Sound Transit has an Executive Committee meeting right now (10:30am-12:30pm) to discuss the proposed ST3 system plan changes to reduce costs. The meeting page has links to the agenda, the proposal, a reports on the Enterprise Initiative, a TOD progress report, and a link to watch the meeting live remotely via Zoom. The meeting will start with public testimony for 45 minutes; then the committee members will debate the proposal. There will be no decision today; the decision will be in the May 28th full board meeting.
If you’re at the meeting, feel free to liveblog anything interesting below. A video of the meeting will be posted to ST’s YouTube channel within 48 hours.
While reading the TOD report, I was surprised to learn that the properties being sold to developers are being sold at big discounts over market rate. I guess I should have expected this, since the law requires the properties to be developed as primarily “affordable” (i.e. subsidized) housing. This effectively means that transit money is being diverted toward housing subsidies.
Subsidized housing is all well and good, but this is a piece of the puzzle (along with utility relocations, free parking garages, etc.) when we are wondering how it costs so much to build Link.
ST’s “80/80/80” policy (80% of surplus land must be turned into 80% affordable housing at 80% AMI) gets criticized every once in awhile, but like you said, the general expectation is that subsidized housing is all well and good. It also helps assuage concerns about a government agency taking land and then selling it to for-profit developers.
And, as the TOD report says, this will increase ridership. Transit routes near lower-income residents consistently perform better. What I think would be useful, when these decisions are made, is to estimate what the increase of ridership will be (which I believe ST already does for their parking garages) over just selling it to the highest bidder, and from that, the cost per rider.
Well, I think the assumption is the affordable housing developer would build at least as much housing as the private developer. Forcing a whole ridership analysis for every potential development is unnecessary bureaucratic burden. What would be the point, anyways?
ST has practically cancelled all new parking garages, so that comparison is moot, now, too.
This was due to a state law change around the early 2010s to address the affordable housing shortage. Sound Transit pushed for this to get cover to sell surplus post-construction lots at below market rate. So it is using transit money to solve a housing problem.
But the reason it exists is, cities and the public have loudly said the lack of affordable housing is the biggest problem in the state, so it needs an “all of the above” approach to solving it. This is one of the mechanisms to address the housing crisis. And it maximizes ridership too, because low income residents are the most likely to not have a car and to use public transit.
not surprised at all. These agencies are legendary for waste and just not caring about they money since it rains down the sky as they bleed taxpayers dry. There’s no consequences or accountability for waste and neglect so why would they care?
Tukwila Mayor Thomas McLeod bringing valid points for Boeing Access Road station (BAR being deferred due to high cost and low ridership while other projects are advanced despite high cost and low ridership).
King County Exec. Girmay Zahilay thinks proposal is almost acceptable, but wants more accountability measures in the motion and wants to move infill stations (“relatively inexpensive”) into the funded category. Zahilay wants “short-term transit contingencies” added in “high ridership areas” (but no mention of RapidRide D improvements which seem to have completely fallen off the ST3 project plan).
Pierce County Exec. Ryan Mello comparing the Enterprise Initiative to his “secret guilty pleasure” America’s Got Talent; Somers quips it seems more like Survivor. Mello notes that the projects funded in the proposal will bring 92% of the new ridership estimated in the original ST3 plan (so, BLE from Uptown to Ballard only counts for 8% of the ridership?). Notes he is committed to the entire ST3 plan, with emphasis on “entire”.
I don’t know how he measured that without Ballard Link.
Every trip is defined by origin and destination. Certain trips involving Pierce County, DSTT2, Kirkland, Issaquah, or West Seattle could disappear if Ballard link is cancelled.
I doubt a revised ridership projection has been done. He probably just assumed things go down proportionally.
Mello didn’t do any analysis himself; it’s presumably based on ST’s ridership data on a per-station basis. I doubt they did a comprehensive reanalysis of ridership trends for each potential mix-and-match scenario of network status in 2050.
