Crossing Pacific With Sound Transit and The Sounder (12. September 2006, 08:06 by Derek Young) ~ How Do We Expand?
Rec’d via email:
Since last year, Sound Transit and more recently, the city of Tacoma are saying that Heavy rail line is an absolute necessity in order to carry commuters from the current Sounder stop at freighthouse square on to Lakewood and further south.
Why can Portland, San Francisco, LA and every other recent embracer of public rail transportation find Light rail sufficient to effectively move passengers when Sound Transit can’t? The reasons given for wanting heavy rail are somewhat glib and dismissive: such as: it’s too late to change our design, light rail isn’t meant to go long distances or light rail (the link) wouldn’t be “fast’ enough. It seems to be deemed fast enough to move people from downtown seattle to the airport-or from concord to daly city on BART in the bay area… Light rail has many benefits over heavy rail: it is safer, quieter, cheaper and more flexibly rerouted…
Perhaps it’s because there is another agenda, and perhaps that agenda involves using the heavy rail lines to allow freight to share in the use, and the expense of the lines’ development. Perhaps it’s the link between Ft. Lewis (the military) and downtown/port via rail.
What is Tacoma Rail’s interest in this line?
Regardless of the reason; (although the true reason for this decision should be made public and justified to the public who will be paying for it) bringing freight through the dome district, with at grade crossings, bells, horns and switching would certainly limit any potential growth in the area. There are big questions about the wisdom of pursuing a course of actions simply because it is already in motion and I think this is a time when we should look at the wisdom of this choice.
Thank you
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
Bringing a crossing over Pacific would be a step backwords and would certainly bring a bit of grit back to the city. Besides, light rail certainly can move people well across longer distances. Portland’s light rail extends about 30-40 miles east to west.
Silly Sound Transit, show us your real hand.
1 | Posted by KevinFreitas | Sep 12, 08:24 AM
I believe it has something to do with being a tax write-off/evasion scheme for boeing. viz: heavy rail costs more, boeing uses its off shore bean counter loop-hole experts to put up the money (on paper atleast) and bingo bango bongo, they rob butt loads of cash from uncle sam and the great state of washington.
2 | Posted by RR Anderson | Sep 12, 09:12 AM
Besides, light rail certainly can move people well across longer distances. Portland’s light rail extends about 30-40 miles east to west.
Precisely, and Portland is at the center of this 30-40 mile band, which means that a commute from either side is only 15-20 miles as compared with a commute from Tacoma to Seattle, which is 35 miles. Taking into account stops in Fife and Federal Way and Auburn and the rest of the Kent Valley AND in Southeast Seattle – LINK even if it is built in 2030 would take considerably longer to get from Tacoma to Seattle. Even the express Interurban trains of the days of ol’ took about 70 minutes to get from Tacoma to Seattle.
Light rail is meant to move people moderate distances (20 miles)... say from either Tacoma or Seattle to the airport. The point of building a rail transit line from Tacoma to north of Seattle is to create a high capacity “transit backbone” that everything else can feed into to move people moderate distances. Self-propelled heavy rail is meant for longer distances with fewer stops at time longer intervals.
However I do agree with you about this whole crossing thing. It doensn’t make very much sense in the long term. Their concern for the most part is dealing with auto traffic. I don’t think that we’re going to have as bad of a traffic situation in fifty years – at least not when many geologists are stating that oil production will peak within ten years.
3 | Posted by Chris from Theater District | Sep 12, 10:06 AM
One benefit would be that Amtrak would be switched through and no longer take the Pt. Defiance route… but lord only knows how much longer Amtrak is going to be around.
The funny thing is that Sound Transit will in no time be maxed-out on how many runs it can do on the Burlington Northern rail which it leases. Once this happens, then what?
It does seem that the heavy rail option is limiting both in the short and long term. Is it too late to reconsider?
4 | Posted by morgan | Sep 12, 10:19 AM
It’s been years since I’ve been on BART.. but my recollection (and I know this IS the case for Portland) is that their trains are larger than what we are using for LINK. They are just about (if not actually) full-sized train cars that run on electricity (ala.. Chicago & NY’s el’s). LINK is not much wider than Seattle’s Waterfront Streetcar. The size (most notably the width) of the cars is going to be the determining factor in how fast they can travel.
5 | Posted by Matt | Sep 12, 11:01 AM
A few impediments to light rail progress: – Federal subsidies/assurances that heavy rail & freight lines remain in place for…are you ready? ‘National security’ – Miles of heavy rail linking every portion of the country as a ‘logistical alternative’ to highways. – Are there nostalgia steam train fans in play here as well?
6 | Posted by Les | Sep 12, 11:29 AM
BART is heavy rail. Morgan has hit the nail on the head. The real issue is the capacity of the Burlington Northern tracks being leased. Isn’t there already a problem with the capacity of Sounder? As he says,”What then?” What happens when the trains are both north and south in AM and PM?
Michael
7 | Posted by michael | Sep 12, 11:32 AM
although the true reason for this decision should be made public and justified to the public who will be paying for it
no offense, but fat chance, this is Sound Transit we’re talking about here. the State supreme court just handed them a blank check when it comes to eminant domain, so now they pretty much have the attitue that they can do whatever, whenever. Unfortunatly for us the possible soloution was mishandled by Eyman when he botched the signature collection of i-933. If that had qualified, we could have voted to effectivly cut off funding for sound transit.
