Orphan Road - Rail - Comments

Oops...my mistake. I'm

joshkelley — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:17:05 -0700

Oops...my mistake. I'm dating myself, but I wasn't a voter at the time, so really didn't care. For some reason, I was "hearing" Sound Move and thinking Transit Now. Don't ask why.

Joshua Kelley

If KC Councilmember Larry

Oran — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:04:28 -0700

If KC Councilmember Larry Phillips, a strong supporter of light rail, runs for King County Executive against Sims and gets elected and Prop 1 fails, we might see a that as a possibility.

I guess there's always the

Frank — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:52:53 -0700

I guess there's always the option that Metro takes over the light rail and starts planning (and funding) its own King-County-centric extensions. Though that'd never happen until Sims leaves office. Add 10-20 years to the timeline.

Either way, if Prop 1 fails

jessejb — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:21:13 -0700

Either way, if Prop 1 fails its time to look for a new city to spend my young years in. Seattle will have proved that the bitter eldery anti-everything nimbys have this city by the balls. Good luck attracting a young, dynamic workforce that demands cities with real city transit.

Although I expect it to pass, soooo....

Sound Move was the name of

chrisb — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:54:30 -0700

Sound Move was the name of the 1996 plan that was approved by voters.

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)

This is actually a tectonic

serial catowner — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:22:40 -0700

This is actually a tectonic shift and if the Dems don't wake up and smell the coffee they'll get badly outflanked here.

For many years the Republicans nourished a virulent anti-rail hatred, and a subset was the people who hoped to end up owning the rail line that ran by or next to their property.

Now we have a largely Republican initiative to establish north-south collateral circulation on the Eastside. This is just a good idea made even better by the 'Pearl District nature' of where the line goes, to former distribution centers or other land that has been held off the market (or underused).

I'm hoping the Dems can rise to the occasion.

It might be too massive, but

citruspastels — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:29:48 -0700

It might be too massive, but I have a feeling they are gearing up for a monorail route redux with light rail instead. That and some streetcar routes, specifically First Hill, Central District, U-District and possibly Lower Queen Anne- places with tons of development potential.

I am guessing Northgate/Eastside will be voted on in 2010 with a regional package. They need to be a part of a regional system to be successful.

I don't know about the

serial catowner — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:32:34 -0700

I don't know about the 'insane' part, but...I doubt the Nickels group has any real plans at this point, other than resisting a straight rebuild of the viaduct.

Part of the problem is the use by West Seattle people of the viaduct as a freeway. I don't think this should be confused, as it seems to be, with getting to Ballard. If a West Seattle-Ballard demographic could be demonstrated and quantified, that would be great- but I haven't seen that done yet.

Equally baffling is the insistence by Seattle legislators that rebuilding the viaduct is essential to truck transport. Basically a lot of heavy trucks are excluded from the viaduct, the Battery St tunnel, and 99 from the tunnel to about 85th. However, if you watch the viaduct from the ferry terminal, there is heavy truck traffic, so their concerns may be justified, if exaggerated.

As for the city 'streetcar plan', to my way of thinking that's a sop to distract and amuse people vaguely enthusiastic about streetcars. The consistent failure to include a possible line in the Westlake N parking strip indicates to me that nobody is really thinking seriously there.

Some lines, such as an extension out Westlake N to SPU, or the waterfront line serving parks, Aquarium, and cruise and ferry terminals, practically map themselves. Neither of these lines show up on the city 'map'.

I do get a good chuckle at the thought of taking a streetcar from the north end of the Aurora Bridge to Fremont- that would be a thrilling ride! Right near the south end of the bridge, just to the west, is a little N-S street that goes down the hill past the Seattle Country Day School. Find that and take your visitor to Seattle down it- I guarantee they will have a new respect for our hills!

I'd be ok with light rail

Matt the Engineer — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:28:28 -0700

I'd be ok with light rail along that corridor. Maybe a cut-and-cap tunnel along the waterfront? This would allow speeds to remain high, but wouldn't be as wide a tunnel as burying 99 would have been. It could run at-grade along 99, but couldn't really serve Ballard without slowing down. Plus you'd want to end right at the beginning of W Seattle, so that it can keep on schedule.

Are you sure about the "billions" figure? What did that include? I see this as only adding tracks to existing corridors that are already city or state owned. The only significant path construction would be transitioning from the waterfront to the tunnel.

Also, I'm not sure about the [don't build it because people will use it] argument. It's a great reason to switch to light rail, but if light rail's unaffordable then a well used streetcar is much preferable to nothing.

Simply put: A streetcar,

BenSchiendelman — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:01:20 -0700

Simply put: A streetcar, even a 33m Citadis tram like those here in Strasbourg (where I am right now), would be quickly overwhelmed with riders. You'd see crush loads within months.

This corridor needs solid intermediate-high capacity transit, as recommended eight years ago in the 2000 City of Seattle ICT study. Remember that the monorail was to be high capacity - there's no point in spending billions (and that ICT study says those corridors would be a billion each, in 2000 dollars, even for streetcar) and not even getting decent capacity.

Right, but in a very short

serial catowner — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:45:28 -0800

Right, but in a very short time we're going to hear very loud demands to add more coal and nuclear power plants- and threats that what we want to do won't be affordable if we don't build more polluting energy sources.

I can see it now- "Here's your HSR, and oh, by the way, we need to build a new ten gigawatt coal-burning power plant in Colorado to provide the power."

When you're planning for the future, plan for the future.

Incidentally, Churchill's World Crisis has an interesting discussion of the Royal Navy changing from coal to oil.

Ha!

Frank — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:28:36 -0800

That's what I get for multitasking. I've fixed it. Thanks!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/342990_rail11.html