Sound Transit boardmember Dan Strauss is proposing three amendments to the ST3 system plan update on Thursday. The full list of amendments is expected Tuesday, and it sounds like there will be a lot of them. Strauss is a Seattle City Councilmember for northwest Seattle. His amendments are:
- Prioritize building the Ballard-Westlake Link segment now, and postpone the second downtown tunnel (DSTT2) until after it.
- Use the 70% of unused debt capacity ST has, and ask Olympia for permission to issue longer-term bonds. Strauss says there are some “limited, commonsense adjustments” to debt policy that ST can make.
- Set a target date for finishing Ballard Link, rather than leaving it indefinite.
To me, #1 is consistent with our call to build the best parts first. I’d still like to see automated trains and canceling DSTT2 (especially to eliminate the excessively passenger-hostile tunnel-to-tunnel transfers), but this is an important step. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If somebody offers me half of what I want, I’d rather take it, and leave the rest as something to try for later.
Re #2, there may be room to optimize existing debt capacity, but I’m still not convinced of longer-term bonds. Re #3, setting a target date for Ballard makes sense, and would avoid leaving people in limbo for years.
Update: Seattle Subway endorses #1 and #3, has a petition to sign for it, and urges people to contact their ST boardmembers starting now.
They need a plan on how West Seattle as well as the Tacoma-Everett spine will be handled. These are also pressing issues.
It is also critical to send the 4 Line to S Bellevue station, and abandon the East Main station.
These changes must be implemented for the best outcomes in our regional transit system.
I’m hoping against hope that some Board member will add a requirement that ST develop a long-term plan to eventually use automated trains.
I’m also hoping against hope that the Board requires ST to design SODO station for level transfers if they go ahead with West Seattle Link.
Finally, I’m hoping against hope that the Board mandates that any train tracks in SODO running in the same direction be adjacent to each other and can easily change tracks if needed.
ST cannot use automated trains on the existing 1, 2 and 4 lines. This is the push several of us have been wanting the 3 line to be automated if done properly and with different vehicles.
Why not? What would be required to run automated trains on the existing lines?
Extreme liability associated with at-grade crossings.
Why is that a liability? Do you think it’s impossible to automate at grade train driving?
Why would it be any less safe than today’s situation? Most of the accidents are caused by a pedestrian or car putting themselves ahead of the train. A human operator would not be able to perform any better than an automated drive in most scenarios… And even if it could in some scenarios, automation would be far safer in many more scenarios
The liability is obvious. It’s all about risk and insurance, at least the USA. If a human driver fails, it’s the driver’s fault, and the profits of a liability lawsuit extend only as far as their personal wealth. If an automated system fails and its system-maker’s fault, the entire company is at risk. No one will take that liability and also allow the unpredictable chaos of at-grade crossings with mixed traffic.
“Why is that a liability? Do you think it’s impossible to automate at grade train driving?”
It’s one thing for it to be possible. It’s another thing to convince the ST board to vote to do it. Government agencies are highly timid of potential lawsuits, and won’t do things even if the liability seems small. You have to wait until many other agencies have done it, and even then it may take thirty years after that.
If an automated system fails and its system-maker’s fault, the entire company is at risk.
Sure, and yet Tesla is trying very hard to build automated cars, despite all the accidents. In the long run I wouldn’t rule out trains in mixed traffic but like automated cars they aren’t quite there yet.
It also doesn’t mean the agency won’t get sued right now. They could sue Sound Transit for creating a system that is unsafe. You aren’t going to sue the train operator — you sue ST. That’s where the money is.
With a private car the driver is liable. With a train or bus the agency is liable because it’s their employee or contractor doing their job.
Yes, but self-driving cars are supposed to be safer than the average American driver.
Meanwhile, it will be very hard to demonstrate that a self-driving transit system with mixed traffic crossings is safer than a human-operated system under the US’ liability laws. I’m excited for the day they do, but it won’t be any time soon.
“self-driving cars are supposed to be safer than the average American driver.”
Yet their performance is mixed. Better sometimes and in some situations, worse other times and in other situations. Some of those situations are so major that it makes people more hesitant on allowing self-driving vehicles beyond the current small-scale deployments (or even those). In that environment, the most risk-adverse organizations (public agencies), will be the last to adopt self-driving vehicles in mixed-traffic areas. And they might be willing to do one short BRT line before the entire Link network.
