International Perspective: Transfer Stations

Previously, I wrote about how the quality of a transfer is affected by headways of the two transit lines, usually rail and bus. While this certainly is the most important determinant, the physical design of transfer stations is also important in creating higher quality transfer experiences. Walking time is important, and correspondingly factored into travel demand models.

Factors harder to quantify are also important.  How visible is the connection? Do you have to cross a street? Is there weather protection? Are there seats?  Transfer stations should communicate a unified and easy to use system which is approachable by those that don’t usually take transit or buses. Essentially, quality transfer stations are necessary to effectively motivate users to transfer, but insufficient on their own.

To illustrate this point I took two videos of transfers between Stockholm’s Metro (Tunnelbana Red Line T13), and two different bus terminals. The video above is exactly what you want to do. The video below is exactly what you don’t want to do. To simply say a transfer is “only 900 ft” or “only takes 3 minutes”, is missing the point. There is a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. Of course the transfer quality shouldn’t be the only factors looked at, but it certainly shouldn’t be overlooked.

More after the jump.

Continue reading “International Perspective: Transfer Stations”

Stream the East Link Workshop

The joint East Link workshop begins at 1:30 pm. Readers can watch a live stream online.

Last night we sent the attendees of the workshop, the Bellevue City Council and the Sound Transit Board, a letter expressing what we think would be the best alignments going forward. The same study that inspired our letter will be the topic of the joint workshop.

Update 4 pm: Publicola has coverage of the workshop. No massive news has come out of the talk.

An Open Letter on East Link

C11A, the best alignment for East Link through Downtown Bellevue.

In advance of the Sound Transit Board and Bellevue City Council workshop this afternoon, we decided to weigh in on which options would be best for East Link’s alignment through Bellevue. What follows is an open letter we sent to the Bellevue City Council and all ST Board members last night. The letter is a frank assessment of the options that came out of recent work from both the city and Sound Transit, and represents the collective views of Seattle Transit Blog.


February 10, 2010

Mayor Don Davidson
Executive Aaron Reardon, Sound Transit Board Chair

Dear Mayor Davidson and Executive Reardon:

When regional voters overwhelmingly approved Sound Transit 2 in 2008, they put trust in elected leaders to select the best light rail alignment. Though the alignment selection process for East Link has gone longer than some had initially hoped, we welcome extended discussion on a decision that will affect generations to come. Our children and the city’s future residents are worth the additional time to do this right. A recent Downtown Bellevue concept design report conducted jointly by Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue has brought forward some novel alignments for segment C, an encouraging sign that progress is being made.

East Link’s segment C will determine how Downtown Bellevue interacts with regional light rail. It is vital that the Bellevue City Council considers what’s best for Downtown residents, employees, and customers. The Sound Transit Board should combine regional and local concerns if they choose to change their preferred alignment. Earlier segment C options proved unsatisfactory, so we’re most interested by the recent report which brought three new options to the table: C9T, C11A, and C14E. We think the best alignment for Downtown Bellevue is C11A. If a grade-separated option is preferred for regional accessibility, C9T is the best proposed alignment. C14E is a novel and constructive attempt to save taxpayer money, but it does so at the cost of serving a major urban center; a regional investment like East Link shouldn’t cut corners.

The letter continues after the jump…

Continue reading “An Open Letter on East Link”

Wallace Hires Consultants to Promote Alignment

Bellevue City Councilmember Kevin Wallace.
Bellevue City Council member, Kevin Wallace.

Publicola reports that Kevin Wallace, the man behind East Link’s C14E alignment that poorly serves downtown Bellevue, has hired some local insiders to promote his plan:

Kevin Wallace, the freshman Bellevue City Council member who has proposed a Bellevue light-rail alignment along I-405, avoiding downtown Bellevue, has hired consultant Rollin Fatland and former Seattle mayor Charley Royer to help him promote his preferred alignment, which Wallace has dubbed the “Vision Line.”

Fatland said Wallace is paying him and Royer out of his own pocket; he would not say how much he is being paid.

The full Publicola report notes that Wallace would likely be prohibited from voting on his preferred alignment if he were a Seattle city councilmember due to that city’s more zealous ethics laws, but Bellevue has more lax requirements. Wallace’s company owns some property near the C14E alignment that would probably have to be purchased if his alignment were selected. (For what it’s worth, I doubt Wallace’s motivation is to get his property purchased at market-rate since he could probably accomplish that more quickly and with much less scrutiny without having Sound Transit be the purchaser.)

