Sound Transit Updates ST3 Plan Amid Financial Constraints

185 Replies to “Sound Transit Updates ST3 Plan Amid Financial Constraints”

1. So it looks like Ballard is the only loser here.
   I think if ST could offer to pay for more service to Ballard and some low-cost Elliot Ave-15th Ave NW Transit priority projects that helps for the next 30 years, that would still count as some kind of gesture for cutting Ballard off the plan indefinitely. Ballard gets nothing just seems unacceptable.

   1. Strauss and Wilson are not amused. but if they’re the only ones who stand up for Ballard and point out its exceptional ridership potential, they’ll get outvoted 15/17. That’s the situation we’re living in.

   2. I think the political game is that BLE is the most “charismatic” of the extensions, so it could be the easiest to get funded with additional taxes. I also think ST is hoping they’ll continue to find significant cost savings as they progress the project through 30% design, like how they managed to shave $500M off the cost of the Seattle Center station by making it “slightly trapezoidal”.

   3. I’m opposed to a Seattle tax levy for BLE. It’s much more important to increase Metro bus frequency and speed up the buses. We shouldn’t be put in the position of having to choose between local bus improvements and Ballard Link, and possibly putting off the bus improvements for decades.

      1. I no longer live in the city, but if I did, the reactionary side of me would definitely vote against a BLE extension levy, despite believing that BLE is the best ST3 project. If ST is squandering Seattle tax dollars on WSL, who’s to say they won’t also squander our funds trying to build BLE and give us a poor product that doesn’t improve transit for most people. As Jerry once said to George “and you want to be my latex salesman!”

         1. STB commenters be like I’m pro transit but will vote against transit levies

         2. @Ian

            Why should Seattle tax payers have to pay “more” when the reason for the funding shortage is at least partially (and probably “majority”) the fault of Sound Transit?

            1. They put forth an unrealistic plan in ST3.
            2. After the election they changed that plan, which made it more expensive. (Tunnels for everyone!)
            3. And now are cutting the highest ridership portion of said plan.

            Yeah, yeah… the pandemic, the economy, the federal government… not everything was outside of ST’s control.

            And you think the Seattle taxpayer should vote to pony up MORE money? That’s not being “anti” transit.

         3. I agree with Andrew and Matt. We can’t ignore the context. This didn’t just come out of the blue. Ballard Link is definitely the best project in ST3. Graham Street Station is second. Everything else is a much worse value (including the “BRT” projects). Funding for West Seattle bus service would have been good but they eliminated that as well. A lot of people voted for ST3 just because they supported transit. Some of them held their nose and voted in favor because of those particular projects. Now those are gone.

            The whole idea is such bullshit. They take the best parts, delay them, then force voters to add them back in. I have no idea how to call for a do-over, but that is what we need. We should go back to the beginning and put people in charge who understand transit. Not only was ST3 unrealistic, it wasn’t even that good. By Sound Transit’s own estimates, Ballard to UW was a better value.

         4. Take a shot every time Ross B mentions buses in West Seattle.

            Also you guys are hilarious because you’re calling for a do-over as if that won’t add decades more delays, during which costs will continue to escalate

         5. The costs are mostly because of ST adding unnecessary options to the projects, options that weren’t mentioned in the ballot measure. The cost of high-cost options will probably rise faster than the cost of low-cost options. And definitely faster than the cost of the No-Build alternative for West Seattle Link, which would be zero.

         6. There’s definitely a core group of commentators here who have canonized a particular heterodox/contrarian vision for transit in the region as *correct*, and are mostly interested in pursuit of that vision rather than working within reality. There are certainly parts of that vision that are arguably better in a vacuum, but not in the world we exist in.

         7. WSL isnt squandering at all. Ridership numbers estimated in 2040 (estimated back in 2020) have Ballard station at 10,200. The three West Seattle stations come in at 5,100, 4,800, and 6,800. With one station not being built, the 4,800 sheds to the other two. That makes West Seattle projected ridership for two stations higher than the one Ballard station. And the two West Seattle stations arent that far apart.

      2. I agree Mike. I would rather pay for extra bus service than give Sound Transit any more money. It is clear they are screwing this up. Now we are supposed to trust them to not screw up Ballard Link?

   4. Everyone trying to get to SeaTac from any station north of Beacon Hill looses out too, due to the forced terrible transfers.

      1. This. Of course, that’s just the vast majority of the population on the 1 line, including several of the densest neighborhoods and important destinations in the metro area. In fact, most of the population in the metro area will end up with no direct service to the airport (or anywhere south) and an absolutely horrific transfer to get there.

         (The overlapping four-line ST conceptual operating plan from 2012 would fix this issue as well as provide frequency where it’s needed most, but that was probably prepared by experts and not politicians, so it died.)

      2. One transfer isnt terrible

   5. It gets designed, which is needed and not free

   6. So it looks like Ballard is the only loser here.

      Not quite. They also eliminated the Graham Street and Boeing Access Road (BAR) Station. The BAR Station was designed as a multi-modal interface station (between Sounder, Link and freeway buses) but they eliminated that long ago. But Graham Street Station and Ballard Link were the most cost effective additions in ST3. So basically they took out the best part of the ballot measure and left the rest.

      It is like buying a Jeep that can’t go off road. It is just a terrible value.

2. Cutting off the highest-ridership highest-value line, while funding multiple lines that worsen riders’ experience versus the current buses, is unacceptable. If Sound Transit attempts to go through with this, everyone who values good transit should fight to defund them.

   1. Defunding Sound Transit would mean shutting down the existing Link, Sounder, and ST Express services. The existing Link (which has finally reached Lynnwood, Redmond, and Federal Way), is the minimum essential part, and more valuable than whatever happens to any of this future stuff. Keeping it running is more important than eliminating the dodgy costs of dubious future projects ST is ramming through. There’s no way in hell any politician would agree to defund ST. The only people who have the legal power to are the ST board and the state legislature. So it really comes down to convincing the board to to reform ST3 or defund itself, because nobody else can do it. And the existing bonds are protected by the state constitution, so any kind of reform or unwinding would have to preserve that part of the tax structure until the bonds are paid off.

      1. I meant defund the ST3 taxes to end ST3 projects.

         Though now that you mention it, I’d be willing to defund it entirely (except for paying back the bonds), trusting that we can think up some other way to run the currently-running trains. That would still be better than paying huge amounts of money to actively make travel worse.

   2. How does defunding help anything?

      1. It cancels ST3 expansion and any future expansions. I’m not suggesting defunding, but that’s the intent of the proponents.

   3. I agree William. I think we need a major change. I have no idea what it would look like or how to make it happen. They don’t hold elections for the board. Those members are elected to other offices. That is one avenue for change. We could directly elect members. That would likely require a change at the state level.

      Another is professional oversight. ST has hired consultants to look at operations and found huge flaws within the bureaucracy. But they haven’t hired transit experts to consider the efficacy of the various projects. Hire a firm (or two) run some numbers and tell us what the best values are. Clearly West Seattle Link and a new downtown tunnel isn’t it.

      I have no idea how to rescind ST3. Just to have a vote would likely require state approval. Maybe a non-binding resolution. That is fraught with potential misinterpretation. ST proponents would label it anti-transit. The campaign would have to work very hard to say “This is a do-over, not necessarily the end of expansion; we can always have another vote on a different plan”.

      A different plan for Seattle would definitely be supported. Give people the choice between this or Ballard-UW and the latter would pass by a huge margin. Same goes for this versus a Metro 8 subway (especially if the latter managed to pick up First Hill). The same thing is true for what Micheal mentioned as ways to save money (automated trains from Ballard to Westlake, improved buses from West Seattle). I have no doubt the city would overwhelmingly prefer that over what ST is proposing.

      The board is dysfunctional because this is a side gig. Or they are focused on their provincial interest. Something has to change.

   4. Funding the line to Seattle Center funds MOST of the highest-ridership stations on that line. Ballard itself was projected to be 10,200.

3. “Somers has since taken the option to defer the second tunnel off the table.”

   Does STB know why the Board chair did this?

   With the split CID stations and long transfer times between the east and south lines and deeper stations, is the DSTT2 so far from the central hub promised as to violate ST3?

   1. “Does STB know why the Board chair did this?”

      Because he’s Everett’s mayor, and Snohomish and Pierce see building the Everett-Tacoma-Redmond Spine as ST’s primary mandate and commitment to the voters and reason for ST’s existence. This isn’t anything new; it’s what Snohomish boardmembers have been saying since 2020, since 2014, and since the 1990s.

      “With the split CID stations and long transfer times between the east and south lines and deeper stations, is the DSTT2 so far from the central hub promised as to violate ST3?”

      The board has been ignoring this, except Balducci and the SDOT reps who sometimes raise the transfer-quality issue. But ST seems to see the ST3 mandate as lines on paper and stations in a city, and transfer-quality issues are left to third parties to raise.

      1. Uh, he’s not the mayor of Everett. He’s the Snohomish County Executive. And he knows the region cannot live with the current single tunnel by itself long term. It’s a numbers game, plain and simple. The 4-car platforms in the original DSTT forever sentenced the region to a maximum four-car trains. They simply can’t handle the load from all points of the compass long term.

         And “forced transfers” indeed. Like every other major system in the world.

         1. The new tunnel won’t make trains longer. If anything, advocates are proposing automation and shorter trains which will not even make it to “the region”. The idea the second tunnel is needed by the region is BS invented to get the region to pay for it because the subarea can’t afford it alone. The criss cross split spine of line 1 to Ballard and Line 3 to Everett is obviously unnecessary and pointless for there’s no real reason to connect Tacoma and Ballard or West Seattle and Everett. Neither is a destination for the other. Seattle is the hub. Line one is the north south spine and line two is the East West spine. Ballard and West Seattle should be their own separate system automated and funded by these subareas

         2. If they have to .. I’d suggest alternating

            1 Line from Tacoma to either Northgate or Ballard

            2 Line from Redmond to either Lynnwood or Ballard

            3 Line from Everett to either SeaTac or West Seattle

            4 Line from Issaquah to either S Kirkland or Ballard

         3. And those “forced transfers” are fine if they’re actually good transfers with easy center platforms the station requiring the least backtracking and most frequency of options (either Westlake or Chinatown)

            But currently ST is not even caring about that.

         4. Agreed, @South King Resident. I posted this a week or so ago. It would require no DSTT2, would provide appropriate service levels throughout the system, and would eliminate forced north-south transfers for any but the most unlikely of end-to-end trips. With this option the DSTT2 and WS Link funding would be put into automated lines towards Ballard and WS with straightforward transfers, in the future connecting together via First Hill rather than a completely redundant 5th Avenue routing. It would require work at Northgate to allow for 3 minute train turns, but other than that it just builds out the spine as is.
            _____________

            – Everett to Sea-Tac Airport, 5 trains/hour (12 min headways) – 1 Line
            – Northgate to Redmond, 5 trains/hour (12 minute headways) – 2 Line
            – Northgate to Tacoma, 5 trains/hour (12 minute headways) – 3 Line
            – Lynnwood to Redmond Technology, 5 trains/hour (12 minute headways) – 4 Line

            This leads to overlapping service with the below segments having the following headways:
            – Lynnwood to Northgate, 10 trains/hour (6 minute headways) – 1 Line + 4 Line
            – Chinatown/ID to Redmond Technology, 10 trains/hour (6 minute headways) – 2 Line + 4 Line
            – C/ID to Sea-Tac Airport, 10 trains/hour (6 minute headways) – 1 Line + 3 Line
            -Northgate to C/ID, 20 trains/hour (3 minute headways) – all lines

            Only the segments from Lynnwood to Everett, Sea-Tac Airport to Tacoma, and Redmond Technology to DT Redmond would have 12 minute peak service. All other stations would have 3 or 6 minute peak service

            In this scenario Ballard and West Seattle would be served by automated trains on 2-3 min peak headways as we’ve been discussing, eventually to connect via First Hill but at the least connecting to the core Link service.

