Sound Transit will have its fourth public neighborhood workshop for East Link on Wednesday, November 18th, from 4 – 7pm (presentation will begin at 5pm) at Bellevue City Hall. This workshop will be specific to the Downtown neighborhood and will likely be similar to the ones held last month for South Bellevue, Bel-Red, and Overlake (you can read our recap of the South Bellevue workshop here).
From Sound Transit:
This workshop will be focused on the downtown Bellevue preferred route and stations, identified by the Sound Transit Board, as well as the tunnel alternatives. Additional public meetings will be scheduled throughout the East Link project area as Sound Transit continues to progress into preliminary engineering along the preferred alternative.
We expect a lot of folks coming out against the preferred surface alignment and South Bellevue residents still continuing to lobby for the B7 alignment coming into Downtown. Also expect input regarding the new C9T tunnel option. This is all part of a public outreach period to collect comments before Sound Transit publishes its FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) next year. I will be there to cover the workshop and we’ll have a recap up soon afterwards.
[UPDATE:] On Thursday, the Sound Transit board was briefed on yet another new Downtown alternative. This alignment would be an elevated-surface hybrid with the main downtown station being just south of the Bellevue Transit Center along 110th Ave NE. Considering that a surface segment is still part of the plan, it’s unclear how the council members-elect will react to the new alternative. We expect to hear the details of Kevin Wallace’s full plan soon, so stay tuned for our continuing coverage of East Link.
It worries me that stations are slowly moving closer and closer to 405. This needs to be done right so that all of downtown Bellevue is within a 5 minute walk of a station. I liked the alignment that had an Old Bellevue station.
Yep, the closer it gets to 405, the lower ridership will be.
The station on the elevated/at-grade hybrid is more or less in the same location as C9T, it’s about a “block” South of the stations in C8E and C4A. The ridership will be lower (based on the C8E numbers) than some of the alignments closer to Bellevue TC but likely not by a huge amount. The big drop-off happens when you push link over to 112th or 114th.
At this point I think the goal is to find the best compromise possible which seems to be centering around a 110th NE/NE 6th alignment with a station at NE 4th.
I can’t say I’m crazy about this proposal, but one benefit is the location of the “Hospital station”. I think it’s important to have a station on or near the BNSF tracks in this area so that a future Eastside commuter line would have connectivity to downtown Bellevue via Link.
Of course, if ST takes the path of least resistance (in terms of cost and political will) and sticks closer to I-405, that would be moot because most of downtown Bellevue would be inconvenient/unaccessible. Another reason why this important decision on the routing through Bellevue should not be taken likely.
Are Microsoft/Expedia/etc (all the companies who’ve relocated significant numbers of employees to downtown) getting involved on one side or another in this?
BFR – Let’s hope so. Microsoft has been very involved all along. Expedia wasn’t fully moved in or engaged when the debate was hot early last year. These and other large employers also participate in the discussion as part of the chamber or downtown association. I think the downtown group has a big committee dedicated to it with a wide range of opinions and interests, including Kemper, MSFT, PSE, PACCAR, Overlake hospital, Bravern folks, expedia and others. How could that kind of group ever agree on anything?
I think those groups probably break down pretty neatly – the real estate firms are all going to oppose Link downtown but most of the residential/commercial interests are going to be for it – with the caveat that the commercial interests are going to be leery of anything that might disrupt employees & shoppers from accessing their properties (during construction).
The hospital is another deal – they’re on the other side of the freeway, so I’m guessing the alignment matters less to them.
Ryan – there isn’t going to be an Eastside commuter line. Nobody’s putting up a billion dollars.
I’m appreciative of the calls among commenters on STB to remain respectful of others whose opinions differ from what some think of as the STB mainstream. But when I see a mock-up of the I-90 crossing like the one that heads this post, I have to chuckle about all the handwringing this issue has caused. I think the I-90 is just fine…full speed to the Eastside.
Is there a good summary of all the alternatives, listing their pros and cons and who supports them? If not such a post would be helpful for those of us who aren’t so familiar with downtown Bellevue.
