Now I want readers to weigh-in in favor of the (CLICK! >) L2 Main (solid line) Alternative option. Then I want you to think how to connect it to the Seattle Streetcar Network. I dare you to not get excited about the possibilities.
What is obvious is extension of the Ballard and Zoo streetcar lines so they go up 15th NW and Aurora, like so:
Larger
I envision an Aurora line ending at the N 130th Street light rail station, and a 15th NW/Broadview line ending at the light rail station at N 145th Street. And along the way, there would be much-needed Smart Growth and redevelopment incentives in Crown Hill, Aurora Avenue, Greenwood, and Broadview.
Yeah -- I'm all for it. We're making the decisions now, and modern 'pod taxi' technologies are not yet ready for this level of urban service (although a Vectus mini-metro could be ideal for West Seattle).
Surface light rail through Rainier Valley is the relevant precedent. To put light rail to Lynnwood but bypass northwest Seattle (especially underdeveloped AURORA, which is an urban embarrassment when compared with Shoreline's Aurora and Highway 99 in Lynnwood) would be an insult-level oversight lasting for generations.
This isn't a threat or anything, but I remember another Southeast Seattle precedent -- 'Judkins Rejected.' Just saying.
Some notes on tonight's meeting:
The staff presentation contains subtle language pushing forward of L1 (as cheapest) and L3 (second cheapest) over L2 (might make future Seattle-Everett service too slow). They acknowledge the redevelopment superiority of L2, and that's what we have to fight for.
Maybe it has been too long since I've been to a meeting like this, but man were some of the audience questions irritating.
- Ma'am, if you're worried about the noise of L2/L3 electric trains, running every four minutes, at rush hour, on SR-99, in Shoreline, then you should think about moving to the country. You really don't want to be living near other people in the Pacific Northwest's biggest metro area.
- Sir, projections are just that, they aren't promises, Sound Transit alone can't guarantee the infinite macro and microeconomic decisions that aggregate to transit ridership. But the region is slated to grow by over a million people by 2040, so let me assure you ridership will be high.
- Different sir, your idea that Link and Swift BRT overlapping for a mile or two (L2/L3) is unacceptably redundant argues for monomodal corridors. Which is the status quo. Which is inadequate.
- Same different sir, not everyone is so obviously OCD as you that they would be willing to walk a half-mile to use L1 on a regular basis.
- Different different sir, if trains can run every four minutes in each direction, why would we need more than one set of tracks in each direction?
- Does only one of you really care about redevelopment and Smart Growth???
Bottom line folks, is that you're going to benefit from North Corridor whether you think you will use it you not. An L1 alignment serves mainly CBD commuting and does little for the outlying neighborhoods (you) who are going to be taxed for it. For the last six decades our transportation policy has been geared toward making driving easier. It's time. For the pendulum. To swing. Back.
Related document: 2011 Transit Master Plan draft summary
It was expected this report would not be aggressive enough, and it's true: only the U District, Ballard and Fremont get rapid streetcar. West Seattle and North-of-North 65th are effectively treated as though they are suburbs. This signals Seattle is too large (at 90-ish sq. mi.) for the amount we are willing (or able) to tax ourselves for necessary infrastructure (just as in the case of sidewalks, treated budget-wise as though they are luxuries). In the short term this means district elections for city council, to help ensure every part of Seattle is treated equitably. In the long term we need state-level tax reform & fairness -- an income tax, reduction of the sales tax, and some sort of standard deduction for property taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment