Sound Transit wrapped up their study of a light rail tunnel through Wallingford, 3.4 miles from Ballard to the U-District. The rail line as it is conceived would feature 3 new stops, in Wallingford, in Phinney, and Market Street. It would not continue past the U-District station already under construction, instead terminating there. At this time it is not being proposed in conjunction with a rail line from downtown to Ballard, but rather as a discrete project that would exist if the downtown to Ballard rail line did not exist.
Sound Transit estimates it will cost a little more than $3 billion to build for 22,000 daily riders, meaning a construction cost of about $140,000 per rider (operation costs extra). The cost per mile is about $900 million, which is 50% more expensive than other light rail in the region. The additional cost seems to come from this being a runt line that is fully tunneled and requires a separate operations and maintenance facility.
In Wallingford the rail line is to follow 44th street below grade in a tunnel, but there’s no comment on station location. If you take their streetless map on the right and then overlay a real map on top of it, you get station locations of approximately 44th and Fremont and then 44th and Meridian:
Will it happen? The rail line is still being talked about as a lower priority project than going from Ballard to downtown, which is budgeted between $1.9 and $5.3 billion (costing more if you tunnel more). Also, the ridership estimates for the Ballard to downtown line are about double what they estimate for Ballard to U-District. On the flip side, many are arguing that people of Seattle will vote for anything that says “rail” on it these days so we should “go big” with Sound Transit 3 and build everything on the map.
Regardless, all the numbers make Move Seattle look like chump change at $930 million for 9 years of SDOT funding. That’s a single mile of light rail these days. Put another way, a rail line from the U-District to Ballard will cost about the same as the entire downtown Alaskan Way tunnel replacement project ($3.1 billion, cost overruns for either project extra).
The math you use sometimes just cracks me up. $140,000 per rider assumes the same 22,000 people ride every day. To be fair with this method you’d need to guess how many actual people ride. Another way to look at this is the cost per trip, which would be considerably lower ($373 per trip if the rail only runs one year. But if you assume 10 years of ridership it’d be considerably less).
Cost per rider doesn’t mean cost per same rider each day, it means cost to add that capacity. Cost over time needs to include operation costs, which will start lower and then go up as equipment ages.
“Sound Transit estimates it will cost a little more than $3 billion to build ” – How much for a more streamlined electric trolley system? With lower rider fees to use it? If there was a dedicated bus lane each way, which I acknowledge would impact auto traffic, perhaps the buses would travel faster and more people would take them.
@SeattleAlan Enhanced bus between UW and Ballard is actually something the City is going to be actively studying and potentially implementing – we voted on it in November. On a street like 45th Street, there are so many competing priorities (bikes, cars, pedestrians, how wide the sidewalks are, etc.) that make creating a bus only lane very very challenging. Not saying it can’t be done, but it’s a challenge. As for lowering the cost, that would stimulate ridership. Possibly up to 40% more (based on results from smaller communities that went fare free recently). Right now Route 44 is close to capacity during peak times. You’d need a lot of additional buses to carry the bigger crowds, The question is “Why rail?” Right now, Route 44 can take 25 minutes or 45 minutes to travel between UW and Ballard. Grade separated transit never has I-5 queues or accidents to worry about. It’s reliable and fast. And very, very expensive.
SDOT strives too hard to make all streets accessible for all transportation types to the detriment of all. It seems it would be better to pick a few streets to dedicate to bus arterials, a few streets to dedicate for bike arterials, and the remainder to serve for auto traffic. The RapidRide system would thrive given a straight shot down a dedicated arterial. Bicycle safety and auto transit times would benefit if dedicated bicycle “expressways” are provided, linking to neighborhood bike routes and greenways..
It looks inaccurate to overlay the conceptual map on a street map. For one, the presumed Phinney stop sits between Aurora and Fremont. Seems like a bit of a reach, Eric.
It’s the best info we have to go on. If you ask SDOT straight up for locations they refuse to answer at this time since they’re focused on feasibility and budget.
