10 US transit project openings in 2025. (Transit Tangents) This was published December 31. A voice from Texas.
Navigating Houston on only public transit. (Transit Tangents)
The amazing transit comeback of Los Angeles. (Climate and Transit)
This is an open thread.
ReThinkTheLink Transit forum. Martin Pagel is a speaker! Also, Dick Falkenbury is in the audience, and said “Sound Transit is not a transit agency, it’s an employment agency!” @1:40:48
https://youtu.be/QBz49q_XbG8
Article coming on that. It was mostly finished last week but needs a few final touches.
A friend of mine who has a business that works with ST has a similar quote but it goes: “Sound Transit isn’t a transit agency, it’s a construction company.”
I thought the video was informative in explaining the more ridiculous aspects of the project. However I worry that it comes off as more about attacking the wastefulness of spending billions than in proposing a wider and better investment strategy.
If this will be a separate post, I will hold back adding too many comments here. The video does have great points about other alternatives and the terrible ability to offer benefit so it’s useful.
The mentioned comparison to the per mile cost of the Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 was particularly revealing. For less money, it will have over 110K weekday riders. Meanwhile WS Link will attract about 26K weekday riders — and it won’t exceed 6K weekday riders until it runs through downtown.
One could also point to LA Metro’s D Line extension. It’s 40 percent more in cost but will serve a projected 53K more riders or almost double a full build West Seattle line when it fully opens by 2027. It’s also double the length of the West Seattle extension project at 9 miles — illustrating not only how the project benefits are abysmal but the design choices that ST has made are so cost ineffective without any riders! The D Line extension has been mostly cut and cover on a wide busy street next to many high rise buildings and it’s still cheaper per mile!
Anyway, I’m sure there will be dozens if not a few hundred comments about it when the article gets posted.
Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 has some tunnel sections finished back in 1970s, could that be why the per-mile price is lower?
Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 is very expensive; it will just carry a lot of riders. It is far more expensive than similar projects in other countries (in their big cities).
No Metro buses are on snow route at this moment, but I think some are about to go on it very soon.
Multiple bus drivers calling in to the Control Center, saying it’s very dangerous driving conditions, and asking for chains, and the Control Center is replying that they refuse to chain up any bus at this time, or put any route on snow route. They are telling drivers to just be more careful. One Controller said this refusal is coming from “higher ups.” One driver just said then she is going to park her bus since it’s so dangerous, and the Controller said that’s fine.
@Sam,
That is absolutely hilarious.
I made a discovery yesterday while trying to avoid my wife’s book club.
Hemlock State Brewing has a new beer out celebrating the arrival of Light Rail in Snohomish County. It’s called Light Rail Ale, and it is a pale ale.
I don’t normally drink pales, but I had one just the same. Not bad.
It’s nice to see that people in SnoCo are still excited about the arrival of Light Rail. And no emergency snow routes for Light Rail!
[Ed: Corrected typo in commentator’s name.]
“And no emergency snow routes for Light Rail!”
Well, other than potentially the shuttle bus from the UDistrict station to Capitol Hill when Link is down for maintenance.
@Matt,
I’m pretty sure Sam lives on the Eastside. Last I knew there were no emergency snow routes on the 2-Line, nor any shuttles.
On the Westside? This snow “event” has pretty much been a non-event. I assume the 1-Line shuttles are working just fine.
As a Bier und Bahn aficionado I have found the Mountlake Terrace Station a great stop with both Hemlock State and Diamond Knot. On a sunny day Hemlock has great sidewalk seating! But the one that tickles me most is Triple R Brewing and Alley Tavern a block from Roosevelt Station.
@Robert Whitbeck,
Triple R is just fine, but it is not as good as Triple fff in Four Marks.
Yeah, Triple R Brewing is a nice little brewpub. Do you know if they are a Microbrewery or Nanobrewery? I’m curious because my son once ran a Nanobrewery (not many of them around).
For many of us who don’t live within walking distance of a Link station, the fact that it keeps running in the snow is only helpful to us insomuch as we can get to and from a station. I think a lot of people are in that boat. There are almost always two parts to a Link ride (using just public transit): Bus+Link. So, for me, unless the trip is absolutely necessary, even though Link snow service is guaranteed, bus snow service is not, so I’m not going to attempt to try to take Link in the snow if I don’t have to.
Link service during snow isn’t necessarily guaranteed.
Ice buildup at switch points and frogs can be particularly difficult to deal with if they don’t have switch heaters. TriMet installed a few in some places, but they aren’t foolproof. Long sections of flangeways, such as was installed along ML King rather than ballasted track are also especially prone to ice buildup.
