Today’s your last chance to comment on Sound Transit 3 draft plan. Here’s what the West Seattle Transportation Coalition heard

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

If you still haven’t told Sound Transit what you think about the draft ST3 plan – which includes a light-rail line to The Junction, in 2033 – today is your last chance: 5 pm tonight (Monday, May 2nd) is the (slightly extended) deadline.

Not sure what to say? Here’s what happened when Sound Transit reps talked with the West Seattle Transportation Coalition last Thursday night, two nights after their one-and-only draft-plan meeting in WS:

Two Sound Transit reps were at the WSTC meeting to recap the draft plan, including some of the same slides from Tuesday’s WSHS presentation. Val Batey said 30,000 responses to the online survey had come in so far. She stressed that the process has “many steps along the way … and each involves community involvement. … I don’t want people to think that everything is decided, set in stone …”

She mentioned the “early deliverables,” acknowledging the concern about the timelines. “Capital improvements for Rapid Ride C and D routes” is what’s in it for our area, though there are no specific commitments – some have a wish list with one big item, improvements to the ramp from the eastbound bridge onto Highway 99, which is a chokepoint for buses and other vehicles alike.

Then, there are the timelines: 2028 is the earliest light rail expansion in ST3, Redmond to downtown and Kent/Des Moines to Federal Way. West Seattle to downtown, five years later.

And she reiterated the “environmental and future investment study” of potential light rail (post-ST3) between West Seattle to Burien.

She offered more detail about the draft version of the line from SODO to West Seattle – that it would go over 99, then “a new fixed bridge next to the existing West Seattle Bridge, turning left onto Delridge still in an elevated structure there before heading west at about Genesee to the next station at Avalon and then continuing on an elevated structure to the final station at Alaska Junction.” But, she noted, that concept is a “representative project” – might not be the final version.

The board will talk about the funding in detail next month – and Val*** stressed again, the funding sources stem from what was OK’d by the Legislature – $16.8 billion sales tax, $6.9B license tabs, $3.9B property tax, total taxes $27.6 billion, $22.5B from other revenue.”

A special board meeting on June 2nd will consider potential amendments to the draft plan; then the final plan for the November ballot would be adopted a little later in June.

Then, to a big point of concern: The timeline. Batey said intense meetings are going on with attempts to see where they can save time and move it up “so I suspect that will definitely be discussed, what project schedules can be …”

As meetings continue, WSTC’s Michael Taylor-Judd said, he’s concerned that people who want certain changes will show up, maybe with signs and T-shirts, and people who are fine with the plan as it is might not. He pointed this out in the context of wondering about advance word of “amendments.”

WSTC’s Mark Jacobs suggested building the required-for-light-rail bridge over the Duwamish sooner rather than later, and that way there could be a backup for use in the times when the regular bridge is bollixed up.

WSTC’s Jon Wright said the C Line improvements are important – “if they are substantial enough they might be influential enough to people who are concerned (and saying they’re) ‘voting no because nothing’s happening in my lifetime’.” So he would like to see more specifics, “could be a big tool to sell (ST3) to the peninsula.”

Val says we’ll know an amount for the ballot measure.

WSTC’s Amanda Kay Helmick mentions the WSTC survey from earlier this year. “The one thing we kind of took away from it as a group, everything was kind of split 50-50, (including) elevated (vs. other options), there was a lot of questions about a short tunnel, that’s the one thing this group is curious about … so no one’s happy. What would we have to give up, how could we save costs somewhere, in order to get a short tunnel … we’re talking about changing the face of West Seattle (which the elevated would do).

Batey: “So the tunnel you’re talking about, going through the hill coming off the bridge – would be about half a billion dollars.”

Is it feasible?

Chris Arkills, King County Executive Dow Constantine‘s transportation adviser, said it’s probably feasible, but the legal requirements for ST is to come up with a plan that pencils out.

ST’s Trinity Parker threw cold water on it – for a tunnel, that would have to be in the financial plan going to voters, and it’s currently not. … “We have to be very clear with the voters about what they’re getting, what they’re buying.”

