Again, none of this speculation matters until there is a dedicated funding mechanism in place.  There can't be a major expansion without a city or county tax increase. So let's stop talking about this or that or whatever because none of it is possible. 

 

A 1/2 cent county sales tax would raise $60 million annually.  Start talking about how to get that on the ballot and how to get it passed. 

With the current County Commissioners I don't see them allowing a measure on the ballot to support a transit tax. They won't even let county residents vote on a tax levy for Union Terminal even though they know it will pass. We need new leadership at the county level before we can even propose a new tax.

We need new leadership at the county level before we can even propose a new tax.

 

Who is going to challenge Monzel?

Again, none of this speculation matters until there is a dedicated funding mechanism in place.  There can't be a major expansion without a city or county tax increase. So let's stop talking about this or that or whatever because none of it is possible. 

 

A 1/2 cent county sales tax would raise $60 million annually.  Start talking about how to get that on the ballot and how to get it passed.

 

The streetcar debate has really opened up people's eyes. The support is higher for regional rail than anytime I can remember.  Whether it's a majority  of voters, I have no idea.  I talked to countless suburbanites who were against the streetcar but for light rail.... Whether or not they were genuine is another story

A Regional Transit Authority can place a sales or property tax (up to 5 mils) on the ballot without the County Commissioners.

A Regional Transit Authority can place a sales or property tax (up to 5 mils) on the ballot without the County Commissioners.

 

SORTA placed sales taxes on the 1979 and 1980 ballots that would have funded rail, both failed. I don't know if the Metro Moves tax got the county's blessing or not. 

^Before SORTA can propose a county tax/regional tax they need to create a plan (similar to MetroMoves) that will show Hamilton County voters what they will get for their money. I suppose this should be a tax that would support a certain % for capital budget and the rest of operating these systems. I would suggest a similar idea to MetroMoves, but maybe a little less ambitious. I think people may genuinely want more/better transit, but don't want something as large as MetroMoves.

^Before SORTA can propose a county tax/regional tax they need to create a plan (similar to MetroMoves) that will show Hamilton County voters what they will get for their money. I suppose this should be a tax that would support a certain % for capital budget and the rest of operating these systems. I would suggest a similar idea to MetroMoves, but maybe a little less ambitious. I think people may genuinely want more/better transit, but don't want something as large as MetroMoves.

 

No, there's no set-aside for operations until there's actually something to operate, which can take 10 years or more after passage of a tax.  It took 13 years from passage of their tax until revenue service in Seattle because they had to tackle several gigantic engineering problems, lawsuits, and other controversies.  BART was about 10 years. 

 

Well then dedicate all of the revenue to capital costs until new service is added and then move some of the revenue to operations. If you dedicate all costs to capital in perpetuity we will face the same operating cost debate we just had. The tax needs to fund operating costs too. Maybe not from day 1, but it definitely needs to be accounted for.

I have extracted several posts from the streetcar thread into this one. Let's try to keep discussion of regional rail in this thread. I'll try to keep up on the streetcar thread and keep it related to the streetcar directly.

 

Cheers!

My feeling is pretty simplistic. Cincinnati just escaped by the slimest of margins having the streetcar project stopped. Some have interpreted this as a green light for Gung-Ho expansion of rail service in the Cincinnati Area, when in reality it was a vote to escape national embarrassment. Those council members did not want to be labeled as responsible for the 2nd stopped mass transit project in the country already under construction, adding the streetcar to the subway.

 

Anyone who feels this was a vote to suddenly blanket the Cincinnati Area with rail transit is living is some kind of dreamland. And if proponents push for a rapid agreement for the construction of the Uptown Connector, these same council members will vote NO. They would like to see some actual return on what they stuck their necks out to vote for before doing it again. In addition to bricks and mortar (or rails), there has to be an actual observed return before expansion is warranted.

 

 

My feeling is pretty simplistic. Cincinnati just escaped by the slimest of margins having the streetcar project stopped. Some have interpreted this as a green light for Gung-Ho expansion of rail service in the Cincinnati Area, when in reality it was a vote to escape national embarrassment. Those council members did not want to be labeled as responsible for the 2nd stopped mass transit project in the country already under construction, adding the streetcar to the subway.

