Yesterday, the Sound Transit Board Executive Committee reviewed a proposal assembled by the three county executives to realign ST3 for the second time. Although much of the hubbub since has focused on certain decisions presented in that proposal, including plans to temporarily truncate the Ballard Link Extension to Seattle Center and indefinite deferral of the south Seattle infill stations, an understated assumption of the plan includes discontinuation of the Sounder N Line beginning in 2033.
In 2003, Sound Transit purchased a perpetual right from BNSF to run passenger trains on the Burlington Northern tracks between Everett and downtown Seattle for $385 million. Unfortunately, the Sounder N Line (known as Sounder North) has never quite lived up to expectations, and ending operations of the line has been a been contentious but common thread whenever Sound Transit’s operations are in question.
Although the N Line lags its S Line counterpart in ridership recovery, ending service in 2033 would permanently leave riders from Edmonds and Mukilteo without a fast connection to Downtown Seattle. Riders used to boarding at Sounder’s north terminus would have to wait until 2041 for Link light rail to reach Everett Station. Additionally, it’s unclear what would happen to Sound Transit’s hard-fought and paid-for right to run eight trains daily amongst BNSF’s freight operations along the route.
It is also unclear how significant the savings from ending the N Line in 2033 could be relative to Sound Transit’s massive capital expansion plans, but those who wish for this service to continue at least until the Everett Link Extension is completed should write strongly worded letters to Sound Transit Board Chair Dave Somers and the rest of the Sound Transit Board.
The Sound Transit Executive Committee will be holding a special meeting next week at an undetermined date and time to hear additional public comment regarding the proposed realignment of ST3.
The cost per rider of this line is staggering as what BNSF charges ST for operating this mediocre frequency service is borderline robbery. I’ve used it numerous times and love it, but it is a completely irresponsible use of taxpayer’s money.
Agreed. They should shift money from this to bus service. Run a few more trips of the 510. Mukilteo already has the 117, an express bus timed with the ferry.
That basically leaves Edmonds. Downtown Edmonds has been the “odd man out” for a while. It is one of the more dense, urban and attractive parts of Snohomish County. Yet it doesn’t have a great connection to Link. Sound Transit should use some of the saving to run an all-day, fifteen minute bus from Downtown Edmonds to 185th Station. It would initially follow the pathway of the Community Transit (CT) 909, until it got to SR-99. Then it would head south on SR-99 until 185th and go straight to the station. I could see it skipping some stops along 185th but serving the stops along SR-99 (served by CT buses and the RapidRide E) would add plenty of value. Community Transit would be free to keep the 909 but they might decide to abandon it, and put money into other routes instead.
The 117 may be timed with the ferry, but when the ferry runs late (as is not unusual), the bus leaves anyway. Last time I took it (admittedly several months ago), the ferry was 6-7 minutes late arriving at Mukilteo and as we queued up on deck to disembark I watched the bus pull away. As it was a Saturday evening the bus was only hourly, so there was a 55 minute wait for the next one. It was a nice enough evening to wait and I wasn’t in a rush, but were that part of my daily life I wouldn’t be counting on it as a dependable means of transportation.
(That said CT really improved the 117’s routing in the Lynnwood Link restructure and it could be really viable to/from Whidbey if it held for the ferry or at least additional buses were added to match the ferry schedule as necessary – generally just evening runs.)
Yes it’s a very big subsidy.
This gets to a bigger issue that ST needs to consider performance more significantly in funding its various operations.
Every transit operation has a constituency. People’s travel needs are valid concerns. But transit cannot run everywhere to everywhere frequently at all hours of the day because it’s just too expensive to do.
It shouldn’t be so expensive to run. They shouldn’t remove these essential services.
It shound’t but it is. And in this case, with the Sounder N line, travel time is too much, for the value gained. Replacing Sounder service with bus service is the best way to go, especially if it connects to the 1/2 light rail lines. Sounder N line runs in the morning and evening only, and in the peak direction. These alternatives are all day.
one of the issues is the connection of the north line to Seattle downtown. You spend 5-10 minutes going through the Seattle train tunnel then have to double back to the North for your destination. A waste of 10 – 30 minutes that make the I-5 bus / light rail more attractive. We need a Denny way or Elliot Ave train station for connection to Metro Bus and Ballard line light rail.
The Seattle Transportation Plan shows infill stations on the N Line in Ballard, Interbay and Belltown. This would make the N Line worth running, provide fast in-Seattle service, and have rail grade-separated service already running to Ballard as soon as a boarding platform.
