CEE 600 Research Paper - University of Washington



The Woodinville Subdivision

and

The I-405 Corridor

Brian Harr

May 31, 2004

Transportation Research Paper

CEE 600

University of Washington

1 Introduction 1

2 Scope of Study 1

3 The Woodinville Subdivision 1

3.1 History 1

3.2 Route Description & Crossings 2

3.3 Freight Traffic 2

3.4 Track Condition 3

3.5 Transit Interest for the BNSF Right-of-Way 3

3.6 Intermodal Potential 3

4 INterstate 405 4

4.1 History 4

4.2 Operational 4

4.3 The I-405 Corridor Program 4

4.4 Various Opinions on the Corridor Program and the Woodinville Sub 5

4.5 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Master Plan 6

4.6 Right-of-Way Acquisition Included in FEIS? 7

5 I-405 Costs 8

6 Response to September 2003 BNSF Announcement 8

7 Potential New Uses for the BNSF right-of-Way 9

7.1 Do Nothing 9

7.2 Rebuild Rail Line for DMU or LRT 9

7.3 Reconstruct for Bus Rapid Transit 11

7.4 Construct Monorail 13

7.5 General Conclusions on Transit Modes 14

8 Initial Conclusions on BNSF versus I-405 alignment for Transit 15

9 Demographics 15

10 Recreational Trail 17

10.1 Railroad Ownership of Rights-of-Way 17

10.2 Rail-Banking 18

10.3 Other Local Trails 19

11 Conclusions 20

11.1 Clarification of BNSF Right-of-Way Cost Estimates 20

11.2 Likelihood of Acquisition of the Underlying Property 21

11.3 Acquisition for Transit Versus Recreational Trail 21

11.4 Latest Status of PSRC Study 21

11.5 Final Words 22

Appendix One - Proximity to Park and Ride Lots A-1

Appendix Two - Percent of Commuters driving Alone A-2

Introduction

In September of 2003 the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) approached the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to express an interest in selling its underutilized Renton-to-Woodinville rail line on the east side of Lake Washington. Regional agencies and local governments are just beginning to consider how they will respond.

This route is officially called the “Woodinville Subdivision”. In some sources it’s referred to as the Lake Washington Belt Line, and was at one time the eleventh subdivision of the Tacoma Division of the Northern Pacific Railway. Today, it is best known to most people as “The Dinner Train Line”. The route, which parallels Interstate 405, carries very little freight traffic. As an underutilized corridor paralleling one of the most crowded routes in Washington State, the prospect that the route could be developed into a new transportation asset is intriguing to say the least.

Scope of Study

Because the BNSF line and I-405 are two parallel, generally adjacent transportation corridors, the study will focus on the recommended future for the BNSF route in the context of I-405 and the region it serves.

The paper will investigate uses in the context of current and future regional demands. It will look at the route with the aim of evaluating a variety of potential uses for the route. These could include use as-is or with track upgrades for commuter rail, conversion to a bike/pedestrian trail, or redevelopment to a bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, or automated guided vehicle transit (AGV), such as a monorail line. There is also the “do nothing” alternative, wherein BNSF sells off the property piece-meal, forever losing the corridor as such. For any of these options, the paper will attempt some demand forecasting: where are the population and employment centers and what would station requirements be? A critical need for a successful transit system is intermodal connectivity: how does the route relate to Sounder, Link, park-and-ride lots, etc? Each alternative will have environmental impacts.

The Woodinville Subdivision

1 History

The earliest European residents on the west side of Lake Washington were a baker and a farmer, William Meydenbauer and Aaron Mercer, who both arrived in 1869. In the 1880s logging was growing, led by Isaac Bechtel, Sr. The first postmaster in the area, Mathew Sharpe, had moved to the area from Bellevue, Indiana. He found the name – "beautiful view" in French – to be just as applicable for his new home as his old. Bellevue was platted in 1904 and continued growing, as the center for berry growing in King County and a retreat for wealthy Seattle families.[1]

In 1885, the Seattle Lake Shore & Eastern Railroad Company was incorporated. In the1890s, the SLS&E began laying tracks north-south between the lakes to support logging activity.[2] In 1904, with completion of a railroad trestle spanning Mercer Slough, operations began from the Black River to Woodinville. By then a part of the Northern Pacific Railway, the new branch’s 984-foot long[3] Wilburton Trestle was said to be the tallest in the world at the time.[4] The line became the property of Burlington Northern following a merger in 1970. Today, it is part of the 18th Subdivision of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad.[5]

2 Route Description & Crossings

Near the banks of the Green River, just northeast of the I-5/I-405 interchange in Tukwila, the Woodinville Subdivision branches off the busy north/south rail corridor shared by BNSF and UP. Proceeding east, the line passes through the heart of Renton and the base station for the Spirit of Washington Dinner train. After four blocks of street running and five arterial crossings, the line runs along the west edge of 405, with major road crossings at SR 169 and N 3rd St. Crossings become more infrequent as the track makes its way past Boeing parking lots to the east flank of Lake Washington. After crossing Lake Washington Boulevard near Gene Coulon Park, the line runs for several miles with crossings limited to a couple arterials and numerous driveways to the waterfront homes. Generally running adjacent to I-405, the line bridges I-90 before crossing to the east side by passing over the southbound Wilburton tunnel and under a northbound overpass. After crossing the Wilburton trestle, the tracks run behind the auto dealers that line 116th Av NE, with a major grade crossing at NE 8th. Beyond 8th, crossings are again infrequent despite proximity to central Bellevue. The track passes under NE 12th, SR 520, and I-405, drifting away from I-405 toward the lake again, snaking though residential areas of Bellevue and Kirkland with periodic grade crossings of local arterials. The route is grade-separated at the major arterials, including NE 68th, Kirkland Way, and NE 85th. Through Kirkland, the route drifts eastward, moving from urban areas to the farmland of the Sammamish valley.

3 Freight Traffic

According to BNSF spokesman Gus Melonas, the line carries an average of two freight movements daily.[6] One freight customer is Boeing, which receives major airplane components on part of the line at its Renton plant. In comments to the I-405 Corridor Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Alan C Ralston, speaking for Boeing, expressed concern that freight service on the rail line be preserved. However, King Cushman of PSRC has said there are alternate rail corridors to support Boeing traffic.

