Implications of the West Seattle Link Cost

113 Replies to “Implications of the West Seattle Link Cost”

1. As always Martin, you have given a careful and neutral analysis of a transit issue the Puget Sound region faces. Thank you.

   Even better, your careful and measured approach has delivered a torpedo to the engine room of the “SS WSLE”. If a $7 billion cost doesn’t sink this bloated gift to the construction industry, there is no possible help for Seattle’s governance. The city, facing a precipitous and permenent plunge in its B&O Tax lifeline, simply cannot afford such a wasteful fiasco.

   In truth, it can’t afford “BLE” as designed by the “What, me worry?” designers that Skycastle Transit hires, either.

   “Stop the Steal!”

   1. “you have given a careful and neutral analysis of a transit issue the Puget Sound region faces.”

      It’s the STB way. :) Lay out the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.

2. I still have not seen a viable plan to connect Ballard Link through the existing downtown light rail tunnel. I don’t know how that line gets through downtown without a second light rail tunnel.

   Furthermore, the packed trains from Lynnwood ought to be throwing some cold water onto the pretense that trips from Ballard could realistically be added to the existing tunnel, even if there were an engineering solution to get Ballard Link into the existing tunnel.

   Last week’s train-stall messes should sober us up even further about adding Ballard as a string of single points of failure that can grind the whole network to a sudden unplanned halt. Vice versa, the odds are even higher that the rest of the network will be many miles of single points of failure that could bring Ballard Link to lots of unplanned sudden halts. For all its problems, the second tunnel at least isolates the sudden halts on one line from the sudden halts on the other, cutting instances of sudden failure on each separate line by roughly half, and giving north Seattleites at least one line at any given time (except overnight) still functioning as scheduled, so they can shift to the other line to at least get across the Ship Canal.

   1. I wouldn’t run the Ballard trains through the existing tunnel, but make it easy for riders to transfer at Westlake. Ultimately, it would be better to build a 2nd tunnel further east to provide redundancy but also add new destinations/ridership as i outlined in https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/01/10/focus-on-slu-and-ballard/

      1. I agree. I originally wrote an essay proposing that Ballard branch off from the other lines at Westlake, but have changed my mind. The advantages of making the Ballard Line stand-alone (and automated) far outweigh the transfer penalty.

         For all its problems, the second tunnel at least isolates the sudden halts on one line from the sudden halts on the other

         A stand-alone line would be better (that what they proposed) in that regard. If Ballard Link has a problem, it would not effect travel to Rainier Valley or SeaTac. If there is an accident or problem in Rainier Valley, it doesn’t effect Ballard Link.

         I think Brent encapsulates the problem. The people designing the system were thinking like Brent (and me). The original thought was to put all the trains on the same line. Then someone suggested that having a third train through downtown would reduce capacity to the north. My thought was it was a small price to pay (we would never need it) but the board felt otherwise. No one suggested just isolating the Ballard Line. At first glance that seems like a bad idea. You are forcing riders to transfer. But if the line is automated and running quickly, it doesn’t matter. By definition the main line (through downtown) will be running frequently (somewhere between 2 to 3 minutes all day long). The automated train to Ballard should run with similar frequency (it is short, urban and automated — perfect for high frequency). Even the most awkward transfer is painless with that kind of frequency (hopefully it wouldn’t be).

         I think part of the problem is a lack of imagination. We think in terms of Link right now — large trains running every 7 minutes at best. The idea of trains half that size (but with more than half the capacity) running every couple minutes just didn’t occur to the board (or me).

         While it is better in the short term, in the long term it is much better. Serving First Hill in the manner would be huge. Continuing and then connecting Judkins Park and Mount Baker stations would add much more resiliency than the second tunnel. Thus you get something really good much sooner (trains running every couple minutes to Ballard) and in the long term the second tunnel actually provides stations worth transferring to.

      2. Also:
         All indications so far is that the most overcrowded tunnel segment is going to be Westlake – UW. The proposed DSTT2 isn’t going to solve that.

         Westlake – Ballard could be built such that it could eventually add more capacity on this segment by turning northeast instead of south.

      3. Or cross the ship canal at Fremont after running under Queen Anne, run up to 45th, and then turn west to Ballard.

         That would actually serve enough population to justify the boondoggle, and siphon some of north-enders who might take the one line at Roosevelt, Northgate and UW into the new, less-crowded Ballard line.

         It couldn’t possibly be much more expensive than the the nonsense they are “preferring” now.

      4. “No one suggested just isolating the Ballard Line.”

         That’s what the Ballard Link project was at one point. Ballard to Westlake, and further to be determined. Ballard-DSTT2-West Seattle has gone from one project to three projects to two projects.

   2. I will point out that even the current plan will not have a seamless crossover betweeen the 1 Line and the 3 Line.

      There is this implied connectivity in SODO that many people assume it there because it’s such an obvious layout, but it’s not.

   3. Brent, nobody is proposing that Ballard trains pass through the existing tunnel. Over a period of three years around 2020 we dissected the problem of directly merging in a Ballard line and generally agreed that it cannot be done without unacceptable costs and disruption.

      The consensus position of the Blog participants is that a Ballard-SLU line should be an automated Light Metro, with shorter trains in the style of Skytrain. It would provide transfers to the existing tunnel at Westlake and be configured to allow ab extension to First Hill in the future without forcing a closure.

      Given that WSLE is now recognized to be an unaffordable fustercluck, with a full “BLE” running beyond Expedia not much better, running Line 1 at least as far as Northgate permanently seems the highest and best solution. Yes, it’s a long way from Tacoma to Lynnwood, but really, who actually believes that the TDLE-Links game ST proposes south of Federal Way will ever prove to be useful transit?

      So stop at Federal Way and Lynnwood and run line 1 from Federal Way to Lynnwood. Add better reversing at Northgate and Stadium or SoDo to support an overlay line between them at peak hours. Dig shallower, smaller diameter bores for the SLU automated distributor, again with seamless extension beyond Expwdia possible, and call it done and good enough. [You would have to get to Smith Cove anyway in order to host a small MF for the automated line. Trains can simply run around the clock or be parked in the tunnel if a nughtly shutdown is preferred.

      That would shorten the duration of ST3 taxes by half and focus service on the developable core of the region.

      1. The only way it might be done would be if they could use the old bus tunnel branch that used to go to Convention Place station. Even that would be problematic:

         1. We don’t know how close behind the new wall convention center stuff was built. It could be they made it physically impossible.

         2. Branching there would be a surface crossing, so would reduce tunnel capacity.

         3. There would be some pretty awful construction impacts (not that there wouldn’t already be if/when they cut in West Seattle to the Rainier Valley line and send Rainier Valley to the deep bore tunnel)

      2. The Convention Place branch was to the station where the buses turned. The station has been replaced with the Convention Center’s foundation. In between Westlake and the former station is the block with the Camlin Hotel. I doubt Ballard trains could make such a sharp turn under the hotel or 9th Avenue even if the hollow under the hotel is still hollow.

      3. The sharp bend from 3rd to Pine has also been a maintenance headache ever since it opened. Planning another sharp turn like that seems a bad decision.

      4. A few things need clarification:

         1. There is a difference between regular service tracks and access tracks to the rest of the system. That’s because regular tracks in service will be in use well over 100 times in each direction per day while access tracks to a sub would be less than 10. That makes a huge difference when planning how trains cross between tracks with switches. For example, a train that’s out of service may be able to cross at a slower speed with little disruption yet an in-service train would probably need a faster speed to change tracks.

         2. Automated vehicles can be run on other tracks in manual mode if designed for that. The track geometry, power system, signals and platform clearance would need to be compatible — but it’s possible.

         These things are determined through further study.

         What’s needed is for ST board to demand a study of an automated Ballard-Westlake segment. The current BLE work can be tweaked to add an automated option complete with smaller station vaults, more frequent trains and an OMF strategy or two.

         Then ST needs a companion study analyzing three lines in the DSTT. How many trains are needed to handle the peak demand where the three branches would be south of ID-C? How many can the DSTT realistically carry? Should the DSTT segment northward be fully automated?

         ST will want to keep pushing the West Seattle schedule. But they really need to pause. The stub operation will not be of any value; the full system through Downtown is needed to give West Seattle Link any value. Thus it’s not needed until the 2040’s.

         How do we get the Board to pause this expensive West Seattle project until broader solutions are studied? There’s no need to start construction in 2026-7.

         Then how to we get ST to add some automated alternatives?

      5. “ In between Westlake and the former station is the block with the Camlin Hotel.”

         For several years, part of the former branch to CPS was still there, with a big steel roll-up door at the end of it. It is/was about 1 block + east of the Westlake station platforms. Last time I went through was in May, and it looked like they had finally sealed off that last segment.

         Light rail trains are able to turn fairly sharp curves. Without knowing the exact layout of what they put under 9th, it’s hard for me to agree or not that it’s impossible. The stub end was there all through construction and finishing of the convention center. Unless they suddenly needed a huge storage room (not out of the question) that extended under 9th, I’m not sure what they would have suddenly used the space for.

         But, the entire thing remains unstudied. Everyone was originally operating under the assumption DSTT2 would be no worse than the existing tunnel rather than 9 floors below it.

      6. Glenn, yes, that is the only possible location. IF Metro had made the cut and cover tunnel with a center breakdown lane it might have been possible to have a diving track on the right or in the middle for a burrowing junction. The tunnel under Pine does rise about one story between the east end of the Westlake platforms and the curve into the TBM removal vault. However, the tunnel physically narrows about thirty feet east of the end of the platforms, leaving only about a half a lane between the two roadway lanes. So no burrowing junction; they can’t remove the bearing walls of the existing tunnel.

         A level crossing there would cause major chaos, and, anyway, there isn’t room between the northeast wall of the Convention Center expansion and the freeway, even if you tunnel under the Pike/Pine ramp.

      7. Of course you could always branch the main line to Ballard. That really isn’t the issue. Or rather, it isn’t the only issue. A stand-alone Ballard line is simply better. There are couple reasons why:

         1) It can be automated. This means better stations at lower cost.
         2) Automation also means more frequent service on the trains.
         3) It can eventually be extended to First Hill.
         4) You retain maximum capacity as far north as you want (e. g. Northgate).
         5) The alternative (branching) is likely expensive and disruptive.

         The Ballard Line would be completely urban. Many of the potential trips are short. This makes it different than much of our system. Frequency is more important (and speed less important) with short, urban trips. As we’ve seen, station placement is challenging in an urban environment. It is fairly easy to build a station in Federal Way (there is a lot of relatively cheap land and not many big buildings). Ballard Link is the opposite.

         Ballard Link is extremely well suited for an automated line.

      8. Guys, let’s be clear about the former S-bend into the Convention Center Station. It did not begin until mid-Ninth Avenue, east of the Camlin’s foundation. Ninth Avenue is one of the narrower downtown streets.

         No 90° LRV curve is possible there. Even if it were possible, it would have to be negotiated at such a slow speed that operations on the main stem would be totally effyouseekayed.

