Sound Transit has just announced a partnership with several other agencies and governments to keep the eastside rail corridor in public ownership. This purchase would allow King County and Redmond to move forward with trail projects, and secure portions of the right of way necessary for East Link.
In Sound Transit’s statement of interest in the Memorandum of Understanding, they’ve called out both the southern portion (for the C portion of East Link) and the Redmond spur (for the E portion of East Link, where funding only exists for study and some right of way acquisition), so they’re thinking ahead.
The purchase itself is expected to be complete by the end of the year.
Notably absent from the partnership is the City of Bellevue.
I found that interesting too. Maybe Bellevue is saving it’s pennies for a tunnel. I don’t know but I’m going to try and find out. One reason I can see Redmond being party to this is the extention from Woodinville to Redmond that goes through downtown Redmond is not part of the corridor King County wanted for the Sim’s Trail. The County already has a dandy bike trail along the slew that goes right into Marymoor Park and connects with the East Lake Sammamish Trail. The only land I can see Bellevue being interested in is possibly some of the spurs that branch out into the Bel-Red triangle. As far as the Link alignment that would be a regional corridor owned or leased by ST, not the City of Bellevue.
Bellevue is however “all in” on the Cascade Water Alliance so will be committing City Funds to that portion of the deal. I think Kirkland and Redmond are also partners but I’m not sure about that.
You’re exactly right. Bellevue doesn’t have any interest in the property, they’re getting a benefit from King County building a trail.
Welcome news indeed. When can I commute to East/Bellevue bases via the trail? :)
Another question: Has ST ever studied going to Eastgate/Issaquah via Bellevue and BNSF instead of via the Slough?
I’m not sure what you mean – do you mean to Redmond via BNSF?
The big issue, the reason it doesn’t have any traction, is that it goes right through people’s backyards.
I think he means following BNSF down to I-90, then following I-90 to Eastgate. The problem I see here is that the BNSF ROW crosses to the west side of I-90 pretty close to SE 8th, so it would only be useful for a small portion of that route.
Yeah, and that skips Microsoft and the Redmond route, which really is a lot more jobs.
I wouldn’t count on a bike trail being complete for ten years or so. Look how long East Lake Sammamish was tied up with lawsuits.
Going to Eastgate/Issaquah via Bellevue and BNSF? Assuming you could cut into the East Link alignment around what would be the northern part of the B7 alignment I suppose that would work but then you’d be backtracking down Bellevue Way probably via a transfer. The problem I see with all of the connections north of the I-90 ROW is that they bypass Factoria. I wonder if connecting Factoria and Issaquah to Tukwilla makes more sense. But then you don’t have stations directly serving Eastgate and Bellevue College. And of course there’s the problem of how do you interchange with East Link. About the only place would be where the Mercer Slough crossing would intersect the BNSF ROW.
A Factoria station is problematic under just about any scenario. To get from there to Eastgate you would have to cross I-90, while to connect from there to South Bellevue P&R, B7, or the BNSF tracks you have to cross both 405 and I-90. It would be a lot more feasible to just increase frequency on bus 240/222, which get from Factoria to South Bellevue in a couple minutes and already come every 15 minutes during most of the day.
There’s actually a good overpass at Eastgate (thanks to Sound Transit). It’s going to take a spur line to go there and Issaquah, anyway.
On my fantasy map a light rail line from Ballard to UW would continue across a 520 bridge to downtown Bellevue and then serve the I-90 corridor to Issaquah. Along with East Link this would create a wide X across the eastside, meeting in downtown Bellevue. This route could use the BNSF ROW from DT Bel to Factoria. Then an elevated line with a stop on the south side of I-90 at Factoria, a stop on the north side at BCC/Eastgate, north side at the Issaquah shopping centers, and then follow the old rail ROW into downtown Issaquah. Then around 2040 people can fight about extensions to Issaquah Highlands to Snoqualmie Ridge.
I don’t know. Most people assume that a Link line from Seattle to Issaquah would just go straight down I-90. It might make more sense to think of Issaquah as Bellevue-Issaquah instead. Isn’t a planning study of the route to Issaquah part of ST2?
How does all of this factor in with Warren Buffett’s offer on BNSF? How would this effect service on the Sounder Lines, which are operated by BNSF?
Not much. If the Port closes the deal by the end of the year (we’ve heard that before) it will be a done deal before the share holders and the various government agencies (FRA, FTA, FTC, etc.) approve the deal with Buffett. The Sounder operations are pretty much Federally regulated already. Plus, I doubt Buffett plans to get deep into the day to day operations of the RR. He didn’t buy BNSF because it needed rescuing. He bought it because he felt it was a viable business with a bright future.
