[UPDATE 3/9 Adam Parast] Here are some informational links about Freedom of Information Laws, of which the Open Public Meetings Act is included. In this situation the sticker is usually about wether an “action” was taken. Details about what is considered an action is about half way down in the second link.
[BREAKING] The Bellevue City Council just voted to send a letter to Sound Transit stating B7 as the “preliminary preferred alternative.” From my understanding, a vote of 4-3 was taken in favor of a motion that would have amended the letter to read that “the majority of the council favors B7 as the locally preliminary preferred alternative.” There was some debate over the wording of that sentence, as Councilmember Balducci wanted to ensure that the preferred alternative was only “preliminary,” due to the fact that the Final EIS has not yet been issued by Sound Transit. Councilmember Lee wanted the sentence to merely state “locally preferred alternative,” showing a clear split in the council.
A second vote was taken to for a motion to actually send the letter, which I understand was also 4-3. We’ll have more information as soon as it comes.
[Update 11:47pm] Michael Marchand, who we endorsed for Bellevue City Council last year, contacted me with some more specifics about the meeting. The three votes against the language for B7 were cast by councilmembers Balducci, Degginger, and Chelminiak, as expected. However, the three votes against sending the letter happened to be cast by councilmembers Lee, Wallace, and Robertson, all having openly supported B7.
I was also informed that were questionable goings-on earlier:
The fireworks really started when the discussion came about the letter and council learned that there were five letter(s) in play and that the amended Wallace letter that was being circulated among councilmembers may have constituted a Open Meetings Act violation. Based on Robertson’s testimony of how she worked on the letter with Wallace, Lee and Davidson, Chelminiak was quite certain that the OMA was violated in this instance and voiced that in Council.
Greenbaum Home Furnishings, the site of a proposed B7 Wilburton P&R, would be condemned. Image from Google Streetview.
For those who expected the Bellevue city council to finally come to consensus on a ‘B’ segment decision last night, it didn’t happen. The large expectations were that the council was to pick up on a vote, where it left off last Monday. From internal sources, rumor was that Mayor Davidson was intending to do just that until the word reached his ear about the damage a vote could do to choosing a tunnel for the ‘C’ segment. This was further coupled with a mass of discontent from B3 supporters. Either way, progress was limited yet again in last night’s study session.
While there were a lot of expectations that the Bellevue City Council was going to make a decision on the B segment last night, it appeared that Robert’s Rules stopped them. For votes amending previous decisions (in this case, B3S), the council needs to put it on the agenda beforehand. If so, a simple majority is sufficient. Since that was not the case, at least five votes had to be in favor of one particularly side. Considering the relatively even split of the council, Mayor Davidson decided not to pursue such a vote. However, there is a possibility a vote could be put on the agenda for next week’s session.
Much of the East Link discussion was regarding C segment’s traffic analysis and environmental impacts of B segment. It appears most of the information was not really new. Of the highlights of the night, Kevin Wallace went off for a few minutes on how noisy the Link trains were along MLK Way and even said that trains were “squealing in and squealing out” of Westlake. Those of us who pass through the station regularly are well aware that no squealing has ever been a problem inside the tunnel.
The “comment” of the night comes from several Surrey Downs residents as I was leaving the meeting. One women said that when comparing the value of their homes to “those apartments” along the B7 route, the apartments are “not worth nearly as much.” The others with her scoffed in agreement. I think we’ve hinted before that this kind of conceited ‘neighborhood vs. neighborhood’ thinking makes us really question the credibility that these residents have in “wanting what’s good for Bellevue.”
[This is a live-blogging post from Bellevue City Hall. Keep refreshing for continued updates.]
5:57pm: I’m at the Bellevue City Council extended study session for tonight’s decision on the B segment of East Link. Thank goodness there’s wi-fi. Turnout is mediocre. So far, I don’t recognize any attendees from our meet-up, but I may be wrong.
5:59pm: Conrad Lee, deputy mayor, opens the executive session.
6:02pm: There’s pending litigation items, so the meeting won’t start for another 30 minutes. Check back soon.