If Wallace’s proposed alignment is so good, why are we seeing a self-funded PR blitz promoting it? Well, while Wallace has brought forward a cheaper plan in a constructive manner, I think many would conclude just isn’t worth the trade-offs in accessibility, transit-oriented development, and ridership. No amount of lobbying is going to change those fundamentals.

Bellevue’s Proposed 405 Station: Much Less TOD

We reported this morning on a report covering new light rail options for East Link’s downtown Bellevue alignment and later showed that a 405 station is less accessible than other alternatives. We’ve editorialized in the past that Sound Transit should put the downtown Bellevue light rail stations in the right place, with that place not next to a freeway. Readers should know by now that we’re no fans of a 405 station.

Neither is Dan Bertolet, the former HugeAssCity blogger who now posts at Publicola. Last Friday, he provided some data about the development potential of a station build next to 405 versus one that serves Bellevue Transit Center. Some arguing for a 405 station have incredulously claimed that a stop along the highway would have more transit-oriented development (TOD) potential, but according to Bertolet’s data, there’s much more developable land near the transit center. That land has the potential to hold many more jobs and residents:

The Bellevue Transit Center has more TOD potential than a stop near 405. (Image and data from Publicola.)

Most of us know what greenwashing is; it’s when an otherwise terrible thing for the environment is promoted as green — such as advertisements in the bus tunnel proudly proclaiming that a local car dealership is carbon neutral. We’re seeing that cynical mindset spread to a new area in the Seattle region as transit options become more politically popular. Now we have transitwashing. Promoting ideas that seriously, adversely damage public transit’s usefulness being sold as something transit-friendly.

Claiming a freeway stop has development potential because there are a bunch of low-density lots across a large interstate is transitwashing, and Bertolet proves it.

Bellevue’s Proposed 405 Station: Less Accessible

As a follow up to Ben’s post this morning, here’s a nice walkshed graphic from Sound Transit that shows the accessibility for the various light rail alignments that the report covered:

Walkshed for various East Link rail alignments through downtown Bellevue. Dark orange is five minutes of walking distance, with light orange representing ten minutes of walking distance.

That C14E alignment, Kevin Wallace’s 405 station, performs the poorest for good reason. We shouldn’t build a station right next to a freeway and we should instead put the line downtown. According to the report, the other alignments serve nearly all of the 79,000 jobs downtown expected by 2030; Wallace’s proposal leaves fully one-fifth of downtown workers unable to walk to work from a station within a reasonable time. More than half of downtown residents by 2030 will be unable to walk to a light rail station within ten minutes. The high capture walkshed, 5 or less minutes, for Wallace’s alignment is pitiful with just 27% and 7% of jobs and households, respectively.

If Wallace’s proposal to site a station on an interstate highway isn’t good for Bellevue’s downtown workers, downtown businesses, or downtown residents, then who is it good for?

Walkshed table from Sound Transit's report.

For discussion on the other alignments in the above graphics, read Ben’s post covering the report on new East Link options.

Update from Ben: I just noticed one more thing about these maps, and I doubt it’s a coincidence. We know 10 minutes is pretty much the outside of what people are willing to walk from a station. The largest block in the downtown square, on the left edge in the middle, is Bellevue Square. C14E is the only option that puts Bellevue Square distinctly outside that 10 minute walk. Kemper Development spokesman Bruce Nurse called me “presumptuous” for suggesting that Kemper doesn’t want transit users to go to Bellevue Square. Apparently “presumptuous” means “absolutely correct!”

New Data: Two East Link Options Look Good

C11A Visualization of the Bellevue Transit Center
C11A Visualization of the Bellevue Transit Center

Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue have just released their joint analysis (PDF) of the East Link options for downtown Bellevue. East Link project manager Don Billen briefed me (and happily answered all of my questions) by phone on Saturday morning.

Four options were studied, and two come out as rock stars – C11A, a surface option with two stations, providing great walking distance coverage to almost all of downtown Bellevue’s jobs and homes, and C9T, a more expensive tunnel option that provides decent walking coverage of downtown, plus reduced travel times that attract more riders from the east. Both of these alternatives get the segment 8,000 weekday riders in 2030.

