The Chinatown 5th Avenue Shallow Diagonal (labeled CID-2a) station has returned as a potential implementation. Most notably it appears to be the only CID station alternative remaining that is both constructible at a reasonable cost and has all three Link lines at one convenient place for transfers. The other 5th Avenue shallow alternatives had community objections due to construction impacts, 4th Avenue shallow alternative faced construction challenges next to BNSF tracks, and finally the currently Sound Transit Board ‘preferred’ CID N/S alternative forces one to transfer at Pioneer Square.
There was relatively little discussion on the 5th Avenue Shallow Diagonal alternative when all the 5th Avenue alternatives were sidelined by community concerns in 2022-2023. It’s been quite some time since the diagrams were released in 2022 and many of the diagrams were in a 100+ page pdf so below is a brief recap with more details from the WSBLE Appendix J Ballard drawings. Additionally how easy or hard to transfer between the two lines will be discussed as well.
Above is the detailed station diagram with the main escalators and elevators in the main station building at the south-east corner of 5th Ave S & S Jackson St.
The station platform would be ~80 feet depth underground (the ground elevation is 47 feet and the station platform elevation is -34 feet). The underground station would serve the 1 Line (from SeaTac to Ballard).
1 Line passengers from SeaTac transferring to the 2 Line or 3 Line (from Redmond or West Seattle to Lynnwood) would:
- (1) First head up the escalators from the station platform to the mezzanine.
- (2) Then they would head up another 2 flights of escalators
- (3) Finally walk the pedestrian under-crossing to reach the northbound 2 Line or 3 Line heading to Lynnwood.
It is a total of ~50 vertical feet from the 1 Line station platform to the 2 Line or 3 Line station platform. (This is the existing CID northbound station platform)
Those transferring to the southbound 2 Line or 3 Line heading to Redmond or West Seattle would need to additionally:
- (4) Head up another flight of escalators to the Chinatown Station Plaza
- (5) Walk across the plaza to the east
- (6) Head back down the escalators to reach to reach the southbound 2 Line heading to Redmond.
A direct pedestrian under-crossing to remove traveling up and down to reach the southbound 2 Line or 3 Line station platform is prohibitively hard to construct given the existing station piles.
Transfer Patterns
One moderate consolation for the imperfect transfer setup is that the most common transfers patterns will usually not encounter the more complicated setup. The northbound passengers from SeaTac to Lynnwood will head up the three escalators and not need to cross the plaza. The southbound passengers from Lynnwood to SeaTac will have to cross the plaza but the rest of the 5 sets of escalators will be heading down rather than up, which is generally easier.
Passengers from Redmond/West Seattle (northbound existing chinatown station) to Ballard would just need to head down 3 sets of escalators without crossing the station plaza.
Unfortunately, passengers heading from SeaTac to Redmond (southbound existing chinatown station platform) would have the hardest time as outlined above with the most vertical feet to climb. Those heading to West Seattle can transfer earlier and much easier at the SODO station with just 2 sets of escalators rather than 5 sets of escalators.
Comparison to CID 5th Ave Shallow (Regular)
The 5th Avenue Shallow (Regular) alternative has the northbound and southbound 1 Line stations stacked on top of each other instead of side by side. Generally the transfer time and complexity is about the same as the diagonal alternative.
The 5th Avenue Shallow alternative will demolish most of the 5th Ave/S Jackson St southeast block. Most of the block’s western half will be demolished. For the block’s eastern half the American Hotel Hostel will remain in place but the Bank of America and it’s parking lot will be demolished.
Originally 5th Avenue Shallow Diagonal alternative required the same and more property takings than the regular 5th Avenue Shallow alternative described above. The diagonal alternative had to also remove the American Hotel Hostel. However, with the further additional studies Sound Transit has found removing that building is no longer necessary.
More details in Appendix L Chapter 4 L4.1
The two alternatives other construction impacts are detailed more in Chapter 6 DEIS.
Road impacts:
- Regular: Full closure of 5th Avenue South during construction for 9 months
between South Weller Street and South Jackson Street would result in traffic diversion, including buses, into Pioneer Square and ChinatownInternational District. Additional partial closures on this street for 2.5 years. - Diagonal: The diagonal station configuration would avoid full closure of 5th Avenue South and would not affect the intersection of this road and South Jackson Street. It would avoid the trolley bus relocation and impacts to Seattle Streetcar operations during construction.
Construction time:
- Regular: construction in the station area for 5th avenue shallow alternative would take approximately 8 to 9 years
- Diagonal: construction in the station area for the diagonal station configuration would take approximately 5 to 6 years
Comparison to CID N/S alternative
Transfer Comparison for CID-North (Midtown James Street)
The new CID-North* station will shift the Midtown station south next to the existing Pioneer Square station. Generally the vertical climb is around the same (don’t have exact diagrams to calculate), but one will now need to walk across a ~350 feet underground passage way to reach the other station.
*now called Midtown James Street Station but has changed names twice already.
Walking to areas to CID-South (Dearborn Street)
The CID-South station or “Dearborn Street” alternative will not serve as a major transfer point anymore as it will only have Line 1 (from SeaTac to Ballard) but not Line 2 or Line 3. It’d still serve as a major station for those in Chinatown heading to/from Rainier Valley, SeaTac and beyond.
Above is a table comparing the 5th Ave Shallow Diagonal alternative to the 4th Ave Shallow and the CID N/S ones. The number represents minutes with the walk times to the closest 1 Line (SeaTac to Ballard) Station approximated based on an example walking route and based on average walk speed of 4ft/sec. Includes walk to either CID or Midtown stations
Thanks for the deep dive into the station vertical profiles! Most people just look at the 2D map and don’t think about depth until the station opens.
The impact of a very deep station is also a major construction impact. It’s a lot of earth to remove. That’s the part that some ID interests find outrageous.
Early after ST3, ST floated having a connecting underground walkway underneath the existing tracks that might have proceeded all the way to King Street Station. That since went away, presumably because the footings under the existing tracks appear to be quite deep.
It’s unfortunate
I really like the 5th avenue diagonal alternative. Maybe it isn’t quite as optimal placement-wise as 5th shallow or 4th avenue, but it’s decent, easy to construct, and allows a real midtown station to serve the financial district and western first hill. I think we should advocate for this alternative, because ST is determined to build a second downtown tunnel and this is the best option.
“ST is determined to build a second downtown tunnel and this is the best option.”
Except they cannot afford it! It’s not just sonething like $1B short. The entire WSBLE idea (West Seattle, DSTat2 and Ballard Link) is running about $15B short! That shortfall of money alone could build 5 more 99 tunnels!
DSTT2 is our Second Ave Subway and may take a century to finally open.
5th Avenue Diagonal is one of the two best alternatives currently in the EIS, the other being 4th Avenue Shallow(er). Either of these would be miles better than CID/N-Midtown and CID/S-Dearborn, for both transfers to/from the 2/3 Lines and for walking to CID destinations or bus routes on Jackson Street.
I agree that both 5th Ave Diagonal and 4th Ave Shallower are the best two alternatives from a rider experience standpoint. However, it feels like 4th Ave Shallower might be politically dead with the hefty price tag, construction impacts, and road closures.
