Concerned about what could be happening on the BNSF rail line that runs along Lake Washington around the perimeter of Kirkland’s Highlands? You should be.
I’ve written a lot of pieces about the trails and rails on this blog and watched the trails/rails issue evolve over the last few years. We’ve gone from a trail to who knows what at this point in time. For a look at what DMUs, Diesel Motor Units may look and sound like if they are going by on the BNSF track, take a look at these YOuTube videos from Brian and Emily’s blog. Last week I attended a meeting of concerned citizens in Houghton about the trail/rail issue. The rail line impacts many Kirkland residents from Bellevue on up through Juanita. The group is advocating for a trail on the BNSF line and has formed The Eastside Trail Advocates. The group is not against better transportation, but wants to ensure transportation improvements make sense. There doesn’t seem to be any ridership studies done for a commuter train, but there’s a lot of talk about developing a commuter line. A critical piece is missing here. Is the cart before the horse?
Here are some key points:
-
King County Executive Ron Sims supports dual use of the BNSF right of way. Keep the right of way for a future commuter rail line if needed, with interim use as a trail with the rail lines pulled out.
-
A Puget Sound Regional Council study is also for rail banking. Rail banking is the public acquiring of rail lines for trails with the possible future use as a rail line.
-
The Port of Seattle is scheduled to purchase the rail line from mile 5 down in Renton to mile 39 up in Woodinville in April of this year, with a fall closing. Boeing and BNSF cut a deal to keep Mile 0-mile 5 open for Boeing to transport fuselages.
-
An Eastside Transportation Partnership has formed with members of Sound Transit, WSDOT, and the Puget Sound Regional Council.
The trail advocates are concerned about:
-
The best use of tax dollars
-
The real cost to build this rail line, its stations, and parking.
-
Safety and street traffic, as many intersections and paths to schools cross over the rail line.
-
-
Destruction of neighborhoods.
-
Noise and pollution if diesel trains are used.
-
The lack of population density along the rail line when compared to the I-405 corridor.
-
The loss of a trail, a potential fabulous amenity for all Eastsiders.
No matter what your opinion, get educated about the rails/trails issues. If you are in support of the trail, log onto Eastside Trail Advocates and lend your support.
Kirkland Highlands Real Estate Buzz
What’s silly is that the Port of Seattle is overriding King County and the recommendations of their lengthy taxpayer funded study that said it should be converted to a trail, with rail in the future when demand is there.
But the Discovery Institute (the ones who don’t believe in evolution) has the Cascadia Center that apparently wants to develop real estate along the corridor and has convinced the already troubled Port (under Federal investigation for fraud related to another $100 million of wasted tax dollars) that it should somehow fund this and take over from King County.
Nevermind that the corridor has numerous problems like crossing many streets, is not wide enough to support bi-direction trails, goes through neighborhoods and wetlands, has the ancient Wilburton tressle to deal with, the train bridge over I-405 in Bellevue is gone for widening, and doesn’t connect the major Eastside cities, but it doesn’t even reach Sea-Tac, the one Port of Seattle destination that would make sense.
Rather than using the already existing I-405 corridor, which doesn’t cross streets, go through neighbors and elementary schools, reaches Sea-Tac, etc., these goofballs are proposing a non-solution with no known ridership interest, apparently all to make a buck in real estate development. Go figure that money is the root of all evil once again, and of course it’s our tax dollars that will be wasted, including the fraud investigation we’ll have to pay for once it all falls apart.
It’s a real shame that we can’t get better trains than diesel for the 21st century, and too bad it’s not all part of the master plans for Sound Transit.
Thanks, Dave. You raised some very good points and yes, they do make sense:
” Nevermind that the corridor has numerous problems like crossing many streets, is not wide enough to support bi-direction trails, goes through neighborhoods and wetlands, has the ancient Wilburton tressle to deal with, the train bridge over I-405 in Bellevue is gone for widening, and doesn’t connect the major Eastside cities, but it doesn’t even reach Sea-Tac, the one Port of Seattle destination that would make sense.”
People are grasping for straws because here. They are grasping onto the BNSF rail line because it’s there, not because it is a wise choice and good use of tax dollars.
Debra,
Thanks for providing this forum, and for alerting the Highlands Neighborhood Assoc to this issue.
Another point is that if the rails are left in for this railroad, it will take a LOT more money and effort to create a trail alongside the tracks. It will be a major engineering and construction project, as opposed to merely ripping out the rails, doing some grading and then paving the existing railbed. New bridges will be required, vast amounts of fill will be needed to provide a level surface, most likely fencing will be needed to separate the tracks and trail, etc. This will delay the trail for many years, and cost untold millions. Do the trail, and add more buses if more transit is needed.
HI Rick,
I agree with your assessment of the situation. Ron Sims wants a trail with the option of rail later, if needed. It makes the most sense to remove the current tracks and put in the trail.
Railroad easements are usually very generous.
We have some of the worst traffic in the country.
Not fixing it is economic suicide. It amounts to a tax of time and resources on everyone that lives and works in the area.
Why not explore a dual use solution. Light rail and an adjacent trail? It’s very possible we could have both.
Hi Carol,
I agree with you, we do have terrible traffic. No doubt about it. The trails advocates are clearly for improving transportation. We all are. However, when you examine the issues involving the BNSF rail line, politicians are afraid to let go of it simply because they cannot come up with a viable solution for traffic problems.
Are they hanging on to the rail line because it’s there? No studies have been done to see what the true ridership would be for this rail line. There is only one line, which makes it difficult for a true commuter line. It will be far more expensive than we think to develop. The current line crosses by schools, neighborhoods, parks, and wetlands. It’s not connected to city centers. Along or down the middle of 405 seems to be a more logical route. By using this route connections could be made to I-90 and 520 more easily.
By the way, rail banking does not allow for the line to be totally abandoned if it’s needed as a rail line in the future. It does allow for a trail to be used with the option of rails later. So your idea of a rail and trail may still happen someday.
I would love to see some realistic plans to improve transportation. Without something viable, it really seems like a waste of money and an economic disaster.
Thanks for your opinion.