I-90/Light Rail Compatibility Test Status?

I periodically get an E-Newsletter from Sound Transit about their progress in designing the various segments of the East Link light rail program.  It references an East Link document archive that lists more than 30 status reports since March, primarily dealing with “Kickoff to final design” for the different segments.  Sound Transit is obviously spending a great deal of time and money in planning for the Bellevue East Link segments and informing the public about how their design is progressing.

However, very little has been said about their progress on the I-90 bridge segment.  All the time and money spent on the Bellevue segments will be wasted unless Sound Transit can convince the FHWA that the I-90 Bridge can support light rail.  East Link is the first attempt to install light rail on a “floating bridge”.  The problem is assuring the durability of the 190 ft connections between the fixed and floating portions at each end of the bridge. 

The original connections have already needed replacement under far less severe conditions than what could be expect with four 74-ton-car trains traveling in each direction.  The fact light rail operation would result in nearly 600 tons of weight on the south 1/3 of the bridge where the two trains cross would seem to exacerbate the connection design problem.

An earlier post (10/01/13) explains how Washington State Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) concerns led them to commission an independent review team that concluded in a Sept 2008 report, as did the FHWA in a Feb 2009 letter, more needed to be done.   

A Jan 12, 2012 presentation (3 years later) to the Sound Transit board described how they had selected a “Cesura” design for further development and testing.  A July 2013 presentation to the board detailed their plans to test this design at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado during August and September.   

One would have thought there would have been some sort of status report at least to the Sound Transit Board.   Yet their agendas for October make no mention of the subject.  Apparently the tests are now scheduled for completion later this year.   It remains to be seen whether the lack of reports and extended testing are the result of problems.

Its not clear whether ST will proceed if the test results show the bridge can’t support four car trains.   Recent East Link depictions show only 3 cars in each train.  There is also the question as to how they will integrate 3 or 4-car East Link train operation with the 2-car Central Link trains. 

In reality the test results are largely irrelevant to a successful transit system.  Even 4 car trains will never have the capacity and accessibility needed for cross-lake mass transit needs.  The only way to do so is for two-way BRT on the center roadway.  This post is simply to illustrate the fact ST is spending hundreds of millions to finish designs of the Bellevue segments without confirming they can install light rail across the lake.   It sort of gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “Putting the cart ahead of the horse”.

Meeting Area's Transportation Needs

I recently received a flyer from Puget Sound Energy describing how they’re “Preparing for Decades of Growth on the Eastside” from “70% increases in employment and more than a third increase in population” between 2012 and 2040.  I mention this to contrast their ability to meet existing needs and to plan for the future with the total inability of those responsible for the areas transportation. Their policies have not only resulted in some of the worst congestion in the country, their current plans for the future do little to meet future growth.

For example, fifteen years ago Sound Transit and the WSDOT could have added a 4^th lane to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways that would have immediately reduced congestion for commuters in both directions.   Moving non-transit HOV traffic to the added lane would have allowed two-way lanes on the center roadway capable of accommodating nearly 1000 buses an hour in each direction.  Bus rapid transit (BRT) service could have provided direct connections between every eastside P&R and one or two dedicated drop off and pick-up locations on 4^th and 2^nd Ave.  Allowing eastside residents to leave their cars near where they live would have reduced congestion throughout the area.

Instead, the ST/WSDOT has delayed the 4^th lane until 2016 when they plan to shut down the center roadway to install light rail as part of the $2.8 billion East Link program.   When completed (2023?)  their EIS  claims East Link can carry up to “24,000 riders per hour” and “Meet growing transit and mobility demands by more than doubling person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90.”  Truly bizarre claims for a transit system with a single, four-74-seat-car train every seven minutes.  (Although their selection of light rail over BRT for the center roadway gives a whole new meaning to “bizarre”.)   After spending hundreds of millions and years promoting light rail on the eastside they have yet to confirm the I-90 Bridge can support any light rail system, let alone the four, 74-ton-car trains they are promising. (WSDOT/ST tests currently underway in Colorado may resolve this issue nearly 5 years after legislature and FHWA requested them.)

Whatever capacity light rail has will be of little use to I-90 commuters whose only access will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and difficult access.  ST/WSDOT studies show those forced to drive, car pool, or bus, will face increased commute times on the outer roadways.  Thus the $2.8 billion ST East Link program will increase cross-lake congestion and do nothing to relieve any of the entire area’s current congestion problems let alone deal with future growth.   It also makes it impossible to initiate BRT, the only way to meet anticipated growth both cross-lake traffic and reduce congestion throughout the area. 

