Sound Transit Central Link Debacle

The previous post detailed how Sound Transit will spend nearly $3B on an East Link light rail that will not only devastate the route into Bellevue, it will increase congestion on I-90 Bridge and create a ”financial black hole” for the areas transportation funds.   This post explains why the billions Sound Transit is planning to spend on Prop 1 Central Link extension along I-5 is even more inept and far more costly.

The Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) May 8^th report to the Eastside Transportation Partnership “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” explains how commuting times have increased dramatically recently.  Of particular interest was the chart showing that the ~25-minute HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle during "off peak" operation increased to nearly 75 minutes during morning commute and close to 70 minutes in the afternoon.  

It was a "surprise" congestion had already essentially eliminated the travel-time advantages from car pools and buses with the two HOV lanes.  Still an Oct. 21st Seattle Times article "Region's commute times worsen" reported the HOV lanes carried 33,900 people in each direction during the six hours from 6-9 a.m and 3-6 p.m.

Sound Transit’s plan to spend billions extending Central Link to Lynnwood and beyond is supposedly aimed at reducing congestion and travel times for all I-5 commuters.  Unfortunately the Central Link does very little of either.  In 2021 when the Northgate extension begins operating, those with access to Central Link will avoid the delays along that portion of I-5 into Seattle.

However the PSRC concluded the Seattle tunnel will limit Central Link to one 4-car train every 4 minutes or sixty 74-seat light rail cars an hour carrying 8880 riders per hour.   Even that rather limited capacity is only relevant if ST provides sufficient access for riders along the route.  Doing so will presumably require ST route buses to the Northgate station.  Thus the extension will have no effect on congestion further north.  It's also unlikely the extension will generate much additional revenue since those riding on buses routed to Northgate presumably won't be required to pay a second fare.

The Northgate extension will also have a minimal effect on congestion into Seattle.  Whatever the number of buses ST chooses to route to the Northgate station (rather than into Seattle) it's “unlikely” to significantly reduce congestion on the two I-5 HOV lanes, each capable of 5000 vehicles per hour.  The eventual extension to Lynnwood and beyond would face the same limitation on riders and have even less affect on congestion. 

What makes the ST Central Link extensions such a debacle is the “delay” for buses during peak commute could be largely eliminated by simply restricting one of the two HOV lanes to buses only.  A single lane can accommodate up to 1000 buses per hour.  Since each 70-foot articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 riders, a single bus-only-lane could easily provide more than ten times light rail capacity for a miniscule amount of money.  Not only would the bus-only lanes provide access and reduced travel times from every I-5 corridor P&R, they could be doing so in a month. The benefits would surely outweigh the increased commute time for car pools restricted to a single lane, although initially +3 HOV would still have access.  

The resultant ~25-minute commute times from Everett to Seattle would undoubtedly attract thousands of additional riders along the route, easing congestion for everyone. The only limitations would be the available bus capacity, parking near where people live, and suitable drop-off and pick-up points in Seattle.  A 70-foot articulated bus costs a fraction of a light rail car and less than half as much to operate. The costs for the additional parking (which would be needed even with Central Link extensions) would be a fraction of light rail construction costs.  Limiting 2^nd and 4^th Aves to buses would allow assigned drop off and pick up points for each route facilitating transit egress and access in Seattle.

The other ST Central Link blunder was their agreement with UW officials not to locate a T/C near the University Station.  The T/C could have provided an interface between 520 bus routes and Central Link light rail.  (What ST presumably hopes to do with the Northgate station for I-5 transit.)   Doing so would make maximum use of Central Link capacity providing 520 commuters from both sides of the lake with twice the capacity of East Link.  The miniscule amount of money spent on the T/C would likely result in thousands of additional commuters attracted to transit.  The additional fare box revenue would go a long ways towards making Central Link financially viable, something their Central Link extensions will never do.

The bottom line is ST needs to work with WSDOT to restrict one of the I-5 HOV lanes to buses, abort the Northgate extension, and  “persuade” UW to allow a T/C at University station.  Failure to do so only extends their current debacle. 

Sound Transit I-90 Debacle

The Sound Transit approach to I-90 cross-lake transit typifies their incompetence in dealing with the area’s transportation crisis.  Fifteen years ago they could have added a 4^th lane to each I-90 Bridge outer roadway. It would have benefited commuters from both sides of the lake but particularly “reverse” commuters. 

They could have also moved non-transit HOV to the outer roadway 4^th lanes and initiated two-way Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on center roadway capable of more than 1000 buses an hour.  Each east side P&R could have had direct bus service to dedicated drop off and pick up points along 4^th and 2^nd Aves.  Thousands of commuters would have been able to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work, reducing congestion throughout east side.

