Recent Hurricane Helene and numerous other weather events around the world have reinvigorated the discussion on how to slow down the climate change related to carbon emissions. Transportation is the largest contributor to those emissions, so many efforts focus on it, in particular to reduce individual car usage. Many transit advocates push for more transit infrastructure investments to make it more attractive to switch from individual car use to transit with its associated lower emissions. This was one of the primary goals of ST3, too. Of course, the initial construction of such infrastructure also generates emissions which need to be considered. I reviewed the recently published West Seattle Link Extension Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as well as the prior Draft (DEIS), and contacted the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to learn about the trade-offs. Unfortunately, the current preferred alignment will not help the region.
Of course, any infrastructure investment will have some environmental impact. The EIS is supposed to look at various options, including sticking with the status quo (“No Build”) to see what option has the greatest benefit for the community. This is also referred to as a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA). With sufficient ridership rail investments (urban or even HSR) usually come out ahead in studies. TransLink (Vancouver, BC) did a full life-cycle analysis for example as part of their business case to improve serving the Burnaby Fraser University campus. (It compared various transit modes and determined that a gondola would be better for this line than other modes currently used in Vancouver.)
The Executive Summary of the WSLE EIS states: “The West Seattle Link Extension is expected to reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicles, slow down growth in vehicle miles traveled, conserve energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project is anticipated to reduce daily vehicle miles traveled by approximately 17,000 by 2042, helping to achieve Washington state’s greenhouse gas emissions goals. ” While the summary talks about the positive impacts, it misleads the public by not even mentioning any adverse carbon impacts from its construction. I had to dig deeper. (my earlier post did a similar analysis for the DEIS)
Car Trips and Carbon Reduction
To estimate the positive impacts of new transit options, the EIS looks at the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The DEIS forecasted a reduction of 400 car trips (less than 1%) on the West Seattle bridge every morning (700 in the afternoon) and only provided an estimate of the combined trip reduction of both the Ballard and West Seattle lines. In the EIS they dropped the bridge forecast and only provided an estimate of the daily trips and VMT overall. They did not provide any background on how they reached those estimates. They did mention that if only the Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) from SODO to Delridge would get built, it would not provide quite as much reduction but not as much adverse impact either (it would not include a tunnel).
While the table shows a reduction of 15,400 miles per day (about 0.02%), the Executive Summary states a reduction of 17,000 miles once the line connects downtown. I assume they also added the reduction of transit bus miles even though Sound Transit promises that KCMetro will reallocate bus hours to serve more West Seattle neighborhoods.
The EIS then applied the FTA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Estimator v3 to estimate an annual carbon reduction of 3000 metric tons.
Construction-related Carbon Emissions
The EIS then proceeds to estimate the construction-related carbon emissions including “embodied emissions from the production and transport of fuel and materials”. Even though the FTA warns that the tool only provides “a resource to generate coarse but informative estimates of GHG emissions”, in an appendix the EIS compares the carbon reductions with the initial construction related carbon generation.
While the DEIS estimated construction would generate between 158,067 (no tunnel) and 614,461 tons (long tunnel), the EIS now estimates it between 80,508 (50% less) and 509,544 tons (20% less, or even only 206,723 tons if they further discount tunneling related carbon emissions).
For the preferred alignment they estimate now 380,181 tons (or 140,952 tons using the same discount). When they estimate energy consumption, they explain the different classifications between the three estimates (low-cost, high-cost, preferred) in more detail:
As the FTA pointed out, such models are very coarse, they are based on number of stations and miles of either at-grade, elevated, or tunneled. It does not take into account that most of the elevated guideway in the WSLE is more than 100 feet high, far higher and complicated than most elevated rail projects, and includes a 200+ feet bridge over the Duwamish. What the EIS classifies as “at-grade” is mostly a trench along Fauntleroy Way and a heavily fortified cut through Pigeon Point with extensive retaining walls, this is not what usual at-grade alignments (such as along I-5 toward Federal Way) typically look like. While an at-grade station such as Stadium Station requires little construction, this is not the case for either the SODO or the Avalon stations. The SODO station is a 4-track transfer station with a mezzanine. The mezzanine allows access from S Lander St and crossing of multiple tracks. The Avalon Station is almost a tunnel station as it is mostly underground with just a few ventilation openings. I would estimate that the preferred alignment would be a lot closer to the High Cost alternative or even higher, because even the High Cost alternative does not consider any such complications. Now that a lot of the details of the stations and route have become available, I had expected that the EIS would have included detailed carbon emissions calculations based on the specific materials and construction efforts in the WSLE project rather than the rough estimates it provides. Rough estimates may be sufficient for generic alignments such as along I-5, but soil conditions, environment, construction complexities, and topography of this project are far more complex. Rough estimation will most likely underestimate the actual carbon emissions.
Net Benefit
Finally, in Appendix L4.6E1 (242-page file!) of the EIS, the annual carbon impact is determined by comparing the annual carbon reduction with the construction-related carbon emissions. The construction related emissions are amortized over the expected 50-year life span of the project.
If the rough estimate is accurate, an elevated alignment may have some net positive impact by slightly reducing carbon emissions over the life of the project. For the preferred as well as any other tunnel alignments the VMT reductions will never be able to offset the construction related carbon emissions. Instead, the WSLE will contribute up to 362,750 tons of carbon to the pollution in our region. Most of the carbon will be generated during concrete and steel manufacturing and associated truck traffic, both of which will happen right along the Duwamish River. This area is already the most disadvantaged area of our city, known for its superfund cleanup site, high air pollution and noise levels.
Clean Air Agency Response
When the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency about the carbon footprint of the WSLE project, I received the following response (bold emphasis added):
“The intent is to reduce transportation emissions for all overburdened communities, including those located in the Duwamish Valley. I encourage you to look at our overburdened communities map that highlights our communities that face a combination of poorer health outcomes, more air pollution sources, and whose residents face socio-economic barriers to participation in clean air decisions and solutions. It’s no coincidence that many of these communities follow the I-5 corridor. Reducing transportation emissions hits all three components of our mission (air quality, climate, environmental justice) because transportation emissions are a major risk driver for all three (the links in the email below highlight this). Of course, zero emission vehicles will be a major component to reduce transportation emissions, but mode shift (including light rail) also has an important role to play. Construction impact is small and temporary (and can be minimized with intentional use of cleaner equipment) compared to the long-term regional gains transit projects yield. This is particularly important for our near-roadway overburdened communities.”
Kathy Strange, Air Quality Programs Director
As a follow-up, I pointed out that all of Seattle’s transportation related annual carbon emissions are 1.8 million tons. I do not consider carbon emissions of several hundred thousand tons “small” when the city’s stated target is to become pollution free by 2030. I also explained that the WSLE will not serve these overburdened communities directly. Many riders from those communities will have to do extra transfers which will increase travel time and complexity. Nevertheless, these communities will be most impacted by the construction-related truck traffic and emissions (both carbon and particulate). I did not get a response.
