The very last thing we need is system of bridges for hobos to shoot heroin under criss-crossing our neighborhoods.

Someone never lived in a cheap Chicago apartment next to the El train... try sleeping through that.
Train rides shouldn't be about "scenery" part of the reason we tore down the stupid Viaduct despite nostalgic people who wanted a sunset cruise along the waterfront.
Sure, an elevated train is cheaper but this isn't Mt Baker. Only in the Southend is Sound Transit allowed to build a bumpy, slow, meandering route to the airport unlike every other city in the history of the world that built Light Rail/Subway to the airport that go the fastest route from the airport to downtown, you know where are the hotels are. But hey, we couldn't wait for a Southend Light Rail extension we had to gentrify Mt Baker now! Not in 10 years, plus Seatac needs its parking lot profits.

This talking up of properties near the train sounds like a local joke the author never picked up on.

While our elevated line is slooow, there’s absolutely no reason to emulate older ways of doing things.

Unless you can catch up with autonomous driving with it's low carbon footprint, flexibility, ridesharing abilities and near perfect direction of traffic we may have already far overbuilt our urban paved road system. Not that I don't miss my rail travels in Asia.

Chicago is flat. Seattle is hilly. So hilly, in fact, that Link Light Rail reaches the tunnel under Beacon Hill via an elevated structure at either end.

We’re putting the next light rail sections in tunnels because we don’t want big elevated structures ripping out good real estate and replacing it with ugly concrete. (Don’t worry your Midwestern frugal sensitivities about the cost; the hometown of Boeing and Amazon has plenty of money to keep Seattle beautiful.)

Oh, and Bill? Ten years ago, when the current light rail opened, the residents in Tukwila complained about the noise from the elevated tracks there. You’re not fooling anyone when you say it’s not a problem.

Clearly you weren't around here in the '90's when we voted FIVE TIMES for a city-wide monorail system only to have it shot down on the very last vote.

@1:

Nice dehumanization there, buddy, because as we all know shooting smack is literally the ONLY THING that occurs underneath bridges and overpasses, amiright?

GFY, asshole. This ain't Shitcago. Opposition to an elevated line is pretty near unanimous in West Seattle.

@4: catch up with something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world and since it just means cars is the last thing we need?

Seattle's inner suburbs and close-in neighborhoods — Wallingford, Fremont, Queen Anne — were developed through streetcars. The annexed suburbs — Wedgwood, View Ridge, Lake City — were all developed via roads. Which would we like to see more of? Which are higher price per sq ft? I say we create dedicated bus lanes on all the major arterials —Lake City Way, 25th, 35th Sand Point Way in the NE, Roosevelt, 15th, Greenwood etc. — and put streetcars there…

Yeah, I remember the promise of the monorail in the early aughts…voted down by the same people who love to visit Paris, London, New York but can't see all that dense convenience here.

@2

40 minutes is an entirely unremarkable time from Airport to Downtown via public transit, as you'd know if you were in the habit of using that option in your travels around the world.

Nobody builds transit lines to the Airport just for the rich. Those lines always serve the neighborhoods between the airport and the city's downtown, and those neighborhoods are usually poor. The rich can already afford private car services, and few of them are likely to switch to anything less convenient.

Come on COUNT, everyone knows they suck one another’s dicks down there, and everyone knows you gotta sleep sometime.

Aside from being cheaper an elevated system would be ultimately safer. I would hate to become stuck, derailed in a tunnel or buried alive in one. In this area the water table is too high; those tunnels will flood. Despite the drawbacks the elevated system is a better choice and a modern mag-lev system would be quieter. I really doubt that the system could offer any real shelter either to someone living underneath.

@7 So, you've talked to everyone in West Seattle, have you? Funny, I know plenty of folks that are just fine with the idea, myself included.

Seattle: "WE WANT MONORAIL WHY WONT DOWNTOWN BUSINESS INTERESTS GIVE US MONORAIL"

Seattle: "NO FUCKING ELEVATED TRAINS CAUSE ELEVATED TRAINS ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY"

"... elevated trains reduce traffic congestion, get you where you need to go quickly, and enable you to read or relax instead of marinating in talk radio and road rage."