Last year’s Portland ice storm caused MAX to completely shut down for a week, even with all those measures. Many bus routes were running occasional service, but without a flange de-icer they decided it wasn’t safe to operate MAX anywhere.
(The only flange de-icer west of the Mississippi I know of is at the Oregon Electric Railway Museum and dates to 1895 or so.)
Ice buildup on the overhead lines can be a problem, even if the trains are run all night to keep the lines clear. TriMet has installed some ice breaking pantographs on some cars to help deal with this, as well as experimented with overhead wire heaters.
Then, there’s the problem of operators getting to the facility to operate trains. A couple years ago, Portland had such a bad ice storm they only had enough drivers to run bus route 14, so that’s what they did.
@Glenn in Portland,
Seattle is lucky in that we tend not to get the same types of ice storms that are so common in Portland. We aren’t located at the entrance to a river gorge with aligned air masses traveling between east and west and colliding overhead. It makes a big difference.
Fouled switch points are an understood issue, and my understanding is that Link does indeed have heaters in the critical spots, although I’m not sure about the more recent extensions. Rogoff tended to favor budget over operations, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he deleted some.
As per the catenary, again, we tend not to get Portland style ice storms. We did build our catenary to a higher design standard than Portland, so we don’t need to worry as much about tensioning issues. But any ice storm sufficient to encase the catenary in solid ice is going to shut the entire city down anyway. I’ve seen snow storms do that to our bus system, but not to Link.
As per actual flange de-icers, modern tech ain’t what it was in the 1800’s. We don’t burn the rope anymore, and we tend to rely more on the application of chemicals. And if they don’t need fancy flange de-icers in a place like Denver, then I doubt we will ever need them here.
But yes, getting staff to work can always be an issue. But that problem is hardly unique to Light Rail. And I wouldn’t exactly call it a Light Rail design problem anyhow. And if some of our operators now live along the Light Rail line, then of course they at least can get to work without issue using LR.
Can’t believe SDOT and WSDOT are both about to be led by old-school traffic engineers at the same. A far cry from the days of Mike McGinn.
As population growth slows and public money gets less plentiful, the focus of both agencies should shift more towards maintenance and operations and less towards expansion or making changes.
When streets are in bad shape, pedestrians and bicycle injuries are more likely to suffer consequences. Rough streets may merely slow traffic but a pedestrian or bicyclist can really get hurt! I messed up my face for two moths a few years ago walking across a street in bad shape where I tripped and my face hit the pavement.
And malfunctioning signals are a big problem for everyone — not just drivers. It affects buses and riders especially. I routinely see left turn signals suddenly giving long green lights to traffic that isn’t there — delaying buses and pedestrians and bicyclists as well as traffic waiting to cross the intersection. It happens on MLK and it delays Link too.
Yikes, sorry about your fall. I have to gently disagree with the premise, though. We should absolutely be able to maintain our streets and sidewalks while employing a progressive SDOT director who is willing to take parking spaces or travel lanes as needed for transit and bicycle projects, and who will continue to aggressively pursue our ped and bicycle master plans when there is Lesser Seattle or business community pushback.
Sorry JJ. SDOT is lagging way behind on signal maintenance and it’s a huge problem. And it delays everyone!
Taking more lanes of traffic is just not going to happen like it has. SDOT has taken miles and miles of parking and travel for bicycles already in the past 15 years. The easy lane-take era is over. There are now only a handful of streets left in the city with more than one travel lane in each direction outside of Downtown, SODO and very high volume arterial streets. So there’s very little new coming compared to the recent past even though there are some high profile gaps remaining.
What will continue to happen is pavement deterioration. What will continue to happen is malfunctioning signals, (and SDOT greatly increased the number of signals with new pedestrian signals that have been installed all over the city). What will continue to happen is accidents.
The primary purpose of SDOT is to maintain our streets and signals, and promote safety rather than put people in harm’s way. The director needs to understand how to design these things more than anything. That’s why SDOT needs someone who is actually trained as an engineer to understand sight distance, signal timing and controls, traffic calming devices and their design flaws, and turning radii. And traffic engineers today are trained and experienced in multi-modal issues unlike they were 20-30 years ago. All those “car is king” engineers are pretty much retired or dead by now in our region. .
The latest SDOT stunt with unmountable concrete curbs on both sides of narrow bike lanes is a case study in the stupidity about not hiring a trained engineer. Cities tried those decades ago. A they pretty much were ripped out in a few years. They are a magnet for debris, pothole formation and water pooling. A bicyclist can’t overtake a slower bicyclist either. And pedestrians start walking in those bicycle lanes after awhile. Only some pie-in-the-sky naive bicyclist would want to put those in — but not some trained engineer who gets what street upkeep is about. Even Amsterdam installs mountable curbs next to bicycle lanes.
