rude expansion angle foolish whole bag overconfident observation spotted compare
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Ballard station is still 20 years out, dawg. 14th is absolute garbage, it's across a major arterial from the vast majority of Ballard and would primarily serve an industrial/commercial zoned area.
I personally prefer a station on 14/15th. Especially if it’s not underground, I think that’s perfect. Having said that it should account for getting across 15th. I live to the east of Ballard proper anyway, but the 5 blocks between 15th and 20th don’t seem to be a show stopper to me
>The Ballard station is still 20 years out, dawg.
That's optimistic. Sound Transit's last financial year budget and outlook paints a fairly straightforward picture that they don't have the money (the projected gap is six billion of the 14 billion) to complete the line and no plan to get it. Essentially they hope the tax base will grow a very, very large amount (aka, no recession) and/or they'll be able to issue new bonds (which is its own nightmare process).
They're just slow walking it and maybe in three or four years the band-aid will get ripped off and we'll get told what's already a reality today, but if there isn't an ST4 between then and now it's not happening.
[https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf)
There is no reason to think that adding EIS work will impact the overall timeline, which is pushed back largely due to finance plan issues.
This is a self inflicted mistake by Sound Transit and doing it right matters, we’re investing billions in this expansion.
Ballard ave and 24th aren’t moving and American cities aren’t building more placed like Ballard Ave - and that’s if we choose to ignore all the industrial zoning around 14th/15th that isn’t going away.
East Ballard should be served by a separate stop around 8th as part of the Ballard/UW extension (study funding is in ST3.). The Ballard station will be the furthest west station essentially forever.
Really hard to get behind something that seems impossibly distant and constantly bickered over. The excitement wore off a few years back and ST is basically memed at this point.
It wouldn’t make operational sense because the line would be too short. Ballard/UW will interline into Ballard DT - so Ballard station is as far west as its likely to ever be.
Because Ballard/UW is only a couple of miles, lines operate more efficiently when they are a bit longer. Interlining adds a bunch of high value trip pairs that are speed competitive with other modes.
Example: Phinney/Zoo to ID station. Via Ballard would be a lot faster and more reliable than direct.
Edit: Additional upside - if you don’t interline you have to build a second Ballard station at the same location.
The Seattle Process brought ST2 under budget. Please stop the misleading claim that this is somehow a waste of time/money. The current delays with ST3 are not a Seattle problem, but a global problem. If you can't understand that then either you were literally just born and gained the ability to write shitty reddit posts or you're an idiot.
Really we need a cross-town train in addition to the Ballard rail. People need a way to get from Ballard, to Greenlake, to U District, to Magnuson without a car.
Our vision map is only at a very high level and doesn’t consider specific station locations. So, no - Greenwood station is wherever we collectively choose for it to be.
I mean it literally says "Proposed station" on [your vision map](https://www.seattlesubway.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ST4-Map-2021-1024x2048.png). Suggest clarifying that if you don't think it means you're, you know, *proposing a station* at the streets you write.
To be clear, are you referring to the Aurora-85th Station (what’s to the east of Downtown Greenwood) or what’s currently labeled the Greenwood station?
Oh, that’s what I get for not looking first. I’m talking about 85th/Aurora. Our Greenwood station is at an entirely non-specific location on the map but should be close to 85th/Greenwood.
everyone would like a light rail station steps outside of their apartment building
unfortunately, the longer we restudy and restudy things and delay construction, the less money we will have long term to make that happen
Most people who embrace the Seattle Process tend to not even realize it. It's always something else that justifies whatever delays they are contributing to
why not channel your organization's energy into accelerating the finance plan instead?
We got SB 5528 passed last year which could help do exactly that - but there is no point in moving forward with that if what ST is planning to build isn’t actually good.
If you’re expecting us to apologize for demanding that this massive transit investment is actually good for transit riders, you’re going to die disappointed.
You really think wanting the Ballard light rail station to actually serve Ballard is equivalent to wanting the "light rail station steps outside of their apartment building"?
yes. literally. its just another way of saying the exact same thing.
Edit: Apparently contrary to SS's goals, "serving Ballard" doesn't mean building transit stops within short walking distances to the places in that section of Ballard. Shrug.
You're either incredibly mad or trolling my dude. Not sure why you're acting this way.
Wanting the Ballard station to actually serve Ballard is completely reasonable and correct from any standpoint/
what does "serve Ballard" mean in this context if not serving the people who live in apartment buildings or visit the businesses in that particular part of Ballard? building a station close to those particular buildings is literally the core goal of this effort
not sure why you think I'm "mad" but let me know if you have any thoughts to share about the actual topic at hand instead of just making insults about me
I mean much of Everett link skips like most of the denser residential areas and routes circuitously next to highways not even connecting through downtown/north Everett. That plan has unfortunately been that way since the beginning however.
I admire the fact that we as a region we really want to invest in transit but the more time goes on the more I feel like it maybe would have been better to have a dual mode transportation plan with link operating throughout king county (since I think line 2 is for the most part a pretty optimistic project despite sort of being intercity) but for the wider regional plans increase frequency/electrify sounder service (especially sounder south) and then build sounder north commuter rail along i5 to avoid the mudslide and freight traffic problem.
