U-Link opens in 2016.
Central Link (Westlake to Seatac) is 16 miles long.
Lots of items on this last day before the long weekend:
- Goldy at horsesass is sore about some SDOT safety improvements near the light rail line. Will he be out there blocking the tracks on opening day?
- The new Redmond Park & Ride Garage opens July 6. By consolidating the spaces from the old surface lot into a smaller footprint, a developer was able to build an adjacent apartment complex. Bravo.
- TriMet hosted a media ride for the MAX’s new Green Line. (H/T; Jonathan Winslow)
- Portland has also released a Streetcar system plan and is soliciting comments on it.
- Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood was in Portland yesterday. He called Portland the “transporation capital,” “green capital,” “streetcar capital,” and “livable communities capital of America.” That’s a bit overstated given how some older cities work, but good for Portland. He also (rightly) gave a shout out to their awesome congressional delegation. Here’s the video:
Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood was in Portland yesterday. He called Portland the “transporation capital,” “green capital,” “streetcar capital,” and “livable communities capital of America.” That’s a bit overstated given how some older cities work, but good for Portland.
to be fair, though, many of those older cities have not made very much forward progress in decades in terms of transit, pedestrian safety, and cycling policy; while portland has made a lot of forward progress during that time. if a place like boston or nyc flexed as much civic muscle in the past few decades (per capita) as portland in terms of progressive transportation policy, then that would be truly a beautiful and wonderful thing to behold.
Pfft, what does Portland have that we don’t?
*) Way more people bicycling to work.
*) A basketball team.
*) Way more miles of Light Rail
*) More miles of street cars & tracks.
*) An income tax.
I blame Seattle’s troublesome hill locations for the less bike commuting, and there’s basketball in Seattle… just not NBA. ;)
Really, Portland and Seattle are more similar to each other than to other major US cities. The neighborly competition is good.
Re: Less Bicycle Commuters:
I blame a lack of understanding at the Seattle Transportation Dept. of what it takes to make it bicycling safe.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009411189_webbikefatality02m.html
It’s not rocket science and many other cities, Boulder Colo. for instance, have figured it out.
You and I are on the same page here. We haven’t really acted on the bicycle master plan past some sharrows.
And the sharrows that the city put on the roads are waaaaaay too small to impact drivers. Berkley CA. did a much better job. And the cost is mimimial, just paint.
Ben, you and I agree on transportation issues way more than we disagree. Because at the core we both want fast, reliable alternatives to driving.
I have to chime in on the lack of vision at SDOT when it comes to implementation of the bicycle master plan. I’ve been in some communication with the head of SDOT, and she doesn’t seem to have any desire to follow the models of places like Berkeley and Boulder. She said we are following the “Seattle model” whatever the hell that means.
With the problems SDOT has had regarding clearing streets and employee harassment plus budget management issues, I think we are in serious need of a new director at SDOT.
I don’t think SDOT is to blame or even responsible for the bicycle master plan. They do what they’re directed to do by the City Council and try to do it with the funds they’re allocated. Compared to Bellevue Seattle is miles ahead. I’ll also say that the Pedestrian plan is first rate and a model for other cities to use.
It’s way easier to build dedicated lanes in flat, wide-street (relatively) low density cities like portland and Boulder. More than that, Seattle is pretty restricted by water, more than nearly anywhere else.
The only way to get bike lanes in the city is to remove parking. Something I’m for, but even just removing a spot or to for bike parking was a relatively big deal.
1) True.
2) Basketball is by far the most overrated sport in America.
3) True, but the light rail is built to a lower standard. Yes, a flatter, lower density city gets away with a lower standard light rail, but as Donald Rumsfield might say “you build your rail for the city you have…”
4) 4 m vs 1.3 m isn’t exactly a huge difference.
5) An income is only better if it’s going to pay for something useful (like transit).
Portland’s pretty podunk. There’s fewer major employers, more workers commuting out of the city as a precentage compared to Seattle and tons of crusty weirdos.
Higher unemployment and worse schools ;-)
less transit ridership
That is one UGLY station structure. It looks like they recycled an old jetway from the airport. It also doesn’t look anywhere near big enough and doesn’t show a good intermodal connection to surface buses.
I think it looks really cool. And its an underground station, this is just the little above ground part.
It looks like an echo of the ugly glass box stairs at the downtown Sounder platform, which always looked to me like some designer was thumbing his nose at the architecture of the area.
