Brainstorming Fixes for ST3

Once again, Sound Transit is reconsidering its priorities as economic realities clash with its ambitious service expansion program. The Sound Transit Board recently attended a retreat focused on understanding the challenges facing the agency, including a brainstorming session to come up with ideas for cutting costs in order to afford the many projects planned under ST3. Since the results of that retreat are not yet public knowledge, it seems appropriate to do our own brainstorming here on the Seattle Transit Blog. Assuming we won't get vast sums of new money from the Federal government or unlock some sort of highly progressive tax source, significant cost savings must be found if ST wants to deliver the transit improvements hoped for under ST3 in any reasonable timeframe.

This post is intended to kickstart that conversation with some of the ideas we've come up with for fixing" ST3 over the years, ranging from relatively benign concepts (like cutting costs by using prefabricated guideway segments) to radical redesigns (like an independent, automated Ballard - Westlake Link Line). We want to hear your ideas in the comments, too.

Sound Transit Cost Savings Opportunities

Before we get into the Blog's ideas, it's important to recognize Sound Transit's ongoing efforts to deliver as much of ST3 as possible despite the challenges ahead. After the cost estimates for the West Seattle Link Extension exploded beyond affordability, the Sound Transit Board tasked agency staff with identifying cost savings opportunities for the project. This work has expanded to cover all active Sound Transit projects, with the latest update to the Board listing 56 of 94 programmatic opportunities" under assessment. Highlighted opportunities include standardizing station designs, giving staff more authority to make project decisions, streamlining project handover to speed up openings, and implementing a general insurance program.

Click the list to enlarge it.

The workgroup also reported identification of 385 project opportunities" for the West Seattle Link Extension, highlighting three examples that could result in a combined savings of $290 - $365 million on the $6.7 - $7.1 billion project. Although potential savings of 4-6% on the project would be notable, it falls far short of returning the project to the $4 billion budgeted in the agency's long-term financial plan.

The West Seattle Link Extension is one of many projects in Sound Transit's project pipeline - it will have to dig deep to resolve the significant disconnect between expected revenues and the costs of the projects it's promised to deliver. Without significant changes to the design of these projects, the agency will simply be forced to either delay construction delivery (increasing project costs) or raise its debt limit (increasing financing costs).

In the following sections, we summarize some of the more radical concepts proposed for upcoming Sound Transit projects to kick off our own brainstorming session for fixing ST3. Some of these concepts would likely require rework of environmental planning documents or even a new ballot measure - but if it results in better transit at reduced costs, we assume it would be worth the work.

Link Light Rail Construction

The following ideas apply to multiple upcoming Link expansion projects:

Reconsider Deep Tunnel Boring: The two most expensive ST3 projects, the West Seattle Link Extension and Ballard Link Extension, both have preferred alignments with deep tunnel bores through urbanized areas. These tunnels seem to be driving much of the extreme project cost, and these alignments should be reconsidered. In various places the trains could run on the surface or use the cut-and-cover method to build shallow underground sections. The main advantage of light rail is its ability to switch from at-grade to grade-separated operations. Although the at-grade operations of the original Link line remain problematic, the 2 Line features many improvements that reduce conflicts with drivers and pedestrians. Meanwhile, cut-and-cover construction is relatively cheap to complete at the cost of significant (temporary) disruptions to the surface roadway, but modern techniques (like temporary decking) can reduce the level of disruption.

Reduce Station Sizes: As Trevor Reed recently explained in The Urbanist, reducing the size of Link stations would speed up construction, reduce costs, and provide a better rider experience.

Everett Link Extension

Construction of the Everett Link Extension (ELE) would complete the northern end of the Spine" assumed as Sound Transit's original goal to provide high-frequency transit connectivity from Everett to Tacoma via Seattle. However, given the fact that a Link trip from Everett to Seattle would likely be slower than Sounder, a radical approach would be to reconsider the northern terminus of Link.

Option 1: Shorten ELE by only extending Link to either the Ash Way Park and Ride, the provisional SR 99/Airport Road station, but no further than Paine Field itself. This still bring Link to Everett, but not to its Downtown, providing connectivity to buses along SR-99 and to industrial jobs around the airport.

Option 2: Replace ELE with Better Buses. The Swift lines have been great successes for Community Transit, and the $6.2 billion assumed for ELE could go a long way toward boosting ST Express service to a larger area of the moderately low-density central area of Snohomish County than Link ever could. One fairly inexpensive project would involve adding HOV ramps to the north of the Ash Way Park and Ride. Right now there is a stub you can see in this aerial view. It wouldn't take much to extend this. That would allow buses from Everett to Lynnwood to stay in the HOV lanes the entire time while also serving both South Everett and Ash Way Park and Ride.

Ballard Link Extension

The Ballard Link Extension (BLE) is by far the single most expensive project in ST3's portfolio, largely due to the construction of a second tunnel under Downtown Seattle and a new crossing of the Ship Canal to Ballard. The affordable" project cost is planned as $11.4 billion, but current preferred alignment will likely break that budget, too. If Ballard is to become a new Regional Center, it needs high-density transit now, not in the 2040's. Here are some ideas to achieve that.

Automate BLE with a stub line between Ballard and Westlake running short, automated trains every 2-3 minutes. Trever Jones proposed this earlier this year. This line could be extended east to First Hill and the Central District in the future, and would skip building a second tunnel (DSTT2) parallel the current Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. Speaking of which...

