On September 18, Sound Transit released the Environmental impact Statement for the Everett Link extension. This light rail extension will extend the Link light rail system north towards Everett from Lynnwood. The first phase plans to build the West Alderwood, Ash Way, Mariner, and finally the SW Everett Industrial Center by 2037. The second phase would extend it north to Everett with SR 526/Evergreen and Everett Station by 2041. There is also one unfunded provisional station at SR 99/Airport Road.
Meetings
The draft EIS comment period is open until November 2nd.
Virtual meeting/hearing:
- Oct. 6, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Online via Zoom
In-person meetings/hearings:
- Oct. 13, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. Mariner High School, 200 120th St SW, Everett, WA 98204
- Oct 15, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. Carl Gipson Center, 3025 Lombard Ave, Everett, WA 98201
- Oct. 21, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. Lynnwood Neighborhood Center, 19509 64th Ave W, Lynnwood, WA 98036
Overview
This article will mostly focus on the first phase up to SW Everett Industrial Center. Most of the station alignments were previously discussed in The Urbanist as well. This discussion will focus on the details of the preferred options. Unless otherwise cited, all images are from the Sound Transit online open house.
West Alderwood
From Lynnwood station, the line would continue north along the west side of I-5 then turn east near 33rd Ave W.
Among the alternatives considered, the preferred alternative is ALD-2D (Northern Mall Alignment with 33rd Avenue Station) shown in green. The first stop is West Alderwood next to Alderwood Mall. High retail activity and surrounding apartments should drive strong ridership.
The ALD-2D option will place the elevated station to the west of Alderwood Mall next to the JC Penney.
For the preferred alternative of ALD-D the three bus routes of 121, 122, and Swift orange would stop there. For the other alternatives of ALD-B and ALD-F the Swift Orange bus might skip the station.
There are some alternative options moving the station to the north or south of Alderwood Mall instead. Most of them have moderate tradeoffs with which properties would need to displaced. All of them would cost approximately the same at $1 billion.
Ash Way
From Alderwood Mall, the line would the continue north along I-5. There is no preferred alternative for this segment. The Ash Way station would be near the 164th St SW and I-5 intersection. The Swift Orange BRT would help connect residents along 164th St SW to the station. The line would reuse the existing Ash Way Park-and-Ride for parking.
ASH-1A (West of I-5 Alignment with Ash Way Park-and-Ride Station) has the line staying west of I-5. This would build the elevated Ash Way station next to the Ash Way Park-and-Ride.
The other option ASH-2D (East of I-5 Alignment with 164th Street Station) would build it on the east of I-5. One complication is that this would be complicated for the station to connect to the existing west transit facilities.
Snohomish County explored fixing the east station issues with the I-5/164th St SW Direct Access Improvements project to build an HOV/pedestrian bridge just north of 164th Street.
Assuming the I-5 overpass is built, the routes 112, 121, m103, 117, n14 and m2 will terminate at Ash Way. Swift Orange line will also using the crossing and continue along it.
The option ASH-1A staying on the west of I-5 supposedly costs more than ASH-2D. However, I’m somewhat skeptical of the numbers considering ASH-2D requires an expensive bridge across I-5 while ASH-1A stays on the same side.
Mariner
After Ash Way, the line will continue north along I-5 to the Mariner Station. Clusters of garden-style apartments along 128th St SW will generate strong residential ridership.
The MAR-1B (South of 128th Street Alignment with 8th Avenue Station) alternative will build the elevated Mariner station just south of 128th St SW.
The Mariner station would serve as the transfer point for many bus routes around South Everett.
The Swift Orange will likely be extended one mile and terminate at Mariner Station instead of its current terminus at McCollum P&R.
SR 99/Airport Road (Provisional)
Once the line reaches Mariner, the train will then head west along Airport Road. There is the provisional unfunded SR 99 / Airport Road station at the intersection. This SR 99 / Airport Road is surrounded by mostly light industrial and commercial properties however it would also be a pretty vital half-way point transfer point for the Swift Blue BRT line.
SW Everett Industrial Center
The SW Everett Industrial Center station (a somewhat laborious way to say Boeing) will be built near Paine Field and the Everett Boeing factory. There has been some competing priorities of whether to build this station on the north nearby Boeing for the workers or whether to build it to the west near Paine Field for passengers.