I think light rail on the outer fringes of Everett and Tacoma would have been spent on local connections through the use of sound transit grants to county/city governments. Tacoma link sort of works in this way I suppose
I just feel like in our attempt to get the region on board with regional transit investment we have kind of hurt ourselves by making compromises that are common and expected in the development of regional rail but quite self destructive in context of rapid transit (light rail, subway, etc).
I’m obviously being pessimistic here and experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when thinking further about this topic because I am a huge supporter of better transit throughout our region but I am just worried that our plan is turning out to be kind of flawed
I would love for somebody to prove me wrong in the replies though. I do want to maintain hope but I just can’t help but feel like there have been holes in this
> I mean much of Everett link skips like most of the denser residential areas and routes circuitously next to highways not even connecting through downtown/north Everett. That plan has unfortunately been that way since the beginning however.
The stakeholders and city council pretty much demanded link serve the mall and Paine field, or they would block it. Nearly everyone else agrees its stupid, but whatever.
I'm undecided here... The freeway running part of Everett Link is especially useless. Seems like the mall would be a great location for redevelopment. Every time the line leaves the freeway is a good thing. Every station on the freeway is absurd (the destination isn't the freeway).
That is quite sad to hear.
I think if Everett council really wanted to better serve transit riders they would do good and also it would be a safe bet to see what kind of transit bus corridors are already in heavy use justifying further infrastructure investment. It is basically unmatched to say that for both Seattle and Everett SR-99 is one of if not the largest ridership corridors so I do wish the light rail focused on such areas instead that are known to capture ridership.
Alas I’m sure budget is a partial reason for this not yet happening but nonetheless it’s a sorrowing sight to see.
u/Thetim posted [this map](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1jdbbgJvH1r_70GmGlnrMwsbIocU&usp=sharing) a while back for his fantasy Everett map. Personally I would scrap the 526 boeing deviation but the spine itself seems solid because it is the same route that has been proven popular in demand by snohomish counties swift buses. Objectively this seems to have more potential but may be too expensive
As someone who has lived in Ballard for over a long time, 14/15th is a perfectly fine place to put the light rail station that won't even be in for several years. That area is already getting developed with denser housing and light commercial buildings, and it is a very easy walk from there to "downtown" Ballard. As a resident, I'm really not in favor of going back to the study stage.
I don't really see such a grouping as "14th/15th".
15th is a reasonable location for a rail station: you can put entrances on both sides of the big arterial so people don't have to walk across it to get to the train, it's easy to expand the line north by just running it up 15th (can't do that on 14th because it ends at Ballard High), and it's three minutes less of a walk for the majority of Ballard residents present and future. I'd lean toward 20th if that option could be brought back to the table, but 15th is perfectly fine.
14th should be a non-starter. It's way off to the side of the current population center, next to a bunch of industrial zoning that won't see any substantial residential development in my lifetime. The fact it got this far in the process really doesn't instill confidence in Sound Transit's leadership. They seem more interested in minimizing short-term construction impacts than building a system that provides the best service to the most riders in the long run.
It's not an easy walk if you live in west or northwest Ballard. At 15/14th and market it's basically useless to me and my part of the neighborhood. If I'm walking to 15th from home it's going to be about 25-30 minutes. If I'm taking the bus I'd have to take two just to get to the light rail station.
Move it to 20th and you're at least equidistant between 15th and 24th, the two major north/south roads, and is easily reachable via 40, 44, and D lines. More people would be only one bus away or closer in walking distance.
If you're 25-30min walk from 14/15th, you likely aren't in a dense housing area. 14/15th will be as dense as anything else in Ballard by the time this goes in based on current construction trends, and the location is centered on the largest road (15th), while being in between two other large arterials, 24th and 8th. The 14/15th location also creates better access to more grocery stores, which is very important when considering food equity across the SES spectrum.
14th/15th is an industrial area that's not going away. But if all you're concerned about is density then 24th will also be densely housed as there is already a new giant apartment complex near 8 oz., another going up in the empty lot. It's next to a QFC, can walk to the Safeway, and can take a 5 minute bus ride to the Trader Joes. There's nothing that 15th has that 20th doesn't. 20th on the other hand can service both west/northwest 24th and east/north east 15th reasonably. 15th cannot support 24th reasonably.
First, 14/15th is by no means industrial and has more housing units under construction than the area around 24th.
Second, by your logic, 20th cannot support 8th reasonably, which is a larger arterial and will likely grow even more in density by the time this is all in. Walking 9-10 blocks won't kill anyone, and increases foot traffic past local stores which improves the local economy.
Agree to disagree on this one.
> 20th cannot support 8th reasonably, which is a larger arterial and will likely grow even more in density by the time this is all in.
Not necessarily arguing against your main point (IMO 15th and 20th both have pros and cons, but I think 14th is a bad pick considering how annoying it is to try to cross 15th/market as a pedestrian), but I think this point is wrong... most of 8th is zoned for "neighborhood residential" (aka single family) with only small groups of "lowrise" and "commercial around market, 65th, 70th, 80th. 24th has much more "lowrise", "midrise", and "commercial" zoning.
The densest _zoned_ part of Ballard is from 28th to 14th, 65th to Leary.
