West Seattle / Downtown via SODO busway

121 Replies to “West Seattle / Downtown via SODO busway”

1. from 2014: https://seattletransitblog.com/2014/09/29/sodo-station-transit-center/

   My posting was mostly a counter argument to the persistent idea that Rainier Beach would be a great place to build a transfer station for Renton, Kent, Auburn buses. But SODO is still an under-appreciated asset.

   1. yes, an important asset. Once the busway is dismantled to build the WSLE track, SODO will become much less useful.

   2. Building a transfer station at SODO is the best possible location for building a transfer station without forcing transfers.

      Well put.

2. A bit late on the April Fools post.

3. Good grief, this nonsense again. Let it go, people.

   This, once again, is someone suffering from the classic myopic notion that WS Link is being built for the place as it exists today and not the place that it is supposed to be 20, 30, 40 years from now. Ballard is “this is an underserved population”, while WS is “this sets a foundation for growth to last half a century”. We get it, there’s a difference.

   Don’t get me wrong: I do not love the way the current WS bus network is laid out, nor should anyone else. It it still far too downtown-centric, there are a few high-visibility and deeply-irritating community connection gaps (most of 35th SW not being connected to Alaska Junction, most notably), the layouts of the main bus terminals both at the Junction and at Westwood are hot garbage with terrible rider experiences that also require stupid and wasteful deviations, the 22 is a thing that exists for some reason, and so on. It can absolutely stand to be improved, right here and right now.

   But using that as justification to kneecap any future potential to grow of the Junction into a proper urban center in its own right? That’s cutting off the nose to spite the face. The Junction has already seen a ton of growth in the last 10-15 years, and the latest rounds of upzoning are piling on. The idea that it’s any less urban (and thus less deserving) of any other has to be buried (again, and again, and again).

   1. Agreed. I think I laid it out fairly well in 2024: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/13/in-defense-of-west-seattle-link/

      1. I will note though, that in the conclusion to that piece you write that:

         “Unless the agency falls into an even deeper fiscal crisis, calling for cancellation of West Seattle Link is calling for the waste of nearly a decade of planning and incredible amounts of civil service effort put forth by Sound Transit and its consultants.”

         Sound Transit’s fiscal issues have in fact deepened, and I think it’s valid in response to give another rethink to ST3’s relative priorities. Maybe the answer is still largely the same, but it’s inarguably true that the playing field has shifted.

         1. > Maybe the answer is still largely the same

            Exactly! My point is that none of the arguments have substantially changed from 2016 to 2026. The financial pressures are largely the same; from 2014-2016 folks argued over what projects were reasonable to approve a decade ago; the arguments today are exactly the same. We’re only having them again because Sound Transit is once again stumbling through a plan-breaking financial crisis, but the questions aren’t really “what should we build” but “which projects should we finish on time”? What does deferring WSLE get us in terms of other ST3 projects? The authors ignore this question.

            For West Seattle’s part of ST3, the ST Board decided it wanted to get voter approval for LRT instead of BRT. The Board is not currently deciding whether that was the correct decision; instead, it is deciding whether it put shovels in the ground for WSLE before other lines.

            Meanwhile, WSLE is the only Link extension with a ROD from the FTA, so it’s the only extension right now which can legally proceed into construction. BLE is in FTA purgatory. EVLE and TDLE will also likely end up in FTA purgatory until the federal administration changes, which will be early 2029 at the earliest.

         2. Nathan, WSLE is of extremely limited use (5400 riders) until it connects downtown directly. Even with FTA approval, why would we start building it if we can’t even pay for other projects such as Ballard/SLU with far higher ridership? Any dollar we spend now will delay Ballard/SLU and therefore make it more difficult to fulfill the promise of WSLE.
            I think it would make more sense to rethink BLE to accommodate automated trains and start building that as soon as the FTA lets us proceed.

         3. What does deferring WSLE get us in terms of other ST3 projects? The authors ignore this question.

            That is obvious and largely irrelevant to the argument. This proposal would be better for the vast majority of riders. It is better for riders from Kent, Auburn and Tacoma. It is better for the vast majority of riders from West Seattle as well. That is the main point.

            What will it do for other ST3 projects? Make them more likely to be built.

            But wait, there is more. Without West Seattle Link the argument for a second tunnel becomes even weaker. West Seattle Link needs a second tunnel (or the ability to interline with the existing tunnel). Ballard Link does not. A stub line from West Seattle to SoDo would add little value. There are only four stations and travel between them is not very high — nor will it be that high in the future. In contrast a line from Ballard to Westlake consists of over half a dozen stations, much of which are big destinations. Even if they build a second tunnel, a lot of riders would transfer at Westlake. Not only to access other buses but to access other Link lines (e. g. Uptown to UW, Ballard to Bellevue). Without West Seattle Link, the arguments for the second tunnel get even weaker. Thus it too, could be deferred. This would not only save Seattle money, but the entire region money. This means that other projects (like the completion of the spine) would be more likely.

            But again, that is a secondary concern. The main point here is that this project would be better for the vast majority of potential riders.

         4. Isn’t it fun watching STB editors have opposite viewpoints on some topics?

         5. > Any dollar we spend now will delay Ballard/SLU.

            Martin, ST thinks deferring WSLE indefinitely would only allow N. King to afford building from Seattle Center to Smith Cove. You don’t mention ST3 trade offs in the article. You just assume WSLE must be cancelled and offer West Seattle a few more RapidRide-like lines. RapidRide C and H already operate in a high-speed busway along the shoulder of SR-99 until it gets into downtown. The SR-99 “busway” actually gets the C and H closer to downtown than the busway does. Sure, it doesn’t connect WS to SODO, you pitch the SODO busway as a fast route to Downtown, not to south of it.

            I understand the proposal. I think it could be a great interim project if WSLE is delayed. If anything, it should have been an early deliverable of ST3. But we’re 10 years in and WSLE can break ground tomorrow.

         6. > That is obvious and largely irrelevant to the argument.

            If it were so obvious, then why not include that detail in a single sentence of the article? Why not frame this proposal as an interim improvement if WSLE is deferred, instead of proposing this as wholesale replacement? You mistake my criticism as disagreement with the argument. I’m not questioning the transit bonafides of the proposal. I’m questioning who the article is aimed at, because it’s not convincing anyone who supports WSLE.

            We can dream of a world where every transit agency’s planning department is populated with Jarrett Walker clones, but we don’t live in that world. If you and Martin want this argument to be seen as anything other than anti-Link, you need to frame it as a proposal for a middle step before the big thing is built. It’s easy to imagine a world where this network is implemented, becomes as popular as you think it would, and riders complain enough to get WSLE rethought. The problem is that is if it were true, we’d be seeing complaints from RapidRide C and H riders. I’m not seeing it, though. Is anyone, outside of the ReThink crowd?

         7. Nathan, I believe with smaller stations due to automation we could reach Ballard. Hopefully Sound Transit will study this asap. We don’t need to spend $5-7B on a stub to reach SODO and forcing an extra transfer. For now WS riders would be better served by buses using the busway as they could serve SODO to 1 line and CID to 2 line avoiding one or even two extra transfers. A WSLE can deferred.

         8. “ WSLE is of extremely limited use (5400 riders) until it connects downtown directly.”

            Yes! This!

            Building WSLE with the stub is unneeded from a travel time and ridership perspective. Opening it before 2039 is unnecessary even if the funds were available because that’s the year DSTT2 is supposed to open and West Seattle teak a run through Downtown.

            That’s several years of paying to operate a stub line with horrible demand.

            The only reason I’ve seen given to start construction ASAP on WSLE is the belief that costs will get higher with delay. But that logic could be applied to Ballard/ DSTT2 too — and because that has a much higher capital cost Ballard should go first as a bigger hedge against cost inflation in real dollars..

   2. We shouldn’t build rail lines based on how a place may be in 20, 30, or 40 years. There is no guarantee that the explosive growth Seattle has seen since the 1980s will continue forever, and rail infrastructure is expensive to maintain and operate. The reason Ballard Link is better has as much to do with Uptown and SLU as it does with Ballard being better to serve than West Seattle. I’d call Ballard vs. West Seattle about a wash, but Uptown and SLU are both extremely important urban nodes that will generate blockbuster ridership.

      1. “rail infrastructure is expensive to maintain and operate” as if road infrastructure isn’t even more? Although with how many issues ST infra has maybe that’s not the case in Puget Sound

      2. The lack of growth in Seattle is entirely the fault of people with your mindset.

         Seattle was growing perfectly fine before 2020 when incompetent leaders and socialist urbanists took power and screwed up everything.

         Transit was growing faster than ever, and jobs and population growth were doing great.

         1. What are you talking about? I’m just saying we shouldn’t bank on 2% growth from now to the end of time, and that it makes most sense to plan around what we have right now. And for what it’s worth, Seattle has had a 2.1% annual growth rate from 2020 to 2025, which places it behind just Redmond and Lacey for cities over 50k in the state. Maybe that will change appreciably when OFM releases the official estimates for Seattle next month, but I’d be generally surprised.

            Gee, I wonder if something happened around 2020 to change the landscape of transit in the region. I guess we’ll never know.

         2. > Seattle was growing perfectly fine before 2020 when incompetent leaders and socialist urbanists took power and screwed up everything.

            Sawant derangement syndrome will never die!

         3. The unprecedented scale of growth between 2012 and 2017 was never going to last forever. It depended on Amazon expanding rapidly and the other tech companies setting up large Seattle offices. It started slowing down in 2017, before the 2020 election.

            In 2020 there was also this thing called a pandemic that threw a lot of things into confusion. That’s a much bigger issue than whether the government was socialist or not.

            Seattle’s population growth may have almost paused during the 2020-2022 confusion, but it recovered in spite of what right-wing news may tell you. It recovered at a lower rate than the early 2010s because that level was unrealistic to ever happen again. The growth now is more like it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. Seattle was doing fine then.

            One way city policies dampened growth was by not maximizing the potential of the Northgate regional center. It could have supported a second Amazon-sized company if one could be found. But the 200′ zoning is limited to the mall lot, and the mall owner refuses to go further than conventional 7-story apartments and a 3-story commercial, to judge by how the Kraken complex was redeveloped. The lots around it have either been built up recently under the old limit, or the limit wasn’t raised sufficiently for them to be any more than 7 stories. So that was a lost opportunity, that could have supported a lot more jobs and a significantly higher population.

