BNSF Trail Cartoon
This cartoon entitled, “Trail” has been submitted by Anthony Cresci with the following explanation:
“Dear Mr. Butcher,
The enclosed attachment is my view of why the BNSF right-of-way should be used as a trail and not as a commuter rail line. It is a view shared by a great many Eastside residents aware of what is going on, as well as trail advocacy groups in Kirkland, Bellevue and elsewhere. I hope you will consider it for inclusion in your blog. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Anthony Cresci”
An interesting perspective, Mr. Cresci. Thank you for your submittal. Another issue surrounding the future of this BNSF right of way is that it is one of the few north-south corridors available for public transit be it light rail, heavy rail or bus. The community of Kirkland is very much affected by the outcome of this debate.
Please see Kirkland Views related articles:
BNSF Corridor gives this Eastside Trail advocate a new view on NIBMYs
Port of Seattle to host Eastside Rail Corridor Informational Open House
If you have an interesting photo, graphic or cartoon you would like to see on Kirkland Views, email your submission to: KirklandViews@gmail.com
If not on this right of way, where should we put Eastside commuter rail? The fact that this is an existing piece of publically usable property is a huge positive. Try to run a new rail line elsewhere and see the opposition that appears. Many of the opponents live on property adjinging the BNSF line, so of course they want to get rid of trains. Sure the route will need improvements, but that’s notning compared to starting from scratch elsewhere.
I think that the commuter rail line should be considered here. It makes sense to use the exsisting line if the research really does show that it would be used (not sure about that yet.
For an interesting perspective on how another community feels about a bike/rail line check out this article on a Boston suburb. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/07/05/suburban_peace_vs_pedal_power/ This is about as NIMBY as it gets.
Why must we choose between rails and trails? Can’t we have both? My guess it that a trail is easy to add to any public transit system they devise, but perhaps there is more beneath the surface here. Is this another NIMBY situation? A trail would be fantastic to have and my guess is that there will be a trail no matter what else happens to the right of way. Assuming I am right, and I always am, what argument is left for the no-to-public-transit-protestors other than NIMBY? That’s not in my back yard for the newbies. No one in king county can actually believe that there will not be a trail built on this right-of-way. The real issue here is will it be a trail only and public transit in some distant future in which public transit will have to fight tooth and nail to get put back in. Once the tracks are pulled up then kiss away your chance of getting them back. Tracks are here today. That may be a bad thing. I don’t know because I live in NRH. My guess is this smells like a NIMBY. No one can say we don’t need another N-S corridor.
Trails are great. You can never have enough. I would love a trail there BUT if we can really get public transit happening on the Eastside there is no way we should pass that up. I agree with the person that said once those tracks are gone you will not get them back. It would be too expensive.
People are going to scream either way (remember the trail in Sammamish where the concern was a trail would bring crime?!?). Might as well do what is right for the whole city in the long term - public transit.
Hi,
Downtown Condo Dweller said:
“It makes sense to use the exsisting line if the research really does show that it would be used (not sure about that yet.)”
The Puget Sound Regional Council did do a study in 2007 that said a better bus service is the way to go, not the rail line. A second study is now being done on this same issue and is partially funded by a private group who wants to put a train on the tracks! Interesting way to do an impartial study!
Every other proposed new rail line in the Seattle/Puget Sound area is a light rail line, not diesel. For example, there’s still talk of light rail running from Bellevue out to Redmond, in addition to a new bus service, nothing like these programs are talked about here.
http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/2008/belred-rr-0108.html
Just because the track is there does not mean it makes sense to use an outmoded line that can’t accommodate trains going any faster than 25 miles an hour and cross over 53 intersections. Studies have been done that the show the successful commuter lines are those that can travel fast and do not cross over intersections.
Imagine what will happen at all the crossings every time a train comes by. Imagine the traffic tie-ups at already congested intersections, such as NE 124th and 124th Ave NE in Totem Lake? And this intersection is only one of the many that would be impacted by a regular commuter train coming by as people in cars are commuting to work. Most of the intersections the train would cross fall in Kirkland. I think our local traffic would be a mess at the expense of a slow moving train that can’t keep up with the traffic on 405.
It’s important for people to attend Wednesday night’s meeting at City Hall with the Port of Seattle. (see Kirkland Views article referenced above in the post) The Port is the decision maker in what happens with the train line, not King County and not Kirkland.
The people who are advocating for a trail, Eastside Trail Advocates, http://www.eastsidetrailadvocates.org have spent a lot of time looking at the trail/train issue. The group is promoting a trail because it will add to the quality of life Kirkland offers. (I for one, envy those that have quick access to the Sammamish River Trail.) The group is also looking for reasoned, impartial analysis of the transit issue, analysis which follows the proper public process.
Lack of Leadership:
“Assuming I am right, and I always am, what argument is left for the no-to-public-transit-protestors other than NIMBY?”
Hopefully, you were able to find out a few reasons the train would not be a great idea from my above post.
Again, come to the meeting on Wednesday to find out more of the facts, then make a judgment.
I think some NIMBYISM is good. The people who are affected by an issue, either because it impacts them financially or is happening nearby, are the ones who usually try to get the full story. Most people don’t pay attention to a lot of the things going on around them if they don’t think it directly affects them. It’s human nature. Besides, in fairness, everyone is so busy in their daily lives, it’s hard to keep up with all the issues.
