BBB Mitigation Proposal Not the Answer for East Link

BBB Mitigation Proposal Not the Answer for East Link

I chose not to attend the February 25^th Bellevue City Council meeting because I had already emailed them my 2/20/13 post explaining my opposition to the code revisions, “Bellevue Leadership Alternative Light rail Draft Not the Answer”.   After the meeting I received an email from Building a Better Bellevue lauding the Bellevue City Council’s decision to adopt the code revisions.   This was accompanied by a copy of the presentation they apparently made to the council prior to the council approval.  

It’s hard to reconcile the BBB presentation with their support for the code changes.   For example it includes the following information:

Dozens of homes, standing as far as 200 to 300 feet back from the rail line, often behind multiple intermediary structures, are also now being renovated to address excessive train noise. This mitigation includes completely replacing windows with permanently closed multi-layer panes, installing heavy insulated doors, and installing new ventilation systems.

The Federal Transit Administration’s vibration avoidance setback standard is 150 feet.

Sound Transit has acknowledged it will not be possible to mitigate excessive noise exposure for many homes along the hillside on the west side ob Bellevue Way.

Sound transit would not be required to mitigate noise problems along Bellevue way because City of Bellevue management, not Sound Transit initiated the proposal to replace the proposed trench along Bellevue Way and place the train line at-grade.

It was these sorts of problems that led to my opposition to the draft code revision.  One would have thought the BBB information presented would have them arguing for a 300 foot set back, particularly in view of the fact that East Link will have 4-car trains vs. 2 car trains for Central Link.   Instead the BBB proposal (which initially had called for a 60 foot setback) called for a 100 ft setback for homes along the route (vs. the council draft code minimum setback of 30 feet).

This BBB emphasis on mitigation is at odds with their legal action alleging federal authorities violated environmental law by their approval of East Link.   Instead of mitigation the suit argued for a tunnel or alternate route into Bellevue, or for BRT for cross-lake mass transit.   As the 2/23/13 and 12/02/12 posts explain its clear (at least to this retired engineer) that federal law was violated and that a lawsuit on these grounds would succeed in forcing one of the three alternatives (preferably BRT).   It will be “unfortunate” if they accept “mitigation” instead.  

The BBB justifies its mitigation proposal with the following:

Our recommendations will provide more certainty including speeding up property acquisitions and permit approval

Speeding up property acquisitions helps those who will be bought out and the faster permit approval expedites Sound Transits construction process.   The resultant mitigation efforts will also make lots of money for those doing the “home improvements”.  (See 11/14/12 post ABCWW Big ST/East Link Winner). 

However, the BBB presentation makes it clear many residents living outside whatever final setback is approved will pay a huge price if East Link is allowed to proceed.   They will undoubtedly face a huge hassle in trying to get needed home “improvements” which may reduce the “noise” but do little for “vibration”.   They will probably loose the use of their yards because of the noise.  Owners throughout the area will face a huge loss in value when they try to sell their home.   The BBB mitigation proposal does nothing for them.

I suspect these light rail noise issues played a significant role in Sound Transits decision to tunnel all the way from the University Station to Northgate rather than “cut and fill” trenches part of the way and then street level from the Lake City interchange.   It makes their decision to not even consider a tunnel for the route into Bellevue more “unfortunate”.

ST may or may not have briefed the BCC on the issue.  The BBB presentation should have eliminated any council doubts about noise and vibrations concerns.   However, it’s also makes clear that litigation to force ST to replace light rail with BRT (vibration issues along with costs make the tunnel problematic) rather than mitigation is the best choice

East Link Impact not De Minimis

Friday’s (2/22) Bellevue Reporter light rail article suggesting “nothing can be done” about the devastation to those living along the route into Bellevue is simply wrong.  In particular the East Link deputy project director’s claim, like many Sound Transits pronouncements, that East Link Transit meets federal standards is at least misleading if not wrong.