And while I’m at it offering opinions about what I think should be fine for other people, what exactly are the arguments against an at-grade, surface alignment through downtown Bellevue? I would think that would be preferable to the cost and disruption of tunnelling of any kind. Plus it actually integrates the line with the areas served in a clean, urban kind of way.
I picture the Downtown Bellevue segment looking and working a lot like Portland’s MAX running on NE Holladay through the Rose Center and into Downtown Portland. Each of the stations along NE Holladay are minimalist yet attractive, safe, and fully funtioning. Street crossings near and around stations are safe, noise is acceptable, and traffic runs across and alongside the line without disruption.
Why couldn’t it be the same in Downtown Bellevue?
Because Portland is far more progressive than Bellevue.
Because *parts of* Portland are more progressive than Bellevue. The NE outskirts of Portland are Neanderthal enough to make me wish repeatedly for Bellevue. Also, Portland has a single, unified transit agency. We have this fractitious mess which is awesome about some things and awful at others, and unlike Vancouver, we haven’t pulled the different transit agencies together under one brand; like West Vancouver Bus, Coast Mountain Bus Company, etc. are all “TransLink”.
The big issue with the original C4A surface alignment was the NE 8th crossing and to a lesser extent the NE 12 crossing. Both are very busy E/W streets and motorists regularly “block the box” even when Bellevue PD is out issuing tickets for blocking intersections.
That said I think a surface alignment could be made to work in Downtown Bellevue. After all light rail is on the surface in Downtown Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Denver, San Diego, Charlotte, Portland, and Hoboken/Jersey City among other places.
Bellevue has a complex about being the second downtown in the area (the “clean, nice” downtown), and the first downtown (i.e. Seattle) has a tunnel. If Seattle had a surface alignment, Bellevue would accept a surface alignment.
Seattle got very lucky in that Metro (pre-King County merger) had the vision to build the DSTT way back when (I believe planning started back in the 70’s). Link might very well have ended up on a surface alignment through Downtown if the DSTT wasn’t already there. Also consider the crazy ridership numbers between Northgate and Downtown which dictate a rather high level of grade separation for this segment. Factoring the U/North Link ridership in Seattle might have still ended up with a tunnel but the line would have been much more expensive.
What’s ironic is that Seattle didn’t want the DSTT because they were worried about construction disruption. The original plan was to build bus terminals on both ends of downtown and link them with trolley buses running in a transit mall. Eastside leaders balked at this because they didn’t want people to have to transfer downtown and lose their one-seat ride. They forced Metro to build the tunnel for the benefit of suburban commuters. The consolation prize for Seattle was making it rail-convertible.
“What’s ironic is that Seattle didn’t want the DSTT because they were worried about construction disruption.”
For good reason. It was ugly on Third for a couple of years. Quite a mess.
As a Bellevue resident, I don’t think this is true.
I’m in the minority that actually prefers a surface alignment for Downtown Bellevue. Bellevue’s huge blocks are built especially well for this. 8th is a bit of a problem, but not something that can’t be solved. Tunnels are preferable in major urban centers like Seattle, but Bellevue, despite having some high-rises, is not a major urban area.
The fact of the matter is, street-running transit systems attract more ridership. People see the train everyday, they are constantly reminded it’s there, and they think, “I should try riding that.” I think this will be especially important in Bellevue for the success of East Link. It is hard to realize this as a transit enthusiast, but a lot of people are totally ignorant of transit options they have. I’m always amazed by how many people I talk to who live in Seattle and yet have no idea that there is a transit tunnel downtown.
Sure, there will be a small time increase with a surface option compared with a tunnel, but the ridership will benefit. Given how vastly more expensive the tunnel option is, I think surface should be a clear winner.
8th is a bit of a problem…
There’s an understatement – it’s alreday pretty rough even with what I’m guessing is limited occupancy for the new residential towers.
I’m guessing it’ll get somewhat better when the NE 10th bridge is opened and NE 4th is extended further away from the 405.
The fact of the matter is, street-running transit systems attract more ridership. People see the train everyday, they are constantly reminded it’s there, and they think, “I should try riding that.”
