As we told you over the weekend, the Bellevue City Council is having an extended study session (PDF) tonight to discuss the Sound Transit Capital Committee’s recent recommendation for B2 modified and C9T as preferred alternatives for East Link. This will be an important meeting as the council is expected to discuss the collaboration of a “term-sheet” with ST to move forward on C9T. We’ve mentioned that the B7/C9T combination that the council favors is likely financially infeasible. How the pro-B7 four-member quorum will respond is anyone’s guess.
A coalition of B2 and C9T supporters, led by the newly formed group Citizens for Responsible Transit (mentioned in our past news roundups), is expected to be in attendance tonight to support the capital committee’s decision. For any Bellevue residents, potential future East Link users, or general pro-transit folk, we encourage you to go out and support reasonable alignments that will serve the South Bellevue Park and Ride and the downtown core. The study session will be at 6pm at Bellevue City Hall in conference room 1E-113. Oral comments will be taken at the beginning.
is there a graphic available plotting all the potential routes that still exist at this point (only the potential routes)?
Not together, but they’re all in the joint analysis doc.
The single tunnel station just doesn’t look like it is worth $300 million. Would the walkshed of a couple surface stations be much larger? How much travel time will the tunnel actually save? And will that savings be offset by the time to get between the tunnel station and the transit center?
Everything you just asked is answered by that joint analysis.
Could you provide the link? Thanks.
https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2010/02/08/new-data-two-east-link-options-look-good/
Though I like the tunnel alternative, I always thought that ST could put the BTC LINK station on NE 6th St (south side), similar to the 110th surface alighment. Yes, the City of Bellevue would have to build a new parking garage, most of the area is empty land.
I’ve been wondering about the design of the tunnel. They don’t plan on boring this one, I would imagine… so how would they build it? Will it essentially be cut and covered, or would they plan on making the tunnel deeper?
It seems that there may be cheaper options that mimic a tunnel, but would cost much less than $300 million to do.
C9T will be cut and cover. Boring can’t be used because the tunnel isn’t deep enough, and the tunnel isn’t deep enough because there isn’t enough room for the tunnel to travel any deeper with grading restrictions.
Bob Bengford: Well said, Sir.
1) Kevin Wallace hates B2M—surprise, surprise—and has yet to give up on B7. He seriously wants to move the P&R south so B7 can serve it. Apparently he isn’t aware a major park-and-ride doesn’t fit in the footprint of a boat launch or a station pump.
2) Everything you need to know about Wallace is that he constantly uses the phrases “protect the neighborhoods” and “reduce the impact” but in three hours has yet to use the words “service” or “ridership.”
3) Conrad Lee is [ad-hominem]
4) Love Grant Degginger, looks like an older version of Dr. Taub from House M.D.
Not to mention that King county would probably be less than thrilled to tear down/move the Sweyolocken pump station which was recently upgraded at a cost of $7,000,000. And yes, in my dealings with Conrad I have found him to be [ad-hominem], must be something in the water in Somerset.
Must be, since Sherwin lives there too.
[off-topic]
Conrad is such an ad hominem :)
And keeps mentioning protecting the “SURREY DOWNS” neighborhood. So, that means screwing the B7 condo neighborhood, who is much closer that the tracks than Surrey Downs is on B2M.
So much closer to the tracks? These people bought property along side a railroad ROW and and a freeway. Clearly “quite neighborhood” wasn’t high on their list of requirements (cheap property values based on existing noise impacts clearly was). It only proves that noise impacts are real and universally opposed. Thing is, unless you think light rail is far more disruptive than an 8 lane freeway the folks at Berkshire condominiums have no argument. If you think light rail will be a significant contributor to noise pollution that isn’t drowned out by 405 then how can you possibly assert that it should be pushed through an existing single family neighborhood and along side parks? Then there’s the “ideal” that multifamily higher density development should be not only encouraged but mandated by the routing of light rail. Doesn’t it make more sense to follow a route where this already exists?
Light rail is less disruptive than the traffic on Bellevue Way and 112th, so the Surrey Downs residents have no more of an argument for noise impacts than the condo owners on 118th.
