Island, Sound Transit is planning to demolish a long swath of commercial and industrial properties in order to build the guideway leading up to the bridge. The Design Commission asked about the possibility of commercial buildings returning to the land beneath the guideway via redevelopment. Sound Transit’s representatives noted that operations and maintenance is easiest when there is nothing below the guideway, but conceded that allowing redevelopment of the areas beneath the guideway might help alleviate some of the economic impacts associated with demolishing the long swath of buildings along the route.
Although Sound Transit didn’t provide details regarding how land under the guideway in SODO could be restored or reused, they presented a fairly detailed concept for Harbor Island, including parkland, vehicle parking, and even a potential cafe space on the west end.
Costs and Timeline
Discussion of the estimate costs to build the guideway and cable-stayed bridge were not on the agenda during the meeting with the Design Commission, but Sound Transit’s 2024 Long Range Financial Plan, published October 2023, maintained the previous years’ estimated cost for WSLE at just under $4 billion. Assuming the project as a whole remains affordable, Sound Transit expects to select the final route later this year and continue design through 2026, with construction slated to begin in 2027. Service between Alaska Junction and SODO would begin in 2032.
Our next post will review the landing at Pigeon Point and Sound Transit’s plans to reshape the landscape there.
It’s beautiful, and it’s still folly.
It nice though but I would rather have an vary first light rail Suspension bridge it would have look nicer and cool especially most big cities like San Francisco and New York City both cities have Suspension bridges
Suspension bridges in rail lines are exceedingly rare due to the inherent motion of the bridge interacting with the rolling stock.
It’s probably possible to build a railway suspension bridge that isn’t a disaster using today’s methods, but the 1830 Stockton-on-Tees bridge flexed so much on first use the first train over it broke in half.
The Niagara Falls suspension bridge lasted nearly 50 years (closed 1897), but I don’t think anyone has tried since then.
Would it flex more than the floating bridge across the lake?
It’s ugly. It looks like simple geometric shapes like an elevated freeway. The “needles” look like they should go straight up or at least have a bit of an arch at the top, not a point.
They should have put a four car train in the rendering. The contrast in size between the large bridge and single train leaves one with the impression that they’re building an enormous and expensive bridge for a low-ridership line.
Wait, is that a train in the center, or is it part of the bridge?
The renders of the high bridge show a single-car train at the crest. I assume they wanted the renders to highlight the structure and design of the bridge, and limit the amount of scenery blocked by a full 4-car train. It would be nice to see it rendered with 4-car trains though – it would seem slightly more appropriate.
I agree, Sam! It just goes to show the pervasive attitude that ST wants to build pretty monuments as opposed to a build and operate a cost-effective public investment. They’re spending our money of extra hundreds of millions yet they are too cheap to add escalators in existing and new stations at a much lower cost.
They are.
yes
This actually IS a fairly low ridership route. West Seattle to downtown isn’t a a massive transit market. Yes, people take transit but it’s not worthy of an expensive rail investment.
Have you ridden a West Seattle to Downrtown bus, because people complained about capacity issues and overcrowding up to the vote of ST3.
Zach, it’s a good question.
Metro says that they should have a load of 120 riders on an articulated bus. Since that bus runs effectively on a freeway it’s a bit dangerous too.
ST has said that a light rail train has a capacity of between 160-200 per car. That’s 640-800 per train. In other words that’s about 5-7 RapidRide buses. And even that assumes full standing bus loads on every line making the trip. A train at every 10 minutes is like having a bus less than every two minutes.
Probably the best argument for West Seattle Link is related. It is an alternative to riding on a bus at almost freeway speeds while at crush loads, actually. Riding at crush loads is ok and moving at freeway speeds is ok, but both situations combined together can be a safety concern.
This is often not officially discussed because it can quickly expand to an issue with all bus routes on freeways. We have lots of buses running on freeways where people stand including several Metro and ST Express buses, some CT and PT buses and soon ST Stride buses. If someone gets injured just because they are standing, they could sue the agency if it admits that it’s unreasonably dangerous.
For example, AC Transit doesn’t want standees on the Transbay service that crosses the I-80 Bay Bridge so the load factor standard is 1.0 rather than 1.25 for local services. (https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/bp_545_-_service_standards_design-1.pdf)
If our local bus operators got legally pushed to start refusing to board passengers on freeway running buses when there are no seats left, the effects would be upending in a major way. And given how it’s been a concern elsewhere, this could actually someday happen.
This actually IS a fairly low ridership route.
It depends what happens with the buses. If they continue to run the buses downtown, then ridership will be low. There are only three stations and the Junction is the only real destination (it is similar to Columbia City). The other two stations would be similar to the other Rainier Valley stations. So you are probably looking at less than 10,000 riders a day.
If the buses are truncated at the stations then ridership will go up. But most of those riders will be worse off. Thus ridership on West Seattle Link is largely dependent on making trips worse for riders.
That is why ridership is not an ideal way to measure this sort of thing. A much better measurement is rider time saved. Look at each trip, and measure how much time is saved. For those close to the station it saves a lot. For those who have to transfer it may actually cost them time. Thus the rider time saved may turn out to be negative.
Of course Metro is free to use the savings to run buses more often (there and in other parts of the city). So that may end up increasing ridership (and ride times saved). At best West Seattle Link is a multi-billion dollar project that will save a few million in service dollars.
Just to put some numbers on it: There are currently six buses that go from West Seattle to Downtown: the C, H, 21, 56, 57 and 125. Altogether they total less than 20,000 riders. So that means that if everyone on those buses is heading downtown and everyone instead transfers to West Seattle Link then West Seattle Link will still get less than 20,000 riders. Of course not everyone who rides those buses is heading downtown. Then again, some may ride the train that didn’t ride the bus. Overall 20,000 riders seems optimistic, but not crazy. That is actually quite a bit per station. UW Station gets less than six thousand; Roosevelt gets less than five. So an average of over six thousand would be very good and is probably much higher than we can expect.
But the big problem is cost. Each station costs over a billion dollars. So even with very optimistic ridership estimates — and ignoring the fact that many riders would prefer their old bus instead of being forced to transfer — this just isn’t a good value.
I’ll say it again: Seattle would be better served by a rail convertible bridge.
Predictable.
1. Promoting a pretty poster image to popularize the project.
2. Choosing one of the most expensive bridge types. Going with a different design would save several hundred million — that could instead be spent on improving the rider experience.
Just switching the bridge design to a cheaper design could save most if not all of the money for the 4th Ave Very Shallow Alternative.