 

Anyone who feels this was a vote to suddenly blanket the Cincinnati Area with rail transit is living is some kind of dreamland. And if proponents push for a rapid agreement for the construction of the Uptown Connector, these same council members will vote NO. They would like to see some actual return on what they stuck their necks out to vote for before doing it again. In addition to bricks and mortar (or rails), there has to be an actual observed return before expansion is warranted.

 

 

 

Thanks for that prognostication!  :clap: :clap: we appreciate your deep insights in to the minds and psyches of our city council members. I'm sure you know exactly what they are thinking and have a complete sense of the sentiments of the city's electorate.  :roll:

^ Sorry, but as much as I may disagree with kjbrill on many things, I don't think he's far off-base here.  Even though Sittenfeld, Mann, and Flynn may now be our new "local heroes" because of their votes for continuing the streetcar, all three of them were politically astute enough to realize that if they sided with Cincy's newly elected "Demon King," their own political careers would be finished.  Believe me, none of these three can be entrusted with much more than saving their own political skins.  Nonetheless, what they did do when it was needed made all the difference, and for that, alone, they may be thanked. 

The long-buried north portals of the Hopple St. Tunnel might have been exposed within the last month.  A lot of steel has been driven into the ground just north of Hopple and the short stretch of original parkway railing has deteriorated, right about where the north portals were buried about 50 years ago.  Might be able to tell from the inside of the tunnel but I didn't have time to walk in today. 

Missed opportunity not tying the I-75 expansion to subway activation & LRT.

Jake, any possibility the tunnels will be revisited as a viable option for expansion now that the streetcar is finally moving forward?

Since the streetcar system under construction is being built to light rail specs, tracks in the subway could surface in the Central Parkway median, then join the soon to be built surface tracks on Walnut and Main. 

 

The absolute cheapest thing that could be done that would be of any value would be construction of a 4-mile line from DT to Northside.  This line would function as a shuttle for Knowlton's Corner buses and Northside redidents, obviously.  The absolute cheapest way to do it would be to not activate any of the subway stations, to simply use the tunnel as a high speed city approach.  Have the track run on the old rapid transit ROW between I-75 and Central Parkway, then down the Ludlow Viaduct to Northside. 

They say the subway would have changed Cincinnati forever. Isn't that true even still  today if they finished it now? Do the tunnels travel through the CBD or mainly Central parkway? What a dynamic city it would be if it was completed and kept the Erie canal.

Since the streetcar system under construction is being built to light rail specs, tracks in the subway could surface in the Central Parkway median, then join the soon to be built surface tracks on Walnut and Main. 

 

The absolute cheapest thing that could be done that would be of any value would be construction of a 4-mile line from DT to Northside.  This line would function as a shuttle for Knowlton's Corner buses and Northside redidents, obviously.  The absolute cheapest way to do it would be to not activate any of the subway stations, to simply use the tunnel as a high speed city approach.  Have the track run on the old rapid transit ROW between I-75 and Central Parkway, then down the Ludlow Viaduct to Northside. 

 

Would there be a place with enough room for a northside transit hub with a park-n-ride lot, along with infill development possibilities?

Since the streetcar system under construction is being built to light rail specs, tracks in the subway could surface in the Central Parkway median, then join the soon to be built surface tracks on Walnut and Main.

 

I like this idea.

 

The only issue I could forsee is that the tunnels were built with third rail electrification in mind. Is there enough vertical clearance in the tunnel for a streetcar using overhead catenary?

Is this a possible alternative to the catenary systems? Plenty of buzz where the route goes.

http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/wireless-device-converts-lost-energy-electric-power

They say the subway would have changed Cincinnati forever. Isn't that true even still  today if they finished it now? Do the tunnels travel through the CBD or mainly Central parkway? What a dynamic city it would be if it was completed and kept the Erie canal.

 

No it's completely different now because a transit route in the subway would exist on its own.  Originally there were a variety of electric interurban railroads that were going to travel into the subway, in addition to traditional subway cars.  So there was going to be a local service that kept doing circles around the loop in either direction, then about a half dozen commuter rail lines that were going to run express on the loop's trackage to downtown. 

 

Since the streetcar system under construction is being built to light rail specs, tracks in the subway could surface in the Central Parkway median, then join the soon to be built surface tracks on Walnut and Main.

 

I like this idea.

 

The only issue I could forsee is that the tunnels were built with third rail electrification in mind. Is there enough vertical clearance in the tunnel for a streetcar using overhead catenary?

