Give Input2As Martin first mentioned last month, Sound Transit has been reaching out and asking for input on their Long Range Plan Update.  Today is the last day for that.

For an in-depth look at what this all about, Ben posted a great write up on the whole process following one of the Seattle Open Houses.

Basically, for ST3 and ST4 Sound Transit will pull projects from the vision laid out in this Long Range Plan.  If there is something you would like to see the agency do, let them know TODAY, so it can become a part of that vision.

At the very least take the 5 minute survey.

18 Replies to “Last Day to Submit Public Comment on Sound Transit’s Long Range Plan Update”

  1. I highly encourage anyone/everyone to comment in favor of including a grade-separated Highway 99 North corridor in the LRP. (I’ve already submitted the online survey and a written comment, and talked to staff at an event last week. It’s on their radar but they are making no guarantees.)

    A north/south corridor serving downtown, SLU, Fremont, Phinney, Greenwood, and Bitter Lake would cover almost all of the densest areas in the region that don’t already have HCT under construction or in the existing LRP. If built well, it could have huge ridership from day one and meaningfully improve mobility for a huge number of people.

    1. Been there, Done that!
      Exactly 21 years ago to the day, this piece ran in the Times rebutting then Chief Engineer Don Davis’ misrepresentation of the Rhododendron Line.
      David Peckarsky wrote the rebuttal to Metro’s (where all this began) unflattering view of running light rail down Hwy99, preferring to follow the Bart model along freeways. So not much has changed in the last two decades, unless you count a bankrupt Metro and light rail system that is only 1/3 complete and billions over original estimates that nixed the 99 ideas. The “Rhody Line” would have been completed by now and adding additional feeder lines would be under construction, rather than looking two more decades away for a complete line from Everett to Tacoma.
      We can’t roll back the clocks, but only live with our choices made back then.

      1. Oops, looking at the wrong dateline, so nearly 22 years ago.
        I remain a skeptic Seattle has the capacity or political will to do as Ben and Martin wish, but hey, it’s good to get all the required citizen meetings out of the way early on.

  2. I proposed many of the same things that have been discussed here. But I also proposed something that I don’t believe has been discussed: Replacing Metro Route #8 with a subway. It wouldn’t follow that exact line, of course (it wouldn’t have to). But this just seems like a place where a subway makes sense. Their is a lot of dense housing and office space in a relatively short distance, making it ideal from a cost standpoint. Plus, the alternatives along here (by bus, car, bike or foot) are extremely slow. Buses and cars get stuck in traffic. Bikes have to deal with big hills. Both bikers and pedestrians have to deal with obstacles like I-5.

    1. The issue with digging a subway to replace the 8 is that, if north-south lines to Ballard (stopping in Uptown) and 99 (stopping in SLU) were both built, the “8” subway would only save a marginal amount of time compared with subway trips with transfers downtown (which would be much faster than today’s 8).

      That said, it would be an opportunity to fix the worst mistake in U-Link: the lack of a station in the general vicinity of 15th/John.

      1. Right. But that assumes that both north-south lines are built. It also assume that one station serving each is adequate. I don’t think it is. Along with Uptown and SLU, I think you would want to have a station at the east side of the Seattle Center.

        Like you said, though, a station around 15th/John would be very good. From there, you can connect to both existing rail lines.

      2. I just realized that last sentence is a bit ambiguous. What I mean is that you would connect to both existing rail lines after 15th and John. In other words, the Judkins Park station and the Mount Baker station. It would, of course, connect to the Capitol Hill station.

      3. David’s right – most 8 trips will disappear with a fully grade separated Ballard option. Since a fully grade separated Ballard option is on the table, fighting for something else *instead* of fighting for Ballard doesn’t make sense.

      4. Right Ben, but if we build a line to Ballard via the west side, then it won’t serve SLU. If we build it to serve SLU, then it skips west side (site of two possible stations, one at Uptown and one at the Center). If we build both (which would take a very long time) then the west line would still probably skip the Center (unless it swerved way over to cover it). At best, we would have to wait until we get both lines, which would be ways into the future.

        Remember, we are talking about studying this. Maybe it makes sense to build a west side line (that hits the dense part of Queen Anne as well as the Center) and a highway 99 line, which covers SLU. But one way or another, the second line won’t be built for a while. If so, I would like to compare this second north-south line (the third north-south line in our system) with an east-west line a bit north of Denny.

        Or, we just build gondolas.

    2. Regardless of the solution I completely agree that the east-west corridor on Denny between the water and Capitol Hill should be considered a corridor of regional significance for ST investment where standard bus service is unacceptable.

