During their meeting on October 24th, the Sound Transit Board selected the preferred alignment for the West Seattle Link Extension (WSLE). They also authorized staff to have their partners develop the final design for the stations and stub line between SODO and West Seattle. It will also include the connection to the existing SODO operations and maintenance facility. They also asked staff to look for ways to reduce cost. I reviewed the recording and staff presentation and thought I would share some observations.
Terri Mestas, the new deputy CEO of megaprojects, explained that they will try to work with their partners to use standardization and prefabrication to reduce construction costs and impacts as much as possible.
Jason Hampton walked the Board through the preferred alignment and all its promises. He showed for example the transit opportunities from Westwood Village (at 1:48): “While the Delridge station doesn’t extend to Westwood Village, this map shows just how far people can travel from Westwood Village by connecting between buses and rail, so Delridge will serve as a primary transfer for bus service to the south connecting communities of color and communities that are disproportionately low income compared to the rest of the peninsula. So really improving transit service, frequency, and reliability for those bus-rail connections as well.”
Earlier I had asked Sound Transit for some clarification on transfer times the map is based upon. I was told that transfer time was estimated at half the headway, meaning it does not take into consideration any delays due to walking, elevators or escalators. I’m not sure what year the “Existing” map is based upon, as it certainly does not take into consideration the recently opened RapidRide G line. I’m not sure it even considers the opening of RapidRide H as they showed a similar map 2 years ago. That would also explain the improved sheds south of Westwood Village on the 2042 map which is certainly not related to an opening of the West Seattle Link extension. Sound Transit also admitted that the 2042 map includes not only the West Seattle and the Ballard extensions but also other improvements such as 2 Line (East Link), Stride and bus extensions anticipated as part of Metro Connects.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had already admitted that the West Seattle Link extension will not bring any noticeable transit time improvements until the stub is continued downtown. I assume that’s the reason why staff did not bother to show any travel shed map for when the stub opens (anticipated by 2032). But what would happen if the increased cost of the West Seattle Link extension would delay the Ballard extension (currently anticipated for 2039) and downtown connection? Then the map would look quite different.
I wish I could provide such a map for the bus alternative I had proposed earlier. I would expect it would provide even better travel sheds but a decade earlier and for much lower cost.
Next, Jason Hampton, Manager – High Capacity, talked about the SODO station: “It would include a new station directly to the west of the existing 1 Line station. That station would provide convenient connections between the 1 Line and 3 Line.” Convenience is not the word I’d use for going up an escalator/elevator, walking across multiple tracks, and going down again. Interlining the 3 Line with the 1 Line on the same track with a center platform would allow either cross or same platform transfers. Such transfer would be far more convenient. It could also allow Sound Transit to run the 3 Line trains all the way to Lynnwood immediately rather than waiting until the Ballard line gets built.
Next, he talked about housing: “All of the stations would facilitate equitable transit-oriented development and joint development opportunities, particularly great opportunity at the Alaska Junction station.” While I appreciate the prospect of more housing once the line is finished, I wish he had also mentioned the many residents and small businesses which will lose their homes due to construction. This will come at a time where housing is already difficult to find. However, this came up during public testimony and some of the board members brought this up, too.
He also mentioned that the West Seattle Link extension will have to be finished before the Ballard line starts operating, as the extension will include a new connection between the new 3 Line (West Seattle to Everett) and the SODO operations and maintenance facility (OMF). The existing connection to the OMF will be used by the 1 Line (Tacoma to Ballard). However, I believe such connection could also be implemented through switches north of the SODO station.
He concluded his presentation: The “recommendations minimize many community impacts while enhancing mobility and access, improving passenger experience and offering substantial equitable transit-oriented development opportunities.” Sound Transit has made a few adjustments to the line to reduce the impact on some social-service buildings for example, but the line will still have a sizable impact on the community it supposed to serve. At the same time for most riders the line will not “enhance mobility” but force extra transfers which will reduce passenger experience, may extend travel time, and certainly reduce access for people with mobility challenges.
