Probably one of the Bellevue city council’s more common talking points against Sound Transit’s preferred East Link alternative is the purported tunnel inequity between Seattle and Bellevue alignments. Bellevue Mayor Don Davidson has decried Sound Transit’s decision to fully fund the Beacon Hill and U-Link tunnels, but not one for downtown Bellevue.
Recently, Kevin Wallace followed in those same steps by countering my Seattle Times op-ed with his own piece, declaring that “Sound Transit protected these neighborhoods in Seattle and should do no less for Bellevue.” What’s interesting about Wallace’s piece is that while he uses Maple Leaf and Montlake as the ST-favored poster boys for protected Seattle neighborhoods, he conveniently forgets that Link’s longest segment in Seattle is at-grade.
More below the jump.
Despite lingering debate about whether or not ST should have built a tunnel through the Rainier Valley, it’s pretty clear tunnel-building criteria is far more comprehensive than whether or not certain neighborhoods are favored. It’s good to revisit Central Link’s old FEIS, which contains some tidbits on tunnel criteria, especially pertaining to the Valley:
As discussed in the EIS, Section 2.1.3.1, tunnels were considered only where they would meet the “tunnel criteria,” that is, where difficult topography, physical barriers, lack of available right-of-way or high ridership demands would make new at-grade or elevated routes infeasible or impractical.
Section 2.1.3.1, Central Link FEIS:
For Segments A and B (North and University Link), the figure (see above) shows that high ridership, lack of right-of-way, and topographic factors would require primarily elevated and tunnel profiles.
With limited exceptions, Segments D (Rainier Valley), E, and F have gentle topography, sufficient rights-of-way, lower density, and lower projected ridership and train frequencies, warranting profiles that are almost entirely at-grade or elevated.
In response to the decision against a Rainier Valley tunnel:
The Rainier Valley Tunnel Technical report … concluded a tunnel would not be a reasonable alternative for several reasons. First, a Rainier Valley Tunnel would not meet criteria commonly used to warrant a tunnel, nor did it meet the criteria Sound Transit had applied in determining profiles throughout the rest of the project corridor. Further, a tunnel would create nearly $400 million in additional costs without providing significant additional transportation benefits, although it would reduce some adverse impacts. Finally, Sound Transit would face major constraints in obtaining additional funding for a Rainier Valley Tunnel (RVT), based on factors above, and considering the voter-approved program for Sound Move.
Consistent with the findings set forth in the Rainier Valley Tunnel Technical Report, that section concludes that the preferred alternative’s at-grade profile offers many benefits not provided by the RVT alternative. These benefits include streetscape improvements and greater potential for economic development. Although the tunnel would reduce some impacts, it would have greater construction impacts in station areas and portals, which may adversely affect residents, businesses and others, as well as greater vibration impacts. For these reasons, as well as the engineering and cost considerations discussed, the tunnel alternative is not a reasonable alternative.
I think it’s pretty clear that if, for these reasons, the Valley didn’t get a tunnel, then Bellevue doesn’t really have a right to complain, especially with the accusations of Seattle favoritism. According to ST’s criteria, at-grade alignments in East Link’s B and C segments are perfectly viable.
Nonetheless, while I’m flatly okay with either an at-grade or tunnel alignment downtown, light rail for the rest of the city does seem to hinge on the tunnel. Considering that a downtown tunnel is the only leverage Bellevue has with ST, the kind of rhetoric that Wallace makes will only come at the city’s own expense. If the city believes a tunnel is crucial for future growth, it needs to get serious about helping fund it instead of playing the blame game with Sound Transit.
If Bellevue wants to FULLY FUND a status symbol tunnel, they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, something that expensive should be saved for places where it is needed (e.g. boring through Beacon Hill).
Would you really characterize the Bellevue tunnel as a status symbol? I wouldn’t.
I think there is a feeling among tunnel support along the lines of “we are a big city too, we have skyscrapers, we have traffic. We need what Seattle has and that is a downtown tunnel.”
But I don’t know if a downtown Bellevue tunnel is unwarranted.
You can point at MLK or other cities and say, “Look, at-grade can work.” And at-grade does work on MLK, because it’s a corridor, not a node. Link has improved pedestrian access on MLK because MLK has never been pedestrian-friendly.