 

When streetcars or light rail run in tunnels, the overhead wire is not suspended.  Rather it's sort of embedded into the tunnel roof like a track. 

 

The subway tunnels are 15 feet high and 131/2 feet wide.  They're big enough for freight trains.  They're huge.  The only technical issues are getting the 50 year-old water main out of there and rebuilding the stations with low platforms.  Although there's little reason to rebuild the Liberty or Race stations now, so that would leave only the Brighton station. 

 

^ I thought that water main was coming out anyway? 

 

As for overhead versus 3rd rail, even if there were issues with head height for in-tunnel overhead wiring, it's just as easy to equip the cars with 3rd rail shoes for use in the tunnels, and they switch to the overhead when they go outside.  The Skokie Swift (yellow line) in Chicago used to operate that way, switching from 3rd rail to overhead somewhere west of Howard, using the Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee's original catenary.  With a little skill and luck they could even do it at speed.  It was only a few years ago that they finally ran the 3rd rail all the way out to the end of the line at Dempster. 

 

Considering the high-level platforms, but the tall tunnel height, would it be at all possible to simply raise the tracks on a hump at the stations so they're at the level of the existing platforms?  It would limit the train length to the length of the platforms minus the ramp length, unless they could ramp up at least somewhat in the flanking tunnels.  Seems that would be a lot easier than trying to lower the existing floors. 

There's no reason why they would do a third rail.  Nobody in the industry expects new-start third rail systems to ever be built again, with the rarest exceptions, like the new Honolulu elevated driverless system.  Older heavy metro systems like BART and MARTA are horrendously expensive to extend because the third rail precludes grade crossings, and the old heavy rail trains are much heavier than light rail trains, requiring much more expensive overpasses. 

 

It has always been the plan to rebuild the stations for low platform boarding.  It's not a very significant expense because the station structures are relatively small and just under street level.  Reconstruction permits elevators and other ADA features to be configured in the best way. 

Since the streetcar system under construction is being built to light rail specs, tracks in the subway could surface in the Central Parkway median, then join the soon to be built surface tracks on Walnut and Main.

 

The only complicating factor with this scenario is that the southbound portion of the streetcar loop will run in the Central Parkway median, above the subway tunnels, between Race and Walnut.

It's not really an issue since ramps into the subway can be staggered.  There are many options for ramp connections...

 

Northbound:

-Turning west from Main into the parkway median, then down into the subway at Walnut St. 

-Continuing east on 12th St. between Elm and Central Parkway, descending into the tunnel on a ramp on the same block as the Drop In shelter

 

Southbound:

-Rising out of the subway to meet the streetcar tracks in the median between Race and Vine St.

-Turning south under Walnut St. at Central Parkway, surfacing on the public library's property and joining the Walnut St. streetcar tracks at 8th St.

 

Subway extension:

-An extension of the subway to Fountain Square would probably now best be accomplished under Vine St. in order to avoid disrupting streetcar tracks on either Walnut or Main, however half of the reason why Walnut St. was selected for the subway back in 1916 was because it had the least subsurface utilities.  That's probably still the case.  The other half of the reason was to permit enough space under Central Parkway for complicated trackage, including the two subway wyes that are still there. 

 

 

 

 

Wow, look how ugly this new light rail line is in Houston:

 

By comparison, skip ahead to minute 2 to see how much more attractive in-street running is in Seattle (this opened in 2009):

The infrastructure in Houston looks very...I don't even know how to describe it. It reminds me of those massive power lines that are strung across the country. Combined with the mess that is the existing utilities you have a very cluttered, ugly road. Overall it just feels very cold and not at all like a system you'd want to approach as a pedestrian.

I have had conversations with people about how in-street light rail could work on Cincinnati's big suburban avenues...Glenway, Harrison, Colerain, Hamilton, Winton, Rt 4, Reading, Montgomery, Madison, and Beechmont. 

 

A bare-minimum light rail center reservation requires 28 feet, with 30 or 32 preferred.  However even our "wide" suburban avenues aren't very wide around Cincinnati...Colerain and Beechmont are each just 70 feet between curbs.  This means construction of a center median requires widening these roads to 100 feet...but what if they were widened to, say, 110 or 120?  The wider sidewalks and landscaping opportunities could be what makes these projects truly transformative.  The cost of a light rail project on one of these streets must include a streetscape reconstruction, including utility burial. 

