WSDOT Needs Better Leadershiip

One of the initial posts on this blog “WSDOT Major Culprit In East Link Debacle” posted on 7/19/12 raised concerns about the WSDOT role in promoting East Link. The 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) included the WSDOT as the “Co Lead Agency”. They knew (or should have known) bus rapid transit (BRT) was a far better choice for cross-lake commuting than light rail.  Instead their support undoubtedly played a role in convincing the media that light rail was indeed the answer for cross-lake commuting.  

Lynn Peterson’s selection as the new Transportation Secretary raised hopes new WSDOT leadership would result in better management of the area’s mass transit system.  Her position as the WSDOT representative on the Sound Transit Board gave her the opportunity to have a major impact on Sound Transit actions.  As the 2/08/14 post “ST Board Needs New Leadership” explains she has been either unwilling or unable to make the needed changes.

Secretary Peterson’s Feb. 21^st Bellevue Reporter article detailed her concerns about the “money crunch” jeopardizing the states ability to meet transportation needs.   She warns additional funds (Plan B) are needed beyond the proposed 10-cent gas tax increase to deal with “worst cases of transportation and preservation needs to ensure public safety”.   However, it’s not clear what additional funds she deems necessary. 

She acknowledges the WSDOT pontoon design errors and asks for additional funds to ”address contracting methodology for construction projects ” and a “quality assurance manager” to oversee those responsible for quality assurance of the various projects.  Both problems suggest the need for more competent people rather than more funds.

What’s particularly bothersome is Secretary Peterson’s apparently doesn't   recognize or speak out about the problems with Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions.  She surely should recognize closing the center roadway will increase cross-lake congestion on the outer roadways and that light rail will never have the capacity to replace I-90 buses.  She should also recognize that light rail operating costs will make the extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way too expensive to operate.  

Secretary Peterson needs to demonstrate better leadership by using her  board position to urge ST redirect the  $2 billion they’ll spend annually over the next ten years on Prop 1 extensions towards addressing her concerns in the article.   If unable to convince the board, she should use her WSDOT position with the media to publicize her concerns and advocate for any legislative action needed to redirect the funds.   Failure to do either would be ample reason to replace her with someone who would.

East Link Environmental Nightmare

Other posts have explained in detail why Sound Transit Prop 1 extensions will be a financial debacle.  This post is an attempt to detail the environmental damage from the East Link light rail extension.   The 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning East Link can best be described as “fantasy”.

First of all, East Link violates Section 4(f) of the Dept. of Trans. Act that protects parks, recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges from encroachment unless there is no feasible or prudent alternative or the impact is de minimis .  No one can rationally argue that cross-lake BRT is not a feasible or prudent alternative.  Also, no one can reasonably argue that a light rail system that requires homes more than 300 ft from Central Link light rail to be “sound proofed” in order to be “livable” would qualify as de minimis.

The noise from the elevated light rail tracks near the South Bellevue Station will devastate the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.  What’s absurd is the ST Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application goes into great detail about the number of trees and the fractions of acres impacted by light rail but makes no mention of the noise from light rail trains trundling through the area 20 hours a day.  ST efforts to mitigate the noise for residents along the route will likely leave many with a lifetime of noise both inside and outside their homes.

The DEIS claim East Link would have a peak hour capacity of up to 24,000 riders per hour (rph) equivalent to between 6 to 10 freeway lanes is sheer fantasy.  The Puget Sound Research Council light rail guidelines would limit East Link to 4440 riders in each direction with a 4-car train every 8 minutes.  However, operating costs for light rail (~$25.00 per mile per car, excluding depreciation) would likely limit each train to 2-cars because of operating costs with the 13 mile Lynnwood extension.

Another DEIS fantasy is the claim “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.   Sound Transit claims adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways (R8-A configuration) will provide sufficient additional capacity for all cross-lake vehicles is belied by FHWA conclusion center roadway was still needed for vehicles with R8-A.  The resulting outer roadway congestion will surely degrade environment. 

