FOLLOWUP: See the light-rail community comments West Seattle Transportation Coalition just sent to Sound Transit

(Map from Sound Transit’s “system expansion” website)

West Seattle’s branch of Sound Transit light rail is still an estimated 13 years away, and major planning is a ways off too. But the West Seattle Transportation Coalition saw no wisdom in waiting, and organized a June workshop to collect early community ideas and feedback (here’s our as-it-happened coverage).

Today, WSTC sent Sound Transit its wrapup of what participants said, as well as documents with community comments collected in connection with the event.

Here’s the summary they sent, followed by the community-comment collections:

Dear Sound Transit Board Members:

The West Seattle Transportation Coalition (WSTC) sponsored and conducted a peninsula-wide, public workshop on June 22, 2017, to inform the community and gather their input on the ST3 light rail proposal for service to West Seattle.

Following an introduction on light rail by Tom Linde, P.E., and supported by traffic engineers Larry Wymer and Mark Jacobs, the WSTC shared the representational ST3 alignment for West Seattle, as shown in Sound Transit’s documents dated July 19, 2016 (C-03a2, Downtown to West Seattle Elevated, Rev. 1, Sheets 1-5), including station areas at Delridge, Avalon, and the West Seattle Junction. Workshop attendees were asked to complete a comment card and answer survey questions. The comments are attached.

In general, attendees expressed the following preferences:

*Run the rail line underground through the West Seattle Golf Course, and into The Junction—the central, historic West Seattle business district,

*Include a Park & Ride and a bicycle garage at each station

*Conduct more community meetings to gather public input,

*Regular Sound Transit must provide timely reports on options, decisions, and progress toward implementation

*Sound Transit and other transportation agencies are strongly encouraged to examine less expensive options that are not slope-challenged, and can be delivered faster, such as aerial tramway, app-centered van pools, and driverless vehicle systems.

To arrive at their results, WSTC workshop organizers and attendees identified several factors that they want taken into account, including:

Maintain economic health of the historic Junction business district during the 2-3 years of construction, which will severely impact this area, and is not addressed in the current ST3 design

*Incorporate detailed traffic management planning in the ST3 project scope, for all roadways connecting to the north mile of Fauntleroy Way S.W., including S.W. Alaska St., 35th Ave. S.W., S.W. Oregon St., connecting residential streets, and the south three miles of Fauntleroy. Fauntleroy Way links to Seattle’s busiest traffic zone, the West Seattle Bridge Transportation Corridor, which carries 120,000 vehicles per day,

*Resolve visual and practicality issues around the proposed construction of a Duwamish River light rail bridge that will tower over the West Seattle High Bridge, and proposed elevated structures that will tower over and crowd the new construction and historic buildings along the proposed route, and within The Junction,

*Sound Transit (ST), and the Seattle Departments of Transportation (SDOT) and Planning & Development (now Construction and Inspections (SDCI)) must include cooperative planning in the ST3 scope. So far, there is no evidence the agencies mutually planned for the introduction of light rail to West Seattle. The SDCI has allowed the built environment to crowd rights of way needed for rail alignment and station construction, ST3 is being routed over SDOT’s proposed Fauntleroy Boulevard Project, and ST3 costs have risen astronomically,

*Social equity issues must be addressed around business and residential disruptions during construction, costs to riders on the completed light rail system, and taxing structure for ST3 financing,
Connectivity issues with other public transportation modes are not adequately addressed, within West Seattle, and between there and White Center, Burien and SeaTac Airport.

The West Seattle Transportation Coalition is a Peninsula-wide, non-profit organization, working to address transportation and mobility issues for Seattle’s largest constituency—nearly 100,000 people who live and work in the 10 square mile area between the Duwamish River and Puget Sound. We help drive our elected officials and government agencies to improve travel within, into and out of West Seattle. The WSTC holds public meetings on the fourth Thursday of every month at High Point Neighborhood House.

We look forward to working with Sound Transit Board, and City and County Council members, to create the best possible rapid transportation options for West Seattle.


Michael Taylor-Judd, Chair / Martin Westerman, Vice Chair
For The West Seattle Transportation Coalition Board

The community-comment documents are here and here (both in PDF).