      2. “he’s not the mayor of Everett.”

         Thanks, I didn’t mean to switch them.

         “The 4-car platforms in the original DSTT forever sentenced the region to a maximum four-car trains.”

         Each car is articulated, so Link’s 4-car trains are comparable to 8-car trains in more traditional systems.

         1. I’m looking at some HO scale models. It looks like one articulated Link Car is about same length as a Sounder Car or a BART car. Or one Talgo car is half a Link articulated car or one IRT subway car.

   2. Who would dare to litigate this? What kind of standing would they have? Would they be able to prevail?

      I agree that the spirit of ST3 is violated in this plan. But I don’t see a legal path to bring the proposal to a halt.

      1. The board has broad authority to amend the plan. However one could argue that not building to most productive ST3 investment isn’t in the region’s interest and seek an injunction against spending scarce resources on less productive investments. It’s worth a shot anyway. The WS segment is simply laughable on the merits and has few if any peers around the country for the title of most expensive/least productive rail investments ever made. And once that money is spent, it pushes Ballard out later.

         1. They’re building to Seattle Center, which includes all of the high traffic stations downtown. Ballard station itself is not projected to be a whole lot.

            So that argument would fall flat in court very quickly.

            West Seattle’s two stations have higher ridership projections than Ballard

   3. > Does STB know why the Board chair did this?

      Somers and others say DSTT2 is necessary for long-term network reliability. That’s how DSTT2 was pitched to the Board for inclusion in ST3 in the first place, and it probably seems like a political or legal weakness or something to back down from its inclusion in ST3.

   4. I think Somers is more concerned that redesigning downtown would add delays and costs that would impact Everett Link’s timeline or certainty. He’s said that a couple times.

      1. Well, all the EIS are predicated on every other project being completed as planned in ST3. Apparently the fear is that deferring DSTT2 would force ST to reopen all the in-progress EIS (including EVLE, which would not use DSTT2) and delay the process.

         Given the FTA’s apparent halt on reviewing the BLE EIS, this argument carries no weight but Somers doesn’t seem to care.

   5. I don’t think it’s quite correct to say that Somers took this off the table – it wasn’t his decision though he was a vocal advocate. He was among the consensus of Board members who didn’t want to explore this further.

      I think Claudia’s suggestion deserved a more sympathetic exploration than it got, but it does make sense from a suburban perspective to keep DSTT2 moving forward. Snohomish wants Seattle resources focused on the North King projects of regional significance rather than on those of local Seattle interest only.

   6. “Somers has since taken the option to defer the second tunnel off the table.”

      Does STB know why the Board chair did this?

      I don’t think anyone does. Folks are clearly speculating here. My guess? It is all politics. Somers may not know sh** about transit, but he is a successful politician. There are two important aspects of this from a political standpoint:

      He doesn’t want to rock the boat. Everything on here is designed to build things as soon as possible. Quality means nothing. Value means nothing. Speed is everything. How else can you explain West Seattle Link being built first? They did the planning first so it gets built first.

      The exception of this is Graham Street Station. The only explanation I can find for that is most people don’t care. No one outside the city gives a rat’s ass about Rainier Valley. Somers doesn’t. He represents a huge county with almost a million people. Yet you can count on one hand the number of letters he is going to get from his constituents about the issue. Somers is a being a typical, parochial politician. Or he just isn’t very smart.

      Oh, lest you think I hate politicians, I don’t. My mom was a politician (and a damn smart one). But Somers hasn’t demonstrated the kind of intelligence and open-minded thinking needed to deal with this situation. Not even close.

4. Ridiculous that Graham Street is being deferred. If ST reevaluated their assumptions and were willing to remove left turns from MLK to Graham (something they really should do anyways, you know to speed up the train), they could build the station for like $100M less. But of course, Seattle projects can be deferred indefinitely or shortchanged but extensions to nowhere serving no one are sacrosanct. What a great transit agency, I’m sure glad the only place that votes for it’s continued existence reliably always gets shortchanged. Oh well, can’t wait for my trip from North Beacon Hill to Uptown to still be faster via bus in 2050 than transferring to a train since we aren’t even bothering to have a transfer hub intersecting the busy bus lines coming from the south or east.

   1. Sound Transit can’t remove turns; it’s SDOT’s decision.

      1. In the alternatives report for Graham Street, ST explicitly say that vehicle capacity (cars and trucks) on MLK is the limiting factor, not SDOT approval. I doubt SDOT would block a light rail station over maintaining a left turn from MLK to Graham

      2. It’s the same thing. SDOT would evaluate the request based on all aspects of MLK, of which vehicle thoroughput is one. Some cities would put vehicle thorougput as the first and only factor, but SDOT would aim for something more balanced. Still, it wouldn’t put Link as the first and only factor as ST would. And we’re not talking about SDOT prohibiting the Link station, just your assertion that eliminating left turns there would save $100 million. But one, we don’t know that that’s the reason ST put it in the second category, or that it would save that amount. It looks to me like ST ordered it (1) West Seattle first, (2) DSTT2/SLU second, (3) there’s no money left for anything else. So Graham wasn’t targeted because it had left-turn lanes, but because ST sees it as less important than its must-serve projects.

         1. ST ruled out the least expensive option at Graham Street because of left turn capacity off MLK – despite demonstrable evidence that they really should want to do this regardless of the station existing. ST would not and does not put Link first.

            And we actually do know this stuff. $100M is an overstatement, but this is coming from Sound Transit’s alternatives analysis for Graham Street.

            This report’s decision to defer Graham Street is bad, and in my opinion indefensible based on plausible cost cutting measures and that could be made (and the already low price of the station). I haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve considered the two infill stations separately, which is just so stupid.

         2. “I haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve considered the two infill stations separately”

            ST is considering Graham and BAR stations separately. At the retreat I think some of the scenarios had BAR on a later schedule than Graham, bowing to the reality that BAR has less of a reason for existence than Graham.

   2. For Line 1/3 transfers, a revisiting of the station design can create same direction cross-platform transfers at SODO.

      ST has long refused to even study building in cross platform transfers there. And if the lock in the current design with West Seattle Link it won’t happen.

      If this passes, I hope more people will take up this cause. It’s quite important for the riders.

      Without it, SODO will still be the optimum transfer point for your trip with just two escalators.

      1. I live too far north on Beacon Hill to make backtracking to the Link stop worth it. So my trip of 36 to 1/2/4/13/D to get to Uptown is almost definitely going to be faster without a reasonable transfer to the new train, especially accounting for transfer times. I’d prefer a better SODO station, but I’m not sure I’ll use it much personally either way – I almost always transfer in Chinatown (coming/going north) or Beacon Hill (coming/going south)

         1. You need an all-day Boren version of the 60 that uses the Denny bus lanes and ends at Uptown. Lots of people do.

         2. I mean I go to Capitol Hill way more than Uptown, so I’d prefer to have a Beacon Hill – Capitol Link over the Uptown link if I can only have one, which seems likely. The 60 is a crucial link for me as is.

   3. Graham probably doesn’t have enough real estate developers asking for it.

      The Board doesn’t show more than lip service consideration about riders or their experience. They seem to care much more about real estate developers instead.

      The Board’s flat out refusal to make decisions on ridership and total travel time — including not even asking for the data to help make decisions — shows how little they care.

      I hope that more people start calling the Board members out that they are not being “pro transit” by supporting this. At the very least it’s wasteful and it’s going to make transit travel harder or take longer than leaving things alone today.

      1. I don’t see any evidence of developers having some shadowy impact on plans, outside of King County’s interest in redeveloping their civic core (which by the way is stupid, considering they already don’t have enough office space but I digress).

         The Board is ruled by parochial interests above all else, and ever place outside of Seattle has decided to kill Seattle projects to prevent their own projects from being deferred or canceled. The lack of care for rider experience is not really just a board issue, it’s more of a way ST designs projects in general issue

   4. not ridiculous at all. Rainier Valley already has plenty of stations in the slowest and most problematic area of the entire system. Anyone between stations can simply take the buses on MLK to either side station whichever one is more convenient. It was always a needless expense.

      1. Correct.

      2. Graham Street will get more boardings than most suburban stations. More than a mile and half between stations in an urban context is bad system design, particularly when adding a station is low cost. There are issues in Rainier Valley, but those can and should be solved while also improving access to residents. This is probably the best rider-per-dollar investment available to Sound Transit, but that’s too sophisticated of a metric for them evidently.

         Graham Street is also a useful place for another East-West connection between Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, the Duwamish Valley, and West Seattle, which is something that becomes even more evident with a station at Graham Street. It’s like Pinehurst but cheaper. Sure, there’s a time tradeoff, but also half the time I ride the 1 Line we stop at a left turn on Graham or Orcas, and adding a station at Graham (while also removing the left turn at Graham) could be operationally beneficial.

      3. Anyone between stations can simply take the buses on MLK to either side station whichever one is more convenient.

         But somehow they can’t take a bus from West Seattle? That is ridiculous. In terms of cost per rider, Graham Street is a better value than every other project in ST3 except Ballard Link (which they are also deferring). The difference being Graham Street Station can be built much sooner. In terms of ridership time saved it is likely similar. When it comes to improving the network, blumdrew is right — Graham Street adds a lot for very little money. Overall it is just a much better value than anything they are planning to build in ST3.

         1. Graham St cost per rider is low because it’s an infill station. That’s not a good comparison to anything.

            Graham St should absolutely be built.

   5. Ridiculous that Graham Street is being deferred.

      Agreed. I also agree with your other point. Someone should do a post about that. If you are interested, let us know (we’ll contact you through your email). You can be anonymous if you want. I can take credit by putting it under my name :)

      1. Sure thing – shoot me an email

5. Is there any way to change which line DTT2 becomes when it exits the terrible tunnel? I think it merging with the the Airport line (Seattle Center-Tacoma) is the worst possible one. I would merge it with the 2 Line. (Redmond-Seattle Center). The only 2-Line loser would be me (Capitol Hill) as everyone in inner-Seattle further north can take a bus across 520 to avoid awkwark downtown transfers. Double service wouldn’t be lost as the spine would be kept intact.

   1. DSTT2 will merge with the current 1 Line at SODO, so the only feasible routes for DSTT2 (as currently designed) are Ballard-Tacoma or Ballard-West Seattle.

      Or, I guess, Uptown-West Seattle or Uptown-Tacoma.

      1. This has always confused me. If DTT2 opens as planned here, how do I get to the airport from Caputol Hill? Based on what you said, transfer at SODO? All of the awkward transfers are for the Eastside and West Seattle?

         1. Yes, from Capitol Hill to SeaTac, you would have the choice of transferring at Westlake (lots of escalators), CID (long walk), or at SODO (unknown transfer situation, but probably the easiest).

         2. Yeah, transfer at SODO. Or depending on where on Capitol Hill you are it may make more sense to take the 8/48 to Mount Baker (or maybe the 60 to Beacon Hill)

         3. Not West Seattle. just Eastside?

         4. Westlake having ok DTT1-2 transfers seems like Eastsiders might not be too bad off…to Sound Transit standards.

         5. West Seattle to Airport would want to transfer at SODO.

            Eastside to Airport would be able to “transfer” at CID (long above-ground walk), transfer via pedestrian tunnel from 3rd to 5th Ave at Pioneer Square (medium walk, all underground), or at Westlake (lots of escalators).

