Why Not a West Seattle-to-Ballard Tunnel

 The August 27th Seattle Times, Page A8, Traffic Lab article, "Sound Transit to spend $4.2M to find cost cuts" continues the paper's abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  The $4.2M increased payments to $92M for "preliminary engineering and environment studies in West Seattle-to Ballard corridor".

The need to "find cost cuts" is due to "cost estimated at $7 billion soared  past $12 billion".  The "Affordable Schedule" has delayed completion from 2035 to 2039.  The attempt to reduce cost is Sound Transit's attempt to reduce the delay.

Prior to the 2016 vote, the Sound Transit 3 Map projected the 5.4-mile Ballard Link would cost $2.38B to $2.55B. The 4.7-mile West Seattle Link would cost $1.43B to $1.53B.  Sound Transit needs to explain why a ~$4B total cost in 2016 escalated to $7B let alone the $12B in 2021.

The article reports "problems with soaring right of way costs and real estate specialists weren't involved with early estimating".  The concerns were "the board didn't pick a single preferred Ballard-toWest Seattle alternative" and "it's unclear if the board will make a prompt route decision."

The article also depicted the Northgate Link, a 4.2-mile extension routed through a tunnel from UW Stadium to Northgate.  Sound Transit was initially required to tunnel under UW campus. They later decided to tunnel all the way to Northgate.  Final design began in Oct 2010 and it's scheduled to debut in October.  Sound Transit's recent 2021 budget showed the extension's total cost will be $1.9B.

This raises the question, "Did any of the ~$90M spent on consultants include an evaluation of tunnels?'  Sound Transit intends to tunnel under downtown Seattle.  Why not tunnel all the way from Ballard to West Seattle?  Has anyone estimated how much it would cost?

The Seattle Times still doesn't recognize Sound Transit's West Seattle-to-Ballard Link is the only light rail extension that increases transit capacity into Seattle.  Thus it should have priority over extensions beyond Northgate or Angel Lake that won't.  Especially since operating costs for the shorter routes will be less and ridership will benefit from having 70% to 80% of riders living within walking distance of the light rail stations.

The bottom line is, whatever the cost, it should be expedited rather than delayed.  The goal should be 2030, not 2039.  Funds spent today should evaluate tunnels that make that possible not on providing "right of way" costs for surface routes.