City Councilmember Lisa Herbold went back to the “early deliverable” C Line improvements: “Is there an opportunity for this group to make some of the recommendations?”

Concerns also were voiced regarding some Seattle City Councilmembers advocating on behalf of the north end, and wondering where the money for those changes would come. Money became a theme for the next section of the discussion – where the information can be found about costs of what made it into the draft plan and what didn’t. Taylor-Judd, for example, said, “… in order to do all the work that’s being done to come up with the draft plan, people have to look at alternatives – someone must have looked at West Seattle, could we do a tunnel into the hill and into the Alaska Junction, you must have all that data, and yet there is some stonewalling about putting that data out … you say you want feedback … But what about the cost of (various C and D improvements)?” If the money’s not there, they don’t want to waste their time lobbying for it. He also wondered if the elevated proposal would clash with the current city plan to turn Fauntleroy Way into a “green boulevard.”

The ST reps said the new bridge would be south of the current one – curving around to Delridge, there’s an aerial station at the first place we can get enough straight track to build an elevated station, then turns and going up Genesee and between Avalon and Fauntleroy up to the Triangle and the Avalon station would likely be right where the Taco Time is. From there, it gets over to Alaska and continues up Alaska to The Junction. That’s the line that’s on the map. They reiterated that it’s “a representative alignment for costing purposes … our best guess at what it would look like.”

Helmick asked about the amount of time spent studying Ballard, “they’ve had about four years of outreach and planning … I’ve heard a lot now about they didn’t even get what they wanted …” (etc.) “How far behind are we really in West Seattle?” Answer: Not at all, since this isn’t even to Environmental Impact Statement stage yet.

Again – TODAY (the day we’re publishing this story, Monday, May 2nd) is the deadline for getting your comment(s) on the draft plan. Go to soundtransit3.org to see how, including by taking the survey linked from that page.

ALSO DISCUSSED @ WSTC MEETING: The Metro Long-Range Plan, which also was touched on at the ST open house last week – you have more time to comment on this, until May 20th (including this survey), so go take a look at the bus network’s proposed future … Introduction of Joe Laubach, who is the only West Seattleite on the new Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee … Another mention that the Port of Seattle’s draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Terminal 5 project is expected to go public May 16th …

The West Seattle Transportation Coalition meets fourth Thursdays, 6:20 pm, Neighborhood House’s High Point Center.

20 Replies to "Today's your last chance to comment on Sound Transit 3 draft plan. Here's what the West Seattle Transportation Coalition heard"

  • Paul May 2, 2016 (10:13 am)

    Well, the financial plan going to voters should be revised to promise a grade separated alignment in West Seattle instead of being too specific and limiting us to an elevated structure.  The type of grade separation should be determined in the early design/environmental analysis phase of the project.

  • Gideon May 2, 2016 (10:17 am)

    What happened with the WSTC survey we all took? Did they give full results to Sound transit? The coalition said on their site that 1000+ people took it. What were the results on each of the four options? Did the wstc pass it on to Sound transit?

  • Meyer May 2, 2016 (11:36 am)

    http://soundtransit3.org/survey – link to the ST3 survey. 

    Big thanks for WSTC for all their hard work fighting to get West Seattle the transportation options it needs and deserves!

  • Jort Sandwich May 2, 2016 (11:45 am)

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the light rail will take 35 years to reach West Seattle. Because “I want a tunnel! I won’t vote for anything unless I get my tunnel!” And then threatening to grab your ball and stomp away back home unless daddy promises to give you your (significantly more time-consuming and costly) precious tunnel.

    GET OVER IT.

    Who the hell cares if a tunnel or an elevated line gets the rail to Seattle? Are we super concerned about losing the scenic and gorgeous natural beauty of Fauntleroy Way between the bridge and the Junction? Gosh, the lumber yard and dry cleaning store will really suffer when they put up some pylons.