Here is a link to bridge types and costs from Alaska DOT.
https://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/desbridge/assets/pdf/manual/ch8.pdf
Things to consider:
1) The DEIS process revealed significant legal barriers to putting piers or even pier footings in-water in the Duwamish Waterway. This means they can’t copy the central span of the West Seattle Bridge – they have to go longer.
2) If piers/footings can’t touch water, the minimum crossing distance of the West Waterway (parallel to the BNSF Railroad Bridge) is about 600 feet. If the bridge wants to parallel the West Seattle Bridge, that’s nearly 1,000 feet. At those spans, you’re looking at some sort of suspension bridge, or a very specially-designed tensioned box girder.
3) Many sources online indicate that for spans of 500-1,000 feet, a cable-stayed bridge is the most economical option for initial construction and long-term maintenance.
I get that the span length is a factor. The diagrams in the article show how other designs have shorter spans.
It’s not only clearing the waterway but it’s also a matter of what soil is underneath.
Given the much greater cost and the risk from being in the Boeing Field approach zone, the bridge design choice needs to be justified.
It’s unclear which design option you think would be practically superior.
Since I don’t design bridges, I can’t weigh in on the technical decisions behind the recommendations.
There are a number of new arch bridges around the world that are built and then raised into place that approach the length needed here. I’m very surprised that ST has not presented the merits of going with this design instead. It would have a lower profile and that would be better for the airport runway concerns, too.
Another reason I’ll add is that rail bridges need to have lower grades as steel-wheeled trains can’t make it up as big of a slope, so the bridge might need to be longer to account for that.
We’ll have to wait until ST provides copies of their internal evaluation to see how deeply ST considered the other design options.
I think it’s premature to assume they went with a more expensive bridge without technical justification, but I’d be interested in comparing this design to some of the other very-long-span arch bridges built elsewhere you suggest might be appropriate here. Do you have examples?
Wikipedia lists 80 arch bridges over 1000 feet long. Several of those are rail bridges in China. Granted that exceedingly long bridges can have special costly needs — but as a bridge type it’s very doable for this crossing span length.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_arch_bridge_spans#Completed_bridges
Wikipedia features a number of tied arch bridges (a sub category) that are between 600-900 feet for the main span in the US. Many are in high seismic areas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tied_arch_bridges_in_the_United_States
The tied arch bridge design is now recommended for the new US 51 bridge at Cairo IL. It’s in the middle of the New Madrid seismic zone. The planned main span is reported to be 900 feet. (The next upstream highway bridge is the I-24 bridge at Paducah with a long tied-arch span of 731 feet, built over 50 years ago.)
https://us51bridge.com/
The tops of these arches are considerably lower than a cable-stayed tower, making it much better for the Boeing Field approach.
It will be interesting to see what ST says — but I find it very dismissive to not have even looked at a tied-arch design alternative. It looks to me that the design alternative was perhaps summarily dismissed for a technical or maybe political reason.
One piece of commentary I decided to leave out of the piece but will add here and risk repeating myself from previous posts: I strongly believe that West Seattle needs to significantly upzone around the planned stations in order to justify such a bridge. Maybe some locals will say they don’t want to upzone West Seattle, and they don’t want a fancy Link bridge. I think we need to think about where we’re going to house the next 100,000 people to move to Seattle, and strongly consider planning to house them along our fancy new light metro system, especially one that will feature a fancy new bridge “linking” West Seattle to Downtown.
How much does it matter when an area is upzoned? Do you think it’s better for an area to be upzoned before light rail is approved, in order to incentivize the approval of the light rail project? Or, is it acceptable to not have the upzoning in place first, build the light rail line, which will then incentivize upzoning because of the light rail line?
I think the upzoning should happen now, but I’ll concede that it might be politically easier to consider doing so in a few years (2028-2032?) once construction is underway and developers can reliably market adjacency to a train as an amenity for future residents.
Basically, I think every station area should be encouraged to build at least mid-rise towers like the U-District or SLU. In an idealistic world, station areas would be encouraged to build towers like they do around Skytrain stations in the Vancouver.
One example I am thinking of is Jackson Park golf course next to 130th and 148th Link stations. There’s been no zoning change for the golf course. But, I believe because of the nearby Link stations, its days of being a golf course are now numbered. It’s only a matter of time before part or all of it is upzoned and redeveloped. (I’m talking a couple of decades, at least). Without the Link stations, it would have probably would have remained a golf course much, much longer.
The same with West Seattle. One could argue, don’t worry about the upzoning now. Link will set in motion the upzoning.
Seattle could put golf course closure or relocation on the ballot.
I’ve suggested that the West Seattle course be relocated to land at and around South Seattle College. The site could offer stunning ridge views for golfers. Then, the current site could feature a Central Park for general public use , surrounded by mid-rise buildings and supporting retail to create a Capitol Hill like neighborhood as well as a better located South Seattle College new campus..
There are several factors to consider when upzoning an area near high capacity transit I discuss below.
I would start however with the basic premise that ordinarily a city does not build the most expensive and highest capacity transit to a low density low ridership area with the hope upzoning will create the ridership to pencil out the project, but instead builds higher capacity transit based on the ridership of lower capacity transit in the same area. This is like building a freeway to a single family zone. As someone who lives in Belltown, the highest residential density in the city without Link, I find this mind blowing.
1. The radius of the upzone. Recent state legislation, HB 1110, puts the radius for upzoning around HCT between ¼ and ½ mile because that is how far someone can or will walk to transit. These upzones are already recommended by the PSRC, in HB 1110 (including eliminating or limiting onsite parking minimums), and in Harrell’s land use element as part of the 2024 update to the comprehensive plan. It makes much less sense upzoning an area for transit if that person will have to drive to the transit or take a feeder bus. Most of these areas are already zoned greater than single family home, although the SFH zone can still accommodate four units per lot under 1110.
2. The extent or height of the upzone. This includes a lot of considerations. For example, wood framed buildings are cheap and approved up to 7 stories. Steel and concrete buildings pencil out around 22 stories. So there is what is referred to the no man’s zoning. One also has to consider the street capacity surrounding the upzone. According to an article in today’s Seattle Times, “About 1.7 million households make 15.8 million trips of all kinds daily in Snohomish, King, Kitsap and Pierce counties, according to Puget Sound Regional Council surveys. The 24-mile line between Northgate and Angle Lake currently serves 78,500 passengers per day, a count the Lynnwood extension should raise to between 100,000 and 136,000, this year’s service plan says. That’s still only 1% of regional travel. Does light rail solve I-5’s traffic congestion? | The Seattle Times.
3. The type of housing with upzoning and new construction, and whether any will be affordable. According to another article in today’s Seattle Times, “From 2010 to 2022, the number of one-room housing units — primarily studio apartments and condos — in Seattle jumped from around 21,000 to 53,000, a 151% increase. That’s much faster than the growth in the total number of housing units, which increased at a rate of 31.5%.