The most “fanciful” environmental statement of all is the DEIS claim “The East Link Project would also offer environmental improvements over the No Build Alternative”. They ignore the devastation along the route into Bellevue instead claiming East Link will decrease “daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by approximately 200,000 miles”.  (Sound Transit never considered two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway as the “No Build” alternative.)

Their plans to require 20,000 transit riders switch to light rail at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations far exceeds even 4-car train light rail capacity.  Its clear most buses will have to continue into Seattle on the outer roadway adding to the increased congestion from future growth.  East Link will probably add to VMT since many of those riding bus routes that terminate at the light rail stations will decide to drive rather than ride because of the inconvenience of transferring during commutes into and out of Seattle.    

In conclusion, East Link is a potential environmental nightmare.  The only way to keep it from becoming a reality is to stop East Link.  Even if completed, it will likely be torn out and replaced by BRT on the center roadway as the previous post predicts.   The environmental insanity is allowing it to happen in the first place.

Why BRT Will Replace East Link by 2030,

The joint Sound Transit/WSDOT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) defined the need for I-90 improvements with statements like “Transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to nearly double in the next 30 years” and to “Meet growing transit and mobility demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent”.

Neither organization apparently recognized the only way to provide the needed capacity was to move non-transit HOV to a 4^th lane on each outer roadway and divide the center roadway into two-way bus only lanes.  Both changes could have been easily implemented ten years ago.  The bus lanes could easily accommodate not only current bus routes but also the bus rapid transit (BRT) service between every eastside P&R and Seattle needed for future growth.

East Link problems will begin in 2016 when ST (finally) completes adding the 4^th lanes (the R8-A configuration) to the bridge outer roadways and closes center roadway to install light rail.  A 2004 FHWA study concluded the single lane would not have the capacity to accommodate both non-transit HOV and buses.  The likely result will be the 4^th lanes will be reserved for transit buses; increasing congestion for vehicles on the 3 general-purpose lanes.

What’s “remarkable” is the fact I-90 commuters after enduring years of ever increasing congestion on the outer roadway will face increased not decreased congestion when light rail begins operation (2023?). 

First of all East Link light rail will never have the capacity for “up to 24,000 riders per hour” ST promised in the EIS.   East Link operation will likely consist of one 2-car train every 8 minutes.  It will provide up to 4440 rph.  While a 4-car train is feasible, the capacity will never attain promised capacity.  (ST chose to demonstrate Light rail/1-90 Bridge compatibility with only a 2-car train)

ST plans to use whatever light rail capacity is available by transferring all cross-lake bus riders to light rail at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island stations.  They claim 40,000 of the 50,000 projected riders will come from terminated bus routes.

The 20,000 transit riders who previously had relatively direct rides into Seattle on the outer roadway will be forced to exit their bus at one of the two stations and join others waiting to get on light rail cars.  Light rail’s limited capacity (2220 rph for 2-car train in each direction) and the fact the 2 stations are the last of 8 on the east side will likely result in “crowded” cars.  Even 4-car trains would take nearly 5 hours to accommodate the 20,000 riders.  

Return commuters, rather than an easy bus ride from Seattle to their P&R or other destination will be forced to exit the train and wait at the light rail station for their return bus.  This “transfer scenario” will undoubtedly result in fewer rather than more transit riders with East Link. 

Only time will tell how many commuters will eventually choose to drive rather the ride.  Those with longer commutes may be more willing to accept the inconvenience.  Those using Eastgate or Issaquah P&R lots may be more likely to drive.  Whatever the final number, every terminated bus will likely result in an additional 5, 10, 20, or more additional vehicles on an already crowded outer roadway.  Especially in view of ST projected increase in cross-lake commuters.

Sooner rather than later, cross-lake commuters, sitting in gridlocked traffic on the outer roadway, will recognize the insanity of using the center roadway to allow 2 or 4-car trains to cruise pass every 8 minutes.   Once that happens, it’s only a question of time before commuters demand light rail be torn out and replaced by two-way bus only lanes. 