    When will the people in this city learn that if they would just shut up and quit trying to nitpick literally every single detail of a massive, urgent project — we could get the nice things we need much easier.

    But no — we join in with every single other neighborhood “watchdog” group and nitpick and compartmentalize and delve into excessive detail and drone on and on and on about pathologically trivial process.

    For the record, I could not give two craps about whether light rail gets to West Seattle via tunnel or via elevated tracks. I want it yesterday, and all of this constant whining and complaining about minutia  (my left-hand turn might get blocked, I want to add $500 million in cost to satisfy my childhood love of tunnels, we can’t pass anything until every citizen on the peninsula reaches a healthy Seattle Consensus on the approach, I might not be able to park my car within seven or eight feet of the front door of my intended destination, etc.) only serves to self-pleasure the busybodies and do-gooders who think — literally — every single detail of a complex transportation planning document must be vetted and approved via consensus of the entire body politic.

    It seems the “West Seattle Transportation Coalition” is living up to its reputation: “West Seattle (Alternative ) Transportation (For everybody else so that I can drive across the bridge without having to touch my brakes) Coalition.

    • sam-c May 2, 2016 (12:28 pm)

      I agree with a lot of that (except maybe the last paragraph about WSTC).  The comment that drives me the most crazy is ‘well, I will be retired by the time it’s done, and I won’t get to use it very much, so I’m voting no.”  That, to me, is ridiculous.   Probably one of the reasons our ‘transit system’ is so behind in the first place.

      • WSB May 2, 2016 (12:46 pm)

        Given that many community advocates are middle-aged or older, I hope no one assumes that the “it won’t be built until I’m dead so I ain’t paying” sentiment is universal for people of a certain age. (Note that some of it has been underscored by frustration with the regressive tax system.) Again, I say this from having covered every community group under the sun over here for the past eight-plus years – many if not most are working for things they might not see in their lifetimes.

        Also, if you come sit in on the WSTC sometime (we’ve covered almost all their meetings since the start), maybe I’ve communicated it poorly but their primary achievement has been to at least get some attention paid to West Seattle’s transportation challenges in general, not for specific projects or specific aspects of projects (aside from the concept of “light rail for West Seattle” – which at one point not that long ago did NOT look like a sure bet for ST3, in 2033 or at ANY point!).

        They have been concerned about “where the community stands,” frankly, to a fault – you’ll see that in my quote of Amanda Kay Helmick saying they hadn’t really heard a consensus. One of the things that had been lacking for years, we noticed after doing this for a while, had been advocacy on a peninsulawide basis – there were community councils that worked hard on their localized issues but because West Seattle is split by the city into two “district councils,” neither was designed to advocate for *all* of WS. A fairly recent development, of course, is the City Council change, so now there is a City Councilmember representing *only* West Seattle (and South Park), but it can’t all rest on her shoulders.

        P.S. One more point, and again, I guess I didn’t communicate this clearly – major concerns about going elevated in some spots is the fact that among the government agencies, one hand doesn’t seem to know what the other is doing. The Fauntleroy Green Boulevard project, many years in the making and now finally getting closer to construction, could be built at an eight-digit cost and then torn up by elevated rail if, say, the city and ST don’t talk to each other about it. Delridge also has some potential improvements that might be built and then shredded, wasting millions, if there’s not some coordination.

        • natinstl May 2, 2016 (1:47 pm)

          “Given that many community advocates are middle-aged or older, I hope no one assumes that the “it won’t be built until I’m dead so I ain’t paying” sentiment is universal for people of a certain age. (Note that some of it has been underscored by frustration with the regressive tax system.) “-and this is exactly my issue with these projects, I have to choose to vote for the projects that are going to be most beneficial to me at this time and place or potentially suffer what I’ve seen all my family members in NY suffer, property taxes so high they either have to work seven days a week to afford living there, move or sell their home they spent thirty years paying off to move to a rental or small condo.

