Fun fact about the escalators, the reason they are broken all the time is because they literally bought ones not meant to be run constantly, but then ran them constantly...
that's part of the problem: we now have 3 tunnels through downtown and a ton of skyscrapers with large footings which makes it challenging to build another tunnel.
If anything the 99 tunnel is a good example of why tunnel boring under downtown Seattle is difficult, expensive, and time consuming. And it highlights the need to either put all trains through the existing transit tunnel, or build a new cut-and-cover tunnel on 4th or 5th.
We were lucky that Big Bertha got stuck somewhere where it could be accessed from above. If it had gotten stuck under pioneer square, or under downtown Seattle, we would have been screwed.
As someone living here, I can confirm that there were actually a ton of issues with that project. There were just far far more issues with keeping the viaduct in its original way. Plus, while not perfect, that project helped reconnect the city with the waterfront
Appreciate your videos as always, especially the Seattle ones! As a Seattle area resident, I'm extremely disappointed by the meekness Sound Transit has exhibited throughout it's existence. Their decisions seem to suggest that their goal isn't to provide world class transit, but to make sure they cause as little disruption as possible. Examples include aligning routes along freeways instead of avenues/boulevards (sacrificing development opportunities and walkability), creating at grade sections with level crossings (sacrificing safety), using light rail instead of metro vehicles (sacrificing capacity), and now this wild proposal to bypass King Street and Pioneer Square (sacrificing connectivity). Connectivity, capacity, safety, walkability, and development opportunities are kind of the biggest reasons for building rail transit in the first place and those are being sacrificed in the name of cost and disrupting the present as little as possible. We're talking 8 added minutes of travel time (average depending on trip route) with the most egregious being 10 minutes for people traveling to/from Bellevue/Redmond (Amazon/Microsoft) and the Airport. From my observations over the last several years, I've seen little understanding or acceptance from Sound Transit of the transition period required to achieve greatness. I understand the concerns about disrupting this neighborhood specifically, but they should study how to reduce disruption in their operations/construction without completely changing the plan. For example, why does it need to take 10 years to build the original station? Unfortunately the last public comment period passed (March 9). The final vote will be held on March 23. I don't think it's exaggerating to say this is one of the most important infrastructure votes in Seattle's recent history given the implications.
I never thought about that, all the expenses outside are happening alongside i-5 restricting access to people living on another side of i-5
Год назад
I think RM Transit, or some other channel, once put it as “avoiding short term disruption, ends up causing long term disruption”. Here the city needs to be reminded of this?
I agree, I would also add: A shortage of urban stops. The University of Washington (UW) got only two stops (it should have three). Between the UW and downtown they only added one station (Capitol Hill). There should be a station at First Hill, as well as one at 23rd & Madison. This is how a traditional metro works. They ignored bus to rail integration for much of the line. SkyTrain is extremely successful in part because the buses and trains complement each other so well. The Canada Line is especially effective. Every major cross street has a station. Sound Transit seems disinterested in that sort of thing. All the while, there is an obsession over distance. This plays a part in all of these decisions. If your goal is to build a traditional metro, then you don't skip First Hill. Maybe you don't go any further. You wait until you cover such an important part of the region. But if your goal is to go out to the hinterlands, then you skip it. My own theory is that the folks who are making these decisions don't know much about transit, but think they do. They are politicians. I don't mean that in a bad way. My mom was a politician. I have great sympathy for politicians. But these politicians all have more important jobs. They run major cities or counties. These are huge organizations for which they will be judged. In contrast, no one will judge the efficacy of the system for decades, and even then, people can always make excuses (e. g. the city didn't grow the way we thought it would). So without knowing much about mass transit systems, they looked at what all Americans are familiar with: freeways. This metro is remarkably similar to the existing set of freeways. If you didn't care about the downside of freeways, and there none in the area, it would look like this. Long distance lines, with huge gaps. Little concern over what is actually next to the stations/on-ramps. The problem is, mass transit is not like a freeway. Worse yet, the freeway runs alongside many of the routes. As a result, very few will actually save time for a typical trip. The region would be much better off with a traditional metro -- one with multiple lines intersection in various places in the urban core -- with feeder buses connecting to the rail system from outside. Or maybe just a smaller system that covers the essentials, while maximizing bus-to-rail integration. The irony is, the nearest neighbor to Seattle (Vancouver BC) has built such a system. It is just sad that we couldn't learn any of the lessons there. It is like Seattle is the Goofus, and Vancouver is the Gallant of transit in the Pacific Northwest.
Having lived in Seattle all my adult life, I've seen the convoluted history of transit planning play out. Basically a bunch of conflicting political interests and historical NIMBYism creating unwieldy solutions that don't satisfy anyone. Using the CID as the transit hub is the logical choice but it will take a lot of arm twisting to make that happen. That said, there is an elephant in the room regarding the CID - the historical racism behind the way the residents have been treated, not just on this project, has made them understandably wary of any major changes to their neighborhood. Case in point: the originally proposed station for the new line was on 5th Ave, a block east of the current light rail stop and Union Station, and would have torn up the heart of the area. (And the smugness of the predominantly white urbanist groups and their "we know better than you do" attitude doesn't help. If you want to learn more about the rejected plan decades ago that Reece refers to, search "forward thrust Seattle"; too long to go into, but the federal money that would have gone to that project was snapped up by Atlanta instead.
I could not agree more, whats key is that Chinatown needs transit - because a lack of connectivity is horrible, but it needs to respect the needs of the area
As a counter-point to the "white urbanist groups" trope - aren't most people involved in politics and government white? Like it feels weird to call out urbanist groups for their whiteness, but elected officials
Because the existing station won't continue serving the ID well once the lines are split. The Rainier Valley and Airport will connect into the new line, without access to the ID unless a 2nd station is built there.
@@chadnewton5721 I mean the best rider experience would be if we run all three lines through the existing tunnel, no need to switch between different tunnels. Upgrading the signaling system would allow all three lines to use the same tunnel with great frequency. No disruption of CID for ten years either.
Thank you for making this video. I'm a Seattleite and while our transit agencies mean well, they are just completely incapable of making good/cohesive/coherent decisions. Seattleites loves ST and King County Metro, but after living in Europe for a few years it has become painfully clear to me that Seattle needs some tough love. The transit agencies MUST get their acts together. The unconnected streetcar lines that have no alignment or signal priority sitting in traffic, the bizarre alignment and system length of Link, the absolutely deranged rolling stock decision that results in EIGHT driver compartments for each full-length Link train... the list goes on and on. You brought up fantastic points in this video regarding the central hub that I've barely even thought about, which just make the current plan relying on ridiculously deep stations even more frustrating. I have been saying for years (I should point out that ST3 was approved in 2016 and they are still plodding along and debating the tunnel) that ST needs to just cut and cover down 4th/5th. The concerns about business and traffic disruption are, frankly, irrelevant. This is a once in a generation investment and no one should care that some banks and office towers would have their street (read: car) access disrupted for at most a few years. Sorry, but you can't please everyone. Someone will inevitably be inconvenienced when infrastructure work is needed, so why not focus on doing it right? Ugh, and the escalators. THE ESCALATORS. Come ON, Sound Transit!
