Reminder: Link service through Downtown will be disrupted a few more times before the end of the year, with extended overnight closures planned for the nights of Dec. 12-13, 20-21, and 27-28.

Local News & Commentary:

Other Items:

This is an Open Thread.

58 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Streetcar Swap”

  1. The monorail will continue to honor ORCA Regional Day Passes.

    That’s one more reason to load up day passes if you aren’t using a monthly pass, Business Passport, or free ORCA youth card.

    Regular Regional Day Passes cost $6, and cover the first $3 of any ride accepting the monthly PugetPass. Washington State Ferries and Kitsap cross-Sound ferries only accept e-purse from ORCA cards.

    Reduced-fare Regional Day Passes cost $2 and cover the first $1 on each ride. That makes the monorail upcharge $1 for all RDP categories, since the monorail reduced fare is $2.

    About the only reason not to load up day passes if you don’t already have another pass product is if you are only taking transit one way, or expect to start the final leg of your return trip within two hours of starting the first leg.

  2. I don’t think Sound Transit is focused on the right metric for light rail performance. I don’t really care about whether or not the train I’m waiting for is on-time or if I catch a delayed one. What I care about is average wait time (and standard deviation) and how accurately the signage can actually tell me how long I’m going to wait.

    1. Yes.
      Perhaps Metro and CT will move this direction on RR and Swift. Perhaps ST will brand new Route 542 as BRT and focus on very short headway. Stride will come eventually.

      1. I’ve been wondering when ST will decide to make ST Express 542 the STRide 4 Line. Most of the freeway stations are already built.

    1. It’s a pretty funny bit. I do think it’s important to keep in mind that most comic anecdotes aren’t real stories, but constructed to be funny by depicting an extreme example of a plausible and relatable scenario. That’s not to say crazy stuff never happens, but it’s not unique to Seattle. What I didn’t hear in that story was an indication of real danger or harm to the storyteller. If anything, the follow-up stinger about the person defecating on the bus highlights our lack of public restrooms, which is a real issue.

    2. One of the side effects of opening Federal Way Downtown Station is that the classical music blasting from the overhead loudspeakers is gone. Maybe the long wait for buses at the loop will be more tolerable if they blast the soundtrack from Sinners.

    1. They’ll continue accepting e-purse, but won’t give a discount for a transfer. As the article notes, for someone only using e-purse, a $4 monorail + bus/Link ride in 2025 will cost $7 in 2026.

      For passes, Monorail fares will count as a separate fare when pass revenues are divvyed up between the services used by the passholder (which means the Monorail will get a larger share of the pass revenue than previously), but the passholder won’t see the difference unless pass fees are increased to account for the Monorail’s take.

    2. The real puzzler is that they’ll still accept day passes. If you buy a day pass for $6, all your Metro and Sound Transit rides are free, and monorail rides are discounted to $1 each. I was going to start taking the bus between Westlake and Seattle Center, but I think the monorail is worth a couple bucks extra over taking the bus. It’s not worth $8.

  6. Anyone know if there’s any public facing information about Amazon and Microsoft’s shuttle buses? I’d be curious to analyze how many of them have transit value (as in they serve routes that are generally not well served by existing buses) to get a sense of how annoyed by them I should be. Everything I’ve found has been pre pandemic

    1. Regardless of the answer, I will continue to be extremely annoyed at the ones that park on 10th Ave just south of Roanoke taking up half of the bike lane. I’m unclear on why (or if) that’s actually allowed.

    2. For Microsoft Connector, I seem to recall I saw someone shared a Google Place weblink that marked all the shuttle stops. Not sure if that was the same source you found.

      For Amazon, there is not much available and I am pretty sure they revamped the network last year prior to announcement of RTO policy update. If you walk in to the lobbies of some Amazon buildings, they have some information boards you typically see in the public area of the office building that shows weather, traffic, etc., Those big screens have Amazon corporate shuttle departure time mixed with the GTFS feed from transit agencies. I think that’s the most publicized information I can find for Amazon shuttle.