Conclusion
Sound Transit’s System Expansion Committee will meet on Thursday (October 10) to discuss the final West Seattle alignment. Will they agree with the Clean Air Agency that construction-related carbon emissions are negligible? I hope they take those emissions into account by either putting the WSLE on hold or at least by choosing an elevated alignment.
At what point do the emissions from building a carbon-negative concrete production plant get offset by the many construction projects around the region that ought to be using carbon-negative concrete?
Sort of a tautological question, isn’t it? The carbon cost is offset when the carbon cost is offset.
I was hoping someone could help with the formulae. I do not have a degree in chemistry, or public administration.
X = cubic yards of volume of low-carbon concrete
Y = difference in carbon emissions between a cubic yard of low-carbon concrete and “regular” concrete
Z = total carbon emissions from building a low-carbon concrete production math
Offset is when X * Y = Z.
So, the more carbon-negative concrete that is produced for a construction project, the more CO2 gets sequestered, and the lower the project’s overall carbon footprint goes, possibly into a negative carbon footprint. Right?
And this is real sequestration, compared to pretending that moving people onto light rail will reduce freeway traffic.
But I don’t have a degree in traffic engineering to make that claim with expertise.
Yes, using more carbon-negative materials would be expected to offset carbon emissions elsewhere.
It’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation – it’s presumably more expensive to produce low- or negative-carbon cement (the impactful component of concrete, which is a mix of cement, aggregate, and water) than it is to produce traditional cement, so there is little incentive to use low-carbon cement on construction projects. Cost to produce low-carbon cement might go down once it’s produced in high volumes, but in order to get there, it needs to be adopted on a similar scale to traditional concrete. The only solution may be to incentivize the use of low-carbon concrete through tax credits or other rebates, which would most effectively be paid for through increased taxes on carbon emissions. Make traditional cement more expensive than low-carbon cement, and we’ll start seeing it used all over the place.
Or, get the state to pay for the construction of the plant and/or the CO2-sequestering cement (for ST and some local highway projects) as part of its climate action funding.
Later than if a carbon-positive production plant is used.
There appears to be a strong correlation between project cost and volume of concrete poured; if ST can redesign the project to pour less concrete (and, by shifting the terminus to Fauntleroy, increase ridership), the costs (fiscal and physical) could go down significantly.
That’s what San Diego is experimenting with: https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/article/2024/04/fiber-reinforced-concrete-cuts-time-cost-on-light-rail-project
I’d be very curious to see the details behind the VMT calculations. It seems to me that this analysis brings to light a fundamental flaw of Link expansions (and many other transit projects) when viewed from a purely sustainability lens. Link adds transportation capacity, but doesn’t replace existing, more harmful, transportation infrastructure in the process. When we add Link along a corridor, we gain ridership of many that would otherwise drive on that corridor, but as long capacity for driving on that corridor still exists those former drivers will inevitably be replaced by other drivers that possibly live further away. If we wanted to use Link as a sustainability solution, we would need to simultaneously reduce capacity of the more wasteful modes until the system is right-sized to a sustainable level. I suspect those VMT calculations would shift drastically if Link replaced car infrastructure rather than largely supplementing it.
Neither ST, Metro, nor King County have the authority to close lanes on I-5, or to turn it into a boulevard or rebuild it more narrowly. That’s WSDOT.
This is exactly correct, but it doesn’t work! Link has too little capacity significantly to “reduce capacity of the more wasteful modes”. It’s already SRO south of Northgate, and I-5 hasn’t changed one bit. Even after Line 2 increases its capacity, I-5 will remain unchanged. Even if DSTT1 has signaling enhancements, platform doors and ingress/egress changes to increase its capacity and an overlay runs between Northgate and SoDo or Stadium some time in the future, I-5 will still be jammed for much of the day.
We have built an America that simply cannot be well-served by transit. We are effyouseekayed because we’re trapped in our cars. So, even if they’re all-electric, and the electricity is all-renewable, the traffic will remain and new roads will have to be built to accommodate the cars that are essential for living in suburbia. Any change in Carbon emissions will come not from diversion to Link, but from the change to all-electric propulsion.
Building BART del Norte with miles long freeway-hugging branches will not replace VMT, because it won’t result in a more compact Puget Sound housing stock. Only rail lines running through non-freeway neighborhoods in cities with frequent stations the cities are willing to upzone to look like Roosevelt (or better, the U District) will change VMT and the energy consumed to power them significantly.
And that’s not the Link that’s being built.
“Only rail lines running through non-freeway neighborhoods in cities with frequent stations the cities are willing to upzone to look like Roosevelt (or better, the U District) will change VMT and the energy consumed to power them significantly.
And that’s not the Link that’s being built.”
It is the definition of a more frequent, temporally expansive South Sounder, however. Hundreds of thousands of people stuck in their cars, just waiting for an alternative. Upgrading South Sounder would deliver so many more new transit users than the 20 billion we plan on spending the move a handful Ballardinas from a bus to a train.
Cam, they are not “stuck in their cars” in the sense that they don’t want to be in their cars. They are “stuck in their cars” in the sense that they don’t have any viable alternative, but even if they did, they’d still be in the cars, because it’s such a damned nuisance to access transit where they live. And it always will be; outside Seattle and Tacoma proper the streets wander like a drunk looking for a light pole.
The bus may run behind your house, but you can’t get to it because the developer put an eight foot wall between your yard the Stroad’s rump of a “sidewalk”.
I think we are largely saying the same thing, Tom. Land use in South King sucks.
So make it better. Promise Kent that they can get home in 20 minutes after a night out drinking in Pioneer Square, or an easy ride to the 1pm game on Sunday. But only if they zone to 200 feet in the 10 square blocks and give developers generous tax breaks around the station.
All of a sudden you have a huge relief valve for our housing crises, with more affordable apartments and condos with easy access to the big city.
Do the same for Auburn. And Sumner. And Puyallup.
You would have a walkable, affordable higher density Kent Valley before Link made it to Fife.
As for paying for the upgrades – Cancel West Seattle. Cancel Ballard. Invest a small fraction of the expected 30 billion into triple-tracking, maybe even electrification, and it’s a massive climate win, a massive equity win, a massive transit win, and a massive win for the towns along the Sounder line.
The only losers are the handful of folks who will still have to ride a bus that takes, at most, a few minutes more from Ballard and West Seattle. But for many folks, the service will be faster and more frequent without the upgrade.
Land use in South King sucks. So make it better.
I don’t think you can, realistically. Tom’s point is that you basically want European type development. But consider Federal Way, for example. There are three major differences between Federal Way and a city in Europe:
1) The downtown area would have a lot more people.
2) Areas about a mile outside of downtown would have no one.
3) There is no existing rail there.
