daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 31st, 2007, 04:29 AM   #1721
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

So...What's up guys? lol

December is such a slow news month...
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 31st, 2007, 08:53 AM   #1722
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

It's the holiday season; everyone's out shopping and construction has stopped for the winter, not to mention Sound Transit is terrible at updates and have very bad customer service.
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2007, 04:16 PM   #1723
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus among the politicians on what to do next. There are at least five options:

1. Place Sound Transit 2 (50-mile light rail expansion) on the ballot in the fall of 2008. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, favors this option. He is now the chairman of the Sound Transit board.

2. Place a less ambitious plan on the ballot that would expand light rail perhaps to Northgate and Bellevue. Those areas supported the recent Roads and Transit ballot measure; however, it is not clear if a ballot measure could be drafted that requires a vote of only those areas.

3. Develop a cheaper Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan. King County executive Ron Sims, who sits on the Sound Transit board, has voiced support for this option.

4. Defer any vote on transportation issues until 2009. Democrats in the state legislature are concerned that any tax measures on the ballot in 2008 could work in favor of anti-tax Republicans.

5. Set up a Regional Transportation Governance (RTG) agency that would have authority over both roads and transit. This would end Sound Transit as an independent agency. Governor Chris Gregoire and several key members of the state legislature favor this option.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2007, 09:40 PM   #1724
citruspastels
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 3

I am of the opinion that we need every single mile of light rail that was proposed in ST2 and more.

The rest of the voters I'm not so sure.
citruspastels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2008, 02:14 AM   #1725
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Well, I've been in Strasbourg since the 13th, with intermittent internet access. I'm currently sitting in the airport in Minneapolis waiting for my flight back to Seattle.

I agree with cirruspastels, especially after spending about a week just wandering around Strasbourg (while my fiancee was finishing finals).
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2008, 06:43 AM   #1726
Tcmetro
Registered User
 
Tcmetro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis/Chicago
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 17

I like the ST2 plan, but rail tracks need to be placed on the 520 bridge if it is rebuilt. Also they should see if they can get LRT further north in Sno Co, and south to Tacoma Mall (by using cost-cutting measures on the ST2 lines such as at-grade LRT).
__________________
metrology
Tcmetro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2008, 07:02 AM   #1727
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I like the ST2 plan, but rail tracks need to be placed on the 520 bridge if it is rebuilt. Also they should see if they can get LRT further north in Sno Co, and south to Tacoma Mall (by using cost-cutting measures on the ST2 lines such as at-grade LRT).
Now this is more like it; at-grade light rail! But only where feasible. For example, at-grade light rail should be utilized along I-5, such as with the Snohomish County routing, and plenty of other places. Seems to have worked with Portland.
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2008, 10:01 AM   #1728
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I like the ST2 plan, but rail tracks need to be placed on the 520 bridge if it is rebuilt. Also they should see if they can get LRT further north in Sno Co, and south to Tacoma Mall (by using cost-cutting measures on the ST2 lines such as at-grade LRT).
There should not be LRT on 520 before we have it on 90. You can't build across 520 and reasonably serve Bellevue and Redmond without causing a lot of transfers, and the connection in the U-district is extremely high risk. Jeez, people, we already own the right of way for most of the 90 alignment. Why reinvent the wheel and cause all sorts of new problems?
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2008, 10:05 AM   #1729
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Or maybe he means "build" the right-of-way for light rail on the new 520 bridge.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 12:00 AM   #1730
uwhuskies
Registered User
 
uwhuskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,107
Likes (Received): 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
...Imagine, they even have an Apple store, the commie bastards...
Why do we need to "imagine?" Aren't apples red.
uwhuskies no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 04:59 AM   #1731
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
There should not be LRT on 520 before we have it on 90. You can't build across 520 and reasonably serve Bellevue and Redmond without causing a lot of transfers, and the connection in the U-district is extremely high risk. Jeez, people, we already own the right of way for most of the 90 alignment. Why reinvent the wheel and cause all sorts of new problems?
I don't think there are even plans to put LR on 520 yet. But if they did, I'd imagine them forming a circular line just as 520, I-90, I-405, and I-5 do. So let's say it starts at the U-district, and it goes south towards I-90, goes over the bridge eastbound, goes up I-405 into Bellevue, turns west onto 520, and then down through Northgate, and back to where it came from. I don't see how transfers would be needed doing that. Unless I'm completely missing something.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 05:21 AM   #1732
Tcmetro
Registered User
 
Tcmetro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis/Chicago
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 17

I don't see why LRT on 520 shouldn't be built. If they are going to rebuild a bridge than they should build LRT. It could cut across Medina to join the Bel-Red segment of the East Link. I support building two lines, one on 520 one on I-90. Maybe it can be single track, and save space to build a second track when it is needed.
__________________
metrology
Tcmetro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 11:01 PM   #1733
aznichiro115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I don't see why LRT on 520 shouldn't be built. If they are going to rebuild a bridge than they should build LRT. It could cut across Medina to join the Bel-Red segment of the East Link. I support building two lines, one on 520 one on I-90. Maybe it can be single track, and save space to build a second track when it is needed.
i cut across Medina? because im sure all the rich people would love to have light rail speeding across their backyards
aznichiro115 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 11:15 PM   #1734
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I don't see why LRT on 520 shouldn't be built. If they are going to rebuild a bridge than they should build LRT. It could cut across Medina to join the Bel-Red segment of the East Link. I support building two lines, one on 520 one on I-90. Maybe it can be single track, and save space to build a second track when it is needed.
We can afford one line. We have right of way already for one line. If we try to build two, we get nothing because people will simply fight over which one to do first.

