Sound Transit board committee goes for West Seattle light rail ‘preferred alternative’ – tentatively

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Though the motion approved by a Sound Transit Board committee today recommends the West Seattle light-rail “project to be built,” committee members needed to be amply reassured that their vote was not a commitment that it will be built.

They got that reassurance from Terri Mestas, ST’s deputy CEO of megaproject delivery. She told System Expansion Committee members the board would have other milestone votes before a commitment to construction, while stressing that moving the project further along the design path was the only way to resolve some of the concerns.

Committee chair King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci of Bellevue observed that there are “some big questions besides cost.” But it’s the potential $7 billion price tag, which emerged with the Final Environmental Impact Statement last month, that hung in the air throughout the discussion.

Before getting to the actual resolution spelling out the station locations and routing they’re recommending, committee members heard about the “workplan” mandated by the board in a motion sponsored by King County Executive Dow Constantine of West Seattle. (He’s not on the System Expansion Committee, so wasn’t at today’s meeting.)

That’s the first time the other milestone decisions came up; outlining what would be in this “workplan,” ST staff noted that there would be funding decisions related to design and construction, “a series of iterative decisions.” Here’s the slide deck from the workplan presentation, including this key page laying out many steps along the way:

Balducci noted that all those points seemed to comprise more of a primer of how to do a project, than anything specific to West Seattle and its potential price. Mestas explained that it’s the “framework” of the plan, and they would have more details in the first quarter of next year.

Before the workplan discussion ended, committee member Cassie Franklin, mayor of Everett, had a very pointed question: What’s the “operational importance” of the West Seattle extension – what would it mean to the system if the extension simply wasn’t built? She was told that might be clearer after the presentation about the recommended routing/station locations, and soon afterward, the meeting segued into that.

ST high-capacity-transit development manager Jason Hampton led that briefing. Here’s the slide deck; these are the two key pages, first the recommendation and what they see as its selling points:

Then, why they say the West Seattle extension matters:

A side benefit of the West Seattle project, he said, would be up to 1,225 units of transit-oriented development near the station areas. Meantime, Hampton said that ridership wouldn’t vary much between alternatives – all were projected at 24,000 to 27,000 daily boardings. If the Avalon station were dropped, they envision ridership would only drop by about 100 a day.

In Q&A, the committee members did not delve into any of the options beyond the preferred alternative. They were focused on the process and the cost. Franklin re-asked her question about “what if we didn’t build this?” and Mestas said she would have to research the answer. Franklin also voiced concern that they were committing to something that could adversely affect the rest of what’s on the drawing board for the system. Balducci wanted more specifics on the “levers” the board could pull along the way so that didn’t happen, ensuring they would “retain control.” Mestas said that the 1st quarter and late summer/fall of 2025 would likely bring a few – opportunities for savings, perhaps “scope refinements.”

Franklin then asked how much money they were voting to spend with the “project to be built” decision. There’s no money attached to this, Mestas replied. Shortly thereafter, interim CEO Goran Sparrman broke into the discussion to explain that the overarching desire right now was to stay on schedule, because “time is money.”

After veering briefly into a related topic involving agreements for dealing with the project’s impacts on cultural/historical/tribal resources, the committee engaged in a bit more discussion before the vote. Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss, one of two Seattle reps on this committee along with Mayor Bruce Harrell, said he had a lot of questions about the SODO leg of the extension (which was a major topic in the public-comment period at the start of the moment, which we’ll get to in a moment). Balducci summarized that in order to “understand” the project’s issues, they needed to advance to the next stage. And so, without any proposed changes to the “preferred alternative” routing and station locations, the committee voted to recommend board approval.

The full board is scheduled to vote at its next meeting in two weeks (Thursday, October 24).