      I saw one of that in Amazon Bingo (SEA94) in Downtown Bellevue.

      //embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js

      1. Yes, I’ve seen that map for Microsoft. Maybe that’s still pretty accurate, but I know that Amazon runs more extensive service than I’ve been able to find evidence of online. I work near the main SLU campus and take notes of destinations, and have seen at least one that I don’t see in any 2020 era data (Renton). Having the head sign location is good, but I’d be curious about more specific locations too.

      2. Yeah Amazon has been more secretive about its everything.
        The charter fleets don’t always stay for the contract and seem to rotate a lot.
        Probably for the same reason, many vehicles don’t have headsign information displayed.

    3. Short stretch of bus lane for buses stopping at Bellevue TC Bay 12 is also often occupied by corporate shuttles and other pick-up drop-off vehicles.
      It is good that the newest Amazon building north of Bellevue TC actually has a shuttle stop placed at -1 level by the entrance to the parking garage. I can see the shuttle sign from mid-block of 108th Ave NE. But with the clearance of -1 level, I don’t think the high-floor Van Hool fleet can enter. It will probably only be used by van and cutaway bus fleets.

  7. Has Sound Transit ever considered an express bus to/from Ballard, particularly as part of the regional express bus network?

    West Seattle had the 560 at one time until it was cut back. UDistrict gets express bus service. Perhaps an east-west bus from Ballard to 520 Bridge and over to Redmond or Bellevue?

    1. It would be up to the North King subarea and its boardmembers. They have asked for Link, not ST Express or Sounder. All ST Express routes are funded by suburban subareas to benefit their residents going to Seattle. North King may have paid for the 560’s tail because it was marketed as “West Seattle getting its share of Sound Transit service”. It was deleted due to low ridership, but that might be read as “ridership so low North King doesn’t want to pay for it, especially when it’s trying to fund expensive Link capital projects”.

      Express routes to the U-District are for the benefit of suburban residents going to UW; the U-District is just the destination endpoint, not the one that requested the route. So extending the 542 to Ballard would depend on whether North King or East King want it enough to fund it. Since North King has its plate full with unaffordable Link projects, and Ballard is not an overwhelmingly large destination for Eastsiders like downtown and the U-District are, it’s unlikely either would fund it.

      However, it might be possible to argue that the 542 could become a kind of alternative to Link, serving overlapping trips between the Eastside, U-District, and Ballard, and not just a feeder from the Eastside to the U-District. There was actually a Link study of Ballard-UDistrict-Redmond, so this could be the successor to that. However, that’s not the nature of what ST Express generally is (which is a feeder to downtown Seattle, the U-District, or downtown Bellevue), so it may fit better as a Stride brand than ST Express.

    2. I kind of find Route 560 to be a bit of a systems anomaly. Let me explain….

      I presume its operations is funded out of South King only, since Westwood is barely in Seattle. If Route 560 was a complete corridor it would continue further and terminate at SODO Link.

      Another anomaly is that all the Link extensions planned or built to date conceptually follow ST Express corridors except West Seattle and Ballard (as well as Tacoma Link).

      Curious!

      1. Maybe Ballard and West Seattle are not far away enough from Downtown Seattle to be considered to deserve a STX route, but they certainly can have one-seat ride to some secondary job centers like Redmond or Bellevue.
        560 doesn’t count because it doesn’t make a lot sense to go from West Seattle to Bellevue via I-405..

      2. I generally agree with you. I’m mainly noting the anomaly. It occurs due to the overlapping and arbitrary nature of whether ST or Metro should be the transit service provider in a corridor. The only reason that ST is pursuing West Seattle Link is likely because of ST3 money and direction, for example.

        I will add that Route 560 runs all day both ways and connects other places. It’s more than a Bellevue express bus service for commuting, unlike Sounder and some other ST Express routes.