While board members Dow Constantine, Bruce Harrell, and Dan Strauss were pushing enthusiastically for the adoption of the route and finishing the design, several board members from Snohomish and Pierce County were concerned that the recent cost escalation may delay the spine. Terri Mestas responded that until the detailed design is finalized, its cost and impact on the rest of ST3 would be difficult to assess. Dow Constantine argued that the sooner the plan is “shovel-ready”, the earlier Sound Transit could apply for federal funding. The election results may complicate such efforts.
There were no discussions about more affordable route alternatives such as dropping a station or avoiding a tunnel by the Alaska Junction. In earlier meetings staff had considered dropping the Avalon station. An elevated line along Fauntleroy Way SW would be less expensive than a tunnel under 41st Ave SW by tearing down the Jefferson Square Shopping Center and Apartments. The original plan for an elevated route along Fauntleroy Way had contemplated tearing down the brand-new Maris Apartments, but staff later proposed an alternative along 38th Ave SW. That alternative would reduce housing losses substantially.
While both Mestas and Hampton reiterated that the board will have several more opportunities to approve specific phases of the project, staff is already preparing motions to approve funding for early property acquisitions even before the board approved final construction of the line. The board seemed mostly in support of the project laid out by staff though board members Dammeier (Pierce County) and Kastama (Puyallup) voted against the motion. (see: Meeting minutes)
“While I appreciate the prospect of more housing once the line is finished, I wish he had also mentioned the many residents and small businesses which will lose their homes due to construction”
A classic NIMBY take. I want housing, but I don’t want to destroy any existing housing. I just want it to magically appear overnight.
Your commenter name fits you. You don’t understand what the word NIMBY means.
I think a lot of NIMBYism is just not wanting any sort of construction activity in their neighborhood, period. Whether it’s building something new or tearing something down, they don’t want it. When you think of it that way, it’s consistent.
asdf, the post author wishing ST addressed home and business displacement isn’t NIMBYISM.
I would have also mentioned that planned higher density zoning near Alaska Junction does not extend across a 1/4 mile walkshed. And subway stations usually have a bigger walkshed of 1/3 to 1/2 of a mile — of which ant least half of the area will remain mostly zoned for single family residential.
So we are boring a deep subway and installing an almost 100 foot deep station there for a walkshed that’s majority single family.
Notice how staff won’t tell the public what the cost savings would be by stopping at Avalon.
The author is a major transit fan and not at all nimby. If he says the housing takes are more significant than usual, they’re significant. I’ll let him explain it since he has firsthand knowledge of West Seattle.
How so? Martin doesn’t live in West Seattle anymore. The housing takes are far less than the original design. He simply dislikes ST and rail as a solution.
“Martin doesn’t live in West Seattle anymore.”
He has a relative who works in the Delridge area, and be bikes to West Seattle often.
“He simply dislikes ST and rail as a solution.”
It’s hard to say somebody who supports ST2 Link and a better Ballard rail solution dislikes ST or rail. Especially when he praises rail innovations in Europe.
I don’t think it’s good for a public agency to tout all the new housing but not explain the tradeoff what kind of housing is destroyed. We’re not just talking about a few single-family houses. The Junction station will replace a major housing and retail complex with many small and a few large businesses and several floors of fairly affordable apartments: https://www.kimcorealty.com/properties/jefferson-square/114900/view
You have to be kidding, Martin. Jefferson Square is a superblock with only 92 poorly built apartments, a huge surface parking lot, on top of a huge and underused garage. Replacing Jefferson Square will allow hundreds more residential units and as much retail or more. There will likely be two towers with a street in between them to accommodate pedestrian movement and bus layover and charging.
