East Link's History of Incompetence and More

I believe East Link originated more than 30 years ago to attract eastside support needed for light rail approval in the area.  Not only did Sound Transit need eastside votes they also needed eastside taxes to help fund construction in Seattle.  (No one had ever attempted to put light rail on a floating bridge.)  It was only later they decided they needed to make it a reality.

Whatever the original rationale, they facilitated that decision by refusing for 15 years to add 4^th lanes for non-transit HOV to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  The delay prevented “someone” from suggesting they then initiate two-way bus lanes on the center roadway.  That would have ended any east side light rail support.

Instead their 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) didn’t consider two way bus lanes (BRT) as the “no-build” alternative.   Their 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) included the following in “Response of Comments” regarding their decision not to consider the improved bus service:

“BRT, as an alternative for East Link, was eliminated during the Sound Transit Long-Range Planning and ST2 process”

Yet they provided no details or documentation of this “process”.  They also apparently ignored a 2004 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) conclusion that the tunnel limited light rail in Seattle  to one 4-car train every 4 minutes.  With half that capacity routed to Bellevue, East Link would be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes or one 74-seat light rail car every 2 minutes. ST plans to force all cross-lake commuters to use this limited capacity will reduce existing transit capacity by ~50% during the peak commute.  (By comparison the BRT lanes they rejected could accommodate1000 buses per hour.)  

The fact that consultants and ST staff could spend years and millions studying East Link options without recognizing BRT benefits reflects monumental incompetence or worse.   The fact they could have initiated BRT 15 years ago for a fraction of what has already been spent on East Link adds to the consequences of this incompetence.

When faced with the Freeman suit challenging ST confiscation of the center roadway for light rail they convinced a Federal Judge to allow ST to proceed with the following conclusion:

“The court respectfully declines to review the administrative decisions of the State (WSDOT) regarding its determination the center lanes of I-90 in question will not be needed for highway purposes upon the completion of the R8A project and fulfillment of the Umbrella Agreement.” 

Yet the “2004 I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision” the judge cited in making that finding included the following description of R-8A.

Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways.  It will retain the existing reversible operations on the center roadway

Clearly they "misled" a federal judge about the capacity of the 4th lanes added to the outer roadways.

The combination of more drivers because of inadequate transit capacity and their mendacity regarding the capacity of 4^th lanes on the outer roadways will inevitably lead to vehicle gridlock on I-90 Bridge.   Those sitting in their cars will be “less than happy” when they realize their congestion is due to those with access to the East Link 4-car trains trundling past every 8 minutes.  Their taxes helped pay for its construction and will be used to fund the huge subsidy required to cover the short fall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  Yet, most won’t even have access to it.

Another example of ST mendacity is their approach to light rail noise issues.  They used the below statements in the “Executive Summary, East Link Project Supplemental Draft” to convince the FTA and FHWA that East Link would not violate Federal Environmental Law.   (requires any impact on Mercer Slough Park to be de minimus)

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

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

Yet the Bellevue City Council and ST have agreed on plans to spend millions shielding homes hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway from this “non-existent” noise.  ST mendacity has made a mockery of the whole environmental review process that if allowed will end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.

ST indifference to East Link impact on east side is also typified by their approach to providing alternate access to transit for thousands of commuters who use South Bellevue P&R.  They plan to close it next March but have yet to propose any viable alternatives to those who use it.  The latest information is they’re still working on it and promised “another update” in September. The fact ST has detailed plans for light rail stations needed in 2023 but no viable alternative for a P&R they’ll close next March indicates either a warped sense of priorities or a realization it can’t be done.  My guess it’s the latter leaving thousands of commuters without access to transit.

Unfortunately Bellevue City officials, who could stop it by disallowing needed permits, seem to have no problem with ST incompetence, mendacity and indifference.  The entire area will learn to rue their complicity.

Today's Version of "The Emperors New Clothes"

 Sound Transit’s Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions provide a modern day version of the Hans Christian Anderson fable “The Emperors New Cloths”.  Rather than some “magic cloth", the “weavers” in this version, played by Dow Constantine and presumably the rest of the Sound Transit Board, have proclaimed light rail as a “magic carpet” able to do the following:

“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 “wise men” in this version are all the media that proclaim anyone who doesn’t recognize light rail “virtues” should be ignored (It's "possible" ST "Ride the Waves" advertising revenue may have influenced this "wisdom" as they’ve ignored me for 6 years).  Of course they’ve managed to convince voters to provide funding, city councils of the need to approve the permits, and the legislature to provide them with means to tax the people for addition funds to pay for it.

Unless something is done to stop ST, sooner or later the "village" will see light rail is no "magic carpet" for themselves.  In the meantime, rather than spend a few million improving transit by limiting one of the two I-5 HOV lanes to buses only, or initiating two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway, ST will spend billions more on light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to relieve the areas 4^th-worst-in-the-country congestion.

East Link "Benefits"

Sound Transit’s 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) promised voters East Link would “Meet growing transit and mobility demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent”.  Light rail on “the center roadway would have a peak hour capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour equivalent to between 6-10 freeway lanes of traffic.”  Thus it’s no wonder voters approved it. 

