East Link's Real Impact

This post is my attempt to explain the impact of the Bellevue City Council/Sound Transit East Link agreement.

Sound Transit will continue to delay adding the 4^th lane to the outer roadways until 2016.  They could have added the lane 15 years ago and reduced congestion for all cross- lake commuters but particularly “reverse commuters”.  The added lane would be especially useful now with the increased congestion from those avoiding 520 tolls and on those occasions when the 520 Bridge is closed.  Instead ST continues with their plan to delay completing the 4^th lane until they need to shut down the center roadway to install light rail.

I believe I-90 commuters have had to endure years of increased congestion because ST recognized adding the 4^th lane to the outer bridge would inevitably lead to suggestions they initiate two-way bus rapid transit (BRT) on the center roadway.   Even a cursory analysis would have concluded BRT had more than 10 times light rail capacity at a tiny fraction of the cost.  It could have been in operation more than 10 years ago providing express bus service from every east side P&R.   BRT would have ended any public interest in cross-lake light rail.

East Link also means that, instead of reducing congestion with the 4^th lane on the outer roadway, the WSDOT is working with the legislature to add tolls to 1-90 to eliminate the incentive to switch bridges.   Stopping East Link could free up funds sufficient to eliminate tolls on both bridges.

East Link will change cross-lake commute forever when they close the center roadway to install light rail.  (Many of those I talk to are still unaware of that fact)   Sound Transit claims that adding the outer roadway lane would make up for the loss of center roadway are belied by their own 2004 studies showing it won’t have needed capacity.  

East Link completion in 2023(?) will have a miniscule effect on cross-lake congestion since the vast majority of commuters only access will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and difficult access.   Most East Link riders using the P&R previously rode buses minimizing light rail impact on congestion.   Replacing light rail with BRT would avoid the absurdity of spending billions on a transportation project that increases congestion.

Those living along the route into Bellevue will be the hardest hit.  The ambience along Bellevue Way and 112^th will be devastated when hundreds of trees and other flora are gouged out to create a huge trench, an elevated roadway, and at-grade light rail tracks with power lines.  The EIS describes it in rather prosaic terms:  

Constructing Preferred Alternative B2M to C11A would temporarily result in traffic detours, lane closures, and increased congestion along Bellevue Way SE and 112th Avenue SE. The South Bellevue Park-and-Ride lot would be closed during construction, requiring temporary lease of parking areas or shifting parking to other park-and-ride lots. Bus stops would be temporarily relocated along the existing route or to nearby areas.   

It would have been informative if they had given some indication of when and how long the traffic would be disrupted and where they were considering relocating the parking or bus stops. In any case it’s very hard to believe that 7 years of East Link construction won’t have a major impact on those living in the area.

Closing the P&R will also cause a major disruption for commuters.  Most of the nearly 2.4 million I-90 commuters who rode ST550 in 2012 either parked or made connections with other bus routes there.  Bus routes in other directions will also be affected.  It’s difficult to envision any sort of temporary parking, alternate P&R lots, or changes to bus stops that will not result in a major inconvenience for thousands of commuters during the years of East Link construction.

The end of construction will mark the beginning of a perpetual disruption in the lives of many area residents.  Noise and vibration from Central Link 2-car train operation has necessitated ST incorporate major sound proofing in homes more than 400 feet away from the tracks.  The impact from East Link 4-car trains every 3 ½ to 5 minutes for 20 hours a day will surely be comparable.  The recent agreement appears to require light rail alignment provide only a 60-foot clearance between the tracks and “an existing residential primary structure”.  East Link will likely disrupt the lives of far more than the 70 homes, (the EIS calls “noise receptors”) that will be “mitigated”, whatever that means.

In conclusion, East Link has already caused years of increased congestion for cross-lake commuters and “investments” of hundreds of millions in what I’ve previously called “An attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”.  Those “inconveniences” and “investments” however, pale in comparison to the damage and costs if ST is allowed to continue.  If there was ever a project that completely failed any sort of cost/benefit analysis, its East Link.

Fortunately there‘s still 3 years until serious construction begins.  Time to use “persuading” ST to replace East Link with BRT, the only cross-lake transit mode with the capacity needed for future growth, and use the remaining funds for I-90 and SR405 improvements that reduce congestion.   I hope others recognize that sooner rather than later.  Every year of delay needlessly extends cross-lake congestion and allows ST to “invest” another $150 million in East Link, about 5 times what the WSDOT gets from 520 tolls.

