WSDOT I-405 HOT Prelude to I-90 Debacle

The Bellevue Reporter, 12/25/15 edition, front-page article “More than 26,000 residents sign petition against tolls” should be no surprise.   It doesn’t take much "foresight" to anticipate increasing +2HOV to +3HOV during peak commute would make it more difficult for commuters to use car pool lanes.  It also doesn’t take much “foresight” to anticipate those no longer able to car pool would object to paying up to $10.00 tolls to avoid the resulting increased congestion in the regular lanes.   

The fact the WSDOT promoted HOT as the way to reduce I-405 congestion for everyone “suggests” they were either incompetent or mendacious, believing the toll revenue was worth incurring the wrath of commuters.  They also assumed, apparently correctly, that the Seattle Times would ignore the commuter outrage as typified by Danny Westneat’s column suggesting WSDOT increase the tolls beyond $10 limits to assure faster commutes for those willing to pay.

The fact WSDOT spent $484 million to initiate tolls they anticipated would net them $1 million the first year presumably reflects hopes for much higher revenue in the future due to ever increasing regular lane congestion to recover their original investment, let alone make a profit. 

The WSDOT has already announced plans to spend an additional $1 billion extending HOT lanes to Renton apparently believing the current commuter outrage will inevitably be replaced by reluctant acceptance of tolls to facilitate their commute.  Federal Way-to-Bellevue 7:30 AM morning commutes already average 74 minutes with most of the delay between Renton and Bellevue.   The increased congestion with the  +3 HOV requirement will likely make HOT even more “lucrative” on this route. 

The only “fly in the ointment” for I-405 HOT would be Sound Transit’s ST3 proposal for BRT along the route.  Direct bus service between Everett, Lynnwood, and Federal Way to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs, could give commuters the option of replacing tolls with far less expensive bus fares.  However, the fact the ST3 proposal makes no mention of the need for additional parking for access to the bus routes indicates their BRT proposal is primarily to garner support for ST3.  BRT on I-405 is something ST could have done 15 years ago.

ST “reluctance” for I-405 BRT is “balanced” by WSDOT acceptance of ST 2008 DEIS claim adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways will provide “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.   The WSDOT lawyers were the ones who convinced a federal judge in the Freeman litigation opposing light rail on I-90 Bridge center roadway the R-8A configuration, which added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways for HOV, could make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes. 

Their lawyers simply ignored the FHWA September 2004 ROD, “I-90 Two-Way Transit and Operations Project” that stipulated the R-8A configuration they approved maintain the two center roadway lanes for vehicles.   The current 7:30 AM, 68-minute average commute times on the southbound I-5 express lanes between Everett and Seattle are a clear indication of HOV lane problems. 

Yet the WSDOT refuses to require ST demonstrate the modified outer roadways can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles before they allow ST closing the center roadway in 2017; something the WSDOT could easily do by temporarily closing the center roadway after ST opened the 4th lanes to vehicles.  (Something ST could have also done 15 years ago to ease congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake.)

The most likely result of this ST/WSDOT “partnership” is dramatically increased congestion on I-90 outer roadway in 2017; a probable prelude to HOT lanes there.

Sound Transit's ST3 "House of Cards"

The Seattle Times could do the entire area a tremendous favor by explaining why Sound Transit’s 2016 purported attempts to get voter approval of an additional $1B funding annually for ST3 extensions is far more likely an attempt to keep finances for the Prop 1 extensions from collapsing like a “house of cards”. 

It began after the legislature authorized ST ask voters to approve ST3 funding with Chairman Dow Constantine’s attempt to garner wide-spread support with his “vision” for light rail in the area

“What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school”    

He is either mendacious or incompetent for refusing to recognize the cost of constructing and operating light rail extensions can only be justified if large numbers of commuters have access to light rail with the capacity needed to take them where they want to go. 

The ST3 proposal for a second tunnel and light rail extension to Everett to attract support is an example of both ST incompetence and mendacity.  Incompetence because the second extension is a “belated” recognition the Prop 1 I-5 extension to Everett will never have the capacity needed to reduce congestion.  Something they should have learned from a 2004 PSRC document “Central Puget Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” conclusion the Seattle tunnel limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour per direction.  Capacity that could be achieved with an additional 90 buses an hour without spending a dime on light rail construction.

