Two reports on the causes of Link’s many unplanned outages ($) were released on Thursday, as Mike Lindblom at the Seattle Times writes. One report is by engineering consultant HNTB; the other is a Sound Transit internal review. The reports identify 432 hours (10 workweeks) of unplanned 1 Line disruptions, delays, and shutdowns between January and November 2024. This is separate from the planned maintenance periods where ST announced reductions, single-tracking, or bus shuttles in advance.
Many of the delays are caused by failures in the electrical infrastructure: station power outages, substations struggling as extensions come online, grounding via the return wire, stray current corroding the rails. Other disruptions are caused by signal failures, mechanical breakdowns, dispatch issues, contaminants in hydraulic brake fluid causing train stalls, pressure leaks causing stalls, inadequate HVAC systems leading to unnecessarily high or low temperatures for equipment, and overcustomization of facilities to satisfy political and community requests and reduce property takings. A lack of spare parts delayed repairs at UW Station. (The UW Station wires were finally repaired in February.)
“Breakdowns suddenly increased in mid-2024 because new station and track openings added electrical and other stress to the system, according to Moises Guterriez, deputy CEO for agency oversight.” (Lindblom)
The HNTB report contains 79 recommendations to fix the problems, including shoring up the electrical systems, adding crossover tracks to bypass blockages, improving governance, using maintenance crews more efficiently, and better coordination between Sound Transit and King County Metro. (Sound Transit owns Link but Metro operates it.) ST is also looking at more monitoring devices for the infrastructure.
The report specifically recommends crossover tracks at Symphony or Pioneer Square station, so that ST can single-track a shorter segment downtown when a blockage occurs on either the northbound or southbound track. This has been a repeated suggestion by several STB commentators, so it’s good to see Sound Transit considering it. It also recommends a crossover just south of Lynnwood City Center station, although ST’s Russ Arnold, Deputy CEO for service delivery, says modifying elevated tracks would be harder than modifying the unused center lane in downtown tunnel stations.
“Since improvement efforts started in November, hours of disrupted service were lowered by half, to 2.5 hours per month, but more gains are needed, Gutierrez reported Thursday to a transit board committee. Trains are stalling more often but workers are restarting them quicker, he said.” (Lindblom)
We’re glad progress is being made and solutions are being identified. We hope the majority of disruptions will be fixed somehow, so that we can get a reliable subway circulation system like we expected.
Do NOT support the cross-over scheme in the downtown stations. That would embargo future center platforms at those stations, but center platforms are by far the least expensive way to increase capacity in them.
We will need that capacity to avoid the folly and waste of DSTT2.
I would support a pair of scissors cross-overs just west of the platforms at Westlake Center if they can fit between the platforms and the curve to third.
I expect that a trailing point cross-over can fit even if a full scissors xannot, because the southbound curve is gentler and might work with the points of a turnout extending a few feet into it.
They already have one there
No, they don’t. And this picture makes it clear that there isn’t sufficient room, even for a trailing point cross-over (southbound track to northbound track).
Enabling more paths around a stalled train reduces the case for DSTT2. Unreliability builds the case for DSTT2.
Center platforms, much as I want them, require the addition of more vertical conveyances, and will only cut down maybe 15 seconds of dwell time, probably less.
They also expand the static platform capacity to absorb arrivals between trains.
And they greatly improve out-of-direction transfers. Pioneer Square would shine for Eastside-South End transfers since ST has built a reversing stub in the middle at International District.
The center track at ID/CS should certainly be adjusted to double as switches. It should have been made so when the third track was installed.
The center platform at Pioneer Square, as we have seen, is not that hard to install and not that hard to remove. Until a third line is open, that is where nearly all the transfers will happen, if it is built. It is needed very soon, for the all-the-time passenger experience, and to avoid dangerous overcrowding and large group movements at ID/CS.
Symphony has the weakest case for a center platform, and is the best place for one more switch.
At any rate, these changes ought to happen before the Great Conjunction.
Brent, if I come from the eastside and want to go to Rainier Valley, then i would want to transfer at CID, not Pioneer Sq. Also, adding elevators/escalators would be far easier at CID than Pioneer Sq. I would think that a central platform would be extremely useful at CID.
I, too, would prefer a center platform at IDCS. But ST is not budging on that.
I also don’t see how additional vertical conveyances are easier at IDCS than at PSS.
I don’t see why an emergency non-electric drawbridge would not pass muster for emergency egress, which AFAIK, was not considered by the engineering department in their determined push for the third track.
There is also $10m worth of sunk-cost fallacy inertia for keeping the third track. Maybe the next county executive will be more open-minded on this, and now $10m seems so much smaller.
If the switch gets built in PSS and costs more than the third track in IDCS, that would wipe out the sunk-cost barrier at least.
“I also don’t see how additional vertical conveyances are easier at IDCS than at PSS.”
I do! It would be lots easier at the CID Station.
The platform for the southbound trains is physically next to a patch of open space before the Union Station building. That one is quite easy. The elevators or stairs or escalator can go there.
The platform odor the northbound trains seems wider than at Pioneer Square too. Plus any intrusion into the vault wall will be easier as the walks don’t need to support the weight of a highway above them.
I changed the wording to “several STB commentators” to clarify it’s not all or most commentators, but a few who have asked for crossover tracks downtown.
Center platforms in the downtown tunnel aren’t going to happen for a variety of practical reasons. I think people need to just accept that instead of complaining about it.
How is Westlake1 going to connect to Westlake2?
I expect Bellevue-Ballard and NorthSpine-Ballard transfers will happen there.
That connection will either be made by demising holes through the end walls at the platform level if the new line uses Sixth Avenue, the back wall at the platform level if the new line is under Fifth, or — catastrophically for transfers — at the Mezzanine level.