Times and Legislature Ignore Sound Transit "Fund Misuse"

The Times editorial “The Transportation Year” urged the legislature to use this 30-day
special session to enact legislation addressing the areas transportation needs by putting a gas tax on the ballot and enacting House Transportation Committee Chair Clibborn’s proposal to “give counties authority to impose local transit taxes or seek voter approval for them”.

Both the Times and the Rep Clibborn seem oblivious to the fact residents in our area are already required to pay .9% in sales taxes to Sound Transit towards funding local transportation.  Cross lake commuters currently have to pay nearly $2000 in tolls annually to cross 520 Bridge and the WSDOT and the legislators are  “considering” requiring I-90 commuters to do the same.   There’s even talk of adding “tolls” to some of the freeways in the area.  When is “enough” enough?

A major portion of the Sound Transit funding has been spent as down payment on the $17.9 billion (2007 dollars?) Prop-1 measure voters approved in 2008.   Prop 1 initially included extending Central Link from SeaTac to Federal Way, from the University to Lynnwood, and across I-90 to Redmond/Overlake area. 

The premise for Prop 1 was the cost for constructing the extensions could be justified by attracting large numbers of riders to light rail with its purported lower operating costs.  As other posts have detailed all three extensions fail any rationale cost/benefit analysis and light rail operating costs far exceed bus costs (see 3/223/13 post). 

The Federal Way extension will add $1000 per round trip to light-rail operating costs and actually increase commute time for riders by nearly 30 minutes over buses (See 3/09/13 and 4/26/13 Posts).  The extension to Lynnwood includes the added expense of tunneling all the way to Northgate to attract riders who already have excellent bus service with operating costs far less than light rail.  The ST agreement with the University limiting light rail vibration and magnetic field effects adds additional risk.  Their agreement not to locate a T/C near the stadium station severely limits University extension ridership. (See 4/10/13, 4/15/13 and 4/26/13 Posts)

Sound Transits East Link proposal fails any cost/benefit analysis by actually increasing cross-lake commute times for all vehicles as well as devastate the route into Bellevue. (See 5/15/12, 5/24/12, 8/08/12, 2/27/13, and 4/21/13 posts)  The recent revelations about Central Link noise and vibration issues would also seem to detract from light rails ability to promote Bel Red area. 

What’s remarkable is the legislature is currently withholding support for the Columbia River bridge because it includes light rail.  Yet they’ve no objection to installing light rail on the I-90 Bridge center roadway, forcing all vehicles to face ever increasing congestion on outer roadway (See 5/24/12 post).  No one has ever installed light rail on a “floating bridge” and ST has apparently still not “proven” the bridge can withstand the loads from their 4-car trains (See 7/04/12 post)

In conclusion, any legislative action to provide additional funding for transportation needs to include a comprehensive review of Sound Transits Prop 1 plans. The hundreds of millions they’ve already spent will be dwarfed by the billions they’ll spend over the next 10-12 years completing the extensions (See 3/29/13 and 5/01/13 posts).    Both the Times and the legislature can no longer turn a blind eye to ST "misuse of funds" that could go a long way towards easing the areas transportation needs.     

 

My Candidacy for Bellevue City Council

This week marks the one-year anniversary for this blog and my initial foray into elective office in an attempt to use the “Voters’ Pamphlet” to attract attention to it.  On Tuesday I filed for Position No 4 on the Bellevue City Council in a further attempt to warn residents about Sound Transit.  I did so reluctantly because I’m far more competent with a computer keyboard than a speaker’s podium.  Again, it’s not about winning, it's my way to make a difference rather than personal since I live nowhere near the route and rarely drive into Seattle. 

This blog, which started with the initial 5/15/12 post “The Case Against East Link”, an effort to stop East Link, now includes 101 posts detailing how Sound Transit problems go way beyond East Link.  The blog posts explain Sound Transit not only made a monumental blunder with East Link when they neglected to consider bus rapid transit, (BRT) for cross-lake mass transit, their whole Proposition 1 proposal for extending Central Link south towards Federal Way and north towards Lynnwood is fundamentally flawed.