         6. “West Seattle to Airport would want to transfer at SODO”

            Even from the Junction that would be nearly an hour odyssey compared to a 10 to 15 minute drive. Anywhere south in West Seattle, merely increases the heights of absurdity.

            Nobody in West Seattle will be using link to get to the airport. Period.

      2. DSTT2 will merge with the current 1 Line at SODO

         I think the point is, it doesn’t have to. It could instead merge with the 2 Line in the Chinatown neighborhood. West Seattle would then merge with the 1 Line in SoDo. Inside the existing tunnel you would have trains from West Seattle and the main line. Both would go to Lynnwood. Inside the new tunnel you would have trains from Ballard to the East Side.

   2. The current plan is to portal DSTT2 at about Holgate. It’s way, way south (about a mile) of the 2 Line .

      The current plans don’t even allow track switching between branches to West Seattle and Beacon Hill as they will emerge from Downtown tunnels. Every line alignment will be locked into place in perpetuity as now planned. It’s literally like building two freeways that run next to each other but have no interchange.

      So when a disruption occurs, trains can’t simply change tracks. The riders have to do all the changing.

      ST of course never divulges this situation to the public . They may not think it’s a problem as far as I can tell. Yet much of the public naively thinks that all the lines could have interchangeable line configurations. The ugly fact is that ST is designing them so that they can’t..

      1. > The current plans don’t even allow track switching between branches to West Seattle and Beacon Hill as they will emerge from Downtown tunnels.

         Al, this is nonsense. Unless you’ve seen new track designs for BLE since the WSBLE DEIS (none of which are public as far as I’m aware) which indicate this ridiculous disconnect, the 2022 DEIS design has crossovers planned between SODO and Stadium Station. PDF page 9: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/10c-wsble-drafteis-appendixj-drawings-ballard-202201.pdf

         1. I don’t know if I’m reading the diagram right, but it looks like only trains in one direction can change tracks, or something like that? Seems to me to more like for nonrevenue movements rather than passenger service allowing West Seattle-Ballard trains during DSTT disruptions.

         2. The diagrams do not explain that trains running northbound are in tracks 1 and3 from the east, with southbound trains running in tracks 2 and 4. There is no crossover directly connecting between tracks 1 to 3 or tracks 2 to 4. The trains will instead only be able to cross one track at a time to get to the next switch. That means that trains in the opposite directions have to stop for a crossover.

            Not putting northbound trains for tracks 1 and 2 and southbound trains for tracks 3 and 4 I think is truly stupid. It’s also risky for anyone that’s working on the tracks as each successive track will be carrying trains in the opposite direction.

            There appears to be only one place where tracks 2 and 3 have crossovers — under the planned Holgate Street bridge. One place for crossovers for the whole entire system! And their scissor tracks which means only one train at a time can use them.

            So like I said, the trains will not be easily able to switch across two tracks at once. Add to that the crossovers can only handle one train at a time because they’re scissor tracks. So if ST wanted to send West Seattle trains through DSTT2 during to an upstream blockage (say a vehicle stuck on the tracks at Royal Brougham Way) ST dispatchers could only do it one direction at a time — and the southbound trains headed to Beacon Hill will often have to hold while the maneuver to go through two switches takes place once the dispatcher sets the switches.

         3. I don’t interpret the spaghetti shown in the 2022 document as anything other than illustrating how Line 1 trains will enter one of the several options for DSTT2’s alignment. Since there was only a “preferred alternative” at the time, they had to show a connection to each possible tunnel portal.

            Remember, in 2016 it was planned that Line 3 would be elevated above the current busway, stepping up just south of the Stadium pocket so that by Holgate it would clear traffic at the crossing.

            Now, of course, it is proposed to be at-grade the full distance from Stadium to SoDo, but I am fairly certain that change was made after 2022.

            So the spaghetti shown CANNOT be cross-overs between Lines 1 and 3. Line 1 will not have a Stadium station. It is to go underground at Massachussetts Street.

            Now certainly it would not be difficult, but very “messy” to have a northbound connection between the northbound tracks of Line 1 to the northbound track of Line 3 between SoDo Station and Massachussetts, but such a “cross-over” must also cross the southbound Line 1 track using a fixed diamond.

            Similarly, it is possible to build a southbound cross-over between the southbound track of Line 1 to the southbound track of Line 3, but, again, it would have to cross the northbound Line 3 track with a diamond.

            And that’s just half the job. A reversed pair of these cross-overs-cum-diamond crossings would also be needed.

            Nothing in the diagram looks like this Grand Central Station Approach Throat monstrosity.

            How much easier is it to share the damn tracks?

            The northbound merge is a no-brainer. Step down from the elevated for WSLE just south of Forest Street and use the very infrequently used bikeway for an at-grade northbound track that would merge with Line 1 right under the overpass that is planned for Lander.

            Southbound the divergence is admittedly more difficult. I personally believe that a properly sturdy “patch” to the wings of the existing Line 1 curve into Forest Street can be constructed “around” the existing structure, allowing the curve to host a facing-pointvturnout into the Line 3 structure to the south.

            Whether the Line 3 structure allows the busway to continue in operation as it is today south of Forest is not clear. The diagrams show the structure for Line 3 using it for a couple of blocks south from there before curving away to the west. But perhaps a single-lane section that buses have to “request” could survive, allowing the busway to continue operation, albeit a bit less efficiently. However, I doubt that any bus would wait for the single-lane section to “clear” for more than thirty seconds.

            IF the divergence at the curve to Forest could not be built, it could be moved to under the Lander overpass and claim the northbound lane of the busway, extending the single-lane operation for one block.

   3. I would merge it with the 2 Line.

      Yes, that would be the best combination. You essentially have an east-west line through downtown. Unfortunately, they have never actually studied that. You would have to redo the connection from Judkins Park to the existing tunnel. It would go into the new tunnel instead. Then the West Seattle line would mix with the main line in SoDo. We would have twice as many trains going from West Seattle to CID as we do now, but otherwise you would have the same number of trains north of there. Ballard to Bellevue is a natural connection, beyond just the physical geography. It connects the tech hubs of the East Side with the tech hubs of Seattle. Meanwhile, the SoDo Busway is preserved, which means riders from Renton, Kent and Tacoma are better off. You also retain the more popular trip combinations on the existing main line (UW to Rainier Valley, SeaTac to Northgate, etc.). This means that the one one-seat combinations would be a lot more popular. So yeah, it clearly is the best option (if they insist on a second tunnel).

      The connection from East Link to the new tunnel would be tricky. But then so is the new tunnel coming from SoDo. Hard to say how expensive or disruptive it would be — I don’t know if ST ever looked at it. It doesn’t take much thought to realize it is superior to alternatives, but for whatever reason it was never chosen (maybe they looked at it and thought it would be too expensive).

      At this point it would mean a change of plans. ST has no interest in changing plans, other than deferring things indefinitely (i. e. effectively eliminating them).

      1. You do lose Mercer Island / South Bellevue to Capitol Hill and northward… That will complicate riders from Eastgate and Factoria using the 203/240.

         I think the 4 Line should be explored to go to both Bellevue and Seattle, effectively increasing the frequency across the bridge by 50%.

         4 Line would go to Seattle every 20 mins, and to Kirkland every 20 mins (alternating for total frequency of 10 mins), increasing to 16 mins during peak. I think exploring higher frequencies and shorter 2-car trains for these can also make sense… Plus design for hitting top speed 65 mph on I-90 to Issaquah.

         The 2 Line would be entirely diverted to Ballard / Seattle Center, no longer continuing past Westlake. The only loser would be Capitol Hill, as SR 520 buses like the 270 will be the superior option from Bellevue. It should become a Rapid Ride extending the B.

         That would also shift S Bellevue parking to Eastgate for trips heading to Capitol Hill North. I think that makes logical sense. A lot of the buses in S Bellevue are based around Eastgate, Factoria, and Issaquah anyways and would stop at Eastgate (240, 556)

         As for the 111, I would send it to Mercer Island instead of S Bellevue station.

         The 203 is tricky… From Factoria, you’d take 240 to Eastgate instead. But can’t think of anything good for Newport.

         1. Also forgot to mention.

            The 4 Line to Seattle would continue north to Capitol Hill and onward to the UW. This is a higher demand ride from S/E of Bellevue. For Ballard, they can afford the transfer at Mercer Island.

            The 2 Line will go to Ballard instead, since Bellevue-UW and Redmond-UW buses would be far more efficient for most trips.

            The 1 Line should remain unified but I can see why it may not due to the trip being too long. That’s why we should do this split

            – Tacoma to Northgate
            – SeaTac to Everett
            – Issaquah to Lynnwood
            (Drop West Seattle in favor for an open BRT)

            Frequency is 2.5x between Chinatown and Northgate.

            Frequency is 2x between SeaTac and Stadium, and 2x between Shoreline and Lynnwood.

         2. *1.5x from Shoreline to Lynnwood, since Issaquah-Lynnwood will be half frequency so the other half trips go to S Kirkland

         3. I could also see West Seattle to Ballard, which would bump up frequencies to Ballard in a reasonable way. If we are planning to build out the whole system eventually.

      2. Ross, Al has a suggestion in this comments section to diverges from the existing trackway a bit east of 12th South and tunnel from there down to the site for CID-North, but at a shallower depth because the trackway would be approaching from uphill. Shallower is certainly better.

         However, I think an even better option is to turn straight north to a version of The Snake.

         With a reasonably shallow “SkyTrain” automated light metro “New Westlake” on Sixth — i.e. tlubes just a few feet below the Spine Box tunnel with two “wing” mezzanines at the Spine-platform level to make single-level transfers — it would be possible to have a “Midtown” station between University and Seneca and be deep enough to clear the lowest elements of the freeway. Sixth rises at least fifty feet between Pike and Seneca, so a flat tunnel would be mid-level deep there.

         Obviously, it can’t climb quickly enough between there and Ninth(?) and Madison, so the “First Hill” station would have to be fairly deep, though there could probably be ramp access to Eighth pretty easily.

         Then there would be a station about Alder to serve Harborview and the new version of Yesler Terrace.

         This would short-circuit the North Rainier interceptor idea, but the 2 Line wouldn’t need interception if it were the interceptor.

         Now, the biggest issue here is that Line 2 north of South Bellevue can’t be automated, and already has big stations, which would be wasted on a Skytrain-style Light Metro.

         But routing through First Hill and South Lake Union would be a good choice for many Eastsiders.

   4. It is a great idea! Unfortunately, ST eschews great ideas. As they design projects, they seem to choose only changes that make the system worse or more expensive or both . So this idea won’t go anywhere politically.

      The 2016 intent was to create a mega transfer hub at CID. That is why 2 Line is part of this CID mega hub.

      Now that ST has removed the 1 Line to Ballard/ SLU and SeaTac/ Tacoma from that station in 2021, the need to have 2 Line from the Eastside at CID is greatly diminished. Is losing Sounder and Amtrak connectivity acceptable?

      If it is, the DSTT2 could be used by the 2 Line and the southern tunnel portal would be somewhere near the 12th Ave bridge. I’d suggest that the portal be where the Goodwill store is today and that it cross over a Dearborn to tie into existing tracks. The vertical profiles would have to be analyzed but since transfers have moved to Pioneer Square and the county buildings anyway, this would not be as significant of a change.

      The big advantage is actually with the vertical profile. A line that portals north of Dearborn could offer that Pioneer Square transfer connection at less depth.

      An added bonus would be that a Yesler Terrace/ Harborview Station could then be added. That alone would be a real bonus for the idea!

