Ballard Link Mode Selection

99 Replies to “Ballard Link Mode Selection”

1. Yes to most of this, but not the “MagLev” fantasy. Even mentioning it would close minds at The Bored [sic].

   Steel wheels on steel rails with LIM propulsion has been proven in Vancouver, but for reasons that aren’t really public they went with powered trucks on the Canada Line.

   It would be nice to know those reasons, but in the lack of a public statement fron Trans-Canada, it might be prudent to advocate for powered trucks here as well.

   All the rest is spot on, though the transition between a tunnel and an elevated structure is always ugly. So either go with an all-elevated alignment north of the Elliott Avenue portal (including an “opening” mid-level bridge over the Ship Canal) or tunnel all the way.

   1. The use of conventional electric motors for the Canada Line came out of the process described here: https://web.archive.org/web/20090304224720/http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc177.pdf. It is summarized here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Technology. Basically they started from scratch and ignored the advantages of using the same technology across the system. Conventional electric motors (provided by Rotem) were the lowest bidder (for that line).

   2. I agree about MagLev. I don’t think it is a realistic alternative. I don’t see any way the board wants to be “cutting edge”. The last thing we want to do is embrace a technology similar to the monorail (once seen as “the future”, now a niche system).

      LIM versus conventional motors is a different matter. There aren’t that many LIM systems in the world, but it isn’t experimental, and the fact that Vancouver runs most of their trains using it is important. There are clear advantages, as Martin pointed out. It is quite possible that it is the best choice for this line. But that would have to be studied and is basically an implementation question. I could see it effecting station depth (and thus cost) but I don’t see it fundamentally changing the system.

      In contrast, having this line be automated is a straightforward trade-off, and not as dependent on technology. Either LIM or conventional motors would work. There is a definite trend towards using automated systems worldwide. If anything, using automated trains for a brand new line would be seen as conventional. Automate trains means smaller trains and smaller stations. This in turn means that station placement could be altered as well.

      But the big change is that the line would be independent. It would not connect to the trains from the south. This is the trade-off. I feel like it is definitely worth it (for the reasons mentioned here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/12/02/ballard-link-mode-selection/#comment-946546) but it is a trade-off.

      1. “But the big change is that the line would be independent. … This is the trade-off.”

         It’s better than other tradeoffs because it’s not taking away anything Ballard has, and Ballard is not one of the top three regional centers in Seattle (downtown, U-District, Northgate), so it affects fewer people. In contrast, ST’s current plan would disconnect the U-District and northeast Seattle and Capitol Hill from southeast Seattle and the airport, affecting two of the top three centers and more people and trips. If northeast Seattle had a GOOD transfer to southeast Seattle it wouldn’t be as much of an issue, but ST is going full steam ahead with bad transfers. If so, than it’s better to inflict that on just Ballard than on the bulk of total riders.

2. Personally I think we should just bring back the “short light rail” / rapid streetcar alternative. Though it would be at grade through downtown like Portland it’d also be actually affordable. We could build it now and dig the extra tunnel later when actually needed

   1. I think that is problematic for our area. To be clear, I would definitely run on the surface along Elliot. But if you aren’t grade-separated starting at Uptown there is no point. Buses are just as fast. This means you aren’t very fast overall, which means you aren’t going to get a huge increase in ridership, which means you really don’t need rail. Might as well just run BRT.

      It is not like our buses are crowded all day. Far from it — they aren’t even that crowded during peak. Despite the loss of the 15 and 18 the D runs 7 minutes at best. There is no 19, yet the 24 and 33 only run every half hour, even during peak. There just isn’t the kind of ridership from Ballard to justify a train unless you can attract new riders and you can’t do that running on the surface.

      Meanwhile, you still have the bridge. This is expensive no matter what you do. Again, to be clear I definitely see the advantage of the C2 proposal Bruce Nourish laid out many years ago (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/12/06/some-thoughts-on-ballard-option-c/). Basically underground through downtown, surface along Elliot with a new bridge over the ship canal. But it wouldn’t be that much cheaper. It is quite possible that it would be cheaper to just build elevated on Elliot (which is the plan) but with smaller, automated trains. Consider that Bruce’s plan involved running the trains through Belltown (a fairly straight shot). Current plans involve curving around South Lake Union, which is a lot more complicated and expensive. This (and the bridge) are where we are spending the big bucks. Things could be a lot cheaper if we had smaller stations.

      It would also just be a lot better. Running on the surface likely means running every ten minutes in the middle of the day. The D does that now! That really is no better than what we have now, other than added capacity (which as I mentioned, we don’t really need).

      1. Center median streetcar/short light rail would still have a high amount of reliability versus right side bus lanes.

         > But it wouldn’t be that much cheaper.

         It’s true it wouldn’t be cheaper crossing into ballard but the downtown tunnel section is the most expensive at 5 billion

      2. > Running on the surface likely means running every ten minutes in the middle of the day

         The running on the surface doesn’t quite have as much to do with how much frequency will run on the line.

      3. If the buses aren’t crowded along that route, then we don’t need a train along that route.

         But, if the legislature ever gets its act together and forces Seattle to do serious transit-oriented development, the calculus changes significantly. There is so much unmet housing demand that we could build trains pretty much anywhere in the city. Not that Ballard would necessarily be the best destination, but it would still beat out Everett and Tacoma.

      4. Center median streetcar/short light rail would still have a high amount of reliability versus right side bus lanes.

         Sure, but so would center running buses. It wouldn’t result in a substantial increase in ridership since it still wouldn’t be that fast. Look at the previous documents for Option C — it is not much faster than a bus. But that is routing through Belltown. If you go via South Lake Union it takes even longer even when there is no traffic. Someone heading to Ballard would be better off with an express bus (that skipped Uptown). Someone heading to Uptown from the existing parts of Link would be better off with the monorail. Someone heading to South Lake Union would be better off with a spine (e. g. the C and H) simply because it would run more often. It is basically just another bus route, except with steel wheels. To quote Bruce (in that post): we need Market to Pine travel times below 15 minutes if we’re going to build a rail line worth getting out of bed for.

         That wouldn’t do it, which is why he emphasized the importance of going underground south of Denny.

         It’s true it wouldn’t be cheaper crossing into ballard but the downtown tunnel section is the most expensive at 5 billion

         Yes, but it is also the most important. Without that the trip isn’t fast enough to attract new riders. A bus would be able to handle the load just fine. Oh, and the 5 billion includes the entire tunnel (not just to Westlake). Running trains along the surface from Westlake to CID would be awfully redundant, since we have a “spine” as well as a subway through there. The surface train would be no faster than the existing buses (which come a lot more often).

         The running on the surface doesn’t quite have as much to do with how much frequency will run on the line.

         It does, indirectly. If you run on the surface you can’t automate it. This is the problem we have now with our system. Frequency would be based on the general ST policy, which is that running the train every ten minutes is good enough. It isn’t clear whether you would tie these trains to the ones from the south. If so, it is worth noting that those trains currently run every ten minutes. If not, then the trains basically end at SoDo? Or are you suggesting it continues to West Seattle (which again, is fundamentally expensive).

         In contrast, running automate trains essentially requires much more frequent operation. It is a shift from high capital-expense to slightly more operational expense. But with no driver the added cost is minimal, while the benefit to riders is huge. The train would end at Westlake, further minimize the cost.

         Yes, a completely surface option would be cheaper, but a completely surface option with buses would be much cheaper than that, and just as good. Rapid-streetcar systems are a niche, and just not appropriate for this area. We should either build BRT systems or spend money on automating rail (with tunnels and elevated lines).

      5. If the buses aren’t crowded along that route, then we don’t need a train along that route. But, if the legislature ever gets its act together and forces Seattle to do serious transit-oriented development, the calculus changes significantly.

         I don’t think so. I think the only way you get a lot more riders is if you make it a lot faster. This is common. It is why busways are relatively rare. Once you make a route significantly faster than driving (all day long) then you need the extra capacity of rail. Until then you don’t.

         You can make surface transit faster. Sometimes this results in enough ridership to justify rail. But in this case I don’t see it. The corridor is not strong enough to the north, and competes with other buses to the south.

         Yes, there could be more development along the corridor, but that isn’t the biggest problem. Ballard itself is great. But south of the bridge you start running into natural limitations. This explains the very wide stop spacing (despite being in the city). I really don’t fault ST — there just isn’t much there. The Nickerson interchange takes up a lot of space. Then you have Dravus, which is pretty good. But right after Dravus you have a big park to the west. I could maybe see a stop by the Armory (if it got developed) but space is still fairly limited. As you approach the Magnolia Bridge things get a lot worse. You have the sea to the west and a huge greenbelt to the east. The Smith Cove Station is basically a “might as well” station. Things don’t get good again until you are close to Uptown. So that means two, maybe three stops between Uptown and Ballard and one of those is pretty poor. That is just not that many stops.

         Once you get to Uptown, surface rail would compete with buses, and quite often lose. Yes, the D is an excellent option for Uptown to downtown. But so is the 1, 2 and 13. If the D is further diverted to South Lake Union (but via the surface) then suddenly those riders (Uptown/Belltown/downtown) abandon the D entirely, and the D competes with the 8 (although with different routing). Meanwhile, the Ballard express to downtown is slower than ever. Not only has it gone out of its way to serve Uptown (like the current D) but it goes even further out of its way to serve SLU. I just don’t see it.

         In contrast I could see an automated rail system working, simply because it would be very fast and very frequent. I could also a bus-based system working well. Even without changes downtown it could work well. Fix the bridge, as well as the stop at Dravus. Then run the buses express to downtown. Not just from 15th, but also 24th. So that means running the 15 and 18 all day long (instead of the D). Then extend the 8 to Smith Cove (or somewhere on Elliot). This means riders would have to transfer to get from Ballard to Uptown. Also create a new Boren/SLU/Uptown/Smith Cove bus. Run all these four buses every ten minutes in the middle of the day (with a combined 5-minute headway along the main corridors). They would all be RapidRide, with off-board payment and plenty of right-of-way (including center running as appropriate). This would not be cheap, but it would be a lot cheaper than building any sort of rail — even running on the surface.

