Bellevue City Council Lacks Credibility

The Bellevue Reporter article  “Bellevue crafting opposition letter to Sound Transit” is another example of  Bellevue City Council's lack of credibility.  It doesn’t take "crafting opposition letter" for the council to insist ST locate the maintenance yard elsewhere if they want approval of the 10 permits needed for East Link.

Another example is Deputy Mayor Wallace’s claim it “wasn’t part of the memorandum of understanding in 2011”.  The Bel Red locations were included in the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).   Its difficult to believe the council wasn’t aware of Sound Transit plans, particularly since Mayor Balducci was also on the Sound Transit Board. 

Even more dubious is the council’s belief that East Link without the maintenance yard will attract development to Bel Red.  They required ST develop extensive plans to “mitigate” light rail noise for properties along the route into Bellevue.   (ST has been forced to “sound proof” homes more than 300 ft from their Central Link tracks.)  Yet, ST makes no attempt to mitigate noise in the Bel Rel area even though parts of the route will be elevated likely exacerbating the problem.   It’s difficult to believe noisy light rail trains trundling through every 4-5 minutes for 20 hours a day will be a “magnet”.

In conclusion, even if the council succeeds in relocating the maintenance yard, South Lake Union streetcars would be a far better way to meet  Bel Red transit needs (see 5/25/14 post).  (520 is a far better route for Seattle's "Microsoft Commuters".)  The council’s failure to even consider that option is another reason they’ve been inducted into the Light Rail Hall of Shame.

Sound Transit's Despicable I-90 4th Lane Delays

 One of the more obvious examples of Sound Transit policies that go way beyond mere incompetence is their timing for completing the 4^th lanes on the I-90 outer roadways.

The 4^th lanes have been part of every potential cross-lake improvement for nearly 20 years.  The costs were relatively small and cross-lake commuters, particularly “reverse” commuters, from both sides of the lake, would have benefited from the added lanes.   Instead cross-lake commuters have endured years of increased congestion because of the delay.  The added lanes would have been particularly helpful in dealing with the increased I-90 traffic due to those avoiding 520 tolls.  Instead the WSDOT solution to the increased congestion is to add tolls for all the I-90 bridge commuters.

The latest schedules from Sound Transit show they’ve once again delayed finishing the 4^th lanes from Mercer Island to Seattle until 2017.   It's another example of ST delaying lane completion until it coincides with their delayed schedule for closing the center roadway to install light rail.

One of the more absurd reasons for the delay was a response from Rep Hunter to a 2011 email questioning the delay: “They don’t have the money now”.   ST completed the expensive part of the addition, the construction needed for Stage 1 and Stage 2 through Mercer Island in February, 2012.  The costs for Stage 3, restriping the roadways to allow 4 lanes were surely minimal.  Particularly in comparison to the tens of millions ST expended designing light rail stations that won’t be needed until 2023.

There are two far more “likely” reasons for delaying the 4^th lanes to coincide with the center roadway closure.  The first is adding the outer roadway lanes would undoubtedly result in pressure to divide the remaining center roadway into two-way bus only lanes.  The bus only lanes would have 10 times light rail capacity allowing direct bus routes from every eastside P&R.  Commuters would have never allowed ST to stop the center roadway bus service for light rail.  (The increased capacity is the most likely reason they never "considered" two-way bus only lanes as the "no-build" alternative in the EIS.)   The delays precluded any possibility of two-way bus only operation on center roadway.

The second reason is equally nefarious.  ST knew once the 4^th lanes were added they would be required to demonstrate the modified outer roadway would have sufficient capacity to accommodate all cross lake vehicles.  They undoubtedly knew the Sept 2004 FHWA study  “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision” had concluded single inbound and outbound lanes on the center roadway, the R-2B configuration, did not provide sufficient capacity for both non-transit HOV and buses.  A 2 or 3 passenger HOV required nearly the same lane space as a 70-passenger bus.  Ten HOVs carrying 20-30 riders would displace ten buses and 700 transit riders, a huge loss in capacity.  ST feared any temporary closure of the center roadway would confirm this deficiency and keep them from shutting down the center roadway.  Delaying the 4th lanes eliminated that "risk".