I’m beginning to think that us urbanist and transit advocates need to throw our full support behind 5th Ave Diagonal because it is SO MUCH better than the Dearborn/James St alternative
“it feels like 4th Ave Shallower might be politically dead with the hefty price tag, construction impacts, and road closures.”
It’s not over till it’s over. We shouldn’t discard our options prematurely. That’s just tying our hands and missing potential opportunities. Maybe further study would show it’s more feasible than we thought, or compelling evidence ST is ignoring might appear, or a coalition to support it might reach critical mass. If we discard options before they’re certainly dead, we miss out on opportunities. Predictions about what other people will do have been wrong before.
“I’m beginning to think that us urbanist and transit advocates need to throw our full support behind 5th Ave Diagonal because it is SO MUCH better than the Dearborn/James St alternative”
We can’t unify on that alone. Several STB editors/authors have deep reservations about DSTT2 and its costs and whether it’s affordable, so we need to keep promoting single-tunnel + automated Ballard as the most sensible alternative. We can also support 5th Avenue Diagonal and 4th Avenue Shallow(er) as the least bad of ST’s alternatives. I said all that in my feedback. Other STB editors/authors want to stick with DSTT2 for the sake of the regional concensus that has been built up, fearing that if we lose that, we lose everything and won’t get any transit improvements. So STB can only do a two-pronged approach: single-tunnel or the two better station alternatives. We can join forces with other advocacy groups to promote compatible goals (e.g., 5th Avenue Diagonal), but we all need to be free to also promote additional goals/alternatives if they differ. STB can’t just drop things we feel strongly about. That would be a disservice to the public, it would mislead people what we think transit best-practices are, and we’d lose our unique voice and contributions to the debate.
Take over the BNSF tunnel and throw Bertha at it for a catch all tunnel to move the BNSF lines out of the way. Freight anymore is looking into hybrid/electric or hydrogen for updates to eliminate CO2 with the IRA offering 1-2 billion. Amtrak and intercity rail has some clout over freight and there is current legislation in the House giving them even more.
it’s not bnsf’s fault. honestly if there wasn’t the sr 99 tunnel we probably would have dug the tunnel there instead. if it was technically possible i’d say we should just have sound transit “buy” one of the sr 99 tunnels and use it as a light rail tunnel
It doesn’t have to be there fault if moving them is the best option.
American Hotel Hostel doesn’t claim responsibility either.
There’s only one tunnel, which is double-decked.
Yes! I’ve pondered this! There is no real need for track access between Smith Cove and SODO. The bigger cost and difficulty in DSTT2 is with the stations anyway.
It hasn’t been studied so I’m not sure of the condition of that old tunnel nor the ability to add stations in it. Plus the SLU and Seattle Center stations generated 60 percent of Ballard Link ridership north of Westlake and they would be skipped. But given the huge expense of the current preferred alternative it could be much cheaper, even if there’s a spur to SLU. And the ID transfer could easily be much less deep and much less disruptive to build.
Yeah, right. We can’t override the federal government giving BNSF almost sovereignty over its corridor. If freight trains switch to hybrid/electric or hydrogen fuel, that won’t in itself solve the track and right-of-way issue. Or do you want to replace freight rail with trucks? That would require a lot more energy, and I-5, 99, and Elliott Ave don’t have enough spare capacity. Amtrak’s only clout is its train runs: BNSF must accommodate them and charge Amtrak only the incremental cost of hosting those runs. There may be legislation in the House, but it will die in a few weeks when the Congressional term ends, and the Trump adminstration/Republican Congress is unlikely to reintroduce it. Hybrid/electric and hydrogen are incompatible with their “drilh, baby, drill” position.
I never said it would solve the track problem (but it could). The need to eliminate freight CO2 is being pushed in Europe, California, China and eventually will hit the rest of the US. This would be a good time to start studying for a complete overall and prepping for 2028. Also state has C&T funds their looking to spend, why not here? Didn’t Caltrains buy freight lines for their electric service? And if gone electric (like what LA Metro’s current diesel line is looking into) than will need new tunnels for catenary.
err–> overhaul
I mean I guess sound transit could try buying the tunnel?
Maybe someway cohabitate? BNSF is not all uncompromising (see below link). That’s why maybe Bertha could be the answer? I imagine current
tunnels wouldn’t be able to accomodate catenary.
At 18:19 mark shows where CAHSR is doing a realign of track for BNSF track. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXw60NRgQw
I was just reading where that tunnel is 120 years old. Yep, long overdue for
an upgrade.
I’m all for the state buying the BNSF right of way, adding a track or two for passenger priority service (Cascades, Coast Starlight, Sounder), and shifting some freight to the UP track if necessary. The state would have to initiate and fund that, and so far it has ignored our requests to.
Sound Transit doesn’t have nearly the money, it’s not in ST3, Sound Transit’s district covers only part of the area, and it’s unclear that a regional agency created by the state could enter into such an agreement with BNSF. So the state would have to do it on its own and ST’s behalf.
God only knows what shape the Great Northern Tunnel is in and what structural changes would be required to make it work for light rail. I dintvthink it’s been studied.
On the other hand, the approach could set the stage for leaving 1 Line and 3 Line in the DSTT, with 2 Line tying in south of Jackson Street. The 2 Line could operate with two branches or lines. Let’s call 2 Line from Ballard to Issaquah and 4 Line from SLU ( or extended to Capitol Hill or Westlake as an end station) to Downtown Redmond. Note that the SLU branch could happen as far north as Elliott Street. Then new Downtown Statikns could go at Madison and Belltown/ Pike Place/ Waterfront area before doubling back around Smith Cove to Seattle Center, SLU and end at either Capitol Hill or Westlake (possibly extended further in the future).
One remaining challenge would be a transfer station. But with BNSF trains not in the tunnel, it appears easy to just shift 4th Ave slightly westward (new viaduct) to run several blocks over the former BNSF tracks and put the 2/4 Line trains right next to Union Station at about the same elevation as the current Link tracks. Then the Union Station block would be able to handle all the Link trains. ST could then leave one of the many tracks open south of King Street for Sounder Trains too.
It borders on a fantastical concept but I’m convinced that it would be so much cheaper than the current plan and work better for transfers because it resolves vertical distance problems.
> Maybe someway cohabitate? BNSF is not all uncompromising (see below link).
It’s not enough space to share tracks. This isn’t an hourly regional rail but every the very least 10 (and more like 5~6) minute freq light rail service. It’d have to be separate tracks.
> I was just reading where that tunnel is 120 years old. Yep, long overdue for
an upgrade.
Upgrading the tunnel doesn’t expand it. If it’s converted for light rail use basically there can’t be freight operations. Or the freight trains would be limited to late night, there’s no way around it.
Hod = God (typo) [Ed: Fixed. Although now the Beach Boys tune is running through my head, slightly altered “Hod only knows what I’d be without you…”]
Looking at the BNSF tunnel alignment more closely, it actually is right next to Symphony Station. That could be the transfer station rather than Westlake. Then the branch from Smith Cove could just run east with stations at Seattle Center and SLU, continue later to Capitol Hill and further to become the elusive Metro 8 subway.