         Forget branching. It cannot be done without demolishing two block’s worth of buildings on the east side of Third Avenue between Union and Pine in order to get deep enough to underrun the curve into Westlake Center. There’s a relatively new skyscraper at the corner of Third and Pike whose sub-basements must reach down to track level with supports below that. That building extends all the way through the block to Fourth Avenue, so it has a lot of floor space in total. Taking it down would cost a half billion, and the building with Ross in it in the half-block across Pike to the south would also have to go. Demolishing a ten year old high-rise would rightly be considered community vandalism.

         And, there’s the problem of tying the new northbound track into the existing bore north of the Symphony Station north bulkhead. That would mean the pain of opening Third, encasing the tunnel in an adjacent “junction box” and very carefully demoing the bore walls. It can be and is done, but it’s not something one undertakes lightly.

      9. TriMet MAX manages such things, but their trains are half the length of Link trains.

         However, that connection could be a very useful thing for maintenance or unusual operations – if it were something that could be used at all.

         Eg: suppose the north tunnel segment needs to be closed for some problem or other. Rainier Valley trains could then operate to Ballard.

         Chicago has a number of these little connection tracks that aren’t regularly used, but are very useful when needed.

   4. “I still have not seen a viable plan to connect Ballard Link through the existing downtown light rail tunnel.”

      We’ve given up on that because of the difficulties in branching into an underground segment. Our proposals would have a Ballard-Westlake shuttle that everyone would transfer to, and could be extended to First Hill, or extended south along the DSTT2 corridor to West Seattle. But the trains would be automated with smaller stations, so the tunnel would cost less than ST’s Ballard segment or DSTT2.

      The Convention Place exit would have been ideal because it went out directly to 9th Avenue toward SLU. But that station has been filled in now with the Convention Center foundation.

   5. It’s not Ballard that would be in the existing tunnel, but West Seattle. West Seattle trains would continue to Northgate at least, alongside the 1 and 2 Lines. ST’s plan would have 15 trains per hour (4-minute frequency on lines 2 & 3). Adding West Seattle would reach 22 trains per hour (3-minute frequency on lines 1, 2, and 3). That would substantially help any capacity issue.

      ST doesn’t want to run more than 20 trains per hour without capital improvements in DSTT1. ST already has a candidate ST3 project to make those improvements, that would surely cost much less than a second tunnel. Or it could delete two trains and have West Seattle run every 15 minutes.

      1. “Or it could delete two trains and have West Seattle run every 15 minutes.”

         If they can be convinced to eliminate DSTT2, they should have enough money for an improved Eastside to SoDo connection.

         One of the suggestions I had a while back was improve that connection so they no longer need the ridiculous center turning track at CID. This improved connection then allows for West Seattle to Bellevue trains. You could then run excess West Seattle trains directly to Bellevue and Redmond, which is probably just as valid a destination as downtown Seattle.

         If there’s not enough capacity in DSTT1 for more West Seattle trains, the frequency on the Rainier Valley line would be high enough to support transfers with minimal time penalty anyway, for those wanting to go to downtown Seattle and not wanting to wait for a direct train.

         The problem with all this is the freeway ramps and interchange make adding connecting tracks really difficult. They might have to build some ridiculous TriMet style tangle of tracks to do it.

      2. Some West Seattlites commute to Bellevue because that’s where many of the high-paying jobs are and the best shopping.

   6. Forcing all of Ballard/SLU to transfer isn’t taking away anything they have already. But redirecting southeast Seattle/SeaTac to DSTT2 as ST wants to would break the significantly improved connectivity between southeast Seattle and northeast Seattle.

      West Seattle should be the one that everyone has to transfer to because it has the lowest ridership and density. But it’s lucky that it can merge in in SODO and its location can naturally go through downtown to UW. So it’s getting an extraordinary advantage in ST3 under either ST’s plan or our alternative. But that’s what the geography is.

3. I see that the train is already moving so fast to start construction that it cannot be stopped without several Board members visibly and forcefully throwing on the emergency brakes. It is badly needed though. The stub is 10 years of pure silliness.

   I do find that the concept of a “minimum operating segment” an interesting addition to the project. It’s as if the FEIS is foretelling the cost-cutting “compromise”. It could have however been added as a red herring to demonstrate that the project is not useful without the whole extension. Which is it?

   1. Al, they blow their cover by actually calling the two station joke the “Minimum Operable Segment”. They are telling us with a straight face it doesn’t matter if a train between two non-points in an industrial district will actually attract riders.

      All that mattees to them is that the trains run. Job done!

      1. I mean, if they wanted a nowhere to nowhere two station solution, they could build a gondola…

      2. Actually, Glenn, gondolas support intermediate stations and therefore could connect SODO or even CID with Delridge, Avalon, and the Junction far sooner, far cheaper (far less than billion), and run more frequently and fully automated. Mexico City has multiple urban lines running now and even Paris is building one.

      3. A gondola would be a better value than West Seattle Link (by quite a bit) but bus improvements are still the best option.

         There is a trunk-and-branch demand pattern in West Seattle but the trunk is fairly weak and extremely expensive to build as a metro. There is nothing between SoDo and Delridge. There is very little by a potential Delridge station; Avalon is mediocre and even the Alaska Junction is not a major destination. So you have three stations — with an estimated cost now over $2 billion per station — and no major destination to speak of. The branches (where most ridership would come from) don’t benefit from the new line. The stations do not offer better connections to the rest of the city.

         This is the pattern that is best suited for buses. Riders at the branches retain their one-seat connection to the biggest destination in the state (downtown) and a major transit connection point (with connections to dozens of buses and both Link lines). Riders at the trunk locations (e. g. Avalon) benefit from the converging lines, and actually come out ahead (since the combined set of buses run more frequently).

         A metro works best when you have a string of difficult-to-reach destinations (e. g. downtown, Capitol Hill, UW, U-District). Each destination should be big, although good feeder stations along the way (with crossing service) or a good terminus feeder station is a bonus. But the key is that core. West Seattle lacks that core.

         A gondola works when you have some sort of natural obstacle that would make surface transit ineffective but not enough stations to justify a metro (but enough to justify a gondola).

      4. The West Seattle north-south axes that people live on contradict Link’s east-west orientation. In northeast and southeast Seattle and UW the predominant travel pattern is north-south, the villages are north-south from each other, and Link is north-south — so they all align. In West Seattle they’re at cross-purposes. So a multi-line BRT that follows the existing bus routes for the most part would serve West Seattle transit riders the best.

      5. If I were to turn my snark remark about a nowhere gondola into a thought process, I’d build a platform above the car staging area for Coleman Dock. No need to burden Link with more passengers only going one station. Start the thing in actual downtown, in an otherwise unused space.

         It means adding an extra turning point facility in SoDo, but the direct access to downtown would be well worth it, I think.

         With that as the starting point, I think you could build quite a network. You could reach a number of potential destinations that are off topic, but certainly a number in West Seattle as well.

         You’d also not have the huge tower problem of the cable stayed bridge.

      6. The West Seattle north-south axes that people live on contradict Link’s east-west orientation.

         I don’t think that is the biggest issue. I think it is:

         1) West Seattle has no large destinations but multiple mid-size ones. Link will only serve one.
         2) It is extremely expensive.
         3) It isn’t much faster than the buses.
         4) There is nothing in between West Seattle and SoDo worth serving.

         Allow me to elaborate on that first point. Greater West Seattle has Alki, Admiral Junction, Alaska Junction, Morgan Junction, High Point, South Seattle College and Westwood Village. I would consider Alaska Junction to be the biggest of these but it isn’t much bigger than any of the others. All of these are worthy destinations — similar to say, Beacon Hill. But they aren’t like Downtown Bellevue or the UW.

         To your point, from a geographic standpoint West Seattle (like most of Seattle) has hills which allow for relatively easy north-south travel and more difficult east-west travel. The streetcars were designed around the hills (http://tundria.com/trams/USA/Seattle-1931.php). The motorways followed. Some of the development is based on some of the old streetcar patterns (like Alki and certainly the Junction) but much of it just evolved with the zoning. Essentially we allowed development along major arterials. The H, for example, has lots of little destinations and no big ones which is how it manages to get 8,000 riders. Even the C (which has bigger destinations) only gets about as many riders as the H. There just aren’t big destinations in West Seattle, making it a poor choice for (an extremely expensive) subway line.

   2. It won’t start until the board makes a decision to start it. Merely having the EIS and having an MOS alternative doesn’t automatically build it.

4. Shut the whole thing down.

   1. Agreed. Maybe we need to start actually protesting this…

      1. See http://www.smartertransit.org.
         Light Rail has shown to be a non-starter by the 1st real analysis of the FEIS. The rest of the Boondoggle will similarly be exposed with detailed analysis and stakeholder scrutiny.
         It is time to shut Sound Transit down, create a representative board with elected members by District, get an independent performance audit of ST’s first 30 years since 1996′. Light rail is simply an inappropriate technology for our low density urban region.

5. Off topic but I don’t know who to reach out tomorrow is there any closures along 1 line? I am going to the Mariners game on 9/29 from the north and trip planner and google maps are telling me to get off at symphony and transfer to a bus

   1. The Open Threads (like yesterday’s roundup post) are the best place for questions like this – see my reply here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/27/weekend-roundup-ballard-bridge-closure/#comment-941991

   2. The open threads are the news roundups and Sunday movies. We’ve just moved from one to two news roundups per week, so that’s a total of three open threads per week. Occasionally another article will also be marked as an open thread, if it’s likely to get few comments on its own and isn’t a critical topic.

6. With design, construction impact and cost issues being so major, the proposed unrealistic schedule often ignored. But I wanted to mention it here.

   Simply put, I think it’s easy to conclude that West Seattle Link will not open in 2032. Why?

   1. There are too many steps before actual construction can begin. There are permits, a large number of property acquisitions, possible lawsuits, design refinements, soils testing with design changes and things like that. I don’t see these things getting done before 2027 and that could easily extend to 2028-2029.

   2. The best time achieved by ST for a multi-station extension is Lynnwood Link, which took 5 years. However there are two major elements which will need more time here.

   A) The Junction bored tunnel needs to order and receive a TBM. Plus, the deep subway station (100 feet the side of a football field) has to be excavated. This seemingly adds at least two years to the project. Keep in mind that the hole is positioned in a tight area with no quick freeways to haul off the excavated dirt.

   B) The cable stayed bridge tower has to be built. These towers have to be built from scratch. Keep in mind that the tower locations are also on unstable soils which will require a more elaborate design to make it safe.

   It’s noteworthy that Tacoma Dome Link extension got pushed from 2030 to 2032 in the realignment just like West Seattle — and that now has quickly pushed to 2035.

   And that doesn’t even begin to get into the very unlikely possibility that DSTT2 opens in 2042.

   While ST foremost needs to deal with the cost effectiveness and affordability of this project, the schedules that ST is rolling out look disingenuous to me. Even if ST had the project fully funded, I don’t see it opening until 2035 if not later. (The original 2030 date assumed no new tunneling in West Seattle by the way.)

   And given the problems with BLE plus DSTT2, I don’t see that opening date until 2045 or 2050. Keep in mind that both SF and LA have newly opened Downtown transit tunnels that both took 12 years of actual construction.

