An animated rendering of West Seattle Link. (Sound Transit)
A conservative vision for urbanism. (The Atlantic) David From interviews Reihan Salam. I’ve been following Frum since he was on Left, Right, and Center in the 2000s; I consider him the most thoughtful conservative analysist nowadays. They discuss housing, education, street parking, blue cities, and their non-Trump conservatism vs Trumpism.
This is an open thread.
What an amazing video of West Seattle Link from Sound Transit! It’s nice to have a clear vision of the updated route (RIP Avalon). This video is also making the rounds on other sites. It’s interesting to see the comments on West Seattle Blog and Reddit. Many folks who don’t follow transit closely don’t really know where Link is going or even what TOD is. This video fills in the missing pieces for the masses.
LOL. It shows why it costs so damn much money and does so little for mobility. $5 billion to do a job already being done better by a Rapidride line with 8-monitor headways. Take a fraction of that cash to secure signal propriety and BAT lanes for the C-Line, and you just might be able to build the Spine and Ballard in our lifetimes. but great PR tho…
The “flattening” of this landscape—and the gloss over the highly criticized segments of the West Seattle alignment, including the Pigeon Point hillside and its Great Blue Heron rookery—highlight how 3D marketing renderings selectively transform massive, invasive engineering into an unrealistically clean and manicured public amenity.
The severe reality of what is planned for Pigeon Point involves several critical factors:
Because the light rail must transition from a massive, high-elevation bridge over the Duwamish River and land directly into the steep slope of Pigeon Point, standard tracks cannot just sit on the existing ground.
Sound Transit’s approved design requires extensive excavation, literally cutting deep into the steep hillside canopy.
To prevent massive landslides on the destabilized hill, the plan requires installing a series of heavy, multi-layered concrete retaining walls and overlapping terraces.
While the renderings depict manicured green grass and inviting pedestrian paths, the ecological reality is the complete removal of mature, deep-rooted forest canopy that currently stabilizes the hillside and shelters wildlife.
The Great Blue Heron colony at Pigeon Point is federally protected. Our central concern is how to enforce the permanent 300-foot buffer zone intended to shield nesting pairs from urban stress. Sound Transit’s preferred alignment cuts directly through portions of this critical habitat and its associated wetlands.
Early geotechnical drilling, utility surveying, and preliminary clearing along the lower edge of the slope (near Delridge and Spokane Street) have already chipped away at the canopy fringe. For a sensitive species like the heron, noise and canopy thinning in the buffer zone can cause nesting failure long before the actual train tracks are built.
The flyover video uses a widespread 3D rendering tactic: forced perspective and spatial compression.
By elevating the camera angle slightly above, or smoothly gliding down the center of the guideway, the tracks appear sleek and slender.
In reality, a twin-track light rail guideway demands a massive horizontal right-of-way, flanked by emergency walkways, electrical systems, and structural columns. On a hillside “retained cut,” the true physical footprint is significantly wider and more disruptive than the animation suggests.
The City of Seattle pushed back strongly during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. However, according to Ann Dornfeld (KUOW) May 2025, the city initially withheld formal concurrence over the loss of Seattle Parks and Recreation land at Pigeon Point due to these severe construction impacts.
Marilyn Kennell
unknown.jpg
unknown_1.jpg
unknown_2.jpg
photos by Marilyn Kennell (September 2023)
The West Seattle video seems to suggest that 1 and 3 lines will both be running in the DSTT.
No it doesn’t, what are you referring to? The larger map clearly has dstt2 for the one line, I think you’re digging too deep into a stylization of a map.
Yeah, the design language of the (highly stylized) future service map clearly shows the 1 Line running separately from the 2 and 3 lines.
I think it’s interesting that it doesn’t show the 4 Line joining the 2 Line at East Main, and instead shows a discrete intersection in Bellevue.
It also implies the Ballard Extension and 4 Line are already open, since it clearly shows the WSLE extension being added to the map.
The timing is ambiguous. ST is attempting to show the full ST3 network, even though “West Seattle Link” is just the AJ-SODO stub phase.
The 4 Line has not started Alternatives Analysis yet, so the corridor is just conceptual, and is probably the representative alignment in the ballot measure, since the board hasn’t voted on a preferred alternative yet.
ST’s system expansion map, while also stylized, is less simplified and shows the 4 Line coming in at East Main: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion
There are a few mildly interesting design differences between the two maps.
The video implies that West Seattle Link is always an extension from Downtown and not ever a stub. Otherwise, the red line in the video would begin at SODO.
Yeah, the video’s map introduction would be seriously confusing to anyone who’s not already deeply familiar with the expansion plans.
Yeah I guess I did not see the way that it zoomed in from the system map and was focused on the diagram starting at 00:20.
By the way, I noticed that the video did not include the connector between the WS tracks and the Central OMF.
Overall, the tracks are going to be way up in the air or deep underground. The only segment that isn’t terrain-challenged is in SODO. It also looks like they will take out the entire busway starting at Spokane Street northward.
They will, and that is a transit crime. For six (mostly empty) trains per hour and a bit less than a billion dollars they’ll add seven minutes to the trips of all the buses serving southeast King County from Renton south. Maybe the South King representatives on the ST Board should be questioning that.
Too bad Reagan Dunn isn’t currently on ST Board.
You seem to be talking about the map at 0:15. The map is correct: Lines 2 and 3 are on the left, and Line 1 is alone on the right. In the future the 1 Line will move to DSTT2 and run Ballard-Tacoma. The 3 Line will be reconnected to the segment from Everett, making a West Seattle-Everett line. The 2 Line will remain as-is in Seattle, and just be extended to Mariner or Paine Field or whatever ST does later.
I notice in the ST video that SODO Station is going to develop into a full bus/rail transfer point. That was something I repeatedly suggested during the days that STB was obsessed with turning Rainier Beach Station into a connection/turnback point for many of the south county bus routes. I wonder what the total trip times would be for West Seattle riders if their buses used SODO as the transfer point to light rail instead of going to West Seattle Junction to transfer.
It’s a clever idea. Still, the situation is that 1 Line is projected to get all the crowds — and 3 Line trains between CID and Alaska Junction trains are projected to be quite empty. ST is going to want Metro to dump as many riders as they can onto 3 Line in West Seattle. The last thing they would want to do is put more riders onto 1 Line.
Many of us wish that there was a transit access project to directly connect SODO Station with the West Seattle bridge. But now that WS Link is happening, its utility is mostly erased. So there isn’t the fast path to accommodate your idea in the works.
Imo we should be building a track junction south of SODO station where the 1 Line and 3 Line switch tracks rather than having the 1 Line’s current track merged with new track (which will probably end up in a long-term rail disruption between SODO and Stadium).
Just have the 3 Line use the current SODO Station and avoid building two stations where people won’t really need it (and yes there are better areas where that model is needed).
What Sound Transit wants is SODO to become a regional hub with a fancy bus plaza and TOD but the industrial area of SODO is not worth the build.
The SODO transit center in the video only loads to and from 6th Ave. The busway is gone. Lander St will climbing to cross over the tracks. That’s terribly inconvenient for any buses coming from the west. It’s bad for any 4th Ave buses too like Metro 101 and 150. Simply put, it couldn’t be in a worse place!
Yes, and with the oversized bus plaza it looks like Sound Transit is wanting to convince Metro to truncate their South King buses (e.g: 101, 150) at SODO Station and see a flock of people walking over to the light rail platform together.
You may be right! Still, by removing the busway, Routes 101 and 150 would have to run on 6th Ave where SDOT just installed a massive lane reduction to create a bicycle track and slow traffic — or turn at a congested 4th Avenue and Spokane Street, then turn again at 4th and Lander then turn again at 6th and Lander then turn again in or out of the bus transit center.
The busway routes will move to 4th when the busway closes. SDOT is planning transit lanes and sidewalks there, both for that and for RapidRide 150.
Mike, but why Metro and SDOT make an effort on adding bus lanes on 4th Ave S if they’ll end up being unused if they truncate all the South King/Pierce expresses to SODO (a really bad transfer point).
They ideally all need to go to Seattle Center. Seattle Center is underrated and will soon have a light rail station.
Because they’re not truncating buses at SODO. That’s a comment section speculation, not something the transit agencies have ever indicated. The buses are going downtown until Metro has a proposal with public hearings to do anything different. RapidRide 150 (ca. 2039) has two alternatives: one on 4th to downtown, and one truncated at Rainier Beach.
