Funding Metro Shortfall

The Seattle Times, March 20^th front page article about the proposed King County sales tax and car tab increase to avoid Metro service cuts is an example of where both sides got it partly right but both ignored the obvious solution.  Those opposed to the increases were justified in their concerns about Metro operating costs.  However the advocates were also justified in claiming Metro’s previous cuts made it unlikely further cuts could cover the shortfall. 

Neither side acknowledged that at least part of the Metro problem is due to their much-ballyhooed “Rapid Ride “ program.   Apparently federal grants were used to purchase very expensive buses with more capacity than needed for the vast majority of Metro routes.  (Even routes that could have used the capacity would have been better served with more frequent standard buses during peak commutes.)  Their higher operating costs along with the fact they are rarely more than 10-20% filled for the vast majority of their routes is probably the major reason King County Metro already spends nearly 50% more on operating costs per capita ($284) than Denver RTD, Orange County, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose.  Unfortunately very little can probably be done about it now. 

Neither side recognized that the King County Council had a better source for the needed funds, namely Sound Transit.  The 12/03/13 post “Solving Metro Shortfall” details the dichotomy between the funding for the two public transit systems.  For example Metro needs $75 million to avoid route changes that will reduce their ridership by 14 million riders annually.  Yet Sound Transit’s 2013 budget included spending $92.4 million expanding a Sounder Rail system that already cost nearly $40 million to operate, and had a projected annual ridership of only 2.8 million.  Spending whose  primary justification is to provide rides for those who “prefer” trains to buses.

What’s inexplicable is the fact King County Council members who voted to allow another burdensome tax and fee increase also played a prominent role in providing the Sounder funds.  The King County Executive not only is the head of the Sound Transit Board, he selects all the other board members, four of whom are on the King County Council Transportation committee.  Presumably they all approved of the budget. 

 Even these funds pale in comparison to the fact the ST board is apparently willing to spend $20 billion over the next ten years constructing Central Link extensions whose operating costs will dwarf rational fare box revenue estimates and an East Link extension that will gridlock I-90 and devastate the route into Bellevue.   Its time the leadership in both organizations recognized the Metro shortfall is worthy of more financial support from Sound Transit.

Candidacy for 48th District

(I decided to post this since it’s unlikely any of the media outlets I’ll send it to will mention my candidacy)

The total failure of the recent special legislative session to deal with the area's transportation issues prompts me to once again file for Position No 1 in the 48^th District.  My concern is not with their failure to pass some “transportation fix” advocated by many but with their total inability to recognize the insanity of allowing Sound Transit to spend $20 billion over the next ten years on the fatally flawed Prop 1 light rail extensions described in the below “Candidates Statement” for the Voters Pamphlet.

As in my previous “campaigns” for the legislature and Bellevue City Council I intend to use my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com to attract voters and won’t be accepting any financial support.   The blog currently includes 168 posts with many detailing the total inability of the Sound Transit Board to provide competent direction to ST policies, the failure of the Mercer Island city council to recognize East Links devastating effect on their access to Seattle, and the Bellevue City Councils willingness to go along with a light rail system that will gridlock I-90, devastate those living along the route into Bellevue and clearly violates federal environmental law with train noise ending forever the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.

Unfortunately, the blog posts have failed to “persuade” the Sound Transit Board of the financial debacle from Central Link extensions or the Bellevue and Mercer Island city councils to disallow the permits ST needs for East Link.  Eastside legislators and those on the legislature’s “Joint Transportation Committee” have also been unwilling to challenge ST policies that have “invested” nearly $800 million in these fatally flawed extensions since I ran in 2012.

As before I recognize my chances to “win” are “limited”.  It’s my way to “make a difference” by exposing the inevitable debacle that awaits the area if ST is allowed to proceed. 

Candidates Statement

I’m running once again to attract attention to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com about the Sound Transit $20 billion Prop 1 light rail debacle.  Blog posts detail why the Seattle tunnel limits light rail capacity to the point where East Link will never be able to accommodate more than a fraction of cross-lake mass transit commuters.  Other posts explain that high light rail operating costs will make the Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way far too expensive to operate for any rational ridership projections.  The end result will be devastation along the route into Bellevue, gridlock on I-90, and a “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds. 

