How The Netherlands achieves high road safety. (Build The Lanes)
We also recently covered street capacity in The Netherlands. (Not Just Bikes)
This is an open thread.
13 Replies to “Sunday Movie: The Dutch Secret to Safe Roads”
Comments are closed.
How The Netherlands achieves high road safety. (Build The Lanes)
We also recently covered street capacity in The Netherlands. (Not Just Bikes)
This is an open thread.
Comments are closed.
The Ballard Link EIS scoping feedback period ends today.
The ST Rider Experience & Operations Committee meeting from last Thursday is now up on YouTube.
Staff gave a report on operational challenges on the 1 Line.
The committee also voted 6-0 to recommend the $3 fare on ST Express, aligning it with Link. One board member suggested it might be time to look at a flat fare on Sounder.
Here’s my Ballard Link scoping comments:
“””
The environment for Ballard Link and the second downtown Seattle tunnel (DSTT2) has changed dramatically since the ST3 vote in 2016 and the initial Draft EIS.
1. Transfers between the two tunnels (1 Line to/from 2/3 Lines) have unacceptably long walks and level changes — far more than peer subways. This was not disclosed in the ballot measure: it implied the stations would be at the same level as the existing stations and transfer walks would be normal for a subway. Normal means around 3 minutes or less — not 8 or 10 minutes. That threatens the line’s ridership and usefulness, since half the destinations will require a transfer downtown.
2. The likelyhood of overcrowding without DSTT2 was always debatable. Now with work from home it seems less likely. The biggest bottleneck is between Westake and U-District stations, which DSTT2 would not address.
3, ST should pursue the ST3 candidate project to upgrade the existing tunnel (DSTT1) instead of building DSTT2. That would raise the maximum reliable frequency from 3 minutes to 1.5 minutes, giving plenty of capacity for three lines in the tunnel. (Tacoma Dome-Lynnwood, West Seattle-Everett, Redmond-Mariner.) Ballard-Westlake would be a separate line with everybody transfering at Westlake.
4. ST should add an alternative with an AUTOMATED Ballard-Westlake line. Automated lines have become the international standard for new lines. An automated line would both be less expensive to construct AND could run at ultra-high frequency (every 2-5 minutes) without signfiicant extra costs, as the Vancouver Skytrain does. The lower capital costs would come from smaller stations, smaller trains, and a smaller tunnel.
5. Sound Transit should leave an option for the automated line to be extended southeast in a future vote, serving First Hill and Little Saigon, and possibly North Rainier to Mt Baker station.
6. Alternatively, Sound Transit could extend the automated line south in the DSTT2 corridor and continue to West Seattle, replacing the West Seattle Link project. This again would significantly reduce construction costs compared to ST’s current preferred alignment, and might give smaller stations more freedom to have closer transfers with DSTT1 stations.
7. Sound Transit should also consider the No-Build Alternative to Ballard Link, as a way out of the usability and cost dilemmas that emerged after the vote and were not in the Representative Alignment in the ballot measure.
8. Sound Transit should add a bus alternative for Ballard Link to complement the No-Build Alternative, addressing the corridors of King County Metro routes C, D, 15, and 40. RapidRide C & D improvements are already in ST3, so that could be a starting point.
9. Delete the 14th Avenue NW Ballard station alternative. It’s a long walk from the center of Ballard’s density where the bulk of riders would be walking from.
10. Add an underground Ballard station alternative around 20th-22nd Ave NW to serve the center of the urban village.
“””
I hope I didn’t forget anything, but at least that’s most of the things I most care about.
Oh, I forgot 4th Avenue Shallow(er). Submitted a second comment:
“””
Two items I forgot in my last feedback.
11. Keep the 4th Avenue Shallow and Shallower CID station alternatives in the EIS. This is the best for passengers after the 5th Avenue Shallow alternative in the representative alignment.
