First off, with names like “berm” and “Post and Beam”, Berm sounds so hideous, much like a levee or some such being built through the south end of downtown. “Post and Beam” sounds so homely, so inviting and warming, when really it’s a damn trestle. People know what the MILW trestle on the eastern approach to Freighthouse Sq is like, they would probably think twice about putting something like that on the other end by downtown. Especially with the homeless shelter nearby, it would become a very attractive nuisance very quickly. They should have never started to use such names, and corrected others when they came up. The “Berm” option is more like a Slope/Fill to raise the grade to cross pacific avenue and continue on. And they should always have addressed the “post and beam” option by its proper and technical name, a trestle.

Also, Another issue i have mentioned for years is the fact you to go these public meetings, and see all sorts of diagrams, artists renditions, high level plans, and designs all printed and mounted for everyone to see. Yet you go to their website, it’s a blob of text for their projects with little other information. I would have hoped in the last nearly fifteen years of the agency they would have learned to make informative project websites, which are updated regularly and contain all matter of materials for the public perusal. Instead, it’s pathetic. They have tried in recent years such as with Lakewood station but still can’t seem to get over the one or two picture limitation that they seem to have. A picture says 1000 words, and I’ve seen a couple good pictures of the “berm” around (one not even on their website) and wondered why don’t they put this information on their website…

If development is ever needed adjacent to the railway berm elsewhere, retaining wall is the way to go.

But thick brick-and-stone Victorian arch structures seem to have some significant advantages over post-and-beam when it comes to stuffing retail underneath it. It essentially has a built-in proper ceiling, some distance below the floor which the trackbed is on, and built-in walls on two sides. The only necessary maintenance is occasional tuckpointing which can be done while the business is operating.

In contrast, modern post-and-beam viaducts would require construction of, in essence, an entire building underneath the viaduct, which would interfere with maintenance of the underside of the structure and the posts. They’re simply not *designed* for putting shops under, in the way that the brick Victorian arches, being fully finished on the underside, pretty much are suited for putting shops under. While one could build a viaduct specifically designed for putting shops under, it would be rather different from an off-the-shelf viaduct. And much more expensive.

It seems like for $75M a solution could be found that would greatly improve the S. Tacoma Way and Pacific intersection and do a lot more than save a few people having to stop and wait for the train to go by.

I recently approved a comment (I think of yours) that had too many links to be automatically accepted by our spam filter. I’m not showing any other comments awaiting approval, so if it’s not in this thread somewhere it’s not going to be. Did you post in the other Tacoma thread?

Your comments have been well within the bounds of our comment policy (linked in the sidebar) and would not intentionally be deleted. Thanks for contributing to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

Maybe it makes sense for any further expansion of the current streetcar based Tacoma Link to be built to Central Link standards, but do realize that comes with greatly added costs and may very well make an extension to TCC unfordable.

“The project, including the Tacoma Section, is fully described in the Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail and SR 512 Park-and-Ride Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated May 2002 (Final EIS), and follow-up environmental documentation.”

http://www.psrc.org/projects/tip/selection/2002/lwsoundapp.pdf

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/seis/TacomaD-M/DtoMSt_SEPAAddendum_Final_11-30-07.pdf

The new design with an elevated crossing of Pacific, which was requested by the city, was proposed in December 2007. Most of the delay in this is due to having to redesign it to cross Pacific with a bridge. Whether it’s elevated or not, the alignment is the same, the design West of I-705 is the same, and the berm across the gulch was the same and public outreach for this project has been going on since at least 2000, so people shouldn’t be acting like this was sprung on them at the last minute. Most of the onus should be on the Tacoma City Council for causing the delay, not Sound Transit. The at-grade alignment could have been built 5 or 6 years ago, saved $100 million, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But then I guess people would be griping about having to wait for trains to cross Pacific. You can’t please everybody! :-)

If Sound Transit is behind on their schedule it is not because of anything the community is doing.