Your rant just convinced me they won't do it right 😢. Seattle city government loves their businesses and suburban commuters just way too much and prioritize making everyone happy instead of making the tough decision that needs to be made. I think it's a city gov culture thing, based on listening in to a couple of city counsel meetings.
Seattlite here. So thankful to have a well-informed voice add well-spoken and thought out direction and advice to such an important topic to locals with such expediency. Your summation is better and more coherent than any ST Board presentation or campaign. I hope this is shared with every board member and Seattlite possible prior to the decision being made.
+1 to Edward’s suggestion, you should share this with the ST Board or try to draw their attention to it. … Just leave out the “British Columbia south” part 😅
There are too many mistakes and inconsiderations in this video. Edward should have taken the time to do more research on the topic. i.e Chinatown residents dont want ST to condemn buildings to incentize developers to destroy historic buildings for profit.
Great video Reese. I am the Design and Construction Director for the FW project with Metrolinx and have been involved on this project since 2015. It is truly exciting to see this come to life and will definitely serve a part of Toronto that has been sorely lacking higher-order transit for a long time. What I can offer in addition to your video is that the local community is very excited about the project, even though we have had some challenges with traffic during construction... Also, the streetscaping will be amazing when we are complete, with elevated cycle tracks as well as enhanced sidewalks and grade-separated multi-use paths at Hwy 400 and CP rail corridor. Come back when we are finished and check it out!
It's good to have Transit Hubs that connects to Trains (Subway/Metro Rail, LRT/Trams/Streetcar, High Speed Rail), and Buses especially since it makes Transit is easier to access. If you play Cities Skylines (especially Cities Skylines 2 coming out soon). It's better to have Transit Hubs to make it easier for citizens in the city being built in Cities Skylines for them to access.
Cities Skylines is one of my favourite games. I’ve bought all the dlc content and I’m definitely getting the second when it comes out hopefully later this year.
As a carless Seattleite I really appreciate your attention and concern for this particular issue. It was always the plan for CID to be the hub and for lots of good reasons. So I’m really baffled by Sound Transit’s recent proposals to not have a connecting station there (and spend more money studying those options!). I feel confident that we will still get the 4th and Jackson station, as it should be, because the neighborhood mostly seems okay with that location (they really just didn’t like the 5th Ave option!) and because the other proposals are just sooooo bad! I’ve sent ST my comments to explain three main reasons why (even though it sort of feels like doing their job for them). 1) As you mentioned, Sounder/Amtrak and the streetcar are all there (not to mention many bus routes); 2) Also mentioned, the backtracking required by 2-line riders coming from Bellevue/Redmond wanting to go South. 3) Not mentioned, it’s the only location on the new tunnel route that would be anywhere near the stadiums, since the new route will bypass the existing Stadium station.
I've read quite a bit about Seattle's transit development, and my intuition says that Harrell and Constantine are absolutely set on the "North and Sound of CID" option. Bruce Harrell claims the new understudied, out-of-left-field option has broad support. He's technically not wrong. But the vast majority of public comments prefer the station on 4th, which includes swaths of people/businesses/community organizations who are direct stakeholders of the CID and showed up to the big public hearing last month. He's papering over an inconvenient truth and, again, it's so obviously understudied. His support can't possibly be made in good faith. Even worse, this bizarre idea conveniently lets him give out some favors: King Country property would be boosted by the "North of CID" station. One of his associates owns land exactly where the "South of CID" station would be built. The $700 million bridge renovation can be punted to a later administration. Board members of Sound Transit from outside of Seattle score easy political points if they go along with this new option which already has support from Harrell and Constantine, creating the illusion of progress to satisfy their constituencies in the short-term.
"Poor soil" is basically a consequence of being a city. That's why they have made tunneling machines that build the walls at the same time as they excavate and move forward.
Yes, true, though even if you were to build the tunnel with Earth pressure balance TBM with all the possible help of grouting or ground freezing, there still can be permanent effect on groundwater flow and pressure - flow blocked or redirected just because of the finished tunnel structure being there. And those changes can lead to buildings leaning or cracking. Dunno what the water table looks like in that area. I don't quite have the context Reece has, all the plans I could google on ST3 website show the Midtown station still in place, as well as Int'l District/Chinatown station. That seems like convenient enough transfer, and can be built out with an underground passage with travelator for accessibility, not sky high expenses...
We have soil conditions in some places that make it impractical or impossible to build stations. It's the reason we have street cars. The street cars link two areas (First Hill and South Lake Union), the former of which isn't suitable for light rail. statiion.
Minnesota got a lot of transit money recently to expand their BRT. I would love a video on what they are doing, I don't think you have many examples of the Midwest (excluding Chicago), a region almost synonymous with sprawl, and it would be great to see what they can do right.
I am also hoping to see more on Minnesota, particular the light rail in the twin cities. It’s seems like another example of a city (cities, in this case) that should’ve built a metro but went with the light rail option instead.
@@williamfay2725 And I don't understand some of the light rail routing decisions ... such as avoiding Uptown and going through parkland for the Green line extension. "We're going to avoid the populated areas and build stations a mile from the neighborhood center."
Год назад
@@lizcademy4809 would this be transit virtue signing? Announce you have a transit system, but one that doesn’t serve its populace.
I'm not sure why you think the downtown tunnel (originally built for buses) skirts around the center of downtown. It runs right through the middle of it. For that matter, while it was built for buses, the stations are huge. It was designed so that it could be used for rail, as well have fare gates (it has proof-of-payment instead). There is really nothing wrong with the existing tunnel, and the stations in it are much better than any of the stations planned for the new tunnel. The only weakness is that the stations don't have a center platform, which means reverse direction transfers require going up and down escalators. There is a mezzanine though, and this isn't the worst thing in the world. It doesn't cover every place downtown, but no single tunnel could.
Speaking of the Downtown Tunnel, I think most of the issues that they are running into now is because of the lack of forward thinking by prematurely selling the site and below grade right of way Sound Transit once owned at the Convention Center station site which would have a been a perfect site to start the extension of the line to Ballard via Seattle Center. This would have enable through running in the existing tunnel that with simple capacity upgrades in signaling would have enable 90 second frequency for all three lines.