“…since they’re focused on feasibility and budget.” and probably not wanting to tip their hand to cause speculative development that might be wrong…
Monorail
Monorail
Monorail
Monorail!
Why the #$^ would you have stations on 44th and not the commercial street, 45th? That’s idiotic.
Also, can we please ensure our neighborhood is CLEAR FROM PREDATORS such as coyotes, before we focus on infrastructure?
The rail stations will presumably be located between 44th and 45th, with entrances on 45th.
That makes sense, thanks Eric.
The #1 priority for Seattle is coyotes?
The #1 priority for Seattle should be ensuring the kids have someplace to skate when it rains, other than All Together Skatepark, which is Wallingford’s best indoor skatepark but which really doesn’t have any transition which is a problem.
The #2 priority should be eliminating predators who could kill our children or threaten our enjoyment of ourdoor skateparks.
#3 would probably be a lack of decent NY style bagels. Props to that place on Stone Way for the top-notch Montreal Style bagels though.
#4 Toss up between your dumb train and trying to get CitiBank to paint their curbs with that shiny, slippery, red paint so it’s better for doing grinds on although obviously we only skate there when the bank is closed because we are good citizens.
#5 figuring out some way to have an opinion on zoning without that BK dude calling you a racist if you disagree with his worldview or don’t take that weird communist newspaper he’s always handing out.
LOL at #5, and so true.
lol I’m a freaking corporate executive and the depth of classism in the n’hood is such that I am suspected of being a communist
I only said that because you act like one of those dudes who hands out the REVOLUTIONARY WORKER to people.
By that I mean you don’t ever listen to the opinions of others, and you start with an ingrained world view — that everyone in Wallingford is guilty of classism — that you refuse to justify or explain.
But, “corporate executive” also covers people who don’t listen to others, or make any attempt to exhibit empathy, so that works too.
The only thing you can know about me by my posts is that I am afraid of coyotes, I like bagels, and I really like to skateboard.
So, which class am I? Who am I discriminating against?
I will tell you who we should discriminate again though, and that’s scooters. Those kids infest the SKATE park even though it clearly says “skateboards only” and their parents never say anything about it. And while a skateboard runs lasts like 30 – 45 seconds, a four year old on a scooter can sit in the bowl ruining everything for minutes at a time. Unbelievable.
@Chris Hm if anything I would have thought readers here would think I am guilty of “over explaining” rather than failing to do so, but let me try again from a different angle:
Wanting to live only near those who can pass a test for how much money they have is classist.
That’s why exclusionary zoning was created. That’s what it is for. That’s what it’s inventors wanted to accomplish.
Even if one doesn’t share their views, that is the effect it has. It uses the power of the state impose a wealth test that would not otherwise exist on the opportunity to live in a place.
Someone who thinks “that’s great!” is a classist.
Someone who is “not a classist” ought to think “that’s terrible” and work to end it.
Do I have empathy for the feelings of those upset by the prospect of living near people unable to pass a Single Family Exclusionary Zoning wealth test? No.
Do I have empathy for those excluded? Lots. That’s why I never shut up about it. Having gone from being there to where I am today it’s the least I can do to pay it forward.
Um, not having *sympathy* is one thing, but not having *empathy* means you can’t understand their position, which is emblematic of a sociopath or a crazy narcissist.
Also, your argument presupposes the facts which you just mansplained to me, but you refuse to explain how you derived those facts. We’re just supposed to take as axioms that opposing density is classist. Answer *why* it’s classist, or show the least amount of empathy for those you’re debating with and people will listen. Just saying the same stuff louder and louder, over and over, while accusing people of being bad will make people ignore you, unless you sign their pay checks, in which case they’ll agree with you and then go home and tell their friends what a narcissistic sociopath you are.
But riddle me this: Were the working class people who built my house classist because they wanted to live in a neighborhood with houses? Are farmers who support exclusionary zoning so folks don’t build houses or factories next to their farms classist? Is zoning de facto classist?