“Metro had also considered truncating the line at either SODO or TIB stations. It rejected both potential termini because SODO is already quite close to downtown and TIBS both is too far out of the way and duplicating RapidRide F.”
Route 101 is one of the few unchanged routes in Metro Connects 2050. We’ve tried to get it truncated at Rainier Beach and Metro has always said no. In the 2014 cuts it said it would only consider truncating it if it couldn’t afford half-hourly frequency on the original route.
Here’s something that I haven’t seen discussed much at STB: the second terminal at SEA that is planned for construction by 2032. The new terminal will build 19 new gates at the airport and bring many more passengers through SEA. Included in the plans is a new people mover system and a remodeled ground transportation center. How should Metro and ST plan their services at SEA to serve the additional passengers and airport workers?
I think it’s inevitable that ST will eventually need to serve SEA directly from downtown Seattle without a trip through Rainier Valley. I wonder what the best routing would be. Would SeaTac and Tukwila want to revisit their 1990s-era decisions to not want light rail service for their residents outside of TIBS?
As regional priorities go, I don’t see ST will ever consider adding a bypass line unless or until the MKK segment gets too crowded and riders can’t squeeze onto trains. That’s not a speculative thing, as the per train load forecasts in past years showed the most crowded system segment will be the Beacon Hill tunnel. A corollary to this is grade separating the MLK segment that would then both improve pedestrian safety in addition to enabling more trains per hour and making trains run faster.
Still, I think that merely getting to SeaTac a few minutes faster is not a compelling enough reason to spend many billions. And even though SeaTac is expanding, it’s not coming anywhere close to halfway doubling the number of gates.
It’s always fun to speculate about new extensions. But the wish list is already pretty long. And Ballard plus DSTT2 still will need tens of billions.
If SeaTac gets new rail transit, I think it’s more likely going to be associated with Cascadia HSR. The rail system can then act like a shuttle across Weatern Washington. It may be an engineering challenge and budget buster, but the impact would be profound.
They can certainly more reasonably afford a bypass under the grade separation goal than some HSR fantasy. Not saying it is anytime soon but Cascadia HSR is even less likely as it would be orders of magnitude more expensive and the timeline even less favorable.
“I think it’s inevitable that ST will eventually need to serve SEA directly from downtown Seattle without a trip through Rainier Valley. I wonder what the best routing would be. Would SeaTac and Tukwila want to revisit their 1990s-era decisions to not want light rail service for their residents outside of TIBS?”
It was 2015 when South King and Pierce didn’t lift a finger to keep the Georgetown bypass from being removed from ST’s long-range plan. ST said it wouldn’t ever need it. The primary beneficiaries aren’t just Tukwila and SeaTac, but also Federal Way, Tacoma, and the Highline College area.
That’s the only feasible corridor: it’s the straightest, and has a low residential population so little opposition. Airport Way has extra capacity if it’s looking for an alignment.
There’s no way ST can build a new corridor when it will take until the 2060s at least to finish ST3. By that time there may be no more interest in megaprojects, and air travel may collapse due to energy requirements, environmental impacts, and geopolitical instability.
“the per train load forecasts in past years showed the most crowded system segment will be the Beacon Hill tunnel.”
Where do you get that from? ST says the most crowded segment will be Westlake-Symphony. Many observers think this is inaccurate and it will be Westlake-Capitol Hill.
The Beacon Hill tunnel is subject to the 6-minute cap on MLK. That can be relieved by eliminating the level crossings, then you could have trains every 3 minutes like in the other tunnel. Or even 1.5 minutes, since ST will presumably build the new tunnel without the 1980s spec limitations DSTT1 was subject to. (Of course, this assumes ST follows transit best practices, which it doesn’t have a good track record on.) We should probably do that anyway, because Rainier Valley is already standing room only and can’t take that many more people.
Beacon Hill tunnel congestion could also be solved by putting a second platform at Mt Baker and turning some trains there.
If it were me, I’d abandon the current deep DSTT2 concept, add second platforms at Mt Baker and Northgate, so that trains can be terminated and/or turned at those stations when traffic patterns or service interruptions demand.
“ Where do you get that from? ST says the most crowded segment will be Westlake-Symphony. Many observers think this is inaccurate and it will be Westlake-Capitol Hill.”
It’s now several years old, but I concluded that from the 2019 STB article on ST3 forecasted ridership which had these set of diagrams:
https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PM_Peak_ST3_Plan_2040_Midpoint.pdf
The diagrams show that the Beacon Hill tunnel would have 43K riders each way on a typical weekday. The same diagram forecasts 42K each way in DSTT2. The current DSTT shows a forecast of 56K each way, but with double the train lines that’s only 28K per line per direction.
ST has not recently published similar maps as far as I can tell. They probably should. So I can’t extol them as accurate. I can only say that there appears to be a demand challenge.
Further, it’s only rail transit shown. Downtown, there will still be frequent buses on Third Ave. And they won’t be buried way underground. So the forecasts are probably overestimating the number of people who will descend deep in the earth to ride a train a stop or two before re-emerging from another deep station. More will likely just ride a bus on the surface.
All of this is unfortunately academic. Board members never question the forecasts nor even reference them when making hard decisions. If they did, Ballard and SLU — and their assumed easy transfers at Westlake and CID — would be the next extension underway rather than all these much less productive extensions in ST3.
The Port of Seattle isn’t including Metro or ST in transportation planning for SeaTac, so there’s really not much to say. I think the Port considers SeaTac to be adequately served by the Link station and attached bus station on International Blvd. Obviously that’s not very .
It’s also well known that the Port makes a lot of money off its parking lot, so it’s financially interested in maintaining the parking lot as a primary transportation option.
This would be awesome. Bypass the whole area using the other side of I5. But I’ll long have retired and moved to a lazy beach town by the time they actually build such a thing.
Some of the people on here don’t realize how slow Link is. It’s so slow that you can’t even put up with it. Makes it tempting to drive or beg for a one seat commuter bus.
If Link was fully automated, smaller trains/stations, double the speed, and less time at each station… It’d be so much more enjoyable to ride and commute with.
Adding a direct bus route between the airport and downtown Seattle could be a stopgap solution to help meet the additional demand until a further light rail extension can be built.
Probably the best Pinehurst video I’ve seen so far.
https://youtu.be/WhIwO-DA-OU
Thoughts on the second movie?
Are we really thinking that trickle down economics is still the way to go?!?
I find it very frustrating that the government efficiency pundits come out the woodwork to point fingers at local spending and are not willing to admit that the major corporate and wealthy tax cuts enacted with every congressional budget in recent history, should be repealed as a start first (which many of them opined against when deliberations were going on) before any cutbacks are put on the table to remedy our “out of control” budgets.
In the same issue of “The Atlantic:” this month which this interview is published in:
https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/10/pass-through-corporate-tax/688918/
makes the point that all the tax loopholes which multiply with every ‘Big Beautiful’ tax cut are leaving so much tax revenue on the table from those who are enjoying much lower federal tax rates than any one receiving wages for income enjoys. Especially corporations. Let alone the top .001%.
Starve the beast is alive and well…
I think pretty lowly of David Frum, particularly as it relates to his history with the Bush administration and his support of the Iraq war. I could go on about a whole lot more too.
But I do think that a lower-case c conservative approach to urban politics and policy is reasonable. Balanced budgets matter a lot more of city governments than the federal government, and considering what powers and services are in the set of requirements for governments versus things we really would like to have can be valuable.
Still, I view conservatives — even lower case c conservatives — with some amount of skepticism for urban policy making. A conservative view point inherently means one that is at least tacitly resisted to change, and I think there are just too many things that need to change within our cities to make them work for everyone. That said, oftentimes successful political movements (even in the progressive sense) rely on appeals to traditional values (this was very present in the surveillance pricing debate locally).
Maybe that’s a lot of words to say “it depends on the situation, but I’m happy to hear most people out and am not dogmatically opposed to working with people who I share a viewpoint on in any given issue”.
David Frum is a good writer and editor. He is also good at … um …. no, that’s about it. Given his history, there is no reason to assume his policy positions offer anything interesting, let alone worthwhile. If you want to read something interesting and worthwhile from a conservative, read David Brooks. Hell, for that matter consider reading Charles Marohn (the author of Strong Towns).
But this an interview. You don’t have to be brilliant to do a good interview (although it doesn’t hurt — see Jon Stewart). He should be able to use his editing skills to do a decent job interviewing this guy and hopefully come up with some interesting points. Let’s see…
Nope. I couldn’t get through it.