“Then there’s the “ideal” that multifamily higher density development should be not only encouraged but mandated by the routing of light rail.”
Except that the B7 alignment doesn’t actually have a stop near any of that multifamily housing. A train simply passing through without stopping hardly supports high density development.
The stop location at S. Bellevue P&R precludes any future development. Traffic disruption is far greater on Bellevue Way than on a rail ROW which is in the process of being abandon.
The proposed “furniture store station” is pretty close to the existing condos, yet I sill contend it’s an example of a station location “designed to fail”. But again, the comparison to South Belleuve where there is zero potential is the issue. The worst possible location along B7 is still on par with building a four story P&R at South Bellevue.
The closest multifamily housing on 118th to a potential station on SE 8th is over half a mile away, the farthest is over a mile and a half away. Not really nearby. It would be closer for those people to wade across the slough to Bellevue Way to catch a bus.
How is expanding an existing P&R worse than developing a brand new P&R in an area that’s completely unsuitable for one? Serving South Bellevue P&R doesn’t preclude building another station somewhere near SE8th or Main that could be the focus of future TOD.
Where is the logic in this reasoning??? The proposal for routing light rail thru Bellevue has nothing to do with what highway or railway existed near what neighborhood or how high noise levels are near some highway. Thankfully, Sound Transit got it right.
Yes, next to tracks for a train that operated there when the projects were built and the owners bought their condos, to say nothing of I-405 being “next door.” This is a nonsense argument. Based on recent acquisition of the ROW, even if not light rail, this ROW will be rail again….
South Bellevue P&R is built on fill that encroaches on the wetlands. If moved (removed), that’s 8 acres of wetland that can be restored… permanently, there’s no way it would be permitted today. That P&R is of course in a zero development zone, meaning the only “additional” ridership is that gleaned by spending $30-40k per butt per seat on a mega parking garage with no future development potential. Short term gain, long term folly.
The reality is they are the longest serving members on the city council. They may not represent your views (do you live in Bellevue?) but they certainly have shown over several decades that they represent the views of Bellevue.
agreed ;-)
Tell me how many elected incumbents have lost a Bellevue City council race in the last 20 years? I believe the answer is none. Some like Davidson’s fiscal ideas but Conrad is just blowing smoke every time he talks. He rarely makes sense much less contributes anything to the council, but sadly since he is there it would be a miracle to dislodge him. Sorry I watch every council meeting and Conrad [ad-hominem].
Also Bernie do tell how B7 cost less for the park and ride per stall? Or do you just want no park and ride at all in the b segment?
Both Lee and Davidson have lost and then been reelected. In the last election Patsy Bonincontri was the incumbent and lost. Once again, the urban legend is proven to be bunk.
Present each segment without a P&R. I’m against all of them; especially 130th. What you find is that virtually any alignment can show ridership if you provide a free parking alternative. Seattle has wised up. UW realized decades ago (and has been proven correct) that the answer to decreased traffic is… wait for it… less parking!
Bernie I don’t show Conrad as having lost an election, and I thought Davidson didn’t run one time to run for some other office (insurance commissioner?) , then was brought or elected back in, correct me if I’m wrong…
Pasty was not an elected incumbent, which is why I included the word elected above…
I’m wrong. Lee lost a close election in ’91 but he was on the Transportation Commission, not the City Council at that time. I don’t know the circumstances of Mayor Davidson’s departure and return to the City Council. Last fall I put together a table with the election results going back about 25 years. I’ll try to see if I can find it.
“UW realized decades ago (and has been proven correct) that the answer to decreased traffic is… wait for it… less parking!”
UW has ten times more buses than anywhere on the Eastside. Do you expect people in Somerset and south Bellevue to walk two miles to… I was going to say the P&R but you want to eliminate it… er, walk three miles to the Bellevue Transit Center? Or do you think Metro is going to magically find the funds to increase bus service in those areas, when it can’t even find the funds to maintain existing service?
