Mercer Island Can Stop I-90 Tolls (And East Link)

I’ve been receiving “I-90 Tolling Updates” from Mercer Island officials opposed to requiring their residents pay tolls for nearly a year with update #18 on Nov 13.   

This effort is presumably in response to a Jan 23, 2013 WSDOT blog post “Looking at tolling I-90” that included the following objectives:

We’re studying the possibility of adding tolls on I-90, between Seattle and Bellevue to help address both of the challenges: balance Cross-Lake Washington traffic and generate revenue to fill the SR 520 construction funding gap.

The public was given 30 days to respond by attending public “Scoping meetings” or via email.

Apparently Mercer Island officials “convinced” the WSDOT to extend the response by requiring an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the tolling effects on their constituents.  The end result was the WSDOT was given $8.32 million to fund an EIS aimed at initiating the tolls, if approved, in 2017 

As attested to by the 18 updates, MI officials have spent the year (and presumably considerable funds) trying to influence the alternatives to the tolls (scoping) considered by the EIS.   The 11/30/13 post explains why this effort has very little chance of succeeding.

It’s inexplicable why MI officials are ignoring a far better way than tolls to reduce I-90 congestion and to fund 520: use their permitting process to stop East Link.  East Link will be a disaster for the entire east side, but particularly for MI commuters. 

Their problems will begin in 2016 when Sound Transit closes off the center roadway to begin light rail construction.  MI commuters will not only loose their exclusive “single occupancy” access to the center roadway, their access to the outer roadways will be severely limited by the “throttling effects” from signal lights on I-90 on-ramps because of heavy congestion. 

To add insult to injury, their 7 (?) years of difficult access to I-90 and congestion on the bridge will be “rewarded” with limited access to light rail.  East Link service will likely consist of one 2-car train every 8 minutes (see 12/24/13 post).   The limited capacity along with the fact the MI station is the last of 8 eastside stations means commuters will have “difficulty” finding space to stand, let alone sit.  Train operators may be forced to “skip” MI station because of over-crowded cars during peak commute periods.  Again those choosing to ride buses or other vehicles will continue to face increasing congestion, inevitably resulting in frequent gridlock.

MI can avoid both the tolls and the disruption to their residents’ commute by using their permitting process to stop East Link.  There is certainly legal justification for doing so.  The  ST EIS claim light rail is needed because “Transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to nearly double in the next 30 years” is absurd. 

Light rail confiscation of the center roadway will reduce capacity not increase it.  The idea that a light rail system with 2-car trains every 8 minutes is a better way to meet future “Transit Demand” than improved service from up to 1000 buses an hour is beyond absurd.   

Not only will the center roadway never have needed capacity their own studies show forcing all vehicles onto the outer roadway will increase congestion there as well, even with their planned 4^th lane additions.  No one can reasonably reject MI attempts to disallow permits, particularly those enabling ST to spend $2.8 billion on such a debacle.

Rather than continue with EIS attempts to stop tolls, MI should use their legislative influence in the upcoming session to insist WSDOT require ST expedite adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadway as the way to reduce congestion.  They should also use the legislature to “persuade” ST to use part of the $2.8 billion East Link funds rather than I-90 tolls to fund 520.  (ST has a moral if not legal obligation to spend the East Link funds on east side.)

Stopping East Link should be a “no brainer”.  Hopefully MI officials will recognize that reality and stop it and the tolls.  Their constituents and the entire east side surely deserve it. 

Sound Transit Insanity Continues

The Sound Transit 2014 budget continues their idiotic approach to meeting our area’s transportation needs.  About $400 million of their planned $1.1 billion expenditures are for Prop 1 extensions voters approved in 2008.  ST has already spent about $1.5 billion of the $18.7 billion ($2007) needed to complete the extensions by 2023.  Completing the extensions will require they spend about $2 billion annually ballooning their current $300 million yearly deficit unless they find other revenue sources.  

The end result from the ten years of potentially $2 billion annual deficits will be Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way costing far too much to operate for any rational ridership prediction and an East Link light rail system without the capacity or the accessibility needed for cross-lake commuters.  