   I see the unrealistic opening date promises as just one more sign that ST is gaming these projects in PR spins — and will drop the schedule delay bombshell at some point after they get Board certification of the FEIS.

   1. “… directly related to the apparently-unexpected complexity of building the extension as drawn in 2016. “

      I don’t buy that the “complexity” was “apparently unexpected”. It was always expected to anyone comparing the project to others underway across the US at the time.

      And I don’t buy that the lowballed project budget in 2016 was realistic even back then. ST chose to assume a 10 percent contingency in 2016, when FTA recommends a 30 percent contingency at the release of the DEIS.

      Let’s not be charitable. We need to be blunt. The budget that ST told the public in 2016 was effectively an institutional lie. The staff and Board got so giddy about the project vision that they practically made up numbers to fulfill it. Many transit advocates did too.

      (The biggest budget lie was DSTT2 segment , which never got vetted nor accurately budgeted before the vote.)

      While inflation has played a role in cost increases, it’s not the main cause. ST wants the public to blame it on inflation rather than admit they lied or screwed up big time in 2016. They probably are afraid to admit it now because it reflects badly on current Board members. But anyone halfway paying attention will see that ST has been deceiving the public about project costs all along.

      In other words, the current project didn’t get more expensive. The initial project was instead just unrealistically budgeted from the start. ST is just now closer to being honest about the cost after eight years.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the price tag rises another 20 percent by the end of 2025 frankly.

   2. Opening on time in 2032 is very unlikely because that date was set before all these costs rose. But we don’t have any date that’s more certain, so it’s useless to speculate on when until ST says something. I don’t see the West Seattle-SODO stub or the MOS as useful to passengers, so who cares when it opens?

      We’ve been waiting for the costs of WS, DSTT2, and Ballard to catch up to ST and force another realignment or decision, or for ST to consider things it has so far refused to, and it may finally be happening. The board will now have to confront the West Seattle EIS and do something about it. It will take at least a month and more likely several for all the meetings and negotiations to take place, so we can’t expect a decision or re-realignment right now today.

7. Man what a mess. It’s possible they can figure ot out without babkrupting the region but I’m not optimistic. But hey atheist the pretend 2 line is popular!

8. IMO, the only thing West Seattle needs is a genuine, for real, complete, BUS ONLY lane/route to SR99.
   No shares, no splits, BUS ONLY.
   Spend just a couple of those billions for air rights and build proper bus only connections to 99, and they’d be good to go.
   No need to change commuter and rider trips from one or two seaters to three or four seaters.
   The Junction terminus serves a very tiny portion of West Seattle’s population without Metro to bring them to it.
   RapidRide routes do a fine job and could be excellent, with proper exclusive lanes.

   1. this is why rapidride has always been vaporware

      it’s always metro trying to use someone else’s infrastructure

   2. Congratulations, you have arrived at the 1985 Forward Thrust plan for WS. It was never in the cards for WS to get more than BRT and it doesn’t make all that much more sense now than it did back then.

      With the current mayor’s changes to the urban village planning and refusal to even upzone around current link stations, I don’t have super high hopes that anything substantial will happen in WS that would necessitate a rail line anytime soon.

9. Maybe the gondola isn’t such a bad idea after all haha…

10. Thanks for the article Martin. Here are my thoughts.

    I believe WLE is being driven by the cost estimates for BLE which Fesler put at $20 billion. Even if WLE is scrapped the subarea can’t afford BLE. Some talk about a BLE stub at Westlake or smaller automated train cars but that is pure speculation as ST has never even done an informal analysis of that idea if built by ST.

    It isn’t WLE that is the driving catalyst. It is the new estimated cost of BLE. WLE won’t “delay” BLE. BLE is never going to be built, at least in Link form and without a ST 4 The cost is so high for any rail (and DSTT2) about the only practical solution for BLE is a RR bus system although ironically that is what many advocate for WLE so Ballard LINK can be built when it can’t. Period. Unless someone can show me a professional analysis of an alternate rail system that is under $10 billion from Ballard to Westlake which would require scrapping WLE.

    Second, it is absurd for ST to use traffic congestion to support WLE. Link hasn’t moved any drivers to Link, whether U. Dist. to Northgate or LLE. Even ST admits WLE will create no new transit riders who today drive when it truncates at a stub (and could depress current bus ridership) and prior DEIS analyses on this blog calculated WSBLE would result in a tiny increase (around 600/day) in car drivers switching to Link from WS, and that was before work from home. At that is assuming ST’s projections are remotely accurate.

    BLE is not affordable. Even if it were the cost per rider is obscene and it would move no more car drivers to transit than WLE. Even if ALL of ST is built only 1% of all trips will be on Link according to the Seattle Times.

    WLE is terrible transit but the subarea has around $10 to $12 billion, if that, to spend after 130th and Graham St. stations so it has to spend it somewhere, no different than Issaquah Link that is estimated to cost only $3.2 billion in a subarea with roughly the same subarea revenue but not nearly the grants.

    For some reason Seattle urbanists and transit advocates think WS is “privileged” although the vast majority of WS (White Center et al) is much poorer than the greater Ballard area, maybe because Ballard is geared more toward single people and WS is geared toward families. It doesn’t appear anyone on this blog calling for scrapping WLE or value engineering it actually lives in WS, or even visits (and they apparently hate golf and golf courses).

    It is stupid to run Link or any rail to either WS or Ballard but the subarea has around $10 billion from ST 3 it MUST spend because ST 3 is stupid, WLE was one of the projects in the levy, it has 80,000 residents, the chair of the Board lives there, and it costs less than $10 billion even underground with 3 stations.

    End of story. Unless someone can identify a truly compelling case where else $1 or $1.5 billion can be spent from value engineering WLE.

    No doubt WLE could be valued engineered to save $1 or $1.5 billion and leave a large scar in WS and demolish hundreds of homes and businesses but why? What is N. King going to do with $1 or $1.5 billion. Certainly not BLE whether automated or not. I just don’t see ST falling on its sword for Ballard. Why?

    Tom called it in way fewer words than me. You know what ST plans to do by the titles it assigns to each scenario.

    1. It isn’t WLE that is the driving catalyst.

       Driving catalyst for what? I honestly am not sure what point you are trying to make. You write:

       For some reason Seattle urbanists and transit advocates think WS is “privileged”

       Who the hell said that? Are you just making strawman arguments now? “Some Seattle Urbanists believe the moon is made of cheese.”

       It doesn’t appear anyone on this blog calling for scrapping WLE or value engineering it actually lives in WS, or even visits

       Bullshit! From day one I’ve been critical of West Seattle Link and now you want to ask for my West Seattle bonafides? Fine, two of my siblings live in West Seattle (on in High Point, the other further north). My mom used to live in West Seattle. She actually died in West Seattle. You are the only one making ridiculous assumptions about the people that live in these areas, while missing the bigger picture here. West Seattle Link is a bad value because it will do so little for West Seattle. It doesn’t matter how much money they make, what their marital status is, what gender they are what they like to eat for breakfast. The people of West Seattle will get very little out of West Seattle Link despite the enormous costs.

       Then there is this:

       WLE is terrible transit but the subarea has around $10 to $12 billion, if that, to spend … BLE is not affordable.

       Wait, so the area is somehow loaded and can spend well over ten billion dollars on terrible transit? But not on something that actually adds value? Is that your point? That West Seattle Link is a better value than Ballard Link? Seriously? Do you really want us to explain to you (again) why Ballard Link adds so much more value than West Seattle Link?

    2. “It doesn’t appear anyone on this blog calling for scrapping WLE or value engineering it actually lives in WS, or even visits”

       Martin has a lot of experience with West Seattle. I’ll leave it to him to share more about it or not if he wishes.

    3. “For some reason Seattle urbanists and transit advocates think WS is “privileged” although the vast majority of WS (White Center et al) is much poorer”

       We think THE POLITICIANS think it’s privileged and must be deferred to. Not the poorer areas along 35th and Delridge, but the predominantly single-family areas west and northeast of the Junction. The politicians’ attitude seems to be these are “people like us” like the Eastside and the rest of the suburbs. Dow explicity put West Seattle first in North King’s ST3, and it’s hard to find any reason other than privilege. It’s not Seattle’s fifth-largest village (that would be Ballard), or a highrise district (that would be SLU), or industry near a station that workers could walk to (that would again be Ballard and Interbay). The Link alignment doesn’t serve the poorer part of West Seattle like a Delridge alignment would. So what’s left other than privilege?

    4. «For some reason Seattle urbanists and transit advocates think WS is “privileged“ although the vast majority of WS (White Center et al) is much poorer than the greater Ballard area»

       White Center and the “et al) will get worse transit after West Seattle is built. In fact, with the Junction Station 100 feet down, even the few living next to the station will probably have an overall slower trip to most anywhere than today.

       As far as the “privileged” thing goes, you’re trying to put your own words in other peoples mouths. A project that makes transportation worse is a bad value.

    5. Yes, but the politicians think it’s better transit for West Seattle. I can’t imagine a politician thinking, “We want to spend a lot of money on West Seattle transit AND make transit worse.” They’d only do it if they think it would make transit better. And the fact that they prioritize West Seattle disproportionately has to have a reason, and the only plausable reason we can find is privilege.

11. Let’s see, how long ago was it that Seattle voters approved a monorail from Ballard to downtown to west Seattle? Was it four (4) times? However, the bigwigs downtown didn’t want it. Then Seattle voters basically gave Sound Transit a blank check. I really couldn’t stand it anymore and (after 70 years) moved to a small town seven years ago. I had gotten so I didn’t even want to read the Seattle newspaper anymore. What a mess! Maybe someone should start a support group for forlorn commuters.

    1. The monorail finally melted down in financial nonviability. Yes, the downtown business interests forced it to move from 2nd to 5th Avenue so that 2nd wouldn’t lose parking spaces and riders couldn’t see into their third-floor windows, but that’s not what ultimately killed the monorail. It survived votes after that. What finally did it in was an Eyman initiative that yanked its primary funding source out from under it (a car-excise tax), and it couldn’t piece together a serious financial plan with its remaining resources, and it had unrealistic expectations in the first place. For instance, it wouldn’t accept transfers because it needed all the fare revenue, so people like me who really wanted to take it would still take a bus for potential monorail+bus trips to avoid paying a double fare. And the technology was limited to 35 mph. And part of it was single-tracked to save money, thus limiting its frequency to 15-20 minutes or so. And in the end half the line was deferred (I forget whether it was Ballard or West Seattle). That turned even some of its previous supporters against it, and it lost the last vote.

12. Part of the motivation for this article and another we’re considering is some editors are wondering whether ST is heading toward another budget-gap crisis like it had in 2000. I’m not sure how similar they are, and my knowledge of the details of 2000 is fuzzy because there was nothing like STB then. But I feel like Martin does that ST will have to do another realignment at least. And the direction of that realignment will be a major issue: whether ST just postpones things later and leaves more uncertainty on whether they’ll ever get done, or whether it drops things and starts considering other things it has heretofore refused to. I’m more patient than Frank is on waiting for all the reports and meetings and negotiations until we hear something definite, but I might agree with maybe half of his sentiment.