Westlake 2 is proposed to be more than twice as deep as current Westlake Station.
Al, thanks for the link to the diagram. It’s pretty sparse with information, but I do think that the “see-through” parts imply a connection between a portion of the existing station and the new station access tower just to the south. If I’m interpreting the dashes on the left side correctly, it look slike they plan to have an underground connection under Pine at the new Mezzanine level with (presumably) the same kind of multi-level back-and-forth vertical connection to both the southbound platform and the mezzanine. It’s not clear to me why they need to connect to the mezzanine way over there, since they’ll be connecting to it at the southeast corner and all anyone would have to do is diagonal across the station from the northwest to the southeast corner. But whatever; they have to dig a hole all the way to the surface, so why not give access to the mezzanine?
I hope I’m reading the diagram correctly, becaue otherwise to go from the southbound platform to the new platform would require an up over and down down down down movement. Having a direct connection to the platform at least makes it down down over down.
> Al, thanks for the link to the diagram. It’s pretty sparse with information…
Have we not had an article on the new Westlake and other stations on ballard link yet? I checked around and while the urbanist has one it’s not as detailed as the official documents either.
> It’s pretty sparse with information, but I do think that the “see-through” parts imply a connection between a portion of the existing station and the new station access tower just to the south.
There’s an underground pedestrian tunnel like 2 stories below the existing link tracks. this connects with the new deeper mezzanine. travelers could walk through this tunnel to reach the northbound or southbound existing train platform
WL, I’m not sure about your conclusion, but overall I think it’s true.
After looking at the diagrams on pages 66 through 69 think the plans will allow fairly direct access to the southbound platform using the diagonal tunnel, but I don’t think you’d be able to get to the northbound platform without going up the mezzanine, back across southbound and then descending. That underground tunnel goes between the new deep tower structure to be built at the corner of Fourth and Pine and named in the Plan View on page 44 as “West Station Entrance” and the even deeper tower structure to be built in the southeast quadrant of the Fifth and Pine intersection and named “North Station Entrance” on page 44 [it is MIS-named “South Station Entrance” in the Vertical Section View on page 66].
The Plan View shows clearly that the West Station Entrance tower structure will overlap the existing Westlake Station box, but that will probably be only at the surface; I can’t imagine that they will attempt to demize the base of the existing box and the entire back wall on both levels, so the deep tower structure hosting the vertical travel infrastructure will probably be directly to the north of the existing box under the plaza and depend on openings in the box for access.
I’m assuming that the back wall of the mezzanine level of the existing station will be at least partially demized in order to provide a seamless connection between the mezzanine and the tower structure with the vertical movement machinery for the deep tunnel. That can be done as an open air construction project with the lid of the box also exposed and, if necessary, opened.
So, we can assume that free transit to and from the existing mezzanine will be provided to this new West Station Entrance. And, if there will also be an entrance to the southbound platform created by demising a modest hole in the north wall of the box at the platform level, passengers moving between the existing southbound platform and the new Line 1 platform will have a reasonably straightforward path. However, those moving between the existing northbound platform and the new platform would have to go up to the mezzanine and cross to the north side of the station to make the transfer. If the platform level wall is not demized for a connection at the platform level everyone will have to go up to go down.
The Vertical Section A View on page 66 does not show such a connection to either the mezzanine or the northbound platform for those using the North Station Entrance tower structure to make the transfer. There is no obvious connection between the 100 foot elevation level in the new tower structure and the 101 feet eight inches level of the existing mezzanine. I would think that if such a connection is planned that ST would have highlighted it with one of the long tagged arrows.
There are HINTS of connections between the West Station Entrance tower and the southbound platform and between the North Station Entrance tower and the northbound platform in the Vertical Section C View on page 68 in the form of dashed lines that look like the diagonal tunnel dashed line, so there is hope for direct platform connections by demising the back wall of the existing box at the two platforms. I deeply wish ST had pointed them out with the arrows as some form of proof that they are committed to providing such connections. But there’s no other probable reason for a structure “beyond” the cross-section other than platform-level connections to the two new towers, so I’ll go with that optimistic interpretation and say “YAY!”
And I will note that putting the connection holes in the respective platform-level back walls is exactly what I said would be optimum if they chose the Fifth Avenue option.
Correction to my comment above.
It does not look like ST will be providing access to the mezzanine from the West Station Entrance tower facility. There are no dashed lines at the mezzanine like the ones to the platform level I alluded to in the next to the last paragraph above for the West Station tower structure. There is one for the North Station Entrance tower structure shown directly above the dashed lines to the platform level. I’m a little surprised because the new West Station Entrance would provide a more pleasant access to the DSTT1 mezzanine than the one in the Macy’s building across the street. But, I guess it lowers the cost of the new structure.
@tom
There is such a connection. It’ll be about a 3 to 4 minute transfer time.
I can write up an article detailing it and including the 3d models if most people don’t know. I will admit sound transit did not highlight it very well in the open house documents
WL, yes I see the path from the southbound platform level from the first link which emphasizes it well. I said that I agree that the dashed lines imply that. But, look again at your link: there is no connection from the West Station Entrance structure to the DSTT1 Mezzanine. As I said, that’s an OK decision; folks can continue to use the Macy’s building entrance. I’m just a little surprised because it would be a much more attractive access point.
The second concept seems MUCH more grand. For one thing, it has super-long, Washington Metro-style single bank escalators from that center access cavern, instead of the folded multi-level banks at each end as in the original diagram. I would prefer the grand design, for sure because the ride up and down the escalators would be less “fiddly”, but it would be considerably more expensive because those long diagonal halls would have to be mined instead of excavated as the tower strutures would be.
I had to climb one of those long diagonal escalators once. It was in Atlants at its deep Peachetree Center station, and for some reason, the “up” escalator was off. It was well over a hundred steps with no breaks.