Instead, ST still hasn’t added the 4^th lanes and never considered two-way bus routes on I-90 center roadway as the “no-build” option in the 2008 DEIS.  Their claim East Link would provide up to 12,000 riders per hour in each direction was shear fantasy.   They recently conceded East Link will provide, at best, the equivalent of one 74-seat car every two minutes. 

They told a judge the 4^th lane when (finally) added to I-90 Bridge outer roadway would enable it to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. They knew (or should have known) allowing car pools on bus lanes dramatically reduces capacity.  This may be why they’re planning to force all cross lake bus riders to transfer to light rail at South Bellevue or Mercer Island stations. 

It’s bad enough thousands of bus riders will be forced to go through the hassle of transferring to and from light rail trains as part of their morning and afternoon commute.  It’s even worse East Link won’t have nearly the capacity needed to accommodate them.

Perhaps the most egregious example of ST incompetence is their failure to appreciate the problems of installing light rail on a “floating bridge”.   They were the first attempt to do so with the primary problem being assuring the “expansion joints” connecting the floating and fixed portions of the bridge could withstand the loads from light rail trains.

ST initially recognized the problem and had the WSDOT attempt to demonstrate the I-90 Bridge could withstand the loads using flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars in Sept 2005. The WSDOT concluded “results of the test confirmed previous findings that the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration, in addition to general traffic on the roadway”.

Apparently the Washington Sate Legislature Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) was not satisfied with WSDOT tests because they commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail.  The results of the IRT evaluation were documented in the “I-90 Homer Hadley Floating Bridge Independent Review Team Light Rail Train Impacts, Final Report, Sept 2008”.  It includes the following “Conclusion”:

Based on extensive study, analysis, and discussions with Sound Transit and WSDOT the IRT has concluded that all issues associated with the installation of LRT on the Homer Hadley floating Bridge and approach spans can be addressed or mitigated providing that the IRT resolutions and recommendation are incorporated.

However, several issues could affect project cost estimates and schedules and therefore should be resolved at the earliest states of the project design.  One issue deals with a required design element (LRT Expansion Joint Tract Bridge) has no history of use on floating bridges, and therefore requires careful study and testing in the early stages of the project.

Since many of the issues require additional study, analysis, and design the IRT recommends that an independent review or peer review panel be organized to provide oversight throughout the LRT East Link design process.

Three months later the ST Dec 2008 DEIS included the following statement regarding floating bridge/light rail compatibility

The Washington State Legislature Joint Transportation Committee commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail. The IRT concluded that all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed.

The ST DEIS simply ignored the “However” portion of the IRT report. The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration had similar concerns. Paragraph 5 of a February 25, 2009 letter, HRW-WA/WA624 responding to Sound Transits 2008 DEIS for the East Link Project included the following:

“We do not agree that there has been enough work done to justify the conclusion that it is feasible to design a light rail track system to accommodate the movements of the I-90 floating bridge” and “there is additional work to be done to determine if it is feasible to design an expansion joint to accommodate light rail”.

One would have thought the ST would quickly respond to IRT and FHWA concerns.  Instead more than two-years later, and having done no additional testing, ST 2011 FEIS included the same confident response as the 2008 DEIS.

Finally, five years after the IRT recommended “careful study and testing in the early stages of the project”, ST decided to demonstrate their “expansion joint design” at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.  The tests, conducted during the summer and fall of 2013, were initially reported to be a success with claims their design passed with “flying colors”.

It wasn’t until the Jan 16^th 2015 meeting with Bellevue City Council ST admitted they had not yet completed the I-90 Bridge design. They followed that with a Feb 9th admission they hadn’t even completed a risk assessment.  Presumably the ST failure to provide the promised “completed risk assessment" prompted a BCC April 4^th comment suggesting there may not be light rail across the I-90 bridge.

Again it’s not clear what the caused the “problem”.  One potential reason may be the fact that, typical of ST, they chose to do the Pueblo testing with two-car trains rather than the four they’re current proposing for East Link.  Another may be concern the Pueblo testing didn’t adequately simulate the floating bridge motion.   Whatever the reason the fact ST, as of the Feb 9^th meeting, still didn’t have an acceptable bridge design nearly 10 years after recognizing the problem, sets a new standard for incompetence. 

