Seattle Sound Transit Light Rail Link - Page 3

CityView Jim · December 15th, 2007, 02:02 AM

I don't remember there ever being a McDonalds on Broadway. I heard one is coming into the Brix project though. You may be thinking of the walk up window at Taco Bell?

SteveM · December 15th, 2007, 02:54 AM

The McDonalds at Brix thing was a joke, by the way. I believe Brix is actually set to have a bunch of existing Capitol Hill retail (Vivace, Dilettante and a couple others.)

CityView Jim · December 15th, 2007, 04:01 AM

You got me!

kub86 · December 15th, 2007, 06:33 AM

Here's an article from 1999 explaining how the Rainier Valley was CRYING for a subway instead of surface rail. Despite all the neighborhood activism to get one, ST said the $400m extra for a subway was too pricy. I'm posting this to debunk earlier posts blaming that Rainier Valley either preferred surface routes or didn't want LR at all!!

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...lumbia+othello

CityView Jim · December 15th, 2007, 04:22 PM

I remember it well. They were making it a racial thing as well. I think if it were geographically feasable, the line would be at grade throughout the system (for affordability).

Capitol Hill · December 15th, 2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejb

Nowhere on Broadway will ever be "starbucks territory". word.

How about the corner of Broadway E. and E. Republican St. Southeast corner, next to the Mexican Restaurant is a...Starbucks.

Since I've been familiar with Broadway/Capitol Hill (1985) there hasn't been a McDonald's. There briefly was a Burger King in the new(ish) retail building between Charlie's and the Rite Aid.

CityView Jim · December 15th, 2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capitol Hill

How about the corner of Broadway E. and E. Republican St. Southeast corner, next to the Mexican Restaurant is a...Starbucks.

Since I've been familiar with Broadway/Capitol Hill (1985) there hasn't been a McDonald's. There briefly was a Burger King in the new(ish) retail building between Charlie's and the Rite Aid.

You are correct on all accounts. Never been a fan of that Starbucks. Broadway being such a pedestrian-frendly area, there should be a much larger one (along the lines of the one down on Olive Way). Just a lost opportunity - now to Peets.

Rainier Meadows · December 15th, 2007, 10:08 PM

nice updates guys!

bgwah · December 16th, 2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kub86

Here's an article from 1999 explaining how the Rainier Valley was CRYING for a subway instead of surface rail. Despite all the neighborhood activism to get one, ST said the $400m extra for a subway was too pricy. I'm posting this to debunk earlier posts blaming that Rainier Valley either preferred surface routes or didn't want LR at all!!

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...lumbia+othello

Ugh, I wish they'd made it a subway and allowed for high density development around the stations.

taiwanesedrummer36 · December 16th, 2007, 07:42 AM

Yeah, but with Sound Transit's planning abilities back then, I doubt they would have gave in anyway, and if they HAD chosen a subway (which they should have), it would be taking much longer to construct and much, much more money (more, more taxes). So, I guess we're in a mixed-bag situation...

bgwah · December 16th, 2007, 10:51 AM

What about elevated? More expensive than surface, sure, but certainly not as expensive as subway (at least I wouldn't think so, lol). Elevated would be fine outside of downtown and urban centers, IMO.

uwhuskies · December 16th, 2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kub86

Here's an article from 1999 explaining how the Rainier Valley was CRYING for a subway instead of surface rail. Despite all the neighborhood activism to get one, ST said the $400m extra for a subway was too pricy. I'm posting this to debunk earlier posts blaming that Rainier Valley either preferred surface routes or didn't want LR at all!!

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...lumbia+othello

Actually, I recall there were some prominent individuals that were clamoring for an underground system because they felt that a street level design would harm their business and increase safety issues. These proponents were demanding such a consideration before the 1996 vote. I can not find the articles but I am positive there were "community activists" that suggested anything less was racially motivated. I do not believe many people agreed with their position yet the statements were made.

Seattlelife · December 16th, 2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

What about elevated? More expensive than surface, sure, but certainly not as expensive as subway (at least I wouldn't think so, lol). Elevated would be fine outside of downtown and urban centers, IMO.

I was wondering that too.

taiwanesedrummer36 · December 17th, 2007, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

What about elevated? More expensive than surface, sure, but certainly not as expensive as subway (at least I wouldn't think so, lol). Elevated would be fine outside of downtown and urban centers, IMO.