Last year the Voters’ Pamphlet “neglected” to include my blog presumably reducing my audience.  Since the election I’ve attempted to attract attention from those in more responsible positions via emails to Sound Transit Board, King County Council, State Legislative Joint Transportation Committee, Bellevue City Council, Seattle Times and Bellevue Reporter.  My response has been limited to a “out of office” notice from Joni Earl’s office, and “thanks for the information” from a King County Council person and two legislators.   However my weekly audience has grown from a few dozen last year to an average of more than 200 this year with 5000 page views since the election.  It seems likely that many of those I emailed are, or should be aware of my concerns.

My hope had been that 4 years of personal appearances before the BCC and countless emails would convince them to use the permitting process to stop East Link.  Their recent agreement with Sound Transit ended that hope (See 5/11/13 Post).   Numerous other posts; 3/23/13, 3/29/13, 4/15/13, 4/26/13, and 5/01/13 have detailed problems with the entire Prop 1 program.

What Sound Transit officials called Prop 1 approval in 2008, “A gift to our Grandchildren” will turn out to be a massive public debt with ever increasing subsidies to support a fatally flawed light rail system.  My candidacy and this blog is an attempt to make more people aware of that reality.

BCC Agreement Continues East Link Debacle

The Bellevue City Council could have used the permitting process and the fact eastside taxes provide more than enough funds to insist on whatever light rail route or tunnel they preferred.  Instead, their recent East Link agreement with Sound Transit is just the latest example of the council acquiescing to a total debacle.   

Fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and initiated two-way bus rapid transit (BRT) on the bridge center roadway. BRT had 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost and could have provided access from every P&R on the east side.  The 4^th lanes would have reduced vehicle congestion on the outer roadways and BRT could have provided direct bus connections between each of the east side P&R lots reducing congestion throughout the area.  The fact ST never considered BRT for their 2008 DEIS was a monumental blunder

Sound Transit’s DEIS included the following alternatives in Segment C: Downtown Bellevue:

•            Bellevue Way Tunnel (C1T)

•            106th NE Tunnel (C2T)

•            108th NE Tunnel (C3T)

•            Couplet (C4A)

•            112th NE Elevated (C7E)

•            110th NE Elevated (C8E)

The C4A configuration was the only “at grade” alternative.  It was only some 2 ½ years later the “Final EIS” included the following:

There are two preferred alternatives in this segment, one with an at-grade profile (Preferred Alternative C11A) and one with a tunnel profile (Preferred Alternative C9T). ST2 provides funding for an at-grade or elevated alternative in Segment C. Additional funding sources would be required for the Sound Transit Board to select a tunnel alternative in this segment.

They used that argument to insist their Prop 1 proposal hadn’t included funds for a tunnel and demanded Bellevue share the additional $320 million tunnel costs.   The councils acquiescence was particularly egregious since eastside taxes had supported Central Link for years and Sound Transit recently apparently “found money” to pay for an unplanned tunnel extending Central Link all the way to Northgate.

The tunnel alternatives in the DEIS included underground stations near Bellevue Square or Bellevue T/C.   The council, in order to reduce their “tunnel cost”, decided to locate the downtown station at street level near the City Hall.  As a result, light rail access in downtown Bellevue will be far less convenient than current ST560 bus stops at Bellevue T/C and at 2^nd and 105^th.   Its difficult to believe City Hall will be an attractive access point or destination for large numbers of riders.

The route into Bellevue has been the most contentious of all; and for good reason.  Noise issues have forced Sound Transit to spend untold millions to extensively modify homes more than 400 ft away from Central Link.  East Link 4-car trains will undoubtedly have higher noise levels for longer periods of time than Central Link’s 2-car trains. 

The council managed to “persuade” ST to “trench” along Bellevue Way adjacent to the Winters House.  Further north, rather than “trenching”, they’ll construct an overpass so light rail can cross under 112^th. .   It’s not clear whether trenching will reduce noise to acceptable levels.  Further north the elevated roadway and grade level trains will surely create noise issues for many residents.  Apparently Sound Transit will buy out the “lucky ones” but the vast majority will have their lives changed forever by the construction and subsequent operation of light rail.

