Narrowing the Options for Graham Street Station

118 Replies to “Narrowing the Options for Graham Street Station”

1. I’m thinking that Option 2B is the way to go.

   1. It’s easier to negotiate property takes if they are only on one side.

   2. Center platform enables boarding on the other side when disruptions occur.

   3. It’s easier to build most of the new tracks first and then close just one track for the needed transitions and moving of the wires.

   I would think that ST would first drop a new set of crossover tracks north of Graham Street. If that’s done first, the single tracking could be only between Myrtle and Orcas. It would be less than a mile and that’s plenty of time to alternate trains through the single tracking section at 10 minute headways. Of course the trains would not be stopping at the new platform during the single tracking construction period.

   1. I hope ST makes plain which options will include a new switch, and what the service pattern will be like during track reconstruction.

      The neighbors are not the only people being impacted (both positively and negatively).

      1. Brent, I attended and was told that they plan to add a crossover south of the station.

   2. I think from a user perspective there is a slight advantage to having center tracks. But otherwise this comes down to cost and disruptions. I agree it seems like the cheapest and least disruptive option is 2B but I feel like leaving that to the folks in charge.

      In terms of adjacent land there aren’t that many structures that would be effected, depending on how wide you go. Starting at Graham and moving south, to the east you have an odd shaped property owned by Starbucks that has only a little drive through building. South of there you have some commercial property but it is possible the widening of the road could leave the buildings intact. That leaves the house at the corner which would certainly have to go. This is a shame but hopefully the owner gets well compensated. On the other side of the street it is mostly parking. The one exception is a church, which is built right up to the sidewalk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/16VaufLcEHx4Vvhj6). If ST can avoid taking that church it would likely save them a considerable amount of money and bad press. Then again, maybe the minister(s) want a new building (which ST would pay for).

      Of course it isn’t really ST taking the land. If the city was willing to let ST just take the lanes then ST wouldn’t have to take any property at all. But as of right now, the city wants two lanes of traffic through there.

2. I do think the better spot for riders would have been north of Graham. Not only would it be better spaced between Columbia City and Othello, but the properties to the east would have been easier to shave.

   It’s too bad that that idea has to be dropped.

   1. I disagree. It is fairly close, but to the south you have better access from the east and west. You will be able to access the station via Morgan or Angel. Not only is this more direct but these are quieter streets. You can still access via Graham, but you don’t have to. Going to the north you would pretty much only be able to access via Graham. Raymond leads to a series of dead ends if you go west. Across the street 37th curves north. Thus the station being to the south extends the effective walkshed.

      I go into more detail here: as explained here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/07/09/graham-street-station-project/#comment-935532.

      1. The south end of the proposed platform is less than a half mile from the north end of Othello. The walksheds overlap.

      2. The north option is closer to the Kingway apartments, a major affordable housing complex that is going through a phased redevelopment. Eventually, it will be 750+ affordable homes, with many 2-3 bedroom units.

         Also, the large strip mall north of Graham and east of MLK is clearly the next big TOD opportunity in the area.

         Finally, though it’s already at the outer limit of walking distance to the Graham St station options, the historic core of Hillman City business is located around Rainier & Orcas, to the north of Graham St.

         The north and south options are close enough that it isn’t a dealbreaker, but north is clearly closer to existing activity and future potential density.

   2. I agree with you Al, would have preferred the station being built to the north. but anyways it’s just a minor change I don’t think it’ll change too much

      1. Why do you think going to the north is better?

      2. I kind of agree; the north side has more existing development and has slightly better stop spacing between Othello and Columbia City. The south side has better connections to the E/W, but that seems fixable in the longer term:
         – In the short term the pedestrian connection on Juneau could be improved
         – In the long term S Raymond could get extended to the west; it looks the ROW is publicly owned (link below)
         – In the longer term a pedestrian connection could get added through the apartments to the east on 37th

         https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/

3. This project already has ‘fiasco’ written all over it. The Rainier Valley segment is already too slow, and the Link system was never intended or designed to have subway/metro standard station spacing. Let’s go with the ‘no-build’ option, please.

   1. If you want an express line to the airport and Tacoma, tell your reps on the ST Board.

      The stations along MLK have some of the best walksheds, new TOD, and station amenities in the whole system, outside of downtown. Their ridership is much higher than the freeway stations between Northgate and Lynnwood.

      That said, if the goal is to leave all the surrounding properties as is, what is the point of the station?

   2. Not sure what you mean about station spacing, Graham street has been part or the plan since the original sound move proposal in the 90s. This is a good station location. It’s more the grade separation issue that is the problem in the RV rather than the station locations. If LINK were trenched or elevated then things would speed up quite a bit.

      1. @D M, this is not true. Graham was never included in the original Sound Move plan. It was studied in the original Link EIS, but it was set aside as one of many concepts documented but not advanced.

      2. My bad, I stand corrected. Looking back at the documents, I forgot only Boeing Access Rd. was in Sound Move and Graham St. was added later in the EIS process. However, my general point still stands that the Graham St. station has been a part of the planning since the relatively early stages of the program. I’m honestly more worried about Boring Access Rd. not having Sounder integration, as was envisioned before.

      3. Nailed it.

      4. > @D M, this is not true. Graham was never included in the original Sound Move plan. It was studied in the original Link EIS, but it was set aside as one of many concepts documented but not advanced.

         You’re technically correct, but I think have a slightly incorrect implication. If we’re going strictly by the original sound move plan it also had the convention center place station and even an i90/rainier station since it was going to use rainier.

         graham was part of the new plan chosen but deferred due to lack of funding.

      5. @WL, as I acknowledged in my previous, I stand corrected on the Sound Move, I meant to say DEIS for central link.

         Either way, my refutation that this infill station isn’t as designed for the system still holds as on the document, both Graham and BAR stations are marked as deferred and analyzed.

         Sound Move also proposed having elevated/subway on MLK until before Othello or a station on the hill next to I90 on Rainier so they were studying a lot of different options at that time.

      6. Hi d m I was replying to another engineer. I agree with you.

         It’s not included in sound move but it was included in the design of the currently built line

   3. This project already has ‘fiasco’ written all over it.

      Fiasco? It is a small, fairly cheap change. I don’t think even ST will have trouble with it.

      the Link system was never intended or designed to have subway/metro standard station spacing

      Then what the hell is it? If it was a tram it would have more stops, not less. It can’t possibly be commuter rail — the line was brand new. You are basically arguing that we should build a subway/metro but without subway/metro stop spacing, which is absurd. “Hey everyone, let’s build a subway line with a “local” and “express” but never run the local”. Ridiculous.