But the second link does not include the West Station Entrance structure and accesses so there’s no new information on that design.
One thing that is striking about all these plans is how HUGE these structures are in comparison to the Westlake station box. When one is inside Westlake it seems really grand and large. But these add-ons are going to dwarf it. Unnecessarily I would assert.
Why not? Put an elevator at one end and stairs at the other. Add a center bridge at the mezzanine level with a pair of single rider width escalators, one on each side of the bridge down to and up from the platform. I think that fits while allowing people to get by the escalators. The platforms are a bit longer than the trains.
I grant that the room on the platform at the feet of the escalators would be narrow, but foot traffic would predominantly flow from the foot of the “down” escalator toward the foot of the “up” unit. That’s because people arriving to board would spread out from the down foot while those departing after arrival would collect at the foot of the up case. The flow is in the same direction between them. It might be necessary to put barriers on the platform side through the narrow part and modify the cars (dynamically by position in the train) to keep the doors opening into the narrow area closed. However, those two center cars would overhang far enough still to have doors that could open.
And who’s complaining? The original comment was a warning, not a “complaint”. They are not the same thing.
Do you really think that people are going to pay taxes happilyly for the pathetic projects for which DSTT2 is planned until 2055?
Tom, because the platform would unlikely be ADA compliant for one, it’s not wide enough to handle passangers safely as a platform without it becoming a hazard. I remember the temp platform from a couple years ago when they did maintenance work and it wasn’t exactly the most comfortable place to stand from how narrow it was. And the only reason it worked was because it was an isolated platform and you were rarely waiting long for a train to transfer to when you rolled into Pioneer Square.
It’d also have difficulty with configuration into the current mezzanine setup as well without it creating problems on the platform or on the mezzanine. Westlake would require a complete multi year reworking of it’s mezzanine to make it doable
I get some people badly want a Spanish Solution platform built into DSTT, but people need to be pragmatic and practical about the fact that is unlikely to realistically work with what ST was given when handed the keys to DSTT. The scissor tracking proposal is fine and there are other things I’d consider first before a center platform, like platform screen doors.
The mere fact that International District now has a third track down the middle, plus a narrow employee only platform, shows that there is plenty of space for a middle platform, so long as there’s no third track added. MAX operates just fine with center platforms that wide.
Zach,
Are the platforms at ID/CS and the limited vertical conveyances at ID/CS really safe to handle all the transferring passengers?
The center platform at Pioneer Square is not about the Spanish solution. It is about transfers between the east line and the south line.
The lack of having invented the drawbridge hardly makes it impractical.
Zach B,
Would you mind spelling out the reasons you consider a center platform at Pioneer Square to be impractical?
Proposing crossovers in the DSTT is 18 years overdue. It should have been obvious that they would be needed all along. It should have been introduced with the extended tunnel closure for the initial Link operation. If not then, the adoption of ST2 with two lines should have triggered it during 2009 before Link opened..
I have to wonder if the ground under the tunnel can handle crossovers. I assume that it can.
I think there is value having them, even if it’s just in rare emergencies.
And I’m not averse to a temporary station closure when they’re activated. Of course if they can work without a station closure it’s better.
I’d suggest Symphony Station if doable as it’s close to Westlake. Pioneer Square Station is further from other stations.
The switches in the tunnel are only 5 years overdue, given that Metro ran the tunnel for joint ops up until 2019.
But if we can’t have a center platform at ID/CS, we need one at Pioneer Square, not for the Spanish solution, but to safely handle all the transfers. Someone may have to invent an emergency retractable bridge between the center and an outside platform. Lack of creative thinking at the engineering department seems to be the primary barrier.
I would also carve out an exception for Westlake, where the engineers can hopefully make a center platform designed specifically to have a downward connection toward the Westlake2 platform.
That would still give two new switch zones in ID/CS and Symphony.
“overcustomization of facilities to satisfy political and community requests and reduce property takings”
That sounds intriguing! Anyone have a link to the actual reports?
Seattle times did but very briefly, it was pulled bc the report was meant to be confidential.
While there have been a lot of comments about adding a cross-over track in the DSTT, I’m dismayed that the Lynnwood extension was designed and built without cross-over tracks. ST is very slow applying the learnings from past experiences into future design choices.
“ST is very slow applying the learnings from past experiences into future design choices.”
The ST culture believes it knows better than anyone about making design choices. Thus, they don’t think they have to “learn” anything.
It takes a systemic failure and a Board-directed study to even raise the possibility that they aren’t perfect. And even then, they will focus blame on anything but basic design mistakes.
Consider how, even after the escalator debacle in 2017, ST still removes escalators as a cost-cutting measure just before putting construction out to bid. Or how ST still believes that one elevator is enough at a place like Mt Baker Station, where the lone elevator on each platform gets much heavier use because there is no down escalator (leading to them often being out of service).
And when there is a problem, it’s usually described as an equipment problem or a maintenance problem — but no report will come out and call it first a design mistake.
The epitome of ST arrogance is the insistence of three platforms at SODO, turning 90 percent of the transfers there into double stairs/ escalators/ elevators events. Ironically they are now suggesting dropping some escalators there too — rather than do the obvious and simple layout the station for one or two platforms with level transfers for most.
Lynnwood Station has a switch north of the station, plus long tail tracks for storage.
There is an oddly-situated switch between Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. Sometimes the trains use that switch and approach Lynnwood on the opposite track from what we would expect. I have no idea what conditions lead to ST having the trains do that. But it usually slows the trains heading in one or both directions, and often south of that switch as well.
If ST sees value in installing a switch just south of Lynnwood, the disruption of a bus bridge with Moutlake Terrace would be less than the disruption in the middle of the line. Plus, a bunch of buses that terminate at Lynnwood could terminate at Mountlake Terrace instead.
