East Link Can Be Stopped

(I wrote this in response to a Mercer Island resident’s email questioning whether East Link could be stopped)

It’s not a question of whether Sound Transit can be stopped its more a question of whether those who could stop it are willing to do so.  East Link, (as well as the other light rail extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood) if allowed to proceed, will generate hundreds of millions in revenue for the construction companies and their labor unions.   Their influence on the WSDOT may or may not be the reason they have been such a “willing partner” (See 7/19/12 post). 

It’s also reasonable to “suggest” the construction companies’ and unions’ contributions to legislators and others on “both sides of the aisle” may have influenced them.  Whatever the reason, Sound Transits ability to “invest” hundreds of millions on light rail extension that would fail any competent cost/benefit analysis attests to some influence.  The medias’ willingness to “overlook” obvious Sound Transit problems (10/25/12 post) has also been critical.

Mercer Island residents undoubtedly have the most to lose if East Link is allowed to proceed.  They will lose their exclusive SOV access to the center roadway and forced to use onramps to the outer roadway that will undoubtedly be limited by signal lights to one car at a time from I-90 congestion; a sure recipe for long backups. (If they chose to ride light rail they will likely be forced to stand as the 74 seats on each car will probably be occupied by the time they reach Mercer Island.)

To be fair they would also lose SOV center roadway access if it were used for two-way BRT.  However, outer roadway congestion would be reduced by eliminating buses and by attracting more commuters to the improved bus service (See 8/08/12 post).  Thus the “throttling” effect of the signal lights would be far less severe.

It’s also fair to say that Mercer Island has a great deal of “influence” in legislature with Rep. Judy Clibborn and Sen. Steve Litzow having prominent positions there.  They could use the legislature's oversight of the WSDOT to raise concerns about the apparent WSDOT/ST lawyer misconduct in the recent Supreme Court Freeman/ETA decision allowing East Link to proceed  (See 9/23/13).  I’m no lawyer but such actions would seem to be grounds for a reversal that would effectively stop East Link.   Sound Transit would have a moral if not legal obligation to spend that money on eastside transportation improvements.  (Eastside tax revenues provide about 40% of Sound Transit tax revenue).

Again East Link can be stopped.   Getting a reversal of the recent Freeman decision is probably the easiest but not the only way to do so.  Whether those who can stop it will do so remains to be seen.

WSDOT/ST Lawyers Fail to do "Due Diligence"

The Sept 20^th Bellevue Reporter article on the State Supreme Court rejection of the Freeman light rail lawsuit includes the State Attorney General praising his attorneys’ defense of the project.

The Department of Transportation and Sound Transit developed an effective and fair partnership to upgrade and address traffic issues on the I-90 floating bridge.  This agreement respects the law and the Constitution while addressing a critical need.

I can’t comment on the judges decision the Constitution allows the WSDOT/ST “partnership” to use the center roadway for light rail.  However the idea that light rail will “upgrade and address traffic issues on the floating bridge” is simply wrong.   The WSDOT/ST claimed the center roadway could be used for light rail because their addition of a 4^th lane (Alternative R-8A) on the outer roadway would make the center roadway unneeded for vehicles.  

They supported that claim by referring to several studies, one of which was documented in  "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOY Operations FEIS [(Final Environmental Impact Statement)] and ROD [(Record of Decision)]”.    However page nine of that document included the following:

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 it was clear the study concluded the R8-A Alternative required the center roadway for “vehicle use” and could not be considered “surplus”.   I'm no lawyer but the failure of the WSDOT/ST lawyers to read their supporting documentation (or worse)  “suggests” malpractice (legal misconduct) from a failure to do “Due Diligence” (The process of providing objective and reliable information).

The judges, understandably unwilling to question the “experts representing the WSDOT”, accepted the State’s attorneys’ contention and okayed light rail installation on the center roadway.   Thus further legal action would seem to be warranted.