Surely by 2030, commuters will be able to leave their cars at a P&R near where they live and have a non-stop bus (BRT) ride into and out of Seattle.  The additional transit riders will ease congestion throughout the east side.  The tragedy will be it wasn’t done 25 years earlier, saving billions and years of cross-lake congestion as well as avoiding devastation to Bellevue.

Times Could Stop Sound Transit Debacle

The Feb 11th Times headline “Bertha on hold for months” continues their several week effort detailing “problems” with the tunnel replacement for the viaduct.   The article warns of a several-month delay and increased costs, presumably adding to the prior 4-month delay from this and other problems.

This article, like earlier articles about the WSDOT 520 bridge pontoons  typifies their ability to inform readers about problems with current transportation projects.  It's clear they’re concerned the tunnel and bridge problems will likely result in several months delay and several hundred million in additional costs.  Unfortunately there is very little they can do to affect the results.

Even more unfortunate they seem oblivious to problems where they could make a difference: Sound Transits fatally flawed Prop 1 extensions.  The long-term damage from implementing these extensions will dwarf current problems with the tunnel and bridge projects.  

A single article in the Times could go a long ways towards ending this debacle.  Instead they continue advocating for a purported “transportation fix”, the equivalent of a band aid when a tourniquet is needed to stop ST from “hemorrhaging” hundreds of millions each year on the fatally flawed Prop 1 extensions.

A Times article could stop the “hemorrhaging” by reporting Sound Transits light extensions will never perform as promised in 2008. (Their  DEIS East Link promises were sheer fantasy.)  It isn’t clear whether their failure to report this reality is due to of a lack of competency or concern.

Any competent investigation would quickly conclude high train operating costs (e.g. $22.48 per mile, per car, excluding depreciation) would make the Central Link portion of the ten-year, $20 billion Prop 1 extensions far too expensive to operate.  Those choosing (or forced) to ride Central Link extensions will face longer commute times than what they previously had (or could easily have had) with buses.  The operating cost for the long extensions will perpetuate (or exacerbate) the fact that fare-box revenue currently covers less than 5% of the Sound Transit budget.

Any analysis would conclude East Link’s 2016 closure of bridge center roadway will change cross-lake commuting forever.   Mercer Island residents will lose their easy access to Seattle and Bellevue residents living along the route will face years of disruption from construction and a lifetime of light rail train noise. 

Light rail will never have the promised capacity nor the capacity needed for I-90 bus riders ST intends to transfer to light rail at the South Bellevue or Mercer Island stations.   Forcing commuters to transfer will be a strong disincentive to use even this limited capacity.   The likely result will be fewer riders and more drivers exacerbating outer roadway congestion.

In conclusion nothing can be done about the $1-1.5 billion already spent or the $400 million budgeted for this year.  These “investments” however pale in comparison to the $2 billion ST will spend annually over the next ten years on the $20 billion extensions.  Rather than advocate for a “band aid,” the Times should alert the public and urge legislators to do “whatever it takes” to stop the “bleeding”.  

Urge Seattle, Mercer Island, and Bellevue residents to demand their city councils disallow the permits needed for construction.  Explain to constituents of board members the devastating effect of their representative’s failure to properly oversee Sound Transit.   Ask voters to contact their legislators, particularly those on the transportation committees to support whatever legislation is required.  

“Persuade” Sound Transit to “reallocate” their spending to projects that will ease the area’s transportation crisis.  Use Central Link funds to help with the tunnel, add a T/C at the University and keep Metro from having to slash service. (Terminating Central Link at a University T/C would provide access to thousands of 520 commuters and end the insanity of Lynnwood having twice the number of trains as the east side.) 

Use East Link funds to stop 520 tolls and never start tolls on I-90, add 4^th lanes to the outer roadway and implement two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway assuring adequate cross-lake mass transit for far into the future.   These “reallocations” are surely a better way to spend the $2 billion ST will “invest” annually over the next ten years on light rail.