The two not-so-good options are losers for clear reasons. C9A, a surface version of the tunnel option, has the same downtown travel time as C11A, but doesn’t compete with C11A in walking coverage, especially as downtown grows. The City’s walkshed maps are similar to what Adam did for our First Hill Streetcar piece, using the actual walking times from the platforms to different destinations via the network of sidewalks and paths, rather than just drawing a circle at a particular distance. As a result, they give a much more accurate view of what’s accessible from a station.

C14E is the other loser – the I-405 alignment that Kevin Wallace has proposed. Analysis found that a circulator bus would offer no significant benefit. It would attract only 6,000 riders, completely failing to serve western downtown.

The real comparison here will be between the better two: what I’ll call the tunnel (C9T) and surface alignment (C11A).

More after the jump Continue reading “New Data: Two East Link Options Look Good”

Tunnel Equity

The Beacon Hill tunnel (Photo by litlnemo’s husband Jason)

[UPDATE (Adam here): I did a few calculations to put the debate about whether a tunnel through Beacon Hill was necessary to rest. Beacon Hill station is very roughly ~280 ft above sea level, and SODO is ~20 ft. Using ST’s design specs of 4% this means that an elevated structure of ~6,500 ft would be needed to climb from SODO up over the hill. Another one of equal length would be needed on the other side as well. Pretty unrealistic isn’t it?]

Although I’d obviously like to see Bellevue pay for a Link tunnel under Downtown Bellevue, as someone who isn’t going to pay the very large costs I’m leery of taking a really strong position on it.  A common argument, however, is that Seattle is getting a very long tunnel from its downtown to Roosevelt on Sound Transit’s dime, so why not Bellevue?  It’s a natural question to ask, but betrays a pretty shallow understanding of the underlying concerns.  More after the jump.

Continue reading “Tunnel Equity”

Editorial: Site ‘Future Downtown’ Bellevue’s Station Right

'Lining up for the north bus' at the Bellevue Transit Center by Oran

In my interview last month with Bellevue councilmember Conrad Lee, hearing Lee’s emphasis on the unimportance of rail station  placement struck a nerve with me because that kind of thinking is exactly why rail alignments are often fouled up.  After Kevin Wallace introduced his “Vision Line” proposal, it was evident that the plan was conceived on two main premises (aside from impacts mitigation) of cost and planning.  While the argument for reducing East Link’s capital costs is relatively straightforward, the one for planning treads into rather muddy grounds, which pretty much renders the cost-benefit factor questionable.  The bulk of this planning argument is often grounded in the belief that the “future downtown” of Bellevue will be much closer to or centered around the east side of I-405.  And to be frank, I wasn’t aware that downtown districts could jump 8-lane freeways.

We editorialized last November about the importance of siting rail stations correctly.  I want to follow up on the growth of Downtown Bellevue specifically, and why a “Vision Line” station cannot serve the city center as effectively as proponents make it sound, now and in the future.  Back in 2008, we had a roundtable discussion on the use of the old BNSF corridor for passenger rail, and Andrew Smith touched upon this counterargument:

The common response is that it goes very close, and that the future of downtown Bellevue will be on that side of 405. I cannot see this happening until after ST2 gets built and a station connecting the BNSF track to Link is put in place.

There are three main points I want to break down that highlight the argument against building a station serving this theoretical “future city center.”  More below the jump.

Continue reading “Editorial: Site ‘Future Downtown’ Bellevue’s Station Right”

Finally, an Eastside Meetup!

In light of all the news lately about East Link alignment choices, and in large part just because we haven’t had one, it’s well past time to have a meetup in Bellevue. Our planned date: Thursday, February 11th.

I’m waiting for a confirmation, but we should have space at the Rock Bottom. It’s a block from Bellevue Transit Center, in the Galleria – which I understand is neither a Kemper Freeman nor a Kevin Wallace property (although it’s probably someone with their values).

I’d imagine you should start filtering in around 6, but don’t worry if you can’t show up until a little later – I’m sure folks will be there until at least 9. Please comment if you can (or can’t) make it!

HOV or Transit Lane on 520?


