Yesterday, Sound Transit invited members of the media to preview the two-station Redmond Link extension, which is on track for a grand opening this Saturday, May 10th. Coming online will be Marymoor Village and Downtown Redmond stations, which will be the first of the ST3 stations to open.
On hand at the preview ride was Dow Constantine, Sound Transit’s new CEO, Redmond mayor Angela Birney, and King County councilmember Claudia Balducci. Birney, in particular, touted Redmond’s embracing of Link, pointing to the slate of new transit-oriented development projects that have sprouted up around the station in Downtown Redmond.
The downtown station placement is smack in the middle of Redmond’s downtown core, wedged between Redmond Town Center to the south and the walkable Cleveland Street main drag to the north. The current baseline height limit around the station is only 60 feet, which can be doubled under the city’s incentive program. However, proposed zoning changes will include a TOD focus area, that may stretch the height limit to 144 feet.
Marymoor Village, on the other hand, serves a unique station area that is bounded by 520 to the north, Marymoor Park to the west, and a light industrial and commercial area to the south and east, which has yet to be built up. As the crow flies, the two stations are remarkably close to each other, but because of 520, the guideway does a fun curve underneath the Marymoor Village garage and the freeway on its way to the downtown station.
You can view the entire photo album of the preview ride here.
Redmond Link will be the third in a series of Link extension openings all to take place in the span of just over a year, following the 2-Line opening last April and Lynnwood Link last August. The incremental milestones serve to continually stir public excitement, but the big question of when the full cross-lake connection will be complete remains unresolved.
Luke Lamon, Sound Transit’s Executive Director of Communications, Marketing & Engagement, indicated that testing across the remaining East Link span may begin as early as late May or early June, which first involves a dead car tow prior to electrified testing. According to Lamon, a much clearer picture of the crossing’s opening will emerge by the end of summer.
Councilmember Balducci, however, expressed more uncertainty around a 2025 opening, indicating two redlines to govern the start of service: not interfering with Federal Way Link — which is still slated for a Spring 2026 start — and opening prior the World Cup next summer. According to Balducci, Sound Transit would need to space out the Federal Way and I-90 openings due to resourcing constraints, but both are racing against the clock.
Great. Now finish the spine and get a refund on those defective concrete plinths.
So many commenters who focus on the negative. Do you have anything positive to say about this post?
@Sam,
I’m really excited about this opening. Three openings in 1 year is impressive.
Two more to go! Hopefully soon.
I agree, I’m not a fan of how many people here just like to be negative about Seattle transit all the time, it’s unhealthy and unproductive for a place that is getting a lot of good transit built out. People would kill for what we have and to have a region that is highly supportive of public transit.
Most regular people I meet are happy about the new extensions. I was at an event yesterday in Kirkland and I heard people talking about the new extension to Redmond and are excited for when it finally crosses Lake Washington.
“I’m not a fan of how many people here just like to be negative about Seattle transit all the time, it’s unhealthy and unproductive for a place that is getting a lot of good transit built out. ”
Most “negativity” I mostly see is specifically about ST3 projects and designs. I see occasional nitpicking about aspects of ST2 but I rarely read any wholesale criticism about ST2 other than with schedule frustration.
There are sometimes negative comments about other operators but it usually is wanting something done differently.
And the nature of a comment blog will always have criticism baked into the concept. It would be boring if it didn’t.
Just like there are people who have lived in areas with awful transit, there are other people who have lived many years elsewhere with mature transit systems. Others have spent lots of time in these places. They have seen firsthand what mistakes are because they lived seeing the consequences. When they see similar mistakes made here, they speak up to share their ruder experience and offer advice.
Lots of decisions get made to benefit other interests that make things worse for riders. Looking out for riders is badly needed. Saying that something adds rider time and effort is not a broad negative criticism; it’s merely stating objective things about making rider use more difficult. Riders should not be second class citizens merely grateful for whatever gets put on the street for them.
A positive look from YouTuber Classy Whale. https://youtu.be/FWeMvBEbok4?si=4gg6poxGUGzsZlBs Not quite sure of his claim that we have the most riders per mile of any U.S. rail system, but Link’s expansion is one of the most aggressive in recent memory.
@Michael Ligot,
That is correct. Link is, or at least was, the most successful Light rail system in the US when measured by riders per mile. That might change with the addition of the more suburban extensions, but it is still a pretty darn impressive accomplishment for a system that is so young.
And Link is also either 4th or 5th in total ridership nationally. So even if ridership per mile goes down with the suburban extensions, total ridership will go up. And Link will be even more successful nationally when measured by total ridership.
It’s hard to argue with success. And the data all indicates success. I’m very happy with Link, and I think I will only be happier in the future.
Lazarus, that’s because it’s really not a “Light Rail system” outside of the Rainier Valley and a few blocks in Bel-Red and along 112th. It’s a regional metro with expensive overhead power distribution and slow-floor cars.
When East Link is opened it will go where it ought to and should be wrapped up. Better for the Leg to give Seattle some extra bonding authority so that any urban extensions can be designed by people not in the “Spine” box.
