What’s really at issue is whether the WSDOT has planned the abutments needed to restore the track back over the freeway. If they didn’t, then it will cost more to replace that segment.

Jim

The reason east coast cities and other ‘transit meccas’ look the way they do is because when the rail lines were built 100 years ago, they went to suburban and rural communities, and then the density grew around them.

“The Burke-Gilman’s daily commute ridership is greater than the estimated ridership for the BNSF corridor”

I would like to see how the data was collected.

By the way, anyone involved with keeping a rail system on the BNSF corridor has NEVER excluded sharing with the cycling community, so I’m at a loss as to why you need to call commuter rail on this corridor a ‘pipe dream’

Jim

After spending a few years on the I-405 Corridor Program’s Citizen Committee, with allies like Peter Hurley of Transportation Choices, and opposite those such as Kemper Freeman, Janet Ray of AAA, and members of the Trucking Industry, I have come to understand more of the nature of their position.

Do you realize that those groups that see ‘transportation’ as single occupancy vehicles only are just tickled pink to see the conversations that are happening here on what is a TRANSIT-blog? The biggest concern I have is that the conversation here seems to follow the typical PNW ‘transit-mode-wars’ pattern. My version of transit is better than your version, my train is better than your train, my rail is better than your rail.

During the I-405 Corridor Program (around the year 2000) we looked at proposals ranging from the most expensive ‘Roads Only’ alternative, through combinations of roads and transit, and balanced on the other end by a ‘Rail only’ alternative.

To recap (in Year 2000 Budget $):
Alternative #1 – Rail Only; 5.3 Billion (ST’s LRT Tukwila – Lynnwood)
Alternative #2 – 1 lane each direction + Rail (see above); 8.6 Billion
Alternative #3 – 2 lanes each direction + transit improvements (i.e. BRT); 6.7 Billion
Alternative #4 – Roads Only, 3 lanes each direction, no transit improvements; 11.3Billion

When these all went through the Cost Benefit analysis, which used a horizon year of 2030, the only one that had a positive ratio was Alternative #3. Alternative #1′s performance was dismal. What surprised me was that Alternative #2 and #4 had the same ratio. Why?

Simply because the payback for adding 3 lanes in each direction or 1 lane in each direction + LRT was beyond the horizon year. I spoke with the analyst working on the project, and he said that no planner wants to go beyond the 30 year horizon because they don’t know what technology might be available.

If you ask the same question after 2030, using the same horizon span, you will get the same answer for congestion relief. Building roads isn’t futile because “if you build it, they will come”, it’s futile because you build a ‘system’ that can only pull 2100 vehicles per hour off the adjacent lanes. Once filled, then congestion either increases, or you have to build another lane.

Imagine if we built Link like that? Okay folks, after we get 3 trains an hour up and running, once they’re full, we have to build another track, bore another tunnel, build another station… ad infinitum. It’s exactly how we deal with road building.

Why does road building matter on this Blog?

Because no one here (along with the general public) questions that spending. The gas tax, which is the biggest social engineering project invented, has been portrayed as a user fee. If you want to understand who subsidizes who, then pretend you are an entrepreneur, and build yourself a congestion reducing roadway, and charge a toll for it.

I think it’s counter-productive for some members of the Discovery Institute to defend Commuter Rail on the Woodinville Sub with negative arguments against LRT from Seattle to Redmond. These are, after all, two different corridors. What should be happening is the defenders of cost should be involved in the planning being done now for East Link. Even though most planners have heard many arguments and suggestions before, there is always something to be learned, and insight gained from a new face.

I also think it’s counter productive to look at the ST/PRSC’s analysis as a reason to not build the commuter rail option, since what they are doing is building the system as if it will last way beyond the 30 year horizon. Planning for the long term, imagine that!?

Now, does the cost of ST’s version preclude having commuter rail on the Woodinville Sub now? Absolutely not. Five percent of $1.3 billion is $50 million. If I wanted to buy 6 trainsets, 3 cars + locomotive, for let’s say $2mil per vehicle, then I’d be spending $48mil on equipment. Analysis the Discovery Institute and All Aboard Washington was involved with showed that modest improvements to remove speed restrictions because of track conditions will allow 40 mph over most of the line. What I’ve heard from others in the railroad industry is the cost is somewhere around $60million. Sound Transit spent approximately $500,000 for the temporary Tukwila station, so you could add another few million for very simple station accommodations.

