Copenhagen’s automated metro has been running for 20 years. (dronthego) It has 4 lines, each running every 3-6 minutes and operating 24/7. Ridership is an average of 344,000 per day. Two lines combine downtown for 1.5 minute frequency. Agency promo page.

A train ride from Halifax to Montreal on VIA rail. Worse than Amtrak in most ways. And clips of how much better it was in 1965. (Not Just Bikes)

This is an open thread.

123 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Copenhagen & Canadian Maritimes”

    1. Apologies for the account requirement. They changed the settings on the Tweet after I posted the comment.

    1. How about summarizing it so people don’t have to go to a site they don’t usually go to and deal with one-view-and-paywall.

      12 means 12 days? If so I’ll correct it in the original.

      The downtown tunnel was closed for something like eight months to adapt it for Link. That wasn’t a line and there was no light rail yet, but it did kick the buses out to the street.

      I think ST knows closing the 1 Line for six weeks wouldn’t be practical now. There’s no fallback in the north end where most of the express buses have been deleted, and ST hardly ever runs express replacement shuttles. The full 2 Line will eventually be in that role, if ST deletes the 545 and 550 next fall.

      What is the Blue Line’s role in Minneapolis? Does it just follow an arterial corridor, or does it replace what would otherwise be freeway express buses too? Are there nearby parallel bus routes as a fallback? How crowded was it getting; enough to overwhelm those other bus routes?

  4. 24/7 ?!?! How is it that ST needs, what is it? 4 hours each and every night? Legitimately confused.

    1. I don’t know, and we have no contacts in Denmark or read Danish. The NYC subway runs 24 hours by having four tracks (local/express), and crossovers between several of the Manhattan tunnels, so when one track is closed for maintenance, trains switch to one of the other tracks and keep running. Did the video say Copenhagen has four tracks somewhere? I don’t remember.

      1. They use automation and have crossovers they decrease the frequency but can maintain 24-7 service by using the crossovers and mostly single tracking

      2. Having four tracks is the best way to offer 24/7 service as long as the tracks are paired to run in the same direction.

        The first train southbound from Beacon Hill is at 4:09 am. The last one is at 12:53 am. That’s just a little over a three hour gap.

      3. Link could use local/express tracks.

        In particular the express can skip the whole Rainier Beach to Beacon Hill segment.

        Maybe another low frequency express that skips downtown and goes straight to Cap Hill.

        And also keeping this in mind as new lines are built out.

      4. If ST would run automated trains 7/24 on weekends, they could still perform maintenance at night during the work week.

      5. They run every 20 minutes from 1 am to 7 am. I’m not sure the Puget Sound region would tolerate such infrequent operations until that late in the morning.

        The last line of the schedule section gives the operating frequency off-peak, and the 01 to 07 line is the time of day, meaning 1 am to 7 am. See:

        • https://m.dk/en/routes-and-timetables/vanloese-vestamager/

        • https://m.dk/en/routes-and-timetables/vanloese-koebenhavns-lufthavn/

        • https://m.dk/en/routes-and-timetables/cityring/

        • https://m.dk/en/routes-and-timetables/orientkaj-koebenhavn-syd/

        It’s probably more suitable for the ST region to have more frequency starting earlier, and shut down over night.

      6. If there is a need to operate a metro system overnight, it is possible to precisely plan maintenance work during certain 1-5 hour window.

        By looking at their service status webpage, it is not like they never shutdown overnight or do single-track operation at all. Operating 7-24 only means they usually operate that way with some exceptions. MTA Subway closed two tracks because they have another two tracks. Other system just does single-track operation to get by. And I believe since it is a more advanced system that automate a lot of stuff NYC Subway doesn’t, so far it hasn’t required as much maintenance as NYC Subway does.

        https://m.dk/en/operation-and-service/status-and-planned-changes/

      7. I am actually not so convinced that MTA and CTA subways have to operate overnight and those service cannot be replaced by bus. It is more like no one is interested in questioning the benefit-cost of changing that.

  5. I don’t take Link very often but somehow it has broke down or significantly delayed more than half the time I’ve used it, including yesterday.

    1. The Blue Line is the original line from downtown Minneapolis to MSP (the airport) and Mall of America. It’s largely at-grade on the old Milwaukee Road passenger main between Minneapolis and St. Paul Union Station, but does not cross the river.

      There are many parallels between it and Line 1 to Sea-Tac.

  6. Sound transit needs to build a lot more crossovers. So whenever it single tracks at a station it can still maintain like 12 minute frequency rather than crashing down to 20/30 minute frequency

  7. I live 2 blocks off of the #10 route, but the trip planner always recommends walking 9 blocks to Capitol Hill Station to take the train downtown. I pass on that. It’s like there’s a systematic push to get more people on the broken light rail. Has anyone else noticed this?

    1. The simple reason why the trip planner recommends just walking the 9 blocks is that it is faster and more reliable. No mode of transportation is ever more reliable than walking, and never will be, absent unusual situations, such as a protest blocking the sidewalk. In terms of time, yes, the bus avoids saves 7 blocks of walking, but you have to for the bus to show up, and when it finally comes, it doesn’t move much faster than walking anyway, with all those bus stops and stoplights. On top of this, if the two blocks to walk to the bus isn’t “on the way” to the Link station, riding the bus may increase the total distance traveled.

      This doesn’t mean that there’s anything particularly wrong with the #10 bus, it’s just a fact of public transportation that there’s a minimum distance you need to travel in order for it to be faster than walking, and 9 blocks just isn’t long enough.

      Of course, there are people with various medical issues that can’t walk the 9 blocks, but that’s why the #10 bus runs; even if the bus takes them a few minutes longer to get to the train than an able-bodied person could walk it, they still get there.

      1. One analogy, I think, is to imagine a 3-story building, with the option to either take the elevator or the stairs to get to the 3rd floor. Normally, able-bodied people take the stairs because it is quicker, but you are unable to take the stairs, or carrying heavy stuff, the elevator exists as an alternative. It’s the same thing here. The sidewalks are like the stairs, the #10 bus is like the elevator.

      2. I think JonC’s thinking about taking the 10 to downtown as a one-seat ride, not taking it to Link and transferring. The 10 was routed to John in 2016 thinking it would be a popular Link transfer from north Capitol Hill, but instead many 10 riders switched to the 11 because it remained closer to 15th & Pine. So in 2024 Metro reverted the 10 back to Pine, so it stops 4-5 blocks from Capitol Hill station. The 11 is the one that goes to the station now.

        I don’t live on the tail of the 10 so I’m not certain what I’d do if I did. But I do use the John Street routes as a last-mile solution to get from Capitol Hill station from elsewhere (not home) to 15th & John for Trader Joe’s and Central Co-Op rather than walk up the hill. That’s only feasible if the routes are frequent, but the 8 and 11 overlap there. But that’s more acceptable for a shopping trip once a month or so than if you had to do it every day from home.

        Link is much faster than the 10 or 49 in from Westlake to Capitol Hill station (3 minutes vs around 10 minutes). But that has to be weighed against the bus going closer to your destination, and a possibly longer wait for Link because it’s one 10-minute line, whereas the 49 and 11 combine to CHS, and the 3/10/11/12/49 are possible depending on exactly where you’re going to and whether it’s OK to walk from Pine Street.

        Ideally the 1 Line would have additional stations at First Hill, Pine & Bellevue, 15th & Thomas, and 23rd & Aloha, as RossB first suggested. That would allow Link to completely replace many more bus trips, and maybe the 10 and 43 could even be restructured into something else. But ST wasn’t interested in that. The Link plan did have a First Hill station, and the Broadway alternative had a Roy station. But when Link went through its 2000 budget meltdown and recovery a half decade later, ST wouldn’t revisit the issue of possibly adding stations, even though the Broadway alternative had two more stations than Link has now. And we lost First Hill station, of course, because ST was uneasy about the soil conditions under it.

    2. Trip planners make insane suggestions sometimes. Walking is the most reliable, but that doesn’t help if you’re walking to an unreliable train. Link is reliable around half the time. The last time the 10/11/49 were reliable was before the Pike/Pine bike lanes a year or so ago. Still, I doubt the trip planner knows about the 10’s unreliability. It should know that coming back is an uphill walk. My recommendation is to use your best judgment, and don’t blame the transit agencies for the trip planners’ dumbness.

      1. Link is reliable 95% of the time. Saying otherwise is absurd. I ride the train to and from work every day and it has failed me maybe 3 times this last year? I can’t count how many times the 8 or the 10 haven’t shown up for me when I needed it. Even the G is worse than the 1 line.

      2. My experience is far less than 95%.

        Yes. some bus routes are worse. The 8, 10, 11, 12, 49, 131, and 132 are basically never on time. But I only use them to go up to three miles. If I take Link for all or part of a trip, it usually means I’m going further, so buses aren’t an option because they’d take half an hour or more to get where Link can go three times faster. So for a lot of trips, Link and buses aren’t interchangeable: one is better than the other depending on the exact trip.