4 Track Condition

The line is almost entirely single track. A ride on the Spirit of Washington dinner train immediately reveals the poor condition of the track. The Spirit does a 3-1/2 hour excursion from Renton to the Columbia Winery, a round trip of 45 miles.[7] Allowing for the 45 minute stop at the winery, the train averages just over 16 miles per hour. Speeds are kept low in part just to facilitate dining and because there’s no rush, but it’s obvious from the rocking and rolling that significantly higher speeds are not possible without serious track upgrades.

5 Transit Interest for the BNSF Right-of-Way

According to the King County Journal, the BNSF route was studied as a possible Eastside light-rail route in 1987.[8] There are general references to a series of studies, but these appear mostly to be lost in the old files of government agencies or consultants – difficult to access without influence or funding. In a telephone call to King Cushman of PSRC, he said he believed a number of studies existed but weren’t readily accessible.

Jim Cusick is a commuter rail advocate with the Washington Association of Railroad Passengers and a former member of the I-405 advisory committee. He has pushed to have some kind of commuter rail – light rail or heavy rail – along the BNSF line, but encountered resistance from Kennydale residents and Renton officials. “I always thought the Eastside route was a cost-effective way to get rail on the Eastside.”[9]

Kevin Shively, policy director at the Transportation Choices Coalition, said he’s almost certain it would ultimately host some kind of passenger-rail system.[10]

The failed 1995 proposal that preceded Sound Move included 70 miles of light rail serving the Eastside, a portion of which paralleled I-405 through Bellevue. The scaled-down Sound Move package that was approved in 1996 omitted Eastside rail elements, but retained bus and transit-lane projects.[11]

6 Intermodal Potential

A critical aspect of transit success is connections with other transportation modes. While putting aside for the moment the question of whether or when adequate densities exist for successful high capacity transit along the route, it does have some promising aspects with regard to intermodal connections.

The southern end of the route is very close to the Tukwila Sounder commuter train station. In Bellevue, the line runs few blocks east of the new transit center; however, it’s separated by I-405 and major arterials, major obstacles to pedestrian connections. This aspect could be dealt with fairly easily with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); less so with rail. Farther north, beyond Kirkland, density diminishes rapidly, reducing transit potential.

Along the route, at surprisingly even spacing, the line runs within ¼ mile of a number of park-and-ride lots, as seen in the map in Appendix 1. The map was developed using ArcGIS to analyze proximity.

INterstate 405

1 History

The idea for a north-south highway bypassing Seattle is at least 60 years old. When the US 10 freeway (now I-90) from Seattle to Issaquah was built in 1940, designers put in an overpass where I-405 would eventually be built. The overpass sat unused for 14 years. Built in stages between 1954 and 1968, it was first known as "Secondary State Hwy 2A. It was to have been posted US 99E, then State Route 405, but by 1964 the I-405 signs were going up. The southern end reached I-5 by 1965, and the north end was connected in 1968.[12]

2 Operational

More than 600,000 people use I-405 every day, more than any other highway corridor in the state except I-5. The corridor carries twice as much freight as is shipped through the Port of Seattle. Congestion delays exist 10 to 12 hours a day in Renton and 6 hours through Bellevue.[13] Population projections for the I-405 corridor anticipate an additional 250,000 people over the next 20 years — the equivalent of adding two more cities the size of Bellevue and seven employers the size of Microsoft.

3 The I-405 Corridor Program

To address increasing demand in the corridor, the WSDOT-sponsored I-405 Corridor Program was established to evaluate transportation alternatives. The program included a Citizen Committee representing diverse interests along the corridor, a Steering Committee of senior level staff, and an Executive Committee of elected and appointed government officials. The Executive Committee was chaired by George Kargianis, Vice Chair of the Washington State Transportation Commission.

Through a two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, the Corridor Program evaluated four alternatives “to improve personal and freight mobility and reduce foreseeable traffic congestion in the corridor that encompasses the I-405 study area from Tukwila to Lynnwood in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective”[14]. Each alternative included a combination of actions, but each had a different general emphasis: high capacity transit (HCT) and transportation demand management (TDM), mixed mode with HCT, mixed mode, and general capacity. In these alternatives, HCT involved a physically separated, fixed-guideway system, potentially operating on portions of the BNSF right-of-way.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the I-405 Corridor Program for a 45-day public comment period ending October 8, 2001.

4 Various Opinions on the Corridor Program and the Woodinville Sub

Even before the BNSF announcement, discussions were held regarding the Woodinville Sub during Executive Committee meetings of the I-405 Corridor Program. In an October 2001 meeting, Senator Jim Horn said this was a separate issue and they were under the assumption that abandonment would involve a lot of regulations. He said the committee’s focus needed to be on fixing this transportation problem and that they needed to separate the two projects.[15]

During the review period for the DEIS, over 700 pages of public comments and responses to those comments were collected and documented as Volume Two of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). One hundred references to the BNSF line can be found in Volume Two. Generally, the comments were in support of preserving the corridor for future use, whether that be for transit or trail.

Sensible Solutions for I-405, a major public interest organization addressing the I-405 issue, provided perhaps the most detailed response discussing what it felt to be deficiencies in the EIS. Sensible Solutions is a coalition of over 1400 Eastside residents and organizational members, including 1000 Friends of Washington, National Wildlife Federation, Transportations Choices Coalition, Livable Communities Coalition, REP America, Washington Conservation Voters, WashPIRG, Sierra Club, and East Lake Washington Audubon Society.[16] In its October 2001 comments on the I-405 DEIS, the group cited numerous shortcomings, including poor organization of material, incorrect and missing data, and questionable results.