It’s less ugly than some of the University buildings. It looks like a flying saucer dropped it from space, and it must be light and airy inside.
I guess it blends architecturally with the stadium press box :-P
It looks OK to me – I just hope that the University uses the occasion to revamp its boring gardens sloping up or down from the fountain in that area – too much greenery that needs more in the way of seasonal colorful flowers to make it look better.
As for Portland, I am sure we will get closer to their achievements over the next few decades – they will surely ‘max’ out their potential soon whilst Seattle plays catch up. We musn’t forget that Portland is a lot flatter than Seattle and has fewer logistical challenges to adding transit throughout the region. It also has a way less spectacular skyline but perhaps I am just grabbing at the thorns to their roses and calling them weeds? I like Portland a lot but Seattle will get there in those areas Portland current excels in.
Oh, the Sounders beat the Timbers last night so perhaps we have the better football team!
Tim
Unfortunately you’re right about the intermodal connections, unless they majorly rework the area. I did a mouseover of transfer locations and other points of interest based on the ST aerial photo–they’re within .25mi but it’s not anything like a transit center. Are they really going to call it “UW Station” not “Husky Stadium Station”?
It is possible that the state or SDOT will at least add HOV lanes on Montlake Blvd (which is also SR-511) but with the current backlog of projects I wouldn’t count on it.
They’re revamping the area quite a bit. Most of the bus connections will be moved to that station.
Yeah, they have a plan for most of the 520 “BRT” routes to end in a transfer station there. Also, I’m guessing the 71/2/3 will be truncated there, and a lot of buses already stop very close. They’ll probably do minor adjustments to make it even closer.
Dude,
What’s your source of information for this?
I remember reading that as well but don’t remember where. It’s all really up in the air until the west side interchange design is finalized. However, it looks like the flyer stop is dead meat because of Montlake citizens objections to the wider footprint required. It’s going to be a mess if they don’t include a direct HOV access to the UW. The Pacific Street interchange would work. But it’s ugly as hell and it would put so much SOV traffic into the area it would be gridlock worse than today. I’m hoping the tunnel (option K) with HOV access only; probably a pipe dream.
The link was posted here before. The SR 520 BRT concept come from WSDOT’s SR 520 HCT Plan.
Very interesting, I guess I missed it before. My favorite Montlake Multimodal Center is 2-4 on pg 35: “The concept would lower the NE Pacific Street and Montlake Boulevard NE intersection and lid the intersection to grade-separate pedestrians and cars. It would allow movement between the bus zones, the light rail station, and the UW Medical Center without changing grades. This would improve traffic operations, as signal timing would not need to consider pedestrian crossing time.”
I still don’t see anything that seems likely to improve the daily backups along NE Pacific and across the 2-lane Montlake Bridge, though.
Don’t believe it! They’re making the assumption that traffic will actually be moving. Even with a relatively small event going on at the UW traffic through the Montlake/Pacific intersection is at a standstill and all the options that dump more cars into the area just increase the size of the que. I can walk from the flyer stop to Hec Ed faster than you can drive there and that will still be the case with all of the options that try to increase the number of SOVs entering from 520.
The Lid idea is great and really makes this area, which will a magnitude busier with pedestrian traffic once Link opens, a functional plaza. Far better than any sky bridge could hope to accomplish. It really only works though with Option K (HOV access only please with the standard open to all traffic after 7PM). A high level bridge (70′ minimum mast clearance required over Union Bay) would be an eyesore and a traffic nightmare.
Much of the bottleneck in the Montlake/Pacific area is caused by the 2 lane Montlake Bridge, increasing the capacity across the ship canal will help traffic flow as will properly designed signaling in the intersection. If the HOV access is done right buses won’t need to get stuck either.
I like the lid too, especially the one extending from Rainier Vista and bridging the stadium/station area, the hospital, the triangle, and the main campus.d
For the interchange options I like the second Montlake bridge and the tunnel. For what it is worth the high bridge is gone and is replaced with a drawbridge, though I like the idea of a second drawbridge next to the current one rather than one over Union Bay better. No matter what option is chosen I’d like to see the Arboretum and Montlake interchanges restricted to HOVs. The SOV drivers can suck it up and go all the way to I-5.
The map in the document clearly shows the SR-520 routes going into the University District and not ending at University of Washington Station.
