As PubliCola reported in November, the Bellevue City Council now has a four-member majority in favor of revisiting the alignment of light rail through downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit has already adopted its preferred alignment, a surface route through the middle of downtown Bellevue, but Bellevue council members want the agency to look at two other alternatives the agency has already studied and rejected.
The first is the so-called “Vision Line”—a route that would run along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way and I-405. Sound Transit rejected the “Vision Line” because it would run far to the east of downtown homes and businesses and bypass the south downtown Bellevue park-and-ride, depressing ridership compared to all the other alternatives.
The second is a tunnel through downtown, which would minimize street disruption but cost as much as $500 million more than Sound Transit budgeted in the light rail measure approved by voters last year.
The first sign of what the new Bellevue City Council might mean for light rail came during the council’s December 7 meeting, when council freshman Kevin Wallace introduced a letter he wanted to send to the Sound Transit board “to educate the board about the new views of the council” regarding the rail alignment through Bellevue. Wallace’s surprise proposal infuriated veteran council members, who said that never in their tenure had a council member introduced such a substantive proposal with so little notice.
The letter identifies the “Vision Line” as the council’s new “preferred alternative,” arguing that it would be less expensive and create “far fewer impacts to Bellevue’s roads, businesses and private property.”
The letter also expresses tentative support for studying a tunnel through downtown Bellevue, provided Bellevue doesn’t have to pay the extra cost. “If Sound Transit determines [the downtown tunnel] is preferable to Vision Line, Bellevue looks forward to cooperating with Sound Transit to reduce construction costs and jointly advocate for funding from other sources.”
At last week’s council meeting, council member Claudia Balducci and Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger seemed the most indignant at Wallace’s last-minute motion to approve the letter, which they said they hadn’t even had a chance to read.
“I’ve been on the council six years now and I’ve never had us add as substantive of an issue to the agenda as this one, on the fly, to be taken up, studied, and voted on the same night without prior public notice,” Balducci said. “There are people on many sides of all of these alignments who have pros and cons who would be, I think, stunned and really upset at us if we just made this decision without having some opportunity for them to [speak] as well.”
Balducci’s statement was echoed by Degginger and John Chelminiak, who told Wallace that it was “not a good start” to his council career “to spring this on council members.”
Ultimately, Wallace backed off from his proposal, after his two vocal allies, Don Davidson and Conrad Lee, said they would support holding off. However, at its meeting three days later, the Sound Transit board agreed to do new cost and ridership estimates for Wallace’s “Vision Line” proposal.
Balducci, a staunch light-rail supporter, is reportedly in line to replace Kirkland city council member Mary-Alice Burleigh on the Sound Transit board, which would give Bellevue its first seat on the board since former Bellevue city council member Connie Marshall retired two years ago.
However, the Bellevue City Council itself could still stand in the way of light rail expansion on the Eastside, by holding up permits or, as Wallace has done, requesting study after study from Sound Transit to delay the project. (The “Vision Line” study will probably take a month or two). For the first time in years, Bellevue has some leverage to thwart Sound Transit’s plans, and Wallace’s move last week shows that they’re willing to use it.
