East Link Dwarfs Big Bertha Boondoggle

   

The U.S Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) recently concluded the $3.1 Seattle tunnel project had earned a dubious new distinction atop the list of 11 "highway boondoggles" that shouldn't be built.  Apparently neither the PIRG nor the local media covering that story are aware of Sound Transit's current plans for East Link.   Anyone who was would surely conclude East Link dwarfs the Big Bertha boondoggle.



Both will cost about $3 billion, but any similarity ends there.  Tunnel construction will have a minimal impact on commuters or downtown Seattle.  East Link construction will force all I-90 vehicles onto the outer roadways, increasing congestion there despite ST claims the added 4^th lanes can make up for the loss of center roadway.  It will also wreck havoc on downtown Bellevue and disrupt those living or commuting along the route.  

When complete, the 2-mile (3.2 km) tunnel will provide SR 99 commuters with four lanes of highway under downtown Seattle from the SoDo neighborhood to South Lake Union in the north.  East Link operation will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or 30 cars per hour, crossing into and out of Seattle.  Assuming 150 riders in each of the four 74-seat cars gives a total capacity of 4500 riders per hour (RPH), about a third of the 12,000 riders ST promised voters in 2008. 

Instead of “the equivalent of up to ten lanes of freeway” in the DEIS, ST now promises 50,000 riders daily by 2030, with 40,000 coming from terminating all cross-lake bus routes at South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  Every morning and afternoon ~10,000 transit commuters will be required to transfer to and from trains at each of the two stations.  

Those designing the stations were apparently unaware of this transfer.  ST presentations at the 90% design status open houses indicate the Bellevue station was designed for 4500 boarders.  Presumably at least 1500 would come from the expanded parking facility there.  Similarly, the Mercer Island station was designed for 2000, presumable many of who would be Mercer Island residents.   The resulting “crowd” from the 10,000 bus riders inundating each of the two stations is hardly an attraction for anyone! 

The station “crowding” will be exacerbated by the lack of light rail capacity.  At 4500 RPH it will take nearly 4 ½ hours every morning and afternoon to accommodate all 20,000.  ST apparently has its own definition of “peak-commute hours”.  Mercer Island residents and the ~10,000 bus transferees there will have an especially difficult access since all the light rail cars will likely be full well before they get to the station.  As a result East Link will force cross-lake commuters to choose between driving into Seattle on a heavily congested (gridlocked?) outer roadway or riding a bus to a light rail station and attempt to get on an overcrowded light rail car.

Not only is East Link a disaster for cross-lake commuters and those living along the route into Bellevue, its operating costs will create a “financial black hole” for the entire area's transportation funds.   The problem is each light rail car costs $22.48 per mile to operate (per 2014 ST budget), or $90.00 per mile for a 4-car train.  The 77-mile circuit from Redmond to Lynnwood and back will cost nearly $7000.   ST plans call for 121 such trips each weekday costing ~$840,000. 

Presumable the 40,000 bus riders will not be forced to also pay for East Link. Thus the only fare box revenue for the day will be from the 10,000 “non-transferees” or ~$30,000.  As a result ST will be required to subsidize  East Link with $810,000 to cover the shortfall.  Assuming required weekend subsidies are half those level, East Link will cost $4.86 million weekly or $252 million annually.  If the sixty ~$5 million light rail cars East Link will need are assumed to last 10 years, depreciation will add another $30 million annually. 

The bottom line is ST is planning to spend $3 billion on a transportation project that will gridlock I-90, devastate parts of Bellevue, and require an annual subsidy of ~$285 million to cover the short fall in far box revenue.  All in hopes of increasing the number of transit riders from 40 to 50,000 daily.  The reality is the hassle associated with transferring to and from trains at the two stations, and the lack of light rail capacity, will likely result in fewer rather than more riders.

The PIRG article concluded Seattle had little choice but to allow the tunnel boondoggle to continue.  However there is still time to stop light rail and initiate cross-lake transportation that easily meets the area’s future commuting needs.  Move non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and divide the center roadway into two-way bus only lanes.  Both could be done in a year.  The 4^th lanes will ease congestion for all cross-lake commuters, especially reverse commuters.  The bus lanes will allow existing bus routes to be supplemented during peak commute by express bus connections between eastside P&R’s and downtown Seattle.  The costs will be minimal and the additional riders attracted will reduce congestion throughout the east side.

In conclusion, it’s way past time for those responsible for the area's transportation policies and the local media to recognize East Link gives a whole new meaning to the term “boondoggle”.  Instead, the Sound Transit Board and the WSDOT show no intentions of doing so, the Puget Sound Regional Council continues to provide tens of millions each year to support East Link construction, the Seattle, Mercer Island, and Bellevue city councils are well on the way to approving the permits ST needs for construction, and the Seattle Times and Bellevue Reporter continue to ignore the many references to posts on this blog detailing the problems. 