Downtown Bellevue isn’t exactly endearing to pedestrians, but it’s not a thoroughfare, it’s a destination. If we want to improve the walkability of downtown Bellevue, putting a light rail station in the middle of the street is not helpful. It restricts line of sight, impedes traffic (foot, bike, and car) within downtown, and slows down the train line.
While I’m not a fan of at-grade operation to begin with, I think there’s valid reasons to oppose at-grade operation in the middle of the destination, rather than along a corridor.
@Kyle S
Downtown Portland, which is a “destination” is doing just fine with all its at grade light rail.
It’s more than a feeling, it’s also usually the way they describe their desire for a tunnel.
It’s frequently faster to walk in Downtown Portland than to take MAX because being at grade slows it down so much. Portland may be okay with that level of investment but I think we should go the extra mile.
More importantly, people who might use MAX to get across Portland choose to just drive the ring-highway instead. The downtown surface penalty is a total deal-breaker for crosstown trips.
(Not that Bellevue would be quite as bad, crossing only a couple of streets and with absolute signal priority.)
d.p. Do you actually think Bellevue will give Sound Transit signal priority? Right now they give priority to flush traffic east to the freeway and they are not required to give the priority. If you watched their downtown traffic discussion last year, even the Bellevue staff did not propose to give ST priority.
Exactly. Try getting off 405 southbound to NE 4th westbound (why I avoid DT Bellevue as much or more than DT Seattle). You can wait 5 minutes to make a right turn. Add in the to be built NE 2nd street crossing and Link will be spending 15 minutes at grade getting through Bellevue. ST management, those folks that brought us the most expensive system per mile money can buy and try to pass of ridership counts as “projections” need to go. They only look good compared to the completely inept crew they replaced.
“ST management, those folks that brought us the most expensive system per mile money can buy and try to pass of ridership counts as “projections” need to go.”
Do you want a cheap system, or do you want a tunnel? Can’t have both. The only cheap light rail systems in the US are those that have used existing ROW.
@ DP and Bellevue Soccer Dad.
The joint report by the city and ST made some strong arguments that through scheduling link in a way that focuses on minimizing impacts in downtown the use of priority could be reduced.
Bernie,
RE: your general shot at ST, Link is more expensive than lines with less grade separation and lower capacity, cheaper than true Metros like the Second Avenue Subway. In any case, you realize you’re arguing for a much more expensive alternative?
I have to admit I feel bad for Bellevue in this situation. I think the surface option will turn out alright assuming good faith on all sides. At the same time, they clearly wanted a tunnel and were serious enough to put up serious money. Bellevue is simply a victim of the revenue collapse, which has removed any possibility of ST throwing an extra $100m or so around.
So, can’t build it right.. build it anyway. After all, ST managment’s job is spending money not providing an efficient system that serves the need of the community in the future. ST is spending way more money on engineering an alignment that’s not going to happen than Bellevue is spending on B7 studies (wasting on B7 I’d say in many respects). The at grade alignment through DT Bellevue is not going to happen.
Adam: That’s a relief. Since Link has thus far been absolute-priority, I was shocked even to read Soccer Dad’s suggestion that it wouldn’t be mandated in Bellevue. Here’s to hoping that, whatever the result, the train will not be making extra stops.
Now if we could only get a clear answer out of Metro about whether they have any intention of following through with RapidRide signal priority when it gets to the city…
I still don’t think a tunnel is the way to go. It will only avoid crossing TWO streets, IE 2nd and 4th. If the tunnel was much longer and went under the whole Surrey ‘hood I would be for it but for just two blocks at this expense it seems very wasteful. The C9T station is also too far east for my liking… this puts it almost a mile from my “DT” condo.
There are two significant benefits if a surface alignment is chosen in downtown Bellevue:
(1) the main Bellevue station can be right at the Bellevue Transit Center at NE 6th St. & 108th Ave NE, providing the closest, easiest connections to BTC buses and somewhat closer to Bell Square and the neighborhoods north of NE 8th St.
(2) a second station would be built at Main St & 108th Ave NE, serving the south end of downtown and also Bellevue High School.
On your first point. If I remember correctly something like 40-50% of East Links BTC ridership is expected to come from riders transferring from buses.
It’s not ideal, but it’s still essentially around the corner from the busway: 300-400 feet tops, with no intervening streets. (Nothing like the 1100-1200 feet Mike Orr was suggesting for a Capitol Hill subway-bus transfer in a recent thread.)