Even if they do manage to develop an acceptable bridge design, East Link will never have the capacity needed to meet cross-lake demands.  With East Link, “never” having an acceptable bridge design is far better than being “late”.  The “never” result is they’ll have wasted nearly a billion dollars on a light rail system that won’t be built.  (The 5/20/15 post details the utter stupidity of East Link without the "Link") “Late” means they will be allowed to continue spending additional billions on a light rail system that will devastate the route into Bellevue, gridlock traffic on the I-90 Bridge, and create financial black hole for the entire area’s transportation funding.

In conclusion, ST needs to recognize the only way to meet cross-lake commuting demand is to divide the I-90 center roadway into inbound and outbound bus-only lanes.  It's something they could do in 6 months and a few million rather than the 6-7 years spending billions installing light rail tracks.  Failure to do so should rate high on anybody's list of debacles. 

The Stupidity of "East" Light Rail

The 4/28/15 post raised questions as to “what happens if Sound Transit is unable to install light rail across I-90”.  They were prompted by Sound Transit’s apparent failure to provide the I-90 bridge design risk assessment they promised during the February 9^th meeting with the Bellevue city council.   

The response from the Bellevue transportation staff at the 4/20/15 meeting was the East Link MOU agreement with ST only extended to I-90.   The implication being the MOU would result in a light rail system from the Bellevue P&R to Overlake T/C without a “link” across I-90 Bridge.  In effect, an ST “East” light rail system.

While any ST decision not to install light rail on I-90 Bridge is welcome (more on that in a later post), the council’s apparent willingness to proceed with “East” light rail is beyond absurd.   The only viable part of East Link would be the expansion of the South Bellevue P&R needed to increase access to cross-lake buses. 

There is absolutely no reason to devastate the Bellevue Way/112^th Ave route into Bellevue and spend billions and 7 years creating a noisy light rail system that will end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.  (How many I-90 corridor commuters in either direction would chose to drive to the P&R to catch a light rail train into Bellevue city center?)  There is also absolutely no reason for the council to give ST some $100M and allow them to wreck havoc for years constructing a light rail system under the city center. 

The Bel Red benefits from an “East” light rail would be dwarfed with a South Lake Union (SLU) type of streetcar system.   The SLU would be more esthetically appealing and far less expensive. The tracks could either loop around or run parallel through the area west of 140^th or 148^th with connections across I-405 to the Bellevue T/C.  (520 bus routes to Bellevue T/C or across Lake Washington to a University light rail station T/C would be far better for meeting “Microsoft” transit needs.)  

Street level tracks could be used since the reduced frequency along with the lower speed would not be nearly as hazardous to north-south vehicle traffic as frequent high-speed, 74-ton light-rail-car trains.  (Street-level cars work fine on South Lake Union route.)  The tracks would be less intrusive and provide greater accessibility from more stops than the two elevated light rail “East” stations.   

SLU streetcars would also be far quieter.   Light rail noise prompted the council to force ST to provide detailed plans to mitigate the noise for properties along the East Link route into Bellevue.  Yet ST plans for Bel Red East Link (and presumably MOU “East” light rail) appear devoid of any attempts to mitigate the noise there.   Properties along a huge swath on both sides of the tracks, would likely need to be “sound proofed” to be “livable” with light rail trains trundling through the area.

In conclusion, ST will probably come up with an I-90 bridge design that allows East Link to proceed,  even though at best, it will never have the needed capacity.  Its bad enough the BCC doesn’t recognize that reality and the debacle awaiting east side residents (and the entire area) if they sign the permits ST needs.  It’s utter stupidity to allow an “East” light rail without the “link”.

BCC Candidacy Filing Fees and Statement

As promised in the 5/08/15 post, I went online Monday to file as a candidate for the Bellevue City Council.  I chose to file for Position 7 knowing full well I was unlikely to win over Jennifer Robertson, the incumbent.  While she reneged on her promise 4 years ago to “use the permitting process to improve East Link”, her efforts in other areas merit reelection.

Again, I filed online Monday, received a confirmation, and had $205.84 payment from my Visa account was “pending” to L2GKC Elections on 05/11/2015 and paid on 5/13/2015.   Friday afternoon I finished my “Candidates Statement” for the Voters Pamphlet and decided to submit it.  However, when I went to the website, I wasn’t listed as a candidate on the 3:23 update.   

Rather than trying to contact King County Elections I filed again, this time including the below “Candidates Statement” and agreed to pay another $205.84.  This second effort was successful and I am now listed as a candidate.  However, they have yet to respond to my query about the second payment which is currently listed as “pending” on my account.  In the meantime I thought “viewers” would be interested in “why I run”.