This makes me appreciate Philadelphia having 11 "Transit Centers/Hubs" All serve buses 7 of them serve metro or light rail 3 of them serve regional rail (1 has both metro and RR) one close to a regional rail station Then west chester and kop mall are bus only
@@andrewdiamond2697 KOP Rail might be at risk though. (At this point it's just rumors, but its support base is sufficiently narrow--really just the SEPTA Board and Leslie Richards at this point--that a strong wind is all that's needed to knock it out of commission.) The massive outpouring of support for ditching KOP Rail in favor of the Boulevard Subway from all the mayoral candidates in this week's forum and this morning's editorial in the Inquirer aren't helping matters.
Lifelong Seattle resident here. I agree with a lot of your points, but I think you missed some color that could shed a bit more light on this issue. - Seattle has always been multi-hubbed, with the main shopping areas away from the ferries, which are away from the heavy rail trains. This has been true since the 1800s. Even today, many bus routes do not stop in the International District and you already need to backtrack 3-4 blocks to catch your bus route in Pioneer Square. - I think a lot of Seattleites don't consider International District/Chinatown Station and King Street Station to be connected. Yes, this may sound ridiculous, but once again since the 1800s there have been stations of differing names in the same area. "Union Station," which you mentioned in your video, is just an office building but even when it did operate as a terminus in the 19th and 20th centuries it competed with the King Street Station across the street. - If you can't build a station on 5th Ave S without uprooting a marginalized community, then the next best bet is 4th Ave S. The problem is that this is the jugular in and out of Downtown from the south, including for hundreds of buses per hour on the peak commute. A closure of 4th Ave S would have huge implications for Downtown access to the East (I-90) and South (I-5). I happen to believe that short-term pain is better for long-term gain, but many others don't feel the same. Great video as always!
Alongside the need for easy connections, transit hubs are important as location for TOD. They make it easy to take what the rest of a city might see as low quality transit connecting to a higher mode, and make it a high quality transit corridor with access to city wide service. This is something the GTA is (planning) on doing very well right now.
@@RMTransit TBH, a traditional transit hub is exactly the wrong direction for the system. For too long too much of the transit capacity has been subjected to a bottle neck downtown. I personally think that a horseshoe shaped route going from Queen Anne over to Magnolia with a section on the other side of I-5 would make a lot more sense in terms of the shape of the city. There's not a lot of space under downtown without having to go super deep and there needs to be some method of bypassing that area anyways as the 1-line gets extremely crowded before and after sporting events.
Those cross-platform transfers you mentioned could even be (relatively) easy to retrofit with the two tunnels running parallel and so close together. You could basically just build connections at each end of the downtown section and implement directional running through the tunnels (with two lines running parallel for a few stations).
start with a train station, then build the bus and tram connections that's how London has 334 train stations (not including 270 underground stations), each with a bus connection and every large one with an underground connection (with King's Cross - St Pancras being served by 6 separate underground lines and handling international trains as well as tens of mainline platforms)
The metro area I live in Portland does have a central station for its metro light rail. It’s called Pioneer Square. The green, blue, red, yellow, and orange lines stop at it. Also, many bus lines running through the city center stop within a few blocks to create the “Portland Transit Mall.” We don’t have a commuter rail in our city center. There is only 1 commuter rail line and it moves between the various western suburbs so there’s no need for a central station for commuter rail and metro as there’s not even a single commuter rail service that exists in Portland City Center.
Most transit networks in Europe doesn’t have a main hub (With the notable exception of Paris), lines usually form a grid or a "triangle transfer", this is better for high density cities such as in Europe as it allows to have multiple well-connected places instead of a single one. (Usually trams form a grid while metros form a triangle transfer like in Prague, Vienna, Lyon, Milan…)
I mean you have hubs, but they are several, Lisbon has a few Metro/Suburban rail interchanges and those interchanges also tend to have bus terminals (except Entre Campos I think) and a few Metro/Bus interchanges as well (like in Campo Grande, which is also a Metro/Metro line interchange)
@@truedarklander Absolutely, bus and tram terminals are often located at transfer stations to offer better connectivity, but they are not main hubs (like Châtelet-les-Halles in Paris where 8 lines cross each other and millions of users must transfer at this station). Lyon has 4 lines and 4 transfer stations, Prague has 3 lines and 3 transfer stations, not one station where all lines intersect.
The San Diego Trolley has three main transfer hubs--Santa Fe, Old Town, and 12th and Imperial. Not a triangle, but does help disperse passenger loads and minimize backtracking.
I just made my first trip to Seattle, great ciy, but needed to go to Everett. There are two trains in the morning from Everett to Seattle and two in the afternoon back to Everett. There are no trains on the weekends or at any other time. It is hard to understand why Sound Transit thinks nobody in Everett would ever want to go to Seattle in the evening or on the weekend.
Agree. Don't forget they want to setup Everett as the second airport for the region but come with no public transit to downtown Seattle. And they have only one car rental which discourage tourist to use the airport. It also means the locals have to drive long down to SeaTac to catch their flights
And the planned extension of the Link to Everett isn't even supposed to open until 2037. So even if they do continue on the same path, we'll all be really old by the time it gets finished. I didn't even consider the travel time for the Link that far north. Yikes.
The limit of 2 trains south in the am and 2 trains north in the pm and only on weekdays on Sounder North is due in large part to an old (2003?) contract between Sound Transit and BNSF that they wouldn't run more than that for 100 years. So, apart from putting some ever so diplomatic pressure on Sound Transit to revise that contract, given the glaring lack of respect for mobility equity and reducing VMT and GHG, don't expect more.
Maybe Sound Transit thinks because there isn't enough demand on the weekends. Did you think of that? There are buses by the way that go to Everett. You really think it makes sense to send a heavy train 30 miles for 40 people?
I still can't quite get over the fact that a city of 4 million chose to string three trams together to form a "light rail metro" system. It's big enough to warrant a big boy heavy rail metro, if not a full-on mainline suburban rail service. Everett to Tacoma alone could justify something like the Elizabeth line.
Most of the Link trains now are 4-car. To be fair, Link is probably the most metro-like light rail in the US. But I agree that Seattle should have started building a true metro back when it had the chance.
Seattlelites voted down mass transit in the past when it would’ve been more feasible. They thought the region would never boom like it did (until Covid at least)
Maybe but Seattle is only 750k people. The 4.5 million are spread across an area of more than 1,200 miles^2. Along with that. The population of the metro area was less than half this number 25 years ago. The flexibility that light rail gave to cut construction costs in areas was also the difference between it getting built and not
It sounds silly but good design of mass transit is a literally and figuratively a foreign concept to American DOTs. They didn't really care about what world-class transit looks like in other countries (probably still don't) and prefer to learn lessons the hard way.