    1. This is the right question to be asking. Quite literally, it’s becoming apparent they may not have the ability to deliver the program described in the plan. The plan is clear about what the board needs to do when confronted by such circumstances. See ST3 Plan, Appendix B. They can:

       § Correct the shortfall through use of such subarea’s
       uncommitted funds and/or bond capacity available to
       the subarea; and/or

       § Scale back the subarea plan or projects within the
       plan to match a revised budget; and/or

       § Extend the time period of completion of the
       subarea plan; and/or

       § Seek legislative authorization and voter approval
       for additional resources.

       To date, they have opted for #2 and #3 in prior cases. These policies have been litigated and upheld by the courts. But at what point does it become unreasonable to continue collecting taxes to fund a project that is far beyond schedule and of marginal transit benefit? Especially when doing so would put the rest of the program at further risk?

13. Isn’t it possible to save some money on this by running the line on the existing West Seattle Bridge, and then on the middle of Fauntleroy Avenue?

    1. I don’t think they can run on the bridge. It is too steep. They looked at that when the bridge bridge. The mayor figured that if they are going to build a new bridge it might as well work for both. But it won’t.

       You could run down Fauntleroy. One issue is that it puts the station in a poor location (a long ways from the Junction). Another is that it would disrupt traffic in both the short and perhaps long term. I think it would save quite a bit of money, although the project would still likely be fairly expensive.

       1. It seems like all the locations are poor. West Seattle needs some serious upzoning before any of this makes sense. Might as well put the upzoning where it’s easiest to put the train.

    2. The bridge would have to be redesigned and possibly reinforced for that, and none of those studies have been done so we don’t know the feasibility or cost. It would have to get permission from the bridge owner (is that SDOT or WSDOT?).

       As for surface or elevated on Fauntleroy Way, that’s been my suggestion. ST has so far stayed away from Fauntleroy Way. There’s disagreement on whether parts of Fauntleroy are wide enough, and in any case the eastern part would still have to be elevated far above or away from it because of the steep hills.

    3. Rail tracks have concentrated weight on the narrow wheels. That means that all the engineering calculations and requirements for putting rail on a bridge are much more restrictive than a highway bridge.

       However, there is always the rubber tired train option. But ST will only consider Link light rail technology. Some places have explored related options like double articulated buses.

    4. Even if you could run in the middle of the existing high bridge (you probably can’t as Ross explained), the challenge would be to get trains on and off the bridge.
       Sound Transit has not provided yet a good model or 3D view of the 100+ feet high guardrail leading from the SODO station, over the Spokane viaduct, over the Hwy99 viaduct to the Duwamish bridge, but looking at the DEIS architectural drawings, that approach bridge will be huge and stand on challenging soil. Such approach ramp would still need to be built even if you want to reuse the existing bridge. And then you have to get the train off of the bridge to a Delridge station, quite challenging as it is quite close.

       1. The st3 candidate projects proposed reusing the bridge.

          Albeit with two major caveats: 1) it was talking about 2 car trains not 4 car ones. 2) the issue with west Seattle bridge hasn’t been discovered yet

14. How does this cost overrun impact the CiD 4th Ave and Midtown Alternative?

    1. Betty, the second downtown is part of the same funding subarea. If Dow Constantine continues to push an ever more expensive West Seattle line, the subarea funds will not be available for the Ballard/SLU/downtown project which is likely to grow in cost, too. Many on the blog have argued that a second downtown tunnel is neither necessary nor a good use of transit funds and instead proposed a separate Ballard/SLU line with a potential First Hill extension in the future.
       With all the cost increases, the Board ought to look at utilizing the existing tunnel rather than building a second one and focus on Ballard to Westlake. Dow Constantine would have to find other way to justify rebuilding King County Administration buildings and couldn’t tap into Sound Transit funding.
       https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/03/21/a-single-downtown-tunnel-is-completely-possible-and-provides-the-best-outcomes/

15. I don’t even know what you mean by “privilege”. Ross says no one on this blog thinks WS is privileged but then Mike says it is, or must be.

    What makes WS “privileged”. It doesn’t look privileged when I go there. In fact it looks kind of run down and shabby in the retail zone. Mike states the same for the entire Eastside despite vast differences between areas and cities, and the Eastside is an entirely different subarea. Is Mike saying East Link is due to privilege when almost all of it is above ground and value engineered? What privilege. Wealth when it is just subarea revenue? That some live in houses? Lots of people live in houses in RV and some very wealthy people live in condos in Belltown and downtown Seattle.

    I don’t see political privilege for WS. What special political favors has WS received?

    When it comes to WLE IT WAS IN ST 3. Seattle voters voted for it. The reason WLE is going first is BECAUSE BLE IS NOT AFFORDABLE. I don’t know why some on this blog won’t accept that. N. King could scrap the stations at 130th and Graham St. and WLE and BLE still would not be affordable.

    I remember groups on the Eastside pointing this out in 2016, especially ST’s cost estimate of $2.2 billion for DSTT2. I had a funny suspicion when the Board green lighted stations at 130th and Graham St. despite a five year extension (noting that cost estimates for both were lowballed) and suspected at that time the Board knew N. King couldn’t support both stations and WLE and BLE, but like most I never suspected BLE would cost $20 BILLION.

    The five year “extension” should have raised concerns because the idea five years of subarea revenue collected at the back end could cover rising construction costs on the front end made no sense. I think that is when the Board was told BLE would not be affordable so approved stations at 130th and Graham St.

    It isn’t rocket science. Tax revenue for ST 3 runs until 2046. Not surprisingly project costs have increased much faster than subarea revenue during the five year extension. N. King brings in around $650 million/year. Subtract the subarea loans it owes and stations at 130th and Graham and some miscellaneous Capital costs plus lower farebox revenue than assumed over the next 22 years and you have around $10 billion, maybe $12 billion with grants.

    Which is the project cost estimates ST originally had for WSBLE/DSTT2/stations at 130th and Graham, although it turns out those cost estimates were “optimistic”.

    ST and Dow/Harrell admitted CID N/S are not affordable without a fantastical development proposal, which is when a station at 4th Ave. S. died (because there won’t be a DSTT2 because there isn’t the money).

    So where do you spend $10 billion in N. King when any project actually in the levy will get priority if affordable? Imagine if some were arguing for skipping BLE for some other undefined project if BLE were affordable. How many times has Mike told folks from other subareas who complain about the spine they wanted it because it is “in the levy”?

    So what are those on this blog who don’t live in WS arguing for? Scrap WSL and BLE because BLE is not affordable whether WLE is built or not. I’m glad Ross has siblings who live in WS but every West Seattle resident I have seen post on this blog supports the preferred alignment with three stations and underground.

    I’ve asked half a dozen times for a compelling use of the $1 to $1.5 billion that MIGHT be realized with a value engineered WLE with elevated lines and two stations that would be a scar in a residential neighborhood and could require razing hundreds of homes and businesses that would be very expensive but no one on this blog has identified that compelling use, except to repeat “build BLE” that costs 20 times more if Link, or some speculative automated line with “shallow” stations no one with any expertise has even studied informally and would require scrapping WLE.

    I don’t think WLE is a good use of transit funds, or BLE, even at their original cost estimates. Both need express bus service. I don’t think most of ST 3 is good transit (East King Co. could complete Redmond Link with ST 2 revenue). But if someone tells me I have to spend $10 billion and no more in N. King and WLE is in the levy and no one has identified a better and AFFORDABLE place to spend the money instead, and BLE would cost $20 billion, then WLE is the obvious choice and avoids a brutal public fight over cancelling or value engineering WLE.

    Anyway that is how I see it, which begins and ends with BLE not being built because the subarea can’t afford it.

    1. If you’re right, that the subarea can only afford $10B, then it still doesn’t make sense to spend it on a lousy WSLE project. A much better use of those funds would be to value engineer BLE. If we would replace the SLU street car, maybe we could put elevated and automated trains through SLU paired with Ballard and Fremont BRT feeder buses. If we use new guideway technology, this may happen far sooner and less disruptive than building a subway. Or we focus on improving the existing downtown tunnel and then provide more feeders such as RapidRide G or automated systems such as a people mover, funiculars, or gondolas up to First Hill, CapHill and to Belltown.

       1. To me, everything is backwards.

          The question shouldn’t be what corridor segment gets built first. The question should now be what’s the best way to spend $10 B or so.

          Sound Moves and ST2 evolved with more of an eye to cost effectiveness and productivity. However, ST3 evolved with a different logic. It was developed with a very non-analytical set of projects. There was never an optimization study for the best use of funds. Stations, lines and parking garages were handed out like presents with no analysis (like an analysis to determine garage sizes, or an analysis to optimize greenhouse gas reductions across the region). The ST Board literally threw projects in the measure and put dates on them just because they could. It was a fourth grade class map drawing exercise.

          And ST continues to deny that any productivity analysis is needed even to this day. The problem with WLE is bigger. It’s this very core belief that permeated ST3 (we have political power so we choose what gets funded and when). Yet no one with responsibility dare challenge the ugly fact that ST3 transit capital funds are distributed irresponsibly (not cost effectively nor accurately cost estimated) — because not only does the ST Board look bad but the real estate interests behind them have institutionalized the building program to the point that if they change course now, the real estate interests are financially impacted.

       2. Use the $10 B for some selected I-5 Interchane Direct Access ramps for expess busses & HOV like the SB I-405 to SB SR-167 ramp at about $1 B each to enhance the bus system & give some congestion relief at the same time.

    2. “The reason WLE is going first is BECAUSE BLE IS NOT AFFORDABLE.”

       I must disagree.. WLE was listed first mainly because it could be built easier and faster — because the 2016 version had no tunnels and the engineering was expected to be simpler.

       Of course the project was lots of speculative hand waving without the appropriate budget and contingency to do it at a reasonable price.

       And of course Graham Street was supposed to open the same year as West Seattle Link but it’s a lot less ambitious and cheaper — yet more delayed.

       1. Yes, I think there are really two theories as to why West Seattle Link was built first:

          1) It was supposed to be cheap and easy.
          2) By building it in this order, West Seattle Link gets built.

          One of the big issues with ST3 in Seattle is that there is no good fallback position. Compare this to previous projects:

          1) Link to Tukwila still served Rainier Valley and a significant suburb. It was symbolic (sending a signal to naysayers that we can actually build this thing) but it also added significant benefit. The extension to SeaTac came soon after (and again, added significant benefit).

          2) Link was supposed to at least go to the U-District, but even just going to the UW added a lot of value. Ridership basically doubled.

          3) Northgate is not a good terminus (it is tough for the buses to get there) but Northgate Link definitely added value.

          Or even consider Everett Link if it doesn’t get to Everett:

          1) Ending at Ash Way provides considerable network benefit as you shorten the distance of the express buses while connecting to crossing buses.

          2) Continuing farther to SR-99 would provide a nice connection to Swift Blue and other buses along that corridor.

          3) Going to Boeing would likely be overkill, but it is still worthy destination.

