3 ms·

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 l

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.

WalterBright 4y ago
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.
- sib 4y ago
  Not that many years ago (post-2000) they still ran tourist trains up that line, starting in Renton and going to Kirkland...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Yes, the Dinner Train. I've been on it. It made for a fine afternoon. It would end up at the San Michelle Winery for some booze.
    - YLE118 4y ago
      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.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > a few people 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.
- hashmash 4y ago
  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.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    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.

WalterBright 4y ago

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.

sib 4y ago
Not that many years ago (post-2000) they still ran tourist trains up that line, starting in Renton and going to Kirkland...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Yes, the Dinner Train. I've been on it. It made for a fine afternoon. It would end up at the San Michelle Winery for some booze.
  - YLE118 4y ago
    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.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > a few people 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.
hashmash 4y ago
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.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  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.