Since Sound Transit released the DEIS for the new West Seattle-Ballard extension, stakeholders have been poring over the findings and submitting their comments.
One major group of stakeholders is the Chinatown-International District (CID) neighborhood, which recently came out in full force either against the 5th Avenue alternative or against all options entirely .
Mike Lindblom has a detailed scoop : Neighborhood advocates insist the station must go a block farther west, under Fourth Avenue South near South King Street, with the highways and sports stadiums.
That would lessen the impact on an area that’s been sacrificed for generations to regional construction. . . .
But choosing Fourth Avenue possibly creates a traffic nightmare, because builders would demolish and replace the six-lane elevated street.
In that scenario, about 15,000 daily car and bus trips, and stadium surge traffic, must be detoured during six years of partial road closures, compared to only 5,000 on Fifth for a 2½-year closure.
Total construction time on Fourth Avenue is estimated at nine to 11 years, a couple of years longer than Fifth.
It’s important to remember that while Sound Transit has not yet identified a preferred alternative for this segment, it finds itself in the usual quagmire of picking and choosing between neighborhood impacts, ridership, and cost.
The 5th Avenue option certainly has superior neighborhood and transfer access, but construction would come at a great cost to the CID.
Back in April, Seattle Subway endorsed an even-shallower version of the 4th Avenue shallow option (CID-1a).
Their proposal would effectively be at-grade, flush with the BNSF tracks and the 4th Avenue viaduct rebuilt over it.
It’s not clear how compatible this super-shallow option would be with the deep Midtown Station profiles that are currently on the table.
While not without its own problems, a 4th Avenue alternative does open creative possibilities for re-doing the entire King Street Station-IDS hub, which is currently a patchwork of office buildings, limited walkways, and pedestrian-unfriendly 4th Avenue.
A lid over the BNSF/Sounder tracks and repurposing Union Station are some of the ideas worth considering.
Before other station options can be considered, I think the ID interests should go one step backwards and get leaders to question these basic assumptions with an eye to expanding alternatives: 1.
The need for a second tunnel.
The only alternative that has no second tunnel is the No Build , that has only three minute trains in the DSTT.
The DEIS should have included two three-line DSTT alternatives , one with a Ballard/SLU branch and one with a stand-alone Ballard/SLU line.
ST limited the alternatives in 2018 because they complained that we would have to wait longer for construction to begin , only to delay the project several years due to the bad original cost estimates.
This is a basic B topic that badly needs reevaluation. 2.
The study of shorter automated rail/ trains.
If West Seattle were paired as a new automated train line, all the platforms could be shorter and the station vaults smaller and the underground slope limitations reduced.
This should have been an alternative in the DEIS.
Even with these alternatives, I am amazed and saddened that more platform options were also not studied.
For example, would shifting the platforms southward by 300 feet open up any opportunities to design the DSTT2 crossing to be above rather than below the existing tunnel?
I agree, especially with your first point.
We don’t need a new tunnel, especially since a new tunnel won’t increase capacity unless we do other work in Bellevue and Rainier Valley (so those trains can run more often).
Either way, we are limited to running 20 trains an hour, either on two tracks through downtown, or one.
The interlining option (with a split north of Westlake) should be studied.
Once the study is done, we can then debate the choices.
Right now we are given the choice of terrible options.
Every proposed station is worse than the existing one.
This means those who find themselves on that track (i. e. everyone from Beacon Hill to Tacoma) will have a worse experience.
Everyone who transfers downtown (e. g.
Bellevue to South Lake Union or SeaTac to the U-District) will have a really bad transfer.
It isn’t just bad for the neighborhood: Every option is bad for riders.
I agree, too, who will present this to the Council? http://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=981071&GUID=5A1E35FD-5ADE-43C0-A99C-B2644FE5589A I agree with the Urbanist that an at-grade 4th Street option is the best option.
I would take it one step further and not even replace the 4th street viaduct , turn it into more of a mezzanine / ped plaza that could fully integrate with Union station AND King Street Station.
We just built a giant highway on the waterfront, and traffic between SODO and Downtown has other pathways that they can take to get to/through Downtown.
Obviously capacity of total number of vehicles movable per day will go down , but that would be a fair tradeoff to provide a less expensive project and a higher-quality pedestrian and transit experience.