      3. OneBusAway tells you when a train is going to show up. When the app says a train is coming in 12 minutes, it usually is. Even during service disruptions when frequency is reduced, one a train is running, it moves at a known speed, so you know when it’s going to arrive.

        This means, when you walk to the train, it is possible to adjust your pace to guarantee a short wait, once you get there. You can’t do that with a bus – you’re completely a the bus’s mercy when you get there.

    3. “ Trip planners make insane suggestions sometimes.”

      My favorite is the “Jesus solution” regularly given by Google maps transit instructions. In the Puget Sound region it often tells me to walk to a bus stop located on the other side of a large body of water. It does that to me sometimes in the Willamette Valley too, but not as often.

      One reason it prefers Link is it doesn’t see how long it takes to get from the street to the platform. If it did, the results for a number of trips would probably change.

      1. “One reason it prefers Link is it doesn’t see how long it takes to get from the street to the platform. If it did, the results for a number of trips would probably change”

        There are two sides to that. Link usually comes when it’s supposed to, while a bus is often late by more than the time needed to walk from the street to the train platform. And, if the train is coming soon, you always have the option to reduce that access time by walking down the escalator, rather than standing.

        That said, it would be nice if trip planner presented an option to say whether you prefer bus or rail. Most of the time it doesn’t matter, but it could for people with mobility difficulties or in special situations (e.g. construction, major events, etc.).

      2. Another reason to prefer the bus, of course, is the de-facto more generous transfer policy (by paying with cash and getting a paper transfer that lasts much longer than an Orca transfer).

  8. It seems that most new lines with separate ROW are automated whether in Vancouver, Hawaii, Toronto, Montreal, Copenhagen or Milan. I wonder when Sound Transit will consider doing such at least for urban lines such as Ballard. More frequent service would make the line far more attractive. Much of the struggle to place stations in SLU has been around finding space where a 4 car stations can be located. Not only does the station need to be straight but also some extra portion before and after. With smaller stations, you get a lot more flexibility. You also end up with smaller tunnel diameter which is cheaper to build. The Copenhagen video shows those advantages.

    1. This! Automating BLE is such a “no brainer” that it calls into question the quality of the entire corps of “consultants” ST has contracted since the beginning of planning for ST3. This is true even if it isconnected to Line 1! Let the drivers ride along like on BART. The train will operate more reliably without them holding doors open for runners.

      If a bunch of “untrained” transit nerds can be unanimous on the topic (Laz opting out, of course), but the “professionals” can only diss it, it behooves one to wonder if the ATU is a stockholder in the companies who employ them.

      Automated Metros have been in service for a quarter of a century. This is not “bleeding edge” for fully grade-separated urban rail lines at all.

      As many of us have said, everything on The Spine north of IDS should be automated, with platform screens as well Yes, that will take time to accomplish. But since ST has apparently decided that all new construction should be fully grade-separated, build it planning to run it with automated trains!

      1. “Let the drivers ride along like on BART. The train will operate more reliably without them holding doors open for runners.”

        BART seems to have quite a few systemwide computer issues at the beginning of its service and again in recent years. Many systems with advanced level of automation haven’t had many meltdowns because they are relatively new. Older automated systems like BART and Miami MetroMover haven’t been that reliable. Usually when that happen, it will be systemwide shutdown, but to be fair, BART’s technology was ahead of its time. The modern date GoA4 is more widely practiced and standardized.

        Not saying ST shouldn’t consider more automated mode. I am just saying they are not perfect either especially at end of the life cycle.

      2. “Many systems with advanced level of automation haven’t had many meltdowns because they are relatively new.”

        Both DLR and Skytrain are almost 40 years old now. They’re maybe just 10-15 newer than BART is. And I don’t think BART gets the disruptions that Link does even today. BART’s big challenge is how the lack of enough crossover tracks in San Francisco can really mess up its operations.

        Frankly, if Link was a car it would be labeled a lemon by now. The number of disruptions and elevator/ escalator problems at relatively new stations is quite concerning. A few weeks ago, both Downtown Redmond stations even had devices out of service after just a few months of being open!

    2. Yes, this is a “no brainer”. To be fair, I think if they ever wanted to make Ballard Link an independent line they would automate it. If they wanted to build a new tunnel and pair it with West Seattle Link they would likely automate it. But once you pair it with Ballard you can forget automation. It isn’t easy to automate down Rainier Valley and you certainly won’t be running trains every three minutes there.

      But that is the problem with the planning. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner with this mess. Each step seemed quite reasonable but the professionals never pointed out the flaws. Either they didn’t realize it (which seems unlikely) or they didn’t want to rock the boat. Given the problems within the organization* this is understandable. If you have ever worked in a dysfunctional organization you are familiar with this situation. You get frustrated but you don’t tell your boss — you tell your buddies after work. You keep your head down and do whatever it is you’re told to do while updating your resume. At your exit interview you might point out all the flaws with the company while the HR rep nods her head and says the last person who quit said the same thing. Nothing changes.

      Keep in mind how we got to this mess in the first place. Somehow West Seattle Link became a priority even though Sound Transit’s own research it shouldn’t have been (UW-Ballard had more riders and more riders per dollar). Ballard Link was going to include South Lake Union instead of Belltown even though Belltown is just as good, much cheaper and makes more sense geographically (the train keeps going the same basic direction). Someone on the board finally realized the importance of bus connections and wants to connect this new line to the Aurora buses. Yet they didn’t realize that the bus and train are going the same basic direction, minimizing the importance of that connection. Nor did they realize that the potential for such connections are problematic from both a walk-up ridership standpoint and a technical one. At some point we decided we needed a second tunnel. OK, fair enough. So now we have Ballard to West Seattle as an independent line. At this point someone is thinking “automation” but they don’t say it out loud. No need to. Then the board decides to send trains from Tacoma to Ballard. The board is too ignorant to know that this eliminates the possibility of automation. The engineers don’t want to raise the issue because they don’t trust the board. No automation, a second tunnel we don’t need and they start blaming the engineers for the escalating costs. Oh, and the guy that was largely responsible for a lot of these questionable decisions is now the CEO.

      *To quote this report:

      By all accounts, there is a lack of trust between Board members and staff.

      1. This brings up an interesting issue. I think we’ve all discussed an automated line as part of an independent line from Ballard to Westlake. I believe this is by far the best option in both the short and long run. In the short run because it reduces costs and in the long run because such a line can eventually service First Hill. But are there other options for automation.

        To be clear, I’m not talking about just automating a line. I could see that happening just about anywhere. I’m talking about building *new* lines with smaller platforms to serve smaller, more frequent trains. This reduces costs. This is why Toronto changed their plans for the Ontario Line late in the game. It was worth it.

        The first option is a stand-alone Ballard Line. West Seattle would either live without trains or they would interline before SoDo. The latter would limit the number of trains to West Seattle based on how frequently we can run trains through downtown and on each line. Assume that we never run trains from the south or east more than every 8 minutes. That means we could run trains very 4 minutes from West Seattle if the tunnel can handle trains every 2 minutes. The trains would likely turn back at Northgate (if not sooner) but that doesn’t seem crazy. If the system can’t handle it then we are running trains every 8 minutes from West Seattle (and every 2 minutes 40 seconds downtown). While ridership from West Seattle won’t be large, it will be peak oriented. I don’t think the trains could be much smaller.

        Then there is the Ballard branch option. When it comes to running trains from Ballard it is the same idea — you want to run twice as many trains as you would normally (but the trains are half as long). You have to fit the trains in with the gaps. You are again running trains every 4 minutes. This means trains every 2 minutes through downtown. Those trains are either going to West Seattle or turning around in SoDo. I still think West Seattle Link is a stupid idea but if I was forced to build it, this is the option I would pursue. Run small, automated trains every 4 minutes from Ballard to West Seattle. Run the existing trains like we are planning on doing in just a few months (every 4 minutes to the north end and every 8 minutes to the south and east). Heading northbound it would be obvious which trains are headed to the UW and which are headed to Ballard (the Ballard trains are the small ones that don’t have a driver).

        Likewise if we insist on a second tunnel it should connect Ballard to West Seattle. It should also include a station in First Hill.

        From a transit perspective, the best option is to cancel West Seattle Link. I think we spend half that money on buses for West Seattle and the peninsula comes out way ahead. In terms of cost, the cheapest option is to make the Ballard Line stand-alone (and cancel West Seattle Link). I still think that is by far the best option. But if ending the Ballard Line is unacceptable and we can solve some technical issues (branching, running trains trains every two minutes through downtown, turning around automated trains every four minutes in SoDo) then that is an excellent option. It would definitely cost more, but I could see it being worth it. I would design it so that you could eventually send those trains to First Hill but for now it would be better.

    3. “Automating BLE is such a “no brainer” that it calls into question the quality of the entire corps of “consultants” ST has contracted since the beginning of planning for ST3.”

