West Seattle Link Forum

195 Replies to “West Seattle Link Forum”

1. Darn, when I read the lede I thought this was an ST-sponsored forum. But “No”. Instead, this was sane citizens who have thought about what’s best for the neighborhood AND the entire City of Seattle instead of what might fluff developers hot to raze the Alaska Junction.

2. Buses get stuck in the snow. Ask me how I know. Go Link!

   1. Good thing Link never has any disruptions, and there are multiple alternative pathways to get around a blockage when there is a disruption on the line!

      1. @Andrew Please look into the overall reliability and on time performance of Link light rail versus the West Seattle bus routes. While the prioritization and the “bang for your buck” of West Seattle light rail is questionable, the performance of light rail is light years ahead of any bus based solution, especially for any busses that traverse the urban core.

      2. The proposed Link line only serves The Junction and a couple of bus transfer stations. Everyone else in West Seattle still winds up on a bus with the proposed line.

         While the downtown tunnel will help a lot with snow reliability, so far SoundTransit doesn’t seem to have any snow removal equipment, so the West Seattle Link bridge will still have potential problems.

3. West Seattle did have a lot more bus service for several years, courtesy of residual revenue from the monorail tax. How did that experiment come out?

   1. I hadn’t heard of that. It must have run out in the 2000s. I don’t remember any time in the 2000s that West Seattle had “a lot more bus service”. If it had, I would have ridden it to Alki and the Junction and Lincoln Park more often.

      In the 2010s when WSDOT was demolishing the 99 viaduct and building the tunnel, it provided mitigation money for extra service on the C and E and maybe the D to make up for the capacity limitations on 99, Alaskan Way, and 1st Avenue. That had nothing to do with the monorail.

      When the 2008 recession forced the 2014 Metro cuts, several lower-density West Seattle neighborhoods lost service or got frequency reductions. Those are the “transit” deserts in the map: Arbor Heights in the southwest edge, west of California Ave, and maybe lower California (route 22 may have been suspended for a while), and the northern shore (current 775 water taxi shuttle). West Marginal Way I don’t know if it ever had bus service. 16th has always had poor service for a college and lower-income area, but I don’t know that it was reduced.

      1. Aside from the winding, slow, crosstown, Link-transfer-oriented route 50, there is zero mid-day or weekend service for the northwestern swath of West Seattle, north of the C Line route. The stretch of neighborhoods along CA Ave, Admiral, and Alki are much bigger, with many more residents, than several other isolated quadrants like Magnolia and View Ridge that still get some token “coverage” weekend service. Meanwhile, even the peak commuter-oriented service up there has been shrunk repeatedly: The 55, which provided some extra service connecting Admiral to downtown via Alaska Junction, and the 37 (express service along Beach Drive to downtown), both got eliminated recently. There used to be a route 53 or 54 serving Belvidere. And service on the 57 to Genesee Hill has shrunk.

         Perhaps you’ll argue that the 50 is sufficient consolation, but I think the 50 instead demonstrates just how unpopular the Link plan will be, relying as it does on transferring from Link to an infrequent, winding neighborhood circulator. That extra travel time variance and inconvenience of waiting in the cold for a transfer tips a lot of would-be riders out of using transit, mainly due to forcing people from a one-seat to a two- or three-seat ride.

4. The point about the carbon footprint of building light rail is rather important.

   Will some public entity please take the lead in planning and building a carbon-negative concrete plant? Or at least do a study on such, ASAP?

   1. Low-carbon plant needs to get its heating energy from renewable electrical sources. The Ash Grove Concrete plant in SODO would need serious electrical transmission lines (and SCL/PSE would need to provide sufficient electricity) to replace its natural gas heating source.

      Also, it should be noted that the EIS uses general numbers and academic studies of typical construction emissions – they did not do a complete lifecycle analysis of typical construction practices used on Sound Transit projects. ST has a stated goal of testing and using lower-carbon concrete sources.

      1. yes, Sound Transit only provided rough estimates based on other elevated/tunneled portions. I don’t think it take a huge bridge into consideration and it certainly does not take into consideration that the line will be elevated far higher than usual elevated lines. Therefore carbon generation will be even higher most likely. more details in https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/09/west-seattle-link-and-climate-change/

   2. It’s somewhat important, but the biggest factor by far is people’s mobility options. Attracting people from cars is the best carbon-reduction strategy, regardless of whether the buses are still diesel or new concrete infrastructure is a one-time addition to emissions.

      This project is only a small part of ST’s total Link construction, so it doesn’t make sense to single West Seattle out as if this is the only segment with emissions. Doing that just makes West Seattle the victim of political timing — the organized opponents raised it on this project in 2025 but not on earlier projects.

      There’s a strong climate reason not to build West Seattle Link, but focusing on construction emissions is missing the forest through the trees.

      The best way to address concrete-construction emissions is for a general R&D and implementation program to migrate to carbon-negative concrete for all construction projects — both Link and non-Link. Not to single out the West Seattle Link project, or to cancel it for the wrong reasons.

      1. What you describe in the last paragraph is exactly what I have wanted to see happen for years.

         As for moving more trips to net-carbon-free modes, will anything reduce induced demand caused by freed-up space?

5. “Sound Transit maintains that there continues to be broad support for this extension. That was not the impression we got from this forum”

   Well of course, when you have a self-selecting group of anti-Light Rail people, it’s going to seem like you guys are the only voices there are. The vast majority of residents in West Seattle want light rail, stop trying to delay it.

   1. “Rethink the Link” does connote that there are alternative light rail options for West Seattle that some of the oppositional groups would support. I heard no such alternatives in the video. Of course, since the Preferred Alternative has already been selected, it is probably an exercise in realpolitik to focus on that PA.

      The alternatives I heard were throw more buses at the problem, give them more dedicated right of way, build a bus viaduct to SODO Station, make more electric cars, and make them drones.

      The failure of the battery-electric microphone was the perfect mic drop moment, with the spare microphone deployed in a mere few seconds.

      All in all, this event seemed more accurately “Stop the Steel!”

      1. Sadly, Brent, I must agree. The video was more reacting to the EIS than proposing something different.

         But these are volunteers who are concerned and not paid professionals being paid millions and given years to do the work to propose anything new. Even if the group did have a consensus solution amongst them, it would still come off as uninformed.

         Which gets into how the process has been flawed from the start. ST has so tightly limited the alternatives that there has never been a sincere effort to propose varied project alternatives to benefit riders at a reasonable budget. ST has viewed this mostly as a nuisance project to be mitigated too — and focused the design to keep offending wealthy real estate owners (yet not blinking about displacing less wealthy Youngstown residents).

         Had the process been objective, the alternatives after ST3 would begun by refining those studied in 2014 and introduced new ones as well back in 2017-2019 with an eye to the best productivity for the budget.

         It’s going to take some sturdy political backbone now to face the reality that these past 8 years have been mostly wasted. But that unfortunately must be part of the story to rethink this out-of-control project.

         I actually think the Rogoff was trying to do this with the ill-fated “Realignment” effort. The result was that the elected officials on the Board (especially Dow) didn’t want to face reality and doubled down on their spending-spree approach.

      2. “The video was more reacting to the EIS than proposing something different.”

         That’s the major issue now. If you want to stop the project, the most effective way is to get the disadvantages into the EIS, where it might influence the FTA or local politicians. Any other alternatives would have to get into the EIS or a new EIS. That’s a bigger lift than this. First you have to convince the ST board to turn around the battleship or be more open to considering alternatives. Then specific alternatives can be debated and considered.

   2. @MarkP

      West Seattle Link will delay itself all on it’s own because of the ridiculous price tag. See Al’s comment below about the cost.

      1. This is a great post. Thanks for diving in to one of ST” biggest challenges. The outcome of this debate affects everything else they are trying to do under ST3.

         Agreed Brent– The discussion isn’t about killing the project from my perspective, though there are clearly some folks who would prefer that. The project needs to be re-thought. It is vastly more expansive than originally stated, and delivers only marginal transit benefit. That marginal benefit simply is not worth the opportunity cost represented by the mammoth price tag. As the project advances in design, the costs and complexities will almost certainly go higher– that pattern is well established.

         Whether it’s $7.1 Billion or $8 Billion, that sum puts the rest of the program at risk of major delay and possibly renders some of the more beneficial projects in ST3 unaffordable. This is because of the massive cash flows, bond sales, and debt service that would be necessary to pull it off starves the rest of the program of needed resources.

         So get is out of the ground and back in the air, find a shorter, lower way to cross the river. consider segments of single-tracking… there are ways to down-scale the project short of killing it outright.

   3. The newsworthy part is that West Seattle residents opposing West Seattle Link exist, and they’re large enough to be organized and to host a forum. For years ST has given the impression that all or the majority of West Seattle residents urgently want West Seattle Link, including the SODO stub early deliverable, and think the full line will be a major transit improvement. Well, here’s West Seattle residents opposing it. They only speak for themselves — the group itself isn’t the majority of West Seattle residents — but its existence hints that there’s a larger number of residents beyond it with similar attitudes.

      In contrast, I can’t find more than one West Seattle resident who’s pro West Seattle Link or thinks it would improve average residents’ transit mobility. That person is Dow Constantine himself. Where are the other West Seattlites who support that plan.

      STB have several articles arguing that West Seattle Link has no transit-best-practice justification. That’s what makes it different from Rainier Valley, North Seattle, Bellevue-Redmond, or SeaTac airport. Instead it will harm people’s mobility options. West Seattle’s geography is not like the linear east Seattle axis or Bellevue-Redmond, where the largest plurality of trip patterns are on the way of those lines. West Seattle’s major axis is north-south, but Link is east-west. So 90% of West Seattle residents won’t be in walking distance of a station, and would have a forced transfer where both the bus segment and the Link segment is only a few miles. That makes the transfer overhead a large percent of the total trip. In contrast, multi-line BRT or more frequent buses could fan out from the bridge like the current C, H, 21, 50, 55 (suspended), 56, and 125 do. That’s the transit-best practices way to serve low-to-medium density West Seattle.

      In many Link corridors the transit-best-practices principles and the Link opponents are on opposite sides, but in West Seattle’s case they’re on the same side. That’s another thing that makes this opposition newsworthy. Even just to say that it exists, to counter the general impression that everybody in West Seattle thinks like Dow Constantine and really wants West Seattle Link ASAP.

      1. Great comment, Mike.

         And that’s not even mentioning that the Alaska Junction Station is proposed to be about as deep as the UW Station is. And most of the riders will be transferring from buses that could have run to a shallower station at 35th (or even Delridge). It’s going to take every rider time to reach that platform.

         Just dropping the last station would probably save at least a Billion dollars — although the segmentation in the FEIS won’t disclose that actual cost savings or ridership impact. That last billion is for a very small number of additional riders.

         And that’s before all the impacts of digging a 100 foot hole the size of a football field in the middle of the Alaska Junction district — which will likely be closed off for 7 years like the U Link stations were.

      2. “In contrast, I can’t find more than one West Seattle resident who’s pro West Seattle Link or thinks it would improve average residents’ transit mobility”

         Mike, I think you’re letting selection and confirmation bias color your view on how West Seattle views the project. You say you don’t know anyone who’s in support of the project and yet I’ve met multiple people irl who are in favor or ambivalent to it.

         The most accurate take on West Seattle Link in my view is that there are some people who in favor/against it (mainly people here on this small niche forum) and a large majority of people who are just flat out ambivalent to the project or don’t know of the project’s existence because there aren’t any shovels in the ground yet. It’s why in my view the “Rethink the Link” forum is mainly just a very small sample of people, like less than a 100 people who aren’t truly representative of how the neighborhood feels in general.

         Most people aren’t willing to spend a couple hours on a random Tuesday at 4:30 PM to talk about transit other than the loudest voices in the room who have an opinion on either side.

      3. “I’ve met multiple people irl who are in favor or ambivalent to it.”

         They need to be more visible so it doesn’t give that impression.

      4. Weren’t there at least a few pro-Link folks at the route walk that was hosted by RTL last year? We also apparently have multiple pro-Link commentators who say they’re from West Seattle.

         In general, I don’t know why pro-Link folks would bother going to RTL events. Has RTL directly asked any pro-Link voices to speak? On the other hand, I’m sure at least some folks supportive of the project have gone to the official open houses about it.

      5. The moderator said they reached out to Constantine’s office.

      6. The organizer also said that they have reached out to Sound Transit to attend, but Sound Transit has refused. Sound Transit focuses on making their presentations to get everybody excited about their plan. They do not engage with the public to discuss better alternatives.

      7. “They do not engage with the public to discuss better alternatives.”

         Sad but true.

         It’s so true it’s almost comical. ST public meetings about Link expansion are a total waste. Often they only have non-technical staff write a few notes on a big pad which later seem to be thrown away because the comments never show up in later meeting summaries.

         And in the case of Lynnwood Link they showed all those escalators to JJ Fred’s of people — only to change the design to yank them out right before construction started. So they lied to the public in their presented drawings.

      8. “Weren’t there at least a few pro-Link folks at the route walk that was hosted by RTL last year?”

         That was the walk from Delridge Station/Longfellow Creek Park to halfway across the bridge, passing the Pigeon Point cliff. Martin and I attended. One person had a pro-Light Rail sign. I asked him if he specifically supported ST’s West Seattle alternative (the opposite of the other walk attendees). He said he just wants the light rail network in general to get done expeditiously, and wasn’t specifically endorsing ST’s preferred alignment or West Seattle light rail over buses: he just wanted something to get done. I didn’t see the sign at this forum (I got there at the last half hour), but it could be the same person. If so, it doesn’t necessarily mean ST’s preferred project or bust.

      9. “And in the case of Lynnwood Link they showed all those escalators to hundreds of people — only to change the design to yank them out right before construction started. So they lied to the public in their presented drawings.”

         The reason ST took the down escalators out was to mitigate cost increases. So you’re saying ST can’t downscale, can’t try to keep costs down, can’t change its mind as the situation changes? It’s not lying if ST intended to have the escalators at the time of the presentation.

         I think the escalators shouldn’t have been removed, but for a different reason. Bidirectional escalators should be a minimum baseline requirement, like center platforms and minimum 10-minute frequency. That’s what makes a high-quality transit network. You don’t see department stores with only up escalators: customers would walk out and go to another store. You don’t see cities with real multi-line subways that skip down escalators.

         That would raise the baseline cost of course, and in Pugetopolis’s current political environment that would mean a shorter line or no Link, but that raises a more fundamental issue. The government should have a stronger overall commitment to transit, and giving the agency the resources to do it right, rather than making false tradeoffs like whether Shoreline’s station cost is tolerable or whether skipping a down escalator is a rational choice.

         [Ed. Corrected “hundreds” word per author’s intention.]

      10. JJ Fred’s = hundreds

          (I sometimes wonder how spellcheck works!)

      11. @ Mike:

          I still argue that the appropriate cost cutting move would have been to not build some of the top deck of parking. Losing 40 spaces is a lot easier than gsving anlmost everyone use stairs or use the elevator which adds water and tear to that. And judging from the boarding numbers, the top deck at Lynnwood is probably the only one used anyway — and that deck may become empty once the Everett Link garages are added at Mariner and Ash.

      12. “JJ Fred’s = hundreds”

          I corrected it in the original. I assumed JJ Fred’s was a retail business.

          “(I sometimes wonder how spellcheck works!)”

          Overzealously if you’re on mobile. I’ve had my words changed to quite different things that I didn’t notice it had changed. It was especially bad last Friday when I was on the 2 Line commenting on my Android phone. I had three comments with especially bad wording/grammar mistakes that I wouldn’t normally make.

      13. I also thought JJ Fred’s was some retail shop – a cross between Fred Meyer’s and JJ’s deli in Tacoma. And Sound Transit promised escalators to this amazing store, and people were excited, and then Sound Transit reneged. It did strike me that having a store with two first names would be a little odd. “Hey, you should go over to JJ Fred’s – he’s a really great guy! He’s got great stuff.” I’m not sure why I find this so funny…

6. The term “Rethink the Link” is not “Stop the Link”. It seems to more question the chosen path that ST has taken.

   Which gets unto the challenges of stopping this unproductive project. Not even taking into account the poor ridership, it appears to be the most expensive light rail line per mile ever built in the US by far! The 4.1 mile project is currently estimated at $6.7 to $7.1 billion. That’s $1.63 billion per mile on the low side.

   I was watching the newest Transit Tangents review of the Maryland Purple Line, which the said was thought to be the most expensive light rail project in America. It’s 16.2 miles at $9.5 billion. That’s 590 million per mile.

   Lynnwood Link was $3.2 billion at 8.5 miles. That’s about $380 million per mile.

