sneak peak of ST3 ;-) - Page 3

MrHarrison · July 7th, 2008, 08:21 AM

Citruspastels, I noticed some things about your proposed Edmonds/Lynnwood line.
It seems to miss a bunch of places that local level light rail should really make accessible, so from West to East and meandering some (and also exposing my biases by starting in Edmonds instead of where the line starts), here are my thoughts.

1. The stop at 9th and Puget intrigues me, I always thought that going through Downtown Edmonds made more sense, i.e. it would draw consumers into the downtown shopping district and improve desirability for businesses. I still think that light rail should do this, but now you have me thinking about a streetcar doing this and a subway taking that part of the route. Once criticism though, the stop should be closer to Puget and Olympic View Drive, that way the Elementary School is better served by the station. I know that it's only a block, but there's also more land available right there.

2. You miss two really large destinations when you hit 99, Stevens Hospital, and Edmonds Community College, plus a lesser destination Edmonds-Woodway High School. Steven's and Ed-Way are just South of 212th and 76th, and EdCC is on 202nd and 68th. Ed-Way is particularly attractive to me because the school has no bussing, all students must walk, drive, or use Community Transit to get there, not as important as EdCC and Stevens though.

3. I really think that when the subway goes East-West through Lynnwood it should stick to 196th. This is where most of the business development in Lynnwood is going to happen, 188th, where you have it, is mostly residential and I think would benefit better from feeder streetcars to commuter lines. You may think it should be the other way around, and I welcome critiques. However, a subway orientation on 196th leads to:

4. The Lynnwood Convention Center. It's on 196th and 36th. I think that a subway line is the preferable option for the LCC, and I can't see Lynnwood letting a subway get built through Lynnwood without it stopping there (even if this is a pipe dream). Lynnwood's going to want the ease and capacity of a trunk line stopping there.

5. Going back to 188th, it's one of the few streets that goes East-West through almost the entire city, which makes it particularly attractive for a streetcar. 196th has too many traffic problems, and I think that a subway underneath 188th would kill any possible support for a streetcar on that route. Plus, a streetcar on 188th could extend to places where a subway wouldn't fly in West Lynnwood.

I particularly like your idea of foregoing the Lynnwood Transit Center and shifting Ferry commuters to the Mall Station, Lynnwood would like it (makes sure more people get near the mall, and who would go that far if they could hop off farther south on the line), and Lynnwood is looking to grow East, so a line truncating there could be expandable to where Lynnwood is going to grow.

Seattle206 · July 21st, 2008, 09:22 PM

Kudos to all the effort that went into making these transit schemes...
Now, about the cost... yikes.

Even if all of these plans were approved (which is a non-starter), the cost would be $50 Billion, minimum. Not to say it can't be done, but realistically, I think we'll be lucky to see light rail to Northgate in our lifetimes.

Land acquisition and neighborhood mitigation would be mind boggling. It gives me a throbbing headache just thinking about all of the government bureaucracy involved in planning something as comprehensive as this.

I suppose that's why this stuff's done in stages, huh?

Very impressive, nonetheless. Sound Transit should have you on staff as a creative visionary. You could probably do better than some of the dunces they have on payroll there!

Send your plans to the Gates Foundation. Maybe someday they'll take up Seattle's traffic woes as something as serious as world health.

citruspastels · August 10th, 2008, 06:56 AM

I updated my West Seattle - Ballard route-

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...2e054&t=h&z=11

It tried to balance feasability and effectiveness as much as possible. This map includes markings to show where the route is elevated, surface, or tunnel. There may be
more opportunity to run some of this on the surface, but I'm not sure if the streets I've routed it on could handle it. I've tried to use as little tunneling as possible, and tried to take up as few lanes as possible. Thus, I have alot of elevated sections as a pylon would
theoretically only have to take up one lane, whereas a surface alternative would take up two. What do you guys think?

A few clarifications-

-The line is surface on Greenwood N because that street is really
underdeveloped and could easily take on two new right of ways for
tracks without losing driving lanes.

-Western ave would lose it's parking lanes as that is where the tunnel
would break out and become elevated

-I heard somewhere that the Spokane Bridge would be easier to run
light rail on than W Seattle Bridge. Not sure if this is true or not.

G5man · August 10th, 2008, 08:30 PM

Not a bad route I say, might be a good extension sometime in the future once the first light rail is established.

SteveM · August 11th, 2008, 02:50 AM

Nice map! Seems like it could be financially feasible, too.

From a cost-effectiveness viewpoint I wonder if the small surface sections are counter-productive -- a totally elevated/subway route has its own complete right-of-way and therefore can run in automated mode, which significantly reduces operating costs (automation is one of the reasons Vancouver's SkyTrain breaks even on operations).

NW Mike · August 11th, 2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattle206

Kudos to all the effort that went into making these transit schemes...
Now, about the cost... yikes.

Even if all of these plans were approved (which is a non-starter), the cost would be $50 Billion, minimum. Not to say it can't be done, but realistically, I think we'll be lucky to see light rail to Northgate in our lifetimes.

Land acquisition and neighborhood mitigation would be mind boggling. It gives me a throbbing headache just thinking about all of the government bureaucracy involved in planning something as comprehensive as this.

I suppose that's why this stuff's done in stages, huh?

Very impressive, nonetheless. Sound Transit should have you on staff as a creative visionary. You could probably do better than some of the dunces they have on payroll there!