You mentioned the Amtrak Cascades service when describing King St Station, but you forgot to mention the other two Amtrak services that use the station (Empire Builder & Coast Starlight). The last time I used the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, there were buses & light rail using it at the same time. I thought that was pretty cool. I didn’t know until your video that buses stopped using it. Great video as always Reece. Watched on Nebula, but came here to comment.
@@EricaGamet I’m a fool. I guess it would have been the second to last time then haha. Last time (in 2020), I went through there transferring from the light rail to the Amtrak Cascades to go back to BC, but I must not have been paying attention to the lack of buses lol. The previous time I was through there I transferred from light rail to an articulated bus that went straight onto I-90 & out to Bellevue quite quickly. I was really impressed with the setup they had! I liked the efficiency of the entire place.
@@Berubium I liked that the tunnel seemed much busier and lively with the buses running through. I don't think I ever took a bus from/into the tunnel... but I live right in Capitol Hill, and I think the buses tended to be the ones that went out to Bellvue and such. The other day I had a bunch of errands to run and was able to do it all with a bus ride to the Amazon campus, streetcar to downtown to my eye doctor, down to the light rail to get back to Capitol Hill, and a bus the last 8 blocks because I was wiped out (I walk with a cane, as of late)... all on my $2.75 or whatever the fare was (that is good for 2 hours).
@@EricaGamet yeah that is pretty good to be able to do that all on one fare. I live about 4.5 hours north of you in BC so I don’t get on Seattle Transit that much. That said, it’s usually exceeded the (admittedly low) expectations that I have for transit in American cities.
@@EricaGamet Actually, it was in 2019. I know this, because it was around the same time Community Transit opened the Swift Green Line here in Snohomish County.
I used to live in Boston where the Green Line Central Subway is badly congested between Copley Square and Park Street Stations. Back at the end of the Great Depression Boston wanted to connect a new Huntington Avenue Subway at Boylston Street at the south end of the four track section of the Subway tunnel. This was a WPA project and the Feds were too stingy so the new Subway was connected at Copley Square instead. The result was bad underground light rail/tram congestion ever since. Sound Transit does not need to make that mistake!
No it wouldn't. A simple glance at a map of the area he's talking about shows that a: he's lying, and b: a massive arterial through a bottlenecked part of the city sits DIRECTLY between the two stations he claims are co-located. I'd rather watch a series where planners of small cities chew this guy's ass until he learns to read maps and goes to school for city planning.
@@MaggieKeizai that arterial makes transfers between Intl-Dis/Chinatown and king street needlessly dangerous, simultaneously clogging traffic as a flood of people cross the street in either direction(sometimes both which makes things worse) the placing of the stations relative to each other is very odd so any amount of remedy for such transfers would be nice I'd be so bold as to suggest cutting off that section of 4th avenue to cars
@@shealupkes Cutting off that section of 4th to cars just isn't realistic. None of this guy's idea is realistic. Yes, transfers are a pain, and maybe you could put a pedestrian tunnel underneath all of it, but blocking off the main arterial on the south end of downtown with no place for that traffic to reroute to isn't just unrealistic, it's a stupid suggestion. Again, there is a ton of space a few blocks south that could accommodate a central rail hub with multiple levels, no need for disruption of the chief way in and out on the south end of downtown, and serve as a much more convenient station to the stadia down there, reducing a lot of congestion elsewhere.
As a Seattle resident who depends on the light rail to get to and from work, I want it to get better and expand. Especially as King County becomes too expensive to live and I really don't want to own a car. Having light rail expand out to Everett will help with making easier decision where I eventually choose to settle down and buy a home in the next 5 years. Right now I am in the Udistrict, that East Link that they are building is not gonna make much sense for me if I want to visit Bellevue or Redmond from the Udistrict. Taking the 271 Metro over 520 bridge or 540 ST gets me there in 15 to 30 minutes. Light rail would likely increase that to well over an hour.
Incredible that some cities in Latin America have better transit planning than US cities. Panama City might not be the best example but they are currently building the line 3 of the metro that will connect direclty to line 1 in Albrook station wihout needing to get out and get in of the station. Even with the differences in rolling stock between line 1 and line 3, you just simply swap trains walking a few steps through a corridor. If you need to take a bus, you take a 5-minutes walk through a pedestrian bridge to Albrook Terminal and from there you can take a bus or a taxi everywhere you need.
My city has the central bus station right along the main tracks going through downtown. However, the Amtrak station is a few miles away. Even worse, the local commuter line stops at the airport on the outskirts. Both trains used to run into the heart of downtown, but bringing it back would require additional track lines and a new station and few seem to have the vision, let alone the courage to pursue such an ambitious plan.
Great video, as a Seattlite I'm certainly worried about the Pioneer Square station, it would be a disaster. But why do we even build a 2nd tunnel? We're not really adding much coverage as the Midtown station is pretty close to the University St station, not worth a transit if the new tunnel would provide 10min headways. Why not interline all three lines, then transfers can happen anywhere downtown providing much better rider experience, the line to Ballard could just be separate and connect at Westlake, could potentially get extended with a tunnel serving First Hill. Posts at the Urbanist and Seattle Transit Blog have suggested this as it provide much better rider experience.
Initially the SDSU San Diego Trolley stop was planned to be at the back of campus along a freeway to save costs. Then the university successfully lobbied for an underground station at the main entrance of campus where the bus interchange and student housing is. The extra tunneling turned out to be cheaper than acquiring land for a freeway adjacent station.
I recently moved to Seattle and the transit decisions always baffle me. Beyond the light rail here, the bike lanes and greenways out of the city center tend to be random residential roads that don’t connect. This annoys local residents who wonder why they’re suddenly near a road with no through traffic, and people who bike as they don’t have a connected route to actually go anywhere.
Light rail is light rail regardless of the various North American induced terms and names. Light rail is very versatile if its planned probably. Melbourne's light rail (tram) shows that light rail can operate from departure location through a city centre to the terminal destination which includes limited stops to multi stops to limited stops like the Box Hill to St Kilda Beach light rail (tram) route.
This is making me think of the original plans for Charles Center in Baltimore. It was supposed to be the hub for three subway lines in Baltimore but now just ends up as a massive and awkward liminal space since the city basically said "this is way too expensive," cut the NW/E subway line in half, turned the N/S line into a really shitty light rail, and completely scrapped the W/NE line. The MTA (not to be confused with NYC's MTA) did propose a light rail extension recently (though the comment period is over) which would connect the places the N/S line was supposed to connect which is a testament to bad decisions in the moment leads to higher costs later. I hope Seattle can avoid the poor planning that befell Baltimore.
