The
previous post commented on the absurdity of Sound Transit using a document called the "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) to "promote" East Link light rail. This post examines another
improbable aspect of this debacle, namely the Washington State Department of
Transportation support for East Link.
The EIS includes the WSDOT as the “Co Lead Agency”.
East
Link originated more than 30 years ago when the Sound Transit Board, “decreed”
that light rail was the answer for cross-lake commuting. The board, recognizing that a major
part of the Central Link funding came from eastside taxes, apparently felt the
need to include light rail service to attract support. It was this need for eastside
support that presumably led to Sound Transit making the absurd promises for
East Link detailed in other posts.
(eg 5/15, 5/19, 5/24,5/30,
6/27)
The
ST board could be forgiven for “over-promising” (which I believe had a major
impact on Prop.1 vote in 2008). The members were all appointed to their positions,
with very few having any mass transit experience. What is truly unconscionable is the WSDOT going along with
this debacle. (I vaguely remember a WSDOT official resigning in protest
commenting East Link was more interested in “construction” than
“transportation”.)
The
WSDOT knew (or should have known) that bus rapid transit (BRT) was a far better
choice for cross-lake commuting than light rail. The 40-ft. wide center roadway was ideal for two-way bus
only lanes separated by a third lane for increased safety and maintenance
access. The bus
lanes had 10 times light rail capacity, at 1/10th light rail cost,
and could have been in operation more than 10 years ago. Every eastside P&R could have
had direct bus routes into Seattle alleviating congestion throughout east
side.
Instead
it was the WSDOT who conducted the September 2005 test attempting to ensure the
I-90 bridge could withstand light rail loads, the first light rail installation
on a floating bridge. As detailed
in my 7/04 post, the FHWA was not convinced and the legislature commissioned an
independent review. Their
conclusion that “issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed”
was wide open to interpretation.
It
was the WSDOT who told a Kittitas judge the center roadway wasn’t needed for
highway uses and could therefore be closed down to install light rail. They ignored a 2004 study that showed
HOV traffic dramatically reduced combination bus/HOV lane capacity. (See 5/15 and 5/16 posts for details)
It
was this WSDOT support that undoubtedly played a role in convincing the media
that light rail was indeed the answer for cross-lake commuting. When it comes to transportation, a retired Boeing engineer's concerns don’t rate that high on
their credibility scale. (All the
money the media received from “ride the waves” advertizing revenues didn’t
hurt.)
When
I contacted the Attorney General’s Transportation and Public Construction
Division on these issues last year I received a letter from the “Chief Counsel
for the Washington State Department of Transportation. It included the following “I believe
your best course of action is for you to retain private council if your
concerns are not adequately addressed by the appropriate entities“.
That’s
why I run!
No comments:
Post a Comment