This assumes it’s possible to tunnel from that grade to the midtown but I would guess the main challenge would the DSTT, but the BNSF tunnel already does that so as long as the new tunnel matches the grade and alignment of that tunnel there shouldn’t be significant conflicts.
I would add that nobody should assume that the current car capacity of downtown Seattle will be needed by the time West Seattle Link opens.
We will have had three major Link extensions running for many years, and it is not clear whether downtown office SOV commuting will ever recover to pre-pandemic levels.
Tearing up 4th is not just about cars, it’s also about buses.
Tons of bus route use 4th between Weller and Jackson.
You’ve got all the buses to South Seattle, Renton, Federal Way, Tacoma, etc.
Plus all those buses to north Seattle that layover at the Ryerson Bus Base between runs.
You could probably concoct a detour consisting of temporary bus lanes on nearby streets if you really wanted to, but there would still be service delays relative to the current state of affairs.
Honestly, I agree with RossB.
The obvious solution is to just find a way to fit everything into the tunnel we have and not build the second tunnel at all.
The second tunnel will not contribute to coverage, nor is it necessary for capacity.
A deeper station and more cumbersome transfers makes for a worse passenger experience.
Just do whatever signal upgrades need to happen in the existing downtown tunnel and be done with it.
The downtown business stakeholders would object to turning 4th Ave. into a pedestrian plaza to save money on WSBLE.
They would argue that if you need to save money then build surface lines and stations in West Seattle and Ballard, which was the original design, but which they object to now.
Not at a key downtown arterial.
The region really didn’t build a highway along the waterfront; it built a park to connect the city to its waterfront.
Otherwise car and truck interests would have replaced the elevated 99 with the same which had much greater capacity.
The preferred alternative is not affordable but is politically acceptable as long as the CID gets its wish and the line runs west of 5th because East Link is coming.
This idea that ST can just dictate design to these kinds of stakeholders is not realistic, which is why the preferred alternative , as unaffordable as it is , is the preferred alternative, and my guess is Harrell is on their side.
He ran on a law and order, and business, platform, and right now he is having a hard time seeing how transit , or WSBLE decades into the future , helps his goals.
Hence the fact we still don’t have a head of SDOT, and may not for a long time, and my guess is the next director won’t be very transit oriented unless downtown Seattle is so hot the congestion and lack of parking make taking transit to downtown necessary.
I would be very interested to eavesdrop on the first meeting between Harrell and Timm.
It is a catch-22, especially when East Link opens: you need secure, safe and clean light rail stations to get folks to ride to Seattle, but you need a secure, safe, clean and vibrant downtown to get them to WANT to go downtown.
Timm might wonder why the stations need to be fortresses, and why would anyone ride transit to a downtown that needs fortresses as stations.
There is no preferred alternative in Intl Dist yet.
ST sidestepped the issue in the DEIS to decide later.
There are four alternatives with equal weight: 5th Avenue shallow, 5th Avenue deep, 4th Avenue shallow, 4th Avenue deep.
ST wasn’t ready to favor some stakeholders over others yet, or it didn’t want to say no to a minority community yet.
A mayor is responsible for the entire operations of the city, not just law and order and business.
In the debates Harrell claimed to be a long-time transit activist, if I’m remembering who said what correctly.
Transportation is a basic need no matter the size or condition of the cities.
People have appointments to get to, things to do, people to see.
By “fortress” I assume you mean a large underground station.
Timm (I know nothing about her background yet) might question that direction, but that would mean questioning a lot of stations, not just Intl Dist.
It’s no more fortressy than any other.
And I should think you’d like fortresses because you’re so safety-minded.
As much as they want to convince us it is a waterfront park, it is clearly turning out to be a waterfront highway, with some greenspace and “pedestrian friendly” features.
Only if you look at it pessimistically.
The bioswales, trails, and plazas aren’t there yet, so it can be hard to gauge how it would look when they’re there.
The seven-lane stroad is only south of Columbia Street, while the main part of the waterfront is further north..
I agree with Mike, I think it will be pretty nice.
The really wide road is mainly to hold cars for the ferry.
Unless we move the car-ferry dock out of downtown, that is something we just have to live with.