Let’s get it done!
See page T-44 of the ‘Transit Element’: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/STP/Transit.pdf
How would you get from Ballard station to the middle of Ballard where most people live and work? It would be a long walk, or they’d have to take a bus feeder or drive. That’s not “serving Ballard”.
Extend the 44 to Rays or better yet Shilshole and Golden Gardens.
Burke Gilman Trail for the non lazy.
That’s not a subway to Ballard. You need a station in walking distance of the center. In Paris and New York, people leave their neighborhood-center cafe or apartment and a subway station is just steps away. That’s the kind of transit mobility large urban villages and cities need. Not a station off at the edge as if the village’s walkshed didn’t matter.
There’s no way Sounder could run every 10 minutes in that constrained right of way without kicking off freight. BNSF would never agree to it because freight is its profit center, and the state would never agree to it because freight means jobs and essential commodities. If Sounder ran hourly, it would be all-day service, but it would be as useless as a bus running every hour (like the Des Moines waterfront has to KDM station). Not something that addresses Ballard’s mobility needs.
Where did anyone say it was supposed to be a “subway to Ballard”, Mike? For some passengers it would be a boon, especially if bus service were extended to it, but it would never be a replacement for Link/automated metro. It is something that could be done much faster, however. Would the cost benefit of a couple of extra minutes’ added to the schedule be worth it? I don’t know, but the “subway” comment is a misdirect. The infill stations at Belltown and Interbay make more sense if done right.
The N line would be better if it did this:
– not terminate in Seattle, but extend south to downtown Renton – that line is intact, mainly grade separated, and has layover space at the DT Renton station
– add stops at (at least) Belltown and Interbay; Belltown – with transit connection improvements – to improve trips to the Center, LQA, and SLU instead of backtracking from the south end of downtown; Interbay to be co-located with the Smith Cove or Interbay Link/automated metro station and bus service
– return the idea of the Boeing Access Road station as an intermodal station between Link and Sounder as it would now serve both the N and S Sounder lines
I would also extend the S line past downtown to the Interbay intermodal station, also serving Belltown; these changes would add a large number of potential trip pairs that currently aren’t possible or feasible, would add Renton to the network, and would provide enhanced connectivity between systems.
This may not fix the white elephant that Sounder North seems to be, but it would provide more people a better option to places hard to get to currently, and would perhaps thereby add riders to the system.
RE Renton and Sounder:
S Line stops at Tukwila station. That station is on the Renton city limits. It’s just about a mile to the new ST garage being built at Grady and Rainier.
Note too that the Renton airport runway approach means that the FAA won’t let Renton have tall buildings.
The ride from the station today to the current Downtown transit center on RapidRide F takes 15 minutes. From the new transit center location, 10 minutes is likely doable.
ST probably should revisit how Sounder S could be expanded before doing anything else new — including finding out if BNSF would go along.
Finally, the ST Board moved what ST calls the BAR Link station to East Marginal Way and 112th. (It’s why I call that the Allentown Station instead.) It’s now too far from the Sounder tracks to make transfers easily possible.
“[BAR station is] now too far from the Sounder tracks to make transfers easily possible.”
Who will transfer there? Going from where to where? Why should Link that runs every 6 minutes have a transfer to a train that runs a few times a day weekdays only, that precludes a station on Tukwila International Boulevard where more people and bus transfers all day are?
Two of Tukwila’s reasons for pushing for BAR station are for better access to the Museum of Flight/Aviation High School and a planned village at 144th. Both of those are on the way of the 124. Putting the station at Sounder would require buses to detour to the station, especially impacting people riding north-south past the station. Why should people have to do that 24 hours when Sounder has only a few runs a day?
People transferring between Sounder and Link can do so at King Street Station.
Mike, I agree in principle that a Sounder BAR station is an unproductive idea. I’m just highlighting that moving the Link station makes it much more unproductive.
It’s a response to this up in the thread:
“– return the idea of the Boeing Access Road station as an intermodal station between Link and Sounder as it would now serve both the N and S Sounder lines”
Nice catch! These infill stations would make ST North much more useful.
Of course the infill stations would make ST North more useful ONLY if it runs in both directions throughout the day. Currently ST North runs south in the morning and north in the evening. ST North service is scheduled only for commuters from Everett to Seattle and is completely useless for anyone living in Seattle. That is, its completely useless to most of the people as scheduled.
