Bellevue Light Rail/East Link thread

[urbanlife78]

Maybe we should start throwing people in jail for running lights, that would probably get the message across much more bluntly. If someone does something illegal on the road, there is a good chance that it will lead to an accident, no matter how many safety features are in place. We cant protect everyone 100%.

[HAWC1506]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

Agreed. I don't know if the added expense for grade separation is warranted to prevent freak accidents. We had to go all the way to Houston to find one?! For the most part, accidents are just that and unintentional. Maybe we should keep busses off our freeways too. You just never know! LOL

Accidents will always happen. But we can still reduce the severity through design.

[rathersmart]

Originally Posted by HAWC1506

Accidents will always happen. But we can still reduce the severity through design.

if you put the train on an elevated track, a derailment will cause the severity to increase exponentially.

if you put the train in a tunnel, a fire will have a similar effect.

if you put the train at grade, there will be vehicle accidents.

in each case someone is giving up a sense of perceived safety. in reality there is no safety no matter how hard you try

[meku]

How often does a derailment on elevated tracks happen compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

How often does a fire start in a tunnel compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

In reality, vehicle accidents with trains at grade happen way more often, hence both elevated and tunnel options are superior.

[rathersmart]

Originally Posted by meku

How often does a derailment on elevated tracks happen compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

How often does a fire start in a tunnel compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

In reality, vehicle accidents with trains at grade happen way more often, hence both elevated and tunnel options are superior.

in a single vehicle accident at grade you only have one or two cars involved besides the train. in a city where the speed limit is between 20 and 35 mph the severity of such an accident is trivial. no greater than car-on-car accidents that happen with or without the train being there.

if a train derails, falls off the elevated tracks, and on top of something or someone on the ground then we are talking a whole different number of problems. and it takes only one such instance to deem it more severe than even 100 single car accidents that would occur at grade.

fires in tunnels happen very often and there a number of systems that are required in tunnels to try to prevent them. unfortunately that is not always the case.

[bgwah]

Lolz

[just4ivaylo]

Let's review a couple of videos from Houston, which by the way has the biggest joke of a system.






Having light rail going through Bellevue, built exactly like that system in Houston, would be the biggest mistake ever.

[Subterranean Alien]

omg...are they dumb in houston or is sharing the street with cars a bad idea regardless of where u are?

[just4ivaylo]

Is that sarcasm?

[CrazyAboutCities]

I been to Houston few times before and I witnessed so many horrible drivers while I was there... I won't be surprised if that happens in downtown Bellevue if it get built on surface, we have many bad drivers here too.

[BellevueBoy]

Bellevue city council and sound transit held a joint meeting today
http://www.publicola.net/2010/02/11/...transit-board/

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by meku

How often does a derailment on elevated tracks happen compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

How often does a fire start in a tunnel compared to vehicle accidents with the trains at grade ?

In reality, vehicle accidents with trains at grade happen way more often, hence both elevated and tunnel options are superior.

The question is, is it worth the expense. My answer is NO. As a taxpayer, I'm not willing to add hundreds of millions to the price on the extension to grade separate where a surface route is most prudent.

Agreeing with Rathersmart that the severity and frequency of a surface street accident do not justify the presumed pricetag.

Houston has issues. Doesn't seem we've had a MLK accident for some time. Perhaps we're fast learners?

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by BellevueBoy

Bellevue city council and sound transit held a joint meeting today
http://www.publicola.net/2010/02/11/...transit-board/

Here's a news blip on that meeting:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ridership.html

I think Sound Transit should ask the angry neighborhoods just how much they are willing to pay in additional taxes to NOT have the line go through their neighborhood. Highest bidder wins (the line bypassing their 'hood) with the added tax revenue going to pay for the tunnel option downtown.

Perhaps they should get the Laurelhurst Community involved. They seem to be great fundraisers!!!

[Stanman]

They should have shown the Houston videos at that meeting.

[HAWC1506]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

The question is, is it worth the expense. My answer is NO. As a taxpayer, I'm not willing to add hundreds of millions to the price on the extension to grade separate where a surface route is most prudent.

Agreeing with Rathersmart that the severity and frequency of a surface street accident do not justify the presumed pricetag.