It would still require acquisition from businesses along MLK for a slightly wider street cross-section and not to mention space for elevated stations. And plus it could be a serious eyesore. Imagine if you have a condo along MLK and every morning you get up and stare at a big concrete "block". I'm guessing that's how people there felt.

bgwah · December 17th, 2007, 06:00 AM

I think it would be worth it. It's not like MLK is packed with to-the-street condos and retail--I'm sure room for stations could be found. In some spots, perhaps the elevated tracks could swerve to a less problematic street to the east or west.

The Vancouver SkyTrain is elevated. I'm curious as to how they dealt with this issue.

UrbanBen · December 17th, 2007, 01:14 PM

Are we really having this discussion again?

Once routing through the Valley happened, we had a choice - at-grade or nothing at all. There wasn't enough money for elevated or subway. Simple as that.

UrbanBen · December 17th, 2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

I think it would be worth it. It's not like MLK is packed with to-the-street condos and retail--I'm sure room for stations could be found. In some spots, perhaps the elevated tracks could swerve to a less problematic street to the east or west.

The Vancouver SkyTrain is elevated. I'm curious as to how they dealt with this issue.

They "dealt with the issue" by TransLink not being bound by public votes.

jessejb · December 21st, 2007, 11:12 PM

from Seattlest:

According to the Seattle Transit Blog, the University link of our not-sure-we-wanted-it-but-now-we-got-it--might-as-well-expand-it light rail system is getting the Federal funding it was looking for. It's headed to the President's desk with Seattle receiving the highest possible recommendation for funding from the Federal Transit Administration arm of the U.S. DOT. Screw you, Prop 1! Love you Patty Murray!

Here's the Sound Transit release:

The project connects the three largest urban centers in the region: downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and the University District. It will offer much faster travel times for transit passengers than buses. Light rail will carry passengers from downtown to the University in 9 minutes instead of 25 and to Capitol Hill in 6 minutes instead of 14. Trips between Capitol Hill and the University District will take 3 minutes instead of 22. Riders will also enjoy reliable service no matter how bad the weather or traffic congestion.
Three minutes from the U District to the Hill is a dream we haven't dared to have until now, so that's pretty damn exciting. No mention of funding the rail north of the University District--as per the Sound Transit plan--indicating that we'll have to slug it out for every station in the future, but planning and funding a station is easier than planning and funding a whole system (or 3, ahem, Prop 1). It's just going to take a little longer.

Seattle Transit Blog added this note:

Also, it shows just how badly we need real, rapid transit here. This got the highest possible rating, and just two stations adds 70,000 riders to the line. This is basically the cheapest transportation project attempted in recent memory in this area. At fully one-tenth the cost of widening I-405, this will add more than more than 25% as much people-moving capacity..

taiwanesedrummer36 · December 22nd, 2007, 12:24 AM

I really hope they get it done before 2016. It can't possibly take 7 years to build a short tunnel with only three (or two) stations.

CityView Jim · December 22nd, 2007, 01:03 AM

I was wondering that myself. The Beacon Hill tunnel only took about three months to do a one mile tunnel (another three months for the twin tunnel). Maybe there are other geographic challenges with this tunnel that is 3 miles in length.

December 15th, 2007, 02:02 AM	#41
CityView Jim Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,941 Likes (Received): 61	I don't remember there ever being a McDonalds on Broadway. I heard one is coming into the Brix project though. You may be thinking of the walk up window at Taco Bell? Last edited by CityView Jim; December 22nd, 2007 at 01:07 AM.