So yeah just build BNSF a new deep bored tunnel between SODO and Smith Cove — and renovate and upgrade the Great Western tunnel with a station punched into it from above near Symphony Station. A Belltown stop at Lenora would be great to add.
Finally, this new 2/4 Line tunnel could even possibly be automated. That may require cut and cover between Wall and Briad Streets — but hey since it’s a wild fantasy, why not?
@WL Dude, that’s why I suggested something of the magnitude of Bertha
which had a 57′ diameter. Need 15-18′ height for LR with catenary at one level and another level for all else. Or use some other form of tunnelling,
don’t need to go far before two systems could split off. Main thing is
getting BNSFs ROW.
@BNSF
If you dig a tunnel for bnsf what exactly is the point. You’ll be building a new tunnel might as well just put light rail in it.
And if you’re talking about digging in the same spot it doesn’t make sense. One can’t just tbm right where the existing tunnel is without shutting it down. I don’t really know what you’re advocating for that has any advantage over digging a new tunnel for light rail
@WL One of the main reasons if not the main one ST gave for not doing a 4th ave shallow was because of interference with BNSF. Accommodate BNSF so both can exist.
They can’t both exist in the same tunnel it’s impossible. We can’t run frequent light rail service and also have it be a freight tunnel at the same tunnel. This is not done anywhere in the world.
In some places there might be hourly or even at most like half hourly passenger train service with some freight trains — 5 to 8 minute frequent light rail trains is impossible.
The only accommodation would just be building a new tunnel and then we might as well make it a light rail tunnel.
@WL I’m not saying they are….but I give up.
“If you dig a tunnel for bnsf what exactly is the point. You’ll be building a new tunnel might as well just put light rail in it.”
It’s not the tunnel making DSTT2 expensive; it’s the deep stations. Not only the ID Station but also the others too.
Building a deep bored tunnel for BNSF means no deep stations. No messy ID problems. No deep holes at ID, Midtown or Pioneer Square. It doesn’t have to parallel the current tunnel either. The portals in Smith Cove and SODO would be at a low elevation so the path under the downtown’s hill is not required to be adjacent.
> Building a deep bored tunnel for BNSF means no deep stations. No messy ID problems. No deep holes at ID, Midtown or Pioneer Square.
The CID North aka Pioneer Square 2 station is same elevation as the BNSF tunnel. The station there would not be any shallower. It’s actually why above the pedestrian tunnel has to climb an extra staircase and come back down — it’s to go over the BNSF tunnel.
The depth of that tunnel is due to much higher hill on 4th ave than 3rd ave. The Midtown station is very deep because the ground elevation is too high at that point on 5th ave / 6th ave.
> The portals in Smith Cove and SODO
If we wanted to skip slu and seattle center station, the new transit tunnel could follow parallel along the bnsf tunnel as well.
How are you going to put a “deep-bore tunnel” which crosses the existing deep bore tunnel, which is “deep-bore” because it has to underrun the BNSF tunnel? BNSF would never go for a tunnel that under-runs the deep bore; the grades would be waaaayyyy too steep for freight. Basically it would have to be at the same absolute elevation above MSL as the existing tunnel, but next to it.
I don’t know if the DBT is deep enough to pass under another tunnel right next to the BNSF bore, because it starts to rise immediately after it clears it. One thing is certain, with the Second Avenue sewer trunk there isn’t much room for any more big holes west of Third Avenue.
Someone please call Canadian National and Canadian Pacific and tell them their tunnels connecting Detroit to Windsor under the Detroit River, through which they have been operating dozens of freight trains per day since 1910, is physically impossible.
Or what the Tube does with four-rail systems on many of its lines
@Tom
“One thing is certain, with the Second Avenue sewer trunk there isn’t much room for any more big holes west of Third Avenue.”
Don’t need to go far just need a configuration which would allow for 4-track egress/ingress. Maybe shift BNSF track 30-40 ft west as to not interfere with ST track.
> through which they have been operating dozens of freight trains per day since 1910, is physically impossible.
Can anyone provide an example of a light/heavy rail running every 5 or at least 10 minutes interlined with freight trains throughout the day? You won’t find an example because 1) it’s not possible and 2) you’d end up with a train crash. And no not just like a couple freight trains at night time.
> Don’t need to go far just need a configuration which would allow for 4-track egress/ingress.
The tunnel is only large enough for 2 tracks. Again I have no idea how you’re magically making it wider
WL:
“Can anyone provide an example of a light/heavy rail running every 5 or at least 10 minutes interlined with freight trains throughout the day? ”
That’s not what is being proposed here. What is being proposed is to deep tunnel the BNSF freight line, so that the existing tunnel location could be adopted for light rail.
I can’t think of any such deep tunnels specifically to get freight out of city congestion, but such deep freight tunnels certainly exist to get freight traffic under water. The CN and CPKC tunnels connecting Michigan to Ontario under rivers are certainly examples of the possibility.
@WL Tunnels are enlarged all over the world, not sure why it would be
a problem here?
Tunnels enlarged while trains continue running
https://www.concreteconnect.co.uk/news/tunnels-enlarged-while-trains-continue-running
Enlarging the tunnels of the City and South London Railway
https://www.eurogunzel.com/2022/01/enlarging-the-tunnels-of-the-city-and-south-london-railway/
Turning old into new: tunnel enlargement during operation
https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/newsroom/pressreleasedetail/turning-old-into-new-tunnel-enlargement-during-operation/
Can you please read your sources.
If you read them you’d notice it says “enlarged by a good 2m, thus achieving dimensions corresponding to current new tunnels.” or “For the two double-track tunnels of the Lahn Valley Railway, the radius of the tunnel cross section will be enlarged by a good two meters, thus achieving dimensions corresponding to current new tunnels.”
These are small enlargements just to accommodate larger trains or for electrification etc… If you want to dig enough space for an entire new track and train line then it’s practically easier just to dig another tunnel separately.
> That’s not what is being proposed here. What is being proposed is to deep tunnel the BNSF freight line, so that the existing tunnel location could be adopted for light rail.
There is no practical advantage to doing so. The new light rail tunnel is the same elevation/depth as the BNSF tunnel already. If you guys prefer the BNSF alignment we could have the new tunnel follow it’s path to smith cove as well, but there’s no reason to switch tunnels.
WL, yes, but they’re gonna have to do some reconfiguration with BNSF in
order to allow for a 4th ave shallow. I never said exactly what but I did say
they had 4 years to study it. If you want an exact plan you’ll need to
do some measurements and find out what would need to be done on BNSF behalf so that they are not an impediment. This is all I’m saying, they need to look into it. Suggestions of widening, stacking, moving are just suggestions that could be studied and custom engineered. A definite plan is impossible if you don’t have the measurements (grade requirements, clearances, tunnel conditions and etc), but if you’re expecting an exact plan you’re not going to find it in a blog. You should certainly understand this much, but yet this doesn’t seem to register with you.
@BNSFMaybeOK
They’ve already studied it, the 4th avenue site is at-grade it’s possible to build we can discuss that separately. But reusing the tunnel just doesn’t make any sense.