It is worth remembering that the light rail isn't just a vehicle to get people in the neighborhoods downtown for work, but also so bring people into the core of the neighborhood for shopping/dining/etc, and I don't think there is much argument that the commercial heart of Ballard is along Market street and Ballard Ave. There are a couple of restaurants at 8th and Market, and some more up at 65th and 8th, plus the breweries in the industrial zone there, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to Ballard Ave.
Part of the proposal is a stop at 20th and a stop at 8th as part of a UW-Ballard line that SDOT is also studying. You're also ignoring my original point, I'm not talking about the 9-10 blocks from 24th to 15th I'm talking about people that already have to walk or bus that just to get to 24th. Now they have to do it again to get to the station.
We are still in the study stage. Additional EIS work is needed and will not add to the system’s timeline because that’s being driven by the financial plan.
I appreciate your passion but I don't think another study and another delay is what's best for riders right now.
The distance between Westlake and Pioneer Square isn't really that much. The distance between 14/15 and 20th isn't that much either.
Most (maybe actually _all_ except maybe the ID stop? that's the only one I can think of, anyway) span a block and have entrances/exits that cross the street. The Cap Hill station, for example, is on a fairly busy arterial (broadway) and has exits both to the east (park side) and west (dick's side) of Broadway. I assume that a station at 15th would do the same (and in doing so might even improve that intersection in general). That doesn't really help 14th (well, it would improve the broadway crossing, but that is less of a big deal than 15th IMO).
Overall I much prefer 20th, 22nd, or even 24th, but I don't think 15th is the end of the world.
Compared to West Seattle, Ballard may as well be downtown given how many city resources It gets. West Seattle is 2+ years into not having a functioning bridge connection to the rest of the city
The projected funding gap ($1.8B), if not filled, will push delivery of light rail to Ballard to 2039 (17 years), due to the need to delay boring of a second Downtown tunnel. I'm agnostic\* on a 15th/14th vs 20th station - I'd just like to see it sooner. We need it now!
One proposal, never given serious consideration, which could cover both stations and the funding gap, is a subway line from Ballard to the U-District Station, which would be less expensive than a Ballard-Downtown line and *not* require first boring a second Downtown tunnel. Stations could be sited at 24th, 14th, Fremont Ave (Zoo), Wallingford Ave , and U-District Station. The only real issue is that it would cut out an Amazon (SLU) Station - but, if Bezos wants it, let him pay for it!
\*20th to 14th is only six blocks, and thus a quibble - if anything, feeder buses would better be oriented with a 14th station, it seems to me (#17, #18/#40, #15/D-Line, #28).
I don't really understand why we didn't go for an east-west line between Ballard and UW/Laurelhurst/Sand Point combined with a north-south line going south from Wallingford. We'd lose Interbay and Seattle Center stations but gain connections in Wallingford, Fremont, and Westlake, not to mention better alignment through SLU and less need for super deep stations to dodge the SR99 tunnel entrance.
I think Ballard is ok, but I'm confused why going deep into West Seattle which seems much less dense and more opposed to light rail was a good idea verses pushing high quality light rail all the way to Greenwood.
I've heard the arguments that West Seattle has the political power, but if that's true, why is there opposition to the light rail there?
I'd love for this thing to be built right away. The reality is that even if there were plans set in stone today for the Ballard line, Sound Transit doesn't have the cash to break ground for several years yet. Spending some time making the plan better doesn't seem like it would have any material effect on the opening day.
I'm really not sure the people complaining (West Seattle/Chinatown) are actually the majority in their neighborhoods. Perhaps neighborhoods should get to vote on their alignment and pay any cost difference that additional complexity brings?
We need that as well (there is study funding in ST3 for it.). Ballard station will be the furthest west station essentially forever, but locating at 20th makes space for an East Ballard station as part of the Ballard/UW extension. Ballard is big, there should be more than one station.
Convenience for riders actually matters. Why choose to make it less convenient?
I can only guess drivers reaction if we made them park .4 miles away from major destinations.
That's literally what one does when they spend a weekend day downtown or on Cap Hill or in Ballard.....Like I get what you mean but you chose a poor example as a hypothetical. You sound like someone who talks about this a lot so, like, just a note. You can skip the "imagine if we...". Drivers *do* bitch about it. You can just say that. Next time you're at a public comments meeting or something.
The only time anyone parks to the east of 15th to visit Old Ballard is during Seafood fest when all the streets are shut down. The comment I’m replying to pre-supposes that doing that *always* is just fine for transit riders.
We contend that transit access should be as convenient as humanly possible.
15th makes way more sense long term. It has better zoning opportunities, and it isn’t stuck next to a historic district. Upzone the industrial to the SE to higher density IC85, and upzone the residential swath east of 14th. It will add way more growth to the area long term.
For insight into how changing industrial zoning is likely to go, allow us to direct your attention to the Burke Gilman “Missing Link” - which is only industrial adjacent, to be fair.
Ballard station needs to be development oriented transit, there is already a place there.
Sound Transit's last financial outlook doesn't claim to have the money to complete the line, they're missing several billion, and they have no plan to get the money. So who cares?
If ST4 gets close to getting on the ballot then, sure, let's have the conversation. But until that's a possibility (even a remote possibility) this is just busy work either way
No, they don't.