   It’s even 50 percent higher per mile than the currently under construction LA west side’s Purple/ D Line Extension project of 9 miles at $9.5 billion or just over $1 billion per mile. And it’s a full-on subway for its entire length — and expecting double (53,000) average weekday boardings — and given the built development along the corridor this seems low.

   While there is some inflation cost factors for West Seattle Link it’s not double or triple current or recent light rail projects.

   Here is what the public was told for ST3: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/LRT_WestSeattletoDowntownSeattle.pdf
   This is an estimated project budget at less than $1.6 billion on the high side. The current $6.7 to $7.1 billion can’t be blamed solely on inflation.

   Supporters of West Seattle Link need a serious reality check. The process that ST chose following ST3 approval has not only summarily disregarded productivity, it’s ignored the actual project costs too. The attitude following ST3 passage has seemed to be like shopping after winning a Grand jackpot.

   No one likes to face changing their thinking or lifestyle to live within their means. But we are at that point. Sorry, son, but the family can’t buy you a Lamborghini just because you think it’s pretty.

   1. Yeah, I don’t really understand how it still has any support at its current cost estimates. And for something that provides worse transit to the peninsula than BRT! I think that’s really the line that needs to be pushed. West Seattle rail supporters are pushing a more expensive option that we already can’t afford to deliver poor transit service. They will say that the public voted for it, but with cost escalations being +300%, at what point do we need to take another vote?

   2. >This is an estimated project budget at less than $1.6 billion on the high side. The current $6.7 to $7.1 billion can’t be blamed solely on inflation.

      The current equivalent “voter-approved” cost due solely to construction cost inflation is $2.4 billion. The voter-approved project also assumed “alignment primarily on elevated light rail, a new rail-only fixed span crossing of the Duwamish River, and five stations.” We also have a good guess at how they got this number: they took the average cost per mile or whatever of elevated rail (which ST had only built in suburban areas), the average cost per station (which ST had also, at the time, only built at-grade or elevated stations), and a high bridge (which ST had only built a few over some roadways and skinny portions of the Duwamish).

      With that in mind and early WSBLE DEIS cost estimates showing increased costs, the Board adopted an “affordable” cost of $4B, which dealt with increased property costs (like WSLE’s assumed terminus property being redeveloped with a multi-hundred-unit apartment building) and pressures to tunnel to the Junction. Design “refinements”, including an assumed need to build an entire temporary station at SODO just to facilitate expansion of the existing station and a luxurious cable-stayed bridge design instead of the assumed concrete arch, seems to have kicked the 10% design estimate to $~5.5-6 billion; the 30% design “bottoms-up” calculation including estimates of materials and such bumped it to $7.1 billion.

      So, since WSLE is voter-mandated according to ST, they should build what was voter-approved: an all-elevated alignment with a simple fixed bridge over the Duwamish. But, that’s not in the EIS, so now they have to decide whether to go back to the drawing board and delay the project another 2-3 years, or continue down the path towards the most expensive light rail project in history.

      1. But, but, but elevated lines cast shadows!!!

         I wonder how many people who forced ST to jack up the costs were at that forum.

      2. I wonder how much we would save with a cheaper option. For example what if the station was oriented east-west (as was the original plan)? Would that save much? I have a feeling even the cheapest plan would still be rather expensive. The fundamentals are expensive. You are crossing the Duwamish with a station for Delridge and then going very high to reach Avalon and The Junction. Or maybe you are digging a tunnel (which isn’t cheap). If you orient the line heading south (which now seems like it is essential even though it wasn’t what people voted for) then that adds up. This isn’t like running down Rainier Valley or a cut and cover project.

      3. The point of the Junction station being aligned north-south is to make a future extension easier.

         The next extension should be cheaper in real dollars per mile. After spending so much to cross the Duwamish, why not add more stations in the future?

      4. The point of the Junction station being aligned north-south is to make a future extension easier.

         Yes, of course. I’m just curious as to if that is one of the main reasons why this is so much more expensive than they originally expected. Or to put it another way: If they oriented east-west would it save much money?

         After spending so much to cross the Duwamish, why not add more stations in the future?

         The obvious answer is they can’t afford it. It is pretty common for agencies to go on a big spending spree and then stop spending. It is also worth considering the arguments for West Seattle Link in the first place and how that could backfire for West Seattle in the future. West Seattle Link is not based on ridership per dollar, or ridership per dollar spent or even some fairly easy to measure metrics (like ridership per mile, etc.). UW to Ballard is a much stronger corridor (as is a Metro 8 subway, especially one that bends to serve First Hill).

         But they went with West Seattle in part based on geography. They wanted to spread things out. For example consider converting the 7 to light rail. One of the first things people would say is “Wait, Rainier Valley already has Link” even if the 7 is the best value for conversion.

         Once Link gets to West Seattle the same thing could happen, except this time West Seattle loses. Ballard to UW is still more important. First Hill remains without a station. There is Fremont, the Central Area, Greenwood — plenty of places without trains in the city. I think running trains up Aurora is a bad idea but there will be plenty of people arguing for that as well. There is even competition in West Seattle itself (with a branch to Delridge). Going up the hill is probably better but running on Delridge is probably a lot cheaper. Thus a West Seattle extension will have plenty of competition and could easily just be delayed forever.

         Even if the train is facing south it wouldn’t be cheap. It isn’t clear how it would work. It isn’t clear to me that facing south saves you that much money. That is another problem with this. The same set of assumptions that got us into this mess (serving West Seattle will be fairly cheap, it is mostly just industrial land) may very well play a part for any extension. It would be one thing if they actually did preliminary engineering and had a future vision for what this would look like and how much this would cost in the short run but save in the long run. But that isn’t part of the process.

      5. I think a big problem with WSLE as imagined in ST3 is that the Junction was pretty sleepy before 2014; since then, several “cheap” properties that were assumed to be options for off-street terminal stations got redeveloped into large apartment complexes valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, now there are no “easy” paths for WSLE to follow outside of existing ROW, and for whatever reason, SDOT and ST refuse to repurpose existing ROW for trains, even to put pylons down a center lane. They’ve mumbled stuff about fire codes there just being not enough space between the existing apartment buildings to go above grade without tearing them down. I think it’s just a big PR headache to use eminent domain to tear down new apartment buildings, which is they they’re happy to focus on tearing down Jefferson Square, one of the older blocks in the area.

      6. If ST were allowed to strategically acquire properties based on a long-range plan, we might not be in this mess.

      7. “The point of the Junction station being aligned north-south is to make a future extension easier.”

         It seems to me to suggest simply not digging that last ridiculously expensive and deep station on Alaska Street along with the new boring that would need to happen for trains to reach it is the thing to do. No boring machine would be required if Avalon was the initial terminus for this phase. The Avalon station is as close to Alaska and California as the Ballard station alternatives are to the heart of Old Ballard — and that corner is pretty much at the western edge of the high density zoning. And the EIS even talks about a minimum operating segment ending at Delridge annd how that generates over 80 percent of the ridership without the last two stations so shifting the bus transfers to Avalon would seem to get it in the 90-95 percent of ridership range.

         The fact that the EIS doesn’t provide cost or ridership about just two stations in West Seattle rather than three is to me hiding the better outcome. I realize that the idea got floated and nixed a few years ago but that was when the crazy cost was not known. I believe that stopping at Avalon would save at least $1-1.5B and lose less than 10 percent if riders — and get the line opened two years earlier.

      8. > They’ve mumbled stuff about fire codes there just being not enough space between the existing apartment buildings to go above grade without tearing them down

         I don’t really believe that there is no path elevated on any of the roads they couldn’t use a single one. There’s california, 42nd, 41st, 40th, fauntleroy, etc…

      9. I think the fire code thing was in reference to building a station in ROW, not running the lines elevated between buildings.

         I think the main problem is the designers weren’t deeply thinking about cost when considering routes and station locations. Maybe they had a vague sense that tunneling is more expensive than elevated, which is more expensive than at-grade, but my guess is that they figured it was a future ST problem, and that with ST3’s massive income streams, there’d be no way they’d run out of money. Well, here we are.

      10. To expand, I think the problem is that the planners and designers generally aren’t keeping cost front of mind, even today. They leave the value engineering to the designers, who are stuck working in badly-built sandboxes they can’t change. The planners don’t think about cost; the engineers don’t think they can change the plan.

      11. If ST were allowed to strategically acquire properties based on a long-range plan, we might not be in this mess.

          I think that is part of it, but I think a lot of it is just planning. I would imagine property acquisition is a big reason things are a lot more expensive but it is often because they only did a cursory job initially. It is one thing to have to pay more because the land they have to buy is more expensive. It is another to pay more because they didn’t actually measure the slope of the hill correctly (which happened at 130th Station).

          One of the big problems with this approach is that we commit too early to certain ideas. Maybe West Seattle Link is a good value at the original estimate but not a good value with a detailed estimate. It also leads to long term problems, as I’m suggesting here. Assume for a second they build this and it faces south. Now, forty years later they want to extend. But as it turns out going that direction is very problematic. If only they had originally built the station a couple blocks to the west. That sort of thing.

      12. I think the problem is that the planners and designers generally aren’t keeping cost front of mind, even today. They leave the value engineering to the designers, who are stuck working in badly-built sandboxes they can’t change. The planners don’t think about cost; the engineers don’t think they can change the plan.

          Agreed.

      13. “Once Link gets to West Seattle the same thing could happen, except this time West Seattle loses. Ballard to UW is still more important….”

          The extension south is for Burien and Renton as much as it’s for West Seattle. West Seattle has Link, but Burien and Renton don’t yet. It would benefit three subareas, which is the majority of subareas. In contrast, 45th or Denny Way benefits only North King, and Seattle already has Link. So West Seattle gets the extension because it’s on the way to Burien and Renton.

          The Burien-Renton line was South King’s highest priority after Federal Way Link. When the study came out saying it would be high cost and low ridership, south King went silent about it. We don’t know whether it would reemerge as a high priority in ST4 or not.

          By the way, Westlake-Renton travel time via West Seattle was 40 minutes, comparable to the 101. So it could replace the 101, although you’d still need local service on Renton MLK. Service on Renton MLK, Renton Ave, and the route 107 corridor are all needed because of the hills between them.

      14. Yes, Ross, planners get excited about a North/South alignment to allow for future expansion, but leave the details to the designers. I bet if you ask the designers, they would ask: where do you have space to get out of the tunnel?
          The 2014 BRT plans suggested serving Morgan Junction, High Point, White Center etc before reaching Burien, but as soon as you go underground, those stations get very expensive to build. It’s sad that Sound Transit has not done any preliminary planning how to extend the line but they keep using this as an argument that it will be an important regional service.
          Burien will get connected to TIBS with a Stride service, so will be Renton. Or you take 101 directly downtown.
          If planners would have seriously thought about a southern extension, they would probably focus running Link along Delridge or 35th. If Sound Transit would be a bit more open minded about transit modes, then a short people mover or gondola could easily connect a station on such line with the Junction up the hill (see Oakland airport BART line). It would be cheaper to build than a tunnel and allow for provide better travel time from downtown to Burien.

7. I remain surprised that ST still refuses to analyze putting this as a third line into the DSTT. Those 5400 daily riders would probably at least double or triple just by doing that!

   Other rail systems fit three light rail lines into one segment all the time! Dallas, Portland, Boston and San Francisco have four or five! Even the NYC subway often has three branches (1-2-3, 4-5-6, A-C-E). It may be a pinch point at peak times but it’s still tolerable.

   If ST wants to land any Federal dollars they simply must propose an alternative that maximizes ridership for West Seattle as a stand-alone project. They aren’t doing it!

   1. DSTT simply doesn’t have the capacity for a third line. There isn’t PTC in the tunnel until the capitol hill tunnel bore because of bus operations. Once the 2 line is tied in it will be 4 minute headways at peak hours. That’s already getting pretty tight. Adding another line into the mix will not work unless the signal system is upgraded or we add ATO like MUNI in SF.

      1. I really think this “three lines is too many” is a manufactured, invalid argument. As I stated already, three line operations exist in many places. I don’t buy the ST assumption that three lines is too many because it simply isn’t true in practice elsewhere and has been for over a century.

         Although I risk pushback for saying this, the post-Covid peak demand (lower percentage than before Covid) suggests to me that each line will only need 6 trains an hour (every 10 minutes) at peak. From Downtown to Lynnwood that will be 12 trains an hour (every 5 minutes). ST3 assumed 20 trains per hour in the DSTT so a third line and 18 trains (every 3.3 minutes from Downtown to Northgate or Lynnwood) seems more than reasonable and doable. Even if the 1 Line goes to 8 trains an hour that still matches the frequency in the DSTT that ST3 promised.

         It’s too bad that we don’t have the 2 Line and FW Link opened to find out.

         Finally, I think it’s important to state that West Seattle link train loads serving those three stations will never ever be very high. Thinking that the demand on this line segment by itself will be high enough to ever justify more than 10 minute service is fantasy. A train can hold what 6-12 buses carry so a single train every 10 minutes is kind of like one bus every 1 minute.

      2. ST had a candidate ST3 project to do the DSTT1 capital upgrades to support 1.5 minute reliable headways. It just deselected that when it selected the DSTT2 project.

         ST currently runs 1.5 minute headways northbound after ballgames, so it can do so. It’s just that the schedule goes out the window then and southbound service becomes inconsistent, with some trains turning around at Roosevelt and coming back on the “wrong” track to the UW crossover, and others continuing further north and coming back eventually.

         ST has given inconsistent reasons over the years why it can’t run 1.5 minute headways in normal service without capital upgrades to DSTT1:

         A. It would be unreliable and prone to train bunching. (2016)
         B. Signal mumble something. (2016)
         C. There aren’t enough escalators/elevators/stairs to keep the platforms below fire capacity limits. (2023)
         D. A previous board decided not to do it in 2016 and we reuse to reevaluate the assumptions then. (2023)

         I don’t know what PTO and ATO mean but that would be a fifth reason. ST didn’t say that during the debates in 2016 and 2023. Mostly it comes down to D: ST refuses to authorize a feasibility study because a previous board decided against it seven years earlier. Here’s the debate in 2023:

         • ST board meeting on WSBLE, March 2023
         • Pro single-tunnel article by Martin Pagel, March 2023
         • Pro single-tunnel article by Anton Babadjanov, March 2023
         • Pro single-tunnel article by Ross Bleakney, February 2023
         • ST system expansion committee meeting, February 2023

      3. An antiquated signal system is a poor excuse for “we can’t do it” given that this project is at 7$ billion!

      4. “Although I risk pushback for saying this, the post-Covid peak demand (lower percentage than before Covid) suggests to me that each line will only need 6 trains an hour (every 10 minutes) at peak.”

         The pushback I will push is about the rather absurd notion that each line needs to be equal. Rainier Valley will easily take whatever service can be given it.

         MAX Orange Line handles 6,000 passengers a day running a single car every 15 minutes. That should be sufficient for West Seattle.

      5. @Mike:
         PTC = Positive Train Control
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control
         ATO = Automatic Train Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation

      6. True, Glenn.

         There seems to be this artificial belief about what light rail operations require in terms of frequency here in Seattle. One is that only 10 minute headways will do, with only 8 minutes during peaks. The other is that trains must arrive in perfect sequence (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,…).

         Part of it comes from inexperience. Seattle has no multi-line rail operation. So those people who haven’t spent time in other places somehow think that every train has to be exactly in sequence. In practice they don’t and often are not for various reasons. An hour or two on a light rail platform in Boston or San Francisco would demonstrate that to someone.

         The bigger truth is that — like with bus routes — frequency better than 20 minutes is a function of financial affordability, vehicle availability and staffing by the agency to serve the realtime demand (especially overcrowding).

         Just like the bigger truth is that long distance rail lines often have turnbacks. KC Metro has several routes with turnbacks so why shouldn’t ST consider it at done point?

         Further, more automation is pretty much the expected preferred way to run a system these days. This isn’t 1970 when it comes to safety and control with signal blocks. And automation significantly improves the ability to run more trains an hour.

         Surely the West Seattle segment could get by with 5 trains an hour or even 4. It should be a function of demand. Demand should be considered for train length (number and layout of vehicles) as well as frequency. I would be fine with 8 trains an hour for the other two branches with 4 trains an hour for West Seattle, for example.

         While exact scheduling is preferred, most transit systems call anything arriving within 5 minutes “on time”. In train operations that is up to being out of sequence by 2 trains.

         I tire of people who take what ST says about frequency only in theory as true when the way many systems operate elsewhere clearly do so without these theoretical limitations.

      7. According to ST officials, the main line can handle trains every three minutes quite easily. Any more than that and you “wouldn’t give our ridership as reliable a service”. That works out to trains every nine minutes.

         But that is today, with no additional work. What Al is getting at is that it is quite possible the tunnel could handle trains every 2 minutes 30 seconds (and be as reliable as ST wants them to be). That works out to trains every 7.5 minutes, which is what they are doing now. It also isn’t a lot more frequent.