      Construction disruption would be less too.

      Alas, it’s way too late for studying this. The Board won’t even pause decisions for an automated train scenario using currently proposed station sites . Getting them to delay to look at using 2 Line for SLU/ Ballard seems impossible now.

      1. This is a great DSTT2 option. Indeed, it is the ONLY possible solution that makes DSTT2 as planned a decent investment.

         Here is a further re-alignment, though, albeit one that moves Bellevue-Sea-Tac transfers to a (shallower) New Westlake.

         Use a slightly modified Snake alignment (Sixth Avenue shallow New Westlake-Sixth and Seneca- Ninth and Madison-Ninth and Alder) and portal above Dearborn just east of Twelfth.

         This could be automated as far as South Bellevue where operators would have to board and alight. Perhaps some trains could turn back at the MF spur.

         This completely removes the “dip” around CID and connects the East Side with First Hill, where many of it residents (in both senses) work.

      2. As you can see by all of the completely different and conflicting opinions just on this blog comment section, no one agrees on what is a great idea. So to carte blanche say ST doesnt like great ideas is just silly on its face.

6. Ballard Link ridership is mostly Downtown and SLU. The incremental impact of truncating to Seattle Center is far less than the headline ridership number.

   It is true that even the modest ridership in Ballard and Interbay puts the distant suburban stations to shame. But we’re reminded once again that absolutely nobody whose opinion matters cares about the regional system. It’s every subarea for themselves.

   1. I’m not about to go BLE-bashing but I do find it a bit disingenuous that BLE’s ridership estimates include every rider heading to downtown from the south half of the current 1 Line.

      1. It’s true.

         However, there isn’t discussion about ridership in Board discussions in general. They are all obsessed about tracks and station dots on a map. I’ve never seen the ST Board make decisions based on ridership or travel time. If they did, they wouldn’t be planning the horrific underground mazes with DSTT2 that emerged in 2021 after alternatives to the DEIS were defined. .

      2. Good point. The ridership estimates should, at a minimum, look at the increased ridership on Link. They should also calculate how much time those riders would actually save. Unfortunately, it is much easier to just wave your hands and say it will be grand.

      3. I reviewed the Transpirtation Trchnical report ridership forecasts for 2042. It’s here:

         https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/14a-wsble-drafteis-appendixn1-transportationtechreport-202201.pdf

         There are 57K boardings estimated for all the stations north of Westlake. Multiplied by 2 is 114K. However some of those trips both begin and end in the corridor so the total ridership is slightly less, like 105K-110K.

         Of course the report was issued before the CID and Midtown stations were moved by the Board after the DEIS. ST staff have not published revised ridership forecasts. No Board member has requested a revised report on ridership.

         Anyway, this ridership total just between Westlake and Ballard is higher than the other Link extensions added together.

         If the downtown stations were added, the boardings would be another 54K-55K or say another 100K total (doubling minus internal trips) for Westlake, Midtown and CID.

   2. Funny you would mention SLU because alternative 1 from March drops SLU station. Do we know for sure that today’s proposal includes SLU station?

      1. All “affordable” options for BLE assume dropping the SR-99/Harrison station. Which would seem to tank any utility for the planned Harrison street transit corridor, if folks were expected to transfer from to/from Link to it.

      2. The document made no mention of it. I think that means it is planned to be constructed as opposed to West Seattle which explicitly mentions skipping a station.

   3. Ballard Link ridership is mostly Downtown and SLU.

      Presumably some of those riders come from the stations north of there (like Ballard). This new proposal is similar to the original bus tunnel, except with buses never leaving the tunnel. Sure, you get some riders, but nowhere near what you got when buses came from more distant locales (especially the UW). You compete with a surface spine. Thus you lose in terms of frequency and sheer convenience. The distances are relatively short and the stations are very deep. Thus the time savings are relatively small.

      OK, this isn’t that short, but it also competes with the monorail for one of the longer trips (Westlake to the Seattle Center). This is bound to be the most popular trip, given the connection to trains coming from the northeast (and buses serving the Central Area). The monorail gets about 6,500 riders a day. Good, but not exactly huge. The “South Lake Union” station is basically just a bus feeder station — Ballard Link’s version of Pinehurst Station. It will get a few walk-up riders but most are expected to transfer from the Aurora buses. Those that are headed to Rainier Valley or the airport are already making the transfer — they will save a couple minutes. Everyone else will just stay on the bus. Denny is a good station — a nice addition. But again, these are folks who just walk or take a bus/streetcar to Westlake now anyway. Hard to see them switching from a bus to the train (let alone driving to the train). Meanwhile, through riders (from the south) get one-seat rides to these destinations. But they lose one-seat rides to more popular destinations.

      Overall, the West Seattle Link + Seattle Center Link isn’t going to get many riders. I would guess around 30,000 or so (most of whom are being forced off their West Seattle bus). If this goes through then the transit world changes. Link expansion becomes largely irrelevant. What matters is whether we invest in the buses or not. And whether the existing Link lines are reliable and frequent.

      1. So you don’t think ANYONE working in SLU is from Bellevue, Redmond, Renton, Federal Way, Columbia City, Beacon Hill, etc etc etc? That’s laughable. It’s weird that you only think about people in North Seattle when talking about the SLU station.

         1. So you don’t think ANYONE working in SLU is from Bellevue, Redmond, Renton, Federal Way, Columbia City, Beacon Hill, etc etc etc?

            I never wrote that. Don’t claim that I wrote things I never wrote.

            It’s weird that you only think about people in North Seattle when talking about the SLU station.

            That is completely wrong. It is also rude. Please don’t insult me. I am trying very hard not to respond with a similar, although much punchier insult (involving the word “off”). But you also have it completely backwards.

            Of course SOMEONE will use the Denny stop. Start with Federal Way. Obviously riders from Federal Way headed close to one of the new stations will just stay on the train until they get there. But a lot of people will lose out. The downtown stations won’t be as good (there are fewer of them). They will have to transfer to get to the UW. The transfer will either require waiting a while at SoDo (for a train coming from West Seattle) or it will require a lot of walking (at CID or Westlake). Overall it isn’t really better. Some will save a couple minutes, others will come out behind. But also consider what they are doing now to get to those destinations. My guess is, they are riding the train and then transferring to a bus (or walking to their destination). Thus the addition of these stations won’t increase Link ridership from Federal Way or similar locations very much (if at all).

            Now consider someone coming from Bellevue or Renton (which you specifically mentioned). You are suggesting they get off the train and transfer to the other train just to go less than half a mile. The transfer won’t be easy. Walking from platform to platform will take a while. The other train runs every 8 minutes at peak (and every 10 minutes outside of peak). Depending on their destination it will be faster to just take a bus or walk. The big improvement will be if they are headed to the Seattle Center. Of course we have the monorail for that so depending on the destination, some riders will take that instead. Unlike riders from the south, riders from the East Side won’t be hurt by this addition. But the benefit will be minor and it won’t lead to an increase in Link ridership.

            Now consider Renton (another place you mentioned). The first thing to note is that the SoDo Busway will be eliminated. This will make the bus slower as it attempts to go downtown. Thus the vast majority of riders from Renton (and Kent and Tacoma) will be worse off. So yes, I am thinking about riders from the south. They are being screwed by this change in many ways.

            But back to those riders coming from Renton heading to SLU. If the bus runs on Fourth, riders will have to walk an extra four minutes to make the transfer at SoDo. This means that riders who currently transfer there (to get to places like the UW) have to walk farther. They could just stay on the bus until it gets further north, but it isn’t clear how easy it will be to transfer from the bus at the new downtown stations. Many will just transfer to a downtown bus or walk to their destination (as they do now). Yes, some riders will walk the extra distance and take the train to Denny or SLU (if they even have an SLU station). But it isn’t clear if this is enough to make up for the loss in ridership due to the bad transfer at SoDo and the inferior downtown stations.

            Now consider Rainier Valley. Yes, they gain a couple stations north of Westlake. But they lose the UW! They also lose Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, Northgate and all the stations serving the northern suburbs. At some point the trip just isn’t worth it. Since they have to transfer anyway, at some point it makes more sense to catch the 7 (likely to be more frequent) and then transfer at CID. (By 2040 it seems likely we will add BAT/bus lanes on Jackson.) Given that more people live closer to the 7 than the Link stations in Rainier Valley, this option will become more attractive for many. To be fair, the addition of Graham Street will help Link — oh wait, that’s not happening. Yep, Rainier Valley is getting screwed. Overall this may result in less ridership of Link in Rainier Valley, not more.

            Funny you should mention Beacon Hill. I’m sure there are riders right now who take the 60 from the south end of the hill and then transfer to Link to get to Capitol Hill. They don’t save a lot of time, but enough to be worth it. Now they would have to transfer twice (once in Beacon Hill and once downtown). Given the quality of the transfers downtown, it seems like a lot of riders will just switch to using the 60. This would cause overall Link ridership to decrease. To be clear, for some trips riders would come out ahead. For other trips, riders would be worse off. But overall Link ridership from Beacon Hill seems like it would go down a bit.

            In general the changes are relatively minor. Some trips are better, a lot of trips are worse. Generally speaking, riders from the south (other than West Seattle) will be worse off. The new stations do not make up for being forced to transfer to get to the UW (or the inferior stations downtown). In terms of overall ridership, I don’t think it will make much difference. You won’t see a huge increase in people taking Link due to the new stations north of Westlake. The biggest gain in Link ridership will come from forcing riders in West Seattle to use Link if they want to go downtown. If Metro decides to continue to run buses downtown then ridership from West Seattle will be minimal (a few thousand) and my predicted increase in ridership of 30,000 (for Link) will be too high.

            When you add it all up, there is very little benefit despite a very high cost. Link has never actually built anything like this. Sure, they’ve made mistakes. But the projects either added a lot of value or didn’t cost that much. None added so little and cost so much. None actually made it worse for existing riders. I am not a transit historian but I would still bet that this is the worst project (in terms of cost/benefit) ever.

         2. I agree a lot of people here have an obvious bias to North Seattle and Bellevue, but most riders from elsewhere would rather preserve their existing ride into downtown continuing north to Capitol Hill, UW, and Northgate… As well as bus riders from the south who rely on the SODO busway to make quick transfers every day.

            And similarly riders from up there would prefer a continued one seat ride to the airport.

   4. The ridership projections just for Ballard station are still higher than the combined ridership of West Seattle Link Extension.

      The Board never discusses this fact.

      1. The ridership projections for Ballard station are 10,200

         The ridership projections for Delridge are 5,100. Fauntleroy/Avalon (which has been axed of course) is 4,800. And Junction is 6,800.

         16,700 is higher than 10,200. That’s probably why the Board hasn’t discussed it.

      2. Huh?

         The West Seattle Final DEIS here disputes your numbers:

         https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/03-WSLE-FinalEIS-transportation.pdf

         The three stations are reported to have 12,900 boardings in 2042 — but only if DSTT2 is fully open. Dropping Avalon station drops that forecast to 12,800. With only the stub, others have said that it’s about 5800 boardings fircWest Seattle.

         The Ballard ridership forecast for 2042 can be found in the West Seattle – Ballard Draft EIS. That’s here:

         https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/3-wsble-drafteis-chapter3-transportation-202201.pdf

         That chapter lists 13.100 boardings for just Ballard Station.

         Where are you getting your source data?