Then, where will I get my bile?

@2 We just tore down an El because it "disconnected us from the waterfront" (bullshit, but whatever). I don't recall Charles marching to save that one.

However, on the list of places that don't have trains directly from downtown to the airport includes both SF and NYC, sooo... not sure that argument holds a ton of water.

@8 that isn't what doomed the monorail - what doomed it was the insistence on creating an entirely new agency, with zero institutional knowledge and headed by a snake-oil salesman, to manage an infrastructure project. SPMA was going to tax the city $200m/mile built, which in 2005, was pretty extreme, especially for rubber wheels on cement. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so-expensive-to-build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/

@15: BART goes directly from SFO to downtown San Francisco. The viaduct came down because it was seismically unsound. Try to keep up.

@11 I don't think your safety concerns are founded. Underground train tunnels have been proven extremely safe in cities that have earthquakes, which also happen to be coastal and haven't had an issues with flooding. They aren't just holes in the dirt like an old-timey mine shaft, there's a whole infrastructure of redundancies down there. If a BART train were to get stuck underneath the bay you could simply walk back to terra firma via the walkway that runs between the tunnels.

@15 Do you mean a train that doesn't have any stops between downtown and the airport? BART goes right into SFO and on the OAK side BART connects directly with the airport sky tram.

@15, @17

There's direct service from JFK to lower Manhattan via the A train. You do need to use the airport's internal intra-terminal transit (AirTrain) to get to the Metro station, but that's true in many other airports around the world as well (they don't all tag you for an extra $5, but no two systems anywhere have the same fee structure, so eh)

LaGuardia to Rockafeller Center is about 45 minutes via public transit, on par with other public-transit Airport-to-Downtown trip times around the world even though the first leg is a bus (an airport-dedicated bus, mind you, with luggage racks and unusually patient drivers and so on).

Good article. Except for the little part about buses automatically being stuck in traffic, it is just fine. (That part is demonstrably false. There are plenty of cities with grade-separated bus systems. Brisbane is a fine example, and even Seattle had a bus tunnel before it became a train tunnel.) But no matter; in general, the article is very good, and serves as a nice primer for folks that obviously don't know shit about transit.

If you read the comments, it is obvious that such ignorance abounds. For example, Chicago is much bigger than Seattle, has much more money, and can much more afford a large, expensive rail system. Airports make weak destinations in general, and ours is no exception. SFO has 5,000 riders a day. All the stations in San Fransisco have more riders than SFO (lead by Embarcadero at 48,000) and the only station in Oakland with fewer riders is the airport (with an abysmal 1,200). The relative strength of SeaTac within our system (6,000) is only an indication of our overall weakness, as the two urban stations added in our last overdue "extension" have exceeded it. The airport also serves as a drop-off point for suburban commuters, which explains why it is the only stop to see decreasing ridership when the line was extended (as riders shifted to Angle Lake). If anything, the line out to the airport is overkill; simply ending at Rainier Beach would probably have been adequate for the south end, while the city focused on places where rail does best (core urban areas).

As for the issue at hand, you are absolutely correct. It is insane that some are considering burying the lines in West Seattle and Ballard. Of course folks in West Seattle want the train to be underground. Tough shit. I want a blow job every morning, but it ain't gonna happen. West Seattle is already a poor choice for light rail, as the cost is nowhere near commensurate with the benefit. West Seattle is a very low density area, and the line will be next to a fucking freeway. Only in a world where you view transit as a way to accommodate 9-5 commuters does it deserve consideration, and even then it is way down on the list (Yes, it sucks when your bus is "On the fucking freeway!" and only going 10 MPH. Try riding a bus on a city street averaging 3 MPH.). West Seattle rail was built only because Dow Constantine thought it would be cool, and Sound Transit managed to squeeze it into the ST3 package by promising everyone that it would be above ground. Now, folks in West Seattle want to spend hundreds of millions more even though it wouldn't benefit a single West Seattle rider.