Taking more lanes of traffic is just not going to happen like it has.
We’ll see. Spotts was excellent. He was probably the best SDOT chief when it comes to multi-modal transport. But even with him gone I don’t see us going back to the days of ignoring the safer and more efficient forms of travel. There will be no “Mercer Mess” equivalent in the future.
Nor are you going to solve the problem with better traffic lights. Of course you want to get it right, but there is only so much you can do to speed up the cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians when it comes to traffic signals.
In contrast there is plenty you can do when it comes to bike, bus and pedestrian infrastructure. It is dangerous to bike in most of the city. The buses are stuck in traffic. Much of the north and south end lack sidewalks. The days of focusing on trying to get cars through town faster are over (no matter who is in charge).
sdot probably won’t be reallocating many travel lanes but there’s definitely parking lanes that could be reallocated to biking.
asdf2, any thoughts on Houston?
As long as you stay near the central part of the city, the transit is actually quite decent. For example, their light rail runs every 6 minutes all day (at least Monday -Friday), which is better than ours. The problems arise if you need to visit the endless sprawl in the outer parts of the city.
How to Save South Seattle’s Light Rail. (Fixing Seattle’s Weakest Link). – The House of Transit. 7 min 34 sec video.
https://youtu.be/EPH7OEXSciA
A Duwamish Bypass certainly has some attractions should the I-5 corridor in South King County “boom”. But it certainly doesn’t look like that’s what Des Moines wants, so there goes 272nd Street Station. Federal Way downtown has possibilities, but only if Downtown Redmond is cloned and plunked down there. Do the good burghers of Federal Way want a lot of development in their downtown? It certainly doesn’t seem like it.
But, you know what? This and everything else about future Link extensions is pure wish-casting. The Republicans are going to so severly strip the Federal government during their time of “Tri-Fecta” that it won’t be recognizable in 2027. And regardless of the severity of the pain dealt to the sane portion of the citizenry, the Senate will remain in Republican hands for the foreseeable future. The only possible “flip” in the Senate that year is Maine, and Collins is a past-master at the “Centrist Flim-Flam”.
My understanding is that ST3 didn’t qualify for federal grant funding away, so loss of grant funding doesn’t matter. What I’m more concerned about is Trump’s policies driving up the cost of light rail expansion, as well as the operation of transit in general, particularly the new tariffs. Everything from spare parts for buses to new Link trains to the steel used to build the train tracks is going to cost more.
West Seattle Link is waiting for a Record of Decision from the FTA for a grant. I assume DSTT2 and Ballard are also in the process for grants. Everett, Tacoma, and Federal Way also probably have some grant action going on.
DSTT2 and Ballard are still far from applying for a federal grant. The EIS has to get finished first. If they continue on the current pace, this may not happen until the next president.
While I don’t think he’s wrong I do think that it’s pretty presumptuous that the region can spend the additional money to do what he says. It’s also not as straightforward to add new stations on MLK.
I’ve long advocated for a study to evaluate all the costs and challenges to resolve the MLK surface segment problem. Rather than advocate for a new solution with no analytical basis, I think that a more comprehensive package of choices needs to be developed and assessed. It is unfortunately beyond the authority to have such a study — and if they did I suspect it would be a fluff piece designed to push a particular situation.
The Duwamish bypass was in ST’s long-range plan until 2014. I attended a board meeting where there was a package of amendments to update the LRP including removing the bypass. The board then thought it would never be needed. The primary beneficiaries of it, South King and Pierce, didn’t lift one finger to save it. They were too busy thinking about extending the main line to Federal Way and Tacoma, and a Renton-Burien line.
So if the primary beneficiaries don’t want it and don’t want to pay for it, and they’re not concerned about saving ten minutes of travel time, why should North King pursue it? North King has several bigger transit needs it should pursue first, like Denny Way, First Hill, a 45th line, Lake City, Rainier Beach to Renton, etc.
The idea of repurposing the 99 right of way is interesting, but it would take a couple decades to get the governments to agree to decommission the freeway segment, so it’s not something we could count on now. Even then, it’s unlikely they’d decommission it FOR a light rail line and step up with funding for the latter all in one grand bargain. Not unless South King and Pierce get insistent about it.
Martin brought up how a South Park station could indirectly serve southern West Seattle, saving the expense of a waterway crossing and tunneling. It’s fifteen years too late to bring up that though. The time for that debate would have been before ST3. It’s hard enough politically to get the West Seattle Link corridor moved to Delridge, so it’s hard to imagine the politicians agreeing to move it to east of the Duwamish. While buses could come from Westwood Village and White Center and serve the equity-emphasis southeastern part of West Seattle, you’d lose the opportunity for stations along Delridge Way, and it wouldn’t serve the politically-important WSJ and northern West Seattle.
