On Sunday, hundreds of Seattleites and transit advocates walked from Ballard to Interbay and Smith Cove, roughly following the planned Ballard Link route. The walk was organized in response to Sound Transit’s recent suggestion to defer part of the Ballard Link Extension. “We are here today because close enough is not good enough,” Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck said to a cheering crowd. Along with Rinck, King County Councilmember Jorge L. Barón and Washington State Senator Noel Frame spoke in support of completing the Ballard Link extension. Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss and Mayor of Seattle Katie Wilson did not attend the rally, but shared their support with the organizers.
At a Board retreat in March, Sound Transit revealed three approaches it is considering for how to build parts of ST3, given the agency’s severe budget shortfalls. None of the approaches included Link reaching Ballard in the near future.
The complete exclusion of a full Ballard extension was surprising, and upsetting, to many transit advocates and Ballard residents. Sound Transit estimates this section will carry 90,000 to 147,000 daily riders by 2046, significantly more than any of the other projects in ST3. The majority of this ridership will be from the new tunnel under downtown Seattle.
A new grassroots advocacy organization, Save Ballard Rail, has formed to push Sound Transit to complete the Ballard Link Extension and all ST3 projects. The group sees two ways for Sound Transit to complete ST3: technical optimizations and legislative opportunities.
Technical Optimizations
“We strongly believe that ST3 in its current design is highly inefficient, and that there are massive opportunities to reduce costs with either neutral or positive impacts on coverage and rider experience” Save Ballard Rail organizer Carl Aslund told Seattle Transit Blog. “We strongly believe that plausible technical solutions merit consideration by Sound Transit.”
Transit advocates have long called on Sound Transit to consider using smaller and more frequent automated trains on the Ballard Line. Earlier this month, former SDOT Director Scott Kubly and transportation consultant Trevor Reed published a detailed white paper on the feasibility of automated light rail for Ballard and West Seattle. Sound Transit has not responded to the paper.
Another option to reduce construction costs is by building surface or elevated alignments. The Ballard Link Extension has two fairly distinct sections: a tunnel under downtown Seattle and South Lake Union, and a surface or elevated section between Seattle Center and Ballard. For the latter section, Save Ballard Rail cautions against alignments that limit capacity, such as an at-grade alignment with intersections. The group is “open to surface alignments without those intersection issues”. When Sound Transit faced a budget crisis while planning the initial Link segment, it opted for a surface alignment along MLK Way. As a result, Link delays due to car crashes occur a few times each year.
The other part of the Ballard Link project is a new tunnel under South Lake Union and downtown Seattle. This second tunnel (often called “DSTT2”) is the main driver for cost increases in the Ballard Link Extension. About 60% of the project’s overall $20.1B – $22.6B price tag is from DSTT2. While some transit advocates have suggested deferring the tunnel, Save Ballard Rail believes “improving the downtown portion of the spine, be it through DSTT2, an elevated alternative, or some other option, to be of regional importance”.
In the current plan, costs for the DSTT2 are split across the five Sound Transit sub-areas, based on expected ridership. Save Ballard Rail is not too concerned about adjusting how much each sub-area contributes. Instead, they want to focus on reducing the overall cost for all sub-areas.
Legislative Opportunities
Technical changes to the ST3 plan will only go so far. Sound Transit will likely need help from the Washington State Legislature to further reduce costs, and provide options for more funding. Save Ballard Rail is interested in the use of 75-year bonds (Sound Transit currently uses 40-year bonds) and in Sound Transit gaining permitting power. Additional state or federal funding could also help fill some of funding gaps for ST3 projects. Aslund continued, “We recognize the need for additional funding, and are reaching out to representatives about possible state or federal funding.” He specifically called out Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who represents Ballard, Interbay, South Lake Union, most of downtown Seattle, and West Seattle. Jayapal has advocated for funding for local transit projects in the past.
Sound Transit 3 is a generational infrastructure investment in Puget Sound. Getting the projects back on track will require engineering and political effort to reduce costs and provide more funding.
To get involved with Save Ballard Rail, check out their website, Bluesky account, or Instagram account.
Is there anything that would preclude light rail crossing the existing Ballard drawbridge, with a 2-3 train capacity station at the south side for trains to wait (a la Portland termini loops) for the open bridge, or short-turns to discharge passengers and keep southern line frequency intact? (I.e. catch the next train). Not ideal compared to a tunnel or bridge, but likely a lot cheaper (other than retrofit/old bridge issues). I know from my few Seattle visits up near UW, the bridges can open ridiculously frequently, and this is further west where there are more moorings, fishing boats, etc., but what are the actual delays on an average day? (Two drawbridges on SF MUNI’s T Third line have modern catenary across them (but neither see much small boat traffic; Islais Creek’s 1950s drawbridge is going to be rebuilt as a fixed span next year).
No. The ST staff reported some time ago the bridge could be high enough to accommodate the vast majority of shipping and that openings could be scheduled during the rail maintenance window for the small number of very tall vessels needing to pass. This situation reflects a failure of imagination and creativity. But the real crime here is Dow forcing WS down everyone’s throat. $5billion for a truly marginal investment makes everything harder and does almost nothing to improve regional mobility.
The existing Ballard Bridge would have to be completely rebuilt to modern seismic standards. It would be more expensive than building a new parallel drawbridge. Meanwhile, ST has also identified major legal risks associated with building any new in-water structures (pylons/support columns) in Salmon Bay and the Duwamish River which may impinge upon native people’s rights to fish their native waters. This is why ST changed the Duwamish River Crossing bridge to a cable-stayed design, and likely why the Board selected a tunnel route under Salmon Bay as the preferred alternative.
I agree that using the existing bridge for rail is infeasible. But several of the decisions surrounding the crossing were rushed or based on ignorance. Crossing to the west was rejected out of hand very early on in the process. Advocates like Seattle Subway opposed a drawbridge without actually determining how often it would open (very rarely) and how much delay would be incurred (very little). Rather than explore all the options, the board essentially painted itself into a corner (as they’ve done before). Next thing you know, an underground crossing isn’t particularly expensive compared to the few above ground options considered.