7. What do you expect for $100,000,000,000? More than this garbage.

8. It’s my understanding they have to balance this by subarea equity which are part of the ST governing rules. So I only figure that North King Subarea ran out of money to deliver all their projects in the financial plan time horizon but pushed them as far as they could. You simply can’t deliver WSLE, BLE and Graham St and make the North King subarea pencil. It was the most dire subarea of all 5 in the board retreat materials and the projects are some of the most expensive. East King is building Stride right now and just finished Redmond but kept afloat by a SKI looking like it’s delayed, yet still funded? South King just finished Federal Way and most likely has to get reserves built up for Boeing Access Road. Pierce subarea has built essentially nothing and the most solvent subarea from what I saw from the board slide. Not surprising those projects are moving forward in either reduced to just planning (DuPont Sounder) or buildout. And Snohomish subarea has 1 project and sacrificed Sounder North to make it pencil. All interesting choices but looks like every subarea bled a bit in this process.

   1. Graham Street is such a small amount of money (in the scheme of these projects), I have a hard time believing that further efficiencies can’t be found. The station as designed is needlessly expensive for bad reasons.

      1. It is also the most redundant as the area is already well connected by bus to adjacent stations. The way you handle a deficit is not by spending on redundancy.

         1. Have you heard about the $20 billion for a second tunnel 12 floors under the existing one?

         2. Right, so let’s cancel the $20B extra tunnel project instead of the $50M infill station that will get good ridership

         3. The way you handle a deficit is not by spending on redundancy.

            Ha! Glenn beat me to it. The second tunnel is clearly redundant. Every station is close to an existing one. At the same time it has fewer stations. Thus it is not only redundant, but just a bit worse.

            In contrast a station at Graham Street would serve plenty of people and not cost much at all. Those riders would avoid riding a slow bus or having to transfer — the whole point of building Link in the first place.

   2. North King didn’t run out of money.

      The plan that was developed for West Seattle and the second tunnel was too expensive.

      The current LA Metro D Line Subway Extension is running $1 billion a mile, and LA isn’t a cheap place to build.

      1. The revenue projections for North King fell wildly short. Check the last board retreat materials. North King was the worst performer to getting back in the black, something had to give and 2nd tunnel was always part of those assumptions. There is more that can probably be done for BLE by having final design to get more savings but you couldn’t build it all under the existing subarea revenue projections. That’s why most likely none of the board retreat proposals had BLE get to market street.

         Debt capacity of the entire system was the other crux here. Hard to see how the lineup of projects here affected that problem or solved it. Im assuming they are maxing it or near maxing it, especially if they are sliding SKI delivery. Hard to see what financial levers are being pulled there but will watch tomorrow and see what assumptions they put there.

         1. The revenue projections haven’t changed very much. It’s the project cost that’s gotten out of reach. I mean, before the Enterprise Initiative, BLE and WSLE had soared to an estimated combined cost of nearly $30B. ST says it’s due to inflations and property values, but it’s actually due to design decisions resulting in cavernous, NORAD-bunker-deep stations in some of the most chaotic urban geology in the nation. WSLE nearly tripled in price after they realized they’d need to build a long-span bridge to avoid infringing on native people’s rights to access their ancestral rivers. They have to tunnel to Ballard for similar reasons.

            ST went to Costco with a $200 shopping list written in 2016 and the cashier is saying they’ve $1000 of product in the cart. Some folks say put it on the credit card and sort it out later, others say to put some of those items back on the shelf. But the budget hasn’t really changed.

         2. ST went to Costco with a $200 shopping list written in 2016 and the cashier is saying they’ve $1000 of product in the cart. Some folks say put it on the credit card and sort it out later, others say to put some of those items back on the shelf. But the budget hasn’t really changed.

            Well put. The worst part is they are ready to put a lot of the stuff back — just the wrong stuff. They could also get different stuff — stuff that is actually cheaper *and* better in a lot of ways. But instead they are sticking with the plan as if the original shopping list was ideal.

            West Seattle Link was always a bad plan but it was assumed it could be built very cheaply (since none of it is tunneled and there are only three stations). Now it is clear that isn’t the case but they want to keep it anyway.

   3. So, an excellent reason to defer the second tunnel, improve the first one, and make all transfers better. All five subareas would be fiscally better off if they did not have to pay for the DSTT2 albatross.

      [Ed. Added missing word.]

      1. Agreed. It is crazy that the second tunnel is going forward without further discussion. But let’s face it — this is all about West Seattle Link. It is obvious that West Seattle Link to SoDo is useless. It is also clear that the agency doesn’t want to explore putting three lines through the existing downtown tunnel (and sending all three towards Lynnwood). Thus with West Seattle Link considered a priority (over Ballard Link) the second tunnel becomes a priority. Everything is backwards. If Ballard Link is a priority (as it should be) then you run the line from Ballard to Westlake and then decide later how far to extend it. This gives you the best value. Yet they are ignoring what is obvious from a transit perspective and focusing on something else.

         1. “ It is obvious that West Seattle Link to SoDo is useless. ”

            This is exactly the reason why there should be no rush to go ahead with West Seattle construction. It won’t be useful until well into the 2040’s when a DSTT2 would finally open.

            ST has already authorized property purchases. So that can continue doing that while an automated light metro scenario is studied like Kubly suggests. Thus this part of “project cost inflation” is abated. As Kubly said in his piece, it wouldn’t have to affect the EIS process either.

            PS. ST also needs to come clean about the 2032 West Seattle opening year too. They surely see it’s not opening until 2036 and more likely 2040. It takes years to order and make and assemble steel for this giant cable stayed bridge and then excavate a giant vault for the Alaska Junction station.

   4. The representative alignment in the ballot measure had elevated Ballard, elevated West Seattle, the CID2 “5th Avenue Shallow” station alternative, and a DSTT2 assumed to be the same depth as DSTT1 and with counterpart stations straight across from each other. After the vote, ST changed all these in ways that significantly increased the price: it gave West Seattle a tunnel because some West Seattle activists wanted it, it gave Ballard a tunnel because some Ballard activists wanted it, it proposed more expensive CID2 station alternatives, and it said DSTT2 would have to be deeper because of building foundations, the BNSF tunnel, and utility tunnels.

      So ST could reverse all these and get back closer to the cost estimate in the ballot measure. If it really can’t reverse the depth of DSTT2, it should take a step back and look at whether the project is really viable or worthwhile if it has such long train-to-train transfers, and look more at that DSTT1 upgrade that would eliminate the need for DSTT2.

      If ST won’t prioritize Ballard now with 130,000 riders or whatever it is, do you really think it would prioritize it if the number rises to 200,000 riders in the final EIS?

      1. Mike, DSTT2 would never have had stations as shallow as DSTT1. The profile of “Tower Hill” is massively “humped” around Marion while Third has a constant gradient to University Street.

9. Tfw Vancouver BC got the Canada line for 1.5B USD and we cant even get ballard with 50B USD.

   So seattle gets WSLE and a few downtown stations for ST3.

   1. Now that’s something this STB commenter can get behind. Let’s give them more money!

10. As a West Seattle resident I’m looking forward to it taking an hour for me to get to Ballard (C + E lines)for the next 30+ years!

11. They might as well not build ST3. All it’s going to do is make things worse for riders.

    The ONLY useful thing they’re building is a line to the Seattle Center, as well as the Issaquah Line which is getting delayed to 2050!

    Everything else is hot garbage and will serve nobody useful. The spine should be completed but it’s not a priority when we have strong express buses available.

    And we’re losing one seat trips from Capitol Hill North to the airport and S King County. That will make the Link experience even slower than it is now. The biggest time savings from Link is going past downtown… Not into downtown (where buses are a lot faster). Now that’s gone. And we’re losing the SODO busway anyways so not like bus riders can do anything either from S King County. No more easy transfer onto the 1 Line at SODO to get north of downtown.

    The Issaquah Line has potential for extension into Kirkland, and it’s a unique corridor that passes through a very congested intersection (I-405/I-90). I feel it should be built.

    1. Redirect all this money to get Issaquah and Ballard done. And expand Stride to more corridors. We’d be able to find buses ten fold.

       Federal Way to Lynnwood – 1 Line (extend to Tacoma later)
       Redmond to Ballard – 2 Line
       West Seattle to Lynnwood – 3 Line (extend to Everett later)
       Issaquah to Kirkland – 4 Line (but add S Bellevue)

       It should’ve always been this.

       1. And in the future add Issaquah – Ballard (Line 5). Wouldn’t cost much extra since it just needs to add a short segment between Eastgate and Mercer Island then double frequencies from Issaquah, and across the I-90 bridge.

          6 Line – Renton to Rainier Valley extension

    2. I don’t see why riding a bus to downtown, then transferring to Link there wouldn’t also be the fastest option now. It’s not like there’s good transfer points from most of South King to Link. Like from Southcenter to UW the 150 – Link (downtown) is like 10 minutes faster than the F – Link (TIBS), and from Renton the 101 – Link (downtown) is 15 minutes faster than the 106 – Link (Rainier Beach), and on par with the 560 – Link (Bellevue). The big losers for northern connectivity are the stations north of Federal Way and south of Downtown, where Link is the only game in town (so Angle Lake, TIBS, SeaTac, Star Lake, KDM). In South Seattle, riders may be better off on their local bus to Chinatown rather than a Link transfer (depending on how bad the transfer is at Westlake). The Rainier Beach area is still probably going to be faster as a Link-Link transfer, but Othello, Columbia City, Mount Baker, and Beacon Hill will likely be faster as bus-Link transfers (at least situationally).

       But I don’t see how the extensions to Tacoma or Everett really impact any of the items you’re mentioning. I’m not overly convinced they’re useful extensions for a lot of riders, but I do understand the politics of doing them.

    3. They might as well not build ST3.

       That is the way this is trending, for sure. It is worth mentioning that we’ve already built some ST3 projects, like the extension in Redmond or the one to Federal Way. At least Pinehurst Station will be built. There are all good values. But the best remaining Link projects are all in jeopardy now. It is clear at this point that if they just spent money on bus service — not fancy “BRT”, not even needed bus-infrastructure, just bus service — the region would be much better off. That wasn’t the case with ST1 or ST2. But it is now. Congratulations, Sound Transit. You made Smarter Transit sound like geniuses.

12. I’m glad they are facing reality. Without federal aid, which at this point will never happen, the extravaganza that is Ballard should wait until they can build it without reckless debt or cheaper. Going elevated like Vancouver does is clearly an option they should consider and screw the activists that are worried about how it looks from their window

    1. Without federal aid, they probably can’t build anything right? I’m not sure how much the feds have matched in the past, but 50% to 60% has been standard for capital projects in other places I’ve lived.

       1. The ST3 planning assumption is much lower, IIRC <30%. They call out this assumption specifically in all of the financial planning documents.

          1. Oh interesting, do you have any insight as to why it’s so low? That seems unusual to me, but I haven’t tracked how that’s panned out in Seattle historically

    2. the extravaganza that is Ballard should wait

       And yet they should spend money building a second tunnel (that is clearly redundant) and a line to West Seattle? This is just backwards.

13. Just looking at the north king subarea in isolation, the priorities are completely backwards. A truncated West Seattle with a forced transfer in SODO gets first priority, followed by a redundant downtown tunnel, with the useful transit, last.

    1. Exactly.

       1. Baffling. And par for the course.

14. Has Sound Transit provided enough detail on the WSLE cost-cutting measures to determine the savings associated specifically with eliminating Avalon Station? The savings figures presented include significant modifications to the Alaska Junction station and related tunnel infrastructure, and I have not seen those costs broken into discrete elements.

    Did Sound Transit evaluate alternatives that retain Avalon Station while still implementing some or all of the proposed Junction Station simplifications? If so, those estimates should be shared publicly before a decision is made to remove the station entirely.

