Columbia City isn't as dangerous as it was portrayed

In her column ["The riders' line on light rail," NWTuesday, July 21], Nicole Brodeur felt some guilt at driving part way to the Columbia City light-rail station before heading downtown. "Next time," she wrote, "I will get up early and walk to the station, and pack brass knuckles for the walk home at night."

I'd like to thank Brodeur for her candid assessment of the dangers of our shared neighborhood and her suggestion that Columbia City is too dangerous for working people.

Yes, Columbia City is dangerous. So, for safety's sake, please stay home, and stay out of my way -- I hate crowds!. There is no need to risk life and limb to patronize Columbia City businesses. Unless, of course, you like good (but dangerous) food, good (but dangerous) drink and friendly (but dangerous) people.

Heck, some thug might actually say "Hi." What would you do then?

-- Chris Osburn, Seattle

Free fares for light rail would boost ridership

Congratulations Seattle on your new light rail. It may not be perfect, but it's a tremendous step forward.

Anyone who's had a chance to ride it knows what a smooth and comfortable ride it offers. The city and region will really benefit when ridership starts increasing.
However, we're told target ridership is 25,000 on weekdays --a year from now. I would argue the goal should be more aggressive.

Increasing ridership must be one of the primary goals of mass transit. That's how we get people out of their cars and make our air cleaner and communities more livable. To accomplish this, there should be no fares for riding light rail.

This would make it so convenient, I'll bet the ridership goal could be reached in a month. With greater ridership and improved convenience, there would be even more demand for expanding light-rail. The benefit and overall savings from more mass transit would more than offset the increased subsidy for fare-free rides.

Why wait? Seattle and the region can seize the opportunity. Free fares for more light rail!

-- Demian Godon, Seattle

Light rail coming to your neighborhood? Fight noise before it's too late

I am in the small minority of Seattle residents who have had a negative reaction to the new light rail. This is due to the fact that my home is right above the Mount Baker station, where every squeak and squeal of the trains can be heard from early morning until late at night.

Imagine someone dragging their fingernails over a chalkboard every seven and a half minutes. The impact on our quality of life has been distressing.
Many of us who attended the public meetings when light rail was in the planning stages raised our concerns and were told new technology made noise from metal wheels on metal tracks a nonissue.

Now, we're being told the screeching was "not anticipated." Obviously, light rail is here to stay, and only a few of us are adversely impacted by the noise, which means the probability of anything being done for those of us in Beacon Hill is zero.

I would, however, urge those of you who will experience light rail in your neighborhood in the future to come hear the racket it makes, and begin lobbying your public officials to make sure they deal with this in their plans for the next stage of light rail before it's too late.

-- Joyce Mork-O'Brien, Seattle

Light rail, failing promises made, is not quiet

Editor, The Times:

It seems there is some shared pain and empathy between those of us who are dealing with screeching light-rail noise and those who live near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's third runway.

What dismays many of us Rainier Valley residents is that during planning and public comment phases we expressed great concern about noise from an aboveground track. Our concern was met with assurances that this new technology would be quiet. Even so, many of us were still skeptical and continued to advocate strongly for having the rail underground because of noise concerns.

I hope Sound Transit can find a remedy to the screeching noise or realize that any future expansion of the system must be underground so others are spared from having their nervous systems constantly bombarded by metal-on-metal screeching.

-- Susan Fairo, Seattle

With adequate parking, light rail would work

It seems a shame that, after all these years of trying to get a mass-transit system that would relieve traffic congestion, we get a light-rail system that will most likely increase traffic congestion.

I would be willing to bet that if there were parking garages near the light-rail stations that were half as expensive as downtown parking, downtown workers would ride the rail and reduce traffic congestion in the downtown area.

-- Michael Ulmen, Seattle

Sound Transit parking plan made in fantasy land

Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan said, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking. It was not meant to be fed by cars" ["Would-be rail riders bemoan lack of parking," page one, July 16].

That is the problem with government. Its decisions are usually based on what should be (fantasy) and not on what is (reality).

-- R. A. Virant, Bothell

Light-rail numbers just don't add up

If we take the current ridership forecast for the light rail when it is completed from Sea-Tac Airport and opens to the University of Washington at 26,000 per day and has a final cost of $4.3 billion, as is now expected, and if we assume a growth in ridership at 3 percent per year for the next 30 years along with the present cost of money at 5.5 percent, the current return on tax free municipal bonds such as the recent Dallas-Fort Worth airport offering, then the cost per rider is $43.93. With a typical fare at $2.00 per rider it is hard to imagine a worst investment for the beleaguered taxpayer.

Just imagine what the per-rider cost would be if the separate right of way for the light rail had instead been designed and set aside for the exclusive use of buses, fire engines, ambulances and other emergency-response vehicles?

While many politicos are celebrating the opening of this fine engineering wonder, dare we ask why?

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle

Other light-rail systems at least made provisions for parking

Editor, The Times:

Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan's quote in The Seattle Times ["Would-be rail riders bemoan lack of parking," page one, July 16] is astonishing! He said, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking. It was not mean to be fed by cars."

His arrogance has blinded him; light rail is meant to serve the public. It could also serve to reduce freeway congestion. Why on Earth were there not provisions for station parking as part of the plan, other than the typical Seattle "let's do this on the cheap" mentality?

Look at the Portland MAX Light Rail interactive map. There are dozens of parking areas available, and many of them are offered by churches and businesses, so there was no cost to install them; it took only coherent planning and goodwill. BART in San Francisco also has provisions for parking. Both of these systems have high levels of ridership.

Sheridan and other Seattle official's cars-are-evil mentality will surely inconvenience the citizens who are paying for the system and may doom it to minimal use.

My wife and I would use the service, but the station is more than two miles from our home, too far to walk on a rainy evening.

-- Eric Wightman, Seattle

What, no parking?

Sound Transit is unbelievable. It will soon open a 14-mile railroad costing $2.3 billion dollars, about the cost of the more than 50 miles originally sold to taxpayers.

The one thing Sound Transit doesn't offer is parking for people who, because of distance or other concerns, must drive to their stations. For this the city can thank the greenies, including Mayor Greg Nickels, the most self-righteous greenie of them all, to whom cars are anathema.

But perhaps a lack of parking doesn't matter. In a special on the light rail, The Times named the neighborhoods in which stations are located and showed them on a low-detail map but didn't list their addresses or specific locations ["Your guide to light rail," page one, July 12].

Either Sound Transit doesn't want riders -- certainly not those who own cars -- or they expect potential riders to meander about in search of a station.

-- Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Parking limitations will only destroy ridership

Only in Seattle would the butt-headed arrogance of city planners be allowed to sabotage a major, regional transit effort. In the words of the Seattle Department of Transportation, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking."

The message for those who don't live near a feeder bus line, or are unable to walk or bike due to age, infirmity or just being out of shape, is: "You are out of luck. You can help pay for the light-rail line, but Seattle is going to discourage you from using it."

This attitude will lead to a catastrophic loss of ridership on the rail line and lack of support for future regional transit improvements. How many people would be riding the bus into downtown Seattle without local and regional park-and-ride lots? It is a proven method of getting people to use mass transit.

Instead, we have another bizarre decision from the people who brought us rubber-bladed snow plows and a strategy to clear the streets for people with SUVs.

-- John Russell, Seattle

Station design promotes laziness

I heard on the news this morning that the new Beacon Hill light-rail station will normally be accessible only by elevator, with stairs for emergency use only.

Is it any wonder so many people are horribly out of shape? To try to put it politely, elevators are for the elderly, handicapped and those with baby strollers. Escalators are horrible. People just stand there, so it can be faster to take the stairs. Climbing the stairs is an easy way to get some exercise.

I know the Beacon Hill station stairs are long and tall, but I challenge you to use them. Fight entrenched laziness!

-- David Fuhriman, Edmonds

Share parking between homeowners, rail riders

Let's see if I've got it straight. The city sets up restricted parking for a quarter mile around the light-rail stations to prevent car commuters from choking up parking needed by residents and businesses. The predictable result will be a ring of commuters parking just outside the restricted zone. Then pressure to extend it and so on.

Part of the problem is that the city sees would-be light-rail car commuters as offenders and insults them with terms like "hide and riders" instead of seeing them as potential light-rail customers whose needs must be served. For the rail to succeed they've got to get as many riders aboard those trains as possible, and that means they need those commuters and their fares.

You don't have to think very far outside the box to see the solution. Share. Restrict some of the parking spaces, say every other spot, by painting the curb. That way locals and commuters can park.