PUBLIC COMMENT: The meeting started, as usual, with a summary of written public comments that had been received, followed by in-person and remote commenters. (Some addressed the SODO station; we’re just focusing on the West Seattle legs.) Written comments included support for the “no-build option” as well as support for building light rail but dropping the Avalon station. 17 people signed up to comment “live”; they also included “no-build” supporters as well as people calling for dropping the Avalon station. Among them was Transitional Resources executive director Darcell Slovek-Walker, who thanked ST for the Delridge route revision that spared her nonprofit’s Avalon/Yancy-area supportive housing, but said that the no-Avalon-station version would assist their operations – with the frequent need for emergency services – via less traffic disruption and fewer displacements. Others have spoken to the board before, including Kim Schwarzkopf, who declared that she had voted for ST3 but felt “scammed” by how it’s turning out, and suggested it would make more sense to accelerate Ballard (currently with a 2039 launch date, seven years behind West Seattle). The most ardent project supporter to comment today was also someone who’s previously spoken to the board, Transportation Choices executive director Kirk Hovenkotter, who declared, “This project is worth investing in.” He also said 900 transit riders had written letters in support of the project on short notice (as solicited here).

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY … at or before the October 24 board meeting, here’s how.

46 Replies to "Sound Transit board committee goes for West Seattle light rail 'preferred alternative' - tentatively"

  • ST had no problem taking our taxes October 11, 2024 (2:10 am)

    To fund the other extensions. Now when it’s our turn we’re put on hold. Let us remind the entire city that our neighborhood was displaced for 2 years when the West Seattle Bridge was out DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC. 

    • When voters said a tunnel option would be the best option for West Seattle people said we were shooting for the stars but Ballard was justified in getting the tunnel option. 

    Give us the tunnel option. It is environmentally better and displaced less businesses. 

  • John Niles October 11, 2024 (3:19 am)

    To help Sound Transit gain a better perspective on what’s happening from their years of work, the Smarter Transit advocates for more sensible transit investment commented on October 10th to the Sound Transit Board about the West Seattle light rail project. We did this by forwarding a new blog posting from a senior, independent transportation planning professional, West Seattle resident Charles Prestrud, formerly with Community Transit and Washington State DOT, who points out: “Sound Transit is approaching the [West Seattle light rail] problem as though it is just about the agency budget, but that narrow view ignores the bigger question raised by the FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement], which is that despite the extravagant cost the project accomplishes very little.

    The fine print of the FEIS reveals total transit ridership in the region under the No-Build alternative would produce 99.7% of the ridership of the light rail alternative. In other words, the light rail extension would produce less than a one percent increase in total transit ridership for an investment of over $6 billion. That is an exceedingly poor return on such a massive investment.”As a more productive alternate investment in mobility, Smarter Transit quoted this from the same independent analysis:  “…expanded bus service …would cost only a small fraction of what Sound Transit proposes to spend on the light rail extension, and the service could be added much sooner without having to condemn property, bulldoze homes, and cut down trees, all of which would happen if the preferred light rail project goes forward.”Deciding to choose the “No Build” project alternative and instead using existing authority to spend a small part of the light rail money on better transit options comes across as the only sensible response to the hundreds of pages in the FEIS that by law must inform the Board’s decision on what to do next.If you find the massive FEIS overwhelming, read the summary posted by Rethink the Link to learn about the trainload of problems that come with building a passenger railroad into the heart of West Seattle, one that’s “light” in name only.  You can also consider joining the several hundred citizens signing a Change.org petition to the State Legislature with some action items to rein in the Sound Transit excess that the West Seattle project exemplifies.

    • Eric October 11, 2024 (7:36 am)

      Sure makes sense to me but that doesn’t always factor in. 

    • Jason October 11, 2024 (8:37 am)

      This is an anti-transit org. I will not be listening to them or their push for “more busses” it’s train or bust. Need a system in West Seattle that does not rely on sharing transit pathways with cars. Nor rely on bus drivers, which will have an immense shortage forever now.

    • Look Both Ways October 11, 2024 (10:25 am)

      Thanks for pushing toward more sensible alternatives and accountability. This forever tax boondoggle needs serious revision.

    • Sam October 11, 2024 (10:45 am)

      This comment is breathtakingly disingenuous and misleading. Those numbers, alarming as they sound, do not come from any kind of official study. They come from a fabricated, unscientific report made by the same anti-transit advocates who proposed the gondola. They call that blog post their FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement] to muddy the waters. You may as well have linked to an anonymous twitter post as a source of truth.

      • Jason October 11, 2024 (12:23 pm)

        Sam is correct. Just more Gondola Rebranding. Why are these “Rethink The Link” people taken seriously by any person?

