I think you mean "which Kirkland is bound and determined to ensure never carries trains ever again."
There's a reason why "South Kirkland Station" is actually in Bellevue and the Kirkland City Council is it.
They never specify what type of transit. Amazing that.
In all the articles in the Seattle Times about light rail, the Sound Transit public relations materials, etc., the Eastside Rail Corridor is never, ever, mentioned. How is it that Kirkland has managed a conspiracy of silence about it?
The city council there has been opposed to rail on the ERC ever since Sound Transit 3 was a gleam in the eye. They've wanted BRT, over Sound Transit's objections, because they deem it more compatible with trail uses and not taking up as much space in the corridor. (And able to be located on the eastern edge of the corridor, preserving views to the west. So, yet again, needed infrastructure takes a back seat to scenery.)
Some links:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/11/16/kirklands-brt-desi...
https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-strugg...
There isn't even a consistent scheme to the roads up there, they just deadend, with SR-522 being the only arterial (which is totally wrecked 7 hours a day!). Nevermind the shit many of the people that went to school up there had to deal with, makes Seattle Public Schools look reasonable when compared to the shenanigans administrators at those north end schools would play on many of the students they were supposed to be helping.
I hope for those trapped in that area that things get better, but it seems like so many of the newer neighbors in my area are flooding out of the communities on the north end of the lake.
As for ridership, all you have to do is drive that route on 405 during rush hour, which is all day. Downtown Kirkland is gridlocked during rush hour.