Mercer City Council Still Doesn't Get It

 Yesterday I received Update #20 from Mercer Island concerning their efforts to stop I-90 tolling.  It referenced a WSDOT “Scoping Summary Report and results of the Mercer Island resident and business survey” for their EIS of tolling residents.  My admittedly cursory reading reaffirmed my conviction (see 11/30/13 post) it was “unlikely” the EIS would result in WSDOT deciding not to impose the tolls.  The fact the council is apparently still pursuing this effort was “disappointing”.

The Mercer Island survey did have some interesting information on where and when residents were commuting.  46% of the residential trips and 55% of the work commutes were into Seattle.  84% of the Seattle trips and 78% of the Bellevue trips were during the peak periods.  Presumably the commute destinations and times for those not responding to the survey request would have been similar.  I also didn’t notice any information about the number of residents who used transit buses.

Whatever the total number, its clear East Link will have a devastating impact on the vast majority of MI residents commuting into Seattle during the peak periods.  ST 2016 closure of the center roadway will not only end their easy commute into and out of Seattle, it will force them to endure long lines on I-90 onramps from signal lights regulating I-90 traffic as well as increased congestion on the bridge.

The ST center roadway closure will also force MI transit riders as well as all the other bus and non-transit HOV commuters onto the outer roadway increasing their congestion.  Those riding buses will have their commute changed again when East Link is completed and ST terminates all the I-90 bus routes at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  While most I-90 buses have always been routed onto Mercer Island, my experience from more than ten years of daily commutes, primarily on metro route 225, was 3-4 commuters getting off or on there.  Some buses skipped MI completely.

East Link will change that by forcing everyone to exit the bus and wait along with MI residents to get on a crowded light rail car.  (Since MI station is the last of 8 on the east side, light rail cars there will undoubtedly be "crowded", especially since East Link will likely consist of a 2-car train every 8 minutes with capacity for only 2220 rph in each directions (see1/28/14 post.)) These same commuters on their return ride will have to exit light rail at MI (or South Bellevue) and wait around for a bus that will take them to their P&R or other destination.  One can only assume the two stations will be “crowded”. 

It’s “likely” this East Link “transfer scenario” will result in fewer, not more transit commuters.  The idea ST/WSDOT will spend $2.8 billion to close down the center roadway in 2016 causing frequent gridlock on the I-90 outer roadway and devastate those living along the route into Bellevue for a light rail system that, when completed in 2023, no one will want to ride (no matter what the capacity) is beyond “absurd”.  

What’s "disappointing" is the council apparently still doesn’t recognize East Link will change forever one of Mercer Island’s greatest assets: its easy access to Seattle.  The fact the council is apparently wiling to even consider a monetary “loss of mobility” payment as compensation is repugnant.   The fact they continue to devote their efforts to a likely futile attempt to avoid "relatively insignificant" tolls rather than using the permitting process to stop East Link is a sure indication they don’t “get it”.    

Stopping East Link would minimize the impact of needed I-90 improvements on MI commuters and avoid the “transfer scenario” debacle for other transit riders.  ST could be “persuaded” to use part of the $2.8 billion to replace the expected toll revenue.  The East Link funds could also be used to expedite the 4^th lane additions to the outer roadways for non-transit HOV and initiate two way bus service on the center roadway that could easily meet future cross-lake capacity needs at a fraction of light rail cost in 2015 not 2023.

More On ST/WSDOT Stopping I-90 Buses

The Jan 21^st ST/WSDOT East Link presentation to the Mercer City council explaining their plans to terminate all I-90 buses at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations was an “eye opener”.   I had heard about plans to terminate cross-lake buses, but thought they involved only routes west of I-90 near the light rail route.  Thus, my response to the chart showing all I-90 bus routes ending at either of the two stations was one of “disbelief” rather than “surprise”.

I simply didn’t believe anyone could be so stupid as to close off the I-90 center roadway in 2016 and spend the next seven years and $2.8 billion constructing a light rail system to “replace” I-90 buses.  I had always assumed the majority of the buses would be diverted to the 4^th lane ST had added to the outer roadway.   While I had concerns about the resulting congestion on the outer roadway, the idea ST would terminate all the bus routes rather than divert them never occurred to me.