Somerset is the hill above Factoria isn’t it? I’d expect them to use Eastgate. Eastgate isn’t going to get a Link station, at least not for a long time. South Bellevue can continue to use the existing P&R. Some of the buses coming in on 90 can stop and take them to M.I. I just don’t see why it’s so imparitive to serve a 500 car lot when we’re making no attempt to serve an existing 1500 stall garge that’s about the same distance from 405. I live in Bridle Trails but the last thing I want is a P&R in Bel-Red at 130th. If I want to use a P&R I’ve got South Kirkland or Houghton. If I want to take Link to the airport I can get on a bus going to Bellevue TC. The P&R on 130th is particularly silly since connections to DT Seattle will be way faster by bus over 520. Really all I can see it being used for is people that drive 90% of the way to work and then hop on Link to beat the cost of parking in DT Bellevue.
The north side of Somerset is closer to Eastgate, but the south and west sides are closer to South Bellevue. Why are you so opposed to giving these people easy access to better transit?
If 15 minute public transit at all hours is important to you then don’t move to Somerset, Surry Downs, Enatia, etc. I’m sure a four story parking garage next to the Beason Hill station would get well used too but I expect the “NIMBYs” would complain about that one.
Bernie,
1) It’s true that the SB P&R is built on fill that encroaches on wetlands. The problem is that there’s no place to put another park-and-ride between the current lot and I-90 that doesn’t encroach on currently undisturbed wetlands.
2) I didn’t say Lee and Davidson don’t represent the views of Bellevue. I said they’re out of touch with reality. As in Lee asking “What’s a term sheet?” halfway through a discussion about the ST-Bellevue C9T term sheet. As in neither of them, at this late date, seeming to have a solid grasp of the various routes or, certainly, various route names. As in neither of them, until perhaps the last week or two, demonstrating any understanding of the fact that Sound Transit is making some critical decisions on April 22, one way or the other.
3) Not sure why it’s relevant, but if you’re just curious: I live in Queen Anne.
But what’s neglected in discussion is you’d trade that 5-8 acres (numbers from tonight’s study session) in place of a better transfer point. In other words, undo the wrong that was done (mitigation). S. Bellevue P&R would never fly today and nobody would even go to bat for it since there is zero TOD potential.
You asked:
The answer is not none, as you suggest.. I showed three without doing an exhaustive search. (disclaimer, Lee and Donaldson losses may have been prior to 1990, turn the clock back to 1958 when our property became a family asset).
More than curious. I try to avoid judgment decisions inside Seattle since I don’t live there. I commented on the 1st Hill Street Car but appreciate it’s not my call. My ideals of serving the hospitals first lost out. So be it. It’s a City of Seattle project. I just expect the same “hands off” approach with East Link.
Bernie,
1) I understand very well that the South Bellevue Park-and-Ride probably shouldn’t have been built where it was in the first place. You can stop explaining that to me. What Wallace &co. would have us trade, though, is five acres of park-and-ride encroaching on wetlands at the current site for (at least) five acres of park-and-ride encroaching on wetlands a couple thousand feet to the south. All to advance a suspect route that (you guessed it) crosses wetlands and requires a 70-foot to 100-foot construction staging corridor through wetlands for multiple years. Not exactly a pop-the-bubbly moment for the environment. And not gonna happen.
2) I never asked anything about Bellevue’s electoral history. Justin asked you that question.
3) You can “expect” a hands off approach all you want, but you’re not getting it and you shouldn’t get it. Did I miss the part where our ST2 votes were weighted based on where we lived? Or where we received ballots only addressing projects in our own subareas? I gave ST its East Link taxing authority just as much as Bellevue voters did. This is not a Bellevue line. It’s a regional system designed to increase mobility for all the region’s residents. The entire region will be directly or indirectly impacted by the quality of the routing, and the entire region gets to have its say because the entire region—not Bellevue alone—authorized East Link. If you have some twisted sense of propriety that tells you not to voice an opinion on topics outside your own back yard, that’s your problem, not mine. East Link was on my ballot because it’s my issue.