   4. It’s going to get more boardings than Pinehurst will.

      ST’s forecast in 20420 estimated 6000 daily boardings in 2040. It’s supposed to have the highest number of boardings in SE Seattle by then — higher than Beacon Hill, Mt Baker or the other MLK stations. And all of that without relying on feeder buses to add ridership.

      https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/

      And its cost is only about a very tiny 1-1.5 percent of the Alaska/ West Seattle junction which is forecast to have a similar number of boardings.

      That’s nowhere near a fiasco compared to other ST choices.

   5. I think it’s a good question why, in a regional rail system, a 1.6 mile gap needs to be filled. Imagine applying that rule throughout the system!

      The problem we have is that we’re trying to get a single light rail line between cities 30 miles apart to act like both a regional service and an urban mass transit line. For every decision they need to compromise one of those functions to improve the other.

      1. the Quasimodal point is stronger if one considers that the conceptual spine is between Everett and Tacoma via Seattle, or much longer than 30 miles.

         Al S. disses on Pinehurst. The Metro and SDOT restructures needs significant change. The ridership will be dependent on bus service connecting with Bitterlake and Lake City. The Lynnwood Link Connections project only provides Route 77, 15/15 headway, in the third phase of the restructure, in 2026. Route 77 would have an awkward pathway through Lake City missing the existing hub. Instead, the Link should be served by two 15/15 routes and two local routes.

         https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/lynnwood-link-connections#gallery-2

         The LLC network has routes 75, 345, 346, and 365 avoid the NE 130th Street station. That is weak Link integration.

      2. @eddiew,

         “ The LLC network has routes 75, 345, 346, and 365 avoid the NE 130th Street station. That is weak Link integration.”

         Yep. There is no bus turning loop or layover space at Potemkin Station. And 5th Ave going past the station will continue to be a one way avenue north of the car pedestrian drop off area. So Potemkin Station is a really hard station for buses to serve. The only real option is just to put some standard stops on 130th itself and have riders cross the traffic.

         So…. Whereas North Shoreline/185th gets 3 bus routes (including a real BRT route), and whereas Shoreline South/148th Station gets 7 separate routes, the plan is to serve Pinehurst with just 1 route, and it is only at 15 min frequency.

         But hey, the northeast corner of the station platform is going to be a great place to watch golf from. I’m thinking of bringing my lawn chair.

      3. @quasimodal

         That’s just how it works when combining the two. Unless if one wanted to build a separate urban metro and a commuter line

      4. I think it’s a good question why, in a regional rail system, a 1.6 mile gap needs to be filled. Imagine applying that rule throughout the system!

         Yes, it would be like a real metro! You know, like the New York City Subway or the London Underground. It would serve way more people and save them a lot more time! We certainly wouldn’t want that.

      5. Yep. There is no bus turning loop or layover space at Potemkin Station.

         There is no such thing as Potemkin Station. Stop making shit up. It is bad enough that you constantly write confusing abbreviations that we are supposed to know. But making up station names is bullshit. If you have something to say, then say it. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

      6. The LLC network has routes 75, 345, 346, and 365 avoid the NE 130th Street station. That is weak Link integration

         130th Station hasn’t been built yet. We don’t know for sure how buses will serve it. I know the initial plans were poor, but they could change. It is possible that the 75 could serve it (quite easily). Same goes for the 5. There are many options.

         But there is weak integration now. The 333 is one of the few frequent buses in Shoreline (by “frequent” I mean running every fifteen minutes midday). Yet it runs on 175th instead of 185th. It basically goes all the way around the station at 185th instead of serving it. Thus riders heading towards Shoreline Community College from the north have to go all the way down to 148th and then ride the bus from there. Making things worse is the route from there to the college. The bus doesn’t run north on Fifth. It instead runs south to 145th (into the heart of traffic) before finally heading north again at Greenwood Avenue.

         That isn’t the only issue, either. It is quite reasonable for buses — especially north-south buses — to end at the station. But the 333 — an east west bus — ends there. That means if you are trying to get from Lake City to the college you have to transfer in what is obviously the middle of the corridor. The routes should be split, with the northern 333 ending at the biggest destination on the route (the college) which just so happens to be the furthest spot west on the entire route. The southern part (from the college to 148th) should be attached to the 65 (or the future 72) and go via 155th (the faster and more populous corridor). Instead they run the infrequent 345 on 155th, which once again means the bus goes north and south to serve the station. If Metro feels it is essential to serve 145th then it should be served by this bus. This would remove two detours and better match the frequency with ridership.

         It seems as if Metro is ignoring the obvious when it comes to building a network in the area. Just build a grid, with the stations in the middle of various east-west routes. This is far more useful to riders than trying to treat each station like it’s own mini-hub or trying to cover every east-west corridor. I’m not saying doing so is a trivial task. There are only so many stations or even east-west paths across the freeway. But they could do better.

      7. “So Potemkin Station is a really hard station for buses to serve.”

         There’s an easy route that was the original motivation for Pinehurst Station: a route from 130th & Aurora passing the station to 125th & Lake City Way. That connects the station to both of the villages it’s intended to serve, and gives a variety of destinations to people living around the station. Beyond those endpoints it could go further, such as northwest to Shoreline CC, and southeast to Sand Point, U Village, and the U-District.

         The problem with the 77 is it doesn’t do much of even the basics: it connects Bitter Lake to the station but doesn’t address Lake City. It adds a third corridor, from Pinehurst station to Roosevelt Station. In doing that it fails to connect Lake City to Roosevelt station. Lake City is Seattle’s fifth-largest urban village and deserves better transit access than that. Routes straight to Pinehurst Station, straight to Aurora, and straight to the Roosevelt neighborhood.

      8. So Potemkin Station is a really hard station for buses to serve.

         So Mike, are you saying that Lazarus meant to type “Pinehurst Station” but ended up with “Potemkin Station”? Wow, Lazarus you need to double check your comment before letting the spellchecker run wild. Hell, just use “130th Station” and we’ll know what you are talking about.

         Anyway, Pinehurst Station (or 130th Station) is very easy to serve. That was the whole point of the station. It will be served with east-west buses. It isn’t easy to serve in a north-south manner, but that doesn’t really matter (since Link runs north-south). It is actually much easier to serve than 148th Station. The buses don’t need to detour at all — they just keep going on the main corridor (130th) and stop along the way. In that sense it is like the Roosevelt Station and the buses that go along 65th. Of course the Roosevelt Station also has the advantage of serving buses from the north and south on the main corridor because it isn’t that close to the freeway. None of the stations north of Roosevelt can be served as well from a north-south manner but most can be well-served via east-west buses.