      6. > If the D is further diverted to South Lake Union

         I would just have it follow mostly the D alignment not detour all the way to SLU. If SLU is still needed then I’d say build a second at-grade “two-car” light rail up westlake avenue to fremont. That’d satisfy the reaching slu.

      7. I would just have it follow mostly the D alignment not detour all the way to SLU.

         OK, then it is significantly different than what folks have in mind (a train line serving South Lake Union) while offering nothing fundamentally better than the existing D (a bus that certainly doesn’t need to be converted to rapid streetcar).

         There are really no corridors within the city that make sense as rapid streetcar. The busiest areas are already covered by rail or part of a spine (with a natural convergence of buses). Here are some corridors where they a rapid streetcar is a consideration (with existing routes in parenthesis):

         1) Aurora (E). The E has no overlapping buses until you get into the heart of downtown. There are plenty of riders and it is approaching the level of frequency where rail would make sense. But it isn’t there yet. It is also an unusual corridor as it has a big gap as you get close to the city. As you get farther out you end up competing with express service (which has been eliminated) or Link. But the big problem is that converting to rail would be extremely expensive (to cross the bridge). It just isn’t worth it. If they end up running buses every five minutes in the middle of the day twenty years from now (and they are full) so be it. It is probably cheaper than spending a fortune on rail so that we can run it less often.

         2) Westlake to Fremont/Ballard (4). It just isn’t there yet, and like the other route to Ballard you end up spending way to much money to cross the canal.

         3) Eastlake to UW (70). Same thing.

         4) Rainier (7). This seems like the most likely. As the area continues to grow, I could see ridership along this corridor being big enough to justify rail. But we are nowhere close to it. We are fighting for more frequency, not wringing our hands because the buses run too often (because of crowding).

         5) Denny/John/etc. (8). Plenty of people, but too short to get enough crowding (if they even bothered to run the buses frequently). Most important thing to do is make this route fast.

         I just don’t see it for the foreseeable future. We should focus on making our buses a lot faster (like running down the middle of Aurora) or building automated metros. The niche system in between just doesn’t fit our city.

      8. “I could see ridership along this corridor being big enough to justify rail”

         What’s the threshold? People throw around this concept as if everybody agrees or is certain what the threshold is, but that’s not the case at all. What would be the indication that Aurora or Rainier is ready for rail? Something visible, like percentage of bus full, or would-be trips inconvenienced, or amount of bus bunching, or amount of neighbors/businesses screaming for it, or such.

         Second, since it takes several years to propose, approve, fund, and construct rail, you need to start before that point to ensure it will be finished and open exactly when needed — otherwise there will be a gap where the buses are inadequate or melt down with overcrowding and bunching. That gap can spread out to years if you don’t start early enough, like what happened with the 71/72/73X in 2016 before U-Link could come online, or has been happening on Vancouver’s B Line for years. So what indication will we have that Aurora or Rainier will need rail in five years, so that we can start then?

         Third, how do you reconcile the gap between what Metro’s frequency should be and what it is? Metro may run 10-minute service when it needs 6, or 6 minutes when it needs 3, for reasons other than ridership. For instance, if it can’t afford more service, or doesn’t have enough drivers for it, or can’t neglect other corridors that also have critical needs. You can’t say, “Metro is only running 10 minutes so the corridor doesn’t need more frequency or rail.” Maybe it does, and Metro just isn’t serving it. It would be a tragedy to decide against rail or postpone it in that case.

      9. > What’s the threshold? People throw around this concept as if everybody agrees or is certain what the threshold is, but that’s not the case at all. What would be the indication that Aurora or Rainier is ready for rail?

         Aurora and Rainier have the highest and second highest ridership respectively out of all the bus routes. Checking the statistics for 2023

         RapidRide E had 11.4k while Route 7 had 9.9k. The number is probably even higher considering some are on Route 5 or Route 36/106 along their respective corridors. The 3rd highest is RapidRide D with 9k riders which Ballard Link is mostly following. The 4th is RapidRide A with 8.4k which will partially be covered by Federal Way Link Extension.

         Both of them run buses pretty frequently on their segments. Plus neither of them have to contend with a drawbridge. One could even have it extend from Aurora Ave and through run to Rainier Avenue.

         The largest factor against building rail/”rapid streetcar” for Aurora and Rainier is more that they are adjacent to already existing Lynnwood Link and Central Link segments and I find it unlikely that any would like prioritizing it. Otherwise I’d probably write an article about building rail along those corridors. Or at the very least a center median BRT.

      10. “Aurora and Rainier have the highest and second highest ridership respectively out of all the bus routes. Checking the statistics for 2023”

          I know that. That’s not a threshold for when rail is justified there. Is current ridership lower or higher than the threshold? By how much?

      11. “Or at the very least a center median BRT.”

          Fortunately SDOT is already considering that. Center lanes for the E that is. No specific route upgrade.

      12. @Mike

          I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking for in terms of threshold?

      13. > Fortunately SDOT is already considering that. Center lanes for the E that is. No specific route upgrade.

          Well kinda it’d likely be a lighter variant with just reallocating lanes with center lanes brt if you’re talking about the safety project. One advantage of “rail” or at least “brt” is that usually there are a bit more capital dollars for expensive reconstruction. The aurora avenue safety project really only has 50 million dollars less than the other rapidride around 100 million

      14. I’m not asking you specifically, I’m mainly asking Ross, and everybody who says rail is/isn’t justified in a corridor that doesn’t have it. People say, “That corridor doesn’t have enough ridership or density for rail”, but what is the threshold? They seem to have in mind that the buses are a certain percent full, but what is that percent? If you don’t say, then every reader has a different idea, and we get into arguments over whether rail is/isn’t justified, and it’s all because people have different implicit thresholds that they’re often not even aware of, they just have a private vague picture in their head of “sufficient ridership/density” and “insufficient ridership/density”.

          Often people’s implicit threshold is higher than European thresholds, such as when somebody says, “That street doesn’t deserve a bus”, or “15-minute frequency is too high for the suburbs”, or “subways are only justified in Manhattan (or cities of a million or more)”, or “Tacoma is too small for trams” — but then comparable German cities have them and they’re very successful and popular. It can go the other way too, somebody’s threshold is too low. But the biggest problem is there’s no widely-agreed threshold: people just use their own private ones, and cite different authorites who have different ones, and nobody knows what each other’s threshold is but think they do, so everybody is talking past each other.

      15. @Mike

          Generally around 4k people per sq kilometer is a ballpark number for frequent buses and 7k for light rail. For comparison 2k is around single family homes while 4k is townhouses. Aurora avenue definitely has apartments while rainier avenue has townhouses/ apartments

          For ridership numbers that’s a bit of a different topic. If we’re just going by highest numbers we’d proritize aurora and rainier over Ballard and federal way as there’s more riders. Ross is talking about the if we are saving money by having larger transit vehicles assuming the same ridership. The threshold is when one is running buses below 7~8 minutes. Both of these routes do run buses that frequently during peak but not off peak periods.

          > But the biggest problem is there’s no widely-agreed threshold

          Running rail on ones most popular bus routes is a pretty followed metric world wide.

      16. “I could see ridership along this corridor being big enough to justify rail”

          What’s the threshold?

          People often talk about ridership per mile. But that is typically for a metro (i. e. major investment in grade-separation). When it comes to converting from bus to streetcar, I think the standard that Jarrett Walker laid out makes sense:

          When the buses are running every three minutes. At this point you are definitely:

          1) Spending a huge amount on service.
          2) You aren’t getting much out of the extra service.

          Thus it is worth spending extra on rail so that you the train can come less often. That is the part that people often don’t get. In this situation the streetcar would come less often than the bus. It is essentially a degradation in service (but at least the service money can be spent elsewhere, where it can do more good).

          It isn’t like three minutes is an absolute. You could argue four or five. But you also have to factor in the cost of the transition. Assume for a second that what you really like is to run the bus every five minutes along a corridor. Anything more is a waste of money. You would rather spend that elsewhere. As it turns out, you are are running the buses every four minutes (because they are crowded). So you are wasting money. But it isn’t a huge amount. You are running an extra five buses an hour. We need to compare that to what it would cost to convert to rail. That is why three minutes (Walker’s number) is quite reasonable.

          But here is the thing: There is not a single corridor that approaches this threshold. There is not a single corridor where we are running buses more often then we want to run them (simply because they are too crowded). Not a single one. The E is one of the few that runs every five minutes — but it only does this during peak. This means that even if we decided to run it every six minutes (like the RapidRide G) the service savings would be minimal. It just isn’t worth it (even if there was no bridge to deal with).

          There are also alternatives for dealing with crowding (like running express buses). The RapidRide E uses to have these, but they are no longer warranted (there isn’t enough crowded). Of course the E is not that far from Link, which will soon have excess capacity. Thus we could send more buses there (an “L” shaped bus that went down Aurora and then curved to connect to Link would be quite a bit cheaper than the usual bus to downtown and take care of whatever crowding occurs). But again, that is only during peak, and that isn’t even a problem right now. It isn’t a problem on any of the buses.

          It might be in the future. It might be with just surface improvements with right-of-way (e. g. more bus lanes) but I really doubt it. I don’t think we will need a rapid streetcar system. It is a niche system and not needed. BRT or Metro is the way to go (for us).

      17. To clarify I’m not talking about the rapid streetcar for the capacity upgrades but for the capital dollars to build a center median right of way. A center median brt would work as well but it’d need at least a couple hundred million as well even if it’s not a billion

      18. “That is why three minutes (Walker’s number) is quite reasonable.”

          Then you need to mention three minutes whenever you bring up a corridor. That gives a concrete measure of how far Aurora or Rainier or another corridor is from it, what we could do to make the neighborhood reach that threshold (double the housing? get a wider variety of retail?), or why it’s infeasible there. And others can confirm or object to the threshold and bring up other factors. That’s how to get from here to there. In order to improve things, we need to know where we’re going and how far we are from it. Otherwise we’re just going around in a circle and nothing gets done, or bad things get done.

