Orphan Road - LINK - Comments

Why did they choose not to

JoshMahar — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:25:48 -0700

Why did they choose not to do a North Cap. Hill/Montlake stop and what are the possiblities of putting one in if or when the area densifies (although North 15th is pretty crackin already, who doesn't love Hopvine)?

Perhaps it does. In a

joshkelley — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:44:52 -0700

Perhaps it does. In a previous version, I had it going to Redmond, but saw only 9 stations on the current map at ST. Going out to Overlake TC gave me 10, so I just dropped the last one.

I think the new East Link

rizzuhjj — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:11:30 -0700

I think the new East Link still goes to the Overlake Transit Center, which for crazy reasons is different than Overlake Hospital and Overlake Village. (http://www.future.soundtransit.org/news_pr_2008_07_10.aspx)

What "it" are you referring

BenSchiendelman — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:30:18 -0700

What "it" are you referring to?

East Link as a whole gets 45,000, assuming you've also built North Link. OTC to downtown Redmond extension gets you 5,000-7,000, I thought.

I think it does. The EIS

bgtothen — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:10:45 -0700

I think it does. The EIS said that it would add 45,000 to the daily ridership.

I agree. Hey, one more

BenSchiendelman — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:22:03 -0700

I agree.

Hey, one more question for you. Does your East Link terminate at Overlake Transit Center, or all the way into downtown Redmond? OTC should look better, and that's what we'll see this year if we get the 0.5% package.

Also, note that if you do, the Bel-Red corridor is set to get 10 story height limits around stations if East Link is built. You'll see better ridership there.

Yeah. I pointed that out in

bgtothen — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:11:35 -0700

Yeah. I pointed that out in a discussion a while ago. I'm sure with gas prices how they are ridership will be a pleasant surprise when it opens. I think that LINK will have a transformational effect on how we talk about transit.

I want to note that actuals

BenSchiendelman — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:46:56 -0700

I want to note that actuals on Skytrain can't really accurately be compared to the federal modeling we use for Link. Link ridership projections assume no TOD, no new high density around stations. Those 1500 Othello units alone will drive up Link use considerably, and that's only the beginning - whereas a lot of Skytrain development is already mature.

As I recall the airport

serial catowner — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:09:25 -0700

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.

I think the real take-away

serial catowner — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:55:09 -0700

I think the real take-away here is that there are peak periods. Damn, I'm so old I can remember when the streetcar started running and all the critics were saying "It's so slow people will just walk" and "Nobody's going to ride that to get to their job". A 30% increase in patronage and clearly visible peak periods won't shut them up, but now the rest of us can comfortably ignore them.

As far as I'm concerned, filling the fallow land within the city limits is way better than spurring development further out.

//obviously only true as

Matt the Engineer — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:09:32 -0700

//obviously only true as long as you can afford to keep filling the tank// I'd even disagree with that. Transit-oriented development provides options. You can still have a car if you want, but you also have access to cheaper/faster transit.

Carless, the airport station

CJH — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:02:34 -0700

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?).

bgtothen has nailed it, I

Carless in Seattle — Sun, 18 May 2008 08:29:26 -0700

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.

The reason that the routes

bgtothen — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:13:56 -0700

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.

Good Q Matt... my guess is

Frank — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:38:15 -0700

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.