There are very few cities (if any) that have a downtown this big with so many cars being unloaded right into the middle of it.
I think those car ferries should be sent north and south, but that won’t happen for a while (if ever).
Four lanes are state-mandated GP lanes.
Two lanes are transit-only lanes.
One lane is a ferry queue.
So the really wide road is mainly for cars and trucks.
Trucks going to the Interbay ports can’t use the 99 tunnel because it doesn’t go that way.
At Columbia the buses turn right and the transit lanes disappear.
At Madison the ferry lane disappears.
So the road narrows to four lanes from there past Pike Place Market.
Then in Belltown the traffic moves away from the waterfront to Elliott, and the waterfont road narrows to two lanes.
That part will be a later phase of the waterfront renovation.
Has anyone driven off the ferry at Coleman dock?
It’s already a Glorious Concrete Car Sewer.
We’ll find out what the movers and shakers are really made of when they start building north of the ferry dock.
The Bremerton and Bainbridge ferries dock downtown so that the pedestrian/walk on passengers can walk directly downtown to work (or did) and to shops and restaurants and so don’t need cars.
Walking on and going to Winslow is fun too, especially for tourists.
Hopefully these ferries move more and more to a reservation system.
When they did that for the Keystone, Port Townshend run the lines to get on the ferry shortened dramatically.
I agree having a long line of cars lined up on the road is not ideal, but the solution is a reservation system.
I doubt WSF will abandon the terminal and holding area because downtown merchants and residents like the ability of riders and tourists and diners and shoppers to walk on and off.
The world doesn’t revolve around transit, certainly today.
A shallow tunnel under 5th Avenue is the best option.
I guess I didn’t realize this before, but a shallow tunnel under 4th Avenue will never happen, because car traffic capacity (which our leadership unfortunately perceives as precious) would be cut, albeit temporarily.
Possibly even a deep-bore tunnel under 4th would be perceived as too disruptive.
Which is for the the best, as 4th is definitely an inferior place to put it.
As a former resident of the ID, I am not sympathetic to the pleas of ID “advocates”.
The neighborhood has been in relative decline for years, but it’s not because of too much construction , COVID aside, it’s because of too little.
You can see their misplaced diagnosis of the problem in that they assume that better transit access (yes! it can be better) will have no benefit to the residents of the neighborhood.
How does a second transit tunnel under 5th benefit the CID?
Frequency will double with East Link, and that is a very desirable customer.
I actually can see an eastsider driving to a park and ride (which will be empty) to take East Link across the bridge to the CID.
Next stop Pioneer Square not so much.
Of course Harrell has to do his part.
WSBLE won’t bring a lot of folks to the CID.
According to Martin’s research 400 West Seattleites will move from cars to light rail daily.
The rest already take the bus which has better first/last mile access in WS.
The CID has been a dumping ground for junkies and the homeless under Durkan.
The pandemic hurt.
The real concern is building heights increase and it “gentrifies” and becomes another retail desert like Belltown.
The reality is most restaurants and retail don’t covet transit riders.
Look at 3rd Ave.
East Link runs along 112th.
I think CID stakeholders know what is best for them.
It isn’t years of construction to bring a few transit riders from West Seattle to the CID.
It is true the CID can be a little funky but it isn’t dangerous like the rest of downtown, and still has restaurant/retail density although I really miss Sea Garden.
In any case I think it is moot.
How long will it take Timm to read the DEIS for WSBLE and ask what does “third party funding”mean, how much, who pays, and how does ST make them pay.
I doubt she plans to spend the next five years trying to sell N.
King Co. on a .5 billion (Rogoff didn’t make up that figure) SB5528 levy because ST 3 was flat out dishonestly priced followed by an existential operations levy.
Timm comes from a bus background.
Nimble, flexible and cost efficient.
She probably thinks like Ross does.
She will see WSBLE is stupid transit mode for modes sake planning.
WSBLE won’t get built.
I think they should take over the parking garage under Union Station and the access drives, and use that for the row.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked * Comment * Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Δ document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Seattle Transit Blog is an independent, award-winning publication covering transit and land use issues in Seattle and the Puget Sound area since 2007.
About Us Sign up for a weekly summary of our articles delivered via email. source