“With that increase, Seattle became the nation’s capital of one-room living. The 53,000 single-room housing units represent more than 13% of the total 398,000 housing units in Seattle. That is the highest percentage among the 100 most-populous U.S. cities”. Seattle ranks No. 1 for one-room living among large U.S. cities | The Seattle Times.
Also noted is the average size of each unit is 661 sf, which is quite large for one person (for two persons it equals over 1300 sf). This kind of housing is incredibly wasteful because each occupant needs their own kitchen, bathroom and living room, so the actual number of new persons despite the upzone is not what one would expect.
This factor is further complicated by ESB 1220 that King Co. has determined means all these new units in a non-SFH zone must be affordable to people earning between 0% and 60% AMI. Who will build it is unclear.
4. The type of housing that is replaced, or what is called displacement. Most of the land surrounding the future stations already has housing on it, generally less expensive and depending on occupancy denser (for example a SFH with multiple generations). Poor people tend to ride transit more than rich people.
5. Parking minimums. Unfortunately, new construction due to upzoning does not come with restrictions on owning a car, just less onsite parking. These new units will be expensive and for the wealthy, so they will likely own a car even if they use Link. The impact on surrounding street parking and local retail has to be considered when these cars are parked on the street.
6. Retail. Ideally areas around stations have vibrant retail. The problem with upzoning and new construction is that retail is destroyed or at least displaced due to years of construction, and the new lease rates on the new construction are much higher so you lose the neighborhood feel and local retail. The neighborhood becomes more U Village and less University Avenue (which wealthy people in the new units don’t mind). Upzoning will result in significant gentrification, because it always does. Both good and bad depending on your income level.
7. Finally some things to consider are whether 100,000 new residents are really moving to Seattle (The Census Bureau seems to think not), whether they will move to West Seattle, and whether they will be among the 1% who take Link or can afford one of the new units.
With WSLE we are talking about a very expensive extension with a very high cost per boarding. Will upzoning really reduce that cost per boarding? Probably not. That is why most cities don’t build multi billion dollar transit systems to neighborhoods that currently have low density zoning and even more importantly low transit ridership.
Just because someone moves to West Seattle, or a new unit next to a station, doesn’t mean they will ride Link. The more expensive the units the wealthier the occupants the less likely they will ride transit while poorer residents who do ride transit are displaced.
So my point is don’t expect upzoning to create the Link ridership to make WSLE a prudent transit investment. Make no mistake the bridge and proposed stations are amazing and so is the true cost. If West Seattle had the population of Brooklyn, despite the fact the MTA today can’t afford to operate or maintain the rail through Brooklyn.
West Seattle would have to have a massive rezone around the stations to be worth it, and even then I’m not sure it would pencil out. It a hugely expensive rail line with only three stations, little benefit from a network standpoint and little improvement in speed compared to what exists now (let alone would could exist for relatively little money).
If the area around each station looked like Belltown then maybe it would be worth it. But I think it is unrealistic to assume that will happen. You’ll probable have some rezoning, which will enable some six-story buildings, but that is about it. It will be similar to the area around Columbia City (at best).
West Seattle is yet another example of the dangers of considering mass transit as being like a roadway. Many consider West Seattle Link as a sort of transit-bridge, connecting everyone from the peninsula to downtown. It is the opposite. With a real bridge (which they have) the buses (and drivers) just go from the roadway to the bridge without any delay. But with West Seattle Link, the vast majority of riders have to get off of their bus and transfer, right at the point where the bus would be moving very fast. What do they get in return? Not much, really. A faster connection to SoDo and Stadium — that is about it. It would not shock me in the least if transit ridership in West Seattle goes down after West Seattle Link, especially if Metro spreads the savings (that come from truncation) around the entire county (which has been the practice of late).
West Seattle Link is a massively expensive project and you could achieve much the same thing by just running all the buses to SoDo and turning them around there (not that I’m recommending that either). That way you get the save service savings, which is the main benefit of this project.
When I read essays like Fact Check’s, I’m not really sure who the target audience is, or what the point of the comment is supposed to be.
So much concern about the about the neighborhood impacts of upzoning, but no thought about the impacts of keeping the zoning the same while the economy continues to grow.
Of course, Seattle doesn’t really have to do anything about some zoning restrictions because of HB1110, but that state law was passed exactly because backwards-looking city councils continually refuse to legalize redevelopment around new transportation infrastructure.
Does anyone who’s concerned about the effect of upzones ever wonder why all those cheaply-built craftsmans with shattered foundation slabs (if they even have a foundation) are commonly selling for >$1M, and who’s buying them?
“When I read essays like Fact Check’s, I’m not really sure who the target audience is, or what the point of the comment is supposed to be.
“So much concern about the about the neighborhood impacts of upzoning, but no thought about the impacts of keeping the zoning the same while the economy continues to grow”.
Nathan, I work in property development so I don’t understand your comment. If you mean drink the cool aid by “audience” I am not going to do that.
No one is talking about keeping the zoning the same. We are discussing where to upzone, and where not to upzone. It is just irresponsible to claim upzoning does not have offsets. Unless you are a libertarian who believes all zoning is bad.
HB 1110 really does little re: upzoning if you understand it. If a city wants to stall 1110 they have the ability to adopt regulatory limits that do that. 1110 is a very small upzone over Seattle’s 2017 residential upzone which has done very, very little to increase density on SFH lots.
When it comes to upzoning around HCT 1110 is totally inadequate, and most of the land is already zoned greater than SFH even under 1110. If you don’t understand the market incentives for builders and developers you don’t understand 1110 or 1220. It is very hard to make a solid profit on a seven story multi-family rental building. Banks hate them. And they provide very little cushion for builders to offer subsidized units. But from 7 to 22 stories when steel framed buildings pencil out IN THE RIGHT LOCATION you won’t get much development. You can upzone all day but if you don’t understand this all you will get is crappy 7 story rental buildings.
HB 1110 has nothing to do with affordability. At least according to King Co.’s affordable housing subcommittee which requires 100% of a city’s affordable housing target (0% to 60% AMI) to be in already dense zones near WALKABLE transit in much larger buildings than under 1110. Upzoning has nothing to do with a strong economy. In fact, bad upzoning defeats the density needed for quality urbanism, something this area lacks badly. How can a city the size of Seattle have no downtown core?
What I get a little tired of is some on this blog claiming “upzoning”, as though upzoning is monolithic, will lower housing prices and will create TOD that will justify something like WSLE. It won’t. HCT should go where there is already strong transit demand which is where you upzone, and upzoning creates displacement of older existing housing. It is critical that people understand that, and that the builder wants to build as expensive units as possible in a city that has very wealthy people. I saw this exact same thing when I lived in Miami.