The SWI-1A (Airport Road/SR 526 Alignment with SR 526 Station) is the preferred Alternative. This would place it closest to the Seaway Transit center that Boeing workers currently use.
One complication is that most of the buses would have to take a circuitous route to reach the Seaway Transit Center. A pedestrian bridge might be built to connect the station to Boeing across SR 526.
The SWI-1B alternative places it in the mid point between the airport and Boeing. While the SWI-1C alternative places the station closest to the airport. Also interestingly, there would be an airport shuttle bus with all three station sites from the station to Paine Field airport.
SR 526/Evergreen
These next two stations will be built in a later phase by 2041.
After SW Everett Industrial Center, the line will continue east along SR 526 to SR 526/Evergreen station. There are five alternatives here with much community pushback. We’ll go over EGN-A and EGN-E.
The EGN-A alternative will place it just north of the SR 526 freeway with the least property impacts. This places it closer to apartments such as the Four Corners and the Cascade High School. A pedestrian bridge will be built to make it easier to cross south of the freeway. However, it is also tricky to transfer to some buses.
The EGN-E places it just south of W Casino Road.
Both alternatives would connect to the Swift Blue and the future Swift Silver Line (labeled as a rerouted Green Line above).
One advantage of the EGN-E station closer to Casino Ave, is that it is easier for a bus to reach Everett Mall.
Everett Station
The main preferred alternative is EVT-1A (Smith Avenue Alignment) which places the Everett light rail station closest to the existing Sounder Everett station.
EVT-A would be an elevated station at the corner of Smith Ave and 32nd St.
Operations and Maintenance Facility
Sound Transit has not yet decided where to place the new Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF). One of the above three spots will be picked. The OMF is used for train maintenance, cleaning, and storage.
Ridership
The projected ridership with the initial phase (in green) and second phase (in pink) is shown above. The highest daily ridership is projected at Everett Station with 10,700 riders. The next two highest are Ash Way and Mariner with approximately 4,600 riders. Mariner would have an estimated 7,000 riders (2,400 more) with the initial phase due to I-5 freeway buses from Everett truncating there.
Travel Times
| Destination | Start: Lynnwood via Link Light Rail | Start: Lynnwood via Freeway bus |
| Lynnwood | 0 min | 0 min |
| SW Everett Industrial Center | 18 min | 42 min |
| Everett Station | 29 min | 24-32 min |
The Everett Link extension will mostly benefit trips within the Everett and North Lynnwood area and not improve the freeway trips between Everett and destinations south of Lynnwood. Sound Transit estimates 29 minutes from Lynnwood station to Everett station which is on par with the current freeway bus times.
Operational Plan
The original operating plan for the ST3 calls for the 3 Line to serve all stations between Lynnwood and Everett. In addition, the 2 Line will be extended to Mariner station. During peak hours, Sound Transit plans to provide 3 minute frequency for the West Alderwood, Ash Way, and Mariner stations. North of Mariner, frequency will drop to 6 minutes.
With the phased implementation plan, the exact operation plan is not clear. In addition, the exact lines that serve the new stations will also depend on the opening timelines for other ST3 extensions to West Seattle and Ballard.
Transit Plan
Thanks for this post!
I have been one of the most ardent defenders of getting light rail to Everett and Tacoma on this blog. The only way I could defend the spine’s scoliosis to Everett Boeing is if it were to actually serve the Paine Field terminal, which it will not.
The ridership analysis lays bare the very low ridership that this station serving a transit center from which nearly everyone will take buses will get, compared to how many riders will be heading south from Everett to Mariner and beyond.
It is almost too late, but not quite, to stop this boondoggle.
Shave 10 minutes off of Everett commutes, or serve an international airport terminal. Pick one. The current plan fails at both.
Place the Paine Field station near the airport and have SR 526/Evergreen serve as the Casino Rd station.
Also a reason to justify the Paine Field station at 100th is because Paine Field Airport is expected to have more than 4 million passengers in 2040 and it can’t have poor transit access.
The Airport/Casino site for the Paine Field station is mostly undevelopable, industrial land while there’s a lot of empty lots near Paine Field Airport which could be the opportunity for a vibrant, urban center that complements the airport.