          In contrast, a line from West Seattle to SoDo adds practically nothing. At that point, you have to run the trains from West Seattle to downtown (to get any value out of the thing). That means either running them in the existing tunnel (to save money) or building a second tunnel to at least CID. But remember, the CID station will not be close to the existing CID station. So you have to go as far as basically Westlake (and hope the transfer is good there). This is extremely expensive and all you’ve done is created a rail line from three stations in West Seattle to downtown. But it does mean that West Seattle Link (one way or another) gets built.

          In contrast, consider what would happen if you built it from the other direction. Ballard to Westlake (as stage one) is actually very useful. It is quite reasonable to quit there. In fact, many of believe you should (although we think the line should be automated and designed to eventually be extended to First Hill). It is also true that when the monorail ran out of money, they wanted to abandon the West Seattle section. It simply didn’t add enough value.

          It seems quite likely that the folks in charge understood this. They got their foot in the door with regards to West Seattle rail. They assumed that the next step — the only logical step — was to connect West Seattle to downtown. This kept the price of West Seattle Link deceptively low. Of course now even that section is extremely expensive.

    3. I don’t see political privilege for WS. What special political favors has WS received?

       This! Come on Frank. A subway line to West Seattle is just a really bad idea. Everyone who understands transit knows this. Show a transit expert from Europe maps of the area. Road maps (of course) but also maps showing population density, employment density, colleges and hospitals — all of that. Show them the existing transit data as well as the average speed of the vehicles — including various segments. Show them all of that and then tell them the next thing we are going to build in the city is West Seattle Link.

       They will look at you like you are nuts. Is it cheap, they might ask? Absolutely not — it will be over a billion dollars per station (now over 2 billion). Will they soon build skyscrapers there — like that inner suburb of yours, Bellevue? No, although there will be a few six story buildings. Does the mayor live there, they will ask (half jokingly)? To which you will respond: No, but the head of the transit agency (and the county) lives there.

       This is clear political privilege. Since you appear to be having trouble with terms (that you choose to use) let me make clear that this does not mean the people of West Seattle are “privileged” in the sense of being wealthy. Nor does it even mean that the people of West Seattle are getting undeserved benefit from this project. Quite the opposite. The average person in West Seattle will be probably be worse off with light rail. What it does mean is the project would not be possible without the influence of politicians who happen to live there and have no idea what is the most cost effective way to improve transit in the area.

       Ultimately, that doesn’t matter. Whether it was just plain ignorance or the desire by the Dow Constantine to build this because he lives close to a future station doesn’t matter. What matters is whether it is a good project. It isn’t. It never was. In contrast, you can not say that about Ballard Link. You keep comparing the two projects without ignoring the obvious differences. Allow me to summarize it:

       1) Ballard Link will serve very dense areas. West Seattle Link will not.
       2) Ballard Link offers some network improvements (by way of crossing buses like the 31/32). West Seattle Link will not.
       3) Ballard Link will be substantially faster than riding a current bus. West Seattle Link will not.
       4) Making the West Seattle buses faster would be relatively cheap. Making Ballard buses as fast as West Seattle buses would not.

       I’m not saying that Ballard Link — especially as currently designed — is a great project. But it has promise. It has potential. West Seattle Link is merely a distraction for what West Seattle really needs: Better bus service.

       1. A polite addition about Ballard Link being more important:

          It serves SLU and Seattle Center. SLU has dozens of buildings taller than what is allowed anywhere in West Seattle while Seattle Center is a regional destination.

          West Seattle should have to earn the right for a Link extension by allowing at least 20 if not 40 story buildings as well as wipe out the West Seattle golf course for something akin to Seattle Center or more.

          And who financially benefits in West Seattle? The decade of disruptive construction will harm local small businesses. It’s the real estate development interests getting the windfall profits. All the while making the rider experience more difficult and time consuming.

       2. Al’s correct. The only high-rise parts of the Puget Sound region which won’t have Link with just The Spine are First Hill and SLU. It makes sense to have an urban distributor that crosses the Spine either at Westlake Center or Capitol Hill and serves those neighborhoods well with short distances between smaller stations.

          It would have to extend to Smith Cove because it would need a small MF for minor repairs online. It would also require a non-revenue link to the main stem in order to move cars for heavy repairs at Forest Street. That’s much easier to do at Westlake than at Capitol Hill.

          Other than the link to the main stem it can be independent, with a different technology.

          From a “coverage” standpoint, it makes sense to have it connect at Capitol Hill, because it could then have four stations between Smith Cove and Cap Hill, serving “east” SLU and the highrise cluster on Minor much better than the ST plan does. A big bonus and cost saver here is that it could be elevated west of the freeway, probably in the John Street right of way, which would save a lot of buckos, but it would still have to be tunneled from I-5 to Cap Hill and on south.

          Everyone currently expects the SLU line to connect at Westlake, and that would would allow a station at Seneca before it curved uphill, putting a bunch of large buildings within its walkshed. So it would probably be connected at Westlake, but we should not overlook the possibilities with Capitol Hill.

          Wherever the transfer is made, the technology should be Automated Light Metro with two car trains running every two or three minutes. Period, end of story.

       3. Tom, absolutely, this is what I envisioned earlier:
          https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/01/10/focus-on-slu-and-ballard/
          but you’re right, CapHill could also work though I’m a bit concerned about the elevation difference between SLU and CapHill, it might be too much for regular rail, it may require maglev or at least linear induction.

       4. Martin, that’s why I said it could be elevated west of the freeway. Yes, it would have to dive deeper than ground level in SLU in order to pass under The Spine main, so there would be a grade, but there’s enough “face” above the freeway to provide a portal (barely).

          I wish you had given me a little credit for the idea of the line between the curve at Third and Pine and the southbound track under Westlake.

       5. Tom, I can’t find it using the search, but a few years ago I looked at an elevation map and determined that it is possible to run elevated through SLU with a tunnel beginning at I-5 to a Capitol Hill Station transfer (rather than Westlake).

          Going to Capitol Hill would have elements of a Metro 8 as well as a Ballard-UW connection (if it ultimately extended to Ballard). I also think it would be able to easily cross the current tunnel as it’s very deep. Plus Capitol Hill station has a deep mezzanine that could connect to the new platforms without needing a new station vault on the surface. .

          I would suggest aerial tracks go over Mercer Street. There would be plenty of width to build above the street and it could cross into a tunnel portal at Seattle Center and shortly emerge near Smith Cove. It could also have an easy connection to RapidRide E.

          The problem however is that a line that goes to Capitol Hill would need to go to First Hill and connect back to Link south of Downtown. It’s needed to ultimately go further to ease overcrowding in the DSTT that would happen from a Capitol Hill transfer. We are looking for ways to save money so this may not help. Going further than Capitol Hill and on to a First Hill stop before reaching a terminus at Pioneer Square or CID could be done later, and it certainly looks more constructible than a line from under the Westlake Station tracks to First Hill.

          If the only tunnel section is between I-5 and Capitol Hill Station (or even just extended one more stop to First Hill) and maybe from Climate Pledge Arena to Elliott, it would seem wildly cheaper than the current proposal for a very long tunnel from Elliott to Westlake Ave before turning south and emerging well south of Downtown around Holgate.

          ST never studied DSTT2. It was an afterthought in 2016. I expected ST to do a broader assessment in 2017-19 but they instead were only caring about West Seattle Junction and the Ship Canal crossing. They were merely hand waving the DSTT2 and SLU segments until just recently,

          PS. I don’t think it’s fully realized how messy and expensive new platforms are going to be at Westlake,

       6. I would need to see the evidence for 1), 3) and 4). I don’t think they are self-evident.

          Ballard is not “very dense”, at least in comparison to what I’ve seen of very dense parts of cities. Sure it has some restaurants and a tall building or two, but it quickly goes to townhomes and single-family.

          What are the projected time-savings? Can we make the buses almost as fast for an order of magnitude (or arguably 2 orders of magnitude) less money?

       7. Tom, I’m only collecting ideas: Frank drew up a map for the First Hill line, you contributed the curve. I just put them together…
          Al, I do remember the Mercer elevated option and I like the CapHill mezzanine idea (Tom, going even deeper than the existing tunnel would be challenging). Again, I’m concerned about getting even from an elevated Mercer line to that mezzanine level. Not sure traditional trains can handle that, but linear induction certainly could.

       8. I would need to see the evidence for 1), 3) and 4). I don’t think they are self-evident.

          Sure.

          1) Denny has large residential towers. So does the area where they plan on putting the South Lake Union station. Uptown and Ballard have widespread residential density similar to Capitol Hill. Like Capitol Hill they have cultural attractions. West Seattle has some density but the density is largely concentrated on the arterial and then becomes low density single family housing very quickly. For example this is a block away from Avalon: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vz9T8QL5w22sJfiJA. This is a block away from Delridge: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FzxWXmGHJyPFB3YP9. This is several blocks away from a Ballard station: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1etGW8ES9FDCMZteA. So is this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q1udV83C1LauA4P19 and this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AWPVzs5LQSM5UGeW7.

          3) There are several places where the Ballard buses get delayed. The first is the bridge. When the bridge goes up it often takes a very long time for the bus to deal with the traffic. You could add ramps allowing a the bus to get to the front of the bridge (like they do at Montlake) but that would cost a bunch. I suppose you could take a lane (like they have at Fremont). The second delay occurs at Dravus. You could build an underpass stop there. The biggest issue is around Queen Anne though. There is no easy way to fix that. You can add BAT lanes, but cars turning right would delay things. You also have traffic lights.

          According to Google, it takes 26 minutes to get from 15th & Market to 3rd & Pike. From Delridge it takes 15 minutes to get to the same stop. Interestingly enough it takes 15 minutes now (as I write this) even though it is 8:45 AM (still rush hour). In the evening it also takes 15 minutes (to go the other way). Thus not only is Ballard more likely to be delayed (by a bridge opening) but West Seattle is roughly ten minutes faster to the middle of downtown.

          4) The SoDo busway already exists. Bus lanes on the West Bridge also exist. All you really need is ramps between them. At that point a bus passing by a potential light rail station in Delridge would encounter only one stop light before reaching SoDo (the same stop light Link has to deal with). Thus rides could make that connection to Link in about five minutes (if that). From there buses would continue to downtown or riders could switch to using Link (as they would if Link went to West Seattle).

          I want to be clear that by no means am I saying that Ballard Link is a great project. But it isn’t the obvious bad project that West Seattle Link is. With West Seattle Link you can easily make the case that a set of (relatively cheap) bus improvements would be much better for West Seattle riders. You can’t say that about Ballard Link.

       9. It would be OK if the Ballard train connected to Capitol Hill and then kept going (to serve First Hill). But if it is just going to end at an existing Link Station (which I think is the only realistic option in the short term) then it makes sense to end at Westlake. Westlake is within the central downtown area. If an express bus ran from some other city and ended at Westlake (with no stops in between) it would be quite reasonable. Of course most riders would head south from there, but plenty would head north. The same thing happens with Sounder. Plenty of people get off the train and just walk to work.