-- Robert Fleagle, Redmond

Noise complaints come from 'whiners and criers'

It's as though Link Light Rail is putting so many whiners and criers into a noise hell ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11]. Many of the homes near the right of way were built after the light-rail plans were in place, just like people who have built houses under power lines and airport glide paths.

I wonder how many of these malcontents were forced to buy their homes? I have lived here 30 years and have never heard so much crying about everything from soup to nuts. Seattle needs transit, and it should have been place many years ago. Ever wonder why Boeing left here for Chicago?

Bet the whiners and multiple studies had a lot to do with Boeing's move!

-- Dan Morris, Lake Stevens

Light rail, buses will need to connect better

If light rail is going to "be fed by people taking the bus" like Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan explains, then the buses actually need to connect to the train.

The Rainier Beach community will have difficulty using the train system if buses continue to layover at Henderson Street, approximately a quarter mile from the train. While the city has agreed to make changes for some bus lines, major routes like Route 7 still end at Henderson.

My family is very excited about the train and want to use it for work commutes and family outings, but the bus logistics for south-end users will need to be addressed before this can be a reality for us.

-- Jennifer Pritchard, Seattle

Crunican doesn't compare to previous city engineers

The Times article on street crews ["Curb crew blunders mean heat for Nickels," page one, July 14] reported, "Drago has been a reliable Crunican supporter and credited her Monday with outshining her predecessors on big projects."

A more ridiculous and utterly stupid assertion is hard to imagine.

No professional engineer in Washington state, let alone King County, would dare to suggest Grace Crunican, with a long trail of engineering blunders, can hold a candle to the likes of R.H. Thompson, Roy W. Morse or Eugene Avery, past city engineers with enormous talents and concomitant citywide engineering and management success stories.

It is hard to imagine Crunican can hold a sputtering candle to these hugely successful past city engineers -- let alone "outshine" them.

Please!

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle

Holiday bus schedule more than just inconvenience

The holiday bus issue is far more serious than simply holiday bus fares, as reported in The Times ["Fourth of July bus fare unfair?" NW Monday, Bumper to Bumper, July 13]. It's also holiday bus schedules on a working day.

My ESL students rely on buses to get to weekday jobs. Friday for them was a normal working day. But where was their normal working bus to take them to work? They told me they were in big trouble trying to get to their jobs that Friday.

Metro is "public transit." The public's needs should come first.

-- Karleen Gerards, Seattle

Officials should go for their transportation blunders

Our government officials are wasting money that has been entrusted to them by the people they serve. At what point does a red flag go up to alert those in a position of authority to stop this gross misuse of taxpayer dollars?

Several examples: "botched street projects" as reported in the recent Seattle Times article ["The street crews that couldn't pore straight," page one, July 12]; the posting of "No street racing zone" signs in Tukwila, when normal speed-limit signs would suffice; and allowing the building and use of light-rail cars that are known now to exceed the federal standards for noise abatement -- but the opening will happen anyway ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11].

If a homeowner were to take out a building permit, inspectors would issue a stop-work order when codes and standards were not met. Why didn't this happen with the light-rail cars? Instead, Sound Transit is going to use a Band-Aid and, at the taxpayer's expense, install sound barrier walls and soundproofing of homes along the route.

I find the absence of plain common sense in all of the above appalling and totally unacceptable. We need to not only reprimand those in charge of such projects ... we need to replace them.

-- Barbara Rabon, Renton

Some empathy for light-rail noise victims

Editor, The Times:

I can almost empathize with those suffering the noisy trains ["Tracks' din stirs Tukwila outcry," NWSunday, July 5].

However, there is a large number of us being subjected to 100 decibels on a constant basis due to the third runway at Sea-Tac. The Port of Seattle has said there will be noise studies someday.

The results of the noise studies for the second runway would more than suffice. Just move the western boundary and begin the noise mitigation process.

-- Mike Adams, Des Moines

Rail priority shouldn't be on buying art

I just read the article "Making a big deal of it" [NWArts&Life, July 12] and was so relieved knowing that I'm not one of the taxpayers footing the bill for light rail's public art.

I can only imagine how much it must have cost for all of these "works of art." But I can imagine how much more bang for the buck taxpayers might have gotten from those same dollars had they been used in, perhaps, a more practical way; like working on the noise problems we're reading about or building the parking that's needed so that people riding the rails will have a place to park those cars they're not driving.

I live on Whidbey Island where we don't have the traffic problems seen in the Seattle area. It's just a shame that all that money was spent to make a few people feel good, but that's the liberal way, it seems, and the voters voted for it.

If it feels good, then it must be the right thing to do. Glad it's not on my buck!

-- Carolyn Hendry, Oak Harbor

Charging for parking would help light-rail stations stay afloat

As happy as I am about the opening of the Tukwila light-rail station, I'm at a loss to understand the free parking.

Why free? Even if we're charged a dollar for 24-hour parking -- which should hurt nobody -- a 500-car average for a year would net $182,500. No great fortune, but it would help in maintaining the station itself.

Free parking is largely a myth anyway. The concept is touted at shopping malls nationwide. But the cost, in truth, is passed along to buyers at the register. Even a customer who walks to the mall (a bizarre concept, I know) or arrives by bus, is burdened by the same higher costs, all to provide for that great American obsession -- the automobile.

-- John Lyons, Seattle

Dreaming of open roadways

Hooray, light rail has opened. No more congestion on Interstate 5!

Then I woke up.

-- Donald F. Padelford, Seattle

Light rail no louder than third runway

It was good to see The Seattle Times' article on light-rail noise ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11] as well as Sound Transit's response to the complaints.

But where was the coverage when the Port of Seattle opened the third Sea-Tac runway, with an impact on far more citizens of King County? The Port might learn from Sound Transit's ability to realize the detrimental effects their work has on the community.
The Port's response to date is that it will do some new noise monitoring and will release the information this coming November. The Port's lack of foresight to realize the third runway compounded with the "unexpected" closure of another runway would cause such disruption is unconscionable.

-- Mark Maurin, Des Moines

Light rail shouldn't disrupt bus service

The Seattle Times did a fine job of reporting the disruption to the Metro bus service due to the light rail traveling through South Seattle ["Rail may shake up bus-rider routines," NWTuesday, July 7].

It is interesting that Sound Transit hopes to have the bus riders of the Rainier Valley "ride the rail." I thought the purpose of the light rail was to create a viable option for those still driving their fossil-fuel-burning vehicles that are clogging the roads and freeways -- not to inconvenience the conscientious citizens who are accessing the already great bus system.

-- C. Joy Estill, Seattle

Easy science would quiet light rail

The Times reported ["Tracks' din stirs Tukwila outcry," NWSunday, July 1] that the Tukwila Sound Transit light-rail tracks show a "10 times louder" noise impact than the predicted decibel levels. Correct reporting, but highly inaccurate.

The decibel measure reports energy levels, not "loudness." Loudness is a perception as adjusted by the very clever human ear. The human ear registers only a doubling of loudness for every 10 decibels of increased energy. Still, a doubling of loudness is bad enough, especially for screechiness to which the decibel scale is totally deaf.

But this is just another example of the disconnect between policy chutzpah, journalism and important technical details. As for policy wonks, even a short memory reminds us that a more direct Sound Transit path to the Seatle-Tacoma International Airport was bent by Tukwila politicos to include a station of their very own, in place of what otherwise might still have been a relatively straight regional track alignment. The first routing corruption was bending the track for political reasons through Rainier Valley -- and away from Boeing Field and the entire Duwamish industrial area. Now the alignment is both local and regional -- and therefore neither.

And then there is the underlying issue of rail-car technology. The original regional environmental impact statement discounted rail technologies that deal with above-grade track noise. For most of a century, the Paris subway and elevated system has used very quiet rubber tires on a guideway. Not nearly trendy enough for world-class Seattle. Better to resurrect under a new name the trolleys of the 19th century.

The Times could help by getting in right -- early in the public decision process -- on how policy alternatives actually fit or do not fit with obscure technical details that make a difference. Never an easy thing to do, and not always appreciated by elites who pride themselves in "making the tough decisions."

-- Peter Beaulieu, Shoreline

Light rail a relief for Beacon Hill commuters

Editor, The Times:

As a resident of Beacon Hill, I was disappointed in your article ["A light-rail wonder," front page, June 15] about the light-rail station and its description of our neighborhood. Specifically, I couldn't believe you summarized Beacon Hill by saying we have "many small ethnic shops." How about the phrases "a diverse collection of locally owned businesses" or "a growing business district"?

Overall, the coverage seemed to be seeking negative angles to report. Yes, there are some hefty price tags associated with every aspect of the project. That's true of every major infrastructure development. Of course there are people who might not ride the train -- also true of the bus.