A single Times article could go a long way towards making the "reallocations" a reality.  Time will tell whether they choose to do so.The fact their banner includes "Winner of Nine Pulitzer Prizes" makes me optimistic.

ST Board Needs New Leadership

Boards of Directors in the private sector normally consist of members the company has selected because of a demonstrated ability to assist in making the critical decisions regarding the company’s future activities.   Those owning stock in the company have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm their selection or to vote to replace them with their own choices if not satisfied.  

With Sound Transit, the King County Council Executive appoints other “like-minded”, normally elected officials, to serve as the organizations “directors”.  While all of the appointees are presumably well respected, there is no requirement they have the qualifications needed to properly guide transportation decisions.   The public has no say as to who serves on the board and very little say on what the board does.  

Sound Transit’s inability to deal with the area’s mass transit problem likely reflects the board's lack of transportation "experience".   For starters, their decision to emulate Portland light rail suggests the board may not have recognized the limitations the tunnel imposes on light rail operation in Seattle.   It not only limits Seattle light rail to one track in each direction, the length of the tunnel stations limit each train to 4 cars.   Since trains require 4 minute  headways and each 74-seat car can only carry 148 riders, the maximum capacity for light rail in Seattle was 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

Whatever the tunnel limitations, a competent board would have recognized the best way to use this capacity was to expedite the University extension. The 70,000 daily riders projected for the extension made up 2/3 of the total 100-110,000 riders Central Link originally predicted for 2010.  The predicted ridership undoubtedly assumed large numbers of 520 transit commuters from both sides of the lake accessing light rail at the University.  Instead they allowed Sound Transit to delay the extension and approved Sound Transit’s decision not to provide light rail access for 520 commuters; making a mockery of the 70,000-rider prediction.

A competent board would have recognized the adverse affects of Sound Transits high light rail car operating costs on the Prop 1 extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way.  The conventional justification for light rail is the high costs of construction and other start-up costs are offset by greater capacity and lower operating costs.  Light rail train capacity far exceeds what's needed for either extension and light rail cars cost 2 ½ times what buses cost  ($25.00 per mile vs. $9.50 per mile),

Extending light rail 9.2 miles from SeaTac to Federal Way adds more than $1800 to the round trip cost or nearly $14,000 per hour for 4-car trains every 8 minutes.  Even more ludicrous, the 13 mile Lynnwood extension, with twice as many trains per hour, would cost Sound Transit $39,000 per hour.  Even 2-car trains on both extensions would require huge subsidies to cover operating costs.   Unfortunately, limiting light rail trains to 2 cars also halves the limited light rail capacity through the tunnel.

A competent board would have concluded neither extension could justify the high operating cost nor the $20 billion needed for construction.   Limiting Central Link to a “trunk” line between University and SeaTac would allow 4-car trains during peak hours to maximize tunnel capacity   Requiring Sound Transit implement a T/C at the University for 520 commuters would allow riders to take advantage of the capacity and make light rail financially viable.

The board’s oversight of Sound Transit East Link program is even more “inadequate”.  An example is their response to ST plans to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  The lanes, originally proposed in the ‘90’s, would have been a relatively inexpensive modification that could have quickly reduced cross-lake congestion in both directions, particularly for reverse commuters.  (They also would have eased recent congestion from those avoiding 520 tolls) 

Instead the board allowed the lane proposal to languish for years until it was resurrected as the 2016 “R8A” modification ST claimed allowed them to confiscate the center roadway for light rail.  A lane that wasn’t worth adding was somehow considered to provide the outer roadway capacity needed for all current and future cross-lake vehicles. (The board should have recognized the R8A configuration the FHWA approved required keeping the center roadway available for vehicles.)

A competent transportation board would have known (or easily determined) two-way bus-only lanes were far superior to light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  Instead they allowed Sound Transit to ignore that option as the “no-build“ alternative in their EIS documentation.  The board should have realized ST claims East Link had capacity for “24,000 riders per hour, the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway” were sheer “fantasy”.