My really rough speculation above is definitely within the original estimates given in Andrew’s editorial and in line with the numbers we were hearing during the I-405 planning. Why didn’t you read about it in the I-405 analysis? Simply because the City of Renton and the Kennydale Neighborhood Association wrote to the I-405 Executive Committee requesting any study of the BNSF corridor be moved off the table.

The major tenet of the planning for the I-405 Corridor Program was that all municipalities had to be in agreement as to what would be included in the Cost Benefit analysis.

The BNSF Corridor analysis never got there. The farthest we got was a ridership estimate for a Woodinville-Tukwila segment of approximately 3100 riders a day. Cost was roughly estimated at $300 million, but at that time, BNSF wasn’t selling, and no one was asking.

Right-of-way acquisition is certainly a major factor in costing out an alternative. Sound Transit’s LRT option (Alternative #1) was based entirely on acquiring new ROW, except for parts of the Woodiniville Sub around Kirkland, and parts where it could be in the median on I-405.

RK’s comment “You honestly think that the region’s infrastructure investment should be focused on helping people commute from Gold Bar and Sultan?” is revealing in one respect. RK completely ignores the fact that we already spend millions of dollars on helping people commute from that area. It’s called SR9, SR522, and I-405.

I appreciate the intellectual exercise of ridership comparisons, cost per mile, and other minutiae, and believe me, I’ve seen plenty of that (and have plenty of documents that led up to the I-405 EIS to sort through).

However, I cannot see how some of you can make blanket negative statements about these proposals when all of you (presumably) are transit supporters. I’m assuming that not all of you are ‘roadganger’ trolls.

Rail is rail, any standard system (with the exception of BART) is built on the standard gauge of 4’81/2″, and arguing which one is better by dismissing the other one has no constructive purpose.

For all it’s accomplishing, everyone on this blog could just as well march over to an auto dealership showroom in Bellevue, (they’re not busy nowadays), and beat each other over the head with bats. It would at least provide the public with some entertainment.

It sure as hell isn’t solving how to move this region away from its complete dependence on single occupancy vehicles.

Jim

http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007/12/eastside-rail-o.html

The lowball cost numbers by Cascadia and others ignore the complexities of building in an urban area. Litigious neighbors, safety and enviromental concerns, expensive stations, and difficult sections along the alignment all raise the price tag significantly.

A high quality bike trail without the rail has the potential to carry far more commuters. The Burke-Gilman’s daily commute ridership is greater than the estimated ridership for the BNSF corridor. Bikes have more of a watershed as riders access the line from miles away and ride north or south to Microsoft, Bellevue, or Renton.

For a billion dollars we should extend East Link to Redmond, or send a spur towards Issaquah. We should just build a great bike trail linking the urban Eastside cities and forget this silly pipe dream. This is one of those “great ideas” like laying crappy rail in the bus tunnel at the last minute and having to tear it up.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008739537_belred13m.html

Folks on the Eastside aren’t going to wait forever for a gold plated ST project. The tracks are there and can be used for minimal cost compared to any other transit alternative on this corridor.

Well, fish gotta swim, etc, but it’s sure amazing how fast ST became the new boss, same as the old boss.

And that’s probably the takeaway here. ST has now become an institution trusted by the voters that the other institutions have to treat as an equal. ST is not about to throw that away by indulging in some wild enthusiasm for rail transit, or endorsing a start-up scheme that operates with less than 100% new equipment and a copper-clad guarantee of success.

Well, give it another decade and then we can flip the record over and play the “If only…” side. We’ve heard it all before.

Also, for those who would rather not download the entire EIS PDF file, these ridership numbers are also available on the East Link interactive map page .

The ROW isn’t being thrown away, that is the reason for putting it in public ownership rather than just giving it to the adjoining property owners.

Even if Eastside Rail were to happen it would take time to build out. Assuming all of the construction capital was available up-front construction time lines would be similar with East Link taking a bit longer.

But given funding realities neither line is going to be built that quickly. Again time lines will probably be similar. In any case East Link might actually be built a bit quicker than proposed in ST2 depending on the amount of Federal funding ST is able to secure.