If true, such capacity might justify the loss of transit access from South Bellevue P&R closure, the years of increased congestion on I-90, the disruption to those who live or commute along the route, and even the disruption to downtown Bellevue despite the $100M paid for a tunnel.

Unfortunately, the DEIS promises were sheer fantasy.  ST has “conceded” East Link will provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  If each 74-seat car can accommodate 148 riders (per PSRC) East Link will have the capacity for 4440 riders per hour per direction (RPHPD).  Even that capacity is not assured since the latest information I have is that federal authorities have still not approved the ST I-90 bridge design.  (East Link is the first attempt to install light rail on a “floating bridge” and there is concern as to whether the “expansive joints” connecting the fixed and floating sections can withstand the loads from light rail trains.)

When East Link service begins, those riding buses on I-90 will be forced to transfer to and from light rail trains at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations for their commute into and out of Seattle.  ST predicts 40,000 will do so daily.  Assuming they’re divided equally, each station will be inundated with 10,000 riders during morning and afternoon commutes dwarfing what the stations are supposedly designed for. 

It will take East Link 4 ½ hours to accommodate the 20,000 commuters who transfer at the two stations each morning.  That doesn’t include those who get on prior to S Bellevue.  It also means Mercer Island residents and those transferring there will have “difficulty” attempting to use transit at least during morning peak commute hours.  The afternoon commutes will also be “problematic” since its unclear how and where they will make connections to their respective buses. 

Rather than increasing person-moving capacity by 60% East Link will “likely” result in thousands choosing to “drive” rather than “ride” exacerbating the outer roadway congestion from closure of center roadway.  East Link operation will be a disaster for cross-lake commuters. 

East Link operation, despite ST promises to FTA and FHWA that “light rail noise will have no impact on Mercer Slough Park” will end the park’s quiet solitude.  Noisy light rail trains operating into and out of a huge maintenance facility for 20 hours a day will do nothing to add to Spring District “ambience”.   

Contrary to claims by East Link proponents, developers and others will likely be dissuaded by noisy four 74-ton light rail cars trundling though Bel-Red every 4 minutes for 18 hours a day and with access limited to stations at 120^th and 130^th. .  While commuters there will have “first” access to light rail in the morning they’ll “share” the same lack of capacity with other eastside commuters on the return trip.  Bel-Red residents would have far better transit service into and out of Seattle with 520 BRT routes.

The “benefits” from East Link operation go way beyond the east side.  The entire area will get to “contribute” to the subsidies required to cover the shortfall between the added operating expenses with the extended route and the minimal additional fare box revenue (assuming they won't be asking the 40,000 transferees to pay twice) it will generate.

The only real “beneficiaries” will be those involved in promoting, planning, designing, and constructing East Link.  Millions have already been spent promoting East Link in the media with countless fliers and open houses extolling its benefits.  Millions more spent on consultants and planners leading up to the actual construction of light rail tracks and light rail stations.   However, these moneys likely pale in comparison to the billions those doing the actual construction, presumably the Associated General Contractors  and their labor unions will benefit. 

 I’ll leave it up to others to determine their influence on the approval process.

BRT Reduces East Side Congestion and More

On July 22^nd I emailed the below to the Bellevue Reporter in hopes they might print it to support my claim in the 7/17 “letter to the editor” that two-way BRT on I-90 center roadway was the only way to ease areas congestion.  It also details other benefits.  They didn't.  I also sent it to the Bellevue City Council in an attempt to dissuade them from approving East Link permits.  While the BR may use it at a later date, the BCC July 27 meeting agenda includes more details of their MOU agreements with Sound Transit, “suggesting” they’re plans to proceed to final East Link approval.  I decided to post it as an example of what the BCC continues to ignore.

BRT Reduces East Side Congestion and More,
The way to reduce congestion in our area is for Sound Transit to expedite their long planned 4^th lane additions to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and initiate two way bus rapid transit (BRT) on the bridge center roadway.  The center roadway lanes would each accommodate more than 1000 buses an hour, with far more transit capacity than what's needed to reduce the area's congestion

Access to this capacity could be achieved by dramatically increasing parking along the entire I-90 corridor.  Existing P&R lots could be expanded and new ones added, presumably at less cost than  additional parking in Seattle or downtown Bellevue.  Each P&R would have dedicated bus routes not only into Seattle, but to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  Thousands of commuters would be able to leave their cars near where they live reducing congestion throughout the east side.

Reduced congestion is only one of the benefits.  BRT would eliminate the need to close the South Bellevue P&R next March.  The added parking further east would eliminate the need to expand the existing capacity and BRT wouldn’t need the massive light rail station.  (The fact Sound Transit has no viable plan to accommodate those who currently use the P&R makes it even more “beneficial”)

While initiating BRT would necessitate some temporary disruptions to I-90 center roadway, East Link would shut it down for 6 to 7 years.   BRT would eliminate the outer roadway congestion that will inevitably result from center roadway closure, even with the added 4^th lanes. 