      4. Maybe Ballard and West Seattle are not far away enough from Downtown Seattle to be considered to deserve a STX route, but they certainly can have one-seat ride to some secondary job centers like Redmond or Bellevue.

        Distance isn’t really the issue. I think it is subarea equity as Mike explained above. It is unlikely the East Side would request that service which means it would have to be paid for by North King (which is mostly Seattle) and they are busy trying to expand Link.

        As long as that continues it is likely that new routes involving Seattle end at either the UW or downtown. They are more likely to come from the East Side and the South End. I think an express from UW to the Totem Lake Freeway Station (and beyond) would be worthy. There are a bunch of options. It could go through the Totem Lake neighborhood to serve some of the areas there. It could keep going on the freeway and end at the 522/405 transit center, Woodinville or UW Bothell. Likewise there are a bunch of potential express buses from the south towards downtown that would be quite popular. A bus that mimics Sounder (when Sounder isn’t running) would be really nice for places like Kent and Auburn.

      5. Yes, I agree that the 560 serving Westwood Village is a bit of an anomaly. But Westwood Village is just barely in Seattle (and just just barely in North King). The route is almost entirely in South and East King. They may have wanted to cover part of Burien and White Center (which are not part of South King). Given that, they needed a place to end as well as connect to other buses and a somewhat popular destination. Westwood Village seems like an obvious choice.

        It is worth noting that the Stride Line will just end in Burien. No one is quite sure what will happen with the 560.

    3. ST routes have not reached Ballard. It is up to the board. They constrain themselves by their own subarea equity rules.

      Today, Route 560 is a route funded by the east and south subarea that reaches West Seattle. Early on, there was a ST service that connected South Jackson Street and the Fauntleroy ferry terminal; ST boardmember Nickels was the champion; the number was 570.

      Also early on, ST Route 555 was funded by the east subarea and reached the NTC. Later, ST planners had the bright concept to deviate through the U District in the peak direction; that became Route 556. Route 556 was more successful than Route 555 and survived reductions.

      The north King subarea has many other more pressing needs.

      1. The north King subarea has many other more pressing needs.

        Agreed. This includes express service within Seattle. They still aren’t running the 15 even though it would likely perform quite well (and save riders a fair amount of time).

        Speaking of which, there are two aspects of an express worth noting. An express by its very nature will skip stops. But it often takes a faster route between the two places. For example if you are trying to get from Aurora Village to downtown you can take the RapidRide E Line. It has standard stop spacing along most of the route (which means plenty of stops). Back in the day you could also take the 301 during peak. It ran on the freeway to downtown. I-5 is faster than Aurora so the bus not only skipped stops but also went the faster way.

        Link has replaced a lot of the express service, especially in the north end. While it may be a bit slower it just isn’t worth the time savings in most cases. From the south we already have a bunch of express buses. From Renton to Downtown Seattle you can take the 106 (a bus that takes a fairly direct route towards downtown) or you can take the 101 (an express that uses the freeway). Most of the West Seattle buses run express as well (using the West Seattle Bridge and SR-99). Even the 5 or E can be considered an express as they use Aurora (with very few riders) instead of directly serving Fremont and Dexter. In that sense I don’t see a huge number of great express possibilities in the city (other than the ones that have been suspended). Similarly, express buses that include the city are bound to offer little improvement (e. g. Ballard to Bellevue example) because there is no significantly faster way to get there.

        In contrast there are plenty from a regional standpoint. Given ST’s regional focus (and tolerance for high subsidies per rider) it isn’t hard to think of various routes they could offer. Another consideration is the “Blue Streak” idea. An express bus doesn’t have to just end at the freeway. It can continue into the neighborhood, saving some riders a transfer or otherwise providing service there. The old 41 was like this. It didn’t just go from downtown to the Northgate Transit Center, it kept going through the neighborhood. With that in mind I can think of a few core routes with potential extensions. For example:

        1) Burien TC to Downtown. This would save quite a bit of time compared to using the H Line. It could extend into parts of Burien. I see this as mostly a peak-only run (unless Burien grows a lot).