“Not quite sure of his claim that we have the most riders per mile of any U.S. rail system”
He said of any LIGHT RAIL system. Most light rails are 95+% surface and have more stops. Link is the most unusual light rail because it has extensive light metro features: tunnels and elevated segments, higher speeds, and wider stop spacing. It functions more like a subway, so it gets ridership more like a subway.
But if you compare it to full light metro or real urban subways or heavy rail or an automated system like Skytrain, they blow Link out of the water. That’s because they’re more useful and convenient to more people, so people flock to them, and the cities have to keep always building more lines to keep ahead of overcrowding. That’s the virtuous cycle of transit if you do it right.
So Link is mediocre compared to all urban rail. But it’s at the head of the class in the light rail category.
Wikipedia put Link at #4 in Biardings per mile:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems
There are 7 US heavy rail systems that perform better on this statistic:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems
To provide an analogy to Tom’s and Mike’s comment, having the highest ridership per mile for just light rail is like winning a small school sports championship.
And if the measurement was by train car or platform length rather than mile of in-service track the number would not look nearly as good. Most US platforms are not as long as Link’s are.
Finally, Link track length is supposed to grow by over 40 percent in new track miles between last month and the end of 2026. All expectations seem to suggest that Link ridership will likely grow no more than 25-30 percent. So that ranking will almost certainly drop in the next 2 years.
Not quite sure of his claim that we have the most riders per mile of any U.S. rail system
As others have noted, the author of the video was talking about light rail systems. Even then it depends on what month you are looking at. Wikipedia has us fourth. The top systems by ridership per mile are Boston (Green Line), San Fransisco (Muni) and the Kansas City Streetcar.
This shows how arbitrary the distinction is. The Kansas City Streetcar runs entirely on the surface. Muni is basically a combination of a streetcar and a subway. While Boston’s Green Line started out as a streetcar it is basically a mix of regional rail (leveraging old railroad tracks) and a subway.
But that begs the question: Why differentiate light rail? What does light rail mean, anyway? To quote Wikipedia “light rail transit uses rolling stock that is similar to that of a traditional tram, while operating at a higher capacity and speed, often on an exclusive right-of-way.” All of the systems I’ve mentioned take advantage of that. While there are parts of Muni and the Green Line that feel like a subway there are parts that feel like a tram. Same goes with Link.
But it is not clear at all that light rail was the right choice for us. We did not have a robust streetcar system that evolved into a light rail system (like Boston or San Fransisco). We do not have huge portions of the line running on the surface to keep costs down (like Portland). We have essentially built a very expensive subway system but used light rail. This is what makes us unusual in the U. S. (if not the world). I don’t think anyone has spent (or will spend) so much money for a light rail system. It is basically a subway system but with tram trains.
This is not ideal. We saved a little money with surface stops in a handful of places but low-floor trains hurt operations. They have less capacity and it takes longer to get on and off the train. This leads to worse dwell times. Ideally we would have automated trains but at the very least it would be nice to have high-floor trains. We would have spent a tiny bit extra on platforms in SoDo, Rainier Valley and East Main but overall the trains would be both faster and have more capacity.
But this is just a relic of how we built the system. We assumed that the buses and trains would run in the transit tunnel indefinitely. As a result the only option that would work is low-floor light rail (for the tunnel stops). There is nothing wrong with running trains and buses in the same tunnel but eventually we kicked out the buses anyway. By then it was difficult to retrofit the system. If the plan was to eventually kick out the buses then we should have build an initial line that could replace enough buses to justify kicking them out. All we needed to do was build Northgate to downtown first. Northgate to downtown is also the section where we get the most riders per mile. Thus most agencies would have started with that. You build the most important, most cost effective section first and kick out the buses at the same time (allowing you to have high-floor trains). It would have been a tough transition but when it was done you have a solid system that can be expanded. Since it is all grade-separated it could even have been automated.
Light rail has its place but in general it is a niche system. It offers some of the advantages of a tram (high capacity at low cost) and some of the advantages of a metro (it avoids going really slow). But it isn’t ideal. It isn’t what most cities around the world wish they have. Most wish they had automated metros. If the New York City Subway — a very successful system — could be automated it would make a huge difference in terms of cost and functionality. That is really the future of mass transit systems (around the world). A ranking of automated systems by ridership is far more interesting. A city like Vancouver (which has an outstanding system by North American standards by any metric) would find themselves being passed by various cities around the world. Not because ridership is shrinking (quite the opposite) but because major cities (like Paris) are retrofitting their systems to run without drivers and adding new lines that are automated. We aren’t even considering it while we push to spend enormous sums on a subway line that uses low-floor trains.
I personally don’t get caught up in differences between light rail, metro or whatever. I’m just excited that the Eastside is getting a transit option on rails, so I can visit Seattle without getting stuck in freeway traffic and which I don’t need to check a timetable to plan my trip. “Light rail” and “metro” are pretty much interchangeable in my mind.
As for that statistic, maybe a more useful one would be which city ranks for its “rail-based” transit system.
It is not very aspirational to only compare to other US transit systems, whether they are called “light rail” or “rapid transit”. Aside from New York and maybe DC, they’re pretty much all terrible. Indeed, I think the best comparison is to German “Stadtbahn” systems, which are typically trams that have been upgraded to go underground in the city center.
