Comments on: In Seattle, as in Most Cities, Transit Works Best When It’s Not Highway-Bound

By: John Niles

John Niles — Wed, 12 May 2010 22:41:39 +0000

http://www.soundtransit.org/documents/pdf/about/board/motions/2010/Motion%20M2010-44.pdf is complete description of Sound Transit’s preferred alignment for East Link.

Seattle Times May 11 story “Bellevue council not giving up on light-rail route along I-405″ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bellevueblog/2011839563_bellevuecouncil.html is about the alignment south of the CBD, not within or near the CBD, where a short tunnel is now preferred near the existing bus-oriented Transit Center.

On the map of Bellevue below the CBD http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/images/eastli2.jpg Sound Transit the light rail construction agency prefers B2, while the City Council majority likes B7.

Sound Transit has Washington State law behind it if the ST Board chooses to override the City’s alignment preference, though a cooperative partnership is always the first choice of relationship.

By: John Niles

John Niles — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:17:00 +0000

Bellevue City Council is now unanimous on a tunnel route through the Bellevue CBD, and the City Manager testified to the Sound Transit board yesterday (March 25) with a list of City contributions to funding that he thinks would make the tunnel affordable within Sound Transit’s budget. For details, the Sound Transit board meetings are recorded and archived for web streaming at http://www.soundtransit.org/x4976.xml.

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:04:22 +0000

Thanks for the great article Yonah. Here’s another post with more information about additional downtown alignment options. Not surprisingly, there is an at-surface option that looks like it would perform incredibly well: http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/02/08/new-data-two-east-link-options-look-good/

By: Chanson

Chanson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:57:53 +0000

Actually, Bellevue is quite firmly held Democratic territory, not as much as say Seattle, but still quite blue in the scheme of things. However, Redmond is much more on the red side of things. Bellevue has this reputation as some sort of wealthy fairytale land that is out of touch with reality, but in my opinion that’s just the Seattle-Bellevue rivalry talking. There are many very wealthy people in Seattle and numerically speaking probably more of them than there are in Bellevue (percentage-wise probably not). No Bellevue is not as urbane as Seattle is and as time goes on it will continue to become as cosmopolitan as Seattle, but until then there is still a clash between suburban sensibilities and the newer urban realities of a major regional urban center that is growing very quickly. Perhaps that, rather than wealth, explains the disconnect between some of the residents and what is clearly the current reality of the situation.

By: Chanson

Chanson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:48:27 +0000

Let me just say that although I agree that a tunnel or street alignment would be much Much better than the highway alternative, the reality is that the Bellevue Transit Center is 1000 ft from I-405, Bellevue Square is about 1/3 of a mile. Bellevue’s downtown is quite dense and not at all spread out over more than 20 or 30 square blocks. Although I am very very supportive of the alternatives, the freeway plan is not as bad in this case as it is in others. Also, the Kempers are very good people and despite my disagreement with Mr. Kemper’s stance on light rail development, he is a very very good man and to call him a bigot or racist is just utter nonsense coming from someone who clearly doesn’t know the man.

By: Eric G.

Eric G. — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:17:13 +0000

In dense areas where trains need to navigate tight turns, or make mid-block alignment shifts or cut-throughs, an elevated or underground alignment offers advantage. In a place like downtown Chicago, you don’t want a dozen trains every ten minutes competing with tens of thousands of pedestrians, freight, cars, etc at the surface. But, in a place with wide streets like downtown Bellevue, there is ample radius at the surface to make the turns. With projected headways and ped volumes, surface should work fine. The question with running on a street is: can all the users share the space or does it become unworkable. The reasons street is preferred to elevated or underground are several. First, it makes rail more present as a travel option in people’s mind if they see it right there in the middle of the road. For everyday commuters it is a couple minutes less time and a bit less hassel to access a train at surface level instead of navigating up or down. Also, Have you ever had to carry a bicycle up 2 flights of stairs? For new or infrequent users, it is easier to find the platform when it is in plain sight than if you need to find a stairwell or elevator to access the trains. Rail in the street is cheaper, not just at build out, but over the long term in operations cost. For the transit provider, street running has lower maintenance and security cost because there aren’t elevators and stairwells where people can get stuck or trip and sue you. There aren’t places to jump off or inviting dark caverns to explore. Maintenance crews don’t need special lifts, or lighting to work underground, and they don’t need additional safety training for common tasks like grinding rails. Local police can see the platform when they walk by on thier beat. People looking out thier office window or eating at a street-level restaurant can see the platform and report something amiss. There are also advantages to the underground or elevated, so all things should be considered. As a daily transit rider and Seattle-area resident who frequently visits Bellevue to shop and dine, I think the surface option is perfectly workable and a wise use of limited tax funds.