I wonder how many people who live in Seattle will use Link to travel to Bellevue and Redmond to work or home? The routing of East Link is very much their business. Link is a two way route!
“3) You can “expect” a hands off approach all you want, but you’re not getting it and you shouldn’t get it.”
Totally agree. That would be like saying that only residents of Seatac can have a say in how the airport is expanded, because it only affects them, right? Also, Bernie, have you driven by the south Bellevue park and ride lately on a weekday? It’s PACKED with cars….the demand is there, and will be even moreso when light rail runs up Bellevue Way, which I am confident it will.
Yes, it’s pack with cars during the work day. Pretty much that’s all there is is empty cars until after 7PM when it’s just empty asphalt. Build enough free parking and you can generate demand. But, if you add more parking to S. Bellevue most of the “new” demand will simply be a shift from Eastgate and Issaquah.
After 7 PM route 550 goes to 30-minute frequency until 11:30. It’s a big disincentive to take the bus to Seattle for a concert or Mariners game if there aren’t that many options to get back. With East Link running at 15-minute intervals until 12:30 it would be a lot more crowded in the evenings.
Plus, Bernie, you’ve never lived in South Bellevue, so by your logic shouldn’t you be keeping a “hands off approach” to South Bellevue park and ride?
The bus goes to 30 minute headways because there’s not enough ridership to support any more. The answer for M’s games is special runs, not a 2 billion dollar light rail system. I care about South Bellevue P&R because alignment to reach it ends up screwing up the south end of DT, a mega garage will only increase traffic on 405 through Bellevue and mostly because it’s eastside sub-area equity that should be used for moving people not parking cars. Oh, and it looks like the City is going to be spending my tax dollars to add another lane from the P&R southbound to I-90. The only place where I can see a P&R making sense for East Link is at Marymoor and that would replace Bear Creek which could be sold to help fund it.
This is why it would be good for East Link to stop there—the combined Bellevue/Overlake/Redmond ridership should be enough to justify 15-minute frequency, and once that’s there then ridership will rise. Special runs aren’t the answer to all evening ridership issues. What if you want to get a drink with friends after a Mariners game (staying below 0.08 BAC, of course)? Or let’s you’re at a show on Capitol Hill—you would have to leave by 11:15 to walk to Convention Place Station by 11:44, or just catch East Link at Capitol Hill Station at 12:30 (or whenever the last run ends up being).
Why would the expanded park and ride increase traffic through Bellevue? If you’re driving from the north it would be easier to catch the train from downtown or Bel-Red, or take a bus over 520 to downtown. If you’re coming from the south, WSDOT is building new lanes on 405 between Coal Creek and Renton anyway.
I’m not sure where you’re hearing that the park and ride will cause Bellevue Way to be widened between there and I-90, but that segment has needed it for a while. Every time I-90 westbound backs up (which is often), buses can’t turn south out of the P&R without waiting forever.
Bellevue/Overlake/Redmond has very light demand after 7PM and after 10PM it’s just about non-existent. Build it and they will come doesn’t work. After the peak commute it’s just way easier to drive. Especially since most people are going to have to get in their car anyway to go to a P&R. You’ve already done two cold starts on your engine, you’re time spent walking, waiting and likely driving out of direction to get to the P&R just makes it a loser. You’ve already got the sunk cost of the car and if there’s a group of 3 or more it’s likely a wash cost wise to just drive into the city and park. We don’t spend $2B on trains so people that want to live in Newport Hills can drive their Land Rover to the P&R and access the Pub Crawl. We invest the $2B so that people that want to do the Pub Crawl can live on Capital Hill and get to their jobs in the morning at Microsoft.
