Stations in Bel-Red waste time and money. More to the point they waste the time of all the ridership coming in from the east; the people paying for transit today. 130th is a terrible place for a P&R. It’s bringing more cars into an area that’s already beyond capacity instead of increasing service to South Kirkland and the Houghton P&R. Come up for a plan and fund it for 2010 and we can talk about 2030.

You can go back to about 2000 for when the density started to skyrocket (skyscraper) in Bellevue. Any number of those buildings could have had transit stations built in when they made the big hole in the ground. How’s that old saying… “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on my part.” Bellevue can’t even get a circulator bus going and all they have to do is pick a route and write Metro a check. The only “answer” Bellevue seems to have is more overpasses on I-405.

You’re right that Belleuve has been on the path to gridlock for 30 years. Belleuve in 1980 had nothing. The only “highrise” was the Paccar Tower. That’s when Kemper Freeman pushed through redevelopment of Bellevue Square in the model of a suburban mall. Since then the development has gotten the green light and left everyone else stuck in traffic.

Redmond mean while has become the home of the State’s second largest employer. The Microsoft campus and surrounding business straddle a freeway with efficient bus access and are bordered by four lane arterials on each side with local transit service and multifamily residential. The original downtown area has been redeveloped with retail and mixed use residential instead of concrete canyons. Yet Redmond draws the short straw when it comes to Link.

As for Bel-Red I don’t think putting the stations there is a waste. The zoning changes mean that area is likely to see substantial new residential and commercial development. While there is little there now that won’t be the case long-term. The ridership figures for the 130th station aren’t too shabby, though I’m sure part of that is due to the planned P&R.

Do remember there are weird FTA rules as to what can and cannot be factored into ridership projections.

Sure it would have been nice if Bellevue had left ROW in downtown for high-capacity transit, but the time to do that would have been 30 or more years ago not 10. By then it was already too late.

Nothing wrong with asking for the moon. Now is the time to throw it all up against the wall and see what sticks. Then you can “give up” something you never had in negotiations. If this was Bellevue Link it would be grand. It’s not, it’s supposed to be East Link and it’s the only Link service the Eastside sub area is going to see for 20+ years.

At best this service opens in 2020 to Belleuve (later to Overlake). Bellevue shouldn’t be sitting on it’s hands for the next twelve years. The circulator/streetcar/subway should have been planned ten years age, before the forest of office towers were built. Instead the only ROW left through downtown Bellevue is the old BNSF tracks. Bellevue painted themselves into this corner and now they want to use ST2 money to try and not only fix downtown but add future capacity for another island of development in a new area of Bel-Red instead of auto row or the existing Bel-Red corridor.

If I had to guess I suspect the FEIS will have an additional alternative consisting of the Bellevue City Council’s recommendation. Since part of the point of their changes is to mitigate some of the impacts or gain additional benefit. The COB alternative would need the same analysis at the other alternatives to prove this was actually the case.

And please, PLEASE look at the DEIS ridership estimates for East Main. It serves a lot more people.

I must say I find your dismissal of downtown Bellevue rather perplexing considering how much you advocate for serving downtown Redmond with 3 stations.

As I said elsewhere the C3T alignment would likely require use of the medical office building site West of 405 and north of NE 12th, Ashworth station or not. The hospital would be more upset by not being served at all than to have a station on the back corner of their campus. If anything it will probably enhance pedestrian connections with the OMC office space in the complex West of 405 and South of NE 12th.

I think a 112th alignment would be a poor choice. If you are going to spend the money on a tunnel you might as well try to serve the downtown core not the edge. (hence C3T)

A C2T alignment with a station on 106th between 2nd and 4th is pretty close to what the City recommended. The station at 106th NE and Main is intended as a substitute for the East Main station.

FWIW I believe the segment B & C travel time estimates in the DEIS assume a total of 4 stations between the two segments so adjusting the station locations a bit shouldn’t have a huge effect on travel times.

I’ll also agree Downtown Bellevue will need better transit connections no matter what. But not to the extent of using it as an excuse to be penny wise and pound foolish with the East Link alignment.

I didn’t realize the West Main station was intended as an alternative to the East Main station in the City of Bellevue recommendation until I read the City’s letter to Sound Transit.

Unfortunately that is only really a possibility with the C2T alignment (106th NE tunnel). With the C3T alignment (108th tunnel) the choices are East Main or no South downtown station.