Also I hope Community Transit sells the Seaway Transit Center property to the Snohomish County PUD because it’s a low performing transit center that is basically near nothing and it will become almost unusable and redundant once Everett Link spawns a station in Paine Field.
You mean a shuttle bus from the terminal to a station nearly two miles away won’t suffice ??
I think the the only thing that a Casino Road station location leaves open is the possibility of an infill station at 100th & Airport (0.3 miles). It’d be less of a walk than from the terminal to SeaTac airport…
“You mean a shuttle bus from the terminal to a station nearly two miles away won’t suffice ??”
Of course it won’t suffice. Paine Field will have over 4 million passengers in 2040 and the demand will grow. I would rather have a shuttle bus from the station near the airport to the part of the factory north of the Boeing Freeway like how CT and Boeing handled the loss of a front door bus ride to the plant.
Even with 8x growth (which we should be skeptical of frankly), it would be less than half as much traffic as the next busiest air-rail link in the US (Cleveland at 10M). It’s a minor destination, and it makes more sense to serve 30k employees than the 2k daily passengers gets now. Even best case scenario of 10k passengers doesn’t make sense relative to Boeing
It’s always possible to build a branch or shuttle line or gondola to Paine Field later if it grows sufficiently, if Line remained on I-5.
“it makes more sense to serve 30k employees than the 2k daily passengers gets now.”
Bro you still serve those 30K employees though you’re also serving Paine Field Airport. I mean there’s limited TOD potential with the Casino/Airport station site, but a lot with the Airport/100th station site.
You still serve Boeing Everett anyhow, but it’s the ridership that matters.
“It’s always possible to build a branch or shuttle line or gondola to Paine Field later”
I think a shuttle bus that takes you to the front door of the Boeing Everett campus is better than a Paine Field Airport shuttle.
Also gondolas aren’t a form of high capacity transit.
The layout of Paine Field is pretty much destined to have a bus shuttle from a future terminal and a future parking and rental car connection anyway. Link can be another stop on the shuttle.
Frankly, a shuttle saves people steps. It’s much better than building a long trek between SeaTac terminals and Link.
I don’t know that a station needs to get built right away but I think Sound Transit should at least plan for an infill station near Paine Field
PAE is essentially the only option for a second major airport in the region. Unless population growth slows dramatically I don’t see any reasonable alternatives; we could build a greenfield airport or cap the number of flights in/out of the region but I think either of those would be incredibly unpopular
https://www.psrc.org/our-work/regional-aviation-baseline-study
Mike:
“It’s always possible to build a branch or shuttle line or gondola to Paine Field later if it grows sufficiently, if Line remained on I-5.”
I-5 is the worst alignment. SR-99 please. A freeway is to pedestrians as a dam is to fish. Transit is for pedestrians. The ST boardmembers may think of transit from behind the wheels of their SUV. STB folk are transit riders.
RE: Everett Link to Paine Field terminal
SEA has had automated trains looping to the branch terminals since the 1960s. So yes, covering the “last mile” is easy. As previously mentioned, it makes a lot more sense than the “death march” we now have from Link to the main terminal at SEA.
I wouldn’t really call it a death march, its no different to the amount of walking I’ve done at CDG or LHR from the train station to the terminal. Also, the Port is going to build a new ground transportation facility where the currently surface lot is and build travelators to the terminal from the light rail station.
I’m by no means an expert, or even well versed in the costs and tradeoffs of public transit. To me though, as a layman who happens to live on Whidbey island, not bringing a terminal down to meet up with the sounder and the ferry at the Mukilteo terminal, which is already a regional transit hub of sorts, seems like a giant miss. Whidbey has something like 70 thousand people, a large number of whom prefer to walk onto the ferry rather than drive. If those people want to visit Seattle to meet with friends, see a baseball game, or commute to work, their options right now are essentially to just drive the whole way, or walk one during the limited hours when they can catch a bus to the lynnwood light rail terminal. For work, I suppose they can catch the sounder, but it only runs 1-2 times a day.
