I was going to Uwajimaya on September 4th for a routine shopping trip. I got off a 14 bus at Union Station, when right in front of me was a sign for a Sound Transit board meeting. So I went inside to see it. I thought it was the full board meeting (and the signs didn’t say otherwise), but afterward I found out it was the Rider Experience and Operations Committee Meeting. The meeting was halfway through and I didn’t stay till the end, but I did see two presentations, one on Link reliability and the other on next generation of trains. Here’s the livestream, and the meeting page with documents links (but not the reports below).
Improving Link Reliability
This presentation starts at 57:35 in the livestream. Staff gave a quarterly report on unplanned Link disruptions and steps to improve resiliency. 2024 had 38 hours per month of unplanned disruptions, or what we experience as outages or single-tracking. 2025 so far has had less than half that per month, with July having 14 hours in July (98% uptime). This doesn’t include planned maintenance periods, where single-tracking or closures also occur.
Disruptions tend to spike in the 2-3 months before and after a new extension opens. This happened with Lynnwood Link, the 2 Line Starter Line, and the Downtown Redmond extension.
The biggest culprits are power loss, signals, and train vehicle issues. Especially problems with the trains’ brakes, and stray current in the rails causing false alarms. These alarms require trains to be stopped for around half an hour even if there’s not a real problem, like an apartment building evacuation where residents have to wait outside until the fire department confirms there’s no fire. Over the summer ST overhauled 95% of the brake settings, and the vast majority of brake outages disappeared. It “revised the rail to ground setting” to eliminate the false alarms, and it prioritized rail maintenance projects based on where rail has worn the most. Power outages involve coordination with the electric utility: sometimes it’s just line power or a station; other times it’s a larger power outage in the neighborhood where the station is.
To prevent disruptions or minimize them when they occur, ST is hiring specialists to triage issues, training field technicians in rapid response, enhancing maintenance instructions, and developing preventative maintenance analytics.
A resiliency report last March identified 80 recommendations to improve reliability. (Chart at 1:11:23 in the video.) 10% of those have been completed. Another 40% will be completed in time for the World Cup. The rest will be completed in the next 4-5 years. The work areas, from most to fewest recommendations, are: communications network, traction power, maintenance, signals, tunnel power disruption, rail, operations, EVS and fire alarm, governance, light rail vehicles, climate, and OMF (maintenance bases).
Series 3 Trains
This presentation starts at 1:22:31. The original Link trains are “Series 1” by manufacturer Kinki Sharyo. Series 2 is the Siemens set, the ones with the neon-like light strips in the doors. Series 3 is the next generation to be delivered in the 2030s. ST is putting together a high-level vision of what it wants the future trains to be like. It’s working with several qualified car builders who may bid on it to ensure the vision is feasible. Ryan Packard at the Urbanist has more details and renderings of the train concepts.
The biggest difference in the vision is doubling the length of the cars, so instead of four double-size cars (95 feet per car), future trains will have two quad-sized cars (190 feet). STB has been asking ST for over a decade to order ST2 and ST3 trains with open gangways to increase capacity “for free”, and this step goes halfway toward it. The new train size is estimated to increase capacity 8% (range 5-12%), and to decrease capital cost 10%, a win-win. These trains won’t fit in existing maintenance bases, so two new bases OMFS (South) and OMFN (North) will be built for them.
ST is also redesigning the procurement strategy. The train specs will distinguish between “necessary” and “desirable” requirements. ST will offer incentives in milestones, and share some cost risks with the manufacturer through “price indices”. (I don’t know what the last part means. If you know, please explain in the comments.) ST will set a longer timeline for train design and testing, and order prototype vehicles to evaluate them. Series 3 trains will be “future-proofed for CBTC (advanced train control techology)”. Would this make them forward-compatible for automated line use? (Again, if you know, please explain in the comments.) The purchase contract will include long-term parts and service to address the “total cost of ownership”.
ST intends to publish a request for proposals this year, and get back detailed proposals by the end of next year. The first cars would start revenue service in fall 2033. The manufacturer would deliver approximately 18 cars per year, for a minimum of 70 cars and options for 80 more (so 150 cars total).
There’s also an estimate of railcar cost increases since ST’s last estimate. Covid-related costs add 30% to the total. The tariffs this year may add 20%. Scaling up the order from the previously-estimated 118 cars to 150 cars may add 20%. (This is doubtless because ST found it needs more cars for reliable operations than it anticipated.) This adds up to a total potential cost increase of 30-70%.
The livestream also has three other presentations and four action motions, as listed in the agenda.
Lumo AI gave the following answer to your question about CBTC:
“CBTC — Communications‑Based Train Control — is a modern signalling architecture that replaces traditional fixed‑block systems with continuous, wireless communication between trains and wayside equipment. By constantly exchanging precise location, speed, and braking data, CBTC can:
Maintain much shorter headways than legacy signaling, allowing more trains per hour.
Support multiple grades of automation (GoA 0 – 4), from driver‑assisted operation up to fully unattended train operation (UTO).
Because the core of CBTC is a digital, software‑driven platform, it is inherently more adaptable than fixed‑block hardware. When a railway upgrades from, say, GoA 2 (semi‑automatic) to GoA 3/4 (driverless), the same CBTC infrastructure can usually accommodate the higher automation level with:
Software updates that add new safety logic, automatic door control, platform screen‑door integration, etc.
Additional onboard equipment (e.g., redundant processors, advanced sensors) that can be retrofitted without overhauling the trackside network.
That said, “forward‑compatible” isn’t automatic. Successful migration to fully automated service typically requires:
Adequate redundancy in the CBTC system to meet the stricter safety integrity levels demanded by driverless operation.
Platform‑screen‑door (PSD) coordination, which may need extra interfaces if PSDs weren’t part of the original design.
Regulatory approval and thorough testing under the target Grade of Automation, because safety standards become stricter as human oversight diminishes.