 

 

I have had conversations with people about how in-street light rail could work on Cincinnati's big suburban avenues...Glenway, Harrison, Colerain, Hamilton, Winton, Rt 4, Reading, Montgomery, Madison, and Beechmont. 

 

A bare-minimum light rail center reservation requires 28 feet, with 30 or 32 preferred.  However even our "wide" suburban avenues aren't very wide around Cincinnati...Colerain and Beechmont are each just 70 feet between curbs.  This means construction of a center median requires widening these roads to 100 feet...but what if they were widened to, say, 110 or 120?  The wider sidewalks and landscaping opportunities could be what makes these projects truly transformative.  The cost of a light rail project on one of these streets must include a streetscape reconstruction, including utility burial. 

 

 

 

What is the development along these streets like? Is it mostly set back buildings with parking near the street? It seems to me that what you are talking about would push costs up quite a bit.

There's nothing right on the street.  Generally the streets could theoretically be widened from 70 feet to 110-120 without demolishing almost anything except a ton of signs and parking spaces. A lot of drainage and small retaining walls would have to be rebuilt. 

 

Yes, it would be horrendously expensive,.  But the problem is that the street needs to be rebuilt a little anyway to do in-street light rail, so starting from scratch is an incremental cost increase above that.  The total alternative is to do TBM tunneling, which would be more expensive than totally rebuilding the street, but would not improve the streetscape at all.  Colerain and Beechmont are hideous streets, they need to be rebuilt.  Colererain especially if it is to avoid sinking into being a ghetto avenue like those in Detroit. 

There's nothing right on the street.  Generally the streets could theoretically be widened from 70 feet to 110-120 without demolishing almost anything except a ton of signs and parking spaces. A lot of drainage and small retaining walls would have to be rebuilt. 

 

Yes, it would be horrendously expensive,.  But the problem is that the street needs to be rebuilt a little anyway to do in-street light rail, so starting from scratch is an incremental cost increase above that.  The total alternative is to do TBM tunneling, which would be more expensive than totally rebuilding the street, but would not improve the streetscape at all.  Colerain and Beechmont are hideous streets, they need to be rebuilt.  Colererain especially if it is to avoid sinking into being a ghetto avenue like those in Detroit. 

 

Kinda what I suspected. I'll have to do a Google Earth tour now! Really, what you are talking about is reinvesting in these streets and the surrounding neighborhoods, not just an extension of the streetcar or light rail.

I have had conversations with people about how in-street light rail could work on Cincinnati's big suburban avenues...Glenway, Harrison, Colerain, Hamilton, Winton, Rt 4, Reading, Montgomery, Madison, and Beechmont. 

 

A bare-minimum light rail center reservation requires 28 feet, with 30 or 32 preferred.  However even our "wide" suburban avenues aren't very wide around Cincinnati...Colerain and Beechmont are each just 70 feet between curbs.  This means construction of a center median requires widening these roads to 100 feet...but what if they were widened to, say, 110 or 120?  The wider sidewalks and landscaping opportunities could be what makes these projects truly transformative.  The cost of a light rail project on one of these streets must include a streetscape reconstruction, including utility burial. 

 

Of course, LA Metro's LRT routes, in part, ride along some pretty narrow residential streets (like the below Gold Line section in Marmion Way), while still maintaining overall route speed.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cleveland&ie=UTF-8&ei=kX_eUvS_L7PKsQSm_oCACA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg

 

Don’t know all the Cincy routes, but the LA Model may be workable there.

 

With a 70 foot curb-to-curb width, you could do a 30 foot median and still have two 10 foot lanes each way.  This would slow the traffic to a more reasonable 30 mph or so, and it would still need some widening at station locations, but that's much easier than widening the whole pavement cross-section.  Yes you lose all the left turn lanes, but the goal should not be to maintain or improve the existing roadway capacity AND add light rail, because then neither will work well and the project costs escalate significantly.  It should really be approached as a reallocation of space to a more efficient mode, rather than a simple bloating of the existing infrastructure.  I realize that's a tough sell to the nearly 100% motorist constituency, but if you want light rail to be successful, you can't bend over backwards to make driving so easy.  This is especially true if you're trying to revitalize/densify a corridor, where you want to keep the street as narrow and pedestrian friendly as possible.  Very wide boulevards/avenues ala Paris are doable, but they also need Paris level density and building frontages to properly activate them. 