    • Joe Szilagyi May 2, 2016 (1:24 pm)
      NOTE: I stepped away from the WSTC, leaving it in very capable hands, to spend more time with my family and on my fiction writing in the evenings, instead of spending ten-plus hours a week tracking minutiae of City Council, PSRC, Sound Transit, Metro, and other related things, which always before the WSTC just a passing interest. This is just me speaking for myself.
      As one of the two co-founders of the WSTC and the guy who wrote a gajillion drafts of our by-laws, went on recruiting missions, chaired a number of meetings, has done outreach at public events, has met with City Councilmembers and Mayors and agency heads, has testified, and a bunch of other stuff I can’t even recall at this point, I have to say you’re wrong, and not just a little. You’re substantially wrong.
      The WSTC has pushed everything from car improvements  on the bridge — yes, some people need to drive sometimes. People with medical issues, little kids in multiple schools, lots of scenarios. We’ve pushed substantial bus improvements. We’ve pushed bike lanes and bike corrals. We’ve pushed expansion of bus-only lanes. We’ve pushed for boat improvements, even. I think the only thing we’ve never pushed any measure or movement on is pedestrian stuff, and that’s just because it never came up. 
      Why are they asking after a tunnel? It’s called due diligence. It’s called how politics and the sausage making works. Is the money or political will there to build a tunnel, or is it even practically possible, if you wanted to then later extend light rail south to Westwood and Burien (angles and turn radius matters — it might end up being a geometry problem instead of a fiscal or political problem). I don’t know the answer to that, but they’re doing the same thing in the WSTC that we did when I was the chair: 
      You shake that tree until the fruit you’re after falls out. If it doesn’t fall out, you deal with what you have. That’s what every activist and lobbyist does. They’re doing their job. 

      “For the record, I could not give two craps about whether light rail gets to West Seattle via tunnel or via elevated tracks. I want it yesterday…”

      A whole lot of people agree with this, actually.
      There is, however, nothing ever wrong for asking for more. Do you want a grant or business deal for $10,000,000? Ask for $20,000,000 at first. Politics and business 101.

      If you want to make the WSTC more effective and even more laser sharp, send board@westseattletc.org an email with feedback, and even better: email them to volunteer and start going to meetings, every 4th Thursday. 

    • Will S. May 2, 2016 (2:48 pm)

      I support ST3, and I think the West Seattle connection would be much better with an underground station at Alaska Junction. I’ve also been following ST3’s development pretty closely, and this “about half a billion dollars” remark is the very first time I’ve seen any consideration of this tunnel by Sound Transit. So I’m not ready to shut up about it–I’d first like to know that Sound Transit has compared the costs and benefits of a tunnel option to the alternative of hoisting an elevated rail line all the way up the hill from the Duwamish.

      After the 17 years and $1.8 billion (in 2014 dollars) that Sound Transit says it needs to get this done, light rail really should improve our neighborhood. Fortunately, Sound Transit says it’s willing to listen (at least now, at the earliest stage of planning and designing this project). I’ll take them up on that, thank you very much, and I won’t mind if others do the same.

  • Smakeflood May 2, 2016 (1:36 pm)

    To Jort:  While there are some folks who could be considered “whining for dollars” on the ST 3 plan, there are very real, non-aesthetic reasons that a short tunnel is highly preferable to elevated getting from Nucor to the AK Jnctn. 

     To wit:

    The required grade will reduce the speed of the trains to a veritable crawl navigating these hills.   And getting the grade to a functional 3-5% max will require pylons, 40, 50, 60ft. tall and  15ft. square, spaced every 40-60 ft. on the road.  That footprint alone requires additional purchase of Right of Way and more importantly ALSO puts a limit on the station size. 

     There isn’t room to put the size of station that the WS Jnctn SHOULD have without buying what amounts to a square block of property in the Jnctn.   Since that seems somewhere between unlikely and never in a million years, what we’ll have is an undersized train platform with shorter trains and capacity limitations.  AND…here’s the kicker…

    If you combine shorter trains, with slow speed, you get really low performance throughput given the expenditure.  Which is to say, you spend a lot to get limited improvement in moving people, or you do what ST ALREADY DECIDED WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR CAPITOL HILL AND THE UW AND NORTHGATE – and you put that part underground.  It solves all those issues in one fell swoop.

