By Frank on November 30, 2007
Ron Sims will take his ball and go home if the Port doesn’t commit to ripping out the tracks. But it sounds like the port has the votes on the commission to buy it anyway, even if Sims won’t lease it for a trail.
There’s a lot of posturing going on here, and so it’s hard to know what people’s real motives are. The Port does not want the corridor for freight use. If it was a viable freight corridor, BNSF wouldn’t be selling it. Remember, this whole thing got started because of King County Airport (Boeing Field). The Port’s ultimate, ultimate goal is to keep King County from building a passenger terminal at Boeing Field and luring away Alaska and Southwest Airlines.
Earlier this month, I praised Sims for getting such a good deal out of the port, since he’d get to keep the airport and get cheap use of the corridor. Now it turns out that the deal may be too good to be true. Sims hasn’t left himself many cards to play here, assuming the Port is willing to buy the right-of-way with or without him. His ace-in-the-hole is the airport. With the Port’s decision expected soon, I expect we’ll be hearing more about how Boeing Field fits into this in the next few weeks.
Photo of the Wilburton Trestle by Wikipedia user brianhe. Do you really want to jog or bike across that thing? Not me!
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro, lightrail, monorail
By Frank on November 1, 2007
That seems to be the gist of the new deal between King County and the Port of Seattle on the Eastside rail corridor. The Port is going to buy the corridor from BNSF, same as before, but now King County doesn’t have to trade its Airport. Instead, King County promises to “consult” with the Port before “any major developments” (read: building a passenger terminal for Southwest or Alaska Air).
So the Port basically laid out $103M just to hedge against the possibility that King County might someday want to put a second Airport in your backyard. It’s sort of like buying Marvin Gardens because the other guy already has Atlantic and Ventnor Aves. and you’re worried he’s gonna build hotels.
It looks like, by holding out, King County got a better deal than it would have under the original Ron Sims-Mic Dinsmore swap, which called for the County to give up the Airport. Kudos to the King County council for making it happen. Now we get a trail with even more strict assurances that it will be usable for high-capacity transit in the future.
Posted in HOV Lanes, i405, kcmetro, lightrail, monorail
By Frank on August 8, 2007
With the Airport-Trail swap looking dead, King County Council members Phillips and Hague have teamed up with Port Commissioner Creighton to plot a new way forward. They talk about “creative financing deals,” but basically avoid the real question: who’s gonna pony up $100M and buy the durn thing?
There are some hints that Sound Transit might be able to help, but I find it difficult to believe that they’d update their final project list or do anything that might upset the fall vote this late in the game (polling is apparently still steady at 60% “yes”). The authors do hint at the fact that ST can “win votes” by agreeing to help pay for the corridor, but I’m still skeptical that they’d acutally make any promises between now and November.
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro, lightrail
By Frank on July 27, 2007
Big day for transit news, I guess. The Port of Seattle is no longer interested in King County Airport. This is a big blow for Ron Sims, who now needs to find another way to pay for the BNSF rail corridor. The deal had been conceived by Sims and the old Port director, Mic Dinsmore, but his replacement has other ideas:
The Sims-Dinsmore deal drew fire from county council members who regard Boeing Field as an asset far more valuable than a recreational trail and who also are worried that the port would be less sensitive than the county to community fears about jet noise at the airport.
Port commissioners raised concerns about the actual value of the 77-year-old airport and the potential liability its owner would bear for the costs of cleaning up PCB contamination of a spur of the Duwamish River just across East Marginal Way from the property.
However, on the plus side:
[Port Executive Director Tay] Yoshitani told the Rotary Club the port also supports public ownership of the BNSF corridor — and is “willing to put significant dollars toward such a purchase.”
$103 million is a lot of money. There are only a few agencies that can swallow that: the Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, and the State of Washington (incl. WSDOT). I can’t think of any others with sufficient budgets. Maybe a collaboration between the Port and Sound Transit? Maybe ST could spend a few million less on glass walls and come up with the scratch? Just askin’….
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro
By Frank on July 18, 2007
Well, that was short-lived.
Just a day after we saw a big push from All Aboard Washington to buy the BNSF track, BNSF has rebuffed their offer. On the plus side, we learn a thing or two about the AAW plan:
- $30 million in upgrades
- trains traveling at 25-30mph
- operational within 60 days
It sound appealing. But you have to wonder: Have they included the cost of safety upgrades? What about park-and-ride lots around the stations? Have the neighborhood environmental impact studies been done? What about increased traffic around those stations? Will it integrate with bus service?
