Comments on: Bellevue City Council Considers Study of B7 Modified

By: Martin P

Martin P — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:04:30 +0000

This states it well, and you would do well to send this comment directly to City Council, if you haven’t already. By the way, I’m puzzled as to how the B7 is supposed to handle the stiff grade north side of the Brookshire, without massive high-rise trestles, or both sides with this new B7 modified proposal.

By: fishfirst

fishfirst — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:04:21 +0000

Remember the Wilburton tunnel over S-405? Yes, the BNSF tracks have been there all along. The problem is that the BNSF line ENDS half-way along the Brookshire property line. The ROW turned east and crossed 405 via the Wilburton Tunnel – which was torn down when the WSDOT widened 405. So here comes ST and the B7…

Its not just the increase in noise (going from 6-8 trains per day to a light rail every 7 minutes)… Just where IS the B7 route is supposed to go AFTER it reaches the END of the ROW on the west of 405? How is it supposed to make the jump from that point to the Wilburton P&R? Only 1 option – THRU the Brookshire property. A point that seems to be ignored by Surrey Downs & the City Council. Of course the Brookshire folks are fighting the B7! Who wouldn’t fight the possibility of losing your home, huh?

I’d also like to clarify a point for the Surrey Downs folks… The ST B3 runs along the PERIMETER of your mostly single-family neighborhood and impacts only the fringe homes. B7 also runs along the PERIMETER of a residential neighborhood – the only difference is that its all multi-family and that EVERY home in the neighborhood will be impacted! The math seems a little lop-sided, doesn’t it?

By: Martin P.

Martin P. — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:35:39 +0000

Right. That is my point. B3 follows thru-ways that are currently a good deal busier than the BNSF corridor has been for many, many years, if ever. So even though it’s a rail line, this would be the biggest load increase its ever seen. Bellevue Way and 112th, on the other hand, would have perhaps a 10% increase in total traffic from what they are now, and no added congestion.

By: blueumbrella

blueumbrella — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:02:08 +0000

Following this line of thinking, B3 is using a current thru way, so what’s the problem?

By: Martin P.

Martin P. — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:01:10 +0000

But this is the first time except for when all the choices were on the table that B7 is officially back on the table, though we could see it coming. It’s all politics, of course, or there wouldn’t even be a B7. Ballooning use of the BNSF right of way is as justified as any other reason people use to say no. Just because it happened to be a railroad in the past has no unique bearing. Bellevue Way is a busy street.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:01:01 +0000

That’s part of the stupid furniture store station idea. I don’t know why they say it would replace Wilburton P&R. The P&R does just fine now with existing bus service and would continue to serve routes that Link doesn’t. If anything the station should have been north of the P&R since that’s where the most development is and it would replace the East Main station (which looks to be on the chopping block).

The more I go back and read their summary the more it’s obvious that ST was just dead set against any low cost alternative that might have tarnished their gold plated image. They propose a 1,000 stall parking garage and estimate 1,000 daily segment boardings. And still, as bad as they tried to make it it’s still only 4% lower than B3 for overall ridership.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:53:14 +0000

Bernie, to me what’s happened to Issaquah and Redmond over the past 50 years is not “future” development. I’m just asking what is the potential ridership in the two catchments compared with the potential ridership in the Bellevue catchment. And suggesting that if ST had a ‘Plan B’ on the drafting board, Bellevue would be a lot more interested in making ‘Plan A’ work.

That’s human nature.

By: oldmain

oldmain — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:02 +0000

I watch every council meeting, and a few people have from Brookshire have come out but nothing compared to Surrey, even though b7 would put a train MUCH closer to these condos then any Surrey house.