Salam starts the interview by rambling on about several subjects. First there is a general critique of the efficiency and size of local government. OK, fair enough. He doesn’t offer a solution and Frum doesn’t ask him about it. Should local governments periodically do the sort of review that happened under Al Gore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government) but at the local level? Should we look to cities around the world and see what they’ve done? The supposed problem doesn’t have a solution — and Frum doesn’t even ask him about it.
He instead lets Salam ramble on, changing the subject to “eds and meds”. I’m really not sure what his point here is. That our education and medical system is too public? That is certainly a different take. Most experts consider our doctors and nurses (and the education they get) to be as good as any in the world. But they also consider our health care system to be terrible precisely because so much is driven by private companies. But again, that may not be the point Salam is trying to make. Frum never asks for clarification. It is laughable really. There is no way in hell that Frum would let Salam write an article like this but its an interview, so that’s cool. No its not. Salam is not some movie star appearing on the Tonight Show. He isn’t even a politician running for president touting his new book. Those watching or listening aren’t interesting in his personality or the cut of his jib. They want to hear sound, well-structured arguments. Yet Salam never answered the original question and Frum didn’t bother to press him on it (or anything else).
Then there is the bit about how federal politicians are no longer willing to “bail out” cities. Again, no push back. No recognition of the fact that people within the cities are paying so much of the bill. The cities are just asking for their slice of the pie. Furthermore, you have the fact that cities are often asked to provide resources to vulnerable people that aren’t born there. There may be some interesting things happening from a political standpoint but Frum just ignores it. Instead he changes the subject again — this time to talk about the schools.
But even his question about education are bizarre. If I was interviewing Salam about K-12 education I would start with questions about funding. Should it really be done with local property taxes? Or maybe ask about the impact of testing. Surely a couple of conservatives could find issue with the state and federal mandates that many local teachers object to. Who knows? Instead Frum asks a confusing question about identifying and promoting talent. To his credit, Salam mentions how schools have taken on increased responsibility (providing meals, counseling, etc.). Salam is absolutely right in this definitely stretches (some) schools to a breaking point. But rather than suggest obvious solutions (providing more money since the schools are doing more — splitting off those responsibilities to new agencies, etc.) they suggest we should go back to the old ways, naively ignoring the fact that much of the middle class has been destroyed by Reagan/Bush policies. Meanwhile, Frum goes back to this weird idea that a kid from a wealthy, well-educated family won’t do well at a public school. There is this assumption that the key to her getting ahead lies in some superstar teacher. Its nonsense. The superstar teacher is most useful for the struggling student — not the kid that reads a book every night. But even if you accept this absurd premise there is no real solution given. This (of course) migrates to a general attack on teacher unions, ignoring the fact that Finland is a highly unionized country (and the US had teacher unions back in the “good old days”). They suggest that charter schools are the answer, ignoring the restrictive enrollment policies of them. Cherry picking students looks good on paper but doesn’t work. Diversity (of both race and class) is far better — for everyone. Not just the lower-income students and the folks from a rough upbringing but the privileged white kids as well. Yet they just ignore this idea.
Yuck. I’ve had enough. Sorry, I can’t even get into the part where he talks about transit (does he talk about transit?). If this passes for modern right-wing intellectualism it explains a lot. I used to read the National Review (even though I was never a conservative). Buckley might have been a pompous ass, but he was smart. I really don’t see that from the American right. At best they are just libertarians who — as Samantha B put it so well — are correct half the time. Allow Gay Marriage? Of course. Legalize Cannabis? Absolutely. Allow developers to add more density in the cities so that the cost of housing goes down? Of course. But so much of what the right suggests now is just rehashed failed ideas from the past. This interview is full of it.
Conservatives, in general, are deeply skeptical to the entire idea of mass transit. In their mind, anyone that doesn’t drive their own car everywhere is a loser, and the role of transit is, at best, a form of charity to allow people to temporarily get places until they can get a job, buy a car, and drive themselves.
In the meantime, while liberals at least value transit, they tend to undervalue making transit more efficient. In their minds, it doesn’t matter how much per passenger it costs to run, as long as the money comes from a progressive taxing source, and creates jobs. And, of course, they themselves, are driving everywhere, so they don’t really care if the transit system is bloated, so long as it reflects their progressive values.
A serious constituency that both values transit and wants it to be more efficient, even at the expense of other progressive values, doesn’t exist.
In the meantime, while liberals at least value transit, they tend to undervalue making transit more efficient.
Most people (liberal or conservative) don’t understand transit well enough to make judgments about value. Part of the problem is that there are people on the right who simply oppose transit spending (of any kind). Others are focused on NIMBY or even YIMBY opinions. Most people aren’t aware of “last mile” issues. Most don’t really consider that transit lines serve neighborhoods, not cities. Most people don’t understand the fundamentals surrounding a transit network. Then there are mode fetishists. Throw that all together and you lack a serious discussion over value.
This is nothing new or unique to transit. It is why we have a republic. Most people don’t have enough time to look at the details — to dig into the subject. The problem is, the leaders (in this country) are often as ignorant or as self-centered as the public when it comes to transit. Voters didn’t assemble ST3 — they were just asked to vote yes or no on it. Voters didn’t prioritize West Seattle Link over everything else — that came from the politicians. To be fair, this isn’t their main job. If a mayor screws up the police situation they are likely out of a job. A representative moves too far to the left or right in a changing district and they too are out of a job. But a member of the Sound Transit board can screw up projects and it won’t cost them anything.
I think the basic problem is how the board is governed. The board does not consist of bunch of transit experts directly chosen by the public or appointed by our leaders. Such a board would be focused on value and be willing to explain why one project is better than another. Instead it is the politicians themselves. It assumes a level of competence and impartiality that simply doesn’t exist.
I still go back to what happened in Kirkland. It seems like a little thing, but it is telling. The City Of Kirkland hired a transit consulting firm to figure how best to use the Cross Kirkland Corridor. The firm recommended BRT. They also said that Sound Transit has very high costs for BRT and that it shouldn’t be that expensive. This is how the process should work. Maybe there shouldn’t just be one firm. Maybe two — maybe three. Maybe a whole committee of similarly trained experts, ready to argue about this or that. Have that argument out in the open and hopefully come to a consensus.
But none of that happens. Each project is chosen for largely arbitrary reasons based on the whims of the politicians involved. It is why the city is in the mess they are in and they seem to have no interest in changing things.
“ A serious constituency that both values transit and wants it to be more efficient, even at the expense of other progressive values, doesn’t exist.”
I agree in Seattle’s instance. For residents who are long-time transit users from places like Chicago and New York, efficient transit operations are understood and appreciated by both more liberal and more conservative residents.
When someone spends their lives riding urban rail from time as a young kid, they get that it’s not a pretty schematic that matters. Instead it’s the actual usability.
I would say that first view is a result of conservatives being interested (broadly) in protecting the status quo in one way or another. The status quo allows for inefficient projects, as long as they are in line with what we’ve “always” done (see: conservative support for highway spending). If the status quo was mass transit ridership, you would expect to see more support for it. If you’ve read Peter Norton’s Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, this is discussed at length in the way that police handled automobiles in the early days. I suspect that Tories in London have different views of mass transit than Republicans in South Dakota, even if both would be right wingers.
I am less pessimistic in my feelings towards liberal and progressive leadership for transit, and would instead link the generally poor state of US transit to the unfamiliarity with transit issues that most (even supporters) have. Transit is firmly in the wonk sphere, and even pols who ride frequently are often not that familiar with best approaches to improvement (if there even is a single approach that is universally considered good)
“I would say that first view is a result of conservatives being interested (broadly) in protecting the status quo in one way or another.”
That’s traditional conservatives in the Edmund Burke tradition, or conservatism outside the US. They believe in incremental reforms rather than radical revolutions (“burning everything down”).
A second kind of conservatism emerged through the Anti-New Dealers, John Birch society, Nixon, and Reagan called “movement conservatism”. They wanted to roll back the New Deal and social pluralism. Since those was already well established by the 1980s or 2000s, they’re advocating for a radical revolutionary change under the guise of conservatism. This is where “welfare queens” and the Moral Majority come from.
That was further complicated by neoconservatives, why wanted a hawkish foreign policy, and neoliberals, like the Clintons. There’s overlap between movement conservatives and neoconservatives but I’m not sure they’re the same thing.