Rail fan, I have not inspected the quality of the apartments. The fact is that this will eject a bunch of businesses and tenants into a tough housing market. The promise of more and nicer housing a decade later won’t help them. More importantly: my concern is that taxpayers will pay for this housing upgrade and some property owner will benefit. I would rather have our transit dollars pay for a Ballard line with far higher ridership. I’m not sure Sound Transit has looked at other options (see below).
I get what you’re saying Martin. But West Seattle Rail Fan is right, Jefferson Square in its current form is not worth saving. It’s a relic from a bygone era. The only business I will miss is Nikko Teriyaki. The replacement towers and plaza are much more appropriate for the Alaska Junction of today.
Please let us urbanists and public transportation enthusiasts of West Seattle have a win. Car centric suburbs have been getting their Link stations for the past year. It’s time we go back to building the Link network in the city proper, where people use and love transit. I too wish Ballard was coming sooner, but West Seattle is next, so let’s at least be supportive of our city neighbors.
@Psycho Train, to what win for urbanists and transit fans are you referring? West Seattle certainly isn’t a win for urbanists and transit fans. Flushing billions of dollars down the drain to provide no meaningful service improvements isn’t really a win. It might be good for developers, or people concerned about their regional legacy, but I would imagine that most urbanists and transit fans would prefer Ballard to be build before West Seattle.
What Andrew said.
Plus, while I would agree that Weest Seattle would make a very plausible turnback stub for Everett trains if it could be built as at-grade center running LR like the Rainier Valley line south of Mt. Baker, it won’t be.
Instead what will be constructed is a sop to the concrete and steel providers of the Northwest and (literally) a “towering” monument to Rail Bias.
Every yard of the proposed line except the last 1/3 of a mile is parallel to and largely directly adjacent to freeways which buses use today to get to downtown Seattle faster than Link will. Could they be “faster” still? Yes, of course they could, and for a huge amount of money less than the estimated $7 Billion to construct this Robert Moses Seal of Approval vanity project.
Caveat to Andrew. Not “Ballard” but rather “SLU/LQA” built first. And maybe only, depending on many things.
Affordable housing at ST seems to be more and more the tail wagging the dog. The point of TOD is to increase ridership on transit, maybe that’s market rate housing, maybe that’s affordable housing, maybe office or retail, or maybe a regional serving destination. But many who live in affordable housing are actually more auto dependent given job locations for income levels to be in affordable housing. And so affordable housing may not always be the best use.
The stated benefits rely on completion of an unaffordable project while consuming the funds, time and some of the real estate it would take to build a system that really fits the city. As I’ve stated here many times before, I think buses are a just better fit for the geography of West Seattle than Link possibly can be, in terms of coverage, cost, route, scale, frequency, transfers and impacts, and that essential truth will remain true even after this project is built.
Still, I would be more excited about this project if West Seattle Link were just a spur off the existing transit tunnel from day one. It is maddening that we have come this far without ever having had a real conversation as a region about this obvious approach. I think if you took a poll of ST3 voters and asked, “Which do you prefer, a forced transfer at SODO or no forced transfer at SODO, to access West Seattle” I think it would be about 99 to 1. I’ve stopped saying this and writing this to ST because it’s like talking to a noise wall.
Quit tooting your own horn, Jonathan — “As I have stated here many times before” — and start acknowledging that many others who write here have said the same things. From time to time you post, and two of your ideas have been incorporated into the consensus opinion, albeit with practical amendments and improvements. Thank you for them.
But you need to use the word “we” more; it’s more gracious and will win more allies and more fights. “Take heed little people….” is a bad look.
He isn’t tooting his own horn. He is simply stating that his position hasn’t changed. If you know his position then you might skim over it. If you don’t, then you know that he came to this conclusion a while ago. That might matter to you — it might not. In this case I can easily see why it would matter. There are plenty of people who favor a West Seattle bus solution now. Prices for West Seattle Link have gone way up. But he is basically saying the fundamentals favor buses and have always favored buses. This is a good counter-argument for the “yes, it is more expensive then we expected, but worth it ” crowd.