    The overall value of the West Seattle Link Extension is questionable, but if the project moves forward it should be designed as a complete urban transit line. Including Avalon Station provides more appropriate stop spacing for an urban corridor and significantly improves walk access for surrounding neighborhoods. There has already been substantial development in the West Seattle Triangle and along the Avalon corridor based on the expectation of a station in this location, and the area continues to have strong transit-oriented development potential.

    If the costs associated with Avalon Station are ultimately too high, that should be evaluated transparently.

    1. The option that was never studied or costed was dropping only Alaska Junction but keeping Avalon.

       I think that this omission is deliberate. The costs would be cheaper than digging a deep station vault in the middle of Alaska Junction as well as boring a tunnel for the last mile — and buses (75% of Alaska Junction boardings) could just as easily stop and layover there. It seems like the line could open a year or two sooner too.

    2. The overall value of the West Seattle Link Extension is questionable, but if the project moves forward it should be designed as a complete urban transit line. Including Avalon Station provides more appropriate stop spacing for an urban corridor and significantly improves walk access for surrounding neighborhoods.

       Exactly. This is an agency being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

15. I’m just checking in here after a multi-year absence, but there seems to be a general consensus that the Board is making terrible decisions for the region’s transit future. Despite this consensus, I am not seeing is a clear alternative message or plan to advocate for improvements. If people are resigned to the inevitability of the Board’s bad decision making and there is no hope for salvaging the situation, why bother complaining about it or fantasizing about the better choices that could have been? I doubt ST Board members are reading the comments on this blog, but I note that they are meeting right now in part to discuss updates to the ST3 plan, and there is an opportunity for public comment. If this is not an effective advocacy approach, then what would be?

    1. “ Despite this consensus, I am not seeing is a clear alternative message or plan to advocate for improvements. “

       ST3 is a package so there are different opinions on different aspects.

       Complete unanimity is difficult — especially since we are not privy to the cost calculations of the proposals. That said, many commenters and even advocates outside of STB would probably agree to these statements:

       1. Cost per new forecasted boarding or generally defined as “value” should drive how ST3 funds are first spent. Performance measures like these have driven FTA funding as well as many rail projects around the US for decades yet seem to be summarily ignored by ST.

       2. Graham Street infill has good value and should be funded. Its timeline is also short and can be opened fairly quickly.

       3. Ballard and SLU have much better potential in both transit travel time saved and in potential ridership if the line opens before West Seattle.

       4. ST should revisit a base assumption and instead give every extension a look at an automated rail technology alternative that can offer smaller stations, higher frequencies and lower costs in building at stations . Even if it makes less sense, it still deserves study given how project timelines are getting extended way longer than the delay created by studying them.

       Obviously we can speculate but we cannot fully analyze all the aspects of ST3 currently on the table. We may have differences of opinion on how things get located or executed. But I see these four items as have general agreement from most commenters.

    2. The important issue is total ridership, not just new riders. If an urban neighborhood has proven successful for a century with high ridership and a large range of walk-up destination/housing opportunities but it has substandard transit, the existing neighborhood and riders deserve a transit upgrade. This is one of the most productive transit upgrades you can make, because high past ridership indicates high future ridership and a lot of new riders.

       Focusing just on new riders leads to situation where a brand-new regional center (like the Spring District or Totem Lake) is predicted to have high ridership, but then it doesn’t because the new construction has too much parking (which increases the walking distance for pedestrians), a narrow range of retail (just a couple stores, or just national chains; e.g., Spring District has one drinks-only pub and one golf shop), or a lopsided offices:housing balance (Spring District has too many offices and too little housing). The same thing happens with new develoment on 15th Ave NW or the UDistrict part of Roosevelt Way NE vs Old Ballard or the Ave: the new development is inevitably less attractive, less pedestrian-friendly, and has a smaller range of destinations — so foot traffic and ridership is lower than in the established pre-WWII neighborhoods. Developers could make new neighborhoods that are as popular as old neighborhoods or more so, but they don’t, and there aren’t enough incentives or the right rules to make them do so.

       1. I used the term “new boardings” intentionally rather than “new riders”. Many of the new Link boardings will come from existing transit riders.

          That’s much different than how FTA has measured ridership productivity in recent decades. That measure certainly had problems! It rewarded new suburban lines but punished existing corridors with good transit ridership already.

          It’s also why I encourage use of aggregate transit travel time savings. A minute of time savings has value no matter if it’s an existing or new rider. Saving 3 minutes for 20000 transit trips has the same societal travel time savings as saving 6 minutes for 10000 transit trips.

          I remember that the WSLE FEIS basically said that building West Seattle Link will not attract any significant number of riders away from driving already even if It runs through Downtown. That conclusion is also summarily ignored by the Board because it reveals that opening the project has no significant long-term effect in reducing auto demand and thus doesn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

          There are so many other better ways to spend billions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve greater societal environmental benefit.

          1. I agree Al. There are a lot of ways to measure it. But some worth considering are:

             1) Higher overall transit ridership.
             2) Aggregate time saved.
             3) Both of these with an edge towards lower-income riders.
             4) Cost to achieve these goals.

             Note that the second can happen without the first. Maybe you don’t get any new riders at all but at least those riders get to their destination faster. In our case that is unlikely to happen (if you save riders time you are bound to get more riders). But I think what Mike is getting at is that we shouldn’t just focus on potential new riders — existing riders matter as well.

             There are a lot of factors. For example, it is assumed that if you build a metro (AKA subway) you speed thing up enough to attract new riders. Existing riders save a lot of time. You sometimes save on the cost of operations. In our system we used to run a lot of buses from the U-District and Northgate to downtown. Now we just run a train. This savings go into running other buses more often. These savings go into improving the rest of the network. This leads to increased ridership. Whether this is the most cost effective way to achieve those goals gets complicated.

             The problem is, I see very little of this with what the board is proposing. They are abandoning one of the cheapest ways to increase ridership on Link (adding Graham Street Station) — https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/. It stands to reason that the station would also lead to an overall increase in transit ridership. It definitely saves those riders time.

             Meanwhile, they are focuses on projects that are a poor value even when they were much cheaper. Based on the estimates, West Seattle Link will cost a fortune per rider. How much time will they actually save? That depends. If Metro decides to keep running all the buses, then very few will ride the train. If Metro truncates the buses (as expected) then a lot of people will be worse off. Thus the aggregate time savings for the project (in isolation) may be negative. But if Metro does truncate they will use the savings to run buses more often (across the county). Given the high cost, it is highly likely that if we simply ran the buses more often (in perpetuity) we would get higher ridership per dollar spent (and better aggregate time savings per dollar spent) than West Seattle Link. That’s because it costs so much and doesn’t speed up things significantly. It is also highly likely that the buses will eventually be automated, which will save on service costs (further tipping the needle away from West Seattle Link).

             It gets complicated but based on all the data, the board is choosing the worst projects.

    3. Despite this consensus, I am not seeing is a clear alternative message or plan to advocate for improvements.

       That is not true. Micheal Smith summarized such a message in this article:

       Some transit advocates have pushed Sound Transit to think bigger and redesign ST3. These arguments include using shorter, automated trains for Ballard and/or West Seattle, skipping the DSTT2, and improving bus service instead.

       We have written multiple articles supporting this idea — he linked to three. To be fair, none of them completely and succinctly summarize this argument to my own satisfaction although that paragraph comes very close. The ideas behind this evolved, over time, in discussions on this blog. There is a strong consensus here to build the following:

       1) An automated train line from Ballard to Westlake. Design it with smaller stations and smaller trains running more often. This reduces costs and is better for the rider.

       2) While it would only run from Ballard to Westlake, design it so that it can be extended on each end. From Ballard it would head east, to the UW. From Westlake it would go towards First Hill. In either case that could happen later. Ballard to Westlake is the first step.

       3) Replace West Seattle Link with bus-based improvements. Opinions diverge a bit as to exactly what to do. Some suggest we just spend a lot of money on bus service and bus lanes (as we have with the RapidRide projects and buses like the 7 and 40). I would be happy with that but I think we should do more. Others (like me) think we should leverage the SoDo Busway by improving the connections on both ends (Stadium Station to CID at the north, Spokane Street Viaduct to the south). This would improve the reliability of buses that go from West Seattle to downtown (since the bus would avoid all congestion). At the same time, it would improve the connection from West Seattle to Link — the only significant thing that West Seattle Link provides.

       That is the message. It is as close as you are going to get on a blog like this in terms of a consensus — at least within the framework of ST3. This is not “starting over”. It is an adjustment in the implementation, not the priorities. The West Seattle to Ballard corridor is still favored over other projects (like Ballard to the UW, or a Metro 8 subway). Yet within that set of priorities there are many of us who believe this is the best option moving forward.

       We will continue to argue for this message. This means writing our representatives. Many of us have written repeatedly. This brings up the question you asked:

       If this is not an effective advocacy approach, then what would be?

       I have no idea. Seriously, I don’t know where to go from here. We are a niche group precisely because our message is subtle. We like transit. We like trains. We just don’t like this proposal. In an increasingly oversimplified, polarized world this sort of message is hard to convey. I would sincerely love to hear ideas for getting the message out, in hopes it will convince the board to change their mind.

       1. A start would probably be to meet as a group in person. Isolated people writing their representatives is better than nothing, but unlikely to accomplish much. Commenting on a transit blog is even less likely to change anything.

          1. > A start would probably be to meet as a group in person

             This is what the Transportation Choices Coalition is doing very effectively with the town halls.

             However, the real start is realizing what’s politically feasible and working towards that goal. TCC (and the Build the Damn Trains campaign) knows that ST will seek the path of least resistance as it fulfills its various mandates, and without strong advocacy, the path of least resistance would be to only use the tools immediately within reach of the agency. So TCC is pushing ST to do things like go to Olympia for more financial capacity, changing internal policy to make things work, considering going to the ballot for whatever voter approval is necessary, and other things in order to deliver the promises of ST3.

             Personally, I don’t find much value in posting about things that aren’t feasible. There was a brief minute at the end of last year when deferring DSTT2 seemed politically feasible, and then Somers booted Balducci off the Executive Committee. There was a brief moment a month ago when deferring WSLE to build more of BLE seemed politically feasible, but then it became obvious that WSLE is the only “shovel-ready” project available and ST’s leaders want to maintain construction momentum. I think Somers has assembled the most politically feasible plan, even if its completely philosophically backwards from ridership-oriented ideals.

    4. “If this is not an effective advocacy approach, then what would be?”

       Posting on a transit board honestly isn’t really going to get anywhere. The most important thing would be to talk to the decision makers and convince them that enough people care and that they should also care. Articles might help to convince a few members of the public but unless there’s a broader movement ST is just going to continue down the same path

       Something like:

       1. Create a simple message to rally around (for example “Build What We Voted For”, using the Kubly/Reed proposal)
       2. Form a coalition (or ideally convince existing coalitions like TRU or TCC)
       3. Get people to show up to meetings and talk to elected officials

       1. The articles are to generate awareness of the issues, give a vision and facts people can point to when speaking to their representatives, and be a reference for later.

          Some ST boardmembers and staff do read the articles and at least some of the comments, as do some county and city officials and staff, because they tell us so, and a few of them sometimes comment here. So they know what we’re saying. That doesn’t translate to them doing what we want, because they only officially have to consider testimony at public meetings or feedbak sent directly to ST, and because they have other factors they’re weighing. They rarely comment here I think because anything they say affects their political fortunes, and non-public-relations staff probably have conflict-of-interest reasons for keeping quiet.