12. DO NOT PURSUE the “CID/N – relocated Midtown” or “CID/S – Dearborn” station alternatives in the preferred alignment. These have unacceptably long transfer walks to their counterpart stations in the existing downtown tunnel. CID/N is also too long a walk to CID destinations. The “Dearborn” station platforms are significantly further south than the Dearborn Street station entrance, adversely affecting both transfers to the 1/2 Lines and walks to CID destinations.
“””
And again.
“””
13. Keep the The 5th Avenue Shallower DIAGONAL alternative in the EIS. It and 4th Avenue Shallow(er) are much better than the “CID/N – relocated Midtown” and “CID/S – Dearborn” alternatives both for transfers and for walking to CID destinations.
“””
It looks fairly comprehensive Mike!
Because this is an EIS, it would probably be better if your points had an added sentence specifically stating why what you write offer a beneficial result — lower disruption to the CD, less digging, better ridership due to a faster transfer and things like that. After all, this is about identifying environmental impacts.
https://www-djc-com.ezproxy.spl.org/news/re/12167302.html
Office to Housing conversions, suburban Bellevue style. This location is an unpleasant walk or a very reasonable bike ride to the Bellevue TC and then onwards to job centers via frequency buses. Does this qualify as TOD, or at least infill missing middle housing?
Behind the paywall – the 2 offices at 3350 161st Ave. S.E. will be demoed and 129 townhomes to be built on 8 acres across 24 buildings. There are apparently simillar townhome products in the works for a few of the other low-rise office blocks in this area.
TOD requires significant T or plans to build it. That half of the 271 runs half-hourly daytime, hourly evenings. In the last East Link restructure proposal, the 271’s successor (203) moves to south of I-90 on Newport Way. Instead you’d walk west to 150th to take the 220/RapidRide K (Eatgate P&R-Totem Lake), or north to 24th to take the 226 (South Bellevue Station, 164th, Bel-Red Rd, Bellevue Downtown station). The 220 would run every 15 minutes weekdays; the 226 30-60 minutes.
I hesitate to call it TOD. Are the apartments at the end of the 27 TOD? They’re dense and they’re facing bus stops, but the bus is half-hourly and you can’t walk to more than a couple shops. So it’s more like towers in the park.
The Eastgate area needs a complete redesign. I’ve thought that for decades. We could call it First-Hill-under-the-Lake (meaning Lake Sammamish). Then it would be walkable and it would be feasible to live there without a car. Merely replacing an isolated office park with an isolated townhouse cluster doesn’t do it.
Still, townhouses in an isolated location are probably better than no townhouses.
Yeah, the new 203 is better than the 271, in particular by sticking one side of I90 between Bellevue & Issaquah, but eventually there should be a route that runs between Issaquah and Eastgate on the north side of I90. Right now there isn’t enough “there” there, but as lowrise office gets redeveloped into denser (lowrise or midrise) housing, that demand should emerge.
The branding could be around the Bellevue Airfield, as that’s the reason that area is full block lowrise offices & not single family subdivisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellevue_Airfield
The area immediately around Eastgate TC is zoned for midrise and is already has a good housing pipeline that is all walkable to the Eastgate freeway station. I don’t think a redesign there is needed; the freeway station gets excellent bus frequency, in particular during peak hours, and between the College and the midrise housing under development it has strong all day demand. So that was the gist of my question – the townhouse development isn’t “isolated” if you consider it is an easy bike ride to Eastgate TC and from there any easy transfer to rest of the region. FWIW, the parks in that area are excellent (Weowna Park is a gem), so if an “isolated” development becomes 4~6 developments, I think that becomes a pretty good infill story in a neighborhood that can be truly walkable to jobs & amenities.
The interesting part is east of the giant interchange – I would love to see an infill freeway station (roughly at 160th) to replicate the Eastgate FS walkshed but the “Airfield neighborhood.” Perhaps that could be funded by converting “Issaquah Link” into “Issaquah Stride,” spend less on ROW to fund more Stride freeway stations.
eventually there should be a route that runs between Issaquah and Eastgate on the north side of I-90. Right now there isn’t enough “there” there, but as lowrise office gets redeveloped into denser (lowrise or midrise) housing, that demand should emerge.