The noise issue also raises questions about light rail’s ability to attract development to the Bel Red area, one of East Links major selling points.  The council recently made an issue of Sound Transit plans to locate a large maintenance facility in the area.  Apparently the council wasn’t aware the DEIS had included four alternative locations for large maintenance facilities there.  Again, they’ve presumably acquiesced to the facility despite their claims it was a “surprise” and “not acceptable”.   What they continue to ignore is the light rail noise issue. What are their plans to “mitigate” that problem to the extent developers will be attracted to the area?

I first appeared before the council in early 2009 to argue Sound Transit had blundered in never considering BRT for their “no build” option in the DEIS.  I told the council simple mathematics belied Sound Transit claims in the 2008 DEIS a 4-car train every 9 minutes could carry up to 24,000 riders per hour and whatever capacity light rail had was of limited use since most cross lake commuters didn’t have access.  I urged them to authorize their own study of BRT.  Instead they insisted on funding studies of alternate light rail routes into Bellevue, the equivalent of paying for “studies” to determine which side of the Titanic was safer. 

The bottom line is the BCC/ST East Link agreement will result in $2.8 billion (2007 dollars?) spent on a light rail system that will devastate Bellevue during the several years of construction with no real assurance their “mitigation” efforts will be successful along the route into Bellevue or in the Bel Red area. 

When completed in 2023(?) the only downtown access other than T/C will be at City Hall rather than where most potential riders would prefer.  The only access for I-90 corridor commuters will be a South Bellevue P&R which will never have the capacity or the accessibility needed.  Both the downtown area and the P&R already have excellent bus service and the Bel Red area could be far better served with a South Lake Union type streetcar system. 

Sound Transits closure of the I-90 center roadway in 2016 to begin installing light rail, forcing all traffic onto the outer roadways, will change cross-lake commuting forever.  Their own 2004 studies show the 4^th bus/HOV lanes they plan to add prior to the closure won’t have the capacity needed to avoid increased cross-lake congestion.

When East Link begins operation in 2023 the South Bellevue P&R limitations will still force the vast majority I-90 corridor commuters onto the outer roadways.  The lack of access and the City Hall station location will limit light rail ridership to a fraction of the 50,000 they’ve promised for East Link.  Many of those who do ride will be those who previously rode the bus.  Meanwhile all the other cross-lake buses, HOV and cars will face ever-increasing congestion. 

This blog continues my efforts to keep that from happening.  

It Doesn't Hurt Yet

During the last part of April I sent emails to the Sound Transit Board, Seattle Times, King County Council, Bellevue City Council, and the State Joint Transportation Committee asking them to consider the information in the 4/15/13 post “Salvaging Light Rail in Seattle” and the 4/26/13 post “ST/UW T/C Decision Beyond Incompetent”.  The only response was an “out of the office” reply from Joni Earl’s office.

The weekly audience for the blog during the period was well over 200 so presumably many of the recipients chose to read the posts.  Their apparent lack of concern suggests they’re what I call the "ultimate optimists", someone who jumps off the top of a ten-story building and as he plummets by the 5^th floor shouts out "It doesn’t hurt yet”.

The reason “It doesn’t hurt yet” is, in 2013, the $308 million ST gets from the 55% of their sales tax revenue ($560 million) due to Prop 1’s 0.5% increase is slightly more than the $300 million Sound Transit budgeted for the extensions during the year.  Sound Transits other revenues sources were Federal Grants ($136 million), fare box revenue ($52 million), motor vehicle tax ($67 million), and interest income and Miscellaneous ($16 million).   The estimated total revenue for the year, $836 million, is still $275 million less than the $1.1 billion ST has budgeted to spend during the year.

It’s highly unlikely any of  ST revenue sources will substantially increase over the next few years. Yet they will obviously have to increase the money spent annually on the Prop 1 extensions to nearly $2 billion in order to complete the $17.9 billion project in the next 10-12 years.    The increased funding required by the extensions will far exceed the income from the .5% sales tax increase.

The reality is Sound Transit, in attempting to get public support for light rail, made commitments to voters in Prop 1 for extensions with costs that far exceed the expected revenue they can get from the resultant sales tax increase.  Even worse, the added miles of track, in combination with light rail operating costs  ($45.60 per mile for a 2-car train) will increase operating costs far beyond any fare box revenue that could be expected from additional riders.

The combination of the massive debt from construction and subsequent operating subsidies would surely meet anyone’s definition of a “world of hurt”.