The entire area will pay a heavy price if this continues. 

DBA Presentation

I presented the following one-minute opening and closing statements this morning to the BDA at their 41^st and 48^th District Candidates Forum.  Unfortunately, like all my public appearances, my responses to other questions was largely incoherent so it's unlikely to have swayed many.  

Opening Statement

I want to thank the BDA for this opportunity to explain my candidacy is not to seek votes but to attract viewers to my blog stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  Those who do so will learn the following:

1)  East Link closure of I-90 Bridge center roadway will substantially increase outer roadway congestion

2)  East Link construction will disrupt downtown Bellevue and those living or commuting along the route.

3)  East Link operation will further increase not decrease I-90 congestion

4)  East Link operating costs will require Sound Transit provide $285 million annually to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue. 

5)  East Link’s purported benefits for this 3 billion $ project have shrunk from the equivalent of ten lanes of freeway to a mere 10,000 more transit riders. 

6)  East Link can be stopped if the Bellevue City Council disallows the 10 permits ST needs to begin construction.

I’m here today to urge the BDA to convince the BCC to do so.

Closing Statement

I’d like to close by explaining there is still time to meet the area’s cross-lake commuting needs. Move non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and divide the center roadway into two-way bus only lanes.  Both could be done in a year.  The 4^th lanes will ease congestion for all cross-lake commuters, especially reverse commuters.  The bus lanes will allow existing bus routes to be supplemented during peak commute by express bus connections between eastside P&R’s and downtown Seattle.  The costs will be minimal and the additional riders attracted will reduce congestion throughout the eastside.    

Instead ST plans to spend countless millions over the next 9 years on a light rail project that will gridlock I-90, devastate parts of Bellevue, and bankrupt area’s transportation funding.  All in a futile effort to increase transit ridership from 40 to 50,000.  My goal is to stop them.  The details for these concerns are posted on my blog http://stopeastlinknowblogspot.com.  Again, I urge everyone to visit.

What I Hoped to Present to the BDA,

I wrote the following in anticipation of having 3-4 minutes to explain my candidacy at the BDA candidates forum.  I learned today there will be a 1 minute limit.  Needless to say it will be substantially “abridged” for the meeting and decided to post it, 

BDA

I welcome the opportunity to be here this morning not to ask for your vote but to urge you to visit my blog stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  Those who do so will learn the following:

First, 15 years ago ST could have moved the cross-lake non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiated inbound and outbound Bus Rapid Transit on the bridge center roadway.  The 4^th lanes would have eased congestion for cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake but particularly for reverse commuters.  The BRT lanes would have allowed express bus connections between each eastside P&R and dedicated drop off points in Seattle.  The costs would have been minimal and the additional riders attracted would have reduced congestion throughout the eastside. Instead ST spent countless millions on consultants for detailed designs and open houses for public comment for things like light rail stations that won’t be needed until 2023.  

Second, if ST is allowed to continue, their past failures will pale in comparison.  In 2017 they’ll close the center roadway and spend the next 6-7 years completing East Link.  Closing the center roadway will significantly increase congestion on outer roadway and light rail construction will devastate those living along the route and wreck havoc on downtown Bellevue.

Third, when light rail service begins, I-90 congestion will actually increase.  ST intends to terminate the cross-lake bus routes at the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  20,000 bus riders will be forced to transfer to and from light rail trains at the two stations.   Yet East Link capacity will be limited to 4500 riders per hour.  At that rate it will require nearly 4½ hours each morning and afternoon for the 20,000 riders.  I-90 commuters will have to choose between trying to drive into Seattle on a heavily congested outer roadway or ride a bus to a light rail station and attempt to get on an overcrowded light rail car.

Fourth, high light rail operating costs in combination with ST plans to route East Link trains from Redmond to Lynnwood will dwarf the fare box revenue. As a result ST will be forced to subsidize East Link by $285 million annually to make up for the short fall.  Where does ST expect to get that money?

The bottom line is East Link will create gridlock on the I-90 Bridge, devastate parts of Bellevue, and bankrupt the areas transportation funding.  Yet legislators on this panel are doing absolutely nothing to stop this $3 billion debacle despite the fact its purported benefits have shrunk from the equivalent of ten lanes of freeway to a mere 10,000 more transit riders daily.  Even that meager gain is highly unlikely.

I urge the BDA demand the Bellevue City Council disallow the 10 permits ST needs and stop the East Link debacle. 