I do agree that west of the busway would still be better than east for true downtown Bellevue access.
Asking for a tunnel through Bel-Red would be the equivalent expecting one through RV. That’s not what he City Council is asking for. A better example is the tunnel under the UW campus which has less density than DT Bellevue and virtually no traffic impact. How far do you think ST would get trying to cram at grade or even an open cut through the UW (remember they succeeded in altering the original tunnel route). After trying to play nice working to develop C9T and a funding partnership it’s good to hear things like
I don’t know how this compares to the legal argument in Tukwila but in the end they did “succeed” in preventing an at grade alignment on hwy 99. I suspect the Tukwila ruling was more about where the City wanted light rail to go (Southcenter) than where they didn’t want it. In other words, Bellevue would be SOL if they were pushing for light rail to Crossroads.
Saying the UW campus has “less density” is highly disingenuous. It has a high density of non-residential but very heavily used buildings. It has no Bellevue-style giant roads you could put LR down the middle of, and they had to agree to mitigation to run a bored tunnel way under campus.
Seattle paid for its tunnel. If Bellevue wants one they can buy one.
And I can’t figure out what you’re talking about with Tukwila.
There’s more employment in DT Bellevue 35,000 vs 28,000 (including the med center which isn’t close to where the line from Montlake to Brooklyn will be). Total population for UW campus with students is 60,000 but it’s twice the area of DT Bellevue. So, the UW should pay for the tunnel under campus?
The point about Tukwila is that they lost attempting to withhold permits from Sound Transit. What makes people think the City of Bellevue will succeed where the City of Tukwila failed?
No, they succeeded in preventing a route on 99.
Bernie,
UW station is right across the street from UWMC. How is it “bypassed”?
Bypassed in the sense that nobody in the hallways has to wait for a train to go by. Clearly UWMC is served by Link. Honestly I have no problem with UW diverting the original ST route to something that make sense for the community (ST only had a history of getting it wrong). It’s something ST is fighting in Bellevue. The route from Montlake north is already “passed” UWMC. To answer your question, “passed”==”bypassed”.
Bernie,
Sherwin is making a technical argument here, not a political one. UW couldn’t run on the surface because that would limit it to 5 minute headways at best, not adequate for the traffic demand. RV and East Link are in the next tier of ridership and can run on the surface.
A retained cut would allow the headways, much easier pedestrian access (than at grade) and be far cheaper than a tunnel. The downside, noise and at odds with the existing use. North of Campus why not run at grade? What’s a little loss in street capacity in an area of low rise development? Beacon Hill wasn’t really a geographical necessity either. East Link is getting to DT just fine without tunnelling. And not only would that have eliminated the cost of the tunnel but resulted in part of East Link already being built (The part that the West/North sub area is going to be funding).
Bernie, are you seriously proposing a retained cut through the entire campus originating at the deep bore under the ship canal?
No, I’m pointing out that ST fully funding a tunnel because it’s the right thing to do should also be applicable to downtown Bellevue.
“No, I’m pointing out that ST fully funding a tunnel because it’s the right thing to do should also be applicable to downtown Bellevue.”
They could do that, but it would take an extra 10-20 years to collect the extra revenue to pay for it, just like it has in Seattle, and then people would attack Sound Transit for lying about the completion date.
A tunnel under downtown Bellevue is completely doable if they would work together to make it happen. The term sheet for C9T was a good start. Unfortunately the discussion keeps getting derailed because the council would rather focus 90% of their time on B2 vs. B7 instead of concentrating on what really matters to the city as a whole; the alignment through downtown.
Here again we have an equity problem. Central Link wouldn’t have been built yet if they hadn’t borrowed from East subarea equity funds. How about a return of that favor? Err, ahh, no… That would delay building more light rail in Seattle. How about at grade north of the University. Well, no; don’t really want at grade light rail through an expensive neighborhood.
That shoulder chip is huge, Bernie. Bellevue is just one city among many on the Eastside. Why shouldn’t Seattle lend its money to give light rail to Redmond?
Where’s your proof it’s less dense?
You realize that the Warren Magnuson building on the UW campus has nearly the office space of all of downtown Bellevue by itself (5.7 million vs 8.1 million)? ?And that more people live on the UW campus than live in Downtown Bellevue?
It has more jobs, more residents and more office space, and certain the entire area is more dense than the area surrounding DT bellevue.
