Munich vs ST3

119 Replies to “Munich vs ST3”

1. The best part of the Munich transit system is taking the S8 out to Herrsching to visit the Andechs kloster. After that it is all pretty much immaterial.

   I sent a former boss of mine out to Andechs once and he still thanks me whenever we cross paths. I know of no such equivalent spot along the Link line.

   1. Certainly such destinations could develop on Link. But to have them requires some local government intentionality to it.

      As long as our cities just upzone with no aesthetic rules around stations we will get nothing but bland architecture and sterile street life around stations. It’s a missed opportunity to build a more delightful place. I don’t think they realize what they’re not doing.

      1. >As long as our cities just upzone with no aesthetic rules around stations we will get nothing but bland architecture and sterile street life around stations.

         Actually the city’s aesthetic rules (massing, modulation, etc.) and requirements for large ground-floor retail spaces in new construction are the direct driver of much of the “bland architecture” or “breadboxes” we see in contemporary redevelopments. If the city eliminated its aesthetic rules and loosened some of its other rules (like setbacks, height limits, FAR, etc.), we’d probably see much more architectural expression.

      2. @ Nathan:

         Those local rules that you mention seem to me to be about limiting uses and heights and massing. I don’t consider those as aesthetic limits but are instead functional limits.

         And there is little to incentivize developers to promote a better visual aesthetic. Current practices seem to do the opposite — like defining building envelopes as boxes or designing streetscapes to avoid loitering. If a developer is given a blank square box to develop within and there are no incentives for aesthetics, the profit-maximizing developer will literally build a bland box.

         Buildings today also seem more “defensive” as opposed to “attractive”. While it’s certainly a reasonable thing to consider, it’s a sad consequence of our increasingly exclusionary and suspicious culture.

         And I rue that all the new light rail station plazas that we are now opening are mostly devoid of life — like sidewalk cafes, signature fountains or anything destination worthy. The cafe at Redmond Technology Station is a welcome small exception to general station plaza blandness. These plazas are seen as merely places to walk though as quickly as possible but not to gather. The art sculptures are curious but they don’t really promote gathering.

         Would Paris be as charming without mansard roofs? The history of that is partly attributable to government policies — albeit unintentional. The attics were not constrained by some height limit rules and not taxed.

      3. I really wish they would “just upzone”. It would be an improvement over what they’re doing now.

      4. Al, are you familiar with the issues surrounding Seattle’s Design Review Boards?

      5. Taller buildings for commercial/office or multi-family are generally designed to last 50 years, so if they are ugly or badly zoned they will be ugly for the rest of our lives. Some cities are just ugly even if the setting is pretty. Juneau is an example.

         I hate to say it, but Seattle, beginning with the “value engineered” office buildings of the 1980’s (especially government buildings) when Seattle didn’t have a lot of wealth to modern upzoned multi-family buildings like under Murray’s 2017 upzone, are some of the least attractive and utilitarian buildings I have ever seen in a city with Seattle’s current wealth.

         These would never be allowed in Miami or Europe. There are a few exceptions like the library but very few, and unlike Portland Seattle has allowed all its historic downtown concrete buildings to be redeveloped. It is very uncharming city design wise outside the residential neighborhoods.

         The other issue I see with Seattle’s denser zones (CO, multi-family) is the city never understood “mixed use” development, and how the zoning had to account for the different values of each use for the residents compared to the profit for the builder. This was a common problem among the new urbanists who came out of urban studies programs at universities beginning in the 1990’s thinking mixed use was the key to urban planning but with little understanding of development.

         Generally retail and retail density are the most valuable for the residents of the three main uses (commercial/office, housing, retail), but the least profitable for the developer (especially if there are parking minimums, and if there are not retail generally does not thrive unless the area is extremely dense). A planning dept. and council need to understand how large a city is, and how many residents it has, before allowing retail willy nilly throughout the entire city. You never achieve retail density which is when shoppers go to a retail dense area to “shop”, not to buy something specific, and to walk and dine and be in a “third place”. Otherwise, you never create retail density, or an urban core, or a “third place”.

         Looking at Seattle’s downtown commercial core we see very tall and utilitarian office buildings with huge, empty and sterile lobbies out to the sidewalk’s edge closed to the general public by sheets of glass but very little retail, let alone retail density. Maybe a 50-story building will have a coffee or sandwich shop on one of four sides for the work commuter that closes at 5 pm. Pre-pandemic with the work commuter the daytime was vibrant on the street but not the night. Now there is no vibrancy day or night. A real shame because that is where the retail density should be; instead downtown is losing retail.

         Then when you get to the multi-family zones there is no retail facade density. This usually requires designating some multi-family areas retail zones, and then allowing those property owners greater height limits for the requirement for retail and retail parking. The taller buildings are the darker and more claustrophobic the sidewalk is so retail becomes critical. Bellevue does a pretty good job of this west of 405, but Bellevue has a lot of money, and these towers are up to 660′ and designed for very wealthy tenants whereas Seattle is trying to create affordable market rate housing with “middle housing” that developers hate and does not support retail, something that is VERY difficult to do, and Seattle has generally failed at.

         Seattle does have some retail dense stand along zones, like U Village and University Ave. although the Ave. is a failing retail district because of crime. But the downtown urban zone is dead.

         Despite what some on this blog think, nearly all of Seattle is a very suburban city. West Seattle, Ballard, Madison Valley, Madison Park, Leschi, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, UW, Wallingford, Greenlake, Queen Anne, are all very suburban and these are supposedly the urban neighborhoods before you get out north or to Laurelhurst or Windemere et al. Claiming a four or six plex makes a neighborhood “urban” misses the entire point of urbanism, which is vibrant street life and retail density. Walkability. No city is or can be 100% urban, just a small fraction that people travel to. But Seattle seems to believe every square inch can be “urban”, so has no urbanism anywhere.

         The city is 142 sq miles and long and skinny. It is like the planners over the decades took the limited amount of retail the population could support and just threw retail zoning against the map like spaghetti so it never developed a true urban core which begins with retail density, although this is not uncommon in cities that grew by incorporating outlying areas.

         Even when I got here 10 years ago Westlake was beginning to fail. Today there is the Market which is a tourist attraction and quite pretty, but very little retail let alone retail density in Seattle. Generally a suburb to the east like Bellevue should not have much greater urban retail density than a major city like Seattle.

         When I read folks on this blog complain about single family neighborhoods or what they call suburbia I wonder what they are talking about because there is no urbanism in Seattle. I live in Belltown which has the building heights and density for a good urban neighborhood, but the retail is shit, the retail at Westlake is shit, and by and large Seattleites and Amazon workers are homebodies. You guys just hibernate nine months/year. Go to Miami sometime. People live on the streets and things are jumping all night long. I like Seattle and God knows Miami has its problems, but Seattle is incredibly introverted, which is not ideal for urbanism.

         Seattle has lovely residential neighborhoods, and I think that is what the residents value. That is where the prices are the highest. I think that is how Seattle will always be, and it will never have an urban core, certainly after work from home. The goal to disperse four plexes and six plexes to these SFH zones by some baffles me. Why?

         Some want to blame crime, homelessness, or general disorder in areas like downtown or Capitol Hill where there is some density for the lack of urbanism, and to some extent that is ture, but the reality is Seattleites just are not very urban people if you travel or live in cities that are urban. It has 775,000 residents flung to every corner of a city that is 142 sq. miles, but worse long and skinny. According the U.S. Census Bureau and the inside information I see for development, population will be flat or decline slightly in the future depending on Amazon, so Seattle will likely be a very suburban city with lovely but very expensive single-family zones that have little transit. There is a reason Seattleites own 460,000 cars.

         I guess if I had one difference with some on this blog — which admittedly is a transit blog — it is I believe true urbanism does not need transit, or a car, or even a bike. It needs two feet. Yes, you often have to get there (although there should already be a lot of people living in the urban retail core if the zoning is done right) but but how one gets there is irrelevant, just that they want to be there.

         I sometimes get the feeling reading The Urbanist or this blog the commenters like urbanism in theory but like so many Seattleites they don’t like other people so much, so don’t quite understanding urbanism is about creating an area that lots of people want to go to and walk around which usually takes real retail density, not a corner grocery store or Costco in Sodo.

      6. @ Fact Check

         More retail density requires enough residential density.

         You deride others but have the same 1970s/80s/90s mentality of trying to add everything but the necessary residential density that makes it successful.

      7. WL you confuse residential density with population and retail density.

         While residential density in a dense urban zone helps create retail density, the majority of shoppers, diners and workers will always travel there by car or transit, even in NY (which is why NYC has a subway).

         . The key is to condense retail. You can’t disperse 775,000 people over 142 sq miles and allow retail in most of the 142 sq miles and hope for vibrant retail density.

         Look at where I live: Belltown. Tall buildings, very high FAR, probably the highest residential density in the city. So where is urbanism or retail density in Belltown? U Village has more retail density and it is bordered to the east by single family zones.

         So where is this urban retail density in Seattle you are talking about? People on this blog confuse suburban retail with urban retail because 99% of Seattle is suburban compared to urban cities, although Seattle at 775,000 residents is pretty small.

         I like Seattle. This is just who they are.

      8. @Fact Check

         There’s literally mounds of articles talking about how there’s too much retail in US. And you blindly harp about just adding more retail as if those will survive.

         You talk about belltown — well yes it does have more restaurants and shops open then downtown Seattle doesn’t it? That’s precisely because it does have residential apartments while downtown Seattle is mostly just offices.

         Sigh I really don’t know how many times people keep trying to find a workaround besides increasing residential density. Almost every “workaround” has already been tried in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s etc…

      9. > U Village has more retail density and it is bordered to the east by single family zones.

         U village is literally nearby to one of the densest locations in a 100 mile range with the students and apartments.

         https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#10/47.6658/-122.2977

         Of course it is a regional mall but either way it doesn’t hurt it, I have no idea why you think it is in some low density area.

         > Then when you get to the multi-family zones there is no retail facade density.

         There typically is a mandated minimum retail on the bottom floors — however as I mentioned before there is already too much retail in America so these usually end up being vacant for a long time for smaller apartment buildings or converted into more housing. I’m not really sure what is your plan, mandate higher retail ratios on the bottom floors?

      10. @Al S,

          “ Certainly such destinations could develop on Link”

          I sincerely doubt it. The Andechs monestary dates to at least the 14th century. Even with informed zoning laws, I just don’t think Seattle can catch up with that. And I certainly won’t be around to see such things.

          It is worth a visit the next time you are in the area. It’s basically the last stop on the S8 out of Munich. After that just grab a cab/uber/shuttle. Or hoof it the approx 2.5 miles thru the woods. It’s worth every minute.

          Or meet me next year. Exact date TBD. I’ll buy you a beer.

      11. @ Lazarus:

          True that it’s hard to compete with such a historic and attractive building.

          We take it for granted, but other people marvel at places around here. The Suzzallo Library, the Central Library, Pike Market, the Waterfront and the Hammering Man are examples near Link. The Seattle Center has several unique spots — connected to Link by monorail.

