3 Replies to “Podcast #59: Not Consistent with ST3 Plan”

  1. There are so many major issues in adding the expensive West Seattle and Ballard projects that it seems almost silly to cover them in one podcast. You touched on lots of issues but you can’t realistically identify cover them all. The alternatives have many ripple, city-changing effects so I’d hope that there will be more discussion coming.

    I do think that more discussion of station circulation is needed with this current planning effort . Maybe it seems premature to some, but how people transfer at Westlake, ID and SODO are a very big deal! More people are going to transfer at these locations than will use most if not all of the new stations!

    For starters, there are no criteria in any evaluation measuring transfer ease between rail lines. There are no criteria measuring bus transfer walking penalties. There are no criteria measuring walk or elevation change requirements from places like First Hill or Belltown. There are no criteria for measuring how far people must walk from a platform to the street, or how many lanes of traffic one must cross after leaving a station. You are right to mention the importance of new criteria, but you have not called out ST for ignoring measuring and reporting the transfer and circulation impacts here. It would seem like measures could be introduced by multiplying the number of riders by the horizontal or vertical distance required to get to a boarding area.

    Transfer stations are the literal heart of the system. We can add more arms or make an arm longer, but a bad heart will affect the entire system health.

    I think it’s important to discuss this now, especially in the context of tunneling as part of station planning. Seattle will be stuck with the design of stations and tunnels for 50-100 years and it won’t be easy to change any problems! Maybe a podcast just on station access and transfers would be interesting!

  2. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of the “not consistent with ST3” excuse. I would suggest being more emphatic about its hypocrisy.

    As noted repeatedly by ST, the ST3 projects were always “representative” so the consistency argument is a complete cop out. Why summarily dismiss an alternative if it could improve on a representative project?

  3. i think we are going to have to accept that in this case the rush to decide on a preferred alternative and to limit the EIS, is going to lead to a less than optimal outcome.

    However, I suppose the trade off will be that whatever is built, optimal or not, will be a thousand times better than what is there now.

    We’ll simply have to accept a few regrets….

    wait.. this sounds like some other Sound Transit outcomes we’ve had. gahh!

Comments are closed.