In my opinion we should automate the entire system, and remove any at grade segments and replace with elevated segments
Even still, we can and should automate at grade segments. It might even be safer than a human operator, because we have install cameras and other safety sensors to prevent accidents that a human operator wouldn’t be able to use reliably. It should reduce the number of accidents.
And if a human can drive it, there should be no reason a computer can’t. A train just goes ahead and there is a fixed schedule… It’s way less complex than a vehicle on the road. The only complication is dwelling time, but that can be resolved using fare gates that do not let people enter after a certain point of time, security personnel stopping door holding, and a buffer for minor speed adjustment to catch up on lost time caused by large crowds.
In my opinion we should automate the entire system, and remove any at grade segments
I agree. To be clear, it doesn’t necessarily have to be on a separate grade. There is nothing wrong with surface running — as long as it is fenced off and completely separate from traffic. It is only when you have crossing streets that you need to be a different grade. I’m pretty sure there are parts of SkyTrain that run on the surface.
Link is different. It would cost about a billion to bury the train lines in Rainier Valley. In SoDo you might be able to just add more overpasses. I’m not sure the best option for Bellevue.
Without grade separation in Rainier Valley you have other issues. They don’t want to run trains that often, as it could mess up cross-traffic. Thus automation might save money but it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a lot more frequent service. A branch for Renton seems unrealistic, for example.
If you bury the line, it solves that problem. You can run trains a lot more often. Not only that, but it would be faster and more consistent. I think it adds more value — even for those outside the area — then Tacoma Dome Link. Trips from the north end to the airport are better. So are trips from Federal Way to downtown. Thus someone from Tacoma might decide to transfer there and take Link to Seattle after all (instead of taking an express bus to downtown). Of course it would also be safer and change the nature of the street. You would have extra space to work with, which means you could add bike lanes, bus lanes and/or widen the sidewalk. It is a far more worthy project than most of the things we want to build. But since it doesn’t involve anything longer, it isn’t being seriously considered.
Automating the entire Link system is very long range. It would cost oodles of money on top of the ST3 oodles ST is trying to address now. ST doesn’t have money or voter approval for a huge project to retrofit the existing Link segments to automation. The board is not inclined to even think about it now, or to hold up ST3 extensions for it. Everett wants Everett now! Pierce wants Tacoma Dome now!
Note that burying Rainier Valley or having 100% overpasses in Rainier Valley and SODO is just one part of automation, not all of it.
If Ballard-Westlake is separate it can be automated now, and we can have the debate about retrofitting Rainier Valley, SODO, and Bel-Red later. That would be better than having no automation at all, because of the way it allows frequency to dramatically increase without increasing costs.
If Ballard-Westlake is separate it can be automated now, and we can have the debate about retrofitting Rainier Valley, SODO, and Bel-Red later.
Exactly. That is one of the big benefits of building Ballard-Westlake: You defer a lot of debates. This includes things that we have no plans for funding (like the burying of the line in Rainier Valley). But it also includes things that were part of ST3 that were never really resolved, like the CID Station. Or poor design decisions, like the SoDo station. Or budgetary problems that have led to draconian proposals (like removing South Lake Union and Avalon stations). All that mess is deferred. You focus on Ballard to Westlake, but with smaller platforms and trains coming more often. There are still unresolved issues in Ballard but at least you commit to going there.
ST has summarily denied that automated technology even exists. I’m simply hoping for a study to define how phasing and costs would or could work, along with what cost savings would be achieved.
Phasing may be that some sections of an existing lines remain operated by human drivers while others could be fully automated. With new cross-platform transfers designed into the system it could be possible to have an automated train waiting to quickly whisk riders away on what would otherwise be a segment with such low use that ST would find it very expensive to introduce or keep operating. Keep in mind that half of the travel time to Tacoma Dome from CID is KDM and half of the travel time from Westlake to Downtown Everett is Alderwood. Maintaining drivers and running long trains mostly empty for unbuilt, long stretches is a significant operating cost.
And automated trains are designed to have drivers when needed, so as long as a track connection is provided it could still access existing OMFs with a driver.
Someday all this automation denial mentality will look at short-sighted as automated check-out stations in groceries or automated elevators in buildings or self-driving cars. It’s going to evolve — probably in phases — over the next few decades.
Things look unlikely until they reach critical mass, or one little public statement or news item has an unexpected outsized effect, and then it turns around quickly.
Also, extend the 1 line for now upto the Alderwood mall which is only one stop north, to increase footfall and ticket revenues.
Don’t change the 1-line that goes to the airport and connect it to West Seattle ! Does your survey support that ? Both Redmond & Lynnwood need direct connections to the airport.
The 2 line should do Redmond-Ballard.
Does your survey support that?
I don’t think we have a survey. But your point about the 1-line is a good one. The amendments proposed by Strauss would do that. The other lines would remain the same. By deferring the second tunnel we defer everything else that goes with it. That is another argument in support of this idea.
Extending up to Alderwood is really a different subject. Strauss doesn’t get into what is happening outside the city (for good reason). That being said, any extension is more likely if we defer the second tunnel (as mentioned in the other comment).
There’s no survey. There’s:
1. 1990s-2015: ST3’s early visions, which had Everett-Tacoma Dome and Ballard-West Seattle.
2. December 2015: DSTT2 and the split spine. ST said Everett-Tacoma Dome was too far for drivers to go without a break, so it suggested Everett-West Seattle and Ballard-Tacoma Dome. DSTT2 and SLU had gotten mixed into this by April 2016, and all this was in the ballot measure in November 2016.
3. 2022: A budget gap emerged (ST3 couldn’t be finished by 2041 under the debt ceiling), so the board reordered projects to finish its highest priorities by 2039. (The “realignment”.)
4. 2025: A larger budget gap has emerged.
5. December 2025: ST considers two scenarios that would eliminate DSTT2 to save costs, and upgrade DSTT1 to compensate. One has Ballard-Westlake like Strauss’s amendment. The other merges Ballard into the tunnel at Symphony (bypassing Westlake). 14/17 of the boardmembers are against both, while 3/17 have varying positions that support at least keeping the first option open. (Strauss; Ballard! Balducci: DSTT1 needs upgrades anyway, so let’s keep this option open and maybe do both sets of DSTT1 upgrades at the same time. Wilson: “Build the damn trains!” but [I guess] keep the option open.)
5. March 2026: ST has a board retreat on the budget gap, where three scenarios are outlined to illustrate potential changes. All keep the split spine and DSTT2, and all truncate Ballard in the first phase.
6. May 2026: ST presents a draft resolution to modify ST3, and two Executive Committee sessions debate it.
7. Saturday: Strauss announces his amendments.
8. Tuesday: All amendment proposals will be announced.
9. Thursday: The board will debate the resolution and amendments, and may vote on all of them. The board wants to decide it by the end of May, so that it can start construction on the West Seattle-SODO stub in June. (Which many STBers think is a bad project, but that’s another issue.)
So the split spine with no Lynnwood-airport one-seat ride has been part of the plan since step 2 in December 2015. There has never been a Redmond-airport proposal. There have been unofficial suggestions for Ballard-Redmond or West Seattle-Redmond, but no ST proposals.
The issue with Lynnwood-airport transfers and Redmond-airport transfers is the excessively long (10 minute, several level) transfer walks between the two tunnels. This was not anticipated in the ST3 vote, by either ST or voters. It was assumed DSTT2 would be the same depth as DSTT1, and CID2 station would be next to CID1 station at the same level. But later ST3 engineering studies claimed DSTT2 would have to be much deeper, thus the long transfers. And ST moved CID2 and Midtown stations to CID/N and CID/S, which exacerbated the transfer problem. So ST should say, “These excessively-long transfers are unacceptable”, and take a step back, and either try again with other tunnel options, or an automated line that can have a smaller tunnel maybe closer to the DSTT1 stations, or cancel DSTT2 and upgrade DSTT1 for three lines (as a candidate project in December 2015 would have done).
So there never has been an ST survey on these exact issues, because ST’s surveys are all “Do you like our proposal?” and “How many ways is our proposal wonderful?” So the only thing to do now is to try to influence your ST boardmembers, and influence city/county officials (because they have the most clout with the ST board), send feedback to the board, and get tens of thousands of your neighbors to do the same with a common message — all before Thursday.
To be fair, SODO is by far the easiest planned transfer point. And with a modest design change ST could still even design and build cross platform or level transferring there. It would significantly improve the impact of severing the spine.
