Seattle has abandoned railways that could be re-used for light rail at minimal cost (they actually sit there with rusting tracks on them). Instead, every effort has been made to destroy those corridors, so that tens of billions of dollars can be blown by blasting new corridors for light rail.
funny example, bellevue is the atherton of seattle. they caused such a stink during planning of the line 2 extension microsoft, boeing and t-mobile sent the city council a letter telling them to shut the hell up
I could never get the Seattle Times to ask questions about why the Eastside Rail Corridor, running from Renton to Bothell along I405, could not be used. Their journalism about it looked like press releases from the government.
Though I have gotten hate mail calling me an uninformed idiot to imagine that railroad tracks paralleling the most congested freeway in the state could be used for light rail. No, it must be destroyed.
This isn't the only track the county has destroyed. There's the line from Renton to Black Diamond that was used to stuff a mattress, and one paralleling Bothell Way that was used as a beehive.
Most of the old railways on the Eastside aren't suitable for new development because they're surrounded by low density suburbs. Any stations built along a new line would have very little traffic, making the whole system kind of pointless, unless it was designed as a high speed system. But doing that wouldn't be able to use the existing lines anyhow because they have too many curves.
All I can say is, nice try. I live here. It parallels I405 which moves at a walking pace for most of the day. All those people are going somewhere - and Kirkland, Bellevue, Renton are all major destinations. Have you looked at the skyline of Bellevue lately? The corridor goes right by it. Around the north and south ends of Lake Washington it could connect to the rest of the light rail, making a complete circuit around the Lake which divides the metropolitan area in half.
Really, what could be more useful? I'd use it all the time. Sure, it wouldn't go by my house, but I'd drive to the station and take it for the major part of my trip.
It doesn't have to be high speed. It just has to be faster than the gridlocked I405 with a predictable schedule. I always have to leave an extra hour early to drive to the airport because I might get stuck on I405 for an hour.
I live here too. Maybe we can meet some time and have a chat? There's a huge stretch of the old line running up through Kirkland which is pretty much completely surrounded by houses. One option to make it more useful would require building more car parks, but that's not a terribly good option.
The one section through Bellevue as shown does run along I-405, but on the wrong side with respect to downtown. So any trip along I-90 to downtown and beyond would take longer. There's a small stretch of the old line which did get repurposed at NE 8th street, but the old rail couldn't be kept anyhow because it wasn't elevated.
There's also the problem that the old rail is just one set of tracks, and so another set would be needed anyhow. Of source the original set would need to be replaced due to age. And there's the Wilburton trestle, which would have to be ditched and replaced for pretty much the same reasons.
The nice thing about the system that we're getting is that it connects to the new regions of the city which have higher urban density, like the Spring District. Keeping a few sections of the old line would result in slower travel times, and I don't see much savings in terms of cost.
If light rail were put up on it, the value of the adjoining real estate would suddenly go way up and the density would appear.
Yes, it's on the "wrong" side of 405 from the downtown area. About a 10 minute walk (I've done it). Oh, the agony :-) But it's on the "right" side if you want to go to the hospital, or Whole Foods, or any of the other businesses there.
> There's also the problem that the old rail is just one set of tracks, and so another set would be needed anyhow.
Not necessarily. With modern technology, one set can service both directions safely. I'm also sure adding a track will cost <<< less than adding a new right of way and a new road bed and two tracks.
> Of source the original set would need to be replaced due to age.
I'm sure that replacing a set of tracks is far less costly than blasting a new right of way, making a road bed, and putting new tracks on it.
> And there's the Wilburton trestle, which would have to be ditched and replaced for pretty much the same reasons.
Or it could be - maintained.
Another person said it couldn't be done because a station would have to be added here and there at incredible cost. Of course, the only thing a station actually needs is a slab of raised concrete. I tend to be amazed at the monumental structures Seattle Transit likes to build as stations.
> If light rail were put up on it, the value of the adjoining real estate would suddenly go way up and the density would appear.
That would require rezoning low density residential areas, which is practically impossible.
> About a 10 minute walk (I've done it). Oh, the agony :-)
I've done it too. For a pedestrian, 8th street is a complete hellscape. How many people working/living in downtown would enjoy adding 10*2 minutes of hell each day to their commute?
> With modern technology, one set can service both directions safely.
How often is this done? If this would save costs, then all the new lines should be doing this, but I don't see it happening anywhere.
> Or it could be - maintained.
Bridges have a finite lifespan, and the trestle is almost 120 years old. It won't last forever, even if maintained.
> That would require rezoning low density residential areas
If they can blast new right of way through it, they can rezone it.
> For a pedestrian, 8th street is a complete hellscape
I agree. I recommend 10th instead.
> How often is this done?
Beats me. With modern tech, how hard can it be? It'll work up to a certain level of traffic, then a second track will be needed, and it'll be obvious and the funds will be easier to get.
> Bridges
It only has to last long enough to prove the need. And light rail, being light, is not going to stress it. The thing was built for heavy freight traffic.
>>> There's also the problem that the old rail is just one set of tracks, and so another set would be needed anyhow.
>> How often is this done?
> Beats me. With modern tech, how hard can it be?
All that's need is a handful of passing loops and modern signalling. It's how we in Scotland got the railway from Edinburgh to Tweedbank re-opened (part of the old Waverley route from Edinburgh to Carlisle that was closed during the Beeching cuts).
They demolished the crossing of I90 just south of the trestle in Bellevue. And now it looks like they're putting in a pedestrian bridge to replace it. I'm not sure why they had to remove the tunnel in the first place. I used to cross it and hang out over the southbound lanes with friends.
The Kirkland section of the trail actually gets a fair amount of use as a bike and walking route and connects sections of Kirkland that weren't easy to connect before. With the South Kirkland park and ride to at the south border I know a few people who used it to bike to the bus system.
Kemper Freeman I think has a lot to do with why the train line wasn't used for light rail.
That's the problem with turning it into a bike path. Sure, it's nice to have a bike path. But a bike path moves maybe 1% of the commuters that light rail would.
A bike path minimizes utility, rather than maximizes it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6122286,-122.1837204,121m/da...