It’s also mendacious since if ST were really serious about the 2^nd extension why are they continuing to spend billions on Central Link light rail extensions beyond the UW light rail station. They surely don’t need two sets of tracks to Everett.  They presumably recognize the cost for a second tunnel with not only tracks but underground stations to accommodate the 10-or-more-car trains needed to provide capacity would likely be prohibitive.  

Equally either mendacious or incompetent is the ST attempt to garner support for ST3 with their proposals for east side light rail.  The ST 2040 plans for East Link extensions to Bothell, Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton have apparently all been replaced with an ST3 proposal for a separate light rail line connecting Totem Lake and Issaquah.  The 2040 extensions, presumably dropped because East Link lacked capacity, have been replaced by ST3 light rail very few will use.  (How many riders can one possibly expect between Totem Lake and Issaquah?)  They also attempt to attract eastside support with some vague promises for BRT along I-405, yet refuse to consider BRT for I-90.   However ST makes no mention of providing the additional P&R lots needed to attract commuters.

The obvious question is why is ST going through these machinations in 2016 to obtain funds for ST3 extensions beyond Prop 1’s 2023 completion date.  The first answer is they will need the ST3 funding well before 2023 to complete the Prop 1 extensions. The nearly $300M deficit for 2015 will balloon over the next few years with increased spending on East Link and Central Link extensions.   However, the nearly $2B in funds they recently obtained ($1.3B loan and $600M from bonds) should cover deficits for some time. 

The most likely reason for the expedited 2016 vote gives a whole new meaning to “nefarious”; ST plans to shut down the I-90 Bridge center roadway in 2017.  (I’ve talked to people who still don’t recognize that reality.)   ST is “justifiably” concerned the resulting outer roadway congestion will negate any hopes of eastside support for ST3.  (The most “likely” reason they’ve “delayed” implementing the 4^th lanes on the outer roadway until 2017 is “concern” any demonstration would conclude the modified outer roadway couldn’t accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.) 

The failure to get the additional $1B annually will force ST to look “elsewhere” for the billions they will need to fund Prop 1, presumably to a somewhat “skeptical” financial market.  Although ST should be asked "What their plans are without ST3 funds?", the most likely result will be Prop 1 financial viability will collapse like the proverbial  “House of Cards”.   

They already face what would seem to be an “uphill battle” to get voters to approve an additional .5% sales tax, $25 per $100,000 in property tax, and an additional $50 car-tab per $10,000 vehicle value.  (Makes one wonder how that only amounts to ST's purported $200 per adult.)  Any opposition from the Seattle Times, one of their strongest supporters, would doom ST3.   

Again, the Times could do the entire area a huge “favor” with an “early” opposition to ST3 ending any hopes of additional local funding for Prop 1 extensions.  Doing so before ST finalizes their “where light rail might go” options in March and launches a very expensive campaign for support would not only save millions but could lead to ST finally accepting the reality “the only way to ease the area’s congestion is to provide thousands of parking spaces near where people live with direct bus service to near where they want to go”.     

Sound Transit Terminates Prop I Light Rail Extensions

I submitted the following to the Seattle Times in response to the recent editorial page question “What Headlines Would You Like to See in 2016”.      I posted it since they will “likely” ignore it.

Sound Transit Terminates Prop 1 Light Rail Extensions

All one needs to know about the area’s congestion problem and the utter futility of Sound Transit spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions attempting to “fix it” is available on the WSDOT website www.wsdot.com/traffic/seattle/default.aspx.  

It includes a chart showing “Traffic Conditions” as of the date and time in colors ranging from green, “wide open”, yellow “moderate”, red “heavy” and black “stop and go”.   If one is interested in their particular commute, the “Travel Time” charts shows not only current travel time, but average travel times for 61 routes throughout the area.  Again the current travel times are color coded green for “less than average”, blue for “average”, and red for “longer than average”.  All the data is updated every 3-5 minutes at least during peak commute times. 

The 7:25 AM December 15^th charts showed major portions on all the area’s roadways were either red or black indicating “heavy” or “stop and go” conditions.  The only exception was both the I-90 and 520 bridge "traffic conditions" were green.  The more important data for most commuters was the current travel time for their specific route.  For example the 65-minute Everett-to-Seattle time on the regular lanes was green because the average was 74 minutes.   Those able to use the express lanes reached Seattle in 64 minutes, 4 minutes less than the 68-minute average.  The 64-minute Everett-to-Bellevue time was also green compared to the 67-minute average.  Those able to use HOV lanes did so in 33 minutes.  

