Tacoma Dome Link Extension Draft EIS

119 Replies to “Tacoma Dome Link Extension Draft EIS”

1. One thing not mentioned is that ST Is currently working with Puyallup Tribe to figure out the Puyallup River crossing that satisfies the needs of the tribe as either of the options will have drawbacks that affect the tribe. Either built with pillars put into the river which will keep the view of Mt. Rainier (Tahoma) unobstructed from the Puyallup Tribe’s ceremonial tribal grounds but will interfere with salmon migration patterns and the fishing rights of the tribe itself. Or that it’ll be a long suspension bridge that won’t touch the river at all and thus keep the tribal fishing rights and salmon migration intact but will obstruct the view of the mountains from the ceremonial tribal lands.

   1. Thanks for the summary, Wesley.

      Local officials expressed hope of keeping it low and utilizing the Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge, which would include the expensive rehabilitation of the closed span over the river. ST said that wasn’t feasible, and I don’t think the tribe wanted to do that either, due to the impacts on the river. The tribe as requested no more structures added in the river itself, and ST has agreed.

      1. This may be the situation ST is faced with in regard to the Duwamish River crossing as well.

   2. All I see and read is more tax payer money being wasted on an LRT line that nobody will use because it’s not fast enough and doesn’t have enough stations! 4 stops in 10 miles…..seriously? I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, Link Light Rail is a total joke and all Sound Transit and the other stakeholders should have done, was to copy Translink’s Skytrain in Vancouver that now has over 500,000 daily riders and it’s technology (invented in Canada) has been copied around the world with similar results and success!…..Dubai, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and so on! Seattle which is a sprawling mess of a city chose the incredible slow and unreliable Light Rail option!…..stop funding this disaster, admit they’ve made a mistake and go take some lessons from the Canadians and grow up!

      1. Ok and how is this relevant to what I said. I’m not talking about that, unless you put your comment in the wrong thread by accident.

2. They should really have studied at-grade along 99 until at least Fife, given obvious looming cost constraints and the relative dearth of development south of 356th.

   A Puyallup Ave alternative should have been included in the final Tacoma Dome EIS. That’s a glaring omission. It would have had the best transit access, and least impacts on the current businesses in the area. They should have also looked at going at grade and abutting Pac Ave, to get a little closer to the city, and much better transit connections.

   1. I agree. ST’s aversion to at-grade operations is an overreaction to the issues they are having with MLK. Plenty of LRT systems operate at-grade with limited issues.

      1. So they can slow down operating speeds more? Rainier valley was already a mistake and their solution is to slow down trains even more. Let’s not cripple the system more than it already has.

      2. Yes, look at Westside MAX. The trains smoke west of Beaverton Creek. All it requires is some cojones and full railroad gates.

         Run SR99 south of 356th in Google Maps. It’s a WHOLE lotta nothin on both sides. Yes, trees would have be removed, but they’ll have to be removed for the “maintenance road” that ST will build underneath the supports and trackway.

         Remember, these 55 mph slow-floor LRV’s are not going to be “making up time” south of SFW.

         Paul Ventresca,

         You don’t know anything about LR trains, do you. Trains run the exact same 55 mph on Westside MAX through a considerably more developed area than SFW-Milton-Fife. Sure the trackway would have to be elevated through Milton and Fife. But avoiding non-freeway at-grade is a big waste of money.

         Of course, replacing the Seattle-Tacoma Interurban with anything except more frequent “commuter rail” service is a big waste of money anyway.

      3. @Tom Terrific

         ST really should engineer the curves for 70mph and look into getting more able trainsets. The Siemens s700 TRAX uses in Salt Lake City can go up to 70 according to the spec sheet published by Siemens. It’s not like the stop spacing south of Rainier Beach couldn’t benefit from the higher speeds. As we get more and more suburban the speed necessity becomes more obvious

      4. I mentioned “S-Bahn”-style LRV’s in another post where I said that they’d be fine in the context of a Duwamish Bypass. So, sure, you can change the final gearing and get to 70 or 75, probably even with the Kinkis, but then you lose acceleration and dynamic braking thrust. So raising the speed on the separated segments slows down the bottleneck through the RV.

         If you went to a Duwamish Bypass — which would almost certainly be built to the current “do not touch the ground except in a freeway right-of-way” standards — why not go whole-hog and have real “metros” in the form of high-floor, level boarding, third-rail contact BART-style cars? [Standard gauge, of course]

         After all, ST IS “BART del Norte”. ST even wanted to build elevated over the fricking busway right of way which could simply be fenced better. At least now they’ve come to their sense and realized that if you’re gonna take the bus lanes, well, just put the new tracks on them.

         [As I’ve written innumerable times, even that’s stupid. Just share the existing tracks north of SoDo; it’s not hard.]

   2. I know little about soils, but I thought there was a problem with them in Fife — and that even a surface alignment may have issues with soil instability. Wasn’t that part of budget increase for the project?

      1. My understanding was the the I-5 elevated alignment ran into issues with needing to dig in a highly sensitive tribal cultural area in Fife, and that’s why they added the 99 alignments. To avoid those.

   3. If the train was at grade rolling down 99, more money could be spent buying out bulldozing all crappy businesses on the rail line. 99 is dump and the easiest place left in Greater Seattle to add housing.

      1. The nimbys there would oppose it. I’ve long pointed to the immense potential housing capacity along 99 in north Seattle, South King County, and Snohomish County. There’s room for hundreds of thousands of units, without displacing even one single-family house. And all those people will be close to a frequent transit stop. Think of Chicago’s north side where most buildings are 3-10 stories. But the cities refuse to do anything like that. Instead they build smallish urban-village islands, not continuous development. Aurora business push back against losing street parking. Des Moines wants to keep its part of 99 “auto-oriented” (the city’s term) with one-story strip malls, saying they give an inexpensive place for first-time immigrant startups. There’s no thought to coming to an arrangement where existing businesses could get new spaces in denser buildings at the same price they’re paying now, and spaces for future qualified startups. The same thing would likely happen in Fife, with nimbys pushing back and the governments unwilling to stand up to them.

      2. Mike Orr,

         As much as NIMBY cities are to blame, and don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, Sound Transit is to blame as well. Let’s toss in many transit promoters …. it’s a problem of racism mixed with classism.

         I used to live in Tacoma’s best walkable retail district, the Lincoln District. The district has shops crammed with everything from underwear to engagement rings in a nice walkable core. Of course the buildings are often run down and over stuffed with all sorts of products and English is a second language here and whole place reeks of the smell of bone broth… but once you’re there and get to know some people… there is no reason to leave for day-to-day needs. No other place in Tacoma can boast this!

         Yet as far as transit goes…. the Lincoln District is the backwater. Never mind the amount to Asians living there without a drivers license… or the 1500 kids at Lincoln High. Sound Transit has zero interest in “these people”

         Sound Transit needed to push the light rail down 99 and get all the Asian business folks pulling for it. Make space for the little guy and stop with these freaky huge monolith stations. Trains need to pull into “#1 Asian Discount Shopping Mall” Heck, call up Mi Centro and get those Latino business folks a chuck of cake as well.

         As it is, the Lincoln District and “South Korean Way” and Sound Transit aren’t friends. They don’t even know each other.

      3. ST’s mandate is to connect regional centers. Is the Lincoln District a regional center? ST intended to serve the Lincoln District with Stream 1 on Pacific Ave, since it’s on the way to Parkland which I think is a regional center. That didn’t work out as planned due to something like budget limitations, not getting a grant, and PT deciding to put an interim “community line” (really a limited-stop peak express, as if that helps anybody most of the time). If you don’t like that you can tell your Pierce officials to tell ST to redirect its resources to something else.

         And why aren’t you pushing your officials to increase PT service and have a countywide levy to give PT more resources? PT could address service on Pacific Ave, and between the Lincoln District and Tacoma Mall. All those are close to each other so local service would be adequate. It just needs to be implemented.

      4. Unless he repatriated, tacomee moved to Salt Lake to enjoy the sprawl and traffic.

         No, Lincoln is not a growth center, and he’s vastly over-stating it’s options. It does have two Asian grocery stores and a Starbucks. 8 Vietnamese restaurants, if I’m counting right. And a half dozen other restaurants. A multitude of massage parlors, a Chinese herb store, a post office, a pharmacy that will compound. The hardware store closed, sadly. There are a few used knick-stores, and they are building some subsidized 5-over-1s, mainly targeted at Vietnamese retirees.

         If they improved (made it 1 general purpose and lane in each direction) and slowed down 38th that cuts it in half, it has a ton of potential, for sure. But it’s almost all modest single-family homes for as far as the eye can see.

   4. Vancouver proves elevated rail has all the benefits of at grade with none of the drawbacks at a modest cost increase and provides superior operational speed and safety.

      1. Yes, but then Vancouver didn’t build the type of thing we are building. Essentially it comes down to quantity over quality. Our original line was not what most experts would have started with. They would have gone from the UW to downtown (with more stations). Maybe they would have gone farther (to Northgate) since that would have meant replacing even more bus service. That in turn would have made it easier to kick out the buses which means the trains could be high floor (not low floor).