Frum’s earlier career is described as neoconservative. But he’s still a small-government incrementalist interested in pragmatics rather than revolutions. That should be clear from the video. He doesn’t get into culture-war issues. Neoconservatism was substantially discredited after the Iraq and Afganistan experience, so they’ve had to moderate and rethink that, and now Frum et al are against Trump’s radical revolution.
A serious constituency that both values transit and wants it to be more efficient, even at the expense of other progressive values, doesn’t exist.
There are plenty of people that both value transit and want it to be more efficient. That largely defines the work of Jarrett Walker. It is absurd to think that he doesn’t have fans. There are also plenty of people who feel the same way even though they have no idea who Jarrett Walker is.
But the other phrase suggests we need to make a sacrifice. That the “expense of other progressive values” is the main thing holding us back. That too is absurd. Maybe, at the fringes, this is an issue. But most of the problems are due to ignorance, incompetence and funding. There is always a trade-off between ridership and coverage, no matter who is being covered. But you can do a good job at both or you can screw both up.
Salam acknowledged cities need larger governments than rural/exurban areas do, and there’s a housing shortage in New York City and throughout the country. One of them questioned why parking lanes are allowed to take over two-thirds of a Manhattan avenue (two out of three lanes). On the negative side, Salam seems to think charter schools are always better, even though they can be used to exclude student demographics, and retired teachers without pensions are at risk of poverty. I think the biggest issue is New York City is unusual in the US, so it does not fully reflect the situation in, e.g., Seattle.
I don’t remember Frum’s position on the Big Beautiful Bill, but he was likely against it because it cut a big hole in the deficit, weakened IRS enforcement, and took a chainsaw to social programs rather than sensibly reforming them.
I hadn’t heard of Salam, so I don’t know his positions beyond what’s in the video.
I tried to watch it.
Salam started by conceding that urban areas require more government. I am not sure that it does. Certainly, I have been to urban areas with very weak governments – this is the case in most third world cities. They have poor sanitation, they are unsafe, et cetera. So sure, urban life is better with strong governments. But when you go out into the countryside in the third world… it’s worse. And sanitation and safety is usually worse in rural areas even in the first world.
I think that it actually works the other way around. Strong governments are generally better anywhere, not just in cities. But governments are built with social trust, and that trust is more easily built in urban environments.
Then he started talking about urban governments being captured by city employees – that there are so many city employees, they become a political force unto themselves. This is true so far as it goes, but I think this is an artifact of our political system. Our media ecosystem has become increasingly nationalized and local media, where it still exists, has become marginalized. So not only is voter turnout in local elections low, local election outcomes are usually predicated on national issues, with a widespread misunderstanding of what local governments are actually responsible for.
Again, thinking of the other countries I have lived in, local governments were typically very weak, their functions were heavily restricted by national government, and local government capture was less prevalent than it is in the US.
I think that in the US context, where local media is disappearing, we should really move toward eliminating local elections, and having local government officials be appointed instead. When that is not possible, local government powers should be circumscribed as much as practical.
Frum then started talking about how he was in New York the other day, going down a Midtown street, and it was hard to make progress due to congestion. I was thinking “yeah, Midtown is crazy, they really need to widen some of those sidewalks”, but then I realized he was driving in Midtown Manhattan, and I just had to turn it off. Salam seems reasonable, but I can’t take Frum. He comes from a universe that I don’t respect.
Link power outage, trains immobilized south of RBS.
Ouch. Last night there was a crash on MLK too (apparently non-train involved) that lead to very long delays. I bailed to the 50 to 36 to get home from Columbia City.
Do you think it would be possible for ST to run interim service on the 3 Line between Alaska Junction and Northgate? For example, every 3 minutes apart:
1 Line, 2 Line, 1 Line, 3 Line, 2 Line, 1 Line, 2 Line, 3 Line, repeat
That makes every 6-9 minutes on the 1 and 2 Lines, same as today’s peak on average, and every 12 minutes on the 3 Line. Plus, we were promised eventual service every 3 minutes in the interlined part, so it seems feasible from that perspective. And ST had experience short-turning 2 Line trains at Northgate during Pinehurst station construction, so operationally this might be okay too?
The underlying problem is the positioning of the tracks in SODO. Trains headed in the same direction northbound must cross active southbound tracks. This is a really stupid, fundamental flaw in their design and will hamper system capacity for a venture if they build as they are now planning.
Otherwise ST would have total flexibility on running trains through DSTT or someday DSTT2. They could run all WS and Beacon Hill tunnel trains or they could stub some and keep others going further north.
To clarify the actual operation, ST will have to freeze 3 full active tracks for at least a minute to shift trains from one track to the other going in the same direction — including a track going in the opposite direction. It’s just stupid!
Yeah, sure. You could interline West Seattle Link with the rest of the system. Running three lines through a shared section is less than ideal but plenty of cities do it. It is unlikely you will need more capacity than that. Keep in mind we are still running short trains half the time and we are doing OK. We could also buy trains with more capacity.
But as Al pointed out, the system isn’t designed for that. It has to be so very confusing for anyone who knows transit but doesn’t get our politics. We are building this new line with only two stations. But the trains won’t go downtown. They will instead go only to SoDo (the closest station). This is an existing above-ground station (in the middle of nowhere) where it would be almost trivial to provide switches. Eventually you will build a second tunnel to deal with crowding that may never actually exist. Oh, and the second tunnel won’t add any additional downtown coverage. Then there is huge cost of the project, the relatively small walk-up ridership and the possibility of alternatives that would be much cheaper and much better for the vast majority of riders.
Given all of those factors (cost, benefit, timing) it has to be one of the weirdest transit decisions ever made. Welcome to Seattle!
The tie-in to the main track is in the second phase I think. This is just terminating at a transfer point.
I don’t see how ST can START building any part of DSTT2 without stubbing the 1 Line at SODO and only running southward from there. I’m fully expecting ST to try to build 1 Line to the County buildings ASAP.
Add to that, the Tacoma Dome Extension opening about 2035-2037 adds an extra 25-30 minutes for drivers so they’ll need a break before Lynnwood or Mariner anyway.
So, I will not be surprised if ST operates West Seattle Link through into Snohomish County on opening day — and they stub the 1 Line instead. That’s 2035 officially but I think 2037 is probably when it will happen. That will likely be reasoned by ST because they will say it’s needed to START building a part of DSTT2 by then and say that the 1 Line needs to be stubbed to start building the connection.
My expectation is a fundamental result of how difficult it will be to set up train switching between DSTT and DSTT2 — because the designers working for ST don’t want to change what they’ve drawn.
Too many elected officials and even transit advocates think that track switching in SODO will be as easy as flipping a switch. It’s wont be! That’s because ST will not design tracks running in the same direction next to each other.
Of course ST can start digging DSTT2. The portals are both east of the existing trackway. I expect that they’ll have to trench the ramp down to a TBM launch vault because the the machines are so long that the rear portion would foul the existing trackway if they started on the surface. TBM’s work best when the cutter heads are entirely underground anyway.
Excavate the ramps down to the TBM vault
At the same time, build the TBM vault and install the machines
Start drilling from the vault to CID South and beyond as far as can be afforded. I guess they’ll be carrying through five stations, and I expect they’ll keep boring beyond Seattle Center Station to the portals above Elliott, even if they don’t build the trackway beyond the station. There isn’t a convenient TBM removal point around 1st North.
When tunneling is finished, install the tracks and wiring
Do some one-car test runs to be sure everything is working and clearances are OK
While all this is going on build the new Line 3 tracks on the busway
Also test the busway trackage
When the testing is finished, do a long-weekend cut and fill to re-direct the Line 1 tracks to the completed tunnel trackage and the original tracks to the Line 3 pathway down the busway.
Test the junction between the two systems
Start service
This is all 100% do-able, and 99.7% unnecessary.
YO, ST! You’re truncating the wrong end of BLE!
Skip the SoDo silliness and DSTT2. Start at the Elliott Portals and tunnel to Westlake, then build elevated to Ballard using a mid-level opening bridge shared with traffic in the 14th Avenue Corridor, put an elevated station between Leary Way and 49th above 14th, then move the Safeway over to the south half of the block in order to make a decent curve to an elevated station straddling 15th in the north 1/3 of Safeway’s block. This gives you a great bus intercept at 15th and Market and a second station that can serve as the linch-pin for development of the area north of the Ship Canal east of 15th Avenue.
The video shows WSLE tying into the main line north of SODO. It has to, since otherwise there’d be no way for trains to get to the extension from any of the OMFs. The extension used to assume a direct connection between the elevated section south of SODO and OMF-C, but that connection has clearly been scrapped as a cost-savings measure.
