Comments on: Bellevue City Council Chooses Bellevue Way

By: A Brief Interview With Conrad Lee - Seattle Transit Blog

A Brief Interview With Conrad Lee - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:33:35 +0000

[...] preferred alternative is likely to change quite drastically from the alignment chosen last year. Lee has supported PRT (personal rapid transit) and other issues that we’ve raised [...]

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:27:58 +0000

The Bel-Red road alignment was dropped during planning. The reasoning is in the DEIS.

SR520 is there as D5 and the NE 20th alignment is there as D3. D3 I believe is the most expensive segment D option and has the worst travel times. I don’t know as Redmond has expressed a preference for the alignment of segment D. Though by comments in some of their planning documents I’d guess they prefer keeping the travel times through segments B, C, and D as short as possible. Given Bellevue’s preferred alignment I suspect there may be a bit of conflict there, though Bellevue’s preferred alignment isn’t nearly as bad travel time wise as going at-grade through downtown Bellevue would be.

I suspect the reason Redmond’s preferred alignment for segment E was selected so early is it would appear the segment E alternatives were developed by Sound Transit in partnership with the City of Redmond’s planning process.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:33:36 +0000

I finally figured out that the thumbnail in the above City of Redmond link opens up a large scale artists rendering. In that you can clearly see the two East Link tracks passing under the new overpass. I still think the section from 130th Station in Bel-Red to Overlake Transit Center is goofy. From 130th Station which is basically on Bel-Red Road the tracks jog back to SR520 only to follow the highway for a few blocks before jogging away again along NE24th to 152nd NE and then back to the SR 520 ROW. Either staying on SR 520 or following either Bel-Red Road or NE20th to 152nd would seem to make a lot more sense. City of Redmond identified the Marymoor alternative for East Link segment E as their preferred alignment before the East Link DEIS was even published. Interesting to note (I know it's not all of segment E) that the cost estimate is a bargin $70M. Although they've put considerable effort into HCT in the future they seem to have take their eye off the ball on this short section of segment D where it enters the City of Redmond.

By: Jojo

Jojo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:51:17 +0000

It’s actually not THAT close – each Bellevue block is roughly 2 Seattle ones. I’m guessing stops in the downtown Seattle Transit tunnel are closer than this. A lot of traffic is (or will be) local traffic caused by the 65k jobs and 16k residents who’ll be living downtown making intra-downtown trips (grocery store, mall, bank, job, back home). Making as many parts of downtown easily and quickly accessible should be a priority and I think the council gets this. Imagine if downtown Seattle only had one station at University Street. You might say that Bellevue isn’t near as dense for a 2nd station, but it’s _getting there_. Buses won’t be reliable due to street traffic. Imagine downtown Bellevue in 20+ years!

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:10:39 +0000

Mmm, this changes everything with respect to Overlake. I’d heard rumors of a “Microsoft” overpass. Turns out it’s true. By 2010 there will be a NE 31st Street overpass connecting Overlake Village with the south end of the Microsoft campus and all the apartments and condos west of 148th Ave NE. Since that’s not in any of the DEIS planning and given that sale and development of the old Group Health Eastside Hospital is off right now I’d expect there to be some serious scrambling going on in Redmond City Hall. I know they have big plans for this neighborhood but it’s a little harder to mine than City of Belleuve website. I’ll have to dig a little deeper.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:25:03 +0000

In that CH2M HILL drawing the station is shown right across the street from Performance Bike (north is pointing right in the drawing). I didn’t realize they were planning to go up the south side of 24th and then left turn across traffic onto 152nd and then stop. And according to the Bellevue preferred alternative all of this at grade! Oh wait, this is in the Redmond city limits. That’s why Bellevue wants it so screwed up. That will push all the retail customers back over to the Bellevue side of 148th.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:10:40 +0000

Ha ha, how funny would it be if ST just went up the east side of 405 to Hospital Station? Bellevue could build a no-fare automated circulator loop like they use at Sea-Tac to reach the line.

It may be desirable from the regional standpoint to grow Bellevue using the new line, but it’s even more desirable from the Bellevue viewpoint to do that. ST has something Bellevue wants, and this would be a good time to drive a hard bargain.

Besides that, if the line were on the east side of 405, eventually the state could sell air rights to build convention centers and hotels over the highway.

Bellevue is not going to dry up and blow away if ST doesn’t nurture the city. In fact, some of the comments here are kind of LOL- we can’t build a new station here or here because there’s too much development going on already.

To some extent Bellevue has become a city of skyscrapers because development happened in the small patch where NIMBYs couldn’t defend their turf. But that was no accident. Bel-Red was supposedly zoned to preserve “valuable light industrial”, but in reality that was a squeeze play to keep development where Bellevue wanted it. The people who run Bellevue are surprisingly good at getting what they want.

I don’t expect ST to suddenly start playing hardball with Bellevue- but it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if they did.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:26:47 +0000

Well, between 20th and 24th will be right behind Sears, a long way from Overlake Village. Behind Safeway is essentially bordering I-405 and would indeed be right across the street from Overlake Village. If they put it there then zigzagging over and tearing up NE 24th makes no sense. Just skirt the 148th interchange elevated and go right behind Safeway and your there. The tracks would then be to the northwest of the station and they have to buy up a row of old single story office space. Maybe it would entail leveling the perennially failed furniture store on the west side of the 148th cloverleaf. Versus the construction delays going up 24th and 152nd that seems trivial.