The first might happen, but the second won’t. At best you have tens of thousands of people moving into the main downtown area but you still have a sprawling area outside it — most likely with more people. Seattle is still quite a ways away. This means you still have thousands of people who want to go from the sprawling area (outside of downtown Federal Way) into Seattle. They want to go other places as well, including sprawling parts of Seattle and other cities between here and there.
Then you have the third issue. There are no train lines to Federal Way. This sets up two possibilities:
1) Federal Way becomes a suburban node of the metro. Given the distance to the rest of the city, this would likely happen years after the core of the city is covered thoroughly. In other words, you wouldn’t build a metro to Federal Way before Fremont.
2) The area gets served by buses. In this case it is quite appropriate, given the freeway connection into Seattle. If Federal Way got bigger it would benefit from being “on the way”. In other words several buses would go from Seattle to Downtown Federal Way and then spread out from there. Downtown Federal Way would have really good frequency — the other areas wouldn’t (outside of peak). Or they would be expected to transfer to the bus in Federal Way.
Federal Way? Yeah, Federal Way was and is absurd. Build where there are already existing downtowns, along the Sounder.
I agree with you, however, that there should be a huge transit node somewhere in South King. I’d probably put it in Tukwila. It would have been ideal of they’d build Link to connect to Sounder there. Now you have to choose one or the other to build fast, frequent bus service East and West.
Open a Sounder station at the 34th and Ballard (almost equidistant to the Ballard “density” as 14th), The PI ball near the helix bridge, Pike Place, and maybe someplace between Pike Place and King St. Then you can say it’s serving the N. King subarea, and so can steal their money. More legitimate than stealing Pierce’s money for some downtown Seattle tunnel. And N. King can afford it.
Cam, just to be clear, I 1000% support upgrading Sounder South using ST funds to improve the BNSF and/or UP mains between Renton Junction and East Tacoma. And YES! to those two hundred footers in Kent, Auburn and Puyallup. All I’m saying is, “It won’t matter” enough to move the needle on Carbon. Electrification with renewable generation would and (we can hope) will! But the million plus people (and growing) in the fringes of Puget Sound’s waterfront cities will still make I-5 and its feeders a PITA. Forever. And Ever. Amen. You can’t serve them with “transit”, and even Uber and Lyft charge punishingly punitive fares to go very far into them, because they know it’s a slam-dunk headhead back.
I guess “punishingly punitive” is a tautology, isn’t it. It sounded good when I came up with it, but “Nah! Too repetitive.”
I think that is an argument for converting regular lanes to bus lanes. Assuming we are going to run the buses anyway (and they carry a decent number of riders) it seems like this would do exactly what you are talking about.
Agreed! Converting lanes for transit seems like a (relatively) cheap and quick solution that shifts people to more desirable modes rather than purely adding capacity.
“Shift[ing] people to more desirable modes” when they don’t agree that the other mode is desirable at all will never work. Period. End of story.
I like riding the bus. Even more do I like riding a train. You probably do too. I know Ross loves riding buses; he wouldn’t know so much about them if he didn’t do it regularly and for more than commutes.
But those of us here on the blog are w-a-a-a-a-a-a-yyyyy over to one side of the normal curve of distribution toward the “love riding transit” end of the “Transportation Choices” bell curve. Most Republicans are crowded on the other end of the curve, hideously screwing up its “normality”, and most Democrats don’t give a damn when they stand on the curve.
So what we think is “a desirable mode” most emphatically isn’t to most Americans.
It can only be changed by turning the country into Manhattan, and that simply isn’t going to happen.
So what we think is “a desirable mode” most emphatically isn’t to most Americans.
First of all, I’m pretty the commenter meant “desirable mode” in the sense of society, not the individual. But I do think there are many people who would take transit if it was better. Studies (based on Americans) have shown this to be true. Increase frequency and you increase ridership. This applies to low-density suburbs as much as urban areas. The problem is that it is very costly to improve transit in low-density suburbs. With a little bit of money and a decent restructure, the entire Central Area (including First Hill and Capitol Hill) could have buses running every ten minutes *at worst*. Trying to do the same in a lot of suburbs would cost a fortune.
To be fair, ridership is influenced by density and proximity as well. So not only is it cheaper to provide high quality transit in dense areas, you are going to get more riders. But that doesn’t mean that providing higher quality transit won’t lead to higher ridership.
I’ve met people who have a very strong bias towards driving. Then there are people like me (who much prefer taking transit). But we both have our limits. Anything downtown involves transit. I’m not going to spend an hour on the bus for what would be a ten minute drive. When it comes to transit, quality matters. As “TOD” wrote, converting lanes for transit is a (relatively) cheap and quick way of improving transit without increasing single-occupancy-driving capacity.
” Studies (based on Americans) have shown this to be true.”
Ridership has shown it too, when cities expand transit service or contract it.
Mike and Tom, I generally agree the changes I describe are out of jurisdiction and/or infeasible due to our current system. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary to avoid a climate crisis. Starting a conversation about what would be needed and defining a vision for a sustainable future still seems valuable in my opinion, even if it includes ideas such as closing I-5 through Seattle.
The WSLE IES doesn’t look promising on GHG emissions. But if we could make sustainability a top priority and could close driving lanes more freely, would those calculations change? Would WSLE fit into that vision for a sustainable future?
TOD, although Link has not moved many car drivers to transit it, like buses, does remove existing transit users from the roads (although some probably don’t own cars). So transit definitely reduces road congestion, which is primarily bad during peak commute hours, although Link mostly involves bus riders switching to Link. However when transit results in a lane diet just for transit and transit in that lane is once every 10 or 15 minutes that is a poor use of road capacity.
According to an article in The Seattle Times Link when fully completed will reduce carbon emissions 6% region wide when not including carbon emissions during construction. When including carbon emissions during construction Link is carbon positive. Selling Link as climate friendly was always a hoax, but many things have been falsely claimed as lowering climate change.
Although work from home has reduced total trips total VMT have not declined that much. That is because in this area there are some systemic problems with transit today, like safety, first/last mile access, topography, weather, lack of work and living density, transfers, work from home, frequency, etc.
For this reason regional and national planners concerned about carbon emissions from VMT are looking at different techniques. Pres. Biden and Gov. Inslee see EV’s as the key. The Puget Sound Regional Council sees urban villages as the key by reducing trips and length of trips for daily activities including work (and pre-pandemic TOD). Obviously work from home is the definition of an urban village.
Although around 17 million passenger cars/trucks are sold in the U.S. each year 96% sit idle at any one time. It is hoped that driverless technology will lead to fleets of Uber like vehicles (not surprisingly the leaders in this field are Uber and Alphabet) that will replace a large percentage of personal cars and personal VMT’s, especially in urban areas where trips are shorter (which is why pilot programs are in urban cities). It will be much easier to electrify an entire fleet of cars than wait for individuals to move to EV’s and the cost of moving to an EV. It will also be easier to offer EV subsidies to a fleet of EV’s rather than to individuals as governments do today. At that time fewer than 50% of cars will sit idle, and the percentage of EV’s will increase dramatically, due to fleet standardization which will also reduce the need for onsite and offsite parking. This is why stock prices in car companies have low multiples. Investors expect the total number of cars to decline significantly when less than 50% are sitting idle at any one time.