A few thoughts about the West Seattle Link video:
1) It is a great illustration of why the project is so expensive. Elevated lines are supposed to be fairly cheap but this thing costs a bundle. It isn’t hard to see why. The train leaves SoDo and immediately starts climbing. It soars over the Spokane Street Viaduct. It keeps going higher — well over the Alaska Way Viaduct (which is over the other viaduct). It stays high as it cross the Duwamish. Never mind the bridge itself (which is huge) there are gigantic pylons every step of the way. Finally it gets to West Seattle and starts going downhill. But just when you think that would keep costs down you have a tunnel (for one of the stations). Thus just getting to West Seattle costs a fortune (this type of elevated line is definitely not cheap). But one of the advantages of (most elevated) lines is that the stations themselves are cheap. Yet there is only one elevated station (Delridge). The other station is underground, so it will be expensive. Oh, and in general, deep bore tunneling is expensive but gets cheaper the longer you go. Thus the most expensive tunnel (per foot) is one that is long. This is short. It all adds to one of the most expensive projects per station in the world.
2) The station platforms look like they are pretty close to the surface. That is the good news. The bad news is the Delridge Station. This will not be an easy transfer. A bus coming from the south will have to take two left turns before riders can access the station. Obviously a bus could get to downtown faster. But its worse than that. Imagine we just send the buses to SoDo. You will likely get to SoDo earlier. In other words, if you are heading to the UW (on Link) you will likely get there at the same time. If you are heading south on Link you avoid a second transfer. Metro saves almost as much in service time by truncating in SoDo as they do Delridge. If the main benefit of this project is that Metro can save money by forcing a transfer on Link they could do that tomorrow by sending buses to SoDo.
Of course riders don’t want to end their bus journey in SoDo but why is Delridge Station any better? The short answer is it isn’t. You know all those Issaquah Transit Center riders that are complaining because it takes longer to get downtown? Riders of the RapidRide H (the most ridden bus in West Seattle) are in the same boat. The difference is that East Link provides so much more. It has dramatically sped up rides within the East Side. There are almost a dozen stops, each of which provides a trip to Seattle. But in West Seattle there are only two stations and only one of them will be more than an awkward, time consuming transfer from the old bus to a train. The only riders who will benefit are those who walk to the station and there just won’t be that many. Even if there are giant towers surrounding the stations (and there won’t be) there won’t be that many. It is as if they built East Link but ended at Mercer Island.
Oh, and all of this is after they build the second tunnel (in 2042). It will add even less value when it ends at SoDo.
It’ll be “fun” when RapidRide C and H riders realize their fast 1-seat ride is about to become a 3-seat ride for 7 years.
What are the odds the King County Executive in 2034 tells ST to figure out how to send WSLE through DSTT to Northgate without reducing service on the 1 and 2 Lines?
As I said above, I believe that ST will stub the 1 Line instead. It must be stubbed to merely START building any part of DSTT2.
There will probably never actually be a West Seattle stub.
This will only happen if the interests in West Seattle are able to outvote the interests of South King and Pierce County. I’d say this is even less likely than ST reversing course to defer DSTT2 and prioritize Ballard to Westlake.
You’ve posted this before despite it being objectively wrong. I’ve shared links to the conceptual engineering plans for BLE to you before. The portal for DSTT2 will be near the dogleg south of Stadium Station. They won’t interrupt service until it’s time to reroute the 1 Line to DSTT2, and then I’m sure they’ll do it as fast as they can (like Connect 2020 for East Link).
ST needs a way to get trains from OMF-C through the DSTT because OMF-E doesn’t have enough capacity to serve the entire 2 Line and the north half of the 1 Line for an extended period. There’s no world in which ST approves a construction schedule that stubs the 1 Line while leaving the 3 Line operating to West Seattle.
“They won’t interrupt service until it’s time to reroute the 1 Line to DSTT2, and then I’m sure they’ll do it as fast as they can (like Connect 2020 for East Link).«
Maybe so, but there is the matter of connecting West Seattle tracks to DSTT too. ST will have to phase making those tracks connect in addition to connecting the Beacon Hill tunnel tracks to DSTT2.
Sure it won’t happen in day 1 of the initial DSTT2 segment construction but it will happen earlier rather than later. It will almost certainly happen years before opening day of DSTT2. Yes it will probably be necessary to close tracks for several weeks. That big closure will be needed for West Seattle Link tracks to tie into the system and access the OMFs. This disruption minimizing is another reason why I think ST will decide to stub the 1 Line earlier than they state — either when West Seattle opens or in the early stages of DSTT construction.
All of this phasing should be addressed in the EIS document that we are waiting for. We will see whether or not ST disclosed what they will need to do.
Keep in mind too that both North OMF and South OMF are expected to open well before Everett Link, Tacoma Dome Link and West Seattle Link. The Central OMF will still be accessible when the tracks are severed. The issue is that the track switches being designed could not handle a high frequency operation and not that they would lose access entirely.
In terms of Connect 2020, ST suggested that it would be the only closure needed. That wasn’t the case. Riders endured multiple extended closures to tie in East Link tracks after Connect 2020. Which kind of makes ST look disingenuous about saying what and when closures would happen.
Consider this Nathan:
Connect 2020 was six years before East Link opened. Why should we expect ST to wait to the conclusion of DSTT2 construction to do something similar?
Connect 2020 lasted 11 weeks. There were a handful of weekend DSTT closures afterward. These are not the same.
It could be, but there’s no requirement to address it in the EIS.
Yes; this is to be expected.
Al, you’re smarter than this. North OMF and South OMF are intrinsically tied to the construction of EVLE and TDLE. Sure, ST might ask their builder to get the mainline connections to the new OMFs open before the full extensions open, but it’s very unlikely. BLE is scheduled to start construction in 2032. You can’t seriously think the OMFs will be open by then.
The difference is you’re claiming the 1 Line will be stubbed from the “START” (emphasis original) of DSTT2 construction until it opens. This is clearly wrong. Yes, it’s likely that there will be some period when 1 Line operations are significantly impacted to connect WSLE to the main line, and it’s likely to look like Connect 2020. But to claim that the 1 Line will be stubbed in favor of WSLE for a decade? Completely ridiculous.
Here’s a report discussing West Seattle Link with a discussion of construction impacts:
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/16a-WSLE-FinalEIS-AppendixN1-transportationtechreport-main-body.pdf
Much of the details are on pages 3-19 to 3-22.
The report says that 1 Line trains will be shifted to a temporary track and SODO station will probably be closed for three years. The report also states that the SODO busway closure of 5 years may be extended to at least 10 years if ST begins BLE construction. So it’s pretty clear the West Seattle Link EIS authors expect to disrupt the 1 Line pretty significantly. It’s much bigger than Connect 2020.
Note that the plans include moving the existing 1 Line platforms too to a new spot north of the existing platforms once completed.
If SODO Station is closed for three years and the tracks are shifted to a temporary alignment and BLE initiation is referenced as being initiated, wouldn’t it make sense to rebuild the station in anticipation of tying 1 Line into DSTT2 during those three years?
Honestly, I don’t get why, if ST plans to fully close all the tracks, they just build SODO station differently. It does not need three sets of elevators and escalators and stairs. Two center platforms would work fine! And if the could merely swap the directions of the two center tracks, those two platforms could offer cross-platform transfers. Then it would pretty minor to stub 1 Line at SODO as the riders could just walk across the platform to a waiting train.
Looking at how the design of SIDO station is happening is just heart-wrenching. It’s like watching a car crash in very slow motion.
“Looking at how the design of SIDO station is happening is just heart-wrenching. It’s like watching a car crash in very slow motion.”
How do you think I’ve been feeling about the long downtown transfers and splitting the southeast-northeast spine?
I just want to emphasize again that my criticism of the Delridge Station is based on after they build the second tunnel. In 2042 (if things go as well as ST leadership hopes) a rider from Delridge will be forced to transfer to the train. They will then take the train to downtown instead of just staying on a bus that goes downtown. Even if they time the train exactly right (and get to the platform just as the train is about to leave) they will be worse off than they are now. Like the Issaquah commuters that miss their old one-seat ride to downtown they are worse off. They are being asked to “take one for the team”. Sure, their transit experience is worse, but it is better for other riders. Unlike East Link though, this is the main benefit. East Link has a large number of walk-up riders. A lot of the trips are significantly faster than the old bus (e. g. Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond). The transit network is complementary (e. g. getting from Downtown Redmond to Bellevue Way is much faster). But that isn’t the case with West Seattle Link. Walk-up ridership will be minimal. It is tough for the buses to complement the Link expansion. The main benefit of the entire, multi-billion dollar fiasco that is West Seattle Link/Second Tunnel is that you save service hours. Riders going from West Seattle to downtown are worse off but other riders are better off.