There’s crossovers at Westlake from when that was the north end of the line. There’s crossovers at International District.
That really doesn’t seem that far, and seems like many operations around the world work just fine with that distance between crossovers.
It seems the most important thing would be to invest in things that prevent the need for single tracking in the tunnel to begin with.
That would be nice, but ST has to keep single-tracking.
The worst thing ST can do with the spaces in the middle of Pioneer Square and Symphony is nothing.
If they convert one of those spaces to crossovers, it means they’d not be able to stop at that station when the crossover is in use, as the train wouldn’t be at the platform.
If a track is out of service in one station, the opposite platform at that station and the two adjoining stations could still be used, by trains going the normal direction on that track. The other direction could also use that platform opposite the closed one, but would not stop at the adjoining stations.
It would take about five minutes for each train to go through the bottleneck area, one at a time, so no more than one train each way every 10 minutes, basically current mid-day frequency, or slightly worse.
ST might have to pick either the east or south line to turn around at IDCS. But five minutes should be enough time to perform that reversal, if an extra operator is available to jump in the reversing cab.
When single tracking is involved, I’ve seen other rail transit systems run operations as groups of trains. For example, I could see two 1 Line and two 2 line trains grouped together, one right after the other. Then the trains heading in the other direction would be the next group.
That’s similar to how single lane closures work during street construction, or how busy airports alternate landings and takeoffs from a single runway.
How would a crossover south of Lynnwood City Center station be a benefit? The reason for one downtown is to shorten the segment that must be single-tracked so that it isn’t all of Capitol Hill-Stadium/SODO. Cutting the single-tracked segment in half allows more frequency. But a crossover just south of Lynnwood City Center station would shrink the single-tracked segment just a tiny bit, not enough to make much of a difference I would think.
Why do DSTT closures or single-tracking sometimes extend to SODO and sometimes just to Stadium, when the problem isn’t at either of those stations? Why is Stadium feasible for a switchover in only some cases?
Can anyone else confirm there is a switch in/near IDCS that can be used to switch in any direction, including coming south from PSS on the southbound tracks and reversing to go back north on the northbound tracks?
There is a reversing pocket just south of Stadium; I know for sure that it is “double-ended” [i.e. it has a triple-switch at each, allowing trains to arrive or depart to/from either track and to/from either direction.
Has anyone noticed whether the pocket within IDCS itself has connections to the tracks to the north? Since it was specifically placed where it is in order to facilitate Line 1 to Line 2 non-revenue movements, it may not have them, though I can’t imagine why they would have been omitted. Three powered turnouts probably would have cost way less than $500K. They had to shut down to make the track cuts at the south end of the pocket; another crew could have done the same thing at the north end.
The videos of train rides show no connection to the north at ID-C Station. There is instead a steel buffer just before the track ends.
Thank you very much, Al. A track bumper instead of a triple-switch connection to both directions was penny-wise, pound foolish.
Al, I watched the Angle Lake to Northgate video and compiled a list of cross-overs for our future use. Then I watched the Lynnwood to Angle Lake video back to Forrest Street to be sure I saw everything I could in the tunnel.
Here is the listing from Angle Lake north to Lynnwood
Platform selection scissors north of Angle Lake
Reversing pocket south of Sea-Tac
Platform selection scissors north of Sea-Tac
Platform selection scissors north of TIBS
Intermediate scissors along SR599 just east of the bus barn (almost unused)
Reversing pocket south of Rainier Beach
Pair of cross-overs between Othello and Columbia City (separate, freight rail style)
Pair of cross-overs south of Mt. Baker (separate, freight rail style)
Facing point Left cross-over to Forrest Street
Trailing point merge from Yard to northbound track
Scissors just beyond yard throat
Reversing pocket between Holgate of Stadium with no direct access from the south facing point cross-over to SB track do enter
Reversing stub between tracks within body of CIDS, two entrances from the northbound track exit to southbound track very near platforms Bumper at end
No cross-over railroad south of Westlake Center
Scissors between Westlake and Tunnel Vault
Platform selection scissors before University of Washington
No station box extension at north end of University of Washington
No station box extension at University District either end
No station box extension at Roosevelt either end
Facing point access siding from northbound track at north portal of tunnel no cross-over to southbound track
Platform selection scissors south of Northgate
Reversing stub north of Northgate
Full scissors south of Pinehurst
Full scissors north of Shoreline / 148th
Full scissors north of Shoreline / 185th
Full scissors just south of the potential 220th Station
No platformn selection scissors south of Lynnwood
Reversing pocket north of Lynnwood
I find it a bit concerning that somehow, the extension to Lynnwood is causing power problems in the tunnel.
Why? How?
Granted, the nominal voltage is lower, but there’s a substation to feed the overhead lines at almost every MAX station. Is Link running on only a couple substations or something? Or is there some other thing I’m not seeing that would make Lynnwood Link impact power in the downtown tunnel?
The Times article says: (quote to end of comment)
In multiple spots, a lone public utility line powers one or even two train substations, where storms have halted the trains. This situation is one of many “single points of failure” that continue putting service at risk, the HNTB report said. Sound Transit long ago designed a 1,500-volt network — uncommon in North America but not unique — to reduce capital cost and allow fewer substations compared with a lower voltage, but the report emphasized it needs upgrades so trains still work if one substation fails.
Some solutions are dedicated lines that go exclusively into transit substations and mobile generators to pinch-hit if a substation fails. Boston’s new Green Line extension requires a “minimum of two independent supplies” to provide redundancy, the report emphasized.
Some historical decisions help explain why Sound Transit — whose high project costs have been blamed on “overcustomization” to satisfy political and community requests — is saddled with complex systems and obsolete parts: The downtown train tunnel was built by Metro for buses in the late 1980s and adapted to trains later. Also, designers minimized the number of substations systemwide to save money, reduce land takings and improve aesthetics.