East Link confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will increase congestion for the vast majority of I-90 commuters forced to use outer roadway because of insufllcient light rail capacity and the limited capacity and access of the South Bellevue light rail station. The fact those living along the route will face disruption from several years of construction and a lifetime of noise from light rail operation makes it even more objectionable.

A more rational public transportation system would avoid all of these problems.  The Central Link operating expenses could be avoided by limiting light rail to a "trunk line" between the University and SeaTac.  The Lynnwood extension would be replaced by a T/C at the University light rail station.  It would provide an interface between light rail and 520 bus rapid transit (BRT). 

Eastside residents could benefit from 520 BRT service to the T/C from their local P&R to fast, reliable light rail service into downtown Seattle.  Seattleites could benefit using the BRT return routes to dedicated drop off points near where they work on east side.  The added ridership would justify 2-car trains every 4 minutes with the ability to increase capacity by adding cars if needed for peak commute.   

The Federal Way extension could be replaced by added parking and improved access for the Tukwila station.  More riders would be attracted if alternate trains skipped half of the stops along the route reducing transit times.  Eliminating East Link would allow trains every 4 minutes so each station would have service every 8 minutes similar to existing frequency.

Replacing East Link light rail with BRT would increase the cross-lake capacity from two 148-passenger rail cars every 8 minutes with the capacity from a thousand 80-passenger buses every hour.   It could be operating in 2015 not 2023 at a fraction of light rail cost.  BRT could provide express connections into Seattle from every eastside P&R rather than the South Bellevue light rail station.  The thousands of additional transit riders would reduce congestion throughout the east side.  By any rational standard this truly is a “no-brainer”.

The bottom line is unless Sound Transit is stopped they will continue to “invest” money they don’t have in Central Link extensions too expensive to operate and East Link extensions without adequate capacity or accessibility.  Doing so when the area's congestion is currently the 4^th worst in the country is "insane".

Citizens Advisory Committee Charade

I presented the following at the Dec 18 meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee formed apparently to “advise” the Bellevue City Council concerning the permits Bellevue has to approve for East Link.  My impression was the committee was another BCC “charade” attempting to give legitimacy to their foregone conclusion to approve the permits.  (Similar to the Bellevue leadership alternate light rail changes to the land use code that made light rail "permitable" 2/20/13 post). I doubt if any questions as to what qualified them to "advise" the council would have been welcome.  They  appeared to listen but had no comments or questions dealing with the serious issues I attempted to raise.

Dear Citizens Advisory Committee,

My name is Bill Hirt and I have lived at 2615 170^th SE in the Lake Hills area for more than 45 years.  I’m here today to urge you in the strongest possible terms not to approve the 10 permits Sound Transit needs for East Link.  

Contrary to what you may have thought, Bellevue is under no legal obligation to allow light rail through our city.  State regulation RCW 36.70A.200 stipulates that the permitting process cannot be used to prevent the siting of essential public facilities such as high capacity transportation systems. RCW 81.104.015, defines “high capacity transportation systems” (HCT). They include “rail fixed guideway systems” that are hereby defined as a “light, heavy, or rapid rail system.” However, it also allows  "high occupancy vehicle lanes". Thus, there is nothing in any regulation that prevents Bellevue from selecting bus rapid transit or BRT as its preferred HCT system.

The entire east side would benefit if Bellevue disallowed the permits. Those living along the route would no longer fear having their lives devastated by several years of light rail construction and a lifetime of noise from light rail train operation. Also cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake would no longer face the congestion from light rail confiscation of the center roadway. 

Stopping East Link would likely result in ST adding the 4th lanes to the I-90 outer roadways for non-transit HOV and initiating two-way BRT on the center roadway.  It could be operating in 2015, not 2023; with 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of its cost.  BRT could provide I-90 commuters with access to direct routes into the city from every eastside P&R rather than just East Link’s South Bellevue light rail station. Letting commuters park their car at a P&R near where the live would reduce congestion throughout east side. 