      Consultants follow whatever instructions that the ST staff tell them. If ST says to not introduce an automated scenario, the consultant won’t study it.

      1. yes, that’s exactly the problem with consultants: they tell you what you want to hear so that they get your next project.

  9. Why doesn’t Metro thru-route the 14 with the 13 instead of the 1? There’s no need for 15-minute service to Kinnear Park while the upper QA business corridor only gets 30-minute service. It’s true that the 2 and 4 aren’t far away from the busiest part of upper QA, but the switch looks simple: 14>13 and 2 Madrona>1 Kinnear/2 WQA. Would the turnback at SPU be overloaded with 2 extra coaches per hour?

    1. The 1 performs well. I wouldn’t want to reduce frequency there. I really think Seattle needs to do as much as possible to avoid half hour routes.

      To do that we need a little bit more money and/or be a little bit more efficient. I’ve described some options for the Greater Central Area. Queen is more challenging. It is more or less an hourglass shape. That means more overlap on each end which means less frequency in the middle. Right now the 2 and 13 branch and as a result, each side gets half the frequency. Making matters worse is that part of this branching section has grown quite a bit.

      One option would be to try and loop around the top of the hill. For example the 2 could do a live loop like so. Even if you could pull that off I don’t think it is good. It seems like way too much of a delay for riders. For example, assume the loop is clockwise. That means to get to Queen & Crockett you have to loop all the way around. You could skip that little bit to Ray but I don’t think it works as a loop.

      Which basically leaves overlapping. This means we have to come up with savings somewhere else or just spend more money. The simplest thing to do on Queen Anne is get rid of the branch. Send all the 2 buses to 7th Avenue West. Now the 13 is an independent route. Run it every fifteen minutes to downtown. You could maybe pair it with a bus from Capitol Hill but that gets tricky. There are places in our network where we can wring out a lot of savings. Queen Anne isn’t one of them.

    2. I think 1’s boarding counts seem a little bit low for a frequent route because it is a shorter route. It might feel as crowded as some longer frequent routes with bigger ridership numbers.

      But I do agree that if 1’s 10th Ave gets 15-minute service, Queen Anne Ave between Galer and McGraw deserves one, too. A frequent 13 probably will get more riders than 1.

      1. I was just looking at ridership per hour*. The 13 has just a bit more ridership per hour than the 1 (despite running half as often). Hard to say what would happen if you ran the 13 as often.

        *2024 Service Report. That is a bit old now (it contains data from September 2023 through March 2024) but the 1 has been doing well since then. But then so has the 13. Queen Anne should have more service — I just don’t want to borrow Peter to pay Paul.

      2. The 1 has great ridership between downtown and lower QA, but once it starts up the hill, it’s nearly empty. The switch I’m suggesting wouldn’t reduce service between downtown and lower QA, but it would double service to the busy commercial segment on upper QA. The cost would be a reduction of service along the Kinnear Park segment.

        Raise your hand if you’ve ever taken Route 1 to Kinnear Park, 10th Ave W or Olympic Way. Now raise your hand if you’ve ever taken the 2/4/13 to QA Ave N.

    1. Admittedly, spending billions is a pleasurable activity — no matter how misguided the choices are. That gets into how ST is still pushing the narrative that it’s a hopeful fantasy to build rather than a daily thing to operate.

      The comments you make will become the norm within a year or two. Once East Link gets operating across Lake Washington, there won’t be new miles of Link track opened for at least a decade. (TDLE is already pushed back to 2035 and WSLE officially still posts very end of 2032 (2033) although the money shortage and construction challenges will push that further.)

      Meanwhile, the Link system will need to run each day. Once the last camera shot and video of the three opening days in the next year (Federal Way, LW East Link crossing, Pinehurst) is made, I’m expecting key leadership to actually consider leaving the agency. All the problems about operations that don’t currently get focus because of the expansion hype will be really apparent. Being in ST senior management will instead become mainly a daily stress of making excuses for any operational problem — and cumulatively that’s lots of negative PR.

      1. Al, I believe the comment you replied to is A.I. spam. I’m going to moderate the comment but leave your reply.

  11. I’ve always thought it’s a bit odd we and sound transit proposed having the new tunnel dive under the existing tunnel. It then requires 1) deeper tunnels 2) deep stations and just 3) overall more difficult construction

    What if we just have the new tunnel to the west of the existing tunnel like on 2nd avenue. Sure there’s an existing sewer pipe might need to rebuild but it’s not as if at the current 22 billion dollar price tag it’s any easier.

    This would allow for a much shallower tunnel and cut and cover stations. Plus it’s still only one block away from the symphony station on 3rd avenue. Then it could continue south to west Seattle

    1. A tunnel on 2nd has to dive under the BNSF tunnel, plus deal with the highway 99 tunnel once it crosses over to the Lake Union area.

      The complexities of what’s already underground is one of the reasons tunneling in cities is so expensive.

      1. i mean we already have to cross the sr 99 at slu and the great northern tunnel at the 4th avenue location.

      2. Yeah, it would have to deal with the BNSF tunnel. Because of North Sounder you can see the pathway on a Google map by turning on the “Transit” layer. I don’t know how deep the tunnel is though.

      3. Ross, it’s dead flat, from King Street to the north portal. The portal is about twenty (?), maybe twenty-five feet above MSL. The tunnel is deep enough that the south end of Symphony station sits over it, with, IIRC, about fifteen feet of clearance.

        Please, folks, focus. The only cost-effective and sane form of a new tunnel south of Pine Street is one on Sixth Avenue that continues south a few blocks and then between University and Seneca turns uphill through First Hill with at three stations up there, one ideally about Madison and Minor, one farther south about Terry and Terrace and one just north of Jackson in the triangle between Boren, 12th and Main. Eventually it should head on south of Yesler going elevated through “North Rainier” which should, as a result, be upzoned to 200′, creating a LOAD of great new view properties out of a light-industrial slum while blocking nobody’s existing view. There is a natural place for a portal just west of Rainier between Jackson and King.

        Put a station a block south of Dearborn, one at Judkins Park, one at Plum and a terminal next to Mount Baker. You could also put a maintenance connection there.

        New Westlake should be north of Westlake Center and another station just south of the curve at University should serve “Midtown”.

        This is a lot of stations, but only four are underground, “Midtown”, “Hospital”, “Yesler Terrace” and “Central District”. Elevated “Skytrain”-style stations for short-trains are a couple of hundred million per. Chump change for the infrastructure they would support.

        This gives three places that “Line 3” connects with Line 1, Line 2 or both. That makes the quality of the transfer at Westlake less critical to overall use of the system.

    2. The second tunnel is supposed to serve “Midtown” (5th & Madison). This is not great but it is better than a station at 2nd & Madison. Maybe we just abandon that station. This means the station situation for the new tunnel gets even worse. It really should be the other way around (the tunnel should serve First Hill). Or we should rethink the entire project.

      Transferring at Symphony isn’t the end of the world but it would mean more backtracking for folks going Uptown to the UW.

      1. The current new tunnel at 4th or 5th is only like one block closer to first hill.

        > Or we should rethink the entire project.

        its currently 22 billion way over budget. we are already in the phase of rethinking.

      2. >> we are already in the phase of rethinking.

        Yeah, and the simplest solution is to abandon the idea of a second tunnel (since it adds so little).

      4. Ross your idea basically still builds a second tunnel if you want it to reach first hill.

        Yes, but it would reach First Hill! If you are going to build a second tunnel south of Westlake Station you want it to be worth it. You want it to maximize coverage in the downtown area. You don’t want to just replicate the existing tunnel. Yet the plan is to basically do precisely that.

      5. The quickest, cheapest way to reach First Hill is to build an automated funicular above Jefferson Street between Pioneer Square and Harborview.

        In a three line DSTT scenario there would be a train every 2-3 minutes. A funicular would easily offer a train every 4-5 minutes.

        Assuming a Ballard to Westlake automated line, that would mean two transfers from Ballard and SLU. However the frequencies would be so high that level changes would be the biggest hassle.

        It would be nice to connect everywhere directly. But at some point the fact that there aren’t unlimited funds has to come into play.

        When I look at the numbers for West Seattle Link at $8B it leaves me wondering how much is actually left over north of Westlake for anything.

        The most pressing decision that’s needed is to put a hard cost ceiling on West Seattle Link at a cost much less than $8B or to cancel it entirely. If we let the full build West Seattle Link project go ahead the remainder of ST3 funds is pretty small.

      6. First Hill would not have just one stop. That would be like only stopping once between Westlake and the UW (oh wait…). Seriously though, an extension to First Hill would not be about just one particular trip — it would be about a whole set of them. Assume this routing for the Ballard line for a second: https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/WSBLE-proposed-2-1.png. Now you have Ballard to Madison, Denny to Jackson, Seattle Center to Yesler Terrace and bunch of other potential trips. It is like Northgate/U-Link. Before Link you could take an express bus from Northgate to Downtown. or the U-District to Downtown. It actually worked quite well. But Northgate to the U-District? Terrible. Roosevelt to Capitol Hill? Terrible. The line from Northgate to downtown changed transit in the north end. That’s because it was a normal subway — it wasn’t a commuter line. Sure, it worked for trips to downtown but it worked for so much more. It is the combination of trips that enabled its success. It would be even more like a real subway if it had more stations but it is still the best transit project we’ve built since the bus tunnel.