The Federal Way-to-Seattle route travel times were a red 72 minutes vs. 60 average and 54 minutes on HOV lanes.  Federal Way-to-Bellevue travel was even worse, 85 minutes vs. 74 average and 65 on HOV Lanes.   Alderwood-to-South Center travel times via I-5 were 68 minutes vs. 74 via I-405.  By comparison the I:00 PM December 15^th traffic conditions were green throughout and commute times slashed to 30 minutes Everett-to-Seattle and 27 to Bellevue; Federal Way 23 minutes to Seattle and 25 to Bellevue; and Alderwood-to-Southcenter 31 and 32 minutes for I-5 and I-405 routes. 

Again eastside residents benefitted with 7:25 AM cross-lake Bellevue-to-Seattle travel times of 13 minutes via 520, 18 minutes via I-90 regular lanes and 16 on I-90 HOV lanes, and 11 and 12 minutes on the two bridges at 1:00 PM.  However, eastside congestion was evident in the 7:25 AM red 24-minute travel time between Issaquah and Bellevue.  Cross-lake travel times tended to increase later in the morning, requiring a red 31 minutes on I-90 and 22 minutes on 520 at 8:30 on the 16^th.  

Sound Transit plans to spend $3.8B on East Link to confiscate the center roadway for light rail will undoubtedly turn I-90 Bridge traffic colors from mostly green to perpetual red and black with commensurate increased travel times for much of the day.  Rather than increasing congestion they could reduce current cross-lake travel times by allowing commuters to use the essentially completed 4^th lanes on the outer roadways.  Easing I-90 corridor congestion requires attracting more transit riders with added parking and bus routes both into Seattle and to Bellevue T/C.  Dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus-only lanes will reduce transit times making it even more attractive. 

The other obvious conclusion is that Prop 1 light rail extensions will have absolutely no impact on I-405 congestion.  (The fact that average 7:45 AM Everett-to-Bellevue times increased to 67 minutes speaks volumes about the efficacy of the WSDOT spending $484 million on HOT lanes to reduce I-405 congestion.)  Current Everett-to-Bellevue, Federal Way-to-Bellevue, and Alderwood-to-Southcenter via I-405 commute times will only increase as traffic grows. 

The best I-5 commuters can expect from the billions spent on light rail is a reduction in the number of buses on the HOV lanes.  However, it’s “unlikely” the reduced number of buses will change either the average 68-minute, 7:25 AM, HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle, or the 54-minute HOV times between Federal Way and Seattle.   

Again, the “average” Travel Times on the WSDOT web site define the congestion problem.  (No one can rationally classify a 64-minute travel time on an HOV lane between Everett and Seattle as "green".)  The Prop 1 extensions will increase I-90 travel times and have at best, a minuscule effect on I-5.  The only way to turn traffic colors on the web site green and reduce the “average” travel times is to use part of the light rail funds to add thousands of parking spaces “near where commuters live” with express bus routes to “near where they want to go”.   Sound Transits acknowledgement of that reality via a headline “Sound Transit Terminates Prop 1 Light Rail Extensions” would benefit the entire area.  

Ending I-405 HOT Debacle

I doubt if many I-405 commuters were “surprised” by the 12/09/15 Times B1 page article “I-405 tolls cost more than first forecast”.    It’s clear the WSDOT I-405 Lynnwood to Bellevue HOV/HOT lanes are more about increasing revenue than reducing congestion.  Why else would they deliberately increase congestion on the regular lanes by making it more difficult to carpool with their +3HOV requirement during peak commute.  Obviously, the worse the congestion the more the incentive to pay; and the more of those willing to pay, the more they’re forced to pay. 

The WSDOT official was almost gleeful about the revenue with comments “I think we’re surprised to see that people are willing to pay $8 or $9 for a reliable trip” and “This really proves how valuable people’s time is”. They seem to feel they have no obligation to provide a “reliable trip” without the tolls and a total lack of concern for those unable to pay them.  Their only response to the “higher than anticipated tolls”; increasing them earlier to avoid ”sudden price spikes”.   