My question to you, is just like your concern about the current plan not actually serving the airport, do you think it’s a miss to not link up with the ferry terminal, or do you see that as not worth the extension of the rail? It seems so close, and yet it’s far enough that people will need to either rely on a bus route, which will inevitably not run frequently enough/late enough, or simply continue to drive onto the ferry anyway, which is 5x more expensive, and worse for the environment.
I think this is a good case for splitting this part of the line into two branches after Mariner to provide faster and more direct service. One branch could follow the airport way alignem to Paine field, Boeing, and continue to a terminus in Mukilteo. The other branch would continue north through Casino and up to Everett. The only downside is people from Everett will need to loop back to reach the industrial center, but it would provide more direct service for more people, and certainly be faster than the current alignment.
That’s actually a good idea. Shame we didn’t think of that in 2015.
Whidbey Island is outside the Sound Transit tax district. Sound Transit is for the urbanized part of Pugetopolis. Whidbey Island has already been getting an extraordinary indirect investment in the Mukilteo Sounder station and P&R, disproportional to downtown Mukilteo’s population and displacing more productive transit priorities. Of course there should be a frequent express bus from the Mukilteo ferry to Link, but not Link all the way to the shore.
P.S. My roommate went to high school on Whidbey Island and still has family there. We used to meet his father at the seafood restaurant at the ferry terminal, we on Community Transit, he coming from the island.
Yes, but isn’t Mukilteo in the ST district? I’m sure they’d benefit from the traffic relief through their town.
There’s no urban center in Mukilteo; it’s all low-density sprawl. The “downtown” has around ten small buildings, and is out-of-the-way of 90% of Mukilteo’s population. An express bus from the ferry terminal to Link is all it needs.
“There’s no urban center in Mukilteo; it’s all low-density sprawl.”
Mike, you just brought up a similar idea I had of upzoning the waterfront area and converting it into it’s downtown (cuz it really needs one). Move all the city services closer to the water and make Harbour Pointe Mukilteo’s “Lakeland Hills” like Auburn.
“An express bus from the ferry terminal to Link is all it needs.”
And maybe some microtransit like am I right?
You can thank Dave Somers and Cassie Franklin for that.
Paine Field may be labeled as an international airport, but it doesn’t even get 2,000 departures a day nor does it currently have a single international flight. SeaTac is 100x busier. It is not a currently important destination to serve. 30,000 people work at Boeing Everett. Maybe one day Paine Field will justify a train station, but if the detour is justifiable (it isnt), it’s more justified to serve 30,000 workers than 2,000 travelers.
On the other hand the airport serves everyone in the region (albeit infrequently) whereas the Boeing detour primarily benefits just those 30k employees. I also question how wise it is to base long-term planning decisions on the whims of a single business.
The most interesting part to me is the local bus network concept the document indicated.
Just as I suspected, the part of SWIFT Green west of SR 527 will become SWIFT Silver.
“the part of SWIFT Green west of SR 527 will become SWIFT Silver.”
This is an opportunity for a grid bus network! Though idk if Community Transit is seriously considering this.
Land use topic related to Everett Link:
I just found out today that the old Walmart on Hwy 99 near Airport Rd is being redeveloped into a multifamily housing complex called Rowan Park by DR Horton (the same real estate company that developed Cathcart Crossing).
If we’re going to redevelop the Walmart on Hwy 99 that closed three years ago, we might as well build the SR 99/Airport Rd light rail station. There’s already a lot of development going on in the station area (e.g: Ovation Paine Field) and having the light rail tracks just pass through the area without stopping just feels like a missed opportunity.
Also that’s a major transfer point for the Swift BRT lines. Sound Transit considered routing Everett Link up Evergreen Way to SR 526 and bypassing Paine Field but dropped the idea because it broke the promise of light rail to Paine Field. Cassie Franklin (the mayor of Everett) has also pushed serving the Paine Field area because it’s crucial to serving the “regional spine”. This is restitution to the deferal of the Evergreen Way routing, like how a bus from SR 526/Evergreen station to Everett Mall could restitute the deferred I-5 Everett Link route.
Everett should at least plan the future station box and walking paths to the village, so that it can be integrated in and not stick out like a sore thumb.
I can’t imagine why ST would consider the ASH-2D alternative. Building two extra cross-freeway bridges seems crazy expensive to me. Is it there because they were required to document at least 2 alternatives?