    • Jon Wright October 11, 2024 (1:13 pm)

      I always love the branding. Smarter than what? I guess they think they’re supposedly smarter than the rest of us who emphatically voted yes?

    • Devin October 12, 2024 (5:51 am)

      This organization is just a anti-transit lobbying group. The light rail is an excellent system and the easiest way to get around the city by far.

  • Al King October 11, 2024 (6:41 am)

    The (expensive) reality is that the “light rail is the holy grail that fixes everything” crowd has handed over blank checks and are humming loudly. Facts; data; financial realities will not sway their desire to spend money to build at any cost.

    • Jason October 11, 2024 (12:20 pm)

      This same outrage does not happen when highway projects get the same blank checks… just wait until that West Seattle Bridge cracks again… 

      • bradley October 11, 2024 (4:27 pm)

        I would bet buildingh a 2nd bridge and viaduct would be cheaper than $7 billion, with enought to fix or rebuild the existing bridge.  And a north bound ramp to 99 from the viaduct westbound.  And add the 4th avenue onramp to westbound viaduct.  

        • Bbron October 11, 2024 (6:27 pm)

          why would a 2nd bridge be cheaper? the primary cost drivers for the WSLE are needing to buy the property in the right-of-way and materials; neither of which would be significantly different between light rail or cars (though light rail infrastructure would be smaller and could be cheaper).

  • Seth October 11, 2024 (6:57 am)

    Hope they build this soon. Car traffic is just getting worse and worse everyday especially with RTO coming 5 days a week now and who knows how long the bridge has left we need an alternative way to be able to get downtown quickly and efficiently and buses just aren’t that

  • Morgan October 11, 2024 (6:58 am)

    So after it opens in 2034…and $7 billion is spent…what’s the break even year in this 21st century for number of riders compared to dollars spent?I want to see a revised cost benefit study, and less dogmatic defenses about how this has come and what would have should have happened with transit fifty years ago in the 1970s. $7 billion to this neighborhood and construction hasn’t even begun, and there are bridges and schools to replace and housing to build…

    • K October 11, 2024 (10:28 am)

      I-5 was built decades ago and is nowhere close to breaking even on costs.  In fact, we keep throwing more money at it.  Car infrastructure is never expected to pay for itself, why does mass transit need to?

      • Morgan October 11, 2024 (3:37 pm)

        I don’t expect it to pay for itself, but I expect a train to serve as much mass transit value as compared to other transit alternatives. .if we need to subsidize mass transit, and I agree we should like roads, it’s not wrong to also demand we measure value for money.We do not have unlimited resources.

        • Bbron October 11, 2024 (6:30 pm)

          cost to move people is significantly less with transit; less pollution and less cars damaging infrastructure are all cost savings that don’t have a dollar value but would be realized in a future with light rail.

          • Morgan October 12, 2024 (7:03 am)

            And buses wouldn’t? Would it be $7billion less pollution than investing in solar panels or weathering houses, or paying for denser housing near existing transit?

          • Bbron October 12, 2024 (12:20 pm)

            @Morgan rubber pollution is one major pollution among a few that would still be a problem with buses that a light rail would avoid. particularly important for the salmon carrying waterways. the scale buses would need to be implemented at to replace future light rail capacity will destroy the salmon habitat.

  • Shawn October 11, 2024 (7:05 am)

    This is infuriating. Not building the train is entirely unacceptable. Not building all the stations promised is entirely unacceptable. We voted for this. We’ve already been paying taxes for years to pay for it. It’s only over budget because they waited so long. Just build the thing already, west Seattle needed that train 30 years ago, it’s a travesty it’s taken this long.  Anyone who thinks it’s possible to build a train station anywhere at all and only have 100 people a day doesn’t understand induced demand or transit oriented development and should probably not be working at a transit agency. If they bait and switch us with our train I’m going to be incensed.

    • WSB October 11, 2024 (9:16 pm)

      To clarify, their statement that dropping the Avalon station would only reduce boardings on the West Seattle Link Extension by 100 people a day was NOT a statement that only 100 people a day would use that station – it’s grounded in a supposition that all but 100 of the prospective Avalon station users would just go to one of the other stations to ride if Avalon wasn’t built. – TR

  • Gaslit October 11, 2024 (7:29 am)

    Quagmire or boondoggle? Can’t decide. 