…and the 71-series routes?
Kaleci,
I suspect with the current 520 plan at least some of the buses going between the Eastside and downtown will serve the UW station then the rest of the U-District with a turn-around and layover in one of the current spots used for that in the U-District.
I don’t think there will be any major changes to the 71/72/73 until at least the Brooklyn Station is open. Perhaps only the peak-hour buses (71X/72X/73X) will go downtown and the “local” routes will terminate at UW station instead. The station opening is a good ways off and I don’t think any solid plan is in place yet.
It would make a lot of sense to loop the eastside 520 routes through the U district. 1) Eliminating traffic and the delay from downtown to the UW is a big benefit. 2) Takes a lot of pressure off downtown. 3) It should make the eastside routes much better performing. Right now I think there’s a fair amount of deadhead or less than full buses running to the eastside. Conversly there’s need for more transit in the U district and surrounding areas. Limiting the number of buses that shuttle back in the “reverse commute” direction would balance capacity with demand and the Seattle side service should bump up the fare recovery. 4) A fair number of eastside riders are trying to get somewhere besides the UW or downtown so these routes would greatly augment eastside service with more one seat rides.
Chris,
What you said and the original comment “they have a plan for most of the SR-520…” are two completely different things.
I don’t doubt the routes currently passing near the station on Pacific/Montlake (25, 43, 44, 48, 243, 271, 272, 540, 556) will be routed through the station area, the real question is which routes currently serving either Stevens Way/Pend Oreille Road (31, 65, 67, 68, 75, 372) and/or the Campus Parkway area (30, 45, 46, 49, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74) will be re-routed/extended to the station.
Long-term depending on which option is chosen for Montlake in the 520 replacement there may be direct HOV on and off ramps to both directions of 520 right next to the station. This would mean all of the routes currently serving the Montlake flyer stop could easily serve the Link station without adding much delay to the route. Link may even replace the downtown to Montlake portion of some of these routes.
What they need is a consistent bus up 25th that can get people to U-Village and the neighborhoods to the North. But you’re right, without better traffic flow, it will NEVER be consistent.
Also, Portland’s biking is overrated. They are at something like 3% compared to our 1-2% and while most American cities are at like .2%. Its not like you go down there and bikers dominate the streets. You might see a few more but certainly its still an auto dominated city. While I think Seattle’s hills will never allow us to be Copenhagen or Amsterdam, we could still easily have a 10% bike commute population. Its just all about the right area. Ballard to Downtown, relatively flat and straight but terrible cycle infrastructure. Rainer Valley, is flat N-S but terrible cycle infrastructure. Its all about figuring out the most conducive places for cycling and making the right investments. We can easily catch up to PDX.
Also, go Sounders! We stomped them last night. I’m excited for the Vancouver/Portland/Seattle rivalry in 2011 and beyond. I think Cascadia will dominate the MLS in the future :)
The Ballard Bridge is one of the worst sections of cycling infrastructure imaginable. Once you get past the bridge, the commute into downtown is actually pretty good, I think. Either on 15th/Elliot (there is a sharrows in the new BAT lane) or from Magnolia on the bike path through Myrtle Edwards park.
Magnolia to DT via the bike path is good. Also, didn’t they just complete the missing link on the Burke Gilman that would take you Gas Works and UW?
There’s still a huge gap in the trail between the Leary Way Fred Meyer and the Locks, requiring cyclists to take Shilshole Ave under the bridge to Market St to the locks. The route is marked with sharrows and it’s OK for cyclists but not any other Burke-Gilman trail user as it’s an industrial area with no sidewalks.
They did completed the trail from the Locks up to Golden Gardens last year.
and that “missing link” is finally going to be filled :) Kudos to everyone who’s worked so hard, for decades now, to get that done.
The most noticeable difference I noticed in Portland was the courtesy drivers gave me as a cyclist, even when I was wandering lost across the lanes and clearly unsure of my direction. I feel like that would never fly in Seattle. Numbers-wise, Portland may still be auto dominated, but the pro-bike vibe is incredible and hardly quantifiable.
Reminds me of something I saw the other day on southbound 15th Ave NE. A bus was stopped in the right lane picking up people, and a cyclist had moved into the left lane at least 5 carlengths ahead. Some BMW came flying out of nowhere and right up onto the bike and blared his horn for a good 300 feet until he could zip into the right lane to pass the cyclist.
