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.

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.

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/

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.