Don't Build DSTT2 and instead upgrade the current DSTT to handle trains every 90 seconds. This was considered as a potential project for ST3 but replaced by the concept of a second tunnel. Three lines would share the tunnel, running north toward Lynnwood, south toward Federal Way, west toward West Seattle, and east toward Redmond. If BLE can't be automated, a branch could be built out of the current tunnel somewhere between Symphony and Westlake stations. This would likely be expensive and disruptive but still a lot cheaper (and ultimately better) than building a new tunnel. Transfers between the lines would be much better as no one would be forced to make long horizontal or vertical connections between two parallel tunnels. If the train from West Seattle and/or to Ballard can't be integrated into the current tunnel, an automated line from Ballard to West Seattle could be built above-ground through Downtown Seattle, a la the monorail.

Run At-Grade Along 15th West and Elliott, as assumed in the Representative Alignment approved under ST3. This area has no crossings other than ones that could easily be eliminated, making it well suited for grade-separated surface running.

West Seattle Link

The West Seattle Link Extension (WSLE) is the bellwether project for ST3, exemplifying the massive costs associated with delayed planning, over-complicated alignments, and avoidance of temporary construction impacts. West Seattle deserves better transit to Downtown and elsewhere, but providing it with light rail has been controversial from the start, and the current project is way overpriced. Some ways to fix that:

Simplify the Duwamish Crossing with a simple arch bridge, instead of a grandiose cable-stayed bridge. ST hasn't published a study of cost differences between the various bridge designs it considered, but they are likely significant.

Scrap the tunnel to Alaska Junction and build an aerial terminus at Alaska and Fauntleroy. This might put the track close to new apartments in the area, but it would likely be much cheaper than tearing down Jefferson Square.

Build New Busway Ramps Instead and roll out a BRT-like network serving all of West Seattle. Ross and Martin assembled this proposal last year, and it remains relevant. Even the Forward Thrust ballot measure, the failure of which is bemoaned to this day, assumed BRT-style service to the peninsula.

Issaquah Link and Kirkland

Issaquah recently refreshed its planning efforts for the future 4 Line" to the South Kirkland P&R via Bellevue, but an increased focused on regionalism" by the ST Board may motivate them to consider shifting funding away from this project toward others. This may include abolishing Subarea Equity and shifting the money to the Ballard/DSTT2, Everett, or Tacoma projects. Some ideas that still greatly improve service to the cities while cutting costs:

Build new HOV ramps connecting Issaquah to Bellevue and greatly increase bus service. These would allow buses serving the Eastgate freeway station to go directly to Downtown Bellevue entirely in HOV lanes. According to this PSRC estimate it would cost $640 million to build these and HOV ramps in two other directions. Obviously it would cost less to just build the ramps connecting Issaquah to Bellevue. Even at $640 million, it's far less than the $3.3 billion they expect Issaquah Link to cost. Yet it would be a lot more useful to riders.

Build bus lanes and greatly increase service in Kirkland. For example an all-day frequent express from Juanita and Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue (via NE 85th Street and the coming Stride infrastructure south of it) would be much faster for those riders than Issaquah Link.

Tacoma Dome Link

With the recent selection of a preferred alignment for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension (TDLE) in the news, this $4.4 billion project would be the southern end of the long-planned spine" to be built by Sound Transit. However, Sounder South and express buses on I-5 would still be faster than than the light rail line. If ST refuses to integrate TDLE with the T-Line, we have one suggestion:

Add HOV lanes on I-5 and greatly improve regional and local bus service. Pierce Transit is a cash-starved transit agency with big plans (including BRT). Simply running the local buses more often would be a better value than Tacoma Dome Link. But given that the goal here is regional mobility it is reasonable to keep running a bus like the 594 (while stopping at the Federal Way Link Station) and running it every fifteen minutes. Although the bus can get stuck in traffic, adding a HOV 3+ lane would likely fix that problem. This would provide a much faster trip between Seattle and Tacoma, while allowing riders to have the same two-seat connection between Downtown Tacoma and Link locations along the way (like SeaTac) that would be available with Tacoma Dome Link.

Sounder

The Sounder North and South lines were an early Sound Transit deliverable to get commuter rail running before the light rail spine could be built. Pre-pandemic, ST3 aimed to increase peak capacity with longer trains by building longer stations. With the peak commute significantly (and likely permanently) reduced, the lines should pivot to all-day service. However, without expensive changes to the BNSF-owned railway, options are limited for the commuter line. Our suggestion:

Use different train sets instead of enlarging the stations. If the trains had open gangways the trains could extend beyond some of the stations. Riders at those stations would board or alight at the front stations. This is a common approach in the U. K. to deal with stations that are shorter than the trains.

Stride BRT

BRT is often preferred because it typically doesn't require much construction to implement. Of course, the Stride projects cost a fraction of the various Link projects, but there are still some areas that could be improved.

Use regular diesel-hybrid buses instead of electric buses. This would reduce the cost (if not completely eliminate the need) for a new bus base which is estimated at half a billion dollars. Getting more people to switch from driving saves more carbon emissions than the difference between bus types, and battery buses are still a developing technology.

Take a (turn) lane on SR 522. Stride 3 involves adding BAT lanes along SR 522. For the most part this is fairly cheap. Unfortunately there is a tiny section of Lake Forest Park where they plan on making the street wider. This has pushed current estimates for just this bus route to $581.5 million. This section is very expensive because it involves crossing a creek and taking property. It has been met with organized opposition which means they may fight this in court (think Missing Link). This would delay implementation and increase cost. One potential solution is to just make one of the left turn lanes a regular lane (as it is on Lake City Way). This would have a minimal effect on traffic (drivers would learn to stay in the right lane as they go through there). This would dramatically reduce the cost of this project while still adding just as much BAT lane.

Parking

Although the previous realignment put most of the parking garages planned for the various projects in the bottom tier, they're still assumed as part of ST's long range plan. Our suggestion:

Cancel all new garages. If parking is really an issue, consider leasing parking from underutilized lots like those at churches or overbuilt mall lots, and run feeder buses to existing park-n-rides and stations.

What did we miss?