         The trains to the south are not crowded. If they ever get too crowded there are at least two things that are worth exploring (besides running the trains more often):

         1) Use different trains. Right now the trains do not have that much capacity. With different train sets you could increase capacity by 17%.

         2) Continue to run express buses. A lot of the ridership of Link (especially during peak) comes from truncating express buses. For example the 522 and 312 used to carry over 8,000 riders a day (combined). Most of those riders used the bus to get downtown. Now they take the 522 to Roosevelt and ride the train from there. This adds to Link ridership but delays those riders. Thus you could reduce the crowding during peak by *not* truncating the buses. For example if East Link is too crowded you would just have the express buses from Issaquah run to downtown during peak and connect to Link the rest of the day. This costs the agency money but is a clear win for riders.

      8. Ross’ comment about 9 trains an hour reminded me of another fallacy about light rail here: clockface scheduling for frequent service. It’s possible to run 6.4 or 7.3 trains an hour per line or just about any fraction. It’s just that not every train would show up at the exact same minute for every hour. But if you look at a link schedule today you’ll see that even with a single line there is not clockface consistency all day.

         Sure if a line runs every 20 minutes or worse clock face arrivals each hour are desirable. But once the time between trains gets down in the 12-15 minute range it matters little to riders — and the higher the frequency the less it matters.

      9. “The bigger truth is that — like with bus routes — frequency better than 20 minutes is a function of financial affordability, vehicle availability and staffing by the agency to serve the realtime demand (especially overcrowding).”

         High-quality subways have minimum 10-minute frequency on every branch except late night. Low-quality subways drop to 15 or 30 minutes. That’s essential to make transit the first choice for the most people, and to allow them to fit what they consider the necessary number of activities into a day, and what leads to the highest ridership.

         “I tire of people who take what ST says about frequency only in theory as true when the way many systems operate elsewhere clearly do so without these theoretical limitations.”

         ST doesn’t say much about its reasons for a certain frequency, or why it won’t run 6-minute peak hours in Rainier Valley like it did for several years, or 6 minutes all day. It’s just… silent. Right now it can’t because it has a limited number of trains after the Lynnwood extension, but it has never addressed the issue in general. The ST3 plan does have 5-minute service all day in Rainier Valley (that was an increase last year), but ST won’t explain why we have to wait 15+ years for it. It seems to be driven by a desire to have 5-minute frequency in DSTT2 so train-to-train transfers won’t have a 10-minute wait and we won’t have the silly appearance of a tunnel with only one 10-minute line long-term.

      10. “According to ST officials, the main line can handle trains every three minutes quite easily. Any more than that and you “wouldn’t give our ridership as reliable a service”.

          That’s a DSTT1 limitation. The same article says the Westlake-UW tunnel can handle trains every 1.5 minute, and I assume the Northgate and Lynnwood extensions can handle the same.

          Rainier Valley’s 6-minute limit ST said was set by SDOT to allow cross traffic and crosswalks to work at intersections. That also affects riders going to the stations. In 2023 or 2024 it started saying that maybe SDOT would be willing to go up to 5 minutes now, and then in 2024 it appeared in the 1 Line (Tacoma-Ballard) plan.

          The I-90 crossing may be limited to 10 minutes due to trains’ weight (to avoid two trains simultaneously on the bridge): we’ve heard contradictory things about that.

          “Any more than that and you “wouldn’t give our ridership as reliable a service”.”

          That’s what ST told Martin H Duke in 2015 and said in board meetings I attended. But in 2023 it gave a completely different reason, saying platforms would get overcrowded beyond fire code and would need more escalator/elevator/stair egress. It’s in the meeting webcasts I linked to. The System Expansion Committee meeting video is still up. The board meeting link goes to a nonexistent site so the video may be offline.

          Public testimony in 2023 at one or both of the meetings asked ST to reconsider putting three lines in DSTT1 and cancel DSTT2. Several people asked for this. The board asked the staff representative what the reasons were in 2016 for deselecting that. The staff member answered off the top of his head, and probably couldn’t remember fully because it was a seven-year-old issue that hadn’t come up in between. That’s when the staff member gave the new platform reason against it. Some boardmembers seemed open to studying the issue to “reevaluate past assumptions”, but others said they categorically didn’t want to reconsider a decision a previous board had made. They apparently thought that would be flip-flopping or a waste of time. That’s where it ended, with the board refusing to do a feasibility study.

      11. The problem with saying 10-minute or 6-minute headways isn’t justified for passenger convenience alone is that it appears to be based on an assumption that trains must be N% full to justify adding frequency, but then they never say what that threshold is so it’s impossible to debate whether it’s reasonable or not. Eventually you get the idea that they have no specific threshold in mind, just a vague picture in their head of what train operations should look like. But they can’t even articulate that so that one could extract a threshold. They just say blanket things like “X area doesn’t justify 10-minute frequency or 5-minute frequency” without any articulated reasons behind it.

          Agencies have a minimum policy frequency, and additional frequency beyond that to avoid overcrowding. The policy frequency is to make transit usable, especially for 2+ seat rides involving transfers. So it’s important to have a robust policy frequency. I think it should be at least 10 minutes on every branch, and Reece Martin from RMTransit says this too. Link luckily does have this frequency: that’s what makes it in some ways a higher-quality system than MAX, BART, VTA, and most American light rails and BRT lines; and more like the Vancouver Skytrain. That should be an example for the country, not something we should just throw away. A 2-seat ride with 10-minute frequency has a potential 10-minute wait in the middle. A 3-seat ride has a potential 20-minute wait: now you’re talking about most of half an hour. That makes it hard to fit activities into the day, and makes people not put up with transit, especially in a country where cars are so prevelant.

      12. “High-quality subways have minimum 10-minute frequency on every branch except late night.”

          San Francisco has J Church at 15 minutes midday. All other light rail routes drop to at least 12 in the evenings with some at 15 or 17.
          https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops/weekday-frequency-guide

          LA Metro operates C and K lines at 12 midday.
          https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules-2/

          Boston Green line varies every 7-12 minutes weekday off-peak depending on the branch.
          https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/media/route_pdfs/batch_7269/SUB-S1-P4.pdf

          DC Metro operates ever 12 minutes midday on the shared Blue- Silver-Orange rail trunk.
          https://www.wmata.com/schedules/timetables/index.cfm

          BART runs mostly 12 to 20 minutes during midday service on each branch.
          https://www.bart.gov/schedules/pdfs

          MARTA runs at 12 minutes on three of its 4 lines midday.
          https://www.itsmarta.com/railline-schedules.aspx

          There are all some of the highest ridership systems in the nation. All are metro areas more populous than Seattle.

          The US industry standard these days looks like 12 to 15 minutes these days. There are some that are higher but it’s clearly not universal.

      13. “San Francisco has J Church at 15 minutes midday. All other light rail routes drop to at least 12 in the evenings with some at 15 or 17… BART runs mostly 12 to 20 minutes during midday service on each branch.”

          That means they’re not high quality lines. They’re counting on the multi-line overlap to make combined service more usable, but that fails when the branches diverge.

          It’s like how MAX’s Blue and Red Lines each ran every 15 minutes, and overlapped between Goose Hollow (?) and Gateway. That gave good frequency in the combined segment, but it created a dilemma because there were few places to live within walking distance of those stations: the eastern part was along a freeway, and the downtown part had the most expensive housing. Most people had to live beyond it, and thus had 15-minute service. That’s a good target for a bus route but it’s a poor target the primary metro circulator in the region.

          “There are all some of the highest ridership systems in the nation. All are metro areas more populous than Seattle. The US industry standard these days looks like 12 to 15 minutes these days. There are some that are higher but it’s clearly not universal.”

          The fact that these larger cities have substandard transit service is not a reason to imitate them. It’s just a reflection of the general American problem of going half-assed on transit.

      14. I grew up in Hannover which has 3 main lines going through the center of town and each of those lines even fan out further in the suburbs, so that it is more like 10 lines. It uses similar (slightly smaller) trains as Link does and works quite well. Hannover hosts some of the largest tradeshows on the world with sometimes 100,000 daily visitors and for that they run trains between downtown and the fairgrounds every few minutes. With proper signaling system it all works. Rarely did I have to wait briefly before entering the tunnel.
          https://www.uestra.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/2025-Netzplaene/UESTRA_Netzplan-U_2024-25.pdf

8. It’s worth noting that the Record of Decision due on February 28 is subject to review by the New Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. He stated two days ago that all light rail projects (something he has personally opposed) subject to federal review would be seen through the lens of local birth rates and family size. Seattle has one of the lowest birth rates among major U.S. cities. In 2022, the birth rate in Seattle was 2.6%, which is significantly lower than the national average. Additionally, Seattle also has one of the smallest average family sizes, with about 2.78 people per family.
   In contrast, cities like Indianapolis and several Texas cities (e.g., Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston) have much higher birth rates, with percentages ranging from 5.6% to 6.5%. These cities also tend to have larger average family sizes. Senator Cantwell DID manage to get him to say that he would support any project that had previously received federal grants. But that is not a firm promise given the mercurial and sudden pace of changes in Washington D.C.
   You can draw your own conclusions.

   1. All FTA has to say is that the bulk of the ridership relies on building an unfunded Ballard and DSTT2 so the only forecast allowed is the 5400 daily riders. That alone makes the project so embarassingly unproductive that denying its advancement for New Starts money is more than obvious. Even at 27K it’s still awful for the cost.

      Surely those close to the project see the handwriting on the wall.

   2. Duffy won’t bother with the Record of Decision, since the RODs are basically binary: did the EIS satisfy NEPA or not.

      However, that’s just one of many steps requiring Federal review; the most important one being FTA New Starts Grant applications. It seems likely ST will have a hard time getting FTA grant money under the current admin, especially for the “anarchist jurisdiction” of yore.

   3. Yeah, I don’t think we’re getting federal funding for this at all. Much thanks to newly-reelected Senator Cantwell for voting to confirm Secretary Duffy!

   4. This. It is shameful that Seattle has to be saved from this tremendous folly by monsters like Donald Trump and Sean Duffy. But I’ll take a win by any means on this.

      1. If I am looking around at my friends and see Trump, I would rethink my opinion, Tom

   5. “all light rail projects (something he has personally opposed) subject to federal review would be seen through the lens of local birth rates and family size.”

      That’s irrelevant. What matters is the total number of current and potential new riders. If a corridor has long been neglected, it needs light rail for EXISTING people’s needs, not just those born in the future. For instance, the U-District had a transit-capacity bottleneck until U-Link and Northgate Link opened. Ballard is Seattle’s fourth-largest urban village, has large pedestrian foot traffic, a wide variety of walkable destinations, and grew substantially in the 2000s anticipating the monorail and due to Seattle’s high growth rate. All that gives a 50,000-100,000 person reason for high-capacity transit to Ballard — for the existing latent demand, regardless of whether the future birth rate is zero. Ballard Link was supposed to be it, but ST has made such bad design decisions after the vote that it raises into question whether Ballard Link can fulfill that goal, so Ballard may need a bus fallback instead. But the existing transit need and latent ridership is still there: it’s not zero as Duffy implies. That doesn’t mean Duffy won’t look at only birthrate/family size for political reasons (Texas is more red and Christian: they’ll have large families, won’t pursue abortions, will vote for people Duffy likes, will oppose unions and local taxes), but it doesn’t make it an objectively valid argument.

      1. Mike Orr,

         From you post above…

         “That’s irrelevant. What matters is the total number of current and potential new riders. If a corridor has long been neglected, it needs light rail for EXISTING people’s needs, not just those born in the future.”

         All good urban planning is supposed to serve “those born in future”. Seattle is already a terrible place to raise kids, with outrageous housing prices and a high percentage of people living along. Looking at the big picture here, Sound Transit is over budget on light rail at the same time Seattle has underfunded public schools, not nearly enough low income housing and failing roads and bridges.

         You think Seattle needs 10 billon in more light rail or public housing? Cities have to make choices about these things….

      2. “All good urban planning is supposed to serve “those born in future”.”

         They’re supposed to serve people who already live here too; i.e., housing units that already exist.

         An example was upgrading to RapidRide the 15th Ave NW corridor instead of the Leary Way/24th Ave NW corridor. And Link and the monorail plan doubling down on 15th. The argument for that was, those lots were underused and ready for redevelopment. But the center of the neighborhood is several blocks west in “Real Ballard”, where there’s a long-proven pedestrian concentration, a higher population, a wide range of destinations, and pre-WWII style architecture that people find pleasant. 15th will inevitably grow into sterile boring buildings, with a smaller range of destinations, and less pedestrian-oriented, because that’s what developers build nowadays unless it’s a restoration. So the primary bus line or light rail station should be in the center of the long-proven concentration, not in a “redevelopment area” that will inevitably not be as good in the long term. You can have both, as in downtown Bellevue and the Spring District, but don’t bypass the old center that you should be serving.

         “You think Seattle needs 10 billon in more light rail or public housing? Cities have to make choices about these things”

         That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is about recognizing or neglecting existing populations, and retrofitting service that should have been built fifty or a hundred years ago. It’s about which cities/neighborhoods the feds choose to give grants to. Not about whether Seattle should or shouldn’t spend $10 billion on light rail or public housing or both. Real Ballard needs good transit mobility regardless of all that, regardless of whether Seattle can afford to provide it, regardless of whether the feds give it a grant or not, and regardless of whether the feds give a grant to somewhere else because it has a high birth rate.

      3. [off-topic. The cost of WSLE is relevant, and the cost of WSLE impacting other ST3 projects and vice-versa, but it’s too much to bring in subsidized housing, whether liberal cities get too many grants, education quality, housing prices, whether Tacoma Dome Link is good value for Pierce County, etc. We can’t relitigate all that in every article. We also don’t have full control over all these things: voters did approve ST3 in 2016, regional politicians in different subareas/cities have different ideas, and cities/state/voters make decisions on housing and other transit in parallel with ST3, not treating it as a zero sum game between them. These can be discussed in open threads. -MO]

   6. He stated two days ago that all light rail projects (something he has personally opposed) subject to federal review would be seen through the lens of local birth rates and family size.

      Good God, the Trump cabinet never ceases to amaze me.

9. I do not understand the mixed support for West Seattle Link on this forum. All it takes is a glance at a map of Seattle to understand that WSLE and BLE are primarily focused on bridging the geographic divide of salmon bay and the duwamish waterway. These geophraphic features will always be there and they will always result in bottlenecks for transportation around the city, so it makes sense to build as high capacity transit as possible. Busses will never be a long term solution and building high capacity transit over the duwamish is not likely going to get cheaper. Also, comparing our light rail projects to other cities is always going to make our costs look bad because Seattle has one of the most complex geographies in the country. If you want our transportation projects to be cheaper, then perhaps we should just abandon Seattle entirely and start a new city in a flat dessert somewhere.

   1. Yes, 100%. Thank you. All the people saying it’s too expensive: It’s not going to get cheaper, it’s complex, and buses will not solve the issue of limited entry and exit points from our peninsula. For people saying it should be BRT: On what dedicated guideway? You mean like a tunnel, leading to a separate bridge across the water? We are now at light rail again. BRT without a dedicated guideway is just a regular bus. RapidRide C has already fulfilled that niche and is about as BRT as we can get in the mixed traffic situation.

      1. BRT could use dedicated lanes on Fauntleroy, continue in its lanes across the West Seattle Bridge, then use new ramps from the Spokane Street Viaduct to get to the SODO busway. It would be much cheaper, and would be appropriate for West Seattle’s current residential and commercial density.

         The current iteration of WSLE is treating Alaska Junction as if its Capitol Hill or the U District. If Seattle had plans to let there be towers like the U District, then sure, let’s make the investment. It’s still unclear if Ballard is going to end up with an aerial or underground terminus, but at least the neighborhood is being upgraded to an Urban Center like Downtown/First Hill/Capitol Hill and the U District. West Seattleites apparently want a subway but don’t want to allow the density that would justify it.

         That’s why I argued that if West Seattle wants a $7B subway, they should accommodate a lot more urban growth: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/13/in-defense-of-west-seattle-link/

      2. “BRT: On what dedicated guideway?”

         Transit-priority lanes on the existing bridge and arterials. SDOT could paint two existing bridge lanes red inexpensively. The biggest issue is frequency, not speed. So we could increase the existing routes to 10-minute full-time frequency even without street capital improvements. Then we could add as much or little capital improvements for them as we want. Presto, good West Seattle transit service.

         That wouldn’t be a redundant bridge when the main one is closed, but it would address the problem 90% of the time.

         Of course a new bus bridge would approach the cost of a new light rail bridge, but we’re not suggesting that.