Now that they are seriously considering running underground it should lead them to reconsider the station location. But instead they stick with the stations to the east for largely arbitrary reasons. We don’t even know what it would cost to loop around from the west and have a station in the heart of Ballard (with tracks facing east, towards the obvious extension to the UW). Yet they won’t consider it (just like they won’t consider using automated trains).
The Ship Canal Water Quality Project (https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/neighborhood-projects/ship-canal ) which includes a large tunnel under Shilshole, forces any underground ship canal crossing to go beneath it. This would force a station in “Old Ballard” to be really deep. It would maybe, maybe allow for a station at 17th and Market instead of 15th. But then you’re excavating directly beneath the Swedish campus, which is untenable.
The representative alignment from 10 years ago is a station at 15th and Market. A station in Old Ballard can (and should) be considered as part of a Ballard-UW line separate from the Ballard Link Extension.
The representative alignment was laid down over our strident objections as well. I remember going to meetings at the Eagleson hall and at the high school where we discussed all of the reasons why it was important to actually hit Ballard proper with a Ballard station, and the SoundTransit rep hemming and hawing and telling us our feedback would be taken under consideration.
A bit later, we got our choice of alignments at 14th and 15th, and nothing within easy walking distance of Ballard itself. So we grudgingly voted for it, because it’s better than no train, but we were all pretty mad about it. And now we’re hearing that not only do we not get a station in Ballard proper, but that we don’t get a station at all? Yeah, that doesn’t sit well.
We’ve turned out despite not getting exactly what we wanted, we’ve voted at a higher rate than basically anybody else in the region, we’ve paid into the fund dutifully and watched downtown trip times from Lynnwood fall below travel times from Ballard.
We’ve got to get something for that, folks. The vibe’s not great.
The alternatives analysis had a 70′ moveable bridge (the representative alignment in the ballot measure) or a 130′ fixed bridge.
A 70′ moveable bridge would be twice as high as the Fremont Bridge, and is estimated to open only a few times a year. Yet fearmongering over it opening every day or several times a day led ST to deselect any moveable bridge alternatives. That’s the primary reason for the costly tunnel.
The Coast Guard later rejected any fixed bridge lower than 200′, saying it would have to accommodate the tallest modern sailboat and the ship-repair businesses east of the bridge, some of which are targeting luxury yachts. This also led ST to choose tunnel alternatives.
So the 70′ moveable bridge alternative is still viable if ST is willing to consider it again.
I wouldn’t put Link on the existing Ballard bridge. The bridge is close to a hundred years old and will likely need to replaced in the medium term. Link doesn’t need to be subject to that, especially since there’s no specific plan on what or when the bridge would be replaced it, so ST wouldn’t know what Link would be depending on.
They should go with Option 2
Has it never been suggested that they would reuse the monorail alignment for Ballard link? It seems like it would save a lot of money, with the side effect being not serving SLU but the benefit of probably less NIMBY pushback. And best of all it would probably be very cheap. Is the monorail on the national register of historic places or something?
An aerial alignment with full-size Link trains is not feasible through Downtown. You’d have to dig through STB’s many articles leading up to the development of final ST3 package to determine if a route bypassing SLU was ever seriously considered.
Sound Transit’s basic mandate is to connect “Regional Centers”. This is generally assumed to be defined as the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Centers (https://www.psrc.org/media/2650), which include Seattle Downtown, SLU, and Uptown, and notably excludes Belltown. So, it seems obvious to me that if you reach the conclusion that a second tunnel under Downtown Seattle is necessary it needs to be built under 4th or 5th Avenue, there’s no good reason to skip SLU on your way to Uptown/Seattle Center. I think replacing the Monorail is a political third rail (heh) and it’s exceedingly risky to try to build underneath it.
Why isn’t an aerial alignment feasible?
“You’d have to dig through STB’s many articles leading up to the development of final ST3 package to determine if a route bypassing SLU was ever seriously considered.”
You don’t have to dig that far. That was the plan until January 2016, when SDOT asked ST to reroute Link from Belltown to SLU.
If Bellevue Downtown station is considered serving Downtown Bellevue, I think a infill station at 5th Ave is good enough to be considered serving both Belltown and SLU.
What’s the boundary of SLU regional center? Is it just SLU neighborhood marked on Google Map or it represents a bigger area?
I always feel like Denny Triangle could be part of it because it has very similar vibe.
Warning – this content is about extending the Monorail.
I know that extending the Monorail to Ballard is a non starter on this site but frankly after the use on this site of “ST will not consider any alternatives…etc” I find it odd that there is near total acceptance of “the Monorail must go” on STB.
1). The one mile from Westlake to Seattle Center is in place, and using as is will relieve any analysis of impact of that mile in a very urban environment.
2). Rubber tired traction over the ship canal will allow a steeper descent into Ballard from a high level crossing over the ship canal allowing for a better location for the central Ballard Station.
3). Bypass existing terminal at Seattle Center and follow Thomas Street to new Seattle Center Station at the Arena and 1st Ave.
4) Continue on to Elliott and swing north to Mercer for another Queen Anne area station (nice location for a future Sounder North Station).
5) head north for Ballard with a station at Dravus.
6) update Westlake Station with a center Platform and escalators to street and Westlake Link station.
7). The Monorail with its rubber tires easily could be extended up to Pill Hill not worrying about the steep grade and even be extended to Judkins Park Station.
It just seems the Monorail technology has been tossed prematurely into the rubbish bin because of a hatchet job done to the 1990s Monorail Project.
I’ve suggested it several times.
I see the monorail as well suited for relocation . I believe that the vehicles are historic but not the structures and rail. But I have no great ideas about where it could be relocated to.
That would free up Fifth Ave median for an automated light metro train. A Belltown stop could be incorporated too.
One major challenge would be what to do at the ends. Each termini is not positioned well to be extended. That would be a huge design effort and another delay to even determine how to extend it.