         At that point we would have gone south. There are some similarities with the Canada Line. First we start talking about the cheapest option which is not only running on the surface but avoiding the major destinations. But if we followed Vancouver’s lead we quickly nix that idea and run down Rainier (not MLK). Then folks from the suburbs want it to be fast so that means no surface running. That leaves elevated but the locals (in Rainier Valley) push for underground. So mostly cut and cover with a bit of tunneling and you’ve got yourself another line. Throw in a branch with one line going to Renton and one line to the airport and it is remarkably similar.

         But of course that wasn’t the plan. The plan — from the very beginning — was to go from Tacoma to Everett. Thus they wanted to go as far as possible — not get as many riders as possible (let alone riders per mile). Throw in a huge misjudgement when it comes to cost estimates and of course they ran on the surface through Rainier Valley and SoDo.

         But that doesn’t mean that running down the surface is fundamentally a bad thing. No matter what they do, this section won’t carry that many riders. Since they are committed to it, saving money by running on the surface for part of the way could very easily be the best option.

      2. Elevation allows automation, and that’s great for frequent services. But Tiddly-Links will never be more frequent that ten minute headways (six tph).

         Elevation doesn’t increase speeds unless your technology provides it. There are LRV-like “S-Bahns” in Germany which reach over 70 mph. For a system with the Duwamish Bypass, they’d be excellent. But since the existing system goes down King Way at thirty-five, the acceleration out of the station is important. High top speeds mean slower stops. No Skytrain goes faster than 50 mpn. Even the slow-floors get up to 55.

      3. Elevation allows automation, and that’s great for frequent services. But Tiddly-Links will never be more frequent that ten minute headways (six tph).

         Elevation doesn’t increase speeds unless your technology provides it. There are LRV-like “S-Bahns” in Germany which reach over 70 mph. For a system with the Duwamish Bypass, they’d be excellent. But since the existing system goes down King Way at thirty-five, the acceleration out of the station is important. High top speeds mean slower stops.

         No Skytrain goes faster than 50 mpn. Even the slow-floors get up to 55.

      4. Sorry for the duplicate post.

3. Google says that, without traffic, a drive from Tacoma Dome Station to 4th/Jackson takes 35 minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vVuW7Zt6dq1ot8mbA). Why does the 590 bus have to take 10 minutes longer than that, without traffic, even though it just hops on the freeway and makes no stops?

   1. Probably because there’s usually some sort of traffic, either around Tacoma or around Seattle.

   2. The bus heads up sodo busway (you can see by switching your directions to transit) normally that is faster than using the freeway as there’s more traffic on i5 for the final miles into Seattle

   3. That is correct. It’s probably 35 minutes to Spokane and 6th. But it has half a dozen stops before Jackson.

   4. It does make a few stops along the way. When I put in that same trip via Google Maps it shows:

      Spokane Street — 37 minutes
      Lander — 40 minutes
      Holgate — 41 minutes
      Royal Brougham — 43 minutes
      4th & Jackson — 46 minutes

      It is about two miles from the exit the bus takes to the exit a car would take. If the bus is going the same speed it would get to the exit 32 minutes after leaving Tacoma. It is possible the bus is going slower. Driving at 65 MPH would save you 2 to three minutes over driving the legal limit (60 MPH). That would mean a car would exit at the same time a bus exits (even though the bus is farther south).

      But it takes the bus five minutes to get to Spokane Street (and the SoDo busway) while it takes two minutes for a car to get off the freeway and over to 4th & Jackson. The bus then spends almost ten minutes getting from Spokane Street to Jackson.

      So it is likely a few things added together:

      1) The bus is a bit slower on I-5 than a typical car (when there is no traffic).
      2) It takes a while to get from I-5 to the SoDo busway. This is another reason why a ramp from I-5 to the SoDo busway would be nice. It would also provide an HOV/busway connection.
      3) Traveling along the SoDo busway is not as fast as going on the freeway (when there is no traffic). This is to be expected but the busway could be faster. It is worth noting that the traffic lights also slow down Link.
      4) The bus makes stops on the SoDo busway. Again this is to be expected. I could see it going on a stop diet although I’m not sure how much time that would save.
      5) The dwell times for the stops may be excessive. The bus is not BRT (there is no off-board payment).

      Of course the alternative would be to take a downtown exit. This might save time in the middle of the day but it might be a problem when there is traffic. You also lose the SoDo Station stop. If you are planning on transferring to Link that is a really good stop.

      1. Thinking about this some more. Once Link gets to Federal Way it might be worth considering other options for the express buses from Tacoma (assuming they all stop at Federal Way along the way). The idea being that if you want a connection to Link (for example to Beacon Hill) then instead of taking the bus to SoDo and backtracking you transfer in Federal Way.

         With that in mind what exit makes the most sense? Madison?

      2. I’ve taken the bus many times. It’s about the same time as driving. If your trip is taking you to Seattle urban core, the bus (and local transit after that) beats hunting for parking.

      3. If your trip is taking you to Seattle urban core, the bus (and local transit after that) beats hunting for parking.

         Makes sense. That is often the nature of transit. It doesn’t have to be faster than driving, just competitive. Of course if it was even faster than some trips (i. e. trips involving a transfer) become competitive as well. Of course that depends on the frequency and speed of the other leg as well.

      4. Google Maps says Seneca St is typically faster. It’s also a center exit lane so it keeps the bus from having to weave too much. It could potentially become an HOT exit if we run two HOT lanes from Tacoma to Seattle.

         I think it makes more sense to target Seattle CBD rather than SODO station. Most jobs are located between CID and SLU and the CBD has the best transfer options to other destinations. I’m sure there is opportunity to improve busway speed through SODO, but at the end of the day surface streets are going to be much slower than the freeway

      5. > Google Maps says Seneca St is typically faster. It’s also a center exit lane so it keeps the bus from having to weave too much.

         It is faster off peak. During peak times when I check google it can take 55 to 1 hour and 5 minutes. The traffic is backed up from downtown Seattle all the way to georgetown. you won’t be able to see the actual routing on google maps via the sodo busway as cars can’t use it.

         > it keeps the bus from having to weave too much.

         one minor benefit is that the off ramp to spokane street northbound doesn’t have that much traffic. Of course a direct access ramp would be better.

         > It could potentially become an HOT exit if we run two HOT lanes from Tacoma to Seattle.

         Yeah there was a proposal previously discussed. https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/01/31/i-5-toll-conversion/

      6. @WL

         > It is faster off peak.

         I meant faster relative to Madison St; if a Tacoma-Seattle bus exits in downtown Seattle rather than SODO then the Seneca ramp probably makes the most sense.

      7. > I meant faster relative to Madison St; if a Tacoma-Seattle bus exits in downtown Seattle rather than SODO then the Seneca ramp probably makes the most sense.

         Yeah it just depends on the freeway traffic. madison is better than seneca. actually the existing route 578 does use seneca (sometimes) exit northbound

      8. sorry i mean seneca is better than madison

      9. I think one of the challenges is that a route might be better during peak but worse the rest of the day. I could certainly see that with SoDo. It is fast compared to traffic crawling on the freeway but not as fast as when the freeway is free-flowing.

         I think it makes more sense to target Seattle CBD rather than SODO station.

         I agree. I think the challenge is where exactly. In other words how far north is too far. I would consider Jackson to be the start of downtown and Seneca to be more towards the middle. There is something to be said for just serving the middle of downtown though, especially if it faster. Hard to say.

         I don’t have any current stop data for the buses. But you can see data from before the pandemic here: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf. (Go to page 170 of the pdf for the 590). A few interesting things:

         1) The SoDo Station stop (Lander) does not have an especially high number of riders.
         2) Spokane Street has almost as many. There isn’t a lot there. I’m guessing those riders are transferring to buses going a different direction.
         3) The SoDo rides add up, but they are nowhere near as many as those downtown.
         4) Cherry has the highest but Seneca is very close.
         5) The vast majority of the riders from Tacoma don’t get off the bus until it reaches Seneca.
         6) Plenty of people get on the bus at Jackson trying to go to some other place downtown. No other stop has anywhere near as many riders doing that. Although quite popular there are other alternatives.

         So if it was easy to serve Jackson I would just do that. Otherwise I would probably aim for Seneca. Assuming, of course, this wouldn’t be a mess when traffic is bad. It is worth noting that even if the buses always serve the same stops (e. g. the first stop in Seattle is at Seneca) that doesn’t mean the bus has to go the same way every time. It is common for buses to take different routes. It would be weird — although not rare — for the bus to run by SoDo and have someone ask the driver if they can be left off early.

         Of course the bus could also have different routing depending on the time of day. The drawback with that is that riders can sometimes be at the wrong stop (quite a ways from the stop the bus is currently serving).