One lighter note that made me smile: The article said it takes 11 minutes to go downtown on Route 36. Your reporter obviously research the article by taking the bus.

From the bus stop located at the light-rail station to Westlake Center on a typical morning, it's at least 20 minutes. Riders often have to wait for at least one full bus to pass before we can even board -- adding to the overall commute time. The buses are crowded, almost always standing-room only. Beacon Hill residents use transit. We will ride the rail.

Light rail is going to change our city. It's going to change my neighborhood. Change is scary, but it's part of life. Instead of focusing on the "trippy" art with the $800,000 price tag, how about focusing on how much money Seattle will save on street maintenance when people get out of their cars?

Report on how much faster the buses will run when people can take the train. Report the positive, not just the snarky.

-- Melissa Jonas, Seattle

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

A worker walks amongst link line rail trains in the Sound Transit Sodo Maintenance Base in Seattle after placing a cone at the front and rear of the train he is working on.

Has damaged environment more than it will help

Editor, The Times:

The headline "Who will ride this train?" [page one, May 17] virtually stopped me in my tracks. This is a question that any rational person would expect to have been asked and answered before spending $2.6 billion and spewing out 13 years of construction-related carbon dioxide.

Speaking of which, there is not one Sound Transit official who will state that any possible reduction in automobile use will ever equal, or even offset in part, the massive carbon cost of manufacturing and constructing "this train," which to me is an admission of abject failure if not outright fraud on the public.

The construction of this light-rail system has already created more atmospheric damage than it was allegedly designed to preclude.

-- Virgil Howard, Seattle

Siphoning bus-riders a good thing

The Sunday article about Sound Transit states that it fears riders may merely switch from buses to trains. What? This is the goal of other city systems: end duplication of transport, better utilize buses, increase train use, move people more quickly -- a no-brainer.

It would free new buses to concentrate on other and new routes and get more riders into the system -- an upward spiral.

Sound Transit needs a sounder concept of what it is doing.

-- Terry Forsyth, Friday Harbor

The only sensible option

Grant Degginger, mayor of Bellevue, is correct in his opinions for East Link through Bellevue in his guest commentary published Tuesday ["Keep tunnel options on table for East Link," Opinion, May 12].

The proposed surface route along 108th and 106th Avenues Northeast is on four-lane streets surrounded by condominiums, apartments and businesses. In one block on 108th between Northeast 10th and Northeast 12th there are about 750 parking spaces.

The train would require two lanes down the middle of the street, leaving only one lane on each side of it for car traffic. With the train running often, these cars would not be able to egress or ingress the buildings. If they want to go east or west, they would have to cross over the tracks within a very limited time period. The resulting gridlock would make it difficult for anyone to move along the roads. Driving to I-405 would be almost impossible!

Additionally, there would be significant environmental impacts in these narrow corridors resulting in increased noise, pollution, vibrations, difficult fire truck and emergency vehicle access, substantially reduced safety and many traffic and train conflicts.

These issues are true for most of downtown Bellevue. A tunnel is the only option.

-- Helen Kester, Bellevue

Surface rail would be traffic nightmare

I agree with and appreciate The Seattle Times' view on Bellevue's "Creative tunnel vision" [Opinion, editorial, May 10].

A surface or at-grade light rail will create such a construction nightmare and disruption to businesses, residents and traffic that it is unimaginable to even consider such an option. The Times is absolutely right that the added cost should not be taken lightly.

That's why three of the seven Bellevue Council members voted to keep the B7 Alternative alive. This alternative represents the least community and environmental impact on existing right of way. Sound Transit must look at the overall system to find savings and achieve the vision people have voted to approve -- mobility for the Eastside and the region. Downtown Bellevue is only one piece of the bigger picture.

Bellevue wants to be at the table. This is a project for the next hundred years, not to mention the costs to the city if it's not done right. Who knows better what's good and right for Bellevue?

There is also a regional vision -- to bring the system to the whole Eastside. This can only be done if we have the funding to do it. Therefore, as The Times says, we have to find ways to reduce costs of the project.

We have done it in endorsing a surface route through the Bel-Red corridor. We did it not just to save money, but because it complements our land-use development plan.

Also as The Times says, we have to do it more creatively and with an open mind. Bellevue communities have been working and urging the Sound Transit board and staff on the B7 Alternative.