Bernie,
He bought it for the reason you stated (it’s a viable business with a bright future) and because he owns Mid-America Energy and wants to ensure reasonable tariffs for his coal.
But most of all I believe, he wants rights of way for grid extensions into the windy parts of the Great Plains. BNSF links the Texas Panhandle and the eastern Wyoming wind belts with both eastern and western destinations.
The guy is the ultimate long-term player and just guaranteed that the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway will be in the tall clover long after he’s gone from the scene.
Are there any plans – whether for bike trails, commuter rail, whatever – to re-link the severed portion between the Wilburton Trestle and the I-90 Bridge? To build another bridge across 405?
No plans yet but I expect WSDOT will build a pedestrian bridge to reconnect the line when the trail becomes a reality.
I think King County is the lead agency on the trail – I don’t know if WSDOT would have any stake.
I’d have to dig back through the agreement between WSDOT and BNSF but I recall there being a clause in there that they replace the bridge should BNSF or future owner of the property so demand. At the time the assumption was that it would be a relatively cheap pedestrian overpass (Sim’s had his crowbar out and was ready to yank the rail) but even if they had to rebuild a RR bridge it was cheaper than shifting the entire freeway alignment which is what they would have had to do to preserve the tunnel.
This would be an appropriate time to promote Eastside Commuter Rail again.
Sound Transit could get a pilot project running from Woodinville to DT Bellevue within a few years. A couple trains a day, with a final stop at NE 6th St east of 405. Half a dozen busses could meet each train on arrival and circulate through downtown. I think that enough people would jump at the chance to avoid the traffic on southbound 405, as long as the tracks could handle trains greater than 40 mph.
Eventually (30 year horizon), it should be a 2-way service between Everett and Puyallup (via Snohomish, Bellevue and Renton) with 30 minute headways throughout the day. You know, if we were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions, VMT and freeway congestions.
They could do that but it would be a failure. Woodinville P&R, and I don’t understand why, is vastly underutilized. Without pulling up the figures I believe it is around 40%. Then take the round about way the track goes through Totem Lake and Kirkland and you’ve got a route that’s slower than the bus to Bellevue even with the bad traffic we have. Now consider that the majority of the Woodinville P&R folks are trying to get to downtown Seattle, not Bellevue. You haven’t even got one train load of customers even if the train was just as fast. You end up with; it costs more to go slower and serve less stops… And I’m a fan of Eastside Rail.
Could the South Kirkland portion be a future light-rail ROW? It runs near the South Kirkland Park & Ride, Houghton Center and the new Google site. It would take some finagling to get to downtown Kirkland.
Getting to S Kirdland P&R is easy. Beyond that not so much. Just getting a bike trail through Hougton is going to be hard. Something along Northup and Lk WA Blvd even more so. At that point the question is is it worth it? I don’t think so.
Still the BNSF ROW is likely the best bet for getting light rail between Bellevue and Kirkland other than maybe the 405 ROW. On the other hand by the time it is going through environmental review things may have changed enough that NIMBY types are drowned out by those who simply want a comfortable and cost-effective way to get around.
From Bel-Red to South Kirkland P&R yes. But from there the old rail line starts working it’s way diagonally up the hillside and is a long way from downtown Kirkland or any density (it forms the boundry of the Houghton and Lakeview neighborhoods). There’s a couple of tiny businesses that used to be served by rail just south of NE 85th where you could possibly site a station but certainly would be far from ideal. Then it’s back into single family and through a new nature preserve Kirkland has established just north of NE 85th. Almost all of this from S. Kirkland P&R to Totem Lake is on an extremely steep side slope.
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.
At face value if all of the arguments against running commuter level service (Simular to Sounder) on the ESR, had been applied (and they are all (or almost all) applicable), to Sounder north, we would not have Sounder north.
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.
Sounder North gets much lower ridership than Sounder South, 1,000 daily passengers versus 8,000 daily passengers. I think Sounder North was more a political decision to get support from Snohomish County voters.
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?
I realize the ESR North (Woodinville to Snoho) willl have to come from an alternate funding source (or ST willl need to expand it’s boundries) ST could still be contracted to run ESR north if someone were willing to pay ;)
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
The idea of even running a demo line is fairly moot unless WSDOT replaces the I-405 crossing.
Bernie,
The prior ST and PSRC studies all have fixed guideway transit using the BNSF ROW for most of the route from Bellevue to Totem Lake. I think that would be easier to get through politically than anything using Lake Washington Boulevard or Market. Some sort of detour to downtown Kirkland would be needed but that still could be fairly short depending on the exact route selected. While it is true the area along the BNSF ROW isn’t all that built up it still goes by 3 of the 4 locations you’d want stops on the line (S. Kirkland P&R, Houghton, Totem Lake) and gets you closer to downtown Kirkland than staying in the 405 ROW would. I assume any further expansion North would go more or less along 405 and serve Brickyard on it’s way to UW Bothell, Canyon Park, and Alderwood.