Some even claim the cost will decline for those who transfer from a personal car or truck which can cost $1000/mo. to using a subscription fleet service depending of course on how much they use the subscription service.
From a climate standpoint I think this makes sense. In the U.S. post pandemic, there is just a ceiling for transit use for many different reasons although the cost of a trip on transit is lower (especially if someone does not own a car). But using a public phone box is cheaper than owning a cell phone. People are willing to pay for some things. We see that today with VMT up and transit use down compared to pre-pandemic. The key is to replace the combustion engine with an electric motor rather than try to force tens of millions of car drivers to switch to EV’s which are facing headwinds although hybrids are popular or expecting them to switch from cars to transit. Whether transit provides other societal benefits over cars is another issue, but a fleet of driverless cars would address a few: parking requirements, peak congestion pricing, less road capacity needed, and congestion mapping to spread out congestion during peak hours.
Today somewhere around 5% to 10% of trips are by transit despite massive public subsidies for transit even in the most urban and progressive areas, so not very competitive with driving. If transit is more competitive vs. a subscription fleet service (because it would also have driverless technology and general tax subsidies) it will do well, especially longer grade separated routes like Link although the cost of Link has been exorbitant and the ridership much lower than estimated.
Traffic congestion will limit individual car usage – it doesn’t matter whether it is an EV or not or privately owned or subscription or has a driver or not. Also remember that 30% of our population can’t drive themselves for whatever reason.
Even if a bus only runs every 10 minutes, it might make sense to have a dedicate bus lane if that helps to fill that bus. A bus lane can provide a faster/more reliable service as it can replace 100 cars. 100 cars can easily get stuck on a lane while a bus could still provide reliable service.
The population in Pugetopolis is increasing so that will fill up the freeway even if nobody drives more. Eliminating one bus with 50 passengers gives space for TWO cars with average 2.6 people total. That won’t make a difference in perceived congestion, and doesn’t leave space for 50,000 of the surrounding neighborhood cars to start using the freeway more than they already are. The only way to provide mobility that can scale is by increasing mass transit.
“Today somewhere around 5% to 10% of trips are by transit despite massive public subsidies for transit even in the most urban and progressive areas”
Yet in cities with more frequent, more comprehensive transit it’s higher, like in Canadian cities.
“The population in Pugetopolis is increasing so that will fill up the freeway even if nobody drives more. Eliminating one bus with 50 passengers gives space for TWO cars with average 2.6 people total. That won’t make a difference in perceived congestion, and doesn’t leave space for 50,000 of the surrounding neighborhood cars to start using the freeway more than they already are. The only way to provide mobility that can scale is by increasing mass transit”.
There are two replies to this.
1. Population in King Co. grew from 1,931,249 in 2010 to 2,269,675 (338,426 persons) in 2020 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. King Co. is roughly 2.2k square miles. From 2020 to 2023 population in King Co. grew from 2,269,697 to 2,271,380 (1683 persons) which suggests population growth in King Co. is slowing dramatically to almost nothing. Removing the number of cars 1683 new persons might use throughout King Co. is easy with existing road and/or transit capacity.
2. Road congestion is primarily a peak hour phenomenon. Before work from home our roads had to be built to handle that peak car and bus capacity. Today congestion is still a peak hour phenomenon. Some tools like widening 405 south of Bellevue will alleviate congestion on highways for cars and buses that is a much better use of transit funds than Stride that simply have too few lanes for the development that occurred south of them, and some like design issues with I-5 are planned to be addressed over the next decade which will improve capacity and traffic flow.
We have many tools to manage peak hour congestion. These include work from home which has the benefit of reducing carbon emissions to zero for that person, flex office schedules to stretch out the work day commute, urban villages that contain all the daily needs including work for those who live there so shorten trips and eliminate the need to use freeways, WOD (walking oriented development), better transit that is cost effective per rider although based on history transit will handle around 168 persons out of the 1683 who have moved here since 2020, company shuttles for large employers like Amazon, online shopping, and so on.
Future population growth does not mandate more road capacity unless there is severe congestion today (405) or increasing mass transit, which mostly means frequency which means convenience more than capacity. We need to explore ways to reduce trips no matter what the mode is without affecting quality of life. That should be easy based on likely future population growth based on the last three years.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingcountywashington/IPE120223
“Road congestion is primarily a peak hour phenomenon.”
You haven’t seen I-5 between Northgate and downtown between noon and 4pm or on weekends I see, especially southbound. There’s usually a bottleneck around Northgate, 45th, and/or SLU. The same occurs in pockets between Northgate and Everett.
AOJ, census estimates are not accurate except at the decade point. Census estimates have diverged quite a bit from Washington State OFM estimates. It’s not really clear which is more accurate at this point, but in any case it seems more prudent to extrapolate from more years of data than just the past three (many of which were affected by COVID)
https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/april-1-official-population-estimates
AOJ, you sure do have a lot of confidence in “work from home”. I think you need to take a management class taught by Andy Jassy. He might enlighten you about some of the problems that are encountered.
Our transportation system is literally designed to encourage driving, reward drivers while discouraging and disincentivizing walking and transit. There’s a series of trade-offs and priorities and at every one it is set up in favor of drivers… driving at high speed, drivers going long distance. It was engineered this way a century ago by auto interests. They redefined the streets for exclusive auto use, wrote the traffic laws in favor of autos, created campaigns for children to yield to cars at all times, redefined car crashes as accidents and literally had the auto industry write the newspaper articles to never blame cars, dendritic street networks and highway-like street designs crafted to require use of a car for every trip codified by FHA. I could go on.
@ Tom,
“AOJ, you sure do have a lot of confidence in “work from home”. I think you need to take a management class taught by Andy Jassy. He might enlighten you about some of the problems that are encountered”.
I don’t have “confidence” in WFH. It is just another tool to reduce trips, and thus carbon, that was accelerated by the pandemic. In Seattle it is around 40% or so at this point. Based on the amount of office space that is being abandoned I don’t see the figure going too much lower. If you don’t own your office building like Amazon work from home saves businesses money if productivity remains the same.
I imagine in the future WFH will just be a consideration workers make when seeking work. Amazon announces it wants to return to in office work M-F, Microsoft announces it will not return to in office work, Amazon employees who don’t want to return to office work M-F will apply at Microsoft and Microsoft will poach the best. Microsoft has been doing this for over a decade because post-Ballmer it is a much better place to work than Amazon. I don’t need to take a management class from Satya Nadella to know that.