The alignment should have been on the table in 2018. But ST was pitching this whole line about how broadening alternatives would delay things at the time. What a crock that was in hindsight! ST has had to delay things anyway because of their cash flow.
There are two ideas here. One is to just extend the monorail. You save some money by reusing part of the line but costs are higher if you want to run close to the surface (you can’t just put tracks down on the ground). Very few companies make them, which is one of the problems the previous monorail proposal ran into. Even if you save money building it you are stuck maintaining (and storing) an usual rolling stock, which pushes up the cost. You are much better off with a standard train train tracks, as that allows you a lot more flexibility when it comes to the trains themselves. For example SkyTrain has different rolling stock and they can easily switch tomorrow if they get a better deal.
Using the monorail pathway has its advantages but it would be dramatically different than what the board has supported so far. It would not serve South Lake Union. At best you add another station in Belltown (between Westlake and the Seattle Center). It might turn out to be the best value but we are talking about an agency that won’t seriously consider automated trains — even if they serve the exact same stations as planned. Serving South Lake Union instead of Belltown was always a dubious decision but it seems unlikely they would change their mind now. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be better but it seems like a huge amount of political work for something that might only be a little bit cheaper.
I understand there is bad history and bureaucratic blockades but it’s a shame if it could not be extended for the price the Las Vegas Monorail was built. There might even be enough funds in the ST3 funding bucket to start building very soon, maybe by Metro or the Port of Seattle if Sound Transit is incapable.
And yes I assume the Monorail Trains would automated.
I just want this option raised on this forum so that it can’t be said to never have been raised.
maby I should elaborate:
I propose the monorail be replaced with a light metro, that ends at Westlake where the monorail ends currently. I believe that if this was chosen, the old Seattle Center Station would become irelivent, and could be converted to a museum to keep the historians happy (they would be fuming lol). I see two options to the north, either turn on Denny and head towards the BNSF ROW, or continue on 5th as the monorail does now, then turning on Mercer St, then Mercer Pl. down to BNSF. The latter route would have a higher ridership, but would likely meet more resistance. I believe that even though this would require extra studies, it might end up not taking longer in the end due to not having to bore a new tunnel.
I hear what you are saying, tear down the Monorail and replace it with the latest tech. I’m saying if it’s not broken don’t fix it.
Reusing the monorail alignment ought to be a nonstarter, because most of the ridership from Ballard Link is not actually from connecting Ballard. It’s from connecting South Lake Union.
It’s ridiculous that ST hasn’t responded to that report. It makes you think they are more invested in their internal decisions being the right ones than actually building transit. The decision to build West Seattle at the expense of Ballard should have never been made, but the fact that they are indefinitely delaying Ballard Link – which they could complete by making different planning decisions within the existing budget -should be a scandal.
And we should also be yelling that Boeing Access Road (a crazy expensive albatross of a station that won’t get any riders because it isn’t an interchange of any kind anymore) could be delayed but Graham Street (a project that really should cost $50M, but instead is going to be $250M to avoid closing a left turn, but will be used by people) really shouldn’t. Only the “obviously stupid and dumb” project option includes either, and it includes both.
“It’s ridiculous that ST hasn’t responded to that report.”
The report certainly pushes the automation concept further along. But it’s been suggested for several years now on STB. Comments received by ST on these projects have certainly included automation studies for at least a few years — as I know several people including myself have asked for automation to be studied.
Scandals typically involve sex and/ or money. There are billions being spent here. Even the design work is in the hundreds of millions. Real estate investment games abound too, with station locations affecting the value of Downtown real estate. So while there is no “smoking gun” of scandal in view currently, there is plenty of money involved here to warrant concern about how these big ticket projects are being developed and prioritized.
“It’s ridiculous that ST hasn’t responded to that report.”
Responded to what report? The three scenarios? It has been only a month since the report, so ST is still deliberating, and it can’t won’t make any statements favoring any particular strategy until the majority of the board support that alternative. But currently they’re squabbling with every member trying to save the projects in their subarea.
We’ll probably hear more in this Thursday’s board meeting: a staff update with more alternatives based on the board’s questions in the retreat. In May the board wants to vote on solutions, so it will have to have some idea where it’s going by then if it’s to keep the vote on time.
If you’re talking about Kubly’s report, that has only been out for five days.
The interesting thing will be whether it gets mentioned in the board meetings or whether it raises any willingness to look at automation. We’ve asked ST for years to study this but it won’t listen to is. Maybe it will listen to a former SDOT director. But note the “former” and “SDOT”: that’s not the current Seattle mayor or council, or even the current SDOT director. The biggest factor will be if Wilson or Strauss acknowledges this idea or champions it. Even if they do, it would be an uphill battle to convince 15/17 of the boardmembers, but it’s the most likely chance.
Yes. It is atop that Kubly led Seattle to several poor choices: CCC Streetcar was bungled badly; the seven Seattle RapidRide phasing was bungled; he led SDOT to pursue three capital intensive projects that slowed everything else (e.g., CCC Streetcar, Madison BRT, Roosevelt BRT); he and Metro management talked and talked in One Center City before the capacity constraint of 2019 rather than restructure service, leading to a significant decline in ridership; Metro Connects was bungled.
But Kubly may be correct about the BLE mode.
Those were certainly not the best events. However a few of these were decisions that were made before Kubly arrived or were made by someone in another agency.
Kubly was also much younger and experience counts for something. The one thing he did bring was the life experience of living in other metros with prominent rail systems — something many of our Board and senior management still don’t have. And that insight would probably been more useful had Kubly arrived a few years later than he did — when station designing was happening.
I spent the early years of my life in places without urban rail transit. Once I moved to places with it, my perception on lots of things about urban rail changed in many ways. Age has brought on added insight too — more wisdom and less agility. What a non-riding suburban leader or advocate thinks is important changes with actual daily experience.
I don’t think Kubly’s tenure at SDOT is disqualifying what the paper says. If anything, it cleverly and strategically suggests that the number 1 obstacle to studying automation — schedule delay with more environmental review — can be minimized with this approach.