East Link will be built. The political will is there, the funding mechanism is in place, and the cities on the corridor want it. Due to sub-area equity there is a large pool of money that will have to be spent on some sort of transit improvements for the East sub-area.

The ROW is more than wide enough over most of the line to accommodate both either a commuter rail line or link and a bike trail.

The numbers I gave for jobs, population, the Airport are all for perspective. They’re current (some are two years old) and there will be growth (I’d expect) by 2030 but the days of rampant development in Seattle peaked years ago and Bellevue is approaching that state. The greatest growth is going to be to the north, the south and to a lesser extent the west. Density in 2030 will undoubtedly be higher but the number of living units in downtown Bellevue has skyrocketed in the last five years which means more people will be living close to their jobs and thereby relieve some of the pressure on cross lake commuting.

Bernie, Redmond has 20,000 more workers around Overlake Transit Center.

Also, the line is NOT ONE WAY. It also serves people who live in Bellevue or Redmond and commute into Seattle.

And you realize people take two trips if they use it to commute? One in the morning one direction, and one in the evening the other direction. Ridership is each ride.

I think you’re misreading the DEIS about the Overlake segment. Point me to the pages you’re looking at?

Existing ROW *doesn’t matter*. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Sound Transit has eminent domain power. Sure, it’s cheaper to use existing ROW, but ST can just rebuild a roadway, or take the edges of some property.

It’s just a cost. When the whole project is horribly cost-ineffective, the ROW costs only matter as much as the dollars they’d save.

East Link will have a one-seat ride between Lynnwood and Bellevue and all points between. Sure, it’ll run every 9 minutes in 2021, but it’ll run every 6 minutes well before 2030, which is when that ridership estimate is for.

I happen to commute from Capitol Hill to Overlake Transit Center. This would be my way to work, and the way to work for many other Capitol Hill and downtown commuters there – basically half the ridership of the 545. Sure, the 545 might be faster *sometimes* – but when there’s a little traffic on I-5, it takes so long just to get to the 520 ramp that Link would get me to work sooner. That won’t change with the new 520, either.

Sound Transit has no history of any ‘numbers games’. Their ridership numbers have to agree with federal models for them to receive FTA money.

And yeah, the cost of capital, amortized over its life, has to be included to get a fair cost per passenger mile. That’s where Link excels, and that’s where this eastside monster fails miserably. It costs more than Sounder North, and Sounder North was built partly for political reasons!

1) Seatac airport 85,000 passengers/day
How often do you fly? How often do you commute? ‘Nuff said.
2) Sound Transit 60,000 weekday boardings
Case, after case, after case has show that when you replace bus service with rail service you get vastly more riders.
3) Total Jobs in Bellevue 130,000
What are the total jobs in 2030, when the 45,000 number is supposed to be there? This is a wildly misleading number.
4) Vehicles per day on SR 520 115,000
Vehicles is a garbage number. How many people? My bus (242) is packed. Plus, forget 2006, when the 115K number came, think 2030.

Anyway, the reasons are these: think a few years ahead (20 or so), buses don’t get the ridership of trains (don’t even argue this, this is a proven fact), and the explanation is the timeline of the study (Seattle-Overlake was studied in 2005, Seattle to Bellevue two months ago).

If you say 10,000 riders, I’ll just say 110,000. You have no science behind your number, you’ve completely made it up. Why is your estimate more correct than Sound Transit’s engineerring firms? Because you will it to be?

I hope you’re right. I’m really not opposed to light rail. I’m opposed to spending billions if they can be put to better use but what I’m really opposed to is throwing away an existing rail ROW now and not getting any rail service on the eastside for over a decade. Given the usual historical (hysterical?) swings in transit funding might as well be never.

The argument made in the post that ESR wasn’t cost effective was based on ridership and operational cost provided by ST. They too can play a numbers game to support their position and in fact have a history of doing so. Granted sometimes the projections were for systems that through no fault of ST weren’t build out as planned. And again I have to point out that cost of capital has to be included to get a fair cost per passenger mile.

One thing people knock with the South Lake Union Streetcar and then criticize the new plans, is they ignore that over 1 mile of the proposed Ballard and U-District lines already exist now. The plans call for them to use Westlake Ave as far as Mercer Street where they split. the very route of the South Lake Union Streetcar. ALso, on a map of the old streetcar system from the 1920s, there was a line on Westlake, one used by the interurban to Everett.