         4. Mike Orr,

            Seattle is growing at a fairly similar rate to the peak of the 2010s in terms of raw numbers. The 5 year period from to 2021 to 2025 saw 74,200 new residents, which is more than the 70,468 added from 2013 to 2017. And the 2.37% growth from 2024 to 2025 is the 5th highest year over year growth rate since 1990, behind 2023-24 (2.37%), 2021-22 (2.71%), 2014-15 (3.46%), and 2015-16 (3.51%). The growth rate now is more similar to the 2010s than the 1990s and 2000s, when it hovered between 0.3% and 1.2%. Seattle actually lost population between 2004 and 2005. Data can be found here: https://ofm.wa.gov/data-research/population-demographics/estimates/archive/ and here: https://ofm.wa.gov/data-research/population-demographics/estimates/april-1-official/

         5. “Seattle is growing at a fairly similar rate to the peak of the 2010s”

            If that’s true, we’re lucky rents aren’t increasing that fast. They have been mostly flat or only small increases since 2020, at least in the ares where they grew the most in the 2010s. Areas that increased less then or have a lower base are sometimes increasing more as if to catch up. But the go-go days of 10-15% annual increases when inflatiion was only 2% hasn’t returned yet. So Seattle is doing something right this time that it wasn’t doing in the 2010s.

         6. @Mike Orr

            Rents are flat since the city has been doing very well on housing production. Housing units have grown about 3% year over year since 2020. In some cases we’ve even seen rents drop due to a glut of new construction. Hopefully we can keep that momentum going.

            https://www.redfin.com/news/redfin-rental-report-april-2024/

         7. Apartment buildings tall enough to require elevators take time to plan and build. The timeline can easily be 2-5 years.

            So developers started planning and building lots of new buildings before COVID that opened after COVID when growth rates decreased.

            It looks like that new building construction has decreased again in the last few years. So rents may go up again in 2027 as the apartment rental vacancy rate has appeared to shrink again. I read that the rate was recently 94.4% which indicates a shortage.

      3. “We shouldn’t build rail lines based on how a place may be in 20, 30, or 40 years.”

         “How a place may be in x years” is exactly how the decisions (excluding of course, the use of the ERC) were made developing the I-405 Corridor Master Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement.
         The Plan used 30 years as the ‘horizon’ year – 10 for construction, 20 years of “reducing congestion”. 2030 was considered the horizon year for the cost/benefit analysis.
         And here’s the problem:
         mobility decisions are predicated upon the goal being only to reduce congestion.

         It’s why light rail (budgeted at $10b [in today’s dollars]) in the I-405 corridor didn’t give a positive c/b ratio. The ridership gains (reducing congestion) didn’t occur until after 20 years of use.

         Keep asking that same question, with the same parameters, and you get the same answer –
         Add More Lanes

      4. We shouldn’t build rail lines based on how a place may be in 20, 30, or 40 years.

         I agree, but that also misses the point. It is highly likely that the case for West Seattle Link will get *worse* over time. Just look at the two proposals. One involves five bus lines going downtown. Another involves three new stations. There are bound to be people who benefit from one or the other. But the people that benefit the most from West Seattle Link would walk to the station. The people that benefit the most from this proposal would not. Clearly those that benefit from West Seattle Link are a small minority compared to the other riders. It is highly likely this ratio will only increase over time. That is because there are only three stations.

         For the station areas to dominate they would have to get huge while the other areas shrink. Neither is likely to happen. Seattle has very few areas where skyscrapers are allowed. Greater Downtown and the U-District. That is about it. Now we are building them next to the station on Delridge as well as the Junction? Please. But assume we do. Assume that all three stations have skyscrapers next to them. What about the rest of West Seattle? Is it reverted to farmland? Of course not. The other neighborhoods are not disappearing. High Point — the area with the highest population density in West Seattle — isn’t going away. Neither is Alki, or Admiral or Morgan Junction. This would be an absurd type of development and also contrary to current trends. We are liberalizing the code to add more density everywhere.

         But assume that the area around the three stations grows while the rest of West Seattle shrinks. So what? You can still serve it with buses. You don’t need that many buses because each station area has (in effect) its own bus line — sometimes more. It is highly unlikely the one stop at Youngstown (with its residential towers) would overwhelm the RapidRide H. Remember, we are assuming that ridership for the rest of the H Line shrinks. Even if that does happen, we could just run the 125 more often. The same is true with the other stations. The 21 and C both serve Avalon. The C serves Alaska Junction. It is silly to assume that this would overwhelm the buses and they couldn’t cope.

         Of course this would mean more service hours spent on the buses. So what? Given the enormous price tag of serving the area, you could run a lot of buses for a very long time. The interest alone would pay for a huge increase in service.

         The problem with West Seattle Link is that it is extremely expensive and only improves transit for a tiny portion of West Seattle. That is not going to change.

         1. My original point is more general, and meant as a rebuttal to people who insist that we can TOD out of poor station choices. That does extend to lines, and I generally agree on principle that a branched BRT service would have been a better choice for West Seattle. But the larger point is that Ballard being a great project has more to do with SLU and Uptown being _existing_ nodes that will definitely generate tons of ridership no matter what, which make West Seattle (and Ballard) ancillary by comparison. We should built the network from high ridership areas out towards low ridership areas, because at least then if we run out of money we’ll have something built in the parts of the city with great fundamentals. I mean the monorail is still providing some utility after all.

   3. Where have city leaders or West Seattle residents said they expect it to grow that big, or have a vision of it growing that big, or that opposition to upzoning is only an illusion? Yes, the Triangle has grown since the mid 2000s, but West Seattle’s urban villages are still small and not major job centers. The Junction area is still smaller than Ballard, much less Ballard-Fremont combined. Most notoriously, the precipitous downzone starts just a block west and east of California Avenue north and south of the Triangle. That would have to go. I hear fierce opposition by West Seattlites to letting it go, and they’ve so intimidated the city that it’s not suggesting it. So who has this grand vision you’re talking about, how are they in any position to make it happen, and how can they overcome the opposition?

      1. I agree that the Junction area isn’t some sort of uniquely large, dense urban village. Lake City seems to feel more expansive while comparable in scale.

         And it’s especially not what I would call at a good “subway” density.

         ST played Santa Claus and put a gift list together in 2016 with ST3. There was never any requirement or interest shown to reward strategic upgrades like upzoning a larger area to create more riders. This is the fundamental regional problem: the 2016 gift list is not affordable with lots of low value projects but everyone still thinks that they deserve their toy as specified in ST3 no matter what the cost or value (both in travel time and in productivity/ ridership) is.

         It will be curious to see what incarnation mandatory station area upzoning state legislation evolves to be. If the legislation defines areas larger, several blocks in the Junction area will be automatically upzoned and the neighbors won’t be able to fight it.

         Regardless, any Link station in West Seattle Junction is going to change the village character there. There seems to be a sentiment that WSLE just offers a new transit modal alternative. They don’t envision how it will also radically change their neighborhood’s quaint village hub — both during years of construction then permanently when it opens. That change is projected to begin as soon as next year if ST management gets their way to start digging. West Seattle residents that used to drive to the Junction would soon drive to Admiral, Westwood Village or White Center instead because accessing the current conveniences in the Junction will become much more difficult for the car-brained broader West Seattle populace.

      2. “They don’t envision how it will also radically change their neighborhood’s quaint village hub — both during years of construction then permanently when it opens.”

         Permanent change is not directly related to whether a station is there or not. It depends on whether the city allows it, and whether developers are willing to build it. Ballard and Fremont grew in the 2000s and 2010s without Link. Beacon Hill is not much different than it was because a larger village isn’t allowed. Rainier Beach station area hasn’t changed much because developers get less interested the further south you go from Columbia City into the former “gang hood”. Besides a few neighborhoods some people still have biases against, multifamily/commercial development is happening everywhere in Seattle it’s allowed, so it would occur at the West Seattle Junction and in the larger Triangle with or without Link.

         1. My pint isn’t how densification changes a neighborhood. It certainly does.

            A light rail station changes a village street differently. It creates a situation where it’s easier to reach via transit from further away, but it reduces the convenience to car-oriented neighborhood residents. That changes the viability of different kinds of village street businesses with some doing better and others doing worse.

            Take Columbia City as a case study. The business district is several blocks from Link and still is a neighborhood driving destination. Had the station instead been placed in the middle of it, the district’s character would be different.

      3. Again, that’s not the problem. The argument about density around the stations is a straw man. It really doesn’t matter. There are only three stations. Even if each station was like Downtown Bellevue it wouldn’t matter. Just look at Downtown Bellevue for that matter. There is only one bus connecting it to Downtown Seattle: the 550. The bus is not that frequent. We didn’t build East Link just to serve that one station. We built it because it had a lot of stations on the East Side. Just the combination of riders *within* the East Side is somewhere between five and ten thousand riders. Many more are riding the combinations now available. This includes riders who take a bus first.

         But West Seattle Link fails that test. There are only three stations. Very few people travel between the three stations. The trip between Alaska Junction Station and Avalon Station is better on foot or by bus (given the short distance between them). You do have combinations that would be better, but only for those close to the stations. Buses could handle that load just fine, given the handful of stations and proximity to what is essentially a freeway.

         1. Which is why they’re dropping Avalon from the plan.

   4. The growth of the Junction is capped by zoning west and south of it (as Mike pointed out) while SLU and Ballard already have plenty of density/ridership TODAY, not future hope.
      I’m not saying that WSLE plans should be discarded, but Ballard/SLU should be prioritized while the busway ramps can serve WS for now. Once Ballard is served, then we can reassess the needs of WS based on the options we developed.

      1. Light rail discussion aside, it is not clear how this is in any way superior to the answer we already have: 99 and Alaskan Way.

         If the idea is that West Seattle deserves a better connection to the Link system in general, that’s plenty valid but SODO station is in such a strange place that there’s no good way to do it — and calls into question why building new ramps is better than just making the current C Line run more efficiently. Instead, I would be looking for bus connections to Beacon Hill or Columbia City that run express across the Spokane St Viaduct, so as a technical matter I would be looking at bus lanes across the entirety of the eastbound viaduct past the I-5 ramps. (To me, the current route of the 50 is irredeemable.)

         Why not just use 4th Ave at Lander Street? SDOT already has it down for improvements. Perhaps a re-think of Yesler Way as well, to use Pioneer Square station as the major transfer point off Alaskan Way, cutting off a few minutes to get to the C’s first real Link transfer point at Symphony. There’s also the wayward ST 560 which connects Westwood to Tukwila Link (and the airport). What if the 560 started in the Junction instead of Westwood?

         1. “ Why not just use 4th Ave at Lander Street?”