      9. “So Mike, are you saying that Lazarus meant to type “Pinehurst Station” but ended up with “Potemkin Station”?”

         No, I’m saying Lazarus misstates the bus access potential. I ignored his usual slur on the station’s name. What matters is people’s mobility options.

      10. Thanks, Ross and Mike. Continued comments from someone who knows nothing of the area nor of its potential are getting more than tiresome. I know Ross lives in the area, and I (for now) live in the general Lake City/Meadowbrook area, as I have for the better part of decades. We know this area, we know that Lake City’s connection to Link without this station is terrible (as is Bitter Lake’s) – bad enough that without it I’ll just keep driving to Bellevue rather than taking the train (for me it’s even faster to take the 75 –> walk through campus –> 271 than *driving* to Northgate and taking the train; add 15+ minutes to *that* if I took transit to Northgate instead of driving). Lake City is a major urban village and there are few places in Seattle with more room for growth and expansion than Bitter Lake. Connecting the two directly to Link – each only 5-7 minutes away by bus – is a game changer for these two locations. Without it Link cannot be said to serve them or much else in NE and NW Seattle away from the relatively sparsely populated I-5 corridor.

   6. It will only add 30 seconds to travel time, not 10 minutes. It doesn’t matter if we add one or two infill stations; we’re not adding ten or twenty.

4. It looks exciting for the infill station to be built. For density Generally apartments have been built near the link stations at othello, Columbia city and mt baker so builders will probably build near the station as well.

   The very cheap cost of 118 million is also a great advantage of at grade light rail. I know the use of at grade light rail has been disparaged a lot but for many corridors outside of core Seattle if we want to build rail transit along avenues it’s the only affordable way to build it. We can’t deep bore tunnel everywhere

5. I know it is a non-starter but I can’t understand why removing space for cars is an not an option. Speed is a leading cause for crashes.
   Smaller lanes 10 feet, instead of 12 and maybe a shorter turning lane can mitigate most of the issues. Prevent displacement and make it safer for everyone because.

   1. Based on quick measurements on Google Earth, the lanes are already 10-11 feet, which is what is recommended for MLK’s designation as a Major Truck Street and an Urban Village Main street.

      https://streetsillustrated.seattle.gov/street-type-standards/urban-village-main/

      The main problem, as I see it, is the number of lanes, and the fact that SDOT often shoves too many uses onto single roads. A street cannot be a major freight/vehicle corridor and also the “main street” of an urban village. The volume of vehicle traffic is antithetical to developing a walkable central core. Instead, “Urban Villages” should be established between these arterials, with the walkable cores separated from loud corridors with toxic road dust.

   2. Are they really going to redo that section of MLK Way without Protected Bike Lanes?

   3. ST decided long ago that they wouldn’t take a lane on the roadway. I agree, it would probably be a lot cheaper (and better in the long run) if we just accepted that MLK should be one lane each direction (for cars). Eventually I think it will be, but likely way after this gets built.

   4. I heard that at the open house SDOT defended maintaining the 4+1 lanes ROW on the basis that the Seattle Transportation Plan indicates the “extra” lanes either going to bus, bike, or both in the long term. How long term? We’ll see. But that’s the first I have even heard rumors of SDOT publicly acknowledging any plans for reducing the general purpose lanes south of Rainier.

      1. > Seattle Transportation Plan indicates the “extra” lanes either going to bus, bike, or both in the long term. How long term? We’ll see

         It’ll depend on the mayor and city council. I’m not sure we’ll see it this mayoral term. SDOT has been planning for extending the bike lanes south on mlk way.

         If you look at the new rainier and mlk way intersection https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/BikeProgram/MLK_PBL/06_MLK_Rainier_Diagram.pdf it actually has only one lane southbound at mlk way (which quickly widens to two)

         The current city council isn’t as bike friendly though so we’ll have to see.

      2. The Transportation Plan identifies MLK through Graham as an Urban Village Main Street. SDOT’s Streets Illustrated manual identifies Urban Village Main Streets as serving a mix of uses, but notably, the example image (https://streetsillustrated.seattle.gov/street-type-standards/urban-village-main/) only has one general traffic lane each way, with more space given for wider sidewalks and bike lanes.

6. There is a bigger question here about ST finances in the subarea. This is as some suggest a nice modest project of limited complexity. They are in the conceptual planning stage with a cost estimate of $118 million. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion 35% cost growth — which is optimistic — between design and construction for a total of $160 million.

   This comes against the backdrop in which the agency cannot demonstrate it can afford the ST3 program scope. They don’t have a single ROD for any ST3 project. They only have one in final design (WSLE– without a ROD or a federal grant in hand), and that’s more than double the original estimated cost (for dubious public benefit, as has been widely reported here). They don’t have a project decision on any element of the Ballard extension or new tunnel, and no updated costs for the preliminary designs under consideration.

   The board has added scope everywhere without adding revenue: a very expensive and complex IDS solution, a tunnel under the ship canal, a tunnel in WS, a more expensive bridge over the Duwamish, etc.

   They don’t have a site yet for OMF-North, without which the new Seattle extensions can’t operate. They picked the most expensive site for OMF-South because they couldn’t say no to a burger chain.

   All these projects have a lot of north King funding. So $160 million becomes a meaningful chunk of money when trying to problem-solve the whole system.

   And of course they don’t have the Tacoma and Everett extensions fully designed, tho the south end seems to be further along than the rest. It feels like a house of cards, with a nice productive public discussion about one station in the RV carrying on in ignorance of the flames billowing out of Rome in the background.

   1. Not every post can be about the unaffordability of ST3’s flagship projects. If anything, the focus should be on delivering modest but significant improvements like these infill stations rather than extravagant expansions where the affordable alternatives were discarded long ago.

      >They picked the most expensive site for OMF-South because they couldn’t say no to a burger chain.

      To be fair, the most expensive site under serious consideration was on top of the Midway Landfill, but once the cost estimates came out that it would be something like an extra billion dollars, it never had a chance.

      1. Nathan, true, tho it all comes out of the same piggy bank. None of these projects exists in a vacuum.

         I dismissed the landfill site because it was never a serious idea, despite the fact they probably had to spend a bundle to study it and rule it out.