It’s doubtful even ST/WSDOT still believes their EIS claim light rail has capacity for up to “24,000 riders per hour (rph)” that could “increase person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent”.  Their EIS asserted they had based the decision for selecting light rail on a 2004 the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) study document “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment”.   It stipulated a minimum of 4-minute headways between trains with each 74-seat car carrying a maximum of 148 riders with 4440 or 8880 rph for the 2 or 4-car trains respectively. 

The combined capacity for the two tracks through the Seattle tunnel was 8880 rph and 17760 rph for the two train configurations with presumably half  that capacity (4440 rph or 8880 rph) allocated to East Link.   Its unlikely ST would use 4-car trains for East Link since light-rail-operating costs ($25 per mile per car) make the Lynnwood portion of the route prohibitively expensive.

Each 26-mile round trip to Lynnwood would cost $2600 or nearly $20,000 per hour of operation for 4-car East Link trains every 8 minutes. (This cost is probably the reason their recent tests confirming I-90 Bridge can support light rail only used 2-car trains.)  The total Lynnwood extension costs would presumably also include the cost for 2-car Central Link trains every 8 minutes.  (The reality is light rail operating costs, even if both routes had only 2-car trains, dwarfs potential fare box revenue)

The bottom line is the likely combined inbound and outbound cross-lake capacity for East LInk is 4440 rph, a fraction of the 24,000 rph Sound Transit promised.  It’s “unlikely” light rail trains with 2220 rph capacity into Seattle will be sufficient for bus commuters in 2023, let alone the 60% increase in “person moving capacity” they’re projecting

 

The end result will likely be ST would allow many of the bus routes to continue on the bridge outer roadway into Seattle increasing congestion on the bridge.   It's also likely large numbers of bus commuters forced to transfer to light rail will opt out of public transit altogether. 

All of this “insanity” could be avoided.  ST could expedite the 4^th lane additions to the outer roadways and initiate two-way bus service on the center roadway for a fraction of the $2.8 billion they plan to spend on East Link.  The improved bus service could be operating in 2015 with cross-lake capacity for up to 1000 buses per hour in each direction.  Every eastside P&R along with the Bellevue T/C could have non-stop routes into Seattle. 

Commuters attracted by the ability to leave their cars near where they live would reduce congestion throughout the area.  The fact it avoids the need to close the bridge center roadway, the devastation along the route into Bellevue, and the financial "black hole" from operating twice as many trains to Lynnwood as the east side makes it even more imperative.  Again, it’s way past time for those with the authority to end this debacle to do so.

I-405 HOT Lane Benefits

The Bellevue Reporter article on HOT lane on I-405 prompted the following:’’

I was interested in the information the WSDOT is spending $334 million to implement I-405 HOT lanes between Lynnwood and Bellevue with the intent to spend an additional $1.1 billion extending them to Renton.   Presumable they were doing so to generate additional funds and to alleviate congestion.

The ability to attract SOV drivers to HOT obviously depends on the benefits from paying the surcharge.   The benefits depend on the percentage of total cars legally in the HOV lanes and the number of lanes on the roadway.  For example if a two-lane roadway has one lane for HOV but only 10% of all the vehicles have more than one rider and therefore allowed to use it, the 10/90 split provides a strong incentive to pay the surcharge.  If a third of the drivers do so the difference reduces to 40/60 and dramatically improves overall traffic flow.  However, there is little to be gained for additional riders to pay extra.

For a three-lane highway the original 10/45/45 flow and 20% of the SOV drivers opt to pay the surcharge the resultant split is 28/36/36.  Its unlikely additional SOV riders will pay the surcharge and the benefits to flow are reduced.  Similarly with four lanes the initial 10/30/30/30 split, 10% paying the surcharge gives a 19/27/27/27 distribution with little congestion benefit.  

Its clear more lanes and more HOV riders reduce not only the revenue from HOT but also the surcharge effect on congestion.   It isn’t clear what the WSDOT assumed for the number of HOVs.  With 20% HOV, an SOV driver would benefit very little on a 4-lane highway.  However, with 10% or fewer HOV drivers they should at least consider simply doing away with the HOV lanes and use the $1.5 billion HOT funds elsewhere.

