There’s an article here about the UW station plans which were on display yesterday. Look forward to a post from me with more on the station design.
Seattle Times ran this op-ed from Theodore Lane and Bill Mundy about how 520 is the right corridor for light rail rather than I-90. I agree a line on there makes sense, but it doesn’t make more sense than one on 520. First, it doesn’t go through Downtown Bellevue, which has nearly as many workers (about 100,000) by itself as the “SLU/University/Redmond” area which has 113,000. Plus, you still hit Redmond and you hit more residents along I-90. Plus, the ST2 plan goes through this, though I guess the 520 proposal could too if it were built right.
Lastly, Ron Sims has let the Port buy the BNSF line. He wanted the tracks torn up, mostly because the thinks they would need to be replaced, and also because it makes it worse for bicyclists. The value of the route for transit has been questioned because it goes pretty far from the major employment centers there.
They do mention a spur to downtown Bellevue, at less overall mileage and thus lower cost overall (though since much of I-90′s route would use the existing HOV lanes it might not be cheaper overall). I don’t know how that would work in terms of train operation though, as you’d have to alternate Eastside destinations or make every train go first to Bellevue and then to Overlake.
I don’t think I agree with them in the end, but they make a good case. I do worry about building on 90 as its light rail compatibility was an afterthought. I do like the idea of building light rail as an integral part of a cross-lake corridor rather than an add-on. Or maybe there’s a way to build a rail only route using tunnels.
Spur to bellevue would require a transfer, though and transfers kill ridership.
I agree we need a 520 route eventually, just not first.
I’d love to hear an analysis of tunnel building across the lake. Unless there’s some fundamental reason it won’t work (soil composition, etc.), it’s certainly the cleanest and most sturdy way across (no rails bending during storms and you don’t need to worry about buildings/plumbing/electrical/roads in your way). Plus they’ll already be underground for most of the Seattle line. Maybe they’d be able to stay underground right through Bellevue.
I can barely believe how much of a Debbie Downer you are about this, daimajin. The op-ed figures are way too optimistic and it may be the Times but it’s still a pretty good idea; the long-term plan beyond ST2 has always talked about a future transit corridor along 520. Why spend many billions more on retrofitting the new 520 bridge in 25 years when it could be done for much less as part of the new bridge construction right now?
Some of your criticisms are also almost nitpicking and it’s not like the I-90 to Redmond ST2 route was unassailable in that respect. Have we already forgotten the stop at the ludicrously small, nothing-in-walking-distance, surrounded by land that was unlikely to increase in density South Bellevue P&R? Or the complete by-passing of the office blocks, shopping and college (oh, and the already built LARGE P&R) in Factoria/Eastgate due to the significant cost of routing a line past I-405 and then back? Sure, those decisions lost a load of riders but you saved however many hundreds of millions of dollars – just like this idea.
And having to run a “spur” out to downtown Bellevue may actually be a blessing in disguise. First, think of it as two lines for the price of one and a half (if we’re honest about the price) – this is exactly the sort of thing that works in the rest of the world with new lines. For regional examples, there’s Portland with the MAX Red Line which spends 80% of its time on track originally laid for the Blue Line and the SkyTrain Expo and Millennium lines in BC also share a significant portion of track – in both cases, the spurs go someplace heavily trafficked, dense or both. Second, it makes a connection across I-90 that much better when and if it is finally built; we’ll have a huge loop running through the two densest commercial and residential sectors of Seattle and the Eastside with another line running out to another dense segment in Redmond. Might this also be a way to get a public-private partnership with Microsoft going like the 545 but on a larger scale?
I’d bet good money that bus-to-train transfers kill ridership way more than train-to-train and it’s not like EVERY rider would have to transfer.
Consider this:
The Main Line: Montlake -> South Kirkland – > “urban village” – > Overlake stops – > Redmond
AND
The Spur (pick one):
Montlake -> South Kirkland – > “urban village” – > Overlake Hospital -> Downtown Bellevue
OR
Redmond -> Overlake stops -> “urban village” -> Overlake Hospital -> Downtown Bellevue
daimajin said…
“Spur to bellevue would require a transfer, though and transfers kill ridership.”
If I’m not mistaken, ST2 assumed a transfer for those wishing to travel between SeaTac (or Tacoma) to Bellevue/Redmond.
Transfers don’t “kill ridership.” They’re more likely to die from stepping in front of a train. But transfers “discourage” ridership WHEN they are long, unprotected from the weather, and connecting services are unreliable. Isn’t that what you hope to eliminate with a rail network?
don’t forget about mercer island! a route on 520 completely bypasses that!
Can’t forget the dozen Mercer Island residents who’d actually take public transportation to something other than an Ms game!
Jesus, let’s not have this debate again, shall we?
1) We have the right of way for I-90. It exists. No surprises, less chance for disaster.
2) People coming to downtown from the eastside (yes, this is the majority of commuters in the corridor) will have to transfer to PACKED southbound trains at Montlake/UW. That’s a crappy rider experience. Going over 90, we have no transfer at all from Bellevue to Seattle rather than two transfers (don’t try to tell me there won’t be a transfer at UW/Montlake).
This is ridiculous. The 520 rail nonsense is just a way to stir up dissention among transit supporters. I-90 is the way to go for several reasons, the existing right of way leads right into the bus tunnel, and the interlined service adds capacity where it’s needed. Let’s stop trying to second-guess Sound Transit and start supporting their good decisions, eh?
I agree with Ben. Trashing light rail over I-90 just delays crossing the lake by 10 or 20 years.
Residence patterns will adjust to reflect where rail is built; that’s the whole point of rail.
I’m missing the bit about needing to transfer (especially at UW). Most transit systems in the world use seperate trains that each run the whole route. At SeaTac you’d hop on the northbound train to Bellevue, or wait 5 minutes for the northbound train to Kirkland.
Matt, Lake Washington is too deep and filled with soft silt. Yes, you could theoretically tunnel, but it would be cost prohibitive and that makes it a deal breaker. Second, a 520 LRT line would require a transfer to Central Link. It is geometry. Central Link is 100′ underground and heading 90 degrees in another direction. Again, you COULD design it to connect to the UW station, but it would not be economically feasible. Also, a line that originates in Lynnwood (or farther north) would be absolutely packed during rush hour by the time it gets to UW station.
I-90 is the way to go. Years of detailed studies have all come to this conclusion. Let’s stop talking and start building!