          Capitol Hill is a big destination, but not in the same league. You would force a bunch of transfers. The transfer would have to be “world class” and then you have the issues with crowding (that Al mentioned). I get what you are saying Tom. You are far more likely to better serve South Lake Union if you go to Capitol Hill. But I think the only reason to serve Capitol Hill is if they said that was the best way to eventually continue to First Hill or there was some sort of problem with Westlake. Since they have already done a fair amount of work on that, I don’t see it.

          That brings up another advantage to going to Westlake: It is what they’ve been planning on doing for a while now. I’m not saying I’m thrilled with what they have suggested so far. But smaller stations allows them to rethink some assumptions without dealing with brand new issues (e. g. how to go under the freeway between SLU and Capitol Hill). If you are going to Capitol Hill you are fundamentally changing what Ballard Link is. At that point you might as well scrap the whole thing and start looking at Ballard to UW again.

       10. “ I’m concerned about getting even from an elevated Mercer line to that mezzanine level. Not sure traditional trains can handle that, but linear induction certainly could.”

           Mercer and Westlake is about 50-60 feet in elevation. Broadway and John is about 330-340 feet.

           An elevated rail station there above Mercer Street puts it somewhere between 90-110 feet. Similarly, the platforms at Capitol Hill about at 260-270 feet. So that’s about 150-180 feet elevation change. (The mezzanine appears to be about 280-290 feet.)

           The distance between the two corners is about 3500-4000 feet. So the grade would be somewhere between about 4-5 percent. That’s doable , especially if the train is automated. Link’s max grade is 6 percent — so it’s doable from an elevation perspective.

           Of course, the big question is whether the ridership patterns would cause overcrowding. It’s a complex topic because it’s not been studied. Plus the throughput on the main Link trunk with three Link lines could be higher depending on what the maximum capacity would be. With a three line DSTT is can be pretty high, particularly if platform gates or doors get installed so that trains can pull into stations faster.

           Then the design questions about things like station vaults or whatever at Capitol Hill, and the best way to cross the existing tunnel would be needed. But by going aerial through SLU solves the cost and construction hassles of deep underground stations, station depths to avoid the 99 tunnel and building footings and the transfer problems with getting to RapidRide E.

           This is all speculative if not fantastical of course. But it looks to me that a Ballard/ SLU automated line + 3 DSTT Line system would be much easier to ultimately reach First Hill as well as likely be much easier and cheaper to build if the transfer station was Capitol Hill rather than Westlake.

           And as far as “consistent with ST3” concern goes, the craziness of not having the main transfer at CID even though that was shown in every 2016 ST3 diagram seems to make that argument pretty moot.

       11. Of course, the big question is whether the ridership patterns would cause overcrowding.

           To me it isn’t. I think the big issue is the quality of the transfer. You have to have an excellent transfer, otherwise everything falls apart. In contrast if you end at Westlake you still want a good transfer, but to a lot of people it doesn’t matter. You are basically in the center of downtown. Not only can you walk to a lot of destinations, but the buses can get you just about everywhere.

           It is worth noting that as of right now, this is still Ballard Link. It is not the Metro 8 subway. The Metro 8 subway made sense if you also build Ballard to UW. But the Metro 8 subway with an extension to Ballard is simply not as useful.

           Consider what would happen to the buses if they built Ballard Link to end at Westlake. They get rid of the 24, 33, D and all of the express buses from Ballard and Magnolia (that are currently suspended). At most they run a “shadow” bus along 15th/Elliot, but I’m not even sure that is necessary. You run the 31/32 to Magnolia, replacing the other service. Thus Magnolia loses their one-seat ride to downtown, but they get more frequent service to the UW (and the places along the way).

           Now consider what would happen with a Metro 8 that ended at Smith Cove. The D skips Queen Anne. You have several express buses from Magnolia and Ballard that largely hug the shore. There is a faster connection to downtown; getting to Uptown is still fairly easy (just a quick transfer) and riders get a faster connection to South Lake Union and Capitol Hill as well.

           Now consider a Ballard Link extension that ends at Capitol Hill. You are basically caught between two worlds. You can’t get rid of the 24, 33 or D. Otherwise you are asking people to make two transfers to get downtown. So you’ve spent a fortune getting over the Ballard Bridge while people are still taking express buses to downtown. Frequency to Magnolia is not better and it really isn’t great to Ballard either.

           Unless there is some other reason to go to Capitol Hill (e. g. it is much easier to continue to First Hill) it makes a lot more sense to just end at Westlake.

       12. Al, OK, if a new tunnel can pass above The Spine tunnel that makes it fairly easy to use one of the street rights of way with a fairly shallow tunnel. Thank you.

           But “No” to Mercer Street east of Westlake. You need to serve the Amazon cluster and the buildings on Minor just south of Denny. It probably makes sense to make the transition from Denny (or John) to Mercer above SR99.

           I grant that if you continued on Mercer the turn to a north-south heading could be completed before Capitol Hill station, and a mezzanine below the new tunnel at the same level as the deepest Mezzanine level at Capitol Hill would allow a straight shot down Broadway for the new line.

       13. “But “No” to Mercer Street east of Westlake. You need to serve the Amazon cluster and the buildings on Minor just south of Denny. It probably makes sense to make the transition from Denny (or John) to Mercer above SR99.”

           Minor isn’t particularly close to the currently proposed Denny Station either. Plus the spheres are basically halfway between proposed Denny and Westlake.

           Certainly a “hole” gets created with a connection to Capitol Hill rather than Westlake by losing a Denny station. (Of course the streetcar runs through this area.)

           Because this is all so speculative, I’m not going to suggest specific solutions. But I would suggest that when a final, affordable rail station solution is created and designs are fully finalized , the City needs to do a comprehensive pedestrian district plan the covers the entirely of Downtown and SLU if not First Hill and CID too. That plan should be open to underground or aerial walkways, moving sidewalks, diagonal elevators or funiculars, escalators and other helpful additions. The default assumption that every location deserves a light rail station as part of a long line but nothing else is is suitable seems to me to be an unaffordable thing that will take many decades to manifest. There are many cheaper and faster ways to stretch the catchment area of a station without the billions required to add a new station and line.

           Even in cities with great rail transit, many destinations are several blocks from a station entrance (like in Chicago east of North Michigan Ave to the Lake). It’s generally not a big deal. Seattle is just limited by the steep terrain while most great rail transit central cities are pretty flat. So a 3D pedestrian circulation plan seems very much in order.

    4. “Is Mike saying East Link is due to privilege when almost all of it is above ground and value engineered?”

       I wasn’t thinking of Link or subarea equity when I said the Eastside is privileged. I was thinking of the whole subsidizing of car-oriented suburbs disproportional to their population or sustainability. But since you bring up subarea equity, the whole concept is privilege. Instead of sensibly taxing the whole metro area and putting high-capacity transit where it’s most needed and would be most well-used (i.e., focusing more on Seattle like Canadian and European metro areas do), the metro area underserves core urban needs and misserves suburban needs.

       East Link to Redmond was always necessary: that was clear in the 1960s when a similar system was proposed in Forward Thrust. Not for the Eastside as it was in the 1960s, but the Eastside it was planned to grow into in the 1990s, 2000s, 2020s, … It’s like San Francisco-Oakland or Minneapolis-St Paul. You shouldn’t just ignore Oakland or St Paul and leave it without infrastructure or connectivity.

       There’s also a good case for extending Link to Lynnwood and somewhere in south King County (it’s harder to say exactly whether to SeaTac, KDM, or Federal Way), and three Stride lines. A transit best-practices network could do that to have the strongest regional core.

       130th should have been included in Lynnwood Link in the first place; then its delay and funding issue in ST3 would never have arisen.

       1. You are spot on, Mike, about South King County. There was a superb opportunity for a bus intercept at either Angle Lake with bus only ramps to the new SR509 extension directly to 26th South or at Midway by widening the freeway enough to put HOV ramps to a new bus-only bridge at 240th. But ST has already built past both of those places, so the bus intercept will be at Federal Way.

          But that should be the end of the line until Tacoma passes one million population.

16. Another funding source will be needed for any of ST3 projects. Other places are seeing skyrocketing costs (langley skytrain in vancouver bc). I expect ballard will also balloon like crazy since it has tunneling. It’s amazing what a colossal mistake it was to vote down forward thrust in 1968. Still dealing with the consequences today

17. What is the legal mechanism for scrapping WLE and beginning a long process to determine what could be built from Ballard to Westlake Station or to Capitol Hill?

    Frank says there is $10 to $12 billion in subarea revenue through 2046 depending on grants. Has ST ever studied a “value engineered” BLE that uses automated lines and estimated project cost in current dollars considering the estimates for Link from Ballard have basically risen five times if Fesler is correct that the current cost for BLE is $20 billion?

    One mechanism I think might fly with the rest of the Board who will be concerned about more delay for their projects if N. King Co. delays or scraps WLE and begins an analysis of an entirely new mode for Ballard is to move WS and Ballard to the back of the list of projects, after Tacoma and Everett Link and Issaquah Link which could be accelerated if the debt ceiling for WSBLE is not a factor.

    That way the other subareas won’t have to wait for their projects while ST studies a “value engineered” alignment for Ballard which could take a very long time if we are talking about a new mode like smaller automated trains that will need a special maintenance base, and route alignments Ballard may want. A lot of people on this blog are assuming Ballard or SLU will accept a value engineered rail that means elevated or surface when West Seattle has not, but I am not so sure, and cities in the past when faced with this choice have moved Link away from their commercial core, which for Ballard is 14th at best. N. King Co. can’t “reserve” the debt ceiling capacity while it takes years to rethink WLE or BLE. Tacoma currently has over $1 billion in banked subarea loans and could accelerate Tacoma Link.

    I think it would be much easier to tell West Seattle that ALL N. King projects are being “extended” 5 or 10 years in order to prioritize what is possible with the available funds, including rail to West Seattle, rather than telling West Seattle it won’t be getting some kind of rail. That way the rest of the Board, who were very concerned about delay with the CID N/S process, would be in favor because their projects would go before West Seattle or Ballard Link because I think it would take ST at least 5 years to study a value engineered alignment to Ballard that is within budget and the stakeholders sign off on, and then the FEIS, with the risk the West Seattle FEIS expires in the meantime.

    Are those on this blog who live in Seattle willing to move West Seattle and Ballard “Link” or rail to the back of the pack to study them and allow the other subareas to complete their projects first because we are likley talking about five years minimum to switch to a new value engineered rail alignment to Ballard and FEIS?

    Otherwise, I don’t see the rest of the Board going along with N. King Co. starting a long process to study Ballard rail instead of West Seattle Link while consuming the debt ceiling. The other subareas during the CID N/S process made it pretty clear they really don’t care what Seattle does, that is up to the N. King subarea, as long as it does not delay their projects anymore than they have been delayed.

    I think WLE whether value engineered or not will need to be part of a complete re-examination in N. King Co. about what to do with the remaining revenue rather than just telling West Seattle WLE is scrapped and something from Ballard will be built instead. Now we know it is either or: rail to West Seattle OR Ballard, not both. West Seattle will have to have the opportunity to plead its case, especially considering proponents of some kind of Ballard rail are just throwing darts at a board at this point without any cost estimations. Otherwise the Board will vote to proceed with WLE just to avoid more delay in their projects.

