More Bellevue City Council Ineptness

The May 23^rd Bellevue Reporter article concerning Bellevue City Council’s objections to Sound Transit plans for maintenance yard in Bel Red raises several questions. The most obvious is why hasn’t the council made relocating the maintenance yard outside the Bel Red area a pre-condition for approval of the 10 permits ST needs for East Link. 

The council apparently has never recognized they could use the permitting process to “influence” Sound Transit East Link decisions.  Five years ago they could have required Sound Transit consider two-way bus rapid transit (BRT) on the center roadway as the “no build” solution. Any competent analysis would conclude BRT had far greater capacity and access than light rail ending East Link and the resultant disruption to the lives of those along the route into Bellevue.

Instead they have “worked hard with Sound Transit to allow light rail into Bellevue”.  Their “hard work” allowed ST to never consider a tunnel for the route into Bellevue, instead agreeing to pay an extra ~$200 million for a tunnel under the city center.  (ST made no demands for additional funding when they recently decided to extend the Central Link tunnel all the way to Northgate.)   The council also “accepted” the ST preferred route into the city rather than a BNST route that would have minimized the impact on Bellevue residents.

The other obvious question is how is it possible the preferred ST maintenance yard location “violates all the planning that has been done”.   The 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement” (DEIS) included the current location as one of the options more than 5 years ago.  One would have thought those doing the “planning” would have “discovered” this issue a long time ago.   Particularly since Mayor Balducci has been a Sound Transit Board member during that period. 

ST has three alternatives for dealing with the maintenance yard location.  The first is they can expand the current facility along Airport Way to accommodate more cars.  Second, they can choose the Lynnwood location.  It’s hard to claim doing so would increase costs since all the trains that go to East Link will also be routed to Lynnwood.  The third option (this blog’s preference) is they eliminate the need for additional equipment by replacing cross-lake light rail with BRT and eliminating Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions.   Unfortunately if “past is prolog” the council will again capitulate to ST demands for the maintenance yard.

Even if they succeed in moving the yard, of all the possible disagreements the council could have had with ST concerning East Link, the adverse affects of the maintenance yard in Bel Red pale in comparison to the impact of the inevitable frequent I-90 gridlock from ST decisions to confiscate the center roadway for light rail to replace cross-lake buses.   Also those living along the route into Bellevue and eventually even those in the Bel Red area will suffer far more from light rail construction and operation than they would ever be affected by the maintenance yard location.  The council’s failure to recognize these realities is another reason they deserve to be on the “Light Rail Hall of Shame”.

New "Light Rail Hall of Shame" Inductees--Bellevue City Council

The Bellevue City Council is apparently well on the way to approving the 10 permits Sound Transit needs for East Link light rail.  Over the last five years they have ignored my appearances before the council and many emails attempting to dissuade them from doing so.  

If approved, East Link will change cross-lake commuting forever in 2016 when ST confiscates the I-90 center roadway to install light rail.  A 2004 FHWA study concluded the outer roadways wouldn’t have sufficient capacity, even with the added 4^th lanes.  When light rail does begin operation (2023?) those currently riding buses will be forced to transfer to light rail trains at the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations. 

The fact that East Link will never have the needed capacity for bus riders and the lack of outer roadway capacity for vehicles means I-90 will inevitably be frequently gridlocked.  Those living along the route into Bellevue will have their lives devastated by light rail construction and the noise from subsequent operation.  Bel-Red will be forced to endure trains trundling through the area for 20 hours a day.

This East Link debacle is the likely result of three BCC blunders.  The first was their failure to recognize Bellevue was 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 was nothing in any regulation that prevented the BCC from selecting bus rapid transit (BRT) as its preferred HCT system.  The council could have commissioned their own independent study which would have shown two-way BRT on the bridge center roadway was far superior to light rail.  BRT had ten times light rail capacity that could reduce eastside congestion by providing every eastside P&R lot with express bus routes into Seattle.  The fact BRT could be in service within two years for a fraction of light rail cost made it even more attractive.   

Instead, the council chose to commission studies of alternate light rail routes into Bellevue, the equivalent of trying to determine which side of the Titanic was safer.  In the end they accepted the preferred ST route as well as agreed to pay ~$200 million for a tunnel under central business district. 

They facilitated that blunder by rewriting the land use code requirements.   Their Alternate Light Rail Code (ALRC) revision didn’t include the original staff requirement to:  

Develop a light rail system in collaboration with the regional transit provider that is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue and advances the City’s long-term transportation and land use objectives, minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance.

