Bellevue City Council East Link Support Betrays East Side

The Bellevue City Council’s recent complaints in a Seattle Times article concerning Sound Transits plans to spend $225 million for a huge maintenance facility in the Bel-Red area is another example of BCC malfeasance in dealing with their constituents commuting problems.   The idea these plans are a “surprise” is totally absurd.  Anyone who bothered to read the December 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would have noticed there were three different locations identified in the Bel Red area and one near Redmond town center.  (A 7/26 post identifies this facility as one of the reasons a streetcar system would be far better than light rail for Bel-Red development)

Council member Claudia Balducci recent comments that Sound Transit’s proposed Bellevue sites “are really, really disappointing” and  “They’re just not good sites” are particularly disingenuous.  After all she’s been on the Sound Transit board for years.  If she was serious about objecting she could have done so a long time ago.  Her recent “disappointment” about the location suggests either incompetence or mendacity.

This maintenance location decision is just another example of the BCC, and Balducci in particular, failure to represent eastside commuters.   They could have used the permitting process to insist on a tunnel between South Bellevue P&R through downtown.  Build a Better Bellevue recently announced plans to sue because of Sound Transits refusal to consider this option.   

Any ST concerns about the extra costs involved with tunneling are belied by their recently announced plans to tunnel between the University light rail station and the Northgate station.   Their attitude towards eastside is particularly galling since eastside taxes make up about 40% of all their funding.    

In the meantime, the BCC has agreed to a light rail route that devastates parts of Bellevue and violates federal environmental laws by encroaching on Mercer Slough Park.  They’ve even acceded to ST demands for an additional $200 million to pay for a tunnel underneath city center. 

All this pales in comparison to the BCC failure to recognize that East Link will never have the capacity or the accessibility for more than a tiny fraction of cross-lake commuters.   Instead of spending thousands on consultants for totally futile studies of alternate light rail routes into Bellevue, they could have considered the BRT option.  Even a cursory analysis would have shown BRT had 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost, 10 years sooner and would be accessible from every eastside P&R not just South Bellevue P&R.  

Their willingness to go along with East Link will result in billions spent on a light rail system that will devastate Bellevue, gridlock Lake Washington Bridge and do nothing to ease the already serious congestion on 1-90 and 405.  An earlier post refers to Bellevue City Council malfeasance; a better word is "betrayal".

I-90 Corridor City Councils Ignore East Link Debacle

This morning on my weekly commute to Fall City for my version of golf I was again reminded of the problems I-90 commuters will face with East Link.   The stop-and-go traffic on the three non-HOV lanes began shortly after the two on-ramps from SR900 interchange.   Some days the heavy congestion begins further east with slow downs along I-90 into Issaquah.   In the late afternoon, some of the worst congestion along 1-90 corridor is in the Eastgate area. 

I mention this because the billions spent on East Link will do absolutely nothing to alleviate this congestion.  The best way to reduce I-90 and 405 congestion is to attract more commuters to mass transit.  Sound Transit could have done so by initiating BRT service on the I-90 bridge center roadway some 15 years ago.  Each eastside P&R could have had an express bus route into Seattle allowing commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.

Instead Sound Transit has spent hundreds of millions promoting a light rail system with a fraction of BRT capacity that most I-90 commuters won’t even have access to.  Money that could and should have been used to eliminate 520 bridge tolls.  In 2016 Sound Transit will close down the center roadway forcing all cross-lake vehicles onto the outer roadways.  Their own studies show the planned addition of a 4^th lane won’t have the capacity for both bus and HOV traffic. 

Thus, in addition to the congestion commuters face in getting to the bridge, their cross-lake congestion will also inevitably increase because of East Link. Even when completed in 2023, the billions spent on light rail will have a miniscule effect on this increased congestion.

What’s truly remarkable is the apparent lack of concern along the corridor.  Many of those I talk to aren’t even aware Sound Transit is planning to permanently close the center roadway to install light rail.   Any cross-lake commuter who lives along the I-90 corridor east of 405 or south of 1-90 along 405 will face increased congestion.   Yet, all of the city councils in the area have either acquiesced to if not actively supported East Link.

Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond could have stopped East Link years ago by opting for “no-build” Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to meet transit demands rather than agreeing to issue permits Sound Transit needs to construct light rail.  The Mercer Island City Council apparently ignores the fact their commuters will be one of the biggest losers.  They’ll go from having exclusive SOV access on the center roadway to facing eventual gridlock along with all the other commuters on the outer roadways.  They would still lose SOV access with BRT on center roadway.  However, they would have their own express bus connection into Seattle.  With East Link they would likely have to stand being the last stop on eastside.  

The Bellevue City Council seems oblivious to the fact most of their cross-lake commuters won’t have access to light rail.  Instead they’re content to let Sound Transit devastate parts of their city leaving Build A Better Bellevue to sue because of federal environmental law violations.    BCC even acceded to ST demands for an addition 200 million to pay for a tunnel under city center; yet Seattle gets a tunnel from the University to Northgate for no charge.