My numbers for the UW are from the in state enclosure sent out with the last UW Columns alumni magazine. The Health Sciences building which is the biggest center of activity is at the extreme southeast corner already bypassed by a tunnel. Yes more people live on campus than in DT Bellevue but DT Bellevue has been growing faster (est. 78,000 jobs in downtown Bellevue by 2030) and will continue to do so. UW is essentially built out which is why they are branching out to South Lake Union and branch campuses in Bothell and Tacoma. How many 450′ buildings are there on the UW Campus?
The main campus is currently at ~16 million sq. ft., with an additional 3 million sq. ft. planned for construction under the current master plan and room for an additional 5 million sq. ft. if needed. That would put the main campus at build-out at ~24 million sq. ft. For comparison, downtown Seattle has ~31 million sq. ft. of office space as of 2010.
Tall buildings do not density make.
How many 450′ buildings are in Paris? I count one, other than the one that has only got three floors.
Which is more dense, Bellevue or Paris? The question is nearly laughable. About the same size and one has 20x the population. DC has the same story, so does the bronx, and on and on.
You say the UW is built out, but the link I provided claims their doubling their on-campus housing, and there are certainly more cranes on the UW campus today than there are in Downtown Bellevue.
I want Bellevue to have a tunnel as much as the next guy, but making nonsense claims doens’t help your argument.
“Bellevue is dense and super and OMG so much crap. We’ve got our own El Gaucho and a Nieman Marcus just give us our damn tunnel already.” Where’s the money?
Half of that 16 million is in the health sciences building which doesn’t affect the upper campus with it’s park like setting. That’s why it’s a campus and not a CBD. The number of students hasn’t changed much since the 80’s. I believe those numbers are also counting the UW Tower (aka Safeco building) which really isn’t even on campus. It is the tallest building in Seattle outside of DT, albeit 75′ short of the height limit in Bellevue. If you look at the brake down of assignable space only 25% is office space (including HS and Safco). The next largest catagory is “special use” which includes things like 80,000 sq-ft at Hec Ed, 40,000 at the Henry Gallery, etc. Lab space is 17%. Interestingly, only 4.2% is classified as “classroom” and only 3.3% as “health care”. Combined that’s less than the 8.3% “residential”. What’s the purpose of this institution?
The point is that DT Bellevue is every bit as dense and as large of an employment center as UW now and in 20 years may rival the Seattle CBD. Bellevue is asking for a 1/2 mile tunnel, not the 3 miles from DT to UW or even the 1 mile (unnessecary) Beacon Hill tunnel.
Are you sure you’re not looking at meters? Wikipedia counts 18 with 112 skyscrapers (free-standing towers that stand at least 90 metres [295′] tall). OK 1/2 a dozen are radio towers (like the awful tower), churches and chimneys; and if we count radio towers you’d have to consider the Mercer Slew a high density area ;-) Paris has density and it’s true that it doesn’t have a lot (given it’s area) of tall buildings. It also doesn’t have the concentrated density of Manhatten (2X Paris). If you really want to pack people asses to elbows then it seems Manila is the winner. 15 buildings over 450′ being completed in the next two years! DT Bellevue is small and isolated but it’s a very dense area and the growth trajectory puts in on par with anywhere in the world except yeah, it’s tiny. Which is why only a 1/2 mile tunnel is required.
Manila has at grade and elevated light rail through some of the densest neighborhoods in the city.
That’s great. I don’t want to live there. I think most neighborhoods in Bellevue are comprised of people that don’t want to live asses to elbows! Maybe Seattle wants to move Link up to the surface so they can have that big city feel.
Courbevoie is Paris as much as Bellevue is Seattle. If that’s you’re argument, then Bellevue already has its downtown tunnel! Hurray!!!
Wikipedia:
So, you’re conceding that the business district of “Seattle” has migrated to Bellevue? And no, Bellevue doesn’t already have the equivalent of the Paris Metro. Maybe it should have been built before the line serving the RV which is the business equivalent of ???
Comparing Paris and Seattle is pretty silly. It seems that’s a common ploy with rail disciples (“Seattle” is not a real city unless we do what “???” does). DT Bellevue should have a 1/2 mile tunnel by any stretch of the standards ST has heretofore applied. Not surprising they are now out of money but still continue the mission of spending all tax dollars available with no regard for the outcome.
Bernie,
I have to admit I find your position on this a bit perplexing.