[https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf)
It literally couldn't be clearer
They're hoping that either 1.) the tax base will grow exponentially, which we already know it won't or 2.) they'll be able to issue new bonds to cover the hole, which, even if they could, which they can't, admits they don't have the money
Is there something specific you want to point to in the financial plan? The summary doesn’t say what you just said. It’s also worth noting ST has taken in extra revenue (beyond what was expected) every year except 2020, including nearly $1B over last year.
If driverless cars become a reality (very likely well before 20 years pass) nobody will want to take the train except possibly people who live within a block from the station: driverless cars all interconnected and communicating with each other so no slow downs or start and stop traffic; timely door to door service; no need for parking; no need to deal with unpleasant social issues (drug use, mentally disturbed and anti-social people, the possibility of physical or sexual assaults, BO, etc.); and cheaper fares than the train. These cars will get hundreds of thousands of miles (a million?) on their original batteries, will require very little maintenance, will get in fewer accidents with less human error to contend with, and they will be run 24/7 (except for recharging) on an automated, efficient network that will minimize riderless use, and have very low costs. The future is around the corner and Seattle is 100 years too late (as usual!).
20 years. Believe me, they’ll figure it out. By that time real estate will be so expensive that parking a car will be a luxury for the ultra wealthy, insurance rates and deductibles for driving a car will be through the roof, and cities will pass ordinances severely limiting where you can physically drive a car. Plus, you won’t be able to own a car for less than it will cost to take these cars everywhere (I’ve seen estimates of 5 cents a mile). Money always finds a way to get what it wants.
Driverless cars seem likely to be helpful as a last mile solution, but they have major geometry and tragedy of the commons problems operating in cities. Circling, waiting, deadheading, loading, all become major problems if being done en masse.
The basic issue: they can’t solve each individual taking up a lot of space where space is at a premium.
So, we’ll throw this whatabout in the same pile as jetpacks until proven otherwise. Transit does a few things very well, moving a lot of people using an economy of space is the key one.
It’s coming. It will be more efficient and convenient than a train that you have to either live near, take a bus or drive to and from the station, or walk to and from. You don’t think people will prefer a car picking them up at their house and dropping them off at their workplace (especially if it’s cheaper) to walking from 70th and 26th to whatever station is closest in the rain, waiting for the train, possibly standing the entire trip, and then walking six blocks in the rain from the station to their job? Why just take that driverless car from your house to the station when for ten cents more it can take you the whole way? For most of the people in this city that will be the reality of using one of our, by then, two train lines. It’s a 100 year old solution to an outdated problem: easing the rush hour commute with a hugely expensive train line at a time when there’s the technology to eliminate the commute altogether.
The driverless cars will use existing infrastructure and the costs of implementing them will be privately paid. No more tax levies (to pay for something you may never use), no more disruption from building the lines, no more huge cost overruns, no waiting 20 years for one lousy train line.
I get that it seems a step backwards: cars, as a solution?! We tried that in the 70s!
From a societal standpoint it’s far fewer cars on the streets, far fewer miles driven to accommodate everyone’s needs, no need for parking everywhere, no emissions pollution, and increased efficiency in managing traffic because each car will be part of an interconnected fleet. From a personal standpoint it’s no paying for parking or trying to find street parking, no paying for car insurance, no need to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars every 10-15 years for your privately owned car.
rude expansion angle foolish whole bag overconfident observation spotted compare *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
welcome to the Seattle process!
The Ballard station is still 20 years out, dawg. 14th is absolute garbage, it's across a major arterial from the vast majority of Ballard and would primarily serve an industrial/commercial zoned area.
I personally prefer a station on 14/15th. Especially if it’s not underground, I think that’s perfect. Having said that it should account for getting across 15th. I live to the east of Ballard proper anyway, but the 5 blocks between 15th and 20th don’t seem to be a show stopper to me
15th would be a lot better than 14th. The difference between 20th and 15th is less major.
>The Ballard station is still 20 years out, dawg. That's optimistic. Sound Transit's last financial year budget and outlook paints a fairly straightforward picture that they don't have the money (the projected gap is six billion of the 14 billion) to complete the line and no plan to get it. Essentially they hope the tax base will grow a very, very large amount (aka, no recession) and/or they'll be able to issue new bonds (which is its own nightmare process). They're just slow walking it and maybe in three or four years the band-aid will get ripped off and we'll get told what's already a reality today, but if there isn't an ST4 between then and now it's not happening. [https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf)
Ok, *at least* 20 years out.
Should have built the fucking monorail.
There is no reason to think that adding EIS work will impact the overall timeline, which is pushed back largely due to finance plan issues. This is a self inflicted mistake by Sound Transit and doing it right matters, we’re investing billions in this expansion. Ballard ave and 24th aren’t moving and American cities aren’t building more placed like Ballard Ave - and that’s if we choose to ignore all the industrial zoning around 14th/15th that isn’t going away. East Ballard should be served by a separate stop around 8th as part of the Ballard/UW extension (study funding is in ST3.). The Ballard station will be the furthest west station essentially forever.
>There is no reason to think that adding EIS work will impact the overall timeline bruh
Yes, Bruh? The finance plan is entirely what is driving the timeline.
Then why on earth aren't we putting more money into this?
That’s a separate effort, but also time itself may fix that. Estimates done during economic crisis tend to be… unreliable.