   2. “Though it would be at grade through downtown like Portland it’d also be actually affordable.”

      You mean as slow as the existing streetcars? What’s the chance it will really be rapid?

      1. The word “rapid streetcar” just means center median and fewer stop spacing. It’s effectively the same as a two car center median light rail but would use streetcar vehicles. I’m unaware of any speed/travel time differences between using a “rapid streetcar” and light rail cars given the same treatment.

         I used “rapid streetcar” as that’s the terminology used by sound transit in the original Ballard light rail studies. One difference might be constructability.

      2. I like the term. It is basically what most people around the world think of when it comes to “light rail”. It basically means the streetcar doesn’t get stuck in traffic, but does have to deal with traffic lights. Of course sometimes there are drivers that throw sand in the gears, but that is the basic idea. It definitely has its place. I just don’t think it is appropriate for Seattle.

         By the way, one place where it would have made sense is in Vancouver (along Broadway). But they are building a subway instead. Here is the schedule (post pandemic): https://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/199/tt099.pdf. Notice how often it runs. For much of the day it runs every three minutes. At 2:00 pm it runs every four minutes. It is just extremely frequent, and it has to be, given it carries about 50,000 riders over a relatively short distance. We don’t have a bus anywhere near that busy.

      3. The problem is it gets watered down too easily. RapidRide has “rapid” in the name but is not exclusive-lane or even BAT in most areas. That’s what I’m afraid will happen to a “rapid” streetcar, because it has already happened to the SLU and First Hill streetcars. And even if the SLU streetcar now has transit lanes on Westlake Avenue, it still misses every traffic light between Westlake and Denny Way. (It’s not timed like the T Line on Commerce Street apparently is, or it gets thrown off-time by having so many stations.) That’s why I’ve been opposing streetcars, because they’re more expensive than a bus and never enough quality to do their job effectively. I’m pessimistic that adding “rapid” to the name will help. Some bus agencies with mediocre route name their entire agency “The ___ Rapid Transit District” — but then there’s no true rapid transit in the state, and their service is less than Metro.

      4. @Mike

         I’m just saying “rapid streetcar” as a shorthand for saying center median streetcar with farther stop spacing than the regular streetcar.

         It’s just the term used in the sdot Ballard plan. There really isn’t any speed difference between it and the short light rail car variant it was more about the platform height and constructibility

      5. I think Wesley is just using the term to describe something. It is like using the term “ship” instead of “boat”. There is no absolute point in which a boat becomes a ship. But if someone says “that is a ship, and that is a boat” you have an idea of the difference.

         In this case the word “rapid” is effectively meant to mean it is not like our streetcars (stuck in traffic) nor like our light rail line (with miles of tunnels and elevated sections). It is like small parts of our system (down Rainier Valley and in Bellevue).

   3. Guys, the “Rapid Streetcar” option was SLU-Westlake -Fremont-Ballard, not Elliott-15th. That is a much more development-friendly corridor, though possibly a couple of minutes slower.

      There’s a great option for siting a mid-level opening bridge directly underneath the Aurora Bridge, landing at 35th. Some sort of elevated station at 35th and Fremont would be required, which would pretty much take all of 35th for transit use between Fremont and Aurora. That would be unpopular with the folks who live on 35th there.

      So far as th iidea of at-grade through Lower Queen Anne, Ross is right: it would not work. The streets except Mercer are too narrow or Seattle Center is in the way and Mercer iscthe sole arterial. Tunnel or elevated only through there.

      1. > So far as th iidea of at-grade through Lower Queen Anne, Ross is right: it would not work. The streets except Mercer are too narrow or Seattle Center is in the way and Mercer iscthe sole arterial. Tunnel or elevated only through there.

         Sound Transit already studied it and it is technically feasible to build. Or are you saying “it would not work” as in the time savings are insufficient?

      2. > Guys, the “Rapid Streetcar” option was SLU-Westlake -Fremont-Ballard, not Elliott-15th. That is a much more development-friendly corridor, though possibly a couple of minutes slower.

         It was both. Both alternatives were suggested. The Elliot and 15th ave elevated/at-grade downtown of either a “rapid streetcar” or two-car light rail vehicles alignment was first suggested. It was later converted into the elevated with tunneled alignment that we now have and then added the deviation to SLU.

      3. Guys, the “Rapid Streetcar” option was SLU-Westlake -Fremont-Ballard, not Elliott-15th.

         They had both. (Check out the link I posted. From there you can get to this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/12/06/sound-transit-refines-ballard-options/

         Sound Transit already studied it and it is technically feasible to build. Or are you saying “it would not work” as in the time savings are insufficient?

         From what I can tell (the pictures are fuzzy) the surface route for Interbay did not go up Mercer and serve Queen Anne (like the D). It instead basically followed the route of the 15 (through Belltown). Option B is basically what they went with and it the option that serves Uptown (without going completely under Queen Anne). It does so via a tunnel. There were no at-grade options that included Uptown.

      4. > From what I can tell (the pictures are fuzzy) the surface route for Interbay did not go up Mercer and serve Queen Anne (like the D).

         It’s under Option C, it follows RapidRide D and does serve up town

      5. December 6, 2013 by Zach Shaner
         …
         Corridor E: Westlake/Ship Canal Tunnel

         The only option skipping both Interbay and Queen Anne, this rapid streetcar concept would branch off of the existing Westlake Avenue streetcar tracks, operate with an exclusive lane, cross the Ship Canal either in a short tunnel or a 70′ bridge, then run through Fremont, Frelard, and the commercial core of Ballard before terminating in North Beach on 24th Ave NW.

         [emphasis added]

         Look, unless there really is going to be an extension up 15th and across to Northgate and Lake City, speed is not very important in this corridor. Is it “expendable”? No, of course not; nobody should or would advocate at-grade through Lower Queen Anne. There is far too much pedestrian traffic; it’s almost like First Avenue in Belltown. It might be appropriate to put a PCC-style “streetcar” through there, sort of a retro system to match the period neighborhood, but not a semi-regional “metro”.

         Third Avenue, if made right-on-right-off only with cross-traffic banned at most intersections, might be OK for an at-grade regional LRT system. But that slams you right into the Science Center, and nobody is going to give two lanes on Denny Way to an LRT. A tunnel that dives between Clay and Broad provides a couple of small stations next to Climate Pledge and maybe 3rd West and Republican and then portals over at the same Republican Street cliffside that ST proposes to use would be pretty affordable, but the thing would miss South Lake Union entirely.

         But if budgetary catastrophe befalls the region, Option E does serve a lot of trips efficiently and is eminently affordable.

         In the absence of that catastrophe, the comprehensive answer is what we’ve all been advocating: a “Light Metro” plan that essentially follows the ST tunnel routing between Westlake Center and Smith Cove, but with “half-pint” stations only 250 feet long instead of 500 (round numbers), operated by fully automated trains running every two to four minutes from 6 AM until 10 PM and then every ten minutes all night long. It would initially terminate in a two-track “stub” terminal at Westlake Center, probably under Sixth Avenue as Martin suggests, with an extension to First Hill and a redeveloped North Rainier Valley stubbed in and waiting for the TBMs’ arrival from the south.

         The small-footprint “MF” would be somewhere in Interbay, probably in that empty trailer parking lot just north of the Magnolia Bridge. Trains would be cleaned there on a rotating basis around the clock, and the trains not running the ten-minute service all night would be parked there. But the ones running the ten minute service, obviously, would be otherwise occupied. Trains would rotate through the all night service work and afterwards would be cleaned over the next couple of nights.

         Heavy maintenance would occur at Forest Street, which would be accessed by a single-track, non-revenue tunnel connecting the two systems, probably joining the Spine at the Third and Pine curve. Cars could be ferried between systems by a “goat” locomotive with both third-rail collectors and a pantograph.

         The way into and around Ballard is up for grabs. My suggestion would be a mid-level opening bridge about twenty feet higher than the existing Ballard Bridge in the Fourteenth Avenue right of way. Just as Martin suggests, it would have more than one station in Ballard at 14th or 15th and Market. I would put one at 14th and Leary, one at 50th and Russell and the last at Market and Russell, with access to and from the north side of Market. Remember, these would be elevated two-car stations a bit more than two hundred feet long. They’d probably cost two- to three-hundred million apiece, or less than a billion for all three, which is probably less than what the full-size tunneled station at 15th and Market will run.

         But I don’t live in Ballard, and maybe the neighborhood wants something else. Maybe they’re fine with a single station at 15th — or even 14th — and Market. I think it’s a great idea to have two or more stations north of the Ship Canal, though, one in the RIPE for development No Man’s Land between Ballard proper and Frelard and one or two in the heart of the neighborhood.

         The bottom line is that we have a complete system plan for Ballard that nearly everyone agrees on. It has been very well described by Martin, but giving a bunch of “options” just makes it confusing, and it’s likely that people will say “Oh, NO MORE ‘Seattle Process’! Build the damn thing!”

         And ST will build a bloated, overpriced Basket of Deplorable errors with almost no connectivity between the northern and southern halves of the system.

         Wesley, Option C is at-grade ALONG DENNY WAY, not through Lower Queen Anne. Look at the map again more carefully. The station at the north end of the one-way couplet is right where Broad Street crosses it, which for Fourth is right at Denny, where the blue line turns.

         There is a station for “Lower Queen Anne” at about Elliott and Republican, but it’s a “fur piece” from Queen Anne and Mercer. To bypass both South Lake Union and Lower Queen Anne makes this the option least likely to develop “all-day” ridership fully. Option E is better for that.

         And you guys are right. Option C is called a “rapid street car” also.

      6. “speed is not very important in this corridor.”