16. Now that HB 1491 is law, station area residents should be informed what that means. Their eagerness to support Link so that they can walk to may be lowered if they learn that their house may someday be surrounded by much taller buildings.

    For Alaska Junction, the required upzoned area is roughly bounded by Andover, Hudson and 49th. If this station opens, blocks of lots with Alaska Junction houses must be upzoned by law.

    1. Technically, the law is that city zoning laws must allow certain density near stations. SDCI has already started the station area planning process for WSLE. Here’s the project page for the Junction: https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/current-projects/west-seattle-junction

       And here’s the map: https://www.seattle.gov/images/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/StationAreaPlanning/WestSeattleStationAreaPlanningMap.png

       1. Thanks for the map!

          As I said, these areas do not have to be upzoned if there’s no station within 1/2 mile. Even this map area shrinks if Avalon Station is deleted.

          If someone lives in West Seattle, they need to see this map. While it’s not yet adopted, if the Board votes to build the station the upzoning must occur per state law.

17. It’s really bad timing for the ST Boardbto have to vote on a motion like this either incomplete information.

    The facts that should be presented first include:

    1. Anticipated highlights from EIS information due any month about Ballard Link and Everett Link. This includes ridership, travel time savings and updated costs.

    2. Revised timelines for opening Tacoma Dome, West Seattle and the infill stations. Defining sequencing requires information about anticipated calendars.

    I favor supporting an effort to table this motion until these facts are made available for public comment. ST has these items developed already. They simply haven’t published them!

    It’s offensive to make Board members choose without this basic info. It’s mindboggling that the info is there but not disclosed when this vote is so consequential! It’s like buying a new home without any fact finding! The motion is instead driven by opinions and not facts.

    1. A rhetorical question: is it possible the Board has been briefed on these facts but since the DEIS for BLE EVLE are not yet published, they cannot reference the data in public presentations?

       Previous presentations have stated no changes to planned project timelines unless otherwise noted. Since the infill stations are proposed to be brought to 30% design and parked until funding is available, they cannot reasonably provide a projected project timeline.

       1. A reverse question: Why is ST leadership eager for a decision this major without disclosing basic information to the public? The public cannot comment in secret info.

          For that matter, why does the information have to be kept secret? It’s not a national security issue. It’s instead a blatant avoidance of revealing facts. And if the facts supported Somers’ motion it would be to his advantage to leak them.

          But ST is hiding them!!! That should send FIRE ALARMS to the press, public and Board!

          What responsible public official would vote for any capital project not knowing the updated cost, timeline, benefit like ridership and major significant impacts?

          This is dystopian in the worst way.

          1. > What responsible public official would vote for any capital project not knowing the updated cost, timeline, benefit like ridership and major significant impacts?

             Who’s saying they are? Just because you don’t have access to that information, doesn’t mean they don’t either. What they definitely have which the general public doesn’t (with good reason) is access to the hardworking staff who develop the numbers, timelines, and plans who can provide important context like specific uncertainties and assumptions which might be misinterpreted by the public.

             If you really want these details, you can probably get them via a public data request. Then you could go to town with whatever analyses you’d want to do to develop an Informed Opinion. But it’s pretty ridiculous to expect staff to waste time packaging these highly wonky details for public consumption on the off chance there’s an armchair planner who’s interested enough look at it if it’s available but not interested enough to figure out how to ask for it politely and process it themself.

             I agree it would be nice if they presented all this stuff. I mean, if they really wanted input from the general public, they would set up some sort of website where you could mix and match your own ST3 realignment with costs, timelines, and opening dates. But it’s not surprising they haven’t bothered with it, because the only people who can tell them what to do is the Board.

          2. The realignment is a political decision. How ST chooses to prioritize or defer projects doesn’t have to be based on Ballard EIS information. Any decision now can be revised or reversed later this year or next year if the board changes its mind after the Ballard EIS comes out and it sees what public reactions are.

          3. « Any decision now can be revised or reversed later this year or next year if the board changes its mind after the Ballard EIS comes out and it sees what public reactions are.. »

             The difference is that they roll have committed inbillions to West Seattle with this motion as I understand it. That’s less North King money for Ballard.

          4. I listened to the meeting on zoom, and they were quite explicit that the reason they are trying to get this resolution through now is to move forward with West Seattle ASAP. This will certainly prejudice future opportunities for better projects in the sub-area, and I question whether decisions like this can simply be reversed later…the farther they go down a road and the more money they commit, the harder it is for them to correct-course. Better to stop them now, if possible. There does seem to be a desire on the Board for consensus, and Strauss, McLeod, & Franklin seemed to “not be there yet.” I wonder if Mike Lindblom has done a public records request. A damming analysis article by him could potentially affect the outcome.

18. I live in Greenwood. It’s a two-seat bus ride to Ballard, so I never take transit there. If I am still here in 2050, I’ll still be taking the 5 or 28 or E to downtown, regardless of whether Ballard Link gets built or not.

    Link transfers suck. Even with the 4-5 minute frequency now on Link, it’s still not worth it to take the 61 or 45 to Link to get downtown. It’s easier and faster to take the 5 or the 28 or to take the 45/61 to the E line. On the way back, the bus is even more of a no-brainer, because you can time getting onto it downtown, vs. being stuck waiting for your bus at a Link station up north.

    Link restructures have also tended to become an excuse for transferring bus service from North Seattle to elsewhere in the county, and this has made bus service a lot worse in my area. I miss the days of having all the peak-only express routes on most arterials heading to job centers, and 10 minute all day service on many major routes. I wish we could cancel plans for adding vanity light rail into the exurbs and re-invest in Seattle bus service.

    1. Peak only expresses are not allowed according to everyone on here. Everyone should ride Link with 5 bus transfers.

       1. That’s way backward, SKR. Ross particularly advocates for Tacoma-Seattle frequent express buses, with a stop at Federal Way (,because it’s quick), as a replacement for Tiddly-Links (TDLE).

          He has admitted frequently that the 41 outperformed Link’s timing between Northgate and downtown Seattle, but only in the direction that the express lanes were running.

          He has even said that should Link become over-crowded during peak hours that it would be cost-effective and appropriate to re-activate some old express routes to relieve the crowding.

          So you are beating a strawman that you invented.

          1. Okay maybe people on here support it… But King County Metro does not.

             They call it “low productive and duplicative” service hours.

             https://kingcountymetro.blog/2026/02/23/executive-zahilay-transmits-legislation-to-expand-metro-bus-service-and-strengthen-link-light-rail-connections-in-south-king-county/

             Despite knowing very well it’s their fault peak hour routes ran severely late and lost all their ridership.

19. Everything that can be said against this stupendous expenditure of public funds revolves around the folly that is DSTT2. Without the tunnel, Ballard is reachable. Without the tunnel north to south transfers are avoided, at least south of Northgate. Without the tunnel the busway can survive, albeit in a slightly diminished state.

    Without the tunnel automation can advance. Without the tunnel South Lake Union can be served a half to a full decade earlier than in the “System Plan”. Without the tunnel, eventual service to First Hill becomes more plausible.

    Without the tunnel the region will avoid placing a two-generation burden on itself that depends on the revitalization of “office jobs” in Downtown Seattle that may very well never develop due to Artificial Intelligence.

    This is a financial disaster dressed in a Santa Claus suit.

    1. > revitalization of “office jobs” in Downtown Seattle that may very well never develop due to Artificial Intelligence.

       AI will create more office jobs. Currently businesses are in a state of delusion in which they’ll get a rude awakening some time in the next couple of years.

       We’ve not even scratched the surface of what can be done with AI. That needs humans in the loop.

       Imagine ST used AI and automation? But we need humans to actually drive that implementation. Dumb business leaders and executives like Dow can’t “tell AI” what to do without skilled people at the table.

       1. AI will create more office jobs.

          No, it won’t. It will (possibly, for a little while), increase the need for “SME’s” (subject matter experts) to train AI’s with the unique expertise held by specialty enterprises, but the most recent LLM’s have shown a shocking ability to infer those nuances from their knowledge of client enterprises. Give that a think.

          AI’s are now, only a decade after the “all you need is attention” paper, able to train their successors, and in fact have created small “offspring” secretly.

          Your job is toast if it’s in a tower in downtown Seattle (or Bellevue), SKR, so it won’t matter if you ride Link, a bus, or drive to it, because you won’t be doing that in a decade.

          We can all hope that you’ll be doing something, though we can’t all be offering “personal services” unless we get high behind taxing the hell out of the Artificial Intelligence companies and their creations real soon now.

          Like next Thursday.

       2. What if you’re the one building the AI? 😂

          1. I dunno. I do know that you are not one of them, based on your comment history.

       3. Anything except blame the loss of office jobs on Seattle on Seattle’s pathetic leaders and dumb urbanists?

          Why is Starbucks moving to Tennessee? Amazon already moved out to Bellevue and the East Coast.

          There is demand for office space. Just not in Seattle. 😂

       4. It’s already wrong to assume LLMs are the pinnacle of intelligence too.

          Language is just one component of the world and true intelligence. AGI cannot be achieved with language at all… It’s a facade to true intelligence… Like business execs who can “speak” their way into looking capable when they really aren’t.

          Unfortunately the real world requires just a little more than a nondeterministic language. AI needs to be trained on physical and abstract representations and that work is still in progress (JEPA).

          1. Certainly, LLM’s aren’t true AGI; they aren’t the “AI’s” that identify tumors much more accurately than radiologists, for instance. But they are deadly for “office work” which is 85% language manipulation.

             And Starbucks’ eagerness to move to Tennessee is just capitalist greed. The thumbsuckers in Tennessee will perform less effectively than their peers in Seattle, but they’re much cheaper.

          2. Further A.I. discussion will be moderated as off-topic unless directly related the article.

    2. Yes

       1. “Yes” to what?

          1. I assume it is yes to what you wrote (“Everything that can be said against this stupendous expenditure of public funds revolves around the folly that is DSTT2…”).

    3. AI,…
       I’ve always been curious.

       Of those who expound on the fantastic abilities of AI, how many actually work in the IT field?

       1. Further A.I. discussion will be moderated as off-topic unless directly and clearly relevant to the topic of the post.

    4. Everything that can be said against this stupendous expenditure of public funds revolves around the folly that is DSTT2.

       Agreed. The big question is how do we stop it? How do we stop Sound Transit from making this terrible decision which will at best just be a big waste of money and at worst will hamper transit in the region for generations?

       1. It is worth noting that this sort of thing has happened in the past. For someone who doesn’t know the history, it is a bit surprising that there is only one station between Westlake and the UW. Forward Thrust had four. WTF?

          In both cases, the agency painted themselves into a corner. They focused on the wrong things. Then, when things got difficult, they made compromises that they felt were essential to save the project. First Hill had to be abandoned, otherwise we couldn’t get to the UW. Bullshit. You simply end at First Hill if you have to. Build the rest later. At the very least you look for alternatives (like a station at 23rd & Madison). But by skipping First Hill they forever hampered the value of the line.

          Yet it is nothing compared to the decision making that is going into this project. Just to reiterate the logic here:

          1) A second tunnel is needed because we can’t put the West Seattle trains into the main line.
          2) West Seattle Link needs to be built first because that is what we planned to do.
          3) We planned to build West Seattle Link first because … well, we just did.

          But why is West Seattle Link part of ST in the first place? Are there other projects that are of a similar cost that would get more riders (and save those riders more time)? Sure. Ballard to UW comes to mind. ST studied it. They thought it would have very high ridership (and the best ridership per dollar). But for whatever reason, West Seattle Link became the priority. It is also the priority over Ballard Link, despite Ballard Link being a much better value as well (https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/).