“Is it there because they were required to document at least 2 alternatives?”
In my perspective, it’s really just because 164th gets too congested and the new bridge crossing is there in case there’s really bad traffic.
The way to go is building another bus ramp north of the current ramp and convert it to HOV.
ST thinks it would be cheaper than staying on the west side of I-5, probably because ASH-2D takes about half as many residential properties.
The two mandatory alternatives are ST’s preferred alignment and a “No Build” alternative that extrapolates current trends to the future. Beyond that, ST needs to document “all reasonable alternatives”; otherwise somebody could sue saying the EIS is incomplete. What’s reasonable is determined by ST and by community expectations. I don’t know that ST must include a third alternative if the community says there’s a viable one.
What I don’t see in it is an I-5 alternative.
While transit fans are part of the community, we aren’t the majority or government officials or a large employer, so we don’t have enough clout to get our alternatives in. We’d need ten times more clout to achieve that.
A ped/bike bridge has to happen regardless, as crossing I-5 along 164th is not viable.
Building light rail where the current Ash Way transit center is located requires replacing any parking spots lost to light rail. That means a parking garage that’d probably be more expensive than the transit bridge. Note that there is already a transit bridge over SB I-5.
Agreed, the light rail itself would need to cross I-5.
“Building light rail where the current Ash Way transit center is located requires replacing any parking spots lost to light rail.”
ST doesn’t have any obligation to replace parking spaces, it just decided to. Northgate was a special case because part of the garage was owned by the mall and promised to mall tenants in their leases, so the tenants could have sued the mall and the mall sued ST if the spaces weren’t replaced. Who owns Ash Way P&R? It must be WSDOT, ST, or CT.
I’m no transit funding expert but my limited understanding is something along the lines of “The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires transit agencies to replace the parking capacity they explicitly remove or disrupt for a new station”
Swift Blue — the workhorse of the system — will not get a transfer point with Link north of 185th in King County until 2045 or so when Casino Road opens in the “official” plan. Build the Airport Road and SR99 station as a part of the intial system.
But build it straddling SR99 with the Swift Blue stops directly under it so that riders transferring between systems do not have to cross wide, VERY auto biased SR99, usually waiting a long time for the walk light.
In truth, express buses from downtown Everett to Mariner and a great connection to Swift Blue at Airport Road might6 make an extension into downtown Everett redundant.
“Swift Blue — the workhorse of the system — will not get a transfer point with Link north of 185th in King County until 2045 or so when Casino Road opens in the “official” plan.”
First of all it’s not 2045, it’s either 2037 if Sound Transit seeks funding for the SR 99/Airport Rd station or 2041 if they do not.
“Build the Airport Road and SR99 station as a part of the intial system.”
I think we’re all pushing for that like how Katie Wilson, Girmay Zahilay, and Teresa Mosqueda pushed to fund Graham St Station.
I was talking about 99 and Casino, not 99 and Airport Road, when I said “2045”. That’s why I said “build the provisional station as part of Phase 1”. It makes Swift Blue from downtown Everett to a bit south of Airport Road into a very efficient feeder bus for folks along SR99, which is growing rapidly.
In fact, when paired with quick, reliable express service from downtown Everett to Link at Mariner it may make extending Link beyond South Everett unnecessary.
Read more carefully.
“I was talking about 99 and Casino”
There is no 99 and Casino. I think you mean Evergreen and Casino.
Yes I see that now. 99 follows Everett Mall Way. I made that mistake in my posts too. Evergreen and Casino (and SR 526) it is.
“ In truth, express buses from downtown Everett to Mariner and a great connection to Swift Blue at Airport Road might6 make an extension into downtown Everett redundant.”
Well uh yeah.
The logic of building the stations north of Mariner and Airport Rd/ 99 befuddles me in many ways. It’s about four miles to go from 99/ Casino Road to the end station in Downtown Everett without a single station — not even a future infill one . That’s a further distance than from Judkins Park to Mercer Island and that has a lake in between! The footprint of SR 526 and SR 99 at Casino Rd/ 99 takes lots of land. There is nowhere to walk from one side of SR 526 between 5th Ave W and Airport Road limiting any station walkshed.