Rep Julia Reed teased an announcement on heavy rail a few weeks ago and I am hoping ST North (and South) service schedules will be updated. Perhaps WSDOT can take over this route and make the schedule useful for people in Seattle.
Even if it has more downtown Seattle statiosn and a station at Ballard, the service is still not as useful as 17X.
The entire line is poorly located for 10-mile commute. Not many people work around King St or proposed Belltown Stations and live around Sounder N Stations to benefit from Sounder N Line service.
Without better tracks and frequency, any ideas that fantasizes N Line isn’t going anywhere at this point.
As others have said, it just doesn’t work. This is commuter rail. Turning it into a regional metro (running frequently) would be extremely expensive (we would essentially have to buy out BNSF). But commuter rail often runs infrequently. That’s OK because the distances are so large that it saves riders a significant amount of time. That is not the case in Ballard, let alone the poor station location. Instead of riders taking a bus to the station they would be better off just riding a bus downtown.
The same thing is true with Interbay. It might get a few more riders walking to the station, but only a few dozen, at most.
Belltown is different. Belltown is downtown. Commuter rail runs from the suburbs to downtown, so extending the South Line to Belltown is quite reasonable. This would help riders working in the north end of downtown.
I don’t see where anyone is calling for a regional metro on this line, Ross – it will never, nor should it ever, be more than a commuter line. If successful, and perhaps my suggestions above would make it more so, it could run more frequently – but it wouldn’t ever be a metro. Until one is built to Ballard in the distant future there are some trips it might help but honestly Belltown would be far more important even today (with appropriate connecting bus service).
The point is a commuter rail stop for Ballard would not get many riders. Without frequent service it loses out to far more frequent buses, like the 40 and RapidRide D. In contrast, the alternative for someone from Edmonds is to take a bus to Link and then take Link several stops until they get downtown. Those riders find Sounder attractive, even if they have to take a bus (or drive) to the station.
I agree with this, but that’s not what you (or Mike) said above. You describe how expensive a “regional metro (running frequently)” would be – but that’s not what anyone here has said should happen with Sounder North. At best it may add some marginal utility for relatively little cost, but it’s by far the least useful of the three infill stations discussed (Belltown should already have been done; Interbay would be useful if designed thoughtfully as an intermodal connection to other modes of transit).
It would not be good enough to be worth it even if the stations are inexpensive and can open soon, because of the track’s distance from the pedestrian concentrations.
As to extending Sounder North to Renton or Sounder South to Ballard, those are interesting ideas, but that’s not even on ST’s or BNSF’s radar. You could start a movement to study it and see what the feasibility factors are.
“That’s OK because the distances are so large that it saves riders a significant amount of time.”
It’s not OK but that’s another issue. Commuter rail here runs a few times a day. Commuter rail in New York or Europe runs every 5-30 minutes all day/full time (PATH, S-Bahn). That’s what you need for regional mobility and maximum ridership. But that’s not realistic for Sounder, because of the narrow right of way in the north end (squeezed between the Sound and a cliff), BNSF ownership, and legitimate freight rail needs. So anything on the BNSF track can’t do that. And the BNSF track doesn’t go through neighborhood centers where it could have a station right at the center, or even in the center, so it’s not a good solution for Ballard’s or Interbay’s mobility.
NOoOoOoO…
🥺 ¿Why not consider to expand the Sounder North Line to Marysville and potentially Stanwood too? 🥺
Marysville and Stanwood are outside the ST tax district. Snohomish County would have to fund it.
“Marysville and Stanwood are outside the ST tax district. Snohomish County would have to fund it.”
Many North Snohomish County communities have requested for ST to expand their district into the latter for that specific reason! The Tulalip Tribe and Marysville/Arlington have wanted Sounder way back in the day! And that was in the 2000s, though I feel you. Cutting Sounder North is just done to save money due to low performance though there should be room for improvement but now’s not a good time though.
Somers, what about Sounder South? They should be cancelling it too (even though I can imagine the controversy) and replace it with ST express! That way you save money by not running it, no capacity improvements nor DuPont extension… Plus, tell BNSF to take back the section from Tacoma to Nisqually and you get some more bucks! We also save money on no Sounder South Maintenance Base and avoid adding fare gates for Sounder (which would be hard and would probably be considered now with light rail planned to get them).
Sounder South sees nearly 10x more ridership so I don’t think that’s a valid comparison…
Sounder North is pretty and I think we should keep it to some extent. It’s a shame to lose it.
