Renderings of the Sound Transit Crossing (21. November 2007, 19:57 by Erik) ~ Crossing the Pacific ... the street not the ocean
Sound Transit has provided a couple artist renderings of the rail crossing on Pacific Ave. The crossing as it is shown here, could accommodate two sets of tracks across Pacific, though the current plan only calls for one set. The additional line would be built depending on the needs of Burlington Northern.
Here’s a couple more pictures:
From what we hear, this is a pretty good look at what will be voted on at a later meeting … What do you think?
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
From what we hear, this is a pretty good look at what will be voted on at a later meeting … What do you think?
I think it is useless to look at the “artist rendition” with an above view. Here’s a more realistic picture that David Boe sent around as to how it will look from the ground.
I tend to believe the independent experts who have analyzed it such as the Tacoma Planning Commission and outlined just how detrimental severing the Dome District is going to be:
If this did not have such a potential disastrous impact to Tacoma, I would say, ‘OK. Fine. Use the existing rail.’ Sound Transit can go and make improvements to the rail up the valley and connect through. That’s how Tacoma Rail right now services its customers in Nalley Valley. Tacoma Rail doesn’t go across Pacific Avenue. If you want to do it in the least obtrusive way, go up the valley. Again, you may have promised service to Lakewood, but you’ve promised, what, 500 riders? Is that worth Tacoma taking it in the shorts for 500 people in Lakewood? I would argue that’s probably not a good trade.
See also the Exit 133 Forum
Why even have a planning commission and other independent experts if we are going to ignore them when they tell us the bad consequence such a route would have on Tacoma?
The big difference between Seattle and Tacoma right now appears to be that Seattle is willing to stand up to the state when faced with a bad plan (as they did with the viaduct expansion). Tacoma simply does not appear to have the stomach for it and looks poised to suffer the consequences for our hand wringing and inaction.
Wow, good thing they spent a year to come up with nothing new . Still, I’m happy it won’t be a scarring trench. My hope remains that this project will help further ifrastructure upgrades to this area of SoDo.
3 | Posted by KevinFreitas | Nov 21, 10:38 PM
I love the smell of diesel in the morning!
It appears decisions were made by WSDOT long ago to precipitate this gouge through the heart of our city. Mind you, this is the same agency that let the Murry Morgan Bridge fall into disrepair. Do they have a vendetta against Tacoma or something?
This doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t voice our concerns? I hope not! It’s not a question of the City of Tacoma having legal right or not, it’s matter of standing up for your city, even if it’s a “done deal”. The state could have forced a rebuild of the Alaska Way viaduct, but backed down because Seattle leaders raised up and said, “No! We will decide what is best for us.”
When will Tacoma do the same and learn to stand up for itself?
4 | Posted by morgan | Nov 21, 11:14 PM
Heads up:
Sound Transit is on the agenda for the next City Council study session to talk about the Pacific Ave crossing. Tuesday Nov. 27, noon, Tacoma Municipal Building North, 733 Market Street (north of city hall)
Contact: Karrie Spitzer, Community Relations, karrie.spitzer@cityoftacoma.org, (253) 591-5790
(Kevin: shouldn’t that be WoDo?)
5 | Posted by morgan | Nov 21, 11:17 PM
In a very similar situationm, here’s how the Seattle City Council stood up to a poor viaduct design that the state proposed:
“The city will not roll over on this,” said City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, predicting a court fight should the state insist on an elevated structure. “It’s important if the state intends to proceed with an aerial replacement, it will be in conflict with a significant body of laws, plans and regulations.”
…
Steinbrueck last month sponsored an ordinance, approved by the council and signed by Nickels, declaring an elevated viaduct “inconsistent” with current use and height regulations and the city’s comprehensive plan, a long-range plan on where to concentrate growth.
Steinbrueck voted with the majority of the council for a tunnel to replace the viaduct but said he also wants to explore tearing down the structure and rerouting traffic onto surface streets.
In a report prepared for Steinbrueck by the city’s Department of Planning and Development, analysts found that a new elevated viaduct would violate three provisions of the city’s comprehensive plan and would be taller than the law allows.
Will Tacoma be able to summon enough gumption to demand from the State of Washington an appropriate design for Sound Transit as Seattle summoned for the viaduct? We will see.
Why even have a planning commission and other independent experts if we are going to ignore them when they tell us the bad consequence such a route would have on Tacoma?
Is this a common occurrence for the planners to ignore the advice of the commission? Did ST give a reason for doing so?
7 | Posted by mardod | Nov 22, 01:18 AM
I get this feeling that this is more about BNSF then it is about any form of public transportation. BNSF may be playing coy but I get this feeling that they are the driving force for the Pacific crossing. Sadly, if we want commuter rail we have to play ball with BNSF.
8 | Posted by Crenshaw Sepulveda | Nov 22, 10:14 AM
I think, that rail as a mode of public transport in the puget sound region, is forever doomed as a financially viable and sensible alternative.
You would rather rub salt in your eyes rather than give up your car, even IF public transit could get you where you need to be, on time and in a reasonable amount of time.
Most people in favor of rail want YOU to ride it. But for them, it’s just not convienient.