Candidates Statement

I am once again filing as a candidate for the Bellevue City Council, not for votes, but to attract viewers to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  It explains why the council should not approve the permits Sound Transit needs for East Link.  The blog as well as my initial candidacy were prompted by ST, BCC, and the media choosing to ignore three years of emails and personal appearances attempting to raise these concerns.  Since then more than 24,000 have “viewed” the 240+ posts without a single rebuttal.

I urge anyone who cares about transportation to pay particular attention to three of the posts.  The 12/20/14 post explains why light rail will never have the capacity to justify ST spending billions on Prop 1 extensions.  The 2/10/15 post details ST incompetence in dealing with cross-lake commuting and how their mendacity regarding light rail noise impact on the Mercer Slough has made a mockery of the whole environmental review process.   The 1/22/15 post provides the details of the financial debacle awaiting the entire area from construction and subsequent operation of the Prop 1 extensions.   

I’m certain many who chose to do so will agree the BCC should stop East Link by disallowing permits.

PSRC Still Doesn't Get It

The May 8^th Puget Sound Regional Council’s presentation to the Eastside Transportation Partnership, “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” is filled with information about the area’s congestion problems but little about the solution.  The charts show data on population and employment growth for the four counties and where the employment increases were from 2010 to 2014. 

Their corresponding “Car Travel (Vehicle Miles Traveled)” (VMT) chart was relatively flat from 2010 to 2013, yet delays increased by 27%.  While they didn’t show VMT for 2014, it’s unlikely it increased sufficiently to account for an additional 25% in delays during the year.  It’s unfortunate the PSRC didn’t provide VMT changes for the individual freeways that might have provided a more direct correlation with delays.

The obvious way to reduce VMT would be to persuade those using single occupancy vehicles (SOV) to switch to transit.    The PSRC charts showed some success during the four years when transit boardings increased by 17M to 176.9M and the number of transit riders from 8.6% to 9.8% of all commuters.  However the SOV reductions, from 74.4% to 73.6% of commuters, were relatively small.  Again the PSRC did not identify which routes had the increased transit ridership.

Its unfortunate the PSRC chose to include all of the King County Metro boardings in their presentation since relatively few Metro buses are routed along the major freeways experiencing the delays.  Those routes are served primarily by Sound Transit express bus service.  They had 17.1M boarders in 2014 a substantial increase from the 12.5M in 2010.  Even more important the increased bus ridership was achieved with slightly fewer revenue miles; 11.9M in 2010 vs. 11.6M in 2014.  

The obvious solution to the PSRC delay problem is to attract additional boardings to the ST bus routes serving the congested freeways.  This requires making the routes more accessible by increasing the P&R capacity and bus frequency.  (While I’m not familiar with the P&R and bus capacity problems along I-5, the I-90 lots are generally full by 7:30 and many of the buses are overcrowded).   

The bus routes would be even more attractive if HOV lanes were restricted to buses only during peak commute hours where there is only one HOV lane or continuously with two.  (+3 HOV requirements might be sufficient on some routes with single lanes.)  Doing so would minimize the increased HOV travel times PSRC charts show along I-5 and I-405 when buses are forced to share lanes with car pools.  The bus only lanes would also provide far more transit capacity along I-5 than any light rail extension.

(This inability of a single lane to accommodate both buses and car pools is presumably what led ST to their "Integrated Transit System" attempt to replace all cross-lake buses with light rail.  They, and apparently the PSRC,  refuse to acknowledge the only way to meet I-90 transit demand is to move car pools to a 4th lane on the outer bridge roadway and initiate two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway.)  

The cost for providing additional parking for commuters near where they “live” is probably far less than for parking near where they “work”.   ST can undoubtedly provide the additional parking and bus revenue hours for a fraction of the cost of construction and operating their Prop 1 light rail extensions.   The fact the money ST plans to spend on Central Link extensions will have a miniscule effect on I-5 congestion and their East Link extension will gridlock I-90 and be too expensive to operate makes the choice even clearer. 

In conclusion, the continued PSRC support of ST Prop 1 extensions, presumably as part of the freeway delay solution rather than advocating for bus-only lanes or increased bus service, is a clear indication they still don’t get it.

Council Candidacy Announcement

The May 1^st Bellevue Reporter article announcing “No more East Link challenges left” has prompted me to once again file as a candidate for the Bellevue City Council.  I had delayed doing so in hopes the Shoreline Hearings Board would stop East Link by recognizing the validity of the Davidson et al. appeal regarding light rail noise impact on Mercer Slough Park.  It’s difficult to believe the review board wouldn’t have concluded noise, requiring Sound Transit spend millions shielding properties hundreds of feet away, violated federal environmental law.  (requires de minimis impact)  Unfortunately, the inexplicable “Davidson” decision to withdraw their appeal eliminates that possibility making council approval likely.