December 15th, 2007, 10:08 PM	#48
Rainier Meadows © Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: 47°N, 122°W Posts: 1,569 Likes (Received): 0	nice updates guys! __________________ Urban Enthusiast

December 16th, 2007, 07:42 AM	#50
taiwanesedrummer36 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Little Taipei, Everett Posts: 1,047 Likes (Received): 0	Yeah, but with Sound Transit's planning abilities back then, I doubt they would have gave in anyway, and if they HAD chosen a subway (which they should have), it would be taking much longer to construct and much, much more money (more, more taxes). So, I guess we're in a mixed-bag situation... __________________ Everett/Snohomish County Development News Thread

December 22nd, 2007, 12:24 AM	#59
taiwanesedrummer36 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Little Taipei, Everett Posts: 1,047 Likes (Received): 0	I really hope they get it done before 2016. It can't possibly take 7 years to build a short tunnel with only three (or two) stations. __________________ Everett/Snohomish County Development News Thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 15th, 2007, 02:54 AM	#42
SteveM Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 481 Likes (Received): 3	The McDonalds at Brix thing was a joke, by the way. I believe Brix is actually set to have a bunch of existing Capitol Hill retail (Vivace, Dilettante and a couple others.)

December 15th, 2007, 04:01 AM	#43
CityView Jim Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,941 Likes (Received): 61	You got me!

December 15th, 2007, 06:33 AM	#44
kub86 Twinkie Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Seattle/Bellevue Posts: 746 Likes (Received): 2	Here's an article from 1999 explaining how the Rainier Valley was CRYING for a subway instead of surface rail. Despite all the neighborhood activism to get one, ST said the $400m extra for a subway was too pricy. I'm posting this to debunk earlier posts blaming that Rainier Valley either preferred surface routes or didn't want LR at all!! http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...lumbia+othello

December 15th, 2007, 04:22 PM	#45
CityView Jim Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,941 Likes (Received): 61	I remember it well. They were making it a racial thing as well. I think if it were geographically feasable, the line would be at grade throughout the system (for affordability).

December 16th, 2007, 10:51 AM	#51
bgwah honk!!! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,732 Likes (Received): 76	What about elevated? More expensive than surface, sure, but certainly not as expensive as subway (at least I wouldn't think so, lol). Elevated would be fine outside of downtown and urban centers, IMO.

December 17th, 2007, 06:00 AM	#55
bgwah honk!!! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,732 Likes (Received): 76	I think it would be worth it. It's not like MLK is packed with to-the-street condos and retail--I'm sure room for stations could be found. In some spots, perhaps the elevated tracks could swerve to a less problematic street to the east or west. The Vancouver SkyTrain is elevated. I'm curious as to how they dealt with this issue.

December 17th, 2007, 01:14 PM	#56
UrbanBen the transit nazi Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,019 Likes (Received): 0	Are we really having this discussion again? Once routing through the Valley happened, we had a choice - at-grade or nothing at all. There wasn't enough money for elevated or subway. Simple as that.

December 21st, 2007, 11:12 PM	#58
jessejb Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 2,692 Likes (Received): 103	from Seattlest: According to the Seattle Transit Blog, the University link of our not-sure-we-wanted-it-but-now-we-got-it--might-as-well-expand-it light rail system is getting the Federal funding it was looking for. It's headed to the President's desk with Seattle receiving the highest possible recommendation for funding from the Federal Transit Administration arm of the U.S. DOT. Screw you, Prop 1! Love you Patty Murray! Here's the Sound Transit release: The project connects the three largest urban centers in the region: downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and the University District. It will offer much faster travel times for transit passengers than buses. Light rail will carry passengers from downtown to the University in 9 minutes instead of 25 and to Capitol Hill in 6 minutes instead of 14. Trips between Capitol Hill and the University District will take 3 minutes instead of 22. Riders will also enjoy reliable service no matter how bad the weather or traffic congestion. Three minutes from the U District to the Hill is a dream we haven't dared to have until now, so that's pretty damn exciting. No mention of funding the rail north of the University District--as per the Sound Transit plan--indicating that we'll have to slug it out for every station in the future, but planning and funding a station is easier than planning and funding a whole system (or 3, ahem, Prop 1). It's just going to take a little longer. Seattle Transit Blog added this note: Also, it shows just how badly we need real, rapid transit here. This got the highest possible rating, and just two stations adds 70,000 riders to the line. This is basically the cheapest transportation project attempted in recent memory in this area. At fully one-tenth the cost of widening I-405, this will add more than more than 25% as much people-moving capacity..

December 22nd, 2007, 01:03 AM	#60
CityView Jim Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,941 Likes (Received): 61	I was wondering that myself. The Beacon Hill tunnel only took about three months to do a one mile tunnel (another three months for the twin tunnel). Maybe there are other geographic challenges with this tunnel that is 3 miles in length.