It made me really, really angry. Good thing I was walking, or the guy would’ve been in the hospital.
I concur. That station looks like a piece of cr*p, and it doesn’t fit with any of the architecture at the U. It’s horrible.
Maybe it doesn’t look like much, but it’s not a piece of crap… its just glass with a steel frame. I don’t understand what the big deal is. And it’s not like they’re gonna build another Suzzalo Library for a light rail stop.
Why not? This is a major transportation center second only to downtown. Train stations used to be on that scale (Union St. & King St. Station). I guess I’d be happy as long as they do better than the Under Graduate Library (aka Ugly as it was known when I was at the UW).
At a minimum it should include covered pedestrian access to the other side of Pacific.
Building something really nice would be a huge cost for no benefit. The reason those old stations were nice was that they were meant to be a gateway to the city. This is just a surface entrance to an underground station, so they decided to go with something that’s not too bad. In fact, this looks pretty cool to me.
There is supposed to be a pedestrian bridge over Pacific, but I don’t think it is a covered one under the current plans.
I do agree it would be nice if they built something that looked more or less like a classic train station in modern campus gothic architecture (see Allen Library, CSE building, Chemistry Addition, or the Law School for examples).
It’s the worst piece of architecture I’ve seen yet from ST and ranks right up there with some of the worst in the city of Seattle.
And the real travesty is that doing it right wouldn’t cost much more. Nobody is saying build a palace, but couldn’t ST at least sheath part of it in natural materials similar to is used on most of the rest of the campus? This structure looks it was dropped onto campus from some office park in California.
Hopefully the U puts its foot down and makes ST do something better.
I honestly don’t see anything bad about it. It actually looks a lot like Mount Baker Station. Maybe if you saw it from a different angle you wouldn’t think it’s so incredibly awful? http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/link/north/ULink/mar_09/station_entrance.pdf
And there are no plans that don’t include the pedestrian bridge (there’s only one plan). The pedestrian bridge arcs northwest from the station across Pacific with entrances at the Triangle and Rainier Vista.
I see the pedestrian bridge but I think it should be covered. That’s based on the assumption that people will be transferring from buses on the other side of Pacific. It also looks like they need a ramp instead of or in addition to the outside stairs. In the pdf it looks like there’s a big wall blocking off Pacific?
Oran’s idea of taking styling cues from the Yukon Exposition is great. Maybe a pond with some giant Sturgon. Or, since it’s next to the Medical Center, Surgeons :=)
Since the plan from here is I believe a cut and cover tunnel through campus (seems like a bad and expensive idea) I wonder if they’ll include an underground walkway to the upper campus. I imagine they have to have emergency access tunnels anyway so the additional cost might not be too much.
I’d have to classify the architectural “style” of this shelter (I can’t even call it a station) as late twentieth century phone booth. Just add folding doors to tie it all together.
That’s what I think makes it a waste. I would think UW would take some ownership and build this as their station. Poised between the sports complex and UW Medical a top level conference center would be a natural. Because of the location I believe you could go up three or four stories without blocking views from anywhere else on campus. Move the scoreboard and now you’re looking over the stadium to Mt. Rainier… sort of like the view from Drumheller Fountain. Hey, doesn’t that harken back to the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition ;-)
As far as I know the entire tunneled portion of North Link is bored tunnels just like U Link. Cut and cover would indeed be stupid and there is no way the UW would sign off on that.
For the station something that looks like it is from the AYP would be great and even cooler than a station structure in modern campus gothic.
They will not be cut-and-cover. From the Supplemental EIS :
“All of the Preferred Alternative underground stations would be constructed by excavating from the surface
down to the station, while the tunnels themselves would be bored or mined.”
Well that makes more sense. I must have zeroed in on the station construction. Strange though I couldn’t find actual tunneling method described in the SEIS. In the DEIS for East Link they made if very clear which were cut and cover and which were deep bore. From the routing I couldn’t understand how it would have even been possible across the UW campus to use cut & cover.
The tunnels to the UW station are bored; the tunnels to 45th will be bored also.
From the engineering diagrams, one can see that North Link light rail subway northward beyond the Husky Stadium station is a bored tunnel with the stations at Brooklyn and Roosevelt being cut and cover. I don’t know how the tunnel will be built north of Roosevelt Station to where the tracks emerge from the ground alongside I-5 at about 70th Street. The train is in daylight from there to Northgate, and presumably beyond. I recall that the tunnel muck from the Roosevelt to Husky segment comes out at Roosevelt Station, not the north portal beside the freeway.