6:05pm: Surrey Downs is, by far, showing the largest contingency. Martin Paquette, an Enatai resident who has spoken out against B7 in the past, has joined me.
6:26pm: I’m now hearing that representatives from Surrey Downs are giving some kind of a presentation on B7. That would explain the extraordinarily disproportionate representation of residents we see.
6:36pm: The Council is still in executive session. Things should be telecast on BTV, so check the link in the post below.
6:41pm: The council is finished with executive session and has entered the conference room. Whether we move to the main council chamber for comments remains to be seen.
Tonight will play host to a very important meeting, when the Bellevue city council is expected to make its pick for the B segment. We’ve repeated again and again that the reconsideration of its preferred alternative of B3 modified made last year will possibly change to B7. We’ve also endorsed the B3S alignment over B7/BNSF, an alternative we feel the city has no business changing its mind about, simply because a few council seats changed.
For anyone (South Bellevue residents in particular!) who is available tonight from 6-10pm, we’d urge you to attend this meeting. Comments will be at the held at the beginning of the extended study session, so if you want to speak up, tardiness will not be in your favor. The meeting will be held at Bellevue City Hall in the Council Conference Room.
Comments can also be submitted at council@bellevuewa.gov. A live feed of the meeting will likely be up at BTV.
For those speaking out in favor of B3, I have a list of talking points that has been graciously forwarded to us from TCC:
Bellevue City council has already picked a preferred alternative – B3. This decision was made a year ago and no new ridership or environmental data has emerged since then that requires a reconsideration of this alternative. Tax dollars have already been spent to study this alternative and move forward with planning. In this tough economic environment, it is wasteful for the council to continue to spend tax dollars despite a decision being reached. Planning decisions should not be politically motivated. They should be based on sound planning and evaluation criteria as well as public benefit. The city’s long term interests and viability should be the top priority.
Light rail is being built to serve the neighborhoods of Bellevue. It is an asset to our community and will give residents new transportation options. Light rail should serve the most number of transit users and the B3 alignment accomplishes that purpose.
The South Bellevue Park and Ride is an important transit node and failing to serve this node is a disservice to the residents of Bellevue. The expanded park and ride would accommodate 1475 spaces – a tripling of current capacity. A park and ride at 118thwould accommodate 1000 spaces. How are we going to handle the loss of capacity? Will the additional drivers be forced to drive and further clog up our highways?
A significant proportion riders at the South Bellevue Park and Ride use the 550 bus service (Sound Transit’s best performing transit service) to downtown Seattle to commute. How will these riders be served if light rail is relocated to the BNSF corridor? Plans for the 550 service to be eliminated once light rail becomes operational will leave these transit riders stranded.
Yesterday’s Downtown Bellevue open house for the new C-segment alternatives was rather uneventful, to say the least. As expected, the meeting was very similar to the first downtown open house last November, when public comment was being taken for the original DEIS alternatives. The Surrey Downs East Link Committee was out in full force handing out yellow literature asking for attendees to support B7 and C14E, two alignments we believe are simply the wrong way for East Link to go. As an incentive, they also handed out lollipops along with the flyers. Among the rest of the attendees, I recognized a few folks there as those who attended our meet-up last Thursday.
Katie Kuciemba, community outreach specialist for East Link, informed me that this time around, instead of allowing attendees to draw on the map plots, ST would be taking more general comments in lieu of people lamenting their individual qualms about the alignments. The overall mood of the open house was much tamer in comparison to last November’s, as there seemed to be a more balanced showing of supporters for each alternative. Below are some brief highlights of the evening presentation, much of which is old news:
With ST’s revenue forecast down 20% due to the recession, Don Billen quickly highlighted the appeal in the lowered costs of the downtown segments linked by an alternative B2A/112th Ave NE connector.
The downside to C14E’s restricted walking access was glaring, as Bernard Van de Kamp, Bellevue Regional Projects Manager, highlighted the Hospital Station’s more northernly placement, and its subsequent failure to effectively serve auto-row, an area that has been by marked as an ‘prime’ TOD zone by C14E supporters.
Van de Kamp also referred to the downtown ‘wedding cake’ node in saying that C14E was “not as good as the other alternatives” in serving the central core.