It makes you think they are more invested in their internal decisions being the right ones than actually building transit.
Yep. It is an example of a dysfunctional bureaucracy. I am no expert on bureaucracies but I’m sure any book on the subject covers this idea. You make a decisions based on limited information. Then you refine the decision as you gain more and more information. But at no point do you question the earlier decision(s). You just assume this is the best general approach — it is only a matter of fixing the details. Worse yet, you begin to question the nature of the project but you don’t say anything, for fear of rocking the boat. You know how difficult it is to get anything done. You don’t want to “start over” because it would be too stressful. Better to keep digging that hole — at least it will be done soon.
It isn’t just the bureaucracy either. The public often shares this idea. In Seattle the problem is compounded by a sense that we are unique. We have a special “Seattle Process” that is different than any other city in the world. We ignore the main problem here — the projects are too expensive to build — and blame the delays on process. Thus we get calls to “Build the Damn Trains”, ignoring the obvious response: “With what damn money?”
There is a lack of leadership at the political level. We are stuck in our “pro-transit”, “anti-transit” camps. If you dare question the efficacy of ST3 you are seen as anti-transit (even when you write for a pro-transit organization). Of course now we are seeing balkanization as each group fights for what they see as their rightful slice of the pie. No one is looking at the big picture. It is bad enough that we stick to the assumption that God Almighty ordained ST3. But even if you assume that West Seattle should be prioritized over areas with more people and slower transit, there is no reason to assume this is the best way to improve the chosen peninsula. We can support the spirit of ST3 while ditching the actual proposal we now realize was unrealistic and poorly designed. Give West Seattle really good transit. Make areas like the Central District, Fremont or Greenwood jealous. Allow West Seattle — which already has very fast buses compared to most of the city — to have even better buses. Run frequent buses to SoDo on their way to downtown, giving riders the best of both worlds (a fast connection to Link and a fast, direct ride to downtown). Way more people in West Seattle would benefit. Way more people in other areas who visit West Seattle would benefit.
What is true of West Seattle is true of the second tunnel. Again, it was assumed that it would be relatively cheap. It has fewer stations than the existing tunnel (which wasn’t that expensive). Skipping First Hill was done in large part to avoid extra expense. Yet clearly it will be extremely expensive, no matter which variation is eventually chosen. It was assumed that connecting to the existing rail lines in SoDo saves money as well (no need for a second OMF train yard). But that assumption has been proven wrong — by their own research. Early estimates are that using a yard in Interbay would save the agency $7 billion dollars versus building the second tunnel. That is on top of any money saved by using smaller, automated trains. Those smaller, automated trains would result in a major improvement for riders as well. A train heading to Rainier Valley is not going to run every three minutes — but an automated train from Ballard can. Of course the train should be designed to be eventually extended south of Westlake — to First Hill.
Even with the confines of ST3 the board can do a better job of improving transit by rejecting assumptions that have now been disproven.
This is where priorities come in. If ST’s priorities said “Frequency is the highest priority”, “good transfers are a high priority”, “down escalators are a minimum criterion”, that would lead naturally to an automated metro and improving the station design. Or if good transfers were absolutely not possible, then go back to the drawing board and look for a better alignment/technology or canceling the project.
They should skip both Boeing Access and Graham St. No new stations are needed in Rainier Valley until they elevate the whole line, which they should in ST4.
In the meantime, they should do Option 2, with automation to save costs on Ballard allowing for the extension to open in full. Ballard would be a stub, requiring a transfer at Westlake. The 1 Line (from Tacoma) will instead turn around at Northgate, and the 3 Line would turn around at SeaTac or somewhere convenient down there (if we can find a way to force higher frequency along Rainier Valley)
West Seattle should be the only project dropped, unless there is money left to do part of it. It’s a useless line, to be frank. The bus service and water taxi are already excellent. There is no regional benefit, nor is ridership projected to be good. It’s not a dense area overall. At least Issaquah, Tacoma, and Everett will deliver on new regional connections, maximum job connectivity, and subarea equity.
If they ever do build West Seattle, it should be an automated stub to SODO.
Would it provide a proximate transfer with the 2 Line?
And ST4 really needs to include an I-405 Metro. It’s badly needed. Buses simply cannot solve the problem because freeways don’t go where people are.
A 405 Metro can stop in Southcenter Mall, Renton Downtown, the Landing, South Bellevue, South Kirkland, Kirkland, UW Bothell, etc. Stride cannot do that causing unnecessary transfers and delays. It’s one of the most congested corridors and a HUGE area for jobs and economy. It should be prioritized. While the Renton to Bellevue stretch is pretty empty, it can still serve the Seahawks area / new station from Stride, and it can operate at 65 mph along the lake…about as fast as Stride if not even faster. Good for tourism if there is a lake view on the side.
I hope ST makes this a top priority for ST4 for the South and East Subareas.
Also the 4 Line should absolutely stop at S Bellevue and there should be no compromise for that… Even if it will be a bit more expensive. If massive freeways and flyovers can go over an “environmentally sensitive area”, so should Link. Skipping S Bellevue makes trips 10 min longer for a wide variety of commuters especially south of Bellevue, as well as those wanting to use Link to Seattle.
Or I could see the 405 Metro deviating into Factoria, then merging with the 4 Line at Eastgate. There is a lot of potential here
Having fast transit stop in all those places is a badly needed thing!
But if we’re building new track and right-of-way for a 405 Metro to stop in those places, why couldn’t we also build new exit ramps and right-of-way for buses to divert off the freeway and stop there? That’d let us get a huge improvement for much cheaper. They could be designed to be reusable by rail if we ever want to upgrade to that.
” If massive freeways and flyovers can go over an “environmentally sensitive area”, so should Link”
The issue is when the freeway was built. It was built in the 1960s before the environmental laws that are hindering Link from crossing the Slough. It’s like the Bellefields Office Park in the Slough: it wouldn’t be allowed now, but since it’s already there, it can remain there.