If you’re talking about the area below the bridge just north of Pacific Place, then yes, they were planning on making it solid beneath the bridge. That way the bad guys (or homeless guys) can’t hide out underneath it.
Everyone else chimed in on this one, but another reason that it’ll be bored is because the UW has underground tunnels for power and steam distribution. They connect every building on campus, and many of the off campus buildings.
The UW would never go for that. I remember there was a big stink about anything being erected and blocking the view of Mt. Rainier.
I really don’t know the site that well. It was 1980 when I graduated but it seems that area you could go up at least three stories without blocking anyones view. I mean the stadium and Medical Center are already in the way. I’m thinking the UW should take the lead in the station design and use this as an opportunity to create a UW owned campus facility. I know the Convention Center over I-5 has been a bit of a issue with lane expansion and such but building this out over Pacific and making the ground level a large bus oriented transit center connecting with trains and the parking garage below could I think enhance the area both for the normal commute and for large events. Nothing too grandios, Atocha Station in Spain would be a nice model :^>
The stadium in the medical center aren’t in the way of Rainier Vista. The station is just about exactly in the middle of that, so if it were too tall it would obstruct the view down the Vista. This has some interesting info about future plans for Rainier Vista.
Why would you need a three or four story tall building for an entrance to an underground station? It’s not like people are going to be hanging out there. If anything they need to minimize the design of these stations so that the construction cost is not so exorbitant. Look at the Tukwila station, it’s the most grandiose rapid transit stop I’ve ever seen in my life. We could get much more rail if the stations were a little simpler.
What if we turn it into a place where people WANT to hang out?
That entire space is pretty much dead in terms of activity outside of any events at the stadium. If done right in combination with a lid it could be a lunch time spot for the UWMC employees, visitors, and us civil engineering students. It’ll also make walk down there worthwhile.
The Tukwila and Airport stations are simply elevated Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel stations. These stations serve as the gateway to the region. It would be like arguing against the Port of Seattle renovating the airport to make it look better and more attractive to travelers. How much do these stations cost and how much would ST actually save by making them look simpler?
There’re lots o’ ugly soulless buildings that are glass and steel frames. How about something that brings you back a hundred years to the Alaskan Yukon Pacific Expo that was hosted on the UW campus.
As for the UGL, we all call it Odegaard now. That’s not intended to be an insult to the great person the ugly building was named after.
Oran, I think that’s a great idea, and it’s too bad I didn’t hear that idea two or three years ago during the public meetings.
It looks like two shipping containers made out of glass and then stacked on top of each other like you see down on Harbor Island — pretty horrible.
However, the good thing is that what you see above ground is really a minor part of the whole station design — you can change the sheathing fairly easy without impacting the rest of the station. There might be a way to dress it up betweeen now and 2016 — after all, we went to the moon in about that amount of time….it can’t be that hard.
I’m surprised no one ever suggested it. Three years ago I wasn’t active or very aware of what was going on with Sound Transit.
It would be really strange to walk into a classical-style surface building and end up in a futuristic platform area.
“It looks like two shipping containers made out of glass and then stacked on top of each other” Exactly what I was thinking.
Ha, I wouldn’t be surprise if whoever is responsible for “South Campus” architectural design actually did it. Take a look at the new wing of UWMC under construction now:
http://www.djc.com/news/co/12006977.html
UWMC is such a kludge it doesn’t really matter. All of the buildings are mediocre at best but the conglomeration of disjointed design (both inside and out) make it one huge wart. In contrast Children’s and Evergreen have managed to expand and make it at least look like it was planned in advance. Then there’s Overlake… In the true Kemper tradition; lead with parking :-P
Of course nothing even comes close to the old PacMed building but that actually was planned.
As far as south campus the south campus Commons building is nice and Hec Ed has stood the test of time. Jaws II, well.. it’s a pointy ball stadium. The intramural building… blends in with the Medical Center. The student parking… sort of fits in. So, I guess the two story phone booth is right in character with the neighborhood, sigh.
