By Debra Sinick
A trail now on the BNSF corridor? Over 40 people came out for last week’s Eastside Trail Advocates meeting to hear about the possibilities of a trail on the corridor now, with a train, if needed at a later date. The ETA supports the publicly funded studies that have concluded commuter rail is not appropriate in the corridor for at least the near to mid-term future, which is 10 – 20 years.
The group believes:
“A pathway, with a much lower investment, makes sense now and in the future, whether a rail is in place or not.”
The group is actively working towards that goal.
Lisa McConnell, a member of the steering committee for the Eastside Trail Advocates, talked about the benefits of the trail for the people of Kirkland and the eastside. Not only would the trail unite communities, rather than divide them, it would be a place for non-motorized commuters, walkers and bikers, to head to work. The Corridor as a trail would connect with The Burke Gilman Trail and The Sammamish River Trail, becoming a wonderful link to the eastside’s existing network of trails.
Ms. McConnell spoke of the health benefits available to walkers, increased safety for school children crossing the trail to school, and the minimal impact the trail would have on parks and wetlands.
But the economic benefits are an added advantage many people don’t consider. She sited several trails from other areas of the country that have had a big impact on economy, keeping jobs and money in the local communities. The Houghton shopping area alone has over 50 businesses which could benefit from people walking/commuting on the trail. When you add in Totem Lake and downtown Kirkland, the trail could be a great benefit to local businesses.
(Correction to the Reporter story: The ST2, The Sound Transit study, not ETA, estimated the costs. The correct costs are listed in the December, 2008 PSRC-Puget Sound Regional Council- Technical Report)
The ETA (Eastside Trail Advocates) will be speaking at tomorrow’s Kirkland City Council meeting at 7:30 PM at City Hall, 123 Fifth Ave, in the City Council’s chambers. Among the group’s goals is to ask the Council to become involved with King County and The Port of Seattle in the planning for the corridor by assigning city staff to attend meetings to advocate for the trail, to develop a plan of action, and to search for funding.
Support the ETA by attending tomorrow night’s City Council meeting, join the ETA or the ETA’s Facebook Fan Page. On February 20th from 10:30AM-12 noon, your voice can also be heard at a Town Hall at Kirkland City Hall meeting hosted by 45th District legislators, Senator Eric Oemig and Reps. Larry Springer and Roger Goodman.
The rail corridor’s highest and best use is for badly needed mass transportation for our region.
It’s interesting to me that some people would knowingly buy property in the vicinity of a rail line – and then complain about a discussion of it being used for the transportation corridor it was designed for.
Joe,
How are you? It’s been a while since we “talked” online.
I don’t disagree that mass transportation is needed. I think we disagree on how it should be implemented. Two publicly funded studies have demonstrated that the rail line on the BNSF corridor is not feasible in the near term. It does not make sense financially at this time because of the poor condition of the tracks, which will keep train speeds down to about 25 miles an hour, not a very fast pace. (One of the reasons BNSF was anxious to sell the line.)
Additionally, there are over 50 crossings which means local car traffic will be adversely affected. Traffic tie ups will be terrible as local commuters wait for a train to pass. I posted a video demonstrating the time it too me to cross the Totem Lake intersection during a non-rush hour time when a train was crossing. It took over 4 minutes to cross. Imagine what a mess that intersection would be during rush hour.
School kids cross the tracks to go different schools in Kirkland. Wetlands and parks will be adversely affected. Kirkland and Bellevue neighborhoods will be divided, rather than connected by a commuter line.
In my first few sentences in the post above, I mentioned I’m not in favor of a train because two separate publicly funded studies did not demonstrate the viability of a train on the tracks at this time. The needed ridership has also not been proven in these studies. This is not to say it won’t be something for the future.
By the way, Joe, the people who are affected by an issue are usually the ones who spend the time to learn all the issues. In fairness, we are all so busy in our daily lives, it is hard to get involved and learn about all the issues. I imagine if the train were an issue for Issaquah, as an example, I probably would not be paying such close attention to the issues. I know you are very active and busy, too. It’s hard to be involved with all that we care about.
Nice “talking” with you.
Hi Debra – it has been awhile. Hope you are doing well – and congratulations on becoming such a successful blogger!
No – I don’t think a “train” is the transportation of the future and there will certainly need to be modifications to the route (or the streets that cross it), but light rail has been demonstrated to work around the world.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like it would be almost impossible to create a better trail for mass transit without negatively affecting MANY more homes, businesses and PEOPLE.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for you nice message. I am blogging a lot these days! You, on the other hand, are a social media expert.
But regarding the BNSF corridor, the proposals do not include light rail on this line. It has not been the option that has been considered, unfortunately. The talk has been of DMU’s, Diesel Motor Units.
Here are some thoughts from The Seattle Transit blog about the BNSF corridor as compared to the East Link light rail line:
“The operations costs of the line are staggering as well. At a cost $24 million per annum (the low estimate) and 6,000 riders per day (the highest estimate, the one that includes truncating bus service on 405), the service costs more than three times as much per rider as East Link will. East Link is supposed to get a little more than 45,000 riders per day, operate 20 hours a day, and have an $80 million annual operating budget. The “average” case, ie, the baseline ridership estimate for the BNSF line (5015 riders per day) and the middle range of the operating costs ($27 million), has a per rider cost that is higher than that of Sounder North, which has been widely criticized for its extreme costs. Put another way, the Eastside BNSF is $16 a trip at the cheapest, and $22 in the average case, and over $30 per trip in the worst case.”
Here are links to two articles written by The Seattle Transit Blog:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/02/12/eastside-commuter-rail-study-released/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/02/12/opinion-eastside-bnsf-commuter-rail-is-dead/
I’m disappointed the conversation doesn’t address the big picture questions – transportation, and land use planning. These are interconnected. You can’t make transportation decisions without assumptions about origins and destinations of people and things.
I use a bike exclusively, 12 months a year, for all my transportation (except the bus, if going to Seattle). Let’s talk about transportation things (like future uses of the BNSF route) NOT in fragmentary and incomplete ways. What’s the big picture: First, achieve a steady-state, sustainable mentality, and achieve a safe landing for the property speculation and endless growth that is completely pervasive in our economy. Second, maintain a correct, empirical transportation model of origins and destinations, times, frequencies, weight, pricing etc. Third, let Boeing and Microsoft and everybody else, submit proposals that optimize the results. Transportation can be a trivially easy thing to solve, once you agree on facts and assumptions– Which is why the powerful forces occupy all the seats at the table, with their thumbs on all the scales, i.e. blocking and modifying the information. I condemn most of all the American automobile owner who is really gumming up the transportation routes with their private salons-on-wheels, their symbolic military tanks, space-ships, mothers’ wombs etc. Because it they were really serious about transportation, economics, speed, safety, etc. they would HATE cars.