Well, Wilburton P&R would likely drop from 80% utilization to less than 30%. In fact they might as well just close it. Houghton P&R is pathetic and will only get worse as bus service on 520 is decreased after Link opens. You’re right that it’s faster to take a bus from South Kirkland but that lot is at 106% now. Get there at peak commute and it’s full; where you going to go? Not backtrack to Houghton… I know, that fancy new garage in S. Bellevue with the train (130th in Bell-Red maybe except 520 is clogged with MS traffic and it means an extra 15 minutes on the train in the evening just to fight through the screwed up 520/405 interchange). In short, we don’t have a capacity problem. We have a peak capacity problem and it’s isolated to a select number of lots (from the Metro 2009 utilization report, only 35 of the 65 permenant P&R lots reached 80% capacity at peak on the eastside). Invest in the bus service to make the alternates that have excess capacity start paying back on that investment instead of building a new multistory garage at South Bellevue and problem solved.
Goran Sparrman covered it in the COB study session that presented staff results of traffic impacts due to East Link. He made if very clear that Link on Bellevue Way with the expanded P&R was going to make traffic even worse. Let’s see, $2B on the train, $60-80M on parking and… we get to spend more on roads to make traffic only a little worse than it already is. Great plan.
Follow-up on the B’view Way lane addition. In the term sheet document which outlines funding possibilities for C9T:
Do you have any evening ridership figures for the entire Bellevue/Overlake/Redmond segment? Surely it’s got to be at least comparable to Rainier Valley evening ridership. There are any number of reasons that someone might need to get to and from the Eastside that aren’t just a pub crawl. You could have a job with later hours than normal. Or maybe you could be a UW student who doesn’t want to have to rely on route 271’s limited headways in the evening. These trips should get decent transit too, now that we have the ability to do so.
If traffic on 405 is bad, why would someone drive through all that mess just for parking? Using your example, a reasonable person would just find someplace to put their car near South Kirkland P&R, or perhaps farther up the 255/540’s route. As far as taking advantage of underutilized P&Rs goes, all the ones near Link should have frequent feeder bus service to a Link station.
I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to adding an HOV lane to southbound Bellevue Way. Right now routes 222, 240, 556, and 560 are stuck in traffic every time westbound I-90 backs up, even though they aren’t going that way. Plus it would incentivize carpooling to the park and ride, which is a good thing.
“The bus goes to 30 minute headways because there’s not enough ridership to support any more.”
“Bellevue/Overlake/Redmond has very light demand after 7PM and after 10PM it’s just about non-existent.”
Frequencies are more limited by budget than by ridership. If people know they might have to wait half an hour for a bus, they’re more likely to drive, skip the trip, or go at another time. The 550 goes at 15-minute intervals on Saturday and 30-minute on Sunday. Does that mean potential ridership is half on Sunday, or just that they don’t want to pay drivers a Sunday wage? In any case, there should be at least one high-frequency route to the Eastside, one north to Snohomish County, and one south to Pierce County. The 550 is almost that route, except after 7pm and on Sundays.
I was stunned that Atlanta can fill up a train at 8:30pm and DC at 10:30pm even though the trains are much larger than Link’s, and those places aren’t much denser than Seattle. Having transit every 10-15 minutes transforms what people do and how they live.
“If people know they might have to wait half an hour for a bus, they’re more likely to drive, skip the trip, or go at another time.”
This is exactly why I often drive to Seattle (from Redmond) in the evenings and weekends rather than ride the 545. I’d rather put up with the traffic to get over there and have a means to get home than avoid traffic and bus over but have to plan very carefully when to leave (or get stuck overnight). For awhile I had an evening class at UW that I’d drive to, rather than spend half an hour waiting at the Montlake flyer stop in the dark afterward.
For Jason Mitchell & Seth
Neither of you had “Eastlink” on your ballots; you had ST2 just like the rest of us. You live in Seattle, by your own admission, so need to stay focused on Seattle issues and stop trying to socially engineer the Eastside. You both need to double-check the concept of Sub-area equity that is a driving tenet of ST2- your tax dollars are focused on Seattle-area projects, ours (Eastside) are focused on Eastside projects. While we appreciate all your input, why don’t you go screw up the Northgate area for a while?
…And East Link was part-and-parcel of ST2. If the latter was on my ballot, the former was necessarily on my ballot as well. Not that it matters either way: the notion that people can only express opinions on issues if their tax dollars are involved is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in awhile. Keep trying, but maybe a little harder.