In practice, many transit agencies that installed CBTC with future automation in mind (e.g., the London Underground’s Victoria line, Singapore’s MRT, and several U.S. commuter rail projects) have been able to transition to driverless or semi‑driverless service with relatively modest upgrades. Conversely, older CBTC deployments that were sized only for limited automation may require more extensive hardware refreshes to reach full driverless capability.
Bottom line: CBTC provides a solid, software‑centric foundation that makes a line far more likely to be forward‑compatible for automated operation, provided the original design accounted for scalability, redundancy, and the necessary interfaces for higher grades of automation.”
I’m kinda surprised sound transit link wasn’t already using cbtc and are using the older fixed block system. It’s probably also why the single tracking frequency is so bad as well
ST has already flagged they want to build a new control center. I assume implementation of CBTC would require a completely new signaling system across all track.
I think Dow Constantine is preparing to propose an alternative to construction of DSTT2 which include major signal upgrades and a new control center to enable 1.5- to 2-minute headways in the tunnel. This connects with the concept of buying 190-foot open gangway trains. If they can quasi-automate and double frequencies with half-size trains (or just start running half-size trains during low ridership periods), that would be a genuine win for Seattle transit.
Would ST have to retrofit the existing trains with CBTC? How much would that cost?
The DSTT1 stations may also have to add escalators/stairs/elevators for egress.
God and a tight circle of insiders are the only ones who know what’s being considered. The way ST typically works, they rarely present viable yet distinctly different alternatives to the public until they have developed a preferred one.
My early read is indeed that DSTT2 won’t be pushed forward. Upgrading DSTT and other north Seattle tracks is probably being assessed. That likely includes keeping West Seattle Link in development.
The next decision announcement will likely involve West Seattle Link. I’m hoping that it stops at Avalon if it moves forward — and that ST includes needed DSTT upgrades so that trains from West Seattle don’t have to be a stub at SODO. Stopping at Avalon will not only save probably $1B or more but will shorten the time required to build the project.
I do hope that a Ballard-Westlake automated line can be at least studied. The BLE EIS is due to be published shortly and it’s not an alternative at the moment. The concept needs a realistic study.
The other decisions for Link — Tacoma Dome, Everett and 4 Line — are also needing major rethinking.
My hope is that ST first examines the operations required for a three line DSTT. That assessment includes everything from platform crowding to train frequency to safety in stations (like platform doors) to how fast trains can be reversed in Snohomish County (and I’m hoping that ST can get the Everett Link interests to diverge from wanting a single serpentine line with reversal points to two branches for the sake of more resilient system operations (reversing light rail in an existing station with one siding is much more difficult that two sets of two dead end tracks at two different stations). I think ST has not been educating local officials and major stakeholders about the reality of operations as much as they should have been — preferring to discuss extensions as political concepts on diagrams rather than actual trains that need to operate effectively each day. That “what do you fantasize to happen?” approach needs to stop!
For Tacoma Dome, the outcome may be to use money from not building DSTT2 as well as longer Sounder trains and platforms. It may require dropping a station — or maybe letting a tribe build the station that can then include an in-station casino. One of the intermediate stations (East Tacoma, Fife or South FW) is suitable for deferring but I can see each one will have forces trying to protect it from deferral.
For 4 Line, more discussions are needed anyway. That project will surely morph in the next few years.
The goal of making ST3 can be mostly achieved with these project changes — but it still may not be enough. If more drastic action is needed, each subarea may have to look at shortening a corridor or looking at a different system technology variation.
Admittedly, I’ve drawn my own conclusions about what I think should be done — like cancelling DSTT2 and building a shorter Ballard Automated line that ends at Westlake, Symphony or Capitol Hill. I like this approach because it makes transfers between lines easier for riders!
@mike
it’s partly depends on how much downtime one wants. it’s not actually that expensive if one can shutdown the train system for say a month or two. but if it’s just nightly work then it takes somewhat forever to install. i hope they installed cbtc for the newer sections
Al S.
Seems like ST needs to conduct several studies during its pause before making any decisions. I agree re the Ballard line. On West Seattle, I hope they study a no build with a turnback variant of Link beginning at South Forest Street with the first/last revenue station at South Lander Street. All West Seattle service except RR H and C lines could feed Link at SODO via South Lander Street. SDOT already build the needed overcrossing; it opened in summer 2020. SDOT owns the West Seattle bridges and can decide how well transit flows.
The West Seattle Link Extension project already has a Project To Be Built selected by the Board and a Record of Decision for that project from the FTA.
My guess is that ST is assuming WSLE is not reasonably stoppable, except to build either the minimum operable segment (“temporary” terminus at Delridge) or skipping Avalon station (which would *maybe* save a couple hundred million$).
Seattle politicians have already put their foot down on “no project cutbacks” so it’s likely they’re hoping that skipping Avalon and cutting DSTT2 will save enough of the budget.
Of course, if they cut DSTT2, they’ll have to actually figure out how to connect BLE to DSTT1 and/or fast-track an EIS addendum to build a small OMF in Interbay.
Nathan, both would be necessary for an automated short-train, short-station Ballard-Downtown only version of BLE. A small train cleaning MF will be needed, for sure. But that doesn’t suffice for heavy work (wheelsets, motor overhauls, and interior upgrades). Those will require a connection to The Spine Main.
The simple solution is to build a single track tunnel from the curve at Third and Pine up to Stewart, northeast on Stewart to Westlake ending in a facing point diversion in the southbound track just north of Stewart. A trailing point crossover just north of it would deliver trains returning from the MF to the northbound track. That crossover could also be used as part of a pair for platform selection at the stub at Westlake.
To make access to the connection efficient and (mostly) non-fouling a long “siding” would be placed in the center lane of Symphony, with facing-point turnouts right at the north and south walls of the station box.
This “siding” would provide a refuge for trains returning to the BLE line from the Heavy MF’s. A train doing so would slip in right behind an in-service train at Forrest Street or the IDS junction and wait in the tunnel south of each station as the leader stops in each station for its revenue business.