70 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: See the light-rail community comments West Seattle Transportation Coalition just sent to Sound Transit"

  • West Seattle Resident August 30, 2017 (3:19 pm)

    Park and Ride at each station.  Really?  That is completely unrealistic.  

    • Captin August 30, 2017 (5:32 pm)

      The city has said that park and rides going forward is a no go. I attended a meeting where they said there will be no more, that is the stance.

    • Jon Wright August 30, 2017 (8:51 pm)

      This was the input that really discouraged me. Nothing energizes a neighborhood like a hulking garage full of parked cars! And that undesirability of a parking garage notwithstanding, just where would you even locate such a monstrosity?

      • Denise Vincent August 30, 2017 (10:57 pm)

        In other mass transit systems, park and ride lots are generally at the most distant suburbs with the least bus coverage. Other stations closer to downtown stops have Kiss and Ride lots, with a pickup/dropoff lane parallel to bus traffic and a tiny 20 space lot for cars waiting for evening trains. The K&R lots have ridiculous rates for parking at rush hours  (first 15 min free for the pickupers) to discourage weekday parking, while parking is often free on the weekends, to encourage tourism. And anyway, I  can’t imagine that any city will be investing in massive parking garages, when driverless electric pods are just a few years away. A ton of pods can be racked in a couple stories, right? Ahem.

  • WSEd August 30, 2017 (3:58 pm)

    Way to go Sound Transit.  13 years to replace transit to SODO that was previously covered by Buses.  At a cost of billions and much distress to the community during the build out.  

    • John L August 30, 2017 (4:57 pm)

      The city is growing and voters voted. ST3 is coming because voters said yes.

    • Peter August 31, 2017 (8:40 am)

      The buses are already chronically overcrowded and stuck in traffic. There is simply no way for bus service to meet the growing need for real mass transit in Seattle. 

      • Jort August 31, 2017 (11:07 am)

        Oh, there is definitely a way to make bus service more convenient and better, but it would involve forcibly taking away street use from private automobiles and instead dedicating it exclusively to buses. 

        As you can imagine, this would likely not be popular for some people, but it would certainly make it much better to ride the bus!

        • Mike August 31, 2017 (12:39 pm)

          You realize that West Seattle all the way to South Lake Union has dedicated bus only lanes, right?  There’s still a massive backup of bus traffic and busses are one of the bigger causes of traffic blocking intersections, which causes backups on other streets.  That blocks pedestrians, cyclists, cars, delivery vehicles, other busses, light rail.

          • Captin August 31, 2017 (2:37 pm)

            All the more reason for grade separated rail.

  • Rick Sanchez August 30, 2017 (4:09 pm)

    A few observations:

    “ST3 costs have risen astronomically” 

    [Citation needed] (note Lynnwood Link is an ST2 project, not ST3)

    And this concern for cost doesn’t really mesh with “run the light rail underground through the West Seattle Golf Course” suggestion which is obviously going to be the most expensive possible option – who would tunnel under a valley when you need to serve a station several hundred feet higher a mile away?  A shallow tunnel from 35th to California is pretty ambitious in itself.

    Also, the suggestion that everything short of a hot air balloon line be studied as an alternative is one of the reasons why transit construction takes so long. It’s good ST is moving away from this and identifying a preferred alternative earlier.

    (PS – asking ST for park and rides is pointless unless the City of Seattle changes their law making new ones illegal)

    • West Seattle since 1979 August 30, 2017 (4:31 pm)

      @RickSanchez wrote:  “And this concern for cost doesn’t really mesh with “run the light rail underground through the West Seattle Golf Course” suggestion which is obviously going to be the most expensive possible option – who would tunnel under a valley when you need to serve a station several hundred feet higher a mile away?  A shallow tunnel from 35th to California is pretty ambitious in itself.”

      I’m assuming this was a suggestion from a member of the public asking for what they wanted, without considering the cost?

  • Lack Thereof August 30, 2017 (4:23 pm)

    So they want to make it cheaper, while simultaneously adding an expensive tunnel.

    They want to avoid disruption and preserve every neighborhood, while simultaneously adding Park & Ride garages in the heart of every neighborhood.

    Would they also like a pony?  