Sensible Solutions’ recommendations included studying use of diesel multiple units (DMUs) on the existing tracks. It also recommended study of converting the BNSF right-of-way to a busway, suggesting the higher cost of constructing a busway in place of the existing tracks might be offset by increased speed, reliability, coverage, and ridership. Purchase of the alignment and tracks and studies of the diesel rail or busway options, using the alignment, was recommended to precede the FEIS process.[17]

Among cities along the route, Renton and Kennydale provided the most vocal responses to potential use of the line for high capacity transit. Kennydale residents oppose use of the BNSF Woodinville Subdivision as a transit corridor, citing concerns about noise levels.[18] The Renton City Council recorded its opposition even before the announcements of BNSF’s interest in selling the Woodinville Subdivision. On May 7, 2001, the Council passed Resolution #3504 regarding the WSDOT I-405 Corridor Program, authorizing the Mayor and Council President to send a letter opposing the securing of the use of Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way for preservation of future transportation opportunities. Councilman Clawson noted that the right-of-way could potentially be used for purposes other than high-speed transit, but shared other councilmembers’ concerns about the risk that the right-of-way could be used for rapid transit.[19]

Other cities have generally been more open-minded about the issue, indicating an interest in preserving the right-of-way, if not necessarily in developing it beyond recreational trail use. In Redmond, preservation of a different BNSF right-of-way, paralleling Redmond Way and E Lake Sammamish Pkwy NE, is at the top of the city’s Downtown Transportation Plan Implementation Strategy.[20] The city has two line items in its latest six-year transportation improvement program, adopted July 15, 2003: covering acquisition of the BNSF right-of-way from Bear Creek, near the north end of Marymoor Park to NE 124th Street. The first phase has $1 million local funding for 2004; the second shows an unfunded $1 million for 2007. Total length of the two segments is about two miles.[21]

5 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Master Plan

Following the DEIS review period, a preferred alternative emerged. A variation of the mixed mode alternative number three, the preferred alternative adds two lanes in each direction for much of the length of I-405 and implements BRT on the existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, with added direct-access ramps. The Selected Alternative has been endorsed by the King County Department of Transportation (KCDOT), Sound Transit, and, through a formal Record of Decision, the USDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).[22]

Alternatives 1 and 2, involving high capacity transit in an exclusive right-of-way, were not selected. In response to public suggestions to use the BNSF route for rail-based transit, I-405 Project director Craig Stone said that using high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-405 for buses was found to be much less expensive per rider than commuter rail. “With the direct access ramps and transit centers that Sound Transit is investing in on the Eastside, combined with the HOV lanes, bus rapid transit worked out to be the clear winner”, Stone said. "It [the BNSF route] doesn't hit a lot of the urban centers where people want to go," Stone said.[23]

A three-phase master plan has been defined for implementation of the selected alternative from the FEIS. The recently approved nickel gas tax provides $485 million to fund Phase one of the plan, which involves construction of one lane in each direction at three major chokepoints. Construction will be completed in stages from 2007 through 2011. Phase two, called the “Implementation Plan” is targeted at $4.7 billion, to be funded from sources such as the State, Regional Transportation Investment District, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Sound Transit, local transit, cities, and counties. Phase three funds are those needed to complete the I-405 “Master Plan”, and range from $9.1 billion to $10.9 billion.

6 Right-of-Way Acquisition Included in FEIS?

According to a 2001 Seattle PI article[24], Alternative 3 of the draft EIS included $330 million to eventually acquire the 100-foot-wide right-of-way and preserve it for future rail or bus routes. A King County Journal article[25] mentions “a possible $300 million expenditure to preserve the land for transportation”. If such a provision had been included, it is very unlikely it would have been removed for the FEIS; dozens of public comments encouraging preservation of the BNSF right-of-way were taken during the DEIS comment period.[26] In one location, a response states “the preliminary preferred alternative also includes … preservation of the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way for a future transportation corridor; a pedestrian trail in the BNSF right-of-way; …”[27] Nonetheless, a search of the FEIS reveals only that a letter recommending preservation was drafted. Also, in Table 2.2-2 of the FEIS, the only cell that would correspond to railroad right-of-way (ROW) acquisition – “High-Capacity Transit” – is, under the preferred alternative, empty. Presumably, the issue was left at that, based at least in part on Senator Horn’s position that the issue be kept separate from the Corridor Program study. In any event, the difference is somewhat moot since an HCT alternative was not advanced as the recommended alternative.

If the PI story is correct, $330 million for a property 100 feet by 25 miles would amount to $25 per square foot, or a little over $1 million per acre. The actual length under consideration varies from source to source, depending on the context and extent the author has in mind. Sources refer to lengths anywhere from 16 to 30 miles. Depending on the exact length involved, and whether a figure of $300 or $330 million is used, the cost per route-mile based on these two newspaper accounts amounts to $10 to 20 million.

I-405 Costs

The I-405 Environmental Impact Statement, for all its bulk, provides only top-level cost figures for the alternatives studied. No useful breakdown of costs, even for major elements included in the various alternatives, seems to be published in the FEIS or elsewhere. Although the FEIS lacks specificity on costs, a separate WSDOT document[28] provides some clarification. The report puts the count of lane-miles in the I-405 selected alternative at 169, for a cost of $43 to $51 million per lane-mile. This of course incorporates a wide variety of components, not just freeway miles. Acquisition of about 1000 parcels of right-of-way amounts to $1.4 billion. Another $1.7 billion covers infrastructure for the HOV and BRT system, including direct access ramps, BRT stations, over $900 million for arterials, and reconstruction of most interchanges and bridges.

Widening I-405 by two lanes in each direction will probably involve boring a new five-lane tunnel. The existing Wilburton tunnel is 360-feet long. For reference, the new Mt. Baker Ridge Tunnel for I-90 in Seattle, constructed from 1983 to 1986, is the largest diameter soil tunnel in the world. This triple-deck, five-lane highway tunnel was constructed at a total cost of $36.5 million, equivalent to $62 million today at three percent escalation.[29] The 1,476 ft long tunnel is the world’s largest ever driven through soft soil.[30] Assuming a length equal to the existing Wilburton tunnel and a similar unit cost, the new I-405 tunnel would run about $15 million. However, tunnel costs can vary dramatically depending on soil conditions. According to Denise Cieri, State transportation manager of the Bellevue and Kirkland freeway improvements, the State has lots of land in the median to use, allowing the State to build the tunnel in the median with less impact on traffic and neighbors.[31]

Response to September 2003 BNSF Announcement

On January 22, 2004, The Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council authorized the formation of an ad hoc Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Corridor Policy and Technical Advisory Committee and directed staff to seek support from and work with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to obtain consulting services for technical support.[32]

The scope of work would determine if there is significant enough regional public interest in the corridor to merit acquisition of it. This study would not attempt to determine any specifics regarding operations of or financing the acquisition. According to a December newspaper article[33], railway officials need an answer within six months because private developers have begun expressing interest in the land.

Thus far, according to King Cushman of the PSRC, funding has not been provided for the study by WSDOT.