As reported by multiple outlets, the City of Seattle and House Speaker Frank Chopp appear to have shifted their opposition to the SR520 plan, with less emphasis on unworkable highway tunnels under the cut, instead pushing for the HOV lane to become transit-only.  The Stranger claims they’ll ask for light rail tracks on the bridge in anticipation of Link operations across the bridge:

Sources tell us that city leaders will soon release plans for a set of specific requests. Among them, the sources say, the city wants: only four lanes dedicated to traffic and the other two lanes dedicated to transit only, light rail tracks laid on the bridge for future use, no ramp leading to the Arboretum, and a smaller footprint through the Montlake neighborhood. This layout could include a transit-lane connection from 520 to the north side of the ship canal.

More after the jump. Continue reading “HOV or Transit Lane on 520?”

I-90 Term Sheet is a Good Step Forward

We held off on writing about yesterday’s East Link news to get some more information and more fully understand the process – and I’m glad we did, because there’s more to it.

The term sheet (.doc) referred to in pieces published yesterday is positive, but it’s not the final agreement – it’s more of a mutually agreed upon starting place for building an agreement. WSDOT and Sound Transit are agreeing that these terms are good enough to use when crafting a more lengthy, complex “umbrella agreement” later in the year. This umbrella agreement will be much more detailed, potentially covering exact dates for project delivery, particular responsibilities assigned to each agency, and more.

The term sheet, though, lets us in the public know that WSDOT has pretty much accepted that they’re not going to get actual cash from Sound Transit for the reversible express lanes, despite Speaker Chopp’s earlier demands. This is in line with what we predicted before – the R8A work Sound Transit is doing to add HOV lanes to I-90 constitutes a benefit to the state, a benefit, it turns out, that outweighs the reversible lanes’ value!

Aside from that, there are two things I find really interesting about this term sheet.

First, it’s temporary. It will last 40 years after the start of East Link revenue service, but the umbrella agreement will provide for a renewal contract extending that for an additional 35 years. This ensures the agreement won’t have to be renegotiated until 2095. Hopefully light rail will have its own bridge by then, otherwise I’m going to have to live to 114 so I can write about it.

Second, this removes all responsibility from WSDOT for additional R8A funding past their already spent or programmed money. That bodes well for East Link’s schedule, as Sound Transit is pretty good about funding things when they say they will. Sound Transit just moved forward with the next step of R8A, as well.

This should be representative of the final agreement, but don’t throw a party yet. There are a lot of costs here, from the airspace lease to bridge maintenance, and they could go up before the umbrella agreement is complete and signed – that said, this is good news.

Bellevue City Council Considers Study of B7 Modified

[UPDATE 7:30pm: We were just contacted by John Chelminiak, a city councilmember who let us know that no formal votes were cast regarding a preferred B segment.  Instead, the council was merely unanimous in agreeing to further study of a B7 modified segment.  A vote, however, will be taken on January 25th to authorize Mayor Davidson to draft a letter to Sound Transit requesting the study and for the segment to be included in the Supplemental EIS.

So no, the council did not choose or favor a particular segment.  I’ve changed the title and the story in accordance with that.  Publicola has more reporting.]

Last night, the Bellevue City Council had a regular study session discussing the B segment of East Link.  As we’ve hinted before, the council was apt to change their preferred alternative from B3 modified, and as was expected, it looks like that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  Commenter Mike Skehan posted a short update following the session last night in our notification thread:

Update: Bellevue council 7-0in favor of B7 modified (S. Bellevue P/R, then cross Mercer Slough to BNSF ROW). Letter being drafted to ST to that effect.

A B7 modified route appears to be a compromise alignment between the original B3 and B7 routes.  As Mike said, the route would serve South Bellevue, but would have to cross Mercer Slough to meet up with the BNSF tracks, leaving a big question about the potential environmental impacts.

While none of the blog staff were able to show up at last night’s meeting, we’re asking any commenters who attended to report on the session.  For my part, I was able to catch a few public comments off the live stream near the end. Most B7 supporters largely constituted a Surrey Downs neighborhood committee, which has been attempting to push light rail far away, even more so than the compromise alternative the council picked last year (which would curve around the neighborhood).  However, there were also a few comments speaking out against B7 from residents living near the BNSF right-of-way and from Enatai commuters.

These next few months will bring a barrage of East Link relevant meetings, some more important than others.  We will be reporting on the dates soon and a potential meet-up in Bellevue.

Want Light Rail To South Bellevue? Come Out Tomorrow.