ST's East Link Insanity to End I-90 Buses

I attended the Jan 21st Mercer Island council East Link meeting with WSDOT and Sound Transit officials in hopes the “questions” I suggested in the previous post would “stimulate” the discussion.  The council “declined” to do so except for asking why the 4^th lane couldn’t be implemented in 2014 rather than 2016.  (My question would have been why it wasn’t added in 2004.) 

This lack of “curiosity” indicated the council was in favor of approving permits needed for East Link.  However, even they were “skeptical” of ST plans to terminate I-90 bus routes at the Mercer Island light rail station.  ST discussed in detail their plans to terminate all the I-90 bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations. They had earlier predicted 40,000 of East Link’s projected 50,000 daily riders would come from the terminated bus routes.

Light rail was initially considered the best choice for cross-lake mass transit more than 20 years ago.   The ST 2008 and 2011 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) both detailed how light rail was better than their “no-build” bus option.   The problem was ST never bothered to consider moving the non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the outer roadway and dividing the center roadway into two-way bus only lanes.  Each of the two lanes could have accommodated up to 1000 buses per hour providing access to every eastside P&R. 

The Puget Sound Regional Council 2040 plan ST cited as their basis for selecting light rail can be used to determine its capacity.   PSRC compared light rail capacity with other cross-lake modes and concluded 2 or 4-car trains required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains (headway). This minimum headway limits light rail in Seattle to 15 trains per hour through the tunnel.  Presumably only half of those trains, 7½ per hour, would be assigned to East Link;  a  tiny fraction of bus capacity.

The second problem with the ST plan is their EIS claimed East Link was needed to “meet growing transit and mobility demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60%”.  Forcing commuters to switch from buses to light rail does very little to increase cross-lake capacity.   The idea cross-lake light rail is a better way to meet “growing transit demand” than additional bus service is absurd.

Finally, the best way to reduce congestion in the area is to attract more commuters to public transit.   Two-way bus lanes on the center bridge roadway would allow Sound Transit to add bus rapid transit (BRT) routes between all of the eastside P&R lots (and the Bellevue T/C) and downtown Seattle.  Many commuters would likely welcome the opportunity to leave their cars near where they live and have a fast reliable non-stop ride into and out of Seattle.

Compare that scenario with East Link where the commuters’ buses will face the congestion associated with getting off I-90 to the stations.  Riders will have to get off the buses, wait for a train, and likely have difficulty finding a place to stand let alone sit for the ride into Seattle.  Light rail trains will never have the needed capacity in either direction.  

Their return commutes will force them to wait around at the light rail station for the bus to their P&R.  Thus even if light rail had the needed capacity many commuters would not find it an attractive option. East Link will likely result in fewer transit riders, not more, with resultant greater congestion throughout area.

In conclusion, the idea ST, in 2 short years, will close down the center roadway and spend the next 7 years and the remainder of the $2.8 billion East Link money installing light rail tracks for trains is bad enough.  The idea they would then force all cross-lake bus riders to switch to light rail cars to commute into and out of Seattle is insane.  

It is particularly insane when you compare it with the alternative of eliminating the bridge closure and implementing two-way bus lanes on the center roadway capable of 1000 buses per hour in 2015 at a fraction of the $2.8 billion East Link debacle.  The fact ST, in partner ship with the WSDOT, has already been allowed to spend hundreds of millions on this debacle is bad enough.   It's way past time for those with the power to stop them to do so. 

Four Questions MI Should Ask ST About East Link

(I thought viewers might be interested in the below email)

Dear Mercer Island City Council,

I understand the “public” will not be allowed to “participate” in the Jan21st study session with Sound Transit on East Link.  If I had been allowed to do so I would have asked the following questions. I look forward to attending the meeting hoping they will “stimulate” your discussion.

 Respectfully

Bill Hirt

wjhirt@yahoo.com

                  Why did Sound Transit never consider dividing the center roadway into two-way bus-only lanes on the center roadway when they decided to add 4^th lanes to the outer roadways?

Bus-only lanes could accommodate up to 1000 buses an hour, many times the capacity of any light rail system.  The buses could have provided commuters with access at every east side P&R lot whereas most I-90 commuters light rail access will be a South Bellevue station with limited capacity and difficult access.

Why has Sound Transit delayed adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways until 2016?