Its one of those routes that will be “wanted yesterday” once Link gets to Tacoma or even Federal Way… you’ve got a nice relatively fast grade separated journey then have to detour out of the way and slog it through Rainier Valley slowly at-grade.
I would be curious what route options there are for a bypass. Obviously the point of the line is to be fast so don’t want a lot of stations but there are a few places worth stopping there like South Park and Georgetown.
Since the freeway will still probably be there by the time Tacoma gets Link and wants something faster, the option to replace the freeway with a light rail track would still be available if politicians decide to converge on it.
There might also be some possibilities short of decomissioning the freeway. Could light rail fit alongside it within the right of way as it’s doing in north Seattle/Shoreline and Kent? Could the freeway be narrowed or two lanes repurposed? I assume it’s four lanes so converting two would still leave two car lanes. The freeway is a viaduct in South Park and I’m not sure how much of it is, so it may be unfeasible to narrow it. Still, the alternatives could be studied.
“The primary beneficiaries of it, South King and Pierce, didn’t lift one finger to save it.”
This points to a systemic process problem. You can’t expect politicians a decade or two ago, who don’t know anything about transit and often have never experienced it, and only very tangentially even give a shit, to make these sorts of decisions. Or if we do, we need to, at the very minimum, give them to have access to expert opinions who do know, and who do give a shit.
Also, I would guess noone knew or explained to them in frank language that the trip from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle was going to be a 3-transfer Odyssey that was going to take and hour and a half or longer.
So you can’t just say “your ignorant politicians made bad decisions a long time ago, and now you have to suck eggs.” There has to be some flexibility there. Especially when we are still in planning stages or long-range forecasting, or even 10% design. When new information and details become available, and new, perhaps more knowledgeable politicians come on line, and when constituent interests change, planning also needs to be able to change.
If a North King goal is to improve north-south transit to Georgetown and South Park, they don’t have a large enough population to prioritize a Link line. But we could easily install a bus solution. The industrial district isn’t so congested that north-south buses couldn’t be made faster and more frequent. Airport Way is underused. The city is considering renovating 4th Ave S, which it calls one of the most dangerous streets in the city, and in case the busway goes away. There’s also 6th Ave S, although it doesn’t go through between Industrial Way and Dawson Street.
That’s true Mike. Georgetown has very stringent height limits too, thanks to Boeing Field. And that doesn’t even get into the difficulty of building on SODO soils affecting both South Park and Georgetown. There are clear reasons why there are no towers in this part of Seattle and it’s not primarily driven by zoning heights . These areas will not be suitable for dense development any time soon.
It is a silly idea. It is often pushed by people who don’t understand transit. There is a fundamental bug that people think is a feature: Very few stations. It is over eight miles (probably closer to ten) with only two stations. Two! Not a dozen (like a normal mass transit line that long) but two! Building something like this is rare. There are only a couple reasons why people do it:
1) Because it is really cheap. It is common to leverage existing railways and not add many stations. This wouldn’t be cheap. It would be brand new elevated rail and likely cross the river at least twice.
2) It is the only way to reach a particularly important area. East Link is an example of this. There aren’t many stations between Downtown Seattle and Downtown Bellevue. It is about ten miles and only has four station in between. That isn’t good (although it still manages to be better than this idea). But this is Downtown Bellevue we are talking about. A major regional destination with skyscrapers. This is pretty much the only way to get there and of course there wouldn’t be many stations (fish don’t ride transit). But in the case of the Duwamish line the main destination is already being served! Not only that, but the existing line is already an express (it is over five miles between TIBS and Rainier Beach).
Thus it violates standard practice when it comes to building a subway line. It introduces other problems as well. A large portion of the people who take the train to TIBS, SeaTac (and places south) board in Rainier Valley/Beacon Hill. Does the train continue to accommodate them? If so, how often does it run? Are you doubling up service where the track meets up? If so it is tough to get the timing right. If not then you are forcing riders to transfer. Worse yet you would abandon all of those riders in Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill that used to take the train to the south end. You are essentially swapping in a line that performs weaker.
But assume you pull it off. Assume you double up service and get the timing right. OK, now you are running two trains to SeaTac (if not farther)? Remember, this is an agency that refuses to run trains every 7.5 minutes midday (even though they have the trains). This is not a very cost effective section. It costs a lot of money and you don’t get many riders. But you are running trains every five minutes to SeaTac? It seems highly likely that they would reduce frequency on the trains going to Rainier Valley which would likely lead to an overall loss in ridership.