      3. No, none of that is needed. There is already a dedicated eastbound bus lane on the West Seattle Freeway. As Ross has pointed out over and over, adding a second lane to the cloverleaf between the eastbound WSF and northbound SR99 would not exactly be cheap, but it would be in the low hundreds of millions, not seven of billions.

         Adding an additional bus-only ramp down to the end of the busway from the Fourth Avenue cloverleaf might cost another $50 million, but it would ensure that buses don’t have to take the slow ramble up First South to Lander to get to SoDo station. Upgrade the eastern end of the 50 to a RapidRide and terminate it at Starbucks to fill in that important half-mile. Folks riding from the West Seattle plateau would greatly appreciate the jump over the Delridge valley and the lower-level bridge ramble.

         Then turn the west end of the 50 into a new RapidRide line directly to downtown from Admiral / Alki, and central California Avenue and add frequency to the current C and H routes. Keep the 21 as is because First Avenue needs some service.

         Then add a RapidRide version of the old 55 straight to SoDo, with no stops beyond Alaska Junction except 35th and Avalon and the Freeway and Avalon. Re-direct the 125 there as well. That gives direct, speedy service to Link at SoDo Station to the entire “fan” of West Seattle destinations with only a single transfer at 35th and Avalon or the Delridge stop just south of the freeway. This also makes the stretch on California between the two “Junctions” a High Frequency corridor where people throw the schedule away.

         Westbound simply doesn’t need a dedicated lane because there are only three lanes feeding the three lane bridge. Maybe a bus-only ramp from SR99 is needed to jump buses around the slowdown queue, but again, building that would be peanuts.

         Link JUST to Alaska Junction will be a nice thing for the 10% of West Seattle residents who can walk to one of the stations but a degradation of service for whatever percentage of the 90% who can’t walk to a station and want to go downtown on one of these easily-improved RapidRides. It would be a “win” for folks on the downtown-bound lines who really want to take the train, because they’d have one more transfer unless they lived right on the resuscitated 55 or 125.

      4. “adding a second lane to the cloverleaf between the eastbound WSF and northbound SR99 would not exactly be cheap, but it would be in the low hundreds of millions”

         Hundreds of millions here and hundreds of millions there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. After all those improvements we are left with a bus that’s still stuck in traffic somewhere along the line. Its the numbers for these alternatives that make one realize Dow is spot on… just build the light rail.

         However… the idea of Ballard light rail before West Seattle light rail has merit! West Seattle residents may need additional time to become helplessly mired in their beautiful car traffic before understanding the need for light rail. Then again, Ballard has its own shadow opposition to light rail that postulates we need an extra billion+ dollars for a tunnel under the canal rather than bridging over the canal like our (3) old trolleys used to do at Fremont Bridge, Leary Way (demo’d), and the Ballard Bridge.

      5. “Yes, 100%. Thank you. All the people saying it’s too expensive: It’s not going to get cheaper, it’s complex, and buses will not solve the issue of limited entry and exit points from our peninsula.”

         Except, this line “solves” the West Seattle problem by shoving the busy Rainier Valley line into a second tunnel, 9 floors under Seattle. This makes those limited entry points much worse for the majority of transit users in the rest of the region.

         Also note this line only provides service from The Junction to SoDo, until the deep tunnel gets built. To use Link, most riders will need to transfer at The Junction and again at SoDo.

         For the cost of this thing, you could provide better water taxi service, extend the bus routes to Seacrest Park, and only have one transfer rather than two.

      6. Hundreds of millions here and hundreds of millions there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. After all those improvements we are left with a bus that’s still stuck in traffic somewhere along the line.

         I think you are missing the point. In the case of West Seattle, 90% of it is already done. We already have a large bridge over the Duwamish that doesn’t open. It already has bus lanes and we could easily add more. We already have a viaduct that runs between that bridge and I-5. It too has bus lanes and could easily add more. We already have a busway down below (called the SoDo busway). All you really need is a connection between the Spokane Street viaduct and the SoDo busway. That’s it. That would be your dedicated guideway. That is your BRT. But it isn’t a closed system. It is Open BRT. That is what makes it *better* than this very limited subway line.

         Consider someone on Delridge trying to get downtown or someplace that requires a downtown transfer (like First Hill). First they take the H. Why would they transfer to Link when the bus takes them right downtown? It doesn’t make sense. Even Sound Transit knows this. Their (fairly low) estimates are based on the assumption that people will be *forced* to transfer. They assume that the H won’t run once West Seattle Link goes into downtown.

         What about people who eventually have to get on Link anyway? Maybe they are headed to the airport or to the UW? In the first case this would be better (the avoid a transfer). In the second case it would be very similar (they make one transfer).

         The only people that would benefit from West Seattle Link are the handful of people that live close to the three stations. Plenty of people would be worse off.

   2. Why is a group saying that getting rail to South Lake Union, Seattle Center and Ballard should be done before West Seattle hard to understand? The Ballard Station just by itself has more forecasted boardings than the entirety of West Seattle Link! The tall buildings in South Lake Union will never happen in West Seattle.

      A generic map simply does not explain the importance of serving areas with the highest activity.

      And that’s on top of the extra few billion required just to go from 35th to Alaska Junction inside a 100-foot deep hole or build a signature bridge.

      The posts that question West Seattle Link are not questioning the value of rail transit in general. If anything, the posts are saying that diverting money to pay for West Seattle Link will make it harder to mobilize the money so these other more dense and more active places can be reached on light rail.

      1. I’m sure that the folks planning these projects are well aware of the fact that Ballard link is more valuable than WSLE. What I’ve not seen here is any data suggesting that Ballard link is in similar scope to the WSLE project. BLE is very obviously a more complex project than WSLE and there could be a number of reasons why Sound Transit would choose to implement WSLE first. Just off the top of my head, perhaps Sound Transit doesn’t think we have enough local labor experienced enough to build another downtown tunnel right now. Perhaps completing WSLE first will afford some better operational flexibility when implementing BLE. Perhaps Sound Transit sees developing housing and therefore ridership around west seattle as an easier target, as the ridership numbers they provide to the feds do not include future housing development.

         Until someone here has gone through all these scenarios with a fine tooth comb (something Sound transit has likely already done), all speculation on what should be prioritized can be disregarded as uninformed. We have to remember that Sound Transit has done quite a good job of implementing link in previous years and it is not likely that we are somehow smarter than them given the limited data we have.

      2. “ Until someone here has gone through all these scenarios with a fine tooth comb (something Sound transit has likely already done), all speculation on what should be prioritized can be disregarded as uninformed.”

         Prioritization is political. More information won’t change it. Clearly the forecasted boarding data has always shown better performance for BLE than for WSLE per billion and per mile. The Board chooses to ignore these facts.

         I’ll add that the promise made to voters in ST3 was for West Seattle to open in 2030 and BLE with DSTT2 to open in 2035. The longer time line for Ballard was justified because it was explained that the BLE + DSTT2 would require boring a subway (taking more time and complexity), and
         West Seattle WOULD NOT REQUIRE BORING A SUBWAY.

         Later Board actions moved the “No West Seattle bored tunnel” to “Bored tunnel if Seattle finds the extra money for it” to “A bored West Seattle tunnel is the baseline preferred alternative”.

         Similarly, the projects were presented as one in the Draft EIS but the Final EIS released a few months ago was reduced in scope just for West Seattle.

         So prioritization is political and the history has been political. Criticizing that choice doesn’t make anyone “uninformed”. If anything, the Board has chosen to be “uninformed” when making decisions.

      3. > So prioritization is political and the history has been political. Criticizing that choice doesn’t make anyone “uninformed”. If anything, the Board has chosen to be “uninformed” when making decisions.

         I would say politics is just another scenario that sound transit has to contend with. If sound transit has to go with a bored tunnel to get over political opposition than so be it, sometimes there is no other way. I mean look at the crazy political opposition there was to the 2 line and the design choices that followed.

         For what it’s worth I totally agree that an elevated solution is likely much more appropriate. I don’t think I even care how cheaply they implement WSLE so long as that bridge gets built.

      4. > If sound transit has to go with a bored tunnel to get over political opposition than so be it, sometimes there is no other way

         sure but there isn’t enough density there to justify a bored tunnel. if west seattle wants to insist on a bored tunnel or no light rail, then we just shouldn’t build it then

      5. > Until someone here has gone through all these scenarios with a fine tooth comb (something Sound transit has likely already done), all speculation on what should be prioritized can be disregarded as uninformed.

         ” The head of the Link project complained that if the board would just say no, they wouldn’t have these cost problems. Earl was taken aback. “And I said, ‘What does that mean, if the board would just say no?’ And he said, ‘Well they keep saying yes.’ And I said, ‘Has anybody told them they can’t afford it?’ And he said, ‘Well no.’ … Every time the board would add scope to the project, staff needed to say either we can afford it or we can’t afford it. And they weren’t doing that”

         Joni Earl (former sound transit ceo) – https://www.historylink.org/File/20989

         @T R
         this has happened before already. the board just keep asking for more expensive alignments and the sound transit staff just keeps finding more expensive alignments. the problem is that the current sound transit ceo’s are not saying “no” to the board anymore.

      6. “I’m sure that the folks planning these projects are well aware of the fact that Ballard link is more valuable than WSLE. ”

         So why not build Ballard and DSTT2 first and then come to West Seattle? The West Seattle-SODO stub is just delaying those projects. The reason it’s first is Dow Constantine wanted it that way, apparently as an early deliverable to show deference to West Seattle privilege. Some of the opposition to West Seattle Link would go away if the projects were scheduled in that order, and it would give an opportunity to reconsider West Seattle Link in the 2030s.

      7. “Until someone here has gone through all these scenarios with a fine tooth comb (something Sound transit has likely already done)”

         Has it? We have no information that Ballard’s complexity, construction-labor limits, or West Seattle housing growth were factors in putting the West Seattle-SODO stub first, or that ST looked into them. Ballard has more urban-village housing and commercial destinations than central West Seattle does and is growing larger. The federal housing criteria is zoned capacity that has been approved or is near approval. Ballard has had housing upzones too; it’s not just West Seattle.

      8. “if west seattle wants to insist on a bored tunnel or no light rail, then we just shouldn’t build it then”

         That reminds me of something I should have put in the article. All EISes have a “No Build” alternative. The Rethink the Link group is advising ST to choose that alternative. That’s the same thing as not building the line. Then ST could think about doing something else for West Seattle instead, or not.

      9. We have to remember that Sound Transit has done quite a good job of implementing link in previous years

         Now THAT’s a ROTFLMAO if there ever was one.

         Choice of mode for seventy-mile interurban: fifty-five mile per hour slow-floor [sic] LRV’s.

         Choice of electrification: overhead contact, resulting in four foot larger diameter tunnels throughout the system than third-rail shoe and egregious over-spending on elevated sections for catenary structures.

         Choice of control system: no automation and no preparation for it, forcing the adoption long trains to avoid high operator costs and greatly increasing the cost of every station outside the existing DSTT1 ones.

         Alignment choices: follows largely vacant freeway rights-of-way closely outside of the Seattle proper and a short stretch through East Bellevue.

         Line endings: even in relatively non-dense neighborhoods with abundant at-grade rights-of-way available insists on tunneling or elevating stations, creating permanent separation of the system from its users.

         These are not the choices a transit agency which is well-versed in “implementing” an effective metro system would make.

      10. If Ballard has to wait, that gives us more time to fix the plan for the second tunnel.

      11. Amplification:

          Yes, criticizing ST both for choosing LRV’s AND for elevating/tunneling the ends of lines is a “cheap shot”. If they had chosen a Light Metro (for familiarity “SkyTrain”) then of course they would be elevating or tunneling the end stations. But they didn’t; they chose the slow-floor LRV’s and then went all in on full grade separation. So they have created a half-and-half interurban metro, which is such an ungainly thing it’s hard to look at.

      12. Brent, “No, it doesn’t”. Once that $7 billion has been “invested” in getting to the Grande Palacio at Lander, the demand to “Finish the line so we don’t have to transfer” from West Seattle will be enormous.

          But Trump and Duffy are going to strangle this strange offspring in its crib. Bank on it.

   3. All it takes is a glance at a map, and perhaps spending ten minutes looking at Google Maps transit directions, to see that Ballard, Uptown, and SLU are higher priorities than West Seattle. There is a high speed bridge directly connected to regional highways crossing that geographic divide. Ballard is notoriously “far” from anywhere by any existing mode of transport, and Uptown and SLU are notoriously slow, especially when there is any event going on at the Seattle Center. We really need to stop over-prioritizing rapid transit along expressways in this town.

      1. “All it takes is a glance at a map, and perhaps spending ten minutes looking at Google Maps transit directions, to see that Ballard, Uptown, and SLU are higher priorities than West Seattle.”

         The argument for Ballard is not a map or Google Transit directions, it’s the size of the urban villages and population there. Both Ballard and SLU are regional centers. SLU has highrises. Ballard has a highly successful pedestrian-commercial core, high transit ridership, and destinations like a hospital, tourist draws, and the densest number of bars in Seattle. None of that is visible on a regular map or Google transit directions.

      2. “Ballard is notoriously “far” from anywhere by any existing mode of transport”

         Ballard is the largest urban center the furthest from ST2 Link. West Seattle is missing the “large urban center” part. It has some smaller centers (WSJ, Avalon, Westwood Village, Admiral, Alki), but they don’t add up to the range of destinations and housing Ballard has, and West Seattlites are fiercely resistant to upzoning even one block west or east of California Avenue, much less other shoulder parts of its existing villages or the areas between them.

         So Ballard’s score on the combined size/distance factor is high. Lake City is second. The east-west Denny Way/First Hill corridor still hasn’t been addressed. West Seattle is fourth beyond that or lower.

      3. We really need to stop over-prioritizing rapid transit along expressways in this town.

         Agreed. This is one of the least appreciated ideas in transit. Maybe because it isn’t as common in other parts of the world. But you really don’t want to build your rapid transit line along an expressway. There are a couple reasons for this:

         1) You tend to have worse stations. Much of the area close to the expressway is often used by the expressway itself.

         2) Travel along the expressway (for cars and buses) is quite fast. This means that the bus alternative is often just about as good (if not better). It also means that the trains have trouble competing with cars.

   4. Just looking at it by a geographical map is exactly the problem. Trying to overcome geographic bottlenecks leads to extremely expensive construction. Ignoring population density leads to low ridership. West Seattle Link combines both problems.

      We should be putting Link routes where the highest-ridership bus routes are, and pretty much nowhere else. The existing line from the U District to Beacon Hill was good. The next steps after that should have been along Rainier Avenue and another line along Aurora Avenue. Going along MLK Drive instead of Rainier Avenue, going to the airport, following I5, going to the Eastside at all – these were all varying levels of bad. Going to West Seattle is even worse than all those decisions, though.

      1. Sound Transit is building a transit system for a city. Seattle is supposed to be dense in as many places as possible. In the long term, if WSLE is built, no amount of NIMBYism will prevent developers from building more housing there. Housing density is largely irrelevant in the long term.

      2. > In the long term, if WSLE is built, no amount of NIMBYism will prevent developers from building more housing there. Housing density is largely irrelevant in the long term.

         That’s unfortunately not true for america. Like for example east falls church station or atherton. they’ve stayed sfh for decades now.

      3. IIRC the Washington State Legislature passed some rules recently requiring legalization of some amount of density around “fixed transit stops” like light rail stations, but it’s fairly minimal. So, you might see “automatic” legalization of some midrise apartments around new Link stations, but nothing like what would be needed to justify extremely high cost for WSLE.

      4. > That’s unfortunately not true for america. Like for example east falls church station or atherton. they’ve stayed sfh for decades now.

         That’s true historically, but I suspect American culture has changed (or at least Seattle culture has) to be much more open to dense development. Can’t quote any data off the top of my head but I would reference link’s impressive ridership numbers to suggest that this time around is different vs the metro systems of the 60’s-80’s. We have a lot more international cities to reference when we argue for the benefits of transit oriented communities, and you can see other cities across America are starting to change their building habits around transit. I mean we have the internet and we live in the jet age, it’s really easy to look at international cities and consider how they are doing transit better than us.

         In some ways I am somewhat thankful the Forward Thrust initiative never went through – MARTA, BART and WMARTA metros were never really built to enable efficient TOD and I shudder to think about what would have happened if we had to pay for the upkeep of a glorified commuter rail like BART.

      5. > IIRC the Washington State Legislature passed some rules recently requiring legalization of some amount of density around “fixed transit stops” like light rail stations, but it’s fairly minimal. So, you might see “automatic” legalization of some midrise apartments around new Link stations, but nothing like what would be needed to justify extremely high cost for WSLE.