    • Jason October 11, 2024 (9:59 am)

      Are you talking about Electric cars that require many homes to update their electric boxes and expensive insurance and long term loans? Or you talking about gas cars that require $300-400 in gas for longer commutes to areas that have or could have lightrail stops?

      • Look Both Ways October 11, 2024 (3:35 pm)

        The train will also incur electricity and energy costs, so that’s not eliminated. And what type of commute requires $300-400 in gas? One could drive to Ohio for that. Gaslit is correct. $250,000 development costs per rider (as of today) goes in the boondoggle camp.

        • Hunk October 11, 2024 (11:23 pm)

          Coat per rider over what period? Light rail infrastructure will remain in use for decades, and usage will continue to rise as density increases, traffic worsen and parking worsen, and the rail network continues to expand.

  • OneTimeCharley October 11, 2024 (8:11 am)

    I would like to ask Cassie Franklin what benefit there is for extending the line to Everett at all. They have Sounder train service already so the light rail is a huge amount of money for duplicate service. See how this works Ms. Franklin????

    • BlairJ October 11, 2024 (4:40 pm)

      Sounder trains have to share the tracks with freight trains, limiting the number of trips that can be made.  And the Sounder stations between Everett and downtown Seattle are next to Puget Sound, with much fewer connections than the Link Stations have in between those two end points.

  • Arbor Heights Resident October 11, 2024 (9:17 am)

    How many more board meetings and public comment periods before they actually get started? Enough Seattle Process, just build it already!

    • WSB October 11, 2024 (11:10 am)

      I suspect that’s a rhetorical question but I forgot to include that they are at 30 percent design, so they have ‘started.” Under the timeline ST has cited for a while now, design would take three more years, and then construction would start in late 2027. But, as noted in the story, there are more votes ahead. This is not unique to the West Seattle process – the baselining decisions, for example, are part of the ST process overall. A very quick Google pulled up this ST deck from six years ago when the board was being asked to do some baselining for for the Lynnwood line that recently opened (just weeks behind the date that was projected in 2018 for its 2024 opening, though I don’t know full history of that project so am just seeing it out of any context)
      https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2018/180524%20Lynnwood%20Link%20Board%20Presentation.pdf

  • Gary October 11, 2024 (10:14 am)

    For the preferred alternative, has ST published a detailed map showing the actual station locations on a street level map?  Same question for the 41st Ave tunnel segment.

    • bill October 11, 2024 (12:02 pm)

      It is all in the Environmental Impact Study.

  • Scarlett October 11, 2024 (10:42 am)

    Light rail’s time has come and gone.  It’s far too late to graft light rail onto most cities, including Seattle, and expect it to be a cost-effective way of moving substantial numbers of people from point A to point B.  It is what we all know it is, a cool urban “bauble” that a limited number of people will use on occassion but that falls far short of being any sort of real public transportation solution.  I am about as pro-transit as anyone  could imagine, taking buses to all corners of King Count, but this is just a piece of insfrastructure pork.   

    • Arbor Heights Resident October 11, 2024 (12:23 pm)

      You seem to have forgotten that Seattle already has a light rail line, one that is expanding rapidly. Far from “come and gone”, its time is here, now, and still to come. 

    • AF12 October 11, 2024 (4:37 pm)

      Well Said!  In addition, I vote for a dedicated new transit route  (i.e., a new and separate bridge) from West Seattle (WS) cross the Duwamish Waterway to SoDo that only includes buses, bicycles, and emergency vehicles.  It will be much cheaper than $7B and a more flexible system for transit connection.  The residual from $7B can go to Ballard or other new and/or existing Sound Transit (ST) links that need it more and will have additional ST riders than 27,000 projected for WS.

      • Bbron October 12, 2024 (12:21 pm)

        a new bridge would cost pretty much the same

    • Bbron October 11, 2024 (6:36 pm)

      The link services millions of trips. Traffic would be a nightmare if those shifted to surface streets. The link is a critical part of our transit infrastructure, and it shows for itself why it deserves expansion. since you brought it up, what is the cost-efficiency a transit mode has to be to be considered a success to you? how many riders until you see the link as a success? if it’s an important point of yours, I’m sure there’s a number, right?