9 | Posted by Steve | Nov 22, 12:08 PM
It looks like a nuclear bomb went off—the drawing is deceptive—and it looks like a lot of bldgs will be disappeared—I do agree with Crenshaw—-there’s more going on here — there always is—-and so maybe there is 500 riders from Lakewood —- there will be more because public transit is coming to a future near you. As I blogged the other day, I don’t trust them, and the real artists should be in charge here —
What’s the major BNSF factor? The only major factor I can figure is the rerouting of Amtrak traffic on this line, which is a 50/50 benefit to both Amtrak and BNSF, when you consider some of the major upgrades that have occurred on the Seattle-Portland corridor recently. Also consider that BNSF sold this line to Tacoma Rail in 2004 due to minimal traffic vs. property taxes and maintenance costs, and the willingness by Tacoma Rail to take over operations.
11 | Posted by The Gulag | Nov 22, 02:04 PM
For a graphic illustration of the problem the proposed Sound transit line would cause to the Dome District, take a look at Boe’s architectual drawing if such a proposed rail line were built.
He also submitted a list of ill effects the line would impose by severing the Dome District entitled Sounder extension comes with ’100-year’ impacts.
As has been pointed out by David B. & Erik B., the artist renderings don’t exactly show us how it would look – unless they’re handing out jetpacks and flying cars to all the residents.
If we can get some drawings from street level, things may begin to be a little clearer. (Why not use their snazzy sketch-up skills to put together a drive/walk-through of the thing?)
13 | Posted by DavidS | Nov 23, 08:07 PM
What is misleading about these drawings is the inability to understand the scale of the proposed design. The scale proposed is similar to a freeway interchange (more like 56th and I-5 and how pedestrian frendly is that?) than actually being within a part of a city that is made up of smaller scale elements (this is the antithesis to what UWT is all about). Also, the dark grey roads are roads that have to be rebuilt significantly lower than they are now – look close at the bottom corner of the first photo – the Elephant Car Wash is like 8 feet+ in the air. And how will any of these adjoining sites be condusive for economic development with diesel trains chugging by 4 – 16 feet in the air? Oh and I sure hope they lose those offensive McDonald’s Arches – no wait, maybe those arches sums up this design proposal best of all. And remember – this is the only NEW rail portion in the whole entire Sounder system – Phase I or II (perhaps maybe they don’t know they don’t know what they are doing? – it would explain alot) as ST’s mandate was to use existing rail lines.
14 | Posted by David Boe | Nov 24, 03:39 PM
Shortly after 1989, the San Francisco Embarcadero Freeway was removed.
This elevated highway was right on the waterfront as this 12 minute video details. The video also discusses an elevated highway in NY which was removed.
The area around the elevated structure in SF was blighted, had drug issues and criminal activity similar to the areas around Tacoma’s elevated highways.
After removal, new lots were sold off and alot of space was reclaimed and the area flourished.
Yet, Tacoma appears ready to take the reverse action and construct an elevated structure dividing a significant area of downtown. We can expect it to have the created the same conditions other elevated highways in Tacoma and other cities: a swath of blight, economic depression, and illegal uses.
Voelpel hit the nail on the head today, I saw the difference in Portland and lived through the rancor of the fight against light rail. Now look at it. Tacoma, elected officials, its your turn.
16 | Posted by johnschoppert | Nov 25, 10:37 PM
Hmmm, it seems more people are finally seeing my views of our council and mayor……completely useless and without vision or guts…..must I remind you that if I’m not mistaken Anderson is on the board of sound transit….hmmmm……..makes you wonder………
17 | Posted by rich | Nov 26, 07:52 AM
Tacoma council members appear to favor a bridge over Pacific Avenue for Sound Transit’s long-awaited commuter train to Lakewood…
Some Tacoma business owners wanted the decision postponed. They worry that the rail extension will block streets, impede development and cut off the Dome District from the rest of downtown. But council members seemed resigned to the idea that blocking Sound Transit from extending the rail line isn’t an option.
hmmm……….what a great council being pushed around by Sound Transit….once again..hello anderson is on the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 | Posted by rich | Nov 27, 06:40 PM
According to the Tacoma Daily Index, Sound Transit may need more funds to make their Dome District bisecting plan a reality.
According to board chair Ladenburg, delaying the extension has resulted in a deficit. The $148-million project, originally scheduled to be completed in 2001, will now be completed in 2012. It is also $60- to $75-million over budget. Ladenburg said the agency would seek additional funding from the state and federal governments.
If Sound Transit does not receive the added funds, will their ill advised plan still get built?
(I note that it is an election year for the legislature)
The Sound Transit proposal is on the City Council Agenda on December 11, 2007.
Many still oppose the current two options. However, if one of them is chosen by the council, which one is better 1) At grade crossing or 2) overpass over Pacific Ave? I don’t know of a “rendering” with the at grade crossing.
(I think I would prefer the at grade crossing as it would create less streetscape blight. Some at grade crossings have worked pretty well such as in Old Town. Morgan has posted a few good historical examples in the forum.)
Commenting is closed for this article.