          Sadly, I don’t see any places with new stations outside of our core city to be encouraging anything noteworthy because they now have light rail. Northgate is in transition but most other things I see are very residential oriented. There are some somewhat cool things in Bellevue and Redmond but Link wasn’t a catalyst for them. Tacoma has some co things too — but 1 Line won’t reach them although T line will.

          Probably in about 18 months would be a good time to update the STB “ Seattle for visitors” page. Link itself will be a unique way to cross Lake Washington.

      12. The biggest problem is large residential-only areas where corner stores are prohibited. That’s the difference between Seattle in the 1920s and 1950s when general lowrise (residential and/or commercial) was allowed, and Seattle in the 1970s and after when they became residential-only except for grandfathered businesses.

          There are two kinds of retail, or more. One is a destination “retail core” like Frank is talking about, which have large businesses and a lot of businesses and hopefully draw people from other areas. The other is neighborhood retail: a few shops and services within walking distance to meet everyday needs. They’re less likely to draw people from other areas. One yoga studio might if a popular instructor locates there, but that’s not the primary purpose of the small retail cluster. These small retail clusters in every neighborhood are what make a “15-minute city” cell: they’re what Barcelona has in all its “superblocks”. It’s what’s missing in our vast swathes of residential-only zoning, both in Seattle and in the suburbs.

          The “oversupply” of retail is referring to too many malls, big box stores, department stores, drugstores, car dealerships, etc. All that sprawling stuff with big parking lots. We have more of those per capita than peer countries because the corporate chains grew too much. That doesn’t mean that a new small grocery store or restaurant or yoga studio can’t get clients.

      13. I agree, beauty and the sense of nature is important for our senses.
          For foot & bike tunnels, adding aesthetic storm water runoff channels, complimented with low light plants (similar to the storm water channels over by South Lake Union Pontius Avenue near Cafe Hagen.) The design gives the sound of running water and I think they employ wicking bed methods for the plants.
          In an underground opening, adding a waterfall garden park similar to the one in Pioneer square.

2. I’m just in wonder at Munich having seven S-Bahn lines going to everywhere in the region every 20 minutes full time, and eight U-Bahn lines to everywhere in the city. Düsseldorf and Cologne have something similar, and many European and Asian cities, and New York City, and Latin American cities have fewer rail lines but more BRT and gondola lines to make up for it. I wish Seattle were like that and other American cities.

   1. Seattle is so far behind because we relied on a 100% bus system for far too long. We avoided capital spending and instead took the brute force approach of just adding more buses. And the buses we did add were just regular buses running on city streets, in city traffic, and with essentially no infrastructure investment to make them run better. Basically we just cheaped out.

      Even the old bus tunnel was a disaster. Supposedly it was built so we wouldn’t have to do the hard work of building a real rail system. But Metro was never able to run the number of buses through it that they promised, they didn’t even try to operate it at night or on Sundays, and then they just let it fall into disrepair. It was a disaster.

      All the bus tunnel ended up accomplishing was proving to the region once and for all that buses are not a substitute for rail in high ridership corridors. And that is how we got ST.

      It’s no surprise that some in this region still think our transportation solution is as simple as “more buses”. That is the bill of goods that we were sold for 50 plus years, and people still want a cheap and easy solution to complex problems (Monorail! Remember that?). Old habits die hard.

      But the region is finally changing, and we are finally getting real mass transit on the corridors that deserve it. We are much better off than we were 20 years ago, and we will be much better off 20 years from now.

      And heck, we will be much better off in just 2 years. RLE, full ELE, and finally FWLE. Add those to what we already have and we will have a completely changed transportation world regionally. And in just 2 years.

      It’s going to be awesome. Absolutely awesome. And it will all look just like Link.

      1. “FWLE” will be a joke. The only thing that would have saved it is a boom in construction in “downtown” Federal Way. There’s not one iota of a sign that “Boom!” is coming. More like the “Fssssssssss” of a deflating tire.

         East Link may — may! — be a success, but cross-lake commuting has flattened significantly since Amazon has moved so many positions to Bellevue. Maybe reverse commuting will become a “thing”, but for folks north of Capitol Hill not living directly adjacent to a Link station, it’s quicker to take a bus from the U-District to downtown Bellevue, especially now since the HOV ramps are open.

      2. “Supposedly it was built so we wouldn’t have to do the hard work of building a real rail system.”

         It was just a decade after two failed Forward Thrust votes. The bus tunnel cost $200 million in 1980s dollars. The public mood was highways and low-cost transit, and trains were seen as obsolete pre-WWII technology. The politicians assumed it would be decades if ever until the public would approve spending a much larger amount of money for a rail network, so they didn’t try.

      3. “East Link may — may! — be a success, but cross-lake commuting has flattened significantly since Amazon has moved so many positions to Bellevue.”

         Look at Munich. Or the Bay Area. The issue is not whether all the 100,000 tech workers will commute or reverse-commute across the lake, and we can’t have rail until they do. The issue is Seattle has 770K people, the Eastside has some 300K people, with three major job/retail/services centers on both sides of the lake (downtown Seattle, downtown Bellevue, and Overlake/Redmond) plus other centers, in a county of 2 million, in a metro of 4 million. That intrinsically generates a lot of trips in all directions, for both work and non-work, throughout the day and evening. Just look at all the cars on I-90 and 520 (and 405) all day in both directions, and we want transit that will gain market share vis-a-vis that. That’s plenty of justification right there for a Munich-like system, regardless of what tech commuters do or don’t do. Tech-commuter trends are temporary, and over the lifetime of the system jobs and industries and consumer-facing destinations will change multiple times and different location hotspots will grow or shrink. But throughout all that, 1.1 million people and counting will have a large fraction of them traveling every day for one reason or another, even if the reasons and destinations change over time. German cities all the way down to 200K or I think 30K have at least one robust tram line with a downtown tunnel and an S-Bahn station — so there’s your Spokanes and Tacomas. A tram like Link on MLK, not like the T Line in mixed traffic and infrequent. Urban areas like Seattle-Bellevue-Redmond have a Munich-like system with several S-Bahn lines and U-Bahn lines, and ubiquidous frequent bus lines around them for trips the rail doesn’t serve.

         “Maybe reverse commuting will become a “thing””

         Reverse commuting from Seattle to the Eastside has been a thing since the 1990s, throughout multiple tech booms and recessions. The number of people commuting both directions is about even. Maybe not on transit alone because there are so many peak expresses to downtown Seattle and other destinations don’t have as good transit options, but if you include cars and company shuttles it’s closer to even.

         “for folks north of Capitol Hill not living directly adjacent to a Link station, it’s quicker to take a bus from the U-District to downtown Bellevue, especially now since the HOV ramps are open.”

         Maybe for a few people. If you live in north Seattle near the U-District, the 271 or 556 may be attractive. If you live near 23rd, you can take the 48 to them. If you live on 10th Ave E you can just as easily go to Capitol Hill Station, and when the full 2 Line opens that will be compelling. If you don’t live near 10th or 23rd, say around north 15th or Summit or Madison Valley, it’s a bit of an ordeal to get to either Link or the 271, but it’s easier to go to Link and you have more options there. There’s also future Link’s one-seat rides to other parts of Bellevue and Redmond, which will be compelling compared to going to the U-District and transferring to a bus (less frequent than Link), and then transferring again in downtown Bellevue.

      4. Seattle is so far behind because we relied on a 100% bus system for far too long.

         It would have been much better to start earlier, but mostly because we could have built better things. Even then I’m not sure it would have mattered. Keep in mind, we are building after Vancouver, and ignoring all of their lessons. They have automated trains — we don’t. They have really good bus/rail integration — we don’t. They focused on serving the core really well long before going out to suburbs (that dwarf ours in size and density) while we are busy planning rail to Fife. We essentially followed the BART model even after that experiment clearly failed. Except we decided to use light rail while following the BART model — a choice that is still perplexing to this day.

         As for the bus tunnel, it was a success. It could have handled a lot more buses, but there was no need. Unlike so much of Link, it actually has urban stop spacing. There should have been a station at Madison, but my guess is if ST had built things from scratch, there would be fewer stations, not more.

         The problem with the transition was ST’s singular focus on distance, not value. Consider UW to downtown. This is the piece that everyone in the transit world would say is the most important. We didn’t focus on it, but focused instead on getting to the far flung suburbs first. This meant that joint operations made the most sense. Link provided so little value (and the buses in the tunnel were still way more important) that it made sense to just run both at the same time. If they had built a line to the U-District (with more frequent trains and a lot more stations) it would have been easy to justify kicking the buses out. In fact, it would have been easier on Metro as well (since a lot of the buses in the tunnel came from the U-District). But it was more important to get to Tukwila first.

   2. It’s not just German cities that are dense and ring-fenced; every town in the country also has a sharp urban/rural boundary as well. In America we are in thrall to the suburban dream, which simply cannot be served by transit. As a result, our entire nation is cursed with inefficient and ugly sprawl.

      Nothing can be done about it in the timeframe available, so when the enormous costs of that sprawl in its contributions to climate change becomes clear to the rest of the world people everywhere will wake up a say, “Those Americans have been lying to us; they are terminally greedy and foolish. We’d all be much better off without them!”.

      You are free to visualize the result.

      1. “In America we are in thrall to the suburban dream, which simply cannot be served by transit”

         Yes it can. Canadian cities prove that.

      2. On Mike’s point, cities like Boston and Chicago prove that dense and wide reaching commuter rail can work. Making that into more frequent regional rail can get these systems into even better places.

      3. D M,

         Boston and Chicago LONG precede modern Suburbia. Even the outskirts of Chicago served by Metra is a bunch of little towns that grew together soon after World War II to become a constant city. My sister used to live in Lombard and I visited her several times before she moved away. Yes, it’s relatively speaking “suburbia”, but it’s NOTHING like Shoreline or Des Moines. It has regular rectangular blocks and fairly small lots, far more like Greenwood south of 85th than a modern suburb.

         Modern American suburbs with their culs-de-sac everywhere and long stroads with no pedestrian crossings simply cannot be served by transit effectively.

      4. @D M: A lot of Chicago’s commuter-rail infrastructure was built at a time when building heavy rail through cities was much cheaper and operating it was profitable. When that ceased to be the case the public took over operating the legacy of that era, and what remains is a commuter rail system that’s still useful, though limited. If (somehow) the current system didn’t physically exist, and a regional authority proposed to build it (this is a silly counterfactual because if that was the case land-use would have developed differently but whatever) people would rightly question many aspects of it, and whether some different system would be a more effective use of capital dollars. The biggest suburban commercial centers are (intentionally) far from the historic suburban downtowns with train stations — the system, as it is, is useful for going to downtown Chicago, but rarely for much else.

         With this system Chicagoland’s overall urban form is hardly any less car-dependent overall than Seattle’s. So… does Metra really work? The fact that it serves downtown-Chicago commutes well is good for downtown Chicago as a regional center and I suspect it’s helped the city avoid some really horrific freeway expansions in the city and inner suburbs.