The implication that tolls may be reduced after “the six months for traffic to settle into a pattern” seems rather “optimistic”.  The fact that WSDOT spent $484 million initiating the HOT lanes anticipating a $1.2 million profit the first year from tolls says a lot about both their financial “acumen” and the failure of Rep. Clibborn’s House Transportation Committee oversight.   

At this point the only way to ease the problem is to eliminate not only the tolls but the HOV lanes as well.  Letting everyone have equal access to all the I-405 and SR167 lanes was one of the Mobility 21 study recommendations.   Normally, HOV lanes can be justified by making public transit more attractive.  Yet Sound Transit’s version of public transit from Everett and Lynnwood, ST532 and ST535, is limited to 15 buses during the 3-hour morning commute. 

ST could probably fill ten times that number if they chose to provide additional P&R lots in the Everett/Lynnwood area and bus routes connecting them to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  They should be "persuaded" to do do.  Once they begin the added service the HOV lanes can be reinstated to facilitate bus commute times.   

As bus traffic increases, it may be necessary to implement +3 HOV requirement on HOV lanes to minimize transit commute times.  The fact that additional thousands will have the option of using public transit makes it far less likely and onerous.  In any case tolls should be a thing of the past and everyone will benefit from their demise.  

Unfortunately that's not likely until the WSDOT and Sound Transit "recognize" the only way to ease the entire area's congestion is to add thousands of parking spaces "near where people live" and bus routes to "near where they want to go".  Again, they need to be "persuaded".

Not only "no" but "HELL NO!"

The 12/05/15 Seattle Times headline question “Would voters dig another tunnel?” prompted the following.

Not only “no” but “HELL NO!”,

One can only hope the voters’ response to the question headlining the 12/05/15 Seattle Times article “Would voters dig another tunnel?” would not only be “no”, but “HELL NO!”.   It’s just the latest Sound Transit attempt to garner support for additional light rail funding that began more than 30 years ago when they “selected” light rail for cross-lake transit on I-90 Bridge. 

The ST need for eastside funds for light rail in Seattle led them to claim East Link was the equivalent of “10 lanes of freeway across Lake Washington”.  Not only was light rail some magic carpet for the center roadway, “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  Instead East Link will be limited to 4500 riders per hour and ST refuses to demonstrate the outer roadways won’t have the same congestion problems I-5 HOV commuters are currently having. 

Cross-lake commuters have endured 15 years of congestion because ST delayed adding the 4^th lanes over concerns they would have resulted in demands to temporarily close center roadway and demonstrate outer roadway capacity.  The ST decision to allow existing bus routes to continue into Seattle rather than switch to light rail means the daily ridership for the $3.6B spent in East Link will shrink from 50,000 to 10,000, mostly Seattleites.  Meanwhile eastside commuters, be they transit riders, car poolers, or single-occupancy drivers, will face ever-escalating travel times beginning in 2017 when ST closes the center roadway.

In 2014, ST recognizing the need for additional funds, released the Long-Range Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS).  It supposedly “evaluated the potential transportation and environmental effects of implementing the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative using a 2040 planning horizon”.  ST attempted to garner support by including Central Link extensions north to Everett, south to Tacoma and beyond to Dupont, and East Link extensions to Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton.  They used these “potential” extensions to ask legislators for authority to ask voters to approve additional funding.

Once the legislation was approved, the ST 2040 plan was followed by ST3.    It asked “Where will light rail take you?” attempting to garner voter support by supposedly giving them some influence on light rail extensions. ST chairman Dow Constantine’s answer was

“What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school”    

The Times article indicates Constantine’s ST has decided “Where light rail might  take you” and “is considering a 25-year $27 billion package for next year’s fall ballot”.  It includes a second tunnel and another light rail extension to Everett, again attempting to get their support.  ST hopes the proposed light rail connections to Ballard and West Seattle will attract Seattle votes.  What is truly absurd is the ST attempt to garner eastside support with a proposed light rail connection between Totem Lake and Issaquah. 

Voters need to recognize that all the ST attempts to raise additional funds next year have very little to do with extending light rail beyond what they promised voters in 2008 and all about finding the funds needed to complete even the Prop 1 extensions they’ve already truncated.  If they don’t get that authorization, the funding for all the Prop 1 extensions would seem to be in jeopardy.