When the in-service train leading leaves Symphony, the non-revenue train would move into the siding there. It would usually stop for a moment or several waiting for a long enough pause in the southbound traffic to make it to the junction at Pine with minimal disturbance to the southbound flow of traffic, except at night when opposing moves would be rare.
When a southbound train without a near follower departs Symphony, the waiting train n the center pocket would exit the north end of the holding track and move to the turnout at Third and Pine, headed into the new connection.
The holding track could also be used as a scissors cross-over if a wye turnout were added at the each end of the middle lane straight track and a trailing-point merge turnout added to each of the two main running tracks. With movable metal walkways reaching across the main track from the platform on the side that is being bypassed, trains using the “cross-over” could still stop at the station. It’s likely that the rearmost doors of trains stopping at the temporary platform would not be accessible, but at least 80% of the train would be. That’s much better than the zero percent accessible in a station using a standard scissors cross-over.
Last week I also proposed adding a down ramp to the center of Symphony and a lower level tunnel below the connection above to give some trains on the Ballard-Downtown line access to the south part of downtown. Ross argued against it as removing trains from the Westlake to Capitol Hill block, which is predicted to carry the heaviest loads. I think he’s right; it’s not a good place for branching.
I am pretty sure the fully grade separated sections operate on CBTC, but maybe series 3 is using a more advanced version of it?
Verified again and I guess I was wrong.
My early read is indeed that DSTT2 won’t be pushed forward … I’m hoping that it stops at Avalon if it moves forward … Stopping at Avalon will not only save probably $1B
OK, so that means West Seattle Link “only” costs $6 billion. This is for a train that somehow doesn’t make it to the cultural center of West Seattle. It would consist of two stations — one meant for feeder buses (whose riders would rather the bus just keep going to downtown, as it does today) and another one in a moderately dense area that few people would visit (unless they know someone who lives there). Huzzah!
That is after you’ve spent money getting the trains to run faster through downtown (certainly laudable, but not cheap). You still have Ballard Link to worry about. At best they go with an independent line and automated trains (although no one in power is pushing that). This would also save quite a bit of money. Otherwise they have to figure out how to branch in the tunnel and that won’t be cheap either. It would be a lot cheaper than building a new tunnel but it would still cost way more than they originally estimated for the Seattle part of ST3 (even with no second tunnel).
Meanwhile, you have funding problems as well.
There have been similar setbacks for Sound Transit in the past. Federal Way Link did not have huge cost overruns. They just didn’t raise enough money as they anticipated. So they couldn’t build it. The trains went to Angle Lake (huzzah!) until they could raise more money.
Of course the first problem was with ST1. Voters approved trains running between the University District and Sea-Tac Airport. There was no funding problem — things were just a lot more expensive than they thought. So instead they built a train running between downtown and Tukwila (huzzah!). Thus the most cost-effective section of rail in the region — the one segment everyone figured should be built first (downtown to the UW) — was delayed indefinitely. Then, of course, they shortchanged the region by only having one station between the UW and downtown.
The reality the board is facing is a combination of these problems. Things are way more expensive than they anticipated and they are raising a lot less money. Meanwhile, they are facing a new problem that many agencies have faced. It has become increasingly expensive to maintain this system as it is no longer “new”. It is, as the engineers put it “mature”. (https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HNTB-Sound_Transit_Resiliency_Assessment_Report_FINAL_SUBMISSION_3_11_25_Distribution.2025.pdf)
I really don’t see an easy way out of the mess. The nature of these projects don’t help. It is just my opinion (although it is shared by many) that West Seattle Link is just not very good. It certainly isn’t like Downtown-to-UW rail (which I would vote for over and over again until they finally build it). Yet this dubious project is not only part of the plan, but it is supposed to built before Ballard Link! Everything is backwards — at least in Seattle. If we end up with West Seattle Link and no Ballard Link (which would be quite plausible) we will be laughingstock of the transit world. Even the Monorail fans knew that Ballard made more sense for mass transit than West Seattle.
Which sets up some very nasty arguments to come. As Doug Trumm put it, expect parochialism. But when folks in Seattle are saying “We must have West Seattle Link” you can understand why folks in other parts of the region say “Really? Do you?”. This isn’t like UW to Downtown (an obvious benefit to not only the region but the entire state). West Seattle Link — what Seattle interests are putting front and center in their battles — is at best a “nice to have”. Expect those other areas to play the “spine” card. Sure, those projects are a terrible value as well but plans for The Spine came from up high from Mount Olympia on stone tablets (or so I’ve heard).
The point being, you can’t nibble around the edges here. The only one that is even close to being realistic is Balducci when she says “everything is on the table”. She is right. That means everything. At some point we have to rethink the ridiculous assumptions that went into ST3 and figure out how best to spend the money we are raising. Yeah, I know — what a crazy idea — spend the money as best they can. Good luck.
Ross, I also personally see West Seattle Link as a folly. I’m cool with abandoning the project. I just think that the ROD is in place so it’s going to be hard to abandon.
I also think that routing the tracks across the OMF to merge with the 1 Line tracks (and using existing switches) and not building the glass palace station at SODO would likely save another $500M. But given the ridership forecasts that I’ve seen published, it seems silly to spend any more than $3B for the ridership expected to use it — and even that’s being quite generous.
I’m glad Urbanists aren’t 100% in charge of transit planning.
I guess a lot does come down to how malleable the record of decision is.
Would a mode switch from trains to buses for West Seattle be contrary to the record of decision, or does the record of decision only apply to the route if it is light rail that is built?
Would a mode switch from trains to buses for West Seattle be contrary to the record of decision, or does the record of decision only apply to the route if it is light rail that is built?
Hard to say. Somehow they were able to alter Federal Way Link to run only to Angle Lake. They initially ran the trains from downtown to Tukwila instead of U-District to SeaTac. They skipped First Hill. These all seem like a bigger deal then substituting buses for trains in West Seattle.
