You are hereBlogs / Matt the Engineer's blog / Questioning ST Design Decisions
Questioning ST Design Decisions
I didn't live in Seattle when Sound Transit planned the route of the light rail, so stop me if this has already been debated to death. Also, I know it's far too late to change anything. I'm just curious.
Can someone tell me why, exactly, Link takes it's expensive and circuitus path? Considering it will take as long (or longer) as it currently does via bus to get from downtown to the airport, this would not seem like a great idea.
One would think a straight line would be the easiest, cheapest, and fastest route. This would take us through some industrial areas, which would seem to have inexpensive land. It would also drive by Boeing Field, which could be useful if it ever runs as a commercial airport. Plus it seems like there would have been little/no boring reqired.
Yes, the route drives through a few communities, but this seems like a reason to not put light rail there - you end up stopping at stoplights. Building communities around transit seems like a much better idea.
I imagine a strong difference between city-based transit, that tries to conform to neighborhoods, and regional transit, that should be built for speed. This is clearly regional transit, but seems to be designed as city transit.
- Matt the Engineer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Good Q Matt... my guess is there are a couple of reasons, and they both relate to federal grant money:
1. The ridership would have been too low (Downtown -> SoDo -> Airport = no residential neighborhoods).
2. The feds give extra points to projects that "revitalize" low-income neighborhoods, so going through the Rainier Valley made it more attractive for funding.
The reason that the routes is circuitous is because the assumption about the route choice is wrong. The point of the original LINK segment is not to get to the airport, the point is to connect as many people as possible for the lowest cost possible to light rail. The rainier valley has 2 of metro's 5 highest ridership routes and LINK capitalizes on that fact. As Frank said above it also allows for TOD that would not be possible with other routes.
The point of transit it not to maximize mobility but rather to maximize accessibility. Who cares how fast you can get somewhere if it isn't were you want to go? Maximize speed and you increase mobility at the expense of accessibility. The opposite is true as well. Every mode has to balance these opposing objectives.
bgtothen has nailed it, I think. If you view the airport as a major employement center like Overlake and Bellevue and Downtown Seattle (which it absolutely is), Link is running through many of the neighborhoods where airport employees live. Add in that the Link station is (if I recall correctly) at least a mile from the airport proper, it's not really designed to get travellers to and from the airport. I think the airport expected travellers to drive, not take mass transit.
The other bit is, as I recall when I was researching this last year, political blackmail by Tukwila. The city council voted against the original route which bypassed the South Center business district, and threatened $500 million in federal financing. Without approval from Tukwila, Sound Transit couldn't complete the route. If I recall correctly, ST had little choice but to change the route the way Tukwila wanted, adding a bunch of time onto the travel time and securing that financing.
blog.carlessinseattle.us
Carless, the airport station is going to be right next to the current parking structure - certainly not a mile from the terminal (which I think most people consider to be the airport proper)! You can already see it taking shape if you take the 194 to the airport (http://www.soundtransit.org/x1173.xml shows its exact location).
Tukwila's city government is notoriously corrupt (I suppose that's what happens when you're a major commercial center but no one lives there!) but it wasn't exactly political blackmail since they didn't get what they really wanted - a stop at Southcenter - which would indeed have been a huge route diversion. The current stop is a over a mile (and a trip over the freeway) from Southcenter in the center of a smaller commercial and residential center. It was a bit of a diversion from a direct Boeing Field to Sea-Tac route but not enough to substantially increase travel time. The real problem with the Tukwila stop is that it cost buckets of money to build an extra station (was this one reason Boeing Field was deferred?).
As I recall the airport thing, after 9/11 the Port said they had to rethink security, a new baggage handling building was under construction, so ST dead-ended the line a mile from the Terminal to avoid all the hassle. Then later somebody figured out it really would be smarter to let the LINK reach the terminal. Who knew.
This is an old thread but everything old is new again, right? bgtothen did a great job of explaining and in it's twisted sort of way it all makes sense. And, while it takes longer now to get from downtown to the airport in a few more years traffic will certainly reverse that stat ;-) The most important thing with respect to airport travel is; Link involves no transfers or possibility of getting on the wrong bus, trip times are consistent and trains provide a comfortable "upscale" mode of travel which will appeal to businessmen, convention goers and tourists.
Although I understand the reasons for the airport route and can see already how it is having a positive effect on shaping development along the route similar logic should not be applied to East Link. Don't expect a lot of mixed income housing to sprout up around south Bellevue. Don't expect the typical Bellevue Broker to walk to the train in the rain. And if you think securing ROW in the Rainier Valley was expensive.... hold on to your wallets. Of course Bellevue is already suffering tunnel envy which may make the current route proposals seem like chump change!