MI City Council Oblivious to East Link Reality

One of the reasons Mercer Island is such an attractive (and valuable) place to live is their exclusive right to  “single occupancy vehicles” (SOV) on the I-90 Bridge center roadway into Seattle.   Presumably the Mercer City Council concern about anything that affects these commuters is what prompted their attempts to stop I-90 bridge tolls. 

They used their “legislative influence” to “persuade” the WSDOT to conduct a 2-3 year, $9 million Environmental Impact Study  (EIS) of tolls on their commuters.  The council advocated for replacing projected I-90 toll revenue with other funding sources. Unfortunately, alternate revenues do nothing to relieve the I-90 bridge congestion, the other purported reason for the tolls.  It’s highly unlikely their extensive (and presumably expensive) efforts to stop I-90 tolls will be successful. Thus, MI commuters (as well as all other I-90 commuters) can look forward to I-90 tolls in 2016 or 2017. 

What the MI council apparently doesn’t recognize is Sound Transit’s East Link light rail will have a far greater impact on their commuters than any toll.  In 2016 MI access into Seattle will change forever when ST closes the I-90 bridge center roadway to begin light rail installation.  Buses, non-transit HOV, and SOV traffic will all be forced to use the I-90 outer roadways in both directions.  A 2004 FHWA study concluded the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways wouldn’t have the capacity to avoid increased congestion.  

All MI commuters will go from easy center-roadway access to metered onramps that have resulted in long lines at other I-90 locations for years.  The fact they'll be using the last onramps to I-90 will undoubtedly  exacerbate the MI commuter access problem.  Unfortunately the council seems oblivious to these concerns and the fact that outer roadway congestion will be worse if they succeed in blocking I-90 tolls.

What is even more inexplicable is the MI council doesn’t recognize the impact on their commuters when light rail operation begins in 2023 (?).   They may or may not have known about ST plans to terminate all the I-90 bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail station prior to the Jan 21^st ST presentation.  (A major “surprise to me” (see 1/23/14 and 1/28/14 posts))  

ST justified their “promised” 50,000 daily riders by assuming 40,000 came from terminating existing bus routes.  Since nearly all of the bus riders originate on the east side, presumably 10,000 commuters will be required to transfer to trains at each of the two stations every morning and back to buses in the afternoon. 

 (Typical of ST, their June 8^th 2013 MI Station Open House Report predicted “about 2000 boardings” there and a recent South Bellevue Station Open House predicted 4500 boardings there.  Apparently those responsible for the station designs were "unaware" of ST plans to terminate buses there.  This may explain why it's difficult to believe either station, but particularly the MI P&R, could each accommodate the buses and10,000 commuters tranfering to and from light rail trains during the morning and afternoon commutes.)

When a MI council member asked whether light rail had the needed capacity, the ST response was “capacity was not an issue”.  Apparently ST does not feel bound by the Puget Sound Research Council light rail guidelines limiting light rail capacity in Seattle.  They limit total capacity to 8880 riders per hour (RPH) in each direction through the Seattle tunnel.  If half of this capacity (4440 RPH) is used for East Link it will take more than 4 ½ hours for 20,000 riders to cross I-90 on trains.  (The 1/28/14 post explains the 8880 RPH total capacity and why the more likely East Link capacity will be 2220 RPH). 

One would have thought the council would be “curious” as to how ST planned to accommodate the 20,000 morning commuters in terms of train frequency and the number of cars in each train.   As the 1/28/14 post explains increasing train frequency and the number of cars in each train dramatically increase operating costs.  (This may explain why ST used only 2-car trains in their recent tests to confirm the I-90 Bridge could withstand light rail loads.)  The MI council failure to pursue the capacity issue in subsequent meetings or in the agendas available for future meetings is a clear indication they simply don’t recognize the problem.

In conclusion, the MI city council seems oblivious to the devastating impact East Link will have on its commuters.  The increased I-90 congestion from ST closure of the bridge center roadway in 2016 will change cross-lake commuting for all eastside commuters.    However, MI commuters will have  more difficulty getting on the bridge and all cross-lake commuters will encounter even heavier bridge congestion if MI succeeds in stopping I-90 tolls. 

The council also doesn’t recognize East Link will never have the capacity needed to accommodate 20,000 morning and afternoon commuters when light rail service begins (2023?).   Buses will likely still be needed for the vast majority of cross-lake mass transit riders; adding to the outer roadway congestion.  MI commuter (as well as those transferring from buses) access to what little capacity East Link has will likely be severely limited since most trains will be filled to capacity before they even get to the MI station.