The way I see it... Seattle & WSDOT could have very easily just built more freeways instead of the Link, but they didn't. We could drag on this back & forth of 'why didn't you go with light metro?' or 'high floor trains bring more capacity' yada-yada but, in the end, Sound Transit managed to build and CONTINUE to build upon their public transit unlike many US cities that have failed to do so this past decade.
Very true. This is why I’ve generally found it quite counterproductive when urbanists are complaining about cities like Seattle, LA or San Francisco for not being car-free cities even though they are doing a ton of work to be car-free (considerably more than cities in Europe where some, like Prague have even gone backwards)
Just got done with my first trip to Seattle (traveled via the Cascades Route from Portland). Cannot stress how confusing it was trying to get anywhere from King Street - a clear connection to the Chinatown station would have been such an improvement. Plus the amount of different transit agencies occupying similar modes and spaces killed us.
Likewise on taking Amtrak from Portland and finding it very confusing, and I'm originally from the Seattle area. Should have been more signage to utilize the light rail.
Interconnections should be a major goal of any transit line, and when two lines or two proposed stations are physically close, connecting them should be a no-brainer. More often than not, we have to change to another train, tram or bus to get to where we're going. The transit planners should make this easy.
I think the other big thing is how Seattle, King County Metro, and Sound Transit have not coordinated to make sure they are placing infrastructure equitably. The central gripe of CID is that they get all the infrastructure placement for things like homeless services, which was plopped down by Seattle during the last five years, and then have to get torn up for full-region transpo. Seattle set Sound Transit up for failure even for than ST undercuts itself on this one, by not being at all interested in making places in the city pull their weight on the way we've collectively advocated for impossibly high housing prices. Instead, CID takes every hit because it's older, has language access issues, and has been relatively depopulated by round after round of "investment" that it's not getting full value from. A transit hub should be a blessing for a neighborhood, but decades of shortsighted decisions to make CID a sacrifice zone have ensured that it would be skeptical, and now we may pay a permanent price for it.
Seattle already has two central stations. King Street Station and Westlake. King Street Station has Amtrak’s Cascades line, Sounder North and South lines, and Link light rail service. It also has the Capitol Hill Streetcar. It will also have the new second Link light rail line connecting to the eastern suburbs.
I think you are misguided when it comes to the Midtown Station as well. It is not dramatically different than Pioneer Square or University Street stations. It is a very short walk from both, roughly midway between them. It is simply too close to the existing stations. Even if you had world class transfers, no one would bother to transfer to get to that station -- they would simply use one of the other two. The new downtown tunnel (between Westlake and Chinatown) is not being built so that we can serve a different part of downtown. It is being built because they worry that putting all the trains in the same tunnel would someday lead to train bunching. This is the crux of this particular problem, and it is why even the best station plans with the new tunnel will be worse for riders. The best approach is to just reuse the existing tunnels. There are plenty of systems all over the world that handle more train traffic. Furthermore, even the handful that are crowded (e. g. Boston Green Line) don't prioritize the issue. They build other things instead. Toronto, meanwhile, did not *just* build a relief line; they build a new line that will add a huge amount of coverage *and* relieve the crowding. The new downtown tunnel is just one of many misguided projects that Sound Transit is embarking on. It is laudable that they are spending so much money on transit (way more than any U. S. city per capita by a wide margin) but unfortunately, they will get very little out of it.
You know, we use the phrase rapid transit to describe a variety of modern systems, yet we see (in video and real life) trains lazily drifting in and out of stations and around not so sharp curves following grossly padded schedules. We see trains sitting motionless as the high priests of safety ponder when to operate door controls. Transit may be rapid when compared to streets gridlocked at peak times, but it seems to be a deceptive term. Too few systems have the punch of a BART train, or the people mover at ATL, or the Montreal Metro (praise be). Am I wrong or is the way Seattle LRT operates a good example of an UNrapid transit system? This would be a fun topic to explore in depth in a future video. Because SPEED, MATTERS!
I suspect there's a reason most people talking about such things seem to generally drop the word 'rapid'. Of course, Linguistics would tell us that the main reason is that the lack of a concept of non-rapid transit made the 'rapid' lable redundant, but equally, the transit just not actually being all that rapid would do it too.
The last time I went to Seattle, I pretty much walked everywhere because the light rail doesn't serve anywhere you might actually want to go from King Street Station. Try this, Take Amtrak into Seattle, and then try and figure out how to get on the Link light rail. Know where it is? Not right outside, no the Taxi drop off area is right outside. It's actually a 6 minute walk, go outside, up the stairs, cross 4th avenue and then go back down stairs into the Link station. Then wait 9 minutes for the light rail train. This is the same problem Vancouver has with Pacific Central Station (Amtrak), exit the station, walk past the taxi stands, and walk 4 minutes through the park to the east Skytrain station of Main-Street Science World. Admittedly, you can actually see where the station entrance is now. Before the station was renovated, the end of the station was right at the intersection at Main and Terminal. Then there is both Waterfront and Granville station's where if you want to change lines you have to get off the train, go back up to street level, and then go back down into another station (with Granville requiring you to go back outside.) Like it's not the worst situation to be in, but the problem with all three stations mentioned is that they basically tell you "take a taxi", omit wayfinding to find the other station entrance, even if you see it. When what really should have happened is building the station platforms next to each other so that you just switch lines without having to "tap out" and "tap in" or exit and enter another building. As soon as you send someone back out to the street, they are taking a taxi if a bus isn't waiting in front.
Transit layout in the US doesn't make any sense and are completely inconvenient. Decision makers have never used transit in their lives and doesn't care that is actually useful or convenient.
The problem is the ones who are in the specific department to manage these decisions. No matter what, they are doing it in "our best interests" nonsense
To be a little fair to them... the fact that it's not useful or convenient, or not even There, is a significant contributing factor to their not having used it. (not that not having used it is the biggest factor behind the decision making most of the time). Unfortunate feedback loop. Doesn't make their decisions any less bad, of course.
You're wrong about a couple of things. There is no "King Street Union Station". These are two separate stations that are a block apart, and Union Station has not been a railway station since around the start of Amtrak in 1971. Furthermore, King Street Station and the Chinatown Link station are not one and the same; they are, in fact, nearly two blocks apart and require crossing over the tracks and then going past Union Station to get to the Link station. I was also under the impression that the Ballard-West Seattle light rail line was going to use the same tunnel as the existing Central line, not a new tunnel, but as I live quite a distance from Seattle, you may be right about that one. But after building the WA-99 tunnel, I don't really think the city wants to build another new tunnel.
That actually looks like a brilliant idea at 3:20 -- a smooth concrete surface with tracks embedded to allow both busses and trains to serve the same platforms to allow super easy transfers.