Ballard is a little more complicated, but no less depressing. The fact that folks are seriously considering moving the station to 14th is depressing. The idea of burying the trains and serving 15th is also a stupid idea. Riders would get nothing from the deal. Like West Seattle, the only reason that 15th was chosen is because it was relatively cheap. If you are going to bury the line, then you need to go to the heart of Ballard, which means a station at 20th. That would result in a lot more riders, which is the only way you can justify the expense of yet another tunnel under the ship canal.

Holy fuck, it is as if people are completely ignorant of the major transit issues in the town. The buses carry the vast majority of riders, and will always do so. Yet we lack good frequency on many routes, and the buses run very slowly. We passed the Move Seattle levy, and a big chunk of the money was supposed to be used to rectify the situation. On several corridors we were supposed to have very fast, very frequent bus service (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/). But the previous administration fucked up. Their initial estimates were way off, and as a result, we can't have half of that. It is nuts that folks are talking about spending hundreds of millions on train stations that will be no better than what voters approved, yet plans for greatly improving transit in this town sit on the drawing board for lack of money. It is like blowing all your money on brand new spinner wheels when your car needs a new alternator.

@9 - the problem with the Link line to the airport is that it is NOT elevated, as would have been sensible, but on the surface, so that it can go as possible. Stupid stupid stupid. As a result it's really goddamned slow through that part of town. I am told by those who used to take the bus that the train is now slower than the bus was.

You're right, 40 minutes to the airport is within the bounds of what a lot of other places have, but why should we settle for that when we could have done better?

@21- "9 to 5 commuters" are a huge part of the reason we need public transit. They are the ones who create rush hour and clog downtown with parked cars and drivers looking for parking.

@20 - you show unusual restraint. Graffiti usually inspires people to paint OTHER peoples' garages.

Paint a picture of your Rolls
on the garage door and
maybe somebody'll steal it.

Let’s see. Drag bags to Seatac train station, wait for train. 40 minute train ride from Seatac to downtown, drag bags upstairs and wait for bus. Watch junkies and psychos. Home from Seatac in 1.5 hrs if I’m lucky.

Or order Uber/Lyft as I deplane. Grab after short 10 minute walk to level 3 of parking garage. Home from Seatac in 30-35 minutes listening to Podcast, sipping on Cafe Vita espresso I grabbed before leaving terminal.

Gee, tough choice.

Last time I saw Dan Savage at the airport he was waiting in the Rideshare lot for his Uber. I guess transit is for the plebs.

@27

Public transit to the airport is for the plebs in every other city, too.

If it were for the rich, the stations would be much closer to the gates, seats would be assigned and upholstered, there would be a club car, and there wouldn't be any stops in those icky poor-people neighborhoods you always find between the airport and the financial district.

Some rich people enjoy slumming it with the plebs now and again, some don't... and Dan's getting a bit too old for that kind of fun anyway.

@29

I know my friends and family are tired of me saying "hired car" or "internet car-hiring service" instead of just saying "Uber" like everyone else, but I swore to myself I'd keep at it until the first bankruptcy filing in the sector.

@17 You know I live there right?

The shit goes through Daly City, GTF outta here

@19 "direct service" - after a 20 minute train ride from the airport. Sorry, that's a transfer holmes.

@22 -- This begs the question: How much faster would it be if the train was elevated (in Rainier Valley)? I'll try a little napkin math here. From Rainier Beach to Mount Baker Station is less than four miles, but I'll round up. For that section, they are limited to 35 MPH. The fastest the train goes is 55 MPH. So, assuming there were no stops, a 55 MPH train would take 4 minutes, 22 seconds. A 35 MPH train would take 6 minutes 52 seconds. So the most the train would save is 2 minutes and 30 seconds. That's it.

Except that would never happen. There are stops between there. That means that the train spends a considerably amount of time accelerating and decelerating. Doing that math is a lot more complicated, but I feel confident in shaving off at least thirty seconds from that number.