Yes, upzone, but upzone wisely. Understand what heights work for developers, how to assure some housing is affordable, that you are trying to create a community of retail and housing. Understand the local transit, impacts on streets, and understand the street and sidewalk grid. Ask what you are trying to create through upzoning. Is it affordable housing, urban density, transit ridership (which begins with upzoning where there is already high transit ridership, not West Seattle) because that determines where to upzone, where not to, and how much.
Most of all ask what are the negative effects, like displacement, or fundamentally changing a community like the CID that still exists today because the last upzoning went to the no man’s land of 13-14 stories.
I don’t know what you want me to say. That upzoning will solve the world’s problems? It will create the ridership on WSLE to make that exorbitantly priced project a good use of transit dollars? That new housing will be affordable for those earning between 0% and 60% AMI which is the definition of affordability King Co. is using? It is just as irresponsible to say all upzoning is good as to argue all transit such as WSBLE is good.
There are good and bad transit projects, and there is good and bad upzoning if you really think about what you are trying to achieve, and understand what the builder and developer are trying to achieve which often conflict. Otherwise why have any zoning?
If you want to discuss upzoning define the precise location, extent of upzoning, current zoning, what you hope to achieve, who will be displaced, and whether the developer will make a profit.
Next be damn sure the local community, design committee, riled up citizens, NIMBY’s, weak politicians are onboard, and investors think they will make 20% return PER YEAR because they can make 13% in no risk investments that don’t have property taxes and insurance, lawyers and architects.
You are clearly a smart guy, but some of the smartest people I know are in the property business and upzoning is just one consideration among a dozen whether to build in a neighborhood or city. I can tell you right now no builder is interested in tall buildings in West Seattle and none consider WSLE a factor in their decision. They build for the wealthy and the wealthy don’t ride public transit. I assumed from your post you thought upzoning West Seattle will create the ridership to validate WSLE. Ross is correct. It won’t. Not even close.
Sorry to be so blunt but upzoning is not the cure all some think it is. Zoning is just a tool to create communities. Some need more density, some need less. Upzone wisely is what I am saying, and most of all understand upzoning can fundamentally change a community, which often isn’t good if you are poor or Black.
@Fact Check
The thing is that most other ‘american cities’ follow your playbook of checking every single reason why *not* to upzone rather than considering reasons to upzone.
> Upzone wisely is what I am saying
Upzone wisely quickly becomes don’t upzone at all is the problem.
FC, I appreciate you trying to explain that zoning is complicated, and that the housing market is complex, but the obvious and simple truth is that developers build where they’re allowed to build what they want to sell.
You say developers build for the rich, but I think that’s a misunderstanding of the market forces that motivate the production of housing. Maybe it’s a subtle difference, but profit-oriented organizations don’t target the wealthy; the wealthy just tend to spend the most money.
The forgotten truth is that ST3 was not designed to build light rail where it is needed today, but to do what the interstate highway act did in the 50’s, or what the [interurbans] did at the turn of the century: engender new growth by improving connectivity and transportation capacity. The problem, of course, is that we have largely forgotten how to build new neighborhoods centered around modes of activity. Instead, the only hub of activity most people can imagine is one that stands astride a massive amount of parking, whether spread across a sea of asphalt or stacked in a concrete garage.
I don’t think it’s that radical or naive to try to imagine a different version of the world.
So does everyone work for free? Answer no, if you’re good at something you don’t do it for free. My point, people have homes and lives where they live in West Seattle, and it’s ok to move a train into their living space with minimal compensation? I believe that Light Rail should pay everyone displaced should be paid 1 million plus moving fees. West Seattle DOES NOT need light rail! Why not move the steel mill instead and make that area a stopping point with bus service and a parking garage? Light Rail, “nope let’s displace all these people and businesses.” Great plan. West Seattle doesn’t want to be Seattle!
For what its worth, HB1110 was concerned more about middle housing. Spokane is the state leader (if not the federal leader) in that sort of thing. I think Seattle passes something similar, eventually. I hope it happens sooner rather than later. But I see this is a trend, similar to the legalization of cannabis. It is going to happen, it is just a matter of when.
But that doesn’t make the case for West Seattle Link stronger. According to the census, High Point has the highest density of any neighborhood in West Seattle. If every other neighborhood in West Seattle looks similar (which is what I think is inevitable, at least from a regulatory standpoint) then it doesn’t change the nature of West Seattle Link (or West Seattle transit in general). If anything it makes it weaker. If the neighborhood buses are running a lot more frequently to downtown (because of the growth in West Seattle) why would riders want to transfer?
Nor would it make much difference if the areas around the stations add a bunch more six-story buildings. Again, I think that is inevitable from a zoning standpoint, and consistent with our “old-school” approach that we have taken for decades (“urban village”, “trickle or firehouse”, whatever you want to call it).
For this extremely expensive, but very limited project (containing only three stations) to be worthwhile would require the area around at least one station to be similar to Downtown Bellevue or the UW. These are major attractions. The huge UW campus (and the density around it that existed before they started adding towers) is why Link has been successful there. The huge skyscrapers in Downtown Bellevue — many containing offices — is why East Link makes sense. If it was simply people on the East Side heading to Seattle you could it all much cheaper (and probably better) with buses. If East Link was only going to neighborhoods like Downtown Redmond or the Spring District then East Link wouldn’t be worth it. But Downtown Bellevue is a major attraction, and so is Microsoft. Not only from the west, but within the East Side. It is the combination of trips that will make East Link worth it, but the key is Downtown Bellevue (and to a lesser extent Microsoft).
It is unrealistic to expect the West Seattle stations to look like Downtown Bellevue (or the UW) even if you changed the zoning. The market for office towers has plummeted, and is unlikely to ever return. Furthermore, it is quite likely that we look at places like Downtown Bellevue as a mere blip in the history of office development — the period when suburban offices became attractive and then grew into secondary downtowns. Downtown Bellevue doesn’t happen without Microsoft in Redmond, which probably wouldn’t happen now. They would be like Amazon (start in the suburbs, but then move to downtown). I think at best West Seattle grows to be like Fremont — some offices, but nowhere near what Downtown Bellevue has. Of course it makes sense to upzone around the station — it makes sense to upzone the whole damn city! But that won’t suddenly make West Seattle Link a great value.
Nathan, I really do appreciate your articles and comments. I hope my posts did not come across as mansplaining zoning and development.
I am an independent analyst. Investors who don’t live in this region hire me to evaluate development proposals, mainly commercial/office and large condo projects, so single family zoning isn’t something I follow.