> Suggestions of widening, stacking, moving are just suggestions that could be studied and custom engineered. A definite plan is impossible if you don’t have the measurements (grade requirements, clearances, tunnel conditions and etc),
If the idea doesn’t make sense on the napkin, it’s not going to make more sense with more engineering.
Widening is just another way of saying inefficiently digging a tunnel while an existing rail line runs. It makes sense for small widenings not digging an entire tunnel width for a new tunnel. At that point we’d just dig a separate tunnel with a TBM.
There’s an very high cost with digging the new stations, but the BNSF tunnel is not any shallower.
I understand trying to reuse existing infrastructure, but there really is no magical way to use the freight tunnel here.
A napkin from a blog, alrighty then.
WS, and did I ever say reuse the BNSF tunnel? No. I said reconfig the entry
so that it isn’t an impediment to a shallow 4th tunnel. You keep trying
to put words in my mouth. And
> WS, and did I ever say reuse the BNSF tunnel?
Uhh you literally talk about widening the tunnel and reuse BNSF row above?
But only to where it posses a conflict, ie, around the immediate point of entry which is a very tiny fraction of it’s entirety. I don’t know the dimensions of
the tunnel and what needs to be moved by BNSF so that it doesn’t interfere but I do know it only requires changes at the point of entry. If it requires
BNSF and ST sharing an entry so be it but it doesn’t have to consume the
entire tunnel.
This is also why I said it doesn’t necessarily need to be a boring tunnel, there
are other tunneling techniques that could suit the situation just fine.
But again, this needs to be studied to find the required depths, widths, lengths and etc.
> But only to where it posses a conflict, ie, around the immediate point of entry which is a very tiny fraction of it’s entirety.
Sigh…
Okay look there is no “tunnel” yet at the 4th avenue station location. https://maps.app.goo.gl/MmWTRTjMUCnWpH7u5 What is next to the BNSF tracks is the 4th avenue elevated road. The BNSF tracks enter the tunnel portal north of the 4th avenue shallow station site.
I’m not sure why you’ve been talking widening the tunnel this entire time.
> But again, this needs to be studied to find the required depths, widths, lengths and etc.
I suggest you first read the existing exhaustive studies that have already been done.
I’m just saying do what it takes so that ST doesn’t interfere with BNSF.
If moving BNSF tracks and hence the entry of the tunnel is required so be it.
But I wouldn’t let BNSF be the deciding factor for ST to advance a
4th Ave shallow tunnel option. Sure there are other issues such as 4th Avenue viaduct but that thing needs rebuilt anyway. Again, don’t let
BNSF be the deciding factor.
technically if we shut down sounder south for like 10 years, I guess bnsf freight could use the those tracks to the west. Though obviously people from kent/tacoma/ etc… would not be too pleased
Bus them over the gap or to the nearest Link station.
“ is the same elevation/depth as the BNSF tunnel already.”
The one under 4th Avenue that would have been the same elevation got rejected due to the need to rebuild 4th Ave.
If they put it on 5th, then they have to go under the existing tunnel to get to SLU.
Therefore, DSTT2 can’t be at the same elevation as the existing tunnel. Even “4th Ave Shallow” was pretty deep to get around the existing BNSF tunnel.
Glenn, I have found an article which shows the horizontal profile of the DBT and I am wrong about it being at its deepest depth when it underruns BNSF. It’s actually deeper when it underruns the Second Avenue sewer tunnel a bit to the south. So it might be possible to bore a pair of rail freight tunnels just west of the existing one, if there’s enough room between the building foundations along Second Avenue where it would need to cross the DBT and sewer tunnel.
But I stand behind my statement that underrunning the DBT would require grades in excess of what freight rail can successfully transit. The comparison between the Detroit River tunnels and getting down to one hundred and fifty feet below MSL (94 for the deepest depth of the crown plus the 57 for the diameter of the DBT tunnel itself plus ten feet for support below) from about twenty above is quite misleading. I can’t imagine that the tunnels under the river are more than ninety feet below the mean level of the river.
> If they put it on 5th, then they have to go under the existing tunnel to get to SLU
Please check the diagrams yourself, the cid north tunnel is around the same elevation as the BNSF tunnel. the new tunnel is to the east of the bnsf tunnel, it doesn’t cross the BNSF. The new tunnel does cross the existing transit tunnel once at westlake and a second time near CID if 4th avenue option but not if it isn’t.
Anyways I’ll probably write up some article on tunnel depths/elevations. People keep getting the depths and elevations confused of the stations and tunnels.
Glenn, I found an article on the original Sarnia tunnel. It states that the crown of the tunnel is forty feet below the surface of the river. Now the new one, which was bored by a TBM is probably a bit deeper, but it’s NOTHING like the elevation change necessary to underrun the DBT.
And the only rail tunnel actually in Detroit is the CP’s, which is from about the same time as the original CN tunnel in Sarnia.
The “freight tunnel” would also have Amtrak Cascades, Sounder, and the Empire Builder. A deeper tunnel would have to be compatible with King Street Station unless we’re going to move the station.
@Glenn “The one under 4th Avenue that would have been the same elevation got rejected due to the need to rebuild 4th Ave.”
That’s not necessarily true. This latest analysis came particularly
hard on the BNSF component.
“Agency staff and expert consultants portrayed any path forward on 4th Avenue as incredibly challenging and costly. They pointed to conflicts with BNSF Railroad as a huge risk factor and ONE THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED DUE TO FEDERAL LAW HEAVILY STACKED TO FAVOR RAILROADS” And I didn’t get the impression that they continued looking into some elements of the 4th option because of this aspect.
And the first thing listed in the newer “4th Avenue Shallow alternative
refinement process” was focused on BNSF. I think it was just shoddy
consultant work.
Oops, probably referring to one of the originals that were before the shallow 4th.
Tom:
“and getting down to one hundred and fifty feet below MSL (94 for the deepest depth of the crown plus the 57 for the diameter of the DBT tunnel itself plus ten feet for support below)”
You wouldn’t want to build this thing as a single 57 foot diameter tunnel. Anywhere else would do it as more modest diameter two parallel tunnels.
Tunnels in the 5 mile range are not unusual, and here in the northwest there’s one each of 8 and 9 mile tunnels.
You only need 3 miles of 1% grade to drop 160 feet. 1% is well within mainline railroad freight train range.
As a freight only tunnel, this tunnel doesn’t necessarily have to go directly under downtown Seattle. Somewhat further east could avoid some of the major obstacles to the DSTT2, such as the sewer main, highway 99 tunnel, etc. It might not have to be as deep.
“The “freight tunnel” would also have Amtrak Cascades, Sounder, and the Empire Builder.”
Not necessarily.
There is space for a third track in all locations, except the tunnel itself. You’d need to relocate some of the parking that’s taken over the 3rd track space, but that should be possible to move elsewhere. To me, it looks like GN was planning for the possibility of eventually adding a parallel tunnel for additional capacity. There’s probably obstacles there now, but you’d need an underground survey to see.
““The “freight tunnel” would also have Amtrak Cascades, Sounder, and the Empire Builder.”