Breakdowns suddenly increased in mid-2024 because new station and track openings added electrical and other stress to the system, Gutierrez said.
CEO Goran Sparrman emphasized how these pains show that Sound Transit, after two decades of building light rail lines, is changing from just a delivery agency to operating a complex system.
Why can’t Sparrman stay on as CEO? He seems pretty bold about getting the truth out, while also not getting bamboozled by staff.
I’ve seen it reported that Sparrman intends to retire from the industry altogether. I expect Sparrman doesn’t want to end up as a “long-term” interim CEO, so he’s force the Board to seriously focus on finding a new, “permanent” CEO
My article’s content is based on the Times article. The primary source links at the bottom weren’t published until after my article was, and I haven’t read them yet. Wesley added the source links and diagrams afterward when they came out.
Do NOT support the cross-over scheme in the downtown stations. That would embargo future center platforms at those stations, but center platforms are by far the least expensive way to increase capacity in them.
We will need that capacity to avoid the folly and waste of DSTT2.
I would support a pair of scissors cross-overs just west of the platforms at Westlake Center if they can fit between the platforms and the curve to third.
I expect that a trailing point cross-over can fit even if a full scissors xannot, because the southbound curve is gentler and might work with the points of a turnout extending a few feet into it.
They already have one there
No, they don’t. And this picture makes it clear that there isn’t sufficient room, even for a trailing point cross-over (southbound track to northbound track).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/3747498355
B may have meant east.
Enabling more paths around a stalled train reduces the case for DSTT2. Unreliability builds the case for DSTT2.
Center platforms, much as I want them, require the addition of more vertical conveyances, and will only cut down maybe 15 seconds of dwell time, probably less.
They also expand the static platform capacity to absorb arrivals between trains.
And they greatly improve out-of-direction transfers. Pioneer Square would shine for Eastside-South End transfers since ST has built a reversing stub in the middle at International District.
The center track at ID/CS should certainly be adjusted to double as switches. It should have been made so when the third track was installed.
The center platform at Pioneer Square, as we have seen, is not that hard to install and not that hard to remove. Until a third line is open, that is where nearly all the transfers will happen, if it is built. It is needed very soon, for the all-the-time passenger experience, and to avoid dangerous overcrowding and large group movements at ID/CS.
Symphony has the weakest case for a center platform, and is the best place for one more switch.
At any rate, these changes ought to happen before the Great Conjunction.
Brent, if I come from the eastside and want to go to Rainier Valley, then i would want to transfer at CID, not Pioneer Sq. Also, adding elevators/escalators would be far easier at CID than Pioneer Sq. I would think that a central platform would be extremely useful at CID.
I, too, would prefer a center platform at IDCS. But ST is not budging on that.
I also don’t see how additional vertical conveyances are easier at IDCS than at PSS.
I don’t see why an emergency non-electric drawbridge would not pass muster for emergency egress, which AFAIK, was not considered by the engineering department in their determined push for the third track.
There is also $10m worth of sunk-cost fallacy inertia for keeping the third track. Maybe the next county executive will be more open-minded on this, and now $10m seems so much smaller.
If the switch gets built in PSS and costs more than the third track in IDCS, that would wipe out the sunk-cost barrier at least.
“I also don’t see how additional vertical conveyances are easier at IDCS than at PSS.”
I do! It would be lots easier at the CID Station.
The platform for the southbound trains is physically next to a patch of open space before the Union Station building. That one is quite easy. The elevators or stairs or escalator can go there.
The platform odor the northbound trains seems wider than at Pioneer Square too. Plus any intrusion into the vault wall will be easier as the walks don’t need to support the weight of a highway above them.
I changed the wording to “several STB commentators” to clarify it’s not all or most commentators, but a few who have asked for crossover tracks downtown.
Center platforms in the downtown tunnel aren’t going to happen for a variety of practical reasons. I think people need to just accept that instead of complaining about it.
How is Westlake1 going to connect to Westlake2?
I expect Bellevue-Ballard and NorthSpine-Ballard transfers will happen there.
That connection will either be made by demising holes through the end walls at the platform level if the new line uses Sixth Avenue, the back wall at the platform level if the new line is under Fifth, or — catastrophically for transfers — at the Mezzanine level.
The last diagrams I saw are here:
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/west-seattle-and-ballard-link-extensions-station-planning-progress-report-westlake.pdf
A prior document is here
around pages 84-88:
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/10c-wsble-drafteis-appendixj-drawings-ballard-202201.pdf#page=41
Westlake 2 is proposed to be more than twice as deep as current Westlake Station.
Al, thanks for the link to the diagram. It’s pretty sparse with information, but I do think that the “see-through” parts imply a connection between a portion of the existing station and the new station access tower just to the south. If I’m interpreting the dashes on the left side correctly, it look slike they plan to have an underground connection under Pine at the new Mezzanine level with (presumably) the same kind of multi-level back-and-forth vertical connection to both the southbound platform and the mezzanine. It’s not clear to me why they need to connect to the mezzanine way over there, since they’ll be connecting to it at the southeast corner and all anyone would have to do is diagonal across the station from the northwest to the southeast corner. But whatever; they have to dig a hole all the way to the surface, so why not give access to the mezzanine?
I hope I’m reading the diagram correctly, becaue otherwise to go from the southbound platform to the new platform would require an up over and down down down down movement. Having a direct connection to the platform at least makes it down down over down.
> Al, thanks for the link to the diagram. It’s pretty sparse with information…
Have we not had an article on the new Westlake and other stations on ballard link yet? I checked around and while the urbanist has one it’s not as detailed as the official documents either.