      10. Amtrak Cascades takes ~45 – 50 minutes between Tacoma Dome Station and King Street Station. I understand it is not frequent and not reliable, but there are plans to improve on both fronts going through the legislature right now (HB 1837 – https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1837&Year=2025&Initiative=false). It largely reflects the plan put out in the 2024 Preliminary Service Development Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/Amtrak-Cascades-2024-Preliminary-Service-Development-Plan.pdf). It’s also probably worth noting the plan calls for speed increases along a majority of the corridor between Tacoma and Seattle.

      11. “If your trip is taking you to Seattle urban core, the bus (and local transit after that) beats hunting for parking.”

          That holds if the end destination is, in fact, downtown. Not so if downtown is just your transfer point on the way somewhere else.

          I agree with Mike Orr, 2X drive time in the best case, not including wait time, is not good. And also, that Seattle-Tacoma buses should be focused on off peak trips, not peak trips, as peak hour service has Sounder.

   5. When I’ve ridden in a car I think it was 30 minutes to Tacoma, and 45 minutes to Olympia. And going north, 30 minutes to Everett and 60 minutes to Mt Vernon. Going east, 15 minutes to Issaquah and 30 minutes to North Bend. The fact that transit times are twice as long is a problem, as it discourages people from taking transit.

      1. I think the threshold of 2X drive time is an important one. Consider a trip where you’re downtown wanting to go home and have a family member already at home with a car. If transit is within 2X of drive time (door to door, including walk+wait time), the quickest way home is to ride the bus or train. Above 2X drive time, the quickest way home is to call home and ask for a ride, resulting in double the VMT of the actual trip. This situation arises far more often than one might think.

4. I realize that this is a project EIS so the appropriate thing is to respond to that — even though I see that the only way ST does anything differently is if there is an organized uproar — but I can’t help feel that there needs to be an area along the alignment where a “Milton Station” can be added as an infill station in the future. It feels like such a waste to have eight miles of track with just one intermediate station for Fife. The distance is more than between Judkins Park and South Bellevue and about the same as between a Rainier Beach and SeaTac (both segments with one intermediate station).

   1. Originally it was going to be at-grade similar to mlk way. When st3 was extended to 25 years they (pierce subarea) had a lot of extra money and used it to elevated large sections of tacoma link. It was probably a bit excessive against say extending the line to tacoma mall or other initiatives.

      1. Wow, that’s kinda crazy

5. Thank you for this post and commentary. I hope those with interest and insight on these station locations will provide public comments to the EIS by Monday, 2/10. I reviewed the package and station options and already provided my comments. In summary:

   At South Federal Way, Fife, & Portland Ave I preferred station options that spanned streets with station access from two sides of the roadway which appear would provide for better station access, less impact on development area, and greater potential for integrating and supporting transit-oriented development in the respective station areas. At Fife, this assumes the station at 54th. I haven’t reviewed any Fife planning efforts for the station area, but the EIS identifies a potential new I-5 crossing – I think this would be an important aspect of any of the potential Fife stations as non-motorized access N-S of I-5 is not safe or convenient.

   At Tacoma Dome, as others have stated, I too wish that a Puyallup Ave option was still on the table or that parcels immediately north of the Sounder station had been available or considered viable. As it is, most of station alternatives are directly over and parallel to streets. This may have worked on Puyallup Ave which has a wider cross section, but 25th and 26th are narrow. I have real concern for the impact for station designs that are parallel and hover over the street. The illustrations that were included in the EIS did not alleviate my concerns for bulk, shading, safety and the streetscape experience. For me the only option worth furthering is the Closer to the Sounder / Over Freighthouse Square. This would require a portion of Freighthouse Square to be removed and in considering this alternative, the EIS should call out for a similar Food Hall / Market be incorporated into the new station structure at the street / Sounder platform level. The Food Hall is a welcome amenity in the Dome District for transit users and for those who live and work downtown. This option has the greatest opportunity to make a really wonderful station with well-integrated transfers between modes. Station architecture and siting will be important to capitalizing on this opportunity and encouraging more walkable development in this area.

   1. Thanks, Brett. Sound Transit said they were not responsible for replacing Freighthouse Square. That was the City’s purview. They were open to allowing a small vending machine-type option in the station footprint, but nothing requiring preparation of food.

      If we lose Freighthouse Square, we lose Freighthouse Square.

      1. “If we lose Freighthouse Square, we lose Freighthouse Square.”
         Yep, I was at the public comment at the Tacoma convention center and that was a common concern from Freighthouse Square businesses that were there. They didn’t want to lose a valuable asset to the community and wanted to see it improved upon than lose it forever.

      2. I guess also Tacoma might get its 4th Amtrak station as it would demo the new station at Freight house Square

      3. It would be fitting, and funny, if they moved it back to Union Station, and restored it to the 1960s rail layout.
         Demolish I-705, and run all passenger service, Sounder, Amtrak, T-Link, 1-Line through there, with a bus transit center right outside.

         Make Tacoma Transit Service Great Again.

      4. Cam Solomon,

         Actually the real estate 705 takes up is the most valuable in the South Sound. It’s certainly worth tearing it out for redevelopment.

   2. I believe that the alignment is in part so that the line can continue in the future so it has to be aimed at a portion of the highway tp the south high enough for it to go under.

   3. It is pretty similar clearance, because as you go south, there is a hill you have to climb.
      The only way you can get past I-705 is at-grade, or a huge high bridge.

      Or you demolish I-705 (my preferred option).

6. I see the Tacoma Done location as the I’ve to focus on. It will have the most Link boardings. It will have the transfers to other modes.

   So a few comments about it:

   1. It really seems silly to no look to moving the station platform as far west as is reasonable — or make plans to extend the line just one more station. It would be like ending the Redmond extension at the Marymoor Village station but not reaching Downtown Redmond. If ST is going to add this many miles of track they should at least have an option to extend it a half-mile further. Rather than build two stations, ST could simply look to moving the planned Link platform a block or two west.

   2. I feel like the transit transfers are important here — but which ones? My order of importance would be:

   PT Route 1
   T-Line
   ST Express from points south
   Other PT local routes
   Amtrak
   Sounder

   I just don’t think rider volumes between Sounder and Link will be as high as the other routes.

   And I think each alternative should “count the steps” especially up and down.

   My preference would be a cross platform transfer to the T-Line rather than a tall structure with a mezzanine. But I could see forgoing that for better PT 1 Route access.

   And the boarding platform alternatives seem to be up above a mezzanine. That just seems to add cost as well as difficulty transferring especially if elevators are out of service.

7. Still crazy to me to have Tacoma Dome be the “Downtown Tacoma station” (via shuttle streetcar transfer) while actually bypassing downtown for a future Link extension to a suburban mall.

   A shame some trains couldn’t be run on rebuilt original 2002 T-line tracks (double tracked & fixed curves) to at least the convention center/museum area. Or have the line swing deeper into downtown on a single thru-route to the mall (although would likely involve a bridge over Foss Waterway).

   1. Ah, Tacoma Mall isn’t a suburban mall, it’s dead center in Tacoma. The housing density surrounding the mall is better than most of the rest City, and there’s plans for more. Also the most of the City North of the freeways is much more resistant to change. North Tacoma likes 6th Ave just the way it is…. so no light rail needed.

      1. “Ah, Tacoma Mall isn’t a suburban mall, it’s dead center in Tacoma.”
         It’s really isn’t, I’ve lived in the area and it’s not really a dead mall. I’ve been to dead malls before, Tacoma Mall isn’t that. If you want a dead mall The Commons at Federal Way right now or Auburn Supermall before it’s conversion to an. Outlet mall are more fitting of dead mall status.

         “North Tacoma likes 6th Ave just the way it is…. so no light rail needed.”
         Nothing is frozen in amber forever, so I wouldn’t count your chickens yet on 6th Ave not getting a T line extension at some point.

      2. “Dead center” means exactly in the center of activity, not a dead mall. Tacomee is saying Tacoma Mall, not downtown Tacoma, is the main hub for Tacoma residents, and fulfills more of their needs than other areas do. That’s probably referring to the entire neighborhood, not just the businesses in the mall.

         And that overlaps with the Pierce boardmembers’ rationale for wanting to direct Central Link to Tacoma Mall instead of downtown Tacoma. It seems to think the Tacoma Mall area has the greatest potential to be Tacoma’s primary urban center.

         So it’s like how Kirkland designated Totem Lake a regional growth center to channel growth away from downtown Kirkland. Except I don’t think Tacoma is channeling growth away from downtown Tacoma to preserve a historic character; it just wants Link at Tacoma Mall for some reason. Downtown Tacoma and the new UW Tacoma neighborhood can continue to have growth, but people will take the T Line from there to Tacoma Dome for Central Link or Sounder. That sounds backward — that’s where Central Link should go directly to — but it’s what Tacoma/Pierce is de facto doing.

      3. Zach B,

         T line won’t go down 6th ave in our lifetimes. There’s no money and also not will of the business district. The place hasn’t seen much change.