Just as important is the concept of urban villages. It is why the GMPC allocates cities job targets along with housing targets. The key is to not only eliminate trips (online shopping, work from home) but to reduce the length of trips because people can work or do their daily lives in their own village. Amazon in the last three years has moved 12,000 Seattle workers to Bellevue and plans to move another 13,000 workers. I assume most of those live on the eastside so this is a form of urban village because it is a shorter trip to and from work. Just working two days/week from home reduces commuting by 40% and reduces the amount of office space that needs to be heated and cooled by 50%.
Gone is the old model in which all the jobs are in downtown Seattle (or even Bellevue) and everyone commutes there M-F 8-5. That was a terrible model for congestion, carbon, the costs for road construction to meet peak demand, and just workers. Ideally 1/3 of the remaining downtown Seattle jobs end up relocating to urban villages. Urban planners thought workers should move to the city to be closer to work, but now we realize jobs should move to where people want to live because so much work can be done remotely or in urban villages. The amount of face to face work that is done in office settings post pandemic has plummeted, and there are Zoom and Microsoft Teams.
The main reduction in carbon emissions will come from EV’s. I agree with you that in 2024 thinking moving more drivers to transit will reduce carbon is bad policy. One because 90% won’t move to transit if they haven’t by now when the region is spending $150 billion on Link, and two transit really does not reduce carbon when you factor in carbon emitted during construction.
I think driverless fleets of EV’s will be the best way to move large amounts of combustion engine cars to EV’s. It is crazy that 96% of cars sit idle at any one time. Charging can be done at a base, mass maintenance reduces costs, mass purchasing like rental cars results in lower purchase costs, drivers can avoid the sales tax which is 10.3% in Seattle on a $50,000 car, it is easier for governments to give tax breaks or subsidies to companies managing fleets of EV’s, it reduces the need for urban parking without hurting retail, is door to door, and it resolves the consumer’s reluctance to adopt the technology at this time. According to proponents, subscribing to a fleet of EV’s will be less expensive per mile for urban/suburban drivers than owning their own car.
I still support public transit, but it has always been a myth that transit reduces carbon. Transit is about mobility for the poor and better scaling in urban areas which is why subways make sense. Maybe with electric buses using existing roads reduces some carbon, but then electrify cars too.
There are many, many tools we have and are implementing to reduce carbon. Sometimes like LED bulbs and heat pumps it takes time for the technology to be ready, sometimes with EV’s it takes subsidies or fleets of EV’s, just better mileage for combustion cars. Work from home full or part time, urban villages, more efficient appliances, small nuclear plants for data centers (Microsoft wants to buy Three Mile Island), all of these will help while making people’s lives better.
If you demand people make their lives worse like taking public transit to reduce carbon they won’t do it no matter how much gas costs (which is one of the most regressive taxes), so what is the point if carbon reduction is the goal?
How is significance determined? At some point, any numerical change is insignificant. Surely there are Federal guidelines on this.
Is the benefit dependent on DSTT2? That’s another big thing. It should be evaluated on its own merits. DSTT2 is a speculative project because there are nowhere near enough funds to build it.
That’s a good point, Al: While Sound Transit disconnected the West Seattle portion for the FEIS, all the benefits it claims still assumes that West Seattle gets connected downtown via the DSTT2 before 2042. If DSTT2 does not happen, the WSLE will be stunted and most of these benefits will not be accomplished. None of the VMT or carbon benefits, KCMetro won’t be able to reallocate bus hours to serve more of West Seattle etc
I wish the EIS would also explain what WSLE would look like without DSTT2.
This analysis is academically interesting, but in the real world (i.e. outside the climate-urbanist-progressive twitter bubble) the actual reason to build large transit capital projects is that they will improve the lives of the people who live in the region. The only (rare) situation where this kind of GHG analysis is dispositive is when the emissions are shown to be totally bananas (e.g. the idea of using natural gas to heat the walkway between the airport station and the airport).
In this particular case, the greenhouse gas emissions are totally bananas, since it only reduces car use by several hundred per day.
Just as with the construction money, the greenhouse gas emissions are better spent elsewhere, that actually attracts large number of passengers.
> since it only reduces car use by several hundred per day
I agree! WSLE is a terrible project. Dow Constantine’s insistence on prioritizing WS over Ballard is proving disastrous. Ballard would serve far more people. That is the basis on which these things should be evaluated.
How would this project reduce car use. Does it impact any car lanes?
Will people please STOP trying to put lipstick on this pig of a project? It’s bad transit that will serve the majority of its riders poorly. In the most optimistic of scenarios by 2100 it MIGHT be Carbon neutral. It consumes 60% of North King County’s ST taxes through 2045 while reducing VMT by 1% in one corridor.
Drive a stake through its heart. Chop off its head with a whirling scimitar. Bury it in the concrete rubble filling the old Battery Street tunnel. Kill it somehow!
I love to imagine the scenario where it’s the year 2050 and the only way to get to West Seattle is by bus or car. How visionary!
You know what will NEVER be carbon neutral? The West Seattle Bridge. I’d rather take maybe someday over certainly not.
I contend the West Seattle Link Extension will never achieve carbon neutrality in the history of mankind. The big carbon expenditures are front-loaded, where the climate damage happens in our lifetime, and the payoff, speculative and long term. The reductions in what will eventually be carbon-neutral vehicle use are will so negligible that we would be far better off doing nothing at all, although I would actually favor investing in far better bus service with some new ramps to support it as we’ve discussed here.
Breaking the connection between UW, Rainier Valley, Sea-Tac — that is a minus. Forced transfers for most — another minus.
I never thought I’d say this, but the SR 520 project I opposed for years in its current form is a much better deal. $5 billion is buying a completely reconstructed and much safer corridor, a new floating bridge with new bus lanes, new bus stations, five new park lids, a great new separated bike trail for the entire length of the corridor.
A similar order of magnitude here buys us essentially nothing we don’t already have, except headaches. I just took Link + RapidRide from UW to Alaska Junction and it was a super fast trip with a great view. Now I’m going to do it more often. The transfer at Symphony Station (walk across Seneca Street, board next bus) was, you might say, well orchestrated — easier than getting to a bus at UW.
The real tragedy of West Seattle Link is the opportunity cost of wasting that much money on something that will require years of messy construction and take out taxable, developable real estate in perpetuity for no real public benefit. We could build something truly useful with all that money.
If I ran the zoo, I’d euthanize all of WSBLE and completely reimagine it as great bus service to West Seattle, plus a fully automated SkyTrain-scale system from Westlake-SLU-Ballard-U District, extensible as suggested on this blog. And improve frequencies on the current Link service downtown, with the cheap and easy signal upgrades that are needed. And upgrade the damn elevators. But no West Seattle Link, no second tunnel downtown, and smaller scale stations for the new line, which makes everything affordable.
I love West Seattle, and if we build this dumb line, I’ll walk to my Link station and enjoy a super fast ride there on what will end up as a mostly empty train. And every time I haul my bags through some downtown labyrinth on my way to the airport, I’ll curse this dumb project.
I gripe here, but I’ve frankly given up trying to talk sense into Sound Transit. Why would Dow Constantine be open now to logic he has been actively ignoring for years.