I-90 goes back further to US Highway 10 in the early 20th century. The Lacey V Murrow bridge was built in the 1940s. The route between the Lake Washington shore and Eastgate probably started as a 2-lake highway like all of them were, but I don’t know if it was in the exact location I-90 is now in the Slough.
You are basically making the argument that we should build the worst parts first. Serving those places with rail would be extremely expensive, get very few riders and save those riders very little time.
A 405 Metro can stop in Southcenter Mall, Renton Downtown, the Landing, South Bellevue, South Kirkland, Kirkland, UW Bothell, etc. Stride cannot do that causing unnecessary transfers and delays.
Why not? If we really think it is worth serving the heart of Renton then we can build a busway there. Same goes for Southcenter, which would be even cheaper. There is nothing in South Bellevue — no reason to serve it (riders from Renton headed to Seattle would just take the 101). As for Kirkland, again, the best option is to run BRT on the CKC — something the independent transit consultant hired by the City of Kirkland figured out.
Of course all that infrastructure would be overkill and yet it would cost less — and provide more functionality — than a train. For now the best option is to just run more buses. Consider Renton, for example. For now there is no busway. The alternative is to run more buses. Run a bus from Burien to Bellevue that skips central Renton. Also run a bus that runs from Burien to Renton along with a bus that runs from Bellevue to Renton. Oh, and the bus from Bellevue to Renton can keep going, to Kent and Auburn. Riders are much better off and yet it didn’t require a major infrastructure investment.
By now you might be thinking, “They can’t possibly afford or justify running buses that often”. Then they sure as hell can’t afford a brand new train line!
S Bellevue for Renton-Issaquah, Renton-Factoria, Renton-Eastgate
It also connects those Eastside locations to the airport.
Um then what is there to build in ST4 then? If it’s only in Seattle, then Seattle should pay for it.
If anything is to be built in the other subareas, I still stand by 405 rail being the strongest contender. Buses would still exist but would act more so as feeders from various suburbs like Kent or Auburn where riders can transfer onto Link, or continue on the freeway.
For the South subarea, Sounder extensions should be prioritized for ST4.
For the East subarea, 405 rail is the only thing I can think of, besides a short Renton to Rainier Valley rail connection to add more frequency.
For the North Subarea, SR 99 rail or UW-Ballard makes sense.
> If it’s only in Seattle, then Seattle should pay for it.
Of course Seattle would pay for it. It is a fundamental part of ST’s structure.
If ST4 were to build anything outside of North King, then Seattle will also pay for the trains and other “systemwide” bits more than anyone else, since systemwide costs are split proportional to tax revenue. Oh, and if it’s in King County then any connecting busses will be heavily subsidized by Seattle, since the pays for a higher proportion of all Metro service hours than it receives.
“Also the 4 Line should absolutely stop at S Bellevue and there should be no compromise for that…”
It’s not lost on me the Mercer Slough is less than 2000 feet wide at I-90. That’s a distance easily within the span of a cable-stayed tower built on the east edge of the slough. It thus doesn’t appear to be an environmental fatal flaw. It’s just expensive! The tower would even enable a span further east over the entire 405/90 interchange.
A decision about what happens with 4 Line in Bellevue also has to be made. Merging tracks south of South Bellevue would have to be built, or the 4 Line could end at a different South Bellevue platform — meaning no South Kirkland station but also meaning that a new OMF would be needed (noting that it could then be built as an automated line).
The 4 Line project is in general rather poor now. Most of the stations are at current parking garages for transit riding commuters — making the line function only as a peak hour commuter express. The station sites need rethinking so badly that it’s hard to know where to begin!
Al S.,
There has to be some way for it to run along the center of I-90 through those tunnels and then jump in and merge with the 2 Line… I would think..
@ SKR:
The bigger issue is now ST narrows its scoping to only Link technology and only to the stops on the ST3 map… until they suddenly change their minds like with CID.
ST has a chance with 4 Line to widen the available alternatives if they start early planning now. But they won’t! They’ll wait around several more years — then limit the alternatives and rush the decisions without enough info.
This is how ST works. I’ve lost count at how many times this keeps happening.
S Bellevue for Renton-Issaquah, Renton-Factoria, Renton-Eastgate
Bus, bus, bus. Actually one bus could easily serve those three destinations (Renton, Factoria, Eastgate, Issaquah). It would get a few hundred riders a day, if that. Spending a fortune on a massively large rail line to serve those riders would be a terrible value. Even a dedicated busway (which would be much cheaper) wouldn’t be worth it.
what is there to build in ST4 then?
Now you are getting it. There probably won’t be an ST4 unless it is basically to build the things in ST3. Seattle is the only area that should spend money on big transit projects. There are some small projects outside Seattle that might be worth it, like freeway ramps here and there. But those could (ideally) be done by WSDOT or the local agency. The other areas should focus on bus service.
It is quite likely that ST4 would fail. Seattle still has large projects that should be built (in part because they are focused on less important projects for now). But the other areas probably don’t want to spend that kind of money for what they would be getting.
Have you ever seen how long the backups get on I-90 West ramp onto I-405 South? Plenty of people going that direction.
On the other hand, very little traffic going towards the north which is where biased people on where want the HOV ramps.
South King – the problem with South King to Issaquah commuting is the lack of concentration in job centers. Workers commuting to the Kent Valley are very difficult to serve with transit, in particular when trip is suburban to suburban. Even the major company HQs (Alaska, T Mobile, Costco, Blue Origin) simply aren’t big enough to anchor frequent transit if that transit isn’t also anchored to Link or one of our CBDs (Seattle, Bellevue).
Ross, I’m baffled by the incongruent takes of “ST3 should be all bus investments” and “there is nothing to do in ST4.” An ST4 focused the bus investments you yearn for can easily fill up a regional package. In East King, Stride 405 South needs stations of the same quality as 405-North, Kirkland & Issaquah Link can be rebooted as BRT projects with more & better stations, and SR167/405 is a good joint corridor for South & East King. There’s also plenty of opportunity to invest in station access, in particular in trails & pathways around the region that can tie into existing HCT stations.