As before, my goal as a candidate is not to win but to attract viewers to this blog.  It’s admittedly a “last gasp” attempt to generate a public outcry sufficient to cause the council not to approve the final permits.  The blog attempts to do so with over 240 posts, mostly concerning East Link problems many are unaware of. 

For example, some residents I talk to think the only people affected are those living along the route into Bellevue.  They’re unaware that Sound Transit will close down the I-90 center roadway in 2017.  Even fewer are aware the FHA concluded in a Sept 2004 document that, even with the added 4^th lanes, the outer roadways will not have the needed capacity.  East link will increase I-90 congestion and commute times for all cross-lake vehicles.

Those using P&R lots to access buses will have problems even earlier when ST closes the South Bellevue P&R next March.  They still have not provided a viable plan for alternate parking.   Transit commuters will be forced to play an “early bird gets the worm” approach to the other P&R’s, leaving hundreds to either find alternate ways to access transit or drive into Seattle, likely pay for very expensive parking, as well as add to the bridge congestion.   

By now, most people living or commuting along the East Link route into Bellevue are aware of the devastation and disruption from light rail construction.  However very few know that when East Link begins operation, those riding buses through Bellevue or from the East Gate P&R will be forced to transfer to light rail at the South Bellevue station.   Riders on all the other I-90 bus routes will be forced to transfer on Mercer Island (although the MI council has recently raised objections).   

This ST “Integrated Transit Service” plan will result in approximately 10,000 bus riders attempting to transfer at each of the two stations every morning and afternoon.  Not only are those numbers way beyond what ST presentations indicated the stations were designed for, they’re way beyond the capacity of the light rail service they plan to provide.  The lack of transit capacity and the hassle of attempting to transfer to and from light rail means East Link operation will “likely” add even more “drivers” to outer roadway, further increasing congestion.

Undoubtedly the biggest East Link “surprise” will be when residents throughout the area realize the subsidies ST will need to cover the shortfall between East Link operating costs and fare box revenue.   The combination of high light rail car operating costs, four cars per train,  longer routes, and the number of routes per day will cost ST nearly $9 million each day to operate East Link.  Yet the vast majority of riders will be those who transfer from buses to East Link at one of the light rail stations.  Since they’re not likely to be forced to pay two tolls the added revenue will be a small fraction of the added costs, forcing the entire area to subsidize the difference.

In conclusion, this is my 4^th and last time I will file as a candidate to attract attention to the ST problems.  It’s been more than 6 years since I recognized the ST claims in the 2008 DEIS were shear fantasy.  While the billions ST is spending on Prop 1 extensions will have a miniscule effect on I-5 congestion, the money it spends on East Link will not only devastate the route into Bellevue and end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park, it will also gridlock I-90 bridge and create a light rail system too expensive to operate.  My goal in running is to a least make more people aware of what is coming.

Sound Transit Avoids East Link Legal "Challenge"

The May 1^st Bellevue Reporter article announcing “No more East Link challenges left” is another example of how Sound Transit is able to avoid any serious challenge to East Link. What’s “troubling” is the fact that none of the petitioners could be found to explain why they chose to withdraw their challenge.  What’s “typical” were ST comments regarding their decision.

“We felt like the shoreline board did a good job granting us the permits and we did quite a bit of work on the EIS”

and

“Sound Transit has a healthy mitigation plan to counter impacts from future light rail construction and operation”

The “quite a bit of work on the EIS” apparently refers to the East Link Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact (SDEIS) document. 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.    

Thus, it’s no surprise the shoreline board granted the permits. 

It should have been a relatively easy case for the petitioners to point out ST plans to spend millions shielding homes across a major roadway and hundreds of feet from the tracks would belie their claims “B2M would not impact noise levels in the park”.   It would be “interesting” to know what caused them to withdraw their challenge.

As far as their “healthy mitigation plan to counter impacts”, ST has yet to propose a viable plan to “mitigate” their closure of the South Bellevue P&R next March.  There’s even concern as to what sort of cross-lake light rail service, if any, East Link will provide, and how they intend to “mitigate” the lack of capacity needed to accommodate all the bus riders they intend to transfer to light rail at South Bellevue and Mercer Island.

In conclusion, while East Link has no legal challenges left, the “challenge” for transit commuters begins only a few months away with P&R closure.  In 2017, I-90 center roadway closure will “challenge” all cross-lake commuters, and the deficits when East Link begins operating in 2023 will “challenge” the entire area’s transportation funding.