Hypocrisy Rampant at Bellevue Transportation Forum

(The Sept 20^th Bellevue Reporter prompted the following post).

The news accounts of the 9/17 forum at Stevens Elementary concerning the need for a 10.5 cent increase in the gas tax as the “Transportation Fix” exemplifies problems with the entire area’s transportation leaders. 

The proposed gas tax increase will provide $200 to $250 million a year in additional income which apparently would be directed primarily towards avoiding cuts in Metro bus service.   The hypocrisy comes from the fact those responsible for funding transportation ignore the fact Sound Transit is committed to spending nearly 10 times that amount annually for the next ten years on light rail extensions that completely fail any rational cost/benefit analysis.   

It would be one thing if the money spent on the extensions lowered transit operating costs, shortened commute times, or reduced congestion.  The reality is the high light rail operating costs ($45.60 per mile for 2-car train vs $9.50 per mile for bus) will increase Central Link operating costs far beyond likely fare box revenue from additional riders.  The construction costs and the capital and operating cost increases with the longer routes will create a perpetual "financial black hole" for transportation funds.  What's worse, commute times for most light rail commuters will actually increase over what is currently or could be available with the far less expensive buses.

The $2.8 billion East Link extension is particularly absurd in that it not only increases operating costs and commute times for riders (relative to buses); it also increases I-90 congestion by forcing all cross-lake vehicles onto the outer roadway.  (Also devastates a beautiful part of Bellevue and wrecks havoc on city center.)

In conclusion the proposed gas tax increase will do very little to reduce the congestion concerns of those who attended the forum.  The 9/17/13 post explained how the Supreme Court erred when they allowed Sound Transit to proceed with East Link.  Central Link extensions would undoubtedly fail a rational cost/benefit analysis.  Diverting the $2 billion Sound Transit will spend each year on light rail would go a long way to solving the entire areas transportation needs. 

Stopping I-90 Tolling

(I emailed Mercer Island officials the following concerning their attempts to avoid I-90 tolls.  I thought others might be interested so am posting it.)  

Dear No Tolling on I-90 and Mercer Island City Council

A previous email referring to the 9/04/13 post on my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com suggested attempts to stop the legislature from enacting I-90 tolls by expanding the scope of EIS to include alternative funding sources were unlikely to succeed.  

A far better way to achieve the purported EIS goal of reduced I-90 congestion is to expand it to include the option for Sound Transit to expedite the completion of the Seattle to Mercer Island portion of the 4^th lane on the outer roadway. (currently planned for 2016)  The added lane could be completed in 6 months and would immediately relieve congestion for commuters on both sides of the lake, particularly for “reverse” commuters.

The 520 funding shortfall as well as the transportation funding problems for the entire area can best be resolved by bringing some sanity to the Sound Transit light rail program.  The 9/17/13 post on my blog explains how the Supreme Court erred in allowing East Link to proceed.   Mercer Island officials should use the courts or the legislature to “persuade” ST to divert the $2.8 billion East Link funds to fund the 520 corridor improvements and other eastside improvements. 

Failure to do so will have a far greater impact on Mercer Island residents and the entire eastside than I-90 tolls.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt

wjhirt@yahoo.com

Supreme Court Errs in Freeman Decision

My reading of the Supreme Court’s recent Freeman decision concerning I-90 light rail prompted me to send the justices the following email.  I decided to post it as others might be interested.

Dear Supreme Court Justices,

I’m no lawyer but I believe the Justices erred when they made the below finding in the recent Freeman decision (page 14 of decision))

Such a determination was made here, as stated in the Umbrella Agreement: "upon the completion of the R8A Project and the completion of all the necessary obligations and actions identified in this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto, the Center Roadway will no longer be presently needed for highway purposes." CP at 1382.

