Bellevue to Discuss ST’s B2M Recommendation Monday

Posted on by Sherwin Lee
The C9T tunnel with the B2 and B3 connectors.

Two nights ago, we told you that the Sound Transit Capital Committee chose to pursue a recommendation of B2 modified alignment for East Link’s South Bellevue segment, and C9T for the downtown segment.  Those who have not followed our coverage on East Link closely may not be familiar with B2, which had been forgotten until recent.  The route, shown in the map at right, is similar to B3 but avoids the unnecessary curve away from the Surrey Downs neighborhood.  Trains would instead run straight up Bellevue and 112th Ave before entering the downtown segment.  The modifications are mostly regarding guideway type (at-grade, elevated, etc.) and side-running segments along 112th.

We have a few commenters who were present at the Capital Committee meeting.  Bob Bengford graciously brought back his own report:

While Claudia [Balducci] walked cautiously about Bellevue City Council’s 4-3 majority preference on the B routes, there appeared to be general consensus that South Bellevue Park and Ride was a critical stop along the route and needed to be on the alignment – both in terms of accessibility for park and ride users, but perhaps more importantly, for the great connectivity with other bus routes. We heard that Mercer Island’s council had sent a letter expressing their concerns over impacts to their park and ride should South Bellevue be excluded on the Eastlink Route.

More below the jump.

Continue reading “Bellevue to Discuss ST’s B2M Recommendation Monday”

Yesterday’s Comment of the Day: the DBT and 520

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Commenter cjh has a fair point:

[STB is] willing to go to the barricades to fight and delay other “done deals” (e.g. the execrable Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel plan), which delays will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. However, they will accept the decision of the powers that be in this case because it is agreeable to their pre-existing position…

For the record, I think the deep-bore tunnel is very likely to happen, given its deep political support.  If anything kills it, it’s likely to be the design spiraling out of control, or some sort of Brightwater-style engineering catastrophe.  Given the fact that there is, in my view, a superior surface/transit option, that also happens to cost considerably less, I’ll take my opportunities to point out that I think that the project is, at its core, unnecessary, and the highly questionable specifics of the viaduct deal.

I also think the current WSDOT plan for 520  is likely to proceed with at most mild alterations to the West side.  I think some simple changes, mentioned repeatedly, could greatly improve transit access.  On the other hand, the larger changes that Mayor McGinn has implied aren’t tied to any specific plan for the bridge.

That’s not a shot at the Mayor, who’s been in office for just over 3 months, has few planning resources, and whose first task is to blow up the coalition that has coalesced around the current plan.  At different times, though, he’s hinted at light rail on the bridge immediately, tracks laid in the lanes, structural changes  to allow for rail, and reduction of the Portage Bay crossing to four lanes.  More after the jump.

Continue reading “Yesterday’s Comment of the Day: the DBT and 520”

Blogging in the Mayor’s Pajamas

Posted on by John Jensen

Bloggers always hear jokes about mom’s basement and pajamas. Locally, some of that image is fading thanks to the great work of Publicola, West Seattle Blog, Capitol Hill Seattle, and others. Another sign of the times is that when Seattle’s Mayor feels like has to respond to critics on his 520 study, instead of sitting down with the Times, he blogs.

Maybe this will convince mom to get off my back.

[UPDATE from Martin: the most interesting thing to me in the Mayor’s blog post is the proposal to save money by building only four lanes between Montlake and I-5.    While that would be terrible for 545 riders, for those heading to UW (or using Link to get downtown), there shouldn’t be that much impact.  Judging from the cost maps for Option A+ and the four-lane rebuild, this would save at least $150m and potentially much more.]

520 Rail Advocates Should Forget the Pontoons

Posted on by John Jensen
Additional pontoons for light rail in orange.

WSDOT has (basically) responded to McGinn’s report concerning the feasibility of light rail across the new bridge 520. McGinn’s report showed that unless the current design is modified, light rail will probably never be feasible across the bridge, but WSDOT says that light rail is possible across the span:

Will the new SR 520 floating bridge be able to accommodate light rail?

Yes. WSDOT engineers have designed the new SR 520 floating bridge so that additional supplemental pontoons could be added in the future to support the weight of light rail.