Also, how frequent will the service be, given that much of the line is single-tracked? Either you put one train off on a siding while the other passes, or you run one train back and forth. Either way, service likely can’t be more than one train per hour.
Oddly enough, I happened to be at a backyard barbecue in Kirkland last night, where the Spirit of Washington dinner train passed within 50 yards of the property. It was startling at first, but kinda cute. We waved at the passengers on the dinner train. They may have waved back.
I wondered, how would these neighbors feel about passenger rail running back and forth all day? Maybe they wouldn’t mind, or maybe they would and they’ll just have to deal with it. But that’s something you need to find out in a lengthy, open process. This is why transit projects take lots of time. It’s frustrating, but it’s for the best.
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro
By Frank on July 17, 2007
Last night I noted that All Aboard Wasington might be “making a political statement” with their offer to buy the BNSF Eastside rail corridor. I speculated that maybe AAW and their partners on the “Rethink Rail” project might be making a move to gin up public support for a rails in lieu of trails.
Well, if you look at Rethink Rail’s sponsor page, you’ll notice it includes AAW, Discovery’s Cascadia Center, and Jim O’Farrell of the Talisma corporation.
Well, guess who has an op-ed in today’s Seattle Times, arguing for — you guessed it — an Eastside rail line:
If businesses like ours stay in the region, commuter rail will be the selling point — not whether our employees can ride their bicycles. Meanwhile, our consultants have done the math. For $300 million, including purchase and restoration, the Eastside rail line could be moving commuters in as few as two years.
The “Roads & Transit” package — on the ballot this fall — is just another postponement. The first $37 billion — that’s right, $37 billion — projects building only a single east/west rail line between Bellevue and Seattle. For Bellevue, nothing will go north and south. For the million people already living on the Eastside — and the additional million projected by 2015 — it is as if those directions did not exist.
Worse, the measure will not deliver rail for years — and up to a cost of $500 million per mile. For that price, all 42 miles of the Eastside rail line could receive a premium upgrade, including double track and electrification.
$300M seems like a pretty sweet deal for a double-tracked, electrified route. I’d definitely want to see the numbers in more detail. Do they have the right-of-way to do a second track along the whole route? At minimum they’d have to rebuild that graffitti-covered rail overpass over I-90. Same with the Wilburton Trestle.
I’m certainly sympathetic to O’Farrell’s proposal. A right-of-way like this — located near population centers and major freeways — doesn’t come around that often, if ever. But I think his frustration with the authorities is a bit misplaced. They share his enthusiasm for a rail corridor, they just want to integrate it into our long-term transportation plan. That means having Sound Transit do a study, not just going off half-cocked and laying track. But Ron Sims signed a statement of dual-use, and the PSRC plan calls for using it as a trail only temporarily (and using signage to indicate to trail users that it is, in fact, temporary).
In other words, everyone at every level basically agrees that commuter rail is destined for this corridor. The key is doing it effectively and responsibly. That may slow the whole process down, but like I said before, a right-of-way like this doesn’t come around that often. The same impulse that makes us all eager to grab it should likewise make us realize that we have just one chance to do it right.
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro, lightrail
By Frank on July 16, 2007
All Aboard Washington is bidding on the former BNSF Eastside rail corridor. This is a little strange, no?
The Port of Seattle, we know, offered to buy the corridor from BNSF and then swap it with King County for Boeing Field. The Port was willing to pony up $103M to acquire the line. Has All Aboard Washington come up with a viable offer?
Perhaps, but it’s unlikely. According to Guidestar.org (subscription req’d), AAW had a budget of $31,000 or so in 2002, the last year for which figures are available. For one thing, it’s odd that the Form 990s are so out of date, especially considering that someone from AAW went in and edited the record in March of this year and added the org’s goals for 2007, which include “Preserv[ing] the Eastside Line for some form of passenger rail service instead of ripping it up for a trail.”
But leave that aside. Did an organization with a $31K annual budget and 550 members really plunk down $103M or something close to it? That would have to be involve some serious fundraising. Either that, or the executives at BNSF decided now is a good time to commit hara-kiri at the next shareholders meeting by making one of the more boneheaded business decisions of all time and accepting a much, much lower offer than the one from the Port.