8 | Posted by Zintradi | Sep 12, 12:55 PM
Unless I’m missing something really big here (and I may be) the biggest factor in the support of heavy rail is probably the fact that there are already lines between Seattle and Tacoma. I’d certainly agree that having a dedicated commuter system (whether it be light or heavy rail) would be preferable in the long run, the cost of building the line in question would be very large.
But oh! What I wouldn’t do for a train from Seattle to Olympia! It could be a light rail train, a heavy rail train, or a clown train. I wouldn’t mind the form a bit. Dare I dream?
9 | Posted by Erik S | Sep 12, 03:45 PM
Zintradi-
Correction: I-933 is the so-called ‘property rights’ issue that will be on the November ballot. That initiative would give anyone, not just Sound Transit, the opportunity to infringe on others. Either local governments would have to cough up the difference in property values caused by land use controls such as zoning, or the govt. would have to waive the regulation. Completely separate but equally important issue.
10 | Posted by drizell | Sep 12, 04:53 PM
How about a train to Centralia so I can actually live in Tacoma? 50 miles each way on a train is way better than I-5.
11 | Posted by drizell | Sep 12, 04:54 PM
i just got back from a week on the east coast and oh! how i miss really good public transportation. outside new york city there are many light rail lines extending 50+ miles out. a heavy rail train (i.e. the sounder) making as many stops as are needed between tacoma and seattle is just plain dumb. light rail /= the link. the link is a slightly modernized streetcar. the light rail line i rode when i lived 20 miles north of nyc took me about 35 minutes (express) or 50 minutes (local) to get to the city and traveled up to 40 mph between stops which ranged from 1 – 2 miles apart.
12 | Posted by ben | Sep 12, 09:09 PM
There are no hidden agendas when it comes to Tacoma Rail’s interest in the ‘reconnection’ of Tacoma to the PRARIE LINE connection through the Nalley Valley. Original intentions concerning Sound Transit’s Pacific Ave crossing included reconnecting direct freight operations between the port and South Tacoma; this was part of the deal with BNSF when the city severed the Prarie Line during the Link/Convention Center/Jefferson St. realignment/Pacific Plaza project. In consequence, Tacoma Rail took the initiative and bought these rails from the BNSF in 2005.
As it stands, Tacoma Rail now handles all freight operations in South Tacoma and Lakewood that requires them to access these rails via the American Lake line heading north out of the Nisqually Valley (about a 20-30 mile detour). Reconnecting the downtown connection can only help to increase the industrial use of South Tacoma (i.e. more jobs in Tacoma), especially with an enthusiastic operator such as Tacoma Rail who is continually looking for more local freight business.
As for increased freight operations in the Dome district, this is inevitable. The ex-Tacoma Eastern/Milwaukee Road tracks that run by “Freighthouse” square already sees daily freight operations to Fredrickson Jct. and beyond. Increase in this freight traffic happens daily, especially as the industrial explosion of the Fredrickson area continues.
Personally I have my own reservations and head scratching questions concerning Sound Transit. I’m concerned with any future Pacific crossing due to past incidents with Sound Transit construction; in reference to the cinder block hillside that has been rebuilt more than once near Portland and Puyallup Aves, or the BUS TUNNEL DEBACLE in Seattle. I wonder why one set of tracks with one crossing (the Prarie Line) are abandoned for a whole new line with two potential grade crossings (for “safety upgrades”), or why it takes them 12 years to complete a light rail line to Sea-Tac whereas the original Interurban was completed in under two years? Any potential grade or elevated crossing concern me for precisely the reasons I mention. However, increased freight traffic through south downtown can only be good for Tacoma. Apart from its tax base, Tacoma Rail is the largest source of income for the city.
Finally! I’m continually puzzled by our growing dislike for rail traffic around the downtown area. Tacoma was built around its railroads. The historical fabric of this great city is interwoven with the history of the railroads that have called Tacoma home; ever since 1873, back when Tacoma was just a shanty town with a couple stump filled muddy streets. I see any future freight traffic on the Sound Transit route not as grit but as history and a prosperous future.
13 | Posted by Nick | Sep 13, 02:46 AM
I-933 is the anti-communities iniative. It does not impact any eminent domain issues in Washington State. This was a tactic used by the signature gathers to convince people to sign the initiative. Looking at the Yes on 933 website, there is no longer any mention of eminent domain as a reason to support the measure.
I-933 would raise local government costs, create significant land use headaches, and result in less predictability for developers (one reason the Building Industry of WA & Master Builders Association are not supporting the measure). Don’t be fooled by misleading claims. No on I-933
14 | Posted by DavidS | Sep 13, 07:37 AM
Sorry to continue the unrelated I-933 discussion, but if it passes, Tacoma’s renewal is screwed—it will make enforcing the Growth Management Act impossibly expensive for local governments throughout the state (esp. in the Puget Sound area), which will spur more sprawl and traffic and less revitalization of urban centers.
15 | Posted by Michael G. | Sep 14, 10:42 AM
Something worth mentioning is that the light rail ST has proposed to possibly extend to Tacoma (exactly the same as the current Sea Tac – Seattle route) uses larger and faster trains than the current Link light rail in downtown Tacoma. I can’t remember the details, but I believe the track guages are different as well (anyone that is better informed, please feel free to correct me).
16 | Posted by Nick | Sep 14, 11:14 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