So basically an elevated line would save two minutes for a trip to the airport. That isn't why the trip takes so long. It takes so long because it isn't an express. It makes stops. That is the way subways work. The only way to make it much faster is if you skipped the stops. But the whole point of the system is to pick up people (it would be really fast if there were no stops).

Not that many people take transit to an airport. Again, look at BART -- the two airports are towards the bottom of the list, despite the extremely fast trains, and long distances between stops. If anything, our service to the airport is exceptional. It fits in well with the rest of the system (one of the keys to high ridership -- https://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transit.html). The five mile stretch from Rainier Beach to Tukwila makes the trip essentially an express. The average speed is extremely high for an urban subway (because it really isn't functioning like one for that stretch). The problem is that airport travel is rarely a big generator of trips. Yet folks obsess over it, because they picture themselves using it. This makes it different than, say, a train to Rainier Valley.

Chicago isn't the only city with elevated transit. Our closest neighboring city has it as well. They even named their system after this feature (calling it "SkyTrain"). Vancouver isn't exactly a hell hole.

We have elevated transit as well. To those that think that elevated transit will lead to graffiti and blight, you might want to check this out: https://goo.gl/maps/2qrjV9WrmX45BxdAA.

14th in Ballard would be a great location and only 1 or 2 blocks from huge apartment complexes. Very few businesses would have to close during construction unlike with building it closer to downtown or on 15th. Tunnel would be preferred though.

@36 -- Sorry, no. The heart of Ballard is to the west of 15th, not to the east. it is not even close. To the west you have more jobs, more apartments (big and small), restaurants, clubs -- all of it. In short, you have a vibrant city, and the all-day transit demand that goes with it. To the east you have quaint houses and an industrial zone. That is all good and well, but it is not at all where you put a train station. 14th is a recipe for failure -- a recipe for low ridership. It is a sign to everyone in Ballard that you really don't give a fuck about transit, and you sure as hell shouldn't sell your car. Because no one is going to walk ten minutes, cross 15th, then walk another three minutes to get to the damn station in the middle of the day. They will drive, which means we will have spent literally billions for something that only works during rush hour.

The folks who proposed 14th are in that camp. They don't give a shit where it goes, as long as they can say they built it. They view transit stops like they are ferry docks -- just put the thing anywhere in the general vicinity and thousands will flock to it. But it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that anywhere, which means it doesn't work that way here. The Mount Baker Station has extremely low ridership because the folks who built it put it in the wrong fucking place. Their excuse was money (https://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/18/the-awfulness-of-mt-baker-station/). ST doesn't even have that excuse now, because there is enough money to put the station at 15th (after all, that was the original plan). No, these are folks who are ready to convert a mediocre station to a terrible one, all to avoid a temporary disruption in traffic. Either they don't understand transit, or they don't give a fuck.

The Ballard station should be in Ballard, not West Woodland.

@35 -- Yeah, elevated trains do cast a shadow. They can also be really expensive in a dense city, especially when you have streets that aren't straight. In this case though, it isn't an issue. A train at 15th NW would cast a shadow over 15th NW, but it doesn't matter. That is not a great place to hang out, and no one would care. The only reason 15th makes sense as a station is because it is as close as you can come to Ballard without spending a shitload of money. But for an elevated station, it is fine, because it is not a charming place.

West Seattle is, surprisingly enough, similar. The plan approved by voters was to send it up Fauntleroy, then onto Alaska. Both streets are very wide, with little to no charm (https://goo.gl/maps/ZQZTWgFH1YTjbCTJ6, https://goo.gl/maps/GGfZUPnUmW4pnDhx5). The line would end before The Junction (but still be close enough to walk to it). The terminal station would be here, next to the Petco: https://goo.gl/maps/CAjLGELDLxKQEFAa9. The turnaround tracks wouldn't even reach California (where The Junction is). That means all the charm of that part of West Seattle would remain. You would simply have a train that allows people to access it easily (as well as accessing connecting buses and a few apartments that exist in the largely suburban peninsula).