But again, it should be reminded that 1) major stakeholders don’t want to see the trains, and 2) if God forbid signal priority ends up being an issue of contention, and people are seeing trains stuck in traffic, then no, they won’t try riding it.
People ride trains for reliability. If a surface alignment cannot prove to offer that, then we lose.
No one is proposing a surface option without signal priority, especially not I. That would be terrible. The point is that a surface plan, with signal priority of course, is the better option.
Signal priority is a prerequisite for modern light rail surface alignments. We simply need technology that works and is reliable. We can’t hide from the fact that the Rainier Valley has been seeing problems in this department.
Sherwin,
From what people have written on the blog it appears that the problem is that the “signal priority” system is not full “signal priority”. Instead it appears to be timed signals with the cycle triggered by the arrival of a train at a station. Max does the same thing on the Yellow Line north of Lombard.
In this “cheaper” version when a train arrives at a station it sets a timing cycle in motion. After thirty seconds or so the transit signal controlling exit from the station starts flashing and the operator typically starts the door closing cycle on the train. When the transit signal changes to the white bar the train leaves. Each traffic signal at a cross street between the departure station and the next one is linked to a common controller and has an increasing delay in its cycle so that when the train gets to it, it’s green for the train street and the transit signal is white.
But, if the train is delayed leaving the station then at some point the train will miss its through cycle at a light and then will usually have to stop at each traffic light after than until the next station.
It is important for there to be a cycle like this, to ensure that auto traffic in the unreserved lanes flows freely. So just having the lights operate entirely under the control of the train is not a good thing.
The more sophisticated version of signal priority also depends on active sensors that communicate with the signal control circuitry and lengthens the cycle at a cross-street if the train is late or accelerates it (turns the cross-street yellow then red earlier than the normal cycle) if the train gets ahead of the cycle. Max has that on the Yellow Line south of Lombard and on the Blue line on east Burnside.
Look at the map and count the crossings of 405. Right, not many. NE 8th is going to be a major automobile arterial until a new crossing of 405 plus supporting Bellevue arterials are built. Is that what you want?
Part of downtown Belleuve traffic problem is people going to Bellevue Square that don’t know any route but NE 8th, but traffic in downtown Bellevue is worse than it’s size would suggest.
Also downtown Bellevue has grown alot in the past decade. It will have grown alot by the time East Link opens.
I see no reason that Bellevue shouldn’t try to find funding for a tunnel. Bellevue finding the money shouldn’t mean ST paying. If Bellevue taxes itself or find Federal money let it choose to do so.
I disagree that Bellevue should come up with all of the extra money required for a tunnel. Certainly the city of Bellevue should chip in some of the cost, but the county and Sound Transit will also find it to their advantage to help out with financing. After all, grade separation means faster travel between the bus tunnel and Overlake, as well as increased East Link ridership and less frustration for drivers/bikes/pedestrians on NE 8th. Some intergovernmental cooperation at this stage also has the potential to smooth out problems that will inevitably arise in other parts of East King subarea planning.
Kenneth, You would think that would be the appropriate behavior however Sound Transit has gone as far as sending lobbists to WA DC to actively try and block Bellevue’s attempts to gain federal funding.
That deserves at least a hint of valid documentation. I haven’t seen ST do squat to help secure funding as was promised but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of them actively sabotaging any attempt. In fact as far as I know Bellevue hasn’t applied for any Federal money because we lack the expertise on how to do so.
Yes, that’s quite a bold accusation to make without any proof.
I don’t think you’re in a minority in supporting a surface alignment. While a tunnel like C9T would be wonderful if it were free (Federal pork would really be the only freebie and if Patty Murray can bring home the bacon I’m all for it) but when you look realistically at the cost it just doesn’t make sense. Bellevue’s not going to raise taxes to single handedly fund it. KC Metro who we have to thank for the DSTT isn’t likely to either. ST has said they can’t and trying to charge users would kill ridership.