[UPDATE from Martin: Councilmember Claudia Balducci clarifies what’s going on  in this comment.  Showing up in person is more effective, but written comments can be submitted to]

As a few folks have pointed out in comments in the last few days, the new Bellevue City Council plans to revisit the old City Council’s East Link alignment recommendations.

Tomorrow, the Council plans to look at the “B” portion, from I-90 up to the south edge of downtown Bellevue. The Council previously recommended a modified B3 (PDF), going up Bellevue Way to serve the existing South Bellevue Park and Ride, then heading a bit east on 112th – and giving a wide berth to the angry Surrey Downs neighborhood.

Sound Transit’s preferred alternative doesn’t swing out around Surrey Downs, but is substantially the same.

The new City Council is under pressure to change their recommendation to B7 – which would skip the South Bellevue Park and Ride. I haven’t yet heard an argument for B7 from any interest except the “keep those trains away from my house” interest, so I don’t really have any sympathy.

I do, however, have sympathy for the people who use South Bellevue P&R and might lose their service – Sound Transit intends East Link to replace bus 550, so it’s rather important that Link stop at South Bellevue.

Originally, this Bellevue City Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday night, but it’s been moved up to Tuesday, with 6:00pm 8:00pm public comments (Note from Sherwin: comments start at 8pm, but coming out at 6pm and staying for the whole session will establish a stronger presence). Do you use that Park and Ride? Do you know someone who does? If you want Link to to go there, being at Bellevue City Hall Tuesday evening to say a few words in support will let City Council know that this isn’t just a NIMBY issue.

Please do show up! I know there are several regular commenters who prefer B3 – we need you tomorrow!

Senator Swecker vs. East Link

Sen. Dan Swecker

This morning, state Senator Dan Swecker (R-20, Lewis County) dropped a very short bill that probably won’t go anywhere, but I want to bring up to point out just how out of touch some of our legislators are with regional priorities and, well, the future in general. Despite the passage of Proposition 1 and ongoing negotiations to get East Link light rail built, Swecker seems to feel it’s a good idea to waste time and public money in a tightly scheduled session to tilt at windmills. The meat of the bill is simple:

A light rail system or any other rail fixed guideway system may not be constructed or operated on the Interstate 90 floating bridge.

We’ve written about this in the past, and I’ve read a lot more of the history in the meantime.

Given that most of the I-90 bridge was paid for by the feds under an agreement that the express lanes were for transit, and as that agreement was updated in 2004 to specify light rail, I have this question for the Senator:

If you’d like to break this agreement, how, exactly, do you plan to pay back the feds for the contribution they made? Inflation-adjusted, it would some $900 million. I suspect the cities involved, who only allowed the I-90 bridge to be built under this agreement, might have some mitigation requests as well.

A call into Senator Swecker’s office was not returned.

Update: It looks like Senator Val Stevens (R-39, North Cascades National Park) has also signed on. But why?

Update 2: Stevens’ office returned my call – saying the Senator declines to comment on why she signed on, and that I should talk to Swecker – who still hasn’t returned my call.

A Brief Interview With Conrad Lee

Conrad Lee (City of Bellevue)

I ran into Bellevue Deputy Mayor Conrad Lee Sunday morning and took the opportunity to ask him some crucial questions about East Link.  He was appointed to the position of Deputy Mayor just last week and replaces Claudia Balducci, who was recently appointed to the Sound Transit Board by Dow Constantine.  With the new balance of power in the city council favoring more conservative councilmembers, Bellevue’s preferred alternative is likely to change quite drastically from the alignment chosen last year.  Lee has supported PRT (personal rapid transit) and other issues that we’ve raised questions about in the past.

Below are some paraphrased quotes from notes I took of the interview.  I have a breakdown of Lee’s responses along with an outline of some arguments we’ve made in regards to his proposals.

More after the jump.

Continue reading “A Brief Interview With Conrad Lee”

The Conservative Choice is Surface

The Bellevue City Council has now elected its mayor and deputy mayor (they choose from council members) – Don Davidson and Conrad Lee, respectively. Both received money from Kemper Freeman Jr. during the election, and both have questionable opinions on transit.

The Seattle Times has an interesting interview up with Mayor Davidson. I call it interesting not because it offers anything new, but because it contains what I consider to be dog whistle phrases as they relate to building light rail through Bellevue. These are the ones I really noticed, from his interview responses:

  • “I kind of represent a more conservative element.”

