East Link Without the "Link"

The 4/19/15 post identified three major deficiencies with the Sound Transit/Bellevue City Council “Memorandum of Understanding”.  They included the lack of viable alternative parking for commuters who use the South Bellevue P&R, the impact of light rail noise on Mercer Slough Park, and concern over the lack of East Link capacity and potential limitations because of I-90 bridge/light rail compatibility problems.

The final MOU agreement ignored these concerns.  However, the 4/20/15 council meeting finalizing the Bellevue agreement had an “interesting” question by council member Robertson as to what happens if Sound Transit is “unable to install light rail across I-90”.    Her question was presumably prompted by the fact that ST seemed “less confident” about their ability to be the first to “install light rail on a floating bridge”.

The Jan 16^th ST presentation to the council showed they still had not finalized the I-90 bridge design.  However, Mr. Lewis, the East Link director, explained they had done a risk assessment and expressed confidence the final design would be acceptable.  At the Feb 9^th meeting he “corrected” his earlier statement saying they had done a “qualitative but not quantitative” assessment.  He promised to complete the risk assessment by the “end of the month”.   The fact that Robertson chose to ask the question more than 2 months later “suggests” a lack of confidence with ST ability to address concerns dating back to 2008.

The response to her question was that “possibility” was dealt with in Attachment or Appendix C, which wasn’t “readily available”.  However the implication was Bellevue and Sound Transit would still use the MOU as the basis for light rail on the east side.  While eliminating the “Link” in East Link would eliminate the I-90 gridlock from lack of light rail cross-lake capacity, spending up to $2 B devastating the route into Bellevue to create a noisy light rail system connecting Overlake and South Bellevue P&R is beyond absurd. 

Sound Transit/Bellevue East Link MOU "Deficiencies?

The 4/17/15 email notification announcing access to the ST/BCC East Link MOU is another example of the two organizations providing public access to a critical agreement when it’s far too late to comment or do anything about it.   The current MOU has what can only charitably be called “deficiencies”.

The most immediate “deficiency” is covered in Section 23.0 PERMITTING, PROJECT CERTAINTY, AND MITIGATION where paragraph 23.4 South Bellevue Park-and-Ride Closure, includes the following:

At least 60 days prior to the closure Sound Transit will identify and implement alternate parking and transit access for the commuters who utilize the existing park and ride in consultation with the Transportation Department Director and King County Metro.

Anyone who viewed the Feb 9^th Sound Transit presentation to the Bellevue City Council for accommodating those who used the South Bellevue P&R would have concluded they don’t have a clue as to how to accommodate those commuters.  They still haven’t responded to the council’s request for “clarification”.   The idea the council would agree to an MOU that allows ST to wait until just 60 days before they close the P&R to provide an alternative that is “unlikely” to have the needed parking capacity or bus access is a sure indication they either don’t understand the problem or don’t care. 

Another likely MOU “deficiency” is the following statements in Paragraph 23.1 “Noise”

At least 6 months prior to commencing vehicle testing and system start-up, Sound Transit shall submit for approval by the Director of the Development Services Department (“DSD”), a 3-year noise and vibration monitoring program for the Project to confirm that operating light rail train noise levels meet FTA ROD criteria and DMP requirements applicable at the time of DMP approval.

The problem with this “understanding” is the FTA Record of Decision is based on the East Link Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) which claimed light rail noise would not impact noise levels in the park nor substantially affect park use, the park’s features, activities, and attributes, or diminish the park’s value. 

   

The fact ST found it necessary to shield properties across a major roadway and hundreds of feet away from the tracks “suggests” any meaningful FTA noise measurements in the park will exceed the “de minimis” level required by federal law. 

The MOU includes the following “remedy” for the excess noise

If measured levels show that noise or vibration attributable to the Project exceed FTA criteria or DMP requirements applicable at the time of DMP approval, and track or light rail vehicle modifications are not sufficient to bring the Project within compliance, Sound Transit shall submit a mitigation plan within 60 days with appropriate reasonable mitigation for approval by the Director of DSD to achieve compliance.

At that point it’s “unlikely” ST will agree to add all the noise barriers needed to protect the Mercer Slough, essentially ignoring the MOU and initiate light rail service that will end forever the quiet solitude of the park.

The biggest “deficiency” by far is the MOU failure to include any “understanding” as to how East Link will meet its main objective; namely cross-lake transit requirements.  The ST 2008 DEIS promised capacity of up to 24,000 riders per hour (rph).  Later they promised 50,000 daily riders by 2030.  Their Integrated Transit Service requires all I-90 transit riders to switch from buses to light rail at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations. 

Yet the MOU makes no mention of East Link capacity, the number of light rail trains per hour, or the number of light rail cars in each train; critical data for any transportation system.  ST has indicated in other documents East Link will provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  However, that schedule doesn’t provide promised capacity.   Even worse that schedule may not be achievable because of floating bridge/light rail compatibility structural concerns. (East Link is first attempt to install light rail on floating bridge)

ST chose to demonstrate their 1-90 bridge design could accommodate light rail using 2 car trains.  The fact ST had still not finalized the design at the Feb 9^th review may reflect FHA concerns as to whether it can withstand the loads from 4-car trains.   Any operating limits imposed by structural concerns will further degrade capacity.

In conclusion, the council’s MOU agreement with ST does very little to resolve East Link problems.  

