Orphan Road

I think I posted this a while back, but I've updated my Google maps of Link and Sounder alignments based on the proposed 15-year plan from Sound Transit.

http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=103428233658015669918&hl=en&gl=us&p...

The deal is done and the tracks stay where they are... for now.

The Everett Herald is intrigued:

GNP has put together what appears to be a solid business plan that includes paying for upgrading the existing tracks; constructing bare-bones passenger stations in Snohomish, Maltby, Woodinville, Kirkland and Bellevue; building a paved pedestrian/bike trail alongside, and running six trains south in the morning and six more north in the afternoon. Payne says he could have trains, with used locomotives pulling double-decker passenger cars, running as soon as next year. Acting alone, the public sector can only dream about moving that quickly.

Speaking of quick, the ride from Snohomish to Bellevue would take just 32 minutes. Try doing that in your car during rush hour.

So after all that, the tracks are gonna stay where they are and the Dinner Train is coming back. I sure am glad we're keeping those awesome tracks in place:

The issue of the rails themselves may be more symbolic than real: A BNSF representative has said their only value is for scrap -- Sims said the company is actually adding $2 million to the sales price for the corridor to leave them in place -- and the aging, single track would need upgrading or replacement to bring rail transit to the corridor. County officials have said a trail will be costlier to develop with the rails left in place.

The BNSF corridor deal is heading towards the finish line:

Under the deal's latest iteration, the port would grant King County the right to buy the southern, rail-banked sections before the acquisition closes. King County would contribute $2 million to the purchase price, retain right of first refusal and sponsor the trail, which would be "developed in phases after a regional determination regarding the dual use of the Corridor for transportation/trail," according to a canceled port presentation.

Yoshitani said he believed a $300,000 Sound Transit and Puget Sound Regional Council study of the rail corridor's feasibility as a commuter line would include a cost/benefit analysis.

"How that study sorts out is of great importance and relevance to us," said Yoshitani, who added that the port scheduled the public input process to begin next winter.

That's as it should be. Let's have ST and the PSRC do a feasability study and then figure out what the best use is for the corridor with respect to transit. Sound Transit seems much more open to the idea now that Prop 1's over and done with.

The Seattle Times is making sense:

Those pesky rails. Do they stay or go? Did the defeat of Proposition 1, the mondo transportation plan, stir a pulse in Sound Transit to look at the corridor for high-speed transit? All the dismissed questions are in play again.

One element must be unchanged: dual use. Save a rare, north-south route to move people in the future. Protecting transit options does not preclude recreational options.

King County has approved the deal to let the Port of Seattle buy the eastside rail corridor. The County's approval was important, since they were the ones who had the first rights to buy it.

While there's nothing final on Boeing Field, the memorandum does say that the Port and the County "shall develop a consultative process for considering major capital improvements at King County International Airport that would substantially affect the Airport’s regional impact."

The County's going to move to buy two segments of the trail, but I'm not clear on which segments those are. The P-I's (and the Times') description would seem to correspond roughly with segments A and D of the PSRC's study (above). But the memo istelf seems to imply that the "Southern Portion" (A+B) will be converted to a trail, while the "Northern Portion" (C+D) will be retained for freight use.

After much wrangling, the Port voted unianimously to buy the Eastside rail corridor. The decision on dual-use has been kicked down the road, but the important thing is that the corridor is now slated to become public property.

The Port and the County have until the end of the year to buy the Eastside rail line from BNSF. Apparently they're making good enough progress that Ron Sims has backed down on his ultimatum. Either that, or he's realized he's run out of cards.

The bottom line is that the Port wants to buy the corridor, and they have the money and the votes to do so. The point of contention among the commissioners is what to do with the tracks. But here's soemthing that should give everyone pause:

When the three-way agreement among the port, the county and BNSF Railway was made public Nov. 2, the deal's announcement included the stipulation that BNSF would remove the single track from a little-used section of line between Woodinville and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park in Renton. That section would be leased to the county, which would lay the trail on top of the rail bed after BNSF had cleaned up any contaminated soil.

You can see why Sims doesn't want to keep the tracks in place. Having the County on the hook for any soil contamination would not be fun for anyone (assuming there is actually contamination). Better to let BNSF clean it up before the public takes ownership, even if that means taking out the tracks.

Finally, I think you have trust the transit agencies here. If they don't think there's the ridership to support transit, they're probably right, and it's going to be an uphill battle to do it without their support. There are just too many moving parts (literally!). Remember the last time some folks tried to do an end-run around the transit planners?

Update: Link fixed.

One more thing about the P-I article I referenced earlier. They should not be using quotes like this without context:

It is possible to have passenger trains and pedestrians both use the corridor at a much lower cost, said Bruce Agnew, the director of the Cascadia Center at Discovery Institute, which just commissioned a study that found it would be possible to modernize the 42 miles of track to accommodate small diesel commuter trains for $37 million.

"We need to look very closely and not make hasty decisions, like ripping out 31 miles of perfectly usable track," Agnew said.

$37M is just the cost of upgrading all the track. You might ask Mr. Agnew why, if the track is "perfectly usable," it will cost $37M to "modernize" it. And indeed, if you read the Cascadia Center's report, it advocates "ripping out" nearly all of the track and replacing it:

Costs were preliminarily estimated by Fay as follows: tie and rail replacement, $33.6 million ($800,000 per mile X 42 miles); bridge replacement, $3.42 million(1,140 feet of bridge at $3,000 per foot). Other costs are yet to be determined, including stations; equipment plus storage and repair facilities; project EIS and engineering.

The PSRC estimates it will cost $300M to do a proper rail line, including stations and, you know, actual trains. That's the number the P-I should be using.