I think that was a number in the staff power point presentation. Perhaps when the video is available folks can take a closer look and see if that’s really what was meant. Seems questionable that ridership wouldn’t take a great hit by stopping at Seattle Center, though I suppose many of the trips would not originate from/go to the end of the Ballard line.
(I’m really missing former committee member Claudia Balducci’s oft-insightful comments during these critical meetings)
WSDOT Secretary Julie Meredith says slide describing “off-ramps” for modifying projects during planning and design process is missing “on-ramps”, but doesn’t elaborate what she means by “on-ramps” (seems to be stretching the freeway metaphor). Says there should be more clarity on Board opportunities to manage projects.
“ I’m really missing former committee member Claudia Balducci’s oft-insightful comments during these critical meetings)”
I wish she would crash these meetings and shift the discussions! She’s the most astute and performance-measure-driven elected official we have when it comes to ST3.
Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson says “we’ve gotta build the damn trains”, referencing the advocacy campaign.
Notes the City has made significant progress on speeding permitting reviews for ST projects, pointing out that permitting required for geotechnical/structural testing on Harbor Island in preparation for construction of the Duwamish Crossing would have typically taken upwards of 240 days, but the city is about to deliver the approved permit in only 103 days.
Why are we still doing geotechnical testing for WSLE. It’s supposed to break ground this year lol
I’m not a structural engineer, but I am a geologist. I believe the work is to test potential pylon and foundation designs by doing special intensive tests. It will be the core pylon of the cable-stayed bridge so I assume there’s a lot of structural engineering that relies on very specific geotechnical data.
Typical politician looking for a good sound bite to deflect from the press making her famous for dodging simple questions she should be able to answer without her PR team blocking the interviews. What’s her financial plan? We’ll never know as she hides behind her PR team.
Seattle Councilmember Dan Strauss comments Ballard is the only metropolitan regional center which does not have an ST extension. Says there have been three major rezoning efforts in Ballard and it’s no longer the “sleepy fishing village” he grew up in. Wants the funded portion of BLE to be renamed the “Downtown Tunnel” since SODO to Uptown does not get to Ballard.
Notes that there are several “levers” to pull when building this proposal and this one mainly focuses on reducing capital costs and timeline delay rather than financial levers or other options, says he’s “very troubled” by BLE being the only extension not 100% funded at this time.
Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda says the proposal should be reframed as a commitment to building all parts of ST3, should be a “yes, and” commitment to provide greater clarity on ST’s near-future efforts to reduce design costs and gather additional financial tools like rental car taxes, 75-year bonds. Asks if financial plan can be cut down to a 6-year outlook instead of a 20-year outlook, since near-future is in balance while far future is uncertain and affected by near-future work.
The political momentum is behind getting WSLE built quickly as approved, this effectively eliminates Kubly and Reed’s pitch to reconnect Ballard and West Seattle with automated light metro as a possiblility.
This means those advocating for design solutions to the budget shortfall need to pivot to another idea. Going back to the previous proposal to increase capacity of the DSTT to allow interlining of the WSLE, and building BLE as a stand alone automated light metro line strikes me as the sensible path forward forward.
Service plan gets a bit messy with one line branching into three, but it’s definitely preferable to building a useless tunnel. Redirecting the downtown tunnel money to an elevated Metro 8 plus Ballard line would be a neat trick.
It’s not over until it’s over. Anything can happen between now and when ST signs construction contracts. Political winds can shift when one person says something that persuades others, or when the feds do something, or anything unanticipated happens. It may be unlikely, but it’s false to say it definitely won’t happen.
We have offered several suggestions that can be taken independently: single-tunnel upgrade, automated Ballard-Westlake line, automated Ballard-West Seattle line. The idea is to give ST as many good options as possible, so that even if it doesn’t like one, it may like another. How ST ultimately responds may be different from its initial reaction, and will depend on what third parties say or do in the meantime.