“If I ran the zoo, I’d euthanize all of WSBLE and completely reimagine it as great bus service to West Seattle”
Yes please! ST could take over west Seattle’s rapidride routes and beef them up, turn them into really badass, world-class BRT and I bet it would increase ridership from west Seattle more than three measly light rail stations that barely make it into the neighborhood. AND metro would have a bunch of operating dollars to help feed into those lines. AND ST would have leftover dollars from not building a huge bridge and tunnel to do whatever with.
Yes. The new 3 line will do away with the 1 line reaching the UW. At minimum the 1 line should continue to be supported up to U District station so we have direct access from the airport…
I don’t understand why we should divert the 1 line to get to Ballard..? Bus operators are able to run routes for multiple hours, I’m sure the train can run for longer as well. People within the city can take a shorter train or bus transfer. It’s more inconvenient for someone coming from Kent, for example, to have to transfer on light rail to get to the UW. Or they should expand express 586 to serve the airport, Tukwila Intl., and Kent stations….. This would not solve the woes for UW commuters from South Seattle however…and downtown commuters are still out of luck.
Jonathan, in my own defense I did say “MIGHT”…..
How does light rail compare to cars in terms of particulate matter emissions? I’m referring specifically to microplastics coming from tires (especially EVs bc they are heavier). Do trains emit more/less from wearing down the steel tracks over time? I don’t know much about it which is why I’m asking.
SUVs and even more so EVs have increased particulate emissions. Per-rider emissions from a trolley bus is very low! Trains use steel wheels on steel tracks and therefore far less such emissions even though they still emit some from breaks.
I’m not saying that ANY LR infrastructure is a bad investment, my analysis is specific to the WSLE preferred alignment and it’s low ridership gains. With sufficient ridership (such as Ballard/SLU/First Hill), I expect that the initial construction related carbon emissions will pale in comparison to the carbon reduction due to reduced VMT. But we may want to keep this in mind when we plan future transit investments. We may want to consider lower carbon infrastructure solutions such as elevated vs tunnel alignments or modes such gondolas or maglev trains (no steel to steel friction/emissions).
The particulate matter from wheel-rail slipping is steel, which isn’t something you want to inhale every day but isn’t anywhere near as bad as microplastics. It eventually decays to rust.
Brake shoes are a different matter. There’s quite a lot of use of composite materials of various sources, unlike general railways. The good news is there’s also a lot of use of regenerative braking, so the brake shoes tend to not wear down quite as much as if they were stopping entirely by friction.
Pantographs also typically utilize a sacrificial conductive strip, which is a source of particulate matter similar to brakes wear.
For what’s it worth, the last time I rode Sounder, I noticed an awful “brake” smell as the train approached. Never noticed this with Link, perhaps because Link is able to use regen for braking, while Sounder, being just a pure diesel locomotive, cannot.
They actually do use regenerative braking on diesel locomotives. It goes into a resistor grid rather than back into the power distribution system. This gets really hot. You might have been smelling that, but on Sounder I doubt it gets hot enough. Usually they smell after going down a long hill because after descending the summit at Stevens Pass, the resistors got really hot.
I’m guessing you’re smelling the tread brakes though. These are steel on steel, and are a bit like a grinding operation. They make metal dust.
The disk brakes (these cars have both tread brakes and disk brakes) may use a composite shoe of some sort, but I’m not sure which substances they use. Its probably a phenolic of some sort, so it may produce a bit of plastic dust. However, it’s not like the tire powder that comes from road runoff.
Steel does not vaporize at the temperatures at which rail vehicles operate. The reason that rails need to be replaced on freight lines is that the weight creates microscopic cracks in the steel’s crystal structure over time, and the surface abrades away. But it isn’t particulate; it’s almost always flecks of steel you can see. And anyway, for lightweight passenger trains like LRV’s and Light Metro’s the weight is insufficient to cause those cracks, so the only places with significant rail erosion are tight curves where the wheels bind and squeal.
There is probably particulate matter from the brakes, but with regeneration the mechanical brakes are mostly used just to bring the train to a firm halt below five miles per hour.
The rails do wear out, but what you do get is cold flow, even in straight sections. This is one of several problems that can be solved with rail resurfacing with a grinder. You get metal dust with the grinding, but oxidized iron particles are nowhere near as toxic to the environment as microplastics or tire chemicals.
Glenn, even LR rails need grinding on straight tracks? They’re only polished on a narrow band on the railhead, which means that the wheels are only contacting that narrow slice. I can’t imagine that the railheads are being internally stressed. But you sound like you work for Tri-Met or one of its contractors, so I guess you know what you’re talking about.
I will neither confirm or deny that I may or may not know of which I speak.
Not for TriMet or any of its regular subcontractors. We’ve done some very occasional work for their suppliers as well as some for SoundTransit. However, not on this particular issue.
It’s a bit like the effect you get when you put a penny on the tracks. Over time the pressure causes the metal to deform a very little bit. It can take a lot longer on straight sections than curves, but it does happen. Eg: TriMet needed to replace the rails along NE Holladay after 30 years of trains every several minutes.
There are a fair number of articles about wheel and rail wear out there, but it’s definitely not only limited to curves.
Here’s a question:
If the reduction in VMT is based on a full WSLE with BLE/ DSTT2, shouldn’t the adverse impacts of the massive amounts of digging and concrete for BLE/ DSTT2 be counted too? Isn’t scoring on measure with and one without fundamentally flawed?
There won’t be any ridership gain as long as WSLE isn’t connected downtown. Any ridership gains will have to wait until then. Currently Sound Transit requires DSTT2 for that to happen and therefore it needs to be included in such life cycle analysis otherwise it misleads the public. Only if Sound Transit would connect the WS track with the existing track, the current EIS analysis would be valid.
Except the current plan is to connect West Seattle to the current tunnel, and shove Rainier Valley into DSTT2, thereby inconveniencing as many passengers of the existing system as possible.
Considering the likely result in depressing ridership, it might wind up being a net CO2 increase, when including the construction impacts.
I haven’t had time to get into the document details yet.
Still I can’t help but see the need to call out ST on trying to take credit for good things like lower VMT by assuming positive benefits of the bigger project, but ignoring the negative dus benefits of the bigger unaffordable project.
The only way that the VMT analysis would be valid is if they assumed only the West Seattle stub and its terrible ridership. That ridership is pretty much coming only from bus riders today.
Dus benefits = disbenefits
I do think some commentors and current writers of the Blog are overly bearish on the potential ridership increases associated with reallocating bus service away from directly serving downtown and providing better service within West Seattle. Sure, it’s not going to be the same order of magnitude as Community Transit reinvesting their peak commuter bus service hours within SnoCo, but if Metro can pull of the Connects 2040/2050 vision of pivoting RR C and H to serve Admiral and Alki, I think we could see some serious mode switches in those neighborhoods, as well as central and southern West Seattle with more service there.