It just doesn’t add up. As Frank put it so well: Lot’s of bucks, not much bang.
If you are going to spend that kind of money then you start looking at grade separation in Rainier Valley. I think the best idea is this one: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/19/the-case-for-improved-light-rail-in-rainier-valley/. Run a new grade-separated line (either cut and cover or elevated) along Rainier Avenue (not MLK). Convert the existing track into a streetcar and add enough stations so that you wouldn’t need a “shadow” in the form of the 106. Or run buses on the tracks as well (making it a transit way, not just a streetcar line).
Is anyone else finding OneBusAway to be really off lately? I’m finding the arrival time predictions do not match where the buses are on the map. I’m missing a lot of buses due to it lately and never used to.
Last time I used it worked fine, but that was a couple weeks ago.
Might just be the locations I’m often using it.
Given the total lack of any mention of it in the media, I’m guessing that the repairs at UWS went well and Link is back in full operation this morning. But is the slow order still in effect NB?
I would guess that they will keep the slow order until such time as they gain full confidence in the repairs, but I don’t know for sure. Just seems prudent.
The honolulu skyway expansion phase 2 looks exciting. it’ll finally reach the airport. hopefully the next phases that bring it close to downtown honolulu happen soon as well
the austin bus lines are interesting https://www.capmetro.org/rapid2025 they are a downtown adjacent route. I guess most similar would be akin to like route 131/132 or route 124.
madison (wisconsin) is moving forward with their next brt going north-south , they previously built a east-west one https://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/routes-schedules/bus-rapid-transit/north-south-brt-line we should build more center running brt as well.
After federal way link is finished, a couple major projects sound transit or kcm could consider is a center running brt for aurora avenue and pacific highway (yes I know it’s not in st3).
While the region didn’t build along avenues for the light rail and another light rail line paralleling it just a mile away is politically unlikely; center running brt could be greatly useful to connect the corridors. plus doesn’t cost as much and many other cities are moving forward with it.
Downtown Redmond platform video. This is the only video taken from the platform with train activity that I’m aware of. It seems like it might be from a worker. I’m not sure why he added music. I had to turn it off.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Ov_DxqQ_fF4?si=vToi6-gNa9IF2E5U
Thanks Sam.
That is an interesting video. I can’t quite figure out the train movements, but I’m guessing the crossovers must be to the east of the station (towards MVS).
And I hope they don’t completely wall in the station with those extra high sound walls. Because I sort of enjoy looking around while I wait for my train.
But good find. Keep them coming. Only 3 months to go!
Today, TriMet is not collecting fares in honor of Rosa Parks day.
Pierce Transit isn’t either.
I just stopped off at UW Station. The NB trains appear to be operating at full speed. No more slow order.
So ST must have confidence in the repairs. Good news indeed.
Thanks that’s nice to hear they solved the issues
lots of people keep complaining about the “extra” link stations and want the link to reach Tacoma and Everett. Would people be interested in an alternative article look at link if it copied say Dallas with an all freeway running alignment.
Seattle in the urban core would just have a tram/ small light rail like muni
Seems like an interesting comparison.
I would like to see some attention to look at generic standards and guidance about building rail transit generally. When is the per mile cost unreasonable? What rail transit travel speed is unreasonable at different distances (compared to driving)?
There is often a tendency to draw lines and add dots for stations because it’s fun to imagine — but to not face an honest adult discussion about whether those lines are a strategic investment for transit riders as well as taxpayers. Some updated rules of thumb would not only focus discussion posts on this blog but could help decision makers revisit some recent unrealistic investments that have been proposed but are looking unattainable in their current form.
Specifically, I was shocked at how West Seattle Link per mile costs are greater than those in NYC and LA that will serve many more riders and are being constructed in more congested urban settings.
we could talk about decreasing costs for west seattle. but most of the suggestions ive brought up will involve large community impacts that readers didn’t like. perhaps such an article would still be useful to reset expectations though as to what is actually buildable
I think I would consider a different approach. Like what is the cost of the minimum operating segment? What could still be built with the original budget?
I think it’s a good way to shake out what’s really the value of different project components.
I’m not yet convinced that the entire concept is wasteful. It feels more like the current incarnation is just too extravagant. But after such an examinations it may be plain that the entire project should be dropped.
> I think I would consider a different approach. Like what is the cost of the minimum operating segment? What could still be built with the original budget?
with the original budget of ~2.7 billion the west seattle link light rail cannot even reach delridge. it is only enough money to build the high bridge with the current preferred design.
there’s no way around some heavy cost cutting and much much higher community impacts (well more accurately a “normal” amount of community impacts)
The “affordable” schedule assumes a project cost of $4 billion. I think that would get ST the “minimum operable segment” from SODO to Delridge, but it will be interesting to see what ST’s workgroup on improving the financial situation around WSLE comes up with in the next few months (https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%20WSLE%20Workplan%20Update%2010-24-24.pdf).