The biggest one, as far as I know, is the Cologne Stadtbahn. Cologne is actually quite similar to Seattle, albeit less suburban: it has 1.1 million people in the city itself, and 3.1 million in the Cologne region, compared to 755 thousand in the city of Seattle itself, and 4 million in the Seattle metropolitan area. But the Cologne Stadtbahn ridership is 600 thousand per day, and Link ridership is 100 thousand per day.
If you go deeper, you can easily see why: they have about double the track-miles, they have narrower streets, fewer highways, less parking, higher density, a suburban rail system and high-speed long-distance rail system connecting to it, etc. We can do all that too. By contrast, digging more tunnels is not necessary: most of the Cologne Stadtbahn is at-grade.
Ross, your observation that automating the NYCTA would “make a huge difference in terms of cost and functionality” is so true that it ought to be a national priority.
As it is, the system’s dependence on 1930’s era Union Switch and Signal technology, which actually pre-dates “CTC” whose “coded carrier control” is one of the first digitizations of an industrial technology, is a constant maintenance nightmare, and dangerous to boot.
That the system transports three and a half million people per weekday throughout the city — mostly safely — is a testament to the folks in the Maintenance of Way corps there.
Who’s “Paul Ventresca”? A negative troll on multiple news blogs but no one with that name lives in this region.
Many commentators use pseudonyms to protect their identity.
What does space out the openings imply? If they can’t hit Winter 2025 opening, then Spring 2026 is off the table because of Federal Way? So Summer 2026?
ST has said it needs 6 months between openings because of all the testing and training required for each, and they don’t have capacity to do multiple openings simultaneously.
Lynnwood and East Link Starter were 4 months apart.
@Delta,
The traditional 6 months of testing consists of two major phases: 1) Verification, and 2) simulated service.
The first phase is aimed at verifying fit and function. Basically proving that everything works as intended and all the clearances are correct for all operating conditions. This phase lasts about 2 months.
The second phase is operational. It’s aimed at showing the system can be operated as designed. And a key part of that is hiring and training staff to operate the line. This phase lasts about 4 months, although Sparrman was crowing lately about being able to shorten that a bit.
The key is that the two types of staff you need for the two phases are completely different. There obviously will always be some overlap, but it is possible to move some phase 1 staff over to the next extension and start phase 1 testing on that line as soon as they finish on the first extension.
Hence the 4 months you reference.
This is not a new issue. Central Link and Airport Link were also 5-6 months apart (July 2009 vs December 2009).
If only one of Federal Way or the full 2 Line can open before the World Cup, it should be the full 2 Line. There’s hundreds of thousands of people on the Eastside. Some of them will attend the World Cup, or out-of-towners will stay with them and attend. Access to Seattle is bottlenecked by two bridges. The Eastside is affluent so more people have money for pricey game tickets. Double-frequency in central and north Seattle would help avoid overcrowding, since Link is already close to full there at peak times. 5-minute frequency in Snohomish would encourage more people there to take transit when they go to Seattle for the games or any other reason. And it would help visitors going from SeaTac airport to people they’re staying with in Snohomish, since the 1 Line wouldn’t be as crowded north of downtown.
If only one of Federal Way or the full 2 Line can open before the World Cup, it should be the full 2 Line.
Yes, absolutely. It just adds more value. From Downtown Bellevue to Seattle will be much faster on Link than it is on the bus. In contrast from Federal Way to Downtown Seattle will be slower. There are also a lot more people going from the East Side to Seattle than from Federal Way to Seattle as well. Federal Way Link is more about connecting to places in between. If ST does it right there will be frequent midday buses running from Tacoma to Seattle, stopping only at Federal Way Link (for trips “in between” like Highline College, SeaTac and Rainier Valley). But ridership for that will be tiny compared to the number of riders going over the bridge.
As far as the soccer games the South Sound can handle it better because of Sounder. In both cases you could run express buses but Sounder (like Link) has a lot better capacity, easing the burden on the various transit agencies. Obviously there would be people who would take advantage of Federal Way Link if it was available (Stadium Station is technically one of those place in between). But not like East Link. East Link just adds more.
ST will prioritize the lake crossing because they need to connect Line 1 to OMF-E.
OMF-C’s fleet is stretched with Lynnwood opening before L2 interlining. I doubt ST can run FW Link without L2 interlined.
There’s also much more hotel capacity on the Eastside than in Federal Way, which I think is very important to note for the world cup.
All good arguments, and I expect that ST management agrees completely. Ergo something is fishy in the ST pond. “Stray” crurrents? Vibration? We shall learn sometime soon.
“As far as the soccer games the South Sound can handle it better because of Sounder.”
It isn’t unusual for BNSF to allow occasional special trains for this type of event. They are loathe to give up slots in their schedule for daily scheduled trains, but a special one of a kind trip is a different matter. It’s easier for them to find a spot for that.
There have been several Sounder special trains to ballgames, including a couple in the past month.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the games will be more popular among people on the East Side than the South End. Soccer is especially popular for those born in other countries and the East Side has a high percentage of first-generation Americans. The tickets probably won’t be cheap so you need money and there is a lot of money on the East Side as well. Folks from all over will go to the games but I’m guessing the East Side will have a higher portion than most.
FWlE could open first. It appears to be almost ready for simulation so it could even open early.