        An extension to First Hill means you have a lot more combinations on the Ballard Line. Every stop would be big. The stop at Madison would probably have the highest ridership on the line. Sure, a funicular would be nice. But it only combines two stops. An extension of the Ballard Link towards First Hill (and beyond) would be so much bigger.

      7. “The second tunnel is supposed to serve “Midtown” (5th & Madison).”

        The station was moved to 5th & James (CID/N) in the preferred alternative.

      8. “Sure, a funicular would be nice. But it only combines two stops. An extension of the Ballard Link towards First Hill (and beyond) would be so much bigger.”

        Yes that’s true, Ross.

        The problem is not usefulness but cost-effectiveness. If a funicular to First Hill is under $1B but a First Hill tunnel extension to a Ballard Automated line is say $8B, is its better or worse value? If a funicular to First Hill could open by 2040 but getting enough money and digging for stations and deep bores to extend a Ballard automated line would push opening day to 2055 or 2060, is it worth the wait?

        Keep in mind that the only double rail transfer would be only for the SLU/ Ballard Automated Line. The transfer penalty is the same for everyone else coming from the main North Link line.

        And for those heading to First Hill from the south or Eastside, it could likely be a tad faster. Hopping off at Pioneer Square to go to an aerial funicular to First Hill is lots faster than hopping off two stations later at Westlake and walking through a 3D maze for a few blocks to get to a deeper station just to get to another deep station under First Hill. For short trips, deep stations are a real time suck during the trip.

        At some point, the region’s transit advocates are going to have to embrace ways to make building rail cost effective. No city would splurge on Seattle Subway’s mega dream. The money isn’t there. I feel that even the current discourse is still mostly avoiding consideration of cost-effectiveness. And embracing that could accomplish some different choices than what is being considered today including doing things like not building West Seattle Link..

      9. If a funicular to First Hill is under $1B but a First Hill tunnel extension to a Ballard Automated line is say $8B, is its better or worse value?

        OK, but if we want to do down that road then we just add bus service. RapidRide G is a much better value than a funicular on Madison. If we are willing to spend a bunch of money on a funicular up First Hill then we should be able to make the 3/4 faster.

        I agree that no one would head up to First Hill via a transfer at Westlake. But consider this proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AIf5d-5GhfqY0vuWvm-9JeX8L8DwikDW/view?usp=sharing. If someone is coming the south and heading to the “Madison” station then they transfer at Mount Baker. Same thing goes for “Yesler Terrace” and “Jackson/CID”. The same is true if a rider is coming from the East Side. Maybe they just take the 7 to get to Jackson but if they are heading up to Yesler Terrace or pretty much anywhere on First Hill it makes sense to take the other train.

        But it isn’t just about the transfers. Remember when we added UW Link? Ridership practically doubled. This is because there were suddenly a lot more combinations that saved a lot of time. Beacon Hill to the UW, Columbia City to Capitol Hill. That was with only two new stations! The point is, every extension to the southeast on Ballard Link adds a lot more value. Even Westlake to Madison. That is only one stop but it is so awkward for transit (and far enough to walk) that it is worth dealing with the train for that trip. The Denny Station suddenly gets a big boost as well. The “South Lake Union” Station — which is almost entirely dependent on transfers from Aurora — suddenly gets a huge increase in ridership as the transfer is worth it for more than just heading to Uptown. This (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AIf5d-5GhfqY0vuWvm-9JeX8L8DwikDW/view) is a full-fledged mass transit network for downtown. Trying to put band aids (in the form of “BRT”, funiculars, gondolas and monorails) just isn’t.

        Now maybe we simply can’t afford that. I get that. But then why the hell are we even thinking about West Seattle Link? Or Ballard Link for that matter. If we can’t afford to build what is obviously a major network improvement for the most urban part of the state (what most people would call “downtown”) then I don’t see much point in any major rail project. Ballard Link — by far the most cost effective rail extension in ST3 — is overrated. It is supposed to serve South Lake Union but it really won’t. The stations are either too close to nothingness (Aurora) or too close to the existing station (Westlake). The Seattle Center/Uptown adds value, but we already have a monorail. Current plans are to serve the outskirts of Ballard — too far for the vast majority of potential riders to walk and not really worth taking a bus and transferring. I suppose it is still possible that Ballard to UW would be cheap enough, but that is about it.

        But I don’t think we should give up on rail in this city just because we have escalating costs. With smaller stations (and smaller, automated trains) it is possible we can push the costs down. If that happens then Ballard Link is worth it (while West Seattle Link never was). But if Ballard Link is worth it then it is highly likely an extension (like the one on that map) is as well. This isn’t Seattle Subway fantasy map nonsense. This is not running grade-separated trains to Woodinville. As an extension to Ballard Link it would be a better project than every ST3 rail project other than Ballard Link itself. The only competition for future transit dollars would be Ballard-to-UW. That’s good company.

      10. Ross, I agree completely, though I’d stick a couple more stations on the elevated part down Rainier. Might as well re-develop a light-industrial wasteland into 200′ condo properties with views of the mountains from the fifth or sixth floors up.

        Maybe it’s time to bite the bullet and say, “Seattle needs to take its transit future into its own hands. After ST3 there should be no more regionwide projects, but instead, Seattle inherits ST’s additional bonding authority so tit can ‘go it alone’ for urban lines.”

        [P.S. When I wrote the comment in the section above about this I had not read your post here which says almost exactly the same thing. Of course, Frank originally came up with the idea of extending a First Hill line all the way to Mount Baker, ensuring that high quality connections to both Lines 1 and 2 can be made. Credit is due him for a great idea.]

    3. What Glenn said. Second Ave is complicated by two other tunnels.

      I’ve felt that the only way to NOT go deeper than DSTT with another rail transit tunnel crossing may be to have the crossing east of I-5. It may be possible to thread something west of I-5 but it looks very difficult. That’s why I mentioned that automated trains can reverse direction mid-route in an earlier post. A train could stop next to Westlake Station and backtrack to a branch track that first goes east and eventually curves south across the existing Link tunnel.

      I’ve even wondered if the I-5 express lane under downtown could be closed and repurposed for rail transit south of Republican. It would require lots of different considerations so it may not be possible. But I do wonder.

      Of course, going aerial would eliminate the tunnel challenge completely and be much cheaper and less of a vertical distance between street and platform — but that offends sensibilities and real estate values Downtown.

      1. the new 4th avenue tunnel has to deal with the northern tunnel as well. that’s why the pedestrian path goes above it. we could still use the path at slu to avoid the sr 99.

      2. One really out-of-the-box solution is to replace the BNSF tunnel with a new deep one — or maybe one sunk in Elliott Bay for BNSF. Then the BNSF tunnel could be overhauled to carry Link.

        God only knows what that would require. But the budget to build as now planned is so big that it could be a significantly cheaper thing to do.

      3. No one is saying it is harder to build. We are just saying it isn’t a lot easier. Either way you have to cross tunnels which means it gets deep. Yes, you can build the other station next to the existing station but that isn’t that different than the Sixth Avenue option. It might be cheaper to have parallel stations — I can see that. But the same is true on the other side. The idea is that you skip Westlake and connect at Symphony. From a transfer point that is worse but not a lot worse. From a station standpoint it is also worse. Station spacing is awkward. To the north you have to shift the Denny Station a lot further south. That would be OK if the station to the north of that was in the dense area of South Lake Union but despite the name, it won’t be. It will be close to the highway. To the south you move the “Midtown” station right next to Pioneer Square station (otherwise you have a big gap between Symphony and CID). You’ve basically reproduced the other tunnel’s stations south of Westlake.

        So I guess it isn’t a lot worse but that just shows how bad the original plans are. Between Pine and Lander you would add very little in the way of coverage (either way). You would be spending a fortune for practically nothing.

      4. “Ross has argued Belltown is denser than SLU.”

        That may have been true a few years ago, but the number of new tall buildings in SLU is staggering and probably made SLU more dense at this point in time.

      2. It could also perhaps curve westward at Stewart or Olive and end at a station somewhere in Belltown (say 1st and Lenora). If there’s no downtown tunnel then an extension is 20-30 years away at best, and I think there are some significant benefits to a shallower station:
        – Ballard Link could get built much faster
        – Riders don’t have to deal with deep mined stations forever
        – Cost savings could potentially lead to additional stations (like the aforementioned Belltown station)

      4. I don’t understand the idea. Belltown is already served well by buses isn’t it? At least to me it’s not self evident why a line coming south from Ballard would do a button hook to end in belltown,

        Explain?

