Freeman/ETA Suit Should Stop East Link

The Oral Arguments for the Freeman v State of Washington are scheduled for 1:30 PM, February 19.  It should be any easy case to win if the below paragraphs copied from the WSDOT/Sound Transit Oct 2 "Brief" filing is their response to the suit in court.

In September 2004, the Federal Highway Administration' s Record

of Decision designated R-8A (the HOV Project) as the selected

alternative. CP 1406, 1419-69.  This alternative was chosen because it "would accommodate the ultimate configuration of I-90 (High Capacity Transit in the center lanes)." CP 1407, 1432.

C.       Analyzing the Installation of High Capacity Transit in the 1-90 Center Lanes

With federal project approval in 2004, the signatories to the 1976 Agreement, along with Sound Transit, took the first step toward installing High Capacity Transit in the center lanes of I-90.

In the 52004 Amendment to the 1976 Agreement, the parties agreed to the principle that upon completion of the HOY Project, they would "move as quickly as possible to construct High Capacity Transit in the center lanes." CP 1008, 1034. The parties defined "High Capacity Transit" as: a transit system operating in dedicated right-of-way such as light rail, monorail, or a substantially equivalent system. CP 1033.

The parties also committed to the "earliest possible conversion

of center roadway to two-way High Capacity Transit operation based on outcome of studies and funding approvals." CP 1407, 1472. • ~4).

The September 2004 Federal Highway Administration document,  “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operation Project, Record of Decision”, purported to justify the East Link use of center roadway does nothing of the sort.  It’s true the R8-A alternative" would accommodate the ultimate configuration of I-90 (High Capacity Transit in the center lanes)."  However, as the below paragraph from my 5/16/12 post explains, the R8-A from the 2004 study was not the R8-A configuration selected for East Link.  

The study’s preferred configuration, R-8A, is documented on pages 9 and 10.   It adds a 4^th lane to the outer bridges for the combined bus/HOV traffic.  However, it provides the needed additional capacity by retaining the two existing reversible bus/HOV lanes on the center roadway.  Thus, contrary to what Sound Transit and DOT told the judge, there is not a shred of data that supports their claim that R-8A’s installation of a Bus/HOV lane on the outer bridge would eliminate the need to use the center section for highway use.

The other absurdity is the WSDOT/ST apparent unwillingness to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) as a “High Capacity Transit” for the center lanes.  BRT would provide far greater capacity and accessibility at far less cost than light rail.  The 1976 Agreement includes “upon completion of the HOY Project, they would move as quickly as possible to construct High Capacity Transit in the center lanes”.   I-90 BRT could have been initiated 15 years ago. 

The WSDOT/ST failure to ever seriously consider BRT for the I-90 Bridge center roadway, along with their delay in implementing the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways, has been a historic blunder.  Their incompetence has resulted in hundreds of millions wasted and years of added congestion for cross-lake commuters. 

Hopefully this case will end this debacle before additional billions are spent on an East Link program that will devastate parts of Bellevue, inevitably gridlock 1-90 Bridge and do nothing to ease congestion along SR405 and I-90 corridors.

WSDOT I-90 Toll Proposal Not the Answer for SR520

Last week’s Bellevue Reporter (1/18) headline “State to talk I-90 tolls at Bellevue meeting” should be no surprise.   I-90 tolls however are not the way to ease I-90 congestion or to fund SR520 construction.  First of all revenue from forcing I-90 commuters to pay tolls for a bridge they’ll never use will still be far short of what’s required.  Second, Eastside residents already pay more than their “fair” share with the .9% sales tax that accounts for about 40% of all Sound Transit revenue. 

Unfortunately nearly all that money has been and will continue to be spent for several more years on Sound Transit’s Central Link.  Much of the money ST has spent on the eastside has been wasted promoting a flawed East Link light rail proposal.  

ST and the WSDOT need to recognize their decision to ignore bus rapid transit (BRT) for center roadway was a monumental blunder.  They’ve not only wasted millions, they’ve forced cross-lake commuters to needlessly endure years of increased congestion.  Allowing East Link to proceed will result in additional billions wasted on a light rail system that will devastate parts of Bellevue, inevitably result in gridlock on 1-90 Bridge, and do nothing to ease congestion along SR405 and I-90 corridors. (Unless BBB or Freeman/ETA suits stop East Link)

The East Link money, again much of which comes from the eastside, should be used to pay for the SR520 corridor construction and eliminate tolls on either bridge.  If ST and WSDOT fail to recognize the need for doing so the eastside legislators, rather than approving their request for adding 1-90 tolls, should use their oversight authority to insist on this action.  Doing so will benefit the entire eastside.  It’s way past time for them to stop kowtowing to ST and WSDOT demands and start representing their constituents.