            The issue with 4th Ave S is that it’s quite wide and there are left turn signal phases. Pedestrians need loads of time to walk across the street. A busway needs a lot less time to walk across (like a 30 second distance).

            So it’s better to leave West Seattle buses on 99 until they reach Downtown unless the SODO busway path suggested here is generally signal free except for short red lights for pedestrians to get across the busway.

            In other words, SODO busway is essential to making this proposal work. Otherwise it’s best to stay on 99.

         2. Light rail discussion aside, it is not clear how this is in any way superior to the answer we already have: 99 and Alaskan Way.

            This post is based on the assumption that connecting to Link as soon as possible from various West Seattle locations is a valid goal. If that is not important then there is little reason to build West Seattle Link. Very few will travel between the three new stations. A relatively small number will walk to the station and their trips to downtown won’t be that much faster. Riders on buses headed downtown would be better off with their existing bus. So that means that either Metro just ignores this massively expensive investment or most riders are worse off. You are making an even stronger argument against West Seattle Link than we did.

            In contrast, we acknowledge that there is inherent value in connecting West Seattle riders to Link sooner (and to the south) of where they do today.

            For a comparison, imagine Link just ended at Roosevelt Station for a while. Now consider Northgate Station. It is a similar situation. Riders heading downtown are better off with the old 41. It was faster and riders didn’t have to transfer. But Northgate Link offered more than just a fast ride downtown. It offered a much faster connection to other Link destinations (Roosevelt, U-District, UW and Capitol Hill). Not only that, but riders heading further south (to places like Rainier Valley and SeaTac) might as well transfer there. West Seattle Link offers some of that. It will be much faster to get to SoDo or Stadium. These destinations are not as big but they are still destinations. For those that eventually transfer, they might as well transfer in West Seattle — it will likely be their only choice.

            But this proposal serves both groups of riders. The trip to SoDo or Stadium is significantly faster than it would be even with West Seattle Link. You allow them to transfer sooner, rather than later. It is the best of both worlds — riders continue to have their one-seat ride downtown while also getting that excellent (and early) connection to Link.

            Why not just use 4th Ave at Lander Street?

            That might work for trips headed to downtown. We don’t know how often that railroad line is used. Going the other way is the bigger issue. There are no ramps going that way. A bus would have to cross the much bigger set of tracks between 1st and 4th. This is notoriously unreliable (no unreliable they built an overpass at Lander). We struggled with the wording in how best to describe this idea (without getting too wordy). But it comes down to this:

            1) You need southbound ramp from the SoDo Busway to the Spokane Street Viaduct. This wouldn’t be that expensive.
            2) Once you have that, it is possible that the buses could just use 4th Avenue ramps going the other way. In other words, just with those ramps you reach a tipping point.
            3) Either way, there would be additional improvements that could be made over time. This could include a second ramp right to the 4th Avenue ramp. My guess is, there are bigger potential improvements, like additional overpasses and a better connection to downtown. Those would not only improve the West Seattle buses, but other buses as well.

            If the idea is that West Seattle deserves a better connection to the Link system in general, that’s plenty valid but SODO station is in such a strange place that there’s no good way to do it

            Yes there is. Add ramps and use the busway. That is a very good way to do it.

            Instead, I would be looking for bus connections to Beacon Hill or Columbia City that run express across the Spokane St Viaduct, so as a technical matter I would be looking at bus lanes across the entirety of the eastbound viaduct past the I-5 ramps.

            Of course the equivalent of the 50 would bypass SoDo. That is another one of the benefits of this plan. You don’t need it to connect to Link there. The 50 can just run express from West Seattle to Beacon Hill, shaving quite a lot of time off the current route. Riders who are heading to SoDo would just catch one of the many buses heading there. This means if you are at High Point and want to go to Beacon Hill you still transfer but you avoid the detour to SoDo. It also means that if you are going to a Link destination (like the airport) you avoid having to go all the way downtown first.

            Perhaps a re-think of Yesler Way as well, to use Pioneer Square station as the major transfer point off Alaskan Way, cutting off a few minutes to get to the C’s first real Link transfer point at Symphony.

            Yes, there are other possibilities. Using the SoDo Busway has the big advantage of allowing riders to reverse directions as well as connecting to East Link with no backtracking. The transfer is also short. There is no large change in grade (unlike the downtown stations). Of course it could be improved even more.

         3. “Why not just use 4th Ave at Lander Street?”

            The issue with 4th Ave S is that it’s quite wide and there are left turn signal phases.

            I believe jd was arguing for using the exit at 4th and then doglegging to the SoDo Busway. So basically this and then take a left and head north (onto the busway). That might work just fine going from West Seattle to downtown. The other direction is where the problem is.

   5. This, once again, is someone suffering from the classic myopic notion that WS Link is being built for the place as it exists today and not the place that it is supposed to be 20, 30, 40 years from now.

      That is simply not true. You are ignoring the basis of this argument which has little to do with the density around the stations. There are only three stations. Unless you are close to one of those stations, this proposal is better. The three stations make up a tiny proportion of the overall potential ridership in West Seattle and will likely always represent a tiny proportion of the overall ridership. Do you really think they will build skyscrapers next to the station while they revert the rest of the peninsula into farmland? Get real.

      Yes, Seattle is changing. Of course there will be some additional density next to these stations. But it is highly likely there will be more population added in the rest of West Seattle. This will occur simply because there is a lot more land. Again, there are only three stations and two of them already have significant development. The big increase in population for West Seattle will occur outside of these three stations. Not only along corridors and intersections that have existing density (like Alki, High Point and Westwood Village) and the various corridors (like California Avenue, Admiral Way and Delridge). But pretty much everywhere. No longer will the single family home dominate the landscape. Already we have seen a huge surge in ADUs and DADUs. As the zoning laws become more liberal (due to local or statewide action) this type of development will only accelerate.

      West Seattle Link does not serve West Seattle well. It speeds up trips that are already fast — or could be fast if the buses ran to SoDo. West Seattle Link is better for a relative handful, while this proposal is better for a lot more — now and quite likely into the future.

   6. Link is being built for the place as it exists today and not the place that it is supposed to be 20, 30, 40 years from now.

      West Seattle will remain a tiny freeway suburb if the transit is made worse than it is today,

      The current West Seattle plan makes things slower for transit users from Renton to Alki.

      For expensive, deep level stations to work, the service provided has to be significantly faster than what can be done on the surface. For West Seattle as planned, this means some really long trips on an escalator or waiting in line for an elevator. It will take as least as long as the often derided transfer at Husky Stadium, and probably as long as Capitol Hill. So, figure about 5 minutes from surface to platform.

      Once out of the tunnel and onto the bridge, the train will move slightly slower than the buses (55 mph vs 60 mph).

      So, even someone right next to one of the stations will likely have a slower trip with the current West Seattle plan.

      If you’re going to plan for something 40 years in the future, it needs to be something better than what is there now.

      1. The issue with the bus is that it won’t be going 60mph for the entire run. That 5 mph difference in top speed does not matter, average speed does. Buses stop on the busway, the train does not. Once the overpasses are built, trains will consistently go 45 mph into downtown. Everyone seems to be treating the WSLE like it’s always going to end at SODO. It’s a temporary measure and Buses will be slower than trains if they were to take the busway. The stop at the railroad siding, the lights, and the turns on to and off of Royal Brougham are significantly detrimental to bus speeds. In any event, Alaskan Way is not going to be a deep station, I believe the estimates were around 35-55 feet, which is about the same as the DSTT stations that the 3 line will use in the future.

         Additionally, the trains will with certainty be a higher and more consistent frequency than the buses. That constitutes a significant time savings, even with a transfer, that the buses cannot offer. The predictability of grade separated rail is the main point, which allows it to maintain relatively high average speeds and have a flat travel time throughout the day.

         1. That 5 mph difference in top speed does not matter, average speed does.

            Agreed.

            Buses stop on the busway, the train does not.

            Yes it does. Or rather, it stops right next to it. The pathways are essentially the same in the SoDo neighborhood. There are crossing streets at Lander and Holgate for both buses and the light rail. We mentioned that in the article. Any improvement on the busway (like an overpasses on those streets) would benefit both Link as well as the buses.

            But riders who eventually transfer to Link wouldn’t notice the difference. Consider someone trying to get from the UW to the Delridge Community Center. With West Seattle Link they take the train to the Delridge station and then transfer to the H Line. With this proposal they take the train to the SoDo Station and transfer there. Thus they are either riding the train from SoDo to Delridge or the bus. It would take about the same amount of time either way. The only light a bus would encounter is one at Andover, which I’m sure favors Delridge. Thus the bus and train trips would essentially be identical. The only difference is where the person actually transfers. This actually favors the SoDo Station. The transfer there is at the same level. It is (or should be) very quick. In contrast, the Delridge Station will likely be very high in the air. It will take longer. Thus it is quite likely that staying on the bus longer is just a bit faster. At best it is a wash.

            Now consider someone trying to get from downtown to the Delridge Community Center. With West Seattle Link they need to go to a station and then transfer at the Delridge stop. With this proposal they have two options. They can do the same thing (but transfer at SoDo). I’ve shown in the last paragraph this is just as fast. But they can also just get on the bus downtown. This avoids a transfer and may be faster, depending on where you are. For example if they are in Belltown they would get on the bus at 3rd & Bell. This avoids the long walk to a train station (and a transfer).

            The third scenario is someone taking Link the other direction. By transferring at SoDo you avoid the extra transfer. Thus in every scenario, this proposal is as fast if not faster than West Seattle Link.

            The stop at the railroad siding, the lights, and the turns on to and off of Royal Brougham are significantly detrimental to bus speeds.

            Agreed. So fix it. That is referenced in the article. SDOT had proposals for improving that connection when they published the report. There are other alternatives as well. This would help bus riders from Kent, Auburn and Tacoma as well. In contrast, West Seattle Link would make those trips worse. That is a major difference with this proposal. With this proposal, everyone is in the same boat. It is quite reasonable to spend a tiny fraction of the cost of West Seattle Link on bus infrastructure that would also benefit those other areas. In contrast, West Seattle Link is a giant “Tough Sh**” to those other communities.

            Additionally, the trains will with certainty be a higher and more consistent frequency than the buses.

            Nonsense. The trains run every ten minutes on each end. We have pushed ST for better frequency but they have shown no interest in making them more frequent. That is the same midday frequency on both the RapidRide C and H. This is while both Metro and SDOT face major funding shortages. It is quite likely that both routes — and others — run more often in the future.