Houston has issues. Doesn't seem we've had a MLK accident for some time. Perhaps we're fast learners?

I heard a very interesting statement today at the Seattle Transit Blog meetup in Bellevue. If something happens with the train on the at-grade route, it's not only the intersection that will be shut down (and not only cars and buses in the area that will be affected). The train that travels through Bellevue will ultimately be the one traveling to UW as well. By having a delay in the Bellevue downtown core, you won't just be affecting the Bellevue area or Eastlink. You'd be affecting the entire system.

Now does this hold true elsewhere in the line? Of course. The signal outage in the DSTT a few months ago is a prime example. But by 2020, ridership will be up, frequency will be up, demand will be up, and headways will be down. We simply won't have the leeway to allow what is essentially a traffic delay like that to happen to the system.

What happens in Bellevue will become a regional thing, and that argument alone would make me think twice about the surface option. Now the question is, if it's going to affect the entire region, why burden only Bellevue with the extra cost?

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by HAWC1506

I heard a very interesting statement today at the Seattle Transit Blog meetup in Bellevue. If something happens with the train on the at-grade route, it's not only the intersection that will be shut down (and not only cars and buses in the area that will be affected). The train that travels through Bellevue will ultimately be the one traveling to UW as well. By having a delay in the Bellevue downtown core, you won't just be affecting the Bellevue area or Eastlink. You'd be affecting the entire system.

Now does this hold true elsewhere in the line? Of course. The signal outage in the DSTT a few months ago is a prime example. But by 2020, ridership will be up, frequency will be up, demand will be up, and headways will be down. We simply won't have the leeway to allow what is essentially a traffic delay like that to happen to the system.

What happens in Bellevue will become a regional thing, and that argument alone would make me think twice about the surface option. Now the question is, if it's going to affect the entire region, why burden only Bellevue with the extra cost?

Because the voters approved a system serving Bellevue and out to Overlake for a set dollar amount. If the money can be found within that dollar amount to design and build a tunnel through downtown Bellevue - fantastic. If there is no money then the surface option will be the final design.

Should the City of Bellevue choose to contribute additional funds toward that tunnel - good for them and thanks.

I fall back to my original stance. The frequency of accidents do not warrant the added expense in my opinion. My question to you is how much more per year are you willing to pay so the distracted woman on her cell phone late for her lunch date at PF Changs doesn't run into your train taking you to the UW?

[RMacherat]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

My question to you is how much more per year are you willing to pay so the distracted woman on her cell phone late for her lunch date at PF Changs doesn't run into your train taking you to the UW?

I thought the whole point of this is that she will be taking a bus->train to PF Changs instead

[rathersmart]

Originally Posted by just4ivaylo

Let's review a couple of videos from Houston, which by the way has the biggest joke of a system.






Having light rail going through Bellevue, built exactly like that system in Houston, would be the biggest mistake ever.

out of all people you should know that rail going through the city is no biggie...

it's been done in europe and sofia for so many years with minor accidents, but nothing that warrants a complete halt of transit progress

[rathersmart]

Originally Posted by HAWC1506

I heard a very interesting statement today at the Seattle Transit Blog meetup in Bellevue. If something happens with the train on the at-grade route, it's not only the intersection that will be shut down (and not only cars and buses in the area that will be affected). The train that travels through Bellevue will ultimately be the one traveling to UW as well. By having a delay in the Bellevue downtown core, you won't just be affecting the Bellevue area or Eastlink. You'd be affecting the entire system.

Now does this hold true elsewhere in the line? Of course. The signal outage in the DSTT a few months ago is a prime example. But by 2020, ridership will be up, frequency will be up, demand will be up, and headways will be down. We simply won't have the leeway to allow what is essentially a traffic delay like that to happen to the system.

What happens in Bellevue will become a regional thing, and that argument alone would make me think twice about the surface option. Now the question is, if it's going to affect the entire region, why burden only Bellevue with the extra cost?

how does this make sense when the north link keeps going north to northgate?

i am not attacking or disputing. just trying to wrap my mind around it

[alexjonlin]

The plan that I saw mentioned in some ST documents for operations once ST2 is built out is to have one line going from Northgate to Federal Way, and another line going from Lynnwood to Overlake (via Downtown Seattle).