If “see it = ride it” is the argument then the most visibility would be along 405 and 520 where people parked in there cars are going to see it every day. WSDOT is currently adding an additional lane of parking to 405 so you’ll have an even bigger audience ;-) Seriously, it doesn’t matter what north/south street you use since people will have to cross it where ever it is (and no it’s not going to be east of 405 through downtown). Signal priority is under the jurisdiction of the city. This is not an existing freight RR where the train comes through and the gates go down. Bellevue has invested a lot in TDM and the the signaling system. The “priority” will remain with the +80% accessing Bellevue by car which are mostly going to be crossing the path of the train rather than going in the same direction as they are on MLK. Drive 110th during peak commute and that’s how long it’s going to take the train.
I agree. Bellevue is still very much a sleepy little town (OK, maybe not so little). There really isn’t much happening after 7PM. For people in Seattle the entertainment options so far outweigh Bellevue it would be rare for people to want to make the trip to the eastside. Nobody on the eastside is going to use it to get around. The only station near an residential density is downtown. Where are they going to go? Maybe hop on to get to a restaurant on Lake Bellevue (what’s with the maps calling it Lake Sturtevant?) but Overlake, S. Bellevue and M.I. are all commuter stops. So the train only offers an attractive option to take people away from Bellevue to more exciting options in Seattle. The Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce can’t be too excited about that.
Finding the money for the tunnel has two components. The hardest to meet is the up front costs due in 8-10 years to move forward with the project. ST uses a model where 50% is pay as you go and 50% if financed with long term debt. Even if the Feds dole out the up front costs and something like C9T can be “done on the cheap”. I have to believe we’d be looking at at least $100 million to finance in long term debt. A simple mortgage calculator will show thirty years at 6% yields a payment of $600,000 a month. Consider how much circulator bus service you could provide with that. At $130 and hour it works out to 8 routes running 18 hours a day! Of course bus service is most likely going to increase in cost over 30 years but those costs could be matched by transitioning from free to charging a modest fare to ride. Over the long term the circulator buses are going to be necessary irregardless of the Link routing.
Bernie, what do you think of the latest alignment that was announced at the ST board meeting yesterday?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bellevueblog/2010263568_newbellevuelightrailalignmenteliminatesneedforatunnel.html
I’m still not convinced of the utility of the East Main station, but I like that the downtown station is close to the transit center and close to the top of the hill. I would think that the short at-grade stretch on 110th would be acceptable, there’s not much traffic on that part of 110th other than people accessing garages. I’m generally in favor of at-grade stations because of their ease of access, no elevators or escalators to contend with. The quick access to the train can make up for the somewhat slower speed along 110th.
I agree that the East Main station is in a pretty useless spot. Better to slide it south into the “hotel district” and Wilburton. This puts three stations way too close together. The Hospital Station although close to the downtown station serves a different market being on the other side of the “river of cars.” If a Wilburton Station is already in the plans (this seems to incorporate the “jog”) then save the station cost and put it toward improving the alignment from south of Main to the crossing at 2nd. You’re right that 110th is relatively low importance as a through street and is primarily parking access. It’s the route I usually use on my bike and slowed traffic might be considered a feature. If done right I could see that section of street become almost a pedestrian plaza extending south from the TC. The alignment along Main is crucial. If Bellevue can work it in with plans for the park and the idea of putting all through traffic on 2nd and create a pedestrian/bike corridor on Main I think it would work. If the crossing at 2nd can be designed so that traffic can eventually pass over or under the tracks that would be huge. The city plans to put northbound off ramps and southbound on ramps at second to “intercept” traffic coming into the city (the “bookend” to NE 10th). An at grade crossing here has the same issues going forward as crossing NE8th today. Timing for construction of those ramps corresponds closely to the East Link schedule so it might work out really well if this is planned as part of a coordinated effort. The crossing at 6th has the issue with Convention Center access. It’s not a show stopper but the details are all important. Overall I think it shows potential for achieving the goal of putting the downtown station adjacent to the TC with minimal impact on traffic (concerns about 2nd noted). The question then comes down to cost to “do it right”. If it’s comparable to a 114th alignment then I’d be all for it.
I will not speculate about what will or will not happen at this meeting, I think it is better to work with facts than spread rumor and innuendo (ahem).