While ST Central Link extensions won’t increase congestion, in most cases rail transit times will be longer than what are currently available or could easily be available with far less expensive buses.    Also, the $20 billion they’ll spend over the next ten years will create a light rail system requiring huge subsidies to operate over the longer routes.  The combination of the construction debt and subsides will result in a perpetual “black hole” for the areas transportation funds.  Both Sound Transit and the WSDOT seem incapable of dealing with the area’s transportation needs.  

The Sound Transit Board of Directors who is supposed to “oversee” its policies has obviously failed.  The oversight responsibility for the WSDOT resides in the legislature, primarily with the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC).   Members of that committee are currently conducting a 10-stop “listening tour” with forums throughout state.  However, the only proposals they’re considering, a 10.5-cent-a -gallon gas tax and a car-tab tax increase, will do little to ease the areas congestion and funding problems. 

The JTC needs to recognize the only way to meet the eastside congestion problems is to use their WSDOT oversight to “persuade” Sound Transit to stop East Link and use part of those funds to add the 4^th lane to the outer roadways and initiate BRT operation on the center roadway.   The remaining funds could be used for the 520 bridge and 405 and I-90 improvements that would ease congestion.   They also need to recognize allowing Central Link extensions beyond SeaTac and the University will raise havoc with the entire areas transportation funding future.  Those funds could be far better spent on the tunnel replacement for the viaduct and maintaining and improving metro bus service.

Fortunately, most of the serious East Link and Central Link funds have yet to be spent.  However, very soon the $300-400 million spent each year will turn into $2-3 billion.  Sound Transit and the WSDOT seem to have a “stranglehold” on the media and many of the legislators that keeps them from advocating real solutions.  Time will tell whether they will be able to maintain their “grip” to the point where the policies needed to meet the area’s transportation needs are no longer feasible.    

WSDOT I-90 Toll EIS "Scoping" Failure

(I sent the following to the “notolloni90@aol.com” in response to an email requesting “public comment” as a follow-up to a 9/17/13 post “Stopping I-90 Tolls).    

The email referenced a WSDOT website http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/CrossLakeWATolling/ScopingInformation.htm that included the following:

WSDOT and the Federal Highway administration are conducting an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential effects of tolling I-90 between I-5 in Seattle and I-405 in Bellevue. The additional scoping comment period starts Monday, Oct. 7 and ends Wednesday, Nov. 6. 

They then define “What type of Feedback is most helpful”

As you're considering your scoping comments, remember that scoping is designed to gather input on four topics: 

1.            I-90 Tolling Project's Purpose and Need to:

                 Manage congestion and traffic flow on I-90 between I-5 and I-405, which is in the Cross-Lake Washington Corridor, and contribute revenue to the sustainable, long-term funding for timely completion of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program and maintenance and future transportation improvements on I-90 in the Cross-Lake Washington Corridor.

        2.      Potential range of alternatives (pdf 80 kb) that may also help meet purpose of the project to manage congestion on I-90 and contribute revenue toward SR 520:

Variable tolls on all lanes of I-90 between I-5 and I-405

Express toll lanes on I-90

Additional federal funds directed to the SR 520 project

Additional state gas tax funds directed to the SR 520 project

Vehicle miles traveled tax

Transportation Benefit District - vehicle license fee, sales or property tax

King County motor vehicle excise tax

Adjust tolls on SR 520

Increased transit service

Widening I-90 to add new lanes

               Implement tolls on other facilities

Typical of the WSDOT, of the 11 proposed “alternatives,” the only one dealing with the purported primary reason for the EIS, “Manage congestion and traffic flow on I-90 between I-5 and I-405,” is “Increased transit service”.  While they do include a rather generic “widening I-90 to add new lanes” all the rest are intended to raise revenue.

If the WSDOT were truly interested in “managing congestion and traffic flow" they could require Sound Transit expedite completion of the HOV 4^th lanes on the outer roadways. (They could have done so years ago, easing congestion and allowing a temporary center roadway closure to confirm it wasn't needed for vehicles and could be used for light rail.)  Doing so would dramatically "increase transit service" by allowing two-way BRT operation on the center roadway with far greater capacity and accessibility than light rail.  The $2.8 billion East Link funds could be used for 520 funding and other 405 and I-90 improvements as well.

