Having pedestrian gates close at the same time as car gates encourages pedestrians to bypass the gates. You can see similar behavior at the pedestrian gates at Sounder stations — the gate closes, pedestrians see the train is still ridiculously far away, and they cross against the gate.

After seeing the simulation, a few thoughts come to mind.

1. The simulation is already majorly congested. This can be seen by the vehicles stretching to the end of the roads where they originate from. So the 2020 situation is already pretty dire, meaning that without a change in vehicle trips or intersection capacity upgrades traffic will probably be in the same realm of poor performance with or without trains.
2. The European truck model is just not valid for simulation in the US. Dear US traffic consultants: please modify the 3D truck model inputs.
3. It would’ve been a lot sweeter if the ICE train in our new 3D vehicle fleet was used instead.
4. That’s pretty cool that they modeled the traffic gate going onto the base.
5. This confirms the importance of the I-5 Fort Lewis Study.

Now I know this is a semantic thing, but I really doubt that Metrolink has actual “Automatic Train Stop” with the flippers. They probably have some sort of computerized cab signal override system that big holes the train if a signal is passed (“Positive Train Control” of one form or another).

Yes, the San Diegans have traveled the route for a long time and might have had it when it was owned and operated by Santa Fe, but it’s been upgraded several times since Metrolink was established. Surely they would have replaced such a high-maintenance mechanical system.

I would say that the major crossings at this point would be 212th, James, Smith and Willis Streets in Kent.

If they wanted to shave off some more time, they could reduce the curve at Stewart to keep the train speeds up though the curves that lead into Tacoma would still slow traffic down.

I wasn’t very clear, though – I meant our state legislators could help us get wayside horns. :)

You wouldn’t want the gates to stay down for as long as it took that freight train to go the same distance past the crossing as it was before the crossing when the gates started flashing. So they have far circuits and near ones.

would put in a tunnel if they could have

There is the take home statement. We can’t! If we can then show me the money. I’m not going to support a tax on Bellevue that would pay for it and there isn’t the money in the east sub-area fund to build it. The choices are; avoid downtown, find an at grade or elevated alignment that works, or try and kill East Link. Avoiding downtown means we spend a huge amount of Bellevue tax dollars and minimize it’s value. I can’t get behind that. Killing East Link, OK I’m not convinced that buses wouldn’t do the job better for less money for a number of years. But, the reality of stopping light rail at this point is pretty small and the costs are pretty high; not a good bet. That leaves finding the best at grade or elevated alignment. Frankly I’d hoped for much better for the 114th option. I’m still listening but the Vision Line as presented is; number one without a cost or ridership estimate and number two has what I believe a very negative visual impact on the city and on the utility of the Overlake Hospital Station. I’d really like to see 110th at grade advanced to the level that the city did the Main Street make over planning. I see ways this can really work for transit, traffic and bike/ped access (did I just equate bikes and pedestrian access as being somehow the same? Shame on me).