20th Ave NW tunnel option dropped for Ballard Light Rail

Meghan Walker Ballard

The pricey-yet-popular tunnel option to connect downtown Ballard to light rail has been scrapped in favor of cheaper options.

Sound Transit board members have decided to drop the proposal that would create a $450 million tunnel under Salmon Bay directly to 20th Ave NW. They also are moving away from ideas for a $200 million tunnel through West Seattle’s Pigeon Point, and an elevated railway in Sodo.

The preferred alternatives for Ballard now include a tunnel that would run from the Interbay station under 15th and end at a tunnel station at either 14th or 15th, a movable bridge crossing Salmon Bay west of the Ballard Bridge to an elevated station at Market and 15th, and a high fixed bridge with an elevated station at 14th and Market.

As the Seattle Times reports, Mayor Jenny Durkan warned that the fixed bridge alternative could be as high as the Aurora Bridge, which would create large structures on land and in the water, potentially disturbing salmon migration. Rather, Mayor is in favor of the tunnel under 15th, which would still cost roughly $100 million less than a tunnel under 20th.

Even when considering cheaper options, the price for expanding light rail to Ballard and West Seattle could add up to $1.7 billion, which means the City will still need to seek third-party funding.

21 thoughts to “20th Ave NW tunnel option dropped for Ballard Light Rail”

    1. I don’t know. There’s room for more offices and apartments east of 15th. By the time it gets here, the usefulness may be more balanced.

    2. Who is “we”? And why don’t YOU start by sending in every freaking last penny YOU have, and leave my damn wallet alone? Never mind the facts on ridership. Never mind the facts, the land owners and costs that never are enough. It’s always: I want, I want, I want, at what cost? Seems being a good solid Dummycrat means you also live in a fantasy world, where you do as central command says to and forget the facts, costs and are concerned about feelings.

  2. We need a reliable transit connection. A tunnel is the most dependable option. Think of how annoying it would be if every other time you take the light rail, your train gets stuck for 5 minutes because the bridge is up, making you late for your meeting or you miss the beginning of the movie or Seahawks game you’re going to watch. It’ll cost more in the beginning, but it’ll be so worth it. It’s just common sense.

      1. elenchos2 – I think teichou just answered your question!
        Tunnel = no waiting for the bridge to lower when a boat goes through.
        Bridge = waiting for a boat to go through when the bridge is up.

        and :
        Tunnel = smooth driving, no moving parts for the tunnel.
        Bridge = maintenance and possible malfunctions of moving parts.

        Oh why am I even bothering to explain this? I got sucked in again…..

        Ha ha but I love it…

        1. I’ve never seen anyone who thinks so much of themselves they can’t listen to others. The option is FIXED bridge genius. That would not go up and down.

          1. Why so smug and arrogant here? Although, it is what Poobah’s do. How tall is your hat?

          1. It’d be easier and much cheaper for your government to confiscate all autos, buy us all a bike or 2, and give us all nice tidy uniforms like Red China did not that long ago. Then. we’d all be so poor and the area wouldn’t need this stuff. But, YOUR Dummycrats would be our lords though. I just wet myself for you.

    2. given Seattles history do you think a traffic “solution” will come out of any of this?
      show me a major traffic area that works as planned in this city.
      do nothing, it won’t matter

    3. Aww wunning wate to yo widdle sportsball game :*( Wate for an impwotant meeting because of dah big bad boats :*( wahhhhh wahhh

  3. We need to be practical and get the most bang of the buck: a somewhat taller fixed bridge, wide enough for cars, trains, and bikes/walkers, and that is tall enough for most of the sailboats going underneath it. This may prevent a few really large boats from going east of Ballard, but so be it. We no longer live in the age of tall ships.

    1. What is with dummycrats and wanting to destroy industry jobs? You realize that Ballard services vessels that travel internationally? As in servicing the international economy? As in quite literally keeping the international economy afloat? How is a poorly planned traffic solution that will cost hundreds of millions more important than the backbone industries of Ballard and the international economy? CLOWN WORLD

      1. The backbone of our industry are fishing boats, not the big boats. Ballard can service those big boats west of the Ballard Bridge. The real question is why does anyone expect taxpayers to essentially subsidize the few companies that service these few boats by spending hundreds of millions on tall bridges or tunnels? If the economic activity of these large boats was really significant, then these companies could foot the bill for a tunnel.

  4. I can’t believe people are commenting on this. We’ll all be dead or broke by the time this is built (if it is built). Sound transit? Billions over budget, decades late, run by an un-elected board (they answer to no one), and they continue to illegally tax you. Not to mention autonomous vehicles will make all of this rail more obsolete than it already is.

    Wouldn’t you rather be saving $1000 a year for your retirement?

Leave a Reply