The biggest challenge to doing that is storing and maintaining vehicles. The access to the OMF East could be possible even if it’s just used for out of service changes.
If not possible, ST maybe could store train sets in the Mt Baker tunnel in a pinch. Regardless, it’s a solution that ST would have to develop.
It is perhaps possible to have temporary service during the World Cup.
The contractor on Full ELE continues to underperform. The announced date for the dead tow was Q1 of this year, although ST had an internal target of February (a little bird told me).
Both the internal and public Daly announced targets have been missed. Not good. However, it appears that they are finally getting close.
Given that both Balducci and Dow tend to be performative politicians, I half expect them to drag an LRV across the floating bridge just so they can announce it at the opening of DRLE. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they did this even if doing so was meaningless per actual testing.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all. Even if it screwed up the schedule even more.
@myself,
*publicly*. Darn fat fingers.
“Given that both Balducci and Dow tend to be performative politicians, I half expect them to drag an LRV across the floating bridge just so they can announce it at the opening of DRLE.”
Maybe it’s actually more telling that this has not yet happened. I even can’t help but wonder if there is a larger coverup about some new delay causes that haven’t been disclosed.
I could also see that there wouldn’t be bad news (a delay announcement) this weekend. They wouldn’t want to dampen a celebratory weekend.
A bad news announcement also probably won’t come until a new target date is clear. With so many dates already pushed back, ST wouldn’t want to keep missing dates and looking increasingly more incompetent.
I’m unclear how federal way link could ever be a higher priority than fixing the 2 line to the ending in the mercer slough.
Are ridership projections for the two extensions really that far off?
@psf,
“Are ridership projections for the two extensions really that far off?”
It might not be a function of ridership.
If the Full ELE contractor continues to underperform as badly as they currently are, then it might be that Full ELE just isn’t ready to open until well into 2026. If that is the case, and if FWLE is ready, then it would simply make sense to open FWLE first.
I.e., no sense delaying both extensions simply because one is uber late.
I thought it was not possible to open FWLE until substantial completion of ELE because FWLE requires trains to be brought over from East OMV.
@Sunny,
Distributed storage is a pain in the rear, but ST has been able to make it work. And they have been making progress on improving spare and gap ratios.
So combine that with a little more distributed storage along FWLE, and potentially add in a little more between IDS and JDS (it’s active), and ST could probably make it work.
And with reduced ridership due to WFH, some of the storage pressure is off.
I think it’s exceedingly likely that, unless ELE is not looking ready to open until after the World Cup (June/july), it will open first and FWLE will get pushed back.
E.g. If FWLE is ready in April and ELE is looking like May, i bet FWLE will get kicked back to September instead of ELE to October.
Well if one is reading the tea leaves… as in the maps onboard trains, you’ll notice the Lynnwood, Redmond and Federal Way extensions are/were on the map (covered over with a sticker until opening). The 2 line connection gap isn’t on the map at all.
Poncho, regarding the maps not including the 2 line connection, I assumed that was because when the 2 line does connect, it will interline with the 1 line, and that interlining can’t be covered up with a sticker before completion. Thus completing the 2 line must involve getting new maps, while the other extensions are merely stickered over.
@ Delta:
The problem with the maps is about timing. Why make overlay stickers for Federal Way Link when it’s supposed to open after the full East Link opens?
Thanks for the post and all the photos!
“Marymoor Village, on the other hand, serves a unique station area that is bounded by 520 to the north, Marymoor Park to the west, and a light industrial and commercial area to the south and east, which has yet to be built up.”
Just to add to that a little, especially about the area immediately south of the station. Along with light industrial and commercial, there are some fairly large apartment buildings sprinkled throughout the neighborhood. I’m guessing there are about 6 or 7 of them. And in the near future, by the southwest corner of the station, some current commercial or vacant parcels will become apt bldgs, just east of the velodrome.
@Sam,
You are correct. The area to the south of MVS already has some large apartment buildings, and supposedly there are more in the pipeline. The station area will only get even better.
People on this blog seem to think that it is a failing of Light Rail that the area around these stations wasn’t instantly converted into an urban paradise before the first train even carried its first paying passenger. That is a totally unreasonable criticism, but such manufactured criticisms are just an attempt to distract from the solid advancements that these extensions represent.
I, for one, am happy with the changes Light Rail has already brought to greater Redmond. And I look forward to even more improvements.
And when Full ELE opens I can finally take the train to watch Major League Cricket!
Lazarus, I think due to a suburban bias. Some commenters will complain more about suburban station-area underdevelopment and poor land use than they will Seattle station-area underdevelopment. Example … the comment section recently expressed disappointment that the 1-story downtown Redmond Safeway complex and its massive parking lot hasn’t been redeveloped yet. (Remember, the DRLE isn’t even open yet). But, have you ever seen a commenter complain about the massive 1-story Rainier Beach Safeway complex and its parking lot? Or the old 1-story QFC complex at Rainier and Henderson and its parking lot, that is now a Planet Fitness and Dollar Tree? And the Rainier Beach Station opened over 15 year ago!
If someone here has ever complained about commercial Rainier & Henderson’s underdevelopment, show me the quote. I can provide plenty of quotes from commenters complaining about underdevelopment in parts of downtown Redmond.