The council presumably recognized it would be very "difficult" to argue the current East Link route into Bellevue "minimized environmental and neighborhood impacts" or was "not contrary to the best interests to the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue".  The only way for light rail to meet those requirements was a tunnel into Bellevue, something ST refused to even consider.  (Or the BRT option ST also ignored)

The ALRC did include the following requirement:

             The regional transit authority has the written consent of the affected property owner to apply for the permit(s); or) from the owner of the property affected by the RLRT Facility or System

Even these requirements were “questionable” depending on who decides what it takes to qualify as an “affected property owner”.

The second council blunder was their failure to recognize the magnitude of the light rail noise problem.  Noise and vibration from Central Link train operation has necessitated ST incorporate sound proofing in homes more than 400 feet away from the tracks.  Their failure to appreciate the noise issue is clear from their apparent willingness to approve the ST Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application. 

The ST application goes into great detail about the properties along the west side of the route needing mitigation.  However, even these attempts to reduce the noise won’t avoid disrupting the lives of many residents, both inside and outside their homes.  The application also details the number of trees that will be affected by the light rail tracks and the fractions of acres of Mercer Slough Park needed for the light rail station.  However it makes no attempt to mitigate the noise impact from the elevated light rail train operation on the park.  

Federal environmental law 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 reasonably argue that a light rail system that requires homes more than 400 ft from Central Link light rail to be “sound proofed” in order to be “livable” would qualify as de minimis.

It’s not clear whether the council is unaware of this problem or doesn’t care.  In any case, permit approval will eventually lead to the quiet solitude of Mercer Slough Park being disrupted by light rail trains trundling past every 4-6 minutes for 20 hours a day.

The council’s lack of concern about light rail noise is also evident in their third blunder, a willingness to go along with ST light rail plans for the Bel Red development.  Again, ST makes no attempt to mitigate the noise even though much of the route is on elevated tracks that will surely exacerbate the problem.   Instead the council recently urged ST to “consider” locating the 23-acre light rail maintenance yard outside the Bel-Red area.   They’re apparently unaware of their ability to require ST relocate the site as a condition for approving permits.

The council could have avoided the Bel-Red noise and maintenance yard problem by opting for a far less expensive and more esthetically appealing “South Lake Union” type streetcar system.  It could either loop through the area or run on parallel tracks with connections to the Bellevue T/C.  (BRT routes across 520 to a University light rail station T/C would be far better for meeting "Microsoft" transit needs.)

The tracks would be at street level since they would not need to cross any major streets.   The streetcars would be less intrusive and more accessible with more stops than East Link’s two light rail stations. Frequency would be set by local demand rather than by some futile attempt to meet cross-lake transit demands.   Bel Red streetcars would end the debacle of East Link elevated light rail trains trundling through for 20 hours a day.  Hardly a “magnet” for development!

In conclusion, the council’s blunders have already cost the area dearly.  Any competent analysis of cross-lake transit options would have ended light rail five years ago.   ST could have added 4^th lanes on the outer roadways reducing I-90 congestion in both directions.  BRT lanes on the center roadway would have alleviated congestion by attracting additional riders to express bus routes from P&R lots near their home.   Instead, the council has acquiesced to ST delaying adding the 4^th lane until 2016 ending any “opportunity” to demonstrate outer roadway capacity prior to closing center roadway.

Even these blunders pale in comparison with the debacle awaiting the area if the council approves the ST permits.   It's only fitting  those responsible for doing so be singled out by inducting them into the Light Rail Hall of Shame.  They are:

Claudia Balducci, Mayor

Kevin Wallace, Deputy Mayor

John Chelminiak

Conrad Lee

Jennifer Robertson

Lynne Robinson

John Stokes

Mayor Balducci and Deputy Mayor Wallace are especially culpable.  Balducci, for her position as a Sound Transit Board member responsible for “directing” Sound Transit policies.  Wallace, for his leadership role in writing the ALRC that made East Link permitable.   Time will tell whether Lynn Robinson, the newest member will effectively oppose East Link.   The goal of course is to "shame" the council majority into disallowing the permits.  Failing that at least those inducted into Hall, who could have prevented the debacle, can be "remembered".    