Sure, no horn tootin’ here, that was an attempt to acknowledge I may sound like a broken record making the same points into the wind. In general I don’t want to speak for anyone else, nor lord over those with other opinions as if I’m in the majority, just give my own. I wish the world at large said the same things instead of just some of us here. I wish there were a broader movement I could speak of as “we” on this issue, but the real world process is twenty steps down a wrong path.
The tragedy of this project is that there are those who are in a position to know better who don’t seem to listen to reason or have a motivation to do so, and the issues with the project will not become widely apparent until they are too late to fix – which, realistically, they already are – though the shovels have yet to hit the dirt on this one.
OK, my apologies, Jonathan. You do think and write well, for sure.
We don’t need to argue over who contributed which ideas. I don’t remember what Jonathan occasionally wrote it the past, but if he has advocated for a West Seattle bus solution before, then his post is true. Ross and I and others have also advocated for it, so when I write that I did, that’s true too. The solution Ross and I are thinking of is not just a single line replicating Link, but multi-line BRT that would improve all the C, H, 21, 55, and 56 corridors. ST3 includes RapidRide C and D improvements as an interim step, so that could be merged with it.
As for a SODO transfer or no SODO transfer, that’s true too. ST didn’t let the public consider on a level playing field DSTT2 or no DSTT2, West Seattle interim stub or no, single-line or multi-line West Seattle BRT. It just suddenly said, “This is what we want, take it or leave it.”
No, we just need the West Seattle link extension to go all the way down to Westwood Village. And White Center, Burien, plus they need to put a station in at South Seattle College
I wonder if articles discussing WSLE and DSTT2 need some sort of early up front discussion of STBs preferred alternatives rather than two sentences buried in the 6th paragraph. It may seem repetitious, and regular readers of the blog will probably learn to skip over it, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that too many people think the options on the table are rail transit (good!) or no transit (bad!)
How many times is this article going to be shared with people who haven’t really considered BRT to West Seattle and what it means for both the cost of the project and service levels to the entire peninsula? It doesn’t need to be discussed in detail every time, but a brief paragraph with several links to previous STB articles on why these projects are poor investments would be a nice preface to these “putting lipstick on a pig” exercises.
As Ross said the other day, “We don’t want to be in a position where it appears we are only advocating against the project (with no good alternative). We want to make it clear that we are advocating for something much better.”
Good point. I agree.
I will keep that in mind next time.
Some have wondered why this line will take $7b to be built. I would rather see my transit dollars spent more wisely. What will it cost to acquire the Jefferson Sq mall/apartment building at the Junction Station? Who will benefit?
I just learned that CID-S/Dearborn Station will mostly benefit one particular developer who is also good friend with our mayor. Has that been a factor why it is now the preferred alignment?
Last I checked, there is a parking lot right north and one right east of the currently proposed Junction Station location. I would assume it would be far cheaper to acquire those parking lots, than tearing down a huge mall/apartment/parking garage. Has Sound Transit considered this?
The currently proposed entrance is a huge 3 level open space. That must be quite expensive to build and seems excessive for a station with moderate ridership. Why do we need such cathedral? Can we use it to sublease retail space to at least make it convenient for riders to use?
Doug Trumm just wondered: “Without batting an eye, Seattle leaders opted to add about $700 million in estimated costs to the West Seattle Link light rail project by adding tunneling in Alaska Junction — apparently because they don’t like the way elevated rail would look. Overall the West Seattle Link’s expected budget has skyrocketed from $4 billion a few years ago to about $7 billion, due to inflation and routing decisions.” in https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/11/18/op-ed-abandoning-seattles-first-avenue-streetcar-is-still-foolish/
We cancel the Center City streetcar and jeopardize the Ballard line so that we can build a WS line with an expected 5400 daily riders (eventually 27,000)? I would rather focus on Ballard/SLU/Westlake.