Federal environmental law used to require any transportation project would only be allowed to encroach on parks if there was no “feasible and prudent alternative”.  That regulation would have prohibited East Link since a BRT alternative across I-90 and through Bellevue was clearly “feasible and prudent”.

In August 2005 that regulation was changed to the following:

When the DOT determines that there is a transportation use of a Section 4(f) property, (i.e. parks, recreation areas, historic sites and waterfowl and wildlife refuges) if the impact is de minimis after avoidance, minimization and mitigation, then an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required.

Thus in order for East Link to meet federal standards, its impact must be de minimis.  The recent horror stories for those living along the Central Link in Seattle suggest East Link’s impact will hardly be called “de minimis”.  The following excepts from a BBB email describe light rails impact;

Some of these homes are even "protected" by an existing layer of homes, and still incur massive noise and vibration.

A home 300' + back from the train line, with two layers of homes between it and the train line, which still has to be mitigated with complete exterior and interior walls replacement, and with new double and triple pane windows.

Those residents have only been exposed to noise and vibration from two-car trains.  East Links plans for 4-car trains would substantially increase the area and the magnitude of the noise and vibration.  

No one can rationally argue that a transportation project that devastates lives of hundreds of residents living within 300 or more feet of the light rail tracks could be classified as “de minimis”.   The Bellevue City Council should recognize that reality and use the permitting process to stop the East Link debacle.  If they refuse this retired engineer believes further legal actions will surely succeed.  

Bellevue Leadership Alterative Light Rail Draft Not the Answer

I recently received a BBB email announcing the Bellevue City Council will approve a new code amendment that addresses many of the concerns BBB's supporters had with Sound Transits East Link light rail proposal.  It wasn’t clear what concerns BBB supporters had that were addressed by the new code.

For instance, the revised code doesn’t include the original staff proposal requirement (Section V) to  

Develop a light rail system in collaboration with the regional transit provider that advances the City’s long-term transportation and land use objectives, minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance.

These requirements would seem to be critical to the BBB lawsuit that Sound Transit’s decision not to consider a tunnel in South Bellevue violated federal environmental law.  If there is no need to “minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts” how can the BBB argue for a tunnel? 

Also eliminated was the staff proposal Sub Section C that states

The amendment is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue.

If you can’t argue about the best interest of Bellevue’s citizens and property owners in general how can you argue about the inevitable gridlock on I-90 from Sound Transit’s choice of light rail over BRT for cross-lake mass transit.

The code revision does require the following:

The regional transit authority has the written consent of the affected property owner to apply for the permit(s); or) from the owner of the property affected by the RLRT Facility or System;

Presumably the consent would be predicated on some sort of compensation and/or other agreements to reduce the impact from light rail construction and operation; for instance “sound proofing” or other shielding of some sort. 

What’s inexplicable is this same BBB organization emailed dire warnings of the adverse affect of light rail in South Seattle with comments like:

Some of these homes are even "protected" by an existing layer of homes, and still incur massive noise and vibration.

A home 300' + back from the train line, with two layers of homes between it and the train line, which still has to be mitigated with complete exterior and interior walls replacement, and with new double and triple pane windows.

How do they propose owners not directly adjacent to the tracks get compensated?  Remember South Seattle has only been exposed to noise and vibration from two-car trains.  East Links plans for 4-car trains would substantially increase the area and the magnitude of the noise and vibration.

Clearly, mitigation is not the answer.  The vibration issue even raises questions about the acceptability of a tunnel.   Again, the only rationale answer for mass transit in our area is BRT.  Surely the Sound Transit Board is aware of the noise and vibration issues.  They have presumably raised these concerns with the Bellevue City Council.  If so, the fact that both organizations continue to push for East Link is unconscionable.

Silk Purse Out of a Sow's Ear

 Anyone who’s counting on some land use code revisions to hold Sound Transit to “strict standards” that will somehow alleviate the devastation to their neighborhood is delusional.  (Feb 15^th Bellevue Reporter)   Doing so with the current East Link route gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear".