West Seattle rail is not a great value. Ballard is better, but a line to the UW would have been cheaper, and carried more riders. Neither project is great; spending an extra billion on those lines while not gaining one extra passenger is a really stupid idea. We have large, unmet transit needs in this city (not to mention other non-transit needs). It would be really stupid to blow that money on crap.

@32

A ten minute ride* on an intra-terminal airport transit system is exactly the same thing you need to do to get from your gate to ground transport in dozens of other major airports. We're not talking about airport's internal people-moving systems here.

And is your cover for not knowing BART runs to SFO, even though you live in the area, really going to be "but the tracks aren't in a straight line?" Is it really that hard to say "Sorry, I was wrong about that?"

Your original point has been wrecked, but you were half-right about NYC (or one-third right -- LGA handles about half the traffic level of JFK) so why not take what you've got there and go home, instead of digging yourself deeper?

(*) Neither the Howard Beach nor Jamaica Station stops on the AirTrain take more than around ten minutes, definitely not 20. Unless you're riding around to visit all the airport terminals twice or something.

@33

The trains through Rainier Valley do get stopped for traffic lights. Yes, the signals sync to the trains, but at some crossings pedestrian push-to-walk buttons take priority. More pedestrians, more delays.

And then there are your once-in-a-blue-moon direct collisions with cars, car accidents blocking crossings, people running around on unfenced tracks, etc.

On average I'd guess these additional delays don't add more than 1-3 minutes during rush hour, so your broader point still holds-- but they're a substantial factor in addition to train speed and station count when determining trip time at-grade and in-grid.

I worked in Chicago and visit frequently for work (few times a year). That experience makes me opposed to an elevated track, especially in the central business districts of our communities. They are loud, and I always request hotel rooms as far away from the El as possible. They also make the streets they are on in Chicago dark, loud, and terrible. You can’t even have a conversation with trains roaring overhead. I’m going to assume this piece is satire or just stupid. Can someone point me to the Stranger’s constant pro-elevated track articles when the rail system came to their Cap Hill bubble? I lived on the Hill when it arrived, but don’t recall the constant drumbeat they have now.

2

how often does the train go by?.. so often you wont even notice it

@2....ooops

@39 that's the excuse you use to say Seattle's light rail isn't direct. I take BART every single day. Fuck off, doofus.

Also, JFK to Howard Beach is significantly longer than walking from SeaTac to the SeaTac station. It's a transfer. The bus from Jackson Heights to La Guardia is pretty dumb slow as well. Total commute time is the functional metric. If you have a 5pm fight at either LGA or JFK from Manhattan, you need to leave by 230. From downtown Seattle, you could leave at 315.

The A or the J go to Howard Beach and Jamaica stations, respectively. You hop on the Airtrain and you're at your terminal at JFK. Its a "transfer" but doesn't really feel like it and you're on easy, cheap, relatively quick mass transit from Manhattan and anywhere else in the city to your flight. Mass transit to Newark is not terrible, LaGuardia sucks.

I'd be a fan of elevated lines in Seattle if they were built with as minimal an aesthetic as possible. The ones I experienced in Berlin were narrow, nice to look at and didn't seem to be big behemoth monoliths that blocked out life. The elevated stations and tracks are atrocious in New York. The areas under them are dark, dirty and just feel depressing.

I also grew up in Chicago, and for a while lived a block from Wrigley Field. I took the El Red Line from Addison St, thru the Loop, to UIC where I went to school ...it was great, an hour door-to-door.

But...transit in Chicago going east-west SUCKS, relying solely on buses. And Chicago doesn't have the earthquake threat that Seattle does, so our elevated posts would have to be more massive & more closely-spaced than our tourist monorail, which is supremely ugly. And btw, the Federal Government — meaning all of us — paid for every transit system east of the Mississippi. So stop preaching to us about how we should build transit. Tunnels under the ship canal & West Seattle make sense ...over the long run the extra cash we spend will be trivial.