I don’t think either Stanwood or Marysville would produce sufficient ridership to make it worthwhile.
It Sounder were made a local shadow to Amtak Cascades and went all the way to Bellingham, I think the ridership would significantly improve, plus you’d be getting a lot more out of the crew time.
Trains should be really cheap if we automated and did them right.
Just imagine being able to board a fast 125 mph train up and down I-5 and I-405 any time of the day?
No one would even ask for a peak hour express anymore. Regional mobility will be significantly improved.
European systems prioritize regional rail. Not sure why we can’t. We have the populations justifying it outside of Seattle.
I don’t think the automation would be that big a cost saver with the need for human safety backups. IMO the thing that we sort of messed up, not locally but as a country, back in the day was nationalizing the passenger service on private tracks. Much of Europe and Asia work the other way around: publicly owned tracks with private service, just like roads for automobiles. The only surviving interurban in the U.S., the Lakeshore Line in Indiana (electrified too!), exists and recently opened a new branch because Indiana took control of the track instead of just the service.
Yeah automation won’t only save the costs. We needed to preserve the passenger rail industry which the car lobbyists destroyed.
But automation will solve the frequency and lack of operator issue. We can just run the trains all day whenever we want without worrying about ballooning operation costs.
The passenger rail industry isn’t dying. Amtrak has record ridership, regional rail in the US is robust and expanding, private HSR is operating profitably in Florida, and the same company is building a LA-Las Vegas corridor. Amtrak’s federal subsidy is as uncertain from year to year as it has always been. Minnesota added a regional line a few years ago, and the Midwest is on-again, off-again pursuing a regional network. WSDOT has a long-term plan for Cascades, more modest than we’d like, but it’s continuously doing incremental upgrades to support more runs and slightly faster trains in the future.
I’m not sure if light/metro rail is part of this “passenger rail” category since it doesn’t run on mainline tracks. The fortunes of metro/light rail have been more volatile, since sometimes an agency expands, and other times it has a transit-budget recession and reduces service to half-hourly, so at that point it’s not ordering new trains.
The problem with the US passenger rail market is not that it’s dying, but that even when it’s expanding the total market is so small and intermittent that many international companies won’t set up US factories because there’s are not enough continuous volume of orders.
The state should just take over the slots from BNSF, run two Amtrak Cascades runs that work with commuters, offer a commuter friendly fare structure, and terminate in Bellingham. I guess Cascades would also stop in Mukilteo. I feel like that’d be better for everyone
I like that, maybe WSDOT can just lease the existing Sounder trains instead of procuring through the Amtrak system.
I think with the new Airo trains arriving they should have enough rolling stock to do this regardless – since more trains to Bellingham is part of the plan anyways. But they probably could do it with Sounder rolling stock too as needed.
Having Amtrak operate it would force BNSF to charge only its incremental expenses and to give it more priority with freight trains. due to the quirky federal laws around Amtrak. The trainset doesn’t matter, or whether it says “Cascades” on the side.
WSDOT/Amtrak don’t have an existing agreement for adding additional capacity to Vancouver BC or Bellingham. I’m sure they’ve had discussions, but there isn’t an agreement in place. If WSDOT wants to offer more Amtrak Cascades service north of Everett, it will have to negotiate with BNSF for access. BNSF will surely require WSDOT pay for an additional passing track between Stanwood and Mt. Vernon, and more sidings south of Bellingham to allow freight operations to run without interference from passenger trains.
ST has already paid for the infrastructure upgrades in the Puget Sound region that allow 8 daily passenger trains to operate between Seattle and Everett without interfering with freight traffic. If WSDOT could obtain the ST slots–and with BNSF’s agreement–Amtrak Cascades could add more service between Seattle and Everett without paying for major infrastructure improvements.
Some possibilities for Cascades enhancements using the Sounder North slots:
The once-daily Amtrak Cascades midday trains that run between Portland and Vancouver BC generate good ridership on one-seat segments like Portland to Everett, Tacoma to Bellingham, Mt. Vernon to Portland. A Cascades train leaving Bellingham at 600am would arrive in Everett at about 725am and arrive in Seattle about 830am. That train could then become the 855am departure to Portland and offer many more one-seat ride opportunities.
The SEAVAC corridor doesn’t currently offer midday train service. But another midday train could be added between Portland and Bellingham with bus connections offered to Vancouver BC.
There’s also the long-shot possibility of a second daily train to Spokane that would run during daylight hours. That train would need another slot between Seattle and Everett.