While not directly applicable to Mercer Island commuters, ST failure to do so some 15 years ago has forced cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake to needlessly endure years of congestion, particularly “reverse commuters”.  It would have also eliminated the congestion purportedly justifying the need for I-90 tolls.   The fact ST has “invested” hundreds of millions over the last 10 years on East Link but refused to spend the relatively small amount adding the 4^th lanes demonstrates a warped sense of priorities.

Why does ST continue to insist adding 4^th lanes to the outer roadway should allow them to take “possession” of the center roadway?   The R8A configuration in the September 2004 document (FHWA-WA-EIS-3-01-F),” I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project, Record of Decision” maintained the two center roadway lanes for buses and HOV traffic?

Mercer Island commuters should pay particular attention to this question. Not only will congestion on the bridge dramatically reduce their speed, their access to I-90 will likely be severely limited by signal lights on the onramps needed because of the congestion.  It’s “plausible” ST delayed adding the 4^th to the outer roadway because of concerns it would allow the center roadway to be temporarily closed off, demonstrating the modified outer roadways didn’t have needed capacity.

Why does Sound Transit continue to insist East Link will have sufficient capacity to justify spending $2.8 billion taking “possession” of the center roadway for a light rail system that will likely consist of one two-car train with capacity for about 300 riders every 8 minutes.

Again, this limited capacity should be of particular interest to Mercer Island commuters since their light rail station is the last of 8 on the eastside.  By the time trains reach their station they will be lucky to find a place to stand let alone sit.

ST Attempts to "Buy" MI East Link Approval

The January 15^th MI Weekly included an agenda for a January 21^st ST/WSDOT presentation aimed at getting Mercer Island approval of East Link permits.  It can best be described as “mendacious”, “nefarious” and “absurd”.

The “mendacity is in the “I-90, Carpool Lanes, and Light Rail Plans” proposal which includes the following:

WSDOT will provide an update on its project (now known as R8A) to add transit-HOV lanes to both directions of I-90 in anticipation of the closure of the center roadway for Sound Transit's East Link project.    Sound Transit will explain its plans to take possession of the center roadway for light rail construction once the R8A project is complete; light rail service is scheduled to begin in 2023.

The WSDOT/ST could have added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways (R8A) 15 years ago and spared commuters from both sides of the lake from years of congestion; particularly “reverse commuters”.  Their mendacity in the current proposal is the implication the center roadway won’t be needed for vehicles once the R8A project is complete (4^th lane added).  They ignore the fact the R8A configuration the FHWA approved required keeping the two center roadway lanes for bus and HOV traffic.  Thus, ST “taking possession of the center roadway” will force Mercer Island commuters along with all the other cross-lake commuters, to face inevitable gridlock on the outer roadway.

The “nefarious” part of the ST agenda is included under the heading, “Bus Service, Commuter Parking, and Bus Intercept Proposal”:   

              Sound Transit will discuss the current demand for the Island's heavily-used Park-and-Ride lot as well as the agency's commitment to provide at least $6.3 million in funding to address the loss of mobility to and from Mercer Island once the center roadway closes.

This looks like a one-time inducement (bribe?) to convince Mercer Island officials to grant permits for a light rail system that will condemn Mercer Island commuters (as well as all commuters on both sides of the lake) to future gridlock on I-90 Bridge.  To call it “loss of mobility” gives a whole new meaning to “prosaic”.   It hardly describes how the commute for Mercer Islander residents, who have had access to a congestion-free center roadway, will change forever when it’s closed in 2016. Even worse, they’ll benefit very little when light rail operation begins seven years later. (See 12/29/13 post) 

It’s difficult to understand how Mercer Island officials would even consider this “inducement”.  (This proposal also raises questions as to what, if any, other “inducements” have been offered by ST or the construction companies and unions that will benefit mightily if this and the other Prop 1 extensions are allowed to proceed.)

The truly “absurd” agenda item in the Weekly was the following:

Finally, both transit agencies will also brief the Council on a recent proposal to implement a "bus intercept" project on Mercer Island in which certain Metro and Sound Transit bus routes using the I-90 corridor would turn around on Mercer Island and transfer passengers to or from East Link at the Island's light rail station instead of proceeding to Seattle.

