ST Board Meets to Postpone ST3 Projects

214 Replies to “ST Board Meets to Postpone ST3 Projects”

1. The meeting has started. Chairman Somers is speaking.

2. Public testimony is starting. Staff read a summary and count of written testimony submitted before the meeting. I’m listening on and off, and only reporting surprising testimony I notice.

   1. 7+ CID members supporting the CID/N (James Street) and CID/S (Dearborn Street) station alternatives, and against “4th and 5th” (4th Avenue Shallow and 5th Avenue Diagonal). Some seem to base it on the possibility of neighborhood amenities that can come with ST returning surplus land after construction such as a Chinese library, that would benefit future generations. They seem to be alluding to the idea that 4th or 5th construction would be too disruptive, and ignore that surplus land returned from them could have the same benefit.

      I need to add for completeness that total CID activism has been about half and half between pro-CID/N/S voices and pro 4th or 5th voices, with the latter perhaps larger.

      Note that the CID station alternatives aren’t part of this decision. This is yes-or-no on pursuing DSTT2 now or not, regardless of which CID alternative prevails. A couple years ago the board changed the preferred alternative from 5th Ave Shallow (next to CID1 station and straight north-south) to CID/N and CID/S, and said 4th Avenue Shallow cost too much. 5th Avenue Diagonal emerged after that, and the arguments for and against it aren’t as well developed. So if nothing changes and DSTT2 is pursued now, it will automatically get CID/N and CID/S.

      All those who mentioned it also support Graham station. One referred to “the 59 station”, referring to Graham station’s number.

   2. Scott Kubly is speaking (after technical audio issue were resolved). His statement was short:

      “Are you willing to commit your position or job on the dates you set today? What will you do in the next 6, 12, and 18 months to help ensure it will happen on time?”

   3. A homeowner in Maple Leaf supports Ballard Link for the general transit improvement and climate resiliency. I didn’t hear her mention Strauss’s amendment either yes or no, although I may have missed it.

   4. 2 against the total resolution. One said “West Seattle is not shovel ready”. They’re asking for board reform.

   5. One speaker says, “Please clean Capitol Hill station.”

   6. Tim Eyman is speaking, introducing himself as “Tim Eyman from Kirkland”. (Prevously Mukilteo.) A rant about lies and taxes. Nothing specific about the resolution or amendments.

      1. Ugh. That tracks.

      2. Did he leave with a chair?

   7. Thanks for doing this, Mike. This is interesting.

   8. One speaker is against the Portland Avenue station between Fife and Tacoma Dome, saying there’s nothing there and no bus transfers.

      1. Sort of like Boeing Access Road perhaps worse.

         1. Definitely worse. There’s nothing in the vicinity comparable to the Museum of Flight, Aviation High school, a village at 144th, a bus intercept/transfer close to the Rainier Valley stations, Tukwila, the route 124 corridor, or a potential extension of RapidRide A to it (as Tukwila wants, for the village at 144th).

         2. There is a casino within pedestrian unfriendly walking distance haha ^_-

         3. A wider cross-section of the population and visitors go to museums and schools than go to casinos.

         4. Definitely agree Mike.

      2. It’s true, and it’s really close to Tacoma Dome Station. They have already done substantial rezone, but rezoning something doesn’t mean anyone will want to build there.

         It is the station serving the EQC. They are giving incredible deference (and thereby driving up costs substantially), to the Puyallup tribe. I understand they are a critical partner, but ST doesn’t really seem to be negotiating with them. Just taking their terms as gospel. The river crossing having to be so high, and not using the existing bridge is adding substantial sums.

         1. If it’s for a casino, I want good pedestrian access between the station and casino and surrounding businesses, and a pleasant pedestrian-oriented urban environment in front of said businesses. The existing casinos and surrounding hotels and strip malls are extremely car-oriented towers-in-the-park that contradict this.

      3. This isn’t meant to defend the proposed Portland Avenue Station, but Pierce Transit is envisioning a bus transfer there with their proposed East Tacoma/Port of Tacoma Route 40 bus (if Pierce County voters approve expanding Pierce Transit’s sales tax capacity).

   9. End of testimony. There were still “40 people in the room” (I guess that means people still on the speaking list) and 16 (?) on the virtual list. One boardmember asked to extend the time to allow more people to speak, but Somers said no.

      The board went into a 20-minute executive session, which is normally used to discuss legal action ST may be(come) a party to or personnel matters. It sounds like this one is probably a legal issue.

3. Tim Eyman comes out of the woodwork to quote Margaret Thatcher’s famous line about socialism.

   1. Man, can’t believe this guy is still hanging around and complaining about *everything*

      1. Looks like he got a TV interview out of it. Though also some calls to not take the chair with him.

      2. He’s like a weed. As long as there is something still to try to grift he will survive.

   2. I was surprised by the size of the CID contingent that was supporting the stations North and South of CID and opposing 4th and 5th diagonal options. I suppose that’s the next fight, assuming the board decides to proceed with the tunnel.

      1. This number of speakers is not representative of the total number of CID activists who have spoken for or against CID/N/S since 2022, and presumably haven’t changed their mind. The total aggregate feedback/activism has been about half and half, and the other side is probably larger. They may not have spoken at this meeting because this resolution is neutral on the CID station alternatives.

4. Dave Somers moves to cut off public comment at 3pm; Mosqueda asks Somers to extend public comment due to large number of people still waiting to speak; Somers asks how many people are in line; staff says 43 in-room and “at least” 15 virtual; Somers shuts down public comment and puts Board into 20-minute executive session.

   Somers is clearly done with this, but who wants to put bets on how long executive session actually lasts?

   1. First 10-minute extension announced! New return time: 3:33pm.

      1. Additional extensions! Now expected to resume public meeting at 3:47pm. A 5-minute extension usually means they’re almost done with whatever they’re discussion.

         1. Board is back in regular session as of 3:54pm, having likely permanently determined the future of ST3. Now it’s time for presentations which the Board hasn’t officially seen yet, followed by official voting.

   2. Somers cares nothing of Ballard. There is no clear Snohomish County benefit – therefore no reason to discuss further.

      But this second tunnel redundancy “necessity” to tie in with “shovel ready” West Seattle extension – that’s a more palatable agenda to be sold to the north end.

   3. I speculate they’re horse trading on the resolution and amendments, to come to a more common position before the public debate starts. But they may have gotten word of a potential lawsuit over something if they approve the resolution or a certain amendment. Or it could be a lawsuit over anything related to Link or station-area activities or something else.

      1. They use the guise of potential lawsuit as the justification for every executive session. They’re definitely just horse trading; “backroom dealing” if you will.

         1. Seems questionable under the Open Public Meetings Act.

   4. 3:42 3:47 now.

5. Staff is starting a presentation on the resolution.

6. Starting on the amendments.

   1. Amendment 1 (substitute resolution): passes unanimously.

      This is a substitute resolution (a revision) by Somers. It leaves DSTT2/CID-Seattle Center in place (second priority after West Seattle). It advances Seattle Center-Ballard to 100% design but leaves construction in limbo, and several process and need changes. (To articulate the need for ST3.)

      Sponsored by Somers.

      1. Meaning they decided to go with the second downtown tunnel rather than the Wedtlake to Ballard starter?

      2. Amendment 1 only substantively adds project costs and some other plan details to the resolution attachments. Amendment 13 would swap in Ballard-Westlake for Seattle Center-Westlake.

         1. Oh cool, thanks for the clarification. (Also, very impressed you knew that off the done haha)

      3. Updating my the amendment comments as needed to clarify.

   2. Amendment 2: passed unanimously.

      Process/organizational issues, including assessing the feasibility of “emerging technologies” like automation and “CBTC” expansion (I think that means signal upgrade).

      Sponsored by Balducci.

   3. Amendment 3: passed unanimously.

      Finance process issues.

      Sponsored by Balducci.

   4. Amendment 4: passed unanimosy.

      While working on ST3, “it will be the agency’s top priority to maintain stability and reliability of [existing] services.” The CEO will give the board quarterly reports on service performance metrics and notify the board of immediately of “circumstances” that impact this. Staff said they’re already issuing quarterly reports responding to this.

      Sponsored by Balducci.

   5. Amendment 5: passed unanimously.

      Addresses last-mile access, parking management, and establishes a Regional Parking Fund. This sounds like interim support for sites with deferred garages, and improving last-mile access.

      Sponsored by Roscoe, Balducci, and Mello.

   6. Amendment 6: passed with 15 yes votes and 3 no votes (Balducci, Walker, Wilson)

      Advance Renton TC parking garage to fully funded. Reduce Issaquah Link cost estimate by $0.1 billion (to pay for the former).

      Zahilay says this is transferring money from one P&R to another (South Kirkland to Renton), not impacting Link/Stride. But Balducci says it is taking money from Issaquah Link to a garage, so she can’t support this amendment, and recommends addressing Renton’s needs from the more general amendment #5 (?, already passed) instead. Wilson is against the amendment too: “We are Sound Transit, not Sound Parking”. Balducci supports other non-transit funding sources for Renton’s P&R need.

      Sponsored by Prince, Zahilay, Birney, Fain, McLeod.

   7. Amendment 7: withdrawn by sponsor (Balducci). Nathan’s comment below explains.

      1. Amendment 7 was apparently intended to find funding for parking improvements in East King instead of directly taking money from SKILE to build the Renton Parking Garage. Balducci did not advance Amendment 7 for consideration, so it is dead.

   8. Amendment 8: passed unanimously.

      Advance Graham station to fully funded. Specifically it tells staff to submit a report by June 2027 on potential partnerships and cost savings to make this more possible, such as coordinating with the City of Seattle on MLK street rechannelization and expediting Link permitting.

      Sponsored by Wilson, Zahlay, Mosqueda, Strauss.

   9. Amendment 9: passed unanimously.

      Advance Boeing Access Road (“BAR”) station to fully funded. Specifically it tells staff to submit a report by February 2027 listing ways and partnerships to reduce the affordability gap. And by March 2027 a report on potential interim transit support and last-mile support in the area.

      Sponsored by McLeod, Fain, Zahilay, Mosqueda.

   10. Amendment 10: passed with 1 no vote (George I assume).

       Tells staff to submit a report by Q3 2027 (September?) on a future revenue package to fully fund ST3. Options might include:
       – a regionwide vote (“ST 3.1”?)
       – subarea votes (is that possible? maybe with Transit Benefit Districts)
       – raising the levy lid
       – “enhanced service zones” (a new state authorization allowing a locality to vote for additional funding for their ST3 projects, if it can get ST’s agreement (consent) to that measure).

       George will vote no, because constituents don’t want to hear about more taxes for ST3. And ST has existing authority to pursue “everything”, such as Amendment 2. The Everett/Tacoma Spine must be finished before ST asks for more taxes. George is a Fircrest councilmember (Pierce County).

       Mello supports the amendment but will oppose additional ST tax votes until the Spine is finished. If individual areas like Seattle want to tax themselves to expedite their projects, that’s fine.

       Sponsored by Wilson.

   11. Amendment 11: passed unanimously.

       For Ballard, including innovative/emerging technologies (automation?). The details are in “Attachment C”, which I haven’t found yet.

       Strauss says the last [express] bus to Ballard [15] leaves in 5 minutes, and the board is still at work and still has two more amendments to go through. Ballard needs better transit.

       Wilson “strongly supports” this amendment. The highest ridership project in ST’s history”, with 90% voter support in the project area (is that what she meant?).

       Sponsored by Zahilay, Wilson, Strauss, Mosqueda.