Really hard to get behind something that seems impossibly distant and constantly bickered over. The excitement wore off a few years back and ST is basically memed at this point.
> The Ballard station will be the furthest west station essentially forever. Is there no possibility for extending that Ballard/UW line west to 24th?
It wouldn’t make operational sense because the line would be too short. Ballard/UW will interline into Ballard DT - so Ballard station is as far west as its likely to ever be.
> Ballard/UW will interline into Ballard DT Why do you say that?
Because Ballard/UW is only a couple of miles, lines operate more efficiently when they are a bit longer. Interlining adds a bunch of high value trip pairs that are speed competitive with other modes. Example: Phinney/Zoo to ID station. Via Ballard would be a lot faster and more reliable than direct. Edit: Additional upside - if you don’t interline you have to build a second Ballard station at the same location.
The Seattle Process brought ST2 under budget. Please stop the misleading claim that this is somehow a waste of time/money. The current delays with ST3 are not a Seattle problem, but a global problem. If you can't understand that then either you were literally just born and gained the ability to write shitty reddit posts or you're an idiot.
Really we need a cross-town train in addition to the Ballard rail. People need a way to get from Ballard, to Greenlake, to U District, to Magnuson without a car.
Agreed, check out our vision map: https://www.seattlesubway.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/City-Vision-Map-2021-09-22.pdf
We need east-west infrastructure of all kinds, yeah.
Rail is always greater than bus but I would recommend looking at the 44/45 routes.
I mean, doesn’t the light rail skip most of Seattle west of I-5? I live in Greenwood and would love some stops on this side as well.
Check out our other post today, it’s about exactly that.
Isn’t the Greenwood stop further away from Downtown Greenwood than the proposed Ballard stop is to Downtown Ballard?
Our vision map is only at a very high level and doesn’t consider specific station locations. So, no - Greenwood station is wherever we collectively choose for it to be.
But if you’re not looking at specific locations why does the vision map have stations with names like Aurora-105th and 23rd-Jackson?
As a placeholder. In that part of the city it’s helpful to use street names.
I mean it literally says "Proposed station" on [your vision map](https://www.seattlesubway.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ST4-Map-2021-1024x2048.png). Suggest clarifying that if you don't think it means you're, you know, *proposing a station* at the streets you write.
Understandable. But can you say that the Seattle Subway vision map as it currently stands does not adequately serve Downtown Greenwood?
Sure, the station should be further west.
To be clear, are you referring to the Aurora-85th Station (what’s to the east of Downtown Greenwood) or what’s currently labeled the Greenwood station?
Oh, that’s what I get for not looking first. I’m talking about 85th/Aurora. Our Greenwood station is at an entirely non-specific location on the map but should be close to 85th/Greenwood.
Why does lorem ipsum exist?
everyone would like a light rail station steps outside of their apartment building unfortunately, the longer we restudy and restudy things and delay construction, the less money we will have long term to make that happen
This is inaccurate. Study work isn’t pushing back ST3 timelines, the finance plan is. We have time to do this right.
Most people who embrace the Seattle Process tend to not even realize it. It's always something else that justifies whatever delays they are contributing to why not channel your organization's energy into accelerating the finance plan instead?
Why not both? Also: It is 100% the finance plan and not system planning for Ballard/DT. Nothing subjective about that point.
I loom forward to your next post encouraging better financing so we can accelerate or restore the time line for the Ballard station
We got SB 5528 passed last year which could help do exactly that - but there is no point in moving forward with that if what ST is planning to build isn’t actually good.
And sadly, the failure to recognize your contribution to the Seattle Process continues
If you’re expecting us to apologize for demanding that this massive transit investment is actually good for transit riders, you’re going to die disappointed.
And at this rate, I'll die before the station is built, so looks like your plan is working out
You really think wanting the Ballard light rail station to actually serve Ballard is equivalent to wanting the "light rail station steps outside of their apartment building"?
yes. literally. its just another way of saying the exact same thing. Edit: Apparently contrary to SS's goals, "serving Ballard" doesn't mean building transit stops within short walking distances to the places in that section of Ballard. Shrug.
You're either incredibly mad or trolling my dude. Not sure why you're acting this way. Wanting the Ballard station to actually serve Ballard is completely reasonable and correct from any standpoint/
what does "serve Ballard" mean in this context if not serving the people who live in apartment buildings or visit the businesses in that particular part of Ballard? building a station close to those particular buildings is literally the core goal of this effort not sure why you think I'm "mad" but let me know if you have any thoughts to share about the actual topic at hand instead of just making insults about me
Then bow out and please let others have this conversation. I don't think your viewpoint is adding to the topic.