In conclusion, I’m not sure your committee’s recommendation could stop East Link.  However I’m absolutely certain 5 years from now the resulting congestion on I-90 and devastation along the route into Bellevue will make you regret not trying to do so.  I urge you to visit my blog stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com for more on why it’s so important you try.

Operating Costs Doom Prop 1 Light Rail Finances

The 12/12/13 post explained why Sound Transit should abandon their Prop 1 light rail extensions.  This post provides more details about the light rail operating costs behind this conclusion.

Each light rail car costs about $25 per mile (excluding depreciation)  to operate.  The 13-mile extension to Lynnwood will cost Sound Transit $1300 per round trip for a 2-car train.  With 4-minute headways between trains, the 15 trains per hour will cost nearly $20,000 an hour.  Of the 20 hours of light rail operation every day, presumbably about 8 hrs would be with 4 min. headways and 12 hours with 8 minutes between trains.  Thus it would cost $320,000 per day for ST to operate 2 car trains to Lynnwood.   Even if they managed to get the highly unlikely 15,000 riders per day ST promised it would cost more than $21.00 per rider in each direction.

Its not clear whether the Sound Transit University Station has provisions that allow trains to return to Seattle rather than continuing to Lynnwood.   If they do, it makes their decision not to locate a T/C at the University even more absurd. Thousands of 520 BRT commuters in both directions could use the interface at the T/C for light rail trips to and from Seattle.

Light rails problem in Seattle is that 2-car trains every 4 minutes through the tunnel to Lynnwood limits East Link cross-lake service to  2-car trains every 8 min. during the peak hours and 16 minutes off peak.  The resulting peak capacity of 2220 riders per hour (rph) (1110 rph off peak) with 148 riders-per-car is a tiny fraction of the 12,000 rph ST promised for East Link in each direction.  They could double the capacity by going to 4-car trains and still fall far short of promised level.  Presumably, operating costs for 4-car trains would require East Link trains not continue to Lynnwood.   

The Federal Way extension has about the same operating cost per trip problem as Lynnwood.  Since only half the trains go there the daily operating costs are halved.  However the costs per rider will probably exceed those for Lynnwood because of the far fewer riders from Federal Way.

In conclusion the only way light rail can be viable in Seattle is to limit light rail to a University to SeaTac “trunk line” and add a T/C at the University Station.  The University T/C would add sufficient riders to justify the 4-car train operation needed to at least approach the 110,000 daily riders Sound Transit initially promised voters.  Stopping East Link would end the idiocy of Sound Transit confiscating the I-90 Bridge center roadway capable of 1000 buses an hour for a 2-car train running every 8 minutes. 

The bottom line is Sound Transit, in implementing the Prop 1 extensions will spend $20 billion over the next ten years creating a light rail system that will be too expensive to operate.  Doing so with the state's current inability to find the funds to alleviate the 4th worst congestion in the country is insane.

The Choice is Clear

The 12/08/13 and 12/11/13 posts have detailed the problems with Sound Transits current plans for implementing the Prop 1 extensions the public approved in the 2008 referendum.  The bottom line is the combination of the Seattle tunnel limitations and the high operating costs for light rail trains should force an end to all the extensions.

If allowed to proceed, the $20 billion ($2007 dollars) Sound Transit will spend on light rail over the next ten years will do absolutely nothing to relieve the areas already serious congestion problems.  The East Link confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail will actually increase congestion.  When the extensions are completed (2023) the operating costs for the longer routes will make 4-car trains prohibitively expensive and necessitate huge subsidies, even for 2-car trains.  The end result will be a huge public debt, a light rail line with limited capacity, and an operating deficit that will perpetually drain the areas transportation funds.  Even more absurd, the Prop 1 commuters’ transit times will be longer than existing, or what could easily be available bus routes.