@@valleyofiron125 you just completely forget about Amtrak and sounder. Plus, light real is absolutely not a people mover. I’ve known many Seattle residents who never owned a car, because using public transit is reliable. SoundTransit is also planning a bus rapid transit to connect even more areas.
@@valleyofiron125 The fact that Sounder shares tracks with Amtrak and freight never ever causes any issues due to intense planning. Do you live in Seattle? Because if not, you don’t know enough.
It was honestly so cool to watch the busses and trains go through the same tunnel! It was also neat because a lot of East-west routes went through the tunnel, which allowed passengers to ride the north-south link light rail, disembark at one of the STT stations, stay on the platform, and then board a bus from the same platform as they got off the train at! very neat!
It’s painful how much better a VanBC SkyTrain-type system would’ve served Seattle. I ride Link everyday, it’s ok. It moves with a lot more haste than San Diego or Portland’s LRT as long as the section of track isn’t in disrepair. But it feels so incredibly overbuilt and under-delivered. Massive, incredibly deep stations with escalators that are never working. 10 minute frequency with arrival screens that stopped working five years ago. Services that ends close to midnight. Eight driver cabs per train wasting 20% of the square footage. So close to being fully grade separated, but even in Bellevue they’re managing to fit in one small at grade segment.
Would have made little difference. The current max capacity of Link is 9,600 pphpd (compared to the millennium line’s 7,500 pphpd) and while far from all the capacity is being used right now, once the full build of ST3 is complete, Link will have a capacity of 24,000 pphpd.
I am curious though RMTransit, which doesn't seem to be stated in the video. Is the current plan better than doing none at all? I agree that Seattle could do a lot better and greatly improve upon the plan they currently have. However, with the amount of politics, land rights, and cost that happens with decisions like these to begin with I assume it is still better getting something in place than not having one at all.
I live approximately 20 miles east of the stadiums off of I-90, the plan was to get a line about 5 miles away by 203X. Years ago in an online discussion with transit, it brought up the concept of doing underground boring instead of above ground as I felt long term it would be a better option and would cause less disruption to existing traffic patterns. Additionally you don’t have to deal with long term cost of land acquisition; which allow that land to still generate tax revenue. The other big concern I voiced was attempting to reuse the existing I-90 carpool infrastructure for the trains, especially for crossing the lake; which the level will rise and fall depending on the season. I said a tunnel under the lake, similar to what BART, did in the Bay Area makes more sense. Today we are told the design for how the rails are attached to the old freeway bed failed, and it all has to be removed and redone. Like the voiced concern about the lack of adequate transit stations design in Seattle, the design going into Bellevue is mind boggling, it misses the huge shopping and dining area by 4 blocks, which if the walk was flat would not be bad, this is hugely congested at Christmas time and a good rail design would help eliminate some of this congestion. On the east side we have I-405 north south freeway, with horrendous traffic congestion, let alone if there is an accident, and no real street level avenue to drive around issues. The plan has no design to help mitigate this nor does the design have a good transfer point to allow this to happen without significant additional monies required. The real driving force was Seattle wanting to take cars off the street with a primary plan to supplement north south access off of I-5 and because at the time Microsoft was/is a large employer of Seattle residents, the line was also primarily designed to facilitate getting them to and from work. Just to note I did bring up how London was planning on adding 60 mile of underground rail in less and money, yes they did go over budget and time, but most of that line is up and running, again utilizing existing stations with in London. In 2-3 years the board overseeing all of this will need to tell taxpayers, what the shortfalls will be based on the existing taxing revenue or to complete this an additional amount will need to be authorized. This does not include the monies needed to fix some of the existing poor design issues you mentioned, such as the seemingly always broken escalators.
My suggestion as a Dutchmen: let some Dutch designers do the work: efficiency guarenteed! E.g. two lines following about the same track... JOIN them! Connectivity? Well, look at The Netherlands. look at Rotterdam, like 3 metro lines share the same track in the center, but before and after they are completely separated. (yes, there are 3 more lines). Yes, it is expensive, but will pay back in the years coming. Learn from it, I use the publc transport a lot, and it's easy here. The US can learn from The Netherlands! Tunneling: ask the Dutch (You reffered them for Amsterdam metro) Besides that all: I like your videos a lot! Very infomative!
I'd love to bring just about any foreign team to the US and have them build our transit since we are in general so terrible at it. The only caveat is they would have to be given free rein to do as they wish and not be beholden to whatever stumbling blocks usually bedevil American planning boards.
The plan is completely underground in Uptown+Belltown+Downtown+Chinatown with Chinatown the hub due to its heavy rail service. The above ground service will mirror 15th Ave W. The above ground is largely elevated. The reason the hub has not been OKed yet is some residents of Chinatown oppose expanding that station due to construction impacts having been thru that before.
Slight point to your video: Portland union station (Amtrak) is a half block away from our light rail (Max). A very easy transfer. Used to be that the Grayhound (Intercity bus) was also across the street; however, they stopped servicing the area. The hub could be improved, but its not right to say that its not a hub.
The sad thing is Seattle did arguably have a second transit hub, but we got rid of it in favor of an expansion of the convention center (which couldn't simply be built on top of a bus interchange I guess)
Hi Reece, if you're going to make a video about weird/malfunctioning transit systems, take a look at Naples, Italy. This City deserves video of its own, for several reasons: many diverse lines and systems, rich history and interesting natural setting as well as multiple challenges and mistakes. Naples metro is really weird in shape, it's really deep and advertises itself as the prettiest in Europe/the world (famous art stations), however trains run every 30! Minutes sometimes. Problems with rolling stock make the offical schedule a joke. Besides, the whole artsy image of the metro is overrated af, and stations are poorly maintained, there are no functioning ticket machines etc. (I'm talking about Line 1, or Metropolitana collinare - the hill Subway). Line 2, branded as metro is just a commuter, old railway with couple underground stops. Line 6 is a joke. It opened from nowhere to nowhere, operated for couple of years and closed for over a decade, for renovation and extension. There's also linea Napoli - Aversa, which is a interprovincial, suburban Subway, and has just ONE train operating (it uses old Rome metro trains). There are many plans and extensions underway, there is also weird tram network and multiple suburban systems of their own, like circumvesuviana etc. So please please cover Napoli sometimes! Hugs
As a Seattleite, I appreciate your coverage of this topic so much because the lack of a new station at International District is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. 4th Ave needs to be replaced anyways so why not get two birds with one stone? Hopefully this video garners the attention of the buffoons at ST.
Geography (two large bodies of water hemming in the city on both sides) and the car centered mentality of the 1950's and 1960's that demanded a freeway had to go there.