      1. +1. I can think of few things that would improve quality of life in central Seattle more than reconnecting the grid between Downtown, Capitol Hill, and SLU. We don’t need an east-west subway on Denny, but we do need to close the Yale on-ramp and rebuild the street grid (preferably via a lid) across I-5 at Minor, Yale, John, Thomas, Harrison, Republican, and Mercer. It’s already lidded from Seneca to Pike, why not from Marion to Mercer?

      2. I agree that extending the lid is a great idea. I think we should extended it a long time ago. But that wouldn’t really solve the problem. This problem can’t be solved by more roads, let alone roads that will probably never be arterials. If we add a lid, it will probably provide pedestrian access. But it will still be steep, so it won’t make it easy for someone, say, in South Lake Union, to walk up the Capitol Hill station (you might as well walk to the Westlake station). Furthermore, people won’t want cars driving down streets that are very quiet right now, so I doubt that folks winding around various neighborhood side streets will relieve that much pressure on the area.

        A cap on the freeway would, however, make the problem much easier to see. While driving along I-5, or walking next to it, it is pretty obvious that there are wall to wall big buildings either being built, or already built, all along this corridor. These people deserve access to good subways as much as people in Ballard, Tukwilla or wherever else we build it. More so, really. Rail is most successful when it works within a dense area, and this a very dense area. Each stop would serve lots of people, just like the downtown stations do. Like downtown, these stations could be fairly close together, and still be extremely popular. It also makes sense financially to build shorter like this, as opposed to really long ones, because it is cheaper (assuming they are all underground).

        It’s about two miles from Uptown to Seattle Central. You could have four stops through there; one on the west side of Uptown (where there is great density); the Seattle Center (a major destination); the middle of South Lake Union; then the Capital Hill Station. Likewise, it is another couple miles from the Capitol Hill station to Judkins Park and onto Mount Baker. There is room in there for a couple more great stations. With the exception of the Seattle Center station, every one of those stations could compete with the busiest of stations in our system. And the Seattle Center station could end up being just as popular (and would undoubtedly be popular on summer weekends).

        There is a bias towards distance that is backwards. We somehow feel that those who live further away need high speed rail more so than those that live close by. Sorry, but I disagree. Generally speaking, the areas close by are dense, and will remain dense. Their traffic problems can’t be solved by a bus. On the other hand, stations further away can get decent mobility by frequent service from the bus to “the spine”. For example, Lake City Way is a step down in density from the areas I mentioned, but is rapidly catching up. It might make sense to connect it by rail to the system. But if we build rapid bus transport from there to a station at 130th, it would be a huge improvement. 130th is a bit busy during rush hour, but it is never that bad. There just aren’t that many people that live close to there. Denny, on the other hand, will always be a mess.

      3. I disagree. Having spent a lot of time in Denny Way congestion on and off the 8, I’ve asked some really smart people from WSDOT and elsewhere about the congestion on Denny and how to relieve it. The basic problem is that it’s the only east-west street crossing the whole (or most of) the city for too great a distance from the north and south, and it borders the totally different downtown grid. Between the meeting of two grids along Denny, and the barriers posed by SR-99 and I-5, it constitutes a breakdown of the grid which leads to failure. We can’t really rebuild the downtown grid, but we can reconnect parallel streets across 99 and 5 to restore the organic distributive characteristic of grids. Reconnecting Harrison, Thomas, and John Streets across 99 will help. It will give people alternatives to Denny for getting between SLU and Queen Anne. The problem is the barrier still posed by I-5. If these long range planning discussions are intended in the vein of creative thinking and no bad ideas, and we’re already hearing of ideas like gondolas or a costly subway under Denny (and let’s remember SDOT considered a streetcar here but nixed it for the steep grade), I think it would be folly not to study and cost out the price of reconnecting some of the streets across I-5. Sure, it’d be in the billions, but so would a Queen Anne-Capitol Hill subway. We should find out which is cheaper and more effective. Imagine a better performing Denny Way, or a road diet there, or rush hour BAT lanes.

        We live in a context of limited financial resources–and the most regressive tax structure of any state. Several thousand people are homeless each night in King County. The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans are almost totally unfunded. We can’t always afford everything we want, so we have to prioritize. If a subway is cheaper, great! I’m just saying we should study all plausible options.

      4. “people won’t want cars driving down streets that are very quiet right now,”

        Especially since some of those streets have traffic circles to discourage through driving.

      5. A simple staircase up and over I-5 would help a lot and shouldn’t cost anywhere near $1 billion. Yes, it would be steep, but people go up similarly-steep staircases all the time in Queen Anne. A gondola would also do wonders for mobility in the area.

        Cars and bikes, though, can just go around. If you don’t want to deal with Denny Way congestion, leave the car at home and take the gondola.

Comments are closed.