My point is that there is bound to be tough choices to be made. I just don’t see any way that Sound Transit builds the major rail projects in ST3, even with the various cost saving measures. Sharing the tunnel and running trains between Ballard and Westlake would save a lot of money. But West Seattle Link — which remember is only from SoDo to West Seattle — is now approaching $8 billion. Yes, you can save a lot by ending at Delridge (as some have suggested) but only if you don’t ever plan on extending it towards The Junction. You could stay low and have a draw bridge. Skipping Avalon (or ending there) won’t save you much. The expensive part is all of the giant pylons that are required to get over the Duwamish and up the hill. Thus even if you cut corners, the only way to significantly save money for West Seattle Link is to end in Delridge and at that point you have to question whether it is West Seattle Link. Would that be contrary to the record of decision?
The only way I see them pulling this off is if Ballard Link is much cheaper. I have no doubt that smaller stations would save money. But I really doubt it would save *a lot* of money. So what then? End in Interbay? That would be a huge kick in the face for those in Ballard. The whole point of Ballard Link is to run to Ballard.
I just don’t see a good way out of it unless they scrap the current plans. By all means they should focus their efforts on the areas that were supposed to have rail. You can make a very good case that West Seattle — which already has pretty fast travel times and two RapidRide buses — doesn’t deserve as much extra transit spending as say, the Central Area. But we promised West Seattle a stupid light rail plan — the least we can do is improve transit there. I think that is really the key moving forward. Someone (in power) needs to tell the world that it would be *better* for West Seattle if we spent money on buses (and bus infrastructure) instead. Not only cheaper, but better.
“Would a mode switch from trains to buses for West Seattle be contrary to the record of decision, or does the record of decision only apply to the route if it is light rail that is built?”
Who knows how FTA would interpret a change? And the ROD doesn’t mean that the project will automatically qualify for FTA funds.
The forecasts in the FEIS assume that the West Seattle line runs northward to at least Lynnwood. A stub-only ridership is not in the FEIS. So merely dropping DSTT2 may result in the ROD getting cancelled.
On the other hand, the ROD could be interpreted as a full-build impact statement — so dropping a station or two (or the end segment) may not affect the identification of “negative” impacts. It’s not unlike the way that Downtown Redmond Link was added later without restarting the EIS.
I’m not an FTA bureaucrat. Those close to the process can probably shed more light on this.
Given how the funds aren’t there, West Seattle Link likely cannot break ground in 2027. The question becomes if West Seattle Link interests keep the project off the table in their needed new “realignment” (aka Enterprise Initiative).
I assume West Seattle to DSTT1 would still fulfill the criteria of “West Seattle one-seat light to downtown” and its projected ridership. I have a hard time seeing the FTA evaluate a light rail application and then the agency wants to switch to BRT. That would throw the ridership forecast into question, as new factors would come into people’s decisions. Namely, rail bias, fears of buses getting stuck in traffic or being unreliable, having to transfer downtown whereas Link would go further to other stations beyond it., etc
If West Seattle Link is to be built at all, it needs to go to the junction. Stopping at Avalon, better to just not build it at all. Of course, as RossB has pointed out many times, the value of West Seattle Link, even going to the Junction is certainly debatable. But, ending at Avalon, it’s not even debatable – it’s not nearly enough value to justify an expensive Duwamish River crossing.
There are some basic facts that the Alaska Junction Ststion that often get ignored.
1. A large part of the Alaska Junction station’s half-mile walkshed is to remain in low-height, single-family residential zoning. The station site is just 2 blocks from the south and west edge of the higher density zoning.
2. Numbers in different documents differ but a majority of the West Seattle Link riders are arriving or leaving in metro buses. So the bus transfer setup is more important for ridership. I would even argue that the bus operations at the station is more vital for the line to get riders.
3. The Alaska Junction Station is deep. Avalon is not. The vertical distance can be a big déterrant to station use.
4. A large part of the general high density West Seattle district is within a Avalon Station half-mile walkshed. It may be a longer walk, but it’s really only those few blocks of storefronts along California Street that seem far from the station. It’s not profoundly different than what exists for the Columbia City commercial district today.
Avalon Station is not without its flaws either:
1) It is very close to a golf course. (What is with golf courses and Link?)
2) It is very close to freeway ramps. (What is with freeway ramps and Link?)
This limits potential development close to the station. It also makes it tough for the station to compete with driving. But the biggest problem is:
3) There is nothing there. It is *only* an intercept for buses. I’m all for bus intercepts. Mercer Island, South Shoreline, Pinehurst — these are all worthy stations. But an entire *line* consisting of only two stations, both of which are feeder stations is just a really bad idea. It means you don’t really add anything. No one is going to ride to Avalon and then walk fifteen minutes (on an unpleasant walkway) just to get to the cultural center of the area. They will take another bus. But if they do that, they might as well take that bus from downtown (since downtown is a huge transit hub). I’m not saying The Junction makes West Seattle Link worth it but it has something nearby worth visiting.
Just to be clear, if you built West Seattle Link you should have all three stations. The fundamental problem with West Seattle Link is that it costs too much and there are not enough stations. The last thing we should do is eliminate some.
Maybe they should consider splitting the difference and put one station at Fauntleroy and SW Alaska, instead of the two at Avalon and the Junction.
Would that be terrible?
A station at Fauntleroy/35th would be so close to Avalon it would seem to be the same transit market. Buses would just go a couple blocks further to a nearby transfer point, and pedestrians may be starting from closer to Fauntleroy anyway. The reason it’s “terrible” is ST doesn’t want to do it. That seems to be due to bias against an elevated or surface segment on a stroad, or losing GP lanes. Some West Seattle factions want Link “out of sight, out of mind”, and putting it on Fauntleroy would make it highly visible as they drive by.
nevermind. apparently I don’t know what I’m talking about. that is not splitting the difference – being only a short distance from where they are planning on putting the ‘junction’ station anyway. doh!
Oh well, they should still end up with buses, but if they do figure out how to build light rail I still think they are building to the wrong junction. West Seattle is barely served by a station at the ‘junction’ after all.