Dropping the line at 99/ Airport Rd would probably save several billion. That would easily pay for Blue Swift and a Downtown Everett to Mariner Stride — that could then serve more places.
It seems like the anti-Paine Field alignment commenter’s only argument against it is that an I-5 alignment would be quicker. But, I think a more important consideration is which alignment has a greater future potential for station area development. I’m curious what people who know the area thinks has more development potential, the Paine Field alignment, or an I-5 alignment?
I’ve always felt that Link should be branched at Mariner with one line up Airport Road and the other up to Everett Mall and then Downtown Everett. It would have been so much better for train operations.
The consolation is the double platforms at Mariner, which helps reversals but it’s not as good for reversing as two different end stations would be.
And I have huge doubts that there will be more than 500 riders a day between Downtown Everett and the employment areas next to Paine Field. It was a political decision to put the jog in because the electeds somehow thought the two needed to be directly connected in concept and ignored the actual projected ridership.
Had Paine Field been a branch, ST could have had the segment with more stations and even someday extended the branch to Mulkiteo. And people traveling between Downtown Everett and anywhere south of Mariner (Alderwood, UW, Downtown Seattle, Bellevue, SeaTac) would save probably 10 minutes.
“I’ve always felt that Link should be branched at Mariner with one line up Airport Road and the other up to Everett Mall and then Downtown Everett.”
YES. Now we’re talking.
But Sound Transit might just brag about how they don’t have the funds, we know them.
Also I get iffy on whether having a station at 112th, Everett Mall, or just both of them.
The alignment was “done by crayon” by electeds playing transit line builder. Then they encased it in glass and refused to think about things differently.
So the branch idea has never been studied. No one thought to even think about train reversals until this DEIS. I’m still skeptical of the efficiency of having the middle platform at Mariner. Certainly it’s better than Lynnwood CC — but the turn around time is still quite tight for 2 Line.
Please avoid both the Paine Field scoliosis and I-5. A SR-99 alignment would have better land use potential; it would be faster for Everett riders. A good bus system should be able to serve Paine Field and Boeing. The Gibson Road maintenance base option is on SR-99.
A useful travel time comparison would be Link with scoliosis v. Link on SR-99 for Everett-Lynnwood trips. How many more miles of guideway and LRV would be required with scoliosis v. SR-99 direct?
Why is ST drawn to I-5?
“A SR-99 alignment would have better land use potential”
Bro, Sound Transit studied an alternative like that but dropped it because it wasn’t consistent with the representative alignment. And why a highway like SR 99? I feel like BRT fits better on a highway like SR 99 because of the car oriented developments.
“A good bus system should be able to serve Paine Field and Boeing.”
I thought that at first, but I now really think Paine Field is worth serving on light rail. Cassie Franklin made a point on how it’s crucial to serving the regional spine.
“Why is ST drawn to I-5?”
Because that’s how they avoid land acquisitions and that’s where they’re obsessed with putting express routes on. You should know this as a former Metro planner.
99 has the potential to have tons multistory housing and retail in the future. I-5 doesn’t. It’s the same reason should be on Aurora in north Seattle and Pacific Highway in south King County rather than I-5.
“99 has the potential to have tons multistory housing and retail in the future. I-5 doesn’t.”
And 99 is car oriented development, meanwhile I-5 isn’t and I-5 at least could help relieve congestion through the regional spine. Though I get what you’re saying, I-5 is unwalkable compared to SR 99.
“It’s the same reason should be on Aurora in north Seattle and Pacific Highway in south King County rather than I-5.”
But no because of the RapidRide lines and property acquisitions.
Yes there was a staff effort a few years ago to study shifting the alignment to 99 north of Airport Road. The advisory committee and electeds shut it down.
And even that did not propose branching.
This gets into a basic problem with people and rail transit around here. People who don’t understand the fundamentals of running a rail system think that because as an elected official or advisory committee member they have power that they know what they’re doing. Sadly, their knowledge of rail operations and station layouts and how people access stations are often slim to none. They instead try to draw diagrams that make the most people happy.
And let’s be clear that SR 526 is also a freeway. It may not be as wide as I-5 but it has all the same basic disadvantages that any freeway station has. And the only ELE preferred stations not generally next to a freeway are Alderwood, Downtown Everett and the provisional one at 99/ Airport Road — and a borderline siting at Mariner.