Adding additional Cascades trains between Seattle and Everett wouldn’t be very expensive. Trains to Bellingham would require some money for track improvements. Extending trains to Vancouver BC would get very expensive.
What’s the limiting factor in expanding more than two daily trains to Vancouver that would make it so expensive?
“What’s the limiting factor in expanding more than two daily trains to Vancouver that would make it so expensive?”
The BC/Canadian government doesn’t support or prioritize Cascades as much as Washington and Oregon do. There are probably costs and approvals to get customs to stand up for more train runs.
Yeah, that does seem better.
It makes conceptual sense to me, too.
The biggest potential obstacle I see is what the additional cost would be to modify the Cascades operating agreement to have additional train trips north of Everett.
We’ve suggested for years that the state buy the BNSF corridor, add a track south of downtown primarily for passenger trains, and shift some of the freight to the UP track. That would allow for a more extensive Cascades that could subsume Sounder’s role or have short Sounder-branded supplemental runs, and give a path forward for “high-speed” rail (125 mph, previously called medium speed). The state has much more legal clout and tax authority than Sound Transit does, so it would be more able to do it. But the state hasn’t been interested. It’s just plugging away at its modest incremental upgrades for Cascades.
I’m not sure the BNSF corridor is really fungible with the UP corridor south of downtown. I see lots of spurs (and presumably customers) served by one and not the other. That’s a fixable problem, but not one without issue. On a broader scale, I’d be curious about how many trains use the line between Seattle and Everett, and for what reason. It’s the only reasonable link between many parts of the BNSF network from Canada and Stevens Pass, but I only have a cursory understanding of BNSF freight volumes, and not o/d information.
And I’m pretty sure 125 mph operation is never going to be on the table, since the FRA does not allow any grade crossings at that speed. 110 mph operation (class 6 track) is where most of the higher speed rail proposals I’ve seen have landed (Chicago to St. Louis, etc.) primarily for this reason.
Mike, we’re talking about Sounder N here: as you very well know the alignment between Ballard and Everett is 100% along the water, twisting and turning with the coast line. How in the world do you think you’re gonna run high speed rail there?
Even if that was remotely possible, why should BNSF sever their connections to BC and across the Cascades? Keep in mind you can’t eminent domain railroads; you are going to have to convince BNSF that it’s somehow worth it to sever these connections; or at least to drastically reduce freight service. Why should they accept the deal?
In which universe is there enough space in SoDo to make another mainline appear? To be honest, it could be this one, but I’d need to see some proof of that. That’s a bold claim.
Not all freight traffic can magically shift over to the UP/ex-MILW main, because it’s single tracked.
No amount of adding tracks will change the fact that heavy rail has just two tracks going under downtown. There will always be a freight-passenger bottleneck.
(Sure, you can solve many of these problems by saying “we can just build a new alignment”; but at that point you may as well expand the Link to Edmonds and Mukilteo instead. The entire point of Sounder is that it’s optimized around using existing freight rail.)
I think you are missing the point, Peter. If the pathway between Everett and Vancouver BC is substantially faster, then a trip from Seattle to Vancouver BC is faster. If it is faster, we will want additional trips. Adding additional trips on the BNSF right-of-way costs money. We would be better off negotiating those rights between ST and WSDOT rather than BNSF and WSDOT.
If you look at the technical proposal put out by WSDOT (https://www.aawa.us/site/assets/files/7322/2006_washington_state_long-range_plan_for_amtrak_cascades.pdf) you are right about the section between downtown Seattle and Everett. There isn’t a lot that would be done there. (You can see the list of projects starting at page 80.) They want to improve the bridge in Ballard and add some track up in Everett. That is about it. But there are lots of improvements north of there that could make a big difference. On page 47 they list the travel time from Seattle to Vancouver dropping from 3:55 to 2:37. Where that improvement comes from is largely irrelevant to the discussion. With trains running that fast, lots of us want them to run often. Having the right of way for this section would be valuable.
There’s a large number of lines just like it all over the world. Higher speed passenger trains on existing curving lines has been a solved problem on every continent other than Antarctica and North America.
See, e.g.: Japan 381 series or Sweden’s X2000.
“we’re talking about Sounder N here: as you very well know the alignment between Ballard and Everett is 100% along the water, twisting and turning with the coast line. How in the world do you think you’re gonna run high speed rail there?”