You have the problem where you think people should care about your issue and automagically be on your side because you said what your opinion is. But I don’t see you standing up against the coyotes that are actually menacing children in Wallingford, or the very real issues of skateboarders in the community.
Look, Chris, this isn’t solving anything – you can’t reach someone who’s living in a cartoon world. Save it for the next round of HALA/Comp. Plan/etc., so those interested in reminiscing about monorail mania don’t have to scroll past pages of this.
I don’t know, Donn – I stand in solidarity with Chris about the skateboarding situation here in Wallingford and frankly have really enjoyed his/her takes on, well, you know who. I would only add that perhaps we could contemplate zoning by occupation rather than housing type. Perhaps that could get at the class roots some so bemoan.
@Chris
All zoning limits use (i.e. “residential”) and mass (e.g., how big you can build in an area).
But (for example) a 3 story 2,400 SF single family house and 3 stacked 800 SF flats in the same exact envelop are the exact same use and mass.
-Exclusionary- zoning bans the latter to keep people with less money people out. That’s why it was created. That’s what it does.
If you walk around northwest Wallingford or south Green Lake up to Tangletown you will see row houses, duplexes, and triplexes mixed in with single family homes. That’s because the pre 1957 zoning was small scale residential but -not exclusionary-.
That is what the HALA recommendation would restore.
(In fact it came as a shock to me that the area around our house wasn’t still zoned that way, which is what I’ve always considered to be “normal” in urban neighborhoods. (Shock in every sense of the word: a shock to the conscience as well as a surprise.)
I do have empathy for (for example) folks who are upset about the prospect of significant zoning changes -e.g., a true up zone.
I don’t have empathy for people upset about abolishing the -exclusionary restrictions- within our single family zone because exclusionary zoning is like racial covenants– it’s about people, not land use or building mass. In the latter case, if the prospect of living near black people was alarming, folks needed to just get over it. In the case of zoning, if living near people who can’t pass a single family detached home wealth tests upsets folks, they just ought to get over it.
If you don’t believe my assertions about the nature of exclusionary zoning, I’ve included some references if you care to test them with teh Google.
(And speaking of shocking having lived in urban areas all my life I am flabbergasted we have coyotes and have no useful insight into how one deals with them.)
Despite it’s recent notoriety, the exclusionary use of zoning was first noted in the lower court’s decision in Ambler Realty, discussed by Normal Williams during the fifties and brought to national attention in 1968 by the Douglas Commission Report, Building the American City. This report showed that zoning has regrettably become more a regulation for ulterior economic and social motives than a device of planning for the sound and orderly development of communities. (from “Exclusionary Zoning: Suggested Litigation Approaches” (available online – free registration required)
The plain truth is that the true object of the ordinance in question is to place all property in a strait-jacket. The purpose is really to regulate the mode of living of persons who may hereafter inhabit it. In the last analysis, the result to be accomplished is to classify the population and segregate them according to their income or situation in life (297 F 307, 318 ND Ohio 1924, 272 US 365 1926)
Hey, anyone remember talk in the 1990’s of a monorail line running east-west, tucked tight to the hill in lower Wallingford near Wallingford Steps? The 44 would continue to service the 45th Street corridor, but the monorail could connect the U-District light rail station (pick one), Wallingford (business district via shuttle), downtown Fremont and on to downtown Ballard. What a pleasant ride that would be!
While there may be more room along the canal, it is still full of commercial buildings now that would need to be sacrificed. And a line along the water means that WAY fewer people will be within walking distance to it making it much less useful
The main sacrifice would be industrial buildings. Many of the water front property are reserved for marine industry use. I would rather have the land used on either restaurants and shops or rail. Maybe move the bike trail to the water front, and convert the bike trail back into rail.
I think the bike trail probably has too many quick curves for rail
That’s funny! In the time I spent jotting my comment, several others chimed in. Apparently folks DO remember the monorail. Still do not understand how a tunnel is less expensive than using existing right-of-ways… Politics. Bah!