@@IndustrialParrot2816 not saying I-405 created the cities, as they already existed, but especially Bellevue and Renton grew their downtowns around the interstate. Traffic is similarly bad along both I-5 and I-405 at this point.
The Chinatown/International District station issue is really complicated. The CID is hanging on for its very survival, and a highly disruptive public works project could really do it in. Of course, it is a logical place to put a transfer and create a real hub. I really wish there was a way to put the station on the westside of King Street. It would be a bad light rail transfer, but still provide access to long-distance rail. As for how we got here, look up the "Seattle Process". We could have had a city-wide monorail system by now.
King Street station is about a block away from union station. Union station is owned by sound transit. Pioneer square and Chinatown international district light rail stops attract a lot of bombs and vagrants and people hanging about smoking drinking and carousing. And the Seattle times came out today March 19th 2023, with a article about the Seattle underground tunnel & it's maintenance issues.
These choices are super important and they should think hard about the long term costs of not having cross platform transfers from one line to another. Costs in people's time being wasted, costs in maintenance due to most people driving instead, costs due to neighborhoods not being desirable to live in or work in because the round trip to other areas of the city is that much slower. Vancouver is a great example. 3 metro lines that sort of, kind of, connect but badly enough that they are still building a huge new parkade at the airport and thousands of people still drive into the city rather than navigate the various transfers required. It doesn't help that in every station the direct route is always stairs and the single elevator is always hidden away in a corner somewhere so if you have bags it takes a lot longer to get in and out of each station.
Small correction that might ease your mind: King Street and ID/Chinatown stations aren't connected. Transferring from the light rail to the Amtrak station requires exiting to the surface, crossing one major thoroughfare and one foot bridge over the tracks
Honestly I'm half convinced the reason why they won't use King Street as a central station is that sandwiched in between it and chinatown international district is Union Station, which while it is a historic station for Seattle, also happens to be Sound Transit's headquarters.
So frustrating... Seattle, what are we doing here? I just moved to Tacoma in August and legitimately do not see the Tacoma extension getting completed before 2050. It would help if the Sounders were operated as regional rail rather than literally 9-to-5 commuter-catered service (... seriously? After ridership has TANKED due to COVID, you'd think there'd be at least a push. I do transportation/logistics planning for BNSF here in Tacoma and that would create some challenges for us, but I don't think a Sounder every half hour through the completely double, and sometimes triple-tracked corridor would really be that big of an issue). UGH. Just heartbreaking and frustrating considering also the fact that, as you mentioned, we COULD HAVE HAD a real metro system :( No shade to Salt Lake City, but how do they have a better light rail/regional rail system than we do? Through-running regional trains every hour between Provo, SLC, and Ogden at the "worst," and an impressive light rail network as well. Oh, if only... Either way, on top of what you covered in this, yeah. I've pretty much lost hope on this all. I'm glad Sound Transit is at least being ambitious, but I just can't see it happening in my prime lifetime, lol.
As a Seattle resident, I can assure you that the powers that be will screw this up royally. Very few people here want this settlement to amount to anything more than a sprawling, car-centric suburb. It’s all they know and all they understand. Just sad, really, since this could be an actual city.
I live in the area and lots of points that he states are nonsense. (other area residents I've sent a link to agreed.) But the overall point is valid. Thing is, Seattle traffic policy makers do not want a hub. When the only transit was buses (pre light rail boondoggle) , there were two very useful hubs for N-S and E-W.
9:30 note that Westlake is also where the monorail station to go to Seattle Center (Climate Pledge Arena, Space Needle, etc) is. The Westlake station is already pretty busy for Kraken games.
ST should step back and strongly consider just using the existing tunnel for all 3 lines. ST is only planning to run 6 minute peak headways on all planned lines - a signalling upgrade to the current tunnel would be enough to enable that. This would also maintain future flexibility to build a 2nd tunnel when the political will is there for a decent alignment.
I feel Sound Transit screwed themselves when they sold their site at the old Convention Center Bus Tunnel station in 2018, knowing they were going to plan a line to Ballard. That Convention Center station would have been a good location to start a new portal and begin the Ballard line off of that junction. It was already grade separated all it needed was an entrance to the existing tunnel route. Only once that connection was completed is when they sell that station site off and or build an new platform for trains.
SF has this same problem as well. All of the new HSR services and Caltrain are in to the Salesforce Transit Center, which isn't on BART or Muni. It's absurd.
What’s even more sad is just a couple days ago, the discussion over anything near Chinatown/ID devolved into absolutely nothing. No decision, other than trying to put some random, orphaned stations nowhere near one another on either line. It’s astonishingly bad, so I suspect that’s what they’ll end up doing. And then everyone will complain why it’s so poorly designed. Not unlike how Tukwila completely bypassed their major regional mall and the light rail line completely skirts the city and only touches the edge by the airport.
To me the really sad part is that transit advocates are fighting really hard for something that isn't that good, but still very expensive. If they do put a station in Chinatown/ID, it still won't be as good as the old station, the other stations won't be as good, and it will cost a fortune. They are fighting for something that is a bad value, to avoid something that is worse.
Very interesting video about Seattle's LRT line. I've been very interested in LRT in Seattle since I last visited a few years ago. I'm looking forward to the extension to Federal Way, that's where I stayed on my last visit. In regards to this video it is unfortunate that they will have two lines running through their core and have very little connectivity between those two lines. The whole idea of having good train service is to have good connectivity.
King Street Station can't be a hub for another reason. The structure was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. Limiting modifications to the building above ground.
what i don't get is why seattle doesn't use 3 or 4 section tram train based vehicles, instead of the 2 section ones they run coupled together pretty much exclusively.
I'd love to hear you talk about the public transportation system present in Honolulu/O’ahu! Though slow sometimes the bus system (TheBus) feels rather robust to me, I've never needed a car anyway, and bike networks (Biki) have become really well-established as well. Additionally, we have the rail system currently under construction which is over schedule & budget but I'm excited about it 🌴🚎🚌🌺
The disdain for Atlanta and MARTA is extraordinarily unwarranted here and comes off as extremely pretentious. MARTA is critical infrastructure in Atlanta and the only reason Atlanta isn't seen as a bigger transit hub is because MARTA *has never had state funding*. Seattle is the city that rejected the funds, it has nothing to do with Atlanta. We should be advocating for better transit everywhere, not just in your own city. Also note that the system is well used. MARTA had 21 million riders on rail in 2021, so it's not like people don't use it. Be better
I think this was a pretty great video, but I have a question for you. What would have Atlanta done without the money? It has 2 million more people in its metro area than Seattle does (especially at the time, it was a much more important city before Amazon and Microsoft gave us so many more jobs). I would doubt Atlanta would have a regional transit system of its kind if it didn't have the money. I can say that with relative confidence. My guess is it would have a pretty small light rail system (maybe similar to Houston or Dallas?) and move less than half as many people. MARTA is definitely not a perfect system, but I do still think it needed the money a little bit more than Seattle. Especially with nimby's not really being as much of an issue in Seattle anymore, at least not much recently (case in point, there was a bill about expanding highways and transit that got struck down, but a transit only bill passed!). I feel like we Seattleites want our city to have better transit, even if it already has some good projects underway (Bellevue, Federal Way, and Lynnwood extensions with probably bring like 100,000 more riders each day). And the number of articles from Seattleites about how badly we need shallower 4th, or a reactivated Union Station are pretty big. I doubt ST will make the right decision, but hopefully they do. Thank you for covering this!