          But there is also an assumption with West Seattle Link that doesn’t apply to the other projects. We can improve the bus system in West Seattle and provide a much better outcome for transit riders than the rail project for relatively little money. We could connect the buses from West Seattle to Link at SoDo and have them continue to go downtown. The connection to Link provides the key element of West Seattle Link (the vast majority of riders will get to the West Seattle stations by bus). Sending the buses to SoDo accomplishes the same thing. Having them continue to downtown is just a bonus. That sort of thing is impossible with Ballard Link unless we spent a fortune. Oh, sure, you could do a lot of great things to make the buses faster to Ballard. Bat lanes, bus lanes, contraflow lanes — you name it. But to get the same sort of speeds as Ballard Link would require a tunnel from Smith Cove to Westlake (via Uptown). Otherwise you don’t have the same functionality.

          Thus not only did ST favor the worst project from a value-added standpoint, they also favored the worst project from an alternative mode standpoint. It is also the project that requires (or at the very least they believe requires) a second tunnel. As a result, you have all the flaws that are mentioned. Gone is any idea of having the second tunnel serve First Hill, despite the fact that the vast majority of cities across the globe would make it a higher priority than serving West Seattle itself. Stations are being removed left and right. West Seattle is supposed to now have only two stations. Miles of extremely expensive new track (running next to an expressway) and only two stations. Oh, and one of those is a feeder station (similar to Mercer Island). We are also prepared to abandon South Lake Union Station as well. Thus leaving people again wondering why there are so few stations between the Seattle Center and Westlake. Then of course you have to wonder why a brand new line — that is entirely grade separated — is light rail (and not automated).

          Of course this project is much worse. It is easy could claim that UW/Northgate Link is more important than First Hill Station. That misses the point, but I would agree. UW/Northgate Link is the most important rail line ST has ever built. The line isn’t nearly as good as it should be, but at least it provides essential service that is used by tens of thousands of riders and saves those riders a huge amount of time. Unfortunately, that can’t be said about West Seattle Link or the stub line north of there. It will be extremely expensive and extremely irrelevant.

          Oh, ST will claim that without it you wouldn’t be able to get around West Seattle so easily from the north. But anyone who knows how to read a map can figure out that SoDo exists and could be a short bus drive to West Seattle. Similarly, the monorail isn’t going away, so riders who choose to ride Link to the Seattle Center will simply have an alternative (that isn’t much faster). Denny Station is nice, but for many it requires a transfer (Denny Station would be great if it was in between Westlake and Capitol Hill Station). Since it is so close to Westlake, many will just walk. Then you have all the negatives Tom mentioned earlier (forced transfers, slower bus riders, etc.).

          It is likely to be the worst project in the history of transit. I realize that sounds like hyperbole. There are plenty of projects that get very few riders. But most of those are cheap. There are plenty of extremely expensive projects. But most of those get lots of riders. This stands out as a really bad project that is extremely expensive. Only in America I guess.

          1. IIRC, West Seattle Link was not supposed to begin construction first. It was supposed to OPEN first. That was because it wasn’t required to be in a tunnel in the 2016 vote. The sentiment at the time is that tunneling adds a few years to a project.

             So both projects should have begun at the same time but West Seattle would simply finish first. That was also why the original DEIS was for both West Seattle and Ballard.

             Of course, after the 2016 vote the first discussion was shifted to recommend tunneling in West Seattle.

       2. That is a great exposition of the details and reasons for the “why nots” of DSTT2, Ross. Thank you for expanding the original comment.

          I, too, want a “second tunnel, but one that diagonals into First Hill far enough to give riders access to The Hill’s institutions in all sorts of weather, including sleety snow.

          That can only come [eventually] by stopping The Redundel.

          1. One caveat, though. Technically, Forward Thrust had no stations between Westlake and UW, because it was never built. Sadly.

             It did propose four: Denny Way a bit east of Westlake, Broadway near Madison, 23 and Madison and Montlake Blvd at 520.

             That would indeed have been a powerful shaper of the Central District.

20. Most of the “Ballard Segment” ridership is projected to be the downtown stations. The actual Ballard station and Interbay station won’t be a lot. Per your article six years ago. https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/

    1. It is still more than West Seattle.

       As folks have mentioned up above, it is important to consider how many of the downtown riders would prefer being on the other train. The Westlake ridership numbers are very high because it includes people that currently ride the train (starting at Westlake) as well as people who will now be forced to transfer there (if they are headed from the UW to SeaTac for example). Thus counting the sections that basically exist already is misleading. It is far better to look at where we are adding stations to a new area:

       Ballard, Dravus, Prospect: 18,500
       Seattle Center, SR-99, SLU (Denny): 21,700
       Delridge, Fauntleroy, the Junction: 16,700

       But this assumes every station gets built. If we subtract the ridership of the missing stations, it gets even worse for two areas:

       Seattle Center, SLU: 17,200
       Delridge and the Junction: 11,900

       Ridership may not be hurt as much as this. Some of the riders may still use Link. There are other considerations. The ridership is high at places like the Seattle Center because it is assumed that riders will be going both directions. If the train ends there, that goes away. Thus it is quite possible that an extension to Ballard adds more riders than the extension from Westlake to the Seattle Center or what is in effect a line from Westlake to West Seattle.

21. There appears to be a consensus on the board as to how to proceed. There are three problems with the approach they are taking:

    1) They are focused on when a project will start, not when it will end. Technically, Federal Way Link started construction in 2013. Federal Way Link didn’t open until 2026. East Link started construction in 2016 and didn’t finish until a decade later. In both cases there were important interim improvements (Angle Lake for Federal Way and the “East Link Starter Line”). But for the bulk of the riders it really didn’t matter when those projects started — it mattered when they were done.

    The same thing is true with West Seattle Link. A stub line from SoDo to the Alaska Junction only adds a little bit of value. The key is when trains from from West Seattle to downtown. For that, ST feels convinced we need a second tunnel. Thus West Seattle Link is dependent on completing the second tunnel. This will obviously take a long time, no matter when we start work on West Seattle Link. There is no reason to believe that we can run a train from Westlake to West Seattle before we can run a train from Westlake to Ballard.

    2) The board is ignoring the cost effectiveness of each project. It is simply assumed that this is the best possible way to improve transit at every stage. Yet the projects were chosen in an arbitrary manner. No transit experts sat down and figured out which improvement were likely to be the best value. When faced with enormous cost-overruns, there was no reassessment. To anyone involved in any type of planning, this is shocking. Even in our day-to-day lives we change course depending on cost. But given they never considered the actual cost-effectiveness of the initial projects, it shouldn’t be surprising they don’t reassess them given new information. If cost-effectiveness is never an issue, then increased cost isn’t an issue.

    To be fair, measuring the efficacy of transit is always debatable. Ridership estimates are just that — estimates. The numbers can be misleading (especially if riders are forced from a different line or mode they would prefer). Calculating the aggregate time saved is better but can lead to favoring certain riders over others. But that begs the question — which riders matter? Consider Graham Street Station. It is likely the most cost effective project left. It could be completed long before the other projects. The only explanation I can find for this baffling decision is that the board cares more about riders from West Seattle than they do Rainier Valley. They have more clout. For a board made up of elected leaders who claim to care about social equity I find this decision disappointing, to say the least.

    3) There is a lack of creativity. Again, it is assumed that this is still the best way to improve transit. Even as we gain more knowledge as to what will be involved — extremely high costs and abandoning stations — this is supposedly the best option. These are the riders that matter most. Yet even within the given framework there is no creativity. It is assumed that rail is the best way to improve transit in West Seattle despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Even if we accept that dubious claim there is no attempt at reducing costs and improving the efficacy of the line. Scott Kubly and Trevor Reed have proposed running automated trains on the new lines in Seattle. It is highly likely that this would lead to substantial savings. It would definitely lead to more frequent trains, which would be better for riders. This is especially true in West Seattle, since it is almost entirely reliant on transfers (there are only 3 2 stations planned). It is also quite possible that this would lead to stations that are closer to the surface which would not only save money but be much better for riders. It is worth noting that Scott Kubly is the former head of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Trevor Reed is a transportation consultant. Thus they have more transportation expertise than all of the board put together (with the exception of the head of WSDOT, who rarely gets involved in the process). Yet the ideas of these two are not seriously considered.

    These types of problems are common for large organizations (and even small ones). They apply to all fields. They are especially common for organizations that have communication issues, which is the case with Sound Transit*. But this is not a minor issue. These projects are extremely expensive and from all the evidence, appear to be a poor value. This greatly increases the likelihood that we will never build the projects that are likely to be a better value. It is easy to assume that order doesn’t matter — that it will all get built eventually. But after spending a bundle on a project that didn’t improve things that much, cities are loathe to spend more money. They don’t care if “this one is better” — they will focus on other needs (which this city clearly has). Seattle is spending more per capita on transit than any other city. Now we are flirting with 75-year bonds. At this point, the board seems ready to cripple transit for generations.

    *I can’t find the report that led to this project within Sound Transit. It is clear that the agency lacked proper communication, so they added a layer of process on top. The audit was geared towards the staff and board. Yet there are clear problems at a higher level. The organization appears to be designed to avoid changing course, with Dow Constantine (the former chair of the board) now the current CEO. This is not the way a republic is supposed to operate.

    1. I think you’re generally spot on with these statements. The problem is more “so what?”. There isn’t a path forward to change the direction that it’s heading.

       I view the lack of “creativity” as a subset of a lack of “vision” generally. The Board just cannot give any importance to what the future rider experience will be more than naive lip service. Not transfer difficulty. Not large surges of riders using multiple escalators. Not extra travel time added by forcing double transfers where transit service is direct today. The inability to consider any automated rail technology nests in this stubbornness. It’s like a senior citizen keeping a land line and eschewing a smart phone.

       Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that they focus on when construction starts rather than when service opens. Not only is a December 31, 2032 opening off for West Seattle, it’s way off. It makes no sense given past project histories along with the massive Alaska Junction station vault and Duwamish bridge tower that must be built.

       I think too that there is a more systemic, unspoken and sinister motivation here: our regional version of the military-industrial complex. Let’s call it the engineering-developer-construction industrial complex. The goal seems to create the projects rather than to improve transit. So many Board member reelection campaigns are funded by reps from the engineering, development and construction industry. Organizations with altruistic names like Transportation Choices Coalition are bankrolled out of this industry too. This industry mainly wants to build! Their concern is about having that money spent and they care only tangentially about whether or not it makes travel faster for riders or the system more productive or even the opening date. To them, ST3 is a guarantee of future work and it’s better for them if the end date gets extended!

       The language often reveals the mentality. It’s “build” the damn trains; it’s not “build” a productive transit system that has faster transit travel times. The outcomes aren’t mattering; only the groundbreaking and billions in signed contracts are.

    2. Only thing I disagree with is “ A stub line from SoDo to the Alaska Junction only adds a little bit of value.”

       I can’t see it adding any value.

       Ok, so it’s separate from the West Seattle traffic.

       ODOT recently spent some millions of dollars to help remove congestion from a section of I-205. The estimate was that it would save drivers an average of about 2.5 minutes.

       Sure, congestion is very frustrating, but how much time is scolding it really going to gain people? To me, with the deep tunnel and transfer penalty, it seems like the proposed route takes more time than the existing buses for anything other than a fish truck level of traffic disaster.

    3. Is going for a 75 year bond ST’s backdoor way of extending ST3 to the 2090’s?

    4. >*I can’t find the report that led to this project within Sound Transit.

       This was entirely a Dow Constantine initiative, but likely motivated by some of the Technical Advisory Group advice on organizational efforts.

Comments are closed.