       1. Clarification: #11s only purpose is to study automation of Ballard link?

          1. It has a lot of other things I don’t understand, innovative techologies is just one small part of it.

       2. A+ to Strauss for taking the opportunity to point out the current situation of his constituents.

       3. I think “Attachment C” is just at the end of the amendments pdf (pg. 7-8), linked to on the main meeting page. https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Proposed%20Board%20member%20Amendments%20to%20Resolution%20No.%20R2026-11.pdf

          To me, Amendment 11/Attachment C seems like a lot of vague promises to the effect of “we’re going to try hard to figure it out, but we’re not really committing to anything,” other than to hold more community forums and report back to the board.

   12. Amendment 12: Passed with 5 no votes (Birnley, George, Mello, Roscoe, Somers).

       By August, provide a fixed date for commencing revenue service to Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard, so that people aren’t left in indefinite limbo for a long period of time.

       Sponsored by Strauss.

       Wilson and Zahilay supports the amendment.

       1. I’d love to know how those five justify a ‘no’ vote on Amendment 12. Like… you seriously don’t think the voters have a right to know when the plan they freaking voted for is expected to be built?

          “Just keep giving us your taxes but don’t ask for results or timelines! Soon! Soon!”

          Let me guess the ‘no’ vote reasons: “it’s too hard… we can’t give you any dates!” when the real reason is “we don’t want to to say the truth out loud because the answer, given current circumstances, is ‘never’.

          1. General comments indicated concern that announcing an unreliable date is likely to be politically damaging if ST needs to delay again.

             Which is really silly given the fact that NONE of the remaining Link projects are certain to be finished on time.

          2. Yeah, that is one reason. It is difficult to estimate the cost, given all the other factors and really long timeline. It is also possible the estimate is basically “we can’t build it”. The projects are too expensive and while they can tax forever they may not be raising enough money to pay it off. This happened with Federal Way Link and ST2. It wasn’t until they raised more money with ST3 that they could actually build it.

   13. Amendment 13: failed with 4 yes votes and 13 no votes (Balducci, ?, ?, George, McCleod, Meredith, Partial, Roscoe, Reichbauer, Walker, Zahilay, Somers). I didn’t write down the yes voters, and then I wished I did but it was too late. [Edit: I revised it to 13 no to make the total add up to 17; I assume the 14 no I had before was a mistake.]

       Motion to table failed, with 4 yes votes (to table, Franklin, McCleod, Walker, Somers). Tabling would have postponed considering the amendment indefinitely.

       Moves North King’s portion of Ballard Link/DSTT2 money to a Ballard-Westake line first.

       Several boardmembers say this would put at risk all other ST3 projects, because other projects assume DSTT2 will be completed at priority, so they have to be reassessed and EISes changed, and this would “put the agency at risk”, so these boardmembers don’t want to reopen them.

       Balducci says she doesn’t have enough information to choose either way, and that Amendment 11 will get that information. She would feel more comfortable voting no if she had that information.

       Wilson says staff’s interpretation of this amendment is overly grave, and she’ll vote yes based on the amendment’s intention.

       Several boardmembers claim a no vote is not voting against Ballard.

       NOBODY ADDRESSED THE ULTRA-BAD TRANSFERS IN DSTT2 THAT MAKE IT PASSENGER-HOSTILE. That’s not a vote for Ballard, it’s a vote against transferring passengers in the entire system.

       Sponsored by Strauss.

       Strauss says the last bus to Ballard left a half hour ago. (Again, this can only mean the last express run [15]. since the D and 40 run all evening.) I find Strauss’s wording misleading, since either the board and spectators know this (so why didn’t he say express route, and why he can’t take a local route), or they don’t (and they’ll think there’s no way to get to Ballard on transit in the evening).

       End of amendments.

       1. I think it was Prince, Wilson, Strauss and Mosqueda that voted yes. Balducci vacillated but in the end voted no because she didn’t she sufficiently understood the impact.

       2. Thanks big time for your summaries, Mike and others!

          The outcomes did not surprise me. Even Seattle Subway had a death march for Ballard Link in anticipation earlier today.

          So what’s next? Someone inadvertently stated earlier in the meeting that the objective was always to start contracting to build West Seattle Link. I’m sure the people who would gain financially were already lobbying heavily.

          But here’s the thing: There is still a year of final design and an FTA hurdle. And I seriously doubt that the West Seattle costs will stay close. There are still done upcoming ugly situations coming in the next year.

          Along with that is the SODO busway vacation. Strauss can still work with council to exact changes if ST wants the corridor because the City has ownership.

          Although it won’t change the outcome, there is also still a timing issue. Even today Krieg said that the debt problem is likely on the late 2030’s. That to me signals that West Seattle will still be under construction in the late 2030’s. So West Seattle slink won’t open until the late 2030’s.

          If we assume West Seattle is getting built, that means that the transfer issue needs to be next on the center stage.

          To me, this all points to giving SODO station increased focus. It’s the easiest and cheapest place to provide cross-platform transfers. It’s the area where ST could try to introduce three lines into the DSTT with a different track configuration. The existing platforms could work with a West Seattle stub and recover several hundred million in cost so that other underbudgeted parts of the WSLE project could be funded.

7. Balducci regarding amendment to take assumed funds from SKILE to Renton parking garage: “we are a transit agency, not a parking agency”

   common W from Balducci

   1. Amendment 6 (take $100M from SKILE to build another Renton Transit Center Parking Garage) is first to be openly contested in boardroom. Not supported by Balducci and Wilson. Supported by Boardmembers Fain, Somers, Zahilay. Balducci rebuts argument that a vote against this amendment is a vote against the parking garage; says she offered proposal to bond East King Subarea revenue to fund parking in East King (Amendment #7).

      1. Discussion of Amendment #10 (begin consideration of next ballot measure to backfill ST3). Boardmember Hunter George’s vote will be “No”, but really as a “not yet”. Says he thinks amendment is unnecessary political risk since constituents will wonder what ST is doing. Says consideration of ST4 must wait until heavy construction of TDLE/EVLE is visible to constituents. Cassie Franklin also doesn’t think ST4 consideration is worthwhile until EVLE is open but supports amendment saying “if Seattle wants to pay more, then go for it”. Ryan Mello supports amendment but also doesn’t support considering regional ST4 until TDLE is finished. Strauss says ST needs to get light rail to Crown Hill, Northgate, White Center, Burien, etc, but also needs “golden spike this thing” and put construction equipment on the ground for TDLE/EVLE ASAP.

8. Strauss’ opening comments on Amendment #11 don’t seem like comments he would make if he expected his other amendment (#13) to move forward. Says last direct bus to ballard from downtown (presumably Route 17) leaves in 5 minutes; implies no other “direct” route home but neglects RapidRide D only being ~10-15 minutes slower than express route. Says poor connections between Ballard and Downtown are a 5-minutes-from-now problem, not a 2041 problem.

   1. Balducci asks about a sentence in the Amendment saying additional analyses should not proceed if analyses would result in environmental planning process delays; asks to “soften” that language to open analyses to options “within the DEIS envelope” or “without risking reopening the DEIS”. Says current language prohibits innovative analyses if there is any risk of environmental delays; wants to clarify that innovative analyses should avoid risk of environmental delays. Language to be tweaked later on.

      1. Hunter George says when he joined the Board last year, he thought “West Seattle was cooked” given the information they had a year ago, but additional work was able to make WSLE feasible.

         Strauss notes “last bus to Ballard” left 5 minutes ago, asks for roll-call vote.

   2. 10-15 minutes slower is completely absurd for a “rapid ride” route. It’s only 6 miles.

      But I think that’s wrong anyway. Leaving around 4:40, going to 15th&Leary, it’s 35min on the 17 and 39min on the D. Regardless, that’s a really sad speed.

      1. I used to live very close to Ballard High and commuted via the 15X when it ran; the D was routinely 10-15 minutes slower due to congestion in LQA and slower boarding times. Maybe that’s changed now (it’s been a few years), but I think the D is still often quite late during rush hour. It just doesn’t really matter since it runs relatively frequently.

9. Amendment #13, the last and potentially most controversial amendment, is finally up for discussion after 4 hours and 43 minutes of board meeting.

   1. Somers claims amendment #13 would put all remaining ST3 projects at significant risk and urges fellow board members to oppose amendment.

      Calling it now: Ballard Starter Line is dead until most of this Board is replaced by others who aren’t beholden to today’s votes.

10. Final resolution as amended: passed by supermajority with 2 no votes (Balducci, Strauss).

    Balducci no. The plan needs needs more work and answering the unknowns for her to get to yes.

11. Other resolution: passed unanimously.

    This adds a 1.372 sales and use tax on car rentals to increase ST3 revenue.

    The meeting ended at 7:23pm, almost two hours late.

12. What happened to #13?

    1. Failed. 4 yes votes, 13 no. Updated the article.

13. Happy with all the votes except Graham St.

    And if they vote no to #13 will be sad..

14. Added two sections at end on the final result, and ST’s news release on the each project’s status.

15. Re #13: Did anyone counterargue that DSTT2 was not planned to be complete until after Tacoma Dome and Everett (or at least Paine Field) anyway? So that means the 1 Line was going to run Tacoma – Paine Field for a few years anyway (or Mariner if the 2 Line picks up Paine Field to balance run times). Then there is no sense in which building Ballard Link first would jeopardize the other projects, West Seattle would just also continue working as a branch line for a bit longer. Sigh.

    1. What they meant was the Tacoma Dome and Everett EISes are predicated on the DSTT2 project going forward as planned, so their environmental impacts would have to be adjusted, which would delay the projects, and may make them less competitive for federal grants (because they won’t have DSTT2’s capacity with only a few-year gap) or force them to the back of the line (because the changes are too significant). Those are the kinds of delays and risks Somers is keen to avoid, to ensure Everett/Paine opens on time or close to it.

    2. I’m predicting what I call “the grand switcheroo”. ST will turn Tacoma 1 Line into the stub early so West Seattle residents can ride one train to downtown. They will say that it’s better to run four car trains (saves on needed fleet size) to West Seattle because it’s a shorter distance from Downtown — and turn the future SODO-Tacoma stub into a two or three car train line.

       There will be little advance notice .

       None of the Board members will admit that it’s treating minorities living in SE Seattle and South King as second class citizens.

       Today, ST even announced that buying a smaller future fleet was part of their cost saving actions. They appear to be planning this car shortage already. This sets the stage for this switcheroo. . .

       1. That seems a bit drastic. A full Tacoma to Everett 1 Line would be about the same length as LA Metro’s current A Line, which is also supposed to run every 8 minutes peak while interlining with another light rail line. While the A Line has been having issues with on time performance, Link has far fewer street running segments, so we would still be better off. I think if the 1 Line’s length really is a problem, they could sooner short turn at Northgate than at SODO.

          1. But before DSTT2 open, there will be three branches from south feeding into DSTT. That’s more interlining than LAMetro has in Regional Connector across DTLA.

          2. “But before DSTT2 open, there will be three branches from south feeding into DSTT.”

             That depends on the final track design. Right now, ST is not configuring the tracks to function this way. They could but they probably won’t.

             I wish that they would try! I’d love to see a field test! If trains from the Eastside and RV and West Seattle each run every 10 minutes (even at peak but with four car trains) it could work. With modern train control technology is almost certainly would work.

             There however would remain a turn around time crunch at the north end. The way that reversing is handled is the next, big operational capacity constraint.

             So I expect ST to play it safe and still reverse a line at SODO. They want every rider in every arriving train to have to line up with the dozens getting off each train to take one escalator up and take another escalator down.

             My fears may be unfounded if trains under Beacon Hill approach capacity. But without that kind of crowding, I really think that ST is seemingly expecting to switch which line gets stubbed at the last minute.

          3. That seems a bit drastic.

             Agreed. It would mean that every rider trying to go from Federal Way/Tukwila/SeaTac/Rainier Valley/Beacon Hill to downtown would have to transfer. It won’t be a same-platform transfer either. There is no money for that. ST doesn’t prioritize the rider experience. So you’ve got a train running 8 minutes (at best) that riders have to transfer to, just to get downtown. No, ST won’t do that.