 

The narrower 40-60 foot pavements that you find on most of the in-city main streets are a tougher proposition.  I think in those cases you'd need to stick to in-street running.  It's not necessary to completely ban motor vehicles from driving over the tracks, but it can be discouraged through the use of rough paving and strict liability laws in favor of the LRV.  This view in Helsinki could just as easily be Madison Road or Erie Avenue http://goo.gl/maps/2T6A8 

There's nothing right on the street.  Generally the streets could theoretically be widened from 70 feet to 110-120 without demolishing almost anything except a ton of signs and parking spaces. A lot of drainage and small retaining walls would have to be rebuilt. 

 

Yes, it would be horrendously expensive,.  But the problem is that the street needs to be rebuilt a little anyway to do in-street light rail, so starting from scratch is an incremental cost increase above that.  The total alternative is to do TBM tunneling, which would be more expensive than totally rebuilding the street, but would not improve the streetscape at all.  Colerain and Beechmont are hideous streets, they need to be rebuilt.  Colererain especially if it is to avoid sinking into being a ghetto avenue like those in Detroit. 

 

Kinda what I suspected. I'll have to do a Google Earth tour now! Really, what you are talking about is reinvesting in these streets and the surrounding neighborhoods, not just an extension of the streetcar or light rail.

 

Yeah, that's it exactly, the light rail line would be just part of the reinvestment.  Burying some or most or all utilities and rebuilding the curbs/sidewalks with plantings and other streetscaping could possibly be funded through another channel.  Possibly eligible for different grants or certainly could be bonded backed by existing property taxes. 

 

I am talking here again about the wide, ugly township radials that typically have a continuous center turn lane ala Colerain, Beechmont, and Rt. 4 in Butler County.

 

 

Do the people at OKI  ever come up with idea's like this? What do they do everyday???

Do the people at OKI  ever come up with idea's like this? What do they do everyday???

 

They seem pretty set on scaring people into building roads:

Do the people at OKI  ever come up with idea's like this? What do they do everyday???

 

They seem pretty set on scaring people into building roads:

 

Here's a thought: Don't build it and they won't come.

What's amazing about Seattle's light rail line is how many times it transitions between elevated, street-running, and subway between the airport and downtown. It seems like they spent the additional funding on elevated structures and tunnels in order to make the system as fast as possible.

Here's a thought: Don't build it and they won't come.

 

Yep. If you add lane-miles, you add more traffic. Guess what? You take away lane-miles, you reduce traffic. Every time a long-term closure of a bridge or other section of highway occurs, the traffic goes away. People adjust, mostly by not taking that trip.

 

If you still want that commerce, then replace the lane-miles with track-miles. Then watch your traditional central business districts and urban neighborhoods reinvigorate.

Back when I was in college we had a lecture by someone who was either the head city planner or traffic engineer for the city of Copenhagen.  The thing that sticks most strongly in my mind to this day was his statement that "when a street becomes too congested with traffic, we remove lanes."  The notion being that heavy traffic indicates it's too easy to drive and not worth using alternative means of transportation.  So taking out driving lanes to add cycle tracks, bus-only lanes, or even just for street parking or widened sidewalks makes that street less desirable for driving and shifts those trips either to other modes, other routes, or eliminates the frivolous trips.  Of course this can't be done in isolation.  The reallocation of roadway space has to be to other modes of transportation that can pick up the slack, and there has to be a network of connected streets, not a dendritic suburban hierarchical network, so other streets, transit lines, bike paths, etc., can pick up the slack if need be. 

 

So naturally this works better in older, better connected, urban neighborhoods than it would out in the suburbs.  Still, there's a peculiarity of suburbs in North America that you don't see over in Europe.  Namely those major suburban arterial "stroads."  There's plenty of sprawl in Europe, but it doesn't come with 5, 6, 7, and 8 lane mega arterials flanked by strip shopping centers with huge parking lots.  It's not necessarily nodal like you get with traditional railroad suburbs here in the US, but it's nothing like West Chester or Florence either.  Some further analysis of how the outskirts of those towns work, and how they work with transit, can inform what we could possibly do here, and make a more pleasant environment to live and work in to boot.   

Here's a thought: Don't build it and they won't come.