Shoreline Hearings Board Appeal Should Stop East Link

On April 27^th the Shoreline Hearings Board is scheduled to begin Primary Hearings of case number S14-025 filed by Dr. Don Davidson et al. “Appeal of Shoreline Development Permit and Variance issued by the City of Bellevue for construction of East Link light rail extension”.

It should be an easy case for the board to decide. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act precludes approval of a transportation project that adversely affects waterfowl and wildlife refuges unless the impact is de minimis.  Surely the Mercer Slough Natural Park falls into that category.

The Sound Transit response to that requirement is included in the East Link Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact (SDEIS) document they submitted to the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration.  The FTA and FHA used that document as the basis for their approval via Record of Decision (ROD) later that year. Chapter 3, "Environmental Consequences" included the following regarding the current light rail route into Bellevue:

1)  Preferred Alternative B2M would not impact noise levels in the park.

2)  Preferred Alternative B2M would not substantially affect park use, the park’s features, activities, and attributes, or diminish the park’s value.    

Sound Transit presumably used that same document to demonstrate compliance with the State environmental Policy Act (SEPA).  Given these inputs about lack of light rail noise impact, its no surprise the FTA, FHA, and SEPA all agreed East Link would comply with federal environmental law (and presumably similar state law). 

Apparently all three organizations neglected to consider Appendix G in the SDEIS.  It goes into explicit detail about all the mitigation efforts for all the properties along Bellevue Way and 112th Ave. They include:

1) Sound Wall on structure    

2) Sound wall on west side of tracks (up to 12 ft high)

3) Sound insulation, if required

Surely the millions Sound Transit is promising to spend shielding homes across a major roadway and hundreds of feet away from tracks belies their claim light rail noise impact on Mercer Slough would be de minimis. Thus, it should be an easy case to convince the Shoreline Hearings Board to disallow the East Link Shoreline Development Permit. 

East Link's Unresolved Issues

I submitted the following to the Bellevue Reporter in response to the article in last week’s paper.  I posted it since they are unlikely to use it.

East Link’s Unresolved Issues

The “City, Sound Transit Light Rail Agreement” announcement in the April 10^th Bellevue Reporter fails to mention several “unresolved issues”.  The most immediate “issue” is the Sound Transit “plan” for accommodating those who use the South Bellevue P&R lot when they close it next March.

The P&R has nominally 519 spaces but commuters use parking around the periphery for an additional 200 spaces, all of which are full by 7:30 AM.  During the peak commute an ST550 bus stops to pick up riders every 5 minutes.  The P&R also provides access to ST555, ST556 and ST560.  It, along with the East Gate P&R provide the major access to transit for I-90 corridor commuters: the ST550 route having more riders than any other ST route.

ST plans for accommodating affected commuters (see 2/09/15 video presentation to council) include suggestions they drive to South Kirkland P&R or use one of “several small satellite” P&R’s.  The Kirkland option seems “unattractive” and it’s “difficult” to envision where they would locate all the “small satellite” P&R’s needed and how they would provide them bus service.  The council’s apparent willingness to allow ST to proceed even though they have yet to provide “requested details” shows they either don’t recognize the problem or don’t care.  

The reality is it’s “unlikely” ST will ever come up with a viable alternative for the South Bellevue P&R.   Commuters will either be forced to drive into Seattle (and pay for parking) or arrive at other P&R’s in the area before they are full, forcing others to make that commute.   It’s the ultimate example of “the early bird gets the worm” with most eastside residents losing access to P&R's for cross-lake transit for up to 7 years.  

What’s worse, this is just the beginning of the problems awaiting eastside residents from East Link’s “unresolved issues”.  

Make Legislative Approval of Transit Package Contingent on Audit

I submitted the following to the Times in response to the Sunday opinion page article.  Since they are unlikely to print it I also am posting it.

Make Legislative Approval of Transit Package Contingent on Audit

The Special to the Times” editorial by Sound Transit officials about the $15B in additional funding to “Get the region moving” seems a lot like their earlier promises for Prop !.    It was funded by a .5% increase in sales tax that supposedly funded light rail extensions along I-5 from Mill Creek to Federal Way and across I-90 to Redmond.  They promised 110,000 riders daily by 2010, calling it a “gift to our grand children”.  They’ve since truncated the I-5 extensions to Northgate and Angle Lake and to Overlake on the Eastside.  Their ridership is 35,000 and they’ve already been forced to borrow $1.33B that will require $50M payments annually for 45 years for a light rail system whose total fare box revenue annually was only $16M.

Now they want to add an additional .5% in sales tax, .8% tax annually on cars and .25% tax on property on order to “build what the public wants”.   Any legislation allowing Sound Transit to ask for the additional taxes should  require they have an independent audit.  Force ST to explain when and where they intend to spend the money on extensions and how that will reduce congestion.  (The claim light rail can accommodate 12,000 riders per hour (rph) ignores the fact the PSRC concluded the tunnel limited light rail to 8880 rph with only half of that available for East Link)

What additional fare box revenue will the extensions generate since 80 percent of their riders will be transit riders transferring from buses that are unlikely to want to pay two fares?  Have ST explain after spending billions on extensions why the high light rail car operating costs ($23.04 per mile per car vs $10.00 on bus--2115 budget) won't make the additional route lengths along the bus routes they'll replace prohibitively expensive.  Particularly since even the Prop 1 extensions will require a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs (e.g $285M annually for East Link between Redmond and Lynnwood).

Use the audit results to let voters know ahead of time what they will get from the transportation package, what it will cost to operate, and whether that is really “what the public wants”.