Comments on: Vision Line Comments and DT Bellevue Workshop Recap

By: Kevin Wallace Responds - Seattle Transit Blog

Kevin Wallace Responds - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:43:35 +0000

[...] behind his idea. I had the opportunity to bring forth some of the questions that arose during our open question thread and hear more about Wallace’s reasoning for picking the controversial alignment. Prior to [...]

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:42:32 +0000

I doubt the 550 would be totally eliminated. The 550 has quite a few passengers before South Bellevue but it becomes *packed* AT South Bellevue P&R. If Link does end up on a B7 alignment, I really hope ST & Metro look seriously at ways to get South Bellevue residents over to the Mercer Island station as well as any Bellevue stations. Bringing back the 226 and/or 235 and having them terminate at Mercer Island might be a good way to go. The 222 could then skip Beaux Arts & Enatai which would improve service for folks heading from Bellevue to Factoria.

Not an ideal solution but when life gives you lemons…

Now, all of that dribble aside, I’ll keep pushing for a B3-based route for Link.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:04:40 +0000

There’s only two lots on the corner of 114th & 4th. The freeway is to the east. One is 400 112TH AVE NE #230 and is owned by PSE and apraised at $15,705,600. You’re calling that worthless and accusing me of a play on words? The property on the south west corner, 399 114TH AVE NE 98004 is owned by Wallace and I acknowledged that. It’s a “super block” from where the station access would be on 6th and I don’t see how having an elevated railway in front is going to turn this into a gold mine. Of the properties Chris identified, 330 112TH AVE NE 98004 is owned by Wallace/Scott Ltd. It’s one more “super block” west and the 110th at grade would provide better access. Likewise 11027 NE 4TH ST is much better served by 110th. What, he’s conspiring to move it away from 110th because it will ruin his property values and move it to 114th where it will net him a windfall? The third property Chris identified was 222 112TH AVE NE and is probably closer to a South Main station. The ownership was transferred from Wallace/Scott Ltd to City of Bellevue in 2007 via a quit claim deed with a partner listed as “CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY”. Robert Wallace (the individual) is still listed as the taypayer. Now if you want to start some big conspiracy theory about this go right ahead but Bellevue acquires property all over the city with the intention of securing it for future projects and typically leaves the building use unchanged until the project is moved forward. If you really want to make this into a conspiracy theory look at the property transactions for 200 112TH AVE NE 98004!

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:24:34 +0000

Either you are mistaken or you are just trying to play the words “beside the station” to confuse uninformed people.

I personally went to King County Parcel Viewer myself and Wallace Property owns three lots on the corner 4th Street and 114th Ave. Other commenters have provided the parcel number in another thread.

These lands are worthless now being so close to I405, and he is the only one, not Bellevue residents, not Bellevue Square visitors, not downtown office workers, who stands to gain millions from that alignment.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:41:47 +0000

I live in the Enatai area and want to be able to use the train from the South Bellevue Park & Ride. With B7 and the Vision Line, the South Bellevue Park & Ride appears that it will be rendered worthless (no more route 550), and not exist as a rail stop. Further the Vision Line appears to make downtown Bellevue an inconvenient place to get to by train from anywhere. If I had my way, I’d have gone for a B1 route straight up Bellevue Way with a stop near Bellevue Square. It will never happen, of course, but I still see a B3-based route as best.

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:55:29 +0000

“YES, I know how BUSY the Bellevue Transit Center is. But its artificial. It is a transfer point, not a destination.”

Do you consider pedestrians walking to another part of downtown Bellevue to be “transfers”? If not, then even a casual observation of crosswalks leading to and from BTC disproves your assertion.

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:49:23 +0000

2011 for Rapid Ride B (Bellevue / Redmond):

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/sc/plans/2008/012008-belred-rr.html

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:25:24 +0000

RapidRide is already planned for Bellevue DT to Crossroads. Not sure what the timeline for start-up is.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:12:13 +0000

“YES, I know how BUSY the Bellevue Transit Center is. But its artificial. It is a transfer point, not a destination.”

Nice try. Facts prove otherwise. Unfortunately, facts are in short supply throughout your posts – above and below. But that’s cool. It was a fun read.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:43:24 +0000

I would work on both-and rather than either-or. The East Link line is funded and it’s not going to move more than a mile from Bellevue Way/BTC. But Crossroads and the whole Redmond-BCC corridor is ready for rapid transit. In the long term, both lines will be necessary anyway. So I would focus on, what would work best for Crossroads and complement the East Link line?