         Seattle’s situation is frustrating but if Chicago had to build from scratch they might try to do similar things. Use lots of freeway-aligned routes to minimize cost and disruption and also try to serve offramp-oriented suburban commercial centers. Combine intra-city and regional trips into the same lines. Maybe even use LRT tech that allows for many different operating modes on long-distance routes. They might avoid some projects along freight-rail ROWs that look like low-hanging fruit but don’t have clear constituencies or numbers that pencil out, just as Seattle has.

      5. @Tom Terrific: I grew up not too far from Lombard and … Lombard is more like Shoreline than it is like Greenwood. Some parts of Shoreline have connected street networks and some don’t… Shoreline doesn’t have a historic downtown but outside of that Lombard is a pretty good Shoreline analog. Roosevelt Road is similar to Aurora but Roosevelt is probably a little worse — it certainly has worse transit and the overall environment is probably closer to 99 in Snohomish County.

         There is mass transit that works in Shoreline and Des Moines today — without looking it up I bet Shoreline has a similar transit modeshare for residents as Lombard does today. And for people accessing destinations within the city, Shoreline’s transit mode-share is modest but surely higher than Lombard’s. Shoreline has a bunch of frequent buses and is just physically closer to more walkable areas — the E Line is both better than anything Pace runs on Roosevelt and has an easier job.

      6. Seattle’s situation is frustrating but if Chicago had to build from scratch they might try to do similar things.

         Or they would do what most cities would do which is to just run more buses to the sprawling suburbs and serve the inner city with a metro. To Tom’s point, you can serve sprawling suburbia well … with buses. Of course you want to take advantage of any rail that already exists. It is a shame that we don’t own the tracks or we could get a lot more out of them. But even then it is unlikely they would represent a huge portion of the overall transit ridership, just as “the spine” outside Seattle will represent a tiny portion of our ridership. The “BNSF Line” is the busiest of the Metra lines. It gets about 60,000 riders a day. The entire Metra rail system (consisting of 11 lines) gets about 160,000. The Chicago Transit Authority buses get about 575,000 riders a day.

      7. I grew up in DuPage County. I beg you, please don’t use Metra as an example of anything good.

      8. Here’s a link to Lombard. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lombard,+IL/@41.8774898,-88.0223547,13892m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x880e529b705c49b5:0x88daad5c636d5167!8m2!3d41.8800296!4d-88.0078435!16zL20vMHM2ZnQ?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

         If you expand it everywhere that’s not commercial, except a little bit around two golf courses and one curvy developmeht in the southeast corner, is covered with consistent rectangular blocks with arterials every half mile. Sounds a lot like Greenwood to me. Shoreline has almost NO “through” arterials except Aurora and Meridian north-south. Sure, it has some block-oriented development, but it’s just not as dense as Lombard. Most of Shoreline is streets winding around in the hills with little ability to go east-west.

         Now I will admit that Lombard lots may be somewhat deeper than those in Shoreline, if you count the “parking” strips along most streets which allow no actual parking…..

      9. I could be wrong here, but from what I can tell, Lombard is a village that grew into a suburb. As a village it was pretty small and centered around the train station. It grew with the automobile, but a lot of that growth occurred before cul de sacs were popular. (It added a lot of people in the 1920s.) There was another big increase in population in the 1960s, but by then the streets may have all had a grid. It is also quite possible that the growth was simply annexation (of similar villages). The area around the station is developed, but it doesn’t really look like a “streetcar suburb”. It is quite low density. It is basically Shoreline with some sort of town center, a street grid and a lot more history.

         In contrast, Greenwood is also a grid and is mostly houses. But the houses are much closer together. Even the areas that are zoned single-family often have older basement apartments. It has a lot more density. It is also a lot closer to the city (although Chicago is a lot bigger). Overall — even accounting for the larger size of Chicago — I would say that Lombard is more like Shoreline than Greenwood.

      10. “On Mike’s point, cities like Boston and Chicago prove that dense and wide reaching commuter rail can work.”

          And suburban Vancouver with its relatively frequent buses and a couple high-quality BRT corridors.

          We’ve had multiple stories of people taking local transit from here to Vancouver. The Everett-Mt Vernon and Mt Vernon-Bellingham express buses sometimes run a couple times a day or not on weekends, or you take Amtrak to Bellingham Fairhaven station. Then you get to the border somehow (I’m not sure if there’s another bus or you take a taxi or a long walk.

          But before we cross the border let’s look at a few other trips. Good luck getting to other areas on the edges of Bellingham or the small towns around it or the resort areas.

          Then let’s look at Arlington, where I’d like to see MMA tournaments at an indoor soccer center on a Saturday evening. I can get a CT bus to central Arlington in the afternoon, but nothing coming back in the later evening. and at the time there was no Sunday service if I stayed overnight. The soccer center is a mile and a half south of the town center, on dark Highway 9 with inadequate shoulders, so it would have been unsafe to walk to. We used a Zipcar from Seattle.

          Then look at Mt Vernon. My friend in north Lynnwood lived there for a few years. She’d take the express bus from Everett, but she had to not to miss the last bus at 7pm, and I don’t think there was weekend service.

          Now we cross the border to Canada, as the border guards look skeptically at us for being pedestrians. We walk a mile or so, to a fairly frequent suburban bus that goes to a Skytrain station, or to a transfer point to a Skytrain station. And if we’re a resident of that burb, we can use those buses to get around.

   3. @Lazarus, the other tragedy of the ‘bus tunnel” was locking in 400’ platforms, thus engineering a permanent constraint on ST train capacity into the system. A lot of the churn right now about ST3, and how much core capacity is needed through downtown, whether we need another tunnel, etc. stems from that very consequential decision made back in the 80s.

      1. the other tragedy of the ‘bus tunnel” was locking in 400’ platforms

         Automated trains (with open gangways) running every couple minutes could easily handle the load. To quote this article: from https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-station-platform-extension:

         Platform lengths on the Expo and Millennium lines are generally roughly 80 metres in length, while most of the Canada Line’s platforms are 40 metres.

         In other words, our platforms are about 50% bigger than Vancouver’s biggest platforms. The problem isn’t the size of the platforms.

      2. @another engineer,

         There are a lot of constraints placed on us by the decisions Metro made 40 years ago when they built the old bus tunnel, but we are still better off than Portland with their 200 ft trains running on the surface through the urban core.

         The bus tunnel is what it is. We are stuck with trains no longer than 400 ft, a tunnel with side platforms, wasted center space, and limited ability to handle ingress and egress. Thank you Metro!

         The most we can hope for is incremental improvements and informed leadership capable of making hard decisions. I think informed leadership will be the hard part.

      3. The Metro bus tunnel was opened in 1990. Sound Transit was formed in 1993. Voters approved Sound Move in 1996.

      4. we are still better off than Portland

         But nowhere near as well off as Vancouver. Sorry, you were saying…

         We are stuck with trains no longer than 400 ft

         Which is 50% longer than the largest platforms in Vancouver. These aren’t tiny platforms. Just because ST hasn’t figured out how to use them properly is no reason to blame Metro for building what is by far the most important, well-built section of our system. Vancouver carries way more people on each line. Even the line that has teeny-tiny platforms — the Canada Line, with platforms roughly a third the size of ours — carries way more riders than Link.

         Allow me to simplify it: Our platforms are huge. That isn’t the problem.

   4. I’m just in wonder at Munich having seven S-Bahn lines going to everywhere in the region every 20 minutes full time, and eight U-Bahn lines to everywhere in the city.

      A lot of it is luck. The S-Bahn lines outside the city are based on old railways. As Tom pointed out, the towns they served are very centralized (and thus can better support transit). We have neither. We have some rail, but we don’t even own it, and it largely serves areas that are sprawling. Technically Auburn is a city of 87,000. From a regional transit standpoint it is a town of about 5,000 (if that).

      But Munich — like most cities around the world — focused on building within the core city. The S-Bahn is a great addition. It not only allows people outside the city to get into town, but it is essentially just part of the metro.

      Part of the problem is that we sprawled. The other big problem is that are building metro lines to sprawling areas. We are basically building very expensive metro lines that aren’t well suited for them while ignoring the areas that are. We are ignoring what I would call the Vancouver model as well. Build a metro in the city, but also integrate the buses really well. We aren’t doing that.

      There are plenty of cities that don’t have the railways that Munich does. They don’t run that many trains to the suburbs. They run buses. But they also have a really good metro serving the core of the city. We don’t, and we aren’t building one.

      1. Well said, Ross. An excellent summary.

3. I’m all for whatever works to get people moving around the area efficiently, but how would a second technology fit in to the current system? Would a new TSB line end at downtown, or be the southern half of a west Seattle to Ballard line? Presumably it would require a second tunnel (which maybe would be good in the long run, to have the beginnings of a second system in place)? How much of a burden would it be to support a third major transit technology in addition to buses and light rail?

   1. ST isn’t going to switch technology. The current tech works just fine, the system just needs to be expanded to increase coverage. And that is what ST3 is all about.

      1. The “current tech” would have been perfect for the downtown-airport system as planned using Pacific Highway through Tukwila. It’s not “fine” for any part of the system north of the TBM vault next the Paramount. It’s wasteful, ugly and slow.

         Nor is it “fine” for any part of East Link except the short stretches along 112th and east of Bel-Red station, both of which could have been “mini-elevated” to protect people from the third rail at little extra cost. Nor is it “fine” for any part of The Spine south of TIBS where it is going to be elevated or at-grade within the fenced freeway right of way.

         It’s stupid to limit speeds to fifty-five miles an hour on what has become BART del Norte with long station separations. Low-floor LRV’s are and always will be a poor choice for 95% of the system.

      2. Faster light rail cars are available. In fact, the Siemens cars used by SoundTransit are capable of faster speeds. SoundTransit apparently just doesn’t want to do what is needed to make a faster line.

         Therefore, a switch to BART rolling stock wouldn’t do too much to help the speed problem.

         You’d need to have Sounder level station spacing for higher speeds anyway, and make it something like the modernized electrified CalTrain.

      3. I am curious how many of the 33 miles between Lynnwood and Angle Lake are crossed at full speed. I have a hard time believing it’s much more than 15 miles; but if we assume that distance, increasing max speed from 55 mph (16.4 minutes to go 15 miles) to 70 mph (12.8 minutes to go 15 miles) only saves 3.6 minutes on a 72-minute run, and that’s not accommodating for the extra distance to accelerate from 55 mph to 70. Getting up to 80 mph shaves another 1.6 minutes off those 15 miles.

      4. Nathan: Do that in each direction and you are almost at the headway of the train. Definitely so when the 2 Line can cross Lake Washington. This means a train can be taken out of the schedule while maintaining the same level of service.

         If ST goes back to six minute service, then a train can be pulled from the schedule with just the 1 Line.

      5. I’m sorry, but “appearances” matter. While, sure, higher speeds aren’t going to help most places between TIBS and Northgate; there’s street- and unfenced at-grade running between Rainier Beach and IDS, tight curves and a heavy grade between TIBS and Rainier Beach. But south of Angle Lake the station separations increase significantly and there’s no “there” in between them possibly to fill later. The same is true north of Northgate.

         If folks riding the trains hear the motors max out twenty seconds after the train starts up from Lynnwood, and it’s at that same speed to MLT, they’re going to notice the cars (usually) flying by them fifteen miles an hour faster. Sure, during the peaks they’re going to win the race, reliably. So, it’ll be crowded peaks and otherwise nearly empty four-car trains shuttling back and forth at other times.