    • Marie Antoinette August 30, 2017 (6:48 pm)

      Have you ever been to a community meeting about anything where everyone didn’t want to have their cake and eat it too?

      • Peter August 31, 2017 (8:41 am)

        You nailed it!


  • aRF August 30, 2017 (4:43 pm)

    This isn’t the best place for my input, but I’m doubtful about whether the Junction is the best place to terminate the West Seattle line. The spacing is tight and further expansion options aren’t great. I’d rather see the line terminated at 35th and Avalon; this would serve much of the same area while allowing for a future extension down 35th to Roxhill and White Center.

    • West Seattlite August 30, 2017 (7:27 pm)

      I completely agree with the expansion down 35th and onto White Center as a possible option way down the line. 

      What I don’t agree with is not going to the Junction. Its the business hub of west seattle, and becoming the most dense area of West Seattle. A station at 35th/avalon would not sufficiently provide transit to that area. There are quite a few hills to consider and its about a .6 mile walk from California & Alaska. That’s not adequate for many, whether its those who struggle to make that journey or those commuting to and from work from the busiest place in West Seattle. Not to mention the business there, the street fairs we have there, the festivals there every years. Its West Seattle’s hub. You don’t not have a stop there. It needs to come to the Junction with the ability to one day continue on south. 

      • Captin August 30, 2017 (8:33 pm)

        Makes sense to me!

    • Morgan August 30, 2017 (7:36 pm)

      I like this kind of thinking.

    • J August 31, 2017 (7:07 am)


  • flimflam August 30, 2017 (5:21 pm)

    all I know is I just had the privilege of paying nearly $180 for the tabs on my 17 year old car. between the constant property tax hikes and now the car tabs its lucky I (and everyone else in this city) am so rich that it doesn’t matter. sigh.

    • Lack Thereof August 31, 2017 (9:22 am)

      Nice car!  I paid only $103 for my 13 year old car, and transit taxes made up only $19 of that.

      TBH if I couldn’t afford that, then there’s no way I’d be able to afford the legal minimum of car insurance, which costs me roughly the same amount for just a month.

      • KM August 31, 2017 (10:15 am)

        With all the discussion about how car values were calculated by the state and used by ST, did it end up changing? My tabs were spot on with FlimFlam’s (no complaints at all, I’m an avid ST3 supporter/voter), but my 2001 car is worth $1600 on the private market according to KBB. 

  • Morgan August 30, 2017 (5:29 pm)

    A tramway to SoDo that feeds into a light link rail hub is a very intriguing idea I would want to know a lot more about that.

    Sounds much faster to construct…but who knows? Throw a wire across the duwamish and let’s get people linked to trains and free up some road capacity. A tunnel and a new bridge? no wonder it will take thirteen years, or if we will ever see it done.I think PDX air tram was done in less than five years. 

  • EB August 30, 2017 (5:30 pm)

    In 13 years we will be well into the autonomous vehicle revolution and will wonder how any sane city would have poured billions of tax dollars into slow, fixed-route transit.

    • Captin August 30, 2017 (7:39 pm)

      So the people working minimum wage jobs and lower income jobs are going to be buying new autonomous vehicles? Also, isn’t a train car not on the road carrying presumably 100’s of people better than a few 2 occupant autonomous cars?

      • KM August 30, 2017 (9:16 pm)

        I think with so many alternatives for mass transit AND completing the “last mile”, car ownership will decline and sharing will increase. It will also help ease the capicity issues that autonomous car ownership doesn’t relieve. 

    • B August 30, 2017 (7:57 pm)

      In 13 years there will be thousands of people sitting in autonomous cars in gridlock.

      • Captin August 30, 2017 (9:07 pm)

        Nailed it. 

      • EH August 31, 2017 (9:38 am)

        Haha! Comment of the day! 

    • West Seattle since 1979 August 30, 2017 (8:24 pm)

      Also, the roads are already getting full. If everyone who now rides public transit starts using autonomous cars, what roads would they ride on?

    • JVP August 30, 2017 (8:32 pm)

      Autonomous vehicles won’t solve traffic jams.  They may make the roads incrementally more efficient, but not enough to really matter. Thre’s also the problem of induced demand.  Light rail still makes sense.

