Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
The thing that concerns me now is whether, with the ST2 extensions now in the works, we've learned our lesson about trying not to run light rail through gauntlets of street crossings, especially through major downtowns.*
* For those of you who haven't already figured out, I'm talking Bellevue.
I liked the playing cards on the tunnel walls at the Beacon Hill Station. What a trip!
I also enjoy the idea that every station should be a P&R, because otherwise people won't ride! You know, because we can wedge parking garages in the middle of a city.
I think the Grocery Outlet Diamond Park is going to be gobbled up pretty quickly when the economy starts its ascent again. I predict Apartments-Over-Grocery Store or Apartments-Over-Quiznos.
Then for comparison's sake, try riding a system like SkyTrain in Vancouver where they made a commitment to grade separation. The two systems are light years apart in terms of the rider experience, and not just in terms of sheer speed, but frequency and reliability.
I'm not one of these hard-core transit wonks who believe Central Link is fatally flawed for running at street level through the Rainier Valley. But it sure would have been if it had run at street level through downtown Seattle. And for my money, downtown Bellevue is a lot more like downtown Seattle than it is like MLK.
BTW, had it finally not been killed off it would be wisping people from Ballard to West Seattle in a short few minutes. Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.
Seattle: Where the Future is to be Feared!!
If only there was SOME OTHER WAY to grade-separate trains besides a tunnel?
Downtown Bellevue has traffic like downtown Seattle, but pedestrians like MLK (i.e., hardly any). And the streets are ridiculously wide. They could fit an elevated track down the middle of Bellevue Way and hardly anyone would even notice it; you can barely see across it anyways.
It needs to go back to the drawing board because it sure as hell wouldn't have broken ground in time the way it was executed last time.
@12: I rode MAX day-in and day-out for months and months through downtown. Wasn't a big deal, train was almost always standing room only. It could be better, but most successful world systems started in a manner consistent with the scale of development. Even NYC had street-running streetcars with crowded streets. Of course, there were more living and unshielded obstacles then... how daring!
They asked if we came on the train. w00 w00!!
This is very much my point. Tunneling or going elevated through downtown Bellevue is consistent with the scale--and projected scale--of development. Bellevue has a real downtown with tall buildings and significant retail and business development (and emerging residential development).
If we build at street level through downtown Bellevue, we're always going to be kicking ourselves for our short-sightedness at making that ride that much longer, less frequent, and less reliable. If we tunnel through downtown Bellevue, believe me, no one's going to be kicking themselves for having spent the few hundred million extra dollars.
(And yes, I do realize the extra cost of building a tunnel through Bellevue cannot come from ST2 funds.)
tukwila to benaroya took a co-worker 45 minutes this morning - she had to CHANGE TRAINS at 8:45 a.m.
My favorite part was going past SoDo and seeing the container cranes down by Harbor Island out the window. It reminded me of the BART line in Oakland right before the trans-bay tube. It made me feel like I live in a real city and not a fake wooden one!
I know, let's chop down all the trees so they can afford that.
We need to "get back to the drawing board" asap to get on that. There's no reason to wait. there's lower real estate prices now, too.
Taking until 2030, 2035 or later, means taking forty years to build out the entire system in city. Half the commuters going downtown don't even drive, we will have les capacity with the viaduct gone and we have climate change to worry about, too.
Money is the issue. One must wonder at the wisdom -- financial, risk-wise, mobility-wise and climate-wise -- of buying into a $4 billion bored tunnel for two miles that serves autos mainly, and has no integration, synergy, meshing or utility for our emerging rapid transit system.
The planned tunnel nearly all for autos, it doesn't even have one little bus stop under downtown with one elevator shaft to go up -- a very bad design choice. Either it should be rethought to serve rapid transit in some way or deferred in favor of putting the priority on finishing the rapid transit network. Clearly, for a couple of billion you could add 12 stations or more along that 99 corridor and when those synergize with the light rail lines that are open and that are planned, we've got the system we need so that nearly everyone can have a choice of getting to work fast, without a car.
Sorry about your back.
Fortunately, this is not yet a done deal. It's too late to change our decisions about how light rail runs through South Seattle, but downtown Bellevue is a different story and there are still alternative plans on the table to run light rail grade-separated there. I believe the only alternatives being seriously considered are tunnels, not elevated.
The extra money to run light rail grade-separated through downtown Bellevue cannot come from the ST2 funds from last year's Prop. 1. The City of Bellevue would have to find some other funding source.
My two cents? Please, somebody some way find the extra money. Bellevue is enough of a hub for this region--and East Link is a vital enough corridor for this region--getting those trains off those streets is an investment we won't regret.
I tried to raise this issue with a couple comments on yesterday's light rail post.