It just doesn’t connect with the 2 Line. It’s why Eastside interests who able to understand station plans from a rider experience perspective (like Balducci) are more outraged about the terrible transfer designs Downtown.
I’m not addressing SODO transfers because I don’t have an intuitive understanding of what the passenger experience of each of the alternatives would be or how much it matters. And I hate transferring from Link to the 50 because that area is a depressing concrete jungle middle of nowhere. I fear a Link-to-Link transfer there would be just as depressing, and a lot of people wouldn’t do it or wouldn’t be happy about it for that reason. So I leave it to the SODO-transfer advocates to make their case, while I stay out of the way one way or the other.
A major benefit of cross platform transfers is that they can be timed! It happens worldwide. For example, it happens at BART’s MacArthur Station and has for over 40 years. Because it’s well under a 30 second walk people don’t even see the surroundings. MacArthur is in the middle of a giant freeway to freeway interchange approach (16 lanes of freeway traffic in total there) in a neighborhood that was considered pretty sketchy until recently.
If an area looks undesirable I’d rather walk across a platform quickly to the shiny next train in front of me than ride two escalators up and down inside a glass palace — and see the ugliness all around me for several minutes while making the trek.
And at least SODO transferring riders would get daylight. The tunnels at the other Downtown transfer stations are designed to be long and narrow shafts with only artificial light. And take several minutes to trek through.
Seattle Subway endorses #1 and #3, has a petition to sign (same link), and urges people to contact their ST boardmembers starting now.
Wow! This is huge. I’m going to sign it and encourage others to sign it. I don’t always agree with Seattle Subway (to put it mildly) but I think they are completely right in this case. There is a subtle suggestion there that is worth noting:
They could find further savings by building a service track connection to the existing spine instead of a new maintenance facility.
This is something we’ve discussed here, but I’m not sure if ST actually studied it. The report of the study is here. They looked at two ways of interlining. Either at-grade (Alternative 1A) or grade-separate (Alternative 1B). They also looked at a stub line with a new OMF facility. This would be a variation of Alternative 1A, but there would be a non-service connection between the two lines. This could lead to significant savings and less disruption. I have a feeling it would be similar (and a new OMF would prove to be the best option) but I applaud Seattle Subway for bringing up this issue. Once you commit to a stub line you can explore both options in more detail.
It also means that the line can be automated. In contrast, automation is problematic if you interline. The limiting factor becomes the tunnel (you can’t run trains that often through there) This defeats one of the key advantages of automation (much better headways). The Kubly-Reed plan falls apart. But this isn’t an issue with a non-service connection. The connection is only used when trains are out of service.
I signed it of course. It’s compatible with what I want, even if some other things Seattle Subway wants are the opposite of what I want. (And I’m ignoring the fact that “completing Ballard” is ambiguous on whether it includes DSTT2. Better to get one win than to get three losses.)
My public testimony is forming in my head.
1. Prioritize Ballard (amendment ####): Ballard and SLU is where the ridership is.
2. Automate the Ballard line, or at least give it real fair consideration. Automation is the international standard now (Hawaii, Vancouver, Paris), would serve passengers better and increase ridership and capacity by allowing 2-minute frequency without higher cost, and would probably lower capital costs substantially.
3. Cancel DSTT2, because those proposed excessively-long transfer walks are passenger-hostile. Good train-to-train transfers should be the first consideration in any multi-line subway, because half or more of the destinations require the transfer. If somebody must have bad transfers, it’s better to isolate that to Ballard/SLU riders who don’t have Link now than to impact everybody going between vast parts of the region, including those who currently have a one-seat ride (north-south) or a short transfer (Eastside-airport).
Eventually I think we need a new tunnel, but that would be for making a quality tunnel designed to actually operate a full subway system. The old trash tunnel can be repurposed as a bus tunnel, like it was before.
Yes, this is where I am landing as well!
I agree Mike. I would word it differently, though. I would use “defer” for DSTT2. I think a second tunnel — with a station in First Hill — would add value. Even if it went to West Seattle (instead of this — https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/WSBLE-HackImage.png) it would still be a huge improvement. I think West Seattle Link is a big waste of money but I see no reason to rule it out. Simply defer it. It is possible it would be a better value in the future.
Thus I see one more thing I would add:
4) Design the new line so that it can be extended south from Westlake and east from Ballard (to the UW).