In conclusion, ST 4^th lane delays have already increased I-90 congestion for years.  ST willingness to add even more years to the congestion in order to create light rail on the center roadway with only a fraction of bus capacity along with likely gridlock for vehicles on the outer roadways surely qualifies as despicable.

Lack of FHWA East Link Oversight

 Yesterday I sat in on a presentation by the Division Administrator of the Washington Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the Eastside Transportation Association.  I did so because the initial item on the agenda dealt with the status of the FHWA decision on allowing Sound Transit to close the I-90 center roadway for East Link light rail installation.

To put it mildly, I was disappointed.  The initial chart suggested closing the I-90 center roadway was a “done deal” based on an earlier ROD (Record of Decision).  He seemed utterly unaware of the fact the Sept 2004 ROD “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision” had included the following description of the “Selected Alternative R-8A:

Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways.  It will retain the existing reversible operation on the center roadway with both lanes operating in the same direction.

He never did explain how or why the FHWA had agreed with ST that the center roadway vehicle lanes were no longer necessary.  

I later asked whether the FHWA was going to require Sound Transit demonstrate the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways had sufficient capacity to accommodate all the I-90 vehicles prior to closing the center roadway to install light rail.  The response was the FHWA was satisfied that ST “modeling” had shown adequate capacity so no additional testing was needed. 

I was interrupted by the “monitor” before I could point out the 2004 ROD had concluded inbound and outbound lanes on the center roadway, the R-2B configuration, did not provide sufficient capacity for both non-transit HOV and buses.  Thus it seemed “unlikely” 4^th lanes, squeezed onto the outer roadways, would be adequate.  To accept ST assurances of capacity without verification seems “imprudent”.

In conclusion, the FHWA is apparently willing to approve ST plans to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway to install light rail.   The entire east side will suffer if this current lack of adequate oversight continues.

More Sound Transit "Surprises"

My advice to those concerned about Sound Transit “Surprises” in the June 6^th Bellevue Reporter, as well as the entire eastside, is “Be prepared, you ain’t seen nothin yet!”  

Many I-90 commuters will be “surprised” when Sound Transit closes down the I-90 Bridge center roadway in 2016 to begin installing light rail.  Those who were aware of the closure will likely be “surprised” by the resulting congestion on the outer roadway. 

Sound Transit’s claims the addition of the 4^th lanes will provide sufficient capacity for all cross-lake vehicles are belied by a joint ST/FHWA 2004 study.  ST could have added the 4^th lanes 15 years ago and temporarily closed off the center roadway and demonstrated the needed capacity.  Instead they chose to delay the lane addition and the “surprise” until 2016.

Cross-lake commuters can look forward to additional “surprises” when East Link begins operation  (2023?).   East Link will never have the capacity for up to 24,000 riders per hour (rph), the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway, ST promised voters in their 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Though ST has yet to provide East Link operating schedules, it will most likely consist of one 2-car train every 8 minutes capable of 2220 rph in each direction.  (While 4-car trains are feasible, the operating costs for the Lynnwood portion of the route are prohibitive.   This probably explains ST decision to demonstrate light rail/1-90 bridge compatibility with only 2-car trains.)

I-90 Transit commuters can look forward to a particularly “unpleasant surprise” since they’ll be forced to transfer from buses to light rail at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  ST has projected some 40,000 of the 50,000 riders will come from terminating existing bus routes.  Since nearly all of those commuters are eastside residents some 20,000 will be forced to transfer at one of the two stations every morning and afternoon.   

Even 4-car trains will never have the capacity to accommodate that number of commuters.  Those transferring at the Mercer Island station as well as Mercer Island residents will have an especially "unpleasant surprise" since light rail cars will likely be full before they even reach that station.

Again, the Bellevue City Council is well aware of (or should be aware of) these “surprises” awaiting the entire area if East Link is allowed to proceed.   The fact they continue on a path toward approving the permits ST needs while objecting to some, by comparison, minor “surprises” is why I continue to write this blog.