Light rail in Bellevue has had plenty of study

Published 3:09 pm Monday, May 10, 2010

In response to Lee Maxwell’s letter on the routing of the light rail in South Bellevue, great deals of deliberation and public input have gone into it, starting in 2008 with the Light Rail Best Practices Committee work and even before, as we roughed out the conceptual design for the election, and much earlier, as the I-90 projects were built. Neither the city nor Sound Transit is going into the project with scant deliberation.

It is no accident that the passionate participants in the South Bellevue debate include mostly the people who will be directly affected by it – those who live and have businesses nearby. Yes, it will go near somebody’s house.

To call it a “NIMBY” issue is demeaning to those who argue that way, but what shall we name it? Those who are near both the B2M and B7 routes are arguing passionately that the route ought to be somewhere else. Which of these two groups has the most to lose? Which group dares to say the other has less to lose?

Okay, then, we have the environment as our criterion. Each side claims that the other is going to spoil a bigger part of the Mercer Slough. If you are still wondering which side I am on, let me just ask which side smiled and said what a wonderful compromise the B7 modified idea (across the middle of the Slough) was?

Do all the people arguing really care about affecting the wetland? Frankly, I doubt it. The people we’ve heard from who care mainly about the Mercer Slough are from the Audubon Society and live far from the B segment.

This leaves issues of practical design and ridership. There are a few people in the NIMBY zones who disagree with their own neighbors – arguing in favor of the light rail going close to their neighborhood. Are they crazy or are they sold out to somebody?

All of these crazy people favor B2M and none of them favor B7. Why? It seems to come down to a couple common ideas: The first being that they hope to ride on the light rail when it comes. Not only are they not fighting it, but they want to ride on it. The second idea is the contrary idea that it might increase their property values. I don’t know where this idea comes from except that I found it in the Best Practices Report.

Sound Transit is comprised of members from all over the central Puget Sound area. After good deals of deliberation they have settled on B2M as their routing of choice.

The previous writer suggests that they are running hastily and rough-shod into this decision, deliberately disregarding the obvious advantages of the B7 route. Either they are being improperly influenced, or they are not empathizing with the locals. Or could it be that they are making the clearly correct choice?

The previous writer says we need to stall. Why? The EIS is on track to review both options in detail, and the consultants are not interested in local NIMBY arguments or any other locally generated arguments. They just plan to call it as they see it.

If we do the extra engineering design on B7, what are we going to find? That the bottlenecks and big elevation changes are going to disappear? It does not take an expert to determine where the design challenges are on both sides of Mercer Slough, and it will require good deals of care and problem mitigation on both sides.

The previous writer says that Sound Transit is implying disregard for Bellevue’s Best Practices report in choosing the B2M route. Several people have airily mentioned the Best Practices while arguing against B2M and for B7.

Before assuming this to be a true interpretation, you’d better go have a look at the report, which has as much to say about access, efficiency and ridership as it does about staying far away from the people it is meant to serve. Find it on Bellevue’s website by putting “Bellevue light rail best practices” into Google. Start by reading the executive summary.

In moving forward with this project the key is creating the best light rail we possibly can. This means detailed care in addressing the neighborhood concerns, not just pushing them far away. It also means creating a system that will be available to the most riders, including those who live and work nearby.

These were major considerations in putting the Central Link in Rainier Valley rather than the I5 corridor.

Martin Paquette, Bellevue