Fine, cancel, defer, anything that allows cooler heads in the future to do something better, and that doesn’t create expensive concrete facts on the ground now that would be hard to abandon/reverse.
I admire Strauss for trying, but everything I’ve read said that every single board member outside of Seattle is expected to vote against it.
If you try for something, you might get it. If you don’t try, you definitely won’t.
Even if it fails, it’s worth documenting what it could have been, and how far the actual network is from it.
I would like to see the Alderwood connection now. I personally would use Everett and tacoma link more than Ballard link.
The extensions outside the city are largely independent of what happens within Seattle. That being said, the other subareas are supposed to help pay for the second tunnel. If it is deferred then paying for it is deferred. This could result in those extensions being done sooner. So yeah, that is another argument in support of this idea. This argument is bound to have more wait with representatives outside Seattle. If you live outside the city I would emphasize that when contacting your local board member.
“This argument is bound to have more wait with representatives outside Seattle.”
Theoretically yes, but boardmember inclinations so far are the opposite.
This raises a potential article idea we’ve been kicking around: Who is DSTT2 for? Who is the primary beneficiary? Is there a mismatch between beneficiary and cost share? It’s hard to say who’s the primary beneficiary because there are multiple competing arguments:
A. Everybody: Downtown Seattle’s total north-south transit demand will exceed supply on all modes (Link, RapidRide, regular buses) for all trips (to downtown, through downtown, within downtown). A report ca. 2012 said that, and that and the need for more SLU capacity was the impetus for splitting RapidRide C/D, six more RapidRide lines (since reduced), and the second tunnel.
B. Ballard: Ballard Link wouldn’t be possible without DSTT2. (Or the DSTT1 retrofit the board deselected in 2016.) Ballard-Westlake started as a separate project, but the Ballard-DSTT2-West Seattle EIS strung them all together into one, and then West Seattle was split off so it could start earlier, so Ballard/DSTT2 are together, so therefore DSTT2 benefits Ballard (supposedly).
C. West Seattle: West Seattle Link wouldn’t be possible without diverting Rainier/FW/Tacoma to another tunnel (with Ballard). (Or the DSTT1 retrofit the board deselected in 2016.)
D. Everett and Tacoma: A second tunnel allows for the ridership increases these extensions will bring.
It seems logical that DSTT2 is in North King, therefore North King is the primary beneficiary (particularly Ballard). But paradoxically, it’s the North King boardmembers who are questioning it (to varying extents), and the Snohomish/Pierce boardmembers who are most for it. Does that mean they’re actually the primary beneficiaries? Or just that they’re deluded about their ridership prospects and how much their extensions will help their mobility and mode share?
The reason Somers/Snohomish is so against non-DSTT2 strategies is not so much that he thinks DSTT2 is wonderful and absolutely necessary, but he’s afraid that making changes like Ballard-Westlake or no DSTT2 will lead to unexpected cost overruns and delays that might jeopardize Everett/Paine from being finished on time or at all. And Pierce is worried about the same for Tacoma Dome, to a lesser extent, or can be convinced of it by Snohomish. (This is based on my interpretation of Somers’s statements in board meetings and newspapers.) Everett/Paine must be finished on time, whatever happens in Seattle. If he can be reassured that some Seattle change won’t impact Everett’s timeline, he’s willing to consider it, such as his endorsement of advancing Ballard’s design to 100% even if construction is on hold.
“Downtown Seattle’s total north-south transit demand will exceed supply on all modes (Link, RapidRide, regular buses) for all trips (to downtown, through downtown, within downtown). A report ca. 2012 said that, and that and the need for more SLU capacity was the impetus for splitting RapidRide C/D, six more RapidRide lines (since reduced), and the second tunnel.”
I’ve not seen this report. Where is it?
And it’s the planned Link segment between Westlake and Ballard that eases SLU overcrowding. The DSTT2 segment does not. Overcrowding south of Westlake is a separate topic.
“I’ve not seen this report. Where is it?”
It’s back in the early 2010s; I don’t remember exactly. We had articles mentioning it at the time, during the debates on splitting the C/D and adding DSTT2. I don’t remember if we had an article dedicated to it, and I’m not great at searching for such vague things without obvious keywords. The Downtown Seattle Association also weighed in with concepts to reduce 3rd Avenue’s lanes and beautify it; I don’t remember whether those articles mentioned the north-south capacity issue.