AWB Presentation

I presented the following to the AWB representatives yesterday at their candidate interview forum.  They were very attentive though it’s unclear what action they will take as a result.

Why I’m a Candidate

I’m here today not to ask for support for my candidacy but to ask for help  exposing concerns about Sound Transit’s East Link light rail program.  In 2017 ST is going to close down the center roadway and begin light rail construction.  Closing the center roadway will significantly increase vehicle congestion on the bridge outer roadways.  The construction efforts will disrupt the lives of those along the route into Bellevue and the downtown Bellevue area for 6-7 years. 

When light rail begins operation, 20,000 transit riders will be forced to transfer each morning and afternoon to and from light rail trains at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island.  East Link won’t have the needed capacity to meet peak commute demand.  As a result I-90 corridor commuters during the peak commute will have to choose between trying to drive into Seattle on a heavily congested outer roadway or ride a bus to a light rail station and attempt to get on an overcrowded light rail car.

Not only will cross-lake commuters suffer, light rail operating expenses will dwarf potential fare box revenue.  ST will be forced to subsidize East Link by $285 million annually to make up for the short fall.

The clearest example of ST problems is there schedule for adding 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.   The added lanes have been part of any proposed cross-lake improvement since the mid ’90’s. The cost would have been minimal and cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted, particularly those going in the reverse commute direction.  By the time ST finally adds the lanes in 2017 thousands of commuters will have needlessly faced more than 20 years of increased congestion.

Why the delay for something so inexpensive and yet so beneficial?   My guess is ST had two reasons.  The first was they were concerned about being “forced” to consider moving the non-transit HOV traffic to the 4^th lanes and dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes.  It’s difficult to believe ST never considered BRT during the years spent studying ways to improve cross-lake commuting.  

It could have been initiated some 15 years ago for a tiny fraction of light rail cost.  It had 10 times light rail capacity that could have provided every eastside P&R with express bus routes directly into designated drop off points in Seattle.  The improved service would have attracted more transit commuters reducing congestion throughout east side.  ST was “concerned” they’d never be allowed to shutdown BRT for light rail and consequently never “considered” it as the “no-build” alternative in the DEIS. 

Instead they sold East Link with DEIS claims it could accommodate up to 12,000 riders per hour (RPH) in each direction and increase I-90 transit capacity by 60%.  However, East Link operating schedules call for a maximum of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or 30 cars per hour.  If each 74-seat car carries 150 riders, the maximum capacity is 4500 RPH, slightly more than 1/3 of promised capacity.

ST also anticipates 40,000 of the projected 50,000 daily East Link riders will come from terminating all the cross-lake bus routes at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  Thus, each morning and afternoon 20,000 transit riders will be required to transfer to and from trains at the two stations.   ST apparently doesn’t recognize the nearly 4½ hours required for the 20,000 riders with its peak capacity 4500 RPH may not be acceptable for many commuters.

Mercer Island transit riders and those forced to transfer from buses there will have a particularly difficult time since all the light rail cars will likely be full well before they ever reach the station.  The lack of capacity and the hassle of transferring will undoubtedly convince many to “drive” rather than “ride”.

Unfortunately those choosing to drive will encounter the second “likely” reason for ST delaying the 4^th lanes; their concern about another DEIS claim, namely:

“Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”

ST assumes the long-delayed added outer roadway lanes could make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  They were allowed to proceed with East Link because the WSDOT convinced a Kittitas judge the added lane, their R-8A configuration, made up for closing the center roadway.   Yet the 2004 FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) requires the “approved” R-8A configuration to maintain the two center roadway lanes for vehicles.  ST delayed the 4th lanes over concern any subsequent closure of the center roadway to verify outer roadway capacity would fail.  

Even worse, outer roadway congestion will actually increase when East Link begins service (2023?).   First, as mentioned earlier many transit commuters will chose to “drive rather than “ride”.  Second, the lack of light rail capacity will likely force ST to allow many of the cross-lake buses to continue on the outer roadway into Seattle.  

East Link will also create a “financial black hole” for the entire area’s transportation funding because of high light rail operating costs.  The ST 2014 budget includes a $22.48 per car-mile operating cost (excluding depreciation) or ~$90 per mile for their 4-car trains. 

At that rate the 26-mile Redmond-to-UW portion of the route will cost $4675 for each round trip or $566,000 for the scheduled 121 daily trips.  If weekend frequencies are half those levels the operating cost will be $3.4 million weekly or $176 million annually.   Depreciation will add $30 million to the costs assuming the sixty ~$5 million cars required for East Link will last 10 years.