         I think the state is sort of the key to getting higher housing density on a shorter time frame. It seems convenient for local politicians here to be able to simply say “My hands are tied to your concerns because this is a state policy.” And NIMBY’s have quite a bit of trouble going after the state policymakers on these things because often these NIMBY groups only represent a few hundred voters at max.

      6. Just looking at it by a geographical map is exactly the problem. Trying to overcome geographic bottlenecks leads to extremely expensive construction. Ignoring population density leads to low ridership. West Seattle Link combines both problems.

         There are other issues, like alternatives and value added. This gets complicated. It is worth considering the trip pairs. In the case of West Seattle Link there are three stops. Ridership between the trips is not especially high (unlike say, UW to Capitol Hill). The speed improvement between the trip pairs isn’t that high either. Most of the buses also skip SoDo, Stadium and CID so you can add those (which starts to be significant). But overall it doesn’t add that much.

         When you consider the alternatives it becomes especially poor. West Seattle is connected to downtown via what is essentially a freeway. Consider a race between the H and a future light rail line. The starting point is some place on Delridge, the goal is the middle of downtown (i. e. Spring). In one case the rider stays on the bus as it reaches downtown. In the other the rider gets off the bus and catches Link. The rider who stays on the bus will win the race nine out of ten times. Even the existing bus is faster than Link.

         But it gets worse. Imagine they connect the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SoDo busway. That way riders can better connect to Link at SoDo. Now imagine the race is to SoDo. Clearly the bus wins. Same goes for Stadium. The bus probably wins the race to CID but as you go further north the bus eventually loses to the train. But riders have another option that is essentially the same as transferring on Delridge — transfer at SoDo.

         Thus the bus-based alternative can easily beat Link for the vast majority of trips. The only trips in which West Seattle Link can beat the buses is from the stations themselves and since there are only three (and they won’t be particularly dense) there aren’t that many people that will benefit.

         Another is the network. I’m a big proponent of UW to Ballard rail because I feel like it will dramatically improve the network. You would continue to have fast north-south buses (like the E and the 5). But you would also have the first very fast east-service (the train). The two would work together to form a strong network. The north-south buses could run more often, given how more people would take the fast two-seat ride to the UW (and to a lesser extent Ballard). In the case of West Seattle though, there really isn’t anything like that (because the train is not significantly faster than a bus). In other words you could create a network in West Seattle that is just as good if not better with the buses than with West Seattle Link. This post has such a network.

         West Seattle is actually a textbook example of an area where a trunk-and-branch bus system makes sense:

         1) It is relatively cheap to build a first class busway.
         2) It is extremely expensive to build even a starter subway line.
         3) The destinations and density in West Seattle are very spread out (and only one future station is a destination).
         4) It wouldn’t take much effort to connect very well to the existing rail system.
         5) There will be very few trips within West Seattle just on the train.

      7. Here’s a geographical map to look at: Where Seattle has metered parking. Paying for parking is often cited as one of the best ways to encourage transit use.

         https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/25325ab47d83420996d144e940da2aab/page/Curb-Spaces-and-Temp-No-PKG/?views=Morning-Rates

         Where Ballard Link is to run is almost entirely in places with metered parking.

         There is no metered parking zone in West Seattle.

      8. To be clear I full expect all three stations in West Seattle to eventually have decent density. But there are only three stations and there will not be skyscrapers. That’s the problem. It is one thing to spend a bunch of money running trains to Downtown Bellevue. There are skyscrapers there.

         At the opposite end of the spectrum you have Rainier Valley. There are no skyscrapers there, but Rainier Valley has four stations and will soon have five. It was also fairly cheap to reach those stations.

         West Seattle Link will have the type of density that the Rainier Valley stations have. But they will have two fewer stations and it will cost a fortune. West Seattle Link will cost over 2 billion dollars per station. You really need skyscrapers or some major network-benefit to justify that kind of expense and West Seattle has neither.

         It is worth noting that none of the stations in Rainier Valley exceed 3,000 riders. That is basically what the West Seattle stations will get in terms of walk-up ridership (if they are lucky). The more optimistic estimates for ridership are based on people taking buses and transferring. That is fine except for the fact that the vast majority would simply prefer a one-seat ride to downtown. All of the stations are primarily bus intercepts. It would be like ending East Link at Mercer Island. Yes, there is some density there. But most of the ridership would be people forced to transfer from a bus that is already on the freeway and half-way to downtown. The same goes for *every* station in West Seattle Link.

      9. “I suspect American culture has changed (or at least Seattle culture has) to be much more open to dense development.”

         The draft Seattle Comprehensive Plan update contradicts that. Seattle is backsliding from some of its goals in the 2010s. The new plan expands and adds some villages, but the large elephant in the room isn’t addressed: the gaps between villages, the large single-family areas covering 70% of the residential-allowed land, or the fact that zoning drops off so precipitously just a few blocks from Link stations.

         West Seattle is a major example of that, but it affects the whole city. If you take the 48 from Mt Baker to the U-District, almost all of it is residential-only or single-family areas. Part of the reason Rainier Valley wants a direct bus route to Broadway (a full-time all-day route 9) is because that’s where the commercial/service destinations are and the most people to visit, not 23rd. The same with southern Wallingford, 15th Ave NE, 35th Ave NE, large parts of Capitol Hill, and on and on and on.

         What makes Vancouver and San Francisco neighborhoods so successful is they have entire arterial grids and mile-wide 2D areas with continuous medium density, walkability, mixed uses, and a wide range of destinations. Think of Vancouver’s Robson Street, Davie Street, Broadway, etc. Or San Francisco’s Mission Street, Geary Blvd, Haight Street, Divisadero-Castro Street, Stockton Street, San Jose Ave, etc. Or Chicago’s 2×2 mile area in the north side with an average of 3-10 story buildings and lots of destinations all over it.

         In contrast, Seattle has smallish village islands with large gaps in between. That hinders walkability, transit ridership, the ability to live in a walkable/transit-rich area (because they’re more limited and have less capacity), etc.

         So Seattle is moving forward. But not as quickly as it should. And not as quickly as it did in the 2010s.

      10. T R

          Take a trip to Tacoma Dome Station and ride Tacoma’s “light rail to nowhere” transit does not drive housing density. West Seattle is a pretty cool part of town but it’s also NIMBY as all get out. Homeowners on Alki don’t want the “riffraff” from other parts of the city visiting “their” beach.

          In the push and pull of adding more housing to Seattle…. I’m guessing the NIMBYs gain the upper hand in over the next 20 years. First, mild NIMBY types control the mayor’s office and city council. Second, Seattle is largely played out. There just isn’t the money in “slam ups” there once was. (That’s the term in the building trades for those ugly cheap apartment buildings with rent over 2 grand a month we’ve been pooping out in Seattle over the last 20 years)

          [Ed. Stereotypes about riff-raff that don’t reflect actual Alki residents’ views are off-topic. I don’t understand all that you’re implying with “slam ups”, but you can clarify that in an open thread. -MO]

   5. All it takes is a glance at a map of Seattle to understand that WSLE and BLE are primarily focused on bridging the geographic divide of salmon bay and the duwamish waterway. These geophraphic features will always be there and they will always result in bottlenecks for transportation around the city, so it makes sense to build as high capacity transit as possible.

      Except in the case of West Seattle we have already bridged the gap. With a bridge. That has bus lanes on it. This conversation would be completely different if that bridge didn’t exist.

      Busses will never be a long term solution

      Why not? Keep in mind, this light rail is highly dependent on buses. The light rail only directly serves a teeny, tiny part of West Seattle. Three stations and only one of them is an actual destination. If you want to get to Alki, you will have to take the bus. Admiral District? Take a bus. South Seattle Community College (my alma mater)? Take a bus. High Point (the most densely populated part of West Seattle)? You get the idea. Pretty much every destination will require a taking a bus and then taking Link.

      Does Link save enough time to justify the transfer? In short, no. Not even close. It would be different if it went deep into West Seattle but it essentially duplicates the fastest part of the journey. I realize there is traffic but most of the day the average speed from West Seattle to Downtown is blazing fast compared to just about everywhere else in the city.

      The relatively small bottlenecks along the way can be fixed. With a relatively small amount of money you can have your cake and it too. Extend the bus lane on the West Seattle Bridge further east all the way to the SoDo busway. Add a ramp just for the buses. Now the buses would run to downtown while avoiding congestion *and* make a connection to Link (at SoDo). This means people who are headed to a a northern Link destination (like the UW) just sit on the bus a little longer. Folks heading to Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley or SeaTac avoid having to make an extra transfer. Just about everyone comes out ahead and you save at least five billion dollars (which can go into running the buses more often).

      It is important to remember that for most North American cities, the buses are a major part of the long term solution. Look at Vancouver. It has the best metro/subway system on the West Coast. It is one of the best post-war systems in North America (DC is the only real competition). It carries over half a million people a day. Does this mean no one takes the bus? No! Quite the opposite. The bus system carries over 800,000! It is the third most popular bus system in English-speaking North America. Think about that for a second. Tiny Vancouver has more bus riders than cities much bigger than it and it has an outstanding rail system.

      The key was to build the trains where it made sense to build them and run buses (and a ferry) where it didn’t. They also made sure they worked together. If we want to mimic the best transit city on the West Coast and the best transit city for its size in North America then we should improve the buses to West Seattle (like this). Can anyone really say that West Seattle Link would be better than that?

   6. Thank you T R.

      There are a lot of short-sighted people in this blog. I am sure they would have opposed Forward Thrust too

      1. There is heterodox open-mindedness among the writers, and even more so among the commentariat.

         In transportation politics, it is rare to be able to line up majority support behind all the details of a specific project.

         If you are looking for an organization to promote moving forward on ST3, this journalism-focused blog might not be it. Not everyone here voted for ST3.

         If you are looking for a place to discuss the minutiae of transit projects, I don’t know better place to go. The moderators here try hard to keep the comments cordial, and don’t always succeed. So, bring you arguments, and be prepared for arguments.

         Lots of great ideas that got their start here (though not necessarily with consensus support) have gotten implemented, such as vertical conveyance redundancy, more stairs in stations, the low-income fare (which has now become a thing among transit agencies across the country), ORCA on the monorail, published schedules for RapidRide, the Regional Day Pass, …

         I must confess. I was not sold on all of these originally, but they all seem to have improved the rider experience.

         I wish you good fortune in the arguments to come.

      2. I’ve never known anyone on this blog oppose Forward Thrust. Quite the opposite. Forward Thrust is often contrasted with what ST is building (or has built). For example: Forward Thrust had three station between downtown and the UW. Three! ST has only one. It really is a shame that we needed a supermajority for Forward Thrust and it didn’t pass.

         Oh, and should be noted that Forward Thrust didn’t have trains to West Seattle. They had Bus Rapid Transit. It even had that wording (which is surprising to me because I think of “BRT” as a relatively new concept).

      3. “Oh, and should be noted that Forward Thrust didn’t have trains to West Seattle.”

         Tbf Ross, West Seattle wasn’t as built out as it is now back in the 60s when the Forward Thrust proposal happened. You would’ve likely seen a proposal for a West Seattle-White Center-Burien-Tukwila line later probably as part of a new extension in another levy 20 or 30 years down the line if Forward Thrust had passed.

         I’d be cautious jumping to conclusions as to the intent of the planners who created Forward Thrust. We only got to see the final proposal and we don’t know how the planners thought from a long term perspective how other lines and extensions would come into play later after the first set of lines were built out.

      4. West Seattle still isn’t very built out. West Seattle is a huge area and most of it is relatively low density. The areas where there is significant development are very spread out as well. If you were going to serve it directly with rail you would need at least four lines (essentially the C, H, 21 and 50). That also skips the college. It has nowhere near the density — or existing ridership — where you start thinking “We better build some rail here”.

         The main reason folks support West Seattle rail is the same reason it doesn’t make sense. Folks in West Seattle converge onto one fairly small area to get anywhere else. They experience traffic there and think “Wow, there are a lot of people here”. But most of those people came from other places. It is the same issue with various extensions. Sound Transit has focused their efforts on the freeway because that is where people notice the congestion. But again, that is completely backwards. You should never base your mass transit on traffic. It is better to just run buses there or try and connect people some other way.

         Riders used to get from downtown to the UW via the freeway. It actually worked out really well. When I told my son what they were building Link his attitude was “Why do that? Downtown to the UW is the one places where the buses are great!”. But the buses carried huge numbers of people just from those two places. So you had proven demand that could justify rail of some sort. (West Seattle doesn’t have that despite very fast transit speeds.) But more importantly they didn’t just run an express on the freeway. They went via Capitol Hill. Yes, they should have added more stations (like they proposed with Forward Thrust) but at least they added Capitol Hill Station.

         Same goes for Northgate. The 41 was faster for commuters going to downtown than Link. But Link serves many places on the way. This is the essential part. It changes the nature of travel by replacing lots of very time consuming — and very popular trips (Northgate to the UW, Roosevelt to Capitol Hill, etc.). This is how Link — hell, this is how *every* really successful transit line in the world — gets its riders. It isn’t people going downtown. If you are just trying to get everyone downtown you don’t build a metro. You run express buses and commuter rail (when possible).

         West Seattle Link doesn’t have the equivalent of Capitol Hill. It will be faster to get from The Junction to Avalon but not much faster. The Delridge Station isn’t really a destination. There is no network effect. Not with the trains, not with the bus/train combination. West Seattle has none of the features that make it appropriate for rail.

      5. 25 years ago, extending north of Northgate seemed a little silly. Sleep ole Shoreline. Now it seems prescient. In 20 years, we will be damn thankful. The same thing will happen for Everett extension and West Seattle.

         You act like politicians don’t know where the apartments are going to go. Where the upzones will be. They know more about this than you. You know why? Because the real estate developers who site the apartments talk to them every single week.

         The only reason it won’t make sense is if the Puget Sound stops growing. And I wouldn’t bet against that

      6. You may be right, Confused, but it still does not explain why we should invest $7B to build a line in West Seattle before connecting Ballard, SLU, or First Hill.
         If you want to build apartments for further growth, how about starting around the Rainier Valley station where we already have Link service? Due to topography there isn’t as much opportunity for housing around the 3 WS stations than it is around NE 130th, Shoreline, Graham St, or Boeing Access Road.

      7. @Confused — What an appropriate moniker because you are clearly confused about the argument. Everyone agrees: There will be apartments in West Seattle close to the station!

         Will there be enough to justify spending $2 billion per station? No! Not even close.

         That isn’t even the main argument against the station. The main problem with the train is:

         1) It is extremely expensive.
         2) A bus system would be better.

         I think that is the part that people just don’t get. There are places where it is better to run rail and places where it is better to run buses. Consider greater Northgate (and not just the area close to the station). If you are only going downtown than a busway is better. It can serve the surrounding community better and connect everyone to downtown faster than a train. For downtown commuters Link is a degradation compared to the 41.

         But Link does more than get people downtown. It gets people to places like the UW and Capitol Hill. Service to those areas is much faster than would be possible by bus. Thus Link does make sense.

         But if there were no major destinations along the way it wouldn’t. That is the case with West Seattle. West Seattle doesn’t have any destinations along the way. The minor destinations along the way (SoDo and Stadium) can be served just as well with a bus. So not only can the buses do a better job connecting West Seattle to downtown, they can do a better job connecting West Seattle to SoDo and Stadium too.

         It is important to build trains where they can add the most value. If you get this wrong your transit system will be second rate. You struggle to find the money to build rail in the right places. The buses struggle as well. They can’t complement the trains very well as they struggle under increasing demands and reduced funding. Without a major improvement in the transit system people continue to view driving as the default mode and there is little support for new transit projects. We aren’t the first city to make that mistake. Dallas, Denver and even the Bay Area has made that mistake (to a certain degree). Look at Oakland. BART clearly short changed it and yet there are no plans to add another line or even backfill various places with stations.

         If you build the wrong thing you run out of money to build the right thing. West Seattle Link is the wrong thing.

      8. “You act like politicians don’t know where the apartments are going to go. Where the upzones will be. They know more about this than you. You know why? Because the real estate developers who site the apartments talk to them every single week.”

         Of course we and they know. It’s on the zoning maps! Even the parcels developers haven’t gotten to yet, they will in the next twenty years. The whole point of our position that West Seattle Link is unnecessary is the limitations in that plan. It will not lead to a U-District in West Seattle, a Ballard in West Seattle, or a Capitol Hill/First Hill in West Seattle. That’s the point! The planned growth capacity in West Seattle is too small and scattered.

         I admire how the Junction area has evolved: it reminds me of University Way in the 80s, when you could walk to a record store, pizza place, live-arts performance (then two repertoiry movie houses)… and now Husky Grind, Bakery Nouveau, a pet-supply store, a frequent bus to an old-growth park or downtown, live in a condo, etc. And the Triangle does extend several blocks east-west with emerging seven-story buildings. But just one block west of California or east of that, zoning drops precipitously to single-family. The Admiral District barely extends one block east-west. Westwood Village is also small, and the shopping center still looks like a suburban supermarket plaza and has little more than that.