If they were to go to Admiral Junction instead, and in a future expansion go south to a station somewhere along Alaska St then a much larger chunk of what we all consider west seattle to be would be served.
yes there would be a slight detour around the north end ‘hook’ that would add a few minutes travel time but it wouldn’t be enough of a delay I think to cause people to not take the train.
“ Maybe they should consider splitting the difference and put one station at Fauntleroy and SW Alaska, instead of the two at Avalon and the Junction.
“Would that be terrible?”
I’ve personally advocated for this very thing. There appears to be enough side streets to easily reroute Fauntleroy traffic between Alaska and Oregon and excavate a shallower station in the Fauntleroy right of way. However I’m not a track design engineer and im not sure what kind of tail track is needed.
Since SDOT recently proposed closing Alaska Street (post choosing the preferred alternative) and making it a bus mall instead, another big cost savings could be to simply make the Alaska Junction stop at the surface like a transit mall. Doing that would make level transferring from buses much easier ;as opposed to needing to access a deep station platform). Even if it adds 1 minute or 2 to the train travel time, it would still be faster for anyone that wants to use the station since it would be at ground level. SDOT may have to close a cross street or two because trains are longer than a block face — but that’s a much more modest sacrifice than the years of excavating a deep station vault there. Remember that the Capitol Hill vault was fenced off for 7 years and the Alaska Junction station will be similar in size and depth.
Regardless, these are modest budget and schedule reduction suggestions. The entire West Seattle Link extension is such an expensive undertaking for the possible ridership value that it doesn’t seem worth it. Given how it disrupts SeaTac connectivity as well as the SODO busway, it may hurt transit riders from SE Seattle and Renton and Kent and SeaTac more than it helps transit riders from West Seattle.
yeah, if the busway goes then do all of our northbound buses drop off at Rainier Beach station or Boeing Access Road? Probably BAR. And is ST looking at making those transfers super easy? Talk about making life more inconvenient for the transit rider…
But then… will BAR get the axe again to save money? and what happens if it does, and they also take away the busway?
“being only a short distance from where they are planning on putting the ‘junction’ station anyway”
ST has leeway to move a station a few blocks from the representative alignment in the ballot measure as long as it substantially serves the same transit market. And its biggest mandate is to connect regional centers, so the in-between stations are less important. In Lynnwood Link ST considered alignments as wide as Aurora, I-5, 15th Ave NE, and Lake City Way. These are miles apart but still fulfill the mandate of “connecting the Northgate and Lynnwood regional centers”. Likewise, ST could move 145th station to 130th or 155th, or add a 130th station, because these don’t affect the must-serve areas of Northgate and downtown Lynnwood. ST just has to write a statement giving its reasons for deviating from the representative alignment. It wasn’t willing to for 145th/I-5. But it did move it to 147th, which is just two blocks away.
So Avalon can be seen as one of those in-between stations that’s not strictly necessary. The primary mandate of West Seattle Link is to serve the Alaska Junction urban center, where everybody else could theoretically transfer at. So if it terminates at 35th, ST might have some explaining to do. It could say it’s a temporary phase due to funding limitations, the way ST2 South Link was truncated from 272nd to 200th due to shrinking sales-tax revenue in the Great Recession. Then when it recovered from that in the 2010s, the project was re-extended to 240th, because that’s as far as the ST2 budget would stretch. In ST3, ST folded 240th into the the Federal Way project (320th).
DSTT2 unfolded in a more complicated way. We asked ST to move Midtown station to 8th/Madison to serve First Hill. At first it said there would be time to debate that later in the EIS process. But when the time came, ST said it was too late and we should have pushed for it earlier, and that First Hill and the steep hill was too far from downtown to be the same transit market (people walking to 5th/Madison), so it would be out of scope for ST3. But then it moved the station to 5th/James and said it was still the same transit market, and it was also close enough to the Intl Dist to be in its walkshed, and “CID” station was moved to south of Dearborn Street. So ST has a way of interpreting “in scope” differently at different times depending on what boardmembers or influential stakeholders want.
“BAR get the axe again to save money?”
BAR station has little legitimate justification. You can’t walk to Southcenter or a village from it, and it’s dubious whether you could walk to the Boeing plant. Tukwila’s reasons for demanding it were: (A) to extend RapidRide A to it to serve an emerging village at 144th, (B) so that visitors and students can access the Museum of Flight and Aviation High School more easily [via a 124 transfer]. There has also been vague musings about truncating other bus routes there, but without much thought about what routes could do that effectively. Terminating the 101 or 150 there would add substantially to travel time. Metro Connects envisions extending the A through BAR to Rainier Beach, terminating the 150 at BAR, and leaving the 101 as-is. Then there’s the P&R opportunity, never mind that TIB is close and Federal Way Link will have four P&Rs beyond that. So if ST really hits a wall and has to cut costs, I can’t imagine BAR station will hold out for long. It’s hard to argue BAR is more critical than West Seattle, Ballard, or Graham station.
“and what happens if it does, and they also take away the busway?”
What does BAR station have to do with a busway ten miles away from it? The busway is to be sacrificed for West Seattle Link, not BAR station. And those will happen at different times.
If West Seattle Link is canceled or replaced with BRT, I’d guess deleting the busway would be canceled too. If BAR station is canceled, that would argue for keeping the busway more, since the 150 and 101 would still be using it.
Metro is making contingency plans for the busway closure. It’s thinking about putting RapidRide 150 on an upgraded 4th Ave S, and moving other busway routes to 4th. Or RR 150 might be truncated at Rainier Beach station. Metro isn’t sure which way to go on that. But these would apparently happen regardless of BAR station. If BAR station exists, the rerouted 150 would go through it, but it would terminate further north, either at Rainier Beach or downtown. Note that this contradicts the previous vision of a 150 terminating at BAR. That seems to have been killed because of equity, lower-income people in south King County going to Seattle and wanting travel time to degrade as little as possible.