         Mike Orr,

         The reason light rail is headed to Mall is Downtown and Stadium District already have light rail. (T line). Tearing out anything wouldn’t be politically possible.

         The Mall subarea actually wants light rail…. that’s a big part of this.

         Here’s a little background to Tacoma politics and how that influences Sound Transit. Back in 2014 Tacoma had plans to spruce up business districts around town. When the city met with 6th Ave business leaders, a fight broke out over traffic calming measures reducing parking… so the City went another direction

         https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/community_and_economic_development/lincoln_neighborhood_revitalization_project

         Lincoln got this project by just allowing the experts to do their jobs. and the project turned out well!

         Most interesting light rail stop on the way to the T-dome would be Portland Ave. That neighborhood just doesn’t have political opposition to growth.

      4. Tacoma Mall isn’t a suburban mall, it’s dead center in Tacoma. The housing density surrounding the mall is better than most of the rest City, and there’s plans for more.

         Yeah, but it is still crazy to serve it instead of Downtown Tacoma. I mean, look at it: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ZKz1aMheqM7gToB7. Yeah, I know, TOD, but still. From what I can tell most of the land is parking. There is some moderately dense housing (mostly to the west, close to the cemetery) but it is also next to the freeway. This means that it would have trouble competing with cars. But the worse part is that it means skipping downtown. If you lived close to the mall, why would you take the train? To get to a different mall in Federal Way?

         Tacoma really has only one big destination: Downtown Tacoma. The best cluster of density is just west and north of downtown (the opposite direction of the dome). There are some corridors in Tacoma with good transit potential, but not to the point where you need rail (the also end downtown). There are some colleges in Tacoma, but none of them are particularly large from what I can tell one of the bigger ones is UW Tacoma* (which is downtown). The only place where rail really makes sense in Tacoma is Downtown Tacoma, which makes the idea of skipping it just bizarre.

         It is also weird from a city development standpoint. I get that you want your malls to do well. This is an era where malls die or thrive. But holy cow, your downtown is way more important.

         * Tacoma Community College is a bit bigger, but not that much bigger. I don’t think they plan on serving that college either. Pierce College is significantly bigger. At least according to this source: https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/rank/colleges/largest-enrollment/state/washington/. This is consistent with some spot checks done via Wikipedia.

      5. Yeah, I get the politics, tacomee. We’re just saying it is a really bad idea. Realistically it will probably never matter. I don’t ever see Tacoma Dome Link going past the Tacoma Dome (if it even gets that far). But it is just weird for *light rail* to make it within a mile of downtown and then just quit (or go somewhere else).

      6. The plan is for T-Link to eventually serve Tacoma Community College (TCC) via 19th. T-Link could serve it via 6th as well, and serve more walkable retail and increasing density, as well as the University of Puget Sound.

         There is a mall-light and hospital-light with the typical sea of parking lots somewhat near 19th that will make them hard to serve by tram.

         The density West of the mall is mainly 2 story apartment complexes. It’s not nothing, but not a lot, either. I think it must have for a long time been one of the few places that were zoned for apartments, because there are a lot of them. They did drop one taller apartment building in the northwest corner of the mall.

         But until the city fulfills their promises around pedestrian and bike facilities, actually serving the central mall with transit, adding lanes for bus express access to the highway, and slowing down traffic and making cars less of the dominant mode in the mall area, it doesn’t deserve a multi-billion dollar investment in light rail.

      7. Tacomee, you are correct. Light rail already goes to downtown Tacoma. The T Line is a light rail line. Sound Transit itself calls it light rail. So, to build a second light rail line to downtown Tacoma would be unnecessary, wasteful, and a duplication of service.

         Also, the comment section told me that the days of everyone expecting to get a one-seat ride are over. That two and three-seat rides, even from city to city, are the new normal. They even told me that my old one-seat ride commute turning into a three-seat ride is progress. So it’s surprising to see the comment section now say having to transfer is an outrage.

      8. You are clearly trolling Sam and it isn’t even entertaining. If you are have a question, ask it. If you are trying to make an argument, make it. But don’t be a troll (unless you can be a really funny troll).

      9. Ross, I’m agreeing with tacomee. He said light rail already goes to downtown Tacoma, and I agreed with him. Also, both of the things I said are true. Sound Transit calls the T Line light rail. And I was told riders should expect the one-seat rides of the past to gradually diminish. I agreed with someone, and I made a couple of truthful statements.

      10. “T line won’t go down 6th ave in our lifetimes. There’s no money and also not will of the business district. The place hasn’t seen much change.”

          Yours maybe, mine I can see it. So you can quit being so cynical all the time here.

      11. So you really think that the main Link line (from Seattle) should go to the mall instead of Downtown Tacoma, Sam? Seriously?

          Oh, and in case it wasn’t painfully obvious, this is trolling:

          Also, the comment section told me that the days of everyone expecting to get a one-seat ride are over. That two and three-seat rides, even from city to city, are the new normal. They even told me that my old one-seat ride commute turning into a three-seat ride is progress. So it’s surprising to see the comment section now say having to transfer is an outrage.

      12. Tacomee, Ross told me if I have a question, to ask it. So, I have a question for you. Tacomee, you lived in Tacoma for decades. Perhaps for most of your life. So you know Tacoma better than most. Are you certain that it’s better for Link to not detour to downtown Tacoma? What about the argument that if it just continues on toward the Tacoma Mall, and doesn’t detour to downtown, it’s unfair that some Link riders going to downtown Tacoma will have to transfer to the T Line? Tacomee, thank you in advance for your answer.

8. Tacoma’s planning and transportation commissions have issued their comments to ST (see page 61 – https://www.cityoftacoma.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/cms/Planning/Planning%20Commission/PC%20Agendas%202025/PC%20Agenda%20Packet%20(02-05-25).pdf). I chair the Planning Commission.

   We (the commissions) want a transit hub where T-Line, Sounder, and 1-Line are in proximity and are more or less on the same elevation, which would make vertical conveyance a non-issue. The community is not happy with Close to Sounder and consider it mostly dead on arrival. Exchanging diverse businesses for a sterile environment with a coffee stand and vending machines is just a non-starter with the community. No one is willing to sacrifice political capital for a solution like that which would also entail us rebuilding the Amtrak Station yet again.

   The elevated stations on East 25th have a lot of visual impacts on narrow streets, so we advocated for ST to look at at-grade variations for the southern terminus with exclusive transit operations on East 25th street. Might be controversial here, but it could also be the equivalent of how 1 Line operates in SODO.

   ST3 did include Tacoma Link double tracking or a rail couplet on Puyallup Ave for TCC Link as a part of that project. There are substantial impacts to T-Line as a result of most of the TDLE station terminii, so our thought process is why not use the construction impact window (up to 3 years) to perform upgrades to get T-Line up to the actual operating frequencies Tacoma was promised for Hilltop Link and set us up for eventual 6 minute headways to match 1 Line? The 25th street alternatives would modify T Line stations and track anyway.

   Sound Transit says that T-Line is how most transit passengers will access 1-Line service. They goofed station access analysis by just assuming that Pierce Transit will magically come up with new revenue for local access. They haven’t raised any in 23 years. So we feel Tacoma is owed some alternatives from ST that are actually funded.

   1. Hi Chris, sure an at grade approach probably works for the final terminus. I think it was probably the original idea before st3 was extended and various sections became elevated though I’ll need to check.

      If you want it at grade though probably e 25th would be closed to general traffic and the streetcar couldn’t terminate at the same location.

      If you’re okay with it I can email you to discuss it more

   2. To be honest, if Pierce County really wants to spend this much money running Link to Tacoma, the 1 line should just be extended to downtown Tacoma, replacing the T-line altogether. It shouldn’t be necessary to switch trains to go such a short distance, and the 594 already does this extension to offer a one-seat ride to downtown Seattle.

      The fact that the 1-line terminates where it does shows that they are clearly treating Tacoma as a bedroom community where everyone who rides the train drives to the train, and not a destination. The problem is, if people are expected to drive to the train, they will get downtown faster by driving further. For example, you could literally drive to Beacon Hill, catch the same Link line, and get downtown earlier than taking the train all the way. It shouldn’t be possible to do that.

      1. Agreed. Virtually all of this trouble with 1-Lime station placement and construction impacts is due to not integrating the light railways. The consequence of not doing it is a soaring, gigantic, independent Tacoma Dome Station.

         There is nothing precious about the T Line. Convert it for interoperability with 1-Line vehicles, and for goodness sakes give it level boarding. If we have to close the line down for many years, just make it right. Tacoma Dome Link should just be Tacoma Link Light Rail Phase 2, and it will take you all the way into the city. Brilliant.

         Without integration, I don’t see how an at grade alignment works on 25th Street at all—one that also keeps the T Line on 25th Street, which preserves Freighthouse Square, and which allows for future extensions. The geometry and the technical constraints just don’t pencil out.

      2. Like lots of other concepts, ST has not to my knowledge studied what it would take to convert all or part of the T-Line to 1 Line use.