    20 yrs. from now, $500M is going to seem irrelevant to the taxpayers whilst they stand in line, waiting at the overcrowded little station in the AK Jnctn waiting 15 minutes to catch a train that moves the pace of a ski lift. 

    If you care to dispute my version of the reality of the situation, my ears are open but please don’t make it seem like asking relevant questions is whining, or NIMBY or uninformed.  It’s none of those things.  It’s simply looking for justifiable subarea equity given the facts on the ground.  

    Would I vote for an elevated system?  Probably – but I damn sure want to hear the reasons why such an obvious under-designed and underperforming solution is the one that WS should be forced to settle for – especially at this stage of design and when others got the right solution.    

     

     

     

  • Smakeflood May 2, 2016 (2:06 pm)

    And to add the obvious follow up to my previous note – I’d rather my kids get to use a really well designed and functional system that has room to accommodate the growth we’ll have seen and will continue to see in their lifetimes  – as have something in 10 -15 yrs. that is overwhelmed the day it opens.   I don’t even have to refer back to my urban planning classes to know that if you’re going to address the problem, you should actually solve it.   Call me silly that way.  

     

    Again, I’m not saying I wouldn’t settle for an elevated solution but show me a design that isn’t built for West Seattle 2016 but one that solves the problem of West Seattle 2040.   

  • Smakeflood May 2, 2016 (2:27 pm)

    And to add additional clarity to my last statement regarding solving the problem of WS 2040 – in no way am I putting all the burden on ST Light Rail.  It’s one, very big, piece of the puzzle, but still just one piece.   And this gets back to the integration of the system. 

     If you’re going to weaken on leg of the stool you’d better make sure your other modes are fashioned to act as an integrated system that is greater than the sum of its parts.  Metro, BRT, Rapid Ride, feeder shuttles, water taxi, driverless cars, etc.   Those things all have strengths and weaknesses too, and those need to be carefully planned in unison with the Light Rail to achieve the best possible outcome. 

     So, if we end up with elevated, you might want to spend a hundred million on a contiguous lane separated busway to downtown and other improvements.  (Which may sum up to roughly the same $ expenditure as the tunnel option?) 

    These are the types of trade-off discussions I would hope to be having with ST and Metro.   Talk to me about how this would work to improve the people moving?  Show me data that indicates what a commute trip would look like for a representative person from north/midpoint/south on the peninsula.  I WANT to feel like this plan has a solid underpinning of assumptions.  They won’t all be right, but they should all be reasonable, given the fact that we have several legs of the system open and Metro and other entities are generating data every day.

     And, in case this needs to be stated directly:  I WANT Light Rail in WS as soon as possible.  But what I want for all of us, is the best we can get for our investment of time and $.  

     

     

  • Doug H May 2, 2016 (2:48 pm)

    I hate to say this because I want to support this plan, but its “details” are reminding me a lot of ST1 in 1996.  That was going to get light rail to UW, but did not.  It took ST2 to get to UW.  That was going to put light rail down Rainier Ave., but did not.  Light rail wouldn’t fit on Rainier, so it went down MLK.  And frankly, I am a big skeptic of a second downtown transit tunnel in the timeline of ST3, a project which is holding both Ballard and West Seattle hostage in cash flow and process timing.  Hooray for the early Rapid Ride C investments (whatever they are?)  I find myself wishing for speed like most, but imprecise intentions could speed us to ballot but leave us dangling in process limbo for years to come.

  • RayK May 2, 2016 (3:10 pm)

    With the possibility of light rail trains departing West Seattle with 200 – 800 riders every six minutes with 8 minute run time from SODO through downtown basically following 4th Ave, why should Metro run RapidRide with the current routing during peak periods? We should expect a dramatically different service model with coordinated Metro / ST light rail with at least a 2 seat ride to downtown with more reliable and quicker commute times.
    Metro and Sound Transit have expressed their eagerness to work together and the Metro graphical planner for suggested / possible West Seattle routes with different service levels suggests many more residents will have convenient access to transit in areas now relatively isolated / distant from current routes.