Agree. After all, in 1970, Seattle’s population was actually slightly on the decline, and as mentioned, the tech industry was still 25 years away with no real sign of coming
You likely know that Bus Tunnel was built with the WRONG rails and overhead catenary. Everything needed to be ripped out and replaced with the correct infrastructure, which cost time and money, and clogged downtown with busses as they had to close the tunnel during the replacement project..
Not sure where to post this but Austin is about to hold an open house on options for future light rail construction as part of project connect. Due to budget problems the downtown tunnel as well as other parts are likely to be scaled back. I think it would be interesting to see a video with your opinion on the different proposals. Also I believe the proposals have already been leaked before the meeting this weekend
Public transport projects in Seattle are always a mixed bag. Many successes marred by self-inflicted defeats. The Link light rail expansion has been one of the better run projects. Northgate Station has been a massive success - and it's had a real positive impact on those of us that live in the north of the city. But the way the planning got the Ballard line has been going doesn't fill me with confidence at all...
I personally feel Sound Transit screwed themselves when they sold their site at the old Convention Center Bus Tunnel station in 2018, knowing they were going to plan a line to Ballard. That Convention Center station would have been a good location to start a new portal and begin the Ballard line off of that junction. It was already grade separated all it needed was an entrance to the existing tunnel route. Only once that connection was completed is when they sell that station site off and or build an new platform for trains.
This reminds me of Chicago with its downtown commuter rail (METRA) stations that mostly don't connect to the rapid transit (Ogilvie is next to an L station, but the others aren't -- not a huge walk, but bad if you have bad weather).
I'm a bit confused on your video here. I tend to follow along with what ST are doing and everything I've seen have shown that they are going to connect the current int'l dist station to a new, deeper station for the new line. this would also add a deep station in midtown along 5th Ave, and then connect riders deep under Westlake with escalators to transfer. Has something changed? I have yet to see anything come out about skipping int'l district and midtown
As far as I’m aware and what I’ve seen, there is absolutely going to be a station at International District/Chinatown on the new downtown tunnel, where did you get this information from? I understand that Seattle has made some bad transit decisions in the past, but I seriously doubt they would ever be stupid enough to not include a station at one of the main interchanges. Also I’ve taken a quick look at the Sound Transit website and there is no sign of a cancellation of a station at Midtown, nor an interchange at Pioneer Square, so…..what?
I’ve lived in Seattle throughout the entire development of the Light Rail system and it’s been a mess. The primary line stretches across Martin Luther King Jr Way S at the surface level, right down the middle of the road. Many low income homes and local minority-owned businesses were torn down to accommodate the Light Rail. Accidents often happen on the rail line, sometimes even involving collisions with Light Rail cars, resulting in shutting down both directions of the system until the accident is cleared. As a result, the new Light Rail expansions are either above or below road and pedestrian traffic.
What they really need to do is extend the light rail down to Renton and Kent. It would give 200,000+ people light rail access and provide another north south line so that people on the eastside don’t have to go into Seattle to go south
One thing that really blew me away about the light rail was the UW station being by the stadium instead of on 15th or University. Good for students and on game days (how many is that) useless for the thousands of apartments within walking distance of 15th.
A time ago I found piece of opinion named "the center is not a point" talking about how much problems a single hub brings to a large system. It's better to have more normal interchanges than a single specially built one
Wow. Looks like they are taking lessons from Parramatta (in the Sydney region) which is about to get major investment in heavy rail, light rail and metro - at different locations a kilometre apart.
As far as I understand here they're just 100 m apart, and thus I would say the rerouting of tunnel and making it curvy would be quite pointless? I don't know which plan he's talking about, ST3 website shows an Int'l District "transfer" station intact. If that's axed and the closest station is Pioneer Square then that's indeed a bit closer to a kilometre...
@@u1zha the ST3 website is out of date. Notice even in its semi-frozen state there is no description of the 3 transfer stations downtown. Transfers are barely even an implied goal in the lists of goals. The ID Chinatown thing is hugely political, as was the highway tunnel. The usual rap on Seattle is that its history is single homes, even compared to other West Coast cities.
I live in the city of Seattle. I use the bus system, (king county) Metro, and Sound Transit light rail. Sound Transit does not listen to anyone. They act like they've never been out of the county even. Some of ST is below ground, some elevated above ground, and then there is the stretch that is on the surface, interacting with traffic and stupid pedestrians. That section where it is on surface is where 99% of the stopped trains occur do to sometimes a idiot ignoring flashing lights and drive into the path of the train...but more often, it's a moron who thinks they can beat the train, (but don't), have headphones on and aren't paying attention. The number of people who think that even giving some extra time to catch ST from in Seattle out to the airport are often, and unpleasantly, surprised. When train and car/pedestrian collide, the train stops for quite some time. Many people miss their flights, so they go back to driving out to the airport and paying $$$ for parking for duration of their trip. Or they opt for a taxi or Uber/Lyft, and are dinged $90-100. ONE WAY. Even pricier if they land at midnight or 1am and need a ride into the city. But the parties that control things, they don't give a rats ass, and they won't care in their new plan, by ignoring every experts suggestions.
man the more I learn about some of the issues that cities like Seattle are facing, the more I cherish being here in Philly where we just so happened to inherit huge and well connected transit hubs from rail generations past.
I know that you're more of a metro dude, but what do you think of the recently announced delay to the UK's HS2 and the farcical claim that it will save money?
Pretty sure that if Cascadia HSR ever gets built the BNSF tunnel would need to get replaced (possibly not even along the same alignment) considering that it's over 110 years old so it might make sense to plan around that. That would require BC to get their act together though because it's like an hour from Vancouver to the border right now and like 2.5 from Seattle to the border
With the big reduction in car traffic through downtown post-pandemic, a cut-and-cover on 4th with redirected traffic would actually be realistic. When ST3 was being developed, that would have been unfathomable!