 

Yep. If you add lane-miles, you add more traffic. Guess what? You take away lane-miles, you reduce traffic. Every time a long-term closure of a bridge or other section of highway occurs, the traffic goes away. People adjust, mostly by not taking that trip.

 

If you still want that commerce, then replace the lane-miles with track-miles. Then watch your traditional central business districts and urban neighborhoods reinvigorate.

 

I saw proof of that when I lived in Columbus and I-670 was closed for reconstruction. Despite dire predictions of massive traffic jams, people adjusted and there were few disruptions. That was a very eye-opening experience and confirmed for me exactly what KJP says.

 

DON'T build Brent-Spence.

Back when I was in college we had a lecture by someone who was either the head city planner or traffic engineer for the city of Copenhagen.  The thing that sticks most strongly in my mind to this day was his statement that "when a street becomes too congested with traffic, we remove lanes." 

 

I've heard of that as well. I couldn't remember where. Here is one place where this policy is described in further detail.....

 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf

What's amazing about Seattle's light rail line is how many times it transitions between elevated, street-running, and subway between the airport and downtown. It seems like they spent the additional funding on elevated structures and tunnels in order to make the system as fast as possible.

 

Bingo!

What's amazing about Seattle's light rail line is how many times it transitions between elevated, street-running, and subway between the airport and downtown. It seems like they spent the additional funding on elevated structures and tunnels in order to make the system as fast as possible.

 

Also the first section to open to SeaTac and the new eastern line on the floating bridge to Mercer Island are ancillary to the very impressive subway tunnel (5+ miles long) that is being built as we speak north to the northern suburbs.  The total cost of this tunnel is I believe north of $2 billion, with about 5 underground stations.  It's going to have double or triple the ridership of the existing line to SeaTac.

What's amazing about Seattle's light rail line is how many times it transitions between elevated, street-running, and subway between the airport and downtown. It seems like they spent the additional funding on elevated structures and tunnels in order to make the system as fast as possible.

 

Also the first section to open to SeaTac and the new eastern line on the floating bridge to Mercer Island are ancillary to the very impressive subway tunnel (5+ miles long) that is being built as we speak north to the northern suburbs.  The total cost of this tunnel is I believe north of $2 billion, with about 5 underground stations.  It's going to have double or triple the ridership of the existing line to SeaTac.

 

I'm not sure why they decided to build the downtown to airport segment first (probably to combat the opponents who would say that "it doesn't go anywhere"). On the bright side, it does stop at their stadium and has resulted in one major example of TOD. But I would think that their downtown-to-University District extension may be one of the highest ridership sections of the line.

^ A favorite criticism of red-state type transit opponents always seems to be "it doesn't even go to the airport."  As if that's some holy grail requirement of any successful transit line.  My understanding is that few flyers use transit to get to the airport (it's not that low, but it's not high), and most of the use is by airport employees.  Of course it's great to have a high-employment destination at the end of a transit line to help balance out , but it seems that it gets much more emphasis than it should, and that does drive the PR campaign and planning decisions to push for those routes. 

^My guess is they built this section 1st because it was cheapest and easiest relative to the other routes: the 5+ mile subway to the north and the East Bay (floating) bridge line... Transit agencies tend to develop the easiest and cheapest rail lines first in order to get the system up and running quickly so as to show the public, which is often new to transit,  the advantages of rail transit and that it was brought in (relatively) within budget.

^My guess is they built this section 1st because it was cheapest and easiest relative to the other routes: the 5+ mile subway to the north and the East Bay (floating) bridge line... Transit agencies tend to develop the easiest and cheapest rail lines first in order to get the system up and running quickly so as to show the public, which is often new to transit,  the advantages of rail transit and that it was brought in (relatively) within budget.

 

Part of it was that that was the area where they could build their maintenance facility.  It's a huge piece of land in the city since I believe they're expecting to store and service all of their trains at one facility.  Also they had to close the bus tunnel to convert it to light rail, and part of the decision had to do with which express buses were getting eliminated.  I read about it at the time and it was ridiculously complicated. 

 

The problem with how they did it is that because construction of just the south stretch was incremental, it didn't have the profound effect on the city's function that completion of the subway tunnel to Northgate will.  Also, light rail is taking over the existing HOV lane across the floating bridge to Mercer Island, which will let them eliminate all of the express buses that use it currently.  There will be a lot of operational cost-savings.