  • Bryan B) May 2, 2016 (3:47 pm)

    Here’s the comment I made in the ST3 survey:

    An elevated light rail to Alaska Junction would have to wind between several ‘walls’ of condos along Avalon and Fauntleroy, effectively running trains through several dozen living rooms and bedrooms.  Has the resulting drop in property values been factored into the tax revenue projections?

  • Smakeflood May 2, 2016 (3:51 pm)

    Ray, I’m curious about that headway you quoted of 6 mins.  That sounds really fast to me, given the 8 minute headways the monorail was estimating (and some doubted) for passenger throughput of similar size.  Not saying it isn’t possible, but I’d like to see the numbers behind that.   To pull that off you’d need some fancy tails and sidings/bypass track I suspect, to allow for that many cars running concurrently.   Maybe they have an idea where those transition points could exist but they’re not insignificant in terms of size.   Delridge has some real estate that might work but not sure where you’d put them in the upper peninsula?

     

    • RayK May 7, 2016 (8:57 am)

      All Link lines run with 6 min. headways 5:52 a.m. – 8:34 a.m. and 10 min. headways 3:04 p.m. – 6:34 p.m. — weekdays. Other hours headways mostly 15 minutes.
      See  Link Light Rail Schedules.

    • RayK May 7, 2016 (9:00 am)

      I’m skeptical that KC Metro can deliver a two-car trainload of riders to the proposed West Seattle stations every 6 minutes without large bus parking areas during peak peak periods. 

  • Smakeflood May 2, 2016 (4:27 pm)

    Doug H – I hear what you’re saying and that’s a real concern.   I’ll take a stab at responding. 

     I think the idea of a second tunnel downtown is good for a couple of reasons, even though it pushes timelines out.  First is redundancy.  Stuff happens and having the capacity to keep some pieces running in the event of others being offline, is generally a good thing, if you can afford it.

     Additionally, I’m in the camp of believing that this country is starting to get how shamefully underfunded infrastructure has been over the last 20+yrs.   I think the tide is turning and more Federal support will be available to pursue in the coming years to help reduce the durations of some of these pieces of ST 3 – and substantially.

     I also believe that given the fact that the ST Board had a very short window to produce the options, suggests that they’re aware that some better ideas could be integrated into it – even though they’ve been legally forced to say that the options shown are the options we get.  I’m always open to a good idea, even if it doesn’t necessarily benefit me directly.  Doesn’t mean I won’t keep working to find ones that do benefit WS and get them integrated as best we can.  

     

  • dcn May 2, 2016 (6:16 pm)

    This is a great conversation. I see a lot of thoughtful and interesting responses–things I never thought about. As I read this, I have a few thoughts:

    1) We have been neglecting infrastructure in this country for 40+ years. Roads, the electrical grid, our sewer lines–they were all mostly built 1970’s or before. We’ve been coasting for a very long time and are going to have to start investing in infrastructure again. This will either happen with careful planning and prevention, or through reactive disaster response/mitigation as things start to fail. The second scenario is usually a more expensive and less satisfying solution. 

    2) We have one chance to get light rail right to West Seattle (and everywhere else). If the tunnel makes the most sense, then it’s worth it, even at a much greater cost. I agree with Smakeflood on this. Several other major hubs have tunnels–add Beacon Hill to the list Smakeflood mentioned. If we don’t get it right, then West Seattle will never have decent transit connections with the rest of the city in anyone’s lifetime.

    Seattle missed the boat a long time ago on a wide-spread rail system that might have prevented the widespread gridlock we face today. So, now we are in the reactive phase of trying to mitigate the mess that our city’s transportation system has become. It’s time to get a satisfying solution to the problem, even if it takes more money and more time than anyone would like.

Sorry, comment time is over.