First of all it’s highly unlikely Mercer Island residents will be enamored with the idea of their island being the “terminus” for I-90 buses.  Second, East Link light rail service will likely consist of one two-car train capable of about 300 riders every 8 minutes.  The Mercer Island station is the 8^th along the route into Seattle.  Mercer Islanders will undoubtedly have great difficulty in finding a place to stand let alone sit.  The idea there will be sufficient room to accommodate those arriving on I-90 buses is laughable.

I look forward hopefully to a subsequent MI Weekly article announcing Mercer Island officials rejected the ST proposal.

Not "Better Late Than Never"

Sound Transit recently completed I-90/Light Rail compatibility tests of their design for the 190-foot expansion joint connecting the “fixed” and “floating “ portions of the bridge.  The test, at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado apparently demonstrated their “Cesura” design for the connection could accommodate two-car trains at speeds up to 55 mph.

This result would normally qualify as a “better late than never” success.  The reason it’s “late” is the fact a study funded by the Washington State Joint Transportation Committee concluded in Sept 2008 the following concerning the expansion joint:

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.

It took ST more than 5 years to verify the I-90 bridge could withstand the loads from light rail trains.  The fact I-90/Light Rail compatibility was considered to be the most significant “Risk” to East Link as late as their October 2013 light rail assessment would surely qualify the test results as “late”.

It’s quite another thing to describe the test result as “better”.   It allows ST to continue their plans to spend $2.8 billion over the next ten years on an East Link light rail system that will be a disaster for the entire east side.  It will likely be limited to 2-car trains with capacity for about 300 riders every 8 minutes; a tiny fraction of the needed cross-lake capacity.  It will inevitably result in frequent gridlock on the bridge outer roadways for buses, other HOV traffic, and cars.   It will also devastate the route into Bellevue and make BelRed development problematic.  (See 1/04/14 post)

A test “failure” would presumably have forced ST to expedite their planned 4^th lane additions on the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV.  The center roadway could then be divided into two-way bus only lanes capable of 1000 buses per hour.  Part of that capacity would be used to provide new bus rapid transit (BRT) routes between all of the east side P&R lots and the Bellevue T/C into Seattle. The costs would have been minimal and it could be operating in 2015 not 2023.  Increasing the number of commuters who leave their cars at a local P&R would have reduced congestion throughout the area.

Thus as far as the I-90/light rail compatibility test results are concerned “late” is not better than “never”.

The Seattle Times Still Doesn't "Get It"

(Recent Times articles prompted this post in another attempt to get their attention to Sound Transit problems.  It’s the latest of several posts and countless emails to the Times)

The Thursday and Friday Seattle Times front page “above the fold” articles “Blunders bust 520 budget” and “Hole gets deeper to pull out transportation-tax package” continues their ineptitude when it comes to addressing the area’s transportation concerns.  The “Blunders” article is just the latest of several critical of the WSDOT for their failure to require “post tensioning” during fabrication of the concrete pontoons apparently resulting in a $208 million additional coat.   The “Budget Hole” article is their latest attempt to urge the legislators to increase gas taxes as the “transportation fix”.

What the Times doesn’t "get" is the fact the cost from the WSDOT pontoon “mistake” pales in comparison to those associated with their monumental blunder some 15 years ago when they agreed with Sound Transit that light rail was the way to provide cross-lake mass transit.   They followed up that blunder by co-authoring the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that neglected to even consider two-way bus only lanes capable of 1000 buses per hour in each direction on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.   As a result, ST will spend $2.8 billion on a light rail system likely limited to 2-car trains every 8 minutes on the center roadway.  Cross-lake vehicles will inevitably face frequent gridlock on the outer roadways, the route into Bellevue will be devastated, and BelRed development will be problamatic (See 1/04/14 Post).

As far as the “Budget Hole”, the Times still doesn’t “get it” that allowing Sound Transit to spend $15-20 billion over the next ten years on light rail extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood will result in a light rail system with operating costs far too expensive for any rational ridership predictions (12/18/13 post).  (Particularly since commute times for most light rail riders will be longer that what’s already available or could easily be available on buses.)  

They also don’t “get it” that the only way for ST to make Central Link viable is to implement a T/C at the University light rail station.  It could add thousands of riders in both directions as an interface between light rail and 520 transit commuters.  East side commuters could use BRT from their local P&R to light rail trips into Seattle and Seattleites BRT to work locations on the eastside.