I should have my CD with all the drawing today or tomorrow.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:01:52 +0000

Bernie,
Actually the Overlake Village station in the D2A alignment appears to be on the West side of 152nd NE between NE 24th and NE 20th according to the CH2M Hill drawings.

The location further North was one of the 2 possible station locations for the D5 alignment. The other would have put the station behind the Safeway. That looks similar to where you were suggesting the station be.

As a note I don’t see anything that would preclude using the D5 alignment in Overlake Village with D2A in Bel-Red.

I do hope wherever the Overlake Village station ends up, either Sound Transit or the City of Redmond put in some serious pedestrian and bike improvements in the area. I agree a pedestrian bridge over 520 at 152nd would be good both for allowing easy access from the bike path and to provide a better pedestrian route across 520.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:16:53 +0000

> pedestrians and cyclists prefer to avoid getting anywhere near
> a highway if they can help it. Particularly areas like the 148th
> interchange which are large no-mans lands.

Chris,
This is the route I cycle home on every day. The 520 bike path is along the north side of 520. 148th and 156th are a no go for bikes. You have to ride the sidewalks and dodging umbrellas of clueless zombies listening to their iPods is no fun. The 148th overpass is fairly heavily used by pedestrians that live in the condos and apartments along the west side of 148th. The overpass only has a sidewalk on the west side. Crossing 148th at 24th is no fun. 148th to 152nd is parking lot orienteering. Then you’ve got to go back north two blocks (Overlake Village is 2650). A pedestrian bridge across 520 here is really needed to access a link station. Overlake Village is hard to get to by car. It’s really hard to walk to from anywhere.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:55:44 +0000

I want to correct a serious error in the map presented in the PDF of the Bellevue Preferred Alternative. The T indicating the transit stop for Overlake Village shows it as being at the corner of NE 24th and 152nd NE. This is not the case. It’s actually north on 152nd by a considerable distance; approximately parallel to the O in Overlake. As the crow flies it’s less than a 1,000′ (probably closer to 500′) from SR520 to the P&R lot. Look at the cloverleafs for the 148th interchange for a perspective. The walk from Overlake Village P&R to a stop on the 520 ROW would be shorter than crossing the 148th overpass.

The old Group Health campus is vacant and seriously for sale. The little triangle of land between 405 and Overlake Village is single story circa 1970 office space. The engineering obstacle is the 148th interchange but I’m confident our friends at CH2M HILL can figure this out.

By: ericn

ericn — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:07:36 +0000

It’s certainly possible. A couple bays of Bellevue TC used to be located there, serving the 921 and 222, among other routes. Those stops got moved back to the actual transit center last year, but it’s still only a block away.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:34:07 +0000

The station will be paid for with North link money. All of the trackwork around it, connecting it to downtown and the Eastside will be eastlink money, I believe.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:17:41 +0000

Here’s a link to a map of the subarea equity boundaries. If it were strictly enforced then Seattle/North King County would be on the hook for everything east of Mercer Island. In reality I don’t think that was the agreement when East Link was originally planned. I think the idea is that eastside riders are already picking up the benefits of the Central Link to the airport and UW so eastside subarea money will fund the expansion from the connection point.

By: question

question — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:35:59 +0000

It it true that the rainier station will be paid for with East link money?

By: rex

rex — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:10:09 +0000

It seems the lack of debate about funding the tunnel means somehow this thing has been decided or will eventually sort itself out and the money will simply become available from somewhere. Nobody wants a repeat of the what happened with Central Link when line had to be scaled down due to cost being over-budget. Bellevue city council has not stated they would be willing to tax the downtown area. Is anyone listening?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Chris,
I agree with you also. The question is how to fund it. C7E is the budget baseline approach. Far less appeal to DT Bellevue and less system ridership. What the Bellevue City Council has proposed, in my opinion is a very good route. However, the difference in cost really is the price (maybe more) than segment E to Redmond. So if we’re only going to tap sub area equity money then the equitable approach would be to compromise the design and build it out to Redmond Town Center. The drop in ridership from DT Bellevue would be more than made up for by segment E and serve a much wider area of the eastside. There’s also the matter of Maintenance Facilities which I think should probably go out by Marymoor rather than Bel-Red. If Bel-Red is chosen Bellevue’s preferred MF1 option is the worst of the three choices.

I hope that DT will come up with enough of the difference to make the tunnel work.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:32:36 +0000

Actually I believe ST has funding for the elevated options as well. Indeed I believe C7E is one of the cheapest and fastest options.

OTOH I think the station location for this alignment sucks.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:29:34 +0000

Bypassing downtown Bellevue would be stupid in the extreme. Downtown Bellevue is where the ridership is and imposing a transfer isn’t a good substitute.

We’re building this for the next 100 years, lets do it right the first time rather than doing it on the cheap and wishing we hadn’t later.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:21:48 +0000

Justin,
I generally agree with all your points but not the conclusion. The option not being considered is to skirt DT and only have stations at East Main and Overlake Medical. Really connections to the Transit Center from Hospital Station aren’t unreasonable and could be very workable if Bellevue takes that into consideration in the planning of the new NE 6th street overpass. The Bellevue circulator would move people to destinations DT. The Bellevue Transit Center never really was located very well. It’s not really central but it’s far enough “inland” that it still has all of the access issues as if it were. Especially since Bellevue is asking for two underground stations I think the downtown core should contribute a large portion to the funding. If it doesn’t then it really is putting the interests of DT Bellevue ahead of building out the line to Redmond.