         Says you. The 30-45 minute overhead getting from Ballard to the nearest regional center/transfer point (Westlake or U-District) is the reason I moved out of Ballard after living there nine months, and why I doubt I’ll move back until it comes down to a reasonable 10-20 minutes for that short distance. If Metro would run the 15 all-day/frequent, then we’d have that 20-minute service. That would be more useful than the D for Ballard.

      7. Mike, “speed” into and out of Ballard is certainly an issue, but it is more a function of reliability and service at dedtinations along the way than gross speed. The old expresses for the 15 and 18 were well-used at the peaks, but people support the RR-D dogleg through Lower Queen Anne, which is about five minutes slower, because lots of folks want to go there.

         I mentioned speed because a Westlake-Leary Rapid Streetcar would also be slower than an Option C Rapid Streetcar via Elliott and Belltown, but would similarly serve more intermsduate trips.

         They would obviously not be the same alternate trips that the D serves. It would replace and upgrade the 40, and should only be considered as a “replacement” of the “Blog Consensus” if the grade-separated independent Light Metro [i.e. the “Skytrain Clone”] is still too expensive.

3. Of course I (and many others posting here) agree that the automated technology should be an alternative.

   However, I’m convinced that ST won’t consider it from a rational standpoint. Any deviation from ST3 is recently (since 2016) only made for political reasons — not performance ones.

   Even a petition of 5000 signatures — many from the Asian community including several ID business owners like Uwajimaya — couldn’t convince the Board to not pursue the current preferred alternative. Neither could the deep tunnel Alaska Junction be moved from being option if affordable to bei g in the base alternative even though West Seattle was supposed to be without any tunnel and that gave them an earlier opening date target by five years.

   My question is this: what tactics have to happen to get the idea at least on the table? At this point, only weighty corporate interests like Expedia, the Gates Foundation or Amazon seem to have gravitas big enough to be persuasive.

   1. I think the key is the election for county council. In a recent tweet, Balducci mentioned that “all options are on the table” with regards to station placement. Really? All options, including no new tunnel at all? This seems like a legitimate question for both Balducci and whoever faces her in the general (likely Zahilay).

      Assuming they say the right thing, this allows them to pivot to something a lot more useful (and affordable) in the area once elected. We need to put pressure on them — perhaps with a writing campaign. The main thing we need to ask for is further assessment. Hire an independent transit consultant to consider all of the options (from a cost/benefit perspective). Basically go back to the beginning when it comes to planning.

      There is a fairly good excuse for this: the pandemic (and its aftermath). People are not commuting like they used to. Lynnwood Link is not carrying nearly as many people as they originally planned. East Link will not carry nearly as many as they planned. This doesn’t mean the projects aren’t justified, but things have certainly changed. I would make the case that the fundamentals remain the same (e. g. “the spine” was always a bad idea) but it is worse than ever, and this gives you a handy political out. You don’t have to admit that previous planning was poor — you can simply make the case that things have changed. The other consideration (of course) is that costs have skyrocketed. What might have been considered a good value back in the day (with a ton of commuters and relatively cheap construction costs) is not anymore.

      I also think it makes sense to hone our message. There is a consensus here on many of these issues, and we have various posts representing it. But I don’t think we have a post that boils it down to something really tiny — they type of thing that would fit on a tweet. I would say it basically is this:

      1) No second tunnel.
      2) Run (smaller, more frequent) automated trains from Ballard to Westlake, with a future extension to First Hill/Judkins Park and Mount Baker.
      3) Replace West Seattle Link with better bus service.
      4) If we insist on building West Seattle Link, then connect it to the main line.
      5) Don’t build Everett Link, Issaquah Link or Tacoma Dome Link (put the money into bus improvements).

      There are a lot of particulars and advantages to this approach. For example:

      1) This saves a lot of money. There would be no second tunnel and perhaps no West Seattle Link as well as smaller stations for Ballard Link.
      2) Folks from the south end retain their connections to downtown and the north end.
      3) More frequent service from Ballard.
      4) Potentially better station placement for Ballard. We should reopen the possibility of serving the heart of Ballard (to the west).
      5) West Seattle bus improvements would include a new connection to the SoDo busway. This gives West Seattle riders the best of both worlds. They would have an excellent connect to Link (at SoDo) while retaining (and expanding) the one-seat rides from West Seattle to downtown.
      6) If West Seattle Link is built, then the trains from Federal Way would turn back at Northgate (and not go all the way to Lynnwood like the other trains).

      We also need to dispel some myths. One of the biggest is that it is our planning that is slowing us down. We are stuck with “The Seattle Process” and that is why it is taking so long to build all of this. That is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The main reason it is taking us so long to build things like Ballard Link is because it is so expensive. We haven’t raised the money (via bonds) to pay for it. Even if every last detail was worked and out we knew exactly what we wanted to build, we couldn’t do a thing until we get more money. Going back to the drawing board doesn’t actually delay anything. At worse we just build what we planned on building anyway. But more likely, we actually build things much sooner, for reason number one (it is cheaper). Neither Ballard nor West Seattle is scheduled to be connected to downtown (via rail) until 2039 at the earliest. If we changed our plans it is quite likely we could connect Ballard to downtown in ten years, maybe earlier. West Seattle would have much better transit almost immediately (with more frequent service) and a better connection to Link in about five years (adding ramps from the Spokane Street Viaduct to SoDo should not be that expensive).

      1. “3) Replace West Seattle Link with better bus service.
         4) If we insist on building West Seattle Link, then connect it to the main line.”

         This is key; we need a two-pronged approach. Push the long shot we think is best, but also try to make ST’s alternative the least bad possible if it insists on doing it. If we pursue only the former and the long shot fails, we paint ourselves into a corner and get nothing.

         This also applies to DSTT2. It’s why I’ve been unwilling to have an editorial saying single-tunnel is the only acceptable way as some people have urged. (Single-tunnel means West Seattle, southeast Seattle, and the Eastside would all be in DSTT1, and Ballard-Westlake would be a separate line.) That would be putting all our eggs into a long shot, and if we don’t get it then we have nothing, and we’d lose our chance to make ST’s alternative less bad because we didn’t offer an alternative within it. Instead I say single-tunnel is the best or wisest choice, but I’m no going to say single-tunnel or die. (That’s us dying, not Link or ST.)

      2. “5) Don’t build Everett Link, Issaquah Link or Tacoma Dome Link (put the money into bus improvements).”

         You’re never gonna get this to happen, I’m sorry. Just accept it and move on. You’re very unlikely to convince any county executive or county council member in Pierce or Snohomish for that matter of what you believe they need to be doing. And many on said councils would point out that more express bus service just strains the already finite resources for bus operators (in paticular Pierce Transit) who has a bad driver shortage already who are already struggling with local bus service in the first place.

         This would be a different conversation if ST didn’t subcontract out express bus service and instead did it in house.

         On some level, some people on here just need to let go in terms of trying to change course on TDLE, ELLE, and ILLE. It’s a waste of time and energy, the inertia the change course was nearly a decade ago with ST3 proposal planning. The ship has sailed on it and people need to accept that.

      3. “You’re never gonna get this to happen”

         We can still mention it as a side issue. Not in the Ballard EIS feedback, but in general.

      4. “ It’s why I’ve been unwilling to have an editorial saying single-tunnel is the only acceptable way as some people have urged. ”

         Upgrading the existing tunnel operations isn’t the “only acceptable way” we need to state at this point. All that’s needed at this point is to merely add an automated mode option to the alternatives. The ripple effects of that would come about by ST staff identifying what changes to other parts of the system would be needed from tracks to stations to maintenance facilities.

         And now that Lynnwood Link is open and the projected additional riders are significantly lower than predicted per just released October data, the capacity deficiency argument for DSTT2 holds much less validity. That’s a giant new factor in the DSTT2 needs analysis.

      5. “5) Don’t build Everett Link, Issaquah Link or Tacoma Dome Link (put the money into bus improvements).”

         You’re never gonna get this to happen, I’m sorry.

         So be it. If the various suburbs and cities want to waste their money on stupid projects, go right ahead. But my guess is the feelings are not as universal as you claim.

         You’re very unlikely to convince any county executive or county council member in Pierce or Snohomish for that matter of what you believe they need to be doing.

         I disagree. Remember, a majority of people in Pierce County opposed ST3. That was before the pandemic and huge cost overruns. That was basically during the golden era of Sound Transit, when people felt like they could build things, and what they built was clearly important (e. g. U-Link). Now we have huge cost overruns that are likely to hit the areas outside the city (they just aren’t there yet). These are are for extensions that won’t get nearly as many riders, with diminishing returns. Once Link gets to Federal Way it will have 90% of the benefit to Pierce County riders as Link to the Tacoma Dome. Yet somehow they don’t have enough money to run the buses. It seems fairly easy for a politician to run on just that: “Why are these buses so bad, while we spend literally billions on light rail that will only carry a handful of people?!”. That seems like a message that would appeal to fiscal conservatives and transit riders alike. Someone in leadership is going to figure out (if they haven’t already).

         Same goes for Everett Link. Snohomish County did pass ST3, but a lot of those voters assumed that was necessary in order to get Lynnwood Link. Hard to see folks excited about a line that is slower than buses between Everett and Link.

         But it really isn’t what I’m focused on. I am not going to lose any sleep over either project. Sure, I feel sorry for the folks that live in those areas — they will waste a huge amount of money and will likely continue to have a poor transit system. But it is quite likely that the vast majority of people would just drive, no matter what they build.

         In contrast, in Seattle we have the opportunity to transition to a transit-oriented city. The type of city where driving is not the default. This will benefit everyone in the region (occupants and visitors alike).

         But that will only happen if we invest in the right things. A good system — based on the principles so clearly demonstrated by our nearest neighbor (Vancouver) would work really well here. This means investing in the buses, while investing in very frequent, very fast rail lines. If we waste our time and money building the wrong things, it is highly unlikely we will build the right ones.

      6. You need to replace Tacoma Dome Link with a legitimate rail alternative.

         Sounder upgrades and all-day, evening and weekend service would be the only way to convince Pierce. Mello might be amenable.