The alternative is to limit light rail to a trunk line between University and SeaTac that will allow the use of 4-car trains at least during the peak commute hours.  Add a T/C at the University light rail station, initiate BRT service on both 520 and I-90 Bridges, and expedite adding the 4^th lanes to the I-90 bridge outer roadways.   The University T/C would add the thousands of 520 commuters needed to make light rail viable financially. 520 and 1-90 BRT would provide Seattleites with easy access to Eastside and allow eastside commuters to leave their cars at P&R lots near where they live reducing congestion throughout the area.  The 4^th lanes on 1-90 Bridge would reduce transit times for those choosing to drive.

All of the alternatives could be done for a fraction of the $20 billion cost and in far less time than the 10 years required for Prop 1.  The remaining funds could be used to help fund Metro, the 520 bridge rebuild, the tunnel replacing the viaduct, and needed improvements to 405.  Again the choice is clear.

Why Prop 1 Light Rail Extensions Should Be Stopped

The 12/08/13 post detailed the impact of the Seattle Tunnel limits on light rail operation and the high train operating costs on Sound Transits planned $20 billion Prop. 1 expansion.  Any rational review would conclude the following.

The only way to justify light rail in Seattle is to maximize the tunnel capacity with 4-car trains at least during the peak commute hours.  However, the high operating cost for each light rail car results in prohibitively high operating costs for the Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way.  Thus, financial viability limits Central Link operation to a University-to-SeaTac trunk line.

Maximizing the Central Link ridership also requires Sound Transit add a T/C at the University Station.  It would attract thousands of riders by providing an interface between 520 BRT service and Central Link light rail.

I-90 cross-lake commuters could obviously use the capacity available from 4-car trains.  However, East Link is not the answer.  Sound Transit still hasn’t confirmed the I-90 Bridge can support four 74-ton cars.  The 4440 riders per hour per direction (pphpd) with 4 cars is a fraction of the 12,000 pphpd Sound Transit promised.   Whatever capacity East Link has is marginalized by the limited capacity and access of the South Bellevue P&R for the vast majority of I-90 commuters. 

East Link’s biggest problem is it closes off the center roadway with the capacity for 1000 buses per hour from all the east side P&Rs and replaces it with a light rail system that, at best, provides 4-car trains every 8 minutes from one I-90 P&R.  It forces all vehicles onto the bridge outer roadways where they will surely face increased congestion, even with the promised 4^th lanes.  The fact that it costs $2.8 billion and devastates the area along the route into Bellevue only adds to the insanity.

The tragedy is Sound Transit has already spent hundreds of millions on Prop 1 extensions since they were approved in 2008.  I-90 commuters have had to endure years of increased congestion because ST delayed adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways. (Most likely from fear it would lead to BRT.)   

However, the millions spent and the congested endured pale in comparison with the $20 billion Sound Transit will spend and the congestion that’ll result if they are allowed to proceed with their Prop 1 light rail expansions.  This post continues my attempt to stop them. 

Seattle Light Rail's Fatal Flaw

The Preface to the 2008 Draft and 2011 Final East Link Project Environmental Impact Statements include the following statement regarding the selection of light rail for I-90 high capacity transit (HCT)

Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle with the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s.  In 2004, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) prepared the Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment to establish a basis for more detailed planning studies and environmental analysis.  The report found that the cross-lake corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake and Redmond, had the highest potential for near-term development of high-capacity transit (HCT) alternatives. Sound Transits updated Long-Range Plan (2006) includes HCT across I-90 serving these urban centers, and the Sound Transit Board has adopted light rail as the mode for this corridor, now referred to as the East Link Project.

Section 3 of the PSRC study included a survey of several HCT options and an assessment of their capabilities.  Enhanced bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), and light rail were the most applicable to cross-lake service.    

The study compared each option in terms of their people per hour per direction (pphpd) obtained by multiplying the number of potential riders in each vehicle by the number of vehicles per hour.  They considered the buses to operate as “platoons” of two or four together with 4-minute intervals (headways) between “platoons”.  The primary difference between the enhanced bus and BRT was the enhanced buses could accommodate up to 80 riders vs. 90 for BRT.  The resulting capacity for the 2 and 4-platoon enhanced buses was 2400 and 4800 pphpd and 2700 and 5400 pphpd for BRT,

The PSRC light rail analysis assumed each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders with 4-minute headways between trains.  Again, 2 and 4-car trains were assumed giving a capacity of 4440 and 8880 pphpd for light rail.  Thus along a single route, light rail has a greater capacity.