I follow STB because transportation and transit are very important in evaluating any development proposal, especially since this region is so dispersed. I think STB is the most sophisticated forum for transit in the area, although of course the opinions can vary.
What I should have said is if you spend $4 to $6 billion to run light rail to a neighborhood or community and then have to upzone SINGLE FAMILY ZONING near the station (let alone wetlands) it is the decision to spend $4 to $6 billion to run light rail to a SFH zone that is the problem, not the folks who live in single family homes in the remote area, and West Seattle is remote.
West Seattle needed density and FAR similar to downtown Seattle or Belltown BEFORE running WSLE to West Seattle to make WSLE a wise transit decision. 5/7 (housing) over one (retail) buildings will never validate the cost of WSLE, nor will the population density and ridership when maybe 10%–20% of those buying new units in the upzoned area will ride Link (compared to 1% of all trips for the region as a whole).
While zoning obviously determines what can be built in the zone, it is only one factor among many whether investors will make a profit on development in that zone. WSLE or no WSLE I don’t see my investors ever building tall (22+ steel framed) buildings in West Seattle. Those kinds of buildings tend to get built where other similar buildings already exist, such as Bellevue west of 405.
No one wants to be the first to build a skyscraper in a place like West Seattle, because you will lose your shirt. There are many better places in this area to build such a building. WSLE is not going to change that analysis.
No matter what zoning is adopted for the stations around WSLE I doubt buildings will be built over 7 stories. If there is a retail FAR requirement – which there should be – that is just not an attractive development proposal, especially if the housing and retail is rental which means the capital is tied up and someone has to manage the tenants. So you tend to get shlocky development.
If you spend $4 to $6 billion on a light rail system you want the surrounding development to be dramatic, and truly dense, and truly retail vibrant. Like a downtown core, Seattle or Bellevue.
So you can upzone an area, but that doesn’t mean you will get the development you want, and bad redevelopment even if the density is increased marginally is a waste of everyone’s time and money, and will last for 20-30 years. It isn’t fair to those who live in West Seattle to upzone the areas around the stations and end up with cheap rental housing and anemic retail that is worse than today after spending $4 billion on WSLE.
So yes, even though I advise evil developers I do care about the community, and so they because the quality of the community and surrounding development determines the value of their project. After all, why not spend the same money on a condo tower in Bellevue west of 405 as opposed to West Seattle when construction cost isn’t all that much different and you don’t have to go through a bruising rezoning process. Plus I get the impression Dow Constantine has promised West Seattle its “character” won’t change due to WSLE.
Just look at the bruising standard Seattle political process over Pigeon Point and imagine how much money investors would lose on the time value of their money as that process works out with no guarantee of the outcome in a city that tends to prefer sub-urban development (SFH to 5/7 stories) over true urban development and lives green space. I would tell the investors who hire me to run to Bellevue as fast as they can.
> Do you think it’s better for an area to be upzoned before light rail is approved, in order to incentivize the approval of the light rail project? Or, is it acceptable to not have the upzoning in place first, build the light rail line, which will then incentivize upzoning because of the light rail line?
It’s a difference of scale. If west seattle link was a drawbridge and was mostly at grade, it’s fine to build light rail first and then upzone later. On the other hand if we’re spending the same amount as the entire east link budget with a high bridge and tunneling then no west seattle needs the density first.
The thing is that most other ‘american cities’ follow your playbook of checking every single reason why *not* to upzone rather than considering reasons to upzone.
“> Upzone wisely is what I am saying
“Upzone wisely quickly becomes don’t upzone at all is the problem”
WL, I have lived in a number of large U.S. cities. I would agree with your comment “upzone wisely quickly”. I would disagree that this area or other American cities have not upzoned.
This region like other cities has upzoned pretty considerably. Look at downtown Bellevue, along East Link, Belltown, University District, Factoria, downtown Kirkland, Redmond and so on. Plus Seattle is getting ready to upzone the downtown commercial core to allow housing. That is a massive amount of upzoning. Only a small fraction of the region’s zoning is developed to its zoning capacity. There are still surface parking lots in downtown Seattle.
So what does wisely mean? It depends on what you want. This region, especially Seattle, tends to prefer sub-urban development, 5-7 stories, which is why retail and commercial is so spread out, from Lynnwood to Tacoma, without any real urban core, so you need a lot more land for the same FAR. It is why our light rail system is so long, to reach these outer “upzoned” areas. I personally don’t like that, and live in Belltown that should have much better retail, but I don’t draft the zoning laws (but do attend the community meetings when upzoning is discussed).
“Wisely” means what is the goal? If the goal is to create TOD to validate ST’s ridership claims and cost of Link that won’t happen in most areas although most of Link has been upzoned, certainly on the eastside. Certainly not West Seattle. If you want more 5/7 sprawl then upzone the single family zones. If you want a true urban core, or even more vibrant sub urban core like Ballard or Capitol Hill, then restrict that kind of retail and development to those areas that already have that kind of retail and commercial, like Bellevue is doing. Condense, like a European city.
If the goal is more affordable housing, that is very, very difficult thing to do with upzoning in a wealthy city when the bigger issue today, according to King Co., is displacement of affordable multi-family housing from new construction, which in hindsight was “unwise” upzoning quickly. So now King Co. wants cities to NOT upzone existing multi-family zones to prevent displacement because that is where most of the existing older affordable housing exists, and instead to find undeveloped areas to upzone for affordable housing in dense zones, although where those are and who will build this 0% to 60% AMI I have no idea.
“Wisely” just depends on what the goal is, if upzoning will obtain that goal, politics, and what the negative effects are because you know the residents will come out to the meetings if upzoning is being discussed.
If you ask me, the biggest flaw in Seattle’s zoning is the lack of a true urban core, because retail, commercial and housing got dispersed throughout a huge region with not many folks. Unless Lynnwood is your definition of urban. (I’ve never been to Lynnwood but plan to take Link to it when it opens to see why the region spent so many billions running light rail to Lynnwood).
The other problem is much of the upzoning resulted in really ugly building, like in the U. District, because there were no design standards, and I think that has turned off a lot of communities to upzoning. Seattle seems to think upzoning must be ugly because most is. Too bad more doesn’t look like Totem Lake. The Eastside just seems to understand zoning and design much better than west of the lake.
The commercial downtown upzoning was only like 3/4 blocks https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-oks-zoning-changes-hoping-to-attract-more-downtown-housing/
> If you ask me, the biggest flaw in Seattle’s zoning is the lack of a true urban core, because retail, commercial and housing got dispersed
It’s dispersed because one cannot build more in the core I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. I’m not quite following how maintaining stricter zoning somehow will encourage more development in the core. Also what you’re asking is basically already what Seattle is somewhat implementing with the urban villages.