None of the questions explicitly criticized any single alignment, but were mostly logistical and objective queries.
Next Monday evening, the council is scheduled to hear public comments on the downtown segment. We’ll have more as soon as an exact time is scheduled.
For those of you who will be available this evening, this is a friendly reminder that Sound Transit is having their second Downtown Bellevue open housetonight from 4pm to 7pm (the presentation will begin at 5pm). The open house is expected to be considerably similar to the one held last November, when the original DEIS alternatives were being discussed. Today’s meeting will take public input on the four newer alternatives recently studied in a joint analysis (PDF) by ST and Bellevue, two of which look hot, the other two not so much. It will be held on the first-floor concourse of the Bellevue City Hall on the corner of NE 4th St and 112th Ave NE.
Expect the main battlefront to be situated around those for Wallace’s C14E alignment, and those against. There will also likely still be straggling B7 supporters, who are now finally facing mounting opposition from neighborhood residents in Mercer Slough and Enatai. We’ve editorialized multiple times against numerous disadvantages that the freeway alternative has across a number of levels. Below are links to our “recent” East Link coverage:
Last year’s recap of the South Bellevue open house, and the downtown recap.
Kevin Wallace introduces his ‘Vision Line’ proposal and his response to your initial concerns.
For next Monday, February 15th, President’s Day will see some reduced levels of service on several transit routes.
King County Metro will be operating under its WNUW scheduling (when there are no UW classes). The following routes that normally serve UW’s main campus will have a few designated trips cancelled (marked as ‘D’ under the timetables): 31, 65, 67, 68, 75, 167, 197, 205, 272, 277, 372.
Community Transit will have normal weekday service for local and University routes, but will be reducing service on several commuter runs (marked as ‘H’ in the timetables): 402, 405, 408, 410, 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 421, 435, 477.
Sound Transit(including ST express, Link, and Sounder), Everett Transit, and Pierce Transit will be operating normal weekday service.
[UPDATE 7:17pm: The Mayor's office has released a statement, see below the jump.]
Recent footage released by Metro of a savage beating in the downtown tunnel last month has unleashed a firestorm of media coverage over the past few days. But it’s not so much the beating that has everyone peeved, it’s the fact that there were three uniformed security guards not only present during the attack, but passively watching as the 15 year-old girl ruthlessly beat her peer. Surveillance video shows the two girls fighting out onto the restricted trackbed and concluding with the victim lying on the platform with her head being stomped upon repeatedly. All the while, the three guards seem to be unwilling to make any daring moves to save the victim, other than radioing for backup.
So who’s to blame? The three officers? Metro? Olympic Security? Witnessing bystanders? The question has been very difficult to tackle because technically and legally, no one did anything wrong (attack aside). Olympic Security, contracted to watch the tunnel, is discouraged by contractual language to physically intervene, leaving its personnel to only “observe and report” (PDF) at best. The guards that witnessed the attack did manage to radio for emergency help, but were evidently powerless to stop or deter the beating.
With a busy meeting season, several reminders are due. We are having our first Eastside meet-uptonight at the Rock Bottom Brewery in Bellevue. Attendees should begin showing up at 5pm. Right before our meet-up, Sound Transit is holding a joint workshop with the Bellevue City Council discussing the new downtown alternatives recently studied. The workshop will be open to the public at Meydenbauer Center from 1:30pm to 4pm.
Sound Transit is also holding yet another open house for the new alternatives next Thursday, February 18th, from 4 to 7pm (presentation beginning at 5pm). Late last year, we had a recap on a similar open house being held regarding the old alternatives in the DEIS.
'Lining up for the north bus' at the Bellevue Transit Center by Oran
In my interview last month with Bellevue councilmember Conrad Lee, hearing Lee’s emphasis on the unimportance of rail station placement struck a nerve with me because that kind of thinking is exactly why rail alignments are often fouled up. After Kevin Wallace introduced his “Vision Line” proposal, it was evident that the plan was conceived on two main premises (aside from impacts mitigation) of cost and planning. While the argument for reducing East Link’s capital costs is relatively straightforward, the one for planning treads into rather muddy grounds, which pretty much renders the cost-benefit factor questionable. The bulk of this planning argument is often grounded in the belief that the “future downtown” of Bellevue will be much closer to or centered around the east side of I-405. And to be frank, I wasn’t aware that downtown districts could jump 8-lane freeways.