I will say that it has already been proven through study after study that people are willing to walk longer distances than just a 5 minute walk. It has also been proven in study after study that people would rather be making progress and forward movement then stand around waiting for trains and busses. Walking is at least making progress. How did we become so lazy anyway?
NJL, The City of Bellevue engaged in a study culminating in the Bellevue Best Practices report on light rail. During that study the committee visited several different cities that already have light rail. Time and time again they were told that 20 20 hindsight tells those cities that they would never again put an at grade alignment through a downtown area. Let’s learn from the mistakes of others.
David, the downtown streets of Portland where the MAX line runns are wider streets than the downtown Bellevue streets are. In downtown Bellevue along 108th there is no room for expansion so if an at grade alignment went along the downtown street the only option would be to lose existing streets.
BFR, The hospital very much wants the rail line to be accessible to their employees. Downtown Bellevue neighborhoods do not oppose light rail however they find it unacceptible for homes to be taken for the rail line.
Ryan, think outside the box. Even if a light rail alignment follows I-405 there are many options for moving people into the dowtown core (because it is not far) including dedicated walkways, people movers, access busses, etc. We really can make this work for everyone if everyone will commit to the importance of each other’s interests and concerns.
BFR, The hospital very much wants the rail line to be accessible to their employees.
I didn’t say that they didn’t. The hospital is on the other side of the freeway from where all the controversy is. I don’t recall anyone voicing objections to having a stop near the hospital.
“I will say that it has already been proven through study after study that people are willing to walk longer distances than just a 5 minute walk.”
So that means we should design a system that forces people to walk farther than they should have to? Would you want to have 30 minutes of walking added to your commute?
“Time and time again they were told that 20 20 hindsight tells those cities that they would never again put an at grade alignment through a downtown area. Let’s learn from the mistakes of others.”
Portland, Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego all hated at-grade light rail so much that they built more. Have you read the best practices document that Bellevue produced? The document never states a position against at-grade light rail. The document is a neutral evaluation of each type of alignment profile and, in fact, notes quite a few positive attributes of at-grade light rail stations. The city’s transportation director even noted at a council meeting in February that the at-grade alignment on 108th and 110th might actually best meet the criteria laid out in the best practices document. Bellevue needs to look at the big picture of what is going on in the world right now and quit looking at transportation from an auto-centric view, especially if they want to meet their own goal of reducing the SOV commute mode share to 50% by 2020.
“David, the downtown streets of Portland where the MAX line runns are wider streets than the downtown Bellevue streets are.”
Not true. Morrison and Yamhill in downtown Portland are only 2 lanes wide, including the tracks. 108th and 110th are both 4 lanes wide.
“In downtown Bellevue along 108th there is no room for expansion so if an at grade alignment went along the downtown street the only option would be to lose existing streets.”
We’re not losing existing streets by building light rail on them. The streets are a public right-of-way, and not dedicated for the sole use of cars. Think outside the box Cindy. Moving people is what matters the most, not just moving cars. The traffic impacts can easily be mitigated through signal timing, reducing the number of buses on city streets, and, obviously, the reduction in auto traffic from having high-capacity transit serving Bellevue.
“Portland, Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego all hated at-grade light rail so much that they built more” They built “more” because they did not yet have the 20 20 hindsight in place. The at grade in other areas worked out fine for those cities. It is specifically in their downtown areas that they would not again build at grade. I think we would all have to agree that a downtown area presents different types of challenges then say and industrial area or residential area would.
What are you talking about? Portland just opened a new at-grade alignment through downtown in September, 23 years after the first at-grade line opened. How long does it take to develop this “20 20 hindsight?” Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City have all built at-grade light rail lines through their downtowns in the last decade. I find it hard to believe that there is some nihilistic desire to destroy their downtowns that’s driving all of these large, auto-centric American cities to build at-grade light rail. Could it be that there is an actual tangible benefit to at-grade light rail that has led these cities to independently come to the conclusion that it is a good thing? Just a thought.
I do agree with you that each area has different requirements and needs a solution tailored to it, but I think we should that the experts and elected officials decide what’s appropriate and cost-effective, not neighborhood special interest groups or real estate developers.