By comparison, East Link fare box revenue will be miniscule.  ST projects 40,000 of their anticipated 50,000 riders will transfer from buses to and from East Link at either Bellevue or Mercer Island.   Since those transferring presumably won’t be required to pay twice, the only net fare-box revenue will be the 10,000 non-transfer riders paying ~$30,000 daily.

In essence ST will be required to pay more than $500,000 daily to subsidize light rail service that requires 20,000 bus riders to transfer to light rail at Mercer Island or Bellevue rather than continue on the bus the remaining 6 or 8 miles into Seattle.  The fact that the East Link trains won’t have the needed capacity adds to the insanity.

ST exacerbates the East Link operating-cost problem with their decision to also route the trains to Lynnwood even though the Central Link trains will have more than sufficient capacity. The 12.8-mile Lynnwood extension will add 25.6 miles to the East Link route.   ST schedules call for 484 cars daily so the Lynnwood extensions will add 12,390 car-miles-per-day to East Link operations.  Again, if weekend car miles are half that level, East Link will add 74,342 car miles per week or nearly 3.9 million car miles per year.  

At $22.48 cost per car mile, the Lynnwood routes will cost an additional $87 million annually.   Since Central Link trains provide more than sufficient capacity for any potential riders, any East Link revenue will be offset by a loss in Central Link fares.  Even more absurd, the ST 2040 plan to extend light rail the ~10 miles to Everett will nearly double the annual operating deficit for the northern route. 

The bottom line is East Link has been a transportation failure.  15 years ago ST could have moved non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the I-90 bridge outer roadways and initiated 2-way BRT service on the bridge center roadway.  The costs would have been minimal and the additional riders attracted to direct bus routes into Seattle would have reduced congestion throughout east side.  Instead cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake have endured needless congestion for years while ST spent hundreds of millions on consultants for detailed designs and open houses for public comment on things like light rail stations that won’t be needed until 2023.   

ST past failures will pale in comparison to the debacle that awaits the area if allowed to continue.  In 2017 they’ll close the center roadway to begin light rail installation on the center roadway.   If the 2004 FHWA analysis is correct, outer roadway congestion will substantially increase.  Over the next 6-7 years ST will complete construction of a ~$3 billion light rail system that will increase rather than decrease cross-lake congestion, devastate parts of Bellevue and require an annual subsidy of $285 million to cover operating costs. 

ST’s goal for doing all this is to increase the number of daily transit riders from 40,000 to 50,000.  The fact that even this meager improvement is “highly unlikely” surely qualifies East Link as a debacle.

I’m here today to ask the AWB for help in stopping it.

ST's "Real" Mercer Slough Problem

An article in the August 29^th Bellevue Reporter details a Sept. 9 Sound Transit meeting at the Bellevue Golf Course explaining plans to offset the loss of a part-acre of the Mercer Slough Park needed for the South Bellevue light rail station by adding acreage elsewhere.   Apparently this is an ST response to Sec 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act that protects parks, waterfowl and wildlife refuges from encroachment by transportation projects unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative or if the impact is de minimis after mitigation. 

Their approach to this minor issue typifies ST priorities when it comes to dealing with East Link problems.  For example, over the last three years they’ve spent tens of millions getting “public input” for light rail stations that aren’t needed until 2023.  Yet they refuse to spend the minimal amounts needed to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and demonstrate the added lanes will make up for the loss of the center roadway.  They’re also apparently unconcerned about the inability of their scheduled light rail service to provide needed capacity for cross-lake commuters.  They simply ignore the potential impact from the lack of capacity on I-90 bridge center and outer roadways for cross-lake commuters.

In the Mercer Slough Park land-swap-mitigation plan ST simply ignores the far more egregious “encroachment” on the park; namely light rail train noise.  Central Link 2-car train noise has forced ST to spend millions “sound proofing” homes more than 300 feet from the tracks.  Obviously 4-car trains running on elevated tracks near the station will increase the noise. 

The ST Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application goes into great details about the extensive mitigation efforts for ~200 properties some distance from the tracks along the west side of the route.  Yet they’re doing absolutely nothing to mitigate the noise on the east side for tracks directly adjacent to the park.  As one who years ago used to enjoy the quiet solitude of canoeing along its waters, the idea ST would consider the resultant level of train noise de minimis is truly obscene.   

ST’s approach to environmental law regarding the Mercer Slough is consistent with their DEIS claim “The East Link Project would also offer environmental improvements over the No Build Alternative”.   They substantiate that claim promising “The project would benefit the region by decreasing daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by approximately 200,000 miles and daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT) by approximately 15,000 hours. 

It reminds me of an old “Peanuts” cartoon where Snoopy opines “birds have been known to fly to the moon and back”.