I hope Sound Transit will listen to keep the tunnel option and B7 Alternative.

-- Conrad Lee, Bellevue City Council member

Elevated line best for Bellevue

Editor, The Times:

Mike Lindblom's article in Monday's Times ["Bellevue wants a tunnel; Microsoft says not so fast," page one, May 4] failed to identify the clearly preferred route through downtown Bellevue: Alternative C7E, an elevated line running alongside 112th Avenue Northeast from approximately Main Street to an I-405 overpass at the north edge of Overlake Hospital Medical Center.

Not only is this route/configuration cheaper --the $500-600 million estimated cost is less than half of either of the tunnel options -- but there is minimal impact on total East Link ridership. And there would be no east/west traffic impacts during operation.

Although Sound Transit's proposed elevated design would impact a number of businesses along the route, these impacts can be minimized by placing the support piers on the east side of the 112th Avenue Northeast roadway. A variation of this alternative would be to run the line on the surface, which would further reduce the cost, but with the imposition of some interference to east/west traffic during operation.

Clearly, an elevated or surface configuration along 112th Avenue Northeast is an attractive option to the costly tunnels proposed by some Bellevue City Council members.

-- David F. Plummer, Bellevue

Express-lane closure only the beginning

Everyone who is upset about the traffic snarl caused by the three-week closure of the I-90 express lanes ["HOV lanes closing on I-90 bridge," NWMonday, May 4] should think about the fact that they will be closed to all traffic for a much longer time while being converted to light rail.

And even when that is finished, we don't really know how many more light-rail passengers will be accommodated in those lanes than could be accommodated by express bus routes with special on/off ramps in conjunction with high-occupancy vehicles. So brace yourselves, Eastsiders.

-- Gary Ritzman, Mercer Island

High-capacity light rail will ease traffic

In his column on the Eastside light rail ["Eastside light-raid options should focus on mobility," Opinion, guest commentary, May 5], Michael Ennis says using the I-90 floating bridge for the route has two big challenges.

One is loss of the HOV lanes, reducing the capacity of the bridge for peak-direction buses and automobiles. If the rail system is doing its job, which is to be the high-capacity link, this will not be a big problem.

Light rail should attract a considerable percentage of people now using cars to reach major employment centers both in Seattle and the Eastside. Most buses should act as feeders to the rail line rather than running back and forth across the bridge. Sound Transit and King County Metro must work together as a system, particularly on this link. The rail line will have a much higher capacity than the two highway lanes it will replace, and it will be a two-way facility able to serve today's large reverse-direction flows.

Ennis is also concerned about stray electrical current from the rails, which might cause damage to steel components of the bridge. This really is a paper tiger because means to control such damage exist and are routinely employed on modern light-rail lines. Sound Transit has also cut the current in half by doubling the voltage to 1500V, compared to the 750V used on most light-rail lines and the Seattle Streetcar. Rubber components in the rail mountings will both reduce vibrations transmitted to the bridge and electrically insulate the rails from it.

All the stakeholders must work together to create a good design for this long-overdue rail connection between Seattle and the Eastside. It will be very expensive and construction will be seriously disruptive, as it always is. The existing bridge is an opportunity to reduce the cost and risk involved in this project.

-- John Aurelius, Indianola

Sacrificing tranquil Mercer Slough

The light-rail route endorsed by the Bellevue City Council, would run very close to some of the most sensitive and valued natural habitat in the region. The council suggested the light-rail be "side running," which would place it to the right of the northbound auto-traffic lanes along Bellevue Way and 112 Avenue Southeast and immediately adjacent to wetlands and the Mercer Slough.

It is extremely likely that much of the wetland area and part of the slough itself would be sacrificed. The wetland area along 112th Avenue Southeast is home to rabbits, ducks, turtles, herons and eagles. People enjoy canoeing from Lake Washington up through this tranquil part of the slough. A nearby light rail would destroy the peace and privacy making all of this possible.

The rejected B7 route, close to I-405, would not involve this extreme environmental destruction. A traffic engineer studied one potential location for a transfer station near I-405 and deemed it problematic, but other locations need to be considered and other educated opinions offered.

Future generations will not likely remember the details of situating a transfer station, but they will definitely hold us accountable for ruining one of the remaining gems of natural habitat in the Bellevue area.

-- Shirley Crawford, Bellevue