Sound Transit idiocy in the light rail planning (Seattle, Tukwila: income, live in)

[Tiger Beer]

I think its great they don't have the parking lots.

Generally speaking, most people try to live near a station and take advantage of it.

I think by the time someone drives from miles away to get to one, they might as well just continue in the car all the way to their final destination.

[irishimm]

Seattle is the quintessentiall city that needs mass transit. There are so many neighborhoods with walkable cores that are isolated from each other. Aside from the downtown and inner ring neighborhoods (like Belltown, Queen Anne, Capital Hill, Pioneer Square, etc.) there are numerous areas, like Fremont, Ballard, U-District, Central District, Eastlake, Southlake, Greenlake, Ravenna, Roosevelt, Walingford, Phinney Ridge, Greenwood, etc. etc. THAT NEED TO BE CONNECTED!

But today the light rail opened and it goes from Westlake to Tukwila, really not touching most of the areas that actually need it. Much of it goes through the Rainier Valley. Now, don't get me wrong, people in the Rainier Valley deserve light rail as much as anyone else, but this is not where the bottlenecks are! Also, let's be honest here, the Raineir Valley is one of Seattle's main ghettos. It's eclectic and interesting, but its also run-down and under-developed. Columbia City is really the only stop along MLK where there is real development.

Imagine a light rail that crosses all the super developed sections North of downtown. North Seattle (north of the ship canal) is begging for better transit. The infrastructure is already there.

But according to the plan there will be minimal stations (2 in u-district, 1 in roosevelt, 1 in northgate) and thats it. It really is a shame. Seattle has the potential to be a unique world-class city, but the lack of true transit is holding it back, especially the Northwest neighborhoods where much of the city's heart lies.

[irishimm]

Seattle is the quintessentiall city that needs mass transit. There are so many neighborhoods with walkable cores that are isolated from each other. Aside from the downtown and inner ring neighborhoods (like Belltown, Queen Anne, Capital Hill, Pioneer Square, etc.) there are numerous areas, like Fremont, Ballard, U-District, Central District, Eastlake, Southlake, Greenlake, Ravenna, Roosevelt, Walingford, Phinney Ridge, Greenwood, etc. etc. THAT NEED TO BE CONNECTED!

But today the light rail opened and it goes from Westlake to Tukwila, really not touching most of the areas that actually need it. Much of it goes through the Rainier Valley. Now, don't get me wrong, people in the Rainier Valley deserve light rail as much as anyone else, but this is not where the bottlenecks are! Also, let's be honest here, the Raineir Valley is one of Seattle's main ghettos. It's eclectic and interesting, but its also run-down and under-developed. Columbia City is really the only stop along MLK where there is real development.

Imagine a light rail that crosses all the super developed sections North of downtown. North Seattle (north of the ship canal) is begging for better transit. The infrastructure is already there.

But according to the plan there will be minimal stations (2 in u-district, 1 in roosevelt, 1 in northgate) and thats it. It really is a shame. Seattle has the potential to be a unique world-class city, but the lack of true transit is holding it back, especially the Northwest neighborhoods where much of the city's heart lies.

[US-Traveller]

Yes, Seattle and most western cities need more extensive mass-transit. Portland is a pioneer in regards to mass-transit.

[Radnor]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I think its great they don't have the parking lots.

I agree. People who complain about parking are missing the point of this light rail line. If you want to ride the line and don't live near a station you can either take a bus, have someone drop you off, or suck it up and park at Tukwila where there is a parking lot. Simple as that. It wasn't designed to add more traffic to neighborhoods.

The entitlement of some people amazes me. Anything the city does either has to serve them 100% or it's a "useless waste of taxpayer money".

[Radnor]

Seattle's ultimate goal is to connect downtown with SeaTac and all neighborhoods in-between. In time I imagine the line will start to increase in popularity and extra legs will be added. Even now there are plans to add tracks over to Bellevue and Redmond, so as long as there is public support -- as well as money, and of course available space -- it might eventually make its way west.

[eskercurve]

It will take time and money, something lost among politicians and the public in general. That's why it is so befuddled to most.

I disagree that these cores are disconnected. Take a look at the bus lines. Utilize the King Co. trip planner, adn you'll see what I mean. Yeah it's not ideal, but give it time.

[Under The Clouds]

First off, no initial line is going to serve every neighborhood--that has to come with expansions of the system. If someone's support of light rail is contingent upon whether their area directly benefits from it, than no lines would ever be built.