Send your plans to the Gates Foundation. Maybe someday they'll take up Seattle's traffic woes as something as serious as world health.

Why should they pay him for his great ideas when they can come here and steal them for free!

Sparkyhodgo · August 16th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW Mike

Why should they pay him for his great ideas when they can come here and steal them for free!

That's the idea! (though I wouldn't mind a small slice of Bill Gates' fortune)

July 7th, 2008, 08:21 AM	#41
MrHarrison Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lynnwood Posts: 1 Likes (Received): 0	Edmonds/Lynnwood Citruspastels, I noticed some things about your proposed Edmonds/Lynnwood line. It seems to miss a bunch of places that local level light rail should really make accessible, so from West to East and meandering some (and also exposing my biases by starting in Edmonds instead of where the line starts), here are my thoughts. 1. The stop at 9th and Puget intrigues me, I always thought that going through Downtown Edmonds made more sense, i.e. it would draw consumers into the downtown shopping district and improve desirability for businesses. I still think that light rail should do this, but now you have me thinking about a streetcar doing this and a subway taking that part of the route. Once criticism though, the stop should be closer to Puget and Olympic View Drive, that way the Elementary School is better served by the station. I know that it's only a block, but there's also more land available right there. 2. You miss two really large destinations when you hit 99, Stevens Hospital, and Edmonds Community College, plus a lesser destination Edmonds-Woodway High School. Steven's and Ed-Way are just South of 212th and 76th, and EdCC is on 202nd and 68th. Ed-Way is particularly attractive to me because the school has no bussing, all students must walk, drive, or use Community Transit to get there, not as important as EdCC and Stevens though. 3. I really think that when the subway goes East-West through Lynnwood it should stick to 196th. This is where most of the business development in Lynnwood is going to happen, 188th, where you have it, is mostly residential and I think would benefit better from feeder streetcars to commuter lines. You may think it should be the other way around, and I welcome critiques. However, a subway orientation on 196th leads to: 4. The Lynnwood Convention Center. It's on 196th and 36th. I think that a subway line is the preferable option for the LCC, and I can't see Lynnwood letting a subway get built through Lynnwood without it stopping there (even if this is a pipe dream). Lynnwood's going to want the ease and capacity of a trunk line stopping there. 5. Going back to 188th, it's one of the few streets that goes East-West through almost the entire city, which makes it particularly attractive for a streetcar. 196th has too many traffic problems, and I think that a subway underneath 188th would kill any possible support for a streetcar on that route. Plus, a streetcar on 188th could extend to places where a subway wouldn't fly in West Lynnwood. I particularly like your idea of foregoing the Lynnwood Transit Center and shifting Ferry commuters to the Mall Station, Lynnwood would like it (makes sure more people get near the mall, and who would go that far if they could hop off farther south on the line), and Lynnwood is looking to grow East, so a line truncating there could be expandable to where Lynnwood is going to grow.

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

July 21st, 2008, 09:22 PM	#42
Seattle206 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 12 Likes (Received): 0	Kudos to all the effort that went into making these transit schemes... Now, about the cost... yikes. Even if all of these plans were approved (which is a non-starter), the cost would be $50 Billion, minimum. Not to say it can't be done, but realistically, I think we'll be lucky to see light rail to Northgate in our lifetimes. Land acquisition and neighborhood mitigation would be mind boggling. It gives me a throbbing headache just thinking about all of the government bureaucracy involved in planning something as comprehensive as this. I suppose that's why this stuff's done in stages, huh? Very impressive, nonetheless. Sound Transit should have you on staff as a creative visionary. You could probably do better than some of the dunces they have on payroll there! Send your plans to the Gates Foundation. Maybe someday they'll take up Seattle's traffic woes as something as serious as world health.

August 10th, 2008, 06:56 AM	#43
citruspastels Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 690 Likes (Received): 3	I updated my West Seattle - Ballard route- http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...2e054&t=h&z=11 It tried to balance feasability and effectiveness as much as possible. This map includes markings to show where the route is elevated, surface, or tunnel. There may be more opportunity to run some of this on the surface, but I'm not sure if the streets I've routed it on could handle it. I've tried to use as little tunneling as possible, and tried to take up as few lanes as possible. Thus, I have alot of elevated sections as a pylon would theoretically only have to take up one lane, whereas a surface alternative would take up two. What do you guys think? A few clarifications- -The line is surface on Greenwood N because that street is really underdeveloped and could easily take on two new right of ways for tracks without losing driving lanes. -Western ave would lose it's parking lanes as that is where the tunnel would break out and become elevated -I heard somewhere that the Spokane Bridge would be easier to run light rail on than W Seattle Bridge. Not sure if this is true or not.

August 10th, 2008, 08:30 PM	#44
G5man High Speed Rail fan Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 242 Likes (Received): 0	Not a bad route I say, might be a good extension sometime in the future once the first light rail is established.

August 11th, 2008, 02:50 AM	#45
SteveM Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 481 Likes (Received): 3	Nice map! Seems like it could be financially feasible, too. From a cost-effectiveness viewpoint I wonder if the small surface sections are counter-productive -- a totally elevated/subway route has its own complete right-of-way and therefore can run in automated mode, which significantly reduces operating costs (automation is one of the reasons Vancouver's SkyTrain breaks even on operations).