The problem isn’t persuasion. It is money. The claims of good ideas without financial analysis are dubious. Much like the single tunnel solution doesn’t fix the financial issues when cost, delays and disruptions are considered, any options that don’t account for those factors are not getting better with time. The elevated metro seems by far the most promising as Vancouver has proven it can be built cheaper but that option requires sound transit to hurt feelings and that’s not an option in Seattle where disrupting a residential view is less acceptable than billions in wasted capital
Much like the single tunnel solution doesn’t fix the financial issues when cost, delays and disruptions are considered
Bullshit. By Sound Transit’s own estimate it would save around $4 billion. It would also be less disruptive (since it wouldn’t go south of Westlake). You are simply wrong. I’m tired of correcting you. Read the article I referenced before. https://www.theurbanist.org/eliminating-second-seattle-rail-tunnel-could-save-4-5b-but-with-major-impacts-delays/. Hell, I’ll copy the summary:
While the line could eventually connect to the rest of the system via a future phase, it would need its own operations and maintenance facility, likely sited somewhere in the Interbay area. Even with that expense, it would still be expected to save $4 billion, though adding on a full operations and maintenance facility (OMF) into the project adds much more risk, especially considering urban land prices in Seattle.
No additional property acquisition would be required with this alternative outside that OMF, as it would be built within the same right of way as the current planned project. All of these design elements add up to much less risk than the interlining option.
The problem isn’t persuasion. It is money.
Yes, but it is also planning and priorities. Right now the plan is to build West Seattle Link and a second tunnel before going north of the monorail. This is backwards. The priority should be Ballard to Westlake.
The elevated metro seems by far the most promising as Vancouver has proven it can be built cheaper
Much of Vancouver’s system is underground. Much of our system is supposed to be above ground. Look at Canada Line. It starts above ground in the suburbs. Then it goes underground inside downtown. Not that different than the original plans for Ballard Link (although now they want to tunnel under the ship canal instead of going over). Even so, Ballard Link would have a considerable segment that is above ground. One major difference is that Canada Line is automated. This allowed them to build smaller stations. As Kubly pointed out, the Canada Line has much smaller stations but twice the capacity of Ballard Link. As he put it, “The Canada Line was delivered on time and to budget. That budget and timeline? $6.7 billion (converted to 2025 US dollars), less than six years, for almost 12 miles of transit.”
The problem isn’t just money, it is how you spend it.
“the single tunnel solution doesn’t fix the financial issues when cost, delays and disruptions are considered”
ST hasn’t fully studied it, and the initial conclusion it raised is dubious. How can it possibly not cost less if you don’t build a mile of tunnel through the densest part of downtown? Give it a proper study so we can really see what the factors are and how much they’d cost and weigh them. Without that ST is making a blind decision.
ST is risk-averse. They would rather have a guaranteed crappy system than risk having a good one.
Increasing capacity of the existing tunnel doesn’t actually save money. This horse has been beaten to death.
The preliminary study suggested up to $4.5 billion in savings. That didn’t include the potential savings from changing the BLE to automated, which would be an option if it were a stand alone line.
A special meeting will be held next week to allow time for additional public comment and other items. Presumably we’ll see some early amendments to Chair Somers’ proposed Resolution considered.
If this is what it is, I think cities along unbuilt part of ST3 that are given higher priority should be required to take over some of the Ballard’s growth target and upzoned more aggressively than state requirement.
There is no way Ballard can grow as City of Seattle planned without any substantial transportation improvement across ship canal by 2050.
With HB 1491 as law, all cities will have to soon upzone in a 1/2 mile radius of any station that opens. It’s a bigger radius than some of these cities may think.
I wonder how many station areas are already on the radar screens of developers.
Growth’s main barrier isn’t the light rail. The idea this can’t happen unless there is light rail is dubious. The main factors preventing growth is cost of construction, opposition of existing residents, and regulations. Ballard is also close enough to be perfectly served by bus upgrades which can easily accommodate whatever growth happens between now and when light rail arrives. There’s also plenty of mediocre land utilization around existing stations specially in Rainier Valley, but also around the newly opened segments. Until these areas which are closer are saturated, requiring areas that are further out and not yet served is ridiculous.