We editorialized last November about the importance of siting rail stations correctly. I want to follow up on the growth of Downtown Bellevue specifically, and why a “Vision Line” station cannot serve the city center as effectively as proponents make it sound, now and in the future. Back in 2008, we had a roundtable discussion on the use of the old BNSF corridor for passenger rail, and Andrew Smith touched upon this counterargument:
The common response is that it goes very close, and that the future of downtown Bellevue will be onthat side of 405. I cannot see this happening until after ST2 gets built and a station connecting the BNSF track to Link is put in place.
There are three main points I want to break down that highlight the argument against building a station serving this theoretical “future city center.” More below the jump.
By way of an official press release from the White House, the Cascades corridor is expected to receive $598 million from HSR (high-speed rail) funds, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. President Obama will be on hand in Tampa (guess who’s cashing in?) today to make the announcement of grants toward thirteen major corridors, the Pacific Northwest being one of them:
Improvements will be made to the corridor using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide rail passengers in the Pacific Northwest with faster, more reliable and more frequent service.
Seattle – Portland: Two additional daily round trips will be added between Seattle and Portland, for a total six; travel time will be reduced by at least 5 percent; and on-time performance will increase substantially, from 62 to 88 percent. Major construction projects include building bypass tracks to allow for increased train frequency and multiple upgrades to existing track and signal systems. Several safety-related projects will also be funded, including grade separations, positive train control, and seismic retrofits to Seattle’s historic King Street Station.
Portland – Eugene: Investments include upgrading Portland’s Union Station, and engineering and environmental work for track and signaling projects that will increase service reliability and reduce congestion.
Along with WSDOT and ODOT, other regions/corridors that have also been earmarked for HSR funds include the Northeast Corridor, Florida, California, the Chicago hub network, and Ohio. The White House website has individual releases for each regional grant. The Infrastructurist had speculated that out of all the contenders, Texas would likely get the shaft, but Fort Worth is expected to receive just a tiny bit. We’ll bring you more as soon as we figure out exactly what projects our $598 million will go towards. [UPDATE 7:26am: Here is a full list (PDF) of the grants from the White House.]
The NTSB is wrapping up its investigation of Metrolink’s 2008 Chatsworth disaster. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen aren’t too happy about those inward-facing cab cameras, though.
[UPDATE 7:30pm:We were just contacted by John Chelminiak, a city councilmember who let us know that no formal votes were cast regarding a preferred B segment. Instead, the council was merely unanimous in agreeing to further study of a B7 modified segment. A vote, however, will be taken on January 25th to authorize Mayor Davidson to draft a letter to Sound Transit requesting the study and for the segment to be included in the Supplemental EIS.
So no, the council did not choose or favor a particular segment. I've changed the title and the story in accordance with that. Publicola has more reporting.]
Last night, the Bellevue City Council had a regular study session discussing the B segment of East Link. As we’ve hinted before, the council was apt to change their preferred alternative from B3 modified, and as was expected, it looks like that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Commenter Mike Skehan posted a short update following the session last night in our notification thread:
Update: Bellevue council 7-0in favor of B7 modified (S. Bellevue P/R, then cross Mercer Slough to BNSF ROW). Letter being drafted to ST to that effect.
A B7 modified route appears to be a compromise alignment between the original B3 and B7 routes. As Mike said, the route would serve South Bellevue, but would have to cross Mercer Slough to meet up with the BNSF tracks, leaving a big question about the potential environmental impacts.
While none of the blog staff were able to show up at last night’s meeting, we’re asking any commenters who attended to report on the session. For my part, I was able to catch a few public comments off the live stream near the end. Most B7 supporters largely constituted a Surrey Downs neighborhood committee, which has been attempting to push light rail far away, even more so than the compromise alternative the council picked last year (which would curve around the neighborhood). However, there were also a few comments speaking out against B7 from residents living near the BNSF right-of-way and from Enatai commuters.