Second, this first line roughly tracks along I-5 between downtown and the airport. It is also the low hanging fruit of potential corridors. MLK is flat and low density, and south of there to Tukwila is very low density, meaning that there are fewer land owners to deal with and much lower mitigation and construction costs. Plus, along MLK especially, there will great opportunities for denser redevelopment in the future. In contrast, a starter rail line between downtown and Ballard would have to be entirely underground and would would be much more expensive than this first line. It would also have a lot of technical challenges that would dwarf what Sound Transit encountered in this initial line (the Beacon Hill tunnel was a good first tunnel for the agency to cut its teeth on. ST will shortly start a tunnel from the current downtown tunnel to Husky Stadium, via Capitol Hill--a much more ambitious project.)

Finally, "a light rail line that crosses all the super developed sections of north Seattle" would be impossible--you'd need more than one line for this, possibly three. And the infrastructure isn't already there. Rail transit could not be built at grade in North Seattle, it would have to be a subway (elevated won't work either, because the ship canal is a navagable body of water that has to be cleared without a draw bridge. Steel wheels on steel rails cannot climb that high over that short a distance to reach the necessary height.)

I think Sound Transit made the best location choice based on financial and political constraints. A starter line between a downtown and its airport is actually an ambitious project--a lot of cities with rail still don't have that. I think the public support that builds for light rail as a result of this initial line will be critical to expand light rail to other communities.

[irishimm]

Point well taken. But...

I guess what I meant by infrastructure was "transit-oriented development". There are way more neighborhood hubs, and North of downtown is generally far more developed (but with disconnected neighborhoods). But you're right, the light-rail infrastructure isn't there.

What Im bummed about, though, is that even the future plans only include 1 stop in Capitol Hill, 2 in the U-district, 1 in Roosevelt, and 1 in Northgate. What about Eastlake, Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, Greenlake, Greenwood, etc.? I know it would take time, but shouldn't there at least be plans to eventually integrate these areas into the light rail system as well?

As an aside, I actually like the streetcar plan to integrate some of these areas. A lot of people say streetcar is just like bus, but this is untrue. Anyways whose ridden the South Lake Union Trolley can atest to that. It can bypass some intersections, making it more timely and more consistant. It's far more comfortable, and a much smoother ride than the bus. Also, the permanent laid tracks encourage development far more than a random bus stop that could be moved or discontinued. It's also a million times more fun and convenient than taking the bus, and for those reasons alone would increase ridership significantly.

Originally Posted by Under The Clouds

First off, no initial line is going to serve every neighborhood--that has to come with expansions of the system. If someone's support of light rail is contingent upon whether their area directly benefits from it, than no lines would ever be built.

Second, this first line roughly tracks along I-5 between downtown and the airport. It is also the low hanging fruit of potential corridors. MLK is flat and low density, and south of there to Tukwila is very low density, meaning that there are fewer land owners to deal with and much lower mitigation and construction costs. Plus, along MLK especially, there will great opportunities for denser redevelopment in the future. In contrast, a starter rail line between downtown and Ballard would have to be entirely underground and would would be much more expensive than this first line. It would also have a lot of technical challenges that would dwarf what Sound Transit encountered in this initial line (the Beacon Hill tunnel was a good first tunnel for the agency to cut its teeth on. ST will shortly start a tunnel from the current downtown tunnel to Husky Stadium, via Capitol Hill--a much more ambitious project.)

Finally, "a light rail line that crosses all the super developed sections of north Seattle" would be impossible--you'd need more than one line for this, possibly three. And the infrastructure isn't already there. Rail transit could not be built at grade in North Seattle, it would have to be a subway (elevated won't work either, because the ship canal is a navagable body of water that has to be cleared without a draw bridge. Steel wheels on steel rails cannot climb that high over that short a distance to reach the necessary height.)

I think Sound Transit made the best location choice based on financial and political constraints. A starter line between a downtown and its airport is actually an ambitious project--a lot of cities with rail still don't have that. I think the public support that builds for light rail as a result of this initial line will be critical to expand light rail to other communities.

[irishimm]

I think you're confused about this...connecting downtown with sea-tac and all the neighborhoods in-between is not their ultimate goal, and it would be a silly one. It's a start, but most of the city's population centers are north, west, and east of downtown.

Originally Posted by Radnor

Seattle's ultimate goal is to connect downtown with SeaTac and all neighborhoods in-between. In time I imagine the line will start to increase in popularity and extra legs will be added. Even now there are plans to add tracks over to Bellevue and Redmond, so as long as there is public support -- as well as money, and of course available space -- it might eventually make its way west.