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.
The Kirkland section of the trail actually gets a fair amount of use as a bike and walking route and connects sections of Kirkland that weren't easy to connect before. With the South Kirkland park and ride to at the south border I know a few people who used it to bike to the bus system.
Kemper Freeman I think has a lot to do with why the train line wasn't used for light rail.
That's the problem with turning it into a bike path. Sure, it's nice to have a bike path. But a bike path moves maybe 1% of the commuters that light rail would.
A bike path minimizes utility, rather than maximizes it.
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.
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.
That would require rezoning low density residential areas, which is practically impossible.
> About a 10 minute walk (I've done it). Oh, the agony :-)
I've done it too. For a pedestrian, 8th street is a complete hellscape. How many people working/living in downtown would enjoy adding 10*2 minutes of hell each day to their commute?
> With modern technology, one set can service both directions safely.
How often is this done? If this would save costs, then all the new lines should be doing this, but I don't see it happening anywhere.
> Or it could be - maintained.
Bridges have a finite lifespan, and the trestle is almost 120 years old. It won't last forever, even if maintained.
If they can blast new right of way through it, they can rezone it.
> For a pedestrian, 8th street is a complete hellscape
I agree. I recommend 10th instead.
> How often is this done?
Beats me. With modern tech, how hard can it be? It'll work up to a certain level of traffic, then a second track will be needed, and it'll be obvious and the funds will be easier to get.
> Bridges
It only has to last long enough to prove the need. And light rail, being light, is not going to stress it. The thing was built for heavy freight traffic.
>> How often is this done?
> Beats me. With modern tech, how hard can it be?
All that's need is a handful of passing loops and modern signalling. It's how we in Scotland got the railway from Edinburgh to Tweedbank re-opened (part of the old Waverley route from Edinburgh to Carlisle that was closed during the Beeching cuts).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverley_Route