         But that’s just one more reason to realize that we’ve built BART del Norte with the wrong technology.

         And, let’s not forget that, except for the stretch between RBS and IDS, the whole darn thing is going to be grade separated except for two short stretches in Bellevue which could have been raised four feet to keep people away from the third rail. The point is stop building grade-separated lines using catenary. It forces tunnels to be significantly bigger and it’s ugly, expensive to maintain, costly to install and completely unnecessary for safety in tunnels or on elevated sections.

         I get it that we couldn’t have the RV section without it. But that doesn’t mean that we should build another forty miles of catenary powered low-floor LRV’s.

      6. Al, well low-floor and high-floor vehicles certainly use the same propulsion and power gathering technology, but that’s because the powered trucks are under the “high floor” parts of the car. It’s the idler wheels under the articulation that are sketchy at speed. They don’t share an axle, which is a little bit good because you don’t need an ogive wheel profile to match rotational distances in sharp turns; they’re squeal less for that reason. But the frame connecting the wheels and the mounts to it are inherently less rigid than a half-ton railroad axle on which the two wheels are shrink mounted connecting them. Idlers hunt more; hunting is not your friend.

   2. The word “technology” is a broad term. For example, is high floor light rail versus low floor light rail a different technology? To change station platform heights is very expensive and disruptive but it’s still the same rails and catenaries so it’s the same technology.

      Also, two modes can operate on the same space. That’s what our streetcars with bus routes do. DSTT had both light rail and buses running in it.

      The automated REM project in Montreal has long stretches where the corridor isn’t new but is instead a renovation of a rail corridor.

      So technology applications are really as case-by-case thing. Surely everything has to be changed if it’s gondola versus maglev versus light rail but those are extreme examples. Other upgrades like automation or faster max speeds can still use existing tracks or corridors as appropriate.

      The one thing that is transit planning should never do is assume that any technology change is fully incompatible to what’s already built. It’s more of just a matter of how a transition is manifested if it disrupts a service already running and people are riding it.

      1. Oh, I am sorry, Al. My reply is right above your comment, rather than here. Your conclusion that “other upgrades” can still use the existing tracks is accurate. I hope someday that “standard gauge” heavy rail vehicles are running over an upgraded spine with the Rainier Valley still run by trams that pass through downtown Seattle to SLU on what might then be called “The Culture Connector”. But on Fourth Avenue.

4. It seems to me if a technology change is warranted anywhere, it should be West Seattle. The topography and long run with no station seem to be more conducive to a gondola network.

   Making stations smaller and automating trains is just as easy with the existing rolling stock design as it would be with u-bahn or SkyTrain type trains.

   1. The part about making stations shorter is true; LRV’s can be two or even one car trains perfectly easily. And they can be automated, of course. But if you’re going to elevate or tunnel everything anyway, as Skycastle is wont to do, it’s a lot cheaper to use third-rail than overhead.

      1. That is a good point, and one more advantage to making Ballard a stand-alone line. If (as many have suggested) you have a non-service connection to the main line then you would need hybrid trains or at the very least a hybrid train to push the other trains into the service yard.

         I get why we built what we built. I also get why we don’t want to change it. But like our neighbors to the north, we should look into using different technology when we expand. SkyTrain used to consist of all linear induction. The Canada Line (which was built later) is operationally independent and uses conventional motors. Smaller, automated (of any type) would be a huge advantage over what we are running — especially for that line.

         I feel like Vancouver is teaching a master class on transit for midsize North American cities and we are ignoring them (even though they are our nearest neighbor).

      2. I’ve seen no evidence of third rail power being inherently cheaper than overhead. In fact, these days, overhead power has a very good established supply chain, as it’s used in many cities. Third rail is limited to only several cities, and they aren’t standardized across all systems. If I remember correctly, even just in New York City, there are some four different third rail systems in use between PATH, NYCTA, LIRR, and Metro-North, and at least two use incompatible hardware.

         The parts for overhead wire are available everywhere, and there are many operational advantages. Eg: it’s a lot easier to have a crew on the ground doing work around the track with overhead. The northwest already has at least several contractors with experience building overhead systems, and there are significant advantages to only need to stock one type of contact shoe, springs, etc.

         If you want cheaper overhead in places like Ballard where the speeds are somewhat limited, you can use a direct suspended wire like the trolleybuses do. TriMet does this in downtown Portland, and it should be good for 35mph, at least.

         The supposed third rail cost advantage in tunnels isn’t something I am aware of. In overhead systems, you can bolt the contact to the tunnel roof in the natural arch of the tunnel. The way Link tunnels were built, they don’t do this, but it can be done. Third rail systems require the contact rail add width in an area where the circular bore curves inward.

         The huge savings for Ballard could come from not building such a huge station so far under Westlake, by allowing shorter trains. This happens, no matter if light rail cars just like those being used already, or SkyTrain cars, or even SLU streetcars coupled together.

      3. Glenn, of course third rail is cheaper. You don’t need a support every twenty yards, all that adjustable frou-frou hanging on the supports to keep the catenary tension just so, or the fiddle of pantographs.

         Just because New York has lines from different decades built by different owners doesn’t mean that nobody today offers “off-the-shelf” systems. Here’s Google “AI Overview”:

         Here are some suppliers of third rail power technology:

         Selco Manufacturing Corp: A custom manufacturer that supplies third rail transit products, electrical goods, and custom steel fabrication. They have over 100 years of industry experience and a 50,000 square foot fabrication facility.

         REHAU: A manufacturer that provides third rail power rail covers, power rail supports, and composite power rails. They offer full life cycle support, including concept development, design, operational training, installation supervision, and more.

         TransTech: A company that holds the original patents for the composite rail used in third rail power. They also offer a stainless-steel capped aluminum rail.

         L.B. Foster: A supplier of third rail accessories.

         Midwest: A supplier of Zero Gravity Third Rail, an anti-icing and deicing system that uses NASA Smart Fluid technology.

         Lamoreaux Associates: A supplier of third rail, power rail, and overhead contact system (OCS) products.

         R. J. Corman Railroad Group: A supplier of the RP Series product line.

      4. @Glenn in Portland,

         You are absolutely correct. Third rail is not inherently cheaper than systems with overhead OCS. It’s just not true.

         And in many cases third rail systems are actually substantially MORE expensive. OCS is actually fairly cheap, whereas complete grade separation for third rail systems drives substantial costs into the system.

         Bit hey, ST isn’t changing to a different system. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

      5. Tom: sure, the stuff is available, but it’s all custom made for each individual system, since there’s no standardization.

         For most parts, unless it’s for an airport people mover, you probably need a year advance, minimum order quantity, and possibly go through a production approval process where you send a drawing of the part to the manufacturer to verify everything before it is made.

         Unless you’re looking for something rare, like the 25kv in the northeast corridor, overhead is far more common.

         Self-tensioning catenary isn’t rare as well.

5. Technology alone can’t solve for the core promise of ST3: get Seattle’s neighborhoods connected to a single system in a manner that is all of faster, more frequent, and more reliable than the bus system we have now. Sound Transit is all-in on the “spine” and the central premise of both West Seattle and Ballard is a fast connection to it — much, much faster than the rapid C/D/H lines currently provide.

   If rail is becoming too expensive — which is a hack argument to begin with, the idea that public transit dollars need to be spent with value-for-money at top of mind belongs in the same dustbin as the idea that public transit should be profitable — then any alternative has to meet the same service goals. The goal is not “build the train”, it’s “connect to the spine in X minutes”.

   1. “The goal is not “build the train”, it’s “connect to the spine in X minutes”.”

      That succinctly the core problem with ST3. The Board members were obsessed with the system diagrams and station dots — and chose projects without looking at whether they improved travel times or effort for riders or if the stations would actually get used. The implied strategy was assuming that just building them would create future development — a dream enticing enough for voter approval. And most Board members don’t see the deceptive cost estimates (off by so much that it’s clearly deceptive) assigned to these projects.

      And of course there is even less attention given to station circulation for a rider. Once the Board got their funding in 2016, they seem to summarily ignore any rider use or benefit. That was clear from the WSBLE Stakeholder group focused on everything but the riders.

      How much Board discussion or analysis goes on about the inane depth of the Junction Station in West Seattle? How much discussion or analysis goes into the Line 1/3 and 1/2 transfer time and effort? Essentially NONE!

   2. Sound Transit is all-in on the “spine” and the central premise of both West Seattle and Ballard is a fast connection to it — much, much faster than the rapid C/D/H lines currently provide.

      The problem is that a typical trip on the H and C will be slower (because riders have to transfer). The D is the only one that will have trips that are faster.

      That is part of the problem. Link has gone from making common trips a lot faster (e. g. Roosevelt to Capitol Hill) to focusing on trips that are no faster than existing bus service (e. g. Delridge to downtown) or not very common (Fife to … well pretty much anywhere Link goes). Worse yet, they haven’t considered improvements to the bus system that would make common trips much, much faster.

      the idea that public transit dollars need to be spent with value-for-money at top of mind belongs in the same dustbin as the idea that public transit should be profitable

      Bullshit. It is quite reasonable to suggest that we focus major transit projects (that are a subset of transit spending) on high-ridership, high-value areas. To do otherwise is absurd. Should be spend billions of dollars so that three people a day get a faster ride? Ludicrous. Obviously cost-effectiveness should play some role.

      But that is completely different than whether or not an agency makes a profit. Very few agencies (around the world) are profitable. Transit is a public good. But like all public goods you want to get the most for your money. Coverage should be a consideration, but spending billions of dollars to cover a neighborhood with only a handful of riders is a really bad idea. You end up with no money to spend on the areas where a lot more people could use the investment.

   3. the idea that public transit dollars need to be spent with value-for-money at top of mind belongs in the same dustbin as the idea that public transit should be profitable

      I’m certainly glad you’re not serving on the Sound Transit Board. Of course transit dollars should be spent with value-for-money “at top of mind”, because “value-for-money” obviously includes the goal of serving the most people feasible with the best transit available given the inevitable budgetary constraints.

      Anything else is corruption.

      1. Defining value is surprisingly tricky.

         If you providing great transit to 10 people who already have good transit, are wealthy, and has half a dozen other ways to get from point A to B, is that more “valuable” than providing good transit to 5 poor people who have no other options and would lose their job without transit access?

      2. The point is to improve the overall transit mobility of the city or region. The issue is the density, range of destinations, amount of housing, and strategic location of the project. For instance, Lynnwood Link is highly valuable because it’s such a central strategic corridor, even if the 10 people around it are wealthy and already have relatively good transit. Whereas the 5 people on the 27, it would help them, but it wouldn’t help anybody beyond them.

   4. > If rail is becoming too expensive — which is a hack argument to begin with, the idea that public transit dollars need to be spent with value-for-money

      You do realize that the extra money has to come from ballard or the other subareas of issaquah/tacoma/everett link right? Sound Transit does not have a magical piggy bank, and even loans still need to be repaid

6. I’ve seen a number of posts advocating for this kind of approach for Ballard and/or West Seattle lines. I’m pretty confident that barring a complete reset of ST3, this is not going to happen. Just the simple fact of having to add another OMF, presumably inside Seattle city, would add a lot of cost and complexity to the projects, and no one will want to house it in their neighborhood.