    1. The ugly rub with delaying everything is that a three line DSTT has not been studied — and an automated scenario to allow for a long Tacoma to Everett 1 Line has not been studied.

       Simply put, opening Tacoma Dome and Everett before DSTT2 is an operational problem without that study.

       Even now, ST has summarily ignored explaining how they can operate to just between Tacoma Dome and Lynnwood in 2035. Going further towards Everett poses an even bigger challenge operationally.

       This is not a theoretical problem. It’s a real problem after 2035 even with WLE built and operating because DSTT2 would still be 7-17 years away. ST has not openly admitted this. It’s going to happen — even if ST builds the full BLE and WLE! IT’S ALREADY A HUGE OPERATIONS PROBLEM FOR 2035-2039!

       I’m dearly afraid that ST is going to spring the operations “switcharoo” with 1 Line from Tacoma Dome ending at SODO close to WLE opening day. That’s what I see the tea leaves pointing to at the moment.

       To stop this operations insanity, ST simply must do two things right away:

       1. Determine what improvements are needed to get three lines in the DSTT including determining how to maximize the number of trains between Northgate and CID including a high capacity train reversal at Northgate.

       2. Do a blanket assessment of adding a new automated train technology mode into the system options. Automation has been around for well over 20 years in Vancouver and SeaTac. New lines opening/ opened in Montreal, Honolulu and Toronto are all automated.

       1. That assumes that Everett Link and Tacoma Dome Link get built (and get built fairly soon). I don’t see it. The main reason that West Seattle is having all of these problems is because they are looking at the project in great detail now. I expect similar problems with the other extensions once they dig into the details as well. It is worth nothing that the there is no strong base of support for these extensions. Pierce County voted against ST3. Snohomish County supported it, but just barely. Furthermore, Snohomish County was led to believe that ST3 was essential for Lynnwood Link. Not in those exact terms (of course) but they routinely listed travel time from Everett to Seattle as if Lynnwood Link didn’t exist. Now that it does exist and does provide an excellent connection from the north I think there isn’t that much support for Everett Link. All it takes is one bit of bad news and the majority of people in the county will oppose it (if they don’t already).

          At that point it would not surprise me in the least if the representatives from those areas give up on the spine, and ask the money to be put into the bus system. Community Transit has the very popular Swift program. If you are in Edmonds, you don’t care about Everett Link. But a Swift bus to your neighborhood would be a huge improvement. Meanwhile, Pierce County just needs money to run their buses more often.

          I get what you are saying Al. The best case scenario still has problems. But I just don’t think they are going to build what they planned on building — too many things are going wrong and the fundamentals are very weak.

       2. Al,

          “To stop this operations insanity, ST simply must do two things right away:

          “1. Determine what improvements are needed to get three lines in the DSTT including determining how to maximize the number of trains between Northgate and CID including a high capacity train reversal at Northgate.

          “2. Do a blanket assessment of adding a new automated train technology mode into the system options. Automation has been around for well over 20 years in Vancouver and SeaTac. New lines opening/ opened in Montreal, Honolulu and Toronto are all automated”.

          The problem is I don’t think ST can do these things “right away” even if it wanted to. We are talking many years to do these things, plus dealing with stakeholders and FEIS’s. I don’t think the other subareas will agree to extend their projects while this assessment is being done (although they would likely like the idea of not having to contribute to DSTT2, but the rub there is ST told them in 2016 DSTT2 would cost $2.2 billion and the four other subareas are on the hook for $1.1 billion, not half of $5 billion).

          I don’t think the four other subareas care whether WLE or BLE or some variant is better transit for N. King Co. If there is going to be a multi-year delay in their projects to reassess everything in N. King Co. they will vote to proceed with WLE with Dow pressuring them just to avoid delay to their projects they have waited for.

          I just don’t see these subareas giving up on the spine in their subareas like Ross suggests any more than I see N. King Co. giving up on any more rail in N. King Co. and using the money for buses.

          Of course, if N. King Co. decided to use its remaining subarea revenue for buses instead of rail it could probably do both Ballard and West Seattle express buses, and that could eliminate the need for DSTT2.

       3. I just don’t see these subareas giving up on the spine in their subareas like Ross suggests any more than I see N. King Co. giving up on any more rail in N. King Co. and using the money for buses.

          You are ignoring the fact that Seattle overwhelmingly favored ST3, while the other counties did not. You are also ignoring the fact that as Link gets longer, it benefits fewer and fewer people. People in Lynnwood and Everett benefited from Lynnwood Link. But Lynnwood gets practically nothing from Everett Link. The same is true in Pierce County. With Federal Way Link, riders from Tacoma have 90% of what they will have with Tacoma Dome Link. They will have express buses from Downtown Tacoma going to Federal Way (and from there they can transfer to get to Highline College, SeaTac, Tukwila and Rainier Valley). There are just a lot less people that benefit as the line goes farther.

          There just isn’t the same dynamic in Seattle. These are not extensions. Nothing has really changed (except the price tags). Building Lynnwood Link (or Federal Way Link or East Link) doesn’t change the way you view Ballard or West Seattle Link. I’m not saying they shouldn’t change their mind — and I do think there is a good chance that West Seattle Link doesn’t happen given the way folks are talking about it — but it doesn’t have the fundamental political headwinds that Everett or Tacoma Dome Link has.

          I do agree about the timing though — ST doesn’t have to do anything any time soon about potential problems with running the trains from Tacoma to Everett. You really don’t need a fancy study. All you need is to figure out how to turn back some of the trains. That should be trivial (Federal Way and Lynnwood would be obvious places). That means the train would go from Redmond to Everett while another train would go from the Tacoma Dome to Lynnwood. The West Seattle train would simply sit at SoDo, waiting for the new tunnel (as planned).

       4. @ Fact Check:

          Maybe ST doesn’t have the clout to convince the Board to do anything differently this year. The thing is though that ST is staring at an operational problem if TDLE and ELE open without DSTT2.

          There isn’t a reason to delayTDLE and ELE either. Neither project would require picking a mode right away. A full DEIS could be published and then they could still tweak the design for automation. After all, ST changed details with Lynnwood after the DEIS was published. They even took at more houses at 148th St!

          Even though operations could be called political, they ultimately are constrained by reality. I don’t see East King sitting in the sidelines if their riders have to make double transfers to get to SeaTac (ID/C and SODO). I don’t see Snohomish putting up with a SODO transfer to get to a SeaTac either. North Seattle and Shoreline residents would also pressure North King to not terminate SeaTac trains at SODO.

          Of course, ST could buffer the problem with cross platform same direction transfer at SODO. But no one seems to envision how essential that would be — YET. Imagine a full train from SeaTac completely unloading at SODO because it’s the end of the line with 97% of the riders with luggage heading to the lone escalator up and the next lone escalator down (or line elevator) to get on the 3 Line. It’s really awful and stupid how ST is setting up this inevitable reality unless they change course.

          ST will have this 1 Line operational problem before 2040 with their proposed opening dates. No spin can remedy it. Only having multiple transit advocates realize the problem and lobby Board members can resolve it.

       5. “If there is going to be a multi-year delay in their projects to reassess everything in N. King Co. they will vote to proceed with WLE with Dow pressuring them just to avoid delay to their projects they have waited for.”

          Under the current plan, they can’t extend to Tacoma Dome until Ballard is done, and likewise Everett can’t be done until West Seattle is done.

          Therefore, separating these projects should actually help those two subareas get their projects sooner.

       6. @Glenn

          > Under the current plan, they can’t extend to Tacoma Dome until Ballard is done, and likewise Everett can’t be done until West Seattle is done.

          There is no such restriction for tacoma dome extension. They plan to just have the trains from tacoma dome turn around at northgate or lynnwood rather than reaching everett

       7. Some estimated times from ST project descriptions + schedules for a direct train:

          Tacoma Dome to Lynnwood = 94 minutes

          Tacoma Dome to Downtown Everett -= 127 minutes

          Downtown Redmond to Downtown Everett = 105 minutes

          Of these, TDLE is the shortest but even then some consideration would need to be made to have a driver go that long.

          ELE looks more difficult by any train other than one from West Seattle .

       8. I don’t see East King sitting in the sidelines if their riders have to make double transfers to get to SeaTac (ID/C and SODO). I don’t see Snohomish putting up with a SODO transfer to get to a SeaTac either. North Seattle and Shoreline residents would also pressure North King to not terminate SeaTac trains at SODO.

          I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that folks would transfer at SoDo. Here is how they would run the trains:

          1) Redmond to Everett
          2) Tacoma Dome to Lynnwood.
          3) West Seattle to SoDo (on a completely separate line).

          That really isn’t that different than planned. Until we build the second tunnel, the plan is for West Seattle Link to just end at SoDo. That might sound crazy, but that is the plan. Meanwhile, the plan is to send trains from Tacoma to Ballard. Instead they go to Lynnwood. That is farther (but not a lot farther). Likewise, the Redmond trains are supposed to go to Mariner. It isn’t that much farther to Everett.

          ST has a lot to things to worry about, but this isn’t one of them. Keep in mind, the original plan was simply to run a train from Everett to Tacoma. One train, the whole way.

          But again, West Seattle Link is just the canary in the coal mine. It is easy to dismiss, but the same dynamic exists for Tacoma Dome Link and Everett Link. The situation is actually worse for those other projects. Support for mass transit in Seattle is high — no matter how misguided the project. That isn’t the case in either Snohomish or Pierce County. Similar cost overruns (which are likely) are going to be met with a lot more grassroots opposition. Of course there will be the transit nerds (like me) saying the project was stupid to begin with, but there will also be a lot of people — in those communities — saying that isn’t what they want at this point. Thank you very much for Lynnwood and Federal Way Link. But now I just want buses in my neighborhood. Spending billions to only serve a tiny portion of the area is just not worth it.

       9. @ Ross:

          What I’m saying is that 94 minutes one way from Tacoma Dome to Lynnwood may be too far. A train driver could only make two round trips per standard shift! 94 minutes is pretty far without a bathroom break too.

          There are things like labor exceptions in contracts and seat slides to make it more feasible but it’s still difficult.

          Extending from Angle Lake to Tacoma Dome is adding 30 minutes to a Link train. Extending from Lynnwood to Downtown Everett is adding 33 minutes. These aren’t modest journeys; combined it’s 63 minutes — and the full trip today is comparable at 73 minutes. ST is going to almost double the time of the 1 Line once ELE is opened but DSTT2 is not — unless it’s done instead with the 2 Line which actually only reduces a one way train journey by 22 minutes.

          Fun side fact: if you tapped on at Tacoma Dome and was even able to take a train direct all the way to Everett, if you tapped again to catch a bus you’d have to pay a new fare. The Orca two hour window is going to become too short.

          Generally speaking, ST seems to discuss these extension projects in piecemeal terms. But every extension has system effects. The mere East Link delay has created a problem in North Seattle with crowded trains for example, I’m simply pointing out that there are consequences to the ST extension opening schedules — even when an extension is a few dozen miles away from another.

       10. Tacoma Dome to downtown Seattle has all the problems with West Seattle Link. Everyone going anywhere other than an event at Tacoma Dome or the 1,000 or so people using the park and ride lot will have to transfer or otherwise have their bus detoured. It’s another project that needs to be revisited.