Yes, NIMBY’s do bring important info into the spotlight so that more people are aware of them. However, they do not present the whole story, not by a long shot. They are far from impartial, they are advocating for their own selfish self interests. It would be like getting your Presidential campaign news from one of the two major parties. There can be a lot of spin and even an untruth here and there.
last year the county wanted 15 bill for a 45 mile rail corredore. We can have this one for 90% less for the same milage. I sorry to be dense here, but, what was the question again? %-]
Debra Sinick,
1) Trains are far more energy efficient than buses.
2) Trains are far less polluting that buses.
3) Trains are far more quiet (coming close to silence) than buses.
4) Trains are the preferred mode of public transit among middle-class and upper-class Americans because of all of the above reasons AND because a) they are a smoother ride, b) they allow the awaiting passengers the dignity and shelter of waiting at a station instead of on a street corner, c) they operate on a far more reliable schedule, and d) are just plain classy. But buses are i) a clunky ride with an uncomfortable center of gravity, ii) force people to stand at street corners, usually with no shelter, iii) are more prone to delays, and iv) are a dreaded form of transportation that is associated with the poor. So all of this means that when it comes time to make budgetary decision in the future, the more affluent voters of a community are happy to let local bus lines slide, but will fight ferociously to uphold their beloved local train lines.
Trains are also the preferred mode of transportation in Europe. And when Europeans visit the USA, they are dismayed at how inferior that ALL public transit is in this nation, and ESPECIALLY how bad that local, regional, and national train lines are. (The trains of Washington DC are one exception to this general rule. The DC trains are of a superb world-class caliber, but only because the Senators and Congressmen demand it.) While many other nations of the world are actively upholding their local, regional, and national trains –especially TRUE high-speed rail lines– the USA is dismantling its trains on all levels, and has never built a TRUE high-speed system. (A “high-speed train” can only be called such if the track bed meets some very precise engineering specifications. And American has never even built one lines to those specifications.) It is an understatement to say that the rest of the world is stunned at this seemingly unexplainable aversion that the USA has toward upholding and enhancing its local, regional, and national rails. The sheer size of our nation would logically mandate that we protect national rail with all our might, but we have allowed it to slide in favor of the automobile.
As for the historical rivalry between autos and local rail lines in this nation –a rivalry that LOOKS like the car has been winning due to (one MIGHT assume) due to the normal supply and demand forces of a free-market– the real truth is that back in the early 1920’s GM did a study that led them to realize that the chiefest deterrent to expanding US car sales was the extensive presence of local rail in this nation. GM concluded that the US market for automobile purchasing had reached market saturation, and so there was no more room left in the normal customer base here in the USA for the market to expand any further. However it was determined by that same GM study that if many key local rail lines in many key US cities simply did not exist anymore, then many Americans in those markets would force themselves to take the serious plunge into buying a car. This led GM to embark upon what has been called “The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy.” The auto manufacturer deliberately set up a fake front company (called National City Lines) that started buying up many dozens of small, privately held local rail companies throughout the USA, and then they would dismantle the tracks, burn the street cars, and then replace the trains with GM motor coaches. The result was that wealthy neighborhoods which PREVIOUSLY enjoyed the far-superior trolley and train services immediately demanded that those loud, foul-smelling, black-cloud-spewing, rickety buses stop passing through their beautiful neighborhoods, and then those same rich people went out and bought cars. This left the buses to travel almost always only in poorer neighborhoods.
This slow cannibalizing of local rail lines throughout the USA continued from the 1920’s all the way into the 1940’s until 1947 when GM was indicted in California Federal Court on conspiracy charges that they were out to destroy local rail in this nation. They were tried, and they were found guilty of a lesser charge (an anti-monopoly charge concerning the exclusive use of GM motor coaches), fined $5,000.00, and then each of the officers of GM were fined $1.00 apiece. Meanwhile, over 50 communities throughout the USA have been permanently robbed of their local rail systems, but not because of “supply and demand” but because of a full blown conspiracy. Los Angeles in particular –a city world-renowned for not only its insane traffic congestion but also its record-breaking pollution levels– is at this time TRYING to restore at least a small remnant of the trains it once had (trains that National City Lines ripped out and replaced with GM buses over half a century ago). But the price tag for completion of the LA train restoration is estimated to be running well over a quarter of a billion dollars with a time horizon of nearly 20 years.
Meanwhile, our entire nation –unlike any other industrialized nation on Earth– has re-oriented its entire identity toward the automobile, with the memory local rail systems left behind as a quaint novelty of a bygone era. Very few middle-class Americans of today have ever experienced the convenience of having a local rail line run through their suburbs, and are thus utterly enslaved to their cars. This is tragic on many levels, but particularly so in light of the legacy of the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy since part of the original design of all pre-WWII suburbs included the essential addition of a train. But then after WWII trains were no longer part of any suburban planning, and so the suburbs became the exclusive domain of the automobile.
There is a profound need to not only bring back local train systems in this nation (a mode of transportation that the rest of the world has never been so foolish as to discard and/or allow to get cannibalized) but to enhance regional and national lines as well.
Bike trails are nice. But the NEED of local rail in every last city in this nation is an imperative that cannot be ignored.