            It really doesn’t matter though. With West Seattle Link the vast majority of riders have to transfer. Thus they are dependent on *both* the frequency of the train and the buses. Taking a bus that runs every fifteen minutes is bad. But going from a train running every six minutes to a bus running every fifteen minutes is much worse. It isn’t just trips to and from downtown, either. Downtown is a major transit hub with buses and trains all over the region. Someone trying to get from First Hill to Delridge would have to transfer twice with West Seattle Link. In terms of waiting, the best option is to send the buses to downtown via SoDo.

         2. How do you think Link will be more frequent? Between the C, H and 50, the buses are already operating every several minutes. If anything Link will be less frequent in order to accommodate Line 2 trains.

            Reliability is nice, but reliably slower than the existing buses isn’t going to work. It’s why ridership on MAX Orange line is so much worse than the corridor used to have with buses. And that corridor is actually better than what is planned for West Seattle, because they were able to modify the busiest bus route to provide a one seat ride on a corridor that didn’t have it before. That type of thing is physically impossible in West Seattle.

         3. Rss, a few points I’d like to address.

            First, is that we should judge this project by its final state, not the interim transfer at sodo. It will make trips faster, post BLE, than the bus would be for most major destinations. It will also be a consistent 6-8 minute headway most of the day. That’s better than the bus by a long shot, considering how inconsistent the C and H lines are schedule wise. Also, the train is just inherently more predictable than the bus. If you’re proposing an alaska to downtown express, that wouldn’t really be worth it to match the amount of service you would get with the train. You also don’t get the density requirements that the train forces. While that’s not the only reason to build the train, there is a real effect of rail to spur development that two rapid rides have not (and more bus service would not) due to the more permanent nature of rail.

            An additional note is that you can reinvest the service hours spent doing long, no stop freeway hauls into downtown into better service in west seattle. A reroute of the C or H to serve Alki via Avalon Way and California Ave, respectively, would be huge to boosting transit accessibility in that area that this downtown express proposal simply does not.

            Second, Delridge isn’t that high from where the bus transfer is. It’s going to be on a hill, the Delridge road in the renders puts you onto a mezzanine with an escalator up to the station. It’ll be more like Redmond or Wilburton in size, and less like Tukwila. This obsession with super long transfer times is silly (and only really applies to the downtown stations) and degrades any argument you might want to make against the train. In any event, with the deletion of Avalon station, travel times will likely be faster for most people using the train, and the station could be lower to go under, rather than over, Avalon Way.

            Third,
            Buses on 4th with a dedicated lane would basically be the same travel time wise. The crossings wouldn’t be as good but 4th needs a redesign anyway as one of the principal awful stroads in sodo. STX buses could even take 6th for a traffic free version. If 6th were reopened to Seattle Ave, buses could even have a faster turn than if they used the busway.

            Finally, I think you aren’t looking far enough into the future. The junction is clearly not the final stopping point for southward expansion of link. It will likely go to White Center and Burien in the not so distant future. Maybe I have a different perspective since I’m relatively young for this blog. (mid 20s rather than the seemingly predominant mid life), so it may not matter to the older folks in here, but this is guaranteeing a much more connected future for me and others of my generation. Delaying it further just pushes that horizon back more and more and more, and no real, concrete improvements are made because of dithering and cost cutting. Just build the train correctly, which they are, and we’ll benefit.

         4. Not like Link’s average speed is any good. A freeway running bus is a lot faster but gets slowed down on the city streets. West Seattle buses mostly stay on the bridge and the busway.. speeds will be competitive. And you get more variety in where you want to get picked up and dropped off at the endpoints.

         5. DM,

            A few thoughts. One is that population and employment growth is projected to appreciably slow down in the Seattle area over the next 20 years, which will dampen the need for development as a principal aspect of any transit project. It’s likely that Seattle is closer to how it will look in 20 years now than it looked 20 years ago. I think this should also color how we consider the chances for an extension down to White Center or Burien, which I would consider to be extremely unlikely within a reasonable planning timeline. All transit projects should be able to stand on their own, and if they are phased they should be done so that whatever is built is useful even if nothing else gets finished.

            This latter point is my primary issue with the ST3 planning process. We really aren’t building from most useful to least useful, especially with Ballard/West Seattle. The most useful segment is really the piece from Uptown to Westlake, with a connection to whatever means will get the line through downtown. Without that, West Seattle will be a branch with no destination, and a stub line running for 5 years without much reason for existing isn’t something that should be done if it can be avoided. ST tends to operate with the assumption that the voters will pass the next ballot measure, so deferments aren’t permanent, but this is reckless at best. If the voters reject a bailout of the prior measure, then we will be left with whatever actually gets built before the money runs out. That should be an actual consideration when planning, but especially when phasing projects. I don’t really see that as a point of emphasis from Sound Transit

         6. Blumdrew

            I see what you’re saying with projections of growth slowing in the next 20 years, but I also would argue that we’re building not for the next 20, but the next 100 years. West Seattle is the next frontier of growth for Seattle with the most potential. The train may be underutilized now, but will not be later. And by building the train, housing can be built in a more efficient way. Think about if Forward Thrust had passed, for example. The Seattle metro region would be a much more compact, urban and dense area than the sprawling 70s suburban mess we got in south king and Snohomish county. We also don’t know if Seattle will explode in growth again. Economically, it is still doing very well, but it also could become an area for climate and political refuge. As the climate grows more extreme, the PNW will likely remain relatively mild when compared to the gulf or southwest. People will move here for a variety of reasons but it’s not unreasonable to assume the area will grow and could see more spurts like it did in the 2010s.

            While I agree that the order of operations is slightly off, I’d like to point out that WS and BLE were originally intended to be concurrent. The NS option derailed that, stupidly, but no use crying over spilled milk. WSLE is ready. The longer we wait the more expensive it will become. Just build it now so we don’t spend even more later.

         7. “The longer we wait the more expensive it will become. Just build it now so we don’t spend even more later.”

            There are some points here that need to be mentioned as it’s not this simple:

            1. The cost increase for West Seattle is largely related to scope creep — boring a tunnel not assumed in ST3 or a signature long-span bridge — and poor initial cost estimating. Waiting won’t cause costs to soar like they have.

            2. If building to hedge cost inflation is important, it’s more important to build through SLU first before West Seattle. Spending a huge cash wad on West Seattle will delay building through SLU as ST will need to wait and replenish the cash reserves.

            Building West Seattle Link is not urgent because it won’t directly serve anything for years, and it’s better to build SLU first because it’s a similar if not better hedge against inflation and it can also get healthy ridership before full buildout.

         8. Exactly!

            You need to think of the next 100 years, which is why a line that would be difficult and time consuming to access and which would be difficult and expensive to extend south is the wrong thing to build.

         9. First, is that we should judge this project by its final state, not the interim transfer at sodo.

            I agree. That was the focus of the article. We did mention the interim state in passing but the main argument is that this proposal would be better than West Seattle Link, even when West Seattle Link is connected to the main line.

            But since you brought it up, it will be a while before that happens. Until then, the stub is basically worthless. Thus this is not only better in the long run, but likely to be implemented a lot sooner. For the next ten years, riders would have better bus service if nothing else. West Seattle Link would require a long wait for something inferior.

            It will make trips faster, post BLE, than the bus would be for most major destinations.

            That is simply not true. The vast majority of riders will have to transfer. As a result, it would take longer for them to get to most destinations.

            Just consider a race. You are on the most popular bus in West Seattle, the RapidRide H. You are headed downtown. There are two scenarios but three possibilities:

            1) They build West Seattle Link. You have to get off the bus at Youngstown and transfer to Link.
            2) They build this. You stay on the bus until SoDo and transfer to Link there.
            3) They build this. You just stay on the bus until you get downtown.

            The first two scenarios are basically a wash. Transferring at SoDo is a bit quicker but the train is a bit quicker from Delridge to SoDo. The third scenario is interesting and what most people would prefer, even if the other two scenarios are faster. It would also be faster most of the time, unless the train was extremely frequent. Even then it might be slower, given the actual transfer time. But that brings up the next thing you wrote:

            It will also be a consistent 6-8 minute headway most of the day.

            Since when? We don’t run the trains that often — why would we start now? As for the buses, it is highly likely they get more frequent over time. This is a major low point in terms of both local and county wide funding. That is likely to change soon. But assume you are right and ST suddenly decides to run the trains every six minutes to Redmond and West Seattle (and every three minutes to Lynnwood) all day long. Great. But this is still additional time! You still have to get up and transfer. If we put the money into it, the bus pathway would be at most around a minute slower. Transferring just doesn’t make sense unless you are headed somewhere farther north — and even then it is a wash.

            Also, the train is just inherently more predictable than the bus.

            I have not found Link to be especially predictable. But assume that it is. Assume that the bus is not. Timing transit is most important when you are making a transfer. With West Seattle Link this is required — with this proposal it isn’t. Go back to that scenario again. Assume the train is scheduled to leave two minutes after the bus arrives. Now assume that the bus is three minutes late. It shows up by the station and the train left a minute ago. Even in your dream scenario (with trains running every six minutes all day long) the train won’t be here for five minutes. By then the bus has passed SoDo and is close to Stadium. By the time the train gets to SoDo the bus is downtown. You really have to time the bus and train perfectly to make it worth the transfer — something you rightfully say is difficult to impossible.

            Oh, and about that. You say the train is running every 6 to 8 minutes. How often is the bus running then? At the same frequency to better time the transfer? Or is it running half as often (12 to 16 minutes)? If so, that really screws over the people that aren’t headed downtown. Or is the transfer just random. That means an average of a three minute wait (plus the actual time to get from the bus stop to the platform). That is a big head start for the bus. The bus would beat the train more often than not. Put it this way. Imagine Metro doesn’t truncate the bus. Very few would transfer if they are headed downtown. Ridership would be minimal.

            You also don’t get the density requirements that the train forces. While that’s not the only reason to build the train, there is a real effect of rail to spur development that two rapid rides have not (and more bus service would not) due to the more permanent nature of rail.

            I haven’t seen evidence of that in the region. In general, growth is dependent on zoning changes. You can pick a spot pretty much anywhere in the city, change the zoning and see growth. This has happened in places as varied as Lake City, Greenwood and Fremont (places that don’t have Link). In contrast most of the growth in Rainier Valley has been close to the bus line, not the stations (Othello being the exception). I’m not saying it is *because* of the bus, but I’m saying it really doesn’t matter. Otherwise, the area close to Rainier Beach would have as many apartments as the area close to the high school.