           It’s a bit off topic for here, but what the subarea representation asked for was downtown Tacoma to SeaTac Airport. Tacoma Dome Link doesn’t get them that.

           The 2019 ridership estimate only had Tacoma Dome Link at about 1/4 the ridership of Seattle – SeaTac. So, even those optimistic ridership estimates say “don’t send 4 car trains all the way to Tacoma. It’s a waste.”

           So, get cars for Tacoma Link that can travel the streetcar line and also operate on mainline Link, and run those, single car, from actual downtown Tacoma on the streetcar line to TIBS. Have an extra track and siding there for them. (They can’t run to downtown Seattle due to the limits in Rainier Valley). Retain at least one express bus for Tacoma to Seattle trips.

           This retains the 4 car trains for where they are actually needed: Lynnwood to SeaTac.

       11. ST’s own plan had Tacoma Dome in 2030, West Seattle in 2032, and Ballard/DSTT2 in 2037. So Tacoma Dome would have to continue to Lynnwood for seven years.

       12. I won’t get into the inefficiencies of ELE and TDLE here, Glenn. The post is about West Seattle costs.

           I will however agree that 8 or 6 trains an hour are way too much service for their forecasted demand for either extension.

           ST could run a Line 1 South (Northgate to Tacoma Done) and a Line 1 North (SeaTac to Everett for example). .

           I’m expecting that the cost of service for the 1 line will come close to doubling while the two extensions combined maybe 10-15 percent of the whole line even as it’s 45 percent of the operating cost. Turnbacks seem inevitable.

           I like that north-south scenario as opposed to forcing all riders to transfer at SODO.

           Of course that is effectively a version of a three line DSTT anyway.
           It just seems more practical to have three lines in the DSTT as opposed to the West Seattle Stub. I’m truly flummoxed why ST won’t put a theee line DSTT on the table. It would have only helped the metrics in the WS FEIS and it would eliminate the operational challenges before DSTT2 opens well into the 2040’s or 2050’s if at all.

       13. Fact Check, if North King defers building it makes it EASIER AND QUICKER for the other sub-areas to complete their projects. Sure, at the end of everything, Sub-Area Equity has to be fulfilled, but the fact that The Spine was built in North King for years with nothing happening in any other sub-area demonstrates that temporary cash flows do not have to abide by Equity.

           If anything, the other sub-areas would applaud King County going last for a change. How is this not obvious?

       14. “If anything, the other sub-areas would applaud King County going last for a change. How is this not obvious”?

           Tom, I agree with this. I was just asking if N. King Co. residents and Board members would be open to moving WLE and BLE to the back of the line while the other subareas complete their projects so N. KC can reevaluate WLE and BLE.

           You are the only one on this blog to state you would be open to that. Do you think the current Board members from N. King Co. and West Seattle residents and Seattle residents in general would be amenable to moving WLE and BLE to the back of the line? I think that is the critical question rather than whether the other subareas would applaud such a generous move by N. King Co.

           You also have to understand that delaying a project always increases its cost, and if the last realignment taught us anything it is project costs rise faster than the fixed rate ST tax revenue a subarea generates. The five year realignment was no benefit to WLE or BLE.

           My hunch is no, current N. King Co. Board members would not be ok with moving WLE and/or BLE to the back of the line, especially Dow Constantine, and so the other subareas will sign off on WLE because they really don’t care about what N. King Co. does as long as it does not delay their projects.

           I also don’t know that I agree with you that T’s proposed elevated line from Ballard through downtown Seattle would cost less than $10 billion. This is all pure speculation, and the odds the stakeholders would agree to such an alignment – which is just the monorail redux and would require scrapping entirely WLE and not just value engineering it — are remote.

           This game is late in the fourth quarter. WLE is to the FEIS. Dow and ST are keen on starting WLE with three stations and underground, the other subareas don’t care if WLE causes the least delay in their projects, and BLE as estimated by Fesler will never be affordable without ST 4 and would take years of study.

           The question really isn’t what the four other subareas would agree to as long as it does not delay their projects. The question is whether the Board or WS will agree to postpone WLE or value engineer it, because those are the only folks who can. The more commenters on this blog say how bad WLE the less I doubt they will want to postpone it to reevaluate it, especially with the risk further delay could make WLE Unaffordable too.

       15. I’m open to postponing WS/BLE, but formally scheduling it behind much less-justified projects is another thing. WS/BLE should proceeed when they are ready, not wait longer than that until Everett, Tacoma Dome, and Issaquah are finished. Scheduling it after those sends the wrong message that those exurban projects are more critical to the transit network, when they’re overservice and inappropriate technology for the lower-density fringes.

           ST has made so many bad alignment decisions with WS/BLE after the vote, that postponing it would give a reprieve to those traveling between southeast and northeast Seattle, or between the Eastside and the airport. Let’s keep and improve the service we have, not make it worse. Especially don’t make it worse than other multi-line subways’ line-to-line transfers.

           “Do you think the current Board members from N. King Co. and West Seattle residents and Seattle residents in general would be amenable to moving WLE and BLE to the back of the line?”

           The Board says no; look at its actions. Most Seattle residents don’t know enough about WS/BLE or understand the implications of the alignment decisions enough to object to ST’s plan.

           “You also have to understand that delaying a project always increases its cost”

           We’re talking about changing the design and technology to reduce the cost, so it’s not just delaying. And we’re talking about changes that would make it more useful to a larger number of passengers. And about things that ST should have considered in 2016, so it’s not our fault if they have to be retrofitted now.

           “The question really isn’t what the four other subareas would agree to as long as it does not delay their projects.”

           Pierce and Snohomish are already raising concerns about WS/BLE’s costs and extra features delaying their Spine extensions. The EIS was only published last week; there hasn’t been time for the whole board to address the increases and other subareas’ concerns. It remains to be seen what they do. If WS/BLE construction is postponed for any reason, that will also postpone the other subareas’ payments to DSTT2, and free up debt capacity for the other subareas’ projects in the meantime. So it would actually accelerate them.

           The costs would eventually come back when WS/BLE construction starts, and be higher with inflation, etc — if ST just continues with the existing WS/BLE plans. If it turns them into different projects, then the changes might dwarf inflation’s effects and lead to a net lower cost and more useful solution for Ballard/SLU and West Seattle. Or they might not lower the cost, but a more useful network would be a major benefit.

       16. “I’m open to postponing WS/BLE, but formally scheduling it behind much less-justified projects is another thing.”

           I’m not quite certain there’s much justification for West Seattle though, in its current form.

    2. What is the legal mechanism for scrapping WLE and beginning a long process to determine what could be built from Ballard to Westlake Station or to Capitol Hill?

       That is a good question. I’m not sure what the limits are. Are they supposed to at least come close to fulfilling the original mission or can they shift money around willy-nilly.

       Legalities aside, there is politics. I think West Seattle will demand something. I don’t think it is politically realistic to just say “Sorry, it is more expensive than we thought and besides, your transit is pretty good as is so we are going to build the Metro 8 subway instead.”. I think you are looking at a “BRT” replacement at a minimum. This is actually fairly easy. Technically RapidRide is BRT and so is Swift. So they just improve the C and H and pay for operations. That means running the buses on the SoDo busway. This would actually serve all of the proposed stops. I would go farther and convert the 21 to RapidRide (and also run it downtown via the SoDo busway). With ST paying for all of that Metro has money to spend on other routes in West Seattle (and the region).

       They could so something similar in Ballard but it would cost more and yield less. But I am pretty sure they could it.

       1. The ST3 measure gives the Board very broad rights to change the plan if it turns out to be “infeasible” or too expensive. Just like First Hill station was eliminated in Sound Move, with the WSLE cost explosion, the Board could delay or drop lines/stations or switch modes. They probably could not extend the Ballard Line without an extra vote to First Hill.
          The Board could also pay for improving the RapidRide C service as this was an ST3 line item, it had just been deprioritized during the realignment.

    3. “What is the legal mechanism for scrapping WLE and beginning a long process to determine what could be built from Ballard to Westlake Station or to Capitol Hill?”

       The ST board would have to decide to. Or the legislature could pass laws forcing changes on ST. There’s no initiative or recall mechanism to force ST changes. A Seattle initiative wouldn’t cover the entire ST district. A statewide initiative may not have the power to override ST or the ST3 vote.

       A Ballard-Westlake stub was always a potential outcome of Ballard Link. It would fufill the mandate of connecting the downtown, SLU, and Ballard regional centers. ST is in control of the technology, so it could choose automated trains.

       “if N. King Co. delays or scraps WLE and begins an analysis of an entirely new mode for Ballard is to move WS and Ballard to the back of the list of projects”

       If Ballard switches technologies following any of our suggested alternatives (Ballard-Westlake, Ballard-Westlake-First Hill, Ballard-smaller DSTT2-West Seattle), it would automatically postpone construction. Then North King would have a period where it doesn’t have anything to spend big money on, so the debt capacity would automatically be available for the other subareas.

       Pierce and Snohomish have been adamant about getting Tacoma Dome and Everett/Paine light rail on time, and won’t hear about any bus alternatives, so that’s just as unlikely as ST scrapping its WS/BLE plan. At some point they may have to, but like with Ballard and West Seattle, we don’t know when ST might be open to considering it. ST just published an executive committee presentation on WSLE (link at The Urbanist) that says full steam ahead, no change to the 2032 date despite the new tunnels and costs. That’s not a board decision; it’s just a staff presentation following the board’s current directives, but it shows how the board is likely to go. Full steam ahead on WSLE, pushing opening dates back as much as necessary.

18. See post and discussion.

    The ST3 plan uses some outer sub area funds for DSTT2. If the second tunnel was indefinitely delayed, funds would be freed up in all subareas.

    The notion of ramps between the Spokane viaduct and the SODO busway is not trivial; it would be complex and costly. There is already an inbound ramp to 4th Avenue South. There is already the South Lander Street overcrossing. Lines C and H might used their current pathways; local West Seattle route could connect with Link at the SODO station on South Lander Street.

    Seattle owns and controls the pathways of lines C and H; they could improve them; the high level bridge could have transit lanes or be tolled; the approaches to the bridge could have more transit priority.

    The DSTT could carry three lines: east, south, and a South Forest Street turnback. Per RossB, the transfer at Westlake could bee very short in both directions.

    1. The notion of ramps between the Spokane viaduct and the SODO busway is not trivial

       Sure, but it wouldn’t cost a billion dollars. Based on similar projects I would guess a couple hundred million. The viaduct isn’t that high. There isn’t that much in the area (so if you take out a warehouse it doesn’t cost that much). There are alternatives — including just following the same path as now but with a faster connection from the West Seattle Bridge to SR 99. But I still think the best option is to connect at SoDo.

19. I would trade a link connection for a stronger (more frequent, dedicated lanes as described elsewhere in the thread) north south bus corridor (s) from the water taxi to seatac or the south center mall. Add a couple of east west logical connections and you’d really service every income strata and neighborhood. The focus on connecting to sodo does us a disservice.

Comments are closed.