             They will stick to the plan. Most riders from West Seattle will basically just ignore West Seattle Link. So will Metro. The only change would be to the 50 (it will skip SoDo entirely and run express to Beacon Hill). The trains from West Seattle won’t carry many riders. It will be a stub line like East Link but with fewer riders. Like the other stub line, I expect small trains every ten minutes (all day).

             This will be somewhere around 2036 (https://www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-sound-transits-board-is-about-to-vote-on-a-fantasy/). Meanwhile, the second tunnel will continue to be very controversial. My guess is they don’t build that until about 2045. The monorail will continue to be the only fast option from Westlake to the Seattle Center for a long, long time.

             This is actually good news for folks who live close to Avalon. My guess is they supported ST3. There was going to be a station close to their home. Now the station is gone. Worse yet, the express buses to downtown will eventually go away. But that won’t happen until about 2045. So good news for them — they won’t be worse off until twenty years from now (give or take).

             I wish I could say the same thing about Renton. But hey! At least they are getting their parking lot. Seriously though, Renton and Kent are getting screwed. Instead of investing in the SoDo Busway, they are destroying it. No ramps from I-5 (they could have built decades ago). No more overpasses to speed up both the buses and trains. Just buses slogging down a parallel street with BAT lanes at best. Things will get a lot worse before… never mind, they will just get a lot worse.

             But hey, technology moves forward. It is quite likely that automated buses are widespread by then. Frequency issues disappear. Think of every bus running twice as often. Also think of variations running frequently. For example the 21 express (that skips SoDo) would run frequently all day. At the same time, you would have a regular 21 as well. It is not an elegant solution — you are still spending way more money on the buses than you should — but the money goes a lot farther without drivers.

             The main issue will remain buses stuck in traffic. This is where grade-separation is supposed to come in. Tunnels, elevated lines — that sort of thing. We will have some of that, but not where it is needed most. We will have separate rail lines right next to expressways and HOV lanes. We will have nothing on busy corridors with intersections except for where we have them now and a tiny segment between Westlake and Seattle Center. It will be one of the most backward systems in the world. Only in America I guess.

          4. Ross – as someone who lives near the now eliminated Avalon station, you’ve captured my sentiment perfectly. West Seattle link as originally envisioned makes no sense unless extended to the south. But that has never been the plan. At least ST was always building the start of a line that has potential, even if its useless on its own.

             Now they’re cutting stations. If you’re going to build something, at least do it right. The distance from Avalon to the other two West Seattle stations would be manageable if the topography was flat, but the hills make a walk a real PITA. The busy streets also don’t do the walk any favors.

             I guess there is a positive note that it will be probably 20 years before the C line and 21X stop going downtown. After that though, Avalon will certainly be worse off than it is now. The walk to the Junction and Delridge Stations will be bad. Buses will probably be bad – frequency along Avalon will likely be reduced, and you’ll have to transfer to a train on top of it.

             I wish ST would stop pursuing this “shovel ready” project, and just apply all the West Seattle funds to Ballard Link.

          5. “West Seattle link as originally envisioned makes no sense unless extended to the south. But that has never been the plan.”

             There’s still a goal of extending it south to Burien and Renton.

          6. Who’d actually want to ride from West Seattle to Burien or Renton… Or vice versa?

             I hope they don’t build that line because it would be astoundingly useless.

             Renton just needs a short stub that connects to Rainier Beach and joins the 1 Line. Easy simple solution.

             Burien is different but Rapid Ride F and Stride works fine to connect at TIBS.

          7. “Who’d actually want to ride from West Seattle to Burien or Renton”

             People going to Burien or Renton of course. Renton to Seattle via Burien is a surprisingly fast 40 minutes at grade-separated speed, comparable to the 101. The 1 Line from Westlake to Rainier Beach alone is 28 minutes, so that gives only 12 minutes to get to Renton to match the 101. The line would have a station at Southcenter and a transfer station at TIB.

             When ST studied it, it found it would have high cost but low ridership. South King and East King became quiet after that, but it’s still their most likely ask in ST4.

          8. ST would promise 40 mins but it’d end up being 50 minutes probably.

             Also 40 minutes isn’t fast… To Westlake yeah but that’s because buses struggle in downtown. To SODO it’s way slower than the 101.

          9. “Who’d actually want to ride from West Seattle to Burien or Renton… Or vice versa?

             I hope they don’t build that line because it would be astoundingly useless.”
             Places people can go to on the West Seattle-Burien-Renton Line either on the line or with a transfer to another bus or rail line in South King:

             – Seatac Airport
             – Southcenter
             – Downtown Burien
             – Downtown Renton
             – White Center
             – Renton Landing & Southport
             – Westwood Village
             – Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal
             – Highline College
             – South Seattle College
             – Renton Technical College
             – St. Anne Hospital
             – Valley Medical Center
             – Tukwila & Kent Industrial District
             – Boeing Renton Plant
             – Kaiser Permeate
             – Alaska Airlines Global Training Center
             – Seahurst Park
             – Lincoln Park
             – Puget Park
             – Alki Beach
             – Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park

             Etc etc etc

          10. @ ZachB:

              The concept of a West Seattle – Burien -Renton line is summarized on page 18 here:

              https://wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/background/ERP%20150505%20HCT%20Corridor%20Studies.pdf

              Many of the places that you mentioned are not within walking distance of a conceptual station and will still take a bus to reach. There are several high frequency RapidRide bus routes serving the corridor today.

16. Mixed bag. Unnecessary waste in Graham station which is highly redundant and better served by buses going to either close by station. But at least they might study automation. Writing a note to my descendants to see how it all worked out in 2070 when they finish it

    1. The Graham St. Station money should go towards Sounder expansion.. in my honest opinion.

17. I don’t think ST4 is ever happening, after this fiasco. I am amazed that much of the board seems to think that the state and federal governments will somehow bail them out on this.

    The only way Link reaches Market Street at this point is if Seattle comes up with the money themselves. I think the only plausible way to do it is to take the money that Seattle has been using for supplemental Metro bus service, and redirect it to Link construction (for all I know, it’s not enough). A better way would be a Downtown Seattle congestion charge, but that would go over like a lead balloon in the state legislature.

    And we can expect another Eyman initiative. He has been gunning for Sound Transit for a while now. It will probably amount to nothing, but you never know for sure where that might lead.

    1. At this point, I’m thinking I’ll vote for that Eyman initiative. I don’t want to spend money on a duplicative DSTT2, or a West Seattle line that’ll worsen service to West Seattle riders, or an Issaquah-Kirkland line that doesn’t do anything better than freeway buses.

       Seattle should absolutely pay for the Ballard line itself if it can, but it should do the planning itself.

       1. At this point, I’m thinking I’ll vote for that Eyman initiative.

          I think there are a lot of people that will never vote for an Eyman initiative. A lot of people (myself included) hate the guy. That is why the Sound Transit advocates were thrilled to have Eyman write the opposition to ST3 in the voter’s pamphlet. It was easy to paint this as “transit versus taxes”. It would be much better if someone else spearheaded it, even if Eyman supported those people.

          There are really two things here, the politics and the actual initiative. From a political standpoint, I think if there was a repeat vote on ST3 it would be repealed. There is weak support outside Seattle. They have built a lot of the really popular things already. East Link is done. So is Federal Way and Lynnwood Link. For a lot of people, that is all they really wanted out of ST3 and they got it. [Yes, I know ST3 was not needed for Lynnwood Link but a lot of voters didn’t know that.] Sound Transit also went really hard on the traffic myth, which everyone can see didn’t happen (it never does). That’s not to say that the existing suburban projects aren’t popular, only that the expansion seems less popular than ever. Seattle is a different situation. There is widespread support for more rail. But they are prepared to spend a fortune on very little — so much so that a lot of people would vote to just start over. Hell, a lot of people would vote to just spend all the money on buses at this point (no new rail). That is how screwed up everything is at this point.

          I also think there would be support for an elected board. I completely agree with this editorial: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/an-elected-sound-transit-board-could-mean-promises-kept/. I think there are a lot of people that feel the same way. There is a system in place for oversight but it is failing. The recommendations are being ignored. See the byline for this editorial (https://www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-sound-transits-board-is-about-to-vote-on-a-fantasy/)

          Trevor Reed is a transportation consultant and a member of Sound Transit’s Community Oversight Panel.

          Yet it seems like his statements are falling on deaf ears. Anyway, that is the political aspect of it. I’m not sure how things can change from a legal standpoint. I don’t think we can just vote to repeal ST3. You would need a state-wide initiative (I think) for both of these ideas. There would be legal wranglings of course. I could also see an advisory vote. Nothing legal, just the people saying we should do things differently.

    2. Seattle needs to dedicate its money to bus service, so that more areas can have more needed frequency and coverage. It’s not worth throwing that away just to compete one line to Ballard. We can improve the D, 40, and 44’s corridors with some of that money. DSTT2 will come with bad train-to-train transfers that will harm north-south trips and Eastside-airport trips. By the same token trips from Ballard to anywhere except Rainier/SeaTac/Tacoma will have the same transfer problem.

       An initiative can’t affect Sound Transit. Initatives are city-based or statewide. A city initiative is too small for the ST district. A statewide initiative probably can’t change ST’s structure because only the legislature has that authority. It can’t override tax-district public votes that succeeded. It can’t dishonor bonds that have already been sold and require repayment.

       What it could do is revoke tax authority for an entire type of tax, the way it went after variable-rate car tabs before and slashed the base rate to $30, but even then it couldn’t touch tax streams that had been pledged to bond repayments. That initiative if i recall was vacated for violating the single-subject rule, but the legislature enacted its provisions itself. Still, another initiative that really had a single subject and had a ballot description that really disclosed what it would do, could still be enacted I guess. But Eyman initiatives are prone to multi-subject flaws, as if he cares less about them being upheld than about the campaign donations he can raise. But wasn’t he barred from raising money for initiatives because he took the money for personal use, defrauding the donors? Still, there’s that other guy from California that’s been filing “son of Eyman” initiatives, so we might hear from him. But public support for those kinds of initiatives is lower than it was in the 1990s, and Pugetopolis is now a larger percent of the state’s population, and the urban and inner-ring suburban part of Pugetopolis is especially against them.

       1. Yeah DSTT2 is not the move. We need it eventually, but it needs to be designed to fully replace the current DSTT to return back to the buses. SODO busway should remain open. And no Link route should go directly to Ballard… They should remain on the spine while West Seattle and Ballard are stubs that interline in downtown.

          1. glad that the idea of returning buses to any train tunnel is a complete nonstarter.

    3. “I am amazed that much of the board seems to think that the state and federal governments will somehow bail them out on this. ” I mean, they are all either Democrats or Socialists, right? Spending Other People’s Money is an essential component of their political identity; most of their policy positions are incoherent without free money from somewhere else. There no political incentive nor interest in solving local & regional problem with local & regional resources.

       As one of the wealthiest cities in human history, home to several of the most successful companies of all times and the corresponding economic ecosystem (aerospace, enterprise software, etc.), it baffles me that we cannot figure out how to fund this stuff ourselves. And the region doesn’t have a revenue problem – Christine Gregoire has been making the rounds recently pointing out that the state budget has more than doubled since she left office, well above the rate of inflation, and yet the outcomes on key policies (housing, homelessness, education, etc) have had negligible improvement.

       The Board needs a real constraint to make real decisions and compromises. And not “just drop stations and defer segment” compromises, but they have to say no to some vested interests to deliver a broader public benefit. Otherwise, the surplus extraction* rachets only one direction.

       *https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/13/surplus-extraction/

       1. Socialism sounds great until it isn’t. We’re struggling to retain jobs, businesses, and wealthy people.

          Tax the rich sounds great until the tax source disappears. Who do you tax now?

