The fate of the Eastside Rail Corridor and specifically that of the Cross Kirkland Corridor (CKC) has drawn out numerous competing interests as to what should, or shouldn’t, be placed on it.

At a packed meeting on Monday night, the Houghton Community Council joined opponents of bus rapid transit (BRT) on the CKC by approving a measure to have it instead placed on Interstate 405, in opposition to the city’s planned recommendations to Sound Transit.

Sound Transit, which has an easement on the corridor, is currently looking at possible projects to include on their ST3 ballot measure. The Sound Transit Board held its first workshop for ST3 a few weeks ago, examining proposals that would extend light rail and rapid bus transit in Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and the Eastside. They have estimated the costsof a potential light rail route connecting Issaquah and Totem Lake via Bellevue at up to $3.379 billion, while another light rail project would have the East Link line extend to downtown Redmond, with a cost of $1.1 billion and up to 5,000 riders a day in 2040.

Meanwhile, the city of Kirkland is preparing to lobby Sound Transit in the hopes of getting them to instead opt for a BRT line on the ERC and consequently the CKC, which they believe would be comparably inexpensive, take less time to construct, and be more adaptable to changes as the region grows. Earlier this year the City Council approved a $250,000 conceptual design for BRT planning, pre-design and cost-estimating that will later either be presented to Sound Transit or used by the city itself when looking at other related transportation options.

The city has said it doesn’t know for sure how much the BRT would cost at this point, which doesn’t include the construction of a transit center at Totem Lake, but their very rough estimate is around $300 million, though it is expected to be significantly higher when more details come out.

City officials have stated that Sound Transit transportation is needed in Kirkland to solve traffic congestion that can’t be rectified through internal improvements such as add new roads or widening existing ones.

At the same time, many Kirkland residents have formed an organized opposition to the city’s lobbying efforts, believing that Sound Transit should instead place BRT on I-405’s High Occupancy Lanes (HOV), albeit there is disagreement over what should go on the corridor, if anything at all.

Operating under the slogan that “buses and trails don’t mix,” the group Save Our Trail is made up of a variety of residents from different backgrounds, live in separate neighborhoods, and are opposed to BRT for different reasons.

Among them is former Kirkland City Councilmember Santos Contreras, who lives in Bridle Trails. He said the response from the community, which packed the Kirkland Performance Center during a recent open meeting with the city about their proposal and at the Houghton Community Council meeting, shows how concerned residents are about how they might be impacted.

“People are as wound up [about] this as I’ve ever seen,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like this in terms of getting people riled up.”

Complicating the entire debate is Sound Transit’s easement on the entire ERC, which allows them to take up a certain width of the corridor for rapid transit. Although Kirkland bought their section of the corridor and opened the interim trail earlier this year, city officials say they won’t be able to develop it any further until Sound Transit makes a decision either way, because if it requires the city to move the trail, Kirkland is liable for any financial costs associated with the move. Typically, the Houghton Community Council has veto power on any land use decisions that are made by the city council, but because there is already a legal use on the city-owned property by Sound Transit their measure is merely a recommendation, according to Community Council Chairman Rick Whitney.

Contreras says that while the easement needs to be acknowledged by opponents of the city’s efforts, the city should still look to other options before promoting BRT on the corridor, such as placing it on I-405. Contreras also said that the city should try increasing the number of parking stalls at the park and rides.

One of the objectives of Save Our Trail, Contreras said, is to send a message to Sound Transit that the city’s lobbying does not reflect what many Kirkland residents want.

Another complaint opponents have of the city’s lobbying, Contreras said, is that while Sound Transit may place the project on the ballot next year, it might not include specific project details or how it will impact Kirkland or the CKC.

“There are too many unknowns,” he said. “Right now there’s no known, just what Kirkland is trying to do, which in my mind has little probability of surviving in the long run.”

Unlike others opposed to BRT on the corridor who don’t want any rapid transit there at all, Contreras says that in the long-term it’s not a realistic outlook.

“In the long run something’s going to go there, but I think what it comes down to is when,” he said. “I think the long range plan is rail, really, if you think about it.”

For him, it’s about making sure transit on the corridor is done properly.

“The answer is very simple,” he said. “Let’s pull together, with the cities and Sound Transit, a solution that works for everybody. That has got to be the goal. It’s regional, it’s not individual cities, so the region has to get together. Nothing like this is going to work if we don’t work together.”

Another Kirkland resident involved in Save Our Trail is Rob Butcher, who lives in the Norkirk neighborhood. He said that while residents like himself understand Sound Transit has an easement on the corridor and the state legislature’s special session has created a time crunch for the whole process, it is the city and not Sound Transit pushing the BRT proposal, and although the CKC’s masterplan includes the possibility of light rail or BRT, Butcher said it feels like the city is acting on its own.

“Why does the city want to have something on the trail when Sound Transit doesn’t want to?” he said. “It comes from the city, and when it comes from the city it impacts us as citizens.”

Though the city believes BRT would improve traffic, Butcher said it will actually make it worse because it will have to move through the old railroad crossings. He also questioned how this would work if the BRT would have buses arriving at the transit stops every few minutes.

“That’ll cause all our surface streets that cross the trail to be backed up all the time,” he said. “This will make it worse, it won’t make it better. It’s being sold as something to improve traffic. It helps regionally, but it could just as easily help regionally on 405.”

On top of BRT on I-405, Butcher said they should get king County Metro to provide more public transportation options, which could better serve the needs of different neighborhoods and link up to their transit centers.

Among the city’s justification for lobbying Sound Transit is to ensure that tax revenue collected by Sound Transit from Kirkland residents actually serves their transit needs. However, Butcher believes that this isn’t realistic.

“This is Sound Transit, their job is to have bus rapid transit,” he said. “They think of how to move people through Kirkland. That does not improve the transportation needs of Kirkland. It’s creating another freeway through Kirkland with very few stops.

Like Contreras, Butcher said that even if Sound Transit decides to put BRT on the final project list, that doesn’t mean they will necessarily take the city’s BRT study into consideration when they go to build on the corridor.

“There’s no legal teeth,” he said. “We have no grounds to say ‘You must do this.’ It’s just a hope and a prayer. It seems really like putting the horse before the cart.”

The likelihood of rapid transit on the trail was confirmed by Program Manager Deb Eddy with the Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Advisory Council, who told the Reporter it was “almost a certainty.”

The regional advisory council was formed after several entities, including Kirkland, purchased sections of the ERC from the Port of Seattle, creating a situation in which numerous parties have different ownership rights to the corridor. Mayor Amy Walen is one of the members of the council. The regional advisory council envisions transit on the corridor at some point, though it doesn’t prescribe any specific transportation mode.

“Our interest is ensuring not only the coordination they’ve seen to date but going forward we have a higher level of coordination,” Eddy said.

However, she said no matter what makes it on ST3, the regional advisory council will not be taking a side either way due to the fact that several of the council members are also Sound Transit board members.

“We can affirm at every opportunity the commitment that transit is part of our vision for the corridor, so whether it’s this project or another, eventually transit will be throughout the whole corridor, and Kirkland’s segment may turn out to be one of the easiest places to evaluate and to implement transit, but that’s not a decision the regional advisory council is suited to making,” she said.