Scooby: then, is the problem with the representative alignment being poor?
“Scooby: then, is the problem with the representative alignment being poor?”
I wouldn’t really call it “poor” in any way. Of course barely anyone rides the Swift Green through Paine Field these days but that’s just what we see right now. Who knows? Maybe those numbers will increase.
Overall, I regret what I said about the representative alignment in the past. It’s bound to be a powerful workhorse in the future with strong characteristics like Boeing Everett and Paine Field Airport. It’s ideal to not run the 2 Line with the 3 Line up to Everett as it’s already overlapping the Swift Silver on Airport Rd (it’s currently the Swift Green but will be the Swift Silver). Plus there will be the CT 157 from Mariner to somewhere north (likely Everett).
It’s really not poor, but misjudged.
“And 99 is car oriented development, meanwhile I-5 isn’t and I-5 at least could help relieve congestion through the regional spine.”
In order to relieve congestion on I-5, you have to go where all those people on I-5 are going, and you have to do it in a way that’s better than what it replaces.
Very, very few people on I-5 are headed to places where this would be the case.
Highway 99 in Shoreline and northern Seattle is highway dominated, but there’s also a lot of transit use on the E, despite it being fairly slow. Multi-unit housing has been built in numerous places through there. Adding light rail on 99 could significantly improve transit access and use.
“And 99 is car oriented development”
It is now but that doesn’t mean it always will be.
“I-5 at least could help relieve congestion through the regional spine.”
Link relieves congestion just as easily regardless of whether it’s on I-5 or 99.
“Though I get what you’re saying, I-5 is unwalkable compared to SR 99.”
That’s the issue. We need to maximize the number of people who can walk to a Link station, or who can transfer to a bus along 99.
“It’s the same reason should be on Aurora in north Seattle and Pacific Highway in south King County rather than I-5.”
But no because of the RapidRide lines and property acquisitions.”
RapidRide is a different level of service from Link. RapidRide is for local trips; Link is for longer-distance trips or directly between large villages. If RapidRide were along 99 in south King County, you’d still need the A.
What Link can replace is Swift, since they’re both limited-stop. So if Link were on 99 in Snohomish County, you could see Swift Blue replaced with a RapidRide-like service (an upgrade of CT 101 and ET 7).
Since Link wouldn’t serve 99 south of Ash Way P&R, Swift Blue could be truncated to serve just south of 164th.
ST never raised property acquisitions as a reason it couldn’t put Link on Snohomish 99, Aurora, or Pacific Highway. It just said I-5 would be cheaper and have higher ridership (Aurora), or it wanted to detour to Paine Field, or for no reason (south King County) — the reason being that Federal Way and Des Moines wanted it on I-5, never mind that Kent wanted it on Pacific Highway.
“It is now but that doesn’t mean it always will be.”
Of course it’s not like a little TOD won’t fix, but that still involves property acquisitions to “already developed” land. I would rather have light rail run next to a congested freeway rather than a traditional highway.
99 would be better, no doubt. The busiest bus route for hundreds of miles around is the E. Link should have headed to 99 after U District Station. But that ship sailed a long time ago…
Link is drawn to I-5 because it’s designed by people who drive on I-5.
“that still involves property acquisitions to “already developed” land”
Not if it’s built fully in the public right of way.
Much of the adjacent parcels are underdeveloped, as you yourself said. They’re car dealerships, large parking lots, and one-story buildings. Many lots have been decaying since the 1970s. So it wouldn’t be a bad thing to buy them out or force their redevelopment, and it wouldn’t cost that much either because they are like that.
Luckily for you ST already did that work! According to their analysis I-5 has the least development potential.
https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Lynnwood-to-Everett-HCT-Executive-Committee-5-1-14-.pdf
Why is Casino Road called Casino Road? Is there a casino there? Is it healthy for a city to constantly put gambling in people’s minds? Sam, I want you to investigate.
It’s named for the famous drag queen — Cassie Noroad.
Nice one, Al.
AI says it was likely named for a long defunct theater called “The Casino” back around the turn of the last century.
A better question is whether the word “Casino” is a reference to gambling parlors or something else.