These next few months will bring a barrage of East Link relevant meetings, some more important than others. We will be reporting on the dates soon and a potential meet-up in Bellevue.
For those who have never read contributions by Chuck Wolfe at the Seattle P-I’s City Brights blog, you’re missing out. Chuck co-authored the Barriers Report (PDF) on TOD (transit-oriented development) and is a land-use attorney who knows his stuff about transit’s role in planning the urban environment. Last week, we had a few big stories about the City of Seattle’s initial cease-and-desist order of a private parking lot in the Rainier Valley and then McGinn’s subsequent moratorium on that policy. Chuck has a piece out weighing in on the issue’s relevance to distinguishing between ‘nodes‘ and ‘places‘ in planning a transit-oriented community.
I ran into Bellevue Deputy Mayor Conrad Lee Sunday morning and took the opportunity to ask him some crucial questions about East Link. He was appointed to the position of Deputy Mayor just last week and replaces Claudia Balducci, who was recently appointed to the Sound Transit Board by Dow Constantine. With the new balance of power in the city council favoring more conservative councilmembers, Bellevue’s preferred alternative is likely to change quite drastically from the alignment chosen last year. Lee has supported PRT (personal rapid transit) and other issues that we’ve raised questions about in the past.
Below are some paraphrased quotes from notes I took of the interview. I have a breakdown of Lee’s responses along with an outline of some arguments we’ve made in regards to his proposals.
To plug a $11 million budget gap, Community Transit is proposing a 25-cent fare increase along with service cuts and suspensions. The biggest blow to riders is a proposal that would effectively suspend Sunday and holiday service. For the past two years, the agency has been limiting budget cuts in non-service related areas with the exception of a 75-cent fare increase back during the summer of 2008 when fuel prices peaked. If approved by the CT Board, the changes will go in effect in June.
Nearly all of Community Transit’s 64 local and commuter bus routes would be affected in an effort to eliminate service that is duplicated by other providers, streamline routes and make existing service more efficient. The agency is also proposing to suspend all service on Sundays and major holidays, including DART paratransit service and Swift bus rapid transit. By closing its base on these lower ridership days, the agency achieves 47 percent of the proposal’s savings with only 35 percent of total service hours cut and an impact to fewer customers.
The proposed fare increase would raise local bus and DART fares by 25 cents for all fare categories: youth, adult and reduced fare (senior/disabled/Medicare). Even with the proposed fare increase, Community Transit’s local bus fares would be comparable with other local transit fares in the region. The proposed fare increase would raise about $250,000 in the second half of 2010 and $500,000 in 2011.
Community Transit has a page up for exact route-to-route cuts and suspensions as well as more information on the fare changes. The agency is also holding five public meetings over the course of January to keep its riders informed about the changes.
Jan. 12, 5:30-7 p.m.
Snohomish County South County PUD office, 21018 Highway 99, Edmonds
Jan. 14, 6:30-8 p.m.
Marysville Library, 6120 Grove St., Marysville
Jan. 19, 10 a.m.-noon
Everett Station Weyerhaeuser Room, 3201 Smith Ave., Everett, on the fourth floor
This meeting will focus on impacts to DART paratransit customers.
Jan. 20, 5:30-7 p.m.
Monroe School District Administration Building, 200 E. Fremont St., Monroe
If you’ve got nothing better to do this Sunday, here’s another excuse to take Link. New York-based Improv Everywhere is having its 8th annual ‘No Pants! Subway Ride’ and invites cities around the world to pantslessly jump on board. With light rail now up and running in Seattle, Emerald City Improv is snagging the chance for locals to participate in the global event. The ‘No Pants’ ride, which was conceived in 2002, attracted 1200 participants in New York City alone last year plus 1000 more in other cities. Here is some information about this year’s Seattle event (RSVP on the Facebook page):
Every January, Improv Everywhere in New York stages their annual “No Pants! Subway Ride.” Cities around the globe participate. This year, Emerald City Improv in Seattle invites you to participate in our first annual “No Pants! Light Rail Ride.”