Potential New Uses for the BNSF right-of-Way

1 Do Nothing

If local governments and public interest groups don’t act to acquire the right-of-way, it will surely be disposed of piecemeal, forever fragmented against future use as a unique, contiguous property. Developers are expressing interest in portions of the line. Specific outcomes depend on the nature of the railroad’s interests. Portions owned fee-simple might be sold by the railroad; portions held by easement would simply revert back to possession of adjacent property owners if rail operations cease. This topic will be covered in more detail in the following section on railroad abandonment and recreational trails.

2 Rebuild Rail Line for DMU or LRT

Light Rail Transit (LRT) has experienced a boom in the past two decades. LRT differs little fundamentally from the ubiquitous street trolley car that vanished quite suddenly in the 1940s to be replaced with buses. Its renaissance in the 1980s can be attributed to a variety of reasons: reduced noise and pollution compared to cars and diesel buses, improved vehicle designs with large multiple doors and low floors, improved ride comfort compared to buses, and perceived enhancements to land values.[34]

Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) have been suggested for transit applications on existing rail lines in recent years for several locations, including the Woodinville Sub. As recently as 1997, a Transportation Research Record[35] described possibilities for DMUs to provide a cost effective transit alternative. The technology is far from new. DMUs are self-propelled railcars that can operate singly or coupled into short trains. When passenger trains were a predominant form of intercity travel, DMUs served shorter and less traveled intercity routes. Unlike LRT, DMUs do not require overhead electrical wires and, if built to certain Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) crashworthiness standards, can coexist with freight operations.

Sensible Solutions suggested DMUs would cost much less to implement than LRT service. Their recommended package includes a price of $555 million for “DMUs Operating on BNRR Tracks”. No breakdown is given; however, a DMU application between Wilsonville and Beaverton in Washington County, Oregon, is referenced. The Oregon line is 15 miles long with a capital project cost of $85 million ($5.67 million per mile) exclusive of right-of-way acquisition. If one assumes a 30 mile length and uses the land cost of $15.7 million per mile (roughly the midpoint as derived earlier from the PI article) one arrives at the same number – $555 million.

1 Hennepin County

Hennepin County, Minnesota undertook the Southwest Rail Transit Study to evaluate both DMU and LRT options for proposed transit service in the Minneapolis area.[36] The study found fairly similar costs between DMU and several LRT alternatives, but the DMU option was not among the finalists recommended for further study.

Information in the Hennepin costs to develop the BNSF route for rail transit use – whether DMU or LRT – can be useful because it addressed the same scope of work that would apply on the Woodinville Sub: upgrade of an existing single-track line and addition of a second parallel track. Using figures from the Hennepin study[37], and assuming for this analysis a 25-mile route:

Description Unit Cost Total for 25 miles, millions

95% at-grade ballasted track $400/double-track route-foot $50.2

5% Paved Track $600 4.0

Elevated (Wilburton) $6000/RF x 984 ft 5.9

Elevated (I-90) $6000/RF x 640 ft 3.8

Signals $300/RF 39.6

Communications $140/RF 18.4

Vehicles $3.8 million x 2 per route-mile 190.0

Minor intersection rebuild $250,000 x ~20 crossings 5.0

Major intersection rebuild $450,000 x ~20 crossings 9.0

TOTAL $13.04 million per route mile $325.9

The Hennepin study assumes two vehicles per route mile, but acknowledges the figure is conservative. Assuming six-minute headways for single cars averaging 25 MPH, we get 0.4 vehicles per mile per direction, or 0.8 vehicles per route mile. An allowance of 25% for maintenance reserve gives one vehicle per route mile, or 25 vehicles total, versus 50 based on the Hennepin criteria. The difference is significant in that the vehicle cost turns out – surprisingly – to be the biggest single cost category in the system. With one vehicle per route mile, the total drops to $230.9 million, or $9.24 million per mile.

2 Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation – North Carolina

The Piedmont Triad, encompassing the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point greater metropolitan area of North Carolina, commissioned a study in 2002 of corridors in need of transit improvements.[38] Four general corridors, one east/west and three north/south, were evaluated, totaling just over 100 miles. Specific alignments were not studied. The study is of interest because, like the I-405/BNSF corridors, these included significant portions along existing railroad or freeway routes or both. The study focused on comparing two technology alternatives. The rail diesel multiple unit (DMU) alternative would use new tracks in existing railroad corridors. The bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative would use exclusive lanes in freeway rights-of-way and local street approaches to downtowns.

The rail alternative involved upgrading existing single track, adding one or two parallel tracks, upgrading or replacing various bridges in existing rights-of-way. The BRT alternative included HOV lane construction, flyover ramps, and grade separations. Each approach included similar station quantities and locations – 14 along the main east/west corridor between Clemmens and Burlington, plus several on the three north/south branches south to High Point.

Several criteria were estimated for the seven corridors and sub-corridors. The average per-mile capital cost of the seven portions, including construction and equipment, were $5.83 million for BRT versus $17.63 million for Rail DMU.[39] Unfortunately, sufficient detail is not available to confirm the detailed scope of work. Annual operating cost per annual rider averaged $17 for BRT, $80 for Rail DMU

3 Reconstruct for Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit offers major advantages in flexibility and scheduling. Capacity of BRT can be similar to that of LRT. A 2001 General Accounting Office Report compared advantages and costs of bus rapid transit. The report found BRT to be roughly half the capital cost of LRT on average, with comparable operating costs.[40] Another source reported even more dramatic advantages to BRT over LRT. In its analysis, the El Monte BRT/HOV system in Los Angeles was found to produce approximately 10 times more transportation service per guideway-mile than the Blue Line, at less than one-fifth the capital cost per mile.[41]

A major consideration with dedicated busways is the political pressure to allow HOV and/or HOT vehicles to share the seemingly underused facilities. The GAO report cites several examples of exclusive BRT systems being converted to shared lanes. This can make sense, but there is the risk it will compromise system level of service and reduce ridership.

1 Busway

According to the GAO report, the average total cost for light rail systems in 13 cities, escalated to year 2000 dollars, was $34.79 million per mile. For new bus rapid transit busways in four cities, the figure was $13.49 million. For bus rapid transit using HOV lanes, the cost was $8.97 million per mile, and for BRT on arterial streets, $0.68 million per mile.

WSDOT’s January 7, 2003 highway cost summary reports costs of between $1 and 9 million per lane-mile for recently completed highway projects in the state. The table of typical projects, as opposed to large projects such as I-405, probably represents the level of costs that would be incurred to construct lanes in an existing railroad right-of-way. Assuming 25 miles of BNSF route converted to a two-lane busway, using an average of $5 million per lane-mile, the cost would be $250 million. This is similar to the cost arrived at earlier based on the Hennepin Study. However, vehicles are not included in the figure.