Wikipedia: “Casino is of Italian origin; the root casa means a house. The term casino may mean a small country villa, summerhouse, or social club. During the 19th century, casino came to include other public buildings where pleasurable activities took place; such edifices were usually built on the grounds of a larger Italian villa or palazzo, and were used to host civic town functions, including dancing, gambling, music listening, and sports.”
An even better road name to tackle would be Mukilteo Speedway.
Agreed! I’ve biked it. Terrifying.
“Agreed! I’ve biked it. Terrifying.”
You’ve biked it? I’ve waited for a bus on it, walked it, and would nearly use it every day.
Why are we still doing this charade? When was the last time an environmental review did anything useful? The Bellingham Coal Terminal a decade ago? OK, that’s one. What was useful about this stupid process before that? Rejecting the Skagit County Nuclear plant on the fault line with WPPSS in the 1970s?
Environmental Review and EIS is a bullshit NIMBY cudgel that is wielded to slow down progress and please Boomers, consultants, and contrarians.
The transit system will take cars off the road and reduce air pollution. Good. Build it. There’s your goddamned review.
Kill SEPA. Build shit. [c’mon].
[mod: keep it civil, folks.]
Because EISes are still the law, and federal grants require it.
In an ideal world, the state would give Seattle sufficient tax authority for its own subway network so it wouldn’t have to piggyback on ST Link, there would be no light rail to Everett, the governments would be committed to prioritizing transit over car capacity, and EISes would be reformed. But we don’t have the political clout to get that done. Those same NIMBYS like the EIS process the way it is and would be an obstacle to reforming it. They’d raise horror stories of Robert Moses.
Can you moderate this? This commenter has a sensitive alias (a reference to foreign policy and history that’s all I’m gonna say), has multiple swears in the comment, and is mostly hate speech.
I put the mod hat on and rounded off the sharp corners.
“Hate speech” is a bit much, though.
Blunt. Coarse. Truth.
Mike, I was talking about the comment you replied to by the way.
The ridership estimates point to maybe a few hundred cars being taken off the road. The 10,000 or so from Everett are probably mostly existing bus passengers from the 201, 202, 510, and 512.
“The ridership estimates point to maybe a few hundred cars being taken off the road.”
Does that mean reduced greenhouse emissions? What a way of trade.
$1bn for an elevated station? We built all three stations of Northgate Link and the tracks for $1.8B.
Inflation’s bad but not that bad.
Tell it to Skanska or Kiewitt or whoever. Are they priming the pump for an overpriced construction contract? Or that just how much stuff will cost in 2040? Hard to say.
Is the travel time comparison against the 512, with the detour to Ash Way? I would expect travel time between Lynnwood and Everett to be 5-10 minutes faster than those estimates via a freeway bus. See: the 510
“Both alternatives would connect to the Swift Blue and the future Swift Silver Line (incorrectly labeled as Green on the maps above).”
no, the map is correct.
the PSRC maps and CT’s long range planning documents indicate the swift green will be realigned up 527->526->casino. while swift silver goes from airport way to catcarth. furthermore appendix g.1 sys this about the alignment of green on page 141:
“Revised south terminus at UW Bothell/Cascadia College; revised route via W Casino Road and SR 527”
furthermore. these bus concepts in this deis rely on et-ct merging. please mention this. please be aware that attachment A also relys on consolidation too, but this attachment is using older planning data from 2022 (instead of early 2024). if there are conflicts or omissions, it would be prudent to defer to the base g.1. appendix since that document is newer.
Are we going to discuss the higher cost estimates? The Everett Post is saying that Everett Link Extension is up to $11.6B inclusive! These match the Enterprise Initiative estimates in June.
According to EI, Phase 1 is listed at $6.1B (SW Everett). Phase 2 is listed at $3.4B. The North OMF is listed at $2.1B.
While adding in the OMF into the cost may sound unreasonable, keep in mind that the trip from Lynnwood CC to Downtown Everett ans about as time consuming for a train as Westlake to Lynnwood CC (U Link + Northgate Link + Lynnwood Link combined).
It’s not clear whether the train sets are included in this cost.
FTA still lists the extension including the OMF and likely train sets at $8.3B here:
https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-projects/everett-link-extension-project