“Not necessarily.”
Then where would they go?
WL:
“Please check the diagrams yourself, the cid north tunnel is around the same elevation as the BNSF tunnel. the new tunnel is to the east of the bnsf tunnel, it doesn’t cross the BNSF. The new tunnel does cross the existing transit tunnel once at westlake and a second time near CID if 4th avenue option but not if it isn’t.”
That’s where the new tunnel gets quite deep.
The “Notes from a Vancouverite” already has quite a number of diagrams of station depth.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2022/03/25/notes-from-a-vancouverite-revisited/
However, if you make the BNSF tunnel the DSTT2, it does more to add transit to places that need it, and does so without extremely deep stations. You basically build the CCC, but underground. It should also be possible to build a transfer at Westlake that doesn’t involve the “Escalatorpalooza” plan shown in station diagram 9 in the above linked post.
> The “Notes from a Vancouverite” already has quite a number of diagrams of station depth.
Depth is not the same thing as elevation. Again please check the diagrams out yourself.
Tunnel Boring Machines are single-use. Most of the parts are worn out at the end of the job. Bertha’s components have long been scrapped or repurposed for other tunnel-boring machines.
OK, get another, gee wiz. We’re only talking how many billions for ST3?
Just extend south Sounder to Ballard. Add a midtown amd Queen Street Station. triple track and add some upgrades in south King. Add a shitload more trains. Job done, and serving vastly more humans, for a fraction of the 20 billion.
And this points out the pure folly of Sound Transit! How can you tax people for a light rail system that’s to be built 40 years in the future? Maybe we want to change it up 20 years in?
Seattle is building a goofy light rail system with really long routes…. a system that’s proving to be terrible in other American cities.
Any option on 5th would harm a marginalized community that has lost so much already. It’s time for wealthy elites and transit planners to find another way that does cause such severe losses to people of color.
What other way would keep transfer walks within 3 minutes and allow people to walk to CID destinations and Jackson Street buses? There’s 4th Avenue Shallow(er) but ST is citing many construction risks. If ST refuses to accept 4th Avenue Shallow, we need an alternative that’s workable for passengers. Passengers include people who shop at CID businesses and work in them and sometimes own them, or are CID residents.
Would you support the single-tunnel alternative? (Putting three lines into DSTT1.) That would cancel DSTT2 and eliminate all its construction impacts, AND it would be best for passengers (minimal transfer overhead, within walking distance of CID destinations).
Hell yes.
SF Muni runs six very frequent lines through one downtown tunnel. Once in a while everything melts down and people grumble, but I’ll take a once in a while grumble over the massive boondoggle and perpetual inconvenience of having two separate tunnels.
@Tom Terrific: Michigan voted GOP in the presidential election solely because of Israel/Gaza. It has a large Middle Eastern population, and that swing bloc wanted to punish Biden/Harris for supporting Israel and its brutal occupation of Gaza civilians by voting for the opposition or not voting. Trump’s policies or persona were irrelevant other than his being the opposing candidate. Even if someone as wholesome and beloved as Mr. Rogers had replaced Biden in the race, they still would’ve voted GOP or abstained because of his association with Biden’s Israel support.
Michael, I think you clicked the wrong “Reply” button. Yes, I know that Muslims in Michigan voted in reaction to Gaza. I was just calling tacomee out on his fatuous claim that Michigan would give Boeing big tax breaks because it is GOP run, which is patently false.
Those of us that like the three line + separate automated Ballard line like to talk about its lower cost and less disruption Downtown. But the benefits don’t end there:
1. Lower cost means that it can open sooner. There is a bonding issue — plus even with an administration favorable to transit, the performance measures from the project make Federal funding dubious.
2. West Seattle link can run through Downtown (no stub) on opening day. It would provide immediate travel time benefit as opposed to waiting well past 2040 to finally get Downtown on one train.
3. Transferring to SeaTac is much easier than what’s being preferred by ST. Rather than walk an extra 5 minutes up and down multiple escalators they just have to step off the train and wait for a SeaTac train! Even the reverse transfer from the Eastside at ID-C Station is faster and could be even easier if ST would only add more escalators.
The big losers are mainly those property owners and developers looking for windfalls if the current project happens.
As far as support from Seattle Subway or Publicola or the Urbanist goes, I think they get so enamored by adding lines on a diagram or thinking all transit construction is good that they can’t be strategically objective. It takes maturity to let go of a dream and support a less costly and complicated one that is not only cheaper but could start running much sooner.
Wealthy elites don’t ride transit. They occupy single occupancy vehicles, congest traffic and generate pollution. More transit ridership is what will help all people including people of color. This call is simply for NIMBYism.
Really,
There is a higher percentage of households that own cars in Seattle now (around 80%) than back in the 1980s. The average household in Seattle Metro drives over 30k miles a year. I guess we’re all “wealthy elites”?
I’d guess that CID has some of the highest car free households in the City. The reason for this is simple….. it’s easy to live in a small neighborhood if it has pretty much everything you need in a few blocks. So maybe ripping the crap out of one of the few walkable, livable neighborhoods of Asian grandmas for a subway isn’t that great of an idea?
In fact, looking around the world, and really in Canada and USA, it’s impossible to build a working subway now. Some places, like Portland and NYC, have legacy rail systems that are still useful. But look at new light rail projects in Denver, the Bay Area, L.A….. and you see these bloated, overpriced projects that have stations that are deep, deep underground and run rail lines next to freeways for miles…. with suburban stops next to huge parking lots. Years and years worth of tax revenue for projects a decade late at over 3X the price?
Seattle is built out. The City is what is it is. There’s no realistic way to add another subway line because of the cost of it and political reality. There’s no way to add “affordable housing” either. Everything… labor, materials, land… it’s not affordable in Seattle.
To give some sort of idea of how fucked up Sound Transit is…. the money for that second tunnel and rail lines is enough money to put in sewers and roads for a city the size of Spokane (that’s $50k for 125,000 houses…. and the numbers have even bigger if you add apartments into the mix)
“Seattle is built out”
No it isn’t, but you keep telling yourself that.
“There is a higher percentage of households that own cars in Seattle now (around 80%) than back in the 1980s.”
That may be, but transit ridership is higher than the 80s. Nowadays if you don’t drive or you want a job you don’t have to drive to, people think you’re one of those urbanists or like their relative. In the 80s they thought you were from another planet. So who were all those people in the 80s who didn’t have cars, and why did I never meet them?
“I’d guess that CID has some of the highest car free households in the City. The reason for this is simple….. it’s easy to live in a small neighborhood if it has pretty much everything you need in a few blocks.”
The CID has a significant number of very-low-income people.
“The average household in Seattle Metro drives over 30k miles a year. I guess we’re all “wealthy elites”?”
That shows the problem of relying on averages: a few outliers skew it.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-rate-of-car-ownership-saw-the-biggest-drop-among-big-u-s-cities-by-far/
Also I do find it a bit funny you’ve brought up one of the few statistics that’s been declining
Mike Orr,
If car ownership is higher now than in the 1980s, how could transit use also be lower? (by percentages?) Riding the bus was pretty popular back in the 1980s. Seattle wasn’t always the rich, well-to-do city it is now. Personal wealth has put many more cars on the road. The City has had a huge influx of residents who have no plans to ever use transit because they’re rich. That’s one of the biggest differences between the USA and Northern Europeans… Germans love their cars, but will use transit. It’s a tough hump to get over.