      • Jort Sandwich August 31, 2017 (10:10 am)

        If autonomous cars truly come to fruition and live up to the hype that’s been built around them (which is doubtful; the tech industry is notorious for its PR and hype skills), then you also have to take into account that a large segment of the population that currently can not drive, like the elderly and children under 16, will also be getting into their auto-cars and adding that much more vehicles to the roadway.

        It’s important to note that much of traffic congestion is not primarily caused by the things that people think they’re caused by. Left-lane camping, improper merging, following the speed limit to the letter of the law — these are all driver annoyances, to be sure, but their impacts on widespread traffic congestion is negligible. 

        The reality of congestion is that it is a problem of simple geometry: too many vehicles using a fixed amount of space. If a car is x  and the road holds 50x, and you start putting more than 50 cars on the road, you will have congestion.

        So far, all I’m hearing about autonomous vehicles is that they’ll make it even easier to put even more cars on the road infrastructure we already have, and which isn’t going to grow.

        Humans, as a civilization, have reorganized much of our society around the personal automobile in the last 100 years. I can see why a magical, fix-all SuperCar is appealing, because it doesn’t require us to re-think the fundamentals of our approach to the requirements of transportation. But it only “solves” some problems, and will introduce still others. And the basics of geometry still apply. The road can only handle so many cars, even if we eliminate the negligible effects of human error.

    • Lack Thereof August 31, 2017 (9:27 am)

      In 1970, opponents of the Forward Thrust transit bond argued that the proposed rapid transit system would be made obsolete by flying cars in a similar timeframe.

      • Captin August 31, 2017 (12:56 pm)

        Man that’s a sore subject for me. So much federal grant money. It would be so built out by now we’d be able to get anywhere by rail. What a shame. Flying cars, ha!

  • Swede. August 30, 2017 (5:52 pm)

    Looks like ‘ST4’ going to have to ad a few hundreds more on our car tabs to cover this ambitious suggestions. ‘Tunnel under’ the golf course and a Park-n-Ride at each stop will be astronomically expensive! 

  • Lura Ercolano August 30, 2017 (6:03 pm)

    Tunnels are expensive. The bridge is full. Building anything in the already crowded Junction will be difficult and expensive.

    I think they should consider a new bridge for light-rail only, and a WS terminus further south, such as Westwood. I know the south area doesn’t currently have the density appropriate for light rail, but it can be zoned and developed as an urban hub at the same time as the rail is built. 

    • Swede. August 30, 2017 (7:27 pm)

      I believe a dedicated train bridge was part of the plan. Where and how tall will be interesting  to see since trains don’t climb to good and the Alaska junction is quite high compared to surface streets in Sodo…

  • Jort August 30, 2017 (6:25 pm)

    The voters of West Seattle did not overwhelmingly vote for a “tramway” or “driverless car” or “vanpool” solution — they voted for grade-separated Light Rail. I and thousands of others didn’t pay $600 in car tab fees this year in order to in some kind of vanpool in West Seattle.  And, of course, instead of relying on the proven reliability and feasibility of light rail (as demonstrated in cities around the world in thousands upon thousands of applications for the last 100 years), we are instead apparently thinking maybe we should out hope for an as-yet unproven, magical driverless car that may or may not come around and fix everything for us faster?!?!?!?!?!

    And, of course, a group of automobile-traffic engineers led a discussion that came to the conclusions, among others, that the most pressing issues that Sound Transit must address are automobile traffic impacts and Park and Ride facilities. Gotta look out for those cars!

    What a disappointing document. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that Sound Transit, and other transit and transportation agencies from around the region, understand that WSTC does not speak for this West Seattle resident.