As the 2/20/14 post suggests, it’s only a question of time before MI commuters (and others gridlocked on the bridge) recognize the reality of East Link and demand they “tear the damn thing out” and initiate BRT for cross lake mass transit.  The tragedy is the council could use the permitting process to stop East Link now and avoid the entire debacle for probably a fraction of the funds they’ve spent opposing tolls.

BBB Can Stop East Link

The following information was included in the material the BBB provided to the Feb 18^th Citizens Advisory Committee regarding the Sound Transit East Link approval process. 

It has been well documented that Sound Transit has struggled to meet its federal requirements for noise mitigation in Seattle. Bellevue's noise standards are even more stringent and protective, yet to date there has been no information from Sound Transit regarding how they intend to accomplish meeting the city standards. It is the belief of BBB that in fact the city's noise standards cannot be met by Sound Transit given its current technology and design approaches elsewhere.

The BBB proposed solution was

BBB has done a major study on an alternative that could solve almost all of the problems, namely a tunnel in south Bellevue. The approach could save Sound Transit as much as $400 million, and their own experts have agreed and recommended the approach to Sound Transit management.

The BBB had previously applauded the Bellevue City Council’s changes to the land use code (LUC) where “mitigation” made East Link “permitable” (See 2/27/13 post) with the following:

Our recommendations will provide more certainty including speeding up property acquisitions and permit approval

The BBB and the Friends of Enatai had previously (June 2012) sued to block FHWA East Link approval because Sound Transit hadn’t considered a tunnel into Bellevue or 2-way bus lanes on the I-90 Bridge center roadway as an alternative to light rail.  The 3/16/13 post details why the judges finding rejecting the concerns seemed “unfounded” and could be appealed.   

At this point its highly unlikely Sound Transit can be “persuaded” by the noise concerns for those living along the route to implement a tunnel into Bellevue.   However, the BBB does have a far better way to avoid the devastating effects of light rail on their neighborhood.  They can file legal action to keep the BCC from approving Sound Transit’s Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application.   Section 4(f) of the Dept. of Trans. Act 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 to light rail.  

The fact the permit deals with a “Shoreline” surely requires any approval to be contingent on light rail having a de minimis impact on the Mercer Slough Park.  Yet the Sound Transit Shoreline Permit Application doesn’t mention the impact of light rail noise on the slough.  Central Link grade-level, 2-car trains have forced Sound Transit to “sound proof” homes more than 300 ft from light rail tracks in order to be “livable”.   No one could reasonably argue the impact of noise on the Mercer Slough Park from potentially 4-car trains on elevated tracks near the South Bellevue Station could possibly qualify as de minimis.

The December 2013 Permit Application includes 34 pages and 13 Appendices dealing with the all aspects of the East Link extension to the East Main light rail station.  (Appendix H is the judges decision on the BBB suit.  I’ll leave it to viewers to decide whether the 3/16/13 post concerns are valid.)   Its intent was to demonstrate compliance with the revised land use code (LUC 20.25.H.055) dealing with light rail.  It goes into all sorts of minutiae about how it complies with details of the number of trees removed and their replacements and the Mercer Slough Park acreage affected by the light rail station.  

However nothing in the document addresses the impact of light rail noise on the park.  Appendix A includes detailed drawings of the structures supporting the tracks near the South Bellevue station location.  It's clear no attempt has been made to “mitigate” the noise impact on the Mercer Slough.  While this may be acceptable in meeting the BCC’s revised LUC it certainly fails to meet federal environmental law.   

By comparison Sound Transits March, 2013 addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement concerning complying with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) goes into great detail about how they intend to mitigate the noise for those living along the route.  It goes so far as identifying how they intend to mitigate individual properties along the route with noise walls, building insulation, and full or partial acquisitions.

The fact Sound Transit has already been forced to spend millions on sound proofing homes along Central Link clearly indicates the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park will be devastated by East Link.  The BBB should have a relatively easy case to stop the current East Link route.  Rather than opting for a tunnel they should revert to substituting two-way BRT for light rail on the center roadway.

 As well as eliminating the devastation into Bellevue, BRT would eliminate the need for the 1550 car parking facility at P&R along with Sound Transits idiotic idea to force 10,000 bus riders to switch to and from light rail trains every morning and afternoon at the South Bellevue station; especially since East Link trains will never have sufficient capacity.