2 Bus Technology

Bus costs vary considerably according to size and power system. Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority recent bus orders: [42]

Manufacturer Type Cost per Vehicle

Breda Metro or LRV rail car $1,985,000

Neoplan Articulated 60’ Dual-Mode $1,600,000

Neoplan Standard 40’ Trolley $943,000

Neoplan Articulated 60’ CNG Bus $614,000

NABI Standard 40’ CNG $320,000

According to the GAO BRT report, a typical 40-foot transit bus costs about $283,000 and an articulated, higher capacity bus costs about $420,000.[43]

1 Trolley Buses

Electric trolleybuses replaced streetcars throughout the country in the 1940's and 50's. Many of these systems then abandoned their trolleybus networks and converted to diesel bus operations in the following three decades. Several cities, including Seattle, retained portions of their electric trolleybus networks despite this trend. Trolleybus advantages over buses using diesel or alternative fuels such as natural gas include reduced emissions and increased energy efficiency due to drawing current from central power sources. The vehicles are also very quiet and smooth, with tremendous hill climbing performance. This attracts passengers. In San Francisco, ridership on routes converted from diesel to trolley operation increased 10 - 18%. When a couple of routes were operated temporarily with diesels, ridership dropped 10%. While some may consider the overhead wiring required by the trolleybus to be intrusive, it can help to draw riders by giving transit a permanent presence on the street, an advantage often cited of light rail. [44]

According to page 19 of the GAO Report, a consultant study of eight light rail lines in five cities (Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Portland) found the average costs for train signals, communications, and electrical power systems with overhead wires for LRT to be $2.8 million per mile. One can assume a similar figure would be applicable in equipping a BRT busway for trolleybus operations.

2 Dual-Mode Diesel-Electric

For over 12 years King County Metro has operated dual-mode diesel-electric buses manufactured by BREDA. The specialized and expensive buses were acquired specifically for use in the downtown bus tunnel, so that they could operate in the tunnel on electricity, but switch to diesel to cover the rest of their routes. At $1.6 million each and lasting only 12 years, the buses represent a considerable recurring capital cost.

3 Hybrid Diesel-Electric

Since 2002, King County Metro Transit has been evaluating a hybrid diesel-electric bus to replace the dual-mode buses put in service for transit tunnel. Metro paid $743,000 for the prototype, manufactured by New Flyer.[45] Following successful testing, 235 hybrids have now been purchased. According to Metro, the hybrid buses cost about $645,000 each, compared to $445,000 for a standard diesel bus of the same size. The first two dozen hybrids will go in service in South King County on June 5, and all 235 will be on the road by the end of the year. Compared to conventional buses, the hybrids offer a 20-30 percent reduction in fuel consumption, a 90 percent emission reduction, and operating costs 30-50 percent lower than for the existing dual-mode buses. Because hybrid buses are simpler to operate and maintain, Metro will not need to do any capital expansion or retrain staff for the hybrids.[46] The new hybrid technology, essentially the same as used in the new Honda and Toyota hybrid cars, is also said to be exceptionally quiet. Given all these factors, the hybrid power train appears to be the clear choice for new bus applications, whether for BRT or conventional service.

4 Construct Monorail

Monorails are quiet, unobtrusive, clear of traffic, and potentially less expensive to operate through automation. King County Monorail is a grass-roots organization promoting study of an extensive monorail network throughout the county. Freeway Monorail proposes lines in existing freeway rights-of-way, and also is eying the BNSF Woodinville Sub. However, based on the Seattle Monorail Project, forecast at about $125 million per route-mile, the cost is far beyond that of the surface alternatives, whether rail or rubber tired.

5 General Conclusions on Transit Modes

The preceding discussion of potential transit modes provides programmatic cost estimate ranges, based on reasonably similar reference projects. While the Woodinville Subdivision is a relatively straightforward application, costs always vary from project to project. There are cost factors unique to Washington State, such as its prevailing wage law, and the fact that only in Washington do transportation projects pay state sales tax – roughly an eight percent adder.[47] Also, most costs cited in this report – unless going back many years – have not been normalized to current year dollars. Another variable not addressed is vehicle cost and lifespan. New-technology buses provide dramatic improvements in noise, emissions, comfort, and level of service. They also vary significantly in price. In general, bus lifespan is considerably lower than that of railcars. Relative maintenance costs have not been addressed.

Notwithstanding the variables cited here, the rough top-down comparison presented here leads to the following conclusions concerning potential modes:

• BRT, LRT, and DMU offer comparable order-of-magnitude capital costs of around $20 million per mile.

• BRT offers major advantages in flexibility over rail-based modes; this is especially important in the lower density Eastside.

• The new hybrid bus technology adds substantial improvements to the already attractive, relatively new, BRT approach for HCT.

• For any of these modes, BNSF right-of-way acquisition would appear to amount to around half the system cost if the $300 million right-of-way acquisition estimate is correct.

• Right-of-way acquisition for the I-405 Selected Alternative is over four times the estimated cost of the BNSF right-of-way, but it’s not clear how much added functionality the former may provide in terms of dedicated HOV access.

• Monorail is many times more expensive.

Initial Conclusions on BNSF versus I-405 alignment for Transit

Consideration of the BNSF route for transit raises serious concerns about quality of life and land use planning issues. Clearly – and understandably – many adjacent property owners will strongly object to such use. High-speed traffic on what is presently a low speed, rarely used railroad raises safety concerns. Noise is a major factor, especially when diesel engines are involved. Hybrid diesel/electric buses may be much quieter than conventional diesel buses or DMUs. Trolley buses would be far quieter, but tire noise would still be significant along many portions of the route, compared to steel-wheel-on-rail electric-powered transit.

At the rough top level of cost estimating, the costs appear to be around $20 million per route-mile for transit along the BNSF right-of-way versus $100 million per route-mile for the I-405 recommended alternative (based on one lane each direction at $50 million per mile). Granted, the latter includes many upgrades in the areas of interchanges, access, ramps, stations, etc. Nonetheless, one can wonder if the BNSF route was dismissed too soon. Unfortunately, detailed comparison of costs for the two routes would require analysis beyond the scope of this study or the capacity of this investigator.