            As I’ve written elsewhere, West Seattle Link has three basic problems:

            1) It has very few stations.
            2) Riding the train isn’t much faster than a bus.
            3) It is really expensive.

            That is because it duplicates the part that is really fast and mostly built. It would be different if there were a lot more stations in West Seattle and it covered the peninsula. Unfortunately, that isn’t the proposal. This is basically a stub line, even if the trains from West Seattle go to downtown (and beyond). Yes, theoretically it will eventually be extended, all the way to Burien. There will be a branch to Admiral and Alki as well. But realistically none of that will happen. Besides, we could always build that later if was ever really necessary.

         10. > Since when? We don’t run the trains that often — why would we start now?

             >Nonsense. The trains run every ten minutes on each end.

             Ross, I’m surprised you’re unaware of ST3’s promise to provide all-day 6-minute service all day on the 1, 2, 3, and 4 Lines by 2040. The 1 and 2 Lines already commonly run at 6- to 8- minute frequencies during peak hours. They only reason Link doesn’t operate more frequently more often is a well-documented issue of reduced car reliability and longer-than-expected run times. Sure, service drops to 10- to 12-minute frequencies midday and more at night, but it’s not “nonsense” to assume WSLE will routinely operate every 6-8 minutes whenever it opens.

             >There will be a branch to Admiral and Alki as well.

             Not in Sound Transit’s long range plan (2014), nor Seattle’s Transportation Plan (2024), nor Seattle Subway’s vision map.

             > Besides, we could always build that later if was ever really necessary.

             I'm curious what criteria you would use to determine "necessity" when it comes to building grade-separated rail transit to West Seattle.

         11. No, I wasn’t aware that ST promised higher frequency in the future. Thanks.

             You are right, frequency like that is not ridiculous. But I would still consider it unlikely that it would be more frequent than the buses. Right now the trains run every 8 minutes peak and 10 minutes midday. They have the trains to run them every 8 minutes all day long (obviously) but they just run them every 10 minutes. It has been that way for a long time. ST has generally been focused on crowding (and ignored the general benefit of better frequency). It is hard to see the agency spending more money on service given the cost of operations will only go up and the ridership per mile will likely go down. It is possible, of course, that the trains will be automated by then. But it is also highly likely that by 2040 the buses will be automated as well. Thus it could easily match the trains in frequency, at least from West Seattle. Six minute frequency is generally a standard. The idea being that you have diminished returns after that. When agencies get better headways it is usually with an automated system and/or a system with trains combining for high frequency on that section. Thus I would guess all-day six minute frequency for the RapidRide buses (and core routes) by then. This would include the 21 and maybe the 56.

             I’m curious what criteria you would use to determine “necessity” when it comes to building grade-separated rail transit to West Seattle.

             When it is a good value compared to other transit projects we could build. That could happen, assuming general growth in the region (and especially West Seattle). It would likely take a while since we would have to build a lot more projects first.

         12. Nathan,
             ST has made a lot of promises, but not the funds to deliver. With an estimated daily ridership of 5400 riders, why would they run more than 10min to WS? That’s why they do on the 2 Line which has higher ridership.
             Due to cost escalation, ST is thinking about dropping fill-in stations, Ballard, and Issaquah. Why would anybody dream about Burien, Alki or Admiral? Why would we prioritize WS now over Ballard? Because it may get extended to Burien in the future?!?

         13. > ST has made a lot of promises, but not the funds to deliver.

             Sound Transit has the funds. It currently collects over $2B annually in taxes and that number is expected to grow to over $5B in the 2040s. In 2046, ST assumes it will be spending about half of that (plus fares) on O&M for all its services.

             What it doesn’t have the debt capacity to deliver ST3’s projects on ST3’s schedule (realigned in 2021). This is why “deferral” is not equivalent to cancellation, and it’s disingenuous to assume otherwise.

             See the debt capacity chart on pdf page 82: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2026-adopted-budget-financial-plan.pdf

             If ST increased it debt capacity from 1.5% to 5%, it could build ST3 on-time and at full price and then spend the next decade or two paying it down. But, that would require legislative or electoral intervention and the agency can’t assume that would happen before starts getting in trouble for having an unbalanced long-range plan.

         14. > When it is a good value compared to other transit projects we could build.

             I assume you mean new riders per dollar spent. Unfortunately, in reality, that metric is nowhere near the top priority when it comes to how transit projects are considered in our region.

             You’re probably right that it should be, though. It’s just not how things work.

         15. > This is why “deferral” is not equivalent to cancellation,
             I’m not suggesting WSLE should be cancelled but deferred. First, we should build BLE to Westlake, then we can reassess whether it makes more sense to connect WS or First Hill.

         16. “With an estimated daily ridership of 5400 riders”

             Martin, you’re talking about Inital Operating Segment or SODO-Junction stub and not the fully built out line of Alaska Junction-Everett Station which is to have ridership of 27,000-37,000. The stub may not even happen and the line may end up going into DSTT up to Northgate or Lynnwood when it opens anyways.

             Honestly, instead of people here fighting over the merits of the line. A lot of this energy should be put towards pushing ST to upgrade DSTT to handle 3 or 4 line operation so that when WSLE is open, it can roll into Downtown Seattle with ease instead of being the weird stub.

         17. “A lot of this energy should be put towards pushing ST to upgrade DSTT to handle 3 or 4 line operation”

             We’re pursuing that too, but the immediate issue on the table is West Seattle Link. With the DSTT1 upgrades we’re trying to push ST to do something; with West Seattle Link we’re trying to push ST not to do something. If we fail, ST will probably vote to start construction of West Seattle Link in the next few months, and then all that money and staff time will be committed to it. In contrast, the DSTT1/DSTT2 issue can be before or after that, since its EIS isn’t final yet and DSTT2 construction can’t start for years at minimum, so there’s more time to modify it before the final vote to approve construction.

         18. “With the DSTT1 upgrades we’re trying to push ST to do something; with West Seattle Link we’re trying to push ST not to do something. If we fail, ST will probably vote to start construction of West Seattle Link in the next few months, and then all that money and staff time will be committed to it.”

             Exactly, Mike! The West Seattle Extension vote is detrimental to everything else one way or the other. This is the most major imminent decision.

             My biggest fear is that West Seattle interests won’t be finished with that vote. They’ll then do everything they can to kick 1 Line out of the DSTT. They’ll get ST spend the rest of ST3 funds to build 1 Line to the county building or Westlake (DSTT2 deep tunnel with horrific transfers) and say that they’ve run out of ST3 money.

             The truly amazing thing to me is Snohomish interests (and others) are so eager to go along. Don’t they realize that they’re severing their SeaTac airport connection? Those that go along don’t seem to care about their own voters as Link riders. The quid pro quo may be that they don’t want Everett Link held hostage in retaliation.

             Sadly, there has been nothing pursued that offers an alternative to this West Seattle outcome. ST has seen the funding problem coming for years and seems be trying to wait out its problems long enough so that opponents are too tired to keep fighting for a better outcome. That’s the impetus behind the “Build the damn trains” effort led by TCC (a group funded by engineering and construction companies eager for contracts).

             ST published a shallow hit piece on a Ballard stub or branch a few months ago finally. ST still refuses to admit that automated light metros even exist as a viable Link technology.

             PS. ST keeps touting that West Seattle Link will open in 2032 year end. I don’t see how this is possible with the need for using TBMs and assembling a massive amount of customized steel needed for the Duwamish signature bridge. After the deal is made to build was Link, ST will likely tell us it won’t open until 2036 or later — as they shut down the SODO busway in 2027.

   7. Exactly. But what did you expect? The low hanging fruit of looking at the present for a project that should be looked at in a multi decade span makes for an easy argument. In the end they already taxed people and they have a voter initiative to deliver so they won’t simply call the bus light rail on wheels.

      1. It’s a tax measure, not a voter initiative. Initiatives are created by non-government people to force the government to do what it won’t do on its own.

      2. The voters approved lines on a map. They didn’t approve a plan. They especially didn’t vote for a plan that would spend $8 billion on a line connecting SoDo to Alaska Junction using 150 foot deep stations.

         1. The map was, for all useful purposes, the plan.

         2. “Concepts of a plan” at best.

            The actual plan is to put trains to SeaTac into a tunnel 12 floors under Westlake, and various other items that would probably not get past the ballot box now.

         3. Yeah, that’s how conceptual design and alignment analysis works. We refuse to fund EIS-level alternatives analysis before approving conceptual projects, so we end up in situations where projects are overpromised and underestimated and people make assumptions about what the projects will look like before any real design has happened.

            Meanwhile, WSDOT gets to do all sorts of environmental planning and alternatives analysis before projects are funded for construction. It doesn’t help that USDOT holds highway authorities to a much looser standard of EIS for freeways than the FTA does for transit projects, but the point is that if we had included alternatives analysis for potential ST3 projects in ST2, we probably wouldn’t be anywhere close to this mess.

         4. yes, Nathan, our whole process how we approach transit projects is broken.

4. Even if a ramp were built to connect the SODO busway to the West Seattle Bridge, I’m not convinced this is an improvement over the existing C/H line pathway of SR-99->Alaskan Way->Columbia St. The SODO busway, itself, may seem protected from traffic, but the pathway between the busway and 3rd Ave. has a lot of lights, some awkward turns, and a stretch of Royal Brougham, right by the stadiums, with no bus lane.

   To reach the downtown core, the current route is probably faster, and could be made even faster by adding traffic signal priority on Columbia St. Adding a bus stop so you could get off at 3rd/Columbia would also save several minutes for people making Link connections (e.g. walk one block south to Pioneer Square station, rather than have to sit on the bus for several blocks through a bunch of stoplights to connect at Symphony Station).

   Really, the only advantages of the SODO busway over the current routing are less backtracking for people making connections to the south and coverage of SODO itself. Neither feels important enough to be worth the longer travel times for everyone else, even if construction of the West Seattle Bridge->SODO busway ramp were free.

   1. To reach the downtown core, the current route is probably faster

      So what? The 41 was faster than Link to downtown. The express buses from the U-District were faster as well. This doesn’t have to be faster, it just has to be in the same ballpark.

      Just to back up here, think of the main trade-offs of West Seattle Link:

      1) Riders have a faster connection to Link destinations other than downtown (like the UW).
      2) Riders who walk to the station have a faster trip to downtown.
      3) Everyone else has to transfer and thus has a slower trip to downtown.