I was talking about expanding south of downtown. North of downtown I don’t think it’s feasible because of the narrow cliffside and the need for some freight traffic. It’s not necessary either because the track misses the population centers of Lynnwood and Edmonds. The Mukilteo and Edmonds waterfronts have too few people to justify Sounder, and it’s out-of-direction for most of the population around 99 and I-5. Everett-Seattle by the 510 or 512+Link is in the same travel-time ballpark, and Everett-Seattle Link would be the same except for the 10-minute Paine Field detour that Snohomish County is insisting on. And Snohomish County is already ready to terminate Sounder North by 2033.
The Mukilteo and Edmonds waterfronts should have the fastest nonstop express buses with favorable schedules to mitigate their loss of Sounder service, and for people transferring from the West Sound to Link.
Sell the slot rights to the state.
Original plans for the N Line had stops in Ballard and in Richmond Beach. What happened to those stations?
Did it have those stops? I’ve never seen it on any official plans, just third-party commentators suggesting it.
I believe thecold Great Northern sballard station still exists but it’s a private home now. There’s still the issue of the bridge at the locks..
I am frequent user of Ballard Lock.
Train passes through that bridge on a shocking slow speed. I think it is probably less than 30 mph.
I just don’t think that kind of infrastructure can run any reliable transit service.
That’s not very slow. Link runs even slower than that 90% of the time 😂
North Sounder is funded by the Snohomish county subarea; North King subarea has more Link dreams than it can afford.
If the state buys the slot rights, could that one-time money get Everett Link all the way to the Paine Field Terminal, instead of just stopping at an anti-transit center in the middle of nowhere? Scoliosis with purpose?
Who’s whining about it ending?
Edmonds and Mukilteo?
Maybe they should upzone the area around the stations.
Oh, yeah, the wealthy living up in the bowl don’t want their views tainted by any of the common folk. They were able to get a quiet[er] zone put in (in lieu of a $250m trench) because they “paid a million [gazillion] dollars for their condo[home]” and didn’t deserve to suffer through the train horns.
Of course, Edmonds had to pay for the upgrade, hence the cheaper option (with flashy red X’s even).
Edmonds and Mukilteo need to do the right thing.
And while ST is at it, they should put a temporary style station at Belltown, as they did with Tukwila. That station cost roughly the same as a three bedroom split level home. Belltown already has the pedestrian overpass, so access is available to both tracks.
Otherwise, I agree, Sounder North should cease, because it seems the well-to-do NIMBY crowd gets to decide what the common folk deserve.
Kinda like how it took Nixon to open to China, it took Dave Somers to finally kill this abominable waste. Every dollar on these trains is a dollar less for Link and ST Express. #choices
The truly abominable waste is if Everett Link scoliates just to serve an anti-transit center just a short bus / Lyft transfer away from the Paine Field Terminal. That’s one more reason I’d like to see the state buy the slot rights.
Either make the spine a spine, or give purpose to the scoliosis. Pick one, Mr. Sommers.
I don’t see any great options for the “Southwest Industrial Center” station. You could serve Paine Field, but it is a minor airport. Employment is so low it doesn’t show up on the OnTheMap website. In contrast, SeaTac airport is a major regional employer. The same thing is true for people using the airport for flights — it is pretty small. Of course this could change. It is a bit surprising no one in Snohomish County is trying to turn this into a significant airport and push the station there.
There are issues. It is actually farther from Airport Road to the terminal than it is from the SeaTac Station to the terminal. This means you would either have to build a big walkway or deviate from the road substantially (or both). Again, maybe the terminal grows that direction but it might not.
Part of the problem is that it would push the station away from Boeing, which is a major employer. There is a lot more employment density than at Paine Field. But even Boeing requires shuttle service. So to a certain extent it doesn’t matter. If the airport grows then they will run more shuttles from the station, wherever they put it. This may be combined with the Boeing shuttle. But for now, the Boeing shuttle is bound to be get the most riders which is why the case for it is stronger.
What makes the most sense is to just have two stations with the second one being provisional. First add the Boeing Station. Then make sure the tracks are straight close to the airport so that you can add that station later, in case the airport grows substantially.
I’m kind of surprised there’s not a larger push for Paine Field as well. From my understanding SeaTac is at capacity (and far past its original intended capacity) with very little room to grow. I think there’s basically zero chance we site a new airport, and Paine Field seems like the most realistic option for the region as it keeps growing
Santa Clara Valley transit built light rail through their suburban employment district north of US 101 between Sunnyvale and San Jose in a setting similar to the SW Everett/ Paine Field diversion planned here (actually a stronger setting for transit because the corridor is more populous and job rich, and San Jose’s airport — with a terminal that is not connected but is close to light rail — is much busier than Paine Field could ever hope to be, and it now connects to frequent BART in one direction and frequent Caltrain in the other). It opened over 30 years ago. Ridership remains embarrassingly pathetic! VTA struggles to justify 15 minute service.