    • Captin August 30, 2017 (8:28 pm)

      Right? Totally silly. Tesla model 3’s will supposedly have an autonomous driving application. So I’m sure everyone in the city that has student loans and kids and child support and works two jobs to make $40k a year is gonna run right out and get one. Yeah right. Even if they did would there be less cars? Self driving cars will take a long time to be proven safe before being adopted by the main stream. And the existing cars that are paid off will have to filter out over time. Meanwhile a rail car can carry like 50 people unimpeded by traffic, etc. while that Tesla has 2 or 3 people in it and is still waiting at red lights. Also, the software will probably be so conservative lacking the human element it will probably make traffic worse. I can look in my mirrors and say “screw this” and punch it and change lanes and maybe help traffic flow. Will these cars do that? The ONLY way they will help is if EVERY SINGLE car on the road is autonomous. That’s 20 years away at best. Having every 10th car drive itself does nothing.

      and I agree. Grade separation is paramount. Look at MLK. How green is it to have cars backed up for up to 4 minutes all idling producing emissions going nowhere? Plus it’s dangerous and slows down cars, busses, etc. Why is it so hard to look at what other cities around the world have been doing for decades and do that?

    • Jon Wright August 30, 2017 (8:48 pm)

      Jort, While I generally agree with you philosophically (at least based upon what you espouse publically), I feel like you have an axe to grind with respect to WSTC. In this case, WSTC was not “speaking for” anybody. WSTC held a community workshop, shared what was known about the proposed ST3 line to WSTC, and solicited comments from attendees. WSTC is now dutifully reporting out those comments. If you had attended the workshop and shared your comments, WSTC could have been speaking for you.

      • Jort August 31, 2017 (10:59 am)

        Thank you, Jon. My main concern with WSTC is that they claim to represent the broad, overall transportation concerns of the diverse population of the entire peninsula, but time and time again they prioritize the concerns of automobile traffic over other modes.

        In this summary document, they dedicate significant concern to not only the impacts to automobiles, but also to a variety of non-transportation-related issues regarding taxation and accounting (financial issues), the visual impact of stations on the environment (neighborhood issue), and the impact to businesses (chamber of commerce issue). Only in one, throwaway line do they discuss how light rail will interact with the existing transit network.

        A true “transportation coalition” would have placed considerably more emphasis on how, exactly, the light rail will interact with our bus transit network, which is currently the primary mode of transportation for most of West Seattle’s residents commuting along the future light rail corridor path. They would not be wasting Sound Transit’s time with fanciful, unrealistic ideas about tramways or magic cars.

        In the last few years, WSTC has taken anti-safety positions on projects like the Fauntleroy Boulevard project, insisting that bike lanes and pedestrian improvements be pushed aside in order to facilitate easier automobile traffic movement. When push comes to shove, they increasingly seem to espouse positions that primarily benefit the personal automobile driver.

        And I’d like to make clear that it is super OK for an organization to do that! But it’s also important for that organization to not represent itself as being dedicated to increasing and improving multi-modal & alternative transportation. That may have been something that WSTC did in its earlier years, but as of late, the cars-first mentality has taken over, and I’ve seen it in full force during the meetings.

        Basically, I don’t want Sound Transit to look at this document and believe that it represents the community I live in. It represents the discussions led by a group of automobile traffic engineers who’ve demonstrated, repeatedly, that their primary concern is automobile traffic impacts.

        • Jon Wright August 31, 2017 (1:36 pm)

          …but this wasn’t a conversation led by anyone. That document reflects the unvarnished thoughts and concerns raised by your neighbors who chose to attend the workshop.

          The reason the “urbanist agenda” that you (and I) endorse is not more popular is not because WSTC is working against it; it is because an awful lot of people support a car-centric world. Don’t shoot the messenger.

  • Mark August 30, 2017 (6:26 pm)

    Regarding P and R facilities better transit service to the existing one under Spokane Street is needed now.  And allowing for some street parking near light rail is reasonable.  

    What is not reasonable is seeing City parking studies near Beacon Hill and other south end stations showing daytime utilization rates of street parking due to time restrictiond at less than 50% thus opening up some of the parking could be done, say one side of a street where parking is allowed on both sides.

    In West Seattle maintaining some street parking by the future stations needs to be allowed.

  • West Seattle since 1979 August 30, 2017 (7:08 pm)

    People are acting like this is set in stone, that there really are going to be tunnels through West Seattle and park and rides at every stop. The way I’m reading it, those were suggestions from citizens like us, not the final plans. Please correct me if I’m wrong. 

    • WSB August 30, 2017 (7:30 pm)

      Yes, these were citizens’ suggestions. The tunneling issue, as has long been discussed in a variety of venues, is a hot one – it’s not officially even on ST’s radar, but given the potential height and routing of elevated lines across the peninsula, it has been fervently hoped for by some.