> It’s pretty sparse with information, but I do think that the “see-through” parts imply a connection between a portion of the existing station and the new station access tower just to the south.
There’s an underground pedestrian tunnel like 2 stories below the existing link tracks. this connects with the new deeper mezzanine. travelers could walk through this tunnel to reach the northbound or southbound existing train platform
WL, I’m not sure about your conclusion, but overall I think it’s true.
After looking at the diagrams on pages 66 through 69 think the plans will allow fairly direct access to the southbound platform using the diagonal tunnel, but I don’t think you’d be able to get to the northbound platform without going up the mezzanine, back across southbound and then descending. That underground tunnel goes between the new deep tower structure to be built at the corner of Fourth and Pine and named in the Plan View on page 44 as “West Station Entrance” and the even deeper tower structure to be built in the southeast quadrant of the Fifth and Pine intersection and named “North Station Entrance” on page 44 [it is MIS-named “South Station Entrance” in the Vertical Section View on page 66].
The Plan View shows clearly that the West Station Entrance tower structure will overlap the existing Westlake Station box, but that will probably be only at the surface; I can’t imagine that they will attempt to demize the base of the existing box and the entire back wall on both levels, so the deep tower structure hosting the vertical travel infrastructure will probably be directly to the north of the existing box under the plaza and depend on openings in the box for access.
I’m assuming that the back wall of the mezzanine level of the existing station will be at least partially demized in order to provide a seamless connection between the mezzanine and the tower structure with the vertical movement machinery for the deep tunnel. That can be done as an open air construction project with the lid of the box also exposed and, if necessary, opened.
So, we can assume that free transit to and from the existing mezzanine will be provided to this new West Station Entrance. And, if there will also be an entrance to the southbound platform created by demising a modest hole in the north wall of the box at the platform level, passengers moving between the existing southbound platform and the new Line 1 platform will have a reasonably straightforward path. However, those moving between the existing northbound platform and the new platform would have to go up to the mezzanine and cross to the north side of the station to make the transfer. If the platform level wall is not demized for a connection at the platform level everyone will have to go up to go down.
The Vertical Section A View on page 66 does not show such a connection to either the mezzanine or the northbound platform for those using the North Station Entrance tower structure to make the transfer. There is no obvious connection between the 100 foot elevation level in the new tower structure and the 101 feet eight inches level of the existing mezzanine. I would think that if such a connection is planned that ST would have highlighted it with one of the long tagged arrows.
There are HINTS of connections between the West Station Entrance tower and the southbound platform and between the North Station Entrance tower and the northbound platform in the Vertical Section C View on page 68 in the form of dashed lines that look like the diagonal tunnel dashed line, so there is hope for direct platform connections by demising the back wall of the existing box at the two platforms. I deeply wish ST had pointed them out with the arrows as some form of proof that they are committed to providing such connections. But there’s no other probable reason for a structure “beyond” the cross-section other than platform-level connections to the two new towers, so I’ll go with that optimistic interpretation and say “YAY!”
And I will note that putting the connection holes in the respective platform-level back walls is exactly what I said would be optimum if they chose the Fifth Avenue option.
Correction to my comment above.
It does not look like ST will be providing access to the mezzanine from the West Station Entrance tower facility. There are no dashed lines at the mezzanine like the ones to the platform level I alluded to in the next to the last paragraph above for the West Station tower structure. There is one for the North Station Entrance tower structure shown directly above the dashed lines to the platform level. I’m a little surprised because the new West Station Entrance would provide a more pleasant access to the DSTT1 mezzanine than the one in the Macy’s building across the street. But, I guess it lowers the cost of the new structure.
@tom
There is such a connection. It’ll be about a 3 to 4 minute transfer time.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/DesignCommission/ST3/2022.02.17SeattleDesignCommission_WSBLEStationAlternatives_Presentation.pdf#page=78
https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Westlake-Retail-Hall.png
I can write up an article detailing it and including the 3d models if most people don’t know. I will admit sound transit did not highlight it very well in the open house documents
WL, yes I see the path from the southbound platform level from the first link which emphasizes it well. I said that I agree that the dashed lines imply that. But, look again at your link: there is no connection from the West Station Entrance structure to the DSTT1 Mezzanine. As I said, that’s an OK decision; folks can continue to use the Macy’s building entrance. I’m just a little surprised because it would be a much more attractive access point.
The second concept seems MUCH more grand. For one thing, it has super-long, Washington Metro-style single bank escalators from that center access cavern, instead of the folded multi-level banks at each end as in the original diagram. I would prefer the grand design, for sure because the ride up and down the escalators would be less “fiddly”, but it would be considerably more expensive because those long diagonal halls would have to be mined instead of excavated as the tower strutures would be.
I had to climb one of those long diagonal escalators once. It was in Atlants at its deep Peachetree Center station, and for some reason, the “up” escalator was off. It was well over a hundred steps with no breaks.
But the second link does not include the West Station Entrance structure and accesses so there’s no new information on that design.
One thing that is striking about all these plans is how HUGE these structures are in comparison to the Westlake station box. When one is inside Westlake it seems really grand and large. But these add-ons are going to dwarf it. Unnecessarily I would assert.
Why not? Put an elevator at one end and stairs at the other. Add a center bridge at the mezzanine level with a pair of single rider width escalators, one on each side of the bridge down to and up from the platform. I think that fits while allowing people to get by the escalators. The platforms are a bit longer than the trains.
I grant that the room on the platform at the feet of the escalators would be narrow, but foot traffic would predominantly flow from the foot of the “down” escalator toward the foot of the “up” unit. That’s because people arriving to board would spread out from the down foot while those departing after arrival would collect at the foot of the up case. The flow is in the same direction between them. It might be necessary to put barriers on the platform side through the narrow part and modify the cars (dynamically by position in the train) to keep the doors opening into the narrow area closed. However, those two center cars would overhang far enough still to have doors that could open.