@Sam,
Ah, but you miss the point. These criticisms aren’t valid criticisms, but they aren’t intended to be. They are simply meant to distract from the happy events of the day.
You don’t hear about missed opportunities in the RV because that is ancient history now, and people are very happy with Link. And after DRLE is open for a few years you won’t hear much about the Safeway across the street either.
But Saturday is still a big day. Three openings in a year is huge, and everyone involved is right to be happy. As are the citizens or Redmond.
Rainier and Henderson is still pretty far from the Rainier Beach Link platform. There are several other one story supermarkets and big retail parking areas closer to other Link stations in Seattle. Othello and Mt Baker come to mind. Even Roosevelt Square is partially like this too. And even though it’s not next to Link, much of the Columbia City business district, the ID and the U District have many one story commercial buildings (although not with the parking lots).
On the other hand, height is not universally essential to create pedestrian activity. The better goal to me appears to be what I’d call “destination density”. Residential buildings must have many floors to generate the pedestrian activity of many single-floor commercial buildings, for example.
“Some commenters will complain more about suburban station-area underdevelopment and poor land use than they will Seattle station-area underdevelopment.”
Sam, if you’re going to compare east central Redmond to Seattle, a closer comparison would be the Oak Tree plaza at 100th & Aurora than Broadway. Or Lake City. Seattle has massively underdeveloped commercial areas, but they’re mostly away the central core and the 45th corridor.
“have you ever seen a commenter complain about the massive 1-story Rainier Beach Safeway complex and its parking lot? Or the old 1-story QFC complex at Rainier and Henderson and its parking lot, that is now a Planet Fitness and Dollar Tree?”
Those are at the far edge of the city, not cutting into the downtown walkshed potential. They’re not in Link station walksheds. I’ve silently lamented their land use whenever I’ve been down there or gone through there on a bus. My friend and his multi-generation family live southwest of there, and he used to like the Saars market when it was there.
The reason infill development is lackluster south of Columbia City is there’s still a stigma among some people of living in the “poor, brown, dangerous hood”. Not the people who’ve flocked to the mixed-use buildings, but others, like those in the Eastside who won’t go to Seattle because they’re afraid or appalled by it. So new housing and retail starts have been proceeding at a slower pace. Basically they’re waiting for the more desirable areas to fill up completely before spreading to there. The city added a partial bake in the late 2010s by declaring it a slow-to-upzone area, to minimize lower-income displacement and allow businesses/services for them to get more established before the planned growth waves.
I think lots of people have complained about the lack of development around Rainier Beach Station. It is a prime example of how TOD is not a given. The same is true with Mount Baker Station as well. The head of this blog wrote about how “awful” the station was: https://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/18/the-awfulness-of-mt-baker-station/. There has been plenty of criticism about station placement in the city as well as the suburbs. The idea that this criticism exists only for suburban stations suggests you haven’t been paying much attention to this blog.
I think Marymoor was a “might as well” station. They could have skipped it but then they would have had to add a giant parking garage in Downtown Redmond. They could have sent Link well to east in an effort to attract more development but that would have been expensive and likely a challenge (since TOD is not a given). I don’t think anyone is complaining about the station placement — they are just suggesting we keep our expectations low. I think it is pretty much assumed that Marymoor will get almost all of its ridership from the giant (expensive) parking garage. It is just not suited for a lot of walk-up ridership. It’s not the end of the world and ST has made much worse mistakes in the city and the suburbs.
Marymoor more than a “might as well” – it was an intentional decision to serve the “terminus” ridership – i.e. the bus bays and P&R – in a station distinct from the downtown Redmond station, thereby dramatically improving the quality of the downtown station. When late-ish in the process the station order was switched, ST (& Redmond) staff prudently kept Marymoor as the terminal station in form & function, even though it is not the literal terminus. The TOD that will emerge south & east of the station is gravy.
It’s sometimes obvious who spends time in SE Seattle…
Rainier Beach station has a high voltage power line next to it. That not only removes a swath of land from development, it is not prudent to even build 5 over 1 apartments next to it. It’s best aspect is that bus routes run by it.
And Othello apartment construction is not “lackluster”. Heck there is a new apartment building or two added each of the past few years.
There are several impressive apartment buildings near Mt Baker station as well. Stazione 25 has 8 stories. The newly opened Maddox (2 buildings) has 7.
Would be nice if there could be a second/western Downtown Redmond station sometime in the future with more development near the Sammamish River and Redmond Way.
Exactly, AJ.
Building one end station not far from the next one allows the line to have a different focus for each station. Redmond was wise. It keeps their commercial core free from Link riders taking up the surrounding parking supply as well as losing blocks of nearby land to hold cars that will drive to Link in the morning and leave when they return — not helping to support the local businesses and activities.
Many of the problems with the end stations in ST3 could have been better with this approach. Instead each end got just one station (with unrealistic cost estimates and deliberately low contingencies to make the numbers work so adding a second station isn’t possible in the budget). It’s too bad, as Tacoma (Tacoma Done and Downtown), Everett (Amtrak Station and Downtown), Issaquah (garage/TC and one near destinations) and Kirkland (expanded garage and near the quaint Downtown) seems to me to be opportunities missed. Even West Seattle and Ballard could perhaps have benefitted from this approach (as I foresee lots of West Seattle and NW Seattle residents searching for hide-and-ride spaces or occupying metered parking near one of the stations — thus making it harder for those wanting to visit a local business find a place to park).