         Some of the obvious big issues are that the power source would have to be changed, the platforms would have to be much longer and the specs from curves to ballast to signal control would need to see if there are any major problems with the idea. Finally, T-Link is single tracked from 19th and Pacific so a second track would be needed, and some resolution about reaching the T-Link OMF would have to be figured out.

         I personally the best spot for a 1 Line single station is between 705 and D Street in the parking lot south of 25th as a surface platform design. The big problem then becomes what to do with the Freighthouse Square building that’s in the way. However still isn’t in Downtown Tacoma.

         This challenge would be so much easier if there were going to be two end stations — one at UWT and one at the Dome. Then one station could even run south of the Sounder tracks and get closer to the Dome while the second would be off of Pacific Ave near 21st. This gets into how things get messy just because there is only one station that is supposed to do everything!

         It is funny how the West Seattle project cam grow to $7B with added features and the board doesn’t flinch — while investing in going one station further to UWT gets dished even though the cost could be just $1 billion more.

      3. We don’t know for certain the power source would need to be changed. The solid state converters on the cars can handle a wide range of voltages because the line voltage really isn’t a constant thing.

         For what it’s worth, due to better performance, TriMet adjusted some of its substations to a nominal voltage closer to 1,000 rather than the 750 volts the overhead system is supposed to be rated.

      4. “Like lots of other concepts, ST has not to my knowledge studied what it would take to convert all or part of the T-Line to 1 Line use.”

         Tacoma Link light rail exists to be part of the 1-Line. Its conversion was the subject of an agency report and the project was a component project of both the 1996 and 2005 long range plans (which was only changed in 2014). The conversion had been the stated policy of the city council and staff of the City of Tacoma. The project began to fall by the wayside after 2007 when the original crop of Tacoma leaders associated with Sound Transit either passed away or left the council. Awareness of the project grew dim in the memory after that, and the Sound Transit posture shifted to assuming a Tacoma Dome terminus. If you click my name, you will find my history of the project and many historic materials. It is also based on interviews with local officials and planners who had a role in creating Tacoma Link.

         The reason the trams of the two are different today is because of a 1990s contracting dilemma when the agency was racing to open its first light rail line on-time (it would still be delayed). A voltage conversion or use of dual voltage T Line trams is not a key concern and is a well understood modification. The pressing concern is the slightly divergent loading gauges that complicate platform sharing, and the reversing movement of trains in Tacoma City with either 2 or 4-car sets. There is one curve with a radius that falls below the minimum 100-foot agency standard, established after Tacoma Link was built, but that is resolvable like everything else.

         People just need to know that it is resolvable. Anyway, these types of improvements are well beyond the scope of the current Tacoma Dome Link project and its EIS alternatives. These are planning matters that should have been dealt with years ago.

      5. According to SoundTransit’s own estimates, the ridership south of SeaTac will be around 1/4 that of north of there.

         So, if it were me, I’d end Line 1 at Federal Way, adapt Tacoma Link to take standard Link cars, and run T Link as a one or two car train system north to Tukwila International Blvd.

         While this means adding a transfer penalty for those going from Tacoma to Seattle, Link is slow for that anyway. The transfer time can be minimized by running Line 1 Link 2 minutes behind T Link (TriMet does this for Orange and Green line transfers).

         The reduced expense of building south of Federal Way with smaller stations gets you the money needed to convert T Link.

      6. Yes, converting the T line into an extension of the 1 line would cost money. But, compared to all the other stuff in ST3, it would be cheap. Not saying that extending the 1 line to Tacoma even makes sense in the first place, but if they’re going to do it, the plan should have been to have it go to the real downtown Tacoma, not a forced transfer in the middle of nowhere half a mile away.

      7. Why TIBS rather than Federal Way or even Seatac? Automate elevated, or go at-grade along 99?

      8. I like the idea that Glenn is proposing here (and that Al had advocated for a long time) of two-car Link-compatible trams running on the T-line through to Sea-Tac. That functionally means “to TIBS” since there’s no room at Sea-Tac for a reversing stub.

         And I say “two-car” because permanently limiting the Tacoma extension to one-car trains would never fly with Pierce County leaders. Two-car trains might be needed in the 2060’s because of climate refugees.

         Yes, there would be costs to upgrade the existing T-Link stations, and lighter-weight vehicles might be required in order to avoid digging up the existing trackway to give it a bew structore, but the cost to replace the small fleet of “urban streetcar LRVs” with the wider envelope of Link trains would be pretty minimal.

         The question would be, “Can two Link-envelope trains meet on the current trackway?” IOW, did ST permanently embargo 2.65 meter cars (the international standard) by placing the trackway in double track sections such that the 2.44 meter tram cars almost touch.

         A pox on them if they did, but if they didn’t, it wouldn’t be that difficult to trim back the platforms one side at a time using concrete saws. Obviously, they’d have to be lengthened to full blocks in length.

      9. “new structure” not “bew structore” [pronounced with a noticeable Italian accent]

      10. Why do you claim that the existing Tacoma Link trackbed would need to be rebuilt? This is not a factor raised by Sound Transit and its consultant engineering firm. I have also never heard this claim made anywhere beyond this blog.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/link/Tacoma/Tacoma_Link_Expansion/Tacoma_Link_Integration_With_Central_Link_Paper.pdf

          Additionally, the original five stations of Tacoma Link platforms were designed to be extended for 2-car trains. My work has proven that 4-car trains are possible as well, although more analysis is warranted. We have existing cost estimates prepared for the 2-car conversion scope of work.

      11. I was shot down on using Tacoma Link vehicles going further because of the maximum vehicle speed is lower.

          Here’s a report summarizing spec differences from 2005:
          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/link/Tacoma/Tacoma_Link_Expansion/Potential_Tacoma_Link_Extension_West_Paper.pdf

          T-Link max speed is only 45 mph and the curves can be tighter.

          That’s not to say that there isn’t a design solution. It’s only to say that it hasn’t been studied adequately.

          Clearly some of us think that such a study is worthwhile. But getting ST to think about doing anything different than what it wants almost takes Divine intervention — or at least intervention by at least two Board members. And even then the staff is predisposed to not considering doing anything different.

          And of course as long as ST keeps hiring a CEO that doesn’t have years of direct rail operations and construction experience there is no professional to call them out in their arrogance.

      12. I recall that Pierce County voters within the ST district narrowly voted against ST3 (after voting for ST1 and ST2). It is hard to tell from that whether Pierce County wants Tacoma Dome Link.

          I’m probably in the minority here that sees high value in getting Link Light Rail (not to be confused with the Tacoma Streetcar) to Tacoma Dome, at least, and to Everett Station, at least.

          But one thing that has become clear is that the Comments by actual cities and sovereign tribal governments along the route weigh more heavily, by far, than pearls of wisdom by individual commenters on the EIS. So, the place to make a difference is with lobbying your own city council or tribal council on what they will say in EIS comments.

      13. Pierce County decisively voted down ST3. In Tacoma, the most pro-transit sector of the county, it only passed with 53% of the vote. It failed in two city districts.

          ST2 failed as well, but it was roughly 50/50.

      14. Admittedly, I have been merely searching for when/ if the topic has been studied before.

          I did also find this report from 2005 looking at the T-Link/ Central Link blended scenarios.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/link/Tacoma/Tacoma_Link_Expansion/Tacoma_Link_Integration_With_Central_Link_Paper.pdf

          These reports are very short and possibly incomplete, so I’m not sure how much validity they have.

      15. “I was shot down on using Tacoma Link vehicles going further because of the maximum vehicle speed is lower.”

          But that’s not what I propose. I propose the opposite: use Link cars in place of existing T link cars. Just like Atlanta does for its streetcar.

          “Why TIBS rather than Federal Way or even Seatac?”

          Because the entire reason Pierce County asked for Link was to connect downtown Tacoma to SeaTac airport. This would do that.

          Further north runs into the limits of Rainier Valley frequency.

      16. Yes, converting the T line into an extension of the 1 line would cost money. But, compared to all the other stuff in ST3, it would be cheap. Not saying that extending the 1 line to Tacoma even makes sense in the first place, but if they’re going to do it, the plan should have been to have it go to the real downtown Tacoma, not a forced transfer in the middle of nowhere half a mile away.

          Exactly.

      17. @Glen — I think that is basically what Troy has proposed. Combine the two projects and run overlapping trains. But the four-car trains would run from Federal Way to Seattle while one (or two) car trains would run from Tacoma to SeaTac or TIBS. (You basically only need to get as far as SeaTac but it might be easier to turn around after TIBS.) But I think the best option is to just run the regular (four-car) trains right into Downtown Tacoma. Yes, this would cost more money, but compared to the overall cost of this project it is minimal. I’m not saying any of this is worth it, but if you are going to do it, do it right. Right now we are paying for a Ferrari and putting cheap tires on it.