To me, It seems unlikely that ST’s workgroup will identify any significant sources of savings except for simply building less. They might be able to shave a few percent, maybe even upwards of 10% off the overall cost, with various “efficiencies”, but they need to cut over 40% of the cost in order to afford the project according to their current schedule.
To me, the obvious result is they’ll start on the MOS, and defer construction of the rest of WSLE to a later date. At that point, they could reopen alternatives analysis and reconsider the all-elevated alignment to Fauntleroy & Alaska they previously abandoned, or even consider a longer route past the Junction as proposed by David Lawson (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/12/27/how-might-west-seattle-link-actually-look/)
> To me, It seems unlikely that ST’s workgroup will identify any significant sources of savings except for simply building less.
I can identify a couple at first glance. I’m sure Sound Transit can too unless they are blind or more likely politically unable to do so.
1) the high bridge needs to use columns in the water and the originally proposed much cheaper 1 billion dollar bridge. I’m sorry but the long span costing 2 billion dollars is just too much. If enough money is still not saved then build a draw bridge instead.
2) completely eliminate any underground alternatives. I have no idea why sound transit is even contemplating them. build any of the elevated alternatives. there’s some older ones that don’t involve demolishing an apartment building. Or build over the road and take a car lane. that can save another billion
> To me, It seems unlikely that ST’s workgroup will identify any significant sources of savings except for simply building less.
The current problem sound transit has is too much money and no pressure on the board to save at all. that’s the fundamental problem. the more money they more they are trying to avoid community impacts. we saw the same problem with the OMF south trying to build on a landfill.
I certainly understand your comments about limited cost savings.
I would ask this though: is there a basic problem with the alternatives limitations assumed in the EIS to begin with? Sadly, the minimum operating segment scenario is the only build alternative that varies by more than two blocks per station and the same number of stations.
Back in 2016, ST pushed through this flawed approach that they should only have narrowly different alternatives in the EIS. Their argument is that it saves 2 years of project development.
Yet here we are. The EIS was delayed. The building schedule is delayed a minimum of two years.
Lets look at some other alternatives that could be pursued but weren’t:
1. Automated trains. There was no alternative to build something like DLR in London. That has shorter platforms (thus cheaper) and better frequency. There could be single track sections in places.
2. Rubber tired trains. Could a rubber tired train use the West Seattle Bridge? That saves over a billion just there.
3. A connecting busway. Could the SODO busway be extended to connect to the West Seattle bridge or could a busway tunnel be bored with a oortalnear Alaska Junction and Delridge/ Genesee? Would that allow for an underground way to cross the Duwamish?
4. A First Avenue or SR99 Transit Center at the Bridge. A hub at 99/ Spokane or First/ Spokane could be a northern terminus for bus lanes to West Seattle and to SR 599. With Billions saved a simple extension to a single station there would enable transit service from many directions.
These are just examples of reasonable alternatives. I don’t know how they be would pencil out.
is there a basic problem with the alternatives limitations assumed in the EIS to begin with?
I would say so, yes. That is if you hope that the EIS will somehow present the best option. That isn’t really what the statements are meant to do. They have to provide some alternatives but by then the board has pretty much decided what they want to do, they just have to prove to anyone willing to sue that there isn’t something obviously better (and less harmful to the environment).
You are right, they should have considered other alternatives seriously. Take West Seattle. They did study a “BRT” system but it was laughably bad. It was ridiculously slow. There was no tunnel, no major right-of-way improvement. Oh, and it was only one route! One of the major advantages of BRT in this case is that it would be Open BRT which means that several corridors could use it. But that isn’t what they suggested, which made the “BRT” option look particularly bad. It was clear they wanted rail to West Seattle so they essentially stacked the deck against a bus alternative.
It wasn’t alone. They never considered running the new tunnel to First Hill. Various alternatives to Ballard were never considered. But perhaps the biggest problem: All of the studies were very preliminary and yet they committed to them fully. This is the part that is ridiculous. At some point you have to look for alternatives or just walk away from the project entirely. Cost matters. These are not fundamentally essential projects. These aren’t like downtown to the UW. It isn’t clear at all that these projects — even if they were cheap — should be the next thing to build. Yet we are committed to them even though they are clearly a much worse value than originally planned. At this point ST should be pursuing other options or be willing to just pour money into bus service.