Any sort of rational cost/benefit analysis of the Prop 1 extensions would surely justify voters rejecting the ST request for additional funds.  The costs of creating tracks for the Central Link 4-car trains are presumably the same as for more conventional 10-or-more car trains. The Times article, using a rather “optimistic” assumption of 3 minutes between 4-car trains concluded Central Link could accommodate 12,000 riders per hour (rph). (The PSRC concluded it would require 4 min. or 9000 rph) 

Even this capacity is barely able to accommodate the 33,000 riders who currently use I-5 transit buses between Everett and Seattle during the peak 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes.  ST could choose to terminate all the current bus routes, presumably at Northgate station. Doing so would have no effect on congestion further north, and the reduction in number of buses into Seattle would have a minuscule effect on HOV congestion into Seattle.

The only way to ease congestion is to persuade thousands of commuters to use light rail or bus transit for their commute into Seattle.  The billions spent on extending Central Link to Lynnwood and beyond (or to Angle Lake and beyond) will do nothing to reduce congestion unless commuters have access to the added capacity.  Doing so will require added parking at light rail stations or expanded parking facilities elsewhere with bus routes to the light rail stations.  Adding a second tunnel and light rail extension would presumably require even more “off-station” parking and connecting bus routes. 

The other option, routing all the buses directly into Seattle, would eliminate the need to spend billions on light rail tracks.  The lower bus operating costs ($10 per mile vs. $25 per mile for light rail car (per ST 2016 budge)) would save additional millions each year.  Restricting the number of non-transit vehicles on the HOV lanes would minimize bus travel times.  For example, going to +3 car pools on one of the two HOV lanes would dramatically reduce the current 75-minute commutes for buses between Everett and Seattle. Doing so, at least during peak commute hours, would also reduce Federal Way-to-Seattle transit times.  

The ultimate would be bus-only lanes that could easily accommodate more than 1000 buses an hour dwarfing any foreseeable transit needs.  (ST insistence on using the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail rather than two-way bus-only lanes exemplifies their total incompetence.)

ST could provide access to this capacity by diverting the $600 to $700 million they would spend on light rail tracks to adding 20,000 parking spaces each year for three or four years with bus access to I-5, I-90, and SR520.  (It’s parking and bus service they will need to reduce congestion wherever they decide “light rail will take you”.)

Egress and access in Seattle can be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into a two-way elongated T/C with dedicated drop-off and pick-up locations for individual bus routes.  A T/C at the University light rail station would provide 520 transit commuters from both sides of the lake with a combination of bus-light rail service.  ST could spend the billions they’re currently planning for East Link on a “West Link” light rail to West Seattle.  (The only rational “possibility” in their latest proposal). 

The area’s commuters have already endured years of increased congestion because ST and WSDOT refuse to acknowledge the limitations of light rail.  Again, the best way to end it is to respond to the latest ST plea for additional funds with not only “no” but “HELL NO!”.

East Link Insanity Continues

The 11/20/15 Bellevue Reporter about Sound Transit’s Bellevue Tunnel prompted the following post

East Link Insanity Continues,

Sound Transit’s decision to begin the light rail tunnel this month is just another example of their insane approach to the area’s transportation problems.  I chose insane because their actions reflect far more than just mere incompetence.  (Their decision to partially close 1-90 Bridge on the same weekend as a 520 closure is an even more recent example.)

It’s almost as if ST gets some sort of perverse pleasure out of making things miserable for east side commuters.  It’s not clear what the immediate impact will be but they could have at least waited until after the holidays to begin.  According to the Bellevue Reporter it will take 4½ years to finish the 2½ block long tunnel. 

This raises two questions.  First, “Why are they beginning the tunnel more than 7 years before East Link service will begin in 2023?”.  Second, “Why does it take 4½ years for the 2½ block Bellevue tunnel when they can complete the 4.3-mile Northgate tunnel in two years? 

Apparently at least part of the reason is the ST decision to use a “Sequential Evacuation Method” (SEM) rather than a more conventional “bore-driven” tunnel.  It involves carving out a section of tunnel and spraying the unsupported section with fast drying concrete to keep it from collapsing into the excavated area. 

This SEM technique has worked well in other areas, most notably in Australia.  Apparently the longer construction times are offset by lower costs as attested to by the fact the winning $121M bid was 23% lower than ST estimated costs.  It wasn’t clear whether the winner had what would seem to be needed experience with this SEM technique. 