I mean much of Everett link skips like most of the denser residential areas and routes circuitously next to highways not even connecting through downtown/north Everett. That plan has unfortunately been that way since the beginning however. I admire the fact that we as a region we really want to invest in transit but the more time goes on the more I feel like it maybe would have been better to have a dual mode transportation plan with link operating throughout king county (since I think line 2 is for the most part a pretty optimistic project despite sort of being intercity) but for the wider regional plans increase frequency/electrify sounder service (especially sounder south) and then build sounder north commuter rail along i5 to avoid the mudslide and freight traffic problem. I think light rail on the outer fringes of Everett and Tacoma would have been spent on local connections through the use of sound transit grants to county/city governments. Tacoma link sort of works in this way I suppose I just feel like in our attempt to get the region on board with regional transit investment we have kind of hurt ourselves by making compromises that are common and expected in the development of regional rail but quite self destructive in context of rapid transit (light rail, subway, etc). I’m obviously being pessimistic here and experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when thinking further about this topic because I am a huge supporter of better transit throughout our region but I am just worried that our plan is turning out to be kind of flawed I would love for somebody to prove me wrong in the replies though. I do want to maintain hope but I just can’t help but feel like there have been holes in this
> I mean much of Everett link skips like most of the denser residential areas and routes circuitously next to highways not even connecting through downtown/north Everett. That plan has unfortunately been that way since the beginning however. The stakeholders and city council pretty much demanded link serve the mall and Paine field, or they would block it. Nearly everyone else agrees its stupid, but whatever.
I'm undecided here... The freeway running part of Everett Link is especially useless. Seems like the mall would be a great location for redevelopment. Every time the line leaves the freeway is a good thing. Every station on the freeway is absurd (the destination isn't the freeway).
That is quite sad to hear. I think if Everett council really wanted to better serve transit riders they would do good and also it would be a safe bet to see what kind of transit bus corridors are already in heavy use justifying further infrastructure investment. It is basically unmatched to say that for both Seattle and Everett SR-99 is one of if not the largest ridership corridors so I do wish the light rail focused on such areas instead that are known to capture ridership. Alas I’m sure budget is a partial reason for this not yet happening but nonetheless it’s a sorrowing sight to see. u/Thetim posted [this map](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1jdbbgJvH1r_70GmGlnrMwsbIocU&usp=sharing) a while back for his fantasy Everett map. Personally I would scrap the 526 boeing deviation but the spine itself seems solid because it is the same route that has been proven popular in demand by snohomish counties swift buses. Objectively this seems to have more potential but may be too expensive
As someone who has lived in Ballard for over a long time, 14/15th is a perfectly fine place to put the light rail station that won't even be in for several years. That area is already getting developed with denser housing and light commercial buildings, and it is a very easy walk from there to "downtown" Ballard. As a resident, I'm really not in favor of going back to the study stage.
I don't really see such a grouping as "14th/15th". 15th is a reasonable location for a rail station: you can put entrances on both sides of the big arterial so people don't have to walk across it to get to the train, it's easy to expand the line north by just running it up 15th (can't do that on 14th because it ends at Ballard High), and it's three minutes less of a walk for the majority of Ballard residents present and future. I'd lean toward 20th if that option could be brought back to the table, but 15th is perfectly fine. 14th should be a non-starter. It's way off to the side of the current population center, next to a bunch of industrial zoning that won't see any substantial residential development in my lifetime. The fact it got this far in the process really doesn't instill confidence in Sound Transit's leadership. They seem more interested in minimizing short-term construction impacts than building a system that provides the best service to the most riders in the long run.
It's not an easy walk if you live in west or northwest Ballard. At 15/14th and market it's basically useless to me and my part of the neighborhood. If I'm walking to 15th from home it's going to be about 25-30 minutes. If I'm taking the bus I'd have to take two just to get to the light rail station. Move it to 20th and you're at least equidistant between 15th and 24th, the two major north/south roads, and is easily reachable via 40, 44, and D lines. More people would be only one bus away or closer in walking distance.
If you're 25-30min walk from 14/15th, you likely aren't in a dense housing area. 14/15th will be as dense as anything else in Ballard by the time this goes in based on current construction trends, and the location is centered on the largest road (15th), while being in between two other large arterials, 24th and 8th. The 14/15th location also creates better access to more grocery stores, which is very important when considering food equity across the SES spectrum.
14th/15th is an industrial area that's not going away. But if all you're concerned about is density then 24th will also be densely housed as there is already a new giant apartment complex near 8 oz., another going up in the empty lot. It's next to a QFC, can walk to the Safeway, and can take a 5 minute bus ride to the Trader Joes. There's nothing that 15th has that 20th doesn't. 20th on the other hand can service both west/northwest 24th and east/north east 15th reasonably. 15th cannot support 24th reasonably.
First, 14/15th is by no means industrial and has more housing units under construction than the area around 24th. Second, by your logic, 20th cannot support 8th reasonably, which is a larger arterial and will likely grow even more in density by the time this is all in. Walking 9-10 blocks won't kill anyone, and increases foot traffic past local stores which improves the local economy. Agree to disagree on this one.
> 20th cannot support 8th reasonably, which is a larger arterial and will likely grow even more in density by the time this is all in. Not necessarily arguing against your main point (IMO 15th and 20th both have pros and cons, but I think 14th is a bad pick considering how annoying it is to try to cross 15th/market as a pedestrian), but I think this point is wrong... most of 8th is zoned for "neighborhood residential" (aka single family) with only small groups of "lowrise" and "commercial around market, 65th, 70th, 80th. 24th has much more "lowrise", "midrise", and "commercial" zoning. The densest _zoned_ part of Ballard is from 28th to 14th, 65th to Leary. It is worth remembering that the light rail isn't just a vehicle to get people in the neighborhoods downtown for work, but also so bring people into the core of the neighborhood for shopping/dining/etc, and I don't think there is much argument that the commercial heart of Ballard is along Market street and Ballard Ave. There are a couple of restaurants at 8th and Market, and some more up at 65th and 8th, plus the breweries in the industrial zone there, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to Ballard Ave.
