Link Expansion: Is It The Journey Or The Destination?
It seems that the LINK expansion alternative conversation that was supposed to be on track to producing a preferred alternative for further study has been derailed… Okay, maybe not derailed, but we couldn’t resist the puns.
Last we wrote, the conversation about an expansion of Sound Transit services within Tacoma had narrowed a wide field of possible corridors down to three top picks, one of which was supposed to be recommended for further study.
Now the City Council has asked Sound Transit to consider another option.
The alternative, proposed by Councilmember Boe at last week’s Committee of the Whole meeting, with support from Mayor Strickland, is being called a “hybrid option.” It would take parts of the C1 and E2 alternatives already considered as a part of the public comment process, and combine them into a new transit corridor option. The intent is that this new corridor could serve as a kind of spine or central line for a future transit system in Tacoma – an attempt to free the Link expansion conversation of some of the constraints posed by a system based on the existing downtown line.
According to Boe, the hybrid route would give greater potential for connections to other parts of Tacoma. The proposed solution doesn’t specify roads, but identifies endpoints as target destinations for the expansion: one at 6th and MLK, and another in the vicinity of East 29th and Portland Avenue.
At this point, the Council is still not choosing one extension; as Broadnax said at last week’s meeting, this is not a decision point, it’s a request to add another option for consideration. Aside from questions of cost and feasibility of the proposal, questions were also raised about the mode of transit – both for this proposal and for the others under consideration – and whether there might exist more appropriate technologies than light rail for Tacoma’s topography and transit goals.
The original intent of the existing Link line, as Boe described it, was to function as a commuter shuttle between the downtown core and the Tacoma Dome transit center. This new proposal asks us to consider that existing line as one line of many future lines making up a larger system. Considered from the perspective of creating a central nervous system for Tacoma’s transit future, where does it make the most sense to locate the spine of Tacoma’s transit system? Does this better accomplish the goal of improving mobility and access to the regional transit system by connecting the existing Tacoma Link with the City’s major employment, residential, and activity centers?
Is it too late to think more comprehensively about the expansion?
Filed under: Downtown Tacoma, Transportation, Neighborhoods, City Projects, City Government, Link, Transportation Planning, Link Expansion
29 comments
T talus March 26, 2013
Thanks for publishing a legible version of David Boe’s sketch. To answer the question, no, it’s not too late think more comprehensively about expansion, but that thinking need not be done at the expense of a well thought out process already underway. It’s common sense to extend the existing line up Stadium to the hospitals and then onward to 6th or Hilltop. Use a transportation planning process to inform subsequent expansions of that streetcar line, new lines, and future Pierce Transit routes and modes.
J Jesse March 26, 2013
Is this route for Tacoma Avenue or MLK?
S Sid March 26, 2013
Glad they came around to remembering that humans actually do live in other places other than 6th Ave., or Stadium. It would be ridiculous to NOT include the link service to the South side of I-5. Great job slowing this joy ride and considering a more forward thinking approach.
D Darin March 26, 2013
I made a typo in my previous comment. A route on Portland ave was shot down by the council because the tribes proposed casino was part of the case to get federal funds. The council rejected the route for moral and religious reasons.
B Buck Futz March 26, 2013
Sort of a Hilltop to EQ Casino express.
D Darin March 26, 2013
Nothing that has come out of the planning process says that sound transits long term plan of 6th ave as the primary route through Tacoma that other lines can link to is wrong. This is regional transit money that has to be used for regional mobility and ridership. The idea of needing a transit master plan is separate conversation. The last minute out of left field hybred plan has no place in this conversation when its time to pick a route. Sound transit will not let a city interfere with its core mission of regional mobility. Bringing the wrath down on Tacoma to make us am example just as ST3 planning is in full swing hurts Tacoma.
J Jesse March 26, 2013
Tacoma Avenue or MLK?? Anyone?? Beuller? Beuller???
J jsisbest March 26, 2013
The B1 line just keeps looking better and better!
In terms of process, I’m not sure that this helps anyone. Boe, we all voted for you and appreciate having an architect on the Council, but I think that you’re overstepping just a bit on this one. While we’d all love to share our own visions and ideas with Sound Transit, I think that your proposing of a “hybrid plan” is detrimental to the public process.
D David Boe March 26, 2013
Whoa, you all need to take some deep cleansing breaths.
1. Delay – there is no delay. Regardless of the Hybrid or not, the recommendation from council is going to take longer due to some members of council being away when ST Alternative(s) were originally scheduled to be reviewed and a route(s) recommended by council to the ST Board (original timeline by ST had it as ‘Spring 2013’). After a corridor is chosen by the ST Board, then there is at least a year or more of environmental review, funding allocation, preliminary design, etc… So right now there is no delay based on the Hybrid Concept – so you can stop beating that drum.