      7. Push the long shot we think is best, but also try to make ST’s alternative the least bad possible if it insists on doing it.

         Agreed, but at some point it becomes so bad that you lose interest in fighting the battles. Imagine it goes down this way:

         Us: Replace West Seattle Link with bus service.
         ST: No, we are building West Seattle Link.

         Us: OK, but then run West Seattle through the existing tunnel.
         ST: No, we are building a second tunnel.

         Us: OK, at least make Ballard a stand-alone line, with automated trains.
         ST: No, it will be connected to the south end, like we said.

         Us: Can you move the station in Ballard to the west?
         ST: No.

         At that point I really don’t car much about where the CID/Midtown stations are. We’ve already lost. The system will be crap, and we will just be stuck with it. No First Hill rail service, ever. Folks in the south end will have crappy downtown stations and be forced to transfer to get to existing north end destinations. Trips from Ballard will be infrequent, a situation made worse by the fact that getting from the heart of Ballard to the train will require a transfer. Likewise, the vast majority of people from West Seattle will have to transfer to an infrequent train just to get downtown (dreaming of the days when the bus just kept going). We will have a rail system that costs billions, but only accounts for a small number of riders.

         We will be increasingly dependent on an underfunded bus system. We will have missed our chance to become a transit leader (like Vancouver) and when we visit our nearest big-city neighbor we treat it like Paris — an exotic place where driving seems rare. The people you meet — just regular, average people — don’t own cars (or use them only for trips into the mountains). Then we return to our sad little reality.

         Unless, of course, we make big improvements to our bus system anyway. Then we will wonder why we spent so much money on the trains given that the vast majority of people just get around on the buses. In Vancouver about 800,000 people ride the bus every day, and 500,000 ride the train. At some point we might get to 500,000 on the bus, and 200,000 on the train. Not bad, but we will wonder why we our rail is so bad, given we spent so much money on it.

      8. You need to replace Tacoma Dome Link with a legitimate rail alternative.

         Not if the vast majority of people prefer taking the bus. Keep in mind:

         1) More people take the bus within Pierce County than take transit to Seattle. Pierce County transit — as underfunded as it is — gets more riders than the very expensive, first-class set of buses and trains to Seattle.

         2) During peak hours (when both the train and buses run) more people take the bus then take the train.

         3) Outside of peak, the express buses are considerably faster than Sounder from Tacoma.

         It is hard to see why people would therefore prefer spending a fortune on trains in the middle of the day. It is the same problem as ST3. You are spending a bundle on very few riders (with relatively little benefit). If you instead run express buses every fifteen minutes from Tacoma to Seattle you benefit way more riders. You also connect those riders to Link (for trips to SeaTac, Highline College, Tukwila and Rainier Valley). You do all that with money left over to spend on bus service *within* Pierce County.

         The only benefit would be symbolic. It would be a way of saying “we at least did something new”. But running all-day commuter trains that are slower than express buses (and slower than driving) is not a great way to spend precious transit dollars. Not when so many people in Pierce County have to deal with inadequate, underfunded buses.

      9. “ You need to replace Tacoma Dome Link with a legitimate rail alternative.”

         It’s off topic, but there are two more interesting ways to do this.

         1. Just design and build a T-Link from Downtown Tacoma and Tacoma Done to a place like South Federal Way or maybe Fife. It can run down the 99 Highway median at grade like MLK. Yeah it’s slow but not much slower than the current 1 Line trains. The casinos (tribes who have a big say) might like it if they can have front door stops from the trains compared to the current proposals for stations a few blocks away.

         2. Extend the Sounder tracks that ST built from JBLM to Tacoma Dome to a Link transfer station in South Federal Way or Fife. If it’s Fife, extend the new tracks further to Puyallup. Then run a frequent DMU service from either Puyallup or South Federal Way at a faster 70 mph speed every 20 minutes all day and evening. Even Sounder trains could run this path as the transfer point would merely be moved eastward from Tacoma Dome to Fife. The casinos may not like this as much — but it would discourage casino parking garages from becoming Link oark and ride lots.

      10. We suspect that Pierce politicians and subarea boardmembers are more pro Tacoma Dome-extension than their constituents are. Evidence includes Pierce voting against ST3. It’s unclear how wide the gap is, or how unified the constituents are. It’s not all of them 100% no, it’s different subgroups with different attitudes. Since it’s not my subarea, I’ll go along with whatever Pierce politicians/public decide, but I’ll still say what my ideal recommendation is.

      11. “Just design and build a T-Link from Downtown Tacoma and Tacoma Done to a place like South Federal Way or maybe Fife.”

          There’s a rapid streetcar for you. The segment between Tacoma Dome and 17th is already exclusive-lane, so you’d just need to extend it east to Federal Way. I wouldn’t even mind as much if Commerce Street remains mixed-traffic, because it would be a much smaller proportion of the total line, and I assume there’s no hope of giving Link priority on MLK since ST/Tacoma rejected it in the recent extension.

      12. “More people take the bus within Pierce County than take transit to Seattle. Pierce County transit — as underfunded as it is — gets more riders than the very expensive, first-class set of buses and trains to Seattle.”

          Yeah, okay. Except we don’t have a first-class set of buses and trains to Seattle, so how do you know?

          And how does this fix anything within Pierce County? So you make intercity transit worse because more people ride crappy intra-city transit?

          There is some rumors that running a local transit initiative to improve the local funding issue is in the works, but that’s completely independent of Sound Transit.

      13. I don’t understand your comments about just going to South Federal Way or Fife. There must be a transfer path the whole way from Seattle to Tacoma without gaps. The easiest, cheapest, and most ridership-appropriate option would be to extend TLink to Federal Way TC. Or if CLink continues to South Federal Way, the transfer can be there. I don’t see what would end in Fife: that would create a gap between Fife and Tacoma Dome, or Fife and Federal Way. Of course, you could replace all of this TLink extension with express buses.

      14. Tacoma does need to fix the north half of the fishing wars bridge. Maybe we can get Sound Transit to pay for it like Harrell is getting ST to pay for a new government center or whatever.

          At least at the moment, there isn’t any traffic on either commerce or MLK. The lights are timed for the train, and it doesn’t get stuck in traffic. That might change, but at the moment it’s not a problem. Extending it to center-run or cut into the west side of 99 to South Federal Way would be just fine. That’s basically industrial and wilderness. You wouldn’t even need any stations.

      15. “At least at the moment, there isn’t any traffic on either commerce or MLK. The lights are timed for the train, and it doesn’t get stuck in traffic”

          Good to hear. I’ve ridden phase 1 a few times, and what I noticed it the travel-time difference between Pacific Street (which has dedicated lanes) and Commerce Street (which runs in mixed traffic, and the lights may not have been timed as well then). It’s not major and the distance is short, but that’s why we have rail that’s not as effective or well-used as cities that make it all grade-separated so it can run as fast as the trains are capable.

      16. “Evidence includes Pierce voting against ST3. It’s unclear how wide the gap is, or how unified the constituents are.”
          Thing to remember is that the taxing district in Pierce for ST is much much larger than in Snohomish. ST tax district in Snohomish is just urban Snohomish from Montlake Terrace to Everett. It doesn’t include Monroe, Sultan, Standwood, Gold Bar, Snohomish, or Lake Stevens in the tax district. Whereas Pierce includes exurban Pierce into the taxing district like Bonney Lake, Spanaway, Orting, Frederickson, and South Hill. If you look at the heat map on Wikipedia, there’s a distinct divide between urban and suburban/exurban Pierce and how they voted.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit_3.

          People still using the “Pierce voted against ST3” chestnut against Pierce honestly annoy me somewhat as it is ignoring the nuance of how the tax district is drawn and how urban Pierce (Tacoma, Lakewood, University Place, Fife, Puyallup, etc) votes differently from exurban Pierce. Urban Pierce is fine with paying for stuff, they want the TDLE to connect to the airport to Highline College, to Southcenter, etc. That is at the end of the day what they really want out of link. It replaces an express bus (574) that while gets decent decent ridership but that people have complained for years is pretty awful in execution, frequency, and reliability. Like I rode the 574 for years and can speak on end to its problems and how Link would actually be a massive improvement. Link would’ve made my commute to Highline College for example a lot better.

          In the end, people in Pierce want more rail because it’s a massive improvement to the current state of transit in Pierce. The train has left the station on arguing otherwise a decade ago and people really need to accept and embrace instead of fighting it every which way.

      17. @ Mike;

          “don’t understand your comments about just going to South Federal Way or Fife.”

          OMF South is most of the way to South Federal Way already. And it’s easier to build a seamless transfer if the station is new.

          Federal Way would be just as good if these weren’t factors.

      18. I wouldn’t mind seeing T-Link with a dedicated right-of-way. The places I can see it perhaps becoming an issue are:

          The turn from Division onto MLK, as it approaches the hospital. The lights are timed, but I’m not sure they are timed well. The intersection and its new timing seems to suck for everyone. Peds, bikes, cars. It sucks less for the train, but it ain’t great. It may be that it has to do with the construction of the new Mary Bridge. Not sure.

          Near Stadium HS at 1st and Tacoma. It may just be the swarms of high school students crossing all which way there, but it does seem to get bogged down there a bit.

      19. Except we don’t have a first-class set of buses and trains to Seattle, so how do you know?

          Sure we do. Sounder is a good commuter rail line. The express buses go right into Seattle, and there are a lot of them. It would be nice if they ran every fifteen minutes, but either way that is just way better than what Pierce Transit has. They are very fast and still fairly frequent, especially given the distance.

          And yet they just don’t carry the riders! That is my point. Clearly the service Sound Transit provides is way better than what Pierce Transit provides. They are spending way more money. Huge amounts more. And yet more people ride the bus in Pierce Transit.

          This is normal. Most people don’t take long trips to other cities. Even if the system connecting the two cities is outstanding, and the local bus service is crap, most people just ride the crappy bus system. At the end of the day, not that many people are going from one city to another, and the vast majority do so during peak, when our system is about as good as it gets (anywhere). Why the hell would we want to spend so much money on so few riders, while the vast majority of riders get nothing? It makes no sense.

      20. Thing to remember is that the taxing district in Pierce for ST is much much larger than in Snohomish.

          Right, because the more people you tax, the more money you raise. If you shrunk the area small enough — to get more initial supporters — you end up not building the spine. You are right though — if I want to be precise I should not say “Pierce County” I should say “the people in Pierce County within the district”.

          Of course there is the other option, which is that a core group of people could theoretically be willing to pay extra to build what they want. But I see evidence to support this idea. Not given the relative benefit. Speaking of which:

          Link would’ve made my commute to Highline College for example a lot better.

          So will Federal Way Link! The only improvement with Tacoma Dome Link is for trips to places like Fife and South Federal Way. Otherwise running buses from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle with a stop at Federal Way achieves the best of both worlds. You don’t have to transfer to Link to get to Seattle, but you can transfer to Link to get to places like Highline College or SeaTac. Or if you really want to, you can take Link to Seattle (even though the bus is faster).

      21. And how does this fix anything within Pierce County?

          It fixes it because you spend money on it! There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Pierce Transit, other than the fact that they lack money. So ST can basically just grant them money to run the buses more often. Or they can do as they’ve done in King County and just take over routes that the local agency would run. For example consider the 550. It runs frequently (as it should). But if ST didn’t run the bus, then Metro would. Thus the bus is basically just a monetary give (a grant) to Metro. ST gets to have bragging rights (look at the wonderful 550 everyone — we built that!) while Metro gets to run other buses more often.

          ST can do the same thing for Pierce County. Run buses like the 1 every fifteen minutes. It wouldn’t be called the 1 anymore (it would be called something like the 501) but it would have all the same stops, and run more frequently than the existing 1. Do the same thing for the 2 and all the high ridership buses. This means that Pierce County would suddenly see an upgrade in many of the existing routes. At the same time, Pierce Transit would have money to spend on the other routes — meaning the whole system improves.

          Again, this is just a face-saving process. The simplest solution is to just grant Pierce Transit the money.

      22. “Sounder is a good commuter rail line.”

          60 minute commuter rail from Tacoma to Seattle or Everett to Seattle is good? World-class rail is faster than driving. Sounder shines only between Auburn and downtown. Maybe to Puallup. But not Tacoma.

      23. “Right, because the more people you tax, the more money you raise. If you shrunk the area small enough — to get more initial supporters — you end up not building the spine.”

          It’s not clear that’s why Pierce is larger, or that a more appropriately-sized ST district couldn’t generate enough supporters and revenue. To recap:

          Snohomish County has the smallest part of its urbanized area in the ST district: it excludes Marysville, Monroe, and Snohomish (city). Yet Marysville is the fastest-growing area and now has an industrial growth center! Snohomish should have either included those areas in the ST district, or not allowed Marysville to grow or put an industrial center there.

          King County is in between: its ST extent ends at Kent, Issaquah, and Redmond. Covington and Maple Valley have since grown around it, but neither are as large as Marysville and aren’t significant job centers. Snoqualmie/North Bend is a protected semi-rural agricultural area, so its low population doesn’t need ST service directly.

          Pierce County has the largest undense area in the ST district: everything south and east of Puyallup and Parkland. And Puyallup itself is borderline: it has semi-rural lots just a couple blocks from the Sounder station. This area is the most resistant to density and taxes, and the most car-happy. All the growth there is car-oriented sprawl as far as I can tell. Pierce should either densify it to justify ST service or not allow it to grow. It’s dragging the urban part of the county down. A more reasonable ST extent would be just Tacoma and Lakewood. Fife would have to come along for the ride somehow because it’s on the way: there’s no way to get to Tacoma without going through it. But that’s more of the Pierce paradox. Fife and the area west and east of it should be larger and denser, because it’s between Tacoma and Seattle. That’s where the growth should go, not Spanaway and Orting. If Puyallup and Sumner weren’t in the ST district, Sounder would still have to go through them if Sounder is to exist, and it may make sense for Puyallup and Sumner to have stations. That could be acommodated with a side agreement between ST and those cities (and Bonney Lake and Orting could come along): they would pay a lower-than-ST tax rate just for Sounder service.

          It looks like the Pierce politicians were just more ambitious and better negotiators than the King and Snohomish politicians: they managed to get more inappropriate land into the ST district to get more resources, when they had no intention of densifying those areas.

      24. The 574 and 594 are low frequency, low reliability, and constantly stuck in traffic. I can’t trust them. The rare times I get to chose between Sounder and the 594, it’s a no-Brainer. I choose Sounder, even though it is 15 minutes slower. Because it leaves on time and I arrive at my destination on time. I wish I had that choice all the time.

          Tacoma voted for ST3.

          If it’s allowed for ST to run local service, it’s news to me.

      25. “If it’s allowed for ST to run local service, it’s news to me.”

          ST is contributing to upgrading PT 1 to Stream BRT. It’s stalled because of insufficient matching PT funding, and PT dubiously decided to launch an interim phase called the Stream Community Line but is really a peak express. If ST decided to offer interim stopgap all-day service on the 1 until it could implement Stream, that probably be would be within its mandate, because it’s a Stream substitute. It would be easier with capital upgrades because that’s more obviously within, and is what ST3 is doing with RapidRide C and D. (Although those have been postponed due to ST’s budget situation.) In the 1’s case, that might mean buying more buses so the 1 could run at higher frequency.

      26. I should mention, Stream is like RapidRide, not Stride. It’s full-stop and on aterials, not limited-stop on freeways. That’s an ST-branded project, and I don’t know if PT or ST will operate it. So that’s a “local” kind of service ST can provide. It’s predicated on regional growth centers being along the corridor — that’s what ST is mandated to connect. I guess that on the Stream line would be Parkland, along with the Tacoma Dome hub. I’d be shocked if Spanaway is called that, because the Walmart is the epitome of car-oriented sprawl (NOT urban), and that seems to be the densest thing in Spanwaway. Or will Walmart surprise us with a renovation with apartments on top and a multistory garage replacing the huge parking lot? Would that be the first Walmart ever that did that?

      27. > “If it’s allowed for ST to run local service, it’s news to me.”

          There’s never been a legal requirement that says ST can’t run local service. It’s just that what is typically voted on in the ballot measures is express or rail projects.

          Does anyone think the other board members would care if the Pierce sub area board members desired to fund local service instead.

      28. Stream us more than stalled, its dead. They gave the 10s of millions of Federal dollars back, and I don’t expect to see those dollars again and it revived in the future.

          The peak express substitute is not being used. The buses are empty, according to a driver who occasionally drives it, and my personal experience. It’s not the service the corridor needs, but it’s the service ST can justify because it feeds Sounder and STX.

          I’d be thrilled to see ST fund more explicit local service, but given its regional mission, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

          The failure of peak express service is worse than no service, because it signals, incorrectly, that expanded real stream limited stop local service isn’t needed. But in fact that would have been substantially more successful.

          Disastrous.

      29. Wesley, while it may be true that Sound Transit can tax to provide local bus service, it may not sell bonds to do so, even, I believe, to purchase the vehicles.

          The State Legislature was very clear that the powerful taxing and bonding authority it was giving the the Tri-County area was NOT for “POBS” (“Plain Old Bus Service”) which is a fancy term-of-art but “local buses”. The agency was created to solve Regional transit problems, not local in-county issues. Now it might be a very fruitful strategy to pressure the Leg to give the PTBA’s more taxing authority, so they can provide more frequent and/or broader service. But the bitter truth is that many agencies aren’t using their entire sales tax allowances now, so why give them more tools they won’t pick up?

          It’s a problem.

      30. “So will Federal Way Link! ”

          It wouldn’t. I’m sorry, but you really need a real gut check on this. I’ve ridden 574 for years and it’s a very slow and unreliable bus for many reasons. Federal Way Link would’ve only marignally speed up my commute from Tacoma by a couple minutes and would still be a 3 seat ride. So no, it wouldn’t have solved it like you seem to believe because I’ve ridden said slow af bus before for a decade at this point.

      31. 
          “So will Federal Way Link! ”

          It wouldn’t. I’m sorry, but you really need a real gut check on this. I’ve ridden 574 for years and it’s a very slow and unreliable bus for many reasons. Federal Way Link would’ve only marignally speed up my commute from Tacoma by a couple minutes and would still be a 3 seat ride. So no, it wouldn’t have solved it like you seem to believe because I’ve ridden said slow af bus before for a decade at this point.
          

          Who said anything about the 574? The 574 doesn’t even serve Downtown Tacoma. It goes to SeaTac. It either goes away or is radically altered once Federal Way Link gets here. That is not the type of bus I’m talking about.

          Assume for a second that you have a bus like the 594, running all day long, every fifteen minutes (which it would be doing if not for the driver shortage). Now assume that it continues to go to Downtown Seattle, but stops at Federal Way along the way.

          If you want to get from Downtown Tacoma to Highline, you take that bus and transfer at Federal Way. If you want to go from Tacoma to Seattle you have three choices. You can just stay on that bus, transfer to Sounder (when it is running) or transfer to Link. You are saying that makes no difference at all? Why not?

          But take this a step further. Assume that those buses keep running *and* they extend Link all the way to the Tacoma Dome. Now imagine you are trying to get from Downtown Tacoma to Highline. You catch the 574 and it swings by the Tacoma Dome. You have a choice. Stay on the bus, or wait for it to keep going and make the transfer at Federal Way. Does it make much difference? No. Not really. If anything you might be better off with the bus — it might pass the train (as Link makes three stops along the way). Most likely it is a wash. Either way you get on exactly the same train which means it would take you exactly the same amount of time.

          Meanwhile, for trips to Seattle, the bus is faster than Link most of the day. But if you really want to ride Link, you can. Again, nothing really changes.

          For trips to Seattle during rush hour, there is Sounder. It might still be faster to take the bus, but Sounder is much faster than Link. Nothing changes.