      5. Currently, the only bus stop in Belltown is on the northbound 1 at 1st and Broad, and there’s no southbound equivalent. This is for one of the most densely populated places in Washington.

        Because of Elliot and Western, it winds up being 5 blocks to get from parts of Belltown over to 3rd, and it can be very time consuming on foot. The times I’ve had to do it, I was quite annoyed such a large area of downtown doesn’t have better service, especially considering there’s a northbound stop for the 1 but no southbound equivalent.

      6. Belltown should have better bus service. I also think there is a strong case that Belltown should have a station (or two) instead of South Lake Union. That would make the route straighter (one of the big weaknesses with Ballard Link is the sudden turn of the line in South Lake Union).

        But a big curve like the one shown would have a similar problem. To be clear, subways can curve. But when you curve too much you lose potential riders. The Capitol Hill streetcar is an extreme example. You can get off the train, walk a few blocks and then wait for the same train to catch up to you. It also means that for that section you aren’t really adding any coverage. If I’m at 12th & Boren I can walk to the streetcar in three directions. That is not good. It means that you are overlapping too much*. Obviously this proposal wouldn’t be that bad. But it has similarities. In terms of coverage it doesn’t add that much. You aren’t very far from the water. You aren’t that far from Westlake either. If you head up the hill you get close to the Denny Station. Thus you are really only adding coverage to the northwest. In terms of trip combinations it isn’t great either. If you are on the main line it doesn’t seem worth it to transfer. From the Denny Station it might be worth it but depending on where you are, it might be easier to just walk. The South Lake Union Station won’t have many walk-up riders. From Uptown you are probably better off just taking a bus. So that basically just leaves the folks from Magnolia and Ballard. This definitely adds value for those riders but I doubt it would be worth it.

        In contrast consider just one station in First Hill, at Boren & Madison. There is some overlap but not a lot. It is a long walk to Capitol Hill or Westlake Station. You get a bit of overlap with Symphony Station but not a lot. It also works with all the other stations on the Ballard Line — even Westlake. It is a hassle to take a subway line one stop but the alternative is a long walk or time consuming bus ride. If you are on the main line coming from the south it doesn’t save you a huge amount of time versus taking the G Line. But from the north it does. This is just one stop! With more stops it adds more value. Likewise if it continues and connects at Judkins Park and Mount Baker.

        I agree though, that may take decades. We should aim for Westlake but still plan on going towards First Hill in the future.

        *Think of the little diamonds that make up walking distance from a particular spot. Each stop represents one. If the stops are too close together they overlap. The more a line turns the more it overlaps and the less additional coverage you get.

      7. @Jas

        The idea is to avoid overlapping Line 1, so that Ballard Link doesn’t need to dive so deep underground:
        – Since the station doesn’t need to be as deep, it can be built cut-and-cover near the surface of the street
        – Closer to the surface means better access to the stations via foot or rail transfer
        – Cut and cover means much cheaper and faster construction

        Belltown is really the only direction the line could go from there. It would be better to go to Belltown before SLU, but that would be a different line entirely (Ballard-LQA-Belltown-SLU, with an eventual extension to Eastlake and U District. Basically the route of the D, then SLU streetcar/70)

        @Ross Bleakney

        Boren/Madison would be a much better location, but that would also be decades out and force a deep station below Westlake forever. Building near the surface would expand the walkshed by a few minutes, since riders would save time entering and exiting the station.

        1st/Blanchard here (aka “Pike Place Station”) isn’t the best station location but Denny-Pike Place here would be the same distance as Westlake-Pioneer Square, and SLU is full of midrise buildings, I don’t think it will do too poorly on walk-up ridership.

        I don’t think it’s ideal but in a scenario where the downtown tunnel doesn’t happen it would probably be better in the interim before a theoretical ST4

      8. @ John D:

        Yes a terminus at 5th and Olive could work.

        I can’t point to any study that looks at crossing above the Link tracks at Westlake. Everyone has been assuming that it’s not technically possible but that may be because it was fatally flawed in a study many years ago.

        The issue that has never been analyzed appears to be that no alternative has been studied to cross the existing Link tunnel anywhere further east but next to Westlake Station. Early studies flagged that going west of Westlake put proposals in the crosshairs of existing tunnels — but no technical studies I’ve seen have looked at going further east to east of if I-5. Part of this was the core belief that Westlake had to be the transfer point. With Westlake’s decline in regional activity that’s now less the case.

        I have long believed that a SLU- Capitol Hill Station transfer- First Hill- ID corridor would be more valuable than DSTT2. However the elevation differences would mean either portions would need to be aerial or that some subway stations would be very deep. Of course, there isn’t money to build half of what ST has already planned through 2045 or further out so it is almost academic at this point.

        To me, Belltown should be served by a streetcar. It’s a walkable area that is somewhat close to Link so that it’s well suited to the hop-on concept of a streetcar. Maybe a one-station cut-and-cover extension from Fifth and Olive to Belltown would be nice but it’s still a rather expensive tunnel extension to add.

        Admittedly, I’ve seen a revisiting of how to connect the streetcars as as a Pine-Pine couplet, with one east-west line from Seattle Center through Belltown to Pike-Pine to Capitol Hill Station to 15th/ John (Kaiser) that offloads a Route 8 problem, and one north-south line using the existing SLU tracks to Pike-Pine to First Hill on the current tracks to Pioneer Square. That probably biases my thinking. A good case could be made to just curve the SLU streetcar up into Belltown and maybe further to LQA as well. And a good financial case could be made for just getting rid of the streetcars.

      9. “I also think there is a strong case that Belltown should have a station (or two) instead of South Lake Union.”

        Ross has argued Belltown is denser than SLU. There’s also those highrise apartments on Western/Elliott Avenues that have never had transit, and have to walk up a steep hill to 3rd Avenue or 5th & Denny to get anything.

        However, that’s not going to overcome the prestige and clout of the current tech giants in SLU.

      10. @John D,

        If New Westlake is on Sixth Avenue it can be considerably shallower and not contend with the Westlake Center box supports. Since you’re going uphill to First Hill, shallower is better.

        Stack the tubes on Sixth Avenue and run them directly under the existing Spine cut-and-cover box tunnel with the platforms to the west of the tracks (toward Westlake Center). Move the tracks in Westlake Center together — i.e. reclaim the center roadway lane — to make the platforms wider and use the extra space at the end of the platform for a direct walkway to a pair of half-mezzanines at the same Westlake Center platform level from which riders would descend to the the new tubes. The “main Mezzanine” for New Westlake would be at the same level as the Westlake Center Mezzanine, but within the Sixth Avenue footprint between Pine and Olive.

        Yes! this is possible without penetrating the station box.

  12. Is there anyway to get the cost breakdown? I don’t see any document that actually says how much each segment costs or each station. Don’t need like fine grained data but like aka Avalon costs 300 million etc…. Would be useful.

    Or do we need to file a request for it?

    1. That would be nice. But that would require a level of communication within the organization that doesn’t exist, let alone communicating that information to the public.

    2. ST knows that if they give out too much info that will give more time for groups to organize opposition.

      Whatever comes from them next will be the final decision whether we like it or not, and we will never truly know what was of the most important to making that decision: politics? Allegiance to the spine? Pure cost? Dow putting his thumb on the scale? Inertia? There are so many ways ST could come to a decision that will be less than good for future riders.

      Yet, In the spirit of ‘everything is on the table’ It’s kind of fun though, to put these ideas out there and hope ST is listening, and will be influenced by them.

    3. I get how pricing a scenario involves lots of moving parts so it is hard to isolate one station or segment’s cost. ST did try with a minimum operating segment between SODO and Delridge (which no one wants to discuss).

      It’s notable that the Final EIS did not include using Avalon as the end station for analysis and costing. Actually it’s notable that they even called it a Final EIS when the reality was so different from the Draft EIS.

      It’s further notable that every SODO layout assumes more platforms than needed. We don’t know what the station would look like with fewer platforms and cross platform transfers. ST didn’t even want that presented for some reason. A scaled back and more transfer-friendly SODO station should have been analyzed and presented all along.

      Anyway, ST forces outcomes by what systems alternatives they analyze and present. They just proved that their current preferred outcome is a horrible value as well as wildly unaffordable. Not until ST is forced to rethink many of the basic assumptions will they consider doing anything but deferring stations and then blaming inflation or community activism. In other words, they’re like a narcissist who can’t get what they want but can’t admit that they brought the problem on themselves by years of poorly cost-estimated and unrealistic hopes.

      At this point, the best that transit advocacy can do is to push ST to quit limiting alternatives to mere station platform location options. ST has just spent several years avoiding looking into other larger solutions — yet even the Rogoff era was flagging the huge cost problem. What concerns me is that the Board still remains willing to sit and wait another year to look at anything different beyond just deferring stations. Without a fundamentally new approach to add many more scenarios , the Board is wasting time.