        2) UW to future 405/522 Transit Center (with stops along 405). It probably wouldn’t end there. It could run express from UW main campus to UW Bothell. Or it could go to Woodinville. I could also see it not going that far. It could leave the freeway at Totem Lake, serve the neighborhood and then go to the Lake Washington Institute of Technology (or some other worthy destination).

        3) Kirkland Transit Center to Downtown Bellevue. This would likely be peak-only but I could see it running bidirectionally. An extension south leads to diminishing returns. You eventually lose out to the future K Line. Going north to Juanita seems more rewarding. I think the closest existing layover for Juanita is the Kingsgate Park and Ride. It could skip a few stops that don’t perform well for the 255 (these are mostly on Market).

        4) Sounder alternative (when Sounder isn’t running). An express from Kent to Downtown Seattle would likely get plenty of riders. You might as well extend that to Auburn, etc.

        I’m sure there are more but those are all I can think of. Most of the other ones I can think of are already offered (or at the very least suspended due to budget cuts) or they really don’t improve things that much. But I probably missed a few that have potential.

      2. The RossB points. They are subject to the operator constraint facing Metro and the fiscal constraint of too few hours.
        1. Between Burien and downtown Seattle could be provided by a two-way peak-only Route 121 TB (no residential tail); it could be funded by the Route 193 hours from the current South Link project. It could even be oriented to First Hill.
        2. This could be funded with hours from new Route 256 and suspended or deleted routes 237, 252, 257, 311.
        3. Yes, this could be extensions of routes 230 and 231 that were half suspended in fall 2023; their March 2020 design has them awkwardly circling downtown Kirkland. Note that the ST3 center access ramp at NE 85th Street has the stop on the north side of NE 85th Street so your route will not serve the Stride2 stop.
        4. Route 150 should also be improved. It could cross the BNSFRR and SR-167 at the new overcrossing at South 228th Street.

    4. I will dream to have that route as well, but the bus network is still very Seattle-oriented nowadays. One-seat rides from eastside to Seattle only go to those few destination. I understand that this is largely because Seattle funds transit more heavily than eastside.
      A route as you describe probably need support beyond City of Seattle, I don’t think that support exists right now. For now, I just hope they could run 271/270 or whatever Bellevue-UW service more frequently.

      For Ballard to Bellevue/Redmond, you can argue that transfer is not that bad and even if direct service existed, it probably will have to go through the same slow local streets. Bellevue to West Seattle’s transfer at Downtown Seattle is just ridiculous. That’s one reason that I think light rail can make a lot of difference here.

      1. For Ballard to Bellevue/Redmond, you can argue that transfer is not that bad and even if direct service existed, it probably will have to go through the same slow local streets.

        Yeah, that is the issue. You could extend the 44 to the East Side. That would save you a transfer but otherwise not do much. The trip from Montlake to the East Side is the fast part — the slow part is getting to the UW. This is another reason why the UW-Ballard rail line makes so much sense. It greatly improves regional as well as local trips.

        Bellevue to West Seattle’s transfer at Downtown Seattle is just ridiculous.

        The transfer doesn’t seem terrible to me. Google recommends Symphony Station as the transfer point between northbound Link and a bus to West Seattle (about a one minute walk). If you are coming from Rainier Valley you are doing a fair amount of backtracking. So much so that the 50 (which has its own issues) starts becoming attractive. But with East Link you have less backtracking. Ideally the transfer would be at CID but Symphony isn’t that far north of there.

        That’s one reason that I think light rail can make a lot of difference here.

        I don’t think West Seattle Link would help. It would simply introduce another transfer. So basically a three-seat ride to Bellevue. In contrast if you went with the bus alternative then riders could make the transfer at CID. They could also transfer at SoDo (if they want to make two transfers) but my guess is very few would. It is likely much faster to just stay on the bus.