Could be if any of these were private investments instead of entirely government subsidized. The economic viability of trains make sense when Berkshire Hathaway buys BNSF at a big premium. Nobody’s throwing in money to support light rail except politicians buying votes with tax payer dollars. Sure the federal government promotes cars. If they didn’t I wouldn’t have just bought a brand spanking new Subaru but $4500 free money was hard to resist. Thank you Senators Murray and Cantwell. Even after I wrote them and pointed out what a bad policy decision it was they still voted for Ca$h for Clunkers (twice). The point, transit “investment” is highly skewed. Not to say that oil isn’t a root evil but transit spending isn’t immune to that influence. Neighborhood groups on the other hand by and large aren’t beholden to special interests. Real estate developers, Wright Runstad comes to mind, are entrenched in promoting government subsidy that benefits their cause.
“Could be if any of these were private investments instead of entirely government subsidized. ”
What the heck does that mean? Only investments that make an economic profit are worthwhile? Why do we bother with libraries, parks and community centers then? Not too many private investors building those either.
“Nobody’s throwing in money to support light rail except politicians”
The public is throwing their money behind it, by choice.
Well if you want to put light rail in the category of libraries and parks that’s fine. Trains are very cool and I’m all for museums, art and learning from our past.
Well, why wouldn’t we put light rail in the category of libraries and parks? We support libraries and parks because we consider them to be core values of our civilization. They’re not lace doilies on the legs of pianos. Gaining the ability to learn from the experience of others is, basically, pretty basic.
Frankly, if I didn’t think light rail passed the library-and-park test, I wouldn’t be for it. It’s a test the automobile has dramatically flunked.
Actually you are incorrect. The willingness of most people to walk falls off dramatically at the 5 minute or 1/4 mile mark. This is why the 1/4 circle around transit service is “magic” for TOD and walkable neighborhoods.
All of the Sound Transit literature says 1/2 mile.
1/2 mile diameter. 1/4 mile is the accepted walking distance. Add to that walking on a grid often means the “Manhattan distance” not the straight line distance. That represents a 5 minute walk for the average person. A ten minute walk plus layover times starts to really make a transit commute look pretty bad. Ten minutes to your final destination isn’t so bad but 10 minutes to a transfer is pretty much a deal breaker.
Cindy,
It’s true that many will walk more than 5 minutes. The problem is that the Western edge of DT Bellevue is already at the limit of that with the ST alignments. A freeway alignment would leave you with just the Eastern half.
It may be true that those cities regret building at grade, but I don’t believe they wish they had instead run at-grade just outside downtown, as you’re proposing! It’s that they wish they had come up with the money and the political will to elevate or bury the line.
Yes Martin, that is exactly what I am saying and that information was from the horses mouth.
Cindy, if that’s the lesson you’re taking why are you advocating an at-grade alignment far from downtown? It would seem the right course of action would be to lobby representatives at all levels of government to come up with the funding.
Question:
Why not build a surface alignment now — either this new proposal or the very similar NE 114th version Kevin Wallace likes — with the ability to tunnel later designed in? Is it possible to do? I would think it would be, but there may be geometry problems that could not be overcome.
The establishment of the elevated Hospital Station along the BNSF ROW would commit the system to a crossing of I-405 next to or on the NE 6th bridge, and dropping to below grade between NE 114th and NE 112th might be too steep.
So if a tunnel were later dug, it might have to continue under I-405. However, that makes it pretty deep when it starts to rise and cross NE 8th. It’s just moves the problem across the freeway.
These are things to consider.
Stupid blog ate my comment. Here’s the gist: I doubt that putting a new alignment in underneath the old one would be feasible, and I highly doubt that it would cost less than just doing the tunnel from the start.
Greg,
Of course it wouldn’t be cheaper. The idea is to defer the tunnel until it is clear that it’s needed.
But really, if one only spent a modest amount on a BTC style station, the at grade part (not the retained cut and elevated parts) would probably be only about $40 million. That would be all that would be wasted with a two stage plan.