In conclusion, any responsible EIS “scoping” would include this option.  Whether those with the ability to make that happen will do so remains to be seen. 

Lynnwood Light Rail Route Choice Clear

(An article in today's Seattle Times prompted me to write the following post)

The arguments in the Oct 11^th Seattle Times article concerning the affects of Sound Transit’s Lynnwood light rail link are eerily familiar to Bellevue residents.  In both cases wetlands are being degraded and hundreds of residents homes will be impacted. 

Like many in Lynnwood, the Bellevue City Council majority initially advocated for a route that minimized light rail impact on homes and parks.  In the end they capitulated to Sound Transit demands by agreeing to a route that encroached on Mercer Slough Park and devastated the lives of hundreds along the route.  Even more absurd they agreed to pay $200 million for a tunnel under the city center.

Like East Link’s encroachment on Mercer Slough Park, the Lynnwood route’s “elimination of or severe damage” to Scriber Creek Park would normally be considered a violation of federal environmental law that states

When the DOT determines 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.

The environmental damage to the area and to residents from light rail plans for Scriber Creek Park would surely not be called de minimis.  Thus, environmental law would presumably require a thorough study of "viable alternatives"  The C-3 alternative which avoids the park, runs along Interstate I-5, and dramatically reduces the numbers of properties impacted would surely be a “viable” alternative.   

The reduced number of properties impacted by the C-3 alternative could represent a significant cost advantage.  Central Link noise levels have forced Sound Transit to spend millions on complete exterior and interior wall replacement and new double and triple pane windows for homes more than 300 feet from the tracks. It’s not clear whether the 300 homes officials predict C-1 alternative impacts includes all those within 300 feet of the tracks.   

Whatever the final number of homes affected, the costs along with the disruption to the lives of those living near the C-1 route, plus the fact it violates federal environmental law, make the choice much more than a case of “wetlands and parks” vs. “transit-oriented development”.   Those advocating for the “transit-oriented” route need to recognize light rail’s failure to attract "development” is largely responsible for Central Link current daily ridership being less than a third of the 110,000 riders Sound Transit was predicting for 2010.

In conclusion, as viewers already know, the goal of this blog is to stop all Sound Transit Prop 1 extensions.  If allowed to proceed the costs involved in constructing and operating light rail over the longer routes will create a perpetual "black hole" for the areas financial funds.  What's absurd is  commute times for those riding light rail will undoubtedly be longer than what they already have or could easily have with far less expensive buses.  

However, if Lynnwood officials still want light rail, they owe it to their constituents to demand a light rail route that minimizes light rail's impact on their lives, something Bellevue officials failed to do.  

Responsible FHWA Oversight Could Stop East Link

 The Federal Highway Administration has the ultimate responsibility for determining whether Sound Transit can replace the two center roadway lanes on I-90 Bridge with light rail.  Their decision would presumably be predicated on Sound Transit demonstrating light rail operation won’t damage the I-90 Bridge and that the fourth lanes they add to the outer roadways will provide adequate capacity to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.

In September 2005 the WSDOT attempted to verify “floating-bridge/light rail compatibility” using flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars.   They concluded the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system.  The Sound Transit 2008 DEIS dealt with the capacity issue with promises “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link.

The 10/1/13 post details how both the FHWA and the Legislative Joint Transportation Committee concluded additional testing was needed to demonstrate “floating bridge/light rail” compatibility.  Five years after being advised of these concerns WSDO/ST is finally having additional testing done at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.  Apparently it will take until the end of the year to complete.  The FHWA will presumably use its “Oversight Responsibility” to determine whether the results verify the bridge can be “retrofitted” to withstand the loads associated with the four 74-ton light rail cars ST has promised for East Link operation.

The FHWA document, “ I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project, Record of Decision, September 2004” dealt with the bridge capacity issue.  It included the following “Decision” regarding Federal Highway Administration’s approval of the R-8A Alternative;  

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurs with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Sound Transit in the designation of Alternative R8-A as the selected alternative for the I-90 Two-way Transit and HOV Operations Project in Bellevue, Mercer Island and Seattle King County Washington. 

However, the Alternative R8-A Alternative the FHWA concurred with in that document is not the R8-A Alternative WSDOT/ST has chosen for East Link.  The FHWA R-8A Alternative is defined on page 9 of the document.

Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways. It will retain the existing reversible operations on the center roadway, with both lanes operating in the same direction, westbound in the AM and eastbound in the PM. SOVs will only be allowed to use the center roadway between Rainier Avenue in Seattle and Island Crest Way on Mercer Island. The center and outer roadway HOV lanes will likely operate with a 2 + occupants per vehicle restriction

Thus, contrary to WSDOT/ST claims the center roadway could be used for light rail, it’s clear the R8-A configuration the FHWA approved required the center roadway be used for vehicles.  The FHWA surely has an “Oversight Responsibility” to insist ST demonstrate their modified outer roadway has the needed capacity.  Doing so would require ST to expedite adding the 4^th lane and temporarily close off the center roadway. 

In conclusion, assuring a floating bridge can support light rail operation is a "necessary" but not "sufficient" reason for the FHWA to allow light rail on I-90.  Responsible "Approval" requires they insist ST demonstrate the modified outer roadway has the needed capacity.  ST current plans to delay completing the 4^th lane until 2016 undoubtedly reflect concerns tests will show it won’t provide needed capacity.  (Just one of the reasons ST continues to delay a simple bridge modification that would reduce congestion for all cross-lake commuters.)  Whether the FHWA will force ST to conduct tests they "fear" would prevent them from installing light rail on center roadway remains to be seen.

Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee Oversight Failure

More than 20 years ago Sound Transit “decreed” that light rail was the answer for cross-lake mass transit.  They may or may not have been aware of the fact light rail has never been installed on a floating bridge. 

In September of 2005 the WSDOT attempted to demonstrate the I-90 Bridge could withstand the loads using flat bed trucks to simulate the 74-ton light rail cars. The WSDOT concluded “results of the test confirmed previous findings that the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration, in addition to general traffic on the roadway”.

Apparently the Washington Sate Legislature Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) was not satisfied with WSDOT tests because they commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail.  The results of the IRT evaluation were documented in the “I-90 Homer Hadley Floating Bridge Independent Review Team Light Rail Train Impacts, Final Report, Sept 2008”.  It includes the following “Conclusion”:

Based on extensive study, analysis, and discussions with Sound Transit and WSDOT the IRT has concluded that all issues associated with the installation of LRT on the Homer Hadley floating Bridge and approach spans can be addressed or mitigated providing that the IRT resolutions and recommendation are incorporated.

However, several issues could affect project cost estimates and schedules and therefore should be resolved at the earliest states of the project design.  One issue deals with a required design element (LRT Expansion Joint Tract Bridge) has no history of use on floating bridges, and therefore requires careful study and testing in the early stages of the project.

 

Since many of the issues require additional study, analysis, and design the IRT recommends that an independent review or peer review panel be organized to provide oversight throughout the LRT East Link design process.

One would have thought the JTC would have used their WSDOT oversight responsibility to insist on additional testing.  Instead three months later the December 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) included the following:

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.

The DEIS simply “neglected” to mention the IRT concerns.  The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration had similar concerns. Paragraph 5 of a February 25, 2009 letter, HRW-WA/WA624 responding to Sound Transits 2008 DEIS for the East Link Project included the following:

“We do not agree that there has been enough work done to justify the conclusion that it is feasible to design a light rail track system to accommodate the movements of the I-90 floating bridge” and “there is additional work to be done to determine if it is feasible to design an expansion joint to accommodate light rail”.

Again, one would have thought the FHWA concerns (and IRT concerns) would have convinced the JTC to insist on early testing to verify bridge compatibility with light rail.   Instead nearly three years later the July 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes exactly the same response to concerns as the 2008 DEIS.   The JRT apparently acquiesced to this lack of response.

Finally, five years after the IRT recommended “careful study and testing in the early stages of the project”, WSDOT/ST decided to test whether light rail can be installed on a floating bridge.  In August they began tests at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.  The testing will apparently continue through the end of the year. 

Even if this “better late than never” testing confirms new “expansion joints” will allow four car trains simple mathematics belies ST claim of up to 24,000 riders an hour.  The JTC refused to recognize that light rail will never have the capacity or the accessibility required for cross-lake mass transit.   That along with their refusal to use their oversight to insist the WSDOT/ST consider BRT for the bridge center roadway is a major contributor to our current transportation funding problems.