“What does BAR station have to do with a busway ten miles away from it? The busway is to be sacrificed for West Seattle Link, not BAR station. And those will happen at different times.”
On my way to Renton this morning I took the 101 from Stadium to the Renton Transit Center. If the busway is gone I couldn’t do that.
Losing the busway would mean that all the people who currently take buses from the south that use the busway would need an alternative.
So I posed the question if the busway goes away would the 101, 102, 150, etc all stop at BAR to transfer?
And likewise if all of the cost overruns cause BAR to get cancelled then what?
“if the busway goes away would the 101, 102, 150, etc all stop at BAR to transfer?”
No, they’d go to 4th Ave S. Or Metro might have them get off the freeway downtown instead of at Spokane Street. Or it might restructure them further, but those concepts are in parallel to whatever happens to the busway, not because of losing the busway.
“if all of the cost overruns cause BAR to get cancelled then what?”
Then BAR is canceled and nothing else happens.
They show the Avalon Station at Avalon & Genesee. Half way between there and the Alaska Junction would be Oregon & Fauntleroy. That is not a crazy spot for a station. But it would definitely reduce walk-up ridership. It would be a bad idea. It is like buying a Ferrari and then trying to cut costs by only buying three wheels.
Just to back up here, without any stations at all, West Seattle Link probably costs over $6 billion. That’s the problem. Saving a few million by getting rid of a station doesn’t really save you that much. It probably makes the cost per rider (already crazy high) even higher.
If they were to go to Admiral Junction instead, and in a future expansion go south to a station somewhere along Alaska St then a much larger chunk of what we all consider west seattle to be would be served.
But it is the same problem. It takes about 12 minutes to drive from Admiral Junction to downtown (according to Google). That is an average speed of over 25 MPH. That is blazing fast for a trip within the city*. There are no significant destinations between the Admiral Junction and downtown, either. While there are bus stops along the way (on Admiral Way) it is quite possible the bus skips those and makes the trip about as fast as a taxi-cab would. That is really the big flaw with running trains to West Seattle. The existing expressway — which serves various parts of West Seattle — is extremely fast. You have to get deep into West Seattle to be able to compete with that. Yet to just get to the edge of the freeway ramps is extremely expensive.
Not only that, but the destinations are spread out. Of course they are. It isn’t a skinny peninsula, with all the destinations lined up in a row. If it was then this would be a lot easier. You could run a train down Delridge if Delridge was all you were trying to serve. But that only covers one part of one part of West Seattle. You can mimic the RapidRide C, but then you lose out on Delridge. Admiral Junction and Alki are certainly worthy goals as well. So you really need a huge network of tracks to actually provide something that makes up for the very expensive job of just getting to West Seattle.
Even that isn’t simple. You can branch at the Junction and go north to serve The Admiral District. Except from Admiral Way it is faster to just take the 56 or 57 downtown. The same is true if you do it the opposite way. Heading north to Admiral Junction and then take a sharp left and doubling back to get across the Duwamish is much slower than just heading towards the existing bridge.
West Seattle rail would only make sense if it was a massive project with several branches. This would only be cost effective if West Seattle itself was massive in terms of density (i. e. like Brooklyn) and it was much cheaper to build subway lines like this. West Seattle Link just doesn’t work.
It is much easier to just leverage what we already have — very high quality roads that the buses can use. To get back to my analogy, we already have a Ferrari in West Seattle, with four decent tires. It is already faster than most of the cars on the road. Let’s just put some really nice tires on it so it can really fly.
I don’t think there are any plans for truncating express buses at BAR. Nor will they serve the station and keep going (like they can at Federal Way). That is one of the many weaknesses with BAR. If it was a major multi-modal hub, I could see it. Riders could transfer from an express bus (e. g. 101 or 150) to Link. They could even take Sounder and then Link (to get to Rainier Valley without backtracking). But none of that will happen.
At the same time, cancelling it doesn’t save you much money. Not relative to the huge financial problems ST are facing.
FYI I saw a Seattle Times headline that West Seattle Link costs grew by another $800M and is now roughly at $8B! That is more than the whole WSBLE budget at one time (Ballard Link Extension and DSTT2 included).
Perhaps it’s time to pull the plug on West Seattle Link. For the original $2B direct connectors could be built between the SODO busway and the Spokane Viaduct as well as I-5. Then funds could add in a nice bus transfer center at Royal Brougham.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-light-rail-costs-soar-again/
“Perhaps it’s time to pull the plug on West Seattle Link.”
“They don’t say Hanes until I say they say Hanes!”
We can say until we’re blue in the face that it’s time to pull the plug on West Seattle Link, but until the board decides to do it, it won’t happen. So they’re the ones who need to be convinced it’s not worth it or there’s no way ST can afford it.
Ridiculous to spend 2 billion per mile for the marginal benefits, and even those are in question, that a train would bring.
Here is a thought. Choose the no build option for downtown to West Seattle, and spend half the money to build a stub from TIBS to the Junction. West Seattle gets its train! ;)
> We can say until we’re blue in the face that it’s time to pull the plug on West Seattle Link
I mean the opposite is also true. the board can keep saying they will build the west seattle link but with the expensive alternatives they’ve chosen they plainly do not have the money to build it anymore
Al, agreed on everything you and Ross wrote except for one thing.
You don’t need the detour via Forrest Street which would add at least three minutes northbound and two southbound forever.. The speed limit on the at-grade section of the Outer Loop is low because of the grade crossing at the southeast corner, and people are walking around inside the loop.
There is room enough between the existing ramp from street level onto the structure running east-west along Forrest Street to run the northbound track on the bikeway. Almost no one uses it for biking, because it dead ends at Forrest Street; bikes have to shift over to Sixth South there. That can happen just north of the station when it’s redeveloped, leaving the busway space for the train. One building might have to be shortened a few feet.
Southbound can be handled by a diversion at the curve at the top of the ramp. Yes, the south edge of the structure would have to be strengthened to carry the new trackway, but that’s a pretty minor engineering exercise. Trains heading south on The Spine might have to go through the curve a bit more slowly than today because of the turnout, but that might total about fifteen seconds. They don’t go very quickly through the curve today.