Cindy,
If the ST option is selected, 110th NE is far from a major street and there is no “neighborhood” through which it passes between Main and NE 6th. South of NE 4th it’s a small business neighborhood which will probably be swept away by high rises over the coming decades whether Link runs down the street or not.
Honestly, I’m not trying to sound “snarky”, but what’s to impact negatively. Well, yes the cross traffic on NE 2nd and NE 4th would be impacted until a tunnel was built.
Everyone,
It’s kind of strange that no one has noticed this, but it looks to me like the “alternative” shown in the Bellevue Blog post linked in the topic header shows the 110th NE Tunnel alternative (C9T). Assuming that the “standard” conventions that ST has been using in its documents until now, there is not one yard of track between Lake Bellevue and the bottom of the diagram that is shown as “at grade”. The black dashed line is the tunnel symbol.
I wish that the actual “hybrid” option had been mapped out. I guess that will happen next Wednesday.
Because you can’t unring a bell. A tunnel now would avoid many negative impacts to the businesses and neighborhoods of downtown Bellevue. It is too little too late.
I can tell you from talking with him that Don Davidson is a very strong proponent of this plan. I expect Conrad Lee also supports it as it helps mitigate impacts to Main Street and city plans for a linear park to extend all the way to Lake Washington. I expect Jennifer Robertson will support it for the same reasons. The City Council was unanimous in support of crossing 405 south of 6th rather than Bell-Red road and this plan meets that goal as well. One bonus is that it puts the station right in front of City Hall and as close to the Convention Center as possible without impacting access to it’s current entrance.
This might be the compromise option everyone was looking for.
If this route is chosen, Hospital Station should be renamed Whole Foods Market Station. The back of the store is right on the BNSF corridor where it appears it would be built. I’m assuming that the majority of the station would be where the ugly strip mall is on the eastern side of the BNSF tracks and not on the current Whole Foods site.
I’m pretty sure the plan is to have the main station access west of the tracks to place it as close as possible to Overlake Medical Center. Don’t know where they plan to put it and how it impacts Whole Foods. Grocery stores come and go (remember Larry’s Market?). Why is it that Whole Foods which seems to want to convey a “green” image sites it stores far from any residential so that you have to drive there? And in the case of the Redmond store it’s a PITA even with a car. Both Safeway and QFC have successful stores near the heart of downtown and walking distance from most of their customers.
I remember hearing something a while ago about how you can’t run trains more than every few blocks on at-grade alignments. If that’s true, having it at-grade in Downtown Bellevue might make it hard to add another couple lines through there in the future (405 corridor and from the 520) without building another tunnel anyways. I wish the rich Bellevue developers would just realize that it’s better for them to have a station closer to the middle of downtown and with a combination of other cost-saving measuring like cutting East Main, pay for the tunnel along 108th.
Tunnels are running about a billion dollars a mile. Rough numbers that’s $200,000 a foot. So even if you save $20 million by dropping the station on East Main it only buys you a 100′ of tunnel. Save a $100 million and your still short of a Bellevue “super block”. A 520 line’s not going to happen. We’ve missed that window for the next 50 years (unless the new bridge sinks sooner). Any future 405 line, and that’s a big if wouldn’t have to go through downtown. It would be able to stop at NE 6th with transfers to buses and East Link. Rich Bellevue developers didn’t get that way by making dumb investments. They’re paying relatively little for light rail since it’s funded by a sales tax. If it were a money maker they’d be competing with each other to run it at grade right past their properties.
“If it were a money maker they’d be competing with each other to run it at grade right past their properties.”
It’s because they don’t know that it’s a money maker. Having a train dump 200 people in front of your business every 5 minutes is a going to get you a lot more customers than having 200 cars drive by your business. A pedestrian in a busy urban area is much more likely to stop at a business on their way to and from work than someone in a car is. I guess it depends on what kind of city you want, unfortunately Bellevue seems committed to being an auto-topia for the foreseeable future.
“Tunnels are running about a billion dollars a mile.”
Depends on what costs you’re counting. It’s closer to $300 million per mile for bored tunneling work right now, station costs are higher than elevated or at-grade and vary by depth, but the other costs (track, signaling) are the same for any profile.