Great news! A conservative won’t want to spend extra money, which means he’s saying “I’ll support a surface alignment through downtown Bellevue that saves hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reduces risk, and keeps East Link on schedule.” (If you detect sarcasm here, you’re on the money.)

  • “You’re going to find people a little more aware of the taxpayers’ burden.”

This says to me: “I’m not going to ask Bellevue constituents for any tunnel funding.”

  • “I’m not after light rail, but I am after how it affects Bellevue.”

Uh-oh. This could be adding up to mean “I don’t want surface – I want a tunnel and I want Sound Transit to pay for it.” What’s more, that would really mean “Because the eastside will be paying for this tunnel anyway, many of the same taxpayers will be footing the bill – but this saves me the political cost of asking for it.”

  • “They haven’t figured out how to get across Lake Washington.”

Mayor Davidson is perfectly aware of how East Link will get across Lake Washington. He’s playing to the element who refuses to accept independent engineering study showing light rail over the I-90 bridge is feasible using existing technology. We could be hearing: “I don’t like the R8A project and won’t raise a finger to support it.”

  • (last one) “It’s going to be quite a bit of time before we see light rail being laid here.

If you live or work on the eastside, this is a little concerning. The mayor of Bellevue should be supporting the schedule as it stands, not making remarks disparaging to a project his constituents support.

So, Mayor Davidson: You claim to be conservative. If I’m reading this right, you probably don’t want Bellevue to pay for a tunnel. If that’s the case, the conservative choice is an affordable surface alternative.

Update: As I was writing this, the Times’ Bellevue Blog has more, and it seems to back up this read. He definitely doesn’t want Bellevue to pay for a tunnel, and he points out Beacon Hill being funded by Sound Transit. It’s interesting that he doesn’t make the distinction between Sound Transit and North King, though – Bellevue didn’t pay for any of the Beacon Hill tunnel. Almost all of North King is Seattle – so essentially, Seattle taxpayers paid for Beacon Hill. Keep that in mind as this discussion moves forward.

Update 2: Davidson also claims: “we maybe could get to Redmond if we used a surface system.” As he almost definitely means downtown Redmond, that’s factually incorrect. The money in ST2 only gets us to Overlake.

What’s Ahead in 2010

"More RapidRide buses in the boneyard", by Oran

2009 was a red-letter year in Greater Seattle’s transit history, but there are some things to look forward to in 2010:

  • In June, the long-awaited opening of RapidRide Line A, from Federal Way to Tukwila/International Blvd. Station.
  • Starting today, Metro fares go up a quarter and transfer policies change.  By the end of the year the physical PugetPass will have disappeared.
  • A Seattle-only rail measure may go to the ballot in November.
  • A major revision to Southwest King County bus service in February, including the end of the 194.
  • A USDOT decision on the TIGER grant in February could cut years off the opening of Link’s S. 200th St. Station.
  • The first two rounds of “low-impact reductions” to Metro service occur in February and September.
  • Metro starts installing a new communications system — to include GPS — in the third quarter, with completion in 2011.
  • Hopefully, next train signs start working at Link stations in January.
  • The Sound Transit Board makes a final decision on the East Link alignment in March.
  • Route 542, from Redmond to NE 65th St (Seattle) via the U-District, begins October 4th, at 5:45am.

News Roundup: Around the Sound

Guideway to Seatac, by Mike Bjork
"Guideway to Seatac", by Mike Bjork

Montlake Flyer Stops

Photo by Oran
Photo by Oran

[UPDATE: Either people are skimming or I’m not writing clearly, so I’ll make the prescription shorter: A+, no flyer stop; create good 24/7 service from the Eastside to UW; pay for it with some specific revenue increments and by curtailing off-peak service from the Eastside to DT Seattle.  If you work through the permutations, you’ll see that all the connections still work out.]

There’s a lot of fear among transit riders that the loss of a Montlake flyer stop on SR520 will make bus service a lot harder to use in that corridor.  That fear is a reasonable one, in spite of the cost and the wider footprint that would have to be cut out of the neighborhood.   However, it would be a relatively simple matter to reorganize bus service to minimize the impact.  More after the jump.

Continue reading “Montlake Flyer Stops”