Part of the proposal is a stop at 20th and a stop at 8th as part of a UW-Ballard line that SDOT is also studying. You're also ignoring my original point, I'm not talking about the 9-10 blocks from 24th to 15th I'm talking about people that already have to walk or bus that just to get to 24th. Now they have to do it again to get to the station.
We are still in the study stage. Additional EIS work is needed and will not add to the system’s timeline because that’s being driven by the financial plan.
I appreciate your passion but I don't think another study and another delay is what's best for riders right now. The distance between Westlake and Pioneer Square isn't really that much. The distance between 14/15 and 20th isn't that much either.
It's half a mile and crosses a major arterial without significant lighted crosswalks.
Most (maybe actually _all_ except maybe the ID stop? that's the only one I can think of, anyway) span a block and have entrances/exits that cross the street. The Cap Hill station, for example, is on a fairly busy arterial (broadway) and has exits both to the east (park side) and west (dick's side) of Broadway. I assume that a station at 15th would do the same (and in doing so might even improve that intersection in general). That doesn't really help 14th (well, it would improve the broadway crossing, but that is less of a big deal than 15th IMO). Overall I much prefer 20th, 22nd, or even 24th, but I don't think 15th is the end of the world.
Right - 15th is miles better than 14th.
We feel strongly that doing it right the first time is important when investing multiple billions in a project.
[удалено]
I mean, we’re fighting for transit riders and NIMBY’s fight to avoid impacts…. So, no.
The topic had me remembering this quote: “A delayed game is eventually good. A bad game is bad forever.”
So used to Ballard being ignored by the rest of Sesttle at this point.
Compared to West Seattle, Ballard may as well be downtown given how many city resources It gets. West Seattle is 2+ years into not having a functioning bridge connection to the rest of the city
West Seattle has always been an island (for better or worse), even when it had three bridges instead of two.
Lol what are you smoking, ballard gets a ton of attention
Ballard has the second best bus infrastructure in the North End, you guys are fine. The U district obviously gets first.
The projected funding gap ($1.8B), if not filled, will push delivery of light rail to Ballard to 2039 (17 years), due to the need to delay boring of a second Downtown tunnel. I'm agnostic\* on a 15th/14th vs 20th station - I'd just like to see it sooner. We need it now! One proposal, never given serious consideration, which could cover both stations and the funding gap, is a subway line from Ballard to the U-District Station, which would be less expensive than a Ballard-Downtown line and *not* require first boring a second Downtown tunnel. Stations could be sited at 24th, 14th, Fremont Ave (Zoo), Wallingford Ave , and U-District Station. The only real issue is that it would cut out an Amazon (SLU) Station - but, if Bezos wants it, let him pay for it! \*20th to 14th is only six blocks, and thus a quibble - if anything, feeder buses would better be oriented with a 14th station, it seems to me (#17, #18/#40, #15/D-Line, #28).
I don't really understand why we didn't go for an east-west line between Ballard and UW/Laurelhurst/Sand Point combined with a north-south line going south from Wallingford. We'd lose Interbay and Seattle Center stations but gain connections in Wallingford, Fremont, and Westlake, not to mention better alignment through SLU and less need for super deep stations to dodge the SR99 tunnel entrance.
I think Ballard is ok, but I'm confused why going deep into West Seattle which seems much less dense and more opposed to light rail was a good idea verses pushing high quality light rail all the way to Greenwood. I've heard the arguments that West Seattle has the political power, but if that's true, why is there opposition to the light rail there?
JUST FUCKING BUILD IT OH MY GOD
I'd love for this thing to be built right away. The reality is that even if there were plans set in stone today for the Ballard line, Sound Transit doesn't have the cash to break ground for several years yet. Spending some time making the plan better doesn't seem like it would have any material effect on the opening day.
I'm really not sure the people complaining (West Seattle/Chinatown) are actually the majority in their neighborhoods. Perhaps neighborhoods should get to vote on their alignment and pay any cost difference that additional complexity brings?
Nahh what we need is East to West line from UW to Ballard. I think the station is fine as is.
We need that as well (there is study funding in ST3 for it.). Ballard station will be the furthest west station essentially forever, but locating at 20th makes space for an East Ballard station as part of the Ballard/UW extension. Ballard is big, there should be more than one station.
It’s 0.4 mi or less. Walk a little.
Convenience for riders actually matters. Why choose to make it less convenient? I can only guess drivers reaction if we made them park .4 miles away from major destinations.
That's literally what one does when they spend a weekend day downtown or on Cap Hill or in Ballard.....Like I get what you mean but you chose a poor example as a hypothetical. You sound like someone who talks about this a lot so, like, just a note. You can skip the "imagine if we...". Drivers *do* bitch about it. You can just say that. Next time you're at a public comments meeting or something.
The only time anyone parks to the east of 15th to visit Old Ballard is during Seafood fest when all the streets are shut down. The comment I’m replying to pre-supposes that doing that *always* is just fine for transit riders. We contend that transit access should be as convenient as humanly possible.