2. Corridors: ST specifically is not looking at streets – still just corridors. So though the term ‘Stadium’ may be used as a corridor – it does not mean it is running up Stadium Way the street. The Hybrid option is just a vague as ST corridors and does not call out specific streets just an access to mid-hill/hilltop from the South – as included in the back-end of ST Option E2. Also the Hybrid is based on the Alternatives already put forth by the Stakeholder group – just combining them and shortening them to at least look at a future expansion of the system that can connect more than just one neighborhood in the City.
3. Funding: Lots of work to be done on funding. Right now there is $50m and the rest is optimism (Fed Small Starts are off-line at the moment and who in town has $50m to put toward the system?). There is the real possiblity that we might have verly little construction funding for the project (so what, extend the existsing LINK to Old City Hall?).
4. Tollefson Plaza: A physical testiment to the City of Tacoma NOT questioning the urban impacts in the selection of the original route of the LINK.
5. Alternate Modes: The Hybrid DOES NOT propose alternate modes – that is my own personal opinion based on my own professional experience working on light-rail projects in the past – and the new technology that combines electric and hybrid technology that is creating zero-carbon transit systems – but was not part of the direction given to ST as part of the Hybrid route. They are only looking at light-rail.
D Darin March 26, 2013
This was nice of Boe to give us his thoughts. This changes nothing.Sir this uproar is something that started by your last minute proposal. Where haveyou been all this time? You still do not addressed regional limitations on the sound transit funds. This is all talk. We expect and deserve better.
L lois stark March 26, 2013
Hi all – I’m a member of the Stakeholder Roundtable for the Tacoma Link Expansion; I was also a member of the earlier Roundtable that helped to develop the alternative routes currently being studied.
The Roundtable has been talking about possible hybrid versions of routes to include an eastward extension to the casino for several of our past meetings (well before it was mentioned by Councilmember Boe). Many of the members, including myself, think connecting the casino with the Convention Center and Theater District makes sense as this links several of our entertainment venues.
When the Roundtable talks about “corridor” we are talking about a 1/2 mile wide corridor rather than a specfic street that that the extension will be built within. We often will say “I support the X option” as shorthand for “I support the 1/2 mile corridor that includes and parallels X Street”. I mention this just to say that it is still rather broadbrush at this point.
I prefer the E2 corridor to connect our medical service providers (and employers) with our major transit hubs. As I’ve stated at the Roundtable meetings, I would also a support a hybrid of E2 with an extention to the casino area.
One concern with the 6th Ave corridor that I voiced at the last Roundtable was the operating time of the Link. Currently the Link stops around 10pm which is pretty early to serve the many restaurants/bars along 6th. Of course this is also a problem for the Theater District.
I’ve found that it’s pretty normal when reviewing alternatives in a public planning process to end up with a hybrid to combine the best elements of a few options.
T tacoma_1 March 26, 2013
Maybe, after we extend it, we run the damn thing till the bars close. One of the things Tacoma needs desperately is later transit service. If we extend link, but not the hours of service, we don’t gain very much at all now do we? I am friggin tired of being stranded in downtown Tacoma at 7:05 PM.
T tacoma_1 March 26, 2013
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let the casino operate in downtown T Town, or on 6th ave, than building them their own private light rail line? And couldn’t the city tax that new location and the conventioneers up the wazzoo?
J JJ March 27, 2013
I can’t think of a single zero carbon (CO2 emissions involved) transit system.Maybe lesser carbon use transit systems though.
D Darin March 27, 2013
This is interesting to read. Its that we are all wanting to get city council to chose our fave route. The council did not by support ST2 in the first place. There was enough money to bring link from federal way to Tacoma. The council divided and no consensus. So the council has never been on board from day one. We have the money for a Tacoma link extension due to a divided council . Sound transit does regional mobility. it chose 6ave. to tcc with extension over the narrows bridge next. anything else is a secondary thought.
D Darin March 27, 2013
ST3 planning is fully underway. Tacoma and Pierce country are not participating. What we will get in transit improvment for years will come from this. I would love to see transformation of MLK that link could bring but is has to be part of the core mission of regional mobility to get funded. Council said no to the tribe to partner for link on Portland ave to a new eqc and a new salashan. If we can see the big picture we can all get much of what we want most. The council needs to here that this a must not an options.
J Jesse March 27, 2013
“Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let the casino operate in downtown T Town” — tacoma_1
Give them the land on the east side of the Foss. Then you could run a cable-car up 11th from east Foss to MLK.
“Sound transit does regional mobility. it chose 6ave. to tcc with extension over the narrows bridge next” — Darin
That’s a great light rail route but not a good streetcar route. IMO, outlying business districts outside of the downtown core should be served by light rail that is headed for longer distance destinations. Think MAX in Portland as a light rail model vs a downtown and close-in streetcar.
R RR Anderson March 27, 2013
I would like to see a hyBOErid that includes the Kalakala and a Space Elevator in the port.
