For example, the B1-B3 alignments roughly follow the existing 550, which is good for having ridership figures and people who already ride transit, but may not be quite as good when you substitute a rail line for a bus.

The argument seems to be that TOD will happen and those lucky dogs should be happy that their property values will go up. Of course, if the area is already multi-family zoned, or high-rise, that argument fits pretty well.

Using that argument, there wouldn’t be any real doubt about what should happen- you go up Bellevue Way and 104th to NE 8th, hang a right, and head out to Redmond. The fact that this isn’t the only option on the table is a hint that something else is going on.

Well, all of this will be decided by the “process”- a process that now includes bunches of billions and public approval for getting it done. Issaquah will wait a while for that line running straight out on 90, and that may not be such a bad idea. But in the absence of high-density zoning and development, I wouldn’t expect those South Bellevue ridership figures to go up very much in the future.

While Microsoft is a major regional employer, their main campus isn’t the densest area of the Eastside nor is it the highest ridership portion of East Link.

Downtown Bellevue has more residents, jobs, and higher transit ridership than the area around the Microsoft campus.

To build East Link while bypassing downtown Bellevue would be the height of insanity.

Given that any initial East Link alignment pretty much has to serve Downtown Bellevue and the Overlake transit center the alignment alternatives seem to make a fair bit of sense.

I guess you could run Link out to BCC and then up 148th to Overlake. You’re correct that that area has some apartment buildings, but it’s nowhere close to the density or population of downtown Bellevue—remember, this is still a car-oriented suburb full of single family housing. We don’t have ridership projections for such a route, but I’m certain that they would be very low compared to the current ones. And you’d still have all the problems associated with building an elevated track through a neighborhood.

As matters stand there’s a Twist-em set of routes to serve “Bellevue” which neither serve Bellevue or become cheap by avoiding the town.

What should be happening is downtown Bellevue installing a people-mover to connect with a LINK line that passes nearby. Then Bellevue could decide for themselves what they wanted and when they wanted it and the rest of the construction wouldn’t be delayed.

But then, I’ve just been reading history books about how trolley lines actually got built, and we’ve changed all that now.

As far as gerrymandering goes, have you ever ridden the 550? The route is the way it is because that’s where people want to go. Even with 4-5 stations (assuming the Bel-Red alignments), that shouldn’t add more than a few minutes onto a ride from Redmond. Regardless of the route taken, it should still be way faster than the 545.

The most obvious alignment is to a P&R at the Factoria interchange, up the BNSF ROW to a stop north of Wilburton and then to the old Safeway distribution center and out the Bel-Red Rd or 520 alignment.

This would save so much money that an El-shaped loop could easily be put through the Bellevue downtown. The loop could be a circulator or some trains could go through downtown Bellevue while others went directly alongside 405.

Obviously the powers-that-be have other ideas, but I’m thinking that trip to Redmond will assume certain slow-boat-to-China aspects if there really are four stops in Bellevue alone.

Also, it’s not obvious that all riders there would be from that area, they could be bus transfers from other places.

I don’t think an alignment all the way up Bellevue Way to Old Bellevue and Bel-Square is going to happen unless Bellevue can come up with an extra $800 million or so required to connect this alignment to the rest of the system. The C3T 108th tunnel is far cheaper and offers similar or better ridership than the Bellevue Way tunnel. A further plus is construction would be far less disruptive due the tunnel being bored rather than cut & cover.

B2E, B2A, and B3 are the best alignments through South Bellevue. The Station at 112th SE and SE 8th in the b2 alignments offers some potential for TOD, though I suspect the Surrey Downs neighbors will fight any zoning changes on the West side of 112th. From a TOD perspective the potential station at East Main in the B3 and B7 alignments might be better. The 118th SE station in B7 is very difficult to access both for bus transit and for drivers wanting to use the P&R. While it looks like there is slightly more potential for TOD than the South Bellevue P&R location it is still very limited as there isn’t much buildable land within 1000′ of the station.

However, it makes much more sense to have an alignment up bellevue way, and also close to Bell Square. The West side of Bellevue has now grown a lot in density, plus, the 405 corridor is a bunch of car dealerships and mechanics. Exactly close to people who don’t need transit.

South Bellevue P&R is in a horrible place for TOD, but its placement is pretty much perfect for connecting to other transportation. Both Bellevue Way and I-90 are pretty major arterials, and already have good transit service going along them. On the other hand, 118th currently has no local bus service on it; in fact, local service along it will never be feasible since it’s in between the wetland and 405 (even worse than South Bellevue P&R), as well as having no east-west connections between SE 8th and the south end of Factoria.

The “by a factor of 5″ part is misleading

You could certainly construe my comment as meaning that ridership along the entire East Link, or even the whole system, would be reduced by a factor of 5. However, I think it’s reasonable to consider the number of residents in the neighborhood that will be served by each of the options, and the fact remains that less than a quarter as many locals will be served by the B7 options than the others, with no appreciable reductions in cost and more severe environmental impacts.

The South Bellevue Station on B1 is actually a terrible place to put a park-n-ride. Between the hills and wetlands there will never be good collateral circulation for cars or people. I don’t blame the people there for being upset- that alignment means the widening of several arterials and quite a bit more traffic.

Also, to echo a point made in an earlier comment, Bellevue Way i very sparsely populated—the surrounding neighborhoods are almost entirely single family housing. One side of the street is a wetland, while the other side is the occasional house, which already gets a ton of noise from the cars going by.

Surrey Downs NIMBY’s use fear and disinformation to turn their people out. Why? Because they know it works. And they’re not that smart when it comes to even the most basic details of these projects.

In my admittedly limited experience I haven’t ever found a LRV or modern tram to be “loud” from trackside, at least as compared to mainline rail equipment.

Ssshhh…don’t say that to loud. We can buy these properties cheap during the noisy construction phase and then sell to moderatly rich MicroSoft types once light rail is in.
Only kidding of course (sort of).

Most of those people also seem to think that the trains would be noisy, when in reality, they’re *much* quieter than the car traffic.

Because some of their neighbors would use the line, you’d have more people out on the street throughout the day, meaning more eyes and a safer neighborhood.

So the ridership difference is a couple thousand boardings a day or so.