Zack B.
Seattle is full… you’ll see that in a couple years. Here’s why.
Trump isn’t the fool many Liberals make him out to be. The GOP in Utah have plans to open up thousands of acres of Federal and State land for housing development… same with Montana, Texas, and other Red States. This is how MAGA plans to stay in power longer term– home ownership. Home ownership is the American Dream after all.
So what do these Red State housing projects mean to Seattle? First all the Federal money promised to big cities for transportation projects is completely gone. Trump might defund Sound Transit and the like his first week in office. Doesn’t matter what was promised before, ST is Federally defunded immediately. Second, Seattle is likely to lose good paying jobs. Aerospace companies (Boeing and it’s support companies) might pack up and move to Michigan because the GOP gives them free land and tax breaks AND their employees get a shot a home ownership. Meanwhile the Urbanist and Publicola are cooking up ways to tax big business here in Puget Sound. Somethings got to give, right?
I’m not a fan of Trump or the GOP in general, but I support more housing. Owner occupied, real housing. Car in the driveway and a chicken in every pot type of housing. I’d guess the GOP plans end up being more of the same environmental disaster our suburbs are now and I wish there would be a transit, energy and water use plan baked into this new development. But that’s not the way the GOP does things. And there’s nobody from the Left that even believes in new development to input smart ideas!
No matter what Dan Savage and his “Blue Archipelago” crowd believes, there’s no future West Coast cities trying a cram more people into smaller and smaller spaces that cost more and more money. Apodments are not a long term solution. Billion dollar subways are not a solution. Seattle doesn’t have a sustainable path forward. Seattle = San Francisco = NYC. That’s the current Seattle growth pattern.
WL,
Well, yeah, the percentage of car ownership is declining (a little). But it’s about the same as the early 1980s now. Seattle also added a little under 300,000 residents in the last 40 years. That’s what? a little under 250,000 more cars on the road? Same amount of roads pretty much, but a lot more traffic and pollution.
So Seattle added a lot more people but the percentage of transit riders didn’t change much at all?
In fact, looking around the world, and really in Canada and USA, it’s impossible to build a working subway now.
Wait, what? Vancouver has built a very good system — arguably the best for a city its size in Anglo North America. They are in the process of passing Boston even though most of Boston’s system was built a really long time ago. In Europe and Asia they continue to build very good subway systems. It is mainly in America that we struggle and the main reason is that we simply design them poorly.
In twenty years someone is going to compare Vancouver and Seattle just like people compared the Washington Metro with BART. They will note how much more successful SkyTrain is. They will note how well it is integrated with the buses, and how high overall transit ridership is. They will compare the choices each agency made, and point out how many really poor decisions Seattle made. They will inevitably ask: Why?
The simple answer is that ST started with an arbitrary goal (“the spine”) and then worked towards it. In contrast SkyTrain was always designed to provide the most benefit for the least amount of money. This inevitably led to the same basic design that they have in Europe, but with a very important aspect: bus integration was essential. Of course they have lots of buses (and trams) in Europe, but most European cities don’t sprawl the way they do in North America. Because of the sprawl, buses are just a lot more important here. They have to do a lot more of the heavy lifting. The system in Vancouver clearly recognizes that, while in Seattle we are largely ignoring it. Worse yet, we treat buses as second-class. This become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We spend way too much on the trains and way to little on the buses. People think the buses are useless and they only way to get anywhere is with light rail. So we spend billions on giant park and ride lots because how else are you supposed to get to the train? But it is worse than that. Light rail is being sent to places where buses make way more sense (Everett, Tacoma, Issaquah, West Seattle) and rail isn’t being built where it would the most good (UW to Ballard). This basic problem — failing to recognize when buses or trains is the best choice — is behind most of our failures.
But not all of them. This particular choice has nothing to with the buses. It is just poor planning. Look at the second tunnel. Does it remind you of any project, anywhere in the world? No? There is a reason for that. No one does that. No one builds an extremely expensive downtown tunnel right next to an existing tunnel. They maximize coverage with the new tunnel — the two tunnels serve very different parts of downtown. Look at how they build relief lines in Canada: They wait until it is actually a big problem and then they build a line that adds value. Look at how they are building the second downtown tunnel line: There is no problem and it won’t add value.
While the two problems are different, they have some basic similarities: We are building things we don’t need, and as a result we won’t build the things we need.
There you go, again: your biggest, bestest lie yet. Last time I looked, Michigan is completely run by Democrats. Yes, it voted for Trump in the recent presidential election, but the Gov is Blue, the Lieutenant Gov is Blue; the AG is Blue, the SecState is Blue, the Michigan Supreme Court is VERY Blue, and the Michigan Senate is Blue. The Reds took control of the Michigan House, but they’ll lose it again in two years when the Stupid Caucus fails to show up to a race without its Savior at the Top of the Ticket. Midterms used to favor Republicans, because they were the informed voters. No longer.
And Michigan is emphatically NOT a “Right to Work” state. Unions matter there, and therefore, Boeing is not going to decamp to Michigan.
You need to study more before you smear your prejudices against your betters across the Blog.
“If car ownership is higher now than in the 1980s, how could transit use also be lower?”
Transit ridership is higher, not lower. It’s partly because of changing public attitudes, and partly because of all the RapidRide lines and Link lines and frequency boosts we’ve built since then. I was there in the 80s. People thought transit was for poor people and downtown commuters, and if anyone else rode it, they were from another planet. People would drive even if a bus route went practically door to door, because normal people don’t take public transit. That attitude still exists but it’s less now. People are also more aware of climate change and the other environmental impacts of driving.
“Germans love their cars, but will use transit.”
Americans do too when we have German levels of transit. The problem is the transit they’d like to use or would be willing to use, doesn’t exist or is unfusable for any reasonable person’s trips. Wherever cities increase bus runs or make sensible capital improvements, ridership increases. When they decrease bus service in a recession or due to austerity ideology, ridership decreases.
I just contemplated a trip yesterday, going from Capitol Hill to my relative’s pharmacy near Ikea in Renton, then to Lake Hills to their adult family home to deliver their ointment faster than I could send a check and the pharmacy could courier it. It would take three hours one way. To get from the pharmacy to the home I’d have to:
Take the half-hourly 908 to Southcenter, the F to Renton, the half-hourly 560 to Bellevue TC, Link to Redmond Tech, the 245 to 156th & Main, and walk fifteen minutes.
No reasonable American or European would do this, so they don’t. But if the two infrequent bottlenecks were fixed and the path were more direct, more people would. And if the pharmacy weren’t located in the middle of nowhere in an isolated office park. Why is southwest Renton so low density anyway?
“The GOP in Utah have plans to open up thousands of acres of Federal and State land for housing development… same with Montana, Texas, and other Red States. This is how MAGA plans to stay in power longer term– home ownership. Home ownership is the American Dream after all.”