“South King – the problem with South King to Issaquah commuting is the lack of concentration in job centers. Workers commuting to the Kent Valley are very difficult to serve with transit, in particular when trip is suburban to suburban.”
Ditto for SW Everett Industrial Center.
The poster child is VTA light rail north of US 101. It has horrible ridership after 30 years — and it has lots more stations (thus more destinations within walking distance) serving a similar land use.
Even the major company HQs (Alaska, T Mobile, Costco, Blue Origin) simply aren’t big enough to anchor frequent transit if that transit isn’t also anchored to Link or one of our CBDs (Seattle, Bellevue).
That’s why I suggested Link.. a bus won’t pull ridership.
A SeaTac to Bellevue line would be wildly popular and also serve those niche use cases more easily. It’s a natural corridor for rail. Any city in Europe or Asia would build it for a comparable density. Only the USA where we think opposite.
It’d also fully complete the key corridors of travel. You can get between any major city and the airport in the county seamlessly, all day, frequently.
What would it cost? $10B at most? A tiny fraction of the wasteful spending, welfare, wars and military spending we’re doing that we could slash from the budget.
All those 405 widening and ramp projects would add up to billions over the years. We could forget about it if we just had rail.
“What would it cost? $10B at most? A tiny fraction of the wasteful spending, welfare, wars and military spending we’re doing that we could slash from the budget.”
I think it disturbs most of us as how an ego-driven administration can get away spending as much public money as they do just to blow up things in a matter of minutes without any clear objective, while local leaders are spending decades trying to build a transformational transit system at a lower cost. Every time I hear the insane costs of this Iranian stunt (or the Venezuelan stunt) my heart sinks. And that’s all on top of the human toll of war and the immorality of it all.
Yep, West Seattle should be the line that’s dropped, it will have less use. Build where it’s most needed, Ballard will have more riders.
Boeing Access Road isn’t a very good station, but Graham Street is. The issue is that ST had a stupid decision making process to take community feedback about a preferred center platform plus removing left turn lanes as a reason to not do the lowest cost option (same side split side platforms). We shouldn’t leave a huge gap in a high transit ridership area just because we might maybe consider thinking about elevating the line in the future. At ST’s rate, that won’t be until 2050 at the earliest so seems bad to leave a station off for 20 years on those grounds.
All the options are untenable on their face, and none of them should be pursued. ST needs to engage in actual reevaluation of the assumptions that got them here, not brushes around the edges like the enterprise initiative has done.
And look, I’m no West Seattle Link booster and I love the Water Taxi but the Water Taxi has a connecting DART route with a rounding error of riders and nothing else. That’s like saying Seattle Center doesn’t need Link because it has the monorail, except worse. And the Junction is dense – it’s one of the densest parts of urban Seattle. It’s maybe not the best place to build to from a network standpoint, and the existing bus service being better would go a long way, but it’s not a bad idea on its face. It’s just too expensive for what it will be, and it’s mostly Hollywood Accounting making it look affordable (i.e. imagining it can function without the DSTT2 that’s been allocated to Ballard Link).
It’s a much, much better project than an I-405 metro. Take one look at the walksheds and population density around any proposed station around I-405 – there’s nothing there. I get that you’re a South King Resident, but be serious. Sure, we could do P&R and bus feeders for 405, but lets see how S1 performs before doing anything else
Boeing Access Road isn’t a very good station, but Graham Street is.
Agreed. Somehow they got lumped together. This is just another example of how ST doesn’t really consider value.
And the Junction is dense – it’s one of the densest parts of urban Seattle.
Not really. It is basically an average “urban village” (or whatever they are calling it these days). Greenwood, Fremont, top of Queen Anne, various parts of the Central District — they are all similar. In contrast, First Hill is one of the densest parts of the region. Ridership on West Seattle Link is heavily dependent on feeder buses. But given the proximity to the West Seattle Bridge (that is basically a freeway) it makes more sense to just continue those buses to downtown. That being said, you are right. An I-405 metro is an even worse project.
Agreeing with Ross’ comment here.
I’ll add that there’s a difference between “earning” light rail (with residential density) and “earning” a bored subway tunnel with a deep station vault. Like a 3-7X cost difference! That cost difference exists for new high bridges too — but not as much.
West Seattle is just not even 3X more dense than a host of other urban villages across the city.
The Junction has two census tracts over 20k per square mile, which is appreciably higher than a lot of comparable places. Of course, that’s just one metric but I think there’s ridership (and political) justification for Link as originally envisioned (i.e. elevated). And I agree First Hill is a clearly better place to serve, especially in the context of the stupid parallel tunnel with no unique coverage.
But I think West Seattle’s primary issue isn’t that West Seattle can’t generate good transit ridership – it can. It’s that it doesn’t really make sense from a network standpoint to built it now. A third southern branch before a second northern one is awkward at best. Doing West Seattle before Ballard is pure doing a project for the sake of doing a project, since it requires a new connection to the north. (n.b. I’m using “require” loosely here. I don’t think it’s strictly necessary to build a second tunnel downtown for capacity reasons, but ST clearly does and they’re the ones building it). It’d be better for every metric other than if West Seattle gets something now to start with Ballard and end with West Seattle.
The junction is closer to 15k per mi2. That’s not bad but not really outstanding in Seattle; it’s similar to Wallingford or Greenwood.
https://nathenry.com/writing/2022-11-21-seattle-density.html
That’s not to say that West Seattle Link shouldn’t get built, but as designed 2 stops seems way too short to be useful. It’s going to turn a lot of 1 seat rides into 2 seat, and a lot of 2 seat rides into 3 seat. Even ignoring cost, in terms of just rider experience think it’d at least need to reach Westwood Village ish before the additional speed/coverage makes up for the forced transfer
Okay, also can we talk about how just the DSTT2 is budgeted to cost about the same as the entire Elizabeth Line project? I realize there’s a ten year difference, so maybe it’s more like 75% of the Elizabeth Line, but that is absolutely ridiculous still. A 3 mile tunnels with like 5 stations costing on par with a 24 miles of tunnels with 11 stations, 7 of which are within Central London should be raising alarm bells at all levels of government. And it’s not like the UK is known for its on budget or well cost-controlled projects. These are like the most expensive projects to ever be built, it literally does not make sense to me.