The northbound tracks would merge underneath the new Lander Street overcrossing, with Spine Trains favored when there is a potential conflict for the SoDo platform.
Holgate will require an overcrossing because base schedule train frequencies will double with even more at rush hours, but that is true even with the ridiculously wasteful four-track idea with all four on the surface as now planned. A four track crossing is even more dangerous than a two track one.
If DSTT2 is abandoned Lower Brougham Way will have to be severed at the trackway, with barriers on both sides, essentially making the stretch between the tracks and Fourth South a part of the busway.
The portion between the tracks and Sixth South would become an entrance to the redeveloped area to the north and the Greyhound station.
It’s a shame we lost so many great buses of the past for light rail that you have to drive and park at, because it’s either very inaccessible and slow to reach by bus OR requires multiple transfers to even reach it to begin with.
I miss the 114/167/342. 162 is gone soon as well. Great direct service lost. Soon they’re probably going to take 102 away once Stride is here. And we wonder why people drive. No one will get parking at the light rail stations.
Oops, that was not meant to be a reply to this.
The problem with these routes, they tend to be very expensive, per rider, to operate. Even if the bus seems relatively full, what you don’t see is all the empty deadhead driving to move buses from the base to the start of the route, and from the end of the route, back to base again. For a bus route that operates only during rush hour, peak-direction, it is mathematically guaranteed (by the triangle inequality theorem) that the bus will, for sure, travel more miles deadheading to/from the base than actually carrying passengers. And, it gets worse. Since rush hour is when the fleet usage is at its maximum, every rush hour trip you add requires buying a whole new bus, just to run two trips per day, and enlarging the bus base to make room for storing this bus the rest of the day, when it is not in use. Rush hour-only buses are also very inefficient labor-wise. At a minimum, you’re paying the driver to spend a lot of time driving empty buses to/from the base. But, it also tends to lead to awkward work shifts like 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon, with a gap during the midday that is too short for the driver to be able to reasonably work another job. To find people willing to work such shifts, it is often necessary to pay them for additional hours, beyond what they’re actually working.
Add everything up, a bus route that operates only during rush hour actually has about the equivalent productivity in terms of cost per rider as an all-day bus with around 1/3rd the per-trip ridership. And, if you look at it that way, routes like 114/167/342/162 aren’t really all that cost effective. And they’re not all that useful to people without cars because they run only during rush hour. In the 1990’s the trend in Metro’s service was that if you were making a rush hour commute to a few specific places, they would roll out the red carpet for you, but in doing so, starving all-day services of resources. Which was fine for people with a car, using the bus only for rush hour commutes to downtown or the U-district, but made transportation miserable for people without cars. For allowing people to live in a city without car expenses, consisting service running all day, every day, throughout the city, is much more important than running red-carpet express service to specific destinations during rush hour, then telling people to just get in their cars to travel at any other time, or to anywhere else.
Is it possible to get new vehicles with better acceleration/ top speed I know that some Lrt vehicles can go as fast as 70mph. Are your track specs not designed for speeds that fast or do we artificially limit our top speed to 55mph?
The tracks have curves and inclines that can’t be negotiated faster than 55 mph, because that was the target assumption. The trains can run at 65 mph, at least Series 2. Light rail in general can run at 80 or 85 mph. ST just didn’t design the network that way. In the run-up to ST3 there was talk about retrofitting the Rainier Beach-TIB segment to allow faster speeds, but it never followed up on it.
Anecdotally, I think there are some sections along I-5 in Shoreline where Link already moves at 60-65 mph.
You can’t improve both at once. There is no transmission in an LRT powered “truck” or “bogie” [i.e. “wheelset”]. There is one single “final ratio” between the gear on the motor’s shaft and that on the axle that motor drives.
The motors have multiple patterns of “windings” on the stators and rotors that make up the electro-magnets comprising the motors that power the train. One set of windings will carry large amperage for maximum torque at start-up but cover a larger arc, making it harder to shift polarity rapidly, while another will have more thinner wires that can switch polarity more frequently as the rotor turns rapidly at high speeds. The changes in power flow at different speeds is called “transition”, and gives some flexibility in power versus speed, but nowhere near the range of a mechanical transmission.
Those have been tried in the past, but always fall apart from the constant vibration of steel wheels on steel rails.
I’m pretty sure Siemens and Alstom use the same motos and gearbox for everything they make of the same model. It would get really expensive to do a custom motor and gear ratio for each agency with a different speed limit. These aren’t NEMA standard frame motors you can pick up at your local industrial supplier.
It’s probably a software setting, changed for each agency when they give a maximum speed in their specifications.
TriMet is limited to 55 mph because that’s what was available to them off the shelf in 1979 (the original effort was to find something that could do 70, but nobody made such a thing then off the shelf, and nobody wanted a repeat of the Boeing light rail car fiasco). For some reason, almost everyone else seems to have copied the TriMet limit, even though TriMet’s reason for it had long been rendered obsolete by more modern designs.
Traction motors have a sort term rating and a continuous rating. The 1 hour rating can be 3 times the continuous rating.
What may be an acceleration limit is the rating on the inverter driving the motors (they’re all 3 phase variable frequency semiconductor controls now). Link may have an advantage due to the 1,500 volts used. One of the reasons TriMet re-tuned a bunch of their substations to provide closer to 1,000 volts for their “750 volt” overhead system has to do with better performance of the cars, so I’m guessing they were hitting current limits on the substations.
Anyway, it would be really interesting to know the real source of the limitations of the system.
Glenn, why would it be difficult to change the final ratio? Not in real time, of course, that would be a transmission, but at construction. There aren’t an infinite number of ratios that would fit in a given casing, but adding teeth to the driving gear and proportionally reducing the driven gear to keep the shaft centers constant would give you higher torque but a lower maximum speed. The rotor can only spin so fast. This would allow a system with closely spaced systems to have the same electronics as one with longer track-speed sections.