   Now, I do think it’s a good idea, but it would probably be more worth it if it were built into a longer-term plan to make a more expansive heavy rail network across the entire city. This would probably require a new ballot measure / new long range plan.

   These types of things would be a lot easier if Sound Transit could just work with a 30 year expansion plan on an ongoing basis rather than doing everything in megaprojects.

   1. “I’ve seen a number of posts advocating for this kind of approach for Ballard and/or West Seattle lines. I’m pretty confident that barring a complete reset of ST3, this is not going to happen. ”

      If the original budgets were similar to today’s estimated cost plus inflation , I would tend to agree. But it’s not.

      The 2016 promise was about $8B for the full project for both West Seattle and Ballard.

      By 2022 that was approaching $13B.

      Now West Seattle is above $7B by itself. The latest for the DSTT2 plus Ballard is now over $11B and that looks several billion low in light of the West Seattle Link new cost estimates. That puts the current cost above $18B and I think that the end result would be closer to $25B once ST gets more serious about the actual cost of several (6-8) giant deep station vaults in the middle of central Seattle (only one deep station vault for West Seattle).

      The AWV tunnel replacement project was $3.4B by comparison.

      So WSBLE literally is now 200 percent (3 times) more expensive than the public knew in 2016. The additional cost for West Seattle Link by itself is greater than the entire AWV Replacement project was multiplied by 2!

      There’s only so much the Board can do to pay for this. The Board however won’t admit it, but the money just isn’t there. ST CANNOT AFFORD THE FULL WSBLE no matter what spin or tax extension they put on it. For anyone on the Board or executive staff to say that it is is flat out lying at this point. DC won’t bail them out — and I don’t think Olympia will either.

      What many of us here are trying to find a way to get rail to Ballard much more cheaply. We are trying to find a way to eliminate all the wild ups and downs at two stations between West Seattle and Downtown and the awful Downtown transfers. We see the problem and are trying to help find a solution to build Link to Ballard that’s both more user friendly and more affordable! What’s been proposed here on STB by switching to an automated stand-alone line can rein in these costs and fulfill the general intent of the project.

      ST needs a major intervention. The Board and staff still suffer from institutional denial so they’re moving full steam ahead. The money will mostly run out after West Seattle.

      We may not know how to do this intervention. But we see that the dream at ST is so expensive that it’s improbable and that one will one day happen.

      And as far as the OMF goes it’s clear that a small facility could be created in Interbay or maybe it could tie into Link. Going round trip between Ballard and Westlake is about an hour. Automated trains with two cars every three minutes is only 40 vehicles in operation and 50 vehicles would include spares. That’s about half of either the Central or East OMF. And other proposed new OMFs (South or North) could be smaller. There are ways to include an OMF at a reasonable cost.

      1. Excellent post Al, but I think two other issues are important:

         1. You assume the stakeholders along a modified BLE will accept a value engineered BLE. I doubt that. The DSA, CID, Amazon, and Ballard when it comes to a decade of disruption on 20th, show these stakeholders don’t go quietly, and like the DSA and CID will accept no station over one they don’t like.

         2. The four other subareas will not accept any FURTHER delay in their projects from WSBLE, whether it is the debt ceiling, five year extension to afford WSBLE (which went backwards) or stations at CID N/S. If there is going to be a delay in WLE to reevaluate WLE and BLE including new technology (for ST) it is going to be a very long delay because WLE and BLE will have to go to the back of the project line.

         Mike’s comment that other subareas should wait while N. KC figures out WSBLE because Seattle is more “urban” won’t fly because WLE and BLE are no more urban than their projects that are already value engineered.

         I think Seattle transit advocates have to accept one reality: if they want Link now or in the near future it will be WLE. If they want time to compare WLE and BLE and different technologies plus the time to sell the alignment to the stakeholders — including West Seattle — their projects in Seattle will be built last, if at all based on escalating construction costs outpacing extending ST taxes.

      2. “You assume the stakeholders along a modified BLE will accept a value engineered BLE. I doubt that. ”

         Going with an automated line reduces the sizes of station vaults considerably. If they’re 40 percent shorter, that’s 40 percent fewer dump trunks carrying away soil, 40 percent less hole sizes where stations go and a huge reduction in street closure segments and in temporary closure durations.

         Any property owner or affected group can easily be convinced that the automated line is less negatively impactful to them.

         And a three line DSTT literally means NO CID CONSTRUCTION. None! No construction impacts at all. The CID would be untouched!

      3. Al, you certainly could be correct, but the time (years) it would take ST to explore these options and for the subarea to sell them to WLE and BLE stakeholders means WLE and BLE would have to go to the back of the list of ST 3 projects.

         Otherwise the four other subareas will just vote with Dow (which they probably will do anyway) to proceed with WLE as proposed since the subarea can afford WLE to avoid delay in their own projects.

         It could be N. King Co. decides to reevaluate WLE and BLE and goes to the back of the project line and politics or other factors still end up supporting WLE as proposed. There is no guarantee that IF N. King Co. decides to delay WLE to study it and BLE and goes to the back of the line that in the end the Board chooses something other than WLE.

         In fact, I put the odds the Board approves WLE as proposed before any delay at 80+%, and if WLE is delayed and WLE and BLE are extended until the 2040’s after other ST 3 projects are completed I put the odds at WLE getting the nod at around 65%.

         I don’t think a redesigned or value engineered BLE will cost less than $10 billion if ST builds it, although none of us has any idea what the cost estimate might be. So those proposing delaying WLE and studying a new mode for BLE better really mean it because whichever N. King chooses in the end it will be the last ST 3 project built. The four other subareas are not going to sit around for four years because N King might change its mind.

      4. To your points, Frank:

         1) I think you are forgetting that current plans are for a “value engineered” Ballard Link. Gone is the “Midtown” station on the new line. The transfer at CID will not be “world class”. Of course some would object to the line ending at Westlake, but a lot of people would be thrilled. You avoid the various issues with construction (at least south of there). You aim towards First Hill, thus pleasing folks on the hill (that want a Midtown Station because it is at least closer to First Hill). Folks from the south end retain their good downtown stations. People from the north still get their one-seat ride to SeaTac. There is another advantage…

         2) It gets built sooner! Much sooner. There would be smaller stations and fewer stations.

         Of course this comes after the fall of West Seattle Link. This brings up another point (from another comment):

         Otherwise the four other subareas will just vote with Dow

         My guess is Dow is gone in less than a year. His term is up in November next year. He will have served four full terms. He will be 64 that month. I really doubt he will want to run for a fifth term, especially since it is likely he would face serious competition.

         By then it will be clear that West Seattle Link has serious financial problems and is going to delay (the far more important) Ballard Link. It seems quite likely that a new chair will question the wisdom of the project. It is likely they had nothing to do with the original decision to build West Seattle Link. It is much easier to pull the plug when you didn’t build it.

         A shorter, better, more frequent Ballard Link along with buses for West Seattle (instead of rail) could be considered a complete reset. But I wouldn’t view it that way. This still focuses effort on those areas. You would still leverage much of the research on Ballard Link that has already done. You basically go back to the engineers and tell them they can build much smaller stations (which would be fantastic news). West Seattle is a big change of course, but the focus remains on West Seattle. You look at making the buses faster, just as you did with buses on 405. You can say a lot about those projects, but saying they are underbuilt is one of them.

         Oh, and there is another issue: If we don’t build a second tunnel, then the other subareas don’t have to chip in for it. Representatives from other subareas would love to hear that. It means their dubious projects can be built sooner.

      5. As I noted Ross, you may be correct although I haven’t seen anything about cost for a valued engineered BLE from someone with expertise in such a complex field.

         All I am stating for sure is if N. KC pulls the trigger and delays WLE to study some ill-defined value engineered BLE with one tunnel it will take years, so BLE and WLE will go to the back of the line, with the odds better than 50/50 that after years of delay and studies the Board still chooses WLE because only WLE and BLE are in the levy.

         The rest of the subareas may have “dubious” projects (what isn’t dubious in ST 3) but they are not like Hamlet about them. They know what they plan to build. I agree with them, and no doubt the four other subareas think WLE is dubious but envy N. KC’s financial ability to waste money like that.

         My guess is they like me think some ill-defined value engineered BLE that will magically cost less than $10 billion (in 2041 when it is begun) is even more dubious.

         I don’t live in N KC. If I were on the Board I would vote for WLE, unless it went to the back of the line for years of study and new FEIS’s.

         Now if The Urbanist or this blog commissioned an engineering report showing a value engineered BLE that costs less than $10 billion I might reconsider.

      6. Frank, if WSLE gets built, you’re just kicking the can down the road and you will make the next step more difficult. There won’t be any funds left for Ballard, meaning there won’t be any DSTT2 for the foreseeable future. At that time, it might be too late to look at upgrading the current tunnel to allow for more trains. Dow may not care anymore, but I don’t think the various other stakeholders would be happy with that.

      7. Frank, your predictions are very probably correct, but waiting to do it right is still way better than doing it wrong “on schedule”. Seattle’s growth has recently come pretty much to a halt, so the pressure for these projects is considerably less. Yes, the City needs to step up to buy some more bus service hours or pass another levy to reach the available ceiling. It will pass in Seattle, whether the Wingers get the vapors or not.

      8. “Mike’s comment that other subareas should wait while N. KC figures out WSBLE because Seattle is more “urban””

         I said a better regional plan is to tax everybody and put transit where it’s most needed and useful, which means something like Munich or Vancouver. But for ST3 there are three choices:

         – (ST’s alternative) Start building West Seattle now, finish the BLE EIS, and build ST’s preferred BLE as close to the realignment schedule as possible. Construction of BLE, Tacoma Dome, and Everett would overlap. ST would scrape along the debt ceiling for a few years so expenditures would be limited during that time, but that’s what ST’s schedule calls for.

         – (My alternative) Reevaluate West Seattle and Ballard, and switch to any of the technology/aligment alternatives we’ve suggested. This would require new supplemental EISes, which would take a couple years. Construction would start immediately after that. BLE, Tacoma Dome, and Everett construction would still overlap, just not the same way as in ST’s schedule. Tacoma Dome might even finish before BLE starts.

         – (Your alternative) Reevaluate WSLE and BLE and write the new EISes as above. But don’t start construction until Tacoma Dome, Everett, and Issaquah are all finished.

      9. “Of course some would object to the line ending at Westlake, but a lot of people would be thrilled.”

         Somebody tell the Downtown Seattle Association and CID activists that Ballard terminating at Westlake means no construction between Pine Street and Weller Street. Or maybe a little to upgrade DSTT1, but 90% of the disruption would be gone.

      10. Mike, I didn’t address your call to abolish subarea equity because Fesler did that, and the opinion of most was that was a non-starter.