The benefits of the lower cost apparently didn’t reduce the $100M the Bellevue City Council agreed to pay for the tunnel.   Thus SEM is another example of where ST benefits from lower costs and the Bellevue central business district is faced with an additional 3 or more years of disruption associated with the excavation and construction of the tunnel.

Again, the tunnel decision is just the latest example of ST apparent animus toward eastside residents.  Fifteen years ago they could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 outer roadways for non-transit HOV lanes and divided the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus only lanes.  The bus lanes could have been combined with additional parking spaces to allow thousands of eastside residents access to express bus routes into Seattle; leaving their cars near where they live and easing congestion throughout the area.  

Instead they never considered two-way bus lanes in the 2008 DEIS claiming light rail could accommodate up to 12,000 riders per hour in each direction and promising the 4^th lanes, when finally opened to traffic in 2017, would provide “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  Yet East Link will be limited to 4500 riders per hour and ST refuses to demonstrate that the outer roadways won’t have the same congestion problems I-5 HOV commuters are currently having.  Meanwhile ST is in the process of devastating the route into Bellevue and plans to close the South Bellevue P&R next March, severely limiting eastside commuter P&R access to transit.

The ST decision to drop their “Integrated Transit Service” (ITS) with I-90 bus riders transferring to and from light rail for the Lake Washington Bridge portion of their commute essentially ends light rail access for most eastside commuters.  (ST may or may not have recognized ITS would have increased I-90 Bridge congestion since the lack of light rail capacity would have resulted in more commuters forced to “drive” rather than “ride”.) 

The end result is the vast majority of the 10,000 daily riders able to use the $3.6B East Link light rail will be Seattleites.  Meanwhile eastside commuters can look forward to ever increasing congestion on I-405 and I-90.  Blaming it on “mere incompetence” doesn’t do justice to the resulting debacle.  

Sound Transit Integrated Transit Service "Crashes and Burns"

I recently noticed a Sound Transit depiction of I-90 Bridge showing three-car trains going both directions on the center roadway and a Sound transit bus on the eastbound I-90 outer roadway.  (I’m always amused by the paucity of vehicles on ST 1-90 depictions.)  The fact that an ST East Link I-90 depiction includes a bus implies the end of their Integrated Transit Service (ITS) plan to use light rail to replace all I-90 bridge buses.  The implication, at least for Mercer Island, would seem to be confirmed by ST charts showing the five different options for routing ITS buses on and off MI are marked “No longer under consideration”. 

The decision was probably the result of Mercer Island objections to ST plans to terminate I-90 bus routes at their light rail station.  However, I’ve seen nothing in the MI Weekly about it.  Apparently ITS, which was “still up in the air” as of mid October at least for MI, has very quietly “crashed and burned“.  The congestion along the I-90 off ramps to Bellevue Way and the return routes from the P&R lot to I-90 make it unlikely ST would attempt to route the buses to South Bellevue P&R station.

The implications of the demise of Mercer Island and presumably South Bellevue ITS go way beyond simply easing islander concerns.  It’s unlikely to have a significant effect on the $3.6B East Link construction costs.  Also the other “costs” for eastside residents namely: disruption to those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue; loss of P&R access to transit with South Bellevue P&R closure; and the increased congestion from the loss of one on the two HOV lanes on center roadway won’t change,

However, without ITS, East Link’s supposed benefits will be dramatically reduced.  It will lose 40,000 of the 50,000 riders they predicted would access light rail via the bus routes in 2030.  ST “sold” East Link to east side residents with claims 20,000 commuters would be able to use light rail for their morning and afternoon commutes into and out of Seattle.  Without ITS the only ones with access will be those within walking distance of light rail stations or those able to use their very limited parking, a tiny fraction of the 20,000. The vast majority of East Link commuters not losing benefits will be Seattleites whose access to Bellevue and beyond won’t change.

The reality is East Link will be a disaster for eastside commuters with or without ITS.  Its 4500 rider-per hour capacity (per PSRC) would require nearly 4½ hours each morning and afternoon to accommodate the 20,000 commuters.  ST claims ITS would have reduced the number of buses and congestion on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways ignore the fact the congestion there is not due to too many buses.  Instead East Link with ITS would have increased outer roadway congestion since the lack of light rail capacity would have forced more commuters to drive rather than ride.