      The third item negates the second. Thus the primary benefit of West Seattle Link is a faster connection to Link destinations (other than downtown). Otherwise there is no point. If all you are interested in is a fast ride to downtown, just continue to run express buses as we’ve always done. But not everyone is going downtown. A lot of people are going other places. Now consider the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal:

      1) Riders have a faster connection to Link destinations other than downtown.
      2) Riders have a faster connection to reverse-direction Link destinations.
      3) More riders get a direct connection to the south end of downtown.
      4) You have a quicker connection to Amtrak, Sounder and East Link.
      5) You use the huge amount of money set aside for West Seattle Link to increase bus service in West Seattle.
      6) You are marginally slower to downtown.

      In both cases, the vast majority of riders would have a slower ride to downtown. In both cases that is a trade-off. In the case of West Seattle, the main benefit is faster trips to other Link destinations. In the case of this proposal you have that *AND* a lot more.

      The SODO busway, itself, may seem protected from traffic, but the pathway between the busway and 3rd Ave. has a lot of lights, some awkward turns, and a stretch of Royal Brougham, right by the stadiums, with no bus lane.

      Yes, and this article addressed that. This should be made faster. If they did so, it would benefit riders from other areas, like Renton, Kent and Tacoma. Not only that, but some of the potential changes would benefit Link riders. Link crosses several intersection in the SoDo area as well. Any overpasses to help the busway would also help Link.

      1. I don’t see anything in the article that talks about the connection at the north end of the busway, just the south end. There is room for marginal improvements, perhaps a bus lane on Royal Brougham, or retiming of some traffic signals. But, it’s still going to be slow.

         On the other hand, let’s suppose you just give the bus priority on Columbia St. and add that missing bus stop at 3rd/Columbia. Access to the downtown core is faster, as are transfers to buses out of out downtown, such as the D, G, 40, etc. Access to Link to go north is about equal to the SODO busway alternative. Access to Link to go east to Bellevue is better. Access to the stadiums is maintained through the existing bus stop at Alaskan/Jackson. Only access to SODO itself, along with transfers to the south is worse than the proposed alternative, but not many people are traveling that way. And, you still get the same pot of money to improve the bus service.

         1. asdf2 wrote:

            I don’t see anything in the article that talks about the connection at the north end of the busway

            From the article:

            The toughest section for buses is probably between Stadium Station and CID. The report also considered various ways to improve that.

            Note that the article links to the report.

         2. let’s suppose you just give the bus priority on Columbia St. and add that missing bus stop at 3rd/Columbia

            There already is a bus stop there, it is just that the northbound bus stop is closer to Marion. So yeah, move it south a bit. I agree.

            But Columbia is quite a bit north of Jackson. Thus you miss a good chunk of downtown. I don’t think the transfer to the East Side would be better than going via SoDo. You would probably get to the CID station (via SoDo) before you got to the Pioneer Square Station (via Columbia). At best it is a wash. You also connect to Amtrak and the buses on Jackson. Serving greater Chinatown (if you will) adds a lot of value by itself but you also avoid backtracking or awkward transfers. A bus stop at 3rd & Columbia would definitely help (and is long overdue) but it doesn’t offer as much as going via SoDo does.

         3. I mentioned that SDOT’s report from 2012 also suggested a better connection at the north end: “… a new ramp connection from the SODO Busway (known as the E3 Busway) up to the Seattle Boulevard/Airport Way/5th Avenue intersection” (see diagram)
            A bus stop at 3rd/Columbia would still require quite a ways to Pioneer Sq Station. Transfer to Bellevue would still take more time than buses stopping at IDC. Transfers to Rainier Valley/SeaTac/Kent would still take longer than buses stopping at SODO.

         4. “Columbia is quite a bit north of Jackson… A bus stop at 3rd/Columbia would still require quite a ways to Pioneer Sq Station.”

            Funny how ST didn’t notice that when it argued for the CID/N station.

         5. Even if one assumes time parity between the current route and the proposed route, you’re still spending a lot of money upgrading the SODO pathway, with the only benefits being improved access to SODO (or transfers in SODO) and a few blocks less walking to the international district. That’s it. It doesn’t make the bus better for going to the downtown core, or anywhere north of it. It doesn’t make the bus better for going to Bellevue. And, it doesn’t make the bus better for going to the stadiums, as the current pathway already has a bus stop at Alaskan Way/Jackson for that purpose.

            That’s a lot of money to spend solely for relatively unimportant trip combinations. Maybe the point is that West Seattle Link, as proposed, being no better is similarly wasteful. But, nonetheless, if you’re going to go with a bus improvement plan as an alternative to Link it still seems better to just keep the current route, and add all-day service on the 56, and call it a day. Those that want to go to SODO can still avoid backtracking by taking the 21 or 50.

         6. Even if one assumes time parity between the current route and the proposed route … with the only benefits being improved access to SODO (or transfers in SODO) and a few blocks less walking to the international district. That’s it.

            Yes, and that is all you need to equal the value of West Seattle Link.

            you’re still spending a lot of money upgrading the SODO pathway,

            You are spending nowhere near the money you would spend on West Seattle Link.

            It doesn’t make the bus better for going to the downtown core, or anywhere north of it. It doesn’t make the bus better for going to Bellevue.

            Yes it does. Again, the bus would avoid congestion to downtown. According to Google a bus trip from the last stop in West Seattle to the first stop downtown is three minutes slower at 8:00 am then it is now. It also serves more of downtown. It connects sooner to Link (at SoDo instead of Spring). You connect to the train headed to Bellevue sooner as well (at CID instead of Spring or Pioneer Square). Then you have people going the other way. I don’t think you can just dismiss riders who want to go to SeaTac, Beacon Hill or Rainier Valley but find the 50 too inconvenient and slow. They aren’t interested in a long detour to downtown or a three-seat ride involving the 50. Of course these are relatively small improvements but this is a relatively cheap project. The only project that is big is the one connecting the busway to downtown, and that should have been done years ago. Why should we ignore the needs of the riders on the 101, 150, 592 (and other buses)? Worse yet, we are prepared to make their trips worse!

            Maybe the point is that West Seattle Link, as proposed, being no better is similarly wasteful.

            That is not the point at all. The point is, this has all the benefits of West Seattle Link, and then some. Yet it costs a lot less. This is basically a superset of West Seattle Link. Feel free to argue that West Seattle Link is worse than the existing buses — whatever. Either way this is better than West Seattle Link.

   2. To reach the downtown core, the current route is probably faster, and could be made even faster by adding traffic signal priority on Columbia St.

      I never really addressed this. The current route is faster much of the day but it gets bogged down in traffic. Not downtown but inbound, from the West Seattle Bridge to SR-99 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/R7CjwK625n7ArgDn8). Traffic backs up on SR-99 and this spills into this ramp. The bus can work its way to the start of the ramp and eventually it has a bus lane on SR-99. But there is often a lot of slogging in between there. This could be improved but unless you widened the ramps, there is only so much you can do. Thus some of the potential speed improvements would not be cheap, either.

5. How about building WSLE and rerouting C/H line so they go on Alaskan way -> Elliott Way ->some street to get to Denny (Battery, Wall?) -> up to SLU. Or alternatively Alaskan Way -> Broad St (Pier 70) -> Seattle Center

   That way WSLE gets rapid transit in the 21st century and we get some buses on the waterfront. I think the bus routing would be distinct enough from WSLE that having both would make sense.

   1. It would be a really bad idea to put buses going from Alaska to Broad Street. Long freight trains regularly block that crossing.

      1. Ah good point I forgot about the freight train crossings in that area

      2. Glenn, have the buses follow the transition to Western/Elliott. It has a grade separation over BNSF. It also avoids the hill on Broad.

6. The sheer number of wasted bus service hours from the combination of limited vehicle capacity and duplicative service is insane. You are spending MORE money to move FEWER people because you want something soon rather than waiting a few more years for something better which can be extended further in the future. This plan like all of the “replace WSLE with buses” plans are shortsighted, wasteful, deeply unserious, and fail the assignment
   0/10

   1. HN, would you agree that in certain Puget Sound neighborhoods and towns, a public transit bus mode is more appropriate, and in other neighborhoods and towns, light rail is a more appropriate mode?

   2. Buses are way cheaper. Light rail and subway excels when moving through difficult to navigate corridors (busy downtowns) and dense streets. Elevated metro rail and heavy rail works best carrying people along longer distances with fewer stations, usually following a major arterial and major destinations.

      West Seattle is none of those. It’s very close to downtown and doesn’t need such a connection with so few stations. And it’s not dense enough to justify multi station light rail / subway

      1. If we were going purely off of density light rail would stop at the airport. West Seattle is leagues more dense than basically anything south of the city.

         1. The population density map does not show this. In fact, it shows West Seattle has quite a lot less density than most places:
            https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html

         2. “West Seattle” is a large entity. Only three parts are urban-village dense: the Junction and Alki. If you want to be charitable and aspirational, Westwood Village and White Center (although most of White Center is outside Seattle and in South King). There’s notable residential-only lowrise apartment density in the northern part of Delridge and the block west of the avenue, and High Point has that low-income housing. Those are all islands in a sea of lower density. If you average all the density in West Seattle, you get a misleading impression because people can’t live in averages, only in particular blocks. What you’re looking for is population-weighted density: the density people experience around them on particular blocks. Most people in most areas of West Seattle aren’t lucky enough to be able to walk to a store or an institution (South Seattle College) or lots of friends’ apartments — indications of density.

         3. If we were going purely off of density light rail would stop at the airport. West Seattle is leagues more dense than basically anything south of the city.

            I assume you mean it would *not* stop at the airport. The point being, the airport doesn’t have population density but it is a good stop. I agree. But it has employment density. It is also a significant destination. Like SeaTac, employment density is often a proxy for everything else. Colleges and hospitals often have high employment density even though they also have a lot of people visiting. The same goes for retail. It is not a one-to-one correspondence, but there is a strong relationship.

            The thing about West Seattle is that all types of density are spread out. If you look at the point overlap for employment (via https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/) you can see how West Seattle has lots of small clusters (represented by small circles). There are much bigger circles downtown but there are also bigger circles in SoDo (presumably Starbucks) and the Central Area. There is a significant cluster of circles close to Alaska Junction which you can see if you select “Thermal Overlay”. This is at the same level as most of SoDo and the industrial area to the south of Spokane Street. Likewise, it is a similar employment density as Fremont, just a smaller area. It is a smaller employment density than First Hill (of course) but also the area surround Children’s Hospital. If you look at King County, various areas have more density than West Seattle like Burien, Tukwila and Renton. In short, there is nothing special about employment density in West Seattle.

            In terms of education, the only college is South Seattle (my alma mater). It would not be directly served by the light rail. There are two high schools (West Seattle and Sealth) but neither of them are close to any of the stations.