There simply is no way ST can install light rail tracks and 5000-volt power lines along Bellevue Way and 112^th Ave that would comply with anyone’s definitions of “strict standards”.    Hundreds of trees and other greenery are going to be ripped out along a beautiful boulevard and park as part of the construction. 

When its complete residents can look forward to trains trundling through their neighborhood on tracks, some within 30 feet of their living rooms, every 3 ½ - 5 minutes for up to 20 hours a day.   The proposed code even limits the height of any fence for those living adjacent to the tracks and requires them to maintain any trees or other landscaping attempts by ST to shield the noise.

Some might argue that the benefits from East Link outweigh the “costs” to those living along the route.  Sound Transit promised voters prior to the 2008 Prop 1 vote that cross-lake light rail was like adding 10 lanes of freeway across the bridge and would increase person-moving capacity by up to 60%. 

The reality is East Link is not only a disaster for those living along its route, it’s a disaster for the entire east side.  It will never have the capacity or the accessibility to carry more than a fraction of cross-lake commuters.  Those without access to light rail will be forced to use outer roadways that Sound Transit studies show won’t have the needed capacity.  (The 5/15/12 post “The case against East Link” explains the problem in detail.)    

Sound Transit made a monumental blunder when the refused to consider bus rapid transit for the center roadway and assumed the 4^th lane on the outer roadways could accommodate all the HOV and bus traffic.  Now they are attempting to get the BCC to agree to try to make a silk purse out of the sow’s ear that is East Link.  It can’t be done!

Permit Approval Meeting Disappointing

Permit Approval Meeting Disappointing

I and about 200 others attended the February 11^th Bellevue City Council public meeting concerning proposed changes to the approval process for East Link light rail.   The “Planning Staff” used most of the first hour to explain in “considerable detail” why they were making the revisions, what the revisions would and would not do, and how they were going to incorporate the revisions.   I don’t think I was the only one who was less than favorably impressed.

The oral presentation was  little about what the revisions actually "said".  In particular two requirements in the written Feb 11 Staff Report that should be critical in approving any permit.  These were in Section V, Applicable Decision Criteria-Land Use Code Part 20.30J.  Sub-Section A includes TR-75.1, which requires the permitting process to 

Develop a light rail system in collaboration with the regional transit provider that advances the City’s long-term transportation and land use objectives, minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance.

And Sub Section C, which states: 

The amendment is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue.

The planning staff report proposed 30 ft. of screening along the route for residential property, 20 ft for non-residential property, and 15 feet for those willing to agree to less screening (presumably via compensation).  Any fence along the route will be limited to 10 ft in height.  No one could possibly argue that the construction and subsequent operation of light rail within these guidelines will not adversely impact the environment for the residents in the neighborhoods.  No one could also argue about the environment damage to the Mercer Slough Park and the entire route into Bellevue from the devastation associated with replacing a beautiful tree-lined avenue with train tracks and 5000 volt power lines.  The only way to avoid this damage with light rail is with a tunnel.

The question should be whether any light rail route is "not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue".   Other posts (e.g. 5/15/12 and 8/08/12) explain in detail that the selection of light rail for cross-lake mass transit was an historic blunder that has already wasted hundreds of millions and forced cross-lake commuters to endure years of added congestion.  Approving the permits would result not only in devastation along the route into Bellevue but with gridlock on the I-90 Bridge; obviously contrary to the best interests of Bellevue citizens and property owners.

Those living along the route along with commuters throughout the east side need to urge the BCC to use the permitting process to stop this debacle.

Proposed Permit Approval Changes Would Stop East Link

For several months Bellevue officials have been working towards modifying the East Link light rail permit approval procedures as part of their 2011 MOU agreement with Sound Transit.   The goals included:  Establish a comprehensive and consolidated permit process and provide a mechanism for addressing any applicable Land Use Code requirements.  It wasn’t clear what was involved in meeting either of these goals.