         That’s what we mean by too small and not enough variety. Expand the Junction and Alderwood commercial districts east and west! Give us a vision of Westwood Village as an “urban center” as the city calls it. (Urban center, the middle designation, is characterized by one or two office-building equivalents or institutions and a redeveloped center.) When will we have something like that there? I realize the private owners can hold it back, but what is the city doing to encourage and incentivize the vision?

         Even if all this gets upzoned and built out, a single light rail line can serve only one or two of the four primary villages (WSJ, Westwood Village, Admiral, Alki). Only the first two are in Link’s long-range plan. I don’t see them alone growing enough to make a light rail line to them necessary. The geography is such that the existing bus corridors have acceptable travel time to downtown (< 30 minutes). A multi-line BRT solution could serve all West Seattle villages both large and small (beyond those four), and thus give better transit mobility options to the average West Seattlite than this Link-to-WSJ would, or its extension-to-Burien would.

   7. Yes, it’s important that rail connects to West Seattle. People who haven’t lived in cities outside the US seem to assume that buses are adequate high capacity transit. Buses are uncomfortable, small, slow, and you have to wait for them at poorly built bus stops. You build capacity for the future, especially when you build tunnels, because tunnels are millennial scale investment.

      West Seattle Link is far more important than Federal Way, Tacoma, and Everett because those parts of the line don’t connect to urban centers with enough density within a reasonable time.

      The are four cardinal directions. If people exclude West Seattle we forever disconnect that part of the city from density and there’s a lot of land there. It’s very big. The opponents in the photo will be in nursing homes by the time this is built. Why do they care? Is it because they are fanatical about cars? Do they associate trains with undesirables?

      From a generational perspective, this is a good connection. Having one medium (road) is just backward thinking and very US short term centric. We need the capacity for the city to be efficient.

      1. People who haven’t lived in cities outside the US seem to assume that buses are adequate high capacity transit.

         That is ludicrous. What we are saying is that high capacity transit (i. e. trains) are simply not needed (nor a good idea) for this tiny part of West Seattle.

         Buses are uncomfortable, small, slow, and you have to wait for them at poorly built bus stops.

         And yet the vast majority of people who would ever use West Seattle Link arrive by bus! How else would they get there? Walk? It only has three stations! It covers a very small part of West Seattle. You have to take the bus just to get to the train.

         People who haven’t lived in cities outside the US seem to assume that buses are uncomfortable, small, slow, and you have to wait for them at poorly built bus stops. But they don’t have to be that way. Other cities — even our closest neighbor — have a better bus system. But major cities (like Seoul) have a really good bus system AND a really good metro. The two aren’t exclusive. Quite the opposite. In general they go together.

      2. @George,

         “ Yes, it’s important that rail connects to West Seattle”

         I agree. And Jarrett Walker would agree too, since expanding LR to West Seattle (and Ballard) aligns with one of his core principles – “coverage”. The only issue is how exactly to expand Link, and at what cost.

         As per people in Seattle not being familiar with real transit in real cities, there is some truth to that. But it is also understandable.

         Up until Link opened in 2009, this region had gone approximately 60 years without any meaningful rail, or even high capacity, transit. After that long without daily access to high capacity, frequent, and reliable rail transit it is only natural that people think first in terms of the local status quo – roads, cars, and buses.

         My wife was one of these people. She doesn’t drive and has always been reliant on our bus system. She always thought of the bus first when she had to go somewhere, but this was mainly out of habit. It’s only in the last few years that she has begun to think of using Link first.

         The other thing about Seattle is that we love our curmudgeons, and we are cheap. And the two go together. So we are apt to listen to people like Dick Falkenbury when he promises us a 40 mile long, X-shaped monorail system that will be better than Light Rail, quicker to build, and can be fully funded with espresso sales at the stations.

         Don’t believe the curmudgeons. Believe the experts.

      3. “If people exclude West Seattle we forever disconnect that part of the city from density and there’s a lot of land there.”

         Density is being held back by opponents of density, and by a city council and mayor that are less satisfied with growth than the previous one. Light rail has nothing to do with it: it’s a land-use decision. What if we build West Seattle Link but they area never densifies beyond the current capacity? Then you’ll have built Link based on a hope that never happens. If they want to densify West Seattle more, they could do it now. That would give more credence to the argument that West Seattle will become more like the 45th corridor, Capitol Hill/First Hill/western CD.

      4. “Jarrett Walker would agree too, since expanding LR to West Seattle (and Ballard) aligns with one of his core principles – “coverage””

         Coverage is for buses, not multibillion-dollar metros. Walker talks about the ridership-coverage tradeoff in terms of bus networks or the entire transit network: not about metros or tram corridors in isolation.

         The opposite of coverage is building up the highest-volume corridors with ultra-frequent uncongested service. Those are the same corridors that work best for a metro line, tram line, BRT line, or RapidRide line. The biggest ones get metro, the second- and third-biggest a tram or BRT, the fourth-biggest RapidRide. All this is the RIDERSHIP side of the continuum.

         The COVERAGE side is areas that are none of that: not high volume, not particularly dense, no large institution with tens of thousands of workers/visitors, etc. That’s where coverage routes like the 22 or 27 come in.

         The West Seattle area is third- or fourth-level: not as big as the downtown-UDistrict axis, southeast Seattle, or Freelard and SLU. It already has two RapidRide lines, and that’s a perfect complement for it. We want to add more RapidRide/BRT lines and frequency to West Seattle. That would benefit West Seattle’s transit mobility. The issue is keeping their lanes uncongested, but that’s the same for all surface-based transit.

         West Seattle has a second major factor against light rail’s effectiveness: its long axis is north-south, but the Link proposal is east-west. Imagine if southeast Seattle were addresed by an east-west line. It would only serve the areas right near Beacon Hill station and Mt Baker station. That’s what ST’s plan in West Seattle will do: it will only directly serve Delridge/Andover, 35th/Avalon, and California/Alaska. The vast majority of West Seattle’s population doesn’t live near those, so they’d have to take a short bus ride just to transfer to a short train ride. The transferring will be a significant percent of the total travel time. Just like in our east-west Rainier Valley scenario: everyone in Columbia City and Rainier Beach would have to take a bus to Mt Baker station to transfer to Link. So how much would the rail really “serve” Rainier Valley? Not much.

      5. I really think that those who believe West Seattle Link is the solution to West Seattle’s transit mobility problems aren’t thinking from a passenger’s perspective. It’s a solution for the West Seattle Junction neighborhood, period. It won’t improve transit mobility from the Admiral District, High Point, Westwood Village, or the areas around them — instead it’s likely to make it worse.

         Is there a WSL proponent in these areas who thinks their future bus+Link transfer will be a major improvement in their neighborhood’s mobility? If so, please step up.

      6. “ Yes, it’s important that rail connects to West Seattle”

         I agree. And Jarrett Walker would agree too

         I seriously doubt it. Walker tends to be agnostic about mode and quick to point out the trade-offs (as opposed to saying what approach is better). But this looks like a classic case where a busway would be better. Consider this paragraph from this post (https://humantransit.org/2011/08/bus-rapid-transit-two-kind-of-flexibility.html)

         But Bus Rapid Transit offers a very different flexibility that in certain situations out-competes rail. A busway can be designed so that buses from many surface lines can flow into it. This potentially spreads the usefulness of the busway over a large area without requiring an additional trunk-to-feeder connection. Connections are unavoidable in good networks, but if there are easy opportunities to eliminate one, it’s still worth going for.

         Brisbane is a highly radial city, with a single downtown and densities dropping away as you move away from it. Outlying nodes of high activity, which could be a strong endpoint for a closed busway or rail line, are scarce. So the open busway makes perfect sense. It allows busway service to spread out over a larger area, yielding high frequencies on the inner busway where the demand is higher, and correspondingly lower frequency further out. It’s the kind of flexibility that fits the city.
         

         The same can be easily said about West Seattle. In this case a six billion dollar line would only connect to one high-activity node (Alaska Junction). It also isn’t a major node. It is merely one of many mid-level destinations or moderately dense areas in West Seattle (like Alki, South Seattle Community College, the other junctions, High Point, etc.). It is basically on par with Columbia City. It has some density, will probably have more eventually and has a few clubs drawing people from outside the area. But it isn’t Capitol Hill, let alone the UW or Downtown Bellevue, let alone First Hill or Downtown Seattle. The other two stations (Avalon and Youngstown) are even smaller destinations.

         West Seattle just makes more sense for bus infrastructure, not a (very expensive) train line.

      7. @Mike Orr,

         “ Coverage is for buses, not multibillion-dollar metros”

         That is a fundamentally inaccurate statement. The concept of coverage applies equally to all modes. Of course “coverage” is going to be a lot more coarse grained with Link because of the investment involved, but that is exactly what George was getting at.

         This region now has fast, frequent, and reliable high capacity transit on one main corridor. It will soon have the same thing on a second corridor (Full ELE ). That is an increase in rail coverage. Adding WSLE and BLE would also be an increase in rail coverage.

         Does that serve everyone? Of course not. But the future of transit in this region is more rail coverage hitting the main geographic corners of the region, coupled with refocused Metro bus service which mainly feeds into those rail corridors. And that is a good thing.

         Some people on this blog seem to want to use Jarrett’s concepts in some misguided effort to reignite the mode wars of the 1980’s. But those mode wars are over. Link is here, and Link will continue to be expanded and continue to gain more coverage. And Metro will continue to evolve to provide more local coverage which primarily feeds into Link on its main corridors. This is also a good thing.

         But hey, the next year or so is going to see a dramatic increase in Link coverage. That increase in Link coverage is a good thing. And I can’t wait to see that coverage in full operation.

10. I attended this thing. It was essentially a NIMBY forum (or BIMBY) and a mostly mellow and friendly group, although all the topics of discussion were softball questions. The moderator intentionally chose to stay away from questions that would challenge the panel and actually make them take pause to think; things submitted such as “With its history of breakdowns and a need for a replacement not far off, what happens with these busses when the WS Bridge shuts down?” I know because I wrote that question. Obviously, the lower and much slower Spokane St route would need to be taken with all its traffic mayhem. I just wanted to see what sort of response the panel might have, but any questions involving problem-solving or critical thinking were avoided, as I assumed they would be. The whole thing was rather uninspiring and a waste of everyone’s time… it’s progress, folks, it happens. Society advances. Things get built. That’s America for ya. Get on board, or get out of the way. Also, the anticipated ROD is essentially a formality making the EIS official so the agency can move forward to secure additional Federal funding for design & construction… POTUS can’t kill specific projects or an EIS process, he can only bring to bear on general policy or perform half-baked illegal maneuvers to cease funding, like he’s currently doing. Sure, T, Duffy & the other genius goons may stall funding for the project here and there, but they can’t kill it. It’s on its way regardless. At the meeting I thought for a minute I might stand up and propose a blimp service for commuters across Elliott Bay, called “Airships Over Elliott” to pile on the sheer misguided stupidity of the whole event, but I soon got bored and left.

    1. I guess I’ll now consider myself a BLIMPY… I’ll propose it like Campbell Scott’s character proposed the supertrain in Singles: “If you give em good coffee… if you give em a view… if you only play Led Zeppelin on the, umm, zeppelin… they will float en masse over Elliott Bay nonstop, I know they will!” How convincing was that???

    2. The moderator intentionally chose to stay away from questions that would challenge the panel and actually make them take pause to think; things submitted such as “With its history of breakdowns and a need for a replacement not far off, what happens with these busses when the WS Bridge shuts down?”

       I don’t know why you think that is such a tough question. You already answered the question and it was obvious: The buses use the lower bridge. Just like before.

       That is like asking “with its history of breakdowns, what happens when Link needs repairs?”. The answer is obvious. You run replacement buses. Or “will the trains run late at night?”. No, of course not. Buses will. Those aren’t particularly tough questions. Nor are they particularly important. Eventually the bridge will need to be replaced. Eventually much of Link will need major repairs as well.

       In contrast someone compared Ballard to West Seattle. I thought this was a tough question. Martin aptly drew some distinctions.

       But the moderator was not ducking hard questions. The moderator asked every question they could. They just ran out of time.

       1. The moderator did indeed get to that question, after the commenter gave up and left, I am guessing.

          The panelists were in general agreement that giving a lane to buses on the lower bridge would suffice.

    3. “Bullshit. The panel included Martin Pagel, clearly a transit advocate.”
       I mean he’s the one who advocated for a gondola. Which many people have criticized him here and other places for why he proposed a transit solution that is comparatively worse than the light rail line in terms of ridership, rider experience, and operations. Which some would say puts into question his authority and expertise on the matter if he’s going to propose something like that.

    4. So you are saying that someone who proposes a reasonable alternative is somehow disqualified to be a transit advocate? That is nonsense. Using that logic no one can possibly be a transit advocate because at some point you are going to find fault with what they are advocating.

       Martin supported gondolas because they could be *cheaper* and built *much sooner*. You are thus arguing against these ideas. You are saying it doesn’t matter how much money we spend on mass transit projects. This is another way of saying we should spend less money on the buses. You are also arguing that it doesn’t matter how long it takes to actually build something. Thus you are arguing that we should delay transit projects. Clearly you aren’t a transit advocate because you are opposed to spending money on the buses and interesting only in delaying major improvements.

       See how ridiculous your argument is. Holy shit, Martin takes time out of his day to write for a fucking transit blog. He puts himself out there and you call him anti-transit. Who the hell are you to pass such judgement?

    5. We should avoid attacking each other in the comments.

    6. “Martin takes time out of his day to write for a fucking transit blog”

       As a reminder, all STB authors and staff are unpaid volunteers. So Martin is not only taking time for something he cares about, he’s taking time he could otherwise use for earning money or recreating.

    7. We should avoid attacking each other in the comments.

       Yeah, no shit. But if someone attacks someone I’m not going to ignore it. Same goes for you Brent. If someone claims you are anti-transit (and means it) then I’ll tell them they are full of shit. We may not agree at times, but you sure as hell aren’t anti-transit. Neither is Martin. That is just a stupid, nasty thing to have written.

    8. I’m not sure who insulted who, or whether anybody insulted anybody.

    9. “That is just a stupid, nasty thing to have written.”
       I didn’t say anything nasty like you’re implying. Again, I didn’t say he was anti-transit once in post, so please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s unhelpful to the conversation.

    10. My criticism was not directed towards anyone here, or anyone just attending the forum, but at the casual acceptance that everyone on that panel was pro-transit, or that they are all volunteers in regards to their lobbying on transit.

        Indeed, I think the point of such a panel is to have people with expertise, who have done their homework, even if one of them has devoted his life to opposing Sound Transit at every turn. His solution was more drone cars (not what he prefers to call them), while some others wanted to reinvent the flat tire of more and wishfully faster buses to downtown (or weirdly, to SODO Station).

        I would be overjoyed to have them as allies in actually lobbying for those dedicated bus lanes in the here and now! (Assuming the engineers agree that doing so does not add to the stress on the fragile West Seattle Bridge)

    11. I didn’t say he was anti-transit once in post,

        You wrote:

        That was no panel of transit advocates.

        The panel included Martin. Therefore you were saying was not a transit advocate, i. e. he is anti-transit.

        And then when I pointed out that Martin is clearly a transit advocate you didn’t correct yourself. It would have been easy to then say “OK, yeah, Martin is clearly a transit advocate” but you didn’t. You doubled down on your assessment and suggested that because he once supported a gondola from West Seattle (a perfectly reasonable idea) he can’t be a transit advocate.

        Your statement was disgusting. Rather than counter the arguments being made you stooped to attacking the people making them. Even your first statement is bullshit:

        Some of those Purported Bimbys have a long history of opposing bus service funding measures.

        Oh really, who? How many in the board? Are the Koch Brothers secretly behind this?

        Hey, here is a fun fact for you. The Sound Transit board shot down BRT on the CKC, even after the City of Kirkland hired a transit expert to look at the corridor. So using your logic:

        Some on the Sound Transit board have a long history of opposing bus projects. The board is not made up of transit advocates.

    12. Now you are confusing who said what, and existential critique with universal critique.

        Please, just give it a rest, and let the productive threads blossom.

    13. My criticism was not directed towards anyone here, or anyone just attending the forum, but at the casual acceptance that everyone on that panel was pro-transit, or that they are all volunteers in regards to their lobbying on transit.

        But that is not what you wrote! You clearly stated that it is was not a panel of transit advocates and that is complete bullshit. This was after you made an unsubstantiated claim that some of the “Purported Bimbys” have a long history of opposing bus service. Did you back up that claim with evidence? No. Besides, who cares? Maybe they have changed their mind. It happens. Look at how many people who comment on this blog supported ST3 and now don’t.