      18. “It is hard to tell from that whether Pierce County wants Tacoma Dome Link.”
          Urban Pierce does if you look at the voting heat map. Thing to remember is that Pierce is really the only county in the taxing district to include large swaths of rural areas. Like even King and Snohomish don’t include much of exurban areas in the taxing district.

      19. As curious and interesting as this discussion is, what’s the real objective behind these concepts?

          I would propose that it’s minimizing travel time and effort for a rider. While there are other issues, let’s keep our eyes on what’s the most important.

          There are several factors that are the major components of travel time:

          1. Maximum speed between stations.
          2. Number of stops.
          3. Transfer time (and effort) particularly in changing trains. Each level change is much more punitive than level transferring.

          For a mostly suburban density level, any longer distance rail service should be FAST. This is why I think both current technologies — T-Link and 1 Line — are at their core the wrong technology for Pierce County rail service. They’re great for short trips with station spacing under 1.5 miles — but the station spacing between East Tacoma and South Federal Way is four miles!

          What to do? Well to me the optimal choices are either plan at least 6-8 stations for TDLE (and a dramatic policy change for more TOD — although the volcanic lehar risk and the soil instability from past lahars may create a fatal flaw in this segment through Fife ) to make it productive or rethink the vehicle technology. Similarly, the transfer point wherever it goes (Tacoma Dome here) should be level and seamless as the ideal. If the “gap” is required and ST wants to stay with 1 Line technology, then the best thing is to have more than two stations planned in Tacoma.

          However, the task at hand here is to immediately respond to the EIS on the street. To me, the most impactful response is to be laser focused on the transfers at each station (the third travel time component) and push for one more station beyond Tacoma Dome in the Final EIS to make the extension ultimately more useful and productive.

          Specifically , if a level transfer can’t be built at Freighthouse Square, the solution should be to move it to a place where it does. The more that we look at this, the more obvious it becomes to me that the best transfer point between T Link and 1 Line is to be as close to Pacific Avenue (UWT or the State History Museum) as possible. Unless ST moves the Tacoma Dome Link station close to the 705 viaducts, no presented alternative meets this goal. No presented alternative meets the goal of level transfers either.

          And as a letter from both Tacoma’s Planning Commission and Transportation Commission mention this, this is not just a few transit advocates opining. It’s a legitimate concern.

          The CID scenario changed drastically after the Draft EIS was published. There’s no reason that those of you in Tacoma can’t push for the same.

          Frankly, if the ST Board is willing to embrace a West Seattle Link extension almost 3 times more expensive than the ST3 project (making major changes like adding a bored subway segment to Alaska Junction and repo during that station to orient north-south), the Board should be open to increasing the budget for TDLE to add one more station and adding it to the project in a Final EIS. Even if that station is “unaffordable” the TDLE should still be designed to include one more station to be built someday — and its inclusion in a Final EIS both ensures that it’s possible as well as fast tracks its construction if/ when funds become available.

          Act now. Don’t let ST saddle Tacoma with a terrible end station at Tacoma Dome with crappy transfers. Beginning by pushing the Board to add at least one more station to the Final EIS. Once that change is adopted, then the way that T Link tracks and vehicles work along with transfers can be studied in more detail.

      20. An elevated Puyallup Avenue alignment could have offered a generally level transfer from the station mezzanine to the other rail modes, along with direct access to the existing bus bays below. It was excluded from EIS analysis during a scoping effort in 2019. This exclusion, along with deleting the sub-alignment options at or near Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge, should not have occurred in my opinion. It should have been through this EIS that logical and credible options were eliminated, especially as there are so few available to Tacoma Dome.

          A supplemental EIS could evaluate Puyallup Avenue or other alternatives, but it would now delay the project. For years, I advocated for its inclusion to avoid the obvious planning issues now being addressed in the joint commission letter and on this blog. Unfortunately, it was ignored or rejected out of concern for delaying the project.

          So here we are: 25th Street is the best we have got. In my opinion, building directly on the Freighthouse Square parcel is the superior option of the Tacoma Dome Station options available to us in the EIS. Yes, it does destroy the building, but this was always a possibility after years of coordinated effort by local officials and commissions that sought an alignment over this very constrained street. It does has significant benefits: it lessens construction impacts, it allows for improved T Line station and track configurations in the street, it allows for a straightforward extension/integration as I have modeled, and it allows for the cancellation of the station’s mezzanine. Tacoma Dome Station should resemble the profile of the new Downtown Redmond Station: low and humanely scaled.

          One thing to keep an eye on: the huge cost and consequence of keeping the Portland Avenue Station. It has major implications on the vertical and horizontal profile of the railway, it adds delay to each trip to/from Tacoma Dome, and it greatly adds to the height of the railway’s viaducts and overall project cost. For what, exactly? It is perhaps one of the most troubled station locations I have encountered on a new passenger railway.

      21. Troy, maybe it wouldn’t, but full-size LRV’s have a considerably higher wheel loading than to “streetcar” trams. The track structure may not be sturdy enough for 2.65 meter cars.

          It would be very good news! if standard Link cars can run on the existing trackway at reasonable speeds. We know they aren’t going to go faster than about 30, maybe 35, because of all the lights and cross-traffic. But it’s just a mile so whatevs. I want service to downtown Tacome, too.

          You are more likely to get it using Glenn’s idea than trying to ram four-car Link trains down Pacific and Commerce. And you sure can’t take them onto the “streetcar” sections up the hill.

      22. Troy, not sure that paper’s still germane or accurate. The trackway ST is building for Link these days is pretty hefty, with rail clips and bolts rather than spikes and concrete ties. They keep adding ballast to the Line 1 tracks south of Stadium.

          IOW, Link runs on a heavy railroad structure. Is that what’s on Pacific and Commerce?

      23. Tom: 1 Line Link cars are heavier than T Link cars, but it’s spread across more axles. The reality is, both car designs are intended to be compatible with the tram lines of Europe, a number of which were built over 100 years ago.

          I’ll not rule out there may be something that makes them incompatible, but it’s close enough in the scheme of things it’s within the margin of error of rail line construction. Eg, the large battery packs used on the First Hill line cars could easily wind up being more per axle than a Siemens Link car. I’ve never seen weight specifications for the First Hill cars, so I don’t know.

      24. “But I think the best option is to just run the regular (four-car) trains right into Downtown Tacoma. Yes, this would cost more money, but compared to the overall cost of this project it is minimal.”

          Except if you run the 4 car trains to Tacoma, then you’re one step closer to requiring DSTT2 due to the trip length for Line 1 Link.

          That’s pretty expensive.

          For Seattle to Tacoma trips, I don’t think there’s any getting around the express buses and Sounder being faster.

      25. If coupling and decoupling the train cars were fast enough, you could literally split the train into two. Cars 1 and 2 continue onward to downtown Tacoma, cars 3 and 4 end at Tacoma Dome. That would avoid the expense (and property acquisition needed to retrofit the downtown Tacoma stations to handle four-car trains.

          Alternatively, if two cars trains is too big, they could send only one car per train onward to downtown Tacoma, but it seems like it ought to be possible. After all, every individual train car has an operator cab.

9. The reason Central Link should go to downtown Tacoma is that downtown is the largest village in Tacoma or Pierce County. That’s where the largest plurality of people in the region are going to/from. Tacoma could increase that with more downtown housing, jobs, and activities. That’s what downtowns are for. Downtown Tacoma is already walkable, already has a wide variety of destinations, and people can both live and work there. At Tacoma Mall all that would have to be created from scratch. And we’ve seen that brand-new neighborhoods aren’t as good as pre-WWII neighborhoods. So let’s leverage Pierce County’s biggest asset and jewel — downtown Tacoma!

   Sam, the place a regional metro should most have a one-seat ride to is the largest downtown. Troy has outlined a concept for Central Link on Pacific Ave on Page 2 (scroll down to 2021, two articles). Pacific Ave is a block east of Commerce Street where the T Line is. It’s on STB Page 2. Troy may be backing away from that now in favor of Commerce Street, but let’s assume Pacific Ave for a moment. If the T Line is redundant with a later Central Link on Pacific Ave, then we could rip out the T Line. Many cities have abandoned stations or track segments as better locations evolved later. The T Line was inexpensive to install, so it would be inexpensive to remove. BUT… the T Line has been extended to MLK, and more extensions are planned (19th) or suggested (6th Ave, Tacoma Mall, Lakewood). So we could just let it overlap in parallel. That would be fine: the downtown segment is already paid off (I assume), T Line riders would be going to different destinations than 1 Line riders, and the overlap is short.

   In the past I’ve fantasized about extending Central Link to 6th Ave and TCC. But that isn’t necessary, and it’s not the direction people are going now, so we don’t have to think about it further.

   I’m not so sure Central Link can fit on Commerce Street with 4-car trains in mixed traffic: that’s why I’m still suggesting keeping the Pacific Ave concept alive Since Pacific Ave is down a steep hill from Commerce Street, it would need a lot of elevators/escalators between them, but that’s doable. As to the lack of walkable development on Pacific Ave, that’s something the City of Tacoma can address.