And who’s complaining? The original comment was a warning, not a “complaint”. They are not the same thing.
Do you really think that people are going to pay taxes happilyly for the pathetic projects for which DSTT2 is planned until 2055?
Tom, because the platform would unlikely be ADA compliant for one, it’s not wide enough to handle passangers safely as a platform without it becoming a hazard. I remember the temp platform from a couple years ago when they did maintenance work and it wasn’t exactly the most comfortable place to stand from how narrow it was. And the only reason it worked was because it was an isolated platform and you were rarely waiting long for a train to transfer to when you rolled into Pioneer Square.
It’d also have difficulty with configuration into the current mezzanine setup as well without it creating problems on the platform or on the mezzanine. Westlake would require a complete multi year reworking of it’s mezzanine to make it doable
I get some people badly want a Spanish Solution platform built into DSTT, but people need to be pragmatic and practical about the fact that is unlikely to realistically work with what ST was given when handed the keys to DSTT. The scissor tracking proposal is fine and there are other things I’d consider first before a center platform, like platform screen doors.
The mere fact that International District now has a third track down the middle, plus a narrow employee only platform, shows that there is plenty of space for a middle platform, so long as there’s no third track added. MAX operates just fine with center platforms that wide.
Zach,
Are the platforms at ID/CS and the limited vertical conveyances at ID/CS really safe to handle all the transferring passengers?
The center platform at Pioneer Square is not about the Spanish solution. It is about transfers between the east line and the south line.
The lack of having invented the drawbridge hardly makes it impractical.
Zach B,
Would you mind spelling out the reasons you consider a center platform at Pioneer Square to be impractical?
Proposing crossovers in the DSTT is 18 years overdue. It should have been obvious that they would be needed all along. It should have been introduced with the extended tunnel closure for the initial Link operation. If not then, the adoption of ST2 with two lines should have triggered it during 2009 before Link opened..
I have to wonder if the ground under the tunnel can handle crossovers. I assume that it can.
I think there is value having them, even if it’s just in rare emergencies.
And I’m not averse to a temporary station closure when they’re activated. Of course if they can work without a station closure it’s better.
I’d suggest Symphony Station if doable as it’s close to Westlake. Pioneer Square Station is further from other stations.
The switches in the tunnel are only 5 years overdue, given that Metro ran the tunnel for joint ops up until 2019.
But if we can’t have a center platform at ID/CS, we need one at Pioneer Square, not for the Spanish solution, but to safely handle all the transfers. Someone may have to invent an emergency retractable bridge between the center and an outside platform. Lack of creative thinking at the engineering department seems to be the primary barrier.
I would also carve out an exception for Westlake, where the engineers can hopefully make a center platform designed specifically to have a downward connection toward the Westlake2 platform.
That would still give two new switch zones in ID/CS and Symphony.
“overcustomization of facilities to satisfy political and community requests and reduce property takings”
That sounds intriguing! Anyone have a link to the actual reports?
Seattle times did but very briefly, it was pulled bc the report was meant to be confidential.
While there have been a lot of comments about adding a cross-over track in the DSTT, I’m dismayed that the Lynnwood extension was designed and built without cross-over tracks. ST is very slow applying the learnings from past experiences into future design choices.
“ST is very slow applying the learnings from past experiences into future design choices.”
The ST culture believes it knows better than anyone about making design choices. Thus, they don’t think they have to “learn” anything.
It takes a systemic failure and a Board-directed study to even raise the possibility that they aren’t perfect. And even then, they will focus blame on anything but basic design mistakes.
Consider how, even after the escalator debacle in 2017, ST still removes escalators as a cost-cutting measure just before putting construction out to bid. Or how ST still believes that one elevator is enough at a place like Mt Baker Station, where the lone elevator on each platform gets much heavier use because there is no down escalator (leading to them often being out of service).
And when there is a problem, it’s usually described as an equipment problem or a maintenance problem — but no report will come out and call it first a design mistake.
The epitome of ST arrogance is the insistence of three platforms at SODO, turning 90 percent of the transfers there into double stairs/ escalators/ elevators events. Ironically they are now suggesting dropping some escalators there too — rather than do the obvious and simple layout the station for one or two platforms with level transfers for most.
Lynnwood Station has a switch north of the station, plus long tail tracks for storage.
There is an oddly-situated switch between Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. Sometimes the trains use that switch and approach Lynnwood on the opposite track from what we would expect. I have no idea what conditions lead to ST having the trains do that. But it usually slows the trains heading in one or both directions, and often south of that switch as well.
If ST sees value in installing a switch just south of Lynnwood, the disruption of a bus bridge with Moutlake Terrace would be less than the disruption in the middle of the line. Plus, a bunch of buses that terminate at Lynnwood could terminate at Mountlake Terrace instead.
There’s crossovers at Westlake from when that was the north end of the line. There’s crossovers at International District.
That really doesn’t seem that far, and seems like many operations around the world work just fine with that distance between crossovers.
It seems the most important thing would be to invest in things that prevent the need for single tracking in the tunnel to begin with.
That would be nice, but ST has to keep single-tracking.
The worst thing ST can do with the spaces in the middle of Pioneer Square and Symphony is nothing.
If they convert one of those spaces to crossovers, it means they’d not be able to stop at that station when the crossover is in use, as the train wouldn’t be at the platform.
If a track is out of service in one station, the opposite platform at that station and the two adjoining stations could still be used, by trains going the normal direction on that track. The other direction could also use that platform opposite the closed one, but would not stop at the adjoining stations.
It would take about five minutes for each train to go through the bottleneck area, one at a time, so no more than one train each way every 10 minutes, basically current mid-day frequency, or slightly worse.
