Think of the pilot line in terms of Sounder. It would have one purpose only: ferrying commuters from the north I-405 corridor into downtown Bellevue, and back north in the evening. Proximity to jobs or commercial areas at stops other than Bellevue is irrevelant. Just like on Sounder, most riders will drive to the stations, so while the number of homes within walking distance is important, it is not a critical factor (in the beginning at least).

For the long term, it is a useful debate as to whether in addition to commuter rail, a high-frequency Link line could also use portions of the ROW. The rail ROW does pass closer to some high-density areas (like Carillon Point, downtown Kirkland) than the I-405 ROW, the only other viable rail corridor in the vicinity.

By the time an extension to Kirkland and Totem Lake is being seriously considered things may change a lot as well. There may be more Federal funding for building tunnels and there may be more political support for taking car lanes for transit use.

Serving Houghton and the S. Kirkland P&R are the two reasons other than Downtown Kirkland for wanting to use the BNSF ROW rather than just going straight up 405 from Bellevue. Also until WSDOT decides it isn’t going to be expanding 405 anymore I don’t think they want anything in the ROW that might interfere with highway widening.

Downtown Kirkland is one of the denser areas of the Eastside and is a walkable neighborhood which is very important for transit. It feels more like a Seattle neighborhood than a suburban city center.

Rerouting rail from the BNSF ROW to State Street would require buying out not only the properties between where State Street ends but every property along State Street because the ROW is only a minor residential street. No way the Lakeview Neighborhood is going to go for that.

There are piles that extend out into Juanita Bay that I think used to be a rail line. Not at all sure about that. Of course there’s no way that would fly today. I think you’d be looking at a tunnel to serve Kirkland and if that’s not cost effective for downtown Bellevue it will never be feasible for Kirkland. I could however see a waterfront streetcar that connected Kirkland and then turned west along Northup (or whatever that’s called on the Kirkland side and then continued on the BNSF ROW into Bel-Red and Bellevue. I think that would be much more in line with the density than regional rail.

If you’re talking about turning north where the BNSF crosses 405 at Totem Lake then why not just run straight up 405 from Bellevue? It just seems too tortured to try and pick up downtown Kirkland which isn’t really high density anyway. As a bonus you’d pick up Houghton P&R which is on a good east west connector (Old Redmond Road) between Redmond and Kirkland. Another stop North of NE 85th to serve Rose Hill and you’re golden.

Excursions to the wineries on the weekend?

I don’t see how you can do it given the grade of the hill and any potential ROW. Even getting out of downtown Kirkland using Market would probably require some sort of regrade or tunnel. Honestly downtown Kirkland by it’s self isn’t that big as far as employment or housing density.

Well then you could just stay in the BNSF ROW, though I don’t think Kirkland would be too happy with that. Just looking at a terrain map it would seem like a loop into downtown could be done via State/3rd or 6th then use the south side of Central to get back to the BNSF ROW. Perhaps given the density and historic nature of downtown Kirkland a short tunnel might be justified.

I don’t see Market as a feasible alternative for Link at all, I’d say it is much more likely that Link would take the 405 ROW or BNSF between Downtown Kirkland and Totem Lake.

The BNSF ROW through Totem Lake misses Evergreen Hospital and the Transit Center. Other than the Medical Center most employment is west of 405.

I was envisioning having Link leave the BNSF ROW to turn North along 405 once it got to the highway. I’m not sure if the best station location would be the Kingsgate P&R, Totem Lake Transit Center/Hospital, or at 124th on the West side of the freeway.

I do agree that for Link the Totem Lake to Woodinvile section of the BNSF ROW just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Some sort of detour to downtown Kirkland would be needed but that still could be fairly short depending on the exact route selected.