        Of course the ideal option would be a direct express from West Seattle to the East Side. There is something to be said for that. Unlike Ballard there are freeways the whole way. Unfortunately you’ve got a lot of congestion on I-5 (which in turn causes backups on the Spokane Street Viaduct and West Seattle Bridge). They could add bus lanes for some of it. There are existing bus lanes up to SR-99. They end because all the buses go on SR-99 (northbound towards Seattle). It would be trivial to extend those as far as the SoDo Busway. But as you get close to I-90 it gets tricky. There is only one lane to get to northbound I-90 from there. At best you could allow buses to cross the double-white lines and pass a lot of the backup. But it is one lane for about a third of a mile and then you are in the right lane of I-5 (where there are no HOV lanes). As I right this the fastest way to get to the East Side is to take the West Seattle Bridge/Spokane Street Viaduct to Fourth Avenue South and then get on I-90 at Martinez Drive. That is an interesting option but I don’t think it is worth it. Even with additional BAT lanes on Fourth Avenue (which I think has the best potential) you still have I-90 to deal with. During peak (especially in the evening) that is likely to be a mess. I don’t see enough demand the rest of the day. I wouldn’t rule it out. I could see how many riders would appreciate the one-seat ride (and it could be implemented immediately). If you didn’t add any stops between the East Side and West Seattle the drivers could choose the fastest option. But in the long run the best option would be to just connect West Seattle to the SoDo Busway and expect riders to transfer at CID.

    5. ST3 has funding for RR-D improvements, but the board has elected to defer that investment, so I doubt they would pay to run an express bus if they don’t want to invest in the D.

    6. Even if Sound Transit doesn’t provide such a route, King County Metro could and, in fact, has in the past. However, recent trends in bus service generally favor improving local service, rather than running express service. For example, if you want a faster trip between Ballard and UW, you could run an express bus…or you could make spot improvements to speed up the 44 (bus lanes, traffic signal priority, etc.), and run the 44 more often. Generally, the latter approach tends to benefit more riders than the former.

      The only time the “express bus” solution saves enough time to be worth two cases: 1) when the express route is able to not only skip stops, but also utilize the freeway, and 2) when local routes, already running every 5 minutes, are completely packed, forcing the agency to run additional buses for pure capacity reasons, in which case, having these extra buses be express can slightly reduce their service costs, rather than being an increase in costs, just to save people a few minutes of travel time. Case 1) is inapplicable to Ballard because there are no freeways there. Case 2) applies only during peak (which is why the 15X exists), and only for Ballard->downtown.

      I suppose one could imagine a peak-only express version of the 44 to the U-district, but it’s not clear how much faster such a bus would actually be, especially if it gets stuck behind the local #44 in the bus lane and can’t pass it. For what it’s worth, I’ve had multiple times when I was driving the 44’s route in a car and found myself driving for several miles behind the bus before I could pass it. If an express bus would find itself in the same situation, better to just run the local #44 more often, and look for more opportunities to make the local #44 bus faster.

    2. I only see an interline scenario on the hyperlink. Is there a separated automated stub scenario with stations considerably smaller and trains more frequent?

      If not, this looks potentially like a red herring scenario — deliberately set up for failure.

      1. I posted too quickly. I now see reference in the thread to a stub scenario. However there is still nothing about automation, which would reduce the station footprints considerably and save lots of money.

    3. ‪Ryan Packer‬ reports: “I’m quite convinced that continuing to pursue this idea would be a very bad idea,” Board Chair Dave Somers says, calling the idea of continued study of the second tunnel hitting the “reset button” on the entire ST3 plan.

      Is not reset of the troubled ST3 plan what the Enterprise Initiative is about? From the paraphrase, it is not clear what idea Somers referred to.