But if that really is our focus then we should just skip the charade and truncate all of West Seattle buses at SoDo. This is a better truncation point then the Delridge Station since you can take trains both directions from there. Of course that would be terribly unpopular but so too will the inevitable decision to truncate the buses in 2042 (when West Seattle Link gets to downtown).
As I said above, I believe that ST will stub the 1 Line instead
I don’t think they will do that but I do think there will be dramatic disruptions to the main line. Riders from Rainier Valley and places south will be asked to sacrifice (just as those from Kent and Auburn who ride the bus) just so we can build this tiny expansion that consists of only two stations. Of course a lot of their sacrifice will be permanent as they lose direct access to the existing downtown stations, Capitol Hill and the UW.
Note that the video clearly shows the expanded SODO station in the exact same location as the existing station.
There have been significant cost savings efforts implemented since the FEIS came out, which is why this video is so interesting to study.
The FEIS isn’t a final construction plan, it’s an overall impacts analysis. The construction plans always change, but as long as the impacts are similar or less than the impacts described in the EIS, the EIS doesn’t get updated.
It’ll be “fun” when RapidRide C and H riders realize their fast 1-seat ride is about to become a 3-seat ride for 7 years.
I don’t think Metro will truncate those buses until they build the second tunnel. Then RapidRide C and H riders will realize their fast 1-seat ride is about to become a slow 2-seat ride. It will be especially slow for H riders.
Turning a one seat ride into a three seat ride is not going to go over well. It defeats the purpose of making transit easy and convenient to use. I predict an uptick in the number of people switching from transit to driving when this change occurs.
Since it is almost basketball season I had the following thought. We are the L. A. Clippers of transit. For those that don’t know, the Clippers are owned by Steve Ballmer, a very wealthy man. He is willing to spend a bundle on the team. He isn’t concerned at all about cost — he just wants to win. It is easy to assume that the franchise (led by big-spending owner) would be great. It isn’t. Despite all the spending, they just aren’t that good. At times it looked like they were on the verge of something great. Then they made a bunch of decisions and never got any further. They aren’t terrible — they just aren’t great.
The same thing is happening with Seattle transit. The bus tunnel was innovative. We had a strong commitment to transit — especially for a city our size. Then we embarked on a spending spree. We are spending a fortune on transit — likely most per capita in the world. Unlike a lot of American cities, we don’t seem that concerned about cost — we really want good transit. But our transit is not great. It may never be great. Even when the dust settles and trains (finally) get to Ballard it won’t be great. Even when we have self-driving buses and trains we will be merely average.
Like the Clippers we are willing to spend a fortune just to be mediocre. We are the L. A. Clippers of transit.
When a former commenter bragged we are the Seahawks of transit, I suggested 1) not building Ballard to UW was the equivalent of Russell Wilson throwing the ball against the Patriots on the goal line, and 2) we are the NY Jets of transit.
To make the Clippers analogy work, they have to be in the shadow of a more famous organization (e.g., the LA Lakers). Are we suggesting we are the Clips and Vancouver BC is the Lakers? Or are suggesting KC Metro are the Lakers?
To make the Clippers analogy work, they have to be in the shadow of a more famous organization (e.g., the LA Lakers). Are we suggesting we are the Clips and Vancouver BC is the Lakers?
Wow, I didn’t even think of that. But yes, we are the Clippers and Vancouver is the Lakers. But not the Lakers of today, the Showtime-era Lakers. They have Magic and Kareem and are about to add James Worthy. (The Broadway extension is Worthy).
Why aren’t we building, or even just proposing, a line from Ballard to UW? That would likely be a popular service. Perhaps it would even be cheaper to build a line from Ballard to UW than the to Ballard from downtown Seattle that is eventually going to be built.
The Clippers are awful though. I mean Ballmer has been able to spend his way into relevance for a few years, but they’ve never really been serious contenders. Their single conference finals appearance was the 2020-21 season. They’ve been okay since then, but haven’t even won a playoff series.
If we keep our scope to just the US, it’s hard to say that we’re LA Clippers bad. Sure, we’ve spent a lot of money, but even in 2024 — probably the year of highest capital expenditures for a while from ST — our per capita capital spending was only the highest in the US by a little ($2.0B/$576 per capita at UZA level). That’s comparable to second place San Francisco/Oakland ($1.6B/$467 per capita at UZA level). Third place is ironically Madison, WI at $463 per capita. Data from the NTD: https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2024-capital-expenses. Globally, Turin in Northern Italy is spending €3 billion on an automated metro line. Per year per capita, that works out to €252. Sure, that’s like half as much as Seattle but this is one metro line. Just capital spending per capita on Link in 2024 was $370. Doing a simple currency conversion to $281 USD for the €252, the difference in costs between Seattle and Turin is “just” 30%. And I imagine there are examples of more expensive projects than Torino Metro Line 2 globally.
Anyways, this is all to say that we are more like the Cavs. Historically pretty bad, a brief hot streak in the 2010s, and now a solid contender.
So who is Seattle transit’s LeBron James? Scott Kubly, lol? (I suppose you could name whatshisname that took his talents to Vancouver, BC.
LeBron has led the Cavs to a Championship— is that the UW and Cap Hill station? (and is the lack of a First Hill stop the equivalent of the Decision?)
Cleveland is a contender in that it will make the playoffs, but likely never make it the conference finals as currently construed. I don’t think Seattle fits, we are closer to the Clips— hosed for the next decade thanks to the Kawhi Leonard Paul George /West Seattle priority while trading the best player (SGA and draft picks/Ballard) away.
I like the idea of LeBron being the Link line from UW to Westlake, with the lack of First Hill being the decision. That’s just funny to me. Maybe the Clippers analogy works okay for ST3, but I think overall transit in Seattle will still be too good for the Clippers to be a good comparison. I feel like “contending but ultimately not quite good enough” is more accurate than “total failure”
And then ST intentionally injured its superstar player by chopping him in half in the middle and making him take 9 escalator trips to get between each half.
(Referring here to the new Northgate plan)
That would be LeBron retiring. Or taking his talents to South Beach.
The Clippers are awful though.
Not really. They are simply mediocre, if not a little bit better. They have won over 50% of their games every season since 2011. They only missed the playoffs three times since then. They used to be terrible but more recently they’ve been pretty good. But they aren’t great. If you want to get more specific, the big problem is that they chased a superstar that wasn’t that great. They gave up too much for him. They forgot the fundamentals and just assumed those would take care of themselves. Leonard had one of his best seasons last year but it didn’t matter as the rest of the team was nowhere as good as the year before he got there. Worse yet, they are being penalized for unethical actions surrounding the player.
The same thing is true with our transit system. Compared to most of the country, we are pretty good. Above average. But we have spent a fortune on Link and it isn’t that good. We’ve chased a superstar (Link) thinking it will solve all of our problems while ignoring our fundamentals (our buses). Worse yet, we are spending a fortune on an expansion that won’t get us very much. The issues surrounding the expansion reek of impropriety (the old head of the board was appointed to the CEO position by the board). No, not a perfect analogy but surprisingly close.
There are worse NBA teams and the worse transit cities. The Sacramento Kings have been bad for a long time. Eighteen of the last twenty years were losing seasons and some of those years were terrible. When it comes to transit they are similar to … well, Sacramento. They spent some money on the system although not a lot. Neither the buses or the trains get many riders.
We were spending a lot of money before we passed ST3 (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-area-spends-most-per-capita-to-build-transit-heres-why/). Obviously we’ve got something out of it. But all of our success is due to spending an enormous amount of money. The decision making has been mediocre at best for the last couple decades. You have to go all the way back to the bus tunnel to find the last really clever decision. That was the last time someone could look at us and think “What a great use of limited resources”.
Of course Link from the U-District to downtown is great — it cost a bunch of money. This is by far the most important section we could build — everyone understood that before it was built — and yet we didn’t do a very good job. We obviously wish we could do it over again (with more and better stations). It is easy to argue that adding stations would have cost more money but does anyone think that serving Shoreline is more important than First Hill? For that matter, it probably wouldn’t have cost additional money to put the UW stations by the HUB.