  • WSobserver August 30, 2017 (7:27 pm)

    2030.  :/

    If I’m still alive, I’ll be 77 before light rail transit gets here.

    Whoo hoo.

  • Seaviewer August 30, 2017 (7:36 pm)

    It makes little sense to have the train terminate in the Junction heading west.  It should terminate in the Triangle heading south for future expansion to Fauntleroy/Westwood, White Center, Burien, Normandy Park …

    • B August 30, 2017 (8:00 pm)

      It makes complete sense to have the train terminate in the super dense Junction. That’s the whole point of all this.

      • West Seattle since 1979 August 30, 2017 (8:54 pm)


      • Captin August 30, 2017 (9:06 pm)

        Right. In the most dense part of the area. Why in the world would it terminate anywhere else?

    • D August 31, 2017 (11:06 am)

      The California junction, Westwood village and at the Fauntleroy ferry seem like the three most important stops to make for west seattle light rail. 

  • Graciano August 30, 2017 (8:17 pm)

    Park and Rides in the West Seattle Junction…LOL

  • JB August 30, 2017 (8:42 pm)

    All a waste of time and money.  It will never happen!

    • Captin August 30, 2017 (9:14 pm)

      It should have happened almost 50 years ago but people fought it just like now. And here we are…….

  • J August 31, 2017 (7:11 am)

    So the south side of west Seattle gets no light rail but the north side gets 3 stops? Delridge is a straight shot, seems light rail could connect all the way from seatac to burien to white center and delridge and onward. Maybe someday. Would be nice to incorporate the other half of west Seattle somehow. It’ll be as dense as the junction by 2030

    • Lack Thereof August 31, 2017 (9:55 am)

      Sound Transit completed a study on a Delridge routing (and other alternatives) in 2014.

      The Alaska Junction route was determined to have greater potential by a margin of 5,000-10,000 daily riders, while also costing around $200m less to build.  The narrowness of Delridge makes it expensive to build on; lots of houses have to be demolished to make room.

      If there ever is an ST4 (not likely without major changes in Olympia to authorise it), ST’s preliminary studies suggest an Alaska Junction line could extend to White Center via Morgan Junction and Westwood (using California and 35th), while a new branch of the line would fork off in SODO and connect Georgetown, South Park, and Burien via 1st Ave and Hwy 509.

      Metro plans to convert the 120 on Delridge into BRT as Rapidride H within a few years, regardless of what Sound Transit does.

    • Jort Sandwich August 31, 2017 (10:13 am)

      ST3 includes funds for the preliminary studies to extend the line from the Junction, through to Burien and then through Tukwila to Renton. Super-preliminary discussions have envisioned a line that goes south out of the Junction to Morgan Junction, then High Point, then Delridge, South Park and away we go.

    • D August 31, 2017 (11:03 am)

      35th has a wide flat terrain and would be cheaper to build than using eminent domain on delridge down to Westwood/white-center. 

      • Captin August 31, 2017 (11:30 am)

        It’s almost all SF on 35th though. Ridership will be much higher if the stops are in more dense areas

  • Wendell August 31, 2017 (7:20 am)

    The Monorail would be just about finished by now.

    • Peter August 31, 2017 (9:40 am)

      No, there wouldn’t have. They never had a financing plan that would have actually paid for it. That’s what happens when activists are in charge instead of professionals. 

  • Mark August 31, 2017 (10:06 am)


    I take exception to you referencing the WSTC Transportation Engineers as automobile oriented.  The fact is I am an avid bike rider, walk and use transit.  When the weather is nice I rarely drive!

    However transportation needs to account for all modes.  A parent dropping off and picking up a child from daycare/school has fewer options and not providing an option to conveniently use transit, aka parking, makes many people drive to and from work.


  • kathi September 1, 2017 (1:17 pm)

    Lose the cars and the parking garages…use that money and space to take the light rail further south.

  • wakeflood September 1, 2017 (1:47 pm)

    1. What is captured here are the thoughts of the attendees – your neighbors and mine who actually bothered to provide their input.  Everyone who has posted here had the same opportunity and could have provided their thoughts both at and after the meeting in the options available.  