If you talk about high-capacity services you have a continuum something like express buses, surface light rail, tunnel. You’re often seen around here arguing that BRT is plenty good enough for the Eastside, and for some admittedly non-stupid reasons.
But if BRT is adequate than surface rail is more than adequate and a tunnel is total overkill. Good BRT has signal priority and would have the same traffic issues as Link passing through downtown. Unless your attitude is car traffic should have absolute priority and transit can go hang, which is not your usual MO.
What gives?
First off, the investment and permanence of rail over bus service can’t even be compared. East Link is trying to replace the 550 at far higher operating cost and astronomically higher capital cost when the 550 can easily meet demand for years to come. And the ROW isn’t going anywhere unless it sinks (which is quite likely). I recently looked at the transit brochure they hand out on the ferry. 50% more routes cross 520 than I90. East Link is going across the wrong bridge. In general the state and county projects are disjointed and have been inefficient and overly expensive. We’re still paying for roof tile on the Kingdom! Throw out the bums which at this point is Governor Gregoire.
Freeze spending. Stop building pontoons for 520, stop building/demolishing for the AWV. Get a plan instead of, well… we can’t do any better so I want my name on ” name your project.”
I was only arguing with saying DT Bellevue is more dense than the U-District. I agree that Bellevue should have a tunnel (I wish the whole thing were underground) but the money isn’t there.
I guess to be more clear. If you’re going to build light rail which caters to a much higher demand than currently exists then build it to the standard that such ridership would warrant or don’t build it at all.
The UW campus isn’t more dense than than DT Belllevue. The campus is not the U District and Link, thanks to the UW influence doesn’t even serve the “U-District”.
The money wasn’t there when ST built the Beacon Hill tunnel. It was borrowed from eastside subarea equity. So now, after we’ve built a tunnel under Beacon Hill ST should just build lines that are stupid because, well hey, it’s not in Seattle?
If you’re going to build light rail which caters to a much higher demand than currently exists then build it to the standard that such ridership would warrant or don’t build it at all.
I guess that’s where I don’t follow you. They ARE building to that standard. East Link is supposed to carry about 50,000 a day. That’s double what Central Link is carrying now, but with double the train length. And you could run trains more often at surface than ST is currently doing.
The “or don’t build it all” remark is what concerns me. If you wait for an absolutely perfect alignment you’ll wait forever. I’d feel much better about various ways to accommodate Bellevue’s desires if they didn’t feel like a way to kill the project.
I’ve been to Manila, I took a ride on their LR. They pack them in the trains like you wouldn’t believe. Good thing I’m over 6 foot and had fresh air(well maybe not fresh) to breathe while riding the train. ;)
Ah, what? So neither Brooklyn and 43rd (one block from the ave) nor the UW Campus is the University District? What would be the U-District then?
I think you have it backwards; borrowing involves paying back. ST thinks spending today’s Eastside money plus tomorrow’s on a tunnel in Bellevue makes less sense (aka is more stupid) than spending today’s money on surface and tomorrow’s on lines to Redmond and Issaquah.
Seattle never had that problem because Seattle’s all clear on ST projects after and ST2 and thus in 1999 felt comfortable spending some of what at that time was tomorrow’s money on a tunnel.
If you want a tunnel, give Dave Reichert a call and get some Federal money. Or call Olympia. Or go to the Bellevue City Council. Oh nevermind, all these guys want to do is complain how they can’t afford what Seattle could (being 5 times the size).
If Bellevue doesn’t want to pay for a tunnel, and they are opposed to at-grade, why not bring up the elevated option? Elevated does NOT have to mean horrible and ugly, and it will still be able to avoid all the problems of at-grade service. Surely in this country, someone should be able to design an elevated transit system that doesn’t destroy the area under it…
The problems in Tukwila due to an agency that had no idea what they were doing didn’t help. Well done elevated seems like it should be the ideal solution. But ST has never come up with anything close to an ideal solution in any route it throws money at. It throws money really well. Route planning… not so much.
Well, I’ve rarely had an interest in going to Southcenter, but I sure would love to go to Bellevue Square more often. And having light-rail access from University District-downtown-Bellevue Square sure would make it easier. Someone said (many entries ago) that Tukwila/Southcenter will someday rue the day that they allowed LINK to bypass Southcenter and I absolutely agree. Even if the closest stop to Bellevue Square is the Bellevue TC, I sure don’t mind walking that three blocks or so to get to shopping and an awesome movie theatre. And I’m really looking forward to the days when I can ride LINK from the north end down to watch the Sounders.