What you say about the support electronics makes complete sense, and is probably a more stringent limit on both elements of performance.
Tom:
It’s not difficult. Just expensive. You’re talking about a customization that would run into the dozens of cars, unless you’re Berlin or Belgium or something and replacing all the cars at once.
With traction motors being able to be overloaded for short periods and 3 phase drives providing high torque at low speeds (why certain freight railroads prefer AC traction motors locomotives if they have low speed heavy freight), I find it doubtful anyone does custom gearboxes any more, unless there are extremely unusual circumstances.
In fact, with the push towards low noise and low maintenance costs, it’s entirely possible some models have entirely eliminated gearboxes and gone with integrated motor axles. I’m pretty sure at least one maker was headed that direction 10 years ago, and would not be surprised if everyone is doing it that way on most models now.
OK, Glenn. You work in the business so I’ll accept your knowledgable conclusion.
Thanks for the report.
Getting serious about increasing reliability and capacity in the existing downtown tunnel is good. We’ll need it if we have to cancel or delay the second tunnel.
I didn’t realize elimination driver room on one side also cuts cost. I thought manufacture like Siemens would offset the cost of modifying S700 model to the buyer and make it more expensive so every agency will keep buying S70/S700.
I always thought most systems use 2- or 3-module LRV because they didn’t have other options.
Portland ordered 3-module Siemens S700 with control room only on one side is such crying for help.
If Siemens not only can manufacture it in the US but also sell it cheaper than two Series 2 LRVs, buying 190-ft LRV model should have happened when ST procured Series 2.
Multiple Canadian cities have LRV trains with 4 or more modules. I believe the only of its kind in operation in the US is Hudson-Bergen light rail as well as MTA (Maryland) Purple Line under construction.
A double length car eliminates two cabs worth of expensive wiring for a given length of car.
The cost case for TriMet eliminating one cab on each end of the 400 and 500 series is a little less clear. That really only gains a small amount of passenger space, but it does gain a little. There’s not a huge amount of savings, as those cars have controls at both ends, but the reverse direction controls are very limited and stashed behind the end panel. However, this type of car is fairly common on tram lines in Europe. There is some savings from buying something that is already in production for someone else, which is why the two TriMet car series have different end profiles.
The real savings SoundTransit could have achieved with these cars is by saying “that’s also good enough for us, but make it a 1,500 volt version” to a design already being built. That way, the builder can just keep their production going, spreading the setup expenses across more cars. It also vastly reduces the procurement expense, because you don’t have to comb through hundreds of pages of specifications. All that type of paperwork is already done.
I wonder if “price indices” are basically another way of saying “itemizing costs”, which is basically an attempt to pre-arrange the costs of certain known possible types of risks rather than spend a lot of time and energy hashing it out with lawyers and bean-counters.
[Ed. Moved the comment to its proper place in the tree by creating a new comment and cutting/pasting the text and name. This is a manual process so we rarely do it, but this was an important comment.]
Has ST published the list of cost-saving measures and their amounts yet? Do we have anything to go by to mix-and-match a reasonably-priced alternative? Or are we still stabbing in the dark and guessing what various measures would save? I feel like what we need to do is go through the list, see if it has our ideas and what ST estimates they would save, and see what other ideas it has that might be promising, but for that we need the list. If the board is talking about things like canceling DSTT2 and upgrading the DSTT1 signaling now at long last, it may have the list, so when can we have it?
There was a System Expansion Committee meeting yesterday, which seems to mostly be exploring the small fry. This seems to include “station optimization” (making the station more compact, doing some sort of construction optimization, and removing escalators), converting elevated trackway to at-grade, removing tail tracks at Alaska Junction and instead putting crossovers in front of the station, and only constructing the “MOS” for West Seattle Link from Sodo to Delridge (which Dan Strauss called “one of the worst ideas I’ve ever seen”)
The West Seattle cost is now so great that little stuff will not solve the problem. Even big stuff like dropping the end station in West Seattle or designing a more modest SODO station with shared platforms between the lines or building a more modest bridge won’t even put much of a dent in the project budget.
It’s sad to read that the Board thinks that little changes can somehow solve the shortfall. They clearly are still in denial about the magnitude of the problem.
@Al — Exactly.
I don’t get why everyone is so against having the end of track in West Seattle (and Ballard for that matter) be at-grade. A cut-and-cover tunnel along Fauntleroy could curve into Alaska and then rise up to the street level in time to have the station stubbed at 42nd and stretching back to 40th. Yes, this obviously means that Alaska isn’t usable for cars but it seems that a bus-lane in each direction could be provided and still have a center platform for the trains. Run the buses contra-flow and widen the center platform enough west of 42nd to have a couple of bus stops on each side of it. Buses looping would turn away at 42nd and loop back on Edmunds while those running through would continue in direction to Fauntleroy or 35th.
People walk much farther than this would require to transfer to and from buses at Northgate, because it’s two stories up from the roadway to the platforms.
I get that such transitions are “attractive nuisances”, but there’s one at Carl and Cole in SF that doesn’t kill people, and trains just departing from or approaching a stub end station will be moving slowly. And this one would have the bus-lanes on either side of it and could be attractively fenced.
Yep, this design forecloses a southward extension, but how many people believe that one will actually happen? OK, that would be a goose-egg……
It seems that this would save at least a billion and a half and result in better transfers and better integrate the system into the neighborhood. Putting the last three blocks of the line on the surface will not noticeably degrade schedule keeping.
> The West Seattle cost is now so great that little stuff will not solve the problem. Even big stuff like dropping the end station in West Seattle or designing a more modest SODO station with shared platforms between the lines
I generally agree but
> or building a more modest bridge won’t even put much of a dent in the project budget.
It’s the bridge that’s costing like 2 billion dollars. they honestly need to bridge a very ugly (stop trying to make it more expensive to be pretty) functional medium-height drawbridge at this point.