That response really seems, well, not true. The opening “yes” has little to do with the rest of the statement, because even without changes to the pontoons, the current design will effectively preclude light rail. (That’s the difference between “physically being able to carry trains” and “accommodating light rail.”) Additional pontoons are just one issue that McGinn’s report called out; it also spoke to two other concerns that would be significantly harder to accomplish with a retrofit. As we wrote earlier this week:

  • The west approach (meaning through the arboretum) would have to be at least 10 feet wider than the current A+ alternative to accommodate light rail without having to significantly modify the structure later.
  • Through the arboretum, the bridge must be wider (or have a gap) to allow light rail to enter and exit the center HOV lanes and diverge from the freeway.

While these changes would be difficult to add during a retrofit, we have no clue how much they would cost to accomplish if we do things “right” from the beginning. The difference is important: if voters choose to put light rail across 520 and the only marginal cost is adding more pontoons and installing rail infrastructure, we could be save hundreds of millions of dollars compared to retrofitting more difficult design changes. The cost and disruption would be so great that a retrofit of these changes is practically infeasible, meaning that light rail would never cross 520 even if all of the transportation experts said it should. (Which is a big assumption, since right now no single 520 alignment looks very useful.)

More after the jump…

Continue reading “520 Rail Advocates Should Forget the Pontoons”

ST Capital Committee Recommends B2M & C9T

Posted on by Sherwin Lee

As we predicted, the Sound Transit Capital Committee made a recommendation of B2 modified and C9T for the preferred alternatives earlier today.  Bear in mind that this is a mere recommendation and that the ST Board will make its official decision later this year.  For those unfamiliar with the East Link alignments, B2 runs up straight up 112th Ave SE as opposed to B3 (the original preferred alternative), which curves away from Surrey Downs and back west on Main Street.  C9T is the newest tunnel option that we’ve been covering.  We’ll have a more detailed break-down later.

[UPDATE 4:23pm] An alternative recommendation of C11A for the downtown segment was also made.

The Bus Bunching Mystery

Posted on by Sherwin Lee
'Metro Route 7' by Oran

Bus bunching is something that’s often mentioned as a problem spot for bus reliability and particularly frustrating when riders have to wait 20 minutes longer than expected only to find two buses rumbling along one after the other.  As it turns out, however, bunching isn’t some systematic anomaly that no one has the answer to.  While there are a lot of factors that end up fluctating actual headways (as opposed to scheduled headways), late buses only exacerbate tardiness, therefore resulting in bunching.

More after the jump.

Continue reading “The Bus Bunching Mystery”

Next Train Announcements as Good as They’re Going to Get

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Apparently the two-minute warning is the best we’re going to get without infusion of money technology. Via ST spokesman Bruce Gray:

By contract [with GE Transportation Systems] we only provides a 2-minute warning and a train arriving message. We do not have plans for continuous count down arrival clock.

The rest of the explanation below the jump.

Continue reading “Next Train Announcements as Good as They’re Going to Get”

“Will”, “Should,” and 520

Posted on by Martin H. Duke
520 Bridge under construction, 1962 (wikimedia)

While agreeing with almost all of Ben’s post on 520, I’d like to make a subtle distinction about what I think should happen, as opposed to what will.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely the State will modify the bridge to easily accommodate light rail, as that would cost more than $400m and introduce some project delay. I agree that 520 is not a particularly high priority for rail and probably isn’t even in the cards for ST3. And I agree that in the abstract a Sand Point/Kirkland alignment is superior to one over 520, although I’d add several more shades of uncertainty on that point in the absence of any serious engineering analysis on either corridor.

Given that uncertainty, it would certainly be nice if we preserved the option of going over 520. The question is how much that is worth. I’ll leave comment on how McGinn is or is not damaging his relationship with Olympia to the political hacks. From a pure resource-allocation perspective, it’s really a question of where the hundreds of millions come from, and how much of it must be done during the bridge’s construction.

If it comes from the gas tax kitty for the bridge, then that’s great; taking gas tax revenue reduces the pernicious things the State can do with it.  If it’s coming from somewhere else (a TBD, tolling, or anything else that could be used for transit) I’d agree with Ben that there are other priorities that are more important on both the East and West side, especially since we may not need that investment after all.  Similarly, if most of the required changes can be deferred to the moment of rail construction, and the immediate needs are relatively inexpensive, then the core objection that the bridge is not rail-ready is a stronger one.

I don’t think Mayor McGinn’s planning has advanced to the point of seriously looking at immediate costs and revenue sources, but they are crucial to the validity of his points.

News Roundup: Mainly PubliCola

Posted on by Martin H. Duke
photo by papahazama

This is an open thread.