          If anything, it would only calcify the other subareas against a delay for WLE. Ross probably has the more sophisticated approach by telling the four other subareas that a delay would cancel DSTT2 and their contributions, or a transfer from DSTT2 for every rider from the south. That only tells them that if DSTT2 is not affordable neither is BLE.

          When you write, “I said a better regional plan is to tax everybody and put transit where it’s most needed and useful” two points come to mind. One, the point of the levies and subarea equity was to determine which transit is most needed and useful regionwide; and two, WLE and BLE are considered the least needed and useful regionwide, even without comparing cost.

          Although I am not a fan of ST 3, I think TLE is a much better project than WLE or BLE because it will connect the region’s second largest city and Pierce Co. to an already existing light rail line that runs to Lynnwood and Redmond. If there is any subarea sharing I think it should be to complete TLE to downtown Tacoma, which has 223,000 residents compared to Ballard’s 28,000, and thousands more jobs than BLE or WLE. WLE alone would pay for TLE and then completing TLE to downtown Tacoma.

          If any subarea has been screwed it is Pierce because for decades ST has taken its subarea revenue and loaned it to wealthier subareas like N KC and E KC at below market interest rates while construction costs have soared during that time. The transcontinental railway was not built from only one end; it was built from both ends to meet in the middle. Tacoma should be nearing completion of TLE as FLE is finished, not ten years later, if it had control of its own subarea revenue. Now, TLE will likely cost two or three times what it would have cost 10 years ago if begun then, based on the cost increases for WLE and BLE.

          When you list your three alternatives I think you make some incorrect assumptions.

          Alternative one (ST’s Alternative). I don’t think ST or the Board have any illusion that N KC can afford WLE and then BLE. After WLE and stations at 130th and Graham St. N KC will have $2 billion left over. What kind of light rail can ST build to WS for $2 billion. They know it is either/or. Or ST 4.

          Alternative two (your alternative to reevaluate WLE and BLE). IF the Board and Dow and WS go along, I think you are optimistic that the reevaluation and two EIS’s can be done in two years. More like five years, especially if we are talking a new technology (for ST). The four other subareas will go along with whatever the N KC board members want to do, but will demand no delay in their projects which means their projects will consume the debt ceiling until they are completed.

          Alternative three (“my alternative”). I don’t have an alternative (although I would support delaying WLE to evaluate the subarea’s options while delaying those projects to the end of ST 3 because I think it will take forever for Seattle to make a decision).

          All I am predicting is IF WLE is delayed the four other subareas will demand there is no delay in their projects which means their projects will consume the debt ceiling and rather them loaning their subarea revenue to N KC N KC will begin paying back its loans and loaning its subarea revenue to them to complete their projects.

          Tom Terrific has a good point. ST signals what it wants to do with the titles of its alternatives. I think ST (and Dow) want to begin WLE as designed NOW so it is not delayed because BLE won’t be affordable so ST will tell the Board it will take at least five years to complete new EIS’s, even an alternative automated BLE will cost more than $10 billion, and if WLE is delayed either the other subarea projects are delayed (and increase even more in cost) or the debt ceiling and subarea loans switch to completing their projects asap.

          Since N KC does not want its projects to go to the back of the line its Board members will greenlight WLE as proposed and the other subareas will go along because ST will recommend that.

          Maybe if BLE was a needed and useful light rail project things could be different, but the real argument is BLE is simply better than WLE, and WLE is probably the worst light rail project in all of ST 3. Hardly an endorsement of BLE or worth five years of study when the subarea won’t have the money for BLE anyway.

      11. “When you write, “I said a better regional plan is to tax everybody and put transit where it’s most needed and useful” two points come to mind. One, the point of the levies and subarea equity was to determine which transit is most needed and useful regionwide”

          I was saying the best ideal approach is not to have subarea equity. I wasn’t saying anything specifically about ST3 or its projects. Ideally we would have done this in the 90s: hired a transit best-practices expert like Jarrett Walker, and then built the recommendation, and had an ST board+CEO that would explain and promote the importance of this, and a state/county/city power structure that would back ST up on this. That’s what Vancouver and European and Asian cities have that we don’t have. In that case there would have been no ST3 as we know it twenty years later; the network, phases, and timelines would have been completely different.

          But we do have subarea equity, the state/county/city power dynamics and attitudes we have, and a set of ST3 projects we compromised on for consensus. So I keep saying I don’t think Everett and Tacoma Dome is the best approach, I don’t like how subarea equity is distorting what we’re doing, and I don’t like how much we’re spending on parking garages in the suburbs — but… I’m not crusading to cancel or obstruct them. I’m just lamenting. I’m accommodating them and assuming they’ll be built, and we’ll build the more important stuff around them.

          In Ballard and West Seattle’s case, my concerns are about how the post-vote alignment decisions negatively impact passenger mobility, and how it’s gotten so bad that WS/BLE wouldn’t be able to fulfill major normal-subway aspects of why we’re building in the first place. It would be terrible to build these long downtown transfers, and the long walk to Ballard 14th Station, and find that we still have the problems we built Link to eliminate. So my argument there is about concrete passenger issues, not about it being unnecessary. Whereas Everett and Tacoma Dome are just unnecessary, but they’re in other subareas, and I’m trying to respect subarea equity and their right to build what they want. West Seattle is a third kind of case, that I see as just unnecessary (So what? Government builds a lot of things that are unnecessary, and we can’t stop it, so don’t waste energy stewing about it), but I’m also concerned about the forced transfers implied in West Seattle. Restructuring and forcing transfers is often good, as in the U-District, but West Seattle’s particular location, geography, and travel patterns make it ill suited for this.

          So please try to understand the difference between an ideal overall vision, what I wish the region had done since the 1990s, vs specific issues about ST3 and its projects. And if I’m not communicating the difference clearly — which suggestions are one and which suggestions are the other — can you tell me how to do it better?

      12. “TLE is a much better project than WLE or BLE because it will connect the region’s second largest city and Pierce Co.”

          TLE is the most straightforward of it or WLE or BLE or Everett, because it’s a simple inexpensive elevated segment along an existing flat, straight highway, and Pierce has been saving money for it throughout ST1 and ST2 so it has a large down payment and doesn’t need as much bond loans.

          Ballard and West Seattle have challenging terrain and stakeholders that want tunnel bells and whistles. Ballard is also saddled with the DSTT2 issues, which aren’t really about Ballard (they’re about the entire Link network), but they’re in the same project as Ballard so they affect Ballard. (In contrast, a separate Ballard-Westlake project would avoid these issues, so that it could get completed while we fuss about DSTT2 and maybe cancel it.

          Everett is long. The distance from Lynnwood Station to Everett Station is as far as Westlake to Lynnwood (which we built in three phases), and the Paine Field detour is on top of that. That makes it a bigger and harder-to-finance project than Tacoma Dome.

          “TLE is a much better project than WLE or BLE because it will connect the region’s second largest city…”

          Ahem, the “Tacoma” station will be a mile away from downtown Tacoma, in the nearest fringe corner of Tacoma and Pierce County, with not much in the station area, and visions of a robust walkable “Dome District” that may never be realized.

      13. “Tacoma should be nearing completion of TLE as FLE is finished, not ten years later, if it had control of its own subarea revenue.”

          Construction couldn’t start in earnest until Link reaches Federal Way. It hasn’t reached Federal Way yet. It was supposed to in 2023, and I think the latest estimate is 2026. If Pierce had started building from Tacoma Dome to the county border or Lynnwood TC earlier, it would have been a stub like the West Seattle stub. Great, you can take Link from Tacoma Dome to the county border (the middle of nowhere, but ST wouldn’t put a station there so you’d have to get off in Fife, which is also the middle of nowhere) or to Federal Way (and transfer to a bus). Yippee.

      14. ” I don’t think ST or the Board have any illusion that N KC can afford WLE and then BLE.”

          I don’t see anything in the boardmembers’ and staff’s behavior that confirms that. I don’t know their inner thoughts, and I don’t want to guess, because when you guess you often guess wrong and misrepresent people’s positions.

      15. “Alternative two (your alternative to reevaluate WLE and BLE). IF the Board and Dow and WS go along, I think you are optimistic that the reevaluation and two EIS’s can be done in two years. More like five years, especially if we are talking a new technology (for ST). The four other subareas will go along with whatever the N KC board members want to do, but will demand no delay in their projects which means their projects will consume the debt ceiling until they are completed.”

          2 years was just the typical length of a straightforward EIS and related planning. Obviously it could take longer, and complexities in these already-complex projects are bound to come up. The point is construction would start as soon as their EISes and designs are complete and funding is arranged. They wouldn’t be delayed longer than that to finish other projects. North King has a “right” to the the debt capacity implied by the the realignment schedule, and Seattle’s intrinsic characteristic of centrality and density. It would voluntarily give up its first couple years of that in order to “plan it right”, but that doesn’t mean it should have to give up all its time after that. The decision won’t be made by Pierce and Snohomish alone deciding to grab time for their projects, it would be decided by the entire ST board.

      16. ” delaying those projects to the end of ST 3 because I think it will take forever for Seattle to make a decision).”

          That’s assuming a possibility will be a certainty.

      17. “four other subareas will demand there is no delay in their projects which means their projects will consume the debt ceiling and rather them loaning their subarea revenue to N KC”

          “No delay” means construction is postponed. I’m not suggesting delaying Everett or Tacoma Dome. They can proceed as soon as they can when their EISes and design is completed. I think Tacoma Dome is close to construction anyway? But starting construction doesn’t mean they can use the entire debt capacity. It had been agreed that Tacoma Dome, Everett, and Ballard would be constructed simultaneously, so each would get about a third of the monthly construction revenue. If Everett and Tacoma take Ballard’s capacity even though Ballard is ready to start, that’s grabbing capacity from another project, which is wrong. Snohomish and South King wouldn’t be “lending” North King money for Ballard: North King would be spending its own money that was scheduled for Ballard at that time.

      18. “ST signals what it wants to do with the titles of its alternatives. I think ST (and Dow) want to begin WLE as designed NOW”

          Of course he wants to begin WLE NOW and build CID/N and CID/S as specified: he was the one that proposed them. The renaming of CID/N to “Midtown” was partly to justify this as not a large departure from the voter-approved representative alignment, which could have complicated federal grants and increased the legal argument that it’s out of scope for ST3.

      19. “Board members will greenlight WLE as proposed and the other subareas will go along because ST will recommend that.”

          Yes, probably. Last week’s staff presentation to the executive committee (link in the Urbanist’s October 30 article) showed no change to the 2032 opening date, in spite of the added tunnels and increased cost. I guess all the problems we’re predicting aren’t real, and the tunnel will be as quick to build as elevated. Or the staff just haven’t addressed the timeline yet and the board didn’t bring it up. (I’m guessing they didn’t bring it up, since I didn’t hear the discussion.) Or it’s something the board will get to later this month when it addresses the project.

      20. “Maybe if BLE was a needed and useful light rail project things could be different, but the real argument is BLE is simply better than WLE, and WLE is probably the worst light rail project in all of ST 3. ”

          The need and usefulness of a rail line to Ballard is based on Ballard’s population size, wide range of retail and other destinations attracting a large cross-section of the population and visitors, large walkable area, high existing transit use, an industrial center, and a hospital that people from other areas go to. And SLU’s population size and highrises. And a solution to Climate Pledge Arena’s and Seattle Center’s high-capacity transit needs (far beyond what the Monorail alone can do). All this gives plenty of justification for rail to Ballard. And that’s exactly what other cities around the world do in similar areas.