So they’ve realized the problem is a national housing shortage. It started in the Bay Area in the 1990s. In the 2000s it spread to Seattle and other coastal metros. In the 2010s it got more acute there. Around 2020 it spread to the rest of the country.
“So what do these Red State housing projects mean to Seattle? First all the Federal money promised to big cities for transportation projects is completely gone.”
What does funding sprawl low-density housing have to do with big city transit projects? It’s not the deficit: Congress could wipe away the deficit by repealing the Republican tax cuts and raising the ceiling Social Security taxes are collected on. If Congress switches to funding inefficient sprawl housing in red states, it will be for ideological reasons. Congress could just as easily zero out the transit capital budget and not spend the money on housing.
Building more low-density neighborhoods would just dig us deeper into the fiscal hole we have, because all those neighborhoods have to be heavily subsidized to get fuel and utilities to them. And they use more energy to drive to the store or air condition their large houses, so that has to be subsidized.
“Trump might defund Sound Transit and the like his first week in office.”
Trump doesn’t know Sound Transit exists and doesn’t care much about transit. He’ll probably sign dozens of executive orders on may topics that contradict Congressional appropriations or laws, and all of those will get tied up in lawsuits for months or years before they go through or get overturned. His first priority, we are told, is immigration, the southern border, and tariffs on China. Transportation is way down on the list of things to attack.
“Aerospace companies (Boeing and it’s support companies) might pack up and move to [a less-regulated state] because the GOP gives them free land and tax breaks”
Amazon already did this; it shifted its expansion to Bellevue. At some point cities and states need to stop giving well-connected companies and stadium owners so many giveaways that the rest of the population has to subsidize.
“AND their employees get a shot a home ownership.”
I can’t see Boeing basing a plant decision on that.
“Meanwhile the Urbanist and Publicola are cooking up ways to tax big business here in Puget Sound.”
The Urbanist and Publicola are trying to solve real public problems in a sensible way. Big businesses are getting tons of unreasonable tax breaks since the laws were changed in the 1970s, so it’s not like they can’t pay it out of that and still have oodles of money left over.
I think you’ll find over the US that car ownership has grown faster than driving. There are more cars than people. In the 80s two-car households had become the norm, but in the 90s and 00s every teenager had a car too, and some people had a second larger car or kept an old clunker when they bought a new one. That doesn’t mean they drive all those as much as they previously drove their one car.
Tom Terrific,
Let’s take a closer look at our friends at “The Urbanist” and “Publicola” first. I honestly think both have plenty of good ideas. The problem is every one of those good ideas depends on higher taxes, or money flowing in from the State or Federal level. The whole “tax the rich” thing has never worked on the local level. Seattle (and Sound Transit) have a certain amount of revenue, so anything the Urbanist comes up that depends on more money? That can’t happen.
Seattle Public Schools is a perfect example of Lefties not living in reality. The school system is dead broke, but it’s politically impossible to close schools. So now the SPS leadership does nothing and begs the State for more money. The State isn’t going to bail out the school system, but school leadership can blame the State for the shortfall. The kids are fucked, but hey, this is a political problem! Let’s have a protest! Those schools are getting closed in the end anyway.
Sound Transit absolutely doesn’t have the money for a second tunnel, but the political theater goes on. The Urbanist should have some “come to Jesus moment” about the reality of our transit budget and come up with some realistic compromise. That’s journalism. We don’t need any more Lefty Cheer leaders dancing on the sidelines.
I’m calling you all out at the Urbanist. Most of you already know the money for second tunnel isn’t there. What’s your backup plan with a somewhat realistic budget? Here’s your chance.
> The whole “tax the rich” thing has never worked on the local level.
The JumpStart Tax, which explicitly targets highly paid workers (aka “the rich”) single-handedly solved Seattle’s budget deficit this year.
Nathan Dickey,
Yeah, the JumpStart tax ended up bailing the City budget out this year. I know Publicola was mad about rolling the JumpStart into the general fund, but I don’t remember The Urbanist response. I actually think the JumpStart tax isn’t all that heavy handed… I mean none of Seattle’s big employers tried to dodge paying it.
The important thing to remember is JumpStart had all these “earmarks” the last Council put on it and those meant nothing to the new Council and fiscal reality they faced. There’s no pile of new money for transit, housing or anything else. Seattle is going to roll on the same way it has for last 20 years.
For all talk of Washington State being progressive, the tax system is among the worst for lower income workers in the entire US. A graduated State income tax would be a big step forward.
Are you on staff now at The Urbanist? Or are you going to rail against “Transit elitists” there?
We are all terrified! [/snark]
Tom Terrific,
Do you believe Sound Transit has the funds to build a second downtown tunnel in the next 20 years?
Here’s the problem with the Stranger, the Urbanist, Publicola, Seattle Subway and the Transit Riders Union. They’re all college educated people who never bothered to learn 7th grade math. Publicola has gone off over and over about the big bad mayor and city council spending JumpStart taxes to shore up deficits in the general budget. Sure, I think we’d all like to see JumpStart pay for more low income housing, but what’s Harrell supposed to do here? Lay off city workers.
If Publicola and The Urbanist wants to put out an alternative budget that restores the JumpStart earmarks, I’d love to see it. I wouldn’t even criticize it, because that’s hard work towards the right direction.
So if you want to play with the Lefty kids over in their internet sandbox, go right ahead. But in the real world we all live in, it’s all bullshit.
“They’re all college educated people who never bothered to learn 7th grade math.”
I wouldn’t throw stones from glass houses when you don’t understand how math works either despite your insistence that you do despite multiple people poking holes in your arguments multiple times at this point on how housing and tax policy works.
“Do you believe Sound Transit has the funds to build a second downtown tunnel in the next 20 years?”
Sound Transit says it hasn’t even finished costing out Ballard/DSTT2 or exploring all cost-saving strategies. So there’s no reason to jump on it until after that, or assume future things are certain when they’re intrinsically uncertain. It’s the board’s problem, not ours. Some people have said for four years that Metro can’t afford operations and deep cuts are coming and we should do them now, but year after year it doesn’t happen. So maybe their assumptions are wrong. Maybe they’re right that it will happen someday, but they’re wrong about when or how much (=how big the deficit). So my attitude is, when Metro reaches that point it will tell us, and then we can evaluate its first cutting proposal and see what we think. The same seems to be for the Link projects. When ST reaches an unsurmountable barrier, it will tell us, and we can evaluate it then. In the meantime I don’t fully believe armchair auditors who aren’t intimately involved in the projects and don’t have the experience/knowledge that the staff in the agency and the boardmembers who oversee it have, yet they’re so certain about what exactly will happen in the future.
“In the meantime I don’t fully believe armchair auditors who aren’t intimately involved in the projects and don’t have the experience/knowledge that the staff in the agency and the boardmembers who oversee it have, yet they’re so certain about what exactly will happen in the future.”
This is why I don’t take the anti tax people seriously when they complain about the cost of projects and budgets for government services. It’s easy to complain about said big number in an abstract sense, but isn’t a meaningful argument against it in principle. It’s why you don’t see me complain about the cost of most Link projects because I don’t have the intimate knowledge that transit planners do in building such infrastructure. I can’t really confidently say they’re spending too much or too little.