      Part of the system expansion committee agenda:
      https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20Enterprise%20Initiative%20Process%20Update%2012-11-25.pdf

      1. See slide four. The principles column seems solid. Two of the criteria may be questionable.
        one. Reducing vehicle miles traveled is odd; is driven intended? Transit can be great and not reduce congestion.
        two. Completion of the Link spine takes much time, funding, and effort; it may not be worthwhile. The other criteria may be better met if completing the Link spine is removed as an objective. Funding is scarce. Unfortunately, it is a question of devout ST faith that it is crucial. ST and its riders would be better off if the spine were expanded to include other modes. Link may be an incorrect mode for the ends of the spine. We need a mode that serves the denser downtowns of Tacoma and Everett. But in Tacoma, ST3 has Link end at the Tacoma Dome where there few pedestrians. In Everett, ST plans a garage and does not serve the pedestrian grid of Everett well. The Everett end of the spine has scoliosis, deviating to serve Everett Boeing. Somers likes that.

        Slide six: ST will have a new long range plan.

      2. Slide 12 is so infuriating.

        Why does it take A YEAR to go from “Here are some ideas” to “Here’s our plan?”

      3. Two of the criteria may be questionable.

        Agreed. “Vehicle miles travelled reduction” seems to be theoretical at best. It is basically rider-transit-miles of any addition assuming they would otherwise drive. Whether transit ridership actually reduces car travel is a different matter. I’m actually fine with the metric as long as they consider what a bus could do as well.

        Unfortunately The Spine is a given, regardless of value. Of course it runs contrary to some of the other criteria. The Spine would have considerably lower travel times (another criteria) than buses in some cases. It probably doesn’t matter.

    4. I like that “Stub with a dedicated OMF” is on the table, as that is the scenario that is most likely to evolve into a mode that is not Link, i.e. automated.

      I would surmise that Somers doesn’t want to “reset” all of ST3 because he doesn’t want a total reboot of WS/Ballard Link to result in a delay of Everett Link. Idea for Mr Somers:
      1. Break Everett Link into 2 phases, with the 1st phase going as far as needed to get to OMF-N (this means building to Mariner or perhaps the Airport Hwy infill stations; in other words the part of Everett Link that ST thinks will actually have enough ridership to justify full frequency)
      2. Shut down the tunnel for Ballard interlining after OMF-N opens. This will allow for Link to operate full service from Mariner to Westlake during construction.

      Ballard Link would be delayed by probably a decade, which is a bummer, but it gets us to a single interlined tunnel, which is the best long term outcome for operations and ridership (transfers, etc)

      1. I would surmise that Somers doesn’t want to “reset” all of ST3 because he doesn’t want a total reboot of WS/Ballard Link to result in a delay of Everett Link.

        I can see that but that seems more philosophical or political than it does practical. Assume for a second that Link is transformed in Seattle like so:

        1) West Seattle Link replaced by bus improvements (for now).
        2) Ballard Link is a stand-alone automated stub ending at Westlake (for now).

        It seems like it would be easy to handle Everett Link in that scenario. The current plans are like this: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/st-future-service-map.pdf. Just swap things around a bit. The Everett train could go to Redmond. The Mariner train would go to Tacoma. That might be stretching it a bit but not too bad. At worst you might see the trains turn back at Lynnwood.

        Even if the latter happens it becomes hard to argue that a second tunnel is better. You are basically telling people from the South End to send their trains to the new tunnel (which is clearly inferior to the new one) because you want trains running twice as often to Ash Way and Mariner. Even existing Snohomish County riders who take the train to the airport (or imagine doing that someday) would prefer the train didn’t go to West Seattle instead.

        There are larger political ramifications that be a motivator. If we are rethinking Link in Seattle then maybe they will rethink Link in other parts of the region. Snohomish County voters barely approved ST3. It is quite possible they aren’t too thrilled with Everett Link (now that Lynnwood Link is complete). But if that is the case it seems odd that County Executive Somers would want to pursue something that is unpopular. If he really believes in the project then it isn’t that hard to sell (e. g. “We don’t have the money and planning problems they have in Seattle. Everett Link is a go.”)

        I agree about building things piece meal. That is more likely to lead to it actually being built. It also increases value as you go along.