Sad but true. I agree about the SCC, though, it’s one of few well-executed brutalist buildings anywhere! Now if only they would rent out the restaurant space it would be an awesome destination evenings and weekends. Nah, that’d make too much sense for UW to do.
alexjonlin,
The PDF link had some good info. The map drawings are a little different scale than I remember the area. The aerial views in the WSDOT HCTP are closer to what I feel being on the ground; there’s quite a setback from Montlake to the Stadium. My thought was that since the station location was next to the stadium going up to scoreboard height would provide a large upper level with the tremendous view from that end of Husky Stadium. Spanning Montlake Blvd this would be a fairly large structure. On game days it would be a “terrace club” for wealth boosters. The rest of the time it would be a unique mid size venue for conferences, guest speakers, concerts, etc. This wouldn’t be something ST would build but share with the UW.
However, this is a ways from the Med Center and even though it’s going to be connected underground the missing component is bus connections on Pacific. Maybe the “triangle” could be reconfigured so that all transit using Pacific could loop through the Stadium Station but it probably makes more sense to spend the money on lidding Pacific and Montlake and creating a large pedestrian space. It doesn’t preclude UW from expanding the stadium in the future and there’s no reason to tie it to transit now.
The Triangle can only be reconfigured so much due to the parking garage and sewage pump station. It appears all of the plans have the bus ‘transit center’ and layover areas located along the surface streets around the Triangle. I’m not sure the right answer for configuring the bus stops, but I’d like to see it done in such a way that the buses aren’t stuck waiting for lights or SOV traffic to get out of the way.
I’m actually kind of surprised there isn’t really a conference facility on campus. It would seem to be a good fit for the University as it could host academic and professional society meetings as well as rent it out when the University community isn’t using it. Sure you can hold meetings in lecture halls, the HUB or other venues on campus but it isn’t really the same thing as a real conference facility.
Other universities have on-campus conference facilities so it isn’t as if the UW would be breaking new ground here. Heck you could probably even secure private funding for most of the cost of building and operating it.
UW has a bunch of half-baked conference spaces: Kane Hall, HUB, D and T Wing lecture halls, South Campus Center, etc. We even hosted one in SLU. Any of the big downtown hotels have it beat for non-academic small conferences, though.
has anyone seen the forest hill station in san francisco? its underground, built in the 1910a and beautiful.
I agree with a few of you when you talk about the Seattle-Vancouver-Portland rivalry. It’s really helping our city more than we even realize. It seems as though everything Portland does well, we try to do (bicycle master plan, light rail, streetcar) and the same with Vancouver (density, condos, parks).
I like that they’re always thinking of new things because we are continually nipping at their heels, as they are nipping at ours on the many things we do well (pedestrian master plan, neighborhoods, libraries, community centers, fire stations).
I can’t think of a trio of cities that are continually encouraging and pushing one another to become a better city. All to make is even better, we will be forever linked together via Amtrak and hopefully someday, high speed rail.
Central Link is 16 miles long, but 10 miles long as the crow flies.
What is the function of the second story? Is it a second story or is it an atrium?
I’m guessing it’s elevators to reach the sky bridge over Pacific. The extra space could be waiting room for layovers and maybe concessions. Oh, and I’d expect pay phones ;-)
That’s what they said at the open house.
Phone booths are disappearing thanks to cell phones. Oh how I love having some privacy in public while making a phone call.
It’s not hideous, but it’s definitely unimaginative. 10 years from now, we’ll look back on all the buildings we’ve constructed in this ‘glass with steel frame’ style and think it looks passé. But at least ST is trying…
I think it is ugly now. However, I agree that in 10 years it’ll look very dated. It already reminds me of Sieg Hall:
http://www.engr.washington.edu/about/bldgs/sig.html
The building was probbly meant to match the UW logo: LUX SIT (will there be light)
This could be exhibit A on why elevated stations look like crap…
Going a bit off topic – but it’s still about rail and involves the transportation secretary – the Los Angeles Times had an interesting story today: ‘New rail corridor between L.A. and Las Vegas could doom maglev project’
A potential corridor for passenger trains between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area has become part of a federal initiative to modernize the nation’s rail networks and develop high-speed service between cities.
Thursday’s announcement, however, might doom a 30-year-old proposal to build a high-tech magnetic levitation, or “maglev,” train from Anaheim to Las Vegas if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gets his way.
The story goes on to say the high-speed train corridor would be about two thirds the length of the maglev corridor, and would cost about one third of the projected budget for the maglev project. It appears a nasty political fight is in the offing. Stay tuned…