T talus March 27, 2013
The existing Link is nearly zero-carbon as it is, because it’s on the Tacoma Power grid. Tacoma could exclusively use hydropower, wind, solar, and other renewables (not that a lot of hydro sites don’t have their own environmental issues) if Tacoma Power would make a couple of investments that allow it to quit buying any coal and natural gas energy from other utilities.
J JJ March 27, 2013
It takes lots of carbon based furnaces to reduce iron ore for steel to build the the train and tracks.Just saying and this does not include the carbon use in transporting materials or construction.
Even hydro electric power is not zero carbon emissions as the dams use concrete (again carbon reduced) as well as lots of electrical wiring.The same with wind turbines and solar as well.These are however much less carbon emissions harmful than coal powered electric plants though.
The larger the mass ratio of the vehicle as compared to the desired transported component the more energy is wasted.That’s one major reason why heavy mass vehicles such as automobiles are so extremely energy inefficient as compared to a low mass vehicle such as a bicycle
In the late 21st century due to anthropogenic climate change those hydroelectric dams might very well lack the required glacial melt from the Rocky Mountains to be able to operate so without hydroelectric power it’s a doomed future proposition unless a massive alternative energy substitute is found.Be prepared for a energy poor and high cost future
J jsisbest March 27, 2013
There’s something strange about the priorities of future transit being to connect the casino with the hospitals. I think that there is a demographic there… Can we make sure that the Hybrid line stops at the smokeshop along the way?
It’s these kind of missteps that lead people to question public projects altogether. What are the objectives here? Because last time I checked, the casino wasn’t a big revenue producer for the city. And I’m not sure that the audience of Styx reunion concerts and cage fighting events are the hotel and restaurant patrons we’re trying to attract to our city.
I hope that this project moves forward with the thoughtful and engaged process. And the hybrid speed bump is left in the rear view.
T talus March 27, 2013
Good points, JJ. The Columbia system that provides most of the region’s power is likely to be pretty resilient (power-wise — maybe not ecologically) because of all the water storage in its Montana and Canadian headwaters, which can make up for less storage in snowpack/glaciers. That’s not so much the case for the dams on the lower Snake River (they already don’t have much flow moving through them in the summer, and they’re horrible for salmon). I suspect both the Nisqually and Cowlitz systems will see lower productivity in the summer. I also wonder how long those dams/reservoirs will last in river systems that carry so much glacial sediment.
Either way, streetcars, buses, bikes, and feet will make better use of our limited resources than cars.
C Chris March 27, 2013
@lois stark #13 “One concern with the 6th Ave corridor that I voiced at the last Roundtable was the operating time of the Link. Currently the Link stops around 10pm which is pretty early to serve the many restaurants/bars along 6th. Of course this is also a problem for the Theater District.”
I don’t understand the argument.
Is there a law or something that prevents us from operating past 10pm? No. If the demand is there for service, and funds are available to operate, streetcars can run on the tracks any time they have electricity and an operator.
S Stanley March 27, 2013
The “mid-hill” route looks a lot like Tacoma’s long-lost cable car route, which connected with hilltop local streetcars and the first interurban to Steilacoom.
D Darin March 27, 2013
Its fun so watch the conversation. The project here is an extension of Tacoma link,which is a form of light rail. Local street cars are a different conversation. If we want a streetcar network. and I do we have to pay for it or get local finding options to enhance what ST3 can offer or let the city but it itself. This money can’t and won’t be used for a local project. There seems to be some push for MLK but its not paid for and no local money so far. To get anything from sound transit you have to provide a solution and way to pay for it.
P philip terry March 27, 2013
I have several questions. Foremost, where does the money come from. Government @ evert level is broke. Second, why not busses? Busses; cost less, can alter routes and don’t require rails. Business on Pacific Ave went under because of construction.
J Jim C March 27, 2013
I think it bears mentioning that the proposed terminus everyone keeps referring to as “the casino” includes the Pac Highway corridor which has more hotel rooms and opportunity for commercial development in a two-mile strip than the entire city of Tacoma, I would be willing to bet. Oh, but that’s in Fife, isn’t it. Maybe we should call it the Fifoma Link.
C Chris March 28, 2013
@31 – Voters approved funds for Tacoma Link extension in 2008. Funds come from the sales tax and a small motor vehicle excise tax. This is not debt that we’re taking on – it’s really funds that are being raised as we speak.
Secondly, the per service hour costs for Tacoma Link light rail will actually decline after the extension is built because we’ll be able to take advantage of more economies of scale. Keeping the line at 1.6 miles is not efficient. Also, buses, at least the way that we do them generally in the United States, do not encourage economic development, while rail demonstrably does.
M Mofo from the Hood March 28, 2013
“A route on Portland ave was shot down by the council because the tribes proposed casino was part of the case to get federal funds. The council rejected the route for moral and religious reasons.”—Posted by Darin @5.
Everybody is a comedian.
Egalitarianism is a religion practiced by proponents of government systems, like regional transit, in inefficient markets abandoned by free market capitalism.