          None of these factors have changed since 2016 or 2020, so it it was justified then, it’s justified now. And it was justified then.

          HOWEVER, ST has made such bad post-vote alignment decisions, that Ballard Link if it’s built is in danger of not fulfilling what it was intended to do, so what’s the point of building it in that case?

          The problem is not the idea of a subway line to Ballard and SLU, but the specific product ST is proposing.

      21. West Seattle is connected to downtown by a freeway. Ballard isn’t. This makes buses much faster for West Seattle.

      22. Dammit, Frank, shit-canning West Seattle Link will NOT “delay other sub-areas’ projects”. Period, end of story.

          If anything, it will advance them, since the money will continue to roll in no matter where it is spent. If it isn’t spent on the West Seattle Roller-Coaster, it’s available for other project.

          The only time sub-area equity matters is at the end of the capital tax increases.

          To your ecomium to TDLE-Links, you are absolutely correct that if The Spine is extended beyond Federal Way it should penetrate downtown Tacoma. But that’s not what the leadership of Pierce County wants for a mooted ST4. They have a half-baked plan to run alongside the freeway to the smoking crater of Tacoma Mall instead. They wouldn’t even serve any neighborhoods along the way.

          This is why extending fifty-five mile per-hour low-floor, articulation-hunting LRV’s beyond Federal Way is transit malpractice. For less money ST could double track the UP between Renton Junction and East Tacoma and give BNSF and UP free overhead rights for “through” freights in one direction between those junctions. That would free space on the BNSF main to run half-hourly Sounder South between the exact same points that TDLE-Links will serve but twenty-five minutes faster and more comfortably.

          There would be ongoing trackage rights rentals that ST would have to pay UP, because BNSF has more through freights than does UP. And ST would have track-maintenance costs for a heavily used freight main. They do add up.

          Some of the “UP direction” BNSF charges wouldn’t be offset by “ST direction” UP wheelage, but it wouldn’t be a huge ongoing cost And, there are still some opportunities to triple-track the BNSF line between Auburn Junction and Renton Junction and even on to East Tacoma, though it would probably require land purchases.

          True, South Sounder doesn’t give direct access to Sea-Tac from downtown Tacoma, but neither does TDLE-Links, because it will directly serve exactly zero riders.

   2. The huge, almost always empty, truck parking lot just north of the Magnolia Bridge would be completely adequate for a light Maintenance Facility. Remember, you don’t have to return automated trains to the MF to park them overnight. You just have to cycle them through once every twenty-four hours — or better, a couple of times every day — for cleaning. Think plane cleaners at a turnback airport.

      You can park most of the fleet in the tunnel at night. Or just run half of them 24 hours a day.

7. An automated system also changes how an OMF works. Automated systems allow you to park trains in a tunnel (or even elevated portion). You can’t do that with a driver as the driver can’t get in or out, but an automated system doesn’t have such limitation. In fact some automated systems run all night long and never have to park their trains. Then the OMF only needs to house trains for maintenance.

   1. Yeah, good point. You really don’t need a big OMF. You just need some place to work on the trains. Interbay is one possibility. Another is a non-service connection to the other line. The trains would move to the other line (and then down to SoDo) late at night (when the entire system is shut down). The Sheppard Line (in Toronto) does this:

      All subway cars operating on the Sheppard line are stored on the line itself (mostly on the tailtracks). … When they need maintenance, they head to Davisville Yard using the wye tracks connecting the Yonge line with the Sheppard line at Sheppard-Yonge station.

      There is also a description on the Wikipedia page for the station as well as this nice diagram. In our case I think you could probably get buy with one connecting line.

      1. The best solution is a combo, Ross. Heavy maintenance requires a tow to Forest Street (where a section should have INTERMITTENTLY ACTIVATED — and fenced — third rail for testing) but cleaning and simple stuff like HVAC filter replacement and lubrication gets done on a rotating basis at the small local MF.

      2. Yeah, that makes sense. The main thing is, the idea that this would require an enormous amount of money is overblown. You do need a connection to a yard somewhere, but a non-service connection is a lot cheaper than a normal one.

      3. but a non-service connection is a lot cheaper than a normal one

         Exactly. Thanks.

8. The sad truth is that st3 was a fraud perpetrated on taxpayers. Oh and rhe bus tunnel was actually great. It provided fasee access to SeaTac than link ever Will and it was part of the now defunct ride free zone. It wasn’t wwll maintained for sure and st has been using that excuse ever since. I’m amazed at how many elevator outages the r e are at the shiny new stations. Brand new!

   1. “It provided fasee access to SeaTac than link ever Will”

      9 minutes faster, in fact. If there’s no freeway congestion, and no collision blocking the lanes. But Link runs every 10 minutes until 10pm, then 15 minutes until 12 or 1. The 594 ran every 15 minutes daytime, 30 minutes evening, and ended at 9:30pm. My return flights arrived after 9:30pm, so I had to take the local 174/124 back, and it stopped at every single stop along the way except the Boeing facility, and when the 174/124 (later A/124) were split at TIB, I had to wait twenty minutes for a transfer. All these problems dwarfed the 9-minute travel time advantage of the 194

      Also, the 194 didn’t serve southeast Seattle stations along the way. Link is way more useful, supporting a much larger range of overlapping trips, for a lower cost than multiple express bus routes serving all those trip patterns would allow. There wasn’t any all-day express-line bus route in southeast Seattle before Link, or any route between Rainier Valley and the airport, so you’d have to backtrack to SODO.

      [Edit: I originally said 10 minutes faster, but 37 – 28 = 9, not 10.]

9. Link is a solid 40 plus minutes from downtown to s3atac on due to all those stops.

   The 194 was a true express. Another bus line sacrificed to link. ld bet the 41 beat link to northgate over large parts of the day. Nary a day goes by without some link issue or another so rhe 10 minute frequency is a canard. Lastly, the 194 stop at the airport was right outside the terminal not a trek wcross the parking garage as link is.

   1. I attended the SODO meeting the other day and brought up a similar argument.
      They respectfully listened but I did ask for more transparency by acknowledging the comments more openly and give genuine feedback.
      I mentioned also that the metric they use (how many sardines per car hour) is flawed and doesn’t truly look at ridership from the commuter’s perspective.
      Hopefully, they will take my recommendations to create YouTube shorts for each opinion so commenters can provide value added feedback that is more organized.

   2. “Link is a solid 40 plus minutes from downtown to s3atac on due to all those stops.”

      It’s 37 minutes from Westlake, both per ST’s schedule and my stopwatch.

      Link is similar to an express. It’s a limited-stop route with substantial grade separation and signal priority. The fact that it can get to SeaTac just 9 minutes slower than a freeway bus AND serve large parts of southeast Seattle AND one train can carry more people than several busloads could, shows how much better light rail can be, and it’s a lot.

      Yet you’d throw it away for just 9 minutes, even though you’d wait wait longer than the bus (negating the travel-time advantage), risk getting caught in freeway congestion and missing your flight, and have no solution after 9:30pm. Do your flights always arrive before 9:30? I time my flights so that I’m in an unfamiliar city in the daytime, whereas coming back who cares if I arrive at 11pm or midnight because I know Pugetopolis like the back of my hand and how to get home in the evening.

      On the northside, Westlake-UDistrict is much faster than the previous express buses, and much more reliable. Westlake-Roosevelt is similar, and has never had a comparable bus route. Westlake-Northgate, Westlake-Shoreline, Westlake-Lynnwood, and Westlake-Everett are all comparable to ST Express and Sounder, so riders aren’t losing anything. Travel time is in the middle of the ST Express range, faster than peak hours but slower than Sunday morning. And from Snohomish’s perspective, for Lynnwood-Northgate, Lynnwood-Roosevelt, and Lynnwood-Captitol Hill, don’t be ridiculous, Link completely blows away the previous bus alternatives (or lack of alternatives).

      The SeaTac station location is because the feds forced it to move after 9/11 to be further from the terminal. So that somebody detonating a bomb at the station couldn’t blow up the airport, I guess. The station location wasn’t part of the intended light-rail plan; it was a last-minute move. It delayed the opening of SeaTac station by 9 months after the rest of the line opened, to finish construction.

      The Port could put a moving walkway in the garage to speed up the walk and lessen the number of steps. It’s not interested in doing that until the garage is replaced by a hotel and the walkway can be incorporated into an upper floor.

   3. Link is a solid 40 plus minutes from downtown to SeaTac on due to all those stops.

      Sure, but that is true of a lot of subways. Unless traffic is really, really bad, it is faster to take an express from O’Hare to downtown (rather than the “El”). Longer trips are going to be slower on the subway. If a lot of people make that trip then they run express buses or even express trains. Doing the former is costly from a service standpoint, while doing the latter is expensive from both a capital spending and service standpoint.

      You don’t build a subway for those sorts of trips. You build it for all the trips in between. It took a long time for Chicago to go out to O’Hare and they mainly did it because the areas between the airport and the city grew enough to justify it. Likewise, the subway south is not about the trip from downtown to SeaTac, it is about trips like downtown to Columbia City. Or Rainier Beach to Beacon Hill. All those trips combined make up for the loss in speed if you are going a long ways.

      Of course sometimes you don’t have a lot of trips in between. For example look at the ridership pattern of the old 512 (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=98). As you get farther north, ridership between stops basically disappears. This is common. There typically aren’t a lot of trips between suburban locations. That is why subways rarely go that far out from the central city. Even when they are serving very large cities — including ones that sprawl, like New York — they tend to end at about 15 miles from the center or town. Probably the only exception is what L. A. is building, but L. A. is truly exceptional in terms of its mid-density sprawl.

      Seattle is not. Almost all the density in the Seattle region is inside the city itself (and a little bit in Bellevue). That’s it. What is true of population density is true of employment density or what I would call “destination density”. Schools, hospitals, that sort of thing — almost all the density is inside the city proper. Again, this is normal.

      What is not normal is what we are building. SeaTac is a bit of a stretch for a subway. Federal Way is even more of a Stretch. But Tacoma is ridiculous. So is Everett. It isn’t that Everett or Tacoma itself doesn’t have density (although again it is tiny compared to Seattle) but it is really far away and there is nothing in between. Those areas should be served by commuter rail (if it can be leveraged easily) and express buses (since the pattern lends itself to it). Building a (very expensive) subway that far out is just not a good idea.

      1. I would double check the projected growth for each decade location combined. While what you say is relevant now and short term, the growth will jam up those ideas.
         I like to see infrastructure that is ready to adapt to multiple growth pains in an on-demnd upgrade for a little more cost now than a lot more cost later.
         For instance, if a tunnel insert is ready to accept floor lowering or ceiling raising to bring in taller cars (Similar to Double Deckers like Community Transit’s design) then the job of inserting reinforced lateral flooring for arch support already gets engineer review and approval for drill and fill stabilization prior to peeling out upper or lower layers. Tunnel one had to be lowered when it was made. An engineer could pre-approve the clearances now so the work is not dragged out in long delays that double the whole process with costly losses to commuter productivity.