The February 11^th Staff Report to the Bellevue City Council contains the proposed modifications.  Section V  “Applicable Decision Criteria-Land Use Code Part 20.30J” states “The City Council may approve or approve with modifications an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code if : 

Sub Section A  The amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use, economic Development, and Transportation policies listed below”

The policies listed “below” included the following:

TR-75.1.  Develop a light rail system in collaboration with the regional transit provider that advances the City’s long-term transportation and land use objectives, minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance.

Sub Section C  The amendment is not contrary to the best interests of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue

No one can rationally argue that the current East Link route into Bellevue "minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts" or "not contrary to the best interests to the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue". 

East Link encroaches on the Mercer Slough Park and devastates the neighborhoods along the route into Bellevue.  The only way for light rail to meet these requirements is a tunnel into Bellevue.  The BBB lawsuit was the result of ST refusing to even consider a tunnel that would have “minimized environmental and neighborhood impacts”.

I look forward to the BCC implementing that permitting approval modification.

Eastside Residents Deserve Better

One of the more pernicious aspects of the East Link debacle is the apparent willingness of those elected to east side leadership positions to either actively support Sound Transit policies or to quietly acquiesce to them.   The 9/20/12 Post “I-90 Corridor City Councils Ignore East Link Debacle” explains the problem:

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.  

The only East Link access for most cross-lake commuters is the South Bellevue P&R.  While ST intends to enlarge the P&R, it will never have the capacity or the accessibility needed.  This lack of accessibility along with East Link’s limited capacity will force the vast majority of cross-lake commuters onto I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  ST 2004 studies show the outer roadways won’t have needed capacity. 

The only responsible rationale for the city officials actions is some hope that East Link would eventually include an extension to Issaquah which would include a station at the Eastgate P&R.  This extension would dramatically increase access for all eastside residents, reducing cross-lake and I-90 corridor congestion.  

However, the “Brief” responding to the Building a Better Bellevue suit contesting the federal authorities approval of East Link includes the following section:

         IV.  THERE IS NO PLAN TO EXTEND LIGHT RAIL TO                ISSAQUAH

It’s clear most cross-lake commuters, who won’t have access to East Link, can look forward to many years of increased congestion if ST is allowed to proceed. 

What’s even more absurd is those cross-lake commuters, who are already seeing their sales tax revenue (.9% to ST) spent on a project that will increase their congestion, are now being asked to pay a toll to cross I-90 to pay for 520 corridor improvements, a route they will rarely ever use.   

Both injustices can be resolved.  Local leaders can work with the Bellevue City Council to use the permitting process to block East Link.  East side legislators should work with the transportation committee in Olympia to use its oversight of the WSDOT to insist ST use east side taxes to initiate BRT across I-90 and to replace the tolls, at least on I-90 if not both bridges.  East side residents surely deserve this much from their elected leaders.

Bellevue City Council Still Doesn't Get It

The majority of the Bellevue City Council members apparently still don’t understand the concept of “permitting”.   I attempted to explain the issue to them at their November 13^th “extended session” (See 11/10/13 post for my comments.)   The January 25^th Bellevue Reporter article on the issue prompted me to send the below  “Letter” to the Bellevue Reporter Jan 26^th rather than to try again with the BCC.  I hoped they might relax their “word limits” because of the permit issue’s importance to the area.  They declined to include it in this week’s BR so I decided to add it to this blog.  

Letters,

The January 25^th Bellevue Reporter front page article “Second meeting set on amending code for light rail” is another example that the majority of the Bellevue City Council still doesn’t get it.   Their plans to “complete work on the overlay by the end of February” is an abdication of their responsibility to their constituents as well as the entire eastside.

There surely is no need to rush this issue since serious East Link construction is at least three years away.   Any agreement should be predicated on Sound Transit dropping the requirement for a maintenance facility in Bel-Red area and for Bellevue paying $200 million for a tunnel through city center.   ST recently agreed to tunnel from the University to Northgate without any such surcharge.  (The BCC still hasn’t explained how they intend to get the $200 million.)