            There are no major hospitals in West Seattle. There is a small mental health hospital off Holden (quite a ways from any of the stations). There are a lot of clinics and they are spread out all over (although there are a significant cluster close to Alaska Junction).

            In terms of retail the Alaska Junction is significant but there are areas like it spread out all over the peninsula. Most of these are along the arterials. Where they cross you often have a little more commercial activity.

            That basically leaves entertainment. The Alaska Junction is a moderately attractive area, similar to Columbia City. I don’t have numbers to back it up, but my guess is Alki draws more people to West Seattle. I have no doubt that Alaska Junction is big destination for people *within* West Seattle, but from a regional standpoint, it just isn’t. Of course this could change. Light rail would help. But my guess is, at best it could rise to be somewhere between Columbia City and Capitol Hill. I doubt it will ever be the entertainment district that is Capitol Hill (nor does it have the college nearby like CHS).

            In terms of population density it is similar. The most densely populated part of West Seattle is High Point. That could be misleading (the borders of the census block are relatively arbitrary). It could also change. But as I wrote up above, it is highly likely that the areas near the three stations becomes increasingly *less* significant over time. Of course it will grow. But the other areas will add a lot more people (simply because there are more places to grow). Meanwhile, the area close to the station will likely max out at around six stories. This is good (and better than much of the city) but it isn’t big compared to the rest of the peninsula (that has similar apartments spread everywhere).

            The station would also be at the end of the line (not in the middle, like Capitol Hill Station). Thus it would only get rail riders from the north. The Youngstown Station would be starting from scratch. It is a little hemmed in by various green belts. My guess is, best case scenario you get around 10,000 walk-up riders at the three stations. A lot more riders in West Seattle (as well as Tacoma, Kent and Auburn) would be much worse off. This proposal basically flips that. A lot more people would benefit, especially those in West Seattle.

   3. You are spending MORE money to move FEWER people because you want something soon rather than waiting a few more years for something better which can be extended further in the future.

      Except it wouldn’t be better. That is the problem. Only a small minority of riders live close to the station. Everyone else would have to transfer. Thus the majority of riders would be worse off.

      We also can’t ignore the huge cost of West Seattle Link. That is money that could go into improving West Seattle bus service in perpetuity. Eventually the buses get automated and it is cheaper to run the buses.

      Buy hey, if you are really interested in forcing everyone to transfer, why not do it at SoDo? You save billions in construction costs while saving just about as much in service hours. For riders it would be similar (if not a little bit better).

   4. By what measure is a Link line with slower trains and stations it takes 5 minutes to get to from the surface an improvement?

      The biggest complain I hear about West Seattle buses is highway congestion. Adjusting the bus lanes solves that.

   5. Yeah I’m pretty sure if forward thrust was today we’d be seeing arguments about how it should be buses and let Atlanta have the metro instead

7. This would be much more compelling if it had travel time estimate comparisons between major destinations.

   1. JD, good point, here are some estimates: (some may depend on transfer details)
      Junction to downtown or UW will be faster via WSLE, certainly once a 2nd tunnel gets built but many other connections won’t:
      Westwood to Bellevue:
      via busway: H to IDC and 2 to Bellevue
      Via WSLE without 2nd tunnel: H to Delridge Station, then WSLE to SODO, then 1 to IDC and 2 to Bellevue – might take 20min longer
      Via WSLE with 2nd tunnel: H to Delridge, 3 to IDC north, walk to IDC, 2 to Bellevue – might take 15min longer

8. The answer cannot always be “just add more buses” to streets and bridges that are already packed. West Seattle relies heavily on one primary connection in and out of the peninsula, and we have already seen what happens when the West Seattle Bridge is no longer reliable. At some point, the bridge will need major work again, and light rail gives West Seattle a second high-capacity connection that does not simply add more vehicles to already congested roads.

   It is also worth noting that some of the loudest voices against light rail were previously pushing the gondola concept, which did not gain serious traction as a viable replacement. Now the argument seems to be that West Seattle should accept less mobility and less regional connectivity altogether.

   West Seattle voters supported light rail, and many of us still do. The better path forward is not to cancel the project, but to build it more responsibly by using the cost-saving ideas surfaced through the recent city/sound transit community discussions. West Seattle needs reliable transit, not another round of delay.

   1. Bus lanes and traffic signal priority!

      They’re not difficult.

      A bus is difficult when it needs to make unnecessary deviations away from a corridor. That’s necessary for West Seattle. There’s only 3 stations proposed which is ludicrous. I advocate against too many stations which some people on here support, but 3 is just too few.

   2. “some of the loudest voices against light rail were previously pushing the gondola concept, which did not gain serious traction as a viable replacement.”

      You’re conflating ST burying its head in the sand with a reasoned informed decision? Even if a gondola isn’t appropriate in that corridor, there are other corridors in Seattle and Pugetopolis where it is more appropriate and other cities have them. Yet none of them have gotten serious consideration by the local governments. Instead of saying, “What are our mobility needs, and would a gondola be an effective and low-cost solution and sail over physical barriers that are difficult to cope with otherwise?”, it’s just, “We’ve never had gondolas and they don’t fit a 1990s image of transit solutions, so we won’t consider them now.”

   3. The answer cannot always be “just add more buses” to streets and bridges that are already packed.

      What? In what world is West Seattle packed with buses. There are so few buses running on the peninsula it is ridiculous. That is one of the big benefits of this proposal. You shift money into the buses so that buses can run more often (like this sort of thing: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/07/west-seattle-by-bus-instead-of-light-rail/). This is clearly better for transit riders.

      Downtown can also handle a lot more buses. There are truncations coming. We have already seen them from the north and now we’ll see them from the east. To the south is a different story, but there is still plenty of capacity downtown (for those buses and the more local ones). More importantly, there is plenty of capacity on the SoDo Busway. This busway could be improved, as the SDOT report showed.

      Let me put it this way: Would you support the truncation of West Seattle buses at SoDo? That would be similar to West Seattle Link. You would save a lot of service hours. Riders heading downtown would be forced to transfer. Otherwise it would actually be better (at least you get as far as SoDo). Is this the type of thing you think we should do? If not, what is the difference?

9. This proposal is just one of many that could have been in the EIS process. It makes sense to consider alternatives beyond what they didn’t.

   Ideas like this are possible but aren’t going to get further study without a sea change in approach by ST. That’s not going to happen as far as I can tell.

   It’s unfortunate. I expect that ST will instead keep playing the “don’t do anything new” until the pressure is there to build something quickly when they’ll build what they want politically.

   ST has already shown forctears that future light rail extensions are now popularity projects that don’t improve travel times for most of their ultimate users SLU excepted. Until the Board embraces both performance measures as decision tools and admits that analyzing limited alternatives is an idea so bad that more should be added, this is going to sit in the dumpster of good transit alternatives.

   1. * for years

   2. Agreed.

10. A SODO busway future discussion with analysis is needed. It’s a neglected transit asset the ST wants to eliminate next year if WSLE construction starts. Where is the “Save the Busway” movement?

    I doubt that many Route 101, 150, 50 and STX riders and their communities even realize that their transit service is going to get worse very soon if ST goes ahead with West Seattle Link as planned. And it’s not a visionary hypothetical situation; it’s imminent within the next two years.

11. Four good hints that a Link extension isn’t worth it:

    1. No parking meters on the street.
    2. No residential parking zones.
    3. Expectation that parallel express bus service would continue even if rail opens.
    4. Opposition to upzoning any parcel closer than 1500 feet away from the planned entrance.

    1. On point 4: state law requires upzoning for all parcels within a half mile walk of a light rail station, so it doesn’t really matter if there’s local opposition to it.

       On point 3: eh, we can have semi-local rail paired with express regional buses. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that, since the rail service provides good in-between connections too.

       On point 2: there is a pretty large RPZ around the Junction, and not any by Northgate. Was Northgate Link a bad extension?

       On point 1: There are so few paid parking zones in the city – and none around any of the stations south of SODO. Was the original Central Link line bad?

       I think these are generally not good metrics to judge any transit project by

       1. HB 1491 (Point 1) requires cities to upzone but it doesn’t instantly supersede local zoning. It just passed in 2025 and has not yet been fully implemented (deadline is 2029) and it’s especially not fully exercised.

          The current zoning map still has low density zoning within 1000 feet of the planned Alaska Junction station entrance. The City doesn’t have to comply with HB 1491 because the stations in West Seattle do not yet exist. Seattle could however upzone around Alaska Junction and the other station sites in West Seattle now if they wanted. Do you think the City should upzone the larger area now, AJ?

          How about discussing that in these West Seattle community meetings?

          1. Sure, but the timing is irrelevant for the purposes of any light rail extension currently being considered. The city will have to upzone the station areas in time for the station to open, but yeah I’d support them doing so beforehand as well (which they likely will).

    2. RE Restricted Parking Zones:

       Northgate and Pinehurst are the only areas near a Link station without one.

       Northgate is surrounded by little on-street parking and the few places nearby where it’s available have time limits on parking.

       The RPZ program is set up to be reactive. After enough months or years of hide and ride, station area residents will be considering it.

       Maybe meters are overkill in some areas as a specific hint, but general parking restrictions (meters, RPZs, time limits) seem inevitable near a Link station without on-site ample parking. That’s true outside of Seattle too.

       So for a proposed station, a bellwether question for neighbors that want a station is whether they’re willing to accept being in an RPZ or having other restrictions like meters or time limits for on-street parking. Of course that’s in addition to ST disclosing to them that HB 1491 exists as law.

    3. I hate to repeat myself but that really isn’t the biggest issue. There are really two big problems with West Seattle Link:

       1) It doesn’t significantly improve speeds.
       2) There is a much cheaper and better alternative (this proposal).

       Most of the city doesn’t have this. Consider a trip from Garfield High School to downtown. As of this writing (7:00 pm) it takes 15 minutes. That works out to 5.6 mph. It gets worse.

       In contrast, West Seattle is connected to downtown via a series of what are essentially freeways and a busway. The only trips that are slowed by traffic lights are those *within* West Seattle and those on the busway (and there are only a handful of those). The busway could be improved, which would help speed up other buses and Link. Speaking of Link, the busway also connects very well to Link (for trips in both directions).

       None of the other Link extensions had that. Link has dramatically reduced the time it takes to get from Northgate to the UW or Roosevelt to Capitol Hill. There was no inexpensive bus-based alternative. There was very little infrastructure to leverage (outside of the shared transit tunnel). We either had to live with the old bus system (where trips to downtown were fast but everywhere else was slow) or build Link.

