Comments on: Seattle’s East Link: I-90 or SR520?

By: Jon Morgan

Jon Morgan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:12:37 +0000

Yonah’s explanation is correct that we can’t operate a parallel east-west line in the 520 corridor with only one north-south line. Basically, if you think of the initial network as paralleling I-5 and I-90, you need a second north-south line paralleling I-405 in order to support and distribute trips to/from a second east-west line across 520. I think that will happen eventually, and strongly support it. ST2 included money to study a C-shaped line from Kirkland to UW, Fremont, Ballard, downtown, West Seattle, Burien, and Renton. I like that idea in part because it serves neighborhoods and corridors that need rail transit but aren’t getting it yet, and because it would create two additional transfer points with Central Link rather than forcing everyone to xfer downtown like in DC (which has resulted in major congestion problems in the core of their system).

The vote Mayor McGinn wants will basically be for a fast streetcar line from Ballard to downtown to West Seattle, and it would be funded solely by Seattle; not Sound Transit or its whole 3-county district (bloody sub-area “equity”). Hopefully it will also include substantial investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, which are badly needed and would be likely to win votes from people who wouldn’t benefit directly from the Ballard-West Seattle line.

Based on political support, studies being done in ST2, and the sub-area equity policy, this is roughly what I expect the ST3 proposal to be when it’s sent to the ballot:
the C-shaped light rail line mentioned above, an east/southeast LRT extension from Bellevue to Issaquah, and completing light rail north to Everett and south to the existing Link line in Tacoma. I’m also hopeful that commuter rail will be expanded and improved, including weekend operations, trains running through Seattle rather than starting or ending there, and an extension south to Olympia.

By: K

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:26:41 +0000

If we have both an I-90 and SR520 East Link (North East Link and South East Link?) then we would have to have a north-south Link on the Eastside as well (maybe that old train track line that the county bought would do!) to connect them.

With the T-shaped single north-south and single east-west line design, a lot of growing or established communities are getting left out: Bothell, Renton, Kent, Maple Valley, Issaquah. The rail transit mentality is stuck in a commuter-oriented focus as if there was no other reason to take a metropolitan train.

I don’t object to two East Links. The I-90 one should serve Bellevue out to Crossroads and maybe continue to Issaquah. The SR520 oen should serve Kirkland and Redmond. This way the I-90 Link doesn’t have to swing up through Overlake to get to Redmond.

But then, an Eastside Link would be beneficial, perhaps running from Bothell, through Kirkland and Bellevue, then Newcastle and Renton and perhaps even Kent, Covington, and Maple Valley.

By: aw

aw — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:14:35 +0000

Yonah – I think you have one thing wrong here. You say

candidate for King County Executive Susan Hutchinson, who claims that road tolls on I-90, part of the financial package for East Link, cannot be used for non-road improvements

The argument is actually that state gas taxes which paid of a portion of financing the new bridge cannot be used for transit. The state of Washington has a constitutional amendment that requires gas tax revenue to be used only on roads. Sound Transit projects are financed only by sales tax and a motor vehicle excise tax.

If there is any tolling on I-90, it will only be used to load-balance demand between the two bridges when SR-520 is tolled to finance its rebuild.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:24:03 +0000

Just a little correction. It looks like you crossed out West Seattle but that proposed line would go from West Seattle to Downtown to Ballard. I’m glad there’s all this coverage of Seattle here, we have a lot of exciting things coming up in the next decade or two and I can’t wait to see our light rail network extend to neighborhoods throughout Seattle and the region!

By: EngineerScotty

EngineerScotty — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:49:54 +0000

The recession has driven the price of instrastructure projects down somewhat, as both real estate and labor has gotten a bit cheaper. China enjoys many political advantages for building infrastructure (no EIS process, easy to steamroll landowners who are in the way) that I’m not that we want to emulate in the US–as that’s how we USED to do infrastructure projects (ie freeways), with the result of neighborhoods being devastated.

Obviously, a LRT is less disruptive than a freeway–unless its your house it goes through. :)

By: Eric G.

Eric G. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:54:16 +0000

Seattle is extremely challenged by geography, topology and geology, which makes the fact that we are constructing any rail at all, very impressive. It’s incredibly expensive, but the lasting infrastucture will create substantial benefits with the growth of a reliable regional network. The faster that network expands over all our major travel corridors, the better we will be able to meet our goals for livability.
Hutchison is out of her mind. She is expressing the view that her contributers want to hear but, if elected, will have no power to actually change the alignment. McGinn is doing everything he can to please everyone (or not piss them off) now that he figured out his opposition to the Alaskan Way replacement tunnel was a good primary strategy and a horrible general election liabilty. I think it’s probably too late for him, and it’s sad for people seriously concerned with transit and environment that we let the campaign be defined by opposition rather than promoting a real positive vision of the city’s future.
The 520 bridge is a monstrosity, built in the wrong place across valuable views and wetlands to split the difference between serving downtown or the university. Kirkland to Sand Point would have made more sense from the auto-network standpoint, but obviously would have destroyed some other neighborhoods and I’m glad that’s not the situation. Assuming the alignment of the road won’t change, the state should at least discuss tunneling the western portion of 520 (from 1/2 way across the lake to I-5) so we could regain the marsh for quiet contemplative paddling, restore property values at Montlake, Portage Bay and Union Bay, and open up navigation a little more on lake washington. I agree 100% with LRT on that 520 alignment at a later date, and that I-90 needs to be first. Work has already started on the I-90 bridge so don’t think all the election lip-flapping will have any real impact on the project. Sound Transit did a lot of homework picking the route that has the best ridership and connections. The only portion still up to debate is downtown Bellvue. It does stink for eastsiders trying to get to the U, but they have and will continue to have good bus service there.
As for voting for more rail, I wish, but don’t believe we’ll get additional voter support, until more of the ST2 package is in service. If we want to really boost transit here, then we need to buy another tunneling machine to finish U-link earlier than 2016. Considering what China is doing, this wait is ridiculous. The money spent on an additional boring platform would easily be recaptured by moving up the other ST2 projects. In this economy all the bids are coming in low, so we should be moving up our schedules. If not, inflation will drive up the cost of projects while we are sitting on our hands waiting for one digger to slowly chew it’s way north to the U. With 2 or 3 machines going, and additional crews working on the Northgate and Lynnwood sections we could have all of that built by 2016. We can bond the dedicated revenue stream and pay an interest rate lower than future inflation if we lock it in now and put all that capital to work immediately. Design-Build contracting can secure a low price on all the projects while contractors are desperate for work.
Seattle seems to have a history of revisiting and reneging on every decision it publicly makes. No wonder people don’t have any confidence in the plans, or any compunction about challenging them. For all his faults, at least Greg Nickels started to get things done in this city. Maybe he’ll run for Governor.!?

By: Allison

Allison — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:41:09 +0000

In the meantime, can we get a bike lane across the SR520?

The only way across Lake Washington for bikes is the I-90 Bridge – I live near the U-District, that’s super far out of my way.

Hopefully that’d be included in any attempt to put LRT across the 520 bridge.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:06:44 +0000

Whoa there. We do need both links eventually. McGinn knows I-90 needs to come first, and he’ll be supporting that, but 520 is a different project entirely, and it’s a good idea to step back and look at a rail alternative there as well.

McGinn has called for an additional light rail funding vote in the next two years – this is something we’d look to that vote for, not something that would be part of Sound Transit 2.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:30:38 +0000

Ultimately, they’ll need both links and I hope they recognize this fact. As DC’s Metro has matured the tunnel under the Potomac is now at capacity. They’ll be adding a new line to the airport, but there are no plans to add routes across the river. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, but another issue that comes up in DC is redundancy. If both links are built in Seattle the city will also have redundancy in the event of a broken down train or some other unforeseen event.