      2. The landfill concept made sense if you didn’t think about the engineering issues. No property impacts! Productive reuse of an otherwise useless property!

   2. The return on investment (cost per boarding) for Graham Street station is so much better than any other ST3 North King future station. By far!

      The only thing that isn’t clear to me is how many of these riders will move from Othello to Graham if/ when it opens versus won’t use Link at all unless the station opens.

   3. > All these projects have a lot of north King funding. So $160 million becomes a meaningful chunk of money when trying to problem-solve the whole system.

      they could save around a billion dollars goign elevated instead of a tunnel in west seattle. but anyways as nathan said we can’t talk about every other project on every post.

      1. You should always connect the dots for readers. Every decision made in a subarea to commit a couple hundred million makes the remaining unaffordable projects in the same subarea that much harder to solve.

      2. > You should always connect the dots for readers. Every decision made in a subarea to commit a couple hundred million makes the remaining unaffordable projects in the same subarea that much harder to solve.

         That’s a bit of a ludicrous take. would you complain when we’re talking about west seattle extension that one didn’t talk about the stride brt construction or the sounder s frequency improvements?

         Plus your rationale especially doesn’t make much sense considering it only costs ~100 million dollars. If anything we should be talking about the opposite how to downsize and optimize for cheaper west seattle/ballard light rail extensions so we can build more light rail throughout the rest of the region

      3. WL good grief. You actually engaged on the point I was making with your observation about WS. And I agree.

         But to then say it’s ludicrous to point out to poor financial condition of the NK subarea is itself ludicrous. All these decisions are related.

         My rationale is especially true for the whole program. An insolvent North King subarea makes it all the harder to deliver projects in other subareas because it restricts cashflows at the program level.

         So yeah, I don’t know what you’re trying to say… that $160 million is inconsequential? That the $300 million in bonding capacity it represents doesn’t matter when you’re trying to finance three tunnels and a giant bridge in the same subarea? If so, wow, that’s pretty cavalier where taxpayer money is concerned.

         Nowhere have I said this station should not be built. I am merely pointing out that committing yet more dollars to more projects without having a financial pathway on the rest is unwise, and readers should be aware of that dynamic.

      4. > So yeah, I don’t know what you’re trying to say… that $160 million is inconsequential?

         My point is that you literally chose the cheapest project to complain about wasting expense.

         > Nowhere have I said this station should not be built.
         You wrote “All these projects have a lot of north King funding. So $160 million becomes a meaningful chunk of money when trying to problem-solve the whole system.” I’m pretty sure you were implying about cutting the station.

         > I am merely pointing out that committing yet more dollars to more projects without having a financial pathway on the rest is unwise, and readers should be aware of that dynamic.

         That’s just a very long winded way of saying to cut the station. Which again we can debate about but using the rationale of large expense doesn’t make much sense when it’s literally the cheapest one.

      5. anyways we can probably talk about this more on an open thread or future article. I do agree with your core idea we need to build more cheaply, but am very confused with your conclusion to cut this station

      6. I literally wrote this in my previous comment: “Nowhere have I said this station should not be built.”

         Did you overlook it?

      7. another engineer, it seems your point is “don’t forget things cost money” which is… obvious? I’m not sure what else you’re trying to say, except that the ST3 projects seem to have a major cost issue, which is also… obvious.

         I’m not sure how this applies to Graham Street Station, though. You’re implying this project is merely a proposal that takes away from larger projects, but it’s just as voter-mandated as WSLE. ST’s financial plan assumes the project will cost $118M in 2024$. If it costs more that, then ST will have to bridge the gap. If other projects exceed their budget, then ST will have to figure out how to bridge that gap, too. If they start “affording” vastly overpriced projects like the current design of WSLE by cancelling voter-approved projects like Graham Street (which is what it would take), then there’s a major political cost to that.

         Perhaps you’ve forgotten that ST already did the financial and political calculus during their Realignment in 2021: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/realigned-st-capital-program.pdf

         Check out the Tiers. WSLE and Graham Street are both Tier 1. The Tier 3 and 4 projects are the ones that will get cancelled (or deferred or whatever) to allow ST to afford overpriced Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects.

      8. @another engineer

         Either a) you were trying to imply to cancel the station and that’s why it’s relevant or b) if you weren’t implying that then it isn’t relevant to bring up.

      9. An insolvent North King subarea makes it all the harder to deliver projects in other subareas because it restricts cashflows at the program level.

         Of course it does, but that doesn’t mean it would effect this project. It is too small, too important and too close to completion to sacrifice. It just wouldn’t make sense for ST to kill off this project. It is actually part of a group of projects that is likely to get built while much bigger projects get delayed indefinitely.

         Oh, and why do you keep quoting a number you just made up? There is no reason to assume this project will cost $160 million. The original estimate was $110,642,000. The Fall 2023 estimate was $117,879,000. The Fall 2024 estimate was $117,867,000. That’s right — the latest estimate is actually *less* than the one made a year prior. Yet now you think the price tag will suddenly jump by over $40 million? Why?

      10. a e, If there are “unaffordable projects” they’re unaffordable regardless of the $160 million for this station. Even if it goes up to $200 million, what is $40 million going to mean to the $7 billion for WSLE or the $11 billion for DSTT2 and BLE?

          This is not an argument to spend, spend, spend. It’s more an argument to “Take a breather on everything except an automated Westlake to Expedia stub with a little MF for cleaning the cars in Interbay and a single-track connection at Third and Pine for access to heavy maintenance”.

          THAT can be afforded within North King’s ST3 revenues, especially if automation and third-rail pickup make the tunnels four feet smaller in diameter and stations just 200 feet long instead of 400. It can probably be afforded even without King Donald’s approval or participation.

          Then, if the City can capitalize on its status as the most desirable city in the Disunited States post 125° die-offs across the Sunbelt, the line can be extended to the south into First Hill and on to the north to Ballard and the U-District. Using local funds.

          Call it the “Lazy U Line”. [as in branding irons…]

      11. Yes, Ross, I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid on Ballard-UW, but only as an extension of Ballard-Downtown. It becomes a powerful vacuum for transit riders all across the west, northwest and near northside of Seattle. A bus and then the train would be all that is required to access a ring of destinations that 75% of North Seattle riders frequent regularly.

          Folks from SLU and LQA would ride “round the horn” to UW in order to avoid the big elevation changes at Westlake. [The platform depth would certainly be smaller if the extension target is First Hill than if it’s CID North, but the platforms still have to be a tall “story” below track level in DSTT1 at Westlake; you can’t overrun it and have any sort of mezzanine.]