ST might have to pick either the east or south line to turn around at IDCS. But five minutes should be enough time to perform that reversal, if an extra operator is available to jump in the reversing cab.
When single tracking is involved, I’ve seen other rail transit systems run operations as groups of trains. For example, I could see two 1 Line and two 2 line trains grouped together, one right after the other. Then the trains heading in the other direction would be the next group.
That’s similar to how single lane closures work during street construction, or how busy airports alternate landings and takeoffs from a single runway.
How would a crossover south of Lynnwood City Center station be a benefit? The reason for one downtown is to shorten the segment that must be single-tracked so that it isn’t all of Capitol Hill-Stadium/SODO. Cutting the single-tracked segment in half allows more frequency. But a crossover just south of Lynnwood City Center station would shrink the single-tracked segment just a tiny bit, not enough to make much of a difference I would think.
Why do DSTT closures or single-tracking sometimes extend to SODO and sometimes just to Stadium, when the problem isn’t at either of those stations? Why is Stadium feasible for a switchover in only some cases?
Can anyone else confirm there is a switch in/near IDCS that can be used to switch in any direction, including coming south from PSS on the southbound tracks and reversing to go back north on the northbound tracks?
There is a reversing pocket just south of Stadium; I know for sure that it is “double-ended” [i.e. it has a triple-switch at each, allowing trains to arrive or depart to/from either track and to/from either direction.
Has anyone noticed whether the pocket within IDCS itself has connections to the tracks to the north? Since it was specifically placed where it is in order to facilitate Line 1 to Line 2 non-revenue movements, it may not have them, though I can’t imagine why they would have been omitted. Three powered turnouts probably would have cost way less than $500K. They had to shut down to make the track cuts at the south end of the pocket; another crew could have done the same thing at the north end.
The videos of train rides show no connection to the north at ID-C Station. There is instead a steel buffer just before the track ends.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g8h2pQCCBjQ
Thank you very much, Al. A track bumper instead of a triple-switch connection to both directions was penny-wise, pound foolish.
Al, I watched the Angle Lake to Northgate video and compiled a list of cross-overs for our future use. Then I watched the Lynnwood to Angle Lake video back to Forrest Street to be sure I saw everything I could in the tunnel.
Here is the listing from Angle Lake north to Lynnwood
Platform selection scissors north of Angle Lake
Reversing pocket south of Sea-Tac
Platform selection scissors north of Sea-Tac
Platform selection scissors north of TIBS
Intermediate scissors along SR599 just east of the bus barn (almost unused)
Reversing pocket south of Rainier Beach
Pair of cross-overs between Othello and Columbia City (separate, freight rail style)
Pair of cross-overs south of Mt. Baker (separate, freight rail style)
Facing point Left cross-over to Forrest Street
Trailing point merge from Yard to northbound track
Scissors just beyond yard throat
Reversing pocket between Holgate of Stadium with no direct access from the south facing point cross-over to SB track do enter
Reversing stub between tracks within body of CIDS, two entrances from the northbound track exit to southbound track very near platforms Bumper at end
No cross-over railroad south of Westlake Center
Scissors between Westlake and Tunnel Vault
Platform selection scissors before University of Washington
No station box extension at north end of University of Washington
No station box extension at University District either end
No station box extension at Roosevelt either end
Facing point access siding from northbound track at north portal of tunnel no cross-over to southbound track
Platform selection scissors south of Northgate
Reversing stub north of Northgate
Full scissors south of Pinehurst
Full scissors north of Shoreline / 148th
Full scissors north of Shoreline / 185th
Full scissors just south of the potential 220th Station
No platformn selection scissors south of Lynnwood
Reversing pocket north of Lynnwood
I find it a bit concerning that somehow, the extension to Lynnwood is causing power problems in the tunnel.
Why? How?
Granted, the nominal voltage is lower, but there’s a substation to feed the overhead lines at almost every MAX station. Is Link running on only a couple substations or something? Or is there some other thing I’m not seeing that would make Lynnwood Link impact power in the downtown tunnel?
The Times article says: (quote to end of comment)
In multiple spots, a lone public utility line powers one or even two train substations, where storms have halted the trains. This situation is one of many “single points of failure” that continue putting service at risk, the HNTB report said. Sound Transit long ago designed a 1,500-volt network — uncommon in North America but not unique — to reduce capital cost and allow fewer substations compared with a lower voltage, but the report emphasized it needs upgrades so trains still work if one substation fails.
Some solutions are dedicated lines that go exclusively into transit substations and mobile generators to pinch-hit if a substation fails. Boston’s new Green Line extension requires a “minimum of two independent supplies” to provide redundancy, the report emphasized.
Some historical decisions help explain why Sound Transit — whose high project costs have been blamed on “overcustomization” to satisfy political and community requests — is saddled with complex systems and obsolete parts: The downtown train tunnel was built by Metro for buses in the late 1980s and adapted to trains later. Also, designers minimized the number of substations systemwide to save money, reduce land takings and improve aesthetics.
Breakdowns suddenly increased in mid-2024 because new station and track openings added electrical and other stress to the system, Gutierrez said.
CEO Goran Sparrman emphasized how these pains show that Sound Transit, after two decades of building light rail lines, is changing from just a delivery agency to operating a complex system.
Why can’t Sparrman stay on as CEO? He seems pretty bold about getting the truth out, while also not getting bamboozled by staff.
I’ve seen it reported that Sparrman intends to retire from the industry altogether. I expect Sparrman doesn’t want to end up as a “long-term” interim CEO, so he’s force the Board to seriously focus on finding a new, “permanent” CEO
My article’s content is based on the Times article. The primary source links at the bottom weren’t published until after my article was, and I haven’t read them yet. Wesley added the source links and diagrams afterward when they came out.