La Har

Sep. 14, 2009 at 6:18pm

ST Pacific Crossing

how did we get here?

How did we get from an urban crossing like this:

to this three span bridge gateway concep that costs 3 to 4 million more?:

Image source update:

First image: ST Project Advisory Committee, disbanded by a City of Tacoma Resolution January 2009 (the resolution states: "respect the urban setting of the area")

Second image: Parsons Brinkerhoff, ST engineering firm

 

comments [35]  |  posted under berm, DIRT, Pacific crossing, Sound Transit, Tacoma

Comments

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/14/2009 @ 6:46pm
Link to source?

That 2nd graphic looks really, really bad.

by tacoma1 on 9/14/2009 @ 6:54pm
Of course it looks really bad. The person that drew the graphics drew them to be obviously different. The reality is that the track height will be the same regardless of berm or bridge, so as the first photo is the photo you want every one to like, you drew it with buildings and people. In reality, both methods will allow for people and for buildings. The city views from track level and above would be identical if the drawings were accurately drawn.

by NineInchNachos on 9/14/2009 @ 8:06pm
so tiny. can you post larger images to picasa or flickr and link to them in the body?

by NineInchNachos on 9/14/2009 @ 8:07pm
also I see the homeless people hanging out under the bridge in pic two. if you look closely the couple to the left appear to be having sex.

by Nick on 9/14/2009 @ 8:34pm
I agree with tacoma1, this is exactly how building projects are rendered when proposed to review boards/etc. (think the Proctor Safeway remodel, or the brewery district hotel). They draw nice trees, and a multitude of people enjoying the area where nobody would ever actually gather. I imagine a similar rendering was made before Tollefson Plaza was built....

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 9/14/2009 @ 8:51pm
Nick, there was a rendering of people having sex in Tollefson Plaza?

by NineInchNachos on 9/14/2009 @ 9:00pm
Nick must have a perverted imagination

by tacoma1 on 9/14/2009 @ 9:03pm
If people were having sex at T Plaza, that would probably be the best way to get more people to go to there.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 9/14/2009 @ 9:14pm
Every so often I do see some bums in Tollefson Plaza, if they are having sex they are probably hobosexuals.

by NineInchNachos on 9/14/2009 @ 9:16pm
any self respecting hobo wouldn't be caught dead in Tollefson. I suspect you saw TPD decoys

by fredo on 9/14/2009 @ 10:16pm
I'll send wendell brown down to check it out.

by fredo on 9/14/2009 @ 10:29pm
I'm trying to imagine how much more attractive the train trestle would be if it were covered with Rialto theatre style "graffiti" art.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/14/2009 @ 10:47pm
Give me $500 worth of krylon, a respirator and $1000 to make sure the cops "look the other way" and we can find out.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 9/14/2009 @ 11:40pm
I'm sure you could get a grant to do this, TO'T. Ask for an even 20,000.

by Nick on 9/15/2009 @ 8:46am
"Nick, there was a rendering of people having sex in Tollefson Plaza?"

O crap! Did I type that out loud?! Whooopsies....

by boearc on 9/15/2009 @ 10:16am
These sketches are completely misleading. When viewed from say S. 21st Street looking south - you will not see the bridge hardly at all since Pacific Avenue is still rising until 25th and then it dives down to go 'under' the 'bridge' and then the structure is viewed directly against the hill heading south. Looking north from say 27th, it will not be seen at all since the rise of Pacific from 21st to 9th will obscure the profile of any structure unless you are right upon it. The design of the 'bridge' is really quite trivial in the whole scheme of things (but the politicos see it as a potential iconic statement for T-town)- but the design of the Pacific Avenue 'pit' is HUGE. If you need an example of the 3D - go to S. 64th (?) viaduct west of S. Tac. Way - that in minature is what is going to happen at Pacific Ave.

by ixia on 9/15/2009 @ 10:51am
The point seems to be that is has gone from being a regular urban crossing to a 'gateway concept' with lots of grassy areas instead of urban development. If Tollefson tell us anything, we can expect the gateway park at Pacific crossing to be void of people. We are paying staff to 'program' Tollefson and buy furniture with zero results.
I don't really care what color the bridge is or how exactly it looks. I do no want massive weedy hills around it that only cost to maintain.

by Nick on 9/15/2009 @ 11:48am
I managed to find the "pit" David was referring to on Google street view. Just in case anyone is interested:

Link

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 9/15/2009 @ 12:40pm
The 66th Street train crossing is so quintessentially Tacoma, how could we not want such a structure, albeit on a grander scale, crossing Pacific. I am willing to say that we need something to get a train over Pacific. I also want the most transit for the buck. But for something like this to loom over downtown Tacoma I'd like to at least see public transit that goes all the way to Olympia, if not Portland. Going all the way to Lakewood doesn't seem like much of a payback in my book.

by NineInchNachos on 9/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
baby steps

by tacoma1 on 9/15/2009 @ 1:04pm
Just a few points.