I am curious that how much bus service can N Line operating budget fund. Will it be enough to run 909 every 30 minutes? If so, I think they should end N Line as soon as possible.
The N-Line is essentially a limo for commuters who have a view of the sound from their back patio. If you subtract event service on ‘Hawk days, which were always standing room only, you’re left with paltry ridership and VERY expensive operational costs.
I was in high school in Edmonds when the Sounder was first announced in 2003. I was so excited. And it’s a very beautiful commute and would be more helpful with the line was extended to Marysville and Mt Vernon. But it’s clear the N-Line is not worth the cost.
Finally! They’re cutting something that’s not worth the run. But what will they do in return? Yeah, keep the money probably and not spend a cent of it on better feeders to light rail. Somers, have you been reading my mind?
An article from today’s Everett Herald gives a little more info.
“As part of the updated Sound Transit 3 system plan, which seeks to close that funding gap, the Sounder N line, a commuter rail line running from Everett to Seattle, would cease to operate by 2033. Parking projects planned along the Everett Link Extension would also be deferred.
-SNIP-
Regarding the decision to recommend discontinuing Sounder service, a spokesperson for Somers wrote Friday that the proposal was brought forth by Sound Transit staff because of the lower ridership along the commuter rail line and the high subsidies required to provide the service.
-SNIP-
Sounder commuter rail has been operating the N line — which connects Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds to downtown Seattle — since 2003. But after the COVID-19 pandemic, ridership on the commuter rail line languished and has never really recovered, Sound Transit data shows. Only four trains per weekday run in each direction, and its fares are more expensive than using buses to connect to light rail. In April, the rail service only provided around 565 rides per day.
“The Board can revisit this decision if ridership meaningfully improves in the years ahead or should new funding or cost efficiencies emerge,” Bray added.”
https://www.heraldnet.com/2026/05/08/proposed-sound-transit-plan-would-spare-everett-link-from-delays/
There is a paywall on the article.
I used to take the Sounder to Seahawks games but since the Link was extended to Northgate it was easier to take that instead.
Contrary to what people on this blog says, regional rail is an asset to the region and completely ignored.
https://www.theurbanist.org/puget-sound-regional-rail/
Some of the proposed lines there should be a bus with minimal stops and Rapid Ride technology, but otherwise this is a solid plan. ST4 and ST5 should fund these.
Seattle should establish their own Transit agency to build out their light rail and subway.
The only reason light rail could sub in for some of these is so they can run along the existing 2 Line in Bellevue and 1 Line in Downtown/UW. Otherwise regional rail is preferred for all of these cities.
I would not say that Sounder is ignored. I think many regulars would support transitioning Sounder South into an all-day, frequent regional rail in the abstract. Two way service every 30 minutes or less would be awesome! So much of the South King and Pierce transit realities would be so much better as feeder buses would then be reoriented serve this new frequent transit trunk.
The obstacle is of course the railroad negotiations. ST’s negotiating situation makes significantly expanding service beyond what’s offered very expensive. It’s not the railroad being greedy per se either; adding trains takes administrative effort partly because other trains also use the tracks.
As for Sounder North, the difficulty of creating a regional rail upgrade is much more significant than Sounder South. Not only is ridership only about 7-8% of Sounder South, but there are also fewer tracks and narrower right of way to use so upgrading would be fairly massive to upgrade.
I even wonder if ST has planted this story as a negotiation tactic. Saying to the larger public that you are willing to walk away from a deal is a great way to get the other party to reduce their demands. 2033 is not a strategic year to suddenly stop service because Everett Link won’t open until a few years later.
The summary of the operating agreement defining Sounder North service today is explained in this 2020 Board action (note the end date requirements):
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2020/Motion%20M2020-66.pdf
Part of the public including STB authors have been asking ST to terminate Sounder North ever since Lynnwood Link was being finalized. Snohomish could have spent the money on accelerating Lynwood Link and Everett Link and providing replacement ST Express buses for Mukilteo and Edmonds riders.