“West Seattle and Ballard could perhaps have benefitted from this approach”
Seattle has a law against adding P&Rs beyond the legacy ones. This came up in the initial segment: some Rainier Valley residents said they needed a P&R in order to use the train. These were primarily from the Seward Park and Rainier View areas that were furthest away and had the worst feeder options. The city resisted and no P&R was built. At the time there were underused parcels near stations with surface parking lots, so they offered paid parking for train riders. Some of the people complaining didn’t want that: they wanted a P&R so that it would be free to park. They said, “Why would you ride a train if you have to pay for parking on top of the train ticket?”
@ Mike:
I get that actual garages aren’t allowed.
My comment on parking is about individual behavior more than legality. It’s actually common for some riders to use free on-street parking in SE Seattle. It’s notable in the late afternoons and on weekends in particular as the two-hour time limit expires at 6 pm (so parking after 4 pm is legal), for example. There is no metered parking next to any SE Seattle Link station today (although there are a few blocks of metered parking in the nearby Columbia City business district).
Anyway, having two close-by stations, each with different activity focus, seems to me a more productive approach generally. Maybe one is residential and one is a medical facilities area. Maybe one is a transit hub next to a wide road and the other is an active pedestrian area (a Ballard situation). Having just one end station after building an expensive set of tracks (a costly crossing or long distance) that tries to do everything often seems to be recipe for relatively more inefficiency as well as enabling station area mediocrity.
I actually see West Seattle as a three-end-station approach rather than just one or two. Imagine the challenge if West Seattle got to have just one station!
Al
Boring Access Road was originally planned as a p&r station as well as a sounder transfer station to serve the south seattle area. My guess is that the new BAR station might have a garage but I’m just speculating.
@ DM:
Had Link ended near BAR it would have made sense. Of course Link goes further to Angle Lake.
Actually Angle Lake as an end station contrasts nicely with SeaTac Airport station in functionality. It’s focus at serving nearby residents frees up SeaTac to be a destination.
The FW extension unfortunately has three more stations with functionality similar to Angle Lake. It’s a kitchen sink station area approach with a little bit of every kind of station area land use at each station. There is potential redevelopment near KDM and Federal Way in the future to offer a different station area functionality. However, these won’t be in place next year when it opens.
The recent Lynnwood extension station areas portray a similar fate — four stations each primarily as parking garages with apartments nearby. The result is peak overcrowding and some parking shortages — but rather lackluster daily boarding stats.
Having two end of line stations — with one being more focused to serving nearby residents and the other serving destination activities — seems optimal to me. I love to visit destination station areas! I see this idea in the spotlight with the extension opening this weekend. I’m looking forward to exploring Downtown Redmond tomorrow along with the street festival being planned.
Al: I think Federal Way makes sense as a light rail station because the A is slow and busy. Having an express overlay could help a lot there.
South of Federal Way, SoundTransit’s own ridership shows about 1/4 the ridership at SeaTac. To me, this indicates a significant change in plan south of there.
Marymoor more than a “might as well” – it was an intentional decision to serve the “terminus” ridership – i.e. the bus bays and P&R – in a station distinct from the downtown Redmond station, thereby dramatically improving the quality of the downtown station.
Yes, but that all falls under the category of “might as well”. Might as well add a station here with a giant parking lot, that way we don’t have to build the parking lot next to the other station. That’s about it. In terms of bus bays they exist at Redmond Station. It doesn’t really make sense to have Marymoor be the main bus interface since there is so little there. You want your buses to not only connect to Link but also serve real destinations. The point is if pushed came to shove and they couldn’t build Marymoor Station it wouldn’t be the end of the world. They would just build a parking lot for Redmond and it would use up a little bit more space. This is less than ideal but it wouldn’t decimate ridership. It is like Roosevelt. It has a park and ride as well (under the freeway). This is obviously wasted space but ridership is quite good there — the parking lot isn’t the end of the world.
Rainier Beach station has a high voltage power line next to it. That not only removes a swath of land from development, it is not prudent to even build 5 over 1 apartments next to it. It’s best aspect is that bus routes run by it.
Exactly! That is a clear criticism of the station at Rainier Beach. Just so you know Sam, that station is in Seattle. So the idea that people don’t criticize the stations in Seattle is absurd. Of course we do.
The FW extension unfortunately has three more stations with functionality similar to Angle Lake.
That is the problem with running by the freeway. There are cases where the development occurred there (e. g. Microsoft) but by and large there is little there and TOD is a challenge. The same thing happens up north. The only significant difference between every station north of Northgate is the buses that will serve them. I suppose 130th won’t have a huge parking garage but that’s about it. Every station will have attempts at TOD but those will be challenging because of the freeway. That is what makes Downtown Redmond Station nice — it isn’t right next to the freeway. That isn’t unique to East Link and ST deserves credit for building stations like Spring District and BelRed. Unlike Lynnwood Link they didn’t just take the cheapest route.