But as currently planned, the current major routes won’t go away until the 2040’s if DSTT2 opens.
ST could operate three lines in DSTT to build ridership as well as reallocate service when WS Link opens. They just are too darned hardheaded to consider it.
I don’t think most people realize that the current plan does not provide a way to do anything but run the stun until the 2049’s.
Nathan, the reason the EIS focuses on 2042 is because it wants to show the greatest benefits after all the planned bus hour reallocations (which won’t happen until DSTT2 is done) Only after the DSTT2 is connected, Ballard/SLU is done, and buses restructured, they expect to replace 2300 car trips.
Jevons paradox would suggest that any reduction in VMT due to more energy efficient travels modes won’t reduce the overall energy demand of the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
traffic planners should take that into consideration when they ask for one more lane to fix congestion. 😉
I think with transit mode changes it gets more complicated.
I agree. Induced demand suggests that their is a large latent demand that is limited solely by the pain of congestion. Removing drivers from the road by adding a train alternative means the pain of congestion temporarily goes down and then returns to the original state when new drivers or new types of trips are created. Which arrives at the conclusion of no real reduction in VMT.
The train isn’t going to solve congestion or the climate, what it will do is provide a climate friendly solution that significantly increases mobility around a metro area that scales very nicely for future population growth.
Oh that it would. But the way ST builds its system using low-floor, catenary-powered LRV’s instead of “heavy rail” while still using the sort of footprint that “heavy rail” demands — and maximizes — is transit illiteracy.
I understand that there would be no system at all without the cheapo Rainier Valley line using the bus tunnel. But to adopt a policy that no future line will include level crossings of roadways and at the same time embargo the placement of elevated supports and tunnel stations within public roadways means that you will pay the costs of “heavy rail” without garnering its value.
It’s stupid and an awful use of public resources.
Yes, shifting to third-rail powered heavy rail would mean revamping the platforms at existing stations, and that’s not an easy thing to do while running trains through them. You’d need to lay the (unenergized) third rail, shut down for a few weeks or so to put scaffold platforms in every station and then convert a few stations at a time to permanent flooring half a platform at at time. If the replacement trains were “open gangway”, limiting access to half the length of the platform wouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Every extension built with the “Light Rail” technology simply multiplies the future difficulty.
The Rainier Valley service could just be run as two-car trams on the surface in downtown Seattle. Sort of the CCC on steroids. It should still go to the airport because so many RV residents work there, probably by simply running through BAR and TIBS without stopping and having its own platform at Sea-Tac. Or build BAR with a center track and platform for the trams only and make it a transfer for the few folks headed between the RV and TIBS.
As I’ve said many times on past posts, the purpose of transit is not to reduce carbon emissions, it’s to provide mobility. We run lots of coverage buses in the hinterlands with low enough ridership that the carbon footprint of the bus probably equals or exceeds the carbon footprint of every passenger on the bus riding Ubers. But, reducing carbon emissions is not the purpose of the bus, which is why those buses run.
I covered WSLE’s limited mobility improvements (and adverse effects) in earlier posts, but ST3 and the EIS Exec Summary claims that WSLE “is expected to reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicles, slow down growth in vehicle miles traveled, conserve energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”
The Ballard/SLU portion certainly improves travel time and therefore mobility, but WSLE may not.
Agreed with asdf2 on this point: transit is supposed to provide mobility.
However, good transit projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions by attracting people away from driving, because the mobility provided is much better.
Exactly….
Net zero is also unrealistic and expensive. It is a mere political game more so than an effective strategy.
Public transportation inherently doesn’t have to be net zero. Instead we should make it as best as possible to discourage more cars on the road sitting in traffic (major polluter!)
If we continue to burn our tax money on meaningless studies and net zero regulatory methods, our public transit will never get anywhere!! Build the infrastructure first, with greenhouse gases if need be, but design it such that we can use electricity as much as possible and upgrade to more sustainable energy sources in the future. Put the money towards the right places.
@YkwSea2
Wow, I have no words. Do you not realize how harmful your rhetoric is? Climate change denialism will only promote car centrism.
What does Hurricane Helene have to do with climate change…?
Our goal should be to cut down emissions period to minimize the *slow* warming of our planet and unsustainable use of nonrenewable fossil fuels…better public transportation is a good start. Let’s not unscientifically hype the situation.
As the atmosphere warms, the amount of water vapor in it rises. This leads to more extreme rain events.
Do you actually believe that the earth is warming slowly? That would be great if it were true, but it’s happening at a breakneck pace.
Yes you’re right, but that effect from climate change perhaps added 2% to hurricane Helene and other rain events at best. And yes the planet is warming at record pace…but that is still slow if we really think about how much we earned in the past decades.
Data doesn’t prove that climate change spawned the hurricane and made it much more disastrous than it would have. Same goes for most extreme weather events.
If you understand basic meteorology, it’s nonsense to attribute climate change to specific weather events which are driven by multiple better factors.
To a seasoned meteorologist, ascribing climate change to a hurricane (which was not even the worst on record and occurred during a below average hurricane season) is a joke. It’s almost akin to the ludicrousness of conspiracy theorists blaming the government of creating the hurricane.
Anyways, my main point is the hype of climate change is mostly a political game…a big waste of money. Our government could put that towards actually effective methods like public transit and clean energy.
@ykwsea2
What? This is denial of basic climate science. Do you do not trust the scientists who are telling us that climate change is making hurricanes worse..? Let’s just build one more lane instead…just one more. Typical right loony.
Ridership estimates assume that the population patterns near link stations will stay roughly the same. This makes sense- they’re not really equipped to guess how pop patterns will change. But it seems plausible that the areas around WSLE stations will become denser and more populous than they were before, filled with self-sorted high-transit use residents. The estimates seem poised to go up in the medium-long term; Seattle’s new comprehensive plan certainly makes some strides to make that happen.
Additionally, the WSLE provides a crucial resiliency link for West Seattle. The high bridge closure showed how necessary an alternative path out is- WSLE proposes to provide a fully separate high frequency route in and out in the case of other routes closing. The value of this is not going to be reflected in an EIS.
Lastly, the argument that this is a large hit on our emissions table seems a little suspect. You cite the stat that the City’s ANNUAL transportation emissions amount to 1.8 million tonnes (in 2018 this number was over 1.9 million). This project is forecast to emit somewhere less than 600,000 tonnes over the course of its construction. Obviously this isn’t insignificant, but compare it to WSDOTs annual CO2 emissions for their operations- between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes per year (https://carbonleadershipforum.org/ghg-emissions-inventory-washington-roadways/). That number does not even include the emissions of USERS of WSDOT projects- just the emissions of WSDOT itself.
500,000 tonnes over the course of a multi-year construction project that results in a multi-generational transit investment that has the potential to reduce VMT, increase West Seattle’s resilience, and increase the mobility of those who can’t or choose not to drive, doesn’t sound so bad to me. And the focus on the carbon emissions of WSLE is odd, in the context of a state that emits enormous quantities of CO2 for projects in the Puget Sound area that have much lower chances of reducing VMT than this one.