  • Junction neighbor October 11, 2024 (10:46 am)

    More “options” at this point in time are not going to solve the demands of a vibrant growing neighborhood. The “no build” perspective seems to justify doing nothing and endless debate is not a solution. This moment, however painful personally ( our home is within the eminent domain) is an inevitable part of urban planning and growth ( see Vision 20/20)- or do we wish to go back to the good old days of empty businesses along Alaska and California Ave. and crack needles behind the Mason’s Hall? ENough alreadt – get on with it!

    An old friend who lived next to me for decades here on 41st ave. produced this song about riding the Metro 85. I recall the 55 route – things change – enjoy a tune from a time now gone :Woody Carr | Metro 85 Ride

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjeUioqG3-U&list=OLAK5uy_nXHHxEj3bIfUX0C9zkJosN-WYJOtoi6uY&index=4

  • AF12 October 11, 2024 (6:34 pm)

    Well Said Scarlett!  In addition, I vote for a dedicated new
    transit route  (i.e., a new and separate bridge) from West
    Seattle cross the Duwamish Waterway to SoDo that 
    only includes
    buses, bicycles, and emergency vehicles.  It will be much cheaper than $7B
    and a more flexible system for transit connection.  The residual from $7B
    can go to Ballard or other new and/or existing Sound Transit (ST) links that
    need it more and will have greater ST riders than 27,000 projected for WS.

    • K October 12, 2024 (3:23 am)

      Comments like this make me really wonder how many of the anti-light rail folks have ever used public transit.  The disconnect is glaring.  There are already dedicated transit lanes nearly the entire way (save one on ramp) between West Seattle and downtown.  It’s not an adequate solution and doesn’t bypass surface traffic issues, which is why we’re here talking about alternatives to moving people along roadways.  And please PLEASE stop asking for busses and bikes to share infrastructure.  The shared bike and bus lanes that already exist are a travesty.  The bikes slow down the buses and the buses put the bikes in close contact with the biggest, scariest vehicles possible while traveling.  If you ever rode either of these, you would never advocate for that. 

  • JC October 11, 2024 (8:40 pm)

    I bike, bus, and then light rail to and from work each day at UW. Light rail has significantly decreased the commute time to/from downtown, vs the overcrowded buses 71, 72, 73 (remember those? people taking H and C buses during rush hr feel it!) And just because more than half of people drive their cars to work, doesn’t mean that the light rail isn’t a worthwhile investment. Buses alone not a great option! And it only makes sense to have trains go east to west, as well as north to south.Can we figure out ways to get fed, state, other sources of revenue to make it work? Thanks.

    • K October 12, 2024 (3:24 am)

      The feds are already kicking in billions for different light rail extensions.  We are not shouldering the full price tag presented.

  • Morgan October 12, 2024 (7:07 am)

    Question remains. Is 7 billion going to reduce pollution fix traffic and all these other benefits better than investing seven billion in other solutions? Not questioning rail does good things, but show me that it for say, just four billion, we couldn’t invest in alternatives that helped environment or helped house people near existing transit or added buses. For seven billion we could probably build a nuclear power plant that fueled hydrogen cells without carbon and de carbonize local shipping. It’s a lot of money folks!

  • West Seattle Vern October 12, 2024 (10:26 am)

    @wsb Dow’s correct current tittle is Country Executive. He was a council member back in the day. 

    • WSB October 12, 2024 (10:36 am)

      Thanks for catching my unintended demotion. It’s been oh, about 15 years now. We were even there on election night 2009. Fixed.

  • Gale October 14, 2024 (7:45 pm)

    All of you sending your opinions need to read Charles Prestrud’s comments and posting. Hopefully you will see the fallacy of the preferred option  forced upon West Seattle by the board members who did no real consideration of the no build option . They went in to the last discussion of the options with their already decided vote and offered no discussion.  Our way  our way or the highway. They don’t have any power with sound transit  just continued spending on and on solving nothing! 

Sorry, comment time is over.