      2. While what you say is relevant now and short term, the growth will jam up those ideas.

         I doubt it. Seattle has grown faster than the suburbs in the last decade. Basically the areas that are dense are getting more dense. With the exception of Downtown Bellevue (which took off in the 1980s) almost all the growth outside Seattle has been residential (and relatively low-density at that).

         This feeds into the issue of proximity — a very important issue when it comes to transit (https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe). Given the lack of big destinations outside Seattle, it means that riders will be going farther to their journey. It also means that you are better off with express buses (regardless of the number of riders). This is always the trade-off. For morning commuters, the 41 was faster than Link (especially if you had to transfer). But the destinations along the way (UW, Roosevelt, Capitol Hill) and the dramatic improvement in speed for those trips made it worth it. The same is true as the train goes further south — it is just that the destinations become smaller and smaller.

         Then there is the fact that this is rare outside the US, and the US is notoriously bad when it comes to transit. We are very good at some things, but routinely considered the worst advanced country when it comes to transit. Then there are the similar systems built in the US (BART, DART, Denver RTD) and the fact that they performed poorly (compared to traditional subways — even ones built more recently like DC Metro).

         Another issue is that most of the stations outside Seattle are very close to the freeway. This is problematic. It limits the amount of growth close to the station. It makes it difficult to compete with driving. Then there is the study basically confirming all of this: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf.

         Of course Seattle could turn out to be unique — a special area where dozens of years of transit experience (and the studies) just don’t apply. I really doubt it. I think we will pay a premium price for a second-rate system and then wonder why Vancouver has a much better transit system.

         Oh, and for what it is worth the area that actually has a chance is Everett. Their train line is not going to follow the freeway. (Ironically, some transit advocates have criticized them for that choice.) One problem though, is that they don’t have enough stations. So even if Everett gets lucky and generates enough growth to generate a lot of demand *within* that part of Everett, it is unlikely to provide much value because it lacks stations.

      3. Gary Kirk Richardson, are you actually proposing making the DSTT a larger diameter or elliptical in order to accommodate taller cars? Or are you hypothecating about future tunnels?

10. Google just sent me a video about a company called Ironlev. It is a passive magnetic levitation technology that utilizes existing rails.
    It seems too early to tell if it could be rolled out in time but I contacted them anyway to see if they could make it before the final design is set.
    Since they are in Italy and it is Friday here, I don’t expect a reply any sooner than Sunday night.

11. I came across Ironrail while looking into TSB technology.
    I like the lower footprint and longer spans for the elevated tracks but I haven’t looked at the energy consumption vs other methods.
    My guess is that Iron rail can be incorporated into low footprint long spans equivalent to TSB.
    However, I don’t know enough yet.
    The best choice here is to utilize the modular concrete manufacturers in this area because they are already established and shovel ready for maximum jobs.
    If the concrete can’t span as far, it would be better to reduce span size as needed, but hopefully not.

    1. Ironrail is interesting for increasing speed on existing rail, but for new lines TSB still seems to offer lower cost and faster construction.

       1. What I want to find out is if a job creating factory would be made here and at what wage.
          If the jobs pay only a little more than working at McDonalds, then I don’t think anyone voting for cheaper and faster would take that job. Especially true when automation is eliminating the purchasing power of the community when growth can’t keep up with the time and cost savings.
          Otherwise, the cost is shifted indirectly to growth issues such as crime, unemployment, and other sustainability issues.
          The Germans probably balance these costs by manufacturing there but if we import it rather than make it here, that creates an employment deficit that needs to be compensated for.

12. I always look at time from my last activity (work, shopping, entertainment, etc) to when I finally get home and vice versa as a quality of life metric.
    Looking at what the Germans have done is a great idea because I believe they already give weight to commuting as a downtime.
    I have great concerns with the number of passengers per car hour metric because it only slightly addresses the downtime by incorporating less wait times but only if it is tied to demand capacity.
    I mentioned at one of their meets that the whole commuter experience needs to be considered and I suggested that they put together YouTube videos to simulate “Here’s how long a typical trip will take from this grocery store to this street by riding ST and catching Bus #…”
    This type of video would be one of many ways to authentically show riders, “We are listening to your comments”
    Not only that, by putting these types of videos together and comparing existing rails against alternatives under similar circumstances, it would improve the board’s ability to flag potential quality of life issues that would otherwise be overlooked.
    Another point I made at the meet at SODO was getting from A to B faster might make the difference between an employee saying, “Yes, I can work overtime” or, “Yes I can work that time schedule”
    Such time management benefits has good potential to increase a commuter’s collective earning capacity and overall buying power that could easily outweigh some added costs.
    Perhaps, a separate express line should be considered but it seems more worthwhile to make it an express line to begin with and then just have connecting options such as E-bike, bus, taxi, team and other options for “Last Mile” transport.
    Another suggestion I made was to utilize the customization features available on Google Maps and Earth to put up all the stations so the community can review each design independently and comment directly to that design for more organized and consolidated feedback.
    I have heard of Businesses paying people to add their business to Maps in order to increase awareness and improve sales. Likewise, the design, affected areas can each have their own title such as construction lay down area, homes affected by blocked views, partial acquired properties, full acquired properties, etc… and the bidders who want to build can be more transparent by making their own environmental impact maps as well.
    Google Earth can help the public review and identify issues that might get missed such as % of blocked views (property values lowered) so those people can be compensated based on a % of lost selling value minus the mortgage owed and property tax decrease.
    Noise level maps can also be generated to compare different solutions at each location in question so the community can get a good feel for what impact they will get for their supported option.
    Too often, the community has impressions, both good and bad that turn out differently than what they expected and the use of Maps & Earth as a Community Informed Geographical Information System (CIGS) can become a valuable asset.

    1. I don’t think the maps would really help that much. They don’t include enough blind spots, such as transfer time. Eg: the 15 minutes or so to get from Westlake DSTT2 to the surface.

       What would be interesting would be a schematic map of travel time rather than miles. Eg: each minute of time is represented by a millimeter. 15 minutes worth of escalators at Westlake? Add 15 mm to the map distance for Ballard to Westlake. Link built to 14th instead of Ballard proper? Add 10 mm to the map to Ballard to the “Ballard” station. This would also help visualize improvements. Eg: make transfers better at Westlake, you shorten one line, and it shortens dozens of other lines too.

       1. You can represent travel time the same way you post business or residence on the map.
          The idea is to organize all thoughts (location based) so others can put up solutions, point other hidden issues, or other useful information). Then an AI tool can consolidate all the agreed remarks into an articulated summary for quick reading. This kind of AI tool already exists in ChatGPT, Blinkist, and other intelligent software. Comment sections can get long and imagine you have some commenters who keep piping up the same comments to grab a wider audience and if the comment pool grows to 20,000 commenters, you are less likely going to finish each comment. People like to complete their thoughts and tie in what is relevant to them and possibly others but doing so may cost too much time and others may be shy to add their points.
          For tie in of relevancy, you can opt to data mine relevant comments for further review. This, method can add value in the hands of the community and AI might be able to recall important relevant points a participant might have forgotten to add.
          The AI tool could also add meaningful charts in the pop up windows that zoom in to that particular area.

13. One other thing to add is that a ChatGpt would be valuable tool to use to summarize all the overlapping points and to separate them visually on customized Google Maps and Google earths.
    This would help reduce overlapping comments and help readers see all the perspectives being posted in relevant areas and consolidated for more efficient review.
    The points listed could be linkable to individual posts for more in depth testimony and peer review.
    The whole idea is to maximize content quality by identifying critiqued value added metrics.

14. I used to take link to the airport alost every week because the express bus was gone. It haa never been 37 minutes to or from westlake. That’s just false advertising. It’s a toy train rhat makes the policy works and “urbanisits” feel smugness thete are stops in se seattle. As a trade for that lots of bus service on mlk was decimated. There were large grass roots efforts to save the 42 but the half assed precious link was more important and yes bad traffic on I 5 impacted the 41 and 194but there were plenty of periods in a given week when they kicked linkS lumbering butt.porrland and arltlamta come to mind as airports with good station design… they’re more or less in theterminal. But st didn’t really want to serve the airport so we got what we got. If it doesn’t really work for someone tough crap.

    1. The times I’ve taken Flix, 574 or Airporter, they’ve usually spent a lot of time stuck in traffic at the airport.

       With all the different airport shuttles that go to the airport, it seems like someone should be offering such a downtown to airport bus, if there was sufficient demand. Maybe try Groome and see if they would start such a bus at SeaTac? They do for the Willamette Valley.

    2. “As a trade for that lots of bus service on mlk was decimated.”

       I think there was a 15-minute 8 and a 30-minute 42. Now there’s a 15-minute 106. Losing one infrequent route is hardly “decimating”. And you now have a one-seat ride to Skyway and Renton, which is important for the culturally-similar demographic and family ties between the areas. And you have Link, which is FASTER and MORE FREQUENT than any of the bus routes mentioned, and goes to many more places than they do, and will go to even more places when the full 2 Line opens.

       And what’s that happening on Rainier Avenue north of Mt Baker station? Why, a 15-minute 106 has replaced a 30-minute 42. No decimation there either. Oh, and the 7 is more frequent than it was. And soon Judkins Park station will open.

       “but there were plenty of periods in a given week when they kicked linkS lumbering butt”

       I’d like to see a video of buses on MLK being faster than Link. On I-5, yes, but I highly doubt on MLK.

       “But st didn’t really want to serve the airport so we got what we got”

       ST did want to “serve the airport” and was going to but the federal government wouldn’t allow it.

    3. “It’s a toy train rhat makes the policy works and “urbanisits” feel smugness thete are stops in se seattle”

       There was a commentator years ago who said that transit fans or urbanists in Seattle were smug. I never understood what that meant. How can one be smug about a train or bus route? Do you look at it and have warm fuzzy feelings that it’s there? Do you feel like you’re a big deal because your city has it? Why should it matter whether somebody feels that way or not? Is there some kind of shirt pocket pen to show that you’re smug?

       1. Is there some kind of shirt pocket pen to show that you’re smug?

          Ouch! Mike masters sarcasm. Well done!

       2. As expected, a comment that was in violation of our comment policy has led to other comments in response that are also in violation. All of them have been removed.

15. Qvline running 25vto 30 minutes 4his Sunday morning….?”signal issue”

    1. I’m not seeing any service alerts about that on any of the light rail or RapidRide lines, but there are some service alerts for the 1 line that might be worth mentioning. This includes a planned power outage at Shoreline south tomorrow.
       https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/1-line?route_tab=alerts&direction=0&at=1728198000000&view=table&stops_0=40_N23%2C40_S01&stops_1=40_S01%2C40_N23#alertsTab

    2. Link was single-tracked at SeaTac-Angle Lake at 6am this morning and was then reduced to 15-20 minutes due to a “signal issue”. The all clear was sent at 8:42am.

       Usually these single-trackings and half-frequency problems get resolved in an hour or two, except when they don’t.

Comments are closed.