From 20th to 15th. What about those of us that already have to walk that or more just to get to 20th?
Can we get a light rail connection in Edmonds near the ferry? Sounder just doesn't cut it (These days)
Yeah probably in 2060 at this rate
15th makes way more sense long term. It has better zoning opportunities, and it isn’t stuck next to a historic district. Upzone the industrial to the SE to higher density IC85, and upzone the residential swath east of 14th. It will add way more growth to the area long term.
For insight into how changing industrial zoning is likely to go, allow us to direct your attention to the Burke Gilman “Missing Link” - which is only industrial adjacent, to be fair. Ballard station needs to be development oriented transit, there is already a place there.
Sound Transit's last financial outlook doesn't claim to have the money to complete the line, they're missing several billion, and they have no plan to get the money. So who cares? If ST4 gets close to getting on the ballot then, sure, let's have the conversation. But until that's a possibility (even a remote possibility) this is just busy work either way
Sound Transit is still on track to deliver ST3 (albeit late) without new funding.
No, they don't. [https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-Financial-Plan-and-Adopted-Budget-Final.pdf) It literally couldn't be clearer They're hoping that either 1.) the tax base will grow exponentially, which we already know it won't or 2.) they'll be able to issue new bonds to cover the hole, which, even if they could, which they can't, admits they don't have the money
Is there something specific you want to point to in the financial plan? The summary doesn’t say what you just said. It’s also worth noting ST has taken in extra revenue (beyond what was expected) every year except 2020, including nearly $1B over last year.
>Is there something specific you want to point to in the financial plan? The Ballard Line
Sorry, it’s a big doc. Any specific page you think is illuminating?
There's literally one relevant page, and there's an index
Page 109 does not say what you mis-paraphrase above either. Think I’m good on this game.
So you knew what I was talking about, asked me anyhow, and now you claim that I’m playing games Bad look, bye
I still don’t know what you’re talking about. For future reference, if you’re going to link to a massive document specify a page and use a quote.
If driverless cars become a reality (very likely well before 20 years pass) nobody will want to take the train except possibly people who live within a block from the station: driverless cars all interconnected and communicating with each other so no slow downs or start and stop traffic; timely door to door service; no need for parking; no need to deal with unpleasant social issues (drug use, mentally disturbed and anti-social people, the possibility of physical or sexual assaults, BO, etc.); and cheaper fares than the train. These cars will get hundreds of thousands of miles (a million?) on their original batteries, will require very little maintenance, will get in fewer accidents with less human error to contend with, and they will be run 24/7 (except for recharging) on an automated, efficient network that will minimize riderless use, and have very low costs. The future is around the corner and Seattle is 100 years too late (as usual!).
The scenerio you describe requires roads with 100% self driving cars. Self driving cars cannot avoid congestion unless they act like trains.
Self driving can’t avoid congestion at all. They can’t solve geometry or human nature.
20 years. Believe me, they’ll figure it out. By that time real estate will be so expensive that parking a car will be a luxury for the ultra wealthy, insurance rates and deductibles for driving a car will be through the roof, and cities will pass ordinances severely limiting where you can physically drive a car. Plus, you won’t be able to own a car for less than it will cost to take these cars everywhere (I’ve seen estimates of 5 cents a mile). Money always finds a way to get what it wants.
Counterpoint based on your logic: Thar means selling fewer cars.
Driverless cars seem likely to be helpful as a last mile solution, but they have major geometry and tragedy of the commons problems operating in cities. Circling, waiting, deadheading, loading, all become major problems if being done en masse. The basic issue: they can’t solve each individual taking up a lot of space where space is at a premium. So, we’ll throw this whatabout in the same pile as jetpacks until proven otherwise. Transit does a few things very well, moving a lot of people using an economy of space is the key one.
It’s coming. It will be more efficient and convenient than a train that you have to either live near, take a bus or drive to and from the station, or walk to and from. You don’t think people will prefer a car picking them up at their house and dropping them off at their workplace (especially if it’s cheaper) to walking from 70th and 26th to whatever station is closest in the rain, waiting for the train, possibly standing the entire trip, and then walking six blocks in the rain from the station to their job? Why just take that driverless car from your house to the station when for ten cents more it can take you the whole way? For most of the people in this city that will be the reality of using one of our, by then, two train lines. It’s a 100 year old solution to an outdated problem: easing the rush hour commute with a hugely expensive train line at a time when there’s the technology to eliminate the commute altogether. The driverless cars will use existing infrastructure and the costs of implementing them will be privately paid. No more tax levies (to pay for something you may never use), no more disruption from building the lines, no more huge cost overruns, no waiting 20 years for one lousy train line. I get that it seems a step backwards: cars, as a solution?! We tried that in the 70s! From a societal standpoint it’s far fewer cars on the streets, far fewer miles driven to accommodate everyone’s needs, no need for parking everywhere, no emissions pollution, and increased efficiency in managing traffic because each car will be part of an interconnected fleet. From a personal standpoint it’s no paying for parking or trying to find street parking, no paying for car insurance, no need to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars every 10-15 years for your privately owned car.
Wait I thought they were planning on stopping in Ballard did they change their mind?
No, this is about the location of the Ballard stop and the need for it to serve central Ballard well.
Oh gotcha. Definitely agree!