Obviously it isn’t a perfect project, and it probably isn’t the one that Sound Transit should be prioritizing. Other projects have greater benefits. But arguing that building WSLE is worse than building nothing seems to rely on focusing solely on the short term impacts and inconveniences of a flawed planning system and ignoring the potential long term benefits that this project will open up for West Seattle and the rest of the City. We need to keep advocating for methods to make this project better; it doesn’t seem helpful or accurate to be arguing that this project is a total dud.
Agreed. I think the real problem with this project is the potential impact on affordability of other projects, especially if they prioritize it over the other major project in the Subarea (Ballard Link). While this project may have a somewhat worse cost:benefit ratio for physical impacts than most major transit projects, it’s still much better long-term than projects like the road-widening work WSDOT is doing on I-405.
Most significantly, it would result a real increase in maximum transportation capacity on a constrained corridor. Sure, similar increases in near-term transportation capacity could be achieved with targeted investments in BRT-like structures (like a direct transit-only ramp from the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SODO Busway and extension of bus-only lanes on SR-99), but those more modest concepts were set aside over 8 years ago in favor of a more permanent and much more significant investment.
“Agreed. I think the real problem with this project is the potential impact on affordability of other projects, especially if they prioritize it over the other major project in the Subarea (Ballard Link). While this project may have a somewhat worse cost:benefit ratio for physical impacts than most major transit projects, it’s still much better long-term than projects like the road-widening work WSDOT is doing on I-405″.
N. King Co. can’t afford any other project that was in ST 3. That is why WLE is being built, and why it is will truncate at a stub. I don’t believe for a second that some back of the envelope calculation on STB that BLE if automated will cost less than $10 billion, even if not built by ST, or Ballard will go for surface rail along 20th or 15th (or 14th), or SLU will. The only real “value engineering” for BLE is to stub it at SLU, except the most important segment is SODO to SLU. Link is very expensive the more urban the route, like SLU to CID, because it has to be deep underground to avoid a decade of street/business disruption and to avoid utilities.
The widening of 405 will increase capacity and actual mobility ten times (probably 100 times) more than WLE, that if truncated at a stub will increase transit use ZERO. No car drivers will switch to WLE according to ST. The widening of 405 is also necessary for Stride, except Stride is not necessary if 405 is widened with HOT lanes, and the number of riders today and on Stride between Renton and Bellevue will be very small. The only reason we are talking about using express buses instead of WLE is because of the road capacity across the West Seattle Bridge. Buses don’t fly.
There is good news though. WLE will mean there will be no other projects for Seattle transit advocates to argue over because it will be out of ST revenue through 2046. It also means they will have no right to criticize any other subarea’s Link decision, all of which will be better transit rider/dollar mile than WLE.
Good bait.
But it seems plausible that the areas around WSLE stations will become denser and more populous than they were before,
Yes, but there are only three stations and it is unlikely that any one of them will have a massive increase in density (i. e. it is unlikely that there will be residential or office towers near any station).
the WSLE provides a crucial resiliency link for West Seattle. The high bridge closure showed how necessary an alternative path out is- WSLE proposes to provide a fully separate high frequency route in and out in the case of other routes closing.
Yes, and that is the low bridge. It is worth noting that while the high bridge was out, the buses were faster than driving in many instances. People pushed for the high bridge to be repaired quickly mainly because they didn’t want to take transit.
But arguing that building WSLE is worse than building nothing
Nobody is actually arguing that. We are arguing that any bus-based improvement would be much better. For example this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/07/west-seattle-by-bus-instead-of-light-rail/. The number of people that would benefit from that dwarf those that would benefit from West Seattle Link, even if the area around the West Seattle stations grows quite a bit.
“But it seems plausible that the areas around WSLE stations will become denser and more populous than they were before, filled with self-sorted high-transit use residents.”
The problem is, even near the stations, the deep level of the West Seattle tunnel means a time consuming access to the station compared to the existing bus service. Thus, I don’t think it’s that certain the stations will be exceptionally attractive.
Can we talk about the Carbon impact, and traffic congestion impact, of people who go back to driving after the project is complete, once they realize how inconvenient and time consuming the downtown area transfers will have become–permanently?
That’s a great point. What percentage of those currently using Rainier Valley and south Link stations will decide to just drive now that their trip is less convenient, more variable, and longer on average than it used to be?
Downtown transfers plus the bus transfers in West Seattle as well. Both the C and H will likely be terminated in West Seattle, and the station likely needing 5 minutes.
It’s nothing like making all the downtown transfers from the Rainier Valley travel 9 floors though.
It’s another issue of how the analysis was done. The transportation forecasts assume a full build WSLE + DSTT2 + BLE. The other negative impacts don’t.
I don’t think the spine-splitting will increase driving as much as it will increase complaints about ST and some people switching back to buses (particularly the 48 and 9). UW will still have very limited parking and high rates, and the U-District doesn’t exactly have a lot of parking either, and I-5 will still be congested.
I suspect that if we look at this honestly, the only part of Link that is carbon-negative as it stands is probably the section from Chinatown to the U District. But that’s just as it stands – we need more density near the stations.
It’s not like no one wants to move here. This is one of the most desirable places to live on Earth. The job market isn’t as great as it used to be, but it’s still pretty good. Apartments get filled as soon as they’re built. Build more of them.
(Also, stop building huge parking garages in all the apartment buildings, and stop putting Link stations right next to highways.)
I suspect that if we look at this honestly, the only part of Link that is carbon-negative as it stands is probably the section from Chinatown to the U District.
It is probably a bit more than that. Northgate and Roosevelt have plenty of riders (and it isn’t that far). The line to Rainier Beach did not involve much concrete. It is beyond that where it starts getting suspect. Not that I think these are bad projects but you are have a huge amount of concrete (miles and miles of it) and you aren’t reducing driving that much.
I think if we were focused on a system with the most riders per service hour it would likely work out to a system that is also carbon-negative. That would likely mean a more traditional mass transit system (focused on the urban areas). I still think you need a good freeway interface, but that doesn’t mean you need to go all the way to Federal Way or Lynnwood to get one.
This comment was in the West Seattle Blog article:
“ Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss, one of two Seattle reps on this committee along with Mayor Bruce Harrell, said he had a lot of questions about the SODO leg of the extension”
What’s the concern? Are our leaders finally figuring out how badly designed the West Seattle stub transfer is on top of the huge monstrosity of a station has been planned with three different platforms that take two sets of elevators or stairs to reach?
https://westseattleblog.com/2024/10/sound-transit-board-committee-goes-for-west-seattle-light-rail-preferred-alternative-tentatively/
I listened to part of the meeting; there are concerns about an electric transmission line, business displacements, and ST’s plan to build a temporary SODO station (first I’ve heard of it!) during construction of WSLE.