I don’t see that happening. The main reason Metro is abandoning this section of the 271 is because there is so little ridership there. Between the Issaquah Transit Center and Eastgate Park and ride the 271 only picks up 80 riders. About forty of those riders are south of I-90 (along Newport Way). Another dozen are quite close to Lakemont Boulevard (which means they might have to walk a little ways to get to catch the new 203). That leaves about twenty riders (north of I-90) who are out of luck. That just isn’t enough to worry about.
The stop at Eastgate & 160th accounts for nine of those riders. I could see that area growing. The problem is if you go east of there (towards the bottom of the lake) you have nothing until you get close to 17th (which has bus service). It is extremely low-density housing and is highly likely to stay that way. It is no different than most of Sammamish. There is only one bus for the entire city. This would be fine if the city was built along a dense pathway or was physically small — but it isn’t. It is acres and acres of low-density housing with no transit service at all.
So that leaves that one little section around 161st & Eastgate Way. There is a bit of density there, and plenty of potential for more. The problem is, it isn’t “on the way”. A bus going east-west below the lake has the problem mentioned in the last paragraph. So at best you are detouring a bus like the 226, which has already been detoured to serve the college. If it wasn’t for the college then I could see the 226 just staying east and using 161st (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dTzQiM5vnhzfceZq6). But it is essential to serve the college.
I suppose one option that might exist in the future (and not too crazy now) is to follow that route and then detour to the college from Eastgate Way (https://maps.app.goo.gl/AP9Tr1PTMP5nnXp98). I could see that, although it takes longer and you lose some of the combined frequency by Robinswood. It just isn’t worth it now, and I don’t know if it will ever be worth it.
The 271 segment that got deleted was the only bus service to Lake Sammamish State Park, which seems important. I think KCM made the right decision today with the new 203, but as the Eastgate neighborhood builds out and spreads east, which this townhome project is good evidence that this will occur, I hope the W Lake Sammamish Pkwy regains bus service, with a larger, denser Eastgate neighborhood as a west anchor for ridership, along with continued growth in N Issaquah as an east anchor (with the 217 returning in some way)
The 271 segment that got deleted was the only bus service to Lake Sammamish State Park
That stop averaged 4 riders a day. That is four more than the stop at 51st. (The average for that stop was less than 1/10 a day.) There just aren’t that many riders on that section.
Again, there are huge swaths of Sammamish in a similar boat. I think the case for serving the area with the new development is a lot stronger. But there are similar places — places with big condo developments — that don’t have service. It sucks. These are basically little islands of density. Metro can’t really justify service there because everything around there is so low density. For example consider this condo right here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37jFeAPU54nYMkfn6. It sits very close to a housing development with relatively small lots. Not exactly town houses, but the lots are actually smaller than what is typical for Seattle. Thus you have pretty good density in that area. The problem is, you have very little around there. It is also a long ways to just about anywhere people would want to go. So while I could easily see that area being served, it is at best borderline. So people are stuck with a very long walk to the nearest bus stop. (Or they drive.)
And there are plenty of similar areas. I have mentioned this area before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/25pvX6Y76ksyc4mP9. This is a bigger condominium complex. There is some retail in the area as well. The state park is nearby, which also contains a college. Yet it doesn’t have bus service. It too is borderline (it came close to having service, but they went a different route instead).
Unfortunately there are a lot of places like these. Areas with almost enough density to justify a route, but not quite.
Oh, to answer your question it isn’t TOD. It is missing middle housing, but I wouldn’t call it “infill”. Usually when they are usually talking about a more urban area (e. g. when the add townhouses in Magnolia it is definitely infill missing middle housing). I suppose technically it is infill (since it used to be an area with less density) but it is not a high-density inner suburb or even a high-density “town center” type of suburban development. It is higher density development where they allow it (in this case close to the freeway).