They rejected appellants claims the facts do not support WSDOT's assessment that the lanes are not presently needed with the below finding (Page 19)  

             In this case, WSDOT considered numerous studies and engaged in extensive planning, as identified in the Umbrella Agreement. Considerations included the "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOY Operations FEIS [(Final Environmental Impact Statement)] and ROD [(Record of Decision)]; I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOY Access Point Decision Report; WSDOT I-90 Center Roadway Study; East Link FEIS and ROD; East Link/I-90 Interchange Justification Report; I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor 19No. 87267-8

Page 9 of the referenced document "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOY Operations FEIS [(Final Environmental Impact Statement)] and ROD [(Record of Decision)]; includes the following description of the Preferred R8-A Alternative

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 it is clear the R-8A configuration, which adds an HOV lane to the outer roadway, does not make the center roadway “not needed” for highway purposes.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt

Sound Transit Mendacity Wins Again

(The Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the Freeman suit prompted the following post.)

The Supreme Court apparently relied on Sound Transit’s contention that the $173 million they will spend adding the HOV lane to the outer roadway does two things.  It fulfils ST obligation to pay for using the center roadway for light rail and makes the center roadway “surplus” because the added lane on the outer roadway would allow it to accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles. 

Others can debate whether the $173 million spent on the HOV lanes is “adequate”.  The question is “why didn’t ST spend the money to add the lane 15 years ago and why do they continue to delay the lane until 2016?”   Surely the added capacity would have benefited cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake, particularly “reverse” commuters and reduced the impact of the added traffic from those avoiding 520 tolls.  The $173 million, while not “peanuts”, pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions ST has spent promoting the $2.8 billion East Link light rail system.  The added capacity would have also eliminated the recent “justification” for adding I-90 tolls to reduce bridge congestion.

Sound Transit delays in adding HOV lane likely reflect two concerns.  The first is that moving the non-transit HOV traffic to the outer roadway would allow the center roadway to be used for two-way bus rapid transit (BRT).   Even though ST “neglected” to consider BRT as the “no-build” option in their EIS they undoubtedly knew (or should have known) its far greater capacity and accessibility would have ended any chance to "invest" $2.8 billion replacing it with light rail.

The second reason for the delay is equally nefarious.  Once they added the lane they were concerned they would be required to demonstrate it provided the needed capacity by temporarily closing the center roadway.   They knew, or should have known,  a September 2004 Federal Highway Administration document,  “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operation Project, Record of Decision”,  demonstrated the added lane did not provide needed capacity (see 5/16/12 post for details)

Again, Sound Transit mendacity has allowed them to surmount another hurdle in their quest for light rail.  The entire area will pay a heavy price if nothing is done to stop them.

EIS Won't Stop I-90 Tolling

(A recent letter from the City of Mercer Island and their legal council to the WSDOT concerning the EIS about I-90 tolling prompted me to send their city council the following letter.  I thought others might be interested so have posted it.)

Dear Mercer Island City Council 

I’m no lawyer but the letter from the city's legal council to the WSDOT concerning the “scoping process” for the Environmental Impact Statement for I-90 tolling seems “deficient”.   It deals only with expanding the “funding alternatives” to provide for construction of 520 and ignores the purported “environmental” reason for the tolls:  reducing congestion on the I-90 Bridge.      

Surely adding tolls to the I-90 Bridge will reduce congestion there by eliminating the incentive to avoid 520 tolls.   I-90 tolls may further reduce congesting by inducing some commuters to use buses.  These environmental improvements will far out weigh any increase in congestion from those choosing to go around the lake.  Thus any rational “EIS” would likely favor I-90 tolls.

The funding alternatives in the letter are, to put it mildly, “highly speculative”.  If Mercer Island officials want to avoid the tolls they should advocate for stopping East Link as detailed in my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  Doing so would provide more than enough funds to eliminate tolls on either bridge and cover unfunded portion of 520 rebuild.  It would also avoid the congestion all cross-lake commuters will face if ST is allowed to close off I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail.

Bill Hirt 

wjhirt@yahoo.com