1) Our city council asked for the gateway concept. That's why we have it now. I'm pretty sure that it seemed like a good idea to them at the time. Not supporting it or defending it. Just saying that it's really late in the game to be switching quarterbacks or rewriting the playbook.

2) These our really misleading sketches above, purposely misleading I imagine. Makes me wonder why someone would try to mislead the fine citizens of T-Town.

3) There are no tall buildings near S 64th and So Tac Way, so the google link perspective is still an inaccurate depiction of how S 26th and Pac Ave will look like. Once we infill around the Pac Ave crossing with taller office buildings, whether it is a berm or bridge, the focal points will be the architecture of the larger buildings, not the bridge or berm.

4) The long term goal is to get frequent reliable train travel from Portland Oregon all the way up to Canada. Amtrak and Sounder share the same track and somewhat of the same goal. D to M is standing in the way of everything most people on the West Coast want, and that is reliable frequent rail travel as a viable transportation option.

by ixia on 9/15/2009 @ 1:13pm
"These our (sic) really misleading sketches above, purposely misleading I imagine, makes me wonder why someone would try to mislead the fine citizens of T-Town"
Design one done by Project Advisory Committee.
Design two done by ST's own engineering firm.

I am starting to think Tacoma one is a ST planner.....

by tacoma1 on 9/15/2009 @ 1:23pm
PAC and ST didn't intend them to be used as a side by side comparison. Taking them out of context is what is misleading here.

No I don't work for ST. Wouldn't have the patience for it. Just a transit user, that wants more transit asap. Try to stay on subject please.

by ixia on 9/15/2009 @ 1:54pm
How easy to hide behind one's handle and shoot blanks....tststs

by tacoma1 on 9/15/2009 @ 2:03pm
I'm just trying to keep focused on promoting transit. So many people want to talk about anything but transit and sometimes I can get sidetracked as well. My apologies for my 2nd point above, but still stand behind the these:

1) Our city council asked for the gateway concept. That's why we have it now. I'm pretty sure that it seemed like a good idea to them at the time. Not supporting it or defending it. Just saying that it's really late in the game to be switching quarterbacks or rewriting the playbook.

3) There are no tall buildings near S 64th and So Tac Way, so the google link perspective is still an inaccurate depiction of how S 26th and Pac Ave will look like. Once we infill around the Pac Ave crossing with taller office buildings, whether it is a berm or bridge, the focal points will be the architecture of the larger buildings, not the bridge or berm.

4) The long term goal is to get frequent reliable train travel from Portland Oregon all the way up to Canada. Amtrak and Sounder share the same track and somewhat of the same goal. D to M is standing in the way of everything most people on the West Coast want, and that is reliable frequent rail travel as a viable transportation option.

by ixia on 9/15/2009 @ 2:06pm
with a berm you can't infill with buildings

by tacoma1 on 9/15/2009 @ 2:09pm
You can build up to the rail right of way with a berm, or bridge. The right of way will be the same width whether we bridge or berm. I'm not suggesting that anyone would build underneath the tracks. Doubt anyone would want to, if they wanted to, they couldn't get a building permit.

by ixia on 9/15/2009 @ 2:12pm
let me rephrase: nobody with a sane state of mind will take on the resposibility to remove the berm soil, shore up the rest and put a building there.

by tacoma1 on 9/15/2009 @ 2:17pm
I would never want to be responsible for judging the sanity of developers.


by boearc on 9/16/2009 @ 7:23am
tacoma1 - you actually do not "stand by your comments" as noted above - you blog annoymously because, as you have previously stated, you live in fear of someone throwing a rock through your window; therefore - you actually 'hide behind your comments.' In order to 'understand' anything, you must be will to 'stand under' the issue and be accountable.

by tacoma1 on 9/16/2009 @ 8:38am
If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I really don't care which crossing method we end up with. I just don't want any more delay. I'd be steadfastly against the berm if I thought it would take the longest to complete. I'll even pay more for the best solution if I have to. Just figure it out and lets get this done asap.

by ixia on 9/16/2009 @ 8:58am
ST is causing delay with poor planning and offering inferior solutions not fit for any city. They have a track record of building berms that collapse. The city council is dragging because it lacks vision and will and might.
Tacoma one, you are shooting your blanks in the wrong direction.

by tacoma1 on 9/16/2009 @ 10:44am
If the ST berms are all collapsing, then it's probably pretty unsafe to be riding on the Sounder, wouldn't you think? I'm probably risking my life riding on the thing. I probably should jump back onto I-5 in the Dodge Dart.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/16/2009 @ 4:13pm
You have a Dart? Nice... I like the styling of those 60s and 70s cars. I'd personally love to get my hands on a red AMC Javelin X

by tacoma1 on 9/16/2009 @ 8:39pm
Well, technically, I'd have to jump in the wayback machine first to drive my old Dart, as it has gone to the Dart boneyard a many moons ago, but it was a 1970 slant 6.