      2. I agree, the “spine” extensions can move forward with or without the Seattle extensions, and keeping everything in the same tunnel is a good outcome for all the Link branches whether there is a Ballard branch, a Ballard standalone stub, nothing at all for Ballard.

        I remain convinced the length of the longest line (Redmond-Everett?) is a non-issue because by the time the train gets to Everett downtown in the 2040s, Link should be fully automated. There is no operational need to split the spine.

      1. Here’s the thread:

        A Sound Transit board committee is about to look at additional analysis on building Ballard Link without a full second LRT tunnel under downtown.

        Top level: an interlining scenario could save $4.5B, but delay the project by at least 2 years. Cutting the full tunnel doesn’t save construction time.

        In the interline scenario, Ballard Link would actually skip Westlake Station, with trains instead heading north from Third Avenue from Symphony Station. This would require suspending existing light rail service for “potentially years” along with the Third Ave bus corridor. (Photo attached)

        A stub-end scenario was also studied, but that would require a new maintenance facility just for Ballard Link. It would still save up to $4 billion, even with the expected cost of a whole new train base in Interbay.

        “I’m quite convinced that continuing to pursue this idea would be a very bad idea,” Board Chair Dave Somers says, calling the idea of continued study of the second tunnel hitting the “reset button” on the entire ST3 plan.

        “It doesn’t really solve the financial issue we have,” Somers says, citing dropping the tunnel as just 10% of the total project cost. He also notes that the tunnel is being paid for regionally, which means cost savings wouldn’t necessarily go toward other Seattle projects.

        FYI, the presentation from today was just posted online: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20Downtown%20Tunnel%20Analysis%20-%2012-11-25.pdf

      2. Looking at the presentation suggests to me that the intent is to t take these options off the table.

        In particular, not only does the stub alternative propose no automated trains which would reduce station sizes, it also puts the the Westlake station for Ballard stub well underneath the current one. This presentation is shown only in 2D and does not present how the alignment could be a different depth. No wonder it saves such little amount! It looks to me that thry just took what they’ve already drawn up and costed for everything north of the Amazon HQ.

      3. A stub-end scenario was also studied, but that would require a new maintenance facility just for Ballard Link. It would still save up to $4 billion, even with the expected cost of a whole new train base in Interbay.

        Holy cow, that is a lot of money. That is without potential savings if they actually ran automated trains and the stations were smaller and not as deep.

        “It doesn’t really solve the financial issue we have,

        No, but it saves a lot of money.

        …which means cost savings wouldn’t necessarily go toward other Seattle projects.

        That doesn’t seem like a good political argument. It seems like the areas outside of Seattle would welcome this, especially since they really don’t get anything out of the new tunnel (and in the case of South King and Pierce the second tunnel makes things worse).

        In any event, I see a potential way forward here if they are bold enough. In true ST fashion they should never actually cancel a project. Just indefinitely suspend it. With that in mind they could the following:

        1) Plan for a Ballard to West Seattle automated line running in a brand new tunnel. A lot of the plans don’t have to be very specific because…

        2) Initially build an automated line from Ballard to Westlake. That’s it for now. Everything else would have to wait for more money.

        3) While West Seattle is waiting, improve the bus system.

      4. (and in the case of South King and Pierce the second tunnel makes things worse).

        Snohomish County too, if you’re trying to go to SeaTac.

  9. I might be wrong, but it seems like Montlake HOV exit signal issue has been resolved. I’ve taken 271 on two pretty congested weekday afternoon and that signal was no longer the chokepoint.
    Do any 271 frequent riders feel the same way?

    1. Do you know what it was? I thought the issue was SOVs clogging up the Montlake HOV on/off ramp and busway.

  10. Somers is probably the board member that earlier argued against a single-tunnel alternative or non Mariner-Paine-Everett alignment because it would raise public expectations that ST might choose them when it wouldn’t, and it would waste time studying alternatives that would never be chosen. It sounds like he still feels like that.

    His primary concern is not delaying the Everett extension.

Comments are closed.