          Folks from Magnolia headed to the U-District would change at Dravus to a three minute train in order to avoid the chaos at the Fremont Bridge. Sure, buses would still have to run on Nickerson, but the train would be significantly quicker to the U-District even with a wiggle down to Fremont.

          And everyone in 91803, 98105 and 98107 and those in Magnolia and Queen Anne could access Ballard with one bus and a train. The owners of the restaurants along Ballard Way would rejoice.

      12. Yep, delay, deflect, diffuse. Misleading the public and failing to meet expectations by another word.

      13. Nathan speculates on my point. Having slept on it, I landed on this:

          I saw another nice, informative post about another transit improvement project, which I thought was fine in an of itself.

          But I grew annoyed following the dialogue about the pros and cons of the various configurations because it was playing out against a backdrop of complete uncertainty about whether it will ever be built, or built in a timeline that anyone would consider reasonable.

          They go out and have an engagement process to show the work on this project and get a bunch of people excited and involved, without disclosing they have no guarantees it will happen.

          And it struck me that this is no one’s fault in this community. It is rather a reflection of Sound Transit playing with peoples’ feelings and expectations, but not leveling with any of us about the financial realties of whether they can deliver the ST3 program. That strikes me as public service malpractice, and it fires me up.

      14. @another engineer

          that’s fine but we have west seattle articles and open threads for that all the time. It cannot be that every time we post about stride brt, some light rail infill, or st express bus restructure the conversation jumps back to west seattle link again. none of this discussion here is that productive or relevant to the graham street station.

      15. But I grew annoyed following the dialogue about the pros and cons of the various configurations because it was playing out against a backdrop of complete uncertainty about whether it will ever be built, or built in a timeline that anyone would consider reasonable.

          But there is no reason to feel that way. It is quite likely it will be built when they say it will be built. Look at the nature of this project:

          1) It is fairly cheap.
          2) It is unlikely to see huge cost overruns.
          3) It is popular.
          4) The plan is to start construction fairly soon (2028).

          All of this means that it is highly likely to be built even as bigger, longer term projects get delayed or cancelled. If ST continues to have major financial problems it doesn’t mean they go bankrupt. It just means they don’t build everything they planned on building. But they still build some of it. This has happened before. They didn’t build the line from the UW to SeaTac because it cost too much. So they ran a line from TIBS to downtown. With ST2 they were supposed to build a train to Federal Way. They ran out of money so they only got as far as Angle Lake. This would be the same sort of thing but to a much smaller degree. This is like trying to buy a $100 dollars worth of groceries and realizing you only have $90. You can’t buy all those groceries but you can sure as hell buy some gum. (This project is the gum in this analogy.)

      16. I see ae’s point that the projects aren’t inherently protected from the funding woes of other projects. They’re correct in that it’s entirely possible the project gets delayed because the Board decides it wants to prioritize other projects in another Realignment process.

          I think the disagreement here is about how the discussion of ST’s projects should be framed. Of course there are no guarantees that a project is happening; nothing in this world is truly guaranteed, but we don’t have a factual basis to say ST won’t be able to build Graham Street. Until we are told otherwise, these projects must be assumed to be proceeding as planned. Like Ross said, it’s much more likely ST will cut back the scope of unaffordable projects (like WSLE) and continue moving forward with other projects like Graham Street.

          We can speculate all we want (and we do!), but it’s not constructive to assume that no projects are affordable until all projects are affordable.

      17. The current processes are about deciding WHAT to build at Graham Street and in West Seattle. There’s a separate parallel financial process going on about WHEN they can be finished and WHETHER they can be built. Even if either of these projects are delayed, ST needs to decide what to build. The financial process will determine the order of these projects if the realignment tiers are modified further or if some projects are mothballed. That goes for all of ST3’s projects, not just Graham and West Seattle. There’s nothing wrong with continuing planning for what, even if when and whether is unclear. Planning is cheap compared to construction.

          ST’s position is that Ballard’s/DSTT2’s costs aren’t fully known yet because it hasn’t finished the early design and studies that would determine the cost, and it’s still exploring potential cost-saving measures. So it would be premature to assume a certain cost, or to push back the schedule or delete the project, until the cost and then-resources are better known. This cascades to Graham and West Seattle. Since Ballard/DSTT2’s costs aren’t fully known yet, it would be premature to modify Graham or West Seattle’s plans based on on them.

   4. I agree that we need to do less. But if we were to drop any transit projects, this would be the last one to drop. The ridership/dollar ratio on this project is better than anything else we’re doing.

   5. So $160 million becomes a meaningful chunk of money when trying to problem-solve the whole system.

      I disagree. It is a relatively small amount of money compared to the amount that ST is planning on spending in this subarea. It is also far more likely to be fairly close to the updated budget. It is worth noting that the cost increase in the project is minimal* compared to what voters approved. In contrast BAR went up quite a bit more (although it is nothing like the major Link projects). I get why you would just assume that a project is going to be a lot more expensive in the future (given ST’s history) but the current price tag is not the initial price tag. It is the price tag now. Given the nature of the project I don’t see the potential for huge cost overruns. There aren’t that many properties they need to take. They have flexibility as well which helps with negotiations. Given each variation is about the same they don’t have to commit to one approach or the other.

      In comparison look at a project that we rarely talk about: Stride 3. It is a much more expensive project and it is way over budget: https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/08/04/stride-brt-is-vastly-overbudget-risks-stressing-other-st3-projects/. It will cost at least an extra 200 grand more than originally planned — more than this entire project. It is also easy to see how the costs for the project could continue to increase. Some of the work required involves building a new road over a creek/ravine. They also want to build a new retaining wall and that has neighbors willing to take it to court. So if Sound Transit decides to cut corners which is more likely: they delay the BAT lanes for a relatively small section (of a route that won’t have BAT lanes the whole way) — or they tell part of Rainier Valley that they won’t build that station after all?

      You can look at just about anything ST is planning on building and find cost overruns. You can easily say this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but chances are it is all those big rocks that keep getting thrown on that poor camel. West Seattle and Ballard Link are the really big, expensive projects for this subarea.

      *See page 91 of the pdf referenced in this post: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Report%20-%202025%20Proposed%20Budget%20and%20Financial%20Plan.pdf

   6. another engineer: at least a vacuum would extinguish the flames.

      to date, the fiscal answer has been to delay and add more years of revenue; ST has three large revenue streams.