   Early long-term visions of the T Line had a six-line concept. Troy has an updated version of this, in a 5-part series on transit in Pierce County STB republished May 2024. The City of Tacoma is asking for a 6th Ave alternative to be added to the ST3 T Line project (instead of S 19th Street). Troy suggests the T Line could also be extended south to Tacoma Mall (replacing the 1 Line extension) and Lakewood. That would serve most of Tacoma/Lakewood’s long axis, and its biggest east-west corridor. So food for thought.

10. “Sound Transit calls the T Line light rail.” — Sam

    Sound Transit has muddled the terminology and confused people.

    The Seattle/Portland definition of light rail is “mostly exclusive-lane or grade-separated, with larger trains”. Streetcar is “can be mostly mixed-traffic, with smaller trains”. Both Sound Transit and the governments use this distinction.

    The T Line was called “Tacoma Link” in 1996 because of the political situation then. It was imitating previous American light rails that were 95+% surface, slower, and smaller than the light metro the 1 Line now is. ST’s vision at the time was that even the 1 Line would be surface from CID to Tacoma. But the 1 Line was a long way in the future, while Tacoma Link was an early deliverable.

    Tacoma Link was called “light rail” because it was an ST project, and ST builds “light rail”. There were no modern streetcars in Seattle yet. The SLU streetcar opened in 2007 — eleven years after the ST1 vote. So the need for a light rail/streetcar distinction hadn’t emerged yet.

    The term “Tacoma Link” has always been problematic, because Central Link would clearly be faster and with longer trains even if it were 80% surface. (The CID-UDistrict tunnel was a given, and the I-90 crossing.) So Central Link was more like a big-city subway that would really make non-car travel easier, while Tacoma Link was questionable. They shouldn’t both be called “Link” or “light rail” because they’re different levels of service. Calling them the same thing confuses and misleads people.

    ST finally acknowledged that and renamed Tacoma Link to the “T Line”. Its 2024 map iconography has “1, 2, 3, 4” for big-boy Link lines, “T” for the T Line, “N” and “S” for Sounder, and “S1, S2, S3” for Stride. That’s enough to position the T Line as something unique, whatever it is.

    That can last until the T Line gets multiple lines someday if it ever does. At that point they can be “T1, T2, T3…”.

    1. Tacoma Link is the Pierce equivalent of the at-grade station options that Sound Transit originally proposed for Bellevue. It was indeed an early agency deliverable, and it built an urban core section of the regional railway. It secured a rail link from Tacoma City to the Dome where commuter trains would depart.

       It was never the intent of the regional light rail program to have a weird little system in Tacoma with different tram vehicles, run by staff employed directly by the agency when everything else is contracted, and which is permanently disconnected from the larger light rail system. On its face that makes no sense.

       1. Yes this Troy.

          I was struck how in the 2005 documents I linked above that the vision was a unitary rail line through Downtown Tacoma that made its way to Seattle.

          Clearly more recent ST efforts haven’t embraced this.

    2. @Mike Orr,

       “Sound Transit has muddled the terminology and confused people.”

       The T-Line is streetcar. Link is Light Rail. They might look superficially similar to the layperson, but they are not the same thing.

       But the reason the T-Line got labeled as “Light Rail” is not because ST was sloppy, or the terminology was evolving. The reason is marketing. And politics.

       ST needed every vote possible to get ST1 to pass on the second try. And giving Seattle “Light Rail” while giving Tacoma “streetcar” was a bad look for the agency, and would cut substantially into whatever votes they were able to get out of Pierce County. It was a non-starter.

       So the answer was a simple name change. Give Tacoma lower cost, lower capacity “streetcar”, but call it “Light Rail”. It makes it look even Stephen to the layperson, so the votes are there. But it is still streetcar, so the costs aren’t there. And it isn’t overcapacity per the demand.

       So it all worked out very well. But now there is this confusion in Tacoma about what exactly they have.

       But the T-Line is streetcar. Pure and simple. And it is working out great for the city. It’s a great fit.

       1. But the reason the T-Line got labeled as “Light Rail” is not because ST was sloppy, or the terminology was evolving. The reason is marketing. And politics.

          Yes, and the main reason that the main line is light rail (and not “light metro” or “heavy rail”) is politics and marketing as well. To be clear, there are other advantages. It allowed the trains and buses to share the same tunnel. But even that was a fundamentally bad choice (based on politics). Either you build your rail system large enough to replace the buses or don’t bother. All you really needed to do was run the trains from Northgate to downtown. So why didn’t they just start with Northgate to downtown? Politics. Northgate to downtown gets plenty of riders. It adds plenty of value. If it had more stations it would be even better. In fact, if it had more stations you can easily argue that it is the only metro line we should build. But for *political* reasons it was important that we go to places like Tacoma and Everett — places that can not be well served by a metro. Likewise the only reason we ran south instead of north initially was politics. We wanted to prove to the distant suburbs and distant cities that we could build something really long (and that we wouldn’t just build something in town).

          Politics have driven many of the decisions and we are all worse off for it.

       2. “Yes, and the main reason that the main line is light rail (and not “light metro” or “heavy rail”) is politics and marketing as well.”

          We’re talking about the name of the line, not the technology. Central Link evolved into a semi light metro after that time. Most Americans have haven’t heard of “light metro” and wouldn’t know what it means. “Heavy rail” definitely doesn’t apply: that would be a technology change.

       3. “the only reason we ran south instead of north initially was politics”

          That wasn’t politics. It was because ST got nervous about potential risks and cost escalations of the Ship Canal crossing. It was afraid that if the crossing failed or became too expensive to build, it would sink the possibility of any light rail for a whole generation the way the failure of Forward Thrust did. We (including myself) lived through that failure from 1972 to 2009 and didn’t want to see it happen again. For me that low period spanned age 6 to 33 — my entire school years and the first two decades of my career.

          The southern segment was relatively low-risk and would prove light rail could be built, and it would serve walkable urban neighborhoods in Rainier Valley (an equity area), and trips to the airport. That’s about building a sensible light rail, not a useless phase on the way to Tacoma and Everett. It may not be as sensible as to the U-District, but it’s an ordinary light rail corridor like San Francisco’s MUNI neighborhoods or BART’s Mission Street segment, at least to Rainier Beach.

       4. We’re talking about the name of the line, not the technology.

          Yes, but they go together. The Seattle Streetcar, the Tacoma Streetcar and the main Link line are all “light rail” according to Wikipedia (you can find them all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems). Folks make a distinction but unlike the distinction between heavy and light rail it is rather vague. This is a good discussion: https://humantransit.org/2010/03/streetcars-vs-light-rail-is-there-a-difference.html. Note that the definition is so vague the author changed his mind about it.

          It is like the difference between a normal bus and an express. Or either one and BRT. They are all buses. The equipment is the same. Quite often a route is obviously one type of thing but often the distinction is not clear at all. Like the difference between a creek and a river they get labeled one thing or another but the difference is often arbitrary.

          The point being that ST labeling the T Line “light rail” is quite reasonable. Personally I would use the word “streetcar” but whatever. The only really confusing thing is that they plan on running the other light rail line to Tacoma and not connecting the two.

       5. @Mike Orr,

          “ That wasn’t politics.”

          Correct. It wasn’t politics at all. It was hard headed practicality.

          The plan always was to connect the 3 biggest transit markets in the region (UW, DT Seattle, and the RV) with Phase I of LR, but reality sort of got in the way. Along with a little mismanagement.

          “It was because ST got nervous about potential risks and cost escalations of the Ship Canal crossing”

          Sort of. Bids for the tunneled segment came in very high and would have probably sunk ST at the start. But there were also some over optimistic cost estimating, and some out right errors.

          What saved LR in Seattle was really Joni Earl. She refocused ST on what could be built within the budget (the DT to TIBS segment), and delayed the most problematic segment until later when it could be re-engineered and maybe actually qualify for additional funding. And she ran a tight ship.

          And a shout-out should also go to Patty Murray. I’ll probably get the terminology wrong, but she worked to ensure that the Federal grants were paused and not cancelled. Having them paused allowed ST to use them after they got themselves refocused on a buildable segment. If the grants had been outright cancelled we would probably have nothing today.

          And getting “something” built would almost certainly ensure future extensions, and that is exactly what has happened. LLE was actually the 5th extension to the 1-Line, and the 6th overall extension to Link if you count the ELSL.

          So I love that Coug! Joni did more for this region than a lot of Dawgs that I know, and indirectly she also did a lot for the UW. We now have 2 LR stations serving campus instead of the originally planned 1 station.

          Now on to the openings of DRLE, Full ELE , and FWLE! Can’t wait.

       6. It is worth noting that not every supported going south.

          Dave Earling, chairman of the Sound Transit board, is pushing for a light-rail alternative that runs from Capitol Hill to Henderson Street and would carry about 60,000 passengers daily. “This is clearly the one that offers the highest ridership,” he said.