Sound Transit Incompetence Continues

The January 11 Bellevue Reporter headlines “Sound Transit to start probing along light rail line’’ is another example of ST incompetence.  Any concerns they may have about installing light rail tracks along the route into Bellevue pale in comparison to those associated with light rail operation on the I-90 Bridge.

No one has ever attempted to install a train on a floating bridge.  The concern is with the ability of the “expansion joints” connecting the “floating” and “fixed” portions to withstand the loads from the train’s four 74-ton cars. (The original bridge joints have already needed replacement under less severe loads.)

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was sufficiently concerned they responded to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on February 23, 2009 (HRW-WA/WA624).  It concluded  “We do not agree that enough work has been done to justify that it is feasible to design an expansion joint to accommodate light rail”. (The “work” they referred to was some 2005 tests the WSDOT had conducted using “flat-bed” trucks.  See 7/04/12 post for more details)

Chapter 7 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) does mention these concerns: “The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) concerns on the Draft EIS focused on the feasibility of light rail on the floating bridge and requested additional information on the feasibility of an expansion joint to accommodate light rail.“

Table 7-1, Common Comments, includes the following question and ST’s response

         CC3n   Can the I-90 floating bridge structure support the light rail?                                    

The Washington State Legislature Joint Transportation Committee commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail. The IRT concluded that all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed.

It’s “interesting” that ST chose to refer to a study commissioned by the legislature rather than conduct further studies in the intervening 2 ½ years.  The fact the independent study concluded “all the issues identified can be addressed” surely suggests more needs to be done. 

As the 7/04 post points out future studies may conclude that structural concerns could limit each train to only 2 cars; halving East Link’s already meager capacity.  The fact ST still refuses to do those studies nearly 4 years after the FHWA raised concerns is just another example of their incompetence.

Sound Transit and Seattle Times Still Don't Get It

The Seattle Times Friday (1/04) article “Slide parks Sounder Again” is another example of how neither they nor Sound Transit recognize the absurdity of ST’s Northline Sounder operation. 

Sound Transit spent more than $500 million creating the Northline Sounder operation, presumably under the dubious assumption that large number of riders would choose to ride a train to the King Street Station rather than an express bus route to central business district.

My 06/12 post “Sound Transit’s Other Debacle” explained in detail how the Northline Sounder failure to attract riders along with the high operating costs for the train has forced ST to subsidize each rider by up to $20,000 a year (doesn’t include depreciation or capitalization costs)

The Seattle Times chose to ignore the operating cost subsidy, depreciation costs and those associated with the initial $500 million.  Instead their 10/24 Editorial, “No Way to Run a Commuter Line” criticized ST for not meeting ridership expectations because “Sounder North had not met expectations” for reliability with comments “getting to work cannot be a roll of the dice”.   They implied Sound Transit should do “something” to prevent the mudslides that forced cancelling train service and “simplify things” to attract commuters who preferred destinations other than King Street Station.   

My 10/26 blog post pointed out the Times recommendation to prevent future blockages would be very expensive or they would have been done long ago.  The Times suggestion to “simplify things,” presumably meaning provide alternative Seattle destinations, was not practicable. 

The recent 1/04 article essentially debunks the entire Times 10/24 editorial.  Commuters within walking distance of the King Street Station, aren’t that concerned about the cancellations.  They know they always have the bus option in either direction with very similar commute times.  However, whenever possible they much prefer to spend an additional $1.00 in fare to ride in a partially empty train rather than a standing-room-only bus.

Unfortunately ST doesn’t accept the fact that not enough commuters use this option to make Northline financially viable.  Most public transit systems would reduce the number of expensive train trips and increase number of buses.  ST prefers to keep the buses crowded in a futile attempt to increase train ridership.  (Central Link ridership has benefitted from cancellations or “rerouting” of competing bus routes.)  It's what happens with a public transit system that only gets about 5% of its funds from fare box revenues.