    2. For those who don’t get why a short tunnel from Delridge up under the Junction makes tons of sense, it eliminates lots of the major issues that are created by trying to traverse a ton of elevation in a short distance, eliminates the need essentially eliminate a full block of current structures in the junction that the station would replace (see Angle Lake for size comparison), and you don’t have expensive property acquisition, and a fraction of the construction headaches on the roads and businesses in WS.  Is it more expensive?  Sure.  But when you factor in all the other issues with elevated rail, it starts to look like a bargain.  Not to mention they chose to use underground in Capital Hill and UW- northward.  Why?  Because of the reasons mentioned above and it just makes more sense.  Long term rational thinking won out over short term considerations.

    3. Nobody likes to pay taxes.  And nobody likes ones that seem unfair.  I agree that the calculation of tab fees is unrealistic.  But I also understand that the $ has to come from somewhere.  And costing folks like me a few tanks of gas every year so we can have another option to get around this region is absolutely worth it.  Remember, we’re trying to make up for lost decades of sitting on our thumbs.  Autonomous cars aren’t a game changer, they’re an incremental improvement, assuming insurance companies allow them to exist. 

    I’m asking politely and sincerely that all of us in WS focus on making the plan the most functional for the most folks as we can.  Nobody gets everything they want but we have a VERY REAL opportunity to get what we need.  And that’s a high-quality transit system that makes a huge difference in our community.  It’s a transportation system, so consider the tradeoffs in your feedback.  Who benefits, who gets a worse outcome?  Does that make sense?    

    Let’s provide thoughtful and realistic feedback to ST.  If we do, we stand a much better chance of getting what works.  Once we get consensus on what that looks like, THEN we can stand our ground and fight to ensure we get the best outcome.

    Your neighbor in traffic…

  • wakeflood September 1, 2017 (2:15 pm)

    Lackthereof, I’ve noticed some talking out of both sides of your mouth on your posts.  You state that Delridge is too narrow and would require knocking down houses and yet clearly, the surface streets in and around the Alaska Junction and leading to it are no wider.  And in other comments, you suggest that the area is more suitable for elevated because of limited elevation change?  Hogwash.   Additionally, elevated would require a ton of expensive property acquisitions in WS as we have grown considerably in our built environment this last decade. Given your propensity to intermix data with opinion that promotes what appears to support an elevated solution in WS, I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re involved with/supporter of Seattle Subway?  As that is their consistent position on WS versus the “more for Ballard” ideas they float as a matter of course.   I’ll retract if I’m wrong.  But I highly doubt it. 

    • Captin September 1, 2017 (5:58 pm)

      And people wonder why the mayor doesn’t want to deal with all of the little neighborhood entities. Can you say “gridlock” or “zero progress”? There’s no way to get all of these people to agree. At some point we need to move. Be pragmatic, look for the most reasonable solution and do it. 

  • DK September 2, 2017 (9:12 am)

    Here’s some thoughts as a West Seattelite and someone who drives some of your WS buses (and doesn’t have a car)

    Park and rides at each station is absolutely ridiculous. When the line is operational, the C will be nearly obsolete between downtown and the junction. It will still run I’m sure, but many of the resources can be directed to other new bus service to get people to/from the stations in WS. We should discourage driving in WS as much as possible. 

     As for parking in general…i would love to see the lot between 42nd and California behind the businesses be turned into a 2 or 3 story garage. Perhaps even build apartments on top, who knows – but it needs to be public parking mostly. The age of surface lots is gone. We are running out of room and land is becoming a premium. 

    As for the C currently stuck in traffic: I’d like to see a bus signal onto the 99 ramp where buses could merge over the traffic on the spokane onramp from below and traffic there would have to stop as well as the 99 ramp. That little stretch between where the 99 ramp splits and the spokane street traffic comes up (some merges to the 99 ramp) costs the most time as well as people not letting buses through when you merge onto 99. A prime example is Southbound 46th St on aurora for the E line. There’s a flashing yellow that turns to red for traffic when a bus pulls up. The bus lane should be extended past Atlantic street onramp as well, because another minute or two can be lost there. With those kind if improvements, the C could cut 5-6 mins in heavy traffic.  

Sorry, comment time is over.