Present a valid business model and I’m sure they’ll listen. People “dumped” at your front door isn’t necessarily a benefit. First off that’s only for a few hours at peak commute. Those folks hustling to work or trying to get home might make for a good location for a Starbucks (what isn’t) but Hermes handbags aren’t an impulse item. In fact throngs of people dumped at the front door are a negative. It discourages the Mercedes and Jaguar crowd. High end retail isn’t looking for “drive by” customers either; they want relatively easy access to valet parking. Look, even with fantastic transit Westlake Mall still has a very active valet parking and it was at the insistence of retail that Westlake plaza was returned to cars. A loser in my book but then I’m not the type buying Prada shoes. Even the Goretex establishment in Seattle had to relent.
Just looking at the AWV, U Link, the Beacon Hill tunnel and the estimates for East Link. The most optimistic estimate I’ve heard for C9T which is only a half mile is $300 million more than at grade.
Sound Transit estimates that the 108th tunnel would be about $550-$600m more than the at-grade couplet. I believe that though this sounds like a large expenditure, it is definitely worth it given that it will result in a ridership increase and allow a 405 line and a 520 line to be interline with it. And there’s really no ifs about those being built. In the next 20-30 years, the price of oil will go up dramatically and we will see a lot more system expansion; early expansions will see extensions to Issaquah and Kirkland on the east side, as well as a line from Burien-Renton, and over the years after that East Link and the Burien-Renton Line will be connected with extensions up to Bothell and Lynnwood. A 520 line will happen as well, probably later in the process but still opening in the next 25 years or so. All future lines need to be done right, which means not making them stop a 4 superblocks from the middle of Downtown Bellevue but putting them right in the middle in a tunnel. We should build this tunnel now as it is cheaper to do that than to put it off until later.
The money isn’t there. This is like the argument that RV should have been a tunnel. The choice was at grade or nothing. There is absolutely no funding package that’s been proposed. Reality may suck but it’s still reality. 405 and 520 lines are pure fantasy at this point. Not only isn’t there funding there’s not even a plan. 20-30 years into the future is hard to predict. The rail plans from 2-3 decades ago wouldn’t work with the reality today. When I need a reality check it’s fun to go work on my ’65 and ’66 Mustangs. No turbine powered cars today, the 60’s equivalent of today’s hydrogen fuel cells. No end of oil as the oratory in the 70’s predicted.
Cars no… but the M1 Abrams is turbine powered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams
What Bernie said.
It’s easy enough to say “it has to be a tunnel” — and everyone agrees that would be better — but finding someone to pay for it is a different problem.
You could cut something out of East Link — say, Overlake — but aside from that someone’s going to have to pay more taxes. Bernie and I had a really interesting conversation about this at the end of the Wallace thread.
I agree, someone’s going to have to pay more taxes. Bellevue should put in an LID and raise a couple hundred million dollars.
If gas really does go to $10 a gallon we won’t need to bury trains to get them out of the way of cars, there will be plenty of space on the streets.
I really feel the council cares too much about current residents whining and not enough about the future residents. the best line is of course to run it up bellevue way and cut over on 2nd and tunnel to 6th.
of course i am biased because current proposals are 2x as far away as the 550 for this old main resident.
Those “whiny” residents have also worked hard to retain the feel of the Old Main neighborhood you live in. Without those whiny residents you would not have a neighborhood to live in as commercial properties would have taken it over long ago.
what do you mean? old main looks very different compared to 15 years ago…
Once the trains go in the 550 will be eliminated.
Why should we expect our leaders to lead? They should just blindly follow the advice of the people who scream the loudest at public hearings. /sarcasm
Easy way to fix that. Instead of letting currently registered voters in Bellevue elect the City Council you let future residents decide. Of course I’d expect those future residents to start paying my property taxes.
As long as this new alignment doesn’t screw up Federal Funding I don’t see the problem.
Some people like driving cities. I don’t, I won’t live there, but as long as they don’t screw over the system, I don’t see the problem with letting Bellevue pull a three monkeys and desperately cling to their faith in the allmighty auto.
Time will tell if the faith was misplaced or not.