In conclusion, the Times refusal to “get it” has already cost the area dearly by acquiescing to ST “investing” hundreds of millions in Central Link extensions too expensive to operate and an East Link light rail without the capacity to meet cross lake demand.   These costs however pale in comparison to the price the entire area will pay if they continue to do so.

Where The PSRC Got It Wrong

The Puget Sound Regional Council is an association of local governments and state agencies in the central Puget Sound region of Washington State. It serves as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about important regional growth and transportation issues.  Its objectives include “Manage and administer transportation, growth, economic development, and data and analysis planning work programs” and “Support the Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board”.  The PSRC FY2014-2015 budget includes $29.3 million in revenue with $15 million from federal and state grants and $10 million from carry-over of previous grants.  The PSRC includes a staff of 19 to deal with transportation issues.

The Sound Transit 2008 DEIS referred to a PSRC 2004 document “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” to “establish a basis for more detailed planning studies and environmental analysis”.  The document compared the capacities of bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail (see 12/08/13 post).  Light rail trains operating at the same frequencies as buses had greater capacity because light rail cars could accommodate more riders (148 vs. 90).

The problem is the required 4-minute intervals between trains (per PSRC) limits their number to 15 per hour through the tunnel with half of those available for cross-lake service.  ST trains will likely be limited to two cars each (12/08/13 post), but even if they manage 4 cars, the peak capacity (8880 riders per hour (rph)) will be a fraction of the DEIS promise of up to 24,000 rph.   It’s inexplicable the PSRC would allow ST to continue to make these absurd ridership projections in the 2011 EIS.  Particularly in view of the fact the ST 2008 and 2011 EIS documents never considered two-way bus lanes on the center roadway capable of up to 1000 buses per hour in each direction. 

This lack of PSRC oversight may be due to their requirement to “Support the Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board”.  The transportation policy board is headed by Claudia Balducci who has used her position on the Bellevue City Council and Sound Transit Board to advocate for cross-lake light rail.  Whatever the reason the result has been the PSRC is largely responsible for hundreds of millions in federal grants to ST with over $600 million over the last four years:  Money that could have been put to far better use in dealing with the area’s congestion.

The East Side Without East Link

My optimism about the demise of East Link prompted me to post the following:

The east side without East Link would no longer have residents along the route fearful of losing their homes or having their lives disrupted by years of light rail construction or a lifetime of noise from train operation.   The entire city would benefit from no longer having to pay the $200 million Sound Transit extorted for a tunnel.   Those funds could be used for local road improvements.  A beautiful tree lined boulevard would be saved and the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park would remain untouched by light rail tracks, 5000-volt power lines, and the noise from light rail trains.

The benefits would go far beyond the route into Bellevue.  I-90 commuters would no longer need to endure the current congestion or the immeasurable increase from closure of the bridge center roadway.  Instead Sound Transit could expedite the addition of the 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV easing congestion for cross-lake commuters in both directions.

 The center roadway could be divided into two-way bus only lanes with bus rapid transit (BRT) service providing direct routes into Seattle from all the area P&R lots and Bellevue T/C.  Current routes would be retained for those who need the intermediate stops.  The increased number of mass transit riders would reduce congestion throughout the area.

Mercer Island residents would lose SOV center roadway access since safety requirements would preclude SOV and non-transit HOV access to the two-way center roadway.  However, their commutes would be far better than with East Link because of reduced congestion on the outer roadway and  “exclusive” access to direct BRT routes into Seattle on center roadway.

Stopping East Link would also benefit Bel Red area development.  No longer would it be faced with noisy light rail trains trundling through every 4-8 minutes for 20 hours a day or the “eye sore” of a huge maintenance facility for overnighting trains.  It would be replaced with a South Lake Union type streetcar system whose schedule will be determined by local demand not something dictated by the number of trains in Sound Transits futile attempt to meet cross-lake commuter needs.

The streetcars could follow either parallel tracks or a circular route though the area with frequent stops providing far better access than two light rail stations.    It would include an overpass of 405 to reach the Bellevue T/C and BRT service to and from Seattle.  Bel-Red could become a magnet for businesses and an attractive place for people to live, visit, and work.  And it could be operating by 2016 not 2023.

Again, this is my vision of an east side without East Link.  I’m optimistic those with the power to make it a reality will do so.