Having ridden (for years) and driven the 222 I’ve noticed that most of the people who use it are outside the village. Of course, once light rail hits South Bellevue, that may change.

But if KF gets his way then yes a peoplemover or streetcar connector would make sense, though in that case I think East Link just doesn’t get build and Sound Transit does some mix of the HOV, busway, and rail convertible BRT instead.

Kemper could probably even get the Bellevue City Council to approve issuance of ID cards for the people mover, so only the “right” kind of people could use it.

The question is, are Nisei the “right” people yet?

Honestly I don’t think Kemper really cares as long as you have a high enough credit limit.

Completely agree.

So far as the people mover idea, if KF gets his way and pushes the Link alignment to the BNSF ROW, a people mover loop like the one in Miami would be a great idea. Kemper could probably even get the Bellevue City Council to approve issuance of ID cards for the people mover, so only the “right” kind of people could use it.

The question is, are Nisei the “right” people yet?

Many people voted for ST2 here – there were a lot of pro-transit yard signs. I don’t recall many neighbors voicing anti-transit positions – at least not publicly. We’re so close that it seems to be pretty much a no-brainer. (Max 20 minute walk from anywhere over here – thanks to a few pedestrian infrastructure improvements made by the City of Bellevue – more of which are planned in our area)

If SFO had been a through station on BART ridership there and at Millbrae station would likely be far higher. Also it wouldn’t be necessary to do an awkward transfer from Caltrain to the airport. Heck the SFO BART station should have been a joint station with Caltrain. The airport people mover should have been extended across the freeway rather than running BART over on the awkward wye.

You guys are nuts.

Thanks for the clarification. And the more I think about this the clearer it becomes that although it’s possible to have just one level crossing, northbound trains both entering and leaving the station would have to cross the entering southbound track. There could be a single level crossing used both entering and leaving with the station throat northbound wye switch just outside of the crossing of the entering southbound track.

But having the northbound trains crossing twice would really jimmy up the scheduling. The southbound train would have to tuck by while the operator of the northbound train was talking that three car walk. I doubt it can be done with a level crossing; the tracks would have to be stacked, at least in the station throat.

Big kudos to Chair Nickels for drilling down to the key issues and making sure he and the board understood what they were.

Whose talking about bulldozing Surrey Downs? People on this blog have made off-hand comments about it, but that hardly makes it Sound Transit’s official policy.

The complaints of the Surrey Downs and other South Bellevue neighborhoods have always centered on noise and visual blight. Now all of a sudden they care about the effectiveness of the alignment and future TOD. Yeah right, I don’t buy it. They’ve pushed for the BNSF ROW from the beginning because it puts the line as far away from their neighborhoods as possible. It has zero to do with them wanting the line to be successful. The preferred alignment selected by ST to go forward is almost exactly the preferred alignment selected by the Bellevue City Council. The South Bellevue NIMBYs are annoyed that the city didn’t listen to them so now they’re going after Sound Transit.

Skipping the South Bellevue P&R would be a huge mistake. Not only would it effect people who drive to the P&R, but it would make light rail completely inaccessible to South Bellevue residents who would walk or bike to the station. The South Bellevue P&R has great access to the I-90 bike trail, and easy access for buses coming from farther east on I-90. It’s just about the most logical location for a station on the entire line.