Even Northgate is by the freeway but at least it has a pedestrian bridge to the college and some development nearby. Highline College is also the one exception with Federal Way Link. It is a real destination.
But the key thing that Federal Way Link adds is a connection to the express buses. That needed to happen somewhere to the south. It probably could have happened soon after Angle Lake. That probably would have been similar to Angle Lake in many respects. There would probably have been a big parking lot, some new developments but obviously not a real destination. You could have even tried to do the type of combination you are talking about Al. The station by the freeway would have the giant parking lot as well as serving as the main connection point for express buses on the freeway. Angle Lake Station could transition to be more like Downtown Redmond. That would be very challenging — there isn’t much stopping it now it just isn’t happening. If you look at the existing development in the area it is hard to blame the parking garage for the lack of walk-up riders. There is a giant paid lot (taking up way more space) across the street. That is just a drawback to being so close to the airport.
Generally speaking it is easier to serve existing locations instead of trying to build new ones. That is clear in Rainier Valley (where a train down Rainier Avenue would have got a lot more riders) as well as to the north and south. It is also generally a really bad idea to build a bunch of stations by the freeway (as this study made clear: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf). Oh well, too late now.
“So the idea that people don’t criticize the stations in Seattle is absurd.”
I never said people don’t criticize stations in Seattle.
I also wasn’t referring to development around MLK & Henderson. I clearly said Rainier & Henderson, which is in the Link station walkshed.
MLK & Henderson is the station. The ex-Saars plaza, which is apparently a QFC now, is a half-mile east at Rainier & Henderson, kitty-corner from Rainier Beach High School. The Safeway is a couple blocks south of that.
@ Ross:
Star Lake is pretty much doomed to ever be little more than a parking garage station, of course. The surrounding topography combined with I-5 makes it a functional island.
KDM and Federal Way platforms are however just as far from I-5 as Downtown Redmond’s platform is from SR 520. I don’t see that as constraining station potential as much the constraints posed by being next to at least one wide, high speed arterial in addition to the freeway. They could be something different.
Both areas are in active TOD discussions. Unfortunately they seem rather generic. Mainly just more 5 floors of apartments on top of ground floor retail. Of course, ground floor retail gets few pedestrians unless there’s a destination nearby.
What would a destination district look like at those stations? There could be possibilities:
– A relocated medical center
– A convention center and hotel district
– A pro basketball and events arena district (How long will Tacoma Dome be around?)
– A corporate office district building upon good SeaTac access and surrounding transportation logistics facilities (between two ports and SeaTac, and near warehouse areas)
These kinds of things however just don’t evolve. They need advocacy and interest — and most importantly deep pockets. It’s also not ST’s primary responsibility to make these things happen.
The potential is there. There may already be plans like this that the public isn’t yet privy to.
Sam wrote:
Some commenters will complain more about suburban station-area underdevelopment and poor land use than they will Seattle station-area underdevelopment.
Later he wrote:
I never said people don’t criticize stations in Seattle.
So you are backing away from that statement now? That would make sense since you found no evidence to support your argument (and plenty of counter evidence). It is common for people to be critical both in the city and in the suburbs. The reason folks are being critical here is that the actual subject is stations in the suburbs. When we talk about stations in the city we are just as critical.
I also wasn’t referring to development around MLK & Henderson. I clearly said Rainier & Henderson, which is in the Link station walkshed.
It is a sixteen minute walk to the Safeway you referred to (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xcdBDCUn4xiNWWoa6). That is hardly within the walkshed. Even to MLK & Henderson to the station is twelve minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oUbRiR3in13ZboHY7). That isn’t normally considered part of the walkshed. Rainier Beach Station has its weaknesses, but the fact that a spot over ten minutes away hasn’t been redeveloped isn’t one of them.
Ross, those as two different things. My saying some commenters will complain more about suburban station-area underdevelopment than they will Seattle station-area underdevelopment, is different than if I said people don’t criticize stations in Seattle. Because what I said accepts that idea that people criticize stations in Seattle.
And about the second point, I thought that a light rail station’s walkshed is generally considered to be 1/2 mile in a straight line from the station. And the Rainier Beach Safeway is within 1/2 mile of Rainier Beach Station.
I thought that a light rail station’s walkshed is generally considered to be 1/2 mile in a straight line from the station.
That is silly. Consider this bus stop: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ubALqTkAZcsTw8gTA. Now go a quarter mile north, to Leary Way. Is that within the walkshed of the stop? Of course not. It is a thirty minute walk: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ubALqTkAZcsTw8gTA. The same thing happens with these stations. Consider this 24-Hour Fitness building right here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AU3VyCBcZAPyEvge9. As the crow flies this is very close to the Marymoor Station. But people aren’t crows. Anyone who takes Link to that building will ignore Marymoor Station and just keep riding Link until it gets them to the other station. They will be farther away from their destination even though they will have a shorter walk. Fortunately it won’t be that bad — about an 8 minute walk. This is why walkshed diagrams are rarely (if ever) drawn as circles. The most common shape is a diamond but if there are obstacles you get weird shapes. Note the second diagram in this post: https://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html.