> This region, especially Seattle, tends to prefer sub-urban development, 5-7 stories, which is why retail and commercial is so spread out, from Lynnwood to Tacoma, without any real urban core, so you need a lot more land for the same FAR
Focusing on your land comment, That’s just because that’s where it’s been approved. If a city in the Seattle metro area approves a site for 5/7 story building without onerous extra requirements it’ll be built. It’s not as if we are out of single family plots that can be redeveloped closer to Seattle it’s the zoning that blocks it
> The other problem is much of the upzoning resulted in really ugly building, like in the U. District, because there were no design standard
Seattle has a design committee but whatever I honestly don’t care this aspect as no one is able to actually define what kind of aesthetics they want when they decry xyz building being built. I’ve heard these design complaints from many people but their “fixes” all conflict enough other— the only consistency I’ve seen is to not build brutalist apartments but beyond that there is no real consensus what the public wants in terms of design
@ Fact Check
5/7 floors of residential height is not as limiting as you suggest, at least not in an international context. Paris consists almost entirely of buildings that height, and has a density of 52,000 people per square mile. At Parisian density, that means that within the 0.5 mile walkshed of a light rail stop you could theoretically have 40,000 people. That’s 25% more than the population of Capitol Hill in less than half the area.
Now, is it reasonable to expect such a neighborhood could develop around Alaska Junction in West Seattle? Probably not, and that is a question it seems like you would be more qualified to answer. I just want to point out that tall towers are not required for density sufficient to justify mass transit.
Do the upzone after ST has acquired the relevant ROW for Link construction to save ROW acquisition costs. Rezone should happen promptly once the opening date of Link operations is firm.
It’s a balancing act to determine when and how to upzone.
It comes down to ridership forecasting versus real estate acquisition. Upzoning early can be used to anticipate more activity meaning more riders — so that the project is easier to justify and get Federal funds.
However, it increases land value so it makes the project more expensive. That could make it more infeasible.
Probably the most strategic thing to do is to get the property in public ownership — then propose upzoning — and then pursue funding for the station.
It’s not legal for an agency to just go out and buy property though. Probably the closest thing that they could do is to propose a large parking lot for commuters or for storage of vehicles — knowing that in 10 years that lot will go away in favor of dense development.
The property along the WSLE likely route has likely already been purchased by investors. That is how it worked with East Link. The entire Spring Dist. was essentially determined by the property investors although they are having doubts today. That is a ton of capital tied up for a very long time.
Even if the property is needed for construction the owners demand a lease during construction so they receive an income stream during construction and own the property when construction is completed.
One big difference between East Link and WSLE is the upzones along East Link were over 22 stories in most areas. It looks like WS wants 5-7 stories and there is little money in those, especially if there is a retail requirement, or worse affordable housing setaside.
The other big difference is the property along East Link was bought pre-pandemic and had a significant commercial office component. That was a different time. TOD made more sense. More commuted to a downtown Seattle. Office buildings like The Horton Building and Smith Tower were not being given away.
No doubt increased density can increase transit ridership all things being equal. But all things basically are back to pre-pandemic normal, except commuting to office work in a downtown, and transit ridership.
I think any kind of upzoning in WS will have a marginal effect on ridership on WSLE, and just changes in travel, and changing commuting patterns from 2018 until whenever WSLE opens, will exceed or offset ridership gains from upzoning, although upzoning can have benefits other than transit ridership if very carefully implemented.
Upzoning simply to manufacture transit ridership on a very expensive Line like WSLE is usually a poor reason to upzone. Ideally not just the upzone but the development and density from a upzone precede something as expensive as WSLE.
For example Link to Belltown and SLU make more sense today before WS.
Transit ridership is too unpredictable post pandemic, and WSLE will likely cost $6 billion for a stub to Sodo that is not attractive transit to someone in WS. If going from a bus to light rail means the time of trip goes up with transfer, and convenience for a transit rider goes down, it is unrealistic to think that will increase transit ridership whether there is an upzone or not.
Re: ridership on WSLE it will likely be the same us buses today unless there is massive population growth and density in WS that doesn’t seem to be WS’s plan, or somehow everyone begins commuting to work in downtown Seattle again, also unlikely.
So the question is whether bus ridership from WS today along the limited route WS will take to a stub in Sodo justifies the price of WSLE. Apparently the answer in Seattle is yes because they are building WSLE.
It looks like WS wants 5-7 stories
Yes. This is the upzone. Not skyscrapers, but 5-7 stories. And yes, this is a significant increase in density. If all of Seattle was like this we would have room for a lot more people.
But there are only three stations. Three extremely expensive stations. For this to pencil out West Seattle needs to build skyscrapers (like Downtown Bellevue) and that is just unrealistic. Even then it isn’t clear it is worth it.
I think it needs to be mentioned that the station walksheds in West Seattle are limited. Delridge has both nearby parkland on one side and the West Seattle street approaches o the other. Avalon is limited by these things too. It’s really only the end station that has the most opportunity — but going further south than Edmunds, further north than Dakota or further west than 45th with higher density would be a political battle.
A change in zoning can lead to more TOD. But I think network dynamics and the existing infrastructure and development is way more important than TOD. Consider the difference between a Ballard-to-UW subway (what I’ll call Ballard-UW Link) and West Seattle Link. At first glance they look fairly similar. Neither is cheap. West Seattle Link only has three new stations, Ballard would have somewhere between three and five. Ballard is a bit more developed than West Seattle, but it isn’t Belltown. Ballard and the Junction are similar from an attraction standpoint — they both have clubs and other urban attractions.
It is only when you consider everything else that they look very different. Ballard-UW Link would essentially replace the 44 — a notoriously slow bus. It is also a very slow drive. For many people, riding the train would be faster than driving, at noon. In contrast, West Seattle Link will replace a drive (and bus ride) that is extremely fast. Very rarely would it be faster to take the train instead of driving.
Then consider the overall transit network. Ballard-UW Link would be an east west subway in a land of fast, frequent north-south buses. These buses will never take an abrupt turn and head towards the UW (even though the UW is a major destination, probably top three in the state). Thus riders along those north-south corridors who are headed to the UW have to transfer no matter what is built. Not only that, but due to our geography and street grid, it is much easier to go north-south than east west. In fact, we don’t even have east-west pathways to connect to the (north-south) Link, let alone buses that go that way. For example it would make sense to run a bus from 65th & Seaview Avenue directly east, all the way to Sand Point. Obviously this is impossible. Even if you started at 32nd Avenue NW and even if you managed to go up and over Phinney Ridge you run into Green Lake. Likewise, it would make sense to have an east west line on 85th that again goes straight across, connecting to a station there. Unfortunately there is no station there. So a bus has to go south to 65th, or zig-zag north to 103rd. Even a bus on the Holman Road/Northgate Way corridor has to leave it to serve the station. This means that for a huge number of riders in the city the best way to connect to the UW (as well as other Link destinations) is to go on the fast and frequent north-south bus, and a very fast and very frequent east-west subway. I emphasize the location of these riders because they aren’t that far away, and live in fairly urban areas, and are thus more likely to ride transit.