      I think that should be at least a dozen new alternatives for Ballard and West Seattle link extensions. Those include changes to technology, vertical profiles and station layouts. The process of limiting what can be studied these past eight years has resulted in a spectacular failure. Limiting alternatives has not worked and directly led to this problem.

      In fact, the current preferred scenario (moving the transfers to Pioneer Square) is not an option that was even on the table four years ago anyway — further demonstrating how flawed the restricted ST scenario development process has been.

      I imagine that there are backroom meetings trying to develop a pretty, new preferred scenario going on right now. It’s just that ST doesn’t want the public to know. They seem to still be scheming like an institutional narcissist about what certain stakeholders with power want rather than have a more public process that also looks more objectively at performance measures.

      Where is Cher to slap them all in the face and declare “snap out of it”?

      1. Al S.

        I’ve known a couple of ST board members for a long time and I’d bet Mello wishes the whole ST disaster would just disappear. It’s not like he doesn’t have other stuff to work on and Sound Transit is total loser at this point. Board members have just ignored reality for years now. It’s human nature.

        You’re completely right about the Sound Transit debt snowball. The unfunded ST2 projects were just rolled into ST3. I get the feeling that some of the lethargic nature of the board has been waiting for the right minute to politically spring a ST4 vote with more taxes to bail out ST3.

        The only honest solution at this point is another public vote.

      2. “I get the feeling that some of the lethargic nature of the board has been waiting for the right minute to politically spring a ST4 vote with more taxes to bail out ST3. ”

        ST3 was expanded by a third to get the entire Spine construction approved, so that it wouldn’t have to have another vote so soon, and to give cities like Bothell and Kenmore certainty on whether/when they’d get HCT. That was holding up their downtown design work.

        I think ST3 is using almost all the state-allowed tax capacity. There’s a business head tax it doesn’t want to use because that’s so unpopular (and it would only bring in a small amount). And it may have a bit unused property-tax capacity or such. Anything more than that would require asking the legislature for permission.

        So we can’t just have an ST4 to give ST substantially more money now. Any ST4 projects would have to be after ST3 finishes in the 2040s or so.

  13. A few additional observations about the Copenhagen video:

    1. I love Danish transit graphics! The schematic of the M3 circle line as an actual circle looks cool! https://cphtransitmap.dk/en/

    2. The cars, stations and technology don’t look that costly. Even the platform screen doors look modest. I wonder how reliable the doors are in snow.

    3. The short, automated trains are all high floor. It makes me wonder if there would be an advantage to using a high floor for an independent, automated Ballard/ SLU/ Downtown line.

    4. While the train videos are nice, they don’t show the system at crowded times (and they probably should). The interiors look like a large part of the seating is removed — likely for bicycles. Copenhagen is flat and bicycles are popular there. Of course, train riders don’t appear to be going longer distances like they do on Link so standing would be easier to do.

    5. I like how the video calls out the airport for 24 hour service. Unlike other destinations, major airports are active 24 hours. Perhaps ST and SeaTac jointly need to address this better.

    6. It would be interesting to know how deep the subway stations are and what kinds of challenges involved going underground there.

    7. I remember noting that Danish land use is probably highly regulated from my one time there four decades ago. I wonder how the integration with new areas works and whether those new districts have special assessments to help pay for the rail extension to them.

    1. It has 4 lines and 27 route miles total. The metro isn’t really used for particularly long trips as it doesn’t really go that far.

      There are two types of regional trains used for longer trips, where people are more likely to want to sit down.

    2. I ride this train fairly frequently, mostly during layovers at CPH airport, and it’s extremely useful, rarely overly crowded (although that’s just my anecdote and I’m probably not using it that often at peak commute times), and quite efficient. The stations inbound from the airport are pleasant and not all that spartan, and the airport line connects to the others easily. I’ve never seen many bikes on the train (yay!) as the Danes tend to, you know, ride them. It’s a nice way to spend a layover in town or to spend the night in a more interesting location than the airport. The regional train to Københavns Hovedbanegård (Copenhagen main rail station) is even faster from the airport if you’re going to that area, but not as easy to transfer from to other services if you’re going elsewhere.

      An automated train like this would be extremely useful here particularly for shorter urban runs like Ballard/First Hill/etc. as has been discussed on this site many times. Short frequencies make up for shorter trains, and fewer available seats on a given train are okay when the train isn’t running for an hour out into the suburbs.

    3. Of course an independent, automated “Skytrain-like” Light Metro would have high floors. They all do. Unfortunatrly, it would have to have catenary power distribution rather than third rail so that cars can travel on The Spine to heavy maintenance.

      Overhead power would make it maybe 10% more expensive to build and less esthetically pleasing in elevated sections. And tunneled segments would have to be a foot or two larger diameter than if third rail were used.

      So compatibility would raise the cost over a pure Skytrain system, but unless rumors of a BNSF pullback from Interbay are true and a full MF can be sited thrre,, it is necessary.

      1. SkyTrain tunnels are smaller in diameter because the trains themselves are less wide.

        There are low profile ways to use overhead contact in a tunnel. Direct connection to the tunnel roof works fine at the speeds seen in the downtown tunnel.

  14. Regarding automated trains.

    Sound Transit just isn’t able to design for a full metro without a ludicrious design that attempts to avoid any community, road, or construct impacts leading to an expensive design of 2 billion per mile. I doubt asking sound transit to design an automated train variant is really going to work when they are unable to design a regular metro.

    we should fall back to building light rail as originally planned in the pre-2016 plans. It’s what sound transit is actually able to build and more importantly politically a bit more acceptable to build.

    1. If ST can do something as major as move the key subway transfer hub away from the ID to a new location, they should be able to more easily change rail technology — particularly if that technology means shorter trains and station platforms as well as easier geometric restrictions like curves.

      1. i mean changing rail way technology it still needs to be fully grade separated. the problem is that cheaper methods of construction it’s more than just about shorter stations.

        Like for west seattle shorter stations won’t mean a cheaper bridge. it’s the same. or for ballard we should just choose to build it elevated rather than tunneled.

      3. I don’t think anyone assumes that we can build Ballard Link (or West Seattle Link) cheaply if we just automate the trains. But we can build it cheaper. It also means we can run the trains more often. This helps make up for the loss of through-running or a second tunnel. Yes, it sucks that you have to transfer to get from Ballard to say Beacon Hill. But the transfer sucks less if the trains run more often. (The other nice thing is that other riders do *not* have to transfer — unlike a second tunnel.) Not only that but a trip like Denny to Ballard would simply be better. This is where a lot of the savings come from. No second tunnel, no branch. Through in West Seattle Link and we can probably build this thing.

        No one knows how much we would save on each station by automating the trains. But it is bound to be significant. Having shorter platforms is cheaper even if you build in a huge field. But prices have a tendency to escalate when the platforms get longer. Consider Pinehurst Station. It is above ground and thus should be quite cheap. But the north end of the station gets steep. If it merely stopped at the south end it would be much cheaper to build — probably cutting the cost in half. Things are underground (for the most part) so it would be different but there are similar changes.

        But again, that doesn’t mean it would be as cheap as running buses. But if we want the same kind of average speed, even that gets costly. Building a new bus tunnel wouldn’t be cheap and some aspects of it are more expensive than a rail tunnel. The main difference is that we can leverage what we already have. From West Seattle to Ballard has a lot of sections that are fundamentally fast (or could be for relatively little money). It is really only the section between Jackson and Mercer that is bound to be slow. That is the only place where you would need to add a bus tunnel. Do that any get speeds similar to the proposed train (from West Seattle to Ballard). But that is still a lot of tunneling (and the stations are big — like the ones that we have downtown).

        Of course you could just live with slow speeds downtown and run on the surface the whole way. That would definitely be cheaper but it means it is slower. That’s not a crazy idea (replace ST3 with bus service) but I still think Ballard Link (as an automated line to Westlake) is worth it.

      4. “But the transfer sucks less if the trains run more often.”

        And the transfer will suck vastly less if you don’t have to go 9 floors down, unlike the “Escalatorpalooza” plan:

        https://seattletransitblog.com/2022/03/25/notes-from-a-vancouverite-revisited/

        (see the 9th illustration, called “Escalatorpalooza” and shows the transfer requiring about 10 minutes worth of escalator trips, including going up and then down, plus several escalators that are two floors).

      5. > And the transfer will suck vastly less if you don’t have to go 9 floors down, unlike the “Escalatorpalooza” plan:

        Sure but you and ross are arguing for two different stub types.

        Ross is building a deep stub otherwise it can not continue on to first hill.

        others are saying it is a shallow stub so it is easy to build and easy to reach the surface.

        It’s fine to argue for one or the other, but you guys are simultaneously saying this stub is magically both shallow and can reach first hill. both cannot be true at the same time.

      6. but you guys are simultaneously saying this stub is magically both shallow and can reach first hill

        I don’t think anyone is saying it reaches First Hill right away. We are saying that *eventually* it can reach First Hill. Build it shallow for now.