These board “inadequacies” have already allowed Sound Transit to spend billions on totally flawed light rail extensions.  Cross-lake commuters have endured needless congestion for years.  However it’s not until 2016 that the proverbial “s**t hits the fan”. Cross-lake commuting will change forever when they shut down the center roadway for light rail construction.  Despite their claims for 4^th lane capacity outer roadway congestion will likely dramatically increase   

Those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue will have their lives disrupted for several years during construction only to end up with many residents facing a future of light rail noise once service begins.  The start of light rail service will also mark the end of cross-lake bus service with riders forced to transfer to trains at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  Yet light rail will never have the capacity needed during peak commute hours.  

It’s also difficult to believe anyone, let alone transportation board members, wouldn’t recognize forcing commuters to transfer back and forth between buses and trains would be a huge disincentive for public transit.  Particularly with the limited capacity of East Link trains.  The likely result will be many riders opting out of public transit adding to the vehicle congestion on bridge outer roadways.

In conclusion, the Sound Transit Boards plans for light rail are a far cry from what was promised voters in the Prop 1 initiative.  Their claims for East Link in the EIS were sheer fantasy.  What was hailed as a “gift to our grandchildren” will result in $20 billion being spent on Central Link extensions too expensive to operate and an East Link that will increase congestion on I-90 Bridge and devastate a beautiful part of Bellevue to create a light rail system with very little capacity that no one will want to ride no matter what its capacity.

The boards’ failure to recognize these realities has already resulted in billions “invested” in a fatally flawed light rail system.  They still have time to prevent this “nightmare prediction” from becoming a reality.  Unfortunately the board members with the most “credibility” on transportation, the Director of the WSDOT, Lynn Peterson, and the head of the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board, Claudia Balducci, are inexplicably (to put it mildly) actively supporting Sound Transit’s current plans.  It’s way past time for new leadership.

Bellevue City Council Doesn't "Care"

This March marks the fifth anniversary of my first appearance before the Bellevue City Council.  I'd decided to use my “limited public speaking abilities” to address the council concerning East Link even though I didn’t live near any proposed route and no longer commuted regularly into Seattle.   I did so because Sound Transit officials refused to respond to questions as to why they hadn’t considered two-way bus only-lanes on the center roadway as the “no-build” option in the Dec 2008 DEIS. 

I’d lived in Bellevue for more than 40 years and always appreciated the council’s apparent ability of making it so “livable”.     I thought the council, some of who had dedicated major parts of their adult life to improving Bellevue, would see the benefits of disallowing the permits ST needed for East Link.

It quickly became clear they weren’t interesting in disallowing the permits or even using the permitting process to affect ST policies.  They never questioned ST decision to use light rail on center roadway rather than 2-way bus-only lanes.  Instead they wasted time and money studying alternate light rail routes through Bellevue before acquiescing to the ST selection.   Rather than insist ST consider a tunnel along their route into Bellevue I-90 they acceded to ST demands for additional funds to pay for a tunnel under city center.

The agreed to a mitigation agreement with ST that will likely expose many residents along the route to a lifetime of noise from trains trundling through the area 20 hours a day.  They also agreed to the “eye sore” of a huge maintenance facility in Bel Red area and didn’t bother to mitigate potential train noise issues there.  In the end they revised the existing land use codes to make light rail through the city “permitable”.

One of the more egregious examples of their “lack of concern” was their failure to object to ST plans to terminate all the I-90 bus routes at South Bellevue or on Mercer Island even though light rail won't have needed capacity.  They were certainly aware of the termination plans, (a “surprise” to me, 1/23/14 post) since Claudia Balducci, their new Mayor, had been on the Sound Transit Board for years.  

The council knew (or should have known) the adverse affects of the light rails limited capacity and the “transfer scenario” (1/29/14 post) on all cross-lake commuters.   As a result, their “lack of concern” will not only devastate the route through the city and force them to pay for a “tunnel”, it will also condemn cross-lake commuters to either the “transfer scenario” debacle or gridlock on the outer roadway for those who choose non-transit HOV or SOV.

If those actions don’t qualify as a lack of “care” I don’t know what does.