By: ericn

ericn — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:24:41 +0000

No, the B7 analysis “includes a new four-story park-and-ride structure with about 1,030 spaces to replace the existing Wilburton Park-and-Ride Lot, with nearby access to and from I-405.” See page ES-19 of the East Link DEIS.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:13:40 +0000

Interesting idea, skip DT Bellevue and Microsoft and pick up riders based on future development just like the railroads did back in the eighteen hundreds. Unlike the early railroads which were funded based on handing out alternating sections of “unused” land East Link has to rely on the dollars current tax payers provide.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:26:10 +0000

ideo·logue:

1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

I assume you are referring to definition 2. With respect to Microsoft’s “our proprietary standards will rule the world” I’m not so sure. Ideology Technology… hmmm And with respect to alignments; Microsoft towers in Bellevue and the campus in Overlake have a much bigger stake in this than Kemper.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:58:25 +0000

Yes, the residents of the Brookshire Condos (built in 1993, how long has the rail line been there??) have been opposed to B7 throughout this process. They’ve been “screwed” by I-405 widening and oppose a regional transportation corridor next to their homes. Much like the argument of buying a home at the end of the runway and then arguing that expansion should go somewhere else because there’s already too much noise here.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:29:16 +0000

You’re right about the automobile preference. It’s not 100% of Bel Square customers but it’s pretty darn close. The number one reason people tend to sight for not going to Bel Square (assuming they have any desire to shop there in the first place) is that the traffic is too bad. Light rail at grade will make traffic worse. That’s just a fact. Light rail may very well be a better way to get into Seattle but it won’t help Bel Square. Just won’t. It might help stores in DT Seattle. Interestingly the Bravern is closer to all of the proposed alignments and is a more “up scale” metropolitan shopping experience than Bel Square. Personally, I think they should follow the 520 ROW and have a stop at the Cash & Carry; much more the style of retail I want to shop at. Plus you pick up Dick’s Restaurant Supply, a great NAPA store and Skate King. All of which I frequent far more than Bel Square. Never been inside the Bravern, probably never will and don’t really want to.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:15:03 +0000

Don’t know what B7 would do to Willburton Parking. ST didn’t factor in any multi story parking structures in their analysis of B7 (sort of makes you wonder, doesn’t it). I think there’s a potential for public private partnership with the hotels. That’s a lot more than South Bellevue has to offer. Outside of peak commute South Bellevue P&R is a ghost town and always will be. There is zero potential for development there.

B7 savings won’t make up the gap to get from Overlake TC to Redmond or even Marymoor but it would accelerate the time frame in which it could become possible. I’d also drop the Hospital Station, the insane P&R at 130th and have just one stop at Overlake. Hospital Station and/or a Bel-Red stop can be added later when demand (and funding) make sense. With those cuts and the cheaper MF potential I think you could get to Marymoor by 2023 and being that close I bet money could be found to make the short extension to DT Redmond. Of course that’s assuming any savings down get put toward a tunnel in Bellevue.

By: Anandakos

Anandakos — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:10:13 +0000

BINGO! You win the prize Gordon. Congratulations.

Ed, what has Gordon won this evening?

Well, Bob, he will receive an You-Tube video of the latest Seattle Transit Blog meetup.

Thank you Ed, and congratulations again, Gordon

By: blueumbrella

blueumbrella — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:07:59 +0000

This is just the first time you observed this group opposing B7 or any modified version of that route. They have been very active and out in force since the very beginning. We certainly appreciate your participation and support.

By: Sherwin Lee

Sherwin Lee — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:04:48 +0000

Fixed, thanks. I probably meant to say that the comments were of the regular session agenda.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:04:07 +0000

No, shorter travel time which is why system ridership equals out even with out paying for the free pampered parking in South Bellevue.

By: Sherwin Lee

Sherwin Lee — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:03:20 +0000

Or better yet, to extend the line to Redmond.

B7, B3, B249014^2843, whatever, you can’t extend to Redmond whatever alignment you choose with B, ST2 only funds construction to Overlake.

I don’t like huge parking lots, either, but you think B7 will leave Wilburton’s parking situation like it is now?

By: Anandakos

Anandakos — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:02:43 +0000

Lor Scara,

A two minute stop for every train? No good. Besides, you’d have the same problem that would have ensued with a stub-end terminal proposal someone made for downtown Bellevue: two level crossings at the throat of the station. It would completely screw up schedule keeping.