No one representing commuters further east on I-90 or south on 405 has raised any objections to Sound Transit’s spending billions of their constituents tax dollars on a light rail system that will increase their congestion.  A small fraction of that money could have provided a BRT system that alleviated congestion throughout eastside.  The rest could be used to, if not to eliminate the need for 520 tolls, keep them from being applied to 1-90 commuters.

It’s this lack of concern that’s one of the reasons I run.

Times Cont’d East Link Complicity New Low in Responsible Journalism

I finally had my “interview” with the Seattle Times.  It didn’t go well.  First a little background.  I initially filed as a candidate for two reasons.  The first was to use the Voters Pamphlet to attract voters to my “stop-east-link-now” blog.  The second was to get the chance to talk to the Seattle Times about East Link.  For three years they had ignored my emails and offers to meet in person to explain my concerns.  I had hoped to use the interview to present my 09/05 post and answer any questions.

The interviewers were simply not interested.  I had barely begun when they stopped me and asked what other issues besides “transportation” I was interested in.  (I thought it was a little like asking “Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln”.)   I talked very briefly about the health insurance reforms in my 8/12 post.    In response to their query concerning the recent Supreme Court decision requiring increased school funding I opined the legislature ask school districts to provide more details on where the 2/3rds of their budgets that doesn’t go to classroom teachers is spent. (also in 8/12 post).  I could tell they weren’t the least bit interested.

From then on it was one long discussion with Rep Hunter about the state budget problems.  They had a great time talking about public employee pensions, school funding, the teachers union, and the various legislative factions involved in prioritizing spending along with Rep. Hunter’s success in dealing with these issues.   

When there was about 15 minutes left I asked if I would be allowed to talk about my transportation concerns.  The response was they were interested in “other issues” but suggested I interject my opinions on these other issues.  Having none, I asked to be excused.  Needless to say I don’t expect their endorsement. 

The interview convinced me the Seattle Times is perfectly willing to go along with Sound Transits continuing with the current East Link program.   They could have stopped it years ago by exposing Sound Transits failure to consider a cross-lake BRT.  Their failure to do so has forced cross-lake commuters to endure years of increased congestion and allowed ST to waste hundreds of millions promoting a flawed light-rail system.  Money that could and should have been used to eliminate the need for 520 tolls.

Their continued lack of interest abets extending the current congestion problems and spending for another 4 years.  That’s when ST finally gets around to adding the 4^th lane to the outer roadways, shutting down the center roadway forcing all traffic onto the outer roadways.  ST’s own studies predict the outer roadways won’t have the needed capacity.   ST will spend billions over the next seven-plus years devastating Bellevue to install light rail tracks and 5000-volt power lines for a light rail system that will have a miniscule effect on outer roadway congestion.  The inevitable result will surely be cross-lake gridlock.

My other posts have described Sound Transits actions as giving a whole new meaning to the word “Incompetent”.  The Time’s lack of interest in East Link represents a new low in responsible journalism.

Seattle Times East Link Complicity

My Sept 12^th Presentation to Seattle Times Interviewers

My candidacy is due to Sound Transit’s 1990’s historic blunder in selecting light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  They knew or should have known that a bus rapid transit (BRT) system had ten times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost, and could have been in operation in 2 years not 20. 

Fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have added a 4^th lane to the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV traffic and initiated BRT on the center roadway.  The BRT could have provided direct connections between every eastside P&R and Seattle.  The entire eastside would have benefitted by allowing more commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.

Instead Sound Transit has used the years to spend hundreds of millions on a light rail system that will never have the capacity or the accessibility for more than a fraction of cross-lake commuters.  Their 2008 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) claimed a 4-car train every 9 minutes was like adding 10 lanes of freeway capable of 24,000 riders per hour.   Even if they crammed 200 riders on each of the four 74-seat cars, the maximum theoretical capacity would be less than 11,000.  The only access for most cross-lake commuters to this limited capacity would be a South Bellevue P&R:  a P&R that will never have the needed capacity or accessibility.  

Sound Transit also claimed their addition of a 4^th lane to the outer roadways would provide “travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks that improve or remain similar with East Link”.  They used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge that the center roadway could be used for light rail.   Yet their own 2004 studies showed a single lane did not have sufficient capacity for both bus and HOV traffic. 

Cross-lake commuters have already needlessly endured years of increased congestion because of Sound Transits blunders.  What’s truly incredible is it gets worse!  In 2016 they’ll close off the center roadway and force all cross-lake traffic onto the outer roadways, a sure recipe for eventual gridlock.  They’ll use the next 7 years to spend billions devastating parts of Bellevue with light rail tracks and 5000-volt power lines creating a light rail system that will have a miniscule effect on outer roadway congestion.

None of this had to happen.  Sound Transit could have used the eastside tax money to eliminate the need for 520 tolls rather than waste it promoting light rail.  The Seattle Times could have stopped it years ago by exposing Sound Transit’s failure to consider BRT for cross-lake transit.  The decision to ignore my many emails on these issues has been an abdication of your responsibility to inform the public.  Your continued silence will be a major contributor to Sound Transit spending the next 10 years and billions on East Link, devastating parts of Bellevue and eventually grid locking I-90 bridge.  No responsible newspaper would allow that.