       2. In principle, we should be adding tax reform and tax simplification at a national level. States lose a competitive edge by adding more taxes. And we shouldn’t need to if we spend our money properly. However I’m 100% sure WA and smaller local entities are actively wasting our money. This even boils down to the school district level.

          1. Yeah, if we want innovative new businesses, we need to be more like *checks notes* California, a famously low-tax state.

       3. Yeah but Christine Gregoire is wrong. The state and local expenditures have declined as a share of GDP in the last 20 years. Consumer inflation is the wrong metric by which to judge something like this since budget pressures are not primarily constrained by the cost of consumer goods. The issue is the pace that the cost of salaries, benefits, and capital goods increase. All of these have generally outpaced inflation (particularly in the public sector). https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2026/05/washington-states-budget-has-been-shrinking-not-growing-despite-statements-to-the-contrary-by-former-elected-officials.html

          Now, Sound Transit is a bit of a different beast in the sense that they have made specific decisions which are contributing to their budget deficit and are generally inept. I would agree that they don’t necessarily have a revenue problem, they have a political ineptitude problem. $200 million on an at-grade infill station is 10x more than even the high end of what costs for something like that should be, and if the reason is City of Seattle policy, then the answer should be flexing political muscles on the City. Transit is still wildly popular in Seattle proper, but Sound Transit is seemingly unaware of that and treats things like Graham Street with almost comical caution.

          There’s something deeply sad to me to see them pass resolutions talking about 1980s tech that has been universally adopted globally as “emerging”. I recall reading a Dow Constantine quote talking about CBTC as some new thing when CBTC literally predates Link. SeaTac had a fully automated people-mover system with CBTC before Link opened!

          1. I agree with all of your points. There were really only two good things that happened yesterday: Graham Street and automation. Both should have happened years ago. Both should have been part of the process from the very beginning. It looks to me like ST will actually work with the city in building Graham Street Station. This is like asking for a second opinion when your doctor smells like whisky. Yeah, get that second opinion. You clearly need it.

             The same thing is true for automation. It is clear that ST is just reluctant to try anything new. They are remarkably reluctant to actually do anything. This was true with the East Link starter line and it is true for all these projects. Once they have a plan in mind they are terrified of actually deviating from it, even if the plan is obviously terrible.

          2. CBTC is not new thing for full grade-separated Metro, but It is relatively new to be adopted by system with extensive interlining and hybrid right-of-way.
             US light rail is its own unique thing. Streetcar/Light Rail in other continent typically don’t travel faster than 35 mph with less dedicated right-of-way. Therefore, advanced signal type was not considered necessary. So I think there is some innovations in adopting CBTC for a light rail system.

    4. I don’t think ST4 is ever happening

       Agreed. I think when they planned ST3 they figured this was it. There was never going to be an ST4. This makes it seem less likely.

       I am amazed that much of the board seems to think that the state and federal governments will somehow bail them out on this.

       I agree. This is a terrible value. During a recession or depression the federal government is sometimes eager to just spend money. That is just basic Keynesian economics (pay someone to dig a hole, pay someone to fill it back in). But that is rare these days. The federal government is interested in value and this provides very little. I wouldn’t rule it out (we have powerful Senators) but I just don’t see it happening. There are bound to be better projects across the country. Just thinking locally, a downtown tunnel in Portland (for MAX) seems like it is a better value than ST3 now.

       The only way Link reaches Market Street at this point is if Seattle comes up with the money themselves. I think the only plausible way to do it is to take the money that Seattle has been using for supplemental Metro bus service, and redirect it to Link construction (for all I know, it’s not enough).

       So, interesting backstory on that. I met with the Transit Riders Union recently. During the initial phase of discussions about Graham Street there was great enthusiasm. We were about to pass a resolution fully in favor. Then we heard a rumor that Seattle was going to pay for it (completely). The money was going to come out of the same levy you referred to (the Seattle Transportation Benefit District). Suddenly everyone was opposed. They didn’t want to spend $200 million on the station, even though everyone strongly supports the station and believes it is a good value. That is just too much money shifted from the buses. Of course that isn’t the plan they worked out (thankfully). But the point is, spending ten times that just seems like it would be terribly unpopular. To put it another way: Seattle doesn’t have much money to spend on the buses. ST has a lot of money to spend on light rail. They are spending it poorly.

       1. For Grahan, use the left-turn bays. MAX platforms are about nine- or ten feet wide, and people aren’t being run over by trains. In both directions it’s possible to have mini-cloverleaf loops to replace the direct left turns.

          If a station is built there, the intersection will be completely replaced with mid-rise apartments or condos anyway. So just put the loops around them.

18. Damn – Ross B was right all along. Mea Culpa. Burn it all down. Aside from Granam Street, the rest of the capital program that is “fully funded” is absolutely not worth it.

    1. Issaquah Link maybe worth it but it doesn’t even go to S Bellevue… But it opens the opportunity for a future SR 520 rail extending to UW and Ballard.

       Ballard link as a stub was worth it but clearly that’s not what is happening. Every other project is junk though Tacoma may be ok since Tacoma is a major city and it will improve connectivity within S King and the Airport area.

       Everett and West Seattle… Useless. Those should’ve been scrapped.

       1. I am definitely disappointed but not surprised by this outcome. Balducci put up a pretty good fight – better than Strauss. He felt too little too late and looking for brownie points.

    2. S1 and S2 are worth it. Both of them will greatly increase frequency in the Eastside north-south corridor. S2 will substantially reduce travel time. The 85th interchange, while probably overdesigned and WSDOT should have paid for more of it, will nevertheless allow a transfer or long walk straight west to downtown Kirkland. The only other way to get between Bellevue and Kirkland is the 250, which is the same situation Strauss was talking about that “the last bus to Ballard” leaves at 5:30pm (meaning the last bus faster than the local that stops everywhere in between).

       1. Yes, and I said as much way back when. I enthusiastically supported ST1 and ST2. But ST3 was flawed from the beginning. They needed to go back to the drawing board.

          Of course there are parts of ST3 that are worth it — but most of those are already done. Federal Way Link is done. Downtown Redmond is connected to the rest of East Link. These are good things that are worth the money. So is Pinehurst and Graham Station. The Stride lines are way too expensive (especially Stride 3) but they are peanuts compared to most of this and some of them add value.

          It is quite likely those projects would have been built in whatever replaced ST3. Unfortunately, ST3 was just wrong. It prioritized West Seattle Link over every other project in the city. Over Ballard-UW, Metro-8 or Ballard-Interbay-Link. It never considered an alternative mode for West Seattle. Thus it not only prioritized the wrong area but the wrong mode. It will only get about 5,000 walk-up riders from the two stations (if that). Everyone else will be worse off. This will occur somewhere around 2045, when they finally build the second downtown tunnel.

          Speaking of which, that will be fun. We will listen to endless debates again as to whether it makes sense to screw over Chinatown or have crappy transfers. Why not have both?!! Sure, ST can manage that. Meanwhile, Al will be busy arguing for better transfers at SoDo but of course that will fall on deaf ears (he is right of course). They will use the same excuses as First Hill. We can’t afford it. We painted ourselves into a corner. What else were we supposed to do — levitate? The part that gets me is that so many riders will be worse off. Not just in West Seattle but in areas that are likely totally oblivious to the changes, like Renton and Kent. The SoDo Busway is going away. The connection between the north and south is going away (although at least that won’t happen until the early 2040s at best). But mostly it will just be the biggest waste in transit spending, ever.

          I know that sounds like hyperbole. Seattle is a fairly small city — nothing special really. There are transit projects all over the world. How could ST3 be the worst? Simple. Start with the fact that it is in America. The USA does some things really well and other things really poorly. We are generally considered the worst when it comes to transit infrastructure spending. We spend way too much or we get way too little. In this case it is both. These are extremely expensive projects. Yet they add very little value. The second tunnel is completely redundant. It has no intrinsic value, other than potentially increasing frequency between a handful of stations downtown. Yet it will likely cost around $8.4 billion. Think about that for a second. $8.4 billion for a project that won’t make it easier or faster to get anywhere. Throw in everything else and you have a system that has got to be one of the worst from a cost-benefit standpoint. I am no expert, but I think it is the worst.

          And to think, the big city closest to us (Vancouver) has already built the best transit system on the West Coast and it is about to get a lot better. What a contrast.

       2. ” I enthusiastically supported ST1 and ST2.”

          I was referring to S1 and S2, the Stride lines. Those are worth it. If we’re not going to build rail in those corridors, we need BRT to connect the region together. People in Renton have reasons to go to Bellevue or even Kirkland. A half-hourly or hourly express bus route is a barrier to doing that, and is inadequate for an area of hundreds of thousands of people. People need real transit options.

    3. Damn – Ross B was right all along. Mea Culpa. Burn it all down.

       Burn Baby Burn.

       Aside from Granam Street, the rest of the capital program that is “fully funded” is absolutely not worth it.

       Yep. The problem is, I have no idea how to actually change anything. I don’t know where to set the fire (metaphorically speaking). Can we have a regional referendum, even an advisory vote? What would it look like?

19. “Projects deferred until resources are identified

    …
    SR 162 Corridor Improvements
    …”

    Anyone know what is this about?

    1. Orting to Sumner or Puyallup has been a perennial goal of Sound Transit, since Orting is in the ST district. The goal is to connect it to Sounder or eventually provide all-day express service. Orting has no other transit since it’s outside the PT district. It’s on ST’s long-range plan to eventually get something, possibly a DMU train or ST Express bus.

20. Build Ballard to Seattle center or ideally SLU and then run connecting buses every 5 min between ID and Seattle center on 3rd Ave completely closed to other traffic. The expense of a second tunnel a block from the first is dumb.

    1. You want to build a train alongside a near-freeway with bus lanes (15th West and Elliott) but then force people to change to surface buses for the last mile to Downtown Seattle?

       [Ed: Removed insult. Keep it civil.]

    2. The expense of a second tunnel a block from the first is dumb.

       Agreed. But I also think that a train line from Ballard to the Seattle Center or even Denny doesn’t work either. It needs to get to Westlake. Westlake is the center of downtown. It is a major transit hub. Not just for light rail but for buses as well. A lot of people will transfer there anyway (e. g. to go to Capitol Hill via bus or train). If anything, I would terminate short of Ballard, at Interbay. At least that an all-day 15 (and hopefully 18). You serve Interbay and all the Magnolia buses go to the UW. It is not ideal but it is much better — and much cheaper — then what we are going to build.

21. Now with West Seattle coming online before the 2nd tunnel, the challenge is whether ST will try interlining the three lines through the existing tunnel. I’m confident it’s doable,

    https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/03/21/a-single-downtown-tunnel-is-completely-possible-and-provides-the-best-outcomes/

    1. And at that point, there is no need for a second tunnel. Since the tail is wagging the dog here, my guess is they don’t even consider it. Folks want to build a second tunnel not because it adds value but because they would have to change the EIS. Seriously. That is the reasoning. We need to build it because if we don’t build it we will have to do a lot of extra paperwork and that could somehow mess up the other projects.

22. I’m not really understanding why the downtown tunnel is tied to “completing the spine”? From my understanding there are concerns with capacity through downtown Seattle, but isn’t that only because West Seattle and Ballard Link pass through downtown? Wouldn’t it be net positive for the Pierce and Snohomish sub-regions if the downtown tunnel was cancelled and the funds redistributed?

    1. The Everett and Tacoma EISes depend on DSTT2 being built as planned, with only a few-year gap between when they open and it opens. If DSTT2 is substantially delayed or canceled, Everett and Tacoma’s EISes would have to be adjusted. That would add time to study and do it, and may force them to redo some federal grant process steps and approvals which would take more take more time and uncertainty, and it may make them less competitive for grants since there would no longer be abundant downtown capacity they’re going to.