There’s one corridor from (Redmond? – Marymoor? -) Overlake – Crossroads – BCC (-Factoria?) and another from South Bellevue – Eastgate P&R – BCC – Issaquah. This makes a T shape, which could be served by some combination of streetcars, LR, and/or RapidRide. It just needs somebody who lives on the Eastside to champion it. I grew up in Bellevue and my mom still lives there, but it needs somebody with activist energy who lives there now.

And another plug for downtown light rail: it’s not just for the residents and workers, but also for shoppers, tourists visiting the art museum & Bellevue Park & annual crafts fair, people transfering all over the Eastside, etc. And also Bellevue conference attendees going to the airport, sightseeing Seattle, or (eventually) going to the Kirkland waterfront. That’s a lot of people. A major transfer point in a walkable downtown is a double benefit.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:17:12 +0000

PRT probably would be better than what we have, but there’s no way Seattle would vote to be the first city to try it on a large scale. The only PRT systems in production are very small: Heathrow airport, and Morgantown University in West Virgina. You would have the same arguments as the monorail: unproven, and proprietary technology. Monorails actually have been proven in Asia, but their support in Seattle was still barely 50%. The main selling point of light rail was that it’s basic, standardized technology, and several suppliers make the same compatible equipment so we’re not locked into one supplier. Now with the recession and severe limitation of transit dollars, people will be even more risk-adverse.

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:02:56 +0000

I use Bell Sq on rare occasion, BECAUSE driving there is such a hassle.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:49:57 +0000

The correct parcel numbers for are adjacent to the station are what I listed. Of the three scattered (not even adjacent to each other) one of them is owned by COB. CH2M Hill is adjacent to the ST preferred alternative. CH2M Hill is a major consultant for ST. That pretty much proves ST and it’s consultants are all one big conspiracy to reroute the line, right?

By: Seattle Greg

Seattle Greg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:42:25 +0000

Kevin… for the record, not trying to be snobby, just pragmatic. The folks who use Bell Square are far more likely to prefer driving. The densities near Crossroads are just as dense or MORE per acre than current downtown Bellevue, and the folks around Crossroads are far more likely to use transit. Yes there are workers in downtown Bellevue and Crossroads, but the transit is to and from basic jobs that service during the workday. more of a 10 hour vs. 18 hour cycle of use.

I live in north seattle, but grew up on the eastside, in the fourth home built in Lake Hills… I moved to Seattle in 1973, but am on the eastside at least 4 times a week, and when possible, using the bus to do it. That includes time in downtown, BCC, crossroads, Kirkland and Redmond.

the cost vs. benifit… cheaper to take the line up 1-90 and up 148th or 156th to Redmond vs. trying to meet the masters of Downtown Bellvue. Check out the Density zoning around Crossroads and the easy grade of following the 148 / 156th valley… I picked blueberries as my first job there. I am not “pro Kmart”… the lot is underutilized, and is between two major arterials.

As for snob… don’t think so. But my family has been here since 1910, and watching the changes and knowing the players, It will be easier/ cheaper / and faster build of ridership to follow the East of 405 loop than deal with West of 405.

I find myself spending more time around crossroads than bell square.

By: Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway | hugeasscity

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:35:42 +0000

[...] Getting the highest return on transit investments hinges on the creation of high-performing transit-oriented communities (TOC) around the stations. And the easiest way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to site stations next to large freeways. Yet this is exactly what newly elected Bellevue City Councilor Kevin Wallace has just proposed, in his “Vision Line” plan that would move the downtown Bellevue Station from the ideally located existing transit center, over to the edge of I-405, about a quarter mile to the east (more here and here). [...]

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:31:09 +0000

They really seemed not to understand the issues when I saw them testify, frankly.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:10:55 +0000

I don’t think we’re past the time to haggle over alignments, but this is so far outside the envelope of what the voters approved that it’s both dead on arrival and can only serve to distract from the serious discussion about each segment.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:08:58 +0000

Bernie, you were responded to with the correct parcel numbers. The parcel numbers you listed do not correspond with the addresses of properties Wallace owns.

By: David in Burien

David in Burien — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:24:31 +0000

Disaster? What? Really? Why?

By: David in Burien

David in Burien — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:23:11 +0000

Puhlease! Even if your assertion of the consulting conflicts had any merit, it doesn’t “moot” the potential or appearance of conflict created by the proximity of the “Vision Line” to some Wallace properties. Look, I’m stoked that you are participating here, bringing a local and contrarion point of view. But tossing around this kind of prejudiced illogic lowers the discussion rather than raising it.