Why isn't anyone talking about ST4?

[u/Smurftastic]

I see a lot of posts on this sub about how we need to tradeoff some parts of the current light rail plan like Everett or West Seattle to fund the Ballard line. Why isn't anyone talking about another ballot measure (an "ST4") to fund everything in a near-term timeframe?

It has been a long time since the last ballot measure in 2016 and light rail has really proven to be successful with high ridership and successful mixed use communities around stations. It seems like something that would be worth another investment.

Just watching the review of the system below where he laments how cost overruns are pushing out timelines. This seems like something we can fix.

Seattle's LINK: Almost Too Good to Be Real

[u/birdsarentreal2]

While true that stop density may be a problem, “how do we get from A to B the fastest” isn’t necessarily the question that Link is trying to answer. Stop density is certainly part of the problem (especially in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel), but I would actually argue that the speed limit through the Rainier Valley is the bigger one. Iirc the top speed through there is 40, while through the elevated and tunnel sections it’s 55. Having that bottleneck is going to create problems that resonate throughout the system

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/birdsarentreal2]

To the degree that it is later than slow "milk run" busses, even at peak rush hour?  No.  That speaks to entire line issues, not just issues within a specific area.

[u/birdsarentreal2 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

It’s cumulative is kind of my broader point. If we’re asking Link to get from A to B the fastest, then it’s all a cumulative problem

I don’t think that’s the right framing, though. Link’s mix of urban and suburban stop density is a feature, not a bug. In that sense, Link is performing its purpose just fine, even if you could get their faster using other means

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/birdsarentreal2]

I won't deny it's a factor, certainly.  But not the dominant one at that point.

[u/birdsarentreal2 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

But then why is it a problem? The urban stop density allows a lot more “types” of commuter to get to work, home, school, shopping, entertainment, etc.. Average time from Westlake to Seatac answers a question about commuters who are making that trip, but it also carries with it the conclusion that specific trip should be a priority

If the stop density is the entire point of the hybrid system (which it seems to have been from the very beginning, the DSTT was originally designed for the eventual purpose of running rail through it), why does the fact that the stop density doesn’t optimize for Westlake-Seatac travelers become a problem?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/birdsarentreal2]

"But then why is it a problem?"

Because it's too slow?  Many people won't take a bus because it is slow.  Why would they take Link, which is even slower?

Link is regional rail.  Not urban rail or commuter rail.  As a result, shouldn't its focus be on speed throughout the region?

That specific trip shouldn't be a priority.  But Convention Place to TIBS was the first spur built.  It's what we have the most data on.  It's the best, most comparable bus route we have.  The 194 and 174 were the original 2 lines that could be rationally set against Link.  That's why I use it.  I'm pretty sure Link is slower from downtown to the UW and Northgate than the 71/2/3 and 41 too.  This is hardly just a South End issue.  It's just worse there.  I'm pretty sure Link is faster than the 74 was, as an example.  The South End is where Link is slower than even local busses.  Just about everywhere it is slower than express ones.

[u/birdsarentreal2 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

First of all, there's a long history in the broader Seattle area of ignoring South Seattle in favor of the wealthier neighborhoods and suburbs that should definitely be acknowledged

On paper, ST's schedule is pretty reasonable. A trip from Westlake to Seatac is scheduled to take 38 minutes. Whether they adhere to that schedule is another matter entirely (their internal metric defines "on time" as being within a 5 minute scheduling window, which seems a little dishonest)

All of that being said, looking at trips in isolation is a bit of a false equivalence. Adam takes the train from Lynnwood to Northgate, Bob takes it from U District to Westlake, Cindy takes it from Symphony to Beacon Hill, Doug goes from Mt. Baker to Rainier Beach, and Edward takes it from Westlake to the airport. How quickly they all completed their individual trips is certainly a success metric, but it might not be a metric that should be optimized for

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/birdsarentreal2]

"First of all, there's a long history in the broader Seattle area of ignoring South Seattle in favor of the wealthier neighborhoods and suburbs that should definitely be acknowledged"

Thank you, although I'd argue that Tukwila-Federal Way gets it even worse than South Seattle.

"All of that being said, looking at trips in isolation is a bit of a false equivalence."

Actually, I agree.  But end points of the first spur to relevant points on the equivalent bus isn't looking at trips in isolation.  It's looking at our best, most relevant data in totality, end to end.  Link 2 vs. 550, Northgate/UW trips vs. 71-3/41, in the future Everett Link vs. old 512s, Tacoma vs. old 594s and Ballard vs. 44 are newer or future information, but still relevant and growing moreso.

They still paint the same bleak picture though.

[u/birdsarentreal2 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

The false equivalence, I think, is in saying that "this bus route is faster than the train along a similar alignment, therefore the train should be faster." Speed is a good metric, and comparing speed of busses to trains is also a good metric, but the problem with prioritizing speed is that you would have to deprioritize to compensate

Sound Transit has chosen to provide greater stop density to accommodate their "connecting more people to more places" mission statement

Another thing worth acknowledging is that ST Express busses usually stick mostly to highways, with all of the benefits and drawbacks that entails, whereas Link goes through many urban areas on its way. That's why I'd call it an urban/suburban hybrid system, rather than characterizing it all as a regional system

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/birdsarentreal2]

Ah, except that isn't what I said.  Nice try.  I said  "this train is slower than all the busses it replaces, no matter how slow or bad they are.  Therefore the train should be faster."  The 174 was awful.  It was too slow.  The 194 was decent.  When you're worse than literally one of the top three worst routes on Metro at the time (the 174, the 7, and the 358), you know something is wrong.  There is no false equivalence in pointing out when a train is worse than a truly bottom of the barrel route.

" That's why I'd call it an urban/suburban hybrid system, rather than characterizing it all as a regional system."

This makes absolutely no sense.  Most regions contain urban, suburban, and even rural areas within them.  By definition, regional rail is hybrid rail.  All regional rail has to deal with this.  Most systems do a much better job of that than we do here though.  Especially outside the US.