For example, I spent a lot of time pushing for the 130th Station. I wrote editorials, attended dozens of meetings and otherwise helped organize support for it. But if it cost $2 billion dollars than it simply isn’t worth it. (Fortunately it doesn’t.)
Yet we have various projects that are now at that point. Consider Everett Link. Unlike so many of our Link projects it doesn’t try to mimic express buses. It is fundamentally stronger in that sense. There are various trips that will be faster via the train than they would be in a car — at noon. If it was really cheap then it would be worth building. But it isn’t. It is extremely expensive and it just won’t get that many riders. The trip that is likely to get the most riders (Everett to Lynnwood) will still be faster with buses. At some point you have to do a value analysis (with more detailed information) and consider alternatives. Unfortunately the board isn’t willing to do that.
I’m not yet convinced that the entire concept is wasteful. It feels more like the current incarnation is just too extravagant. But after such an examinations it may be plain that the entire project should be dropped.
I suppose you could call it extravagant, but I’m not sure that is the best word. That implies buying a Cadillac instead of a Chevy. This is more like buying a SUV when you never go off road. There are ways to make it cheaper but they tend to change the nature of the project and not nibble around the edges. For example:
1) No second tunnel. Have the West Seattle line join the main line at SoDo.
2) Run the Ballard Line only to Westlake. Use smaller, automated trains and thus smaller stations.
That would save quite a bit of money even if you are still dealing with an elevated line to West Seattle and much of Ballard. But there are trade-offs. The increased frequency makes up for the fact that the Ballard Line doesn’t go south of Westlake. Depending on your perspective though it is better. For example Ballard to Uptown: Better. Northgate to SeaTac: Better. Rainier Valley to UW: Better. But Uptown to CID: Worse.
There are other ways to save money. For example running along the surface between Mercer and the Ballard Bridge. But that is similar to running automated (in terms of savings) but without the long term advantages of running automated. You could run down the surface downtown but at that point you might as well just run BRT (it is more flexible and can handle the load just fine). You could run the West Seattle trains down Delridge (with a much lower drawbridge over the Duwamish). This would likely save you quite a bit of money but it changes the nature of the project quite a bit as well.
1) the high bridge needs to use columns in the water and the originally proposed much cheaper 1 billion dollar bridge.
2) completely eliminate any underground alternatives.
Note that you’ve only saved $2B of the $3B needing to be saved, and you’re drastically beyond the scope of the cost savings workgroup. The Board has already selected the Project To Be Built. The FTA will issue their ROD in 24 days based on that project and the FEIS and the Preferred Alternative. Diverging from the alternatives studied in the EIS would require a new EIS and a new ROD. I’ll repeat myself: that’s not within the scope of the cost savings workgroup. The only significant savings they could feasibly find are in building less. Building something entirely different is not an option for them.
Now, the Board might get enough pushback against building less that they ask ST Staff to do additional analysis on more reasonable alternatives, but that have to go into a supplemental EIS, and then they’d need a new ROD.
That’s why I think they’ll move forward with the MOS and maybe consider reopening the alternatives analysis.
no pressure on the board to save at all.
Yes, but the Board’s job isn’t to save money, but to deliver ST3 as promised to the voters. ST staff are the ones tasked with figuring out how to deliver the projects on-budget.
> Note that you’ve only saved $2B of the $3B
Uhh that’s a ludicrous of money saved there.
> Diverging from the alternatives studied in the EIS would require a new EIS and a new ROD.
It doesn’t matter if the EIS passes. Sound transit does not have the money to build this
I mean let’s say we go back and sound transit dropped all alternatives except landfill options for the OMF south. Are we going to seriously sit there and say we “really have no choice” but to build on the landfill.
What’s a ROD?
ludicrous of money saved there.
It’s still short a billion dollars.
It doesn’t matter if the EIS passes.
I’m not saying that’s what matters, I’m saying that’s what in the EIS. That’s how the planning and environmental impact assessment process works. If they can’t afford any of the alternatives studied in the EIS, then they have to write a new EIS (or whatever supplement they need to do).
The point of the EIS process is to prevent businesses and agencies from just building stuff without documentation of the potential effects. EIS’s are not required to document that the preferred alternative is the “best”; they are just required to document the impacts. ST can’t build something without completing an EIS for it.
When ST realizes WSLE needs to be something that’s not in the EIS, they’ll need to start the alternatives analysis process all over again. That means at least 2, probably 3 years of additional delay for that section. I don’t think they’re going to bother reassessing the SODO-Delridge section because they’ve covered the reasonable options (they’re not going to build a drawbridge over the Duwamish). So, they’ll start final design and preconstruction of the MOS, and punt finding funding for the second half of WSLE to the next iteration of the Board.