A cross platform transfer would really be the way to go for SODO. If done well, it could actually also be a timed transfer. Sound Transit has always had little consideration for transfers whether in the past with bus-rail transfers or now with rail-rail transfers. A multi-line system is ALL about the transfer.
If you have sufficient frequency, then timing is less of a concern. Timed transfer is tricky once you have riders in both directions, but most will go from WS to downtown. Yes, it would be great if you arrive from WS and you only have to wait a minute to get your connection downtown.
Now, if we had a single track, trains from WS could also just continue north without requiring a transfer. Both Eastlink and Rainier lines do not allow for headways shorter than 8min: Eastlink because the I-90 bridge doesn’t allow multiple trains and Rainier because it would not allow cars to cross the tracks. WS trains could therefore still fit in between through the DSST and provide extra capacity and frequency downtown where we need it the most.
This. Eight plus eight plus six equals twenty-two, only slightly more than the “capacity” of an unmodified DSTT. Surely making ADA-compliant center platforms at Pioneer Square, Symphony and Westlake Center and adding platform doors would be only a small fraction of the cost of DSTT2. Yes, there would be some extra costs at Northgate to make the tail track capable of reversing in seven and a half minutes. It might mean that an extra operator would have to board at Roosevelt, position himself in the trailing cab, take over immediately when the train enters the tail track, take the train back into Northgate station and then take the train south to Federal Way. The driver who brought the train north would get his break, then board any old train to Roosevelt to become the next northbound reverser/southbound operator. That is admittedly a high stress reversing operation, but it would work most of the time.
And then there’s the option not to do WSLE at all, which means that Lines 1 and 2 will be all that needs to be accommodated,,,,,,
If you are going to throw capital at center platforms and tails tracks, just go spend some money on automation. If ST insists that at-grade operations cannot be automated, simply automating a WS-Northgate line is still a big win and makes the tail/turnaround track a Northgate a simpler design
AJ, I agree that automation would be very useful on an all-grade separated line between West Seattle and Northgate. (I’m calling the line next to the busway “grade separated” because it would have to have Holgate overpassed with that many trains, and the ROW can be fenced).
It certainly eliminated the time lag of the operator reversing the train.
However, I’m skeptical that ST would have automated trains running among operator-driven trains, and there won’t be automation on the RV segment without a lot of fencing.
I ride the c line every day, I don’t understand this rail line, our current rapid ride buses serve a huge area and are convenient and fast and reliable. Why are we putting in rail? Seriously it doesn’t make sense, it is going to be way less convenient and I’m sorry, but getting off down town in that sketchy station with filthy escalators and drug addicts just all over the entrances on both sides, it feels so unsafe and disgusting, the cost of this rail line could fix all our broken streets in west Seattle and provide twice as many rapid ride busses and probably still just rent down Jefferson square and build it better again. This project is a disaster.
West Seattle light rail doesn’t make much sense unfortunately. For those who live in walking distance to one of the 3 stations, the light rail will be marginally better in 2042 after the second tunnel is complete so that there’s no need to transfer at SODO. Until then, and for everyone not in walking distance of the stations, light rail is a downgrade. West Seattle seems much different than other neighborhoods which have benefitted from Link, like Capitol Hill and U district. Most people in those neighborhoods live or work within walking distance to their station. West Seattle is geographically huge, and 90% of the population is far from the stations (maybe only 80% after transit-oriented development builds out). Additionally, all the geographical constraints make building rail there very expensive.
But the politicians who put ST3 together didn’t understand/care about this, and when voters see on a pamphlet that ST3 will build rail to west Seattle, they imagine it being convenient and effective, like it is for capitol hill. It’s just the wrong tool for the job, and there’s too much political momentum to stop it (sorry to break it to y’all who are still trying to stop it)
THANK YOU! It’s great to hear from someone who uses the C, likes it and doesn’t see a reason to replace it.