Using the existing 45th St surface ROW is clearly cheaper in $ than tunneling, but would require removing car traffic from most of it, which is presumed to be so unacceptable as to be unworthy of study (but maybe it’s not?).
An elevated monorail-esque plan, once seismic, ADA, etc. requirements are in-place might not be that much cheaper than tunneling. Additionally, the stations would have to be above ground, which would consume valuable commercial/residential real-estate, unless the station could be incorporated into a building the way Westlake is.
The community resistance to an elevated line cluttering up the Wallingford neighborhood, with trains buzzing by residential windows every 6 minutes, would presumably also be quite significant; 5th ave in downtown isn’t exactly picturesque…
Hi Jeff – The concept tossed about in the 1990’s was to locate an east-west line closer to Gas Works. At that time, some were concerned about creating an “under-the-rails” environment if the monorail were routed down 45th.
If tucked against the existing base of “Mount Wallingford”, the station(s) and the line would not impact views from the neighborhood above. A shuttle (or streetcar) running along Wallingford Ave would connect a Gas Works Park station with the Wallingford business district as well as provide hop-on, hop-off service (with bikes?) for those not able to walk the full 12 blocks to Gas Works.
From the PDF:
Project Dependencies: Requires development of independent operations and maintenance facility; however, if this project is combined with project C-01c [the Ballard/Downtown line], then cost savings could be achieved with construction of only one new OMF.
If, for whatever reason, Ballard/Downtown is a no-go, this line could also be extended: U-District->Ballard->Crown-Hill->Greenwood->Northgate, which might be able to spread out the base costs among more miles of track.
Improving infrastructure was Too Expensive in the 1970s when people rejected it. Too expensive in the 1980s. Too expensive in the 1990s….
It ain’t ever gonna get cheaper. Except if it does it’s because the economy and population has collapsed.
So either we put on our big kid undies and make this city work, or watch it fall into a perpetual morass of gridlock.
If you don’t want a tunnel, your options are at grade or above grade. As noted above a monorail would be politically impossible even if cheaper (and may not be much cheaper). As for at grade, either we’re buying houses via eminent domain (very pricey and political suicide) or we remove a road from service.
Anyone think we should convert Market St to 45th into a dedicated light rail line?
If light rail isn’t too expensive already in today’s world, developments with driverless cars and technology will make the light rail completely unfeasible
Oh great, so now they want to flush $BILLIONS more down another hole in the ground. God help us.
And where’s the money going to come from? Not from an income tax, because that would be “Socialism.” No, they’re going to jack up our property taxes even more.
Which leads me to my next point, namely newly elected Rob Johnson and his vision to significantly raise property taxes on those of us living in proposed HALA upzone areas to “encourage more turnover” so that his developer backers can come in and shove more microhousing (sorry, ahem, “affordable housing”) down our throats.
So guess what? I’ve voted for just about every public transit plan in the past, including light rail. But no more. If the city wants to discriminate against my friends and neighbors and I at tax time because we’re apparently undesirable, then screw them. If they’re going to tax me not on my current assessed value, but on what a building on my lot would be assessed at in the FUTURE to force me out of my home, then I’m voting against this and every other increase to my property taxes. I don’t really care if it’s “for a good cause,” when we have to pay twice as much as neighbors living outside HALA upzones.
How ’bout a high speed gondola through any of the corridors mentoned above to connect the U-district to Ballard. Ski resorts put these things up in less than a year for a few million bucks. No tunneling, no surface restrictions, and far fewer right of way issues to resolve. Imagine 12-person, detachable ‘cars’ moving smoothly and silently above street traffic, with small-footprint access stations every half mile or so. Seems like the perfect solution for intra-city, neighborhood to neighborhood transportation.
How do 12-person gondola cars serve a line that would have 20,000+ riders per day? I’m all for thinking outside of the box but this doesn’t seem feasible.
Well, the Doppelmayr/ Garaventa 15-person detachable gondola transports up 3,600 passengers per hour, so by my calculations that equates to as many 57,600 passengers in a 16-hour operating window.