          This would be … normal. It would be the type of thing that they would do in most parts of the world when faced with cutbacks. If you hired impartial transit experts that is the type of thing they would recommend. Focus on getting the most riders per dollar (especially if it gets you the most riders per mile — which that would do). Sure, there are risks but there were risks going to Tukwila as well. It also has an obvious fallback — just end downtown. So basically just the downtown stations plus First Hill and Capitol Hill. Of course it is too small. But it still works and it sets the table for the future.

          The problem is that from a *visual* standpoint it is boring. Remember, everything about Link is based on the visuals. Everett to Tacoma looks great on a map. It is a terrible idea for a subway line, let alone light rail but it looks great. Everyone can imagine getting on the train and heading to Everett or Tacoma (and all the wonderful places in between). That is not how metros work but it is how the ST leadership thinks.

          While it sucks that they built things out of order, it really wasn’t the end of the world compared to what came later. Only one station between Westlake and the UW. One! That is an abomination. It forever screwed up transit in the region. Even if they didn’t have a station at First Hill a station at 23rd & Madison would have made all the difference in the world. But in their focus on distance they forgot what is more important: urban coverage.

    3. Tacoma Link really is two lines, the original 2002 segment which is much more “light rail” with dedicated lanes and it’s brand new “streetcar” segment from Theater District to Hilltop.
       I would convert most/all of the original segment to Regional Link. Maybe a good terminus is Tollefson Plaza with the T-line either running seperate from Commerce Street there to Hilltop (transfer here) or providing duplicate service on shared track from Tollefson Plaza to Tacoma Dome Station while T-line continues north in streetcar mode to Stadium District then back south to Hilltop.

       1. Where is Tollefson Plaza and why would it be a good meeting point?

       2. Classic wind-swept plaza at 15th and Pac Ave, where T-link deviates up commerce.

          https://maps.app.goo.gl/yEKuFt2q2mBvKLRM6

          Desperate for some activation. Literally no-one would miss it if it were consumed by some transit use.

11. Oh, there’s also the concept of extending the T Line to Federal Way, replacing the 1 Line extension.

    1. I’ve long felt that it should be considered. However, that scenario is probably better with these changes:

       1. Faster T-Link vehicles. Can a higher speed vehicle be used or not? That’s not something that we can answer. However it only makes sense if the vehicles can go at least the speed if 1 Line vehicles. And if they could get to 70 or 80 mph it would be awesome!

       2. Transfers at South Federal Way. ST has already committed to building half of the distance to South Federal Way with the OMF project. Plus, it’s easier to build a seamless level transfer station from scratch as opposed to retrofitting one. Finally, the location would be close enough to the County Line to interface well with both Metro and PT routes.

12. Sam: “Tacomee, … Are you certain that it’s better for Link to not detour to downtown Tacoma? What about the argument that if it just continues on toward the Tacoma Mall, and doesn’t detour to downtown, it’s unfair that some Link riders going to downtown Tacoma will have to transfer to the T Line? ”

    I’d ask a bit different question, to both tacomee and everybody.

    From an average Tacoma resident’s viewpoint, how much do they go to Tacoma Mall vs downtown Tacoma? Even if they don’t go to downtown Tacoma now (and I think they do more than tacomee thinks), if the City of Tacoma grows downtown Tacoma “right” — with a wider variety of destinations and more housing — maybe average Tacoma residents would want to go there more in the future.

    How much does a Tacoma Mall 1 Line extension even help the average Tacoma resident? They don’t live near Tacoma Mall: they’d have to take a bus to 1 Line station. Would Tacoma Mall be the best station for that?

    For people coming from King County/Fife to Tacoma on the 1 Line, would Tacoma Mall offer any compelling destinations or bus transfers that would make up for the 1 Line not going to downtown Tacoma? While people travel regionally to a unique chef restaurant, institution, or yoga teacher, they won’t do that to the non-closest Total Wine, Albert Lee Appliance, Half Price Books, Firestone Complete Auto Care, Wendy’s, or even Macy’s. Those are all the same in all their branches.

    The case for a 1 Line station at Tacoma Mall is the sum of all three: the bulk of Tacoma residents, and people coming to Tacoma. So how well does it score on these factors? How does it compare to downtown Tacoma? Or to a regional transfer at Tacoma Dome?

    What does the Tacoma Mall neighborhood have a realistic chance of developing into? Does Tacoma have the will to make it like a mini downtown Bellevue or the U-District? Will it discourage one-story buildings with large surface parking lots there? Would nimby resistance be too strong to overcome? Would Tacomans suffer if they couldn’t get their Chick-Fil-A or exotic wine or half-price book at Tacoma Mall if those were displaced?

    1. The Tacoma Mall extension of Link was a new idea that got dropped into ST3 without much analysis or debate.

       And I never felt that a Tacoma Mall extension had to be a straight line alignment anyway. A straight line will require lots or structures or tunnels anyway. Why not jog first to UWT and then head towards Tacoma Mall by way of a station at St Joseph’s for example? There would be lots more TOD opportunity between Downtown Tacoma and Tacoma Mall (say 19th and Sprague) if the extension didn’t run along the freeway anyway.

       1. The only way I can feature they identified it for an extension is someone got a little exuberant with a yellow marker.

          https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/92162/Adopted-Centers-Map?bidId=

       2. I first heard about it near the end of the run-up to ST3. But it’s not in ST3: it’s an ST4 concept. ST3 may have a preliminary study for it like it has for other potential ST4 corridors, but that’s not a commitment to it, it’s just a study. ST2 had studies for WSJ-Burien-Renton Link and the 45th line, and look, they’re not in ST3. So a future board will be able to go in a different direction re Tacoma Mall if it chooses to.

       3. What got dropped into ST3 without much analysis or debate was DSTT2, and CID/N and CID/S.

13. “From an average Tacoma resident’s viewpoint, how much do they go to Tacoma Mall vs downtown Tacoma? ”

    I am very likely not average, but…

    I go to the mall once or twice a year, excluding Costco, which isn’t really the mall.

    I go downtown once or twice a week.

    “How much does a Tacoma Mall 1 Line extension even help the average Tacoma resident? ”

    It wouldn’t be terrible useful to me, from an in-city perspective. It’s going from a largely industrial area to an area that, at least currently, is incredibly hostile to transit riders, pedestrians and bikes. Just walking or riding from Costco to REI, which I did a few weeks ago and aren’t even at the mall-proper, involves several near-death experiences and takes 5 or 10 minutes. And they are just a few hundred feet apart. The buses mostly just avoid the parts near I-5 on ramps, because they are car-sewers, I assume.

    “For people coming from King County/Fife to Tacoma on the 1 Line, would Tacoma Mall offer any compelling destinations or bus transfers that would make up for the 1 Line not going to downtown Tacoma?”

    Maybe if they integrated the transfer to route 3, and make it a frequent bus to South Tacoma, that maybe, maybe would be a destination. There are some unique restaurants and clubs on South Tacoma Way. Mostly people would just drive though, rather than dealing with the transfer, and service likely ending before the concert at Airport Tavern even let out.

    I can’t really speak to NIMBY resistance. I assume business groups like the Chamber and lobbying from Simon, the owner of the mall, is what got it in ST3. I assume they would also be the drivers of any redevelopment, or not, as well. There isn’t really much residential near the mall to push back. Those apartments to the west are some of the cheapest rents in town. That’s the exact kind of residents that have been historically disenfranchised and their opinion ignored, if they are even asked at all, in any meaningful way.

    1. I see Link at Tacoma Mall being like Clackamas Town Center outside Portland. It got MAX 15+ years ago. The station is in the corner of the parking lot by the freeway and does it’s thing. The mall does its thing. You can easily walk between the station and the mall but it requires walking through a giant parking lot. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is suburban malls (format not location) are about abundant free parking and ease of auto access. Transit is seen as icing on the cake at best and a burden at worst (petty crime). There will be little appetite to radically transform Tacoma Mall as long as its retail is working and it likely will for a long time as really the only regional mall serving Tacoma area.

       Northgate was rethought because the retail aspect largely died off (with online retail, the in person discretionary shopping pie is shrinking – Northgate Mall, Everett Mall and Downtown Seattle have been victims of it). That leaves Bellevue Square, University Village, Alderwood, South Center and Tacoma Malls. I’m just skeptical of Tacoma Mall becoming like Metrotown or Brentwood in Vancouver, nor even like what Northgate is becoming.

    2. To be fair to Northgate, some of the retailers closed because of the national trend toward online shopping or specific corporate shortcomings. Others were pushed out when Simon accelerated its existing plans to redevelop the mall. Simon felt the pandemic was a good time to do the renovation it was planning to do. That’s similar to how in the 2008 recession UW accelerated its dorm-renovating/building program on Campus Parkway. Labor and materials were plentiful and cheap because of the recession, so why not do it now? With the pandemic, stores were closed or curbside-only anyway because of the lockdowns, so why not renovate now when it would be the least disruptive to highly-active retailers?

Comments are closed.