       1. I don’t think either extension EIS would have to be adjusted.

          Every EIS has to identify background transportation projects to assume in demand forecasts. That list is always changing in some way because that includes every planned transportation project from projected Swift lines to redesigned interchanges. It also includes factors like the future price of gasoline and future parking rates in Downtown Seattle — and future fares and future pass costs too! It also includes population and employment forecasts, and bus route frequencies that are affected by subsidy referenda on transit service. The official background assumptions should be traceable to the most current PSRC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as PSRC is the Federally designated (MPO) plan keeper. It’s worth noting that an updated plan was apparently adopted in final form yesterday too — with no press coverage. (PSRC’s invisibility is a deliberate agency strategy by the way.)

          These background assumptions are often tied to what was planned roughly at the date of Notice of Preparation. The EIS analysis had to start somewhere and that would be the prior RTP.

          And finally it needs to be mentioned that an EIS is only about disclosing impacts and hopefully mitigating them. It doesn’t guarantee Federal funding.

          Over time, local elected officials have learned to use the “affects another EIS” argument as a political excuse why they can’t change other things. Don’t buy it! It’s pretty much BS!

          1. But I think they do have to reopen the EIS process under some circumstances, right? For example, when they deleted the Mid-town and CID stations and adopted North/South of CID as their preferred option, they had to go back and do more evaluation of the impact, I think. Actually, isn’t that why West Seattle Extension is now ahead of Ballard and is in a position to go first? Anyway, I’m sure it’s a convenient and overblown excuse sometimes, but I’m not sure how to distinguish these situations from those where a revised EIS is really required. Is it an FTA approval thing or exposure to a lawsuit under NEPA, or…?

          2. Alternatives that aren’t in the EIS have to be studied and added to it. The Ballard/DSTT2 EIS hadn’t finished a draft when the board added such extensive alternatives with CID/N, CID/S, Denny station, and SLU station and the latter two alignments, that it had to restart the EIS process. A new draft has now been written and it’s waiting for the feds to OK releasing the draft.

             The Everett and Tacoma EISes are further along, so adding the possibility of delayed or no DSTT2 could require repeating more steps. But since it’s no the downtown EIS itself, it won’t have to be changed so extensively, probably a page or less on it. It would have to show the project is still viable without DSTT2.

             The need for EISes revolves around both lawsuits and grant eligibility. I’m assuming the risk to Everett and Tacoma is mostly on the grant side. Who, believing DSTT2 is needed to avoid likely overcrowding, would sue over the Everett and Tacoma projects? They’d sue over Ballard/DSTT2.

          3. @ ScottH:

             An unstudied alternative has to be added to an EIS. A background project generally does not have to be added to an EIS.

             Mike is right that the CID changes triggered a revised EIS for the northern half of WSBLE which is now the BLE EIS. (Note that BLE EIS extends to south of Holgate.) That’s an unstudied alternative.

             But what happens to DSTT2 generally does not affect Everett or Tacoma Dome Link Extensions significantly. It’s merely another background project located over 15 miles away. There are circumstances that it may — like if the design is changed to include berms created from DSTT2 excavated soil.

             Mike also points out the other two factors : potential lawsuits and grant eligibility. With lawsuits, the burden is on the plaintiff suing and that could still happen even with West Seattle FEIS and the Record of Decision — but it’s very hard to do that. It would take an outright lie or miscalculation or something else obvious to stop it in court. (I could see that a lawsuit on the West Seattle Link FEIS could happen on procedural grounds as all the alternatives all assumed a DSTT2 completion by 2042 even though ST knew that it wasn’t a financially realistic assumption. But the action yesterday leaves DSTT2 alone all the way to Seattle Center — so it’s the elimination of only the Seattle Center to Ballard segment that becomes inaccurate and that would be pretty insignificant. A second issue could be that because the No Avalon alternative was not part of the Draft EIS that ST did not fulfill the notice requirements of no building Avalon Station. Note that Avalon is dropped while Ballard is merely deferred.) .

             And the very issue of the Ballard Link completion may still result in a degrading of a FFGA application for West Seattle. That appears to be a factor who the ST Board had to face the Enterprise Initiative in the first place. Without a stated financially feasible end point for DSTT2/ BLE, the rating for West Seattle cannot be determined.

             It’s a cruel proximity twist of fate about DSTT2. Postponing the DSTT2 segment yesterday would have put the West Seattle project at much higher lawsuit and FFGA risk where postponing north of Seattle Center results in much less risk as a background assumption.

    2. My understanding is that they linked the tunnel and the spine projects in the federal applications and any change would put agreements with the federal government at risk. It’s entirely about process and not the actual functionality of the tunnel and the main lines.

       1. It’s entirely about process and not the actual functionality of the tunnel and the main lines.

          Nor is it about the cost or feasibility of actually building the tunnel. That will happen later. In other words the EIS reports are done for the other projects but they rely on a tunnel that doesn’t have a completed EIS, is obviously highly controversial and is likely to encounter big cost overruns. But somehow this is the easiest way to proceed on those other projects. If all of this sounds like nonsense, join the club.

          1. The weird thing is that DSTT2 is only “necessary” if one buys the 2016 ridership projections and ignores the increasingly difficult task of filling the high-rises in downtown Seattle.

             Republicans throughout the State are cheering the layoffs at Meta, the movement of franchise management by Starbucks to Tennessee and the difficulties at Boeing. One hopes that they are being careful around knives, for they run the very real risk of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

       2. This begs the question: What happens if, fifteen years from now, Everett and Tacoma Dome Link are built but the second tunnel has become too expensive? Obviously the EIS are meaningless at that point. Are they supposed to give back the grant money for Everett and Tacoma Dome Link?

          It seems like the second tunnel is meaningless for those other projects or it should be done first.

          1. DSTT2 is already too expensive…

23. This is another demonstration — if one more was needed — that giving completely untrained people access to what is functionally a “Guaranteed Income Stream” of enormous volume leads directly to them lighting the money on fire so they can perform in the light provided by the fire.

    What a stupendous waste of Taxpayers’ money this “program” is, regardless whether it was “hard-earned” in the cliched mantra or a windfall from The Lottery.

24. Since Ballard is getting hosed, will ST at leastchip in for additional bus service for Ballard?

    1. Sound Transit doesn’t care about Ballard people*

       *In case someone doesn’t get the reference: https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5517328/george-bush-doesnt-care-about-black-people-20-years-later

    2. Ballard people can take care of themselves. That funeral shit was in bad taste. It’s infrastructure, not dead babies. Get over it.

25. ST in the news. Seattle Times headline: “Sound Transit rebuffs Ballard, OKs other light rail routes”.

    The article gives more light on the executive session: ‘Board members paused for a closed-door executive session to discuss possible litigation in which publicity could harm the organization. “There’s legal risk in changing a big project mid-stream,” Somers said, asked to explain the closed session.’

    1. Somers is quoted in that article as saying “This is arguably the most complex transit project in the world, and we’re making it (ST3) more complex every day”. This is so far beyond the realm of farce and parochial that it’s hard to describe. Is ST3 more complex than the expansions in Los Angeles? Or projects in New York? or the Grand Paris express projects? HS2 in the UK? The countless expansions in China or India? I’m not sure what the answer to any of those are, but the complexity of ST3 is essentially an own-goal, and everything I read from the ST board makes me think that they are entirely unaware of how anyone anywhere else in the history of the world has ever built a transit project.

       LA is a good point of comparison, since it’s also a politically fractured area that faces similar geologic challenges to Seattle. But LA Metro has managed to build a subway for less than $1B per mile down Wilshire – a corridor with more density and equal levels of complexity to Ballard (sans the water crossing at least – but Ballard is in one jurisdiction while the D is in two). ST is looking at nearly $3B per mile for Ballard! 3x what LA is paying for a broadly similar project. Oh and it’ll be less than 20 years from vote (2008) to opening for the entire D Line extension (2027). It’s not like you can reasonably argue that California has simpler environmental planning requirements than Washington. It’s not like you can argue that LA is taking an inexpensive option. If we could figure out how to build transit as well as Los Angeles, we could fund the entire ST3 program 2x over.

       The reason that we can’t is because Somers et al. are incapable of directing a transit agency through difficult decisions, and instead reflexively take the path of least political resistance – something which is always extremely expensive to do.

       1. The lack of response to ST’s “applications” may be the only good aspect of the Trump Administration.

       2. Maybe he meant “poorly run” not “complex”. It was like the Battle of Little Big Horn. If Custer had survived he would have talked about how complex the battle was.

          “This is arguably the most [poorly run] transit project in the world, and we’re making it (ST3) more [poorly run] every day”. Yep, that tracks.

       3. “ This is arguably the most complex transit project in the world, and we’re making it (ST3) more complex every day”.

          That’s sadly hilarious! That’s a statement taken out of a campaign speech handbook!

          While the Lake Washington crossing is unique and impressive, everything else is pretty much standard. Of course, nothing actually in ST3 is novel at all. Even the Duwamish high rail bridge isn’t particularly remarkable even though it will be visually prominent. Downtown subways have been in various stages of construction or recent completion in multiple cities in the US and across the world.

          Substitute “expensive” or “rider hostile” for “complex” and that statement would be far more accurate.

          It’s just one more example of two things:

          – Most of the Board and senior staff think that Link reality is the only rail transit reality in the world.
          – Most of Board and senior staff think that this is more a pretty set of projects to someday admire from afar rather than be a useful set of projects that riders will actually use.

          1. It is also just weird that you would brag about making a project more complex. That is not a good thing. The statement just sounds like someone who is in over their head. It would be a great exaggeration if you said “This project is one of the most complex transit projects in the world but at least we are making it simpler in several ways”. That may be BS but at least it sound like they are doing something right. This is the opposite.

       4. “The lack of response to ST’s “applications” may be the only good aspect of the Trump Administration.”

          It’s not just ST’s applications, it’s all applications across the country. We might want a grant for a RapidRide project.

26. So, terrible transfers downtown are officially happening? I’m really sorry Eastside airport riders with all of your luggage. Enjoy the slight inconvenience while you can. I’m not sure if I’ll ever use Ballard from Capitol Hill with the transfers situation.
    West Seattle Link should destroy a Great Blue Heron rookery ( large group of nests). Hopefully it won’t disturb the Peregrine Falcon nest.

    1. “terrible transfers downtown are officially happening?”

       They’re still on track and the most likely outcome but not definite. First ST has to finish the EIS and choose a preferred alignment, vote on the final EIS, select projects for construction, and sign contracts. That’s still several years off. By that time there may be different members on the board with different leanings. Also, ST has to get federal grants to fund part of the construction. The administration has been slow-walking grant dispursals. None have occurred under the Trump administration, and we don’t know if any will. That may require delaying or deferring not only DSTT2, but West Seattle and Everett and Tacoma Dome too.

       1. Would it not marginally improve transfers if the Board ultimately selected DSTT2 stations at the original Mid-town location around 5th and Madison, combined with the 5th Ave Diagonal option in CID versus them proceeding with the “preferred” North/South CID stations? Do you think that’s something people may be able to successfully advocate for once the new EIS is released?

          1. It would, but Midtown is the main reason that “Deep New Westlake” is necessary. If Ballard-Westlake continued into First Hill the transfers at Westlake would be much more acceptable, because the New Westlake platforms could be much shallower and more accessible.

             Whether it continued down Rainier to Mt. Baker eventually as suggested a couple of years ago by Frank or erupted from the hill in Beacon Place Park above Dearborn Street on its way to West Seattle, serving First Hill would be a huge improvement to the network that Link serves.

          2. Of course it would, but the board is against it at this point. The board voted for Harrell’s/Constantine’s proposal to move the stations to CID/N and CID/S, and now that’s ST’s official position, and none of the boardmembers have shown any interest in reversing it. The CID community is split on the issue, so the board declares itself for the pro faction and what they call equity, and pretends the anti faction doesn’t exist or is tiny and what they call equity is irrelevant.