        Imagine twenty years from now we’ve built Ballard Link from Ballard to Westlake. We want to extend the north end to the UW and the south end to First Hill. But wait — extending the south end means destroying the station at Westlake and building that whole section all over again!

        So what? You planned for this possibility all along. You already have the ability to turn around south of Denny without drivers. The Ballard-Link Westlake Station is inoperable for a few years but the rest of the line is fine.

        That assumes that we can’t go over Westlake Station. I’m not so sure. If you are above Westlake Station then you need to go downhill to get to First Hill. You have two obstacles. The first is the turn. If you are running underneath Fifth and turning on Madison the turn is trivial (you would be underneath the lawn for the Federal Courthouse). The hard part is going under the freeway. But you would be going downhill as soon as you crossed Westlake. I think there is enough room (over 700 meters) to get low enough. At Madison & Boren you turn again. By then you are really deep. That station would probably be all elevators. By the time you get to Yesler Terrace you are a little closer to the surface but still pretty deep. At Jackson you are closer to the surface. By the time you reach Rainier you could be running cut and cover. Just to be clear, no one is saying First Hill is cheap. This sort of thing would be similar to building the new tunnel — pretty damn expensive. The difference is that you get a lot of out of it.

      7. > I don’t think anyone is saying it reaches First Hill right away. We are saying that *eventually* it can reach First Hill. Build it shallow for now.

        Ross you cannot build it shallow for now and then rebuild it to reach First hill. If the stub is say 40 feet deep with the station there, then it will collide with an existing tunnel that tries to extend past the existing 1 line.

        > So what? You planned for this possibility all along. You already have the ability to turn around south of Denny without drivers. The Ballard-Link Westlake Station is inoperable for a few years but the rest of the line is fine.

        Uhh so the plan is to demolish the ballard link’s westlake station and then rebuild it with a deeper station so it can go under the existing 1 line?

      8. “Ross you cannot build it shallow for now and then rebuild it to reach First hill. If the stub is say 40 feet deep with the station there, then it will collide with an existing tunnel that tries to extend past the existing 1 line.”

        Actually there are many ways to extend southward without destroying the station.

        1. ST can have two SLU lines with one branching before the original station. If automated trains are running every two or three minutes, it’s not that disruptive to just continue every other train under Westlake but not stop there.

        2. ST can back the automatic train out from a Westlake stub station and quickly take a branch that crosses the Link tunnel somewhere further east before heading southward.

        3. ST can build a second automated line from Westlake. That may be en be a Haifa style funicular with a few stops as it climbs the hill so that the stations don’t have to be deep. Transferring riders would have to walk a block but it could be lots worse.

        4. ST could have the lines actually cross each other at grade. With automation the risk of collisions is lowered. Keep in mind that the 4 Line branch to South Kirkland is at grade.

        5. ST could build a new tunnel but leave a stub station operating until opening day when a new platform would open. There are many abandoned subway stations across the US in older systems.

        I’m sure there are other ways to make it happen as well.

      9. WL:
        My understanding is the Westlake deep station has to be so deep because of the plan to go south to ID, which is lower in elevation that Westlake and has the BNSF and existing DSTT to contend with, plus building foundations and underground Seattle basements along 4th in that part of downtown.

        All of this is avoided if the line goes to first hill instead. There may be different obstacles, but we don’t know that unless it gets studied.

      10. Uhh so the plan is to demolish the ballard link’s westlake station and then rebuild it with a deeper station so it can go under the existing 1 line?

        Yes, assuming you can’t go over. I don’t why this is so complicated. There are many levels of future proofing. There is the type where you fully plan on extending the line in the future. A good example is U-Link. It was clear from the day it was built that the line would not end there. They already had plans to go to the U-District and beyond. It was built with that in mind.

        Then there are things like the bus tunnel. Everyone knew there was a possibility that they would run trains. But they also knew that it was quite possible they just run buses there forever. So they did some things that made it easy to convert to running trains (like mezzanines that can handle fare gates) but other things weren’t designed for it.

        Another example is West Seattle. Will it go further south? Maybe. Where it will go? No one knows. But that’s why they insisted the line face south. They figured it would be cheaper if the line faces south. But they never actually studied it. They never actually figured out what it would take to go further south. Thus they didn’t pick the best alignment for going south. It is quite possible that if they do go south they will look at it years later and think “Too bad we didn’t design the end of the line differently, now we have to spend all this extra money”.

        That would be the case here. If you end *before* Westlake (as John suggested) it is *dramatically* cheaper. Everything could be cut and cover east of Aurora. Even if it was just a lot closer to the surface on Westlake it would save a huge amount of money. If, decades later it costs a bit more to go to First Hill, so what? The surface line becomes like the Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station. Great in its time. Not that expensive to build. Definitely worth the money. But now it is obsolete.

        But again, that assumes that we can’t just go over the existing. If we can go over the existing line (and run to First Hill) then we keep the station and save even more money.

      11. @Ross

        I mean that is fine but then just say we are building a medium depth station that is deeper than the existing 1 line.

        I don’t know why some are saying the new ballard westlake station will be as shallow as the 1 line station and then also saying it can be extended. obviously if it’s the same depth then it can’t be extended past the 1 line

      12. I’ve seen some speculation that the Ballard line could be put through the Westlake area above the existing station, at approximately the mezzanine level, if the various restrictions of DSTT2 were eliminated.

        Since none of this has been studied, anything any of us says is just speculation at this point.

      13. @WL — It really isn’t that complicated. Here are some options:

        1) Build a second tunnel (the ST3 plan). If we do this, it becomes extremely difficult to serve First Hill. It would be a major expense while we would still be paying for the other tunnel. It would also be extremely disruptive. If we build a second tunnel it means that trains from Ballard and the South End would be running on it. Turning around would not be easy. Realistically I don’t ever see it happening.

        2) Build an automated line that ends under the Westlake Station. The line is designed to be extended to First Hill. Preliminary engineering is done to make sure this is feasible and the station is built with that in mind. This pushes up the cost of construction but this option is still a lot cheaper than a second tunnel (the first option).

        3) Build an automated line that ends above the Westlake Station. This is similar to the second option but cheaper (and better for riders). Preliminary engineering is done to make sure the line can be extended to First Hill.

        4) Build a line that ends at 5th & Olive, close to the surface. This is the end of the line — the tracks don’t extend any farther. Obviously you would have scissor tracks between Denny and this station. The trains are automated so reversing direction is trivial. This is the cheapest option (by far). The line would be designed so that the station could be abandoned if it is ever extended to First Hill. It is worth noting that we basically did this with Convention Place Station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Place_station). It sucks that we no longer have that station but we have managed fine without it.

        If option 3 is feasible, that seems like the best. It would not be that expensive initially and be the least disruptive if we ever extend to First Hill. Otherwise option 4 seems like the best bet. You save a huge amount of money in the short run. This is basically a compromise between options 1 and 2 (in terms of cost and disruption). While the work is being done, the Ballard Line would turn around at Denny Station. Otherwise the cost would be similar to what it would take to do it in the first place. The only extra cost is what is essentially a temporary Westlake Station. Yet this is still a lot less expensive and disruptive than building a second line and then trying to serve First Hill later (the first option). The only city that does that sort of thing is London (and we aren’t London). In contrast, this is a pretty simple adjustment — you abandon a station that was close to the surface (and wasn’t that expensive to build). Many cities have done this — including Seattle.

      14. Here’s a design difference:

        Link tunnel bores have been 21.5 feet across. Skytrain has bored tunnels 19.7 feet across. Could a smaller bore requirement enable a mezzanine crossing at Westlake?

      15. @Ross @Glenn

        > 2) Build an automated line that ends under the Westlake Station.
        Ehhh I don’t really see how it makes it that much simpler then.

        We aren’t really skipping that much of a tunnel, it is just 1 mile to reach the tunnel exit at CID. If one just wanted to save money we could skip the midtown and the cid south stations. The expensive is mostly in building the stations.

        With the plan for a deep station at westlake stub you’d still need to dig a massive pit to bring the tunnel boring machine out or you’d need to leave it down there. and then plus now you need to build an OMF in ballard.

        > 4) Build a line that ends at 5th & Olive, close to the surface.
        Sure that works pretty easily

        > 3) Build an automated line that ends above the Westlake Station.
        It was mostly Tom that suggested it could be done. it is kinda complicated. it might be able to be done but im not sure.

        > There may be different obstacles, but we don’t know that unless it gets studied.
        @glenn sure but at that point we are just back to the current 22 billion proposal if it’s not buildable

      16. “We aren’t really skipping that much of a tunnel, it is just 1 mile to reach the tunnel exit at CID.”

        The interesting thing about having one DSTT is that all Link trains serve every station between CID and Northgate as through trains at very high frequencies. So reaching any specific station by an automated line (also at a high frequency) becomes less important.

        The value of reaching CID directly from Ballard is mostly for Sounder South, Cascades and events at the stadiums. In the first two cases it’s a small number —especially compared to the riders making the proposed escalatorpalooza trek for the preferred DSTT2. In the last case it would add to crowd surges — but with other lines running there it would not be a total disaster. Frankly, crush load trains are good for productivity.