I don’t see how you can do it given the grade of the hill and any potential ROW. Even getting out of downtown Kirkland using Market would probably require some sort of regrade or tunnel. Honestly downtown Kirkland by it’s self isn’t that big as far as employment or housing density. The BNSF ROW through Totem Lake misses Evergreen Hospital and the Transit Center. Other than the Medical Center most employment is west of 405. Without connections to Snohomish and Renton the utility of the BNSF ROW isn’t worth much. The political fight is going to be hard no matter where it goes. I’d love to see the BNSF ROW work for rail and sooner rather than later because once it becomes as popular as the Burke Gilman and Sammamish River Trail I think the chance of bringing back trains goes to zero. But a line with low ridership and nothing but a money pit might be even worse for long term viability. East Link to Redmond will make the Kirkland to Woodinville section of the line unnecessary. Bellevue to Renton is the real jewel; Woodinville to Snohomish and on to Everett maybe longer term.

You could do the same thing on the Redmond spur with stops at Leary Way, NE 90th, NE 116th, NE 124th, SR 202 and the terminal station for the other line.

I personally think the PSRC study came to a pre-determined conclusion. They had gold-plated plans for rail rehabilitation and trail amenities that inflated the cost enough to skew the cost-benefit. The Kirkland portion of this route reminds me a lot of portions of Boston’s Green Line E with respect to running through peoples back yards.

In any case this is all fairly academic at this point. First we have to get East Link built right in the first place. The next East King County priorities are likely finishing East Link into Downtown Redmond and a spur via Eastgate to Issaquah. Any rail transit North of Bellevue is likely quite a ways off. Though there is some hope of seeing things built faster if Seattle sets the precedent and especially if the Legislature grants additional tax authority. I could see Kirkland following the example and funding a ST expansion on its own.

I really wish that they would consider a 1 year pilot with low cost stations for the route to see if the numbers meet reality

Lor Scara

ESR can’t run to Snohomish because it’s outside the Sound Transit district thus any funds to improve the track and provide service need to come from elsewhere.

I do wish they had a “TRY Eastside Rail” like they did in 1995 with pre-Sounder service. How was the logistics of that?

ESR goes through a lot of Single family and low density areas, (so does sounder north)
A lot of people dont like trains running through/near their back yard (applies universally to all rail routes)
The ESR goes through several parks/nature preserves, (Sounder north goes along the coastline, and through a lot of parks )

For a quick (relative low cost) solution to creating a East Side Spine/Backbone route, Can you beat the oportunity, I dont think so.

Leave the SnoCo portion out in the initial offering if you must (I think that would be a mistake, but not a fatal one)
run 3 or 4 end to end trainsets durring the morning and evening commute
Build a small number of Temporary stations (Woodinville, Totem Lake, South kirkland P&R, NE8th, north renton.
run it for 3 months and see what the demand is, and how close it matches the PSRC predictions.

If rail to Kirkland is ever seriously discussed it could use the tracks from the P&R to tie into Eastlink (since 520 to Central Link is pretty much precluded due to lack of current planning). But from there I think Northup to Lake Washington Blvd (yeah, no fight there :=) and then up Market/100th to Bothell (another minor squable… compared to Lk WA Blvd). From there either dead end pending further expansion north, west back to Central Link or loop back to Woodinville and rejoin East Link via the Redmond Spur.

Of all those options continuing north on Bothell Everett Highway and then 405 to Lynwood probably makes the most sense. The BNSF ROW goes through Totem Lake but that’s the only non-residential area between Kirkland and Woodinville and the rail line misses most of the highest demand. From Totem Lake north the entire line is again cut into a steep hillside as it descends back into Woodinville. Connecting Woodinville to east Link is much better accomplished by simply extending East Link up the Redmond Spur. Redmond City Council has already expressed this as their preferred alternative in lieu of the silly plan to cut a swath through downtown to try and go two blocks north to a poorly sited Transit Center.

The recently completed PSRC study has the maximum speed pegged at something live 30 MPH given the current conditions of the track, curves, etc. You could drive it quicker then that.

“Wallace, a top executive from Bellevue-based Wallace Properties, has said he does not favor the preferred route along Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue Southeast. He also said a tunnel option through the heart of downtown would likely be financially unattainable, while a surface route there would be unacceptable.”

“Wallace is developing an East Link routing alternative that would run light rail along the abandoned BNSF rail line through South Bellevue and close to the I-405 expressway downtown.”

Gee, I wonder how many auto row properties Mr. Wallace represents? I’m sure there’s no conflict of interest there.