The bottom line is the ITS demise essentially ends east side access to light rail.  It’s time eastside commuters recognize it’s no big loss. They need to insist ST use their tax moneys to divide the I-90 center roadway into inbound and outbound bus only lanes and add thousands of parking spaces at existing P&R lots and adding new ones where needed.  Allowing commuters to leave their cars near where they live is the only way to reduce the area’s congestion.  

Instead, if allowed to continue, ST will spend $3.6B on East Link so that 5000 commuters, the vast majority of whom will be Seattleites, can ride light rail across I-90 Bridge each morning and afternoon.  This blog's goal is to stop them.

Dear Bellevue City Council

(Another undoubtedly futile effort to influence the BCC)

Dear Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th Ave SE.  Last time I was here I explained how East Link had already resulted in Sound Transit devastating 112^th Ave and that next March their closure of the South Bellevue P&R will make it impossible for many commuters to use P&R lots for access to transit. 

In 2017 ST will close the I-90 Bridge center roadway to begin light rail installation.  The chart I’ve given you from a PSRC May 5 “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” should be a warning as to the result.  It shows that the large number of vehicles using the two HOV lanes have increased peak commute times between Everett and Seattle to 75 minutes in the morning and near 70 in the afternoon.  

The council can assure that won’t happen on I-90 by making permit approval contingent on ST expediting the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways and temporarily close the center roadway.  If, as the I-5 data suggests, the resulting outer roadway congestion is excessive the FHWA will never allow ST to close the interstate highway’s center roadway.  Instead, it could be divided into two-way, bus-only lanes with far more capacity than needed to meet foreseeable transit requirements. 

However, if you neglect to do so, I-90 commuters will likely be forced to endure 6 years of increased travel times.  When completed in 2023 East Link service will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour.  Thus it will be able to replace between 40 and 50 buses an hour on the outer roadway. Doing so raises two questions, “Does anyone believe the I-5 congestion is due to too many buses"? and "Will eliminating 40-50 buses an hour on I-90 outer roadways have the slightest impact on congestion"?   ST must, they’re planning to spend untold  billions on Central Link and $3.6B on East Link doing just that.  

You can stop East Link by refusing to approve the permits until they demonstrate the outer roadway can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. The entire east side may pay a heavy price if you don’t.

Making Public Transit "Work"

A 11/18/15 presentation I attended to the Eastside Transportation Association (ETA) concerning the “Mobility 21” alternatives to PSRC’s "Transportation 2040 Plan Update for King County and Region" prompted me to propose my own alternative.

Making Public Transit “Work”

It should be axiomatic reducing congestion on the area’s roadways requires convincing more commuters to use public transit.  Doing so requires providing then with access near “where they live” to transit to “where they wish to go”.  This area is fortunate in that “where they wish to go” is mostly limited to downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake areas.  Conversely, the “where they want to go” in the Los Angeles area is so large that public transit will likely never “work” there. 

The transit problem here is most of those wishing to go “there” are spread out over a very large area. (The most notable exception is West Seattle, where ST neglected to include a Prop 1 extension.) By comparison, BART, the successful west coast light rail transit system, benefits from the fact that large numbers of commuters live within walking distance of its four light-rail lines. 

Having sufficient commuter access to light rail only reduces congestion if light rail has the capacity to accommodate them. BART not only has four separate lines, each line can accommodate 10-car trains.  The station lengths in the Seattle tunnel limit Central Link trains to only four cars.  Since light rail construction costs for 4-car and 10-car light rail systems are likely similar, Seattle light rail not only has less than half BART capacity it also has more than twice its cost/capacity ratio.

Each of the four BART lines operate with 15 minutes between trains, resulting in 64 trains an hour over the San Francisco Bay Bridge.   Central Link is scheduled to operate with 4 minutes between trains or 60 trains per hour through the tunnel. Since each car is limited to 148 riders (per PSRC) light rail will be limited to less than 9000 riders per hour (rph). 

An Oct 21^st 2014 Seattle Times article reported more than 33,000 riders already use transit buses between Everett and Seattle during the 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. peak commutes.  ST will likely route some of those buses to the Northgate station.  However the resulting reduction in the number of buses between Northgate and Seattle will have essentially no effect on congestion.  The only way for the $2.1B spent on extending light rail to Northgate to reduce congestion is to add more parking with bus connections to the station there.  Yet none of the planning documents I’ve seen include any funds for doing so.