          Which basically just leaves getting to places like Highline and SeaTac from Tacoma during rush hour. In this case, extending Link would likely save riders a few minutes*. But at best this is a tiny number of riders. Look at the ridership pattern of the 574 — ridership is not high during rush hour. Quite the opposite. In fact, peak ridership on the bus is very early in the morning, when Link doesn’t even run! (Which means that we will need a 574 substitute at some point — a “night owl” bus that hopefully manages to serve Downtown Tacoma and SeaTac). There simply aren’t that many people from Tacoma heading to Link destinations south of Downtown Seattle during rush hour. A few hundred, at best.

          This is what I mean when I write things like “Federal Way Link achieves 90% of Tacoma Dome Link”. Of course there are edge cases — people who would benefit quite a bit from Tacoma Dome Link. But way more people would benefit from simply running Pierce Transit buses more often.

          *Of course if WSDOT gets off its lazy ass and changes the lanes from HOV-2 to HOV-3 then it is quite likely the bus would be as fast as the train, all day long. You still have the issue of the buses getting into the HOV lanes, but building ramps would be way cheaper than extending Link. I’m not saying it would be worth it, but extending Link definitely isn’t.

      32. “Either way you get on exactly the same train”

          Link sails directly into all its stations. The 574 has to get off the highway and navigate local streets and turns and stoplights to get to the bus stop. So if Link and the 574 leave Tacoma Dome at the same time and you get on the 574 and transfer, you’ll miss the Link train and have to wait for the next one. The 574 is also vulnerable to unpredictable I-5 congestion, which may delay it further.

      33. The 574 (and the 594) also often gets tangled up in Lakewood, making their appearance at The Dome (or commerce) impossible to predict. I just take whichever comes first and deal with it with a transfer if necessary, because they are so unreliable.

          Sure, WSDOT could change to HOV3 to make in more reliable. I don’t think it is laziness, however. I think there is a lack of political will. And I don’t foresee that changing, until we get substantial mode-shift out of SOVs.

          Chicken. Egg.

      34. Pretty much Mike, this is partly why I get somewhat agitated at people saying Tacoma doesn’t need Link because oftentimes it’s said from people who haven’t ridden 574 and how bad it is in terms of reliability and speed even outside rush hour. It’s a very slow bus that has too often been unreliable.

          The ride from Tacoma to SeaTac on the 574 currently takes an estimated 46 minutes but can be longer (over an hour) as it gets stuck making a lot of turns and traffic. In paticular, the arrivals traffic like everyone else picking up at Seatac. Driving is around 31 minutes give or take tho add time for parking or drop off. TDLE will be 35 minutes, about on par with driving albiet a smidge slower but faster than the 574. And with decent frequency, which makes it appealing for people who want to take transit.

          In the Highline College example I used, it would also mean a two seat ride (41 > Line 1) instead of the current three seat from where I live in Tacoma (41 > 574 > A/165l. Not having to deal with waiting a half hour for the next express bus make it more appealing.

   2. @ Ross:

      The targeted item that Martin is addressing is the Ballard Link Extension (with DSTT2) scoping deadline. While we could debate West Seattle, it doesn’t help this specific action to go down that path. Certainly one affects the other, but with West Seattle already with a published Final EIS it’s probably (yet regrettably) best to just assume it’s going to happen like ST prefers.

      I also think a broader consensus about adding an automated alternative could quickly come to fruition if West Seattle isn’t part of the discussion.

      There is a real temptation to ask for other alternatives and options for sure! But if ST could be convinced to look at expanding the mode option NOW the other refinements and options can be pursued later.

      1. Advocating for a separate automated Ballard-Westlake line would automatically make the other things easier. Even if it doesn’t explicitly cancel DSTT2 and a West Seattle stub phase, it lessens the reason for them. That could catalyze cascading reconsiderations among ST and the politicians, and end up with better decisions in those areas even if they happen later.

4. “Any deviation from ST3 is recently (since 2016) only made for political reasons …
   Even a petition of 5000 signatures — many from the Asian community including several ID business owners like Uwajimaya — couldn’t convince the Board to not pursue the current preferred alternative.”

   That’s beside the point. The EIS is restarted so we have a rare opportunity to get our best suggestions into the comment record. It’s like voting; we have a public duty to do so. Changing ST’s mind is a long shot, but we have to try or we’re just giving up prematurely. Getting it into the feedback will at least ensure that some people at ST and the media and maybe the FTA will read it, and that may catalyze hard questions and reconsiderations.

   As for Uwajimaya et al not being able to influence things, why do you think the EIS was restarted? The only reason to restart the EIS is to possibly change the approach. Most likely ST will switch to its new “5th Avenue Diagonal” alternative, but more changes beyond that could happen.

   1. Yes I agree that it’s a side topic. I only include it as a recent example of how difficult it is to change the ST processes. It’s merely illustrative.

   2. Yes, I understand there are multiple levels of argument. I think of it as ideals vs pragmatic. Ideal: What’s really the best, or what opportunities we’ve lost. Pragmatic: How can we influence the next decision ST wants to make, to go one way or the other. We just have to be clear which is which, because otherwise we’re setting up unrealistic expectations.

      In other words, saying ST will only be swayed by political concerns is a prediction about future facts, not an advocacy position. We should advocate for what we think is best, not give up before the end because we don’t think we have a chance. Things always change and unexpected things always happen. If something unexpected does happen, we may be glad we got our suggestion/advocacy in before it.

   3. For instance, it was widely believed Dow would run for governor, using his championing of West Seattle Link and DSTT2/Ballard as campaign ammunition. Instead he decided not to run, and is also retiring from the county council and ST board. If he’s the one who’s been pushing the mos strongly for these features and resisting any reconsideration of them, then maybe his departure will allow the board to be less rigid on them.

      We know Balducci and Millar (WSDOT) have the best understanding of passengers’ needs and what a subway’s real potential is. So if Balducci gets elected to Dow’s position, she might make some substantially good changes.

      Snohomish and Pierce don’t really care about DSTT2 or Ballard, they just want their Everett and Tacoma extensions now. They could probably go either way with DSTT2 or Ballard. Their main concerns about DSTT2 and Ballard are: (A) the ballooning cost might delay/jepordize the Everett and Tacoma extensions, and (B) possible overcrowding in a single tunnel (which would affect Everett/Lynnwood and Tacoma passengers). So, we try to convince them that an automated line and cancelling DSTT2 would save a lot of money, and that would ensure Everett and Tacoma would be more likely to finish on time. And that upgrading DSTT1 to support 1.5 minute frequency and a 2-3 minute initial target would address potential crowding and cost far less than DSTT2. (For three lines: West Seattle, airport, and Eastside.) We’d also point out that the biggest crowding bottleneck is not CID-Westlake where DSTT2 is, but Westlake-UW where DSTT2 isn’t and can’t help. We could also point to existing ridership loads in Westlake-UW with the Lynnwood Link extension.

      We (people like Ross and I) don’t think Everett/Tacoma/Issaquah are necessary, but again, pragmatics. It’s like convincing a jury. It’s easiest to move a few people a bit from their current positions. It’s Snohomish and Pierce making the decision and paying for their own Link investments. Most of the STB authors are in North King, so Seattle is our direct responsibility, and we can be less insistent on the other subareas for the sake of regional consensus, which is what we need to get anything done.

5. If ST is willing to explore automation (which they should), it would allow for higher train frequency and smaller subway station vaults. If ST was still intent on DSTT2, it would make every alternative much cheaper and much less disruptive.

   The one additional aspect is that there really are two conceptual ways to do it. One is a three line DSTT with a Ballard stub. However there is another scenario that we don’t really discuss — pairing West Seattle and Ballard extensions as a separate automated line inside a new DSTT2. That would even lower the cost of WS Link because those stations would also be much smaller!

   What would happen to really long 1 Line as a spine from Everett to Tacoma? Well a permanent driver change could be introduced somewhere in Central Seattle, adding a 1 minute wait inside a train rather than a 5 minute two-block, multiple-level-change ordeal in central Seattle. The entire line north of the ID could actually be fully automated pretty safely as well so maybe Lines 1 and 2 don’t even need drivers north of the ID. Certainly by 2040 opening likely automation will be pretty standard anyway.

   The WS-Ballard automated trains could easily use the Central OMF too.

   1. How exactly would the automated trains use the same omf as link central? I always see this automated line argument hut nobody has said where the yard would go. OMC central is pretty packed at the moment with not much space left.

      1. Automated trains can be purchased to run on other light rail tracks. The track widths and types are pretty standard. So are catenary power needs. Automated trains have panels that open and can be operated manually in and out of yards.

         The typical rail compatibility problems are either car height or power source differences. Automation can also add complexity if platform gates or doors are installed in case they don’t match the train cars. But these things are usually part of vehicle purchase specs. So unless ST would buy cars already made, they wouldn’t create a compatibility problem.

         It’s only about 30 minutes one way between Northgate and Mt Baker, which is about as far as from Ballard to West Seattle. A round trip could be assumed at 72 or 76 minutes with some schedule padding. A two car train every 4 minutes or 18or 19 train sets and 36 to 38 active cars. ST would just have to make room for those plus spares and room could easily be made by moving those to be based at a new OMF.

      2. “How exactly would the automated trains use the same omf as link central? I always see this automated line argument hut nobody has said where the yard would go.”

         From SoundTransit’s plan to connect Rainier Valley to Ballard, and bury it 11 floors under Westlake, it would appear their plan is for Ballard link to use OMF South in Federal Way for these trains.

         There would need to be some sort of connection between the Ballard Line and the existing line.

         My own solution would be to build the CCC streetcar as full light rail, connect it with the Ballard Link automated line, and connect the Eastside line to the CCC usung the existing freeway ramps that connect the Eastside link line to 4th and 5th.

         The Ballard trains could then use the Eastside OMF.