             The original Midtown location at 5th & Madison would serve the library, RapidRide G, and the Madison part of downtown. This was left out of DSTT1, so this was a chance to fix it in DSTT2. (Or the original Symphony station could have been a couple blocks further south, and Westlake extended to entrances on both sides of Pike Street to compensate.)

             The 5th Avenue Diagonal alternative would have almost as short transfers as the original 5th Avenue Shallow site in the ballot measure, and ST says it would have less construction disruption than it.

             Veering out to First Hill and back, by moving Midtown east to 8th & Madison or so, would be even better, but ST is even more against that. Because voters expected stations “downtown” among the office highrises, and 8th is too far from that and on the other side of I-5.

          3. You would think that the hospitals on First Hill, like Virginia Mason and Swedish, would prefer the central Mid-Town station with its Rapid Ride G connection, and that they would have some clout with South Transit decision makers. Maybe not enough to overcome Dow’s influence, but might be worth a shot?

       2. lock ballard to bellevue and redmond.
          make the 2 line the “tech line”

          then west-seattle to everett becomes the 3 line.

          build a branch for the current 2 line after Judkins park at Dearborn and 12th
          have it continue to a real first hill station and a shallow westlake station with good transfers to 1 line.

          onward to slu, amazonia, and ballard.

          1. Yes, that is the logical pairing and pathway. You link east and west while adding at least one station in the downtown area that is significantly distant from the other stations. (I know old-timers don’t think of First Hill as “downtown” but it is downtown by any reasonable definition.)

             It makes sense to do all this after finishing the West Seattle and Ballard sections. Then the West Seattle line just interlines at SoDo. This is just one of several variations that make a lot more sense than what they are building.

          2. That’s one way to get to First Hill. But I think it would kill any possibility of automation, which is the way to save several billion on the line to Ballard and provide better service.

             Line 2 has two longish sections of at-grade, both with lots of pedestrian traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods and car traffic crossing. ST would be very reluctant to automate it.

             Better just a Ballard-Westlake “stub” or, eventually, that line extended into a completely independent line which could be connected to WSLE which is to be all grade-separated and therefore “automatable” [probably not a word], by providing a new elevated stretch between Dearborn and the elevated south of SoDo. Line 3 was originaly going to be elevated over the busway, but as a cost-saving exercise it will now be placed directly on the busway.

             If WSLE is to be LRT, then a new pair of tracks is completely unnecessary, but if it were part of a new short-train automated system, elevation or strict fencing would be required.

             Frank’s idea for a line south along Rainier to Judkins Park and Mt. Baker would interface the automated line nicely to the LRT lines using single-level transfers. Getting Link into First Hill using Sixth Avenue to Seneca is so obvious a solution that I’m amazed I have to shout about it all the time for it to be noticed.

             Sixth Avenue climbs nearly four stories between Pine and Seneca, so a shortie automated station between University and Seneca could be a more moderate-depth “Midtown” and still turn under the freeway and up to 8th or 9th and Madison then south under Ninth to Harborview/Yesler Terrace and beyond.

          3. It would sure be nice to have funds to reimagine and expand the rail network in Central Seattle. Maybe through interlining and new stations riders could even use cross platform transfers for future lines.

             Alas, ST has committed the rail program to at least 2050 and wants to push the bonds even later to 2100. God only knows what we will want to build at that point.

    2. “ So, terrible transfers downtown are officially happening?”

       The more timely question is “So, terrible transfers downtown are officially planned?” That answer is unfortunately “Yes”.

       Every single Board member who endorsed bad transfers here should have that action permanently tattooed on their political career by every transit advocate for the rest of their life. The ad should be “Candidate X hates transit riders!” Environmental groups should also weigh in about how bad transfers will make it harder to get people out of their cars.

       And the criticism about transfers extends especially to Katie Wilson.

       1. The advocacy for rider-friendly station design needs to take center stage now. Transit advocates need to pay close attention to station layouts and the number of escalators and elevators as well as the number of stair steps.

          It’s easier to automate a grade separated rail segment than it is to change how entire platforms are laid out. NYC and Chicago and Boston residents still are walking through stations laid out well over 100 years ago. If ST starts cutting things inside stations, riders need to make a big stink about it.

          And advocacy is easier. Not only has the Board now given lip service to rider friendliness but there isn’t a need to do any subarea dealmaking that limits what can be advocated. Wilson or Strauss or Zahilay or Mosquera can each be champions of efficient station design — and push back when staff proposes to make access inside stations even more difficult.

          Now please let’s advocate for a better SODO station layout! It’s quite urgent to do this ASAP!

27. I’m really baffled why the board is so wedded to the new tunnel that they’re willing to cut the most important line in ST3. They really backed themselves into a corner by tieing all the EISes to it. Since the board blew their chance to fix things, is it time to bring the legislature back in and force a new vote? It seems unlikely this existing plan would pass.

    1. A new vote would be extremely difficult, for the simple reason that there have already been plenty of bonds backed by ST3 revenues sold. The State would never risk its bond rating to fix this mess.

       Puget Sound is on its own folks. A complacent electorate has met a clueless cadre of eager spendthrifts as the Band Plays On…….

       1. You could still pay off the bonds. You just wouldn’t build as much. It would be like ST4 but in reverse. Lower the tax rates, finish some of the work you’ve started (like the Stride projects) and pay off the bonds.

          1. That is the proper thing to do. Winter is coming, because The Extraordinary Privilege of being the provider of The World Currency is fast slipping away. Thirty-five trillion will be tough to roll over when everyone thinks we’re a bunch of drunken Deus Vulters.

             Time to batten the hatches.

       2. The bond issue is just making the full bond repayments on time. It doesn’t tie ST’s hands on modifying ST3 in a way that serves the stated transit markets’ real needs.

          1. Mike, no of course it doesn’t prevent modifications, but the point of the vote proposal by Steve seems to be to reverse the approval of ST3. That’s what I was replying to.

          2. Then you misread it, Tom. I’m aware you can’t end the taxing authority. You can, however, rescind the build authority until they come up with a viable plan that could pass in a revote. Such a plan would have to have good transfers between lines (or better yet, just scrap DSTT2 altogether) and find a way to get to key population centers. Ideally, it would also be set up for a next phase too instead of continually pretending that we’ll never build more rail after this phase is complete.

          3. Steve, I very much doubt that an initiative could “rescind” Sound Transit’s authority to spend money on projects it has received approval to build by the voters.

             How would that occur? By what mechanism would such a constraint be enacted? What legal vehicle EXCEPT revocation of bond issuance authority could the Public act?

             The agency is set up to be guided by the elected leaders of the three counties.

             The voters exist only to ratify the projects that the electeds concoct.

             So far as your specific prescriptions, with which nearly every person active on The Blog agrees (as do I), this article details the ease with which The Electeds dismissed the same set of improvements when presented by one of their own. How much less will they heed The Little People like us.

             If Puget Sound is to be saved from this folly, salvation must come from without, perhaps from Trump’s intransigent “SecTrans” or maybe the Legislature.

             The Electeds seem determined to Drive The Train Into A Ditch.

          4. @Tom Terrific, I’m afraid I agree. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I’m planning to call my state legislators next week to urge them to defund ST3.

          5. Oh please the project is not even that bad.

             Lots will be built. Link to Tacoma, Everett, Issaquah, and more service in Bellevue.

             The downside is Seattle is getting screwed. DSTT2 will ruin transfers. The SODO busway will be eliminated, screwing up S King County from easily connecting to Link via their buses.

             If the SODO busway is to be removed, I think we should return the old tunnel to the buses and make an HOV flyover onto them. Make an easy connection to the new tunnel which can support all 3 lines of Link operations reliably with 2-3 min headways.

          6. @ South King Resident, that’s the problem. Sound Transit has forgotten about Seattle and about people going places in Seattle that aren’t on the 1 Line.

             I live in Bellevue. I want to go to Ballard. Oops; no Sound Transit for me.

          7. I don’t really see how any of the remaining major projects, as currently planned, make transit better for anyone. Not just Seattle, but also any of the other projects.

             Stride might wind up being ok-ish, and the Redmond extension was a good idea.

             The whole awkward transfer experience that winds up happening with all of these other projects just doesn’t seem like it improves anything much, compared to what $100 billion should get.

          8. “I very much doubt that an initiative could “rescind” Sound Transit’s authority to spend money on projects it has received approval to build by the voters.”

             That’s what I mean about how an initiative can’t override a tax-district yes vote. In the Monorail’s case it was a Seattle city program, so a Seattle city initiative could stop it. But a statewide initiative can’t override a yes vote in smaller tax district like Sound Transit., because that would have people outside the tax district voting on it. Since the ST district doesn’t correspond exactly to a city district or the state, there’s no level of initiative that can operate on it. I’m not sure if county-level initiatives exist, but that wouldn’t work for Sound Transit either.

          9. Oh please the project is not even that bad.

             Yes it is. The worst projects are being built and the best ones are being deferred. Just about everything is either already built or not worth the money. Everett, Tacoma Dome, Issaquah and West Seattle to Seattle Center are all terrible values. Even the Stride projects are a terrible value and this is from a guy who loves spending money on buses. Maybe they could get WSDOT to actually pay for the work since they are the ones doing most of it. I would hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater but I wouldn’t cry about it. It is pretty crazy to think an overpriced surface infill station (Graham Street) is by far the best remaining value but that is where we are at.

             But again, we are stuck on how to actually stop this nonsense. Defunding sounds plausible, although I’m not sure how it would actually work. Maybe if they go back to the tax rates of ST2 they can then they scale everything back but continue to pay off the bonds. I’m not sure if the old tax rate rates are high enough to pay off the bonds for things they have built since ST3 passed (like Federal Way Link). Thus you might need to lower the taxes but not to the point that it causes a default.

             Another option is to have an elected board. This editorial makes a very good case for it: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/an-elected-sound-transit-board-could-mean-promises-kept/. Perhaps an elected board would support starting over from scratch, which is really what should be done. So much of what the board has done is based on the assumption that the projects were a good value, but we just ran into financial hiccups. That is completely wrong. Most of what they wanted to spend money on was a terrible value from the beginning. The only projects that had merit were completing old ST2 projects (like Redmond and Federal Way Link), minor projects (like the infill stations) and Ballard Link. Ballard Link was the only big new project in the entire proposal that transit advocates admitted was worthy. Everything else was not. But even Ballard Link was not the best value — Ballard to UW was. Thus simply starting over from scratch would be better.

             I want to remind everyone once again about the dangers of building something that is poorly designed and really expensive. Subways are measure twice, cut once. Between Westlake and the UW there is only one station (Capitol Hill). That will be the case forever. Despite high density, proximity to major destinations and extremely slow surface travel speeds there is only one station between there. The same thing will happen with South Lake Union. Just one poorly placed station between Westlake and the Seattle Center. Likewise, I shouldn’t have to remind anyone about how poor the plans are for Ballard. It is crazy that we are fighting so hard for what at best will be a station at 15th. Even West Seattle Link — the project that is such a bad value you can’t imagine it getting worse — is about to get much worse. It is hard to defend any of it really.

             To paraphrase Reece Martin, if you build the wrong things, you won’t have money to build the right things. That is basically where we are right now. If we build all of this then at best we eventually get one very weak station in Ballard. We don’t get Ballard to UW or a Metro 8 subway, let alone money to just run the buses where they are needed.

          10. “The downside is Seattle is getting screwed. DSTT2 will ruin transfers.”

              Suburbanites are getting screwed with that too. Lynnwood to SeaTac, Shoreline to Rainier Valley, Eastside to SeaTac, KDM and Federal Way to UW and Capitol Hill, etc.

          11. I don’t really see how any of the remaining major projects, as currently planned, make transit better for anyone.

              This. NONE of the remaining ST3 projects except Westlake-Smith Cove is worth pursuing.