@Cam: Record of Decision, which is the Federal Transit Administration’s recognition that the EIS for the project sufficiently describes the impact of the project.
Are we going to seriously sit there and say we “really have no choice” but to build on the landfill.
No, they’d have to redo the EIS include affordable alternatives.
Thank you, Nathan. And that occurs only after the FEIS is filed?
@nathan
We cannot afford the alignment even with it approved. And honestly it’s be better for it not to be approved than have them spend 4 billion to reach delridge. It’s the same amount of money as east link.
At that rate it’s 4 billion dollars to build one light rail station. I’m sorry but that is just not really a sound plan.
Yes, the ROD is based on the FEIS, which is submitted for formal review after it is completed.
You don’t have to apologize to me – by all practical measures, $4B to build the world’s tallest tram bridge* and not even get near the core of the neighborhood is a terrific waste of money.
I’m just saying we simply don’t know what ST is going to do to resolve the issue. Their cost-savings workgroup is looking for efficiencies, but what they need is a whole different project. They can’t offer a new project, so the Board will have to decide between more delay or a bridge to nowhere. I think they’ll make the wrong decision.
*
pending confirmationdepends on your definition of Link as a metro vs a light rail or tramWould have been nice if Link was built as a heavy rail EMU line similar to Denver RTD commuter rail and especially if Amtrak could also use the line particularly for the inland Seattle-Everett segment (maybe parts of Seattle-Tacoma too). It could use existing rail lines and also have it’s own lines like to/thru SeaTac Airport area. Unfortunately it would have to deal with the FRA instead of FTA for regs.
“heavy rail EMU line similar to Denver RTD commuter rail ” It could maybe do that, but it would be a completely freeway running alignment then. it likely couldn’t use the downtown transit tunnel. aka it’d be stations in the middle of I-5 even for downtown seattle
They could have built it as heavy rail — the main difference would be the order in which it was built. There would have been no shared operations (with buses and trains in the downtown tunnel). It would make sense to start with Northgate to Downtown. That way you replace most of the buses that are kicked out of the tunnel with the new trains. This means fewer buses on the surface (and fewer still as you continue to expand). To do this you would alter the downtown stations for high floor (not low floor) trains (by either raising the platform or lowering the tracks).
After that everything could be similar. You’ve only got a handful of surface stations. It costs a little bit more to build them to support high floor trains, but not a lot more (likely more than the Graham Street retrofit).
Ultimately it wouldn’t be that much better though. Maybe a little more capacity and a little better boarding but not a major difference. It could have been designed from the very beginning to be automated though — that would have helped. (That would also mean no surface running at all.) It could have been shorter, more frequent, with a lot more stations. That is what most cities around the world would have done.
If you (poncho) are suggesting sending the Sounder trains through downtown (like an S-Bahn) that is a different ballgame. That goes back to the core problem with Sounder: We don’t own the train lines. We would have to buy out BNSF. Once we did that though, that could easily work. Chances you are you would have a combination (just as Berlin has). An S-Bahn serving Tacoma with all-day service but continuing through downtown (with several stations). A U-Bahn complements it. If you travel within the city they are really not that different (it is just that the S-Bahns go out to other cities).
S-Bahns often branch to take advantage of the different demand. That way they can run frequently in the city and less often to the distant towns and suburbs. I could see it branching to Renton, but that would still mean a very long section of fairly low density service. It would make more sense to just create a brand new branch with service off the Tacoma/Renton line heading down Rainier Valley or over to the East Side. So maybe 20 minutes Tacoma, 20 minutes Renton, 10 minutes East Side, 5 minutes through downtown (and maybe more frequent during peak).
I’m not sure how similar that is to what Denver does. Most American mass-transit systems suck. Denver is no exception. Like Dallas the only lesson they teach us is what not to do. You are much better off looking at Canada, Europe or Asia for positive examples. (I’m not saying all American systems suck — just most of them.)
Yeah S Bahn plus our bus tunnel was good as is so maybe it didn’t need to be rebuilt for rail. Rail could have used a new different tunnel built for rail through downtown, although I realize at the time that was out of the question… the bus tunnel was built to be converted. Bit yes, Link could have been more Sounder, but with its own tracks. Already Link has fairly far apart stop spacing akin to commuter rail.
I’m curious why there hasn’t been a push to get Sounder South its own tracks (at least Renton to Tacoma) given there is a parallel rail line right next to the BNSF line, either shift Sounder there or better yet shift 90% of the freight there with improved tracks for freight and have Sounder take the current tracks. Obviously it takes BNSF approval as its their tracks but if the new capacity is provided on parallel tracks it seems BNSFs main focus is getting trains to the port plus they could still have trackage rights on the current mainline for local freight service.