More likely, AAW is making a political statement. They want it known that their membership is eager to have the corridor preserved for rail, and so they’re doing what they can to keep it the issue public. But the one thing that I can’t figure out is this:
Burlington Northern Santa Fe says it wants to sell the line because there isn’t enough business on it. The company’s spokesman, Gus Melonas, said the group’s offer is “under review by senior management.”
Again, bracketing a collective suicide pact among senior management, what’s the offer? The only other thing I can figure is that the folks behind Rethink Rail, who include the more-deep-pocketed Discovery Institute, along with AAW, have gotten some money together. But $103M is a lot of money, even for the creationists and freight-transit-lovers at Discovery.
Posted in HOV Lanes, kcmetro, lightrail
By Frank on June 13, 2007
Speaking of the BNSF corridor, the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train has found a new home. That’s one less obstacle to converting the old tracks to rail or trail.
Interestingly enough at least one of the rail overpasses is coming down. WSDOT is taking down one of the rail overpasses over I-405 to widen the freeway. This brings up one of the major problems with the corridor: lots of overpasses. Before we bend over backwards to turn it into a trail, keep in mind that there are at least a few points where you’ll be jogging or biking on an old train trestle as it crosses I-405 or I-90.
Posted in bus, HOV Lanes
By Frank on June 13, 2007
Ron Sims is determined not to let that right-of-way slip through our fingers. From a King County press release:
Sims, along with the environmentalists and transportation advocates, signed a statement of Principles of Dual Use for the corridor. The principles include the promise to work with local, state and federal agencies for money to build a rail line on the 40 mile corridor being sold by the railroad. Trail advocates from the start have advocated the dual use of this critical public asset and the statement of principles signed today emphasize their absolute commitment to this goal.
“All of my documents and all of my staff presentations are about dual use. But let there be no doubt to anyone about our intention to include a rail line if we are able to secure public ownership of this corridor,” said Executive Sims. “If the money were available, we’d build modern commuter or high capacity transit rail immediately.”
Some transit advocates feared that once it became a trail, no one would tolerate building rail on it. But the rail advocates don’t have the money or the ridership numbers to justify a train. The PSRC study recommended trail now, rail later. But Sims wants to reassure us that rail is still a priority.
Although the Port Commissioner is explicitly mentioned, there’s no talk of the infamous trail-for-airport swap that the kids were crazy about back in the day.
Update: The P-I’s spin: Sims is trying to buy time until he can come up with the dough.
Posted in bus, HOV Lanes, i405, lightrail, RTID
By Frank on May 30, 2007
Yes, Virginia, even rail has environmental impacts, especially rail tracks that were built a hundred years ago along pristine Puget Sound shoreline:
Many environmentalists call the BNSF Railway, built on 26 miles of beachfront between Seattle and Everett, one of the worst environmental problems for Snohomish County’s shoreline.
The railroad creates what amounts to a wall between the land and the shore. It hampers beach access, disrupts salmon creeks and prevents sediment from eroding down to the beach, starving beaches of sand and gravel, they say.
Now, efforts are under way to restore pockets of shoreline along the railroad line. Some planners and environmentalists have hailed the restoration projects — including opening up creek mouths, nourishing beaches with sand, and restoring tidal marshes — as pilots for a future approach to a healthier shoreline.
Of course, as the article notes, the tracks aren’t going anywhere. in fact, Sound Transit is widening the right-of-way in some places to allow for more Sounder trains. But they’re also opening up creeks and doing lots of other environmental mitigation to try and revitalize the corridor to the extent that they can.
Having the BNSF line where it is is a net positive. Otherwise you’d have to run it along the I-5 corridor, which would be ridiculously expensive, if it was even possible. BNSF’s presence also takes a lot of trucks off the roads.
Sounder, on the other hand, has its limits. It’s a relatively cheap way to build transit — the tracks are already there, you just have to operate the trains. But it’s limited to a few runs a day since it shares right-of-way with Amtrak and BNSF. Once Light Rail goes all the way from Everett to Tacoma, it will be interesting to see how successful Sounder is. Certainly for folks in Edmonds, Kent, and Auburn, Sounder will continue to be important, but Link Light Rail, running every 10 minutes or so, will be increasingly appealing even for medium distance (i.e. Everett-Seattle) travel.
Posted in HOV Lanes, lightrail, sr509
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments