LAST CALL! All aboard West Seattle Transportation Coalition’s light-rail survey

Sound Transit light rail for West Seattle has momentum – even a mention from the mayor in his State of the City speech. But first, Sound Transit has to make big decisions for its ST3 ballot measure, including what route to pursue to get to this side of the bay, and beyond.

The West Seattle Transportation Coalition wants to make a recommendation with wide local support, so in addition to its “call to action” meeting last month, it launched a survey last week – and is circulating one last call for you to get in on it, if you haven’t already. As WSTC co-founder Joe Szilagyi puts it, “Sound Transit’s Board is making a decision in the next few months on what sort of train solution West Seattle is getting — so we need YOUR feedback to tell us where you stand, with this 5-10 minute survey!”

The survey closes Friday; answer the questions here as soon as you can.

smokeycretin9 February 17, 2016 (3:48 pm)

Just finished the survey. They sure are interested in the tunnel options to West Seattle. Uggghhhhh!

Aaron February 18, 2016 (11:50 am)

Tunnel does not mean Bertha, the world record size boring machine.

Sound Transit tunnels use very proven technology, and the most recent one was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Sound Transit has a proven track record in this area.

GoTunnel! February 17, 2016 (4:01 pm)

Don’t confuse “tunnel” with a Bertha-sized disaster. Normal-sized tunnels through bedrock are a well-known problem and are easily done without huge problems (like the tunnel that’s about to open from Capitol Hill to Northgate).

If they run an elevated train down California, it will ruin California. Anyone spend anytime hanging out under the elevated monorail tracks in downtown Seattle?

Will S. February 18, 2016 (10:50 am)

This is exactly right: an elevated track would ruin California. Sound Transit should have included a tunnel option from the beginning, but now it’s up to us to tell them so.

dcn February 17, 2016 (6:04 pm)

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but survey respondents should also pay attention to the downtown routes for these proposals. C-03b would travel along 1st Ave S downtown, and would not connect to the rest of the light rail lines. C-03a and C-03c would connect. I don’t know why Sound Transit would even consider an option that wouldn’t connect to the rest of the system. West Seattle light rail riders would have a harder time connecting to the new U-District Line and any other line they add to the main spine with C-03b.

C-03b would also probably remove or limit the pathway for cars to get to the West Seattle Bridge via the 1st Ave S entrance ramp, since it says that the light rail line would need dedicated lanes on that street. This street is already jammed during the evening rush hour. The C-03b downtown route doesn’t make any sense to me.

Sam-c February 17, 2016 (8:54 pm)

Thank you for your comments. I read your comments on the previous article before reading more and then responding to the survey. Your previous comments helped me read more closely to understand what the differences were.

wakeflood February 17, 2016 (6:32 pm)

Hey Smokeycretin, please keep in mind that it’s not about a tunnel TO West Seattle, it’s a short tunnel IN West Seattle. You know the base of the west side of the river by Luna Park? The distance from there to the AK Junction is about a mile by road. That’s a LOT of elevation gain in a short distance. Which translates to slow travel and lots of turns up/down the roads between those two points.

Our topography, geology and physical build out make that stretch of WS almost identical to the section of LR on Capitol Hill where they very successfully used tunnels.

Jw February 17, 2016 (6:44 pm)

Just to point out….there is already a 10,500ft long tunnel under West Seattle. Built with a 13′ EPB (same as Bertha, Togo, Balto, Brenda, and Pamela….and the machine that did beacon hill.) So not only can it be done, it has been done.

CK February 17, 2016 (6:59 pm)

JW–I know nothing about the long tunnel you mentioned. What’s the deal?

WSB February 17, 2016 (7:07 pm)

In case JW doesn’t come back for a while – I suspect that’s a reference to the sewer tunnel built in the ’90s. Lots of online references. Here’s a kind of techy one.

http://www.subterra.us/bulletins/AlkiTunnel.pdf

AMD February 17, 2016 (9:09 pm)

I’m still holding out hope for light rail to White Center and Burien. I’ll be surprised if it’s chosen in the first round of voting, but hopefully it’ll appear in a later round of light rail additions if it isn’t. There’s so much good stuff in those areas. Would be awesome to have some rapid transit down that way. Yeah, the 120 is going to become a RapidRide, but based on my experience with the C line, I don’t think of that as a more rapid form of transit than other buses.

Jw February 17, 2016 (9:26 pm)

Google “Tunneling in Seattle- A history of innovation”. Sorry, having a hard time with the chat box. I wish we were more ahead of the game with planning in Seattle. It would have been excellent to have a station under/inside one of the new buildings off California/Alaska. The hole sat empty for years. We could have saved a few bucks by using that as a launch pit. I wonder why WS seems like a low priority for ST. The rail yard is almost directly at the other end of the bridge. Seems like a short straight shot whatever method is chosen.

Dr. Bob February 18, 2016 (7:46 am)

Good grief.

Light rail is a novelty, not a solution.

Thinking that light rail fixes anything… it won’t go anywhere the buses don’t already go.

But it’s great comedy too watch y’all vote for boondoggles.

Glad it’s not my tax dollars being plunged. And yes property taxes, fees etc. are passed on to the renters. Thanks renters.

Aaron February 18, 2016 (1:23 pm)

You’ve obviously never been to a city with a well functioning transit system. The point isn’t to duplicate existing bus routes, it’s to replace them with a system that’s higher capacity, faster, and isn’t subject to traffic congestion on the streets. As the system is expanded, you’ll see the bus routes that currently cover these areas reduced and transitioned to a supportive role.

Seattle is one of the densest cities in the country now. Buses compete with cars for what little road space we have left. And there isn’t room to build more. Rail avoids that congestion, helps reduce congestion, and shortens commutes.

newnative February 18, 2016 (8:21 am)

Dr. Bob, have you not taken light rail to Sea-Tac? It can be definitely better than bus travel and help decongest the roads. It absolutely goes where buses can not, bypassing intersections, traffic jams and moving quickly with more people.

Chris February 18, 2016 (1:53 pm)

I agree: rail CAN be better than bus travel, especially in the areas that lend themselves best to rail: specifically densely-populated areas with major traffic problems. We should be focusing rail construction on the areas where it will shine brightest. West Seattle is not currently one of those areas, and West Seattle rail should be deferred until more efficient lines have already been run.
A pretty map with nice lines on it that doesn’t actually move many people is a waste of money.

Getting across the Duwamish will be hideously expensive. West Seattle’s population centers are spread out from one another, which means that either most riders won’t live near a station, or that a WS route would meander all over the place, slowing the train down. In many cases, a train trip would take longer than a bus trip. Feeder buses would need to “backtrack” to get people to the rail spine, forcing existing riders to deal with an extra transfer and a longer trip.

Sorry, comment time is over.