By: Erik G.

Erik G. — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:09:23 +0000

The title of this post is mis-leading. It should be “In Bellevue, as in Most Cities…”

Kemper’s family rallied to have Japanese-Americans put into camps during WWII, and then bought their land for a song after the internment started. Kemper also does not want “those people” in his shops. It is very sad but all too true.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:50:21 +0000

And the rain.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:42:13 +0000

I am perplexed as to why building this even makes sense when there is perfectly acceptable bus service in the area. In fact, the bus service between Downtown Seattle and Downtown Bellevue is excellent and is likely to move faster than a train because trains tend to average pretty low speeds. The ST 550 is most often going to move faster than the light rail, if you haven’t noticed the slowest part of the 550 ride is on Bellevue Way, whereas the rest of it is on the freeway and then a tunnel where it has complete ROW.

If you are saying that people will ride this because surveys were done, then really this is a multimillion (billion) dollar marketing ploy to get people to take transit. Are they UNAWARE of the buses? If there is poor bus service, why not invest in better bus service that could cost a few hundred thousand instead. It is very clear that they want to throw away a ton of money.

Let me point out that the Link Light Rail takes about the same amount of time as the express bus service from downtown Seattle. It is also the most expensive system in the country (world?) because of the overhaul to the tunnel. Remember that everything being done was actually originally part of the design, but city politics mitigated costs by cutting corners. Seattlites will remember this from regional news.

So you want walkability or livability or something? I personally find Bellevue to be more pedestrian friendly than downtown Seattle. It has large sidewalks, clearly marked roadways and for the major commercial areas, they are accesible via various skybridges and perhaps tunnels.

It is pretty irresponsible to start arguing for “aesthetics” and “the comfort” of the traveler because it just seems like people are trying to be like, “so there…have some compassion.” What starts to happen with increasing taxes is to fund these projects is that you are continuing to marginalize poor people because sales tax goes up, which means more difficult procurement of goods, property taxes go up, which mean higher rents or higher property taxes for those lucky poor people. Income taxes go up…but of course they are lucky in Washington because there is NO state income tax.

If you are concerned about congestion on the freeway and buses being unable to make the fast trip, then your easy alternative is to implement tolls. Don’t argue that it will marginalize the poor people because they have already paid their toll once on a bus, because the buses and other HOVs will either receive discounts or free passage. Since it IS the Eastside, why not all those wealthy folk pay the tolls, which will force them into transit. Remember, that speed and convenience tend to come at premiums. Drivers should incur that cost by paying a toll, those who truly want that speed and convenience can pay whatever amount necessary so they can move smoothly during rush hour without much hindrance. Those still wanting speed/convenience can avoid tolls by taking a bus/carpool/vanpool etc and paying for it through fares or the personal investment of choosing an alternative, whatever that may be. Long story short, by not implementing tolls (direct user-fees for use of roadways) you have HURT transit riders.

The puget sound region has a respectable express bus service fleet, why not use them? Oh and plenty of “local” buses that sit empty, yet provide very fast service.

By: J.D. Hammond

J.D. Hammond — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:41:08 +0000

Replace the nonexistent rail alignment proposal with an even less existent theoretical rail system?

Read first, then post?