    4. “Expectation that parallel express bus service would continue even if rail opens.”

       Who said that? The WSJ-SODO stub won’t affect bus routes because it’s so laughingly inadequate for West Seattle trips. The full WSJ-downtown-Everett phase will truncate almost all bus routes according to all of Metro’s and SDOT’s scenarios. There may be pushback, but West Seattle is a far different situation than Federal Way or Tacoma. The Federal Way issue is it takes almost an hour to get to downtown on Link (55 minutes to Westlake), whereas the express buses are 35 minutes, which is much easier to swallow. With West Seattle Link there’s no way it would take an hour to get downtown. Also, the bus routes are Metro, not Sound Transit, so you’d have to convince a different agency and government entity.

       As for express bus routes from West Seattle, there aren’t many of them left. The C, H, 21, and 125 go on 99 but aren’t considered expresses. The true expresses are peak only. Metro Connects proposes to have only one express route, a kind of express version of the C that goes in the 99 tunnel and bypasses downtown and serves SLU.

       1. btw, Metro acknowledges that the WSLE stub will not provide adequate travel times until it connects downtown. Metro plans to ignore it until that connection is built. C, H, 21 and 125 will continue as is and no redirection of bus hours (Alki etc) will happen until WSLE continues downtown. The schedule of course is undetermined.

       2. Perhaps I should have said “high frequency parallel limited stop routes” to clarify. I was trying to differentiate between routes like Route 106 on MLK which serves local intermediate stops.

          If a route runs for a few miles on a freeway with no stops, I consider that an express route segment even if it’s not branded as an express route.

          Finally, continuing to want parallel bus service is usually caused by the trip being slower via light rail. That is an outcome related to Ross’ comment.

12. The South Lander overcrossing opened in summer 2020, four years after we voted on ST3. The deep bore opened in 2019; the south end pathway opened in 2020. The pathways of lines C and H are controlled by friendly agencies, WSDOT and SDOT, so they can be improved. (The West Seattle bridge could even be tolled).

    The Martin post does not mention that several billions would be available if not used to build the WSLE. What transit benefits could that provide in the North King subarea? Some could be used to improve lines C and H; some could be used to improve lines D, E, and G. Could the 1 Line be improved on MLK Jr. Way South?

    The ramp between the South Spokane Street viaduct (inbound exists) are not really necessary for a great network. Lines C and H could use their current pathway. A restructured West Seattle network could meet Link at the SODO station. It is near the bases. Bus stops could be improved on South Lander Street. Route 50 uses that pathway now; a network could use it after a restructure. A turnback variant of the 1 Line could be implemented from/to SODO; seems like the trains could turn inside the South Forest Street base. One line might turnback at Northgate; there could be three 1S, 1W, and 2E. ST could optimize the headways and spans.

    The WSLE DEIS executive summary shares a ridership forecast for its horizon year in about 2040. The number of weekday boardings forecast is less than was attracted by the radial routes in fall 2018. Let’s save our WSLE billions in the near term. Should we not get a bigger bang for the billions?

    The revised WSLE serves the Delridge and Alaskan Junction stations. Those points are served by lines C and H. The WSLE headway might be eight minutes; the average wait might be four minutes; that and the walk between bus and Link sums to the time added for transfers. Will WSLE service make up for that transfer time? What if ST3 includes the DSTT2 and the south line is in it. Would the transfer between the west and south lines be in SODO? The transfers between east and south would be awkward and slow.

13. Martin, thanks for writing this. I’ve been advocating doing something like option 2 for a while now. The busway is on the “wrong” side of the Line 1 tracks, complicating the critical stretch between Lower Brougham Way and Seattle Blvd.

    However, I believe that a short underpass could be dug just north of Lower Brougham Way could get the busway across the Line 1 tracks in time to rise to the Seattle Way intersection. The path would use Fifth South to Washington, with bus-only lanes at the curb and a one way south to King in the middle and north to King from Seattle Way. Both would turn east.

    Washington would be bus-only between Fourth and Fifth.

    1. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (I think). So leverage the viaduct that used to branch from Seattle Boulevard but are now closed off (shown here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4SgfFUC5bETnnpdT6). Parts of that roadway (further south and east) are now part of East Link. But part of it was used for construction equipment when they were working on the project. That is the part you would leverage. Thus you might be able to build a ramp from that viaduct down to the surface, next to the train tracks and jsut north of Royal Brougham Way. Coming from the south, the bus would be west of the main line until it got on those ramps and went up to the existing ramps. Then it would be between the two parts of East Link for a while until the trains go downhill, into the tunnel. This would essentially extend the SoDo Busway all the way to Seattle Boulevard.

       You would still have to get over to Fourth, but adding bus lanes to make that possible seems fairly easy. Northbound I would move the right turn lane of Seattle Boulevard to the middle. Thus a driver is in the middle lane if they are headed northbound on 4th and the left lane if headed southbound on 4th. The far right lane of Seattle would be a bus lane. This would then extend to the existing bus lane on 4th, right around the corner. Southbound I would do something similar. Southbound 4th has three lanes at the intersection with Seattle Boulevard. The far right would continue to be straight only. The middle lane would be for buses only. The far left lane would turn left onto Seattle Boulevard. The buses would turn into the far left lane, now reserved for buses between 4th and that viaduct. The middle lane is for those going straight or turning left onto Dearborn while the far left lane is for drivers turning left onto Dearborn. This would work well and wouldn’t hurt traffic much at all.

       It is worth noting that the report cited in this article didn’t suggest any of that. That’s because it was written before East Link. It still had some good ideas for addressing that section. Regardless of the remedy, it shouldn’t cost that much to fix it.

       The same is true for Lander and Holgate. These are the only crossing streets between Spokane Street and Brougham Way. These also effect Link. It would be nice to have Link be grade separated in SoDo, as this would improves speeds a bit and reliability even more. But I agree, the main focus should be on that section between Stadium Station and CID.

       1. Although it might be a bit out of date, the report did consider much the same thing as we are talking about. From page 6:

          To connect from the SODO (E3) Busway to Seattle Boulevard, a previous conceptual engineering study proposed constructing an at-grade crossing of the light rail tracks and a new ramp to the Seattle Boulevard/5th Avenue intersection. An alternative route would be to exit the SODO Busway at Royal Brougham and connect to Seattle Boulevard via 6th Avenue.

          I think it would make sense to study various options all over again and then build whatever is necessary.

          1. I first thought about the idea of rising in between the Link tracks as well, but I don’t think the structure accommodates it. Line 2 is essentially double track for about the first sixty degrees of the curve, and even then the split between the tracks is pretty narrow for a while, during which the structure for the Line 2 tracks is descending.

             I really do not think that a new structure for the buses could fit above the Line 1 tracks.

             However, there is about thirty yards between Lower Brougham Way and the gate that now blocks bus access to the north.

             Now I Grant that rising from an underpass deep enough to slide an articulated hybrid bus under an active railroad line would bee too steep.

             However, there’s really nothing that says they re-configured busway would have to be back to grade at the north curb of Lower Royal Brougham.

             The street will have to be closed anyway at some point when Line 1 increases frequency or is automated. So move the busway station a half block south and add a cross-walk and south end access to the rail station, and begin the descent a half block south of Lower Royal Brougham. The clearance should then be easy.

             I also believe that moving the southbound pathway away from Fourth South to Fifth South makes sense. You could have a bus jump at Second and Yesler that would allow buses in a right bus lane to turn across traffic from Second to Yesler eastbound from Second Avenue Extension. Second Avenue buses would then turn on Prefontaine and join the buses headed to Fourth, Prefontaine and Washington to turn left onto Washington and then south on Fifth.

             This would get the buses out of the mess at Fourth and Jackson. Grant, they have to cross Fourth South, as would buses from Third. The intersection of Fourth South, Prefontaine and Washington would be tricky to “time”.

    2. Fire station?

14. This is a great idea(!!!), but it makes too much sense, that’s why it will never happen. Unfortunately, decades of corporate behavior have shown that Sound Transit doesn’t deviate much from their original plans, even though 10 years have passed and a lot has changed…e.g., Boeing has moved its headquarters 2x, Paine Field began commercial air service and is considered the region’s secondary airport (no Link stop is planned there), and work from home is much more widespread. Seeking new funding or exclusions, e.g. 75-year bonding authority, is their first option, not understandable cost savings ideas like this, using automated trains in certain areas, etc. Their idea of “cost saving” is pennies, i.e., thinking small, where this one is millions of dollars. They would significantly improve their public perception with the latter, but they know they don’t have to, for they’re not accountable to voters, and other politicians grovel at their feet.
    ST’s underlying purpose is obviously to please the business community and labor, it manifests itself into light rail, manned, as the only solution they’ll accept no matter the density of a particular area in most cases. For instance, the dogleg to low density Boeing/Everett has so far added 10 years to the initial 2031 completion date and billions of dollars to cost that was indicated for Link going up I-5 with an extension from roughly the Everett Mall a few miles west to Boeing. This was apparently nixed and steamrolled by that county’s executive, who routinely ghosted invites to BRT lines in the area. Kirkland/Google, despite that city asking for BRT, is getting a light rail line to/from 40,000 population Issaquah, where they had a sitting Councilmember as the ST Board Vice Chair when that determination was made. Renton, 2.5x the size and besieged with traffic through its “S” curves every day for many decades, got the bone of BRT…that’s because they had no Councilmember as ST board member. ST’s excuse was the ~2000 I-405 Master Plan (~25 years ago!) that apparently says no light rail on I-405, yet the Issaquah/Kirkland line will go along I-405, as does the 2 line today.
    These are all indicative of a culture at ST that is parochial and not representative. Thus, while this idea is fantastic-and it and others that STB routinely bring here should see the light of day, it will be quickly and quietly dismissed by the barons on ST’s board.

15. It seems increasingly apparent that Seattle is going to have to endure the disruption and chaos of dstt2 construction to get a tunnel that really doesn’t do anything positive. Maybe we can at least get out of paying for it. Balducci doesn’t seem to have clout to get this boondoggle looked at seriously.

16. The year is 203X. Crowds have gathered at the ribbon cutting of the WSLE at Alaska Junction,eagerly awaiting to ride the first train.

    All of our local transit enthusiasts are in attendence, except for Ross B and Martin who are at home preparing to publish yet another article about how WSLE should be cancelled in favor of more bus service

    1. What’s wrong with transit enthusiasts having different opinions?

       1. Ian didn’t say there’s anything wrong with a difference of opinion.

Comments are closed.