You might find this video about REM and CDPQ interesting. They talk extensively about how many other projects have inherent structural biases to result in them being overly expensive in the video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0
I really found the discussion about primarily serving riders (versus pleasing other stakeholders) very telling. I feel that ST forgets that ridership productivity and rider total travel time is most important, and there’s no structural process to even talk about that. This whole time, a riders committee should have been pushing ST to reconsider the billions that they’re spending to achieve other objectives — including a fundamental refusal to question using the Link technology itself (portraying it as the only technology available).
The Transit Costs Project is another resource explaining the challenge:
https://transitcosts.com/
Of course, ST will not point to bad initial cost assumptions they used to develop ST3 (like not assuming enough real estate around each station) along with scope creep (like a bored tunnel in West Seattle) as major factors in the current shortfall. If the other ST extensions are mostly short about 40-50% since 2016, why is West Seattle and Ballard short by 100-300%?
That’s at the core of how simply switching the technology to automation can bring West Seattle and Ballard in line with the other projects (as presented in the paper).
The majority of this ridership will be from the new tunnel under downtown Seattle.
As they kick riders out of the existing tunnel. They could save a lot of money by just renaming the existing tunnel. Then ST could brag about all the riders in the “new” tunnel.
The biggest problem with the downtown tunnel is not the expense but the fact that it adds no value. It doesn’t add additional coverage. No one will transfer from the other line to get to the new stations. They are too close to the old ones. The vast majority of riders who use the new tunnel will wish they were in the old one. It is the worst of both worlds in that respect — the stations are an inferior subset of the other tunnel.
In contrast, consider what most agencies around the world would do — maximize coverage with a second downtown tunnel. In this case it could be as simple as just adding a station in First Hill. Now the dynamic changes. Riders might wish they were on the existing tunnel but at least they get something in exchange. People would definitely transfer to get to First Hill. Not only from Link but from other buses. For example, the “South Lake Union” Station does not serve the neighborhood well. It is designed as a bus intercept for buses on Aurora. Yet if the train runs in a downtown tunnel there is no point in transferring. The bus will serve those stops just as well. But if the train goes up to First Hill it changes the dynamic. It isn’t just transfers, either. The existing tunnel — and the planned new tunnel — basically just follow the main surface street corridor. For short trips downtown it competes (and often loses) to buses. It just isn’t worth the long trip to and from the platform. Not when you have buses running every few seconds along the same pathway. But if the train goes to First Hill it changes everything. A trip from Westlake & Denny to First Hill via a (frequent, automated) train would save about fifteen minutes compared to the current options (https://maps.app.goo.gl/8CtotArTWfRmBiWR7) even when you account for the travel time to and from the station platforms. Instead of duplicating the existing tunnel — and duplicating the buses for short trips — you add unique value. You complement the buses. You complement the existing Link line. You improve the network. Imagine that.
In prior years, it’s been shown that the Ballard station alone will get more boardings than all of the West Seattle stations combined — and that assumes a full build (not a West Seattle stub).
By delaying the EIS release (which should have been released by now), we don’t know what the current ridership estimates are.
Board members need to demand that the most recent forecasts get released to the public. Otherwise the arguments for moving forward are speculative and qualitative which frankly doesn’t carry as much gravitas.
I wonder why the EIS info isn’t being used to make this major decision. The info obviously is already there and available if the release date is so close.
I even wonder if ST management is holding the EIS back to hide some facts in the EIS that they don’t want public. They seem to be doing everything they can to move West Seattle forward.
Al, the FTA is delaying the EIS, not ST.
The critical items being held back are the ridership forecasts and the cost estimates. ST has them and they don’t have to wait for FTA approval. They merely have to state that they aren’t yet approved by FTA.
So blaming FTA would be a bogus reason.
I think it’s irresponsible for ST to not release the latest rider forecasts and cost estimates to the Board and public, and yet expect them to react to major project reductions. This isn’t like taking items off a catering menu. There are these key
numbers — already developed but not presented — to help determine what’s the best value strategy.
WHERE ARE THE LATEST COST AND RIDERSHIP DATA, ST?
Not ideal by any stretch but I think a cheap connection to Ballard can be done with a branch at Northgate using surface running along Northgateway and 15th down to Market. In the future world of Star Trek where money doesn’t exist the line could be extended to either UW or DT Seattle. FWIW, I don’t think Ballard or W. Seattle gets build in ST3. Either is way more money than is available. I’d be happy with a freeway running extension to Tacoma Dome. That might actually be possible with the current funding.
For Tacoma Dome the I-5 and 99 alternatives are next to each other, and both are wide flat rights of way, so the cost is the same either way. I don’t even know which one was chosen because it doesn’t matter much.
“FWIW, I don’t think Ballard or W. Seattle gets build in ST3.”
Right now, the tea leaves as I read them are to build West Seattle using existing Link technology and a bored tunnel for the last bit, and getting as far as possible northward with ST3 funds. Whether that reaches Westlake or SLU or Seattle Center or Interbay is not known.
Included in that plan are truly crappy transit multi-level transfers. The bad transfers will harm connectivity for riders headed south to or from the 1 Line to the 2 or 3 Line.
And let’s be clear too that a West Seattle stub is projected to attract only 6K riders a weekday. That’s what the 2 Line had before the crosslake connection. DSTT2 has to get built as far north as Pioneer Square to give West Seattle any legitimacy.
Ballard ridership justifies an automated train. If a ship canal tunnel is too expensive, ST should consider a draw bridge. If none can be funded, the build at least a gondola from Interbay to downtown Ballard so that Ballard can be served sooner rather than later. (see my earlier post about details)
If only a legitimate assessment of automation can be made! ST has not even apparently pursued that!