Tax "Payroll" Not "Sales" to Fund Metro

Seattle Mayor Murray’s and King County Executive Constantine’s proposal in the May 13^th Seattle Times that “cities and employers outside Seattle pay the full operating cost of whatever bus service they want to buy” ignores the fact the 0.9 percent sales tax those living outside Seattle already pay far exceeds their “fair share” of the Metro costs.  (The fact both are members of a Sound Transit board that’s spending hundreds of millions each year on East Link light rail that will gridlock I-90 and on Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way whose operating costs deficits will dwarf the $75 million Metro shortfall raises questions about their financial acumen when it comes to transportation issues.)

The whole idea of a using a “tax on sales” to fund public transportation is questionable.  The vast majority of those using public transit are commuting to “work” not to “buy” things.  (Very few people who buy things at Bell Square rode there on buses). Since “workers” are the ones who benefit, it seems only fair to require they and/or their employer pay with some sort of “payroll tax”.

Rather than ask cities around Seattle to pay more for their Metro bus service and Seattleites to pay more in sales tax and car tab fees (also of “questionable fairness”) Murray and Constantine should require employers and those who work in Seattle to pay a “payroll tax” to fund the current shortfall.  The fact they recently managed to force employers to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour suggests they could easily impose the payroll tax needed for Metro 

Sound Transit's Two Big Blunders

Once again I’m filing for Pos No 1 in the 48^th district because the Seattle Times, King County Council, Mercer Island and Bellevue city councils, eastside legislators, as well as the legislatures joint transportation committee don’t recognize (or don’t care about) the debacle that awaits the entire area from Sound Transit’s Prop 1 light rail extensions.  As before, my goal is to use my candidacy to attract attention to the devastating effects of Sound Transit’s two monumental blunders.

Their first blunder was the decision nearly 20 years ago decreeing light rail as their choice for I-90 cross-lake mass transit.  They failed to recognize the Seattle tunnel restrictions limit light rail capacity to a fraction of the buses they purport to replace on the bridge center roadway.   ST claims the outer roadway capacity can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles is belied by a 2004 FHWA document they helped produce.  The lack of light rail capacity on the center roadway along with the lack of vehicle capacity on the outer roadways is a sure recipe for future cross-lake gridlock.

Cross-lake commuters have already paid dearly for the ST blunder.  Fifteen years ago they could have added the 4^th lanes to the I-90 outer roadways and eased congestion in both directions particularly for “reverse commuters”.  The added outer roadway lanes would have inevitably been followed by two-way, bus-only routes on the center roadway.  With ten times light rail capacity, the center roadway could have provided bus rapid transit (BRT) connections to every P&R ending any chance of light rail. 

Instead ST “justified” the light rail decision by refusing to consider the two-way bus lanes as the “no build” option in their Environmental Impact Statements.  Even worse, they still won’t add the 4^th lane to outer roadway and demonstrate it can accommodate all vehicle traffic before they close down the center roadway in 2016.  Instead they spend millions finalizing the designs for light rail stations that won’t be needed until 2023.  

Sound Transit’s second blunder was their failure to recognize the devastating effect of high light rail car operating costs on their Prop 1 light rail extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood.  The purported rationale for light rail was the high cost of initiating light rail service was offset by its capacity and operating cost benefits.  However, Central Link’s high light rail operating costs relative to buses (~$25.00 per mile per car vs.~$10.00 per mile for bus) can only be justified if their higher capacity is needed to meet ridership demands.  Ridership projections for both Central Link extensions are far less than needed to make them financially viable.  Even those projections are likely based on terminating competing bus routes capable of shorter commute times than light rail trains.

The Lynnwood extension overcapacity problem is particularly egregious since East Link trains will also be routed there. (Whatever ST decides for East Link operation will never have the needed capacity for cross-lake commuters but will be far in excess of Lynnwood needs.)  ST compounded the overcapacity problem by agreeing with the UW not to include a T/C at the University light rail station.  The T/C could have added thousands of riders daily as an interface between 520 bus riders in both directions and light rail into and out of Seattle.  The loss of riders makes a mockery of ST claims Central Link would have more than 100,000 daily riders.   

Sound Transit needs to recognize adding the U/W T/C is vital to making light rail financially viable.  They also need to recognize that operating costs will be prohibitive for any extension to Northgate and beyond to Lynnwood if East Link trains are also routed there.   Replacing East Link with two-way bus only lanes will not only allow Northgate and Lynnwood light rail service to be far better matched to local demands, it will eliminate gridlock on I-90.  My goal as a candidate is to make people aware of that reality.