7. It is kind of crazy that knowing what we know now about how badly protected the light rail line is from drivers that we wouldn’t take the chance to install four quadrant gates, not just pedestrian gates.

   1. Yeah I’m admittedly surprised how MLK safety is such a big deal yet these alternatives don’t propose doing anything differently.

      My comment to ST has often been to NOT encourage pedestrians crossing MLK directly at Graham Street for example. I instead suggested that the station be sited for mid block crossing access north of Graham Street. Sure it’s a few hundred more feet of walking but it’s so much safer.

      Add to that the problem of making MLK even wider at Graham Street plus having trains stop at Graham. That adds even more time to the pedestrian countdown signals. Then by having a stop the Link signal priority can’t kick in. So everyone involved will have longer waits to cross either Graham or MLK. And that includes Link train riders.

      It drives ne nuts when ST draws out static diagrams yet ignores how people actually are crossing streets at signals in these situations. What good is saving someone from walking 200 feet when it creates an extra wait of 60 seconds? The time it takes to walk 200 feet (about one Seattle city block) is about 50 seconds.

   2. When ST finishes deciding on safety improvements, it will apply them to Graham too. Then the question will be where Graham planning/construction is at that time. Since this is the first draft, and I expect ST will finish deciding on a safety improvement strategy this year, so it can probably be ported to the Graham plan before the Graham EIS is final. In the meantime it doesn’t make sense for the Graham team to spend time on this itself when another team is already working on it, or to come up with strategies that are at odds with whatever the overall strategy decides, that would then have to be changed or we’d leave Graham different from the other Rainier Valley stations.

   3. There is probably one design change that would help pedestrians safety as well as reduce MLK width: eliminate left turns from MLK to Graham Street. Cars can instead drive to the next signal and make a U-turn. The left turns are often when pedestrians get hit or trains hit cars.

      1. Trains can hit cars at any intersection. At least at the stations, the train has shorter stopping distance.

         Does ST have data on where collisions occur most?

         In a discussion of safety, I can’t take the suggestion of u-turns seriously.

      2. When I attended, I asked why they have not considered an underpasses for Graham so that riders can walk to the platform safely (and without having to wait for a light) and to reduce car interference. They said that it would make left turns difficult for cars and there is a fair amount of traffic on Graham towards I-5 and not a lot of other ways for cars to get to the Georgetown exit. And of course it would make the station more expensive.

   4. Given we have had yet another accident this morning from a left turn driver hitting a train at Dawson and MLK – can we PLEASE consider quadrant gates again?

      Stop burying your head in the sand ST – these accidents delay service throughout the entire system. And we have created a system with limited to no bus redundancy for alternatives…

      1. I agree. They really need to add gates. I know it isn’t cheap but it is crazy to be busy building extremely expensive (and dubious) projects while neglecting a fairly basic improvement (that many would have considered necessary to begin with).

      2. The studies coming out of ST keep blaming the behaviors of people or the trains. While some of the recommendations would seem helpful, I can’t help but wonder if the issue is the street and signal designs. Specifically, eliminating left turns at crossing intersections with multiple phases is one more effective and inexpensive drastic solution. Many of the accidents that I read about are from drivers from those left turn pockets crossing the tracks. However, ST would have to assess whether this is the issue before trying it.

         Rather than have those left turns at intersections they can set up like New Jersey “jug handles” or Michigan lefts (U turn signal past the intersection). Plus eliminating that phase at major intersections could enable more green time for Link trains.

         Such a retrofit would require some widening of the streets so it wouldn’t be quick or cheap. So maybe the easiest thing would just be for every left turn pockets crossing from MLK to have a gate that is always down at the stop bar except when there’s a green light (and no approaching trains).

8. Every other surface rail system in the US has at least some “farside” platform configurations (like the option ST “rejected”). Every MAX station along East Burnside and Interstate Avenue uses the configuration, except for Interstate / Rose Quarter and Albina/Mississippi which are Center Platform and Kenton / North Denver which is on one side of the street.

   Again, ST is playing the “We know better than EVERY other transit operation in the World!” card.

   Use farside platforms at Graham, for better coverage of the neighborhood if for no other reason.

   1. Looking at MAX’s E 102nd Ave Station: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5226543,-122.5584959,179a,35y,0.21h/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

      It’s definitely the epitome of the schematic design, but what it’s missing are pedestrian gates on both sides of the track, which ST has identified as an important technology to prevent pedestrians from getting struck by trains (despite the main problem being cars turning in front of trains). ST’s excuse for not considering split platforms is apparently due to the fact the design requirement to include pedestrian islands on both sides of track would require more property takings than doing a “normal” station.

      Is Portland having similar at-grade crossing issues as Link does in the RV?

      1. Nathan, I don’t know; perhaps Glenn does. I haven’t read about riders being hit by a train, but it probably does happen. I know there was a huge kerfuffle fifteen years ago about a woman being run down by a bus at Sixth and Glisan at the north end of the Transit Mall by a bus turning across the walk lane. And there are certainly car/train crashes fairly regularly.

         So far as the pedestrian gates, why would they take more space? Let’s assume that the schematic on Option 2B is also adopted for the “split-platform” (what I call “farside platform”) design. There is a four or so foot safety island between the train envelope and the car envelope to serve as a refuge for people who are crossing the traffic lanes too late also to cross the tracks or who cross the tracks but then face a yellow or red at the roadway. Why does having a pair of those [one at each end of each platform]to the north and to the south of Graham Street take more space than having two pair of them on one side???

         How does that make sense? I call self-serving BS.

      2. Any surface station is going to have the risk of people getting hit. It’s definitely a problem.

         However, it would be interesting to compare the number on MAX vs ML King Link. It seems like ML King has an awful lot more of these problems than MAX. I suspect there’s something with the street design that just doesn’t work as well or something.

         Though MAX also has a significant problem of hitting people in completely grade separated areas, despite millions invested in “unclimbable” fences and the like.

      3. When I asked, I was told that there have been accidents where riders waited for one train only to be hit by another train in the opposite direction. Therefore, crossing two tracks next to each other is more dangerous. With a center platform riders would only have to cross one track.

9. I’m just going to hope that the UL tag works in comments:

   While it’s nice if stations are flat and straight, there are times this can’t be done.

   Therefore, it sounds like options not involving a straight or flat station should be considered here.