Can I say that projects should be less expensive and there are legislative means to fix that problem, yes as environmental review and outsourcing consulting (and bring it in house) is often the two biggest costs that could be fixed and actually bring costs down by a lot. Reforming EIS and environmental review would do a lot of good to building transit.
Mike Orr,
Regardless of Metro not hitting rock bottom, Metro should be better funded for better transit…. right now!
The problem with Sound Transit is it’s too many people playing with toy trains. I think the smart money is a single tunnel, and even with that, paying for it isn’t easy. The more money and time invested in ideas that don’t happen, the less money there is for actual transit. Come up with a more reasonable plan. Sure some people would be angry, but it needs to happen sooner than later.
I don’t want Sound Transit to join the long list of projects proposed by the Left in Seattle that are so unwieldily and poorly thought out they’ll just never happen.
“I don’t want Sound Transit to join the long list of projects proposed by the Left in Seattle that are so unwieldily and poorly thought out they’ll just never happen.”
The center and right of Seattle aren’t exactly better in this regard. I can bring up the multiple proposals by different orgs on the center or right in Seattle for addressing housing, homelessness, drug policy, bike infrastructure, road infrastructure, social services, etc.
The SOAP and SODA legislation is a perfect example of this to combat prostitution and drug dealing. Spending a lot of money on a program that feels good in theory, but doesn’t address the core problem and moves the problem elsewhere in Seattle. Alongside costing a lot of money to run when the police already don’t answer residential calls that are more immediate. Leaving people without police services elsewhere in the city.
It’s easy to chide the left for their own misteps, but the other side isn’t exactly the most fiscally responsible or prudent people either.
Is there anything left? Asking seriously… when my wife and I moved here in the early 90s we visited weekly, buying groceries and VietWah, and eating at one of the neighboring restaurants, e.g Thanh Vi or Saigon Bistro. We took our babies there without fear and they learned a lot about their heritage from it. I still fondly recall the year my son was in 3rd grade, I chaperoned him and a bunch of friends on a field trip there. We wandered into VietWah and the manager recognized and welcomed us and had all the kids pick out a free Asian snack from the junk-food aisle. Now we see just see 12th and Jackson on the news, and do all our shopping at H Mart or Ranch 99 in Lynnwood. I will harbor resentment and downright HATRED for the Seattle folks who carried out this racist attack on the CID forever.
ST’s proposal doesn’t mean the destruction of the ID, as many of its businesses are along 6th and 7th Ave. Back in the 80’s, San Francisco’s Chinatown, ironically, fought hard against the removal of their viaduct highway (which led straight into Chinatown). +30 years later, they fought hard in support of a subway tunnel that run directly underneath their neighborhood. It opened a couple years ago.
Direct access to Chinatown means more visitors and business for the next 100 years.
Betty, I totally understand. That’s why many on this blog have suggested to stick with the current tunnel and run all trains through it and keep Ballard separate (to Westlake). I know many in the CID community have endorsed the 4th Ave shallow station, but the recent study shows that construction would be a challenge. A 10-year construction along 4th Ave would still have a major impact on the community, even if it would leave the CID core intact. Do you think the community would consider endorsing our proposal to run all lines in the current tunnel?
Many in the neighborhood have only the time and energy to try to understand Sound Transit’s plans — so the idea a single tunnel isn’t well-known here. It’s hard enough to keep up with all the official calls for input. What could the proponents of the single tunnel do to make this idea better known IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that could also be translated and shared with more community members? The debates here are well and good for transit wonks, but they’re not going to reach everyday neighbors in any downtown neighborhood.
Here! Here!
Promote a single tunnel in layman’s language.
Write a kick ass op-ed and send it the Seattle Times. I bet they print it.
A pretty graphic on a 1-pager would probably be more effective. Or as a companion to an op-ed.
What could the proponents of the single tunnel do to make this idea better known IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that could also be translated and shared with more community members?
OK, in plain language:
Study the idea of not building a new tunnel.
That’s it. To be fair, there are variations on this idea, such as:
1) Have the line to Ballard branch from the main line somewhere before or after Westlake Station.
2) Have the Ballard Line just run from Ballard to Westlake (riders would have to transfer to get anywhere else).
But those both fall under the “don’t build a new tunnel” category. It means that any trains that run through the heart of downtown (i. e. past Madison) are running in the same tunnel. Again, we just want ST to study the idea.
I have reached out to various leaders in the community in the past but got nowhere. I don’t feel like doing the community organizing that it would take to get it done. I’ve been a part of it (with the 130th project) and it is exhausting. Not for me, but for the head of the group.
Ross Bleakney,
I honestly feel bad for you. It’s not your fault most of progressive Seattle doesn’t live in reality. I mean who are the people over at Seattle Subway who crank out map after map of a huge underground subway system…. with no mention of cost or affordability? Or even a timeline for building it? This isn’t helping transit. Seattle Subway needs to just stop.
As long and complex as transfer between lines would be with this alternative, I still think it is vastly superior to an out-of-station transfer, which would be required if the Dearborn alternative was built.
There is a psychological effect of not having to exit to street level that makes a transfer feel faster and better. I have had to navigate some ridiculously long corridors and complex mezzanines in both the Paris Metro and New York Subway, but the fact that you never “exit” the station makes the walk much more tolerable.
“I have had to navigate some ridiculously long corridors and complex mezzanines in both the Paris Metro and New York Subway”
That’s one transit hub amidst two dozen lines and other subway alternatives. It’s not between the only two lines, so that half the destination stations require going through that 10-minute transfer walk. The walk to the 42nd Street “S” shuttle is long, but it’s also unusual in comparison to the city’s total subway trips. In contrast, this would be THE central transfer that everybody going to half the destination stations would have to go through.
I’ve been looking at the Sound Transit Diagrams in the Ballard Drawings link, and taking a close look at the 5th Diagonal, which I think is the best option. I lived in Back Bay Boston for a year, and this reminds me so much of Park Street Station, which connects the green and red lines of the T:
Basically the green line is a mess of some 5 or 6 different tracks, since the line branches out at that station, and all these tracks sit directly above the perpendicularly-running red line, which CANNOT be accessed from all green-line platforms, meaning passengers must physically cross the tracks to transfer (look up “park street station green line” for a sense of how bad it is). So while needing to come to street level when transferring to the southbound 2/3 lines from the 1 line isn’t ideal, it’s far better than some other transit hubs in major American cities.
Just realized Joe’s bar, which is iconic in its longevity and highly seedy atmosphere, will fall victim to the Diagonal option. Despite my attachment to it, I’m all for this option as the Dearborn site is atrocious.
The corner where Joe’s Bar is located has served as a bar at least since the end of Prohibition.
5th Ave. diagonal is probably the best we’re going to get. I’m glad they came up with/resurrected this option instead of sticking with their guns on CID-S and CID-N/Pioneer Square. And here’s the good thing: It is still worth it to re-develop the civic center and build direct pedestrian tunnels connecting to Pioneer Square. This does not require a CID-N station to work!