There are other flawed decisions. The train should have cut over to Aurora instead of following the freeway. Lack of grade separation saves us a tiny bit in terms of construction but costs us a lot in terms of operations (we can’t automated the trains). Choosing low-floor light rail was a mistake, given we only have a handful of surface stations. As a result, it is harder to get in and out of the train cars which in turn means longer dwell times. You really have to go all the way back to the bus tunnel to find something that was done really well. It was economical. It had a lot of downtown stations (even though one of them was cancelled). It provided a clever way to get people — especially commuters — into and out of downtown. While commuter-oriented, it still provided an essential connection between the U-District and downtown (although only when the express lanes were in its favor). Of course Link is much better. But that’s mainly because we spent so much more for it. Again, all of our success is due to spending an enormous amount of money which helps make up for the terrible decision making. We’ve spent our way to mediocrity.
“but does anyone think that serving Shoreline is more important than First Hill?”
The people in Shoreline do, as do the people in Lynnwood (the train must pass through Shoreline to reach Lynnwood, not so with First Hill), and Everett.
The problem is, in order to get the money to pay for a project like Link, you need the taxes and votes from people with extremely suburban and car-oriented world views. Including people who view the train as something you drive to to go downtown, and couldn’t care less about anywhere else.
I think that is the crux of the problem. The transit system that is best for ridership is not the transit system that people who live in the outer suburbs and drive everywhere are willing to fund. The ideal Link line was always politically impossible to build, unless someone could somehow figure out how to get the cost down enough to pay it entirely with money from the City of Seattle. That is the problem.
And I’d add to Asdf2’s point that about 1/3 of ST funding comes from motor vehicle excise taxes and sales tax on vehicles. First Hill residents already get great value from their tax dollars with the streetcar and bus service.
The problem is, in order to get the money to pay for a project like Link, you need the taxes and votes from people with extremely suburban and car-oriented world views.
Yeah, sure. Basically you have to convince the folks in the suburbs that building something like this benefits them even if the train doesn’t get to their particular city. This requires a lot of explanation for a populace that is largely ignorant of transit issues. Riders from Shoreline would have to take express buses (or just regular buses) to connect to the subway system. Riders would transfer there to get to the UW, First Hill and yes, downtown. This would be better than what we built — even for those in the suburbs — but it wouldn’t be obvious to someone in Shoreline. They would assume that having two stations in the city makes up for the inferior stations in Seattle. This is even more the case for Snohomish County (which has two stations and plans for a lot more). So yeah, it would be hard to get Snohomish County to chip in for a King County project unless it actually went to Snohomish County.
Except they aren’t chipping in anyway! Subarea equity is real. The only thing that King County needed was approval by the state to build a mass transit system without requiring a super-majority. Forward Thrust passed and would pass again. It would definitely pass on a presidential election year, especially since the region has gone full circle and become more urbanized. You focus on the urban core but you make it a long term goal to go farther. You might even start with the idea of serving Shoreline (since it is within King County). Maybe even with more stations! If you run up Aurora then you have at least three (155th, 185th and Aurora Village). Once King County builds a normal subway system (designed to serve the urban areas) it can be extended. At that point Snohomish County would chip in and pay for an extension. You build a system that is clearly better within the city and clearly better outside it as well.
I don’t think the flaws of Sound Transit were inevitable. It goes back to our representatives being ignorant and not realizing they are ignorant. They thought that building a transit system was similar to building a freeway. Not only can the average state rep come up with solid ideas for improving the freeway system but WSDOT is right there, ready to help. They have a lot of people there who know a lot about building freeways. But there are few transit experts at WSDOT and there probably weren’t any when this whole mess started. Why would there be? All transit was local. So they came up with a stupid plan that treated transit like it was a freeway: The Spine. Not only was this a stupid idea but so many bad decisions were based on it. The focus was always on going as far north and south as possible — unlike a normal subway line. It was always quantity (miles of track) over quality (making as many high quality urban connections as possible). This is an excellent approach for building a freeway (you don’t need that many ramps) but a terrible way to build a subway. It is completely backwards. Next thing you know we are skipping essential stations, putting stations in the wrong place and running next to the freeway since that is the cheapest way to get up to Lynnwood.
It is ridiculous to put the blame on the general public. That is like saying the reason the energy grid is so messed up is because most of us don’t understand how it operates. Sorry, that is no excuse. The blame is squarely on our leaders, who failed us. I don’t say this lightly. My mom was a representative. But in this case they got in way over their head and didn’t realize it.
“First Hill residents already get great value from their tax dollars with the streetcar and bus service.”
To be fair, their bus service is coming from Metro taxes, not ST. ST did fund the streetcar, but it’s mobility value is no better than a bus.
Also, not everybody who travels to first Hill lives in first Hill.
Nonetheless, even money aside, I could easily see people in Lynnwood arguing that Link serving First Hill would have negative value, as it would delay every trip to or from downtown by a couple of minutes. Ditto to adding additional station in Capitol Hill or the UW campus.
From the perspective of car centric people, Link is only for going downtown, and the idea of making a downtown trip take longer to offer rides to other people is an abomination, even if it increases ridership overall. Especially back when Link was planned, when there were much fewer people around, and driving to First Hill, Capitol Hill, and UW, was much easier than it is today.
To elaborate further, I would even argue that a politician in Lynnwood would argue that the ideal Link would just express from Lynnwood to downtown, without even serving any intermediate stops in Seattle. But, of course, that would be an unreasonable ask, given that Seattle’s votes and money are needed too. So, they accept the existing stops at Cap Hill, UW, Roosevelt, and Northgate as a reasonable compromise, but they don’t want any more. Even 130th Station got a fair amount of suburban pushback.
To elaborate further, I would even argue that a politician in Lynnwood would argue that the ideal Link would just express from Lynnwood to downtown, without even serving any intermediate stops in Seattle.
So again you are suggesting that because voters are ignorant, we ended up with a crappy system. That’s nonsense. A decent leader should be able to explain why building a better mass transit system benefits them. There are people in Lynnwood who definitely go to places like the UW and First Hill. Besides, there no way you can appeal to commuters alone. Only a relative handful of people in Snohomish County commute to downtown. Its really hard to make the case that even an absurd transit line (like the one you suggested) would be better than a bunch of buses running express from all over Snohomish County. There is also nothing stopping politicians from playing the same card that ST did: The trains will reduce traffic.
But again, who cares? It doesn’t matter what Thurston County voters think about Link and it shouldn’t matter what Snohomish County voters think of it. The subway system should have been designed exclusively for King County. Again, it should have been designed to eventually be extended. It definitely should have been designed for express buses from the north (you are welcome). But it should have been a King County project. This means it most definitely should have served the suburbs — as it does! East Link is fine. It has very few flaws compared to the main line. Part of the reason for this is because there is an obvious end. They aren’t trying to get all the way to Carnation.
From a political standpoint, it wouldn’t be that difficult. Instead of “Roads and Transit” you have “Buses and Rail”. There are a lot of places — especially in the suburbs — that will never have a station anywhere near them. But they would benefit from increased bus service as well as the improved network made possible with a good metro. Folks from Kenmore appreciate the fast buses to downtown. Then they appreciate the all-day buses that connect them to Link. Sure, it sucks that they have to transfer to get downtown but a lot of them go to places like the UW and Capitol Hill. They would benefit a lot if the system was more extensive since a lot of them go to First Hill (and Fremont, Ballard, etc.). It really isn’t that hard to come up with plans that involve a higher quality (but smaller) subway system along with a lot better bus system that would appeal to a lot more riders (in King County). The idea that we have to spread ignorance as a key to building anything is absurd.
It got a fair amount of urban pushback as well ;-)
Even 130th Station got a fair amount of suburban pushback.
It got a fair amount of urban pushback as well ;-)
Yes. It should have been on Aurora, obviously. But once they decided to build a line to Lynnwood it made sense to have stations along the way (at places like Pinehurst and Shoreline). The fact some people don’t see the value of those stations just shows they are ignorant of transit fundamentals. What else is new? That shouldn’t stop the representatives from building things that make sense to build.
I agree with Ross; transit is the Puget Sound region would be far better had the Legislature given King County the right to bond itself for transit with a simple majority vote instead of hamstringing it with the necessity of being close to winning in Snohomish and Pierce Counties. The Forward Thrust alignment was almost perfect, except for the Boeing / Renton tail, which was its version of PayneFielditis. It would doubtless have hosted a branch to Sea-Tac and perhaps Midway by now.