More Sound Transit Board Incompetence

The April 29^th Times article and all the fanfare about Sound Transit’s decision to begin drilling the tunnel connecting the UW and Northgate raises some questions.  The most obvious is why is ST referring to the $18.7 billion (2007$) Prop 1 proposal voters approved in 2008 as "Sound Transit's $11 billion light rail network".  Does it reflect an ST recognition of the "impracticality" of some of the extensions?  If so, it makes the second question even more relevant.  Why the rush to start a tunnel in 2014, that will take two years to complete, for a light rail system that won’t begin operation until 2021?  

The ST 2014 budget included the following projected funding for the Northgate extension:

$138.6 million to advance final design of the light rail extension north to Northgate, start tunnel-boring activities, and continue work at station locations.

It’s “unlikely” that the portion of the $138.6 billion budget dedicated to “start tunnel-boring activities” would be sufficient to cover the “tunnel boring” costs for the 6-7 months in 2014.  It's clear Dow Constantine and the rest of the board including the Mayor of Seattle and 4 King County Council members have decided to spend hundreds of millions over the next two years to “expedite” the Northgate tunnel.   The fact they would chose to do so at a time when those riding Metro buses are facing devastating cuts in service because of a $75 million shortfall gives a whole new meaning to the term "incompetent".

Their decision “may” reflect concern the “public” will sooner rather than later “recognize” the total absurdity of the Northgate extension.  ST made a major blunder when they agreed with the UW to extend light rail to Northgate rather than terminate it at a T/C near the University station.  (Second only to their decision to install light rail on the I-90 center roadway rather than two-way BRT).  

Doing so eliminated the ability to use a University Station T/C as an interface between 520 bus riders and light rail.  Eastside commuters could combine express BRT rides from a P&R near where they live to fast reliable light rail connections into Seattle.  Seattleites could have used light rail and BRT to work locations on east side.  The loss of thousands of daily riders in both directions is the primary reason Central Link will never approach the 100,000 daily riders initially promised by 2010.

Instead, both East Link and Central Link trains will be routed to Northgate (and beyond to Lynnwood?).   ST will have to choose between 2 or 4-car trains for East Link.  Neither will have the needed capacity for cross-lake commuters, but both will have operating costs that dwarf fare box revenue for the Northgate and beyond portion of the route.   The result will be gridlock on I-90 and a financial “black hole” from Northgate.  All to replace a far less expensive Metro bus route 41 which currently leaves Northgate T/C every 4-5 minutes during peak commute and takes 18 minutes to reach Seattle Tunnel University St station.

Also "questionable" is the comment in the article concerning UW worries that tunnel vibrations from light rail would disrupt experiments on the campus.   The idea the use of “rubber-tired vehicles” during construction will eliminate any subsequent problem is belied by a  “Master Implementation Agreement with Sound Transit”  (MIA) dealing with UW requirements for Central Link. 

The concerns with the MIA agreement are detailed in the 4/10/13 post “ST High Risk/No Reward Northgate Extension”. They include the fact the tunnel vibration risks have resulted in ST and UW agreeing to a lump sum payment of $20,000,000 by ST to the University.  In order to minimize vibration Sound Transit will also have a continuing obligation to employ, over the term of this Agreement, the most current and effective design and material.

Even with these probably expensive design features the completed tunnel light rail must still demonstrate compliance during “pre-Revenue Service Testing."  ST won’t be allowed to commence Revenue Service on University Properties if  (Vibration and MF) Thresholds are exceeded.  (Presumably 4-car trains would make vibration levels even more problematic.)

The MIA assures any disputes regarding these issues will likely be resolved in favor of the University since the Board of Regents has ultimate approval authority on design, mitigation and monitoring plans required of ST.

If the UW official believes using rubber-wheeled vehicles during construction eliminates the vibration risk with light rail trains, have them set aside the requirements in the MIA.  If not, ST could delay any Northgate drilling until they have measurements from the existing Central Link tunnel or the UW extension when completed in 2016 confirming acceptable vibration levels.  There would still be plenty of time to complete the tunnel to meet the 2021 light rail operating date.

ST’s current approach will result in a light rail system they either won’t be able to operate because of excessive vibration levels or a light rail system with operating costs that drain the areas transportation funds.   They should recognize neither option is acceptable and insist on terminating Central Link at a University T/C.  The other "option" is to stop East Link, allow Northgate service to better match local demand and minimize operating cost problems.   Since that's not likely to happen their decision to “expedite” the tunnel is more justification for their membership in the Light Rail Hall  of Shame.