Back to topic, ST definitely needs to improve their overall routing scheme for LINK. I hope they figure it out before they start laying track to Bellevue and Northgate.
You obviously haven’t worked in the public realm if you think there is such a thing as an “ideal solution.”
Thanks for comparing Bellevue to the Rainier Valley.
Guess I’ll have trade in my Orca Card for a Black Escalade EXT with spinning rims.
You’re welcome.
Possibly OT, but Seattlites/Puget Soundites are hilarious when it comes to ‘the ghetto’. Have you people ever left the region? I just spent last week looking at property in the Rainier Valley, and at least in the areas around Link Stations, there was nothing ghetto at all, even when we drove around after dark (due to all our friends/family warning us about it).
Then again I grew up in the land of racial harmony (S. Alabama), so maybe I’m just more enlightened/socially evolved than the average Seattlite/Puget Soundite*. My city was half and half black and white, with a per capita income of 13K and almost 25% of the population living under the poverty line. And yet during summer me and my brother were kicked out after lunch and not allowed back in the house until dark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmore
*this is only partly sarcastic
Cute! It looks a good ways inland, so I’m guess that it’s still there…
Cute! It looks a good ways inland, so I’m guessing that it’s still there…
Ivan hit us hard, real hard (I was in school and came home for the storm. We had to cut through 33 trees on our drive just to get to the road, they were piled 6 high in some places), but it’s coming back. Town lost over 50% of it’s trees, so it doesn’t look right when I go back, but it’s recovering.
http://jamaicanechoes.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/hurricane-ivan-trajectory.gif
I know what you mean. I’m from Philadelphia originally, and there’s amazing difference between Philly and Seattle. There are vast areas of Philly look as though they’ve been recently carpet bombed. Put it this way, a “bad” area of Seattle would be a nice area of Philly.
That does appear to be a pretty harsh first-round hit.
(The fact that the map shows Ivan circling back down the Eastern seaboard, crossing Florida, and attacking the Gulf Coast a second time is weird, right?)
Brian,
Don’t you find it odd, though, that the most messed-up parts of Philly are still so much prettier than any architecture Seattle can muster?
That is borderline racist – is that what Bellevue represents?
The comparison is based on geography/topography, street width and other factors, not wealth, race, attitude, or stereotypes.
It isn’t borderline racist. It is racist. It snidely implies frivolous spending by the residents of an area specifically known for its racial diversity. It’s disgusting, transparent, and not worthy of remaining on this blog’s comments.
Maybe you guys have a misperception of Bellevue that needs to be addressed before you call anyone a racist.
“Almost 25 percent of Bellevue’s residents in 2000 were born outside the United States, and nearly 50 different languages are now spoken by children in Bellevue public schools.”
Not sure Seattle can make that claim.
But comparing the downtown business core of Bellevue to the Rainier Valley is absurd.
I said both tunnel and surface are viable for Bellevue. That’s not the question… the question is whether or not council can commit to funding a tunnel.
Isn’t that what people in Bellevue drive anyway? I can count 5 hummer each day in DT Bellevue just during my lunch break.
PS I really want a station at 108th and Main. Two blocks to Capitol Hill Station. One block from 108th & Main to work. Bellevue NEEDS a surface option. With surface transit comes traffic calming, and with traffic calming comes a more pleasant pedestrian experience. A pleasant pedestrian experience leads to a lively street-level atmosphere, which leads Bellevue one step closer to it’s dreams out city-dom.
Also, Belleviewer – Seattle has the most culturally diverse Zip code in the country with 69 languages other than English spoken within it’s borders. I’m absolutely positive Bellevue cannot make that claim.
Where would this be by the way? Rainier Valley.
Your comment was racist. Just own up to it.
Devin Bellevue is more diverse than Seattle, by many different measures. It may be possible that ONE zip code is more diverse but taken as a whole Bellevue is more so. Go to crossroads mall sometime…
You go outside of the PNW and ask someone where is Bellevue, they will probably look at you stupid. Just remember, Bellevue wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for Seattle. Just sayin…
Bellevue as a whole is more diverse than Seattle by two defintions:
1) A smaller caucasian population (more minorities as a percentage full stop, though no claims made on the diversity of those minorities)
2) A larger foreign born population.