Demographics

As the Puget Sound region grows and diversifies, downtown Seattle remains the major urban center, a key destination for commuting in the region. The largest employment center in the city, the University of Washington, is relatively close-in. In these areas, continuous streams of buses are seen throughout each weekday. Yet, for all the debates and plans, high-capacity transit is just now – just barely – being implemented. Buses, especially with the extensive freeway HOV lane system and limited BRT facilities such as the downtown transit tunnel, have sufficed to meet transit demand. Rail lines are in initial construction or late stage planning – Sound Transit Link and the Seattle Monorail Project – yet their very high capital costs engender continuing opposition.

Contrast the situation in Seattle with that of the Eastside. On the following page is a table which includes Seattle and several East King County cities. The list is sorted in order of population density.

Population, Land Area and Density for Cities and Towns, April 1, 2000[48]

| | Population |Land Area | Density* |

|Municipality |Total |Rank |Sq. Miles |Pop./Sq. Mi. |Rank |

| | | | | | |

|Seattle |563,376 |1 |83.782 |6,724.31 |1 |

|Kirkland |45,054 |16 |10.396 |4,333.95 |8 |

|Beaux Arts Village |307 |253 |0.080 |3,837.50 |14 |

|Mercer Island |22,036 |38 |6.200 |3,554.19 |19 |

|Bellevue |109,827 |5 |30.908 |3,553.31 |20 |

|Renton |50,052 |14 |17.311 |2,891.29 |35 |

|Yarrow Point |1,008 |191 |0.355 |2,836.94 |36 |

|Redmond |45,256 |15 |16.644 |2,719.08 |42 |

|Bothell |30,084 |29 |12.252 |2,455.41 |55 |

|Tukwila |17,181 |45 |8.775 |1,958.00 |77 |

|Clyde Hill |2,890 |130 |1.503 |1,922.70 |80 |

|Medina |3,011 |126 |1.605 |1,876.01 |83 |

|Newcastle |7,737 |81 |4.328 |1,787.70 |91 |

|Newport |1,921 |154 |1.109 |1,731.56 |92 |

|Sammamish |34,104 |23 |21.181 |1,610.10 |103 |

|Woodinville |9,809 |63 |6.117 |1,603.63 |105 |

|Hunts Point |443 |235 |0.330 |1,342.42 |135 |

|Issaquah |11,212 |61 |9.317 |1,203.34 |152 |

|AVERAGE EASTSIDE |391,932 |n/a |148.408 |2640.91 |n/a |

From the above table, average population density on the Eastside is found to be less than forty percent that of Seattle. Additionally, activities on the Eastside are more dispersed. Employment, educational, and retail destinations are far more distributed over the area, having evolved in the more recent, automobile oriented paradigm.

Another measure of the difference between the two areas can be seen in the map in Appendix 2, showing percent of drivers commuting alone. Differing population densities, as well as land use patterns, lead to markedly different patterns of vehicle occupancy, an indicator of potential transit use.

Transit potential along the I-405 corridor was gauged as part of a study for WSDOT by Mirai Associates in support of the Corridor Program.[49] Average weekday ridership on the proposed I-405 BRT line in year 2014 was estimated at 4,640 riders. This can be compared against figures of 69,000 per day for the Seattle Monorail Project[50] and 43,000 per day for Sound Transit Central Link light rail.[51] Again, these figures reflect the lower density and more diverse and auto-oriented nature of the Eastside.

The differences between Seattle and the Eastside, in population density and land use patterns, make it clear that construction of high capacity transit may be premature on the Eastside, unless that transit mode is relatively inexpensive, flexible, and able to overcome the limitations associated with implementation in a relatively low population density corridor.

Recreational Trail

Considering that major capital investment in the Woodinville Sub route for transit purposes may be decades off, the main focus shifts to preservation. If action is taken in time, there are tools available to ensure that the line is kept intact in the near term to preserve redevelopment options in the long term.

The Seattle area is a well-established leader in creating trails out of former railroad rights-of-way. With 58 rail-trails totaling over 600 miles, Washington ranks fifth among all states. It is noteworthy because most of those trails are in population-dense areas, leading to greater public use.[52]

1 Railroad Ownership of Rights-of-Way

The underlying land on most railroad rights-of-way is not owned by the railroad; they only have an easement for a specific purpose. The nature of BNSF’s ownership of the Woodinville Subdivision property will to the subject of complex research. As a rule of thumb, if the right-of-way is over five miles in length, title to at least a segment of it is likely to be held by the railroad in some form less than fee simple, such as a railroad right-of-way easement. In this case, once a parcel held for railroad right-of-way is abandoned, the parcel automatically reverts to the holder of the “reversionary interest”, usually the adjacent landowner.[53]

In the course of creating the Burke-Gilman trail, legislation emerged requiring that, as a condition of abandonment, rail carriers must offer public agencies or civic groups desiring use of a railroad right-of-way for recreation purposes the first opportunity to acquire the land.[54] However, the timeline can be an obstacle to realizing rail-to-trail conversions. As noted earlier, BNSF is looking for a decision within six months or it will consider sale of the Woodinville sub to private and commercial interests. It is not clear how much time is available short of one party initiating legal action to tie the property up in legal limbo.

2 Rail-Banking

The National Trails System Act of 1983, United States Code Title 16 Section 1247 (d), provides for “rail-banking”. “The Secretary of Transportation, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, and the Secretary of the Interior … shall encourage State and local agencies and private interests to establish appropriate trails …“ The law provides that if “a State, political subdivision, or qualified private organization is prepared to assume full responsibility for management of such rights-of-way and for any legal liability arising out of such transfer or use … then the Board shall impose such terms and conditions as a requirement of any transfer or conveyance for interim use … and shall not permit abandonment or discontinuance inconsistent or disruptive of such use.

Federal regulations require interested parties to request rail-banking within 30 to 45 days.[55] The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program work to notify affected communities of proposed railroad abandonments and provide the tools necessary to preserve rail corridors for public use.[56]

There also appears to be federal support for conversions of rail properties to transit. Section 3(a)(1) of 49 U.S.C. Section 1602 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to finance “(F) the development of corridors to support fixed guideway systems, including protection of right-of-way through acquisition, construction of dedicated bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes, construction of park and ride lots, and any other non-vehicular capital improvements that the Secretary may determine would result in increased usage in the corridor.”

