Another DMU corridor that is being closely looked at for lightly used or abandoned railroads is SMART – Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, which in a interesting twist will be a joint rail/trail for the entire 70 mile, 14 station corridor. It’s last cost estimate in 2006 was $385 million dollars and around $6.8 million per mile with an annual operating cost of $14 million
The system itself will look at the Siemens Desiro Classic, same vehicle which is used on the Sprinter however will seek to have the FRA look at the vehicle to allow it to go it’s full potential speed of 90mph though the corridor will only be good for 79mph but it will open up a vast market of cheap, easy to maintain, rail transport instead of just seeking Bombardier coaches, cab cars, and expensive, loud, huge diesel locomotives.
What does that have to do with the Pacific Northwest? Well, we have an lightly used rail corridor – the BNSF Woodinville Subdivision which runs from Renton to Snohomish which is also very similar to the Sonoma corridor.
The Sonoma corridor will rehab all of the track with 136lb rail and concrete ties with connections to multiple transit agencies, including the Larkspur Ferry which would shuttle people to Downtown San Francisco, build 14 key stations, add a few additional sidings, and service will run every 30 minutes each direction.
As for the trail, it is expected to host 7,000 to 10,000 walkers, bicyclist, joggers, and others every day.
This should be very interesting to see what happens regarding this…
It’s hard to imagine a serene walk next to a train, much less a train moving that fast…but I guess I’d take it over just one or the other.
Well I can tell from personal experience that the Eastside line probably will be a dubbed light-rail type of line limited to 55 or 60mph. There would have to be a lot of work done to get anything faster than that.
Light rail should be good enough for that corridor, heavy dmu’s cost a lot to run, which would be bad since the corridor might not get humungous riders.
That depends on the model but a DMU is going to be more fuel efficient than your average locomotive and more comparable to a bus.
The Siemens Desiro Classic and Bombardier Talent have better MPG than a 60 foot New Flyer bus but both carry around 200 passengers.
Light-Rail would be fine but then you have the cost of wiring up the entire line and the people of the Eastside already rather have no obstructions… Poles and Catenery wouldn’t jive well.
If the passenger on/off’s at Tukwila are any indication, I already think this service will be more popular than what most believe. It’s really just getting into Bellevue which would be the biggest obstacle
$385 million gets us from Bellevue to Overlake Transit Center, or Overlake Transit Center to Redmond proper.
Unless there’s a non-Sound Transit funding source here, I think that East Link is pretty clearly much more cost-effective.
The vote for the SMART project depends on Marin County NIMBYs. Here in California we have an idiotic rule that requires a 2/3 vote to pass any tax at the ballot. The SMART plan got 65% in 2006 – but if you break it down by county, Sonoma gave it 75% support and Marin only in the high 50s.
Marin County is strongly Democratic, but also very wealthy and *extremely* NIMBY. Even though this rail corridor already exists, many voters there thought it would bring new congestion (huh?) or promote further development (how?). Those were merely rationalizations for their pre-existing hostility to the train, which hopefully have weakened over the last two years.
There’s no space for both walkers/bikers and trains on the eastside bnsf.
Yeah, no space at all – especially the at least three-fourths of the right of way that is wide enough for double tracking or more. Certainly the space to prevent trains from colliding with one another is insufficient for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Anyone else notice how the silence by the light rail cultists on this blog over the eastside density question? I have. When you point out the illogicalness of the slow, zig-zagging Downtown to Seatac line, they are quick to chant “Density if everything.” But when a light rail line is proposed on the eastside cutting through relatively lower density areas … silence.
Sam, what are you on?
First off, this proposal (like SMART) is not light rail. It is heavy commuter rail.
Second, there are people running this blog who do not like Eastside rail and others that do. There are posters that oppose it and posters that think it’s great.
Personally, I’m not convinced it’s going to make us all young and beautiful and rich but you are someone who is all over turning a high capacity right of way into a nature trail which is, shall we say, very, very low capacity. Plus, keeping it as heavy rail does have the added benefit of supporting the continuation of manufacturing on the Eastside. Let me sum up this section by saying that it is abundantly obvious that you are recreationist NIMBY.
Your strawmen are showing, too, when you talk about Central LINK. Or your lack of understanding. Either way, the “zig-zagging” actually maximizes potential ridership, it links (ha!) areas of already high residential density to areas of already high job density and vice versa (plus, all those areas with both high job and high residential density). It’s building something that will be the capacity equivalent to another lane or two on I-5 for much less than the cost of 15ish miles of concrete. Or are you talking about the meandering route through the Duwamish bottomland as it links up with Tukwila and the airport? A route forced by geography and lack of demand along that stretch of the route but mucho demand at the terminii?
Not to toot my own horn but I am pretty pro-bus also. But it’s a matter of scale and capacity – trains have much greater capacity and they scale WAY up and the Central LINK route replicates and replaces bus routes that are very close to the capacity of bus routes in general. You simply can’t scale buses up further.
cjh, it’s nice to have you here commenting. Such a level-headed response!
What am I on? Oh yeah, I forgot where I am. Rail is God. Rail is everything. Rail will save us. Rail is and answer. Forgive me for questioning it. May I please have more Koolaid?
Not to encourage thread hijacking, but Sam? You know this is a transit blog, right? Have you seen the coverage of buses? Do you want us to talk about the Mariners
If you’re suggesting by your “Rail is God” cracks that we think rail is a better option for high-capacity corridors, then yes, that’s true. Look through our archives sometime to see why we think it’s superior to BRT.
Each of us has our own little pet routes that we would probably prefer over the current plan, but the we recognize that the choice isn’t between a perfect plan in our minds and this one, it’s between this one and nothing. That’s why we support it.
Couple of notes that come from actually looking at the SMART project site. Most notable is that the projected volumes of trail users is up to twice as much as for the rail section. I’m familiar with the corridor there, and the estimates are likely true. Given the lack of good north/south bicycling options on the Eastside currently, I have no doubt that the trail component of the project will be very popular. I’d like to say the same of the rail component, but THAT is speculation in its sincerest form!
There is more than adequate room for shared rail with trail on most of this line – there are segments where some engineering (heaven forbid!) might be necessary to accomodate both uses within normal standards of separation, but the feasibility when studied (as opposed to speculated upon) is clearly there.
Regardless of the technology chosen for rail on this corridor, the line will have to be pretty completely rebuilt. For me, that’s not a deal-breaker – getting an appropriate design rather than a cut-and-paste on a line designed for steam engines makes some sense, and will help generate popular support from more than just one user group.
SMART may very well be a good model for what can be accomplished on the Eastside.