Sounder North’s ridership is only around 200, some of which board at Everett where they have other choices. Sounder North misses the primary population concentrations around 99 and I-5 that should be ST’s focus. The hillside has several mudslides every year, and BNSF suspends passenger service for 48 hours per federal regulation. ST does not provide replacement buses for most of those occasions, so it seems to think there are enough empty seats on existing buses for all 200 people, and they can drive to a different P&R as necessary.
ST has always refused to cancel Sounder North, saying voters expect it to continue forever. In the past few years it has started to say it might cancel it in the ST3 era or because of the budget shortfall. This is another step toward saying it’s getting more serious about canceling it. I doubt it has anything to do with getting more favorable terms from BNSF, but who knows.
Is there any chatter about long-term integration or planning for Amtrak Cascades? I know it uses the same route and supplements Sounder North through the Rail Plus program. Also, if we wanted intercity and commuter rail to match some kind of international standard, like a Takt system (I can dream, right?), wouldn’t that require investment in through-running, electrification, and — dare I say it — downtown tunneling? Since the rail system would serve the broader state, it seems like you could make a case for more state support and, depending on the administration, possibly federal funding too. Julia Reed, who has taken the lead in the Washington State Legislature on expanding Amtrak Cascades service, might also help move something like this forward, and this overlaps a ton with her district.
Nothing public about using ST’s passenger service easement/entitlement for Amtrak service, because ST has not yet adopted any dates for terminating either Sounder service. It has been proposed more than a few times by advocates seeking to boost the number of Cascades runs, and WSDOT has proposed increasing the number of Cascades runs without explaining the exact logistics behind how it would convince BNSF to let it run them. I think the unofficial expectation is that eventually ST will transfer some Sounder runs to WSDOT, but it’s hard to say since ST also wants to buy more Sounder runs for Sounder South.
I see comments are dancing around one overarching structural problem: not enough stations. There are only four!
Any long-distance transit service with just four stops (1 destination and 3 origins in low density areas) has a hard time generating ridership regardless of what technology is used.
When I read suggestions that the line needs additional stops — like adding stations further north like Arlington or adding infill stations in Seattle — I see this as trying to remedy this underlying structural problem of too few stops. But adding one or two stops still won’t be enough.
With nearby Link already to Lynnwood and hopes to be open to at least Mariner if not Downtown Everett in the next 10-12 years, beefing up the line with several more stations seems futile.
It seems best to add stations further north if North Sounder is to have any future at all. The groundwork for this would seem to be to coordinate it with to Amtrak/ Cascades as an operation. Edmonds is already a Cascades stop as is Everett and Seattle. Adding a stop for Amtrak at Mulkiteo is really the sole needed administrative action — and this could probably be better served by an express bus from Link rather than make this an Amtrak stop anyway.
I can’t help but imagine a world where all of Sounder is re-envisioned as a state/ WSDOT service rather than one operated by ST. The implementation ramifications are potentially broad — from setting ST3 project priorities to revisions to ST district boundaries. But the end state would to me remove the political constraint of ST district boundaries and enable a better regional rail service. It would also make the legislature more culpable for creating and operating regional rail service rather than pass it off on ST with its subarea fiefdom mentality.
This is long overdue. Most importantly, the cost for Sounder North is and has been an extreme outlier on the exorbitant side for its existence. Those costs should have been shifted to Link long ago. Second, it doesn’t and hasn’t served anyplace that express buses don’t and haven’t already: Everett/Seattle, Mukilteo/Seattle, Edmonds/Seattle. Third, when Link entered Snohomish County, almost all express buses were truncated at Lynnwood, which was the apropos time to end Sounder North at the minimum. It’s a beautiful trip on a sunny/partly sunny day, but public transportation should respect the taxpayers who are funding them, and Sounder North has been a waste of taxpayer money. Even Sound Transit’s dependent (not independent) citizen’s board had it on their agenda for years, finally dropping the matter, realizing that it would never go anywhere.
1. Talk to BNSF and see if they can transfer the lease to other corridors.
2. Get a ballot proposal to extend service from Everett East to Snohomish and Monroe, and North to Marysvile, Smokey Point, Stanwood and Arlington
3. Upon approval of an extend outer Snohmish county ST Zone… this may be an associate zone not a ful zone… purchase a had fu of DMU’s and run service from Stanwood and Marrysvile to Smohomish and Monroe via Everett… (coud extend north to mountvernon and east to Sutan, Goldbar, index, and then force king to pick up Baring and Skykomish (Baring and Skykomish are in King county, and get minimal services from King county… This woud hep balance the edger ;)