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.
For a demonstration line, I would put stops near the crossings of Main Street, NE 8th or NE 12th, 108th NE, NE 68th, Kirkland Way, NE 112th (or 120th NE), NE 124th, 132nd NE, NE 145th, and 131st NE. Run a single 2 unit DMU up and down the line all day so you don’t have to worry about passing sidings. No station amenities, except (maybe) an asphalt platform and maybe a bus shelter. Run it for a few months to gauge interest and determine if the station locations work. Don’t charge fares during the demonstration period. Then figure out if it makes sense to invest more in the line as either a commuter rail corridor or for light rail.
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.
I’d love to see Eastside Rail work but I just think we’d be setting up for failure trying to do anything that didn’t include rebuilding the connection lost at the old Wilburton tunnel and getting Renton on board with a connection to Sounder at Tukwila Station. The spur from Redmond to Woodinville needs to be completely rebuilt. The last trains I saw running along the valley were doing all of 5 mph and still looked like they were about read to fall off the tracks at any moment. There’s just not enough demand for that short hop. Woodinville P&R is more empty than used. Sure a nice new train would create some demand but it would essentially be peak commute only. It wouldn’t even draw the ridership Tacoma Link does. After Link reaches downtown Redmond the extension to Woodinville would make sense. But with out that it doesn’t really connect anything.
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.
I think a service between Bellevue and Woodinvile would be useful in it’s own right. The 3 stops I suggested around Totem Lake could serve a lot of light industrial and commercial areas. As for downtown Kirkland, the rails pass pretty close to the post office and Park Place, so it’s not like it’s off in the boonies. You’re probably right about the Redmond spur; I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a train on those rails other than the dinner train on its northern end.
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.
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.
Winery excursions are being planned but from Snohomish. Kirkland to Woodinville wouldn’t sell many tickets.
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.
State Street between 68th and Central Way is wide enough to accommodate rail if parking is eliminated. You might be thinking of 6th which is rather narrow, though an elevated alignment might be possible since it would only be 4 blocks or so between the BNSF ROW and the North side of Central Way.
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.
I’m glad that some people are supporting a starter Eastside commuter rail. I agree the Renton-Bellevue will be the real ridership generator, but that segment requires serious capital improvements to be viable (rebuild the trestle and 405 bridge).
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.
The residential area to the east of Woodinville P&R is very low density single family housing on large lots. Compare that to the area around Brickyard P&R or Kingsgate P&R which includes a bunch of multifamily apartments, condos, townhouses and more dense (relatively) single family neighborhoods. It’s obvious from the aerial photos.
There is a peak-only bus that runs from Woodinville to Downtown Bellevue, the 237. I rode it a few times in the last few years and it doesn’t look well used. In contrast, the 311, which runs from Duvall and Woodinville to Seattle via 520, is pretty popular. I had to stand a few times after getting on an articulated bus at Brickyard. The 532 and 535 takes 15 minutes from Totem Lake to Bellevue TC, nonstop. Although the 535’s reliability does leave much to be improved.
I think that enough people would jump at the chance to avoid the traffic on southbound 405, as long as the tracks could handle trains greater than 40 mph.
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.
I think commuter rail would be successful in this corridor, but it would need a good connection to Bellevue. Hopefully the link station near Overlake Hospital will be designed with future connectivity in mind.
From the Bellevue Reporter article on Bellevue’s new city council members.
“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.
Whether or not we maintain tracks and provide passenger rail service there in the short or long term, I think the BNSF ROW would be immensely popular as a recreational and commuter bicycle trail. Trails are pretty cheap to construct and very cheap to maintain. The fact that the route doesn’t quite hit the center of the largest employment centers is not a big issue for bikes. In combination with other regional trails (e.g. along SR 520 and I-90) it could act as a “spine” for the non-motorized trail system on the Eastside. The trail would offer a level grade, some greenery, freedom from traffic, improve safety and public health and promote sustainable commuting. If we ever did put passenger rail on the corridor, the trail would reinforce it by improving non-motorized access to any station on the line.
That’s all true but the County is broke. They are threatening to close the Bridle Crest Trail (aka Bridle Trails Connector) unless Bellevue takes over the portion between 132nd and 140th. While I think Bellevue should take it over (Redmond has already taken responsibility for the section east of 140th) it illustrates the fact that the County Parks budget is in slash and burn mode and not likely to be in position to do any trail building. You’d think opening a trail like this would be cheap but it’s actually fairly staggering when you start to look at the cost of compliance with all the necessary regulations.