The 9000 rph Northgate light rail train capacity is 80% more than the 5000 rph capacity of an added highway lane (assuming single occupancy vehicles (SOV)).  However, a 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders.  Thus fifty additional bus routes an hour could accommodate more than 5000 (rph), adding more capacity than the $2.1B Northgate extension. 

The money budgeted for extending light rail could be used to add thousands of parking spaces and bus routes needed to reduce congestion.  5000 parking spaces along I-5 with bus connections into Seattle could be added each year for three years for probably less money than what ST will spend on Northgate extension during that period.  At the end of the three years, the 15,000 parking spaces and the 50 added bus routes an hour, would add the capacity of an additional highway lane without increasing congestion.  (While adding 15,000 parking spaces along I-5 may seem like a lot, developers are reportedly adding nearly 12,000 spaces in South Lake Union area.) Meanwhile the Northgate extension would still be years from initiating service.

ST could reduce the number of buses into Seattle without spending a dime on light rail extensions by adding a T/C near the University light rail station.  The T/C would allow eastside 520 transit riders access to the 9000 rph light rail capacity into Seattle and Seattleites with light rail access to 520 bus routes to east side.  Adding parking spaces and 520 bus routes from the east side would enable more eastside residents to use public transit.  Direct bus connections from the UW T/C to Bellevue and Overlake T/C would enhance Seattleites commute to the east side.

Transit times into Seattle could be minimized by eliminating either all non-transit HOV traffic or +2 HOV traffic during peak commute on one of the two HOV lanes.   The increased bus service in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into a 2-way, bus-only configuration, essentially creating a very long transit station.   Doing so would provide space for each bus route to have one or two dedicated drop-off locations on one side for egress and pick-up locations on the other side for access.  The limited number of stops would reduce transit times and the 4^th Ave location would be more convenient for most commuters. 

ST plans to extend light rail towards Federal Way and across I-90 to Bellevue and beyond are even less viable.  The two extensions would presumably split the tunnel 9000 rph capacity, doubling the north end’s high cost/capacity ratio.  Total weekday ridership on ST574, ST577/578, and ST590/595 routes into Seattle from the South averaged approximately 12,000 during 2014.  Presumably most of those rode on one of the 40 buses the three routes provided during the peak 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes.   

ST estimates their Angle Lake extension will attract “5400 riders daily coming and going”.   Since ST is planning to add only 1050 parking spaces they must assume most of the morning and afternoon light rail commuters will be those who transfer from and to buses.  Again, terminating bus routes at Angle Lake will have no effect on I-5 congestion and the only way to reduce congestion is to add both parking and bus routes. 

As with the Northgate extension, a three-year program of adding 5000 parking spaces and bus routes each year could add the equivalent of an additional highway lane.  Again, travel times could be reduced by requiring three riders for HOV lanes during peak commute and two-way 4^th Ave "transit station" to expedite egress and access in Seattle.

The East Link extension is even more absurd.  First of all, I-5 HOV congestion is a clear indication adding 4^th lanes of the outer roadways won’t have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  Thus closure of the center roadway will increase cross-lake vehicle congestion.  Second, the 4500 rph capacity will require 4½ hours each morning and afternoon to accommodate the 20,000 transit riders ST intends to transfer daily to and from light rail at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island stations.  Not exactly a “magnet” for attracting additional transit riders.  

Again adding 5000 parking spaces each year for three years will allow 15,000 eastside drivers to leave their cars near where they live.  Some of the I-90 parking could provide access to Bellevue and Overlake T/C routes.  Moving non-transit HOV traffic to the I-90 Bridge outer roadway will allow two-way, bus-only lanes on the center roadway with more than enough capacity to meet   future growth requirements.  Again egress and access will be facilitated by two-way 4^th Ave.  Return routes on I-90 could provide Seattleites with access to Bellevue T/C.

In conclusion the only way to reduce the area’s congestion is to increase public transit by adding parking and bus service to either light rail connections to where commuters want to go or for bus routes to those destinations.  The problem in Seattle is light rail will never have the capacity to do so while the capacity of buses, and if needed bus-only lanes, far exceeds foreseeable demand.   The fact that much can be done in three years with probably less money than would be spent on light rail during that period would seem to make it even more attractive.