That doesn’t mean that the Rainier Valley isn’t also diverse, or by itself much more diverse than Bellevue.
I think we can agree that both Bellevue and Seattle have areas of ethnic and cultural diversity. We could likely have a lively OT discussion on which way each is heading, in the whole. But that’s OT.
I will admit to being a little bit racist (Avenue Q) and apologize to the members of this blog for my lack of sensitivity in my attempt at humor.
But it is also important for the people of this forum to acknowledge that everyone in Bellevue – is not a white male real estate developer of a particular religion. And that the continued humorous and not-so-humorous attacks on Bellevue and its neighborhoods and citizens – will continue to be challenged – when they appear.
About the same time as Kevin W’s Op-Ed Piece was missed – we also missed Better Bellevue Releasing (Mid – Dec) Its Eastlink B7 Light Rail Route Analysis and Findings: http://www.betterbellevue.org/
The report raises some interesting points, but stating that it’s been prepared by a “panel of experts” and then not naming the authors seems a little dubious to me. At least the people writing this blog sign their name to it. They also titled their report with a statement that they fail to prove, “Unnecessary Features Intended to Defeat Its Acceptance.” I don’t see any proof of intent in this document.
All the rhetoric that group produces tends to overshadow any legitimate points they raise. Maybe they should have included a PR person on their panel of experts.
Does San Diego have any tunnels for its light rail?
http://www.sdcommute.com/RegionalMaps/downtown.pdf
Not downtown, no. But there is a station in a tunnel underneath SDSU.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SDSU_Transit_Center_%28MTS_Transit_Center%29
Does the San Diego Trolley have the same ridership per mile as Link despite being nearly thirty years older?
I don’t like this argument, because it isn’t based on any facts.
My opinion is Bellevue should have a tunnel through downtown at less than 400′. But not because “Seattle got one” or “UW is smaller than Bellevue and it has a tunnel”, but because headways and ridership require it, and commerce and traffic through the core demand it. Someone on the Bellevue council should start saying this, much like the Seattle City council said years ago when Central Link was designed.
Unfortunately, no one in Bellevue in a position of leadership is leading on this issue.
I totally agree. Not only is a tunnel good for the current capacity requirements, but it’s also necessary to allow future lines to head through that corridor. At first, only East Link will head through Downtown Bellevue, but rail along the 405 corridor is in the ST long range plan, and there are always possibilities for more lines way off in the future. We don’t want to preclude that.
ST2 funds a planning study for high-capacity transit along in BNSF corridor. It’s difficult to call that a “long range plan” because it hasn’t even been studied. There is no plan. Ultimately ST could reject the corridor, or fund some other mode (BRT, for example).
Jack,
You’re spot on. These guys just say “Seattle has a tunnel, whine whine whine” and then there are a million arguments comparing Seattle to Bellevue. The tunnel needs to make sense on its own merits.
From a practical standpoint, surface can work in Bellevue because they have the ROW for it. The ROW in Bellevue is massively wide, with plenty of room for rail.
To try and compare that to the Seattle tunnel alignments. Everywhere in Seattle that Link is underground, there’s no room on the surface. Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill are pretty much places where much of the available surface ROW narrows down to no-shoulder 2 lane roads with structures snuggling up to the sidewalk. For ST to put it on the surface would mean buying and demolishing half-million dollar properties along nearly the entire length of the segment. Not cheap or easy.
They can pop into a retained cut north of 55th without having to buy too much new ROW, but my understanding is that once the tunneling machines are underground, it costs very little to add length to the tunnel; might as well keep boring until you’ve reached a nice clean spot for a portal.
Downtown Bellevue could certainly benefit from putting it underground, but it’s strictly a luxury item. Ironically, surface can work there simply because the car-friendly Bellevue government built massive streets. It’s not gonna tie up traffic either, because downtown Bellevue will be intractable gridlock by the time East Link opens no matter where the tracks go.
Now, if the City of Bellevue would put down some cash for a downtown tunnel (like Seattle did a couple decades ago), instead of pissing it away on pointless B7 studies, they would get something “nice” to show for it.
Downtown Bellevue should have a tunnel because it will keep the trains running on schedule, which is necessary for close spaced interlacing in the Downtown Seattle tunnel and future expansion to Redmond and points East.
Or they could just elect Zombie Mussolini as Mayor.