      3. I always see this automated line argument hut nobody has said where the yard would go.

         Yes they have. Look at this blog post: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/01/10/focus-on-slu-and-ballard/. Now scroll down to “Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF)”. To quote the article:

         While a small OMF might fit in the Interbay area, if you want to use the existing OMF in SODO for major maintenance tasks, you should be able to build a single underground track connecting the western track of the Ballard line to the western track at the curve toward University Street station. That would allow transfer of trains during off-hours with the help of an operator.

         It is worth noting that various agencies do that sort of thing. In Toronto, the Sheppard Line (Line 4) runs independently of the other lines. It does not connect to its own OMF facility. But, during off hours, it can connect to the main line so that trains can get worked on. It is much easier and much cheaper to make this sort of thing. You only need one track, and it can branch from any of the other tracks.

         But it is quite possible that Interbay would also work. You really don’t need a huge train yard. You only need a place to work on the trains, or take them off line. You also need space for a few spares, but most of the trains would just sit on the existing tracks. The line is pretty short — it will take fifteen minutes end to end. Even with high frequency service (trains every three minutes) you don’t need that many trains. Assume a dozen trains in operation (six each way). Agencies typically have 20% extra trains. So three spare trains should be fine. The trains themselves would be smaller, but more efficient. For example they might end up being half the size of a Link train, but carry way more than half the people. Thus you really don’t need a lot of yard space.

      4. In my earlier Ballard post I suggested that there would be a small Interbay facility for daily maintenance (I think TT’s suggestion). Automated trains could be parked at night in the tunnel as they don’t need a driver. For heavier maintenance, it might be better to connect the Ballard line at the south end of the Westlake Center Station to the existing tunnel (single track) to reach the central OMF. Yes, currently the central OMF is pretty full, but once the I-90 bridge connection opens, the east OMF for example can relieve the central one.

      5. The best location would be the (so-to-be-former) national guard armory site, which the national guard is abandoning in the near future. ST/the city could then build housing on top of the OMF, like Hudson Yards or something.

      6. That’s an interesting idea Glenn. Just to be sure I’m understanding correctly, you’d build the CCC and (somehow) connect the tunneled automated line to it, probably along Westlake south of Denny, right? That connection would only be used intermittently for non-revenue runs, probably with a pan and shoe donkey like in the tunnel idea. That would be fine with me, and it would probably be cheaper than the service tunnel idea, assuming that the CCC were going to be built anyway.

         It does have the gaping sore of a surfacing connection right between SLU and Westlake. Such transitions between tunnel and surface running are notorious “nuisance attractants”. [Think the west portal of the Buena Vista tunnel at Carl and Cole, which has trespassers all the time. Idiots got to idiot.]

         Is that what you mean? Or were you planning to surface the automated Light Metro revenue tracks themselves and have all of the trains run to the south end of downtown Seattle on the CCC? I don’t think you can have a fully automated train in such a chaotic environment as First Avenue with all of its pedestrians and law-breaking cars. Operators would have to board southbounds and alight from northbounds at Denny Way or even South Lake Union station in order to get an operator cab booted up for transition from automated to driven mode. That would greatly increase operating costs for that downtown segment.

      7. I’d close the SLU line and continue the CCC line north into Belltown, and connect the two somewhere around the old Seattle PI building.

         I guess I’d figured the SLU streetcar was almost gone anyway, so the CCC might as well put service somewhere where there is a transit gap currently.

      8. “national guard armory site, which the national guard is abandoning in the near future”

         Where is the guard going to? Is it transit-accessible?

      9. “My own solution would be to build the CCC streetcar as full light rail, connect it with the Ballard Link automated line, and connect the Eastside line to the CCC using the existing freeway ramps that connect the Eastside link line to 4th and 5th.”

         Yes Glenn. It’s a reasonable thing to consider tying Ballard to East Link.

         There are some notable obstacles that exist to make it difficult as a surface operation though. The biggest is probably that Downtown Seattle blocks are quite short — often less than 250 feet. With 95 foot vehicles that’s really only enough room for a 2 car train.

         I think the issue is also more that Link to Ballard is more about getting Link to SLU and Seattle Center though. Those first three stations are projected to have more boardings than the end three stations in Smith Cove, Interbay and Ballard.

         Finally, the deficiency is more about having a reachable OMF for Ballard Link. Being a pretty short line means that an OMF would not need fto be very large. It just seems easier to build a small OMF along the corridor than to build miles of track to connect it.

   2. Apparently for the Long Beach-Azusa line down in Los Angeles (the longest distance light rail line in the US), they do an operator switch at Union Station stop, so it is possible to do the same with the 1 Line between Everett and Tacoma. Probably either IDS/Chinatown stop or Stadium Stop would be the swap locations. Stadium would need an indoor shelter and a restroom to accommodate the swap, but would be out of the way of the 2 Line.

      1. Given that the line is grade separated north of IDs/Chinatown, it should be relatively easy to just go driverless from there to Everett. Same for Tukwila and south, for that matter.

6. “It’s off topic [West Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, rapid streetcars, Aurora, Rainier, buses]”

   In a strict sense yes, but some of them are practically inseparable, because an argument for one is partly based on the totality of the network, and on a balance between projects. So there are two tracks, and it’s unavoidable having both in the comments, since we’re not going to have a companion article tomorrow for all the other things to go into. One context is the role of Ballard in the total transit network. The other context is feedback on the Ballard EIS question: we mustn’t lose sight of that or get our arguments so intertwined the Ballard recommendations can’t be extracted and pasted into feedback.

   The Ballard choices affect more than just those who live or work in the segment. It affects Everett/Lynnwood/Northgate riders, who may or may not have a 10-minute transfer walk with four escalators to Rainier/SeaTac/Tacoma, and may or may not experience overcrowding between UW and Westlake, and the Everett extension may be delayed longer if DSTT2/Ballard exhausts the debt capacity for several years longer than anticipated. Automation raises the possibility of 2-5 minute frequency on Ballard-Westlake, which would be a big Christmas gift to passengers and would maximize ridership, satisfaction, and people moving to those stations to have access to it — on a scale Pugetopolis has never experienced. That would generate demand for more automated service elsewhere. And there are doubtless other relationships between the Ballard segment and the corridors/communities around it and the rest of Pugetopolis transit.

7. Linear Motor is more like a specific electrified power option (in contrast to overhead and third rail) for heavy or light metro rail modes. It doesn’t make too much difference compared to conventional light rail train from transit agencies and passengers’ perspective. It does have some unique benefit like mentioned, but for climbing steep grade, I would argue that you can do the same thing in light rail with some modification in the power system. If that’s not enough, you can add a rack rail like funicular at steep section to conventional rail.
   It is just cheaper to keep the entire system running with same kind of fleet unless there is a specific capacity or operating speed you’d like to achieve.
   There is just very few companies that makes linear motor train and none of them are US-based. It is just unlikely for transit agency to specifically choose linear motor. It is more possible for ST to consider this if Bombardier bid with the same model Canada Line is using and it is the lowest bidder.

   Underground rail tunnel with overhead wire requires bigger tunnel cross-section, meaning more expensive construction cost. Probably for that reason, older subway systems (especially most of the US heavy rail systems) use third rail, but if you checked all those system, probably none of them are using 1500V DC like ST does. Third rail doesn’t work very well in high voltage. Most heavy rail system using third rail are using 600V DC or 750V DC. For the same reason, you barely see intercity rails equipped with third rail (Metro-North and LIRR both are using 750V DC). TBH 500V DC is currently

   If there is anything Ballard link can do better and assume Ballard Line really would be kept as separate line, I really think ST should consider high-floor light rail vehicles like those used by LA Metro. If the entire line is grade-separated, I don’t see the reason to build low platform and operate low-floor light rail cars. Low-Floor rail car is harder to maintain and it doesn’t provide the same capacity as high-floor light rail car in similar size.

   1. Sorry, I realized I had an incomplete sentence at the end of second paragraph and it doesn’t seem possible for me to edit my comment…

      I was trying to say “TBH I don’t know why ST chose 1500V DC electrification. It seems a little bit overkill for light rail.”

      1. Resistance losses in the wire depend on current. So, the higher the viltage, the less overall power needed, and the better the voltage is at the train.

         TriMet has pushed the voltage of the substations on their “750 volt” system to be closer to 900, because the insulators, static converters, and other components work fine at this voltage, and the savings was enough to warrant this.

         Considering TriMet’s experience, and with trains half the length of Link, (ie double the current), it doesn’t seem especially far fetched for Link to be 1500 volts.

         I’m not sure what the overall implications are, however. Railroad grade wire available in the USA comes standard as 2,000 volt or 600 volt. So, if you’re using 750 volts you already need 2,000 volt insulation everywhere anyway. The substations can apparently be adjusted (see TriMet effort). I don’t know about the static converter on Siemens cars. Wabtec’s converter for “1,500 volt” European suburban trains can run on anything from somewhere around 1,200 volts to around 3,300 volts, so I would think the Siemens “750 volt” units would be capable of a similar broad range. I’ve never seen the actual factory specifications though.

         And please understand, even “750 volt” systems can be a wide range. The tightly controlled Portland Streetcar overhead voltage can range from under 500 volts when several cars are drawing power far from a substation to some 875 during spikes. It’s something electric railways have always had to deal with, because variable distance and load means unpredictable voltage.

      2. Glenn-

         Thanks for the clarification here. I didn’t know this much regarding electrification.

         I drew my conclusion simply based on comparison of different heavy/light rail systems’ electrification standard and it looks like rail system with larger capacity or higher operating speed tend to choose higher voltage for electrification disregarding other factors that can make up for lower volt.

8. Fully-automated lines should be the standard here instead of appeasing the labor unions. At the very least, all of the upcoming extensions: West Seattle, Ballard, and Everett should be. The cost savings might make a nice downpayment on extending other lines, such as the Redmond segment north to at least Woodinville if not UW Bothell/Cascadia CC; adding a line between South Bellevue and Renton if not further; the other end of the 2 line to the South Everett Park & Ride; the West Seattle line to Burien if not Tukwila.

Comments are closed.