The State of Washington adopted legislation in 1984, RCW 64.04.190, finding that railroad rights-of-way are “suitable for public use upon cessation of railroad operations on the properties. It is in the public interest of the state of Washington that such properties retain their character as public utility and transportation corridors, and that they may be made available for public uses including highways, other forms of mass transportation, conservation, energy production or transmission, or recreation.” The statute then provided that in the event railroad operations ceased and the property was acquired by the state, a political subdivision, or a utility for use as a highway or mass transportation, or for conservation or recreation, then the railroad corridor was “not subject to reversion…”[57]

The Washington law was challenged in court by the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners (NARPO), a group formed to represent interests of property owners in adjacent rights-of-way being considered for conversion to trails. NARPO initiated a state Supreme Court case that declared the law unconstitutional because it took away reversionary rights without compensation (Lawson v. State, 107 WA 2d 444). The Washington law now carries the provision that “Nothing in this section or in RCW 64.04.190 authorizes a public agency or utility to acquire reversionary interests in public utility and transportation corridors without payment of just compensation.” [58]

NARPO also challenged 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was constitutional, but that private property was being taken and the property owners could appeal to the U.S. Court of Claims for compensation (Preseault v. ICC, 494 US 1, 1990).

Meanwhile, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is lobbying Congress hard for the reauthorization of the 13-year-old federal program that injected considerations of alternative transportation into federal spending. A portion of that program has invested about $2.4 billion in transportation enhancements such as bicycle and pedestrian trails, historic preservation and environmental mitigation. These federal investments, covered under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), provide about 80 percent of project costs, requiring a 20-percent local match.[59] In early May 2004 Congress passed a third extension of the current authorization bill TEA-21, this time for two-months, while negotiations for the next six-year bill continue without agreement.

3 Other Local Trails

1 Redmond

As mentioned earlier, Redmond is attempting to acquire a nearby rail route. One conceptual use for the line is a 22-mile trolley system winding south through Issaquah. According to John Resha, city councilman and executive director of the greater Redmond Transportation Management association, 24 percent of 35,000 Redmond commuters surveyed live and work in Redmond, suggesting there may be a market. Planning director Roberta Lewandowski points out the Portland trolley started as a tourism system, but now it is being used for every kind of trip, including commuting.[60]

2 Sammamish

In 1998, King County purchased a closed rail line along the east shore of Lake Sammamish from the Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County (TLC) for $2,988,500 million after the federal Surface Transportation Board decided to allow rail-banking of the right-of-way. The Land Conservancy had purchased the rail line from Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) in 1997 for $1.5 million. The rail line stretches 11.61 miles along the east shore of Lake Sammamish with a total land area of about 140 acres. The county’s cost works out to $257,000 per mile. The county plans to develop this property into a regional trail linking Redmond and Issaquah. Acquisition of the property for trail development required a complicated chain of events. BNSF “ownership” of the property was in various forms: fee simple, right-of-way deeds, adverse possession claims, and federal land grants.[61]

The rail line has been a subject of heated debate for nearly 8 years. King County officials want very much to add the right-of-way to the county’s trail system. A majority of Sammamish City Council members has been vocal if favor of implementing a trail. Homeowners adjacent to the path are passionately opposed to its conversion to a trail. There have been at least 22 lawsuits and millions of dollars in expenses to taxpayers and property owners.[62] The city’s planning commission is currently attempting changes that would make it easier for trails to be built in wetlands and wetland buffers. Homeowners would likely appeal to the state Growth Management Hearings Board. In an effort to establish some momentum and awareness, King County has opened sections of the route south from SR 520 and north from I-90, totaling 3-1/2 miles.[63] The Lake Sammamish debate is only one of the latest in a history of heated debate associated with conversions to recreational trails. It emphasizes that challenges in preserving the Woodinville Sub will be huge, even without the issue of funding a huge property acquisition cost.

3 Burke/Gilman

In 1976, King County was able to appropriate $440,000 to acquire 28 miles of abandoned right-of-way to extend the Burke-Gilman trail. At a 4% inflation rate, this amounts to about $53,000 per mile in year-2004 dollars based on the historical consumer price index[64]. The source implies that $440,000 was the total paid for the property as well as several improvements. However, if the amount covered only the 20% local contribution, and the improvements were minor, the per-mile figure in today’s dollars would be $265,000 per mile, almost identical to the amount King County paid for the Sammamish route in 1998. Any of these figures are far below the $10 million or so per mile indicated earlier for the Woodinville Subdivision property. Even considering the extent to which the Burke-Gilman extension was rural and the Woodinville Sub is urban, the difference is hard to explain.

Conclusions

1 Clarification of BNSF Right-of-Way Cost Estimates

Details are hard to come by regarding the Woodinville Subdivision. The legal status of the property cannot be confirmed without extensive legal research. It appears, however, that BNSF generally has no ownership of the property itself, only of the rights to operate a railroad on it. News articles referred to BNSF’s interest in selling the line – one citing a price tag of $300 million, another $330 million. Two newspaper accounts refer to the corridor as being 100-feet wide, and measurements on an aerial photograph appear to corroborate this. If this is the case, $300-330 million works out to about $1 million per acre, or $10 million per route-mile. Yet two other local trails – Burke/Gilman and East Lake Sammamish – were acquired for less than three percent of this cost. There’s one plausible explanation for the difference: in the former case, estimated actual land acquisition value is used; in the latter, only the easement rights were acquired, not the land. A conversation with PSRC’s King Cushman confirmed the discrepancy. He indicated the figure was a “back of the envelope” number which a WSDOT official released, only, according to King, to later regret having done so. It was an order of magnitude estimate of property value, which may or may not have any relevance to the cost of acquiring the right-of-way.

2 Likelihood of Acquisition of the Underlying Property

The assumption behind the $300 million estimates is that, on average, it would take $1 million per acre to get all the adjacent property owners to agree to sell their portions of the route. To evaluate the likelihood of this happening, one only has to look at who these property owners are. They are the City of Renton, on the record as being strongly opposed to any kind of high capacity transit on the route in their city. They are the owners of the waterfront homes along the southeast shore of Lake Washington. They are upscale condominium owners in Bellevue and Kirkland. Even at the rather high figure of $1 million per acre, it seems likely that, lacking new, dramatic, and controversial legislation, enough landowners would resist sale to make such a conversion totally impossible.