   Here are some examples of situations where MAX was put into one of these less than ideal locations that involved either a curve or non-level:

   Park Avenue MAX station looks like it’s almost level in the Google Street view, but that’s because their street view car is also going up the same hill at street level. Note the way the parking garage is built into the hillside, with the lower level vanishing into the slope:
   https://maps.app.goo.gl/wCbp5MX5vt2Wqr3y9

   Many of the downtown stations are built at a slight incline. Furthermore, many of the transit mall MAX stations have a slight curve to them, allowing the track to get to the sidewalk platform area, and then get back out into the center lane in only one intersection of travel. This station is both curved (very slightly) and not level:
   https://maps.app.goo.gl/XFrMR9ZpY5zLA7hN8

   You can sort of see the curved nature of the transit mall platforms from above though:
   https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5153974,-122.6805694,82m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

   In some cases, the track needed to be straighter than desirable to make a safe platform, but the solution involved angling the platform so that the effect was a curved station. Eg, the Flavel Street MAX station is on a curve:
   https://www.google.com/maps/@45.467835,-122.5692269,818m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
   A close look at the station shows that the track on the inside part of the curve is straight, but the outside track curves slightly:
   https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4678062,-122.5664857,102m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

   Having the outside platform track curved is better than having the inside track curved, because the goal of a straight platform is so the operator is able to see all the doors. So, you could have a platform on the inside of the curve be a lot tighter than on the outside of the curve.

   So, if you do a split station with two platforms, you could conceivably locate the station on a fairly decent curve, so long as you put both platforms on the inside curve side of the track they serve.

   The Lents/SE Foster station slopes upward to get it close to Foster Road while crossing over Foster Road:
   https://maps.app.goo.gl/cH7hvoBDmCFsVgMv5

   The Convention Center MAX Station is, like so many MAX stations, built in the street. Making it level would involve a Denny Regrade level of rearrangement of inner northeast Portland. It’s not too obvious on the street view, unless you look at the building across the street and notice how it is built into the side of the hill:
   https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzLtor98jdDKBNJc6

   Anyway, SoundTransit is going to do what they want to do, but someone should point out to them there are options other than level and straight. Sometimes, it just isn’t physically possible in limited space or budget allowed for everything to be ideal. It’s better to build the stations to optimize passenger catchment and safe pedestrian access than it is to prioritize unimportant geometrical goals.

10. And it turns out the the UL tag doesn’t work in comments, apparently.

    1. • Coffee
       • Tea
       • Milk

       Works for me.

11. Some thoughts I have after attending the open house tonight:

    I agree that 2B sounds like the preferred option. The ST folks I talked with seemed keen on avoiding the sewer under MLK. I think ST included 2A as its the obvious center platform placement and they can use it to show why 2B is similar, but better.

    ST mentioned their two top priorities for this project are improving safety and minimizing impacts to local businesses. With that in mind, I asked someone from SDOT why can’t SDOT reduce MLK to one lane per direction. That would make it safer to access the station, and give ST more space for the station platforms (thus minimizing land acquisition around the station). The SDOT rep mentioned they will likely convert one lane in each direction to a bike or bus lane in the future. That will be a separate project as it will span further along MLK. He also mentioned SDOT will likely do it in phases and citied the Beacon Hill bike lane project as an example. I asked if the full project would span from Rainier to Henderson, and he could not confirm that it would reach as far south as Henderson.

    Someone from Metro confirmed an east-west bus on Graham is in the works, they just need to figure out where it should go. There was an activity on the table where people could vote with stickers on where the bus should go. Georgetown was by far the most popular option. Burien, White Center, and Central District all had about half the number of votes as Georgetown. South Park had zero votes when I was at that table.

    The construction timeline is 2028 – 2031. An ST rep said they plan to build a crossover at Juneau St in 2027 to make single tracking during construction easier. They don’t know the full construction impact on Link at this time.

    The ongoing safety improvements along the MLK corridor were brought up in a few discussions. ST is planning on piloting pedestrian gates at Columbia City and Othello. The gates should be added soon, potentially as soon as this summer.

    Quad gates are not being considered for the Graham St Station as ST wants to maintain consistency at intersections along MLK. There are no plans to add quad gates to every intersection along MLK because “rail is not considered to have full priority”. I’m not sure what quad gates have to do with priority, but I guess the monthly vehicle/train crashes are here to stay.

    1. MAX out west of Beaverton Central has almost no car/train crashes. because of the noisy gates. The clang up a storm with then start going down and throughout their closed period.

       But over on East Burnside and on Interstate Avenue there are left-turners who get T-boned or occasionally even drive into the side of a train.

       Those folks are Award Winners! It takes a high-level of disinteredness not to see a fifteen foot tall train hooting at you.

       1. “when they” not “with then”

    2. Those Graham Street bus route destinations do not have my stamp of approval. If I have to put up with a three seat ride from Kirkland to downtown, then Graham Street area residents can put up with a two-seat ride from the RV to Georgetown or the CD!

       1. Sam says east-west travel is for suckers!

12. Of course, the elephant in the room is that every single one of these options will end up costing way more money than if Graham St. Station were just included in the original Link, back in 2009. They thought they were saving money by omitting it, but penny wise, pound foolish.

    1. Also money wasted if Seattle decides to grade separate Rainer Valley segment a few years after opening it. Like, Graham Street should be paused till they can figure that part out first.

       1. Any such plan would have to be decades in the future, and after ST3 is finished.

       2. Where would Seattle find the sort of money to do this?

          Also once rail lines are running…. there’s no shutting them down for years for something like grade separation.

          The idea that tax payers would pay for Sound Transit and then vote in another local tax for more light rail….. I just can’t see that happening.

       3. Seattle has voted strongly to increase ST taxes 3 times; I don’t see why the voters would be opposed to another incremental increase.

       4. “The idea that tax payers would pay for Sound Transit and then vote in another local tax for more light rail….. I just can’t see that happening.”
          People have voted 3 times over three decades at this point for approving light rail projects. So your point is kinda moot here when we have factual evidence here to the contrary.

          Can I persist the future on how people will vote, no. Because how people will vote on an ST4 will depend on what projects are chosen, where politics broadly are when it happens, and the state of the region. At the same time, we have precedent to look at and you’re basing this conjecture on your own personal dislike of taxes rather than facts.

       5. Not to echo a certain Mercer Island lawyer, but it’s hard to imagine an ST4 passing that raises sales taxes/car tabs the same way ST1/2/3 did – I think that revenue source is largely “tapped out”. What would be interesting is if the legislature, when they enact a road-use charge, allows cities/counties/Sound Transit to raise funding through an add-on road-use charge.

          The more-plausible version of funding for ST4 is doing something like LA’s Measure M, which never expires. I could see an ST4 passing which makes ST’s current taxing authority permanent, probably hitting the ballot around 2040 or so. Then ST wouldn’t have to consider cutting taxes after paying off their bonds in the 2050’s, and could plan for additional large capital projects after the early ST3 projects are paid off.

       6. The Legislature voted to allow Community Transit taxpayers to raise their sales tax an additional 0.3 % for CT, which their voters then voted to do. I don’t get why the Legislature won’t give King County Metro the same opportunity.

       7. I’m not sure what the limits are but the last time they had in vote in the county to raise taxes for transit it failed. In contrast it passed easily in the city.

       8. The ST2 tax stream is on top of the ST1 one. The ST3 stream is on top of both of them. So you’re paying the combined sum of all three streams. As the ST1 and 2 bonds get substantially paid down, the money from those streams will be redirected to ST3 construction. So you’ll be paying the equivalent of the combined ST1/2/3 taxed rate until ST3 is finished. Then if there’s no ST4, the rate will be rolled back to cover just operations/maintenance/fleet replacement and debt service. That should roll it back around 2/3 when the bonds are substantially paid down. If ST3 finishes in 2041 (per the last realignment schedule), that would be in the late 2040s or 2050s.

          An ST4 would presumably be on top of the ST1/2/3 tax streams. That’s the only way to get any money for additional projects before 2041 or whenever ST3 finishes construction. Of course, ST4 could also modify ST3, such as reducing/deleting some ST3 projects or replacing them with different ones. But the base assumption is it would just add additional projects, because that’s what ST2 and 3 did.

          The issue for ST4 is, people are already paying ST1/2/3 tax streams and some voters feel this rate is “already high”. So would they tolerate an additional stream on top of those? Especially with the most essential projects already in ST2 (and its short ST3 supplements like Downtown Redmond and Federal Way, and the three Stride lines). ST3 is now controversial even among transit fans who supported it, because of design decisions ST made after the vote. Could ST4 come up with projects that are as compelling or as necessary as ST3, which the major areas are already addressed? Would voters be willing to vote for ST4 after seeing how badly ST is managing ST3? Would they be willing/able to pay additional taxes above the current rate? These are all questions that determine whether an ST4 is feasible, or when it could happen, or what it could contain.

13. Thinking ahead to bus restructures. I feel we should be able to do better in the area, specifically:

    1) There is no east/west service on Graham between Beacon and Rainier
    2) At Othello, it’s separate buses east of MLK vs. west of MLK, so going straight requires either walking 3/4 mile of transferring.

    Not immediately sure of the solution, but it seems there ought to be something better than the status quo.

    1. KCM talked about a new east west bus route from Westwood village to Georgetown to graham station. However east of that was not obvious where to terminate at. Seward park was one location residents suggested. North (mt baker?) or south (rainier beach? Renton?) didn’t seem to make too much sense

       1. Ending the route in Seward Park is the closest viable option but it won’t generate much ridership. Perhaps the new route could go north on Rainier to Mount Baker. This could be paired with an extension of the 36 to Rainier Beach. Rapid Ride R could be limited stop while the other two routes cover the current stops. RR R could just stop at MLK/Henderson, Rainier/Henderson, Rose, Othello, Holly, Graham, Orcas, Edmonds, 33rd, then Mount Baker TC and further north.

       2. Maybe it could take the tail of the 50?

          – Start the 50 at the Orcas loop
          – Have the new route travel down Graham to Rainier to Orcas, then take over the tail of the 50 down Seward Park S to Othello Station

       3. What Seward Park needs is 15-minute service on some route. Not two 30-minute routes to different Link stations and uncoordinated.

    2. Honestly, Graham has a brutal, curvy hill climb east of Swift Ave. The lanes are narrow too.

       Before getting too deep in service ideas I would want Metro to try it out on different buses.

14. I’m stunned adding an at-grade infill station to an existing route is $120M. I realize it’s not as easy as it sounds but holy sht thats a lot of money for two platforms!

    1. My guess is it is two things: Making the street wider and moving the tracks. I don’t think it is as simple as just adding platforms.

       1. As Ross said, it’s not just the platform installations.

          It really shows the outcome when not reserving land for new infill platforms when original construction happens. Had the MLK rebuild for Link — begun almost 20 years ago — anticipated the station, the cost and difficulty would have been much lower today.

          It’s why Pinehurst was accommodated when it was. Had that future station not been anticipated during Lynnwood Link’s construction the it probably would not have ever happened. At least Graham is a surface infill station on a pretty level, straight track.

       2. That’s the problem with having a transit capital projects agency that can only build what’s voter-approved. If ST were able to do property acquisition in service of its long-term plan, even if those long-term projects aren’t funded for construction, it would save lots of money in the long-run.

       3. There’s probably significant utility relocations as well.

          The MAX station at civic Drive cost $3 million to put into service in 2010, and that’s AFTER TriMet TriMet installed the platforms to get ready for a station to be there in 1996.

       4. Glenn, I know there’s been quite a bit of inflation but $3M to $120M in 15 years is a lot, even with the foresight of Civic Dr being partially built.

          These transit costs have got to come down whether ST3 projects, at-grade infill stations on existing lines, or bus driver protective barriers… these astronomical costs are killing transit.

15. Why does the station track need to be straight and level? Can’t the platform curve to match the track?

    Hopefully for the planned infill station at 220th ST built the tracks straight & level, if they think it is this important.

    1. The operator needs to be able to see all the doors. So, you could put a station on a curve so long as that is met.

       If you put the platform on the inside side of the curve, there’s less of a problem, except for station obstacles such as shelters. The Flavel Street MAX station (see link in comment above) shows one way TriMet built a station on a curve while maintaining the sight lines.

    2. It does not have to be exactly straight and level, but there are tolerances for ADA as well as safety (gap between vehicle doors and platforms).

       1. Sound Transit said it increases the gap and violates ADA requirements. I can’t imagine that being an issue with the small bend they have.

16. another infill to slow down the slowest part of link in between the stations with some of the lowest ridership. Seems like a perfect idea from a council person that wanted a pet project

    1. It is really isn’t a councilmember pet project, it was in the original plan of ST1 and got removed from the plan and became a deferred infill station to save costs on the project before shovels were put in the ground. Alongside, it doesn’t really slow down the line.

Comments are closed.