Any East Link permitting agreement may be nullified by either of two legal actions aimed at stopping East Link.  The Freeman/ETA suit attempts to block Sound Transit from using the I-90 center roadway for light rail.  The Building a Better Bellevue lawsuit argues Sound Transit violated federal environmental law when it refused to consider a tunnel from South Bellevue through the city or bus rapid transit (BRT) for I-90 Bridge.  Both lawsuits have very good chances for success.  (See the 1/25/13, 12/12/12, 12/07/12 posts on blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com for details).

For far too long the BCC has kowtowed to Sound Transit demands and deadlines.   They need to refuse to accede to ST latest demands to relax permitting requirements for the East Link debacle.

BBB Suit Also Potential Winner

On January 25^th the U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and others filed their final response to the Building a Better Bellevue’s suit action concerning alleged environmental violations.   Like the Freeman v WSDOT/ST (See 1/25/13 post), this seems like an easy case to win.

For example, the below paragraph from page 2 of 14:

As applied to this case, where the planning efforts of state and local transportation officials have come to focus on the problem of extending the light rail system to serve a particular corridor, it makes little sense in an environmental analysis to study the environmental impacts of the bus-based options which plaintiffs say federal defendants should have also evaluated.

In essence the defendants are saying there was no need to evaluate “bus options” if Sound Transits “focus” is on the problem of extending light rail”.   Even ST didn’t believe that since they spent 30 years evaluating various cross-lake configurations to select the “no build” options in the DEIS and FEIS  documents.

The fact ST never seriously considered the BRT (i.e. two-way, bus-only service on center roadway) “bus option” with its far greater capacity and accessibility at far less cost shows a lack of competence.  (See 12/7/12 post for details)  ST confiscation of the center roadway for light rail will increase cross-lake congestion not decrease it.  (See 8/08/12 Post)

The defendants’ response concerning the “tunnel alternative” was to admit ST didn’t consider that option.

The notion of tunneling was raised only during scoping and rejected at that nascent stage in the process. It was never pursued thereafter in any serious fashion by any party.

However, it’s significant that the “Tunnel Alternative” was the only Segment 5 configuration that didn’t violate federal environmental law by intruding on the Mercer Slough Park when it was rejected.  It wasn’t until August 2005 that the regulation was changed from precluding such actions unless there were “no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of land” to "such actions result in a de minimis impact”.   Its not clear whether the court can disagree with the defendants apparent decision the Mercer Slough Park impairment or the devastation to the plaintiffs’ neighborhood is de minimis .

The defendants also make a major point of the failure of the plaintiffs to pursue the tunnel alternative earlier.  For example from Page 5 of 14;

At no time did plaintiffs, or any other party, comment that a tunnel alternative in Segment B was a feasible and reasonable alternative for the South Bellevue segment that should have been evaluated in the FEIS.  Therefore, plaintiffs’ objection to the adequacy of the FEIS on that ground has been waived.

However during the period the Defendants claim the plaintiffs should have argued for the “Tunnel Alternative” ST was demanding Bellevue pay an additional $200 million if they wanted a tunnel rather than a street level train route through the city center.   Any attempt to request a tunnel for the much longer route in Segment B would presumably result in ST demanding substantial additional funds. 

Therefore, the plaintiffs instead attempted to convince the Bellevue City Council and ST to use the B7 alternative.  This route would have eliminated their neighborhood concerns and substantially reduced Mercer Slough impairment.  It was only after these attempts had been rejected did they initiate their current action to protect their neighborhood, as well as Mercer Slough Park, with the “tunnel alternative” or BRT on the I-90 center roadway.   

The question for the court would seem to be “Did the delay in raising the “Tunnel Alternative” issue cause ST any material harm?”  The fact ST recently committed to tunnel the far longer distance from the University Station to Northgate without requiring any surcharge would seem to negate any claims they “suffered” from the delay or that the “tunnel alternative” resulted in substantial additional costs. (Or for any of the other reasons ST originally rejected this option in the East Link  “scoping”.)

Again, to this retired engineer this seems like an easy case to win.