3 Acquisition for Transit Versus Recreational Trail

Acquisition of rights to abandoned railroad rights-of-way is a special exception to the underlying laws pertaining to such easements. These rights-of-way normally revert to adjacent property owners upon cessation of railroad operations. Legislation in the late 1970s and 1980s made an exception in the interest of preserving the routes for the general public good, if perhaps at the expense of the reversionary property owners. Whether one sides with the former or the latter, the fact is the legislation appears only to pertain to preservation for recreational use, with the added premise that the route is being preserved for possible future reuse for railroads. Preservation of rights to these easements for conversion to uses other than trails for rail-banking, without outright purchase of the property from the reversionary property owners, is relatively untested in the courts.

4 Latest Status of PSRC Study

Though not funded by WSDOT, the Puget Sound Regional Council was able to proceed with an Ad Hoc study regarding the Woodinville Sub. A PSRC “Action Item” from Pam Carter, Chair of the Ad Hoc BNSF Eastside Corridor Advisory Committee to the Transportation and Growth Management Policy Board Members, dated May 27, 2004, reports the initial findings of the Committee of over two dozen representatives of local and regional jurisdictions. The committee unanimously approved a recommendation that “…the region finds a clear interest in preserving what is known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company’s Woodinville Subdivision corridor rights-of-way between the vicinity of the northern portion of downtown Renton in King County and the City of Snohomish in Snohomish County.” The memo goes on to report that “committee members noted that they all found it easy to support the basic issue of corridor preservation as an abstract concept for such a significant regional corridor. However, they were also in broad agreement that the ‘devil is in the details’….”

5 Final Words

Many details of the evaluation of alternatives for the I-405 Corridor Study are not included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Incorporation of high capacity transit using the Woodinville Subdivision corridor was rejected as not being cost effective and not hitting the major destinations. Yet, there are indications that the route might support bus rapid transit operations at a small fraction of the cost envisioned to add high occupancy vehicle lanes to Interstate 405. A quantitative comparison of the two alternatives needs to be performed and published before a major capital commitment is made.

Whether the route can be preserved, either for a recreational trail or for transit, will be a subject for public debate and lawsuits, just as it has been for scores of similar routes in recent decades. In any case, further study is required before billions of dollars go to the next major investment in Eastside transportation. Then, even if we still find that the route cannot support transit in the near term, one important question will remain: what value we will put on preservation of this corridor fifty or one hundred years from now?

-----------------------

[1]

[2]

[3] RailfansWelcome_files/ sheet047.htm

[4]

[5] Spirit of Washington Dinner Train;

[6] Daily Journal of Commerce, October 16, 2003

[7] Large Scale Central;

[8] Switzer, Jeff, “Railway may sell line”, King County Journal, October 9, 2003.

[9] Ibid

[10] Heyamoto, Lisa, “State’s interest in buying little-used rail line gauged”, Seattle Times, October 10,2003.

[11] Singer, Natalie, “On Eastside, funds buying roads, buses”, Seattle Times, December 2, 2003.

[12]

[13] Washington State Dept. of Transportation,

[14] I-405 Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement;

[15] I-405 Corridor Program Executive Committee 15 October 30, 2001 Meeting Summary;

[16] Sensible Solutions for I-405, “Detailed Comments on the I-405 DEIS, Prepared by Leon J. Skiles and Associates, Inc., October 24, 2001;

[17] 1000 Friends of Washington,

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22] Record of Decision, Interstate 405 Corridor Program, October, 2002

[23] Hadley, Jane, “Getting There: Traffic's free happy meal: A left turn on red light”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 31, 2003;

[24] Foster, George, “A $7 billion fix for the I-405 nightmare”, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 20, 2001.

[25] “Railway may sell line”, KCJ, 10/9

[26] FEIS Volume 2, Public Comments and Responses

[27] Ibid, p CR-43

[28] “Are WSDOT’s highway construction costs in line with national experience?”, January 7, 2003;

[29] Robinson, Robert A., Seattle Daily Journal;

[30] American Society of Civil Engineers;

[31] “Second tunnel possible for I-405, KCJ, 2/4/04

[32]

[33] Switzer, Jeff, “Regional council considers purchase of railway land”, King County Journal, December 5, 2003.

[34] Barry, Michael, Through the Cities – The Revolution in Light Rail, Frankfort Press, 1991.

[35] “Public Transit 1997; Bus, Paratransit, Intermodal, and Rail”, Part 4, “New Vehicle Options for Lower-Cost Rail Mobility Using Diesel or Dual-Powered Light Rail Cars as a Transfer of Technology”, Transportation Research Record 1571, 1997

[36]

[37] Appendix F: Capital Cost Estimate, Southwest Rail Transit Study;

[38]

[39]

[40] General Accounting Office Report GAO-01-984, “MASS TRANSIT: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise”, September, 2001;

[41] Rubin, Thomas A. and James E.. Moore II, “Alternatives to Rail: Rubber-Tire Transit”, Cal-Tax Digest, October 1997;

[42] Public Transport Modal Characteristics and Costs,

[43] GAO, page 19

[44] Transport 2000 BC;

[45] DieselNet;

[46] King County Metro Online,

[47] “Are WSDOT’s highway construction costs in line with national experience?”, January 7, 2003;

[48] State of Washington Office of Financial Management;

[49] Mirai Associates, “White Paper: Bus Rapid Transit Line Concept”, August, 2003

[50] Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Seattle Monorail Project),

[51] Sound Transit Online,

[52] Riley, Kate, “Rail-to-trail momentum keeps chugging along”, Seattle Times, March 22, 2004

[53] Montange, Charles, H., Preserving Abandoned Railroad Rights-Of-Way For Public Use – A Legal Manual, January, 1989

[54] Blair, John S., and Barry S. Tindall, Effective utilization of abandoned railroad rights-of-way for park/recreation purposes – potential problems and solutions, National Recreation and Park association, 1977

[55]

[56]

[57] RCW 64.04.180-190

[58] National Association of Reversionary Property Owners;

[59] Riley, Kate, “Rail-to-trail momentum keeps chugging along”, Seattle Times, March 22, 2004

[60] Switzer, Jeff, “Trolley boosters envision suburban expansion”, King County Journal, December 7, 2003.

[61] Eklund, Don, King County Auditor, Bobby Buyco, ““Special Study, East Lake Sammamish Trail”, Report No. 99-02, June, 1999;

[62] “King County acquires East Lake Sammamish rail line for trail”, King County News release, September 18, 1998;

[63] Bach, Ashley, “Sammamish considers easing wetland rules”, Seattle Times, May 8, 2004

[64] ;

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download