        Finally, the Third Ave corridor with several RapidRide lines also works well when distances are just a mile or two. It can be easier and faster to just use surface transit. (Station depth and transfer treks — fundamental to the DSTT2 design — are why the new Central Subway in SF is getting far fewer riders than their models forecasted.)

      17. Midtown station is gone so its 9 levels is moot. The issue is transfers at Westlake, and James Street.

        Roosevelt is effectively 4 levels down, Capitol Hill is 5, etc. Both of these have just two rounds of escalators, and each escalator feels like one floor even if it’s two.

        So the comparision isn’t between 9 floors vs 0 floors, it’s between 9 floors vs 4-5 floors at a typical underground station.

        And train transfers won’t be top-to-bottom, because the existing line is already 2 levels below. You’d only be top-to-bottom if you’re coming from the street to the new line. But train-to-line transfers are the most critical issue in people’s perception, and that will be only some of the levels.

        Other stations have top-to-bottom elevators like UW, Roosevet, and Capitol Hill, traversing 4-5 levels in a short period of time. I take the elevator to transfer to a 15-minute unreliable bus to work, or when I really want to catch the next train in 1-2 minutes. Otherwise I take the more leisurely escalators. This kind of split would probably happen at these stations.

      18. @Mike Orr

        Aren’t the original bus tunnel stations 2-3 floors down? And Bellevue and Spring stations are both about 1 floor down. It should be at least possible for a 2-3 story station if Seattle is willing to close down part of the roadway.

      20. “It should be at least possible for a 2-3 story station if Seattle is willing to close down part of the roadway.”

        That’s what Seattle isn’t willing to do anymore. The Pine Street tunnel and Intl Dist station closed the streets for so long it generated a huge backlash from area businesses, so there’s little political willingness to ever do it again. All the ST tunnels and other tunnel projects are working around that constraint by going deeper.

        The Spring District was decaying industrial land with no existing housing or retail to complain. Spring Blvd is an entirely new street subdividing the area into new commercial/housing blocks, and the Link track was built along with it.

        The small tunnel at Bellevue Downtown station was probably so short the disruption wasn’t as extensive.

      21. @Mike Orr

        The tunnel at Pine St and CID are located on much more important streets. Westlake between Virginia and Olive is a whole lot of nothing. That’s not to say that it’s politically palatable but it would be much less disruptive to local businesses.

        Avalon Station as planned is maybe more similar, it’s a retained-cut station that will probably cause a lot of disruption on Fauntleroy/Avalon.

    2. we should fall back to building light rail as originally planned in the pre-2016 plans.

      I’m not sure what that means. You imply it would be significantly cheaper and the only option for West Seattle that I think would be significantly cheaper would be light rail to Delridge. You skip the Alaska Junction (and Avalon). That keeps everything low. You have a drawbridge over the Duwamish but that doesn’t open that often. Then you run along the surface of Delridge until Burien (at best). Great. But how is that better than the existing RapidRide H? Oh, it connects to the SoDo Station. OK, but you could do the same thing by connecting the Alaska Way Viaduct with the SoDo Busway. The you just send the H that way and you’ve saved yourself hundreds of millions of dollars.

      I’m not saying there aren’t places where we should run on the surface. It is silly that Sound Transit insists on elevating the trains along 15th/Elliott. But that still doesn’t save you that much money. That isn’t where is expensive. You still have to build a brand new bridge over Ballard and a brand new tunnel to get from Mercer to Downtown. If you don’t — if you run on the surface — then you are much better off running buses. Buses would be faster and directly connect to more places. No more debates as to where exactly the trains should stop in Ballard. It can stop anywhere there is a potential bus stop which basically means everywhere. Build a Ballard Busway and the world is your oyster. Even just the routing we had before the pandemic (peak-only 15, 17, 18 and the RapidRide D) would be a huge improvement over expecting everyone to transfer to a streetcar that isn’t faster than their bus.

      So yeah, the only option that really makes sense for “light rail” (by this definition) is to run on the surface on 15th/Elliott but build the bridge over the ship canal and the tunnel downtown. That’s nice but the fact is, you could run automated trains the same way. Subway lines run on the surface all the time. The difference between this and “light rail” is that light rail stops at intersections. But in the case of 15th/Elliott, you wouldn’t. There are overpasses pretty much the whole way between Mercer and the bridge. Just ban left turns and run the trains in the middle of the street. Fence it off so cars (or jaywalking pedestrians) can’t cross. Build a few pedestrian overpasses (they aren’t that expensive) and you probably still save money over running elevated. Drivers might have to drive a little farther (this instead of this). I can live with that. But again, the point is that doesn’t save you that much money.

      1. I mean just build similar to Portland light rail or San Diego light rail. While it is slower it won’t actually be as slow as a bus.

      2. How would a train be faster than a bus if you are giving it the same right of way. Are you suggesting faster acceleration or top speed? If so, the difference would be minimal.

        Take Link in Rainier Valley for example. Imagine buses running over the tracks. The bus would be just as fast as the train. If anything it would be faster since the dwell times would be shorter. The only advantage of the train is that you can carry more people. But in the case of Ballard it doesn’t really matter. You reduce the needed capacity by reducing transfers. Instead of being forced to transfer and take the streetcar your bus just keeps going down the same pathway.

        There is a trade-off, of course. If buses are running every minute or two you are wasting service hours. But the trade-off is a better experience for riders. In this case I don’t think it is realistic to assume that buses would run every couple minutes down the same corridor just because it is a bit faster. RapidRide D isn’t that frequent. It only runs every ten minutes (and that is not because it would be crowded if it ran less often). You have to start running these buses quite a bit before you come close to where capacity is an issue.

      3. @Ross

        For the light rail we can still build much more expensive capital projects that bus projects normally don’t get. The mlk way link is faster than the buses and similarly the San Diego and Portland light rail are faster than their respective buses.

        The most expensive part is the downtown segment. Well we can build the elevated Ballard and at grade 15th avenue segment with 4 car stations. Then at grade 2 car stations along 1st avenue through downtown.

        In the farther future if there’s money for a tunnel it could connect to the segment past belltown

      4. WL, how do four-car trains running on 15th West serve two-car stations on First Avenue? Would they have two operators and split/join at West Queen Anne? Or are you proposing some sort of temporary operation on First and running only two-car trains until money for a tunnel is accumulated?

        If the first, yes, streetcars have done stuff like that, mostly in the past, but you need to be clear that’s your plan.

        If the latter, you have saved a little money on the cheap part of the route but condemned yourself to building the super-expensive five hundred foot stations that four car trains require in the tunneled portion of the line.

        Shorter stations in tunnels save lots of money!

        Also, you’re deferring the important part of Ballard-Downtown (South Lake Union) in favor of a MAX-like cheap LR to First Avenue with its crowds of oblivious jaywalkers at the Market and huge climbs to the office center around Fifth and Madison.

        It’s the epitome of “Penny-wise but Pound-foolish.”

    3. As far as a First Hill connection goes, there was the infamous soils issue discussed with the U Link extension 20 years ago:

      https://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/first-hill-light-rail-station-opposed-by-chief-of-1179311.php

      It may or may not be a problem. Still, the article explains that the station would need to be 200 feet deep to avoid it at the First Hill station site.

      That’s part of why I recommended approaching First Hill from a different direction. It also may do better above ground line with an aerial funicular from Pioneer Square.

      1. This line would approach First Hill from a very different angle. It isn’t clear if there would be the same sort of soil issues. It also isn’t clear how much the soil issues played a part in the decision to abandon First Hill. It was mostly about money. That is why they never fully explored the options for getting to First Hill. Some members wanted to do that, but the majority wanted to just save the money and skip First Hill. https://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/sound-transit-board-leaves-first-hill-out-of-loop-1179410.php

    4. What? ST has already stated that all new construction will be “grade separated”; there will be no more Overlake Segments. That does not rule out at-grade running within protected environments like freeway envelopes or fenced private right of way. So automation makes sense; almost every new metro built in the world now is automated. We’re not “special” in some way here in the Northwest. There will still be plenty of jobs for bus drivers and LR operators on the mixed sections of Link.

      The Spine between the junction just south of IDS and Lynnwood is already 100% grade separated. It could be automated today. Apparently the TCS within the legacy tunnel would have to be replaced, maybe even as far as UW Station. And to ensure safety without an operator, platform screen doors would be required.

      But the improvements in reliability and schedule-keeping are worth the few hundred million needed to automate operations there.

      Even if you have the operators ride along instead of turning back at Pioneer Square or Symphony, not holding the doors for runners will make the system more reliable and increase capacity significantly. It also makes turnback of Tacoma trains at Northgate more feasible on a regular schedule, because there is no time wasted “walking the train”.

      The same will be true for Line 2 trains turning back at Lynnwood or Mariner.

Comments are closed.