The problem in Seattle is the tunnel restricts light rail to a single track in each direction or 8880 riders per hour (rph).  Assuming half of the capacity will be diverted to East Link the maximum cross-lake capacity is 4440 pphpd or 8880 in both directions with 4-car trains and half those levels with the more likely 2-car trains (see below).  Both of these capacities are a small fraction of the 24,000 rph Sound Transit has promised for East Link.

The only cross-lake restriction on BRT frequency is providing minimum headways for safety between subsequent buses.  Each bus-only lane can safely accommodate up to 1000 buses per hour. (60,000 pphpd with 60 passenger buses)  The lanes could provide direct bus routes from every east side P&R into Seattle to one or two dedicated drop off points along 4^th Ave and pick-up points along 2^nd Ave for the return route.  (Both avenues would be restricted to buses only at least during peak commute hours.)  

The BRT access at each P&R as well as Bellevue T/C could provide eastside commuters with cross-lake capacity that dwarfs light rail at a tiny fraction of its cost.  Thus it’s clear the Sound Transit Board made a monumental blunder when they “adopted light rail as the mode for this corridor, now referred to as the East Link Project”.

The problems associated with the tunnel limits go far beyond East Link.   Maximizing Central Link ridership requires operating 4-car trains at least during the peak morning and afternoon commute hours.  However, their high operating costs ($24 per mile per car) result in prohibitively expensive trip costs for the 13-mile extension to Lynnwood and the 11 miles to Federal Way.  

Sound Transit has a choice.  They can accept the 4440 pphpd tunnel capacity with 2-car trains and operate the light rail extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way.  (obviously East Link trains would also be limited to 2 cars.) The operating costs will still far exceed fare box revenue, which along with the extension construction costs will be a perpetual drain on the areas transportation funds.  

The other option is to avoid spending the $20 billion on the Prop 1 extensions, limiting Central Link to connections between University and Sea Tac, and initiating BRT service on I-90 and 520.  Also create a T/C at the University Station as an interface between the 520 BRT service and Central Link light rail.  The 4 car trains would provide the capacity for the thousands of BRT riders in both directions and make Central Link operations financially viable.    

This shouldn't  be a difficult choice!  

Solving Metro Shortfall

 Recent articles in both the Seattle Times and the Bellevue Reporter have painted a dire picture for King County Metro finances.  Metro, with nearly 120 million riders annually, is apparently facing a $75 million shortfall that will force route changes losing up to 14 million riders annually.  County officials are considering offering a .1-.2% sales tax hike and a $60-80 car tab proposal to the public in early 2014 to cover the shortfall.

In the meantime Sound Transit, with 28.4 million riders, is spending money like the proverbial “drunken sailor”.  For example, in 2013, they budgeted spending $92.4 million expanding a Sounder Rail system that already costs nearly $40 million to operate, and has a projected annual ridership of only 2.8 million.  All to provide rides for those who “prefer” trains to buses.

Their 2013 budget of  $1.1 billion exceeds projected income by $264 million, at least the 3^rd year in a row with a similar deficit.   The shortfall will increase dramatically when the $500 million spent in 2013 on light rail extensions expands to the nearly $2 billion required to complete the nearly $20 billion Prop 1 package over the next ten years.  When completed the

huge construction debt and increased subsidies needed to operate over the longer routes will create a perpetual financial “black hole” and do absolutely nothing to alleviate congestion.  

What’s really absurd is they are currently seeking “public” input on
“long term” improvements beyond the Prop 1 extensions.  It reminds me of a Mad magazine “What me worry?” attitude. 

This area supposedly has the “4^th worst congestion in the country”.   Forcing Metro to endure their projected cuts will only add to the problem.  Forcing Sound Transit to redirect their projected spending on Prop 1 extensions to Metro is a far better way to reduce it than asking voters to approve another burdensome tax increase.