The dynamic is different in West Seattle. The major buses all head towards downtown. Even the 50 (which doesn’t) happens to connect to Link. For those riders, West Seattle Link just moves the transfer point a bit. For other riders it means a transfer that didn’t exist before. This is a major difference between the two projects.
The bus network — as well as the existing streets — favors Ballard-to-UW Link; it contradicts West Seattle Link. There is only so much TOD can do to make up for this fundamental difference.
This is the crux of the issue. If West Seattle were an at-grade extension to a neighborhood with moderate density on a peninsula it would make a great reversing stub for the Everett trains. But it’s emphatically not an at-grade extension. It’s a major engineering project from the junction with Line 1 to the very end. It’s either in tunnel or on stilts for 90% of the way, and the ten percent that’s “at-grade” will actually be in a trench next to the West Seattle Freeway.
It is folly and governmental overreach of the worst sort, and it won’t even be better transit. For most riders it will take longer to reach their destinations than simple bus improvements would.
Sure, the vehicles are nicer, but spending $4 billion and end up with roughly the same ridership and higher operating costs is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Either the neighborhood agrees to twenty stories in an oval strip from 35th and Dakota to 44th SW and Edmunds now, and the City passes the zoning or the project should be tossed.
In truth, the entirety of ST3 ought to be revoked, except for the Stride lines and some station improvements. Fiscall speaking, “Winter is coming.” and we need to accept that.
[Actually, of course, it’s not “winter” we need to worry about, but burning up in the summer. But it’s a good line.]
If West Seattle were an at-grade extension to a neighborhood with moderate density on a peninsula it would make a great reversing stub for the Everett trains. But it’s emphatically not an at-grade extension. It’s a major engineering project from the junction with Line 1 to the very end.
Exactly. It is three stations, at a cost of over a billion dollars per station. That is just to connect it to SoDo. It gets worse. West Seattle Link is also the rationale used for building a second downtown tunnel that will add nothing in terms of mobility, and make many trips worse. It is just a massive amount of money for very little benefit.
Yet it is not the worst value in ST3! Various projects have the same issue. They would be OK if they were much cheaper or added a lot more value, but they don’t.
I’m feeling a bit angry and deceived that the bridge span design and cost issue was ignored in the original West Seattle Link project. Why is this only being revealed now as the revised EIS is in its final stages? This should have been revealed in 2019 or 2020.
It feels like a bait and switch. And ST has not revealed how much more the design change will increase the badly-estimated project budget further.
The waterway limitations were discovered during the comment period on the 2022 WSBLE DEIS. One of the main points of the comment period is for other bodies to inform projects of limitations that might not be obvious from engineering manuals or standard environmental regulations.
ST says it completed an “internal evaluation” of the various bridge options in November 2022. I have requested copies of this evaluation via a public records request, but I suspect the selection of the bridge was partially for aesthetics (to help get the project approved by folks who would oppose the project based on such things) and for cost/feasibility.
They didn’t know yet. The problem is that ST doesn’t study and design them more closely before the ballot measure, so that we’d have those answers before we vote. The reason we don’t is a lot of people don’t want to spend money exhaustively studying and designing something that may not be approved; if it’s not, they’d consider the money wasted and the agency shouldn’t have spent it. ST is trying to avoid that, and ST 1/2/3’s structure doesn’t give it resources to do it. So it happens after the vote, and then all these unstable soils are discovered, along with ultra-deep stations, long transfers, alignment/station decisions, bridge aesthetics, etc.
The reason we don’t is a lot of people don’t want to spend money exhaustively studying and designing something that may not be approved; if it’s not, they’d consider the money wasted and the agency shouldn’t have spent it.
In other words they are far more comfortable with a bait-and-switch approach, rather than rejecting ideas that just aren’t worth it. This is wrong. Mass transit is a measure-twice, cut once proposition, and taking the current approach is bound to be flawed.
It all goes back to the fundamental problem with ST planning. They put the cart before the horse. They start with the assumption that rail should go somewhere and that somewhere is often an arbitrary location. I’m not talking about places like Downtown Bellevue or UW — those are clearly major locations worthy of rail. But places like South Kirkland, West Seattle or the Tacoma Dome. Maybe these are worthwhile values, but that is not at all obvious — in fact it is the opposite. Going there has to be considered along with areas that have similar (or higher) potential like Fremont, Belltown and First Hill. Then consider various pathways, like a Metro 8 subway or a Ballard to UW line. Consider alternate approaches, like BRT. Then study things to determine whether it is worth it. If it looks like an area is surprisingly good (e. g. serving it is really cheap) then keep studying it in more depth to make sure that choice is the right one. If it turns out the initial study is flawed, then reopen the other studies to see if other options are now a better value.
But instead they pick a place like West Seattle and then try to figure out how to get there. They make bad assumptions with BRT and determine it won’t work. They come up with an initial estimate and the cheaper the better. Not to the point of fraud. Chances are, no one is hiding a document that said that the assumptions they made were faulty to begin with. But people doing the initial planning are encouraged to be optimistic and assume the best. They keep their doubts to themselves. As a result, we end up with a project that is clearly flawed. The only argument for West Seattle Link is that it would be really inexpensive, and obviously it isn’t.
Now that we’ve had the vote, it is assumed that we have to build it. “This is what people voted for” is the argument. Except they didn’t. Not at this price. Furthermore, if given alternatives, it is quite possible they would have preferred those. So because of a fairly arbitrary choice followed by initial (overly optimistic and faulty) planning favoring a particular mode followed by a vote (that passed) we are basically stuck with this. It is considered a mandate from the people. They rose up and demanded this particular project above all others. Poppycock.
The problem is that the way ST is set up, they can’t just be given a revenue stream for capital projects, so every ST package is inherently political in order to win votes for passage.
My problem with all this rethink-the-link style argumentation is that it seems to forget all of the work that went into developing ST3 to ensure passage in 2016. Sure, some folks were vocally opposed to it then and remain opposed to it now, but if their arguments were electorally unpopular then, and the arguments haven’t substantially changed (except that the projects will take longer than expected to account for increased costs), what’s the point?