This event will occur SUNDAY, JANUARY 10th, from 12:00- 3:00
REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION:
1) Willing to take pants off on light rail
2) Able to keep a straight face about it
WHERE TO MEET:
Meet at the plaza at 4th Ave and Pine St, across from Westlake Center, at noon.
For the sake of decency, though, you’ll probably need to wear underpants. Assuming ST police and security manage not to throw any fits, we should hope to avoid what happened in New York during their 5th annual ‘No Pants!’ ride:
The fifth annual No Pants ride was abruptly halted by a cop. All passengers, including those not participating, were forced to exit the train as it was taken out of service. 8 people were handcuffed in their underwear and taken into custody. A month later a judge dismissed all of the charges. It is not illegal to wear your underwear in public in New York City. Just ask the Naked Cowboy. The incident was reported by news agencies around the world. David Letterman made two monologue jokes, about it and staged a No Pants Cab Ride as a parody. Keith Olbermann interviewed Agent Todd about the legality of No Pants. Around 150 people participated in the ride.
The issue I have with real estate developers these days is the fact that a number of them don’t see real estate as a “multiplier” (in other words, something that influences a bigger picture). For some, it’s a businessman’s game, where politics and money sort of run the show– to the point where properties are nothing more than a “meaningful” investment of which a return is to be reaped. And that’s it: if rent and revenue can exceed capital, contracts, and taxes, then the development is a fiscal winner. On the other end, many of these businessmen aren’t terribly concerned with land use on the micro and macro scale. A number of industrial and suburban tract developers have failed to realize the detrimental potency of their impacts. To them, it’s nothing more than meeting codes and zoning, mitigating impacts, and just being superficially accommodating to the public. It’s a necessity, or a hassle, for them to have to show for a bit of humanity by flashing a smile through the bureaucratic layers between concerned citizens and city planners.
‘Land use’ is pretty much a term that’s been dropped out of the corporatist developer’s handbook. I think the humanism that really evolved with architects like Alvar Aalto hasn’t just been overlooked, but essentially forgotten. What does it mean to make a property really “meaningful?” To be able to accommodate patrons and inhabitants is almost a qualifying prerequisite to conceiving any structure, but the real test is the relationship the property has with not just the neighborhood, but the precinct, the city, the region, and all its residents. On a multitude of levels do we begin to understand how real estate establishes land use not just in environment and planning, but in form, functionalism, humanism, and more. In this age, we’ve allowed the markets to drain the life and soul out of the very vessels we build to live, work, and shop in.
Yes, and it’s already happening. Here’s a little Christmas gift for high-speed rail (HSR) fans. I just pulled this Guardian UK article from August (via The Infrastructurist) about how the demand for HSR in Germany is really starting to crowd out the airline market. For an option that was once better than taking the car, but not as good as flying, rail is becoming the predominant mode in the intercity travel market. Many short-haul train trips are now faster than comparable plane trips. According to Pierre-Stephane Austi, CEO of Rail Europe, trains are, on average, a quicker ride than planes for distances up to 1500km (932 miles– for comparison, roughly the distance from Seattle to Fresno) when factoring in check-in, security, and recommended buffer time for air travelers.
It’s a phenomenon that’s beginning to be realized across Europe, where 90% of travelers between London and Paris are now taking the Eurostar over any airline. For a train to beat a car in the States is quite a feat, but winning over air travel is pretty unthinkable, at least for now. From the Guardian:
The journey considered to be the nearest modern equivalent to magic carpet rides is the Cologne-Frankfurt route, which used to take over two hours but has been cut to just over an hour. Taking the car is hardly an alternative, when even whizzing in your BMW on the speed limit-free autobahn would take twice as long as the train. Berlin to Hamburg by rail now takes about 90 minutes, whereas a few years ago a flight would have taken at least two hours, taking check-in time into account.
Okay, Secretary LaHood and America, let’s get on it!
[UPDATE: This isn't exclusive to just Europe. The China Post reports that a Wuhan-Guangzhou HSR line will hit the airline industry hard there (H/T: Gordon Werner).]