              Lynnwood is arguably an ideal centroid for Snohomish County transit. North of there population spreads widely but thinly. Choosing any single route misses way more riders than it serves. The “cluster of employment” around Payne Field comes from a huge, diffuse catchment and flows across the dominant north-south flow of workers. LIBE 3 trains will be as empty of Boeing workers as are Line 1 trains passing BAR.

              “Getting to Tacoma” seems like an obvious goal: connect two complementary cities to serve them both.

              But Link won’t GET to Tacoma. It will get to Tacoma Dome and two casino stops. Woo-hoo North Vegas, Baby!

              We’ve shown that the foolishness that is a single station in a freeway lid for Costco employees just west of Issaquah is likely to carry fewer riders than a frequent multi-destination BRT, but Issaquah still clings to it.

              West Seattle would be fine if it were all at-grade like Interstate Avenue MAX, but it has engineering challenge after topographical headache all the way to the two-story tall “Junction”.

              Even “BLE” North of Smith Cove as envisioned by ST is weakened by its diffused terminal “solution”.

              It would be far better for the Legislature to give the three counties ST’s taxing authority and make them come up with projects that don’t depend on Seattle’s super-majorities for “transit” to pass.

              But that probably won’t happen, because it would require The Leg to admit that its obsession with a low-speed interurban from Everett to Tacoma was a not Good Transit.

          12. I didn’t say an initiative – I said an act of the legislature. I’m totally baffled why you (any of you who commented on the matter) don’t believe that the legislature could amend the law that created and empowered Sound Transit in the first place. Of course they can – the only limit is making sure bondholders aren’t screwed, so the law could be as simple as “Sound Transit’s authority is limited to collecting the already authorized taxes for the purpose of paying off bondholders only and operating existing light rail lines + bus routes.” I don’t want that, and I doubt many on this blog would, but there’s no reason they couldn’t.

              If they can do that, they can pass a more complicated law authorizing ST to collect the taxes while also redeveloping a build plan, which they can only execute on after achieving a new majority vote of the people within the taxing district.

              As for an initiative – I assume a statewide initiative could also achieve something like this as well, but making it fit under the single-subject rule could add complexity.

          13. Lynnwood and Federal Way were the compromise between urbanist transit fans vs the suburbs who wanted questionable rapid transit to Everett and Tacoma.

              Lynnwood is a long-established central hub for Snohomish County, and the origin of a dozen express routes to downtown Seattle and the U-District. Express routes from north of Lynnwood were a much smaller minority. A Lynnwood Link hub would have comparable travel time to those express buses (faster than Sunday morning but slower than peak hours), so it would allow them to be eliminated and the significant number of service hours reallocated to new Swift lines and intra-Snohomish frequency.

              Transit fans would have preferred terminating south Link at Rainier Beach, SeaTac, or KDM, but the political momentum was for Federal Way in the ST2-ish phase. So urbanist transit fans mostly accepted that and argued it shouldn’t go further.

              Unlike Lynnwood Link, which could more effectively serve the entire area around it (Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Mulilteo, Canyon Park, Brier, Everett), Federal Way Link can’t effectively serve Renton, Kent, or Auburn, because it’s too far west, such a long distance that Link’s 55 mph maximum adds up, and the surface segments in Rainier Valley and SODO and the detour east to Rainier Valley add 10-12 minutes to travel time. So there’s no way for a trip from Auburn, Kent, or Renton to take less than an hour via Link. That’s too long for cities of around 100,000 each that are only 15-30 miles from downtown Seattle. So they need alternate express transit to Seattle to make up for it, or Link should have been built in the Green River Valley (Sounder) corridor instead. But then it would have missed the airport, and Federal Way was politically powerful because it’s on I-5, and Federal Way is a shorter path to Tacoma. So the 99/I-5 corridor won out over the Green River Valley corridor, and the South King County subarea strongly preferred it. And South King has yet to propose an adequate alternative for Renton, Kent, and Auburn to Seattle — and their Stride S1 plan to Bellevue leaves much to be desired, especially for Kent and Auburn.

          14. “It would be far better for the Legislature to give the three counties ST’s taxing authority and make them come up with projects that don’t depend on Seattle’s super-majorities for “transit” to pass.”

              The issue is Pierce and Snohomish are so tax-shy that it wouldn’t pass their voters alone, not even at 50%. You’d have to have an authority that could decide to do it and raise taxes without a vote. And that contradicts Eyman-era sensibilities on taxes, which are strongest in Pierce County and exurbs like Mukilteo.

              That’s the entire reason why Pierce and Snohomish insisted on being included in Sound Transit — because it was the only way they could ever hope to get subway/Sounder level infrastructure. Or even a major express-bus network or BRT network.

              Forward Thrust and the 1980s planning were all about a King County only system. It would have been that if Pierce and Snohomish hadn’t insisted on being included in Sound Transit and convinced Olympia to do it.

    2. ST is somewhat analogous to a multi-party marriage with an added commitment to build and live in a sprawling ranch house together that takes a few decades to build. Trying to negotiate a divorce with alimony in that situation is almost impossible.

       1. ‘Divorce with Alimony’ would be terminating all future builds. What I’m proposing here is different. It’s clear that the ST board is just a runaway train at this point, incapable of self-correcting. I’d be asking the legislature to recognize this fact, and give them a swift kick in the arse to hopefully knock the blinders off and deliver a clear message: ‘The way you’re going ain’t the right way to go.’ Get it together before you proceed.’

28. So in the end the dstt2 boondoggle lives on butvjatie gets her graham st. Infill. I thinkbthe disruption and technical issues withvdstt2 will slowly come to light as ble is pushed forward..

    1. Yes. DSTT2 will not be a smooth project. A lot of the board members don’t seem to care whether it is built or not. But they want it to be officially part of the planning because their own pet projects are officially dependent on it. It is a bizarre mindset, really. The whole idea with all of this paperwork is to make sure you get it right. It is not designed to delay, but to make sure that agencies don’t hastily build something that is bad in the long run. Yet in their haste to avoid further paperwork they are prepared to do precisely that.

       1. I say, build the new tunnel… Get that debt out of the way. But plan to scrap the old one and return them to the buses.

          The new tunnel should be able to fully support all 3 Link lines in my opinion, each with 6 minute headways.

          1. It really makes no sense to convert the old tunnel into a bus tunnel again. It was designed to connect to I-5 and to a lesser extent, I-90. That just doesn’t make sense anymore. You want to connect to Aurora and Elliott to the north. I just don’t see that being practical — not with the tunnel bending the opposite direction from Symphony to Westlake. Even the connection from the south (via the SoDo Busway) will be obliterated well before the new tunnel is built. So while it could work well as a bus tunnel (again) it should remain the superior rail tunnel through downtown (while the other one is redundant).

          2. The old tunnel is really bad though. Trains run slow. It just can’t fit all the Link capacity we need through Seattle

             But buses used to be so great into Seattle back when we had the bus tunnel. Honestly one of the better times of transit before 2020 where everything screwed up.

             The best days were 2016-2019 when we had U Link but some buses were still in the tunnels. If we had a large tunnel that could fit all trains and buses… It would be amazing. We should be building something like that. Super easy transfers.

          3. So very glad this is not happening.

             Belching diesel.
             Super loud.
             Kneeling buses.
             Failing to kneel buses blocking entire tunnel.
             Dismal and dingy from all the exhaust.

             Happily, no way to get buses out of tunnel north end.

          4. The buses in the tunnel were electrified. The tunnel was rarely blocked by a bus since there was room for buses to pass. So enough with the revisionist history. It could have been improved (given modern technology). For example they could easily add platform level boarding. Then you either have a gap or you add a boarding bridge. So it could work really well as a bus tunnel again and easily carry more riders than the trains. But it just doesn’t make sense given the geography and everything else we plan on building.

             The old tunnel is really bad though. Trains run slow. It just can’t fit all the Link capacity we need through Seattle.

             The new train tunnel will be just like it, only worse. The only major difference is that it will have fewer stations. The old tunnel has massive stations that can handle huge numbers of people. The tunnel doesn’t slow down the trains. The only reason it takes a while to get through the tunnel is because of the long dwell times. This is due in part to the design of the trains. It is a lot easier to get in and out of a typical subway train because it is more open inside and everything is level. This hurts dwell times. It is also possible that some of the long dwell times are designed to keep things timed (I’m sure this happens in Rainier Valley all the time).

             Capacity is a bit lower because of the trains themselves. Automated trains (with open gangways) would add capacity even if they ran on the same schedule. But you are also limited in how often you can run the trains. You have the same issues with either tunnel. It really isn’t the tunnel itself. You can run trains every 90 seconds through the existing tunnel. The weak point is the overall system. The lines are very long, run on the surface in various places and are thus not very consistent in terms of timing. That is what Ms. Olsen is getting at. Consider the situation right now. They trains are supposed to go through the tunnel evenly spaced, four minutes apart. But sometimes a train is a minute late. This is fine — the tunnel can handle a three minute gap. But now imagine we are trying to run trains every two minutes apart. If a train is a minute late then it means the other train has to wait (for thirty seconds). This is what Ms. Olsen means when she writes that it “wouldn’t give our ridership as reliable a service”.

             But as that article pointed out, ST is quite comfortable running trains every three minutes through the tunnel. That is six minutes down Rainier Valley. It is hard to imagine them running trains more often than that. You only need a new tunnel (or improved headways in the old tunnel) if you add new lines.

             It really comes down to West Seattle Link. Ballard Link could be a stub line (ending at Westlake). West Seattle can’t just end at SoDo. The trains should go north, to downtown. If they interline, you have three sets of trains coming into Seattle. If the trains run every six minutes (which is possibly although not likely) then they would be running every two minutes. This could cause delays (as noted in the article). There are ways of handling this. There are systems all over the world that have lines like this. But these alternatives weren’t really considered because at some point they really wanted a new tunnel. Now they really want the tunnel because the tunnel was part of the EIS.

             Thus we are basically spending more than $13 billion dollars for two stations in West Seattle ($5 billion for West Seattle and $8 billion for the new tunnel). Many existing riders will be worse off. Riders taking trips from Northgate to the airport or UW to Rainier Valley will have to transfer. Riders who use the SoDo Busway will have slower trips. Even many West Seattle riders will be worse off, as they are asked to transfer. The only riders who will be clearly better off are the relative handful that will be able to walk to the station. Thus we are spending around $13 billion to benefit around 3,000 riders a day (if that).

             A new bus tunnel is just a better value. It doesn’t mean it is the best thing we can build but it is certainly much better than what we are building. But that is only because it is a new tunnel and retains the old tunnel. The old tunnel runs to the north via Capitol Hill. The new train tunnel won’t. A new bus tunnel would be built with connections to Aurora and Elliott. The old bus tunnel doesn’t have those. A new bus tunnel would be a great substitute for West Seattle Link since it would benefit a lot more riders from West Seattle. But if they build West Seattle Link anyway then you have the same problem — potential train bunching. You would just have it with the new tunnel, not the old one. Most of the very strong arguments for a new bus tunnel just don’t apply to resurrecting the old bus tunnel.

             I like imaginative suggestions like yours. But by far the most likely scenario is that the tunnel will be one of the worst values in transit history.

       2. “A lot of the board members don’t seem to care whether it is built or not.”

          The only way that Board members care is if constituents complain.

          Right me, not enough people from North Seattle, Shoreline, Snohomish abd the Eastside are still not complaining loudly enough about the crappy transfers to reach SeaTac. Even people in SE Seattle don’t complain about the transfer plan either — mainly because it’s not on anyone’s mind. I bet that most SODO busway riders don’t get that it is supposed to be closed within two years unless they complain.

          1. Eastsiders would reach SeaTac using Stride in my opinion.

             And I’m sure Metro will reroute the buses to have an okay transfer at International District somehow.