Of course it is a judgement call in terms of how far people will walk. The general rule of thumb is 400 meters for “normal” bus service and up to 1000m (around 3/5 mi) for very fast, frequent, and reliable rapid transit service (https://humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-spacing-plan.html). In the case of the Safeway it is over 1,000 meters — more than the vast majority of people will walk even for a subway line that is ideal (in Link’s case more frequent). Put it this way. Imagine they convert the Safeway to a thousand-unit apartment building. How many people will walk to the station every day? Two, three? It would have a very minor influence on walk-up ridership. It would influence the number of people who take a bus to that station but that is true for a lot of places. In contrast the same building at Henderson and Renton Avenue would lead to a lot more walk-up ridership to Link.
My saying some commenters will complain more about suburban station-area underdevelopment than they will Seattle station-area underdevelopment, is different than if I said people don’t criticize stations in Seattle. Because what I said accepts that idea that people criticize stations in Seattle.
So you are claiming that people complain more about the stations in the suburbs than they do the stations in the city (even though they still complain about the stations in the city). OK, fair enough. But I still find no evidence to support that idea either. I can’t think of anyone on here who does that.
The only person I know of that routinely focuses their criticism on one station is Lazarus. Lazarus hates the Pinehurst Station (which is in Seattle). Yet he is largely silent on every other station in the system. Go figure.
But in general most of us are equal-opportunity critics. We really don’t care what city the station is in or whether it is in the city or suburbs. We only care about the particulars. We consider what the potential ridership is versus the alternatives. Consider the stations that are routinely criticized for their placement. UW Station gets routinely criticized even though it is in the city. It would be better in the triangle or any other side of the triangle.
Or how about the future Ballard Station. There have been several posts (not just comments) saying the station should be to the west. Again this is in Seattle.
Another is East Main. It gets the most criticism of East Link. Technically it is in the suburbs but it is close to a major suburban downtown. That is basically the criticism — move it over to Bellevue Way and it better complements Bellevue Downtown Station. You spread out the distance between it and the other stations. You have more existing development nearby. You have more potential development because you are farther away from the city.
Or consider the stations north of Northgate. They are all next to the freeway. They have all been criticized for that reason. But one of them will be in Seattle proper. The same criticism applies (they would be better on Aurora).
The criticism of Boeing Access Road is quite similar but has an added twist. Like most of the stations north of Northgate there is very little current or potential development there. But unlike those stations it is unlikely to have much in the way of connecting bus service. There is potential there, but only if they modified the freeway to add a bus station there. There could be some local (surface) connections but the general consensus is that we shouldn’t expect much (given the local geography). It could be used as a connection to Sounder as well but that isn’t likely to happen either. But again, all of these criticisms would apply if the station was in the city.
I looked into distances using Google Maps pedestrian distance calculator. It shows:
– Dollar Tree across from RB High School as 0.6 miles away from the light rail platform
– Rainier Beach Safeway as 0.8 miles away from the light rail platform.
They’re both over a half-mile. Well at least it’s flat!
I’m often amused when people don’t realize the true size of SE Seattle. It’s bigger in area than many realize. (It doesn’t help that Seattle Subway makes diagrams that shrink the distance either.)
It reminds me of how I sometimes read comments that MLK between Mt Baker and Rainier Beach is “too slow” when it’s only 10 minutes (2 stops in between), and Northgate to U District is a similar distance at 6 minutes (1 stop in between). Both are about 4 miles apart on Link.
Various sources say a light rail station’s walkshed is 1/2 mile. Other sources say other distances. So saying a light rail’s walkshed is 1/2 mile isn’t silly at all.
But, I’ve had my fill of this subject, so I’m done.
So saying a light rail’s walkshed is 1/2 mile isn’t silly at all.
OK, but even if you include that definition the Safeway you mentioned is not within a half mile walk. Again, a walkshed is not based on drawing a line in the air. it is based on walking distance.
What’s important in a walkshed is how pleasant the walk is.
If the infrastructure is car-centric, then maybe the walkshed is limited to 1/2 mile.
However, this Google Street view shows a road lined by high density development where the last apartment/condo complex is almost 3/4 of a mile of very walkable infrastructure.
The local highway/parkway infrastructure is the limiting factor.
It’s all old school, pre car-centric development, but it still works.
Building safe, pleasant, non-automotive infrastructure is what works.
Plus, it keeps the whiny car drivers from complaining about traffic.
How was is going under the garage? I liked how ST put the garage directly above the rail (& bus loop?), reducing the amount of space the garage displaces.
Does Metro have any plans to truncate the 269 at Marymoor Station and put those resources into running 7 days a week? At peak, that is almost 30 minutes per trip, or almost 1/3 of the total revenue time, and pretty well duplicated by Link and the B Line.
I don’t think Metro nor ST will change any of their bus routes until Link goes across the lake. Then the 269 will change like so: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/269.pdf
Thanks, forgot about that round of service change proposals. Given the hike potentials along the 269, I am very much looking forward to that change.
Some routes will be extended to the two new stations.
I hope that the next extensions beyond this one go north from Redmond and south from South Bellevue to Renton, but unfortunately those areas were not represented on Sound Transit’s Board, else those might have been part of this iteration. That’s the negative: it’s not the “what,” but the priorities and the lack of flexibility in decisions where riders and many major population areas of the region are excluded.