The Leg could have still created a regional system limited to buses and commuter trains to link Snohomish and Pierce with good middle-distance transit.
Since it was to have been largely elevated, there would likely be more stations on the west line and the eastside line to Northup Way would have continued to Redmond. Perhaps there would even be a branch down Rainier or Martin Luther King Blvd from the eastside line as well.
However it would have evolved it would have met the needs of the region at least as well as does Link and have been completed far sooner.
Yes, and Least Main should have been on Bellevue Way but since they built the tracks on 114th so they stuck a station just far enough from the DT core that nobody uses it. We’ll see what the ridership is for 130th. It has the possibility of bus transfers which is about all since it’s next to a freeway and surrounded by parks and a golf course. What seems odd is that it’s so close to 145th. Least Main sort of made sense just because it’s so far between DT Bellevue and S. Bellevue P&R. To me it would have made more sense to complete the Graham St. infill station first or even a station on East Marginal Way.
Bernie, it’s because you don’t live in North City or Bitter Lake and probably haven’t taken many buses to the Intergalactic Time Sink known as Northgate Station. One-thirtieth is a natural place for a bus intercept because the buses can get really, really close to the station as they continue on their way!
There’s no need for loops-de-loop for buses and cars, just one for cars.
Sure, one fifteen minute bus is pretty sucky service when it’s interchanging with a system with five minute headways, but at least it’s the outbound trip for most folks — the one that needs to work on time — that is the fifteen-to-five minute transfer. If you just barely miss a bus coming home it’s frustrating, but it doesn’t get you hauled before the boss for “Late a-gain?!!?
Suggestion for STB: post ridership dashboards, service change documents/proposal and any other helpful tools with data on the STB website. This gives us easy access to data rather than siting through posts or each agency website.
[off-topic; replies deleted].
Here’s a fun question: does anyone know what’s behind the metal garage-style door that now covers the former exit to Convention Place Station? You can see it when looking out the window while traveling between Westlake and Capitol Hill.
It’s a storage area for various materials and maintenance machinery.
I can up with a modified SODO station design could enable cross platform transfers with the level four track design with only minor modifications.
First, build two center platforms with loading in both sides. That’s one platform less than what is planned.
Second, have the two middle tracks cross on each side of the station. The crossings can be controlled by a signal. With trains approaching every 6-8 minutes, holding one train at the station platform until the other passes would be only an occasional minor delay. It would be similar to how through traffic moves through a diverging diamond interchange.
Moving from west to east, it would be southbound towards West Seattle then southbound towards Beacon Hill at the west platform and northbound from West Seattle then northbound from Beacon Hill on the east platform.
I’ll add one other idea: rather than make riders ascend 30 feet to get above the SODO tracks, just trench the station entrance underneath the tracks about 12-15 feet! The elevation change would be lots less, the SODO soils are soft and appear easy to excavate.
Al, the diverging diamond layout makes it easy to make in-direction transfers from West Seattle to Ballard and the RV/South to UW, right? And if there’s a platform between the existing tracks and the busway tracks, it would make it easy to transfer from West Seattle to the Airport, which is the important direction.
I like the idea, but only because it seems inevitable that the fools are going to trash the busway instead of doing the obvious thing and merging both lines onto the existing Line 1 trackage, but modified a bit.
Line 3 northbound would take the bikeway between Lander and Forest. To do this only one building would need to be trimmed a bit and the trackway would have to be depressed a couple of feet in a shallow trench as it passed under the existing structure at Forest. That’s IT!
The two northbound tracks would merge underneath the new Lander Street overcrossing, but instead of Line 3 curving left to merge with the existing Line 1 trackway, Line 3 would continue straight, with Line 1 curving right to merge into Line3. This would make room for a center platform for reversing transfers.
Obviously, the northbound platform would have to be moved east to get out of the way of the new northbound track, but that’s no problem; ST is planning to fill a good bit of the space between the existing platform and what will be the bus transfer loop, so we just use some of it for the northbound platform.
Then make that underpass you mentioned with a ramp up to the unchanged southbound platform and the northbound stop on the busway.
That is all you need to do at SoDo! Poof, $700 million saved in a flash.
Now, grant, there is a cost for building a new diverging turnout and its support at the apex of the ramp up south of Lander, but that’ can’t be more than $100 million in the most extreme estimate. Net savings: $600 million.
North of the now three-platform station, the northbound trackway would curve to merge with the existing northbound track.
After crossing or passing under Holgate and crossing Massachussetts, the northbound track bellies out to the east a way in order to accommodate the Stadium pocket track. The roadbed of an old spur curves on eastward there, and I believe it is where ST plans to deviate for the northbound DSTT2 tunnel portal. That would remain unchanged.
However, immediately after the Line 1 track diverges the Line 3 track would start to rise and would gain perhaps eight feet before passing over what would become the soutbound Line 1 track in a cut from the southbound DSTT2 tunnel portal which would be at a lower elevation than currently planned. In order to build this elevated overcrossing, the pocket track would become the in-service northbound track temporarily. After the hump was constructed and trains began passing over the now-raised northbound track, the pocket track would be taken out of service and a trench passing under the northbound track curving into the pocket track’s right of way would be dug and ramped up to grade level at the pocket track southbound switch.
In order to make it possible for the two southbound lines to join, the southbound Line 3 service track from Stadium might also have to be placed in a cut as well. In order to accommodate taking this track out of service for a couple of months while the cut is dug, a temporary southbound “shoo-fly” could be constructed taking the northbound busway lane from Stadium to Holgate. Busway buses would run like a signal-controlled “single track” section of railroad.
Yes, this requires some pretty sophisticated construction around the pocket track and the engineering for the southbound divergence to Line 3 would be measure five time and cut once, but this is eminently “doable” and would save enormous amounts of money. It would also mean the easiest possible “reversing” transfers between the Airport/Rainier Valley and West Seattle.
This also works if DSTT2 is mothballed, as it should be given the plunge in Seattle office space occupancy. You just run Line 1 to Northgate and reverse it there.
Thanks Tom! First of all, thanks for understanding the concept I described.
Also, I think you are among the few commenters on trying to make SODO station work better for riders. Because it isn’t Downtown and meeting 2 Line, others often don’t see its design as important. But SODO is the only place where cross-platforms transfers are relatively easy to engineer.
The additional middle third middle transfer platform would be nice. I’m just not sure if there is enough width.
Regardless, going underneath the tracks saves a lot of stairs. And the escalators would be much shorter too. Heck a pedestrian ramp to 4th and 6th Ave may be viable with no stairs or elevators needed.
Phasing looks pretty viable too. ST is going to need to close the tracks to build an overpass at Lander, which could then give ST time to install the scissor crossover tracks. Southbound 1 Line trains could shift first to the new west platform once completed. The northbound tracks may have to shift but that can be done with the temporary closing of the SODO platform. Keep in mind that there will be no entrance to SODO station from Lander once street overpass construction starts anyway — so without any way to get to the existing platform there is no reason to even have the station.
Alas, a rider can dream. I just wish rider advocates would be able to impress upon ST designers, management and the Board enough to look into adding same direction cross-platform capabilities.
Thank you, Al. Most folks have surrendered to ST titanic arrogance, but I remain certain that the economy is going to go SO VERY BAD in the next couple of years that the thought of building WSLE will become a bitter reminiscence.
Whenever something is finally done at SoDo I would be very skeptical that anything will have to happen to Link in order to build the Lander overcrossing. Did BNSF shut down when the much longer bridge between Fourth and First was built? No, it did not.
Of course there will be temporary embargoes for heavy crane operations like placing the support girder boxes. You certainly don’t want to drop one of those on a Link train or a bus. .But all the girders across the tracks and busway can be set in six hours, not six months.
So far as the middle platform goes, freeze the video at 0:44 and look at the space between the trackway and what is today an empty lot. There’s a station headhouse there. Who needs a station headhouse, especially if instead of a twenty foot high overpass there’s a ten foot deep underpass. Ticket machines can be on the ramp down to the underpass.
So you put that moved northbound track right where the existing northbound platform is, the northbound platform where the headhouse is and there you have it. The center and westernmost platforms would of course need their own ramps down to the underpass.
I read The Urbanist’s article on Bellevue’s squabble over a latent TBD and what to do with the money if it’s activated. I was struck by this passage:
Hallelujah. There is a God!
Yes, I read a month ago that the Bellevue Collection is for sale. I wonder if the new owner will be an out-of-town corporation.