          2. The Stride transfer to Link at TIBS is pretty complex too. There will be at least two elevators to use (or a lot of stairs only going down) to make one.

             It’s just not underground. It’s instead out in the open where every person using the stop will hear the noise of SR 518 just a few feet away. It will likely be noisier than Mercer Island and Judkins Park.

             And the Stride transfer in Downtown Bellevue will require crossing 110th Ave , a level change (with no down escalator) and a bit of walking too.

             Don’t be deceived about these regional diagrams showing hunky-dory connectivity. That’s not how ST is designing and building the transfer stations.

          3. Not like it’s so great today though. Takes over an hour to get to anywhere. ST simply doesn’t care about regional transit but only short trips of people living in Seattle. That was always it. The rest is just to please the suburbs who put their money into it.

29. After all this, did they actually solve the funding issue at all?

30. Part of the Enterprise initiative is to delete Sounder North Service around 2033. I think most people would not have a problem with that after LINK actually reaches Everett. So Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds lose basically their express service to Seattle? Everett will be okay, but what happens with Edmonds and Mukilteo? Maybe the two cities should petition to leave the Sound Transit taxing district, since they are not getting any thing new in return after their Sounder service disappears?

    1. The Sounder North operating agreement with BNSF expires in 2033, so ST is considering not renewing it. More information.

       “what happens with Edmonds and Mukilteo”

       Not much. Only 200 some people ride Sounder North. The vast majority of Edmonds’s and Mukilteo’s population lives east of the stations, so they’re out-of-direction for them. Edmonds and Mukilteo just got Link in Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood recently. That runs every 4-5 minutes all day and evening every day, and goes to many places Sounder doesn’t, and is immune to freeway congestion. There are probably more people from Edmonds and Mukilteo on Link than on Sounder.

       1. Mike, where did you see that the operating agreement ends in 2033? ST reportedly paid BNSF extra for permanent right to run Sounder.

          1. There’s two things, the permanent timeslots, and something that expires in 2033 that must be an operating agreement because what else can it be. That was mentioned here or in the news as the reason for the 2033 date, as opposed to 2026 or whenever Everett Link opens.

          2. It also seems like ST could just sell back the rights to BNSF.

    2. It should happen well before Link gets to Everett. Everett has express buses to Lynnwood running 8 times an hour midday (201/202/512). Mukilteo has express buses to Lynnwood that are timed with the ferry. Mukilteo itself doesn’t have that many people so that service is adequate. It is really only Edmonds that would be out of luck. They should run more frequent service to Edmonds to compensate for the loss of Sounder. It should like the 512 (every fifteen minutes midday) and terminate at 185th Station. It should make the same stops as the 909 along Edmonds Way. It should then stop at 200th (for the connection to RapidRide E, 331 and the CT buses) and then run express to 185th Station. This should be an ST bus. CT might then decide to end the 909 and run other buses more often.

       1. Don’t forget extending the Orange Line west to Downtown Edmonds for in-county riders. Of course, Sounder doesn’t serve them at all, but they’re a larger potential ridership than downtown Edmonds to King County.

          This is not a disagreement, but just a pro-Orange Line comment.

    3. The fate of Sounder North (discontinuous) seems sealed to me. It’s however hard to conclude exactly how many riders of the about 200 regular riders (400 trips assuming 2 daily trips per rider) will be greatly inconvenienced. ST has not surveyed the riders to see how they’re getting to and from the train at either end and what their origins and destinations are.

       Even though Sounder North is quick to King Street, more transferring will someday be required. For example, a trip from Mulkiteo to Seattle would no longer be a walk across the street to a 1 Line train once the train is rerouted away from the current CID station. ST is planning to diminish its connectivity directness. So while it may be a quicker travel for the segment it’s effective as is compromised by having to transfer to other routes Downtown in addition to getting to the station with enough lead time to make sure that’s rider gets to the morning train on time. Many destinations Downtown may still take almost as long to reach depending on where they are.

       And as Everett Link extends northward, more Link stations in Snohomish will be closer to Mulkiteo and next to Everett Sounder stations. If someone is already driving to Sounder, driving to Link will get more attractive with the extension. It will even free up parking demand at Lynnwood as some commuters will park further north like at Ash or Mariner once Link goes further.

       Finally, it’s a strategic way to put BNSF that they can’t play hard ball about any renewal negotiations because ST has now indicated that they plan to walk without an enticing deal.

       I’m sure sone riders will loudly complain. But the daily usage is so low that it’s not going to carry much political risk to cancel the service.

       1. It’s however hard to conclude exactly how many riders of the about 200 regular riders (400 trips assuming 2 daily trips per rider) will be greatly inconvenienced.

          As I wrote up above, it mainly hits riders from Edmonds. Everett has both an express to downtown (the 510) and a frequent express to Lynnwood (the 512). I can see why riders prefer Sounder. It is a very pretty ride and a lot more comfortable than a bus or light rail. But it doesn’t save a rider much time (if any) from Everett. Mukilteo doesn’t get many riders (about 50 a day). They too have an express bus to Lynnwood. It is timed with the ferry and my guess is that is where most of the ridership comes from. Downtown Mukilteo is tiny. I think there is maybe one apartment building within walking distance of the train station. There is a park and ride as well but it is small. Some of the riders may be parking there and taking the bus (or ferry). Most of the apartments in Mukilteo are to the south (where the express bus runs).

          Edmonds is a completely different beast. Unlike Everett (or Mukilteo) it is much faster to take the train from there than any other mode. It happens to have a ferry but there is a real downtown there (similar to Downtown Redmond). While not the most urban part of Downtown Edmonds there are still a lot of apartments within walking distance of the train station. And yes, this being America, there is a big park and ride there. Everett Station exceeds Edmonds Station in ridership (just barely) but riders from Edmonds will lose a lot more when they get rid of Sounder unless they improve transit options there.

          It is great that ST if finally coming to their senses and abandoning one of the most expensive services-per-rider they offer (years after similar bus service was eliminated). But they really should provide an alternative, especially given the attractive nature of Edmonds. Maybe I’m biased. But I used to live in Lynnwood and I have no interest whatsoever in visiting “Downtown Lynnwood”. There wasn’t anything there when I lived there and there isn’t anything there now. In contrast, Downtown Edmonds is downright charming. It would make for a fun outing if not for the fact that transit there is terrible. I’m not waiting for a bus that runs every 40 minutes. Nor do I want to drive to a place where it is hard to park. I hesitate to use the word “deserve” but Edmonds really does deserve better bus service connecting it to Link, especially from the south. Maybe a better way to put it is: Edmonds really should have frequent bus service to a station like 185th for the same reason Everett has frequent bus service to Lynnwood. Both are real cities with real all-day demand.

          1. Certainly Edmonds is more affected. The question I have is simply: How greatly? Are people driving from homes near the Blue Line to ride North Sounder? Where in Downtown Seattle are riders going? Will adding Stride from Lynnwood or building stations further north to ease Lynnwood CC Station parking, will those that drive be willing to drive to a 1 Line station? Did opening 2 Line across to Bellevue add riders to North Sounder?

             My comment is more about a lack of research at ST than it is about the fate of North Sounder. It amazes me that ST makes many decisions without basic research on things like how riders get to and from stations.

          2. CT 909 (Edmonds-Mountlake Terrace Station) should be expanded from hourly to every 30 minutes or ideally 15 minutes. ST could pay for that rather than setting up a separate ST Express route or keeping ultra-expensive Sounder.

             The 909 has 4 timepoints. Are these the only stops? The intermediate ones are at 100th & 104, and 238th & 99. End-to-end travel time is 26 minutes. Is this sufficiently fast and the fastest it could be, or would we need a faster ST Express route?

             238th has a transfer to Swift Blue. I don’t know what’s at 100th anything more than houses?

          3. “My comment is more about a lack of research at ST than it is about the fate of North Sounder.”

             ST hasn’t canceled Sounder North yet; this is assuming a future decision. It could change its mind between now and when the vote to cancel it comes up.

          4. The 909 had about 20 stops between Edmonds and Montlake Terrace, and takes a route to the north of Lake Ballinger. It’s not especially fast, and it doesn’t serve Aurora Village transit center like its predecessor did, so you have to transfer to Swift Blue to go further south, or take the half-circle to get to Montlake Terrace.

          5. “The 909 had about 20 stops between Edmonds and Montlake Terrace”

             An express route between Edmonds and Mountalake Terrace has 20 stops? That doesn’t sound very express at all.

          6. The 130 has a somewhat different and more circuitous route to Montlake Terrace and covers the distance in 34 stops. I guess in bus standards these days that would make the 909 an express.

          7. The CT “Express” buses aren’t really expresses. They just have an unusual schedule. Most of them only run during weekday peak. The 909 is timed with the ferry. I think they chose the term “express” for this type of bus because in the past buses like this used to run express to Seattle. They probably couldn’t come up with a better term (and I can’t either).

             In any event, the bus I’m suggesting is meant to be a replacement for North Sounder. I could see two options:

             1) An express bus that goes from Edmonds to Downtown Seattle.
             2) A bus that serves 185th Station all-day.

             They could do both of course. But the main point is that going to Mountlake Terrace means going the wrong way. It wouldn’t cost riders headed to Seattle that much time but it would still be viewed as a detour. In contrast, both of these routes would be regional in nature — exactly the type of buses that ST should be running. Not only does it provide a faster connection to Downtown Seattle (the main thing North Sounder riders would be losing) but it provides other regional connections as well. By serving the Aurora Village area, riders would no longer have to transfer twice just to catch the RapidRide E.

          8. “ In any event, the bus I’m suggesting is meant to be a replacement for North Sounder.”

             I see a third conceptual bus option, which is a Stride 2 or 3 extension. ST can more easily cross county lines (compared to CT and Swift). The challenge becomes matching Stride’s higher frequency (and higher operating cost) with actual demand.

             As a first step, I’d support a thorough analysis about what riders use and what riders want at Edmonds. From that research, ST could determine how an STX, Stride or local limited-stop bus route connection could serve the riders best.

             It will be revealing to see if ST cares enough to do rider surveys and research, or whether ST will just propose what they want without research and act like it’s the only solution.

             Stepping back, I’ll also mention this: Just as the ST Board treats ST3 Link projects as semi-sacred and lawsuit-eligible, they may determine that a Sounder North cancellation has the same “inconsistent with ST3” issues.

          9. “Just as the ST Board treats ST3 Link projects as semi-sacred and lawsuit-eligible, they may determine that a Sounder North cancellation has the same “inconsistent with ST3” issues.”

             That’s similar to what ST has been saying until recently about Sounder North. We’ve been asking ST to cancel it for years, and to put the money toward replacement ST Express for Edmonds & Mukilteo and accelerating Link in Snohomish County. But ST has always refused saying it believes that since voters approved Sounder North in 1996, they expect it to continue forever, and canceling it would be against the voters’ will.

             Last year ST started softening that position, and said it might be willing to cancel Sounder North when Everett Link starts. This year it’s saying it might cancel it in 2033, before Everett Link opens, apparently because that’s when periodic operating agreement with BNSF expires and ST is leaning toward not renewing it. (BNSF operates Sounder trains, even though ST owns them.)

31. https://publicola.com/2026/05/29/sound-transit-sacrifices-light-rail-to-ballard-moves-long-deferred-graham-station-forward-in-latest-realignment-plan/

    1. Madame Mayor, “the rest of the system” is flotsam and should be “jettisomed” [bad pun], including and especially, “Link to Neverett”. [sic]

32. So are these very poor decisions final and starting to move forwardor are there more meetings? I’d expect some lawsuits about dstt2 to pop up as details about how it will actually be built emerge.

    Also, People in ballard, kirkland, and Issaquah have been getting soaked by st taxes just as long as folks in Everett and Tacoma and west seattle

Comments are closed.