Okay, so the reasoning here is really simple. Southbound morning trains from Northgate into downtown are going to be packed by the time they get to UW. Trying to transfer people from a 520 line onto those trains would create both a transfer and crush loads. Trying to interline 520 (surface) with University Link (underground) would be an engineering nightmare, requiring new tunneling through WATER. You're talking about a project with the engineering problems of the Big Dig, through worse soil and near/under the homes of rich folks who are already fighting the 520 rebuild tooth and nail.

A 520 line would either have to run south to Bellevue and back to Microsoft or have a spur to Bellevue. Look at a map: both of these are horrible options - a spur means reduced frequency to both destinations (you have to alternate them) and a dogleg means long travel time to Redmond.

I'm not even going to address running rail from 520 "to Northgate" before heading south. Again, look at a map - that's like the people suggesting light rail go to Southcenter before Sea-Tac.

We have the 90 right of way, and it already connects to the bus tunnel from the south end. This would mean that those southbound trains from Northgate, once they unloaded people going to downtown, would continue on to Sea-Tac and Bellevue. The combined ridership for Sea-Tac and Bellevue lines to Seattle is nearly the same as the ridership from Seattle to Northgate, so you get extremely efficient operation and double the train frequency where you need it.

Yes, eventually, I'm sure we'll build light rail on 520. The bridge options we're looking at will all support rail later. Suggesting we build it now is suggesting we put a gun to the head of light rail expansion. Any 520 plan project now would become a massive boondoggle and likely kill support for more expansion, putting us another 20 or 30 years behind. Seriously, please drop it - all these discussions happened in the 60s, the 80s, and during ST2 planning. There's even an entry in the FAQ - it's just ridiculous:

http://soundtransit.org/x3753.xml#why_i90
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 11:21 PM   #1735
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I like the ST2 plan, but rail tracks need to be placed on the 520 bridge if it is rebuilt. Also they should see if they can get LRT further north in Sno Co, and south to Tacoma Mall (by using cost-cutting measures on the ST2 lines such as at-grade LRT).
520: No, for reasons mentioned above.

Further north and south: So you want Sound Transit to overpromise again, delay again, and lose face again? Sound Transit is counting on being able to make some sections along 5 and 99 "at-grade" (separated, but on embankments) to cover the overruns that always happen on large projects.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 11:23 PM   #1736
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
I don't see why LRT on 520 shouldn't be built. If they are going to rebuild a bridge than they should build LRT. It could cut across Medina to join the Bel-Red segment of the East Link. I support building two lines, one on 520 one on I-90. Maybe it can be single track, and save space to build a second track when it is needed.
Just for the "two lines" thing - remember, we'd have to tax the east king subarea for two lines. That means we'd have to tax all the OTHER subareas for two lines as well. Shouldn't it be obvious by now that nobody would vote for a full percentage point hike? That's what it would cost.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2008, 11:29 PM   #1737
Phoenix10123
Registered User
 
Phoenix10123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 54
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
By the way, for those still harping about Link ending "just before the airport", I have for you a pretty picture. Note the part at the top, trackway going from the "just before the airport" station (Tukwila International) to the airport itself.

Just Saw This Image... All of that is Seattle? Im guessing it is. Its Really Pretty
Phoenix10123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2008, 01:26 AM   #1738
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Just for the "two lines" thing - remember, we'd have to tax the east king subarea for two lines. That means we'd have to tax all the OTHER subareas for two lines as well. Shouldn't it be obvious by now that nobody would vote for a full percentage point hike? That's what it would cost.
Well if you say it like that, then screw a 520 line until ST3 or something; BUT I think it's fine if forumners talk about a future line.

Quote:
A 520 line would either have to run south to Bellevue and back to Microsoft or have a spur to Bellevue. Look at a map: both of these are horrible options - a spur means reduced frequency to both destinations (you have to alternate them) and a dogleg means long travel time to Redmond.
I'm a little confused by what you're saying; are you saying a potential 520 line would have to run south to Bellevue and back along near SR 520, basically following the route of the East Link, or just follow SR 520/East Link with a spur to Bellevue connecting to the East Link?

I think in the future (at least 100 years from now), East Link between Redmond and Bel-Red should be connected to a 520 line, and East Link traveling through Bellevue should be connected to a potential I-405 line, whether it's running along the BNSF corridor or on a new alignment.

PLEASE keep in mind this is talking about a future after ST2, not for ST2.
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2008, 03:20 AM   #1739
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix10123 View Post
Just Saw This Image... All of that is Seattle? Im guessing it is. Its Really Pretty
It's technically Tukwila and Sea-Tac, but yeah.
At the airport on Monday I saw significantly more concrete pours for Airport Station, as well.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2008, 03:24 AM   #1740
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36 View Post
I'm a little confused by what you're saying; are you saying a potential 520 line would have to run south to Bellevue and back along near SR 520, basically following the route of the East Link, or just follow SR 520/East Link with a spur to Bellevue connecting to the East Link?

I think in the future (at least 100 years from now), East Link between Redmond and Bel-Red should be connected to a 520 line, and East Link traveling through Bellevue should be connected to a potential I-405 line, whether it's running along the BNSF corridor or on a new alignment.

PLEASE keep in mind this is talking about a future after ST2, not for ST2.
I will keep that in mind, as far as conversations with you go - but I think a lot of people in the region are thinking about pushing 520 first, then 90. I do agree that there will need to be an east-west line in the north end. I see Ballard-U-district-520-Redmond as a likely corridor for ST3/ST4.

Yes, a line across 520 *without* a previously built line across 90 would have to serve Bellevue - there would be no political support (and little reason) to build to Redmond before building to Bellevue downtown.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
king county metro, seattle, sound transit, us light rail

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium