Bellevue Council Votes for South Section of “Vision Line”

I live in Seattle and I worked in the business park right next to Mercer Slough a few years ago. I've also worked in downtown Bellevue and on Lake Bellevue. The line they're rejecting looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread, while the B7 alignment looks useless. And running a train through the Mercer Slough is an awful idea. Not quite as bad as what the 520 does to the Arboretum, but the same type of discussion.
-
Shame on them!

Since Bellevue apparently want transit to be successful in their community, why are we spending billions to build it?

Sorry… I meant to write that they “don't” want it to be successful, apparently.

I'm unclear on who has the final decision here. What impact does this have on where the light rail will actually get built? What authority come with this vote by the council? (It's clearly a bad decision from regional and transit perspectives.)

The solution is to build a tunnel through Bellevue. I believe the Seattle tunnel was paid by the whole county, perhaps we should do the same for Bellevue. The at grade section in RV will forever make it a slow line for regional travel, let's not do the same thing in Bellevue.

I'm completely mystified at this decision. In what possible world do these city leaders think it's to their advantage to make it more difficult for people to reach their commercial center?

Also, I'm quite sure I remember them pitching a fit a couple years back when Transit was proposing to put the east side extension of light rail over the 520 bridge and follow it out to Redmond. They raised holy hell at the idea that downtown Bellevue wouldn't get light rail service, and now that they have it they want to shove it off in a corner. I say we go back to the 520 plan where it bypasses them completely.

So there's no recourse over this corporatist stupidity? That's it?

It's because major Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman is adamantly Anti-Transit and put up major money to get a fellow developer (Wallace) elected to the city council, giving the anti-transit folks the council majority. Their goal is to keep light rail as far away from Bellevue as possible. Bellevue elected multi-millionaire developers to make civic decisions. Awesome.

It's just a recommendation. Sound Transit has complete authority to build wherever they want.

OctopusFire -

“Bellevue elected multi-millionaire developers to make civic decisions. Awesome.”

as opposed to Seattle ? Oh, wait that's right. In Seattle the multi-millionaire developers, though they make all the civic decisions, they are unelected. Seattle continues to hold the moral high ground.

I hate to say this, but… link with that information? If that's the case and the Freeman Council's vote was pure symbolic, why are all the local pro-transit people bonkers over this?

That is incorrect. Under Sound Transit's sub-area equity rules, taxes collected in one sub-area cannot (except for a few exceptions) be spent in another sub-area.

There should be almost zero in Bellevue taxes being spent on anything having to do with any part of Sound Transit acquiring the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.

If I'm not mistaken, in this case Seattle is very much pro-rail. You seem to imply that all developers are the same, but if that's the case then it would seem to me that the Seattle version is a very different breed.

Yes, Seattle is very much pro-rail and look at all the development it has brought. Why just the other day two more nail shops opened near the central link.

I have a joke for you : knock, knock (who's there ?) if you are talking about any development activity along the central link – NO ONE.

Shocking, that in the middle of a massive recession, there has been no development around the brand new light rail system. Your expert analysis is flawless.

How much did Eastside residents contribute to the original construction of the DSTT? That came out of Metro's budget, didn't it?

I don't have the link you probably want at my fingertips, but it's fairly common knowledge. Just look at the language used to discuss the process. From today's Times piece (my emphasis):

“After a contentious debate, the Bellevue City Council reversed a decision from last year about light rail in South Bellevue and voted Monday to _recommend_ a light-rail route that would run parallel to I-90 instead of running up Bellevue Way Southeast.”

From the Times article on the Bellevue council dropping the Mercer Slough option last week:

“The Sound Transit board, the final arbiter on light-rail routes, already has endorsed a Bellevue Way route, and has completed about 15 percent of the engineering.”

From the ST page discussing downtown routing options:

“The Sound Transit Board will use the report and public comments to determine if reconsidering the preferred alternative, the C4A At-Grade Couplet, is needed in downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit Board action is scheduled for Spring 2010.”

People are upset because it's never good to be at odds with the town through which you're running rail. Bellevue could theoretically slow the project with frivolous lawsuits and by dragging its feet on permitting—but it can't stop ST from building ST's preferred route.

And I got confirmation in e-mail from some experts on this, too, in line with what you're saying. I'm boggled then that the entire local media operation from the Times to the PI to the Stranger to Publicola doesn't present it as what it is: Bellevue's Council or whatever they have over there can't stop the entire region, they can only complain short of filing lawsuits to stop Sound Transit from doing what's best for the overwhelming majority of citizens versus the extreme minority.

Or am I still not getting “it”?

Why don't they just present it as what it is? Busywork by the Bellevue council and wasted money stacking the Council. Lots of communities nation and worldwide have regionally or nationally beneficial projects in their areas that some NIMBYs may not like.

All the rest of this is just collective drama mongering for reads and hits by all parties by not just calling a spade a spade, and gives unearned (and based on the news today of them conducting meetings not in compliance with open government laws, undeserved) political authoritative clout to a few citizens over in Bellevue. Or in internet parlance: why are the Times, PI, Stranger and Publicola feeding the trolls?

thanks AW, that was my point. The value of the Seattle Tunnel was probably over $1B that ST didn't pay for.

When was the last time you went down MLK? There is work happening or being planned for just about the entire corridor. Some of it is SHA, but far from all of it.

You tell a pretty funny joke, but its dead wrong.

How can wallace vote for his own light rail proposal while on the city council? In Seattle, I can think of instances where a council member has commissioned a study (see Viaduct) and then voted for a plan based on the outcome of said study. But now when they personally are owners of substantial property to be affected by the policy choice. At very least, this has the appearance of a financial conflict of interest and he should recuse himself from the debate.

There has been far more private development along the Delridge corridor (which has no light rail) than there has along MLK, so it might just be worth considering that a lot of the ballyhoo one hears extolling the virtues and inevitability of TOD is perhaps a bit overstated.

Did he hide the fact that he owned the property during the campaign?

I seem to recall ECB making the case that Wallace and the others were supported by Kemper and that they were against LR in general and specifically at grade through the heart of town.

Do you prefer people that are puppets for others without clearly disclosing the puppet master?

Bellevue is growing and there appears to be TWO separate growth centers emerging that will one day redefine the downtown experience and what “heading downtown” in Bellevue may mean. The downtown core is pressed up against nothing but Lake Washington and residential zoning in all directions, which means that growth can only occur in two directions: VERTICAL or EAST. The downtown core is going vertical, which makes sense, but the Bel-Red Corridor is where the eastern redevelopment will take place (see: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/bel-red_intro.htm).

Plopping light rail in the middle of downtown Bellevue, although it seems like the obvious choice today, negates the bigger picture of what a greatly expanded, future version of “downtown” Bellevue will ultimately mean. The B3 line is the “here-and-now” version of Bellevue while the B7 line points to the expanded notion of what Bellevue will become. Frankly, in my opinion, Kevin Wallace is more a visionary than anyone may be giving him credit.

The B7 line would cross the beloved slough right along side I-90. So, should we also begin discussing the removal and reconfiguration of I-90 at the slough location? Rail lines and right-of-way already exist thanks to BNR, which greatly reduces cost and timing issues related to the right-of-way acquisitions. And, the B7 line, once it's on the other side of the slough, is measurably further away from wetlands and sensitive areas as well.

I'm not putting anyone's opinion down but take the 50,000' view of Bellevue (use Google Maps, if it helps!) and try to realize that Bellevue will soon be a much BIGGER place with a more decentralized downtown than what we all see today. And, if you’ve ever enjoyed a night out in Bellevue, or a movie, or great shopping, then you might want to thank Kemper and stop bashing him. Then, ask yourself what you’ve done to generate commercial activity in the region on par with Kemper?

So, what you're saying is, Bellevue should not use its own plan to increase density in the downtown core.

How big does downtown Bellevue need to be? All the way from Bellevue Square to Crossroads?

I chalk it up more to shoddy reporting than an intentional effort to generate page hits. I've noticed that on a variety of running stories (multiple articles on a single topic over a period of weeks or months) pretty much all the local outlets eventually start dropping the basic background info, either out of laziness or the misguided assumption that at some point all readers are familiar with the background.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Bellevue has the ability, desire, and has put in place a plan to expand into the Bel-Red corridor. This will decentralize the downtown core and create multiple, dynamic commercial zones on both sides of the freeway, which will all need to be served by light rail. Putting the station in the current core is unnecessary, in my opinion, due to the existing feeder systems (i.e. bus, pedestrian, and cycle). Again, in my opinion, Bellevue should maximize every square foot of commercially zoned area because it really is a very small amount in comparison to other neighboring cities.

Call me crazy, but looking at a map it appears that BelRed is north of the existing Bellevue downtown commercial core. There's no reason that this would have to be an either/or proposition. You can hit the existing commercial center on the way to BelRed if you're so determined to push the light rail through that corridor.

Even worse, this “southern section” that the article is talking about doesn't appear to dictate either the 405-bound or the Bellevue Way option for the northern section. All this does is run the southern portion between a wetland, and a highway with no crossing roads, eliminating one stop entirely (at a park and ride, no less) and putting the other off in a hard-to-reach corner.

Okay, you're crazy. The northern section is Section C and it is not being discussed here.

The Bel-Red Corridor (BRC) is much larger and diverse than the current downtown core and it's virtually due east. Yes, it's a bit northeast of the core, if you want to split hairs.

Spend some time looking at the information (http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/bel-red_intro.htm) from the City of Bellevue and become familiar with the scope of the BRC. Those of us working in commercial real estate on the Eastside know it well and its obvious that the BRC is going to become a major force in changing the long term landscape of Bellevue.

As I look at the B7 option, it strikes me as a more reasonable, efficient, and cost-effective approach than the B3 option. It also balances the needs of Bellevue's current and future status fairly well and reasonably.

How is it possible to be anti-transit and in a leadership position in this day and age? There should be protests in Bellevue over this, seriously.