        Consider Tacoma Dome Link. A lot of people (myself included) believe we would be much better off with express buses. This would save a huge amount of money and be *faster* for the majority of riders. The savings could be put into where it is needed most in Pierce County — bus service within the county.

        Not everyone agrees. There are people out there that think running the train to the Tacoma Dome is better. Given what you are saying I would never want to have someone like that on the panel, since
        “he proposed a transit solution that is comparatively worse in terms of ridership, rider experience, and operations. Which some would say puts into question his authority and expertise on the matter if he’s going to propose something like that.”

        Sorry but that is absurd. Sure, obviously Tacoma Dome Link is a waste of money — I think we all agree on that. But just because someone supports it doesn’t mean they can’t be right on other issues.

        I was actually at the meeting. I heard the responses and they were well thought out and nuanced. There was plenty of expert information. For you to stereotype the panel and attack the group in this manner is disgusting. If you have a counter-argument to make, make it. But don’t attack people in this manner. It is bullshit.

    14. As it happens, the gondola proposal did not come up.

        If Martin thinks I am accusing him of being anti-transit because I wanted to avoid naming other people on the panel, I apologize.

    15. Please, just give it a rest, and let the productive threads blossom.

        Good idea. I’ll remove this thread because it is clearly an ad hom attack. I should have done it earlier but figured you would figure it out and correct yourself. So much for that idea.

    16. [long, pointless thread that started with an ad-hoc attack has been removed]

    17. “Your statement was disgusting…. Even your first statement is bullshit:”

        The first sentence is getting toward insult territory. The second sentence reinforces it. I think we can just say Ross thinks the original statement is bad and has no merit.

    18. BS,

        “Get on board, or get out of the way”

        This is not the history of the USA. Our real history is one big lurches forward and then flat spots or even retreat….

        The big news here is that Seattle is finishing up on a “big lurch forward” and likely headed for a flat spot. The growth of the last 20 years just can’t be duplicated for a number of reasons. That’s why committing to mega projects like West Seattle light rail just doesn’t make sense right now.

        [ot]

11. [ot. General Link issues belong in an open thread.]

12. Thank you for showing the whole video. Thank you to whoever recorded it.

    Thank you to Martin for serving on the panel, even if you did not get to bring up gondolas!

    Thank you to the moderators (particular Ross above) for keeping the comments pruned for all-ages discussion and keeping it on the issues at hand.

13. Martin rightly sees that gondolas are a relatively inexpensive and quick-to-build strategy for addressing very steep hills and barriers, compared to an elevated train climbing it or an underground tunnel or inadequate buses. It’s a reasonable solution for Latin American mountainous cities, Portland’s medical-center-on-a-hill, Harborview-also-on-a-hill, connecting SLU to Capitol Hill and First Hill, and connecting SODO to West Seattle. All these are secondary corridors, not the main transit axis (Lynnwood-UDistrict-Capitol Hill-downtown-south Seattle-SeaTac) where highest-capacity transit is essential. That doesn’t necessarily mean we should build all these gondolas, but ST and local governments should give gondolas and automated metros fair consideration alongside plain old light rail and buses, rather than dismissing them out of hand or using strawman models to dismiss them.

    Kirkland is apparently considering a gondola between downtown and the 85th Stride station. How is that going?

    1. I still think gondola lines are underrated in the States and certainly by Sound Transit. Mexico City has had great success with them and keeps building more lines, they have similar hills as Seattle. Paris is even building a mostly flat line just to get over other train lines and highways. Yes, a gondola line could be built in West Seattle far sooner for less money and provide far smaller transfer penalty (less walking, less waiting) than WSLE. But after studying West Seattle topography, bus lines and density further, most residents will not be served well with a few stations, but with better bus services. Some Link proponents predict that West Seattle population is about to explode, then a gondola could be added fairly quickly.
       SLU to Capitol Hill would be a great gondola line, even if BLE is done. So is Harborview. But Sound Transit won’t even consider gondolas.
       Kirkland realized that a gondola could address a major transit hole within their city, but with WFH, Google abandoned their plan to build next to the 85th St/I-405 station. That reduced the ridership estimates and therefore the project is still on hold.

14. All the great cities of the world went ‘buses are good enough!’ when it was time to decide if to build grade separated rail.
    One of the most bizarre thing about American transit enthusiasts is they just forget (or ignore) the fact that most Americans have a stigma against riding a bus that simply doesn’t transfer to light rail. Meanwhile transit enthusiasts have a huge stigma against light rail because ‘IT’s NoT HiGh FlooR’ or ‘No PLaTforM ScreeN dOoRs’ meanwhile normal people just enjoy the ride that is simply a better service than a bus can ever provide.
    Absolute dinosaurs. Everytime this blog pretends like this group is anything more than a pack of NIMBYs it loses a significant chunk of whatever credibility it has left.
    I live in WS and am going to get demolished the preferred alternative. I say bring it on. Can’t wait

    1. The fact that you are posting here suggests that this blog continues to have credibility.

       Refusing to cover diverging viewpoints among stakeholders is bad journalism.

    2. “All the great cities of the world went ‘buses are good enough!’ when it was time to decide if to build grade separated rail.”

       What is that supposed to mean? The London Underground or Vancouver Skytrain don’t exist?

       “most Americans have a stigma against riding a bus that simply doesn’t transfer to light rail.”

       That’s off-topic for this article; you can discuss it in an open thread. This article is about the pros and cons of ST’s preferred alternative in West Seattle, and related Link issues in other corridors. Not people’s attitudes toward buses and trains in general. Whatever average Americans think about buses and trains, Seattlites have a more positive impression, since lots of middle-class choice riders are on both of them. We can’t make infrastructure decisions based on people’s false stereotypes: we have to do what would really improve people’s mobility, and recognize that some people will use it if it’s there, and that will eventually generate more positive attitudes about buses and trains.

       I don’t even know what “stigma against light rail that doesn’t have automation and platform screen doors” even means. The people advocating those are just pointing out that it’s the most sensible, cost-effective, and effective choice, and it’s what the international standard is now. The onus should be on ST to explain why they’re not doing it.

    3. “All the great cities of the world went ‘buses are good enough!’ when it was time to decide if to build grade separated rail.”

       Actually, that’s not accurate. The omnibuses and coaches of the time were horse-drawn. They went directly from that to streetcars. The first streetcars were also horse-drawn; the rails just make horses more efficient because the car could just slide rather than having to drag wheels over dirt and rocks. The first paved streets were for bicycles because there was a bicycle craze before cars. London’s first underground metro was in the 1860s (“metro” comes from the name of the line, Metropolitan), to increase capacity for the growing industrial labor force. New York and Chicago built elevated metros to avoid congested streets, and later New York put them underground. None of them said, “Buses are enough.” They didn’t even have what we’d call buses then: buses came later in the automobile age. Their cities were much smaller then, so you can’t say they had the “7 million people” excuse for grade-separated rail. They just knew that rail was efficient, and that getting transit out of congested general-purpose streets was efficient, and some of them absolutely needed more capacity than streetcars/buses could provide long-term.

15. For the $7 billion for West Seattle Link, you could probably resurrect Big Birtha and drill a canal tunnel under West Seattle, and just extend the water taxi to The Junction.

    1. Don’t give Musk any ideas :)

16. I am kinda curious. Did anyone on the board of Rethink the Link, or on last week’s panel, actually vote for ST3?

    1. Martin was on the board and said he would have voted yes (but wasn’t a citizen at the time). Of course Niles voted against it. I’m not sure about Marty Westerman.

       As Martin put it, one of the big challenges is that it was a yes or no vote. It wasn’t like there were various options. The vote for a relatively tiny amount of money for public housing has more options (first there is a yes/no, then you get to choose one option or the other).

       I voted no (the first time in my life I voted against a transit proposal and that includes “Roads and Transit”). It was a risky vote, but I felt like they would have come back with a better plan after a no vote. That was the case with Roads and Transit (in my opinion). I don’t blame anyone for voting yes (even if they felt the same way I did about the projects).

       As I’ve written before, I think the big problem is that we vote for a project in the first place. It would make way more sense to just allocate money. Then the board can decide how to spend it. They could adjust their spending based on the various studies. If people didn’t like the way the board is spending money they could vote for a new board. If they felt like the board was spending too much money they can vote against the next allocation of money (or vote for board members that don’t want to spend the money). Instead we have a system that puts both voters and the representatives in an awkward spot. Voters are thinking “This looks like a very poor set of proposals, but I don’t want to vote against transit”. Representatives are thinking “Now that we’ve dug into the details, this project looks really bad. On the other hand people voted for it (or something similar) so …”.

17. I have a procedural issue with calling the West Seattle published document here a “Final EIS”. While it bares some resemblance to the Draft WSBLE EIS, ST proposes new things here. Things like the cable-stayed bridge were not included in the draft.

    Shouldn’t this have been published as another “Draft EIS”? Shouldn’t there be several bridge designs evaluated as Draft alternatives?

    And as a stand alone EIS, shouldn’t the evaluation be only for the stub period? How can the build scenarios with underfunded BLE be included in ridership calculations yet be summarily excluded from having any physical impacts?

    I’m not an environmental law specialist but it seems to me that ST could have this project mired in procedural legal problems by calling this “final”. An opponent could easily bring a credible lawsuit about this.

    1. Al, I share those concerns, I even believe that Sound Transit is misleading the public with the FEIS. The FEIS makes a lot of promises which will not get accomplished until BLE/DSTT2 is finished. They claim 27,000 riders, but ST explained to the FTA that they only expect 5,400 riders until the stub is connected downtown. They claim this with happen for $7b but they fail to explain that the it will take even more funds to connect the stub to downtown.

       1. I don’t see how this line gets 27,000 per day, without severely disrupting a huge number of passengers.

          MAX yellow line goes to a major hospital complex, and through the highway 99W corridor, connecting with a dozen busy bus routes (extending the practical reach to about 15 square miles of Portland’s densest non-tower land), serving multiple grocery stores, and has at least two neighborhood evening performance centers, the Expo center, and the Coluseum/Moda Center complex with all manner of evening events.

          The 2019 ridership was about 13,000 per day.

       2. The total boardings for the Delridge and the Avalon+Junction segments are listed at 5400 and 7600 for a total of 13000 in 2042. Double that to count those getting off and that’s only 26000.

          The original 2016 ST3 document promised 32000 to 37000 riders by 2040. The new forecasts are 20-30 percent fewer riders than the public was told in 2016, all while the project became over 400 percent more expensive to build — making it 50 percent more expensive per mile than LA’s Wilshire subway with that project expecting twice as many riders.

          Also notable from the new EIS is that the SODO platforms to West Seattle are forecasted at 14800 for the old and new platforms combined after DSTT2 opens. That means that more transfers are probably forecasted to happen at SODO than all the boardings at the three West Seattle stations combined. It really exposes the stubborn insanity at ST about not designing for level cross platform transfer capabilities there while spending so much to reach the Junction in its 100 foot deep hole the size of a football field.

18. I have nothing substantive to add, but I wanted to give a shout-out to the blog members that participated in this event – I respect you for trying to save your city from this terrible project. Most likely this juggernaut can no longer be stopped from the grass-roots, but perhaps the Trump administration will kill it instead? Sad times when these are the hopes. I don’t think The Donald will do much good overall for transit or for America, but he may take out a few boondoggles on his merry way. We will see.

    Not sure if there’s any appetite to discuss this here, but out of a morbid curiosity: if the project continues as planned–say Trump doesn’t actually cancel the grants–what does the readership here think we will end up with before the whole thing finally folds, and Seattle can’t afford to build any more megaprojects until the next generation? Will we get as far as having the bridge, or not even? Will anything be built in Ballard? Or are the current ST2 projects (Federal Way, completion of Line 2) projects in any danger?

    1. I don’t think the ST2 projects are in any danger. So at a very minimum we will have trains to Federal Way, Lynnwood and Downtown Redmond. Same goes for the infill stations (Pinehurst and Graham). Even BAR will probably get built, even though there isn’t much enthusiasm for it. I haven’t heard much about 220th Station, so I don’t know about that.

       Other than that, who knows. The BRT projects are expensive and it is quite possible some of them will be cut back. That has already happened in Tacoma (I think the BRT project is dead). Many of the Sounder projects have either been built or are suspended indefinitely (and I doubt they get built).

       My guess is some of the light rail projects get built but only partway. So maybe Ash Way to the north and South Federal Way to the south — that sort of thing. I don’t see Issaquah Link being built. With Seattle it is interesting and really bad. The best project is Ballard Link but they are actually building it in the wrong order — it will be last. So the first thing they build is a line from West Seattle to SoDo. Assuming they refuse to even consider merging the trains they would eventually run a train through downtown, but it might not go much further. So West Seattle gets a train that most would rather not use; Rainier Valley and SeaTac riders are forced to transfer if they want to go to the UW (or some other northern destination); Ballard riders continue to take the bus even though they would have gotten the most out of any of the ST3 projects (and Ballard Link was the best big project according to the metrics).

       1. Seattle should initially build Smith Cove to Westlake, automated Light Metro with two hundred foot stations. Stubs to catch and bury TBM’s should be built to the south of Westlake Center.

          Then, when the city can afford to go it alone, extend first to Ballard, then to First Hill and then to U-District, probably via Fremont and Central Wallingford, even though that’s pretty wiggly. It allows intercept of all the north-south buses and serves the Urban Village at Fremont.

          It makes sense to go one station past U-District to the east, with a terminal right under the 45th Street Bridge and a grade-separated walkway over to U-Village. The main ridership driver, though, would be the UW dorms in the northeast corner of campus. You can also remove the TBM’s there on the hillside. With a well-designed transfer at U-District, some folks would “commute” from the dorms to UW station on inclement days.

          I like to call it the “Lazy U” line (like a branding iron)

          Maybe eventually the First Hill line gets extended down Rainier to Columbia City, but that’s a long-term project and only if the Valley through there is revamped.

          That’s it for Seattle.

       2. Strides projects will be completed – the expensive 405 freeway interchange rebuilds (44th, 85th) money has already been spent, and I believe ST has already purchased the land for the bus base. Stride 522 has ran into a few minor issues, and the Renton station is hot garbage, but overall Stride is in a good place, with 405N in particular evolving into a better project than originally scoped (ST is prudently waiting until WSDOT completes major 405 work, which has been delayed but is fully funded). For a bit it looks like ST was going to be penny wise/dollar foolish with the TIBS Stride station, but I think staff backed off and is moving forward with a Stride station that spans both sides of the freeway there.

          Pierce BRT project is dead.

          I expect TDLE to be completed more-or-less as-is. I wish they would only build SFW station and OMF-S and switch modes at the county line, but the Tacoma & Pierce political leadership is committed to Link all the way to Tacoma Dome. As TDLE is much further along than the Seattle or Snohomish project, it will move into construction before ST runs out of money.

          For Snohomish, the logical move is to complete the EIS for the full length of the project and then scope a “Phase 1” and move that into construction. Even without funding issues, ST was likely to break that project into smaller megaprojects and open it over time.

       3. I would expect 522 BRT to be completed but I would not be surprised at all if they cave with regards to bus-only lanes in Lake Forest Park. That is one advantage of the BRT projects in that they can be cut back considerably and still considered complete. Of course that didn’t save Pierce County BRT. In both SR 522 and SR 7 they should take a lane instead of spending way too much money making the street wider. In the case of SR 522 it would mean taking a turn lane (not a general purpose lane) but the same idea.

       4. Seattle should initially build Smith Cove to Westlake, automated Light Metro with two hundred foot stations. Stubs to catch and bury TBM’s should be built to the south of Westlake Center.

          Agreed. That is a good starting point. Even if ridership isn’t fantastic (because it isn’t that long) you can focus on quality over quantity. Get the transfer right. Make it really good and it essentially becomes a branch of the main line (both directions). This goes along with being automated. If the automated train is frequent (and it should be) and the transfer is easy then plenty of people will use it. On the other hand if the transfer is bad and the trains run every ten minutes then it loses its appeal (alternatives are better). So many of the trips with Ballard Link are transfer/frequency sensitive — focusing on the section where this is especially the case could lead to a better line in both the short and long term.

          I agree with the extensions as well. The Ballard part of Ballard Link is a mess. Might as well redo the process for that. With smaller platforms they might have the good sense to send the train west (in the heart of Ballard). But I would probably start with First Hill. As with the other part of the line, the transfer is key. But when you get to First Hill you also have the first major improvement for a one-seat ride: Uptown to First Hill. For Uptown to Westlake we have the monorail. Most of the other trips are short enough that the trains don’t add that much value versus the buses. But Uptown to First Hill would be a huge improvement, likely cutting travel time in half.

          At first glance ending at Smith Cove doesn’t get you much. But again the transfer is the key. If it is easy to transfer from the RapidRide D to this train then there is no reason to send the bus to Queen Anne. Sure, many riders would prefer the old (one-seat) connection but if you give them a good alternative is it OK. But waiting around ten minutes for a train (or an extended version of the 8) is not OK. The transfer (and the frequency of the train) has to be good.

          I’ve never been thrilled with the idea of a big turn in Ballard. It doesn’t get you nearly as much as a branch in the UW. But branching the trains at the UW is probably not realistic. Might as well provide some set of one-seat connections. Rounding the horn in Ballard doesn’t lead to a lot of great trips it does add some. It would transform transit in Magnolia. Everywhere in the peninsula they would have a good two-seat ride to the UW, Fremont and Wallingford. They would have a good three-seat ride to just about everywhere in the north end. I know Magnolia is low-density but it is far more likely we will have a major increase in density in Magnolia in twenty years (and lots of people riding transit) then a lot of the places we are expected to serve with ST3.

          It might also make crossing the ship canal easier. Very early on they explored crossing the canal to the west. I don’t remember any technical issues — I think they figured it was cheapest to go elevated on 15th (and then that turned out to be expensive). If we crossed at 24th then turned and headed towards the UW that means an east-west station could be built in the heart of Ballard.

          I think you want to eventually go south from First Hill to Mount Baker. There are good potential stations much of the way. The connection at Mount Baker Station is more important than the one at Judkins Park but ideally you make both. Likewise the connection at Mount Baker would mean everyone south of there (on the 7) could have a good two-seat ride to First Hill, SLU, Uptown and Ballard.

    2. The project that may be the most impacted is the OMF- South. The Federal Record of Decision was issued about 6 months ago. The project is estimated to be about $2B. If that sounds high, remember that it includes building tracks about 2/3 or the way to South Federal Way.

       Certainly delays to Tacoma Dome and West Seattle extensions gives ST more time. However there was a lot of noise last year about not having enough room to accommodate all the needed vehicles by 2027 at the other OMFs. .

       Related to that is fleet replacement and expansion budget . That’s probably more of a bus issue than a rail issue.

       I can’t seem to locate the OMF South budget sources. But that money could easily be in jeopardy if a sizable share comes from FTA.

       1. Al, the short term concerns about lack of OMF space for vehicles was based on the fact that I-90 is not open yet and therefore the OMF-East can’t be used for the rest of the network. Once the I-90 bridge is open, any short term needs should be addressed by OMF-East. OMF-South won’t be necessary until TDLE is finished, I believe.

       2. Martin is correct, OMF-S is needed for ST3 extensions, not ST2. ST hasn’t even put out a tender for the Series 3 vehicles that would use OMF-S.

          I seriously doubt the OMF-S will be impacted by FTA cuts, since all of ST’s fund are fungible. Loss of Federal funding will impact the middle of the ST3 project pipeline, when ST’s overall financial capacity is tight.

    3. The good/necessary parts of ST3 are: the short extensions to Redmond and Federal Way, 130th and Graham infill stations, and the three Stride lines.

       The bad/unnecessary parts are: West Seattle, Everett, Tacoma Dome, Issaquah.

       Ballard/DSTT2 is borderline. It would be good to get high-capacity transit to Ballard/SLU, but ST has made so many bad decisions after the vote that it’s questionable whether it can fulfill its promise even if it’s built. I.e., long transfers downtown, possible 14th location for Ballard Station.

       So I want the good parts to succeed, and I don’t care much if the bad parts and Ballard/DSTT2 are canceled.

       If the feds cancel transit grants, it would probably affect some good projects as well as bad projects.

       Cross-lake service, Redmond, and Federal Way are so far along that they probably wouldn’t be affected. However, if the feds stop payment on grants already awarded for work ST has already signed construction contacts on and construction has started, that could blow a hole in ST’s budget.

       Everett and Tacoma might get finished even if WSBLE/DSTT2 aren’t, because ST would probably put them at the front of the line. They’re part of the Spine; they’re in different subareas that have different resource levels; and they’re in the counties that have the least ST service.

       If Everett and Tacoma are built but DSTT2/WSBLE aren’t, then ST would have to split the 1 Line to avoid a 2.5 hour driver trip without a break, or send the 2 Line to Everett instead of terminating at 128th/Mariner. A Tacoma-Northgate line looks feasible; there’s disagreement on whether it would be short enough. Everett on south would require a southern terminus. That could be West Seattle but that would depend on the West Seattle segment and an L-turn. Or it could be Stadium or SODO, possibly with a pocket track expansion. That might cause more than 20 trains per hour in DSTT1, which ST says it can’t do without capital improvements to DSTT1. Canceling DSTT2 would leave a whole lot of money for those capital improvements and more too, we assume.

       ST could take up our suggestion for an automated Ballard-Westlake line, replacing Ballard/DSTT2. That would cost less because the tunnel, stations, and trains would be smaller, and that could free up money to double the frequency. So far ST hasn’t been willing to consider it. There will be articles on both this and on Ballard at-grade alternatives soon.

       220th Station in Mountlake Terrace is not in ST3; it’s deferred for later.

       1. > If Everett and Tacoma are built but DSTT2/WSBLE aren’t, then ST would have to split the 1 Line to avoid a 2.5 hour driver trip without a break, or send the 2 Line to Everett instead of terminating at 128th/Mariner. A Tacoma-Northgate line looks feasible; there’s disagreement on whether it would be short enough.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/OMSF/OMSF_Task_2.3B_Core_Light_Rail_System_Plan_Review.pdf

          They talk about it in the 2012 service pattern plan. Tacoma to northgate works alongside a SeaTac to Everett one. East link would turn around early at northgate or Lynnwood

       2. “If Everett and Tacoma are built but DSTT2/WSBLE aren’t, then ST would have to split the 1 Line to avoid a 2.5 hour driver trip without a break, or send the 2 Line to Everett instead of terminating at 128th/Mariner. ”

          Just a few comments on the 1 Line length issue.

          1. I’ve wondered if ST is sincere about the West Seattle stub. I could see that the train from Tacoma is declared the stub if the line is too long. It’s just one more situation why SODO Station should have level, cross-platform, same-direction transfers.

          2. LA Metro’s A Line runs from Long Beach to Azusa and soon Pomona. The do a crew change on it. Problem solved.

          3. Eventual automation can eliminate the need for drivers the full length. It may be that drivers are only used between CID and TIBS only.

       3. Automate the trains and the driver time becomes moot.

       4. The good/necessary parts of ST3 are: the short extensions to Redmond and Federal Way, 130th and Graham infill stations, and the three Stride lines.

          The bad/unnecessary parts are: West Seattle, Everett, Tacoma Dome, Issaquah.

          Ballard/DSTT2 is borderline.

          I agree. Unfortunately I don’t think the board does. Worse yet, even if they do, that isn’t the priority. West Seattle Link is the first Seattle project even though that is backwards. Pretty much any segment coming from the north adds more value while we wait to build the rest of it. To be fair, there are logistical issues (connecting the trains) but West Seattle to SoDo really does nothing for us while we wait to extend it.

       5. Tacoma to northgate works alongside a SeaTac to Everett one. East link would turn around early at northgate or Lynnwood

          Exactly. It is a pretty simple concept. I didn’t realize that ST already covered it in one of there reports. Interesting stuff. Looked like they considered having two different variations for the East Side as well. It is also interesting that they just accept running trains every three minutes from Northgate to CID. Here is the diagram page: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/OMSF/OMSF_Task_2.3B_Core_Light_Rail_System_Plan_Review.pdf#page=9

       6. “I could see that the train from Tacoma is declared the stub if the line is too long.”

          What does that mean? 1 Line to Federal Way, transferring to a shuttle line to Tacoma Dome?

       7. “Automate the trains and the driver time becomes moot.”

          That depends on the ST board deciding to switch to automation (or automating new corridors like Ballard-Westlake). So far they’ve rebuffed all suggestions for it, so who’s to say they won’t continue rebuffing it for the next twenty or thirty years until ST3 is finished or runs into a wall?

       8. Automating the line to Tacoma would not be trivial. The train has to deal with surface running in SoDo and Rainier Valley. I guess for the timeline we are talking about it is certainly possible but automobile automation has taken longer than expected. A hybrid system also seems quite possible. Theoretically you only need a driver in sections (Rainier Beach to CID). I could easily see the trains running remotely through there and automated the rest of the way. I could also see someone hopping on at TIBS and hopping off at CID (northbound). As the train makes its way (without driver support) from TIBS to Rainier Beach the driver basically adjusts all the controls and whatnot to allow for manual override. The train is still mostly automated but the driver can take control at any second by the time they get to Rainier Beach.

          So yeah, there are a bunch of different ways this situation can be handled.

       9. When I was at ST, the senior Operations staff thought automation was impossible, so they guided the Board accordingly. Since most of those leaders are Baby Boomers and considered Minneapolis’s light rail network to be what Link should aspire to (dead serious on both fronts), their professional perspective should be ignored.

          Once driverless buses become more common around the world, politicians will eventually figure out that automating a fixed guideway vehicle with occasional at-grade crossing is, in fact, trivial. It is literally possible to do with today’s technology.

          My concern is less around the stupidity and lack of curiosity of American engineers and more around the power of unions; BART has been automated for decades and could run full frequency all day (with shorter trains for identical cost), but has chosen not to because the union insists on drivers on every train, making good all-day frequency prohibitively expensive.

    4. ST probably won’t consider an ST4 until the 2030s at least. ST3 was expanded 50% to include projects that were previously assumed to be in ST4 (the rest of Everett, both Ballard and West Seattle instead than just one). So ST will have its plate full until at least 2041. ST hasn’t even considered what an ST4 package might look like, but preliminary studies/noises suggest these might be at the front of the line:

       – Short Everett extension to downtown Everett and Everett College.
       – Short Tacoma extension to Tacoma Mall.
       – West Seattle-Burien-Renton extension.
       – Extend Issaquah-South Kirkand to downtown Kirkland and Totem Lake.

       The subareas’ interests will diverge when the original Spine (Everett Station, Tacoma Dome, Downtown Redmond) are done, with some subareas wanting more than others. Would they come to an agreement on a common tax rate for all subareas? (This is required because ST is a single tax district.) Or would Pierce and Snohomish say, “We just want these short inexpensive extensions”, and North King would say, “We want a lot”, and South King would say, “We want that WSJ-Burien-Renton extension maybe”, and East King would say, “We don’t know what we want or how much.”

       But WSBLE has become so controversial that even urbanist rail supporters are divided on it. That may dampen the appetiate for any more megaprojects. The essential part of Link will be done: Lynnwood/Redmond/Federal Way. That’s the core of the circulation area, and the highest-ridership half of Seattle. So even just having that will be a major benefit, an d like night and day compared to 2008.

       1. these might be at the front of the line:
          … West Seattle-Burien-Renton extension …
          

          Ballard to UW would probably be a higher priority than an extension of West Seattle Link. Tacoma would probably dust off their BRT plans (on Pacific) and the streetcar extension before they consider running the train to the Tacoma Mall. Otherwise I agree.

          The essential part of Link will be done: Lynnwood/Redmond/Federal Way.

          I agree. Once that happens it become far more difficult to pass major projects outside Seattle. Lynnwood Link helped improve transit to Lynnwood, Everett, Mukilteo and even Whidbey Island. But an extension would mainly just help Everett (and a fairly small part of Everett at that). If I’m in Lynnwood an extension doesn’t do much for me. Same goes for various other extensions. This is the problem with focusing on going out (not increasing coverage inside). It is really a two-part problem. There is diminishing returns from a system standpoint. There isn’t much of a network effect so if you are just looking at it from a greater-good standpoint it isn’t a good transit value. But for people just thinking in their own self-interest it doesn’t work very well either. Not only do you get diminishing returns but fewer people benefit from it.

          For example imagine if there is no monorail and they decided to build a short line from Westlake to the Seattle Center via South Lake Union. It would be an automated small-train system — almost a people mover. It would be very frequent so the transfer penalty would be minimal. Plenty of people living there would ride it. Plenty of people working in the area would use it as well. Thus it would be a very cost-effective system. But at the same time, everyone in the region could see themselves using it. Obviously some more than others. But folks commuting to South Lake Union would benefit as well as people visiting the center. Season ticket holders (for hockey and eventually basketball) would benefit as well. Thus it would be easy to sell it to transit nerds and and ordinary people across the region.

          In contrast the various projects extending outward don’t have any of that really. I like Tacoma but Link just doesn’t add anything (as planned). It can’t compete with Sounder or the buses (at least from Seattle). Even from Federal Way it doesn’t work very well. The vast majority of people in Federal Way will drive to the station if they ever take Link. So here are some options:

          1) Drive to the park and ride in Federal Way. Take a bus from Federal Way to Downtown Tacoma.

          2) Drive to the park and ride in Federal Way. Take the train to the Tacoma Dome. Take a bus or the streetcar to downtown Tacoma.

          3) Drive to the Tacoma Dome. Take a bus or the streetcar to downtown Tacoma.

          4) Drive to Downtown Tacoma and park.

          I just don’t see option number two ever being the preferred choice. There are events at the Tacoma Dome (of course) but not that many. For other places in Tacoma, Link wouldn’t offer much (drivers from Federal Way would just drive).

          Coming from the other direction it doesn’t offer much either. If you are headed to Seattle you prefer Sounder. If you are going to the airport it doesn’t matter that much whether you transfer at Federal Way or the Tacoma Dome.

       2. I think many projects in any ST4 will be to repair flaws in the system. Things like:
          1. Station renovations with an eye to more vertical devices.
          2. Addressing the First Hill connectivity.
          3. A redesign of MLK.
          4. Completing things that were eventually not able to be funded in ST3.

          With so much going on right now — from crazy Transit haters in DC to automated technology advances to poor ridership numbers and decreasing rudeship forecasts — the world is a different place than 2016. The effects of climate change may become more clear too like sea level rise.

          I wouldn’t want to speculate too much about ST4. I’d rather face the messy topic of ST Board reform first before I vote to spend money if they are going to estimate their costs as badly and design things as user-unfriendly as they have since we voted for ST3.

          I don’t think the Board has fully understood that ST looked much more exciting to voters with dreamy concept plans in 2016. With every service disruption and vertical device failure along with user-hostile palatial stations, they will instead be evaluated not by the expansion projects but how well they operate the system day-to-day.

       3. “Ballard to UW would probably be a higher priority than an extension of West Seattle Link.”

          Remember, three subareas want WSJ-Burien-Renton. If South King and East King get insistent on it as their highest priority, would North King be able to resist it? We’re not talking all North King residents or voters, but about the North King boardmembers, who sometimes have different priorities than their constituents. If North King raises the 45th line as their only project, will South King and East King say, “How can you be so mean to us? You should show more regional solidarity and unity.”

       4. If West Seattle Link is built as proposed, I don’t see how a West Seattle – Burien – Renton line gets built. It’s an awful lot of expensive tunneling before getting anywhere to get to surface running. It’s DSTT2 level expense at a fraction of the passenger volume.

       5. I’ve never bought the “other subareas have nothing to do” argument. If anything, I could see an ST4 built around a reboot of WSBLE for Seattle with the suburbs getting a sprinkling of small new projects to maintain the regional coalition.

          Pierce will remain tied to King with Sounder. In addition to extending Link into Kirkland (downtown) and Issaquah (Highlands), East King still has Renton to figure out, and as you note, Everett and Tacoma can extend the Spine. But looking beyond rail, ST can invest in STX/Stride to supplement CT & PT networks, and ST4 could invest significantly in the “station access fund,” which can be very impactful in the suburbs. Since “lines on a map” can be compelling in a political campaign, investing the regional trail/multi-use-path network might be nice tentpole for a regional vote.

    5. Also, the ST2 tax stream is on top of ST1. ST3 is on top of both of them. So we’ll be paying the equivalent of the ST1+ST2+ST3 tax rate until ST3 is finished and the bonds are substantially paid down. Some voters think the current tax rate is already high, so would they want an additional ST4 tax on top of it? Without that, any more large projects would have to wait until the ST3 bonds are substantially paid down, meaning the 2050s or 2060s.

       1. There could be a vote without new taxes, to get a fresh voter mandate on a reimagined project list, rescoping major key projects and adding & delete some projects.

          The ST4 vote could also levy a different tax. The MVET is super unpopular, but property tax levies pass regularly in the region. I’d love to see ST4 build around a land tax.

       2. “There could be a vote without new taxes, to get a fresh voter mandate on a reimagined project list, rescoping major key projects and adding & delete some projects.”

          If we had a reimagined board who wanted to do this. I’m not holding my breath.

Comments are closed.