And it’s really short-sighted. Automation is coming whether or not ST wants it. It’s pretty much the predominant technology for new lines worldwide and it’s been proven to work for decades. They need to get past their Boomer/ Gen X obsession with antiquated Link technology of long trains, giant stations, large arrival gaps of four minutes and the complications of using drivers for every operation.
They need to quit summarily ignoring it and embrace it!
The thing I like about the gondola idea is that the station could even be a gondola hub! One to land in Old Ballard, one to land near Lenin in Fremont and one to land in between.
Alas, ST won’t even analyze automation for the corridor! That really must be the focus of our discussion and advocacy right now.
Some of us suggested Ballard to UW (the most Ballard popular option according to ST, years before the Kubly second tunnel albatross that he created without public comment.
To the folks who want to can West Seattle light rail– I asked the horde if Claudia B. should replace/overthrow Dow but there didn’t seem to be a stomach for it. How times have changed….
Gondola? Just buses at that point will provide more capacity than such niche concept.
You could still run a bus on 15th. The D Line could just continue to downtown (using the pathway of the 15). The gondola would connect the train with the heart of Ballard. Capacity wouldn’t be a huge issue. You might have to wait a little while in the evening in Interbay (for a gondola ride) but not that long. The train would be frequent which would spread out the load. A few riders would be making a three-seat ride, but not that many. If you are on the 40 and headed to South Lake Union or downtown you probably just stay on the bus. If you are headed to Magnolia or Uptown you transfer. The headway of the gondola (measured in seconds) helps make up for the awkward three-seat ride (that would be inevitable even if the train makes it to Ballard). Other than an event at the Seattle Center, ridership would be fairly spread out.
Thus an Interbay terminus is a bit different than a terminus in Ballard. If you end in Ballard than the D Line just ends there. Ideally this is at 20th & Market (or nearby). Thus you have the 40 and D focusing riders onto Link. Again, riders may decide to just stay on the 40 for some of their trips but a lot will transfer (and save some time). In any event, at that point you don’t need a bus going over the Ballard Bridge. But if the train ends at Interbay you do.
That being said, running to Interbay has its advantages. It is much better than ending at Smith Cove, and not much more expensive. You connect to all the buses in Magnolia. At most you have a “shadow” that picks up a handful of stops that Link skips. There really aren’t many. The Magnolia buses go to Fremont and the UW (more often). Magnolia isn’t that big and it isn’t that densely populated (yet) but transit would be dramatically better on the peninsula.
You also avoid siting issues in Ballard. I would rather they take longer and do it right then rush into a stupid alignment (as they have in the past). I think everyone wishes we had a station at First Hill, even if it meant getting to the UW a couple years later. The same is true for Ballard. Putting the station in the wrong area is much worse than waiting to do it right.
Modern gondola systems transport about 4000 riders in each direction per hour. You need to run a lot of buses for that. Buses may get stuck on the bridge when it opens and would take longer to get through traffic, even if there would be a bus lane (which is not).
Why are people acting like Ballard is some huge destination? Isn’t that where all the rich people live? It’s not even that dense.
The majority of the ridership on that line is probably the Seattle Center, SLU, and new tunnel. Sound Transit should focus on delivering that portion of the line… While also finding a way to avoid fracturing the spine (interlining).
To avoid fracturing the spine…
1. Tacoma to Ballard
2. Federal Way to Northgate
3. SODO to Everett
Transfer if you have to go beyond.
The possibility that hasn’t been discussed is folding up the tent. Use the existing money stream to pay off the bonds and save taxpayers billions of dollars. Then look at building new transit infrastructure with a system that’s not fundamentally flawed and can never deliver useful projects on time and within a reasonable budget.
Worked really well with the monorail project, which would have been nearing completion by now.
Exactly, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.
Just keep folding!
The automation concept would require pausing things and that’s already a steep uphill battle. Canceling ST3 would be orders of magnitude harder politically.
Keep in mind, the paper asserts that the spirit of ST3 can still be met simply by changing the technology — and it still leaves the ST3 corridors intact. The concept is intended to clear most of the impacts already identified in the EIS process, keeping that environmental review step much shorter. Instead it would mostly require a different final design.
Seems to me if they took a real look at a separate, automated, Ballard to West Seattle line that they could also end up looking at the benefits of switching from overhead wire to a third rail for power. This would require a separate OMF yard in Interbay but being able to dig smaller diameter tunnels should also generate big savings. Future savings too as a possible future tunnel to the UW would be smaller.
(by the way are third rail systems less vulnerable to copper wire theft? I’ve no idea but it seems like there would be less wire to steal.)
As for the earlier discussion above about the monorail one idea for repurposing that is to build a monorail from Seatac to the rental car facility.
Third rail is inferior to overhead wire even for metro systems. The Sydney metro uses overhead, as will the Ontairo line in Toronto, as well as many Spanish, Korean and Chinese systems.
1500v DC, which is the voltage used by link, would be extremely high for third rail. BART uses 1000v DC and it causes them issues with trash on the rails causing fires. Overhead is generally much safer. BART also suffers from copper thefts, it’s not people stealing the overhead wire, it’s junction boxes and ancillary signalling systems that get hit.
Not cancelled. Projects need to be paused or deferred, which can be done by the board at any time. The ST3 funds will still accrue and EIS work can continue or at least be preserved. More importantly, design work can done around alternatives, such as automation.
Also, the tent doesn’t get completely folded up. There are some Link projects, such as OMF-S in Federal Way, which can continue at full speed, and other projects such as Stride & the new bus base are also underway. Finally, ST will continue to operate across 4 modes and continue to invest in state of good repair, so our tax dollars are still put to good use even if the capital program is greatly curtailed.
Even the major ST3 projects are shelved, I don’t see taxes changing any time soon. Instead, ST would reduce rather than grow it’s debt over the next few years, creating for financial capacity for whenever ST goes back to the voters with a new proposal.