ST3’s projects were unlike ST2 in that most of the proposals were planning for the future, not simply addressing current needs. With the cost explosion in 2020-2021, the work that needs to be done now is figuring out how to make these projects as worthwhile as can be.
Holy Reshevsky, Batman. This isn’t transit for the poor. This is a monument to Sound Transit, West Seattle, and unbridled and shameless wealth. I hope Ballard is watching because Ballard Link is paying for this bridge which we all know will cost at least 50% more than ST estimates today. I imagine they will soon start building penthouses near the stations.
How do you propose we get light rail to West Seattle without a bridge?
Are you saying that road bridges are worth the money but transit bridges are not?
Rapid ride currently uses a road bridge into West Seattle
It’s not just the size of the Duwamish bridge, the whole approach from SODO station to the Duwamish is about 100 to 150 ft high in the air. I have not seen any other elevated rail bridge of that height for several miles. They have not shown any rendering of the access branches towards the OMF. This will be a massive monument. I am also concerned that this viaduct is built in one of the least stable areas of Seattle. What will happen in an earthquake? I don’t think the support columns will reach bedrock. This whole area is prone to liquefaction during an earthquake. The 1 Line tracks already had to get stabilized by the Stadium station. We just removed a viaduct as it became an earthquake hazard, now we’re building another one?
The OMF access branches would be around the same height as the East Link overpass.
Support columns would be placed on deep foundation piles, using common foundation engineering procedures. It’s not hard to drill deep piles, just expensive. WSDOT had to do a similar process for the rebuild of the SR 520 western approach bridges.
I agree with you generally, Martin — and I strongly agree that ST has not been forthcoming about the SODO and the OMF interface.
I notice that ST discloses things more for political gain (We will build a pretty cable-stayed bridge! We will protect the herons!) but avoids telling the public about other crucial and expensive design details. I’m reminded at how little discussion there is on the various bus-rail and rail-rail transfers — of which there will be tens of thousands every single day.
The amazing thing to me is that ST has already made it clear that they’ll need larger OMFs because they mistakenly underestimated their needs in 2016 — but has yet to consider adding storage capacity to the Central OMF even though it will need to add new track connections anyway.
Given how the OMF is a mere 500 feet away from the proposed West Seattle alignment, I’m surprised that ST has dug its heels in building along the busway south of Lander on a new corridor. It seemingly could be built above the OMF. Plus, there is no discussion about crossover or scissor tracks to provide access between the lines either.
I keep hoping that ST brings in an outside rail operations team with no stake in things (no bidding on further engineering or construction) to improve this costly yet inefficient ST3 system of tracks . But that seems too politically risky for the Board to even consider. They might hear that they’re doing something wrong and they can’t bear the thought of being wrong.
Are there cost estimates tied to these designs somewhere? I briefly browsed through the design powerpoint/pdf but didn’t find it
No, as I note at the end of the article, we don’t know whether or not this bridge style is more expensive than the estimates included in the 2022 DEIS.
Dear Lord! ANOTHER bridge? As a lifelong resident who spent most of my years waiting, navigating and crossing the bridges we have, I’m astounded !!! The level of complication crossing that thin strip of Duwamish River is mind-boggling. I have to agree that the design looks like a monument to ST and yes, WEALTH not available to most of us.
Also, what gives with the insane length of this comment thread? I literally fell asleep 3 times trying to get through it all. And it took a half hour to just scroll down to the comment section. I’m done now. Light rail in & out of West Seattle requires too much mental gymnastics to accomplish!
The public comment document for the Westside MAX project, which will consume about as much public money as this bridge, produced three bound volumes. 36 comments is nothing compared to the expense..
FOUR BILLION DOLLARS.
As a West Seattle resident and downtown worker, I fully support this project. If you haven’t been to the Junction lately, you may not have noticed the extensive redevelopment underway. A significant amount of 5-over-2 projects have been completed and more are in for review. West Seattle’s density is increasing rapidly and I’m all for it.
I don’t want the project justification issue to usurp the salient discussion at hand, which I see is about the bridge design itself.
The simple fact is that cable-stayed bridges are more expensive to build, take longer to build, and are mainly used when the spans must be well over 1,000 feet. That’s on top of the risk of having a tower approaching the height of the Space Needle only about 2 miles from the end of the Boeing Field runway.
ST did not present any arch bridge design. Arch bridges are very common for this span distance. They can be built on barges and lifted into place. They have more stability in an earthquake.
Not only is ST ignoring an arch bridge option, they also won’t disclose how much more expensive the cable staged choice will be.
This is one more instance of how ST is implementing its system expansion in a manipulative way.
I can’t help but wonder what the back story is. Is some key staff member obsessed with cable stayed bridges? Did some bridge builder contribute to a campaign? Or was it merely that a group making decisions thought it was pretty?
Given how this project has been expanded beyond ST3 assumptions, I think a fairer question should be this: What elements of ST3 should be reduced so ST can build a prettier bridge? It feels like ST is institutionally still in a giddy shopping spree mode.
“I can’t help but wonder what the back story is. Is some key staff member obsessed with cable stayed bridges? Did some bridge builder contribute to a campaign? Or was it merely that a group making decisions thought it was pretty?”
Yall are getting way too conspiratorial about a bridge and the ulterior motives of ST despite none of us having an engineering degree in our pocket to really talk about the problems or cosr from a structural engineering perspective.
It’s why I’m ambivalent on the cost of the West Seattle Link because I’m not experienced in how construction costs work and are calculated and don’t want to form an opinion on something I don’t understand or might be understanding wrong because I’m not an engineer.
I think some of yall need to step back and breathe instead of getting irrationally angry about it. It’d do all of you a lot of good instead of getting angry about West Seattle Link for thousandth time on here.
Well…that should keep pilots flying into Boeing Field centered on their glidepath…phew!
The bridge itself and the approach is fine. The cable stayed bridge seems to be a common one used such as in Portland “Willamette River Transit Bridge”. If we could check and compare the costs as long as they choose the cheapest or relatively in ballpark I’m fine with it.
I’m not sure why the design commission is choosing the higher one, though I guess perhaps this committee only cares about aesthetics whenever it’s the finance committee or executive committee that meeting will probably be more important.
I searched around sound transit documents a bit but could not find any comparisons of costs of the different bridge versions.
The steel truss one from a cursory google search online seems to have higher maintenance costs.
Yeah, as long as it’s in ballpark with typical costs of building said type of bridge , then it’s probably fine. The design of the bridge is likely a mix of both aesthetics and practical engineering. I think people getting hung up on calling it “monument” honestly are probably making a mountain out of amole hill on it.