“And it’s the planned Link segment between Westlake and Ballard that eases SLU overcrowding. The DSTT2 segment does not. Overcrowding south of Westlake is a separate topic.”
The issue isn’t SLU Link crowding. That has never been suggested. The issue is Link crowding between Westlake-Symphony or CID-Pioneer Square (as ST maintains) or Westlake-Capitol Hill(-UW) (as many STBers believe). DSTT2 or changes to it could improve the Westlake-CID segment, but would do nothing for Westlake-Capitol Hill(-UW). So it depends on which crowding scenario you believe is most likely.
I wouldn’t call the general downtown-SLU capacity issue “crowding” because it’s not about a single route; it’s a more diffuse issue. The report (as I understood it) implied Westlake-CID area crowding; it didn’t address SLU. Or at least it didn’t explicity say so, and SLU wasn’t considered “downtown” as much then. Downtown was Weller Street to Stewart Street; everybody agreed on that in the ST/transit context. Views differ on whether downtown extends north to Denny Way, or stops at Yesler Way, or now extends to Valley Street, but those aren’t gemane to the ST/transit issue, and were not brought up during the north-south capacity/DSTT2/C/D debates.
Keep in mind that in 2012, DSTT was assumed to carry only 16 trains an hour in each direction (8 trains an hour for each line). The DSTT capacity was assumed to be markedly lower than what it could be. Even ST3 promised 20 trains per hour per direction.
Even the WSLE FEIS made this assumption.
It’s the little math trick that ST staff uses to demonstrate the overcrowding on paper.
What’s the actual impact of passing on West Seattle now, in terms of the inflation argument, and when is the soonest that Ballard can be in construction given the design and environmental permitting process?
I don’t have quantitative information on that, and we don’t know what inflation or other factors will do in the future. You’d need an engineer and a financial analysist who’s been deeply immersed in ST issues to answer this, but here are some factors:
A. The West Seattle-SODO EIS is approved, so ST just has some small intermediate issues and then it can sign construction contracts. It doesn’t have legal authority to sign the contracts until it resolves the ST3 budget gap, thus why it’s trying to rush through the ST3 plan changes by Sunday (May 31).
B. The Ballard/DSTT2 EIS needs major revisions because ST added alternatives after the alternatives analysis and initial work was done. ST moved Midtown station from Madison to James, CID2 station from Jackson to south of Dearborn, and added alternatives in the SLU area (affecting the alignment, Denny station, SLU station, and the approach to Seattle Center). A first draft of revisions is expected this summer. Then it would take a year or two to finalize, unknown time/certainty to get approved by the Trump-era FTA, a year or two to reach 100% design, and some months for construction to start. The assumed construction period was 2032-2037, so that’s four years, but it would likely be longer, maybe ten years or more.
C. If you split Ballard-Westlake from Ballard-DSTT2, then it inherits all the issues north of Westlake, and modifying the Westlake1-to-Westlake2 station interface. Automation would add more time to study. So it might need 2 years for the EIS, 2 years for 100% design, and 4-6 years for construction. That’s my guess. Others with more optimistic assumptions might guess less. You could subtract the cost and staff time for DSTT2 if it’s not pursued, but re-add costs to retrofit DSTT1 to add West Seattle, and it would affect the subarea contribution mix. Right now North King pays 51% of Ballard/DSTT2. If Ballard is split off, the other subareas’ contributions might disappear or shrink. Strauss is also arguing that all subareas should pay north to Seattle Center (not just to Westlake), because all subareas use and benefit from SLU and Seattle Center so much. The other boardmembers haven’t accepted this so far.
I’m highly skeptical that ST will be the funds to build DSTT2 all the way to Seattle Center.
WSLE is listed as $6.2B for one deep subway station. Reaching Seattle Center would require at least five. Five stations in the middle of a congested Downtown area. There’s only $17.8B estimated in the resolution.
The boring is planned to begin at Holgate St through soft SODO soils too — almost a mile south of Jackson St.
And let’s not even discuss what happens to a TBM underneath Seattle Center.
Here’s a curious fact:
West Seattle is no longer a line in FTA’s CIG list. The latest list is here:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2026-05/Public-CIG-Dashboard-05-01-2026.pdf
It was listed in 2025 here:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2025-02/Public-CIG-Dashboard-02-07-2025.pdf
Note too that West Seattle Link Extension was listed at $3.2B.