BRT would eliminate the need for Sound Transit to disrupt those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue during the 5-6 years required for construction.  There would be no need to devastate a tree-lined boulevard to construct light rail tracks, high voltage power lines and an elevated roadway.

Downtown Bellevue would be spared the disruption from light rail construction and there would be no need to pay $100M to fund a tunnel.  Cross-lake BRT would end Sound Transit’s plan for a huge maintenance facility in Bel-Red and allow far less intrusive and more accessible “South Lake Union” streetcars providing an attractive “urban village” ambience to the area.

Again, this can all be done, but time is running short.

What The Expert Review Panel Should Be "Reviewing"

Sound Transit recently completed the second of their 2-day presentations to the Expert Review Panel (ERP) about the status of light rail.  The ERP was created by the legislature to provide an independent system oversight.  Its web site contains the following:

1) The legislature recognizes that the planning processes described in RCW 81.104.100 provide a recognized framework for guiding high capacity transportation studies. However, the process cannot guarantee appropriate decisions unless key study assumptions are reasonable.

(2) To assure appropriate system plan assumptions and to provide for review of system plan results, an expert review panel shall be appointed to provide independent technical review for development of any system plan.

9) The expert panel shall provide timely reviews and comments on individual reports and study conclusions to the department of transportation, the regional transportation planning organization, the joint regional policy committee, and the submitting lead transit agency.

While it was apparently open to the public, ERP events are pretty much held quietly and news coverage is rare.  The recent ERP review was preceded by a similar review in May.  While I didn’t attend either, the agendas for both meetings suggest they were “limited” to Sound Transit presentations they wanted the ERP to hear.  Thus, its highly unlikely anything will come out of the review.

A more “balanced” approach would have raised the following issues:

1)             ST Failure to recognize limitations for any light rail system.

2)             Why ST is desperate for additional funding in 2016

3)             What a successful light rail (BART) can do.

4)             Why Prop 1 light rail extensions will never have the capacity or accessibility to justify the billions spent to construct light rail or the additional billions required to cover their increased operating costs.

5)             Why the billions spent on Central Link extensions to Northgate that will begin operating in 2021 will provide a 10^th of the capacity that could be achieved in a month by limiting one of the two HOV lanes to buses.

6)             How the hundreds of millions and years spend on East Link could have been avoided 15 years ago by moving non-transit HOV lanes to the I-90 outer roadway and initiating two-way bus lanes on the center roadway.

7)             How the operating costs of Prop 1 (and beyond) light rail extensions will require massive subsidies each year to cover the shortfall with fare-box revenue.

One of the more “interesting” items on the ERP web site is the latest Sound Transit Financial Plan showing, with no ST3 tax hike, they would need to borrow $6.6B between 2015-2023 to pay for their Prop 1 extensions.  That’s in addition to their earlier $1.3B loan that already requires they pay $50M annually for 45years to amortize.  If they do get the additional money to complete even their Prop 1 extensions, the additional money will be forever needed to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  

As it was, the ERT review was just another example of Sound Transit's ability to ignore the reality of their light rail debacle.

Bel-Red Should Lose East Link Not Hyphen

The July 10^th Bellevue Reporter article “Bel-Red may lose its hyphen” prompted me to propose it should lose Sound Transit Prop 1 East Link light rail service.  A “South Lake Union” type of streetcar system would provide an “urban village” atmosphere that would be far more attractive for the area.

It would be far less intrusive with streetcars routed on street-level tracks either around the periphery or on parallel tracts bisecting the area between 116^th and 148^th.  The tracks would be routed via an I-405 overpass to Bellevue T/C to provide access to and from “outer world”.   Its construction and operation could be scheduled to meet local demand.  East Link, when complete in 2023, will result in four 74-ton cars trundling through the area every 4 minutes on tracks (part of which will be elevated) for more than 18 hours a day.   

The streetcars would require a small maintenance facility that could be located anywhere along the route, with limited operating hours. East Link will require setting aside 25 acres of valuable Spring District area for a maintenance facility that, not only detracts from the area’s ambiance, will result in disruption from light rail train operation for 20 hrs a day.

Streetcars riding on street-level tracks would provide access with “fixed” or “on-demand” stops along the entire route.  There would be little need for parking to provide access to transit.   East Link will have stations on 120^th and 130^th, with parking for 300 cars at the 130^th station. While the 120^th station will provide access to the Spring District development, the 130^th station will be a long “walk” for those who want access to and from transit for most of the Bel-Red area. 

Another major streetcar benefit is reduced noise.  It has never been an issue along South Lake Union route.  However, Central Link train noise in Seattle has required Sound Transit insulate homes 300 ft away because of noise from two-car trains on street level tracks.  Residents along  Martin Luther King Way who have lived for years with vehicle noise have needed major modifications to make their homes livable.   

Sound Transit has spent years developing plans for spending millions to shield properties hundreds of feet away and across Bellevue Way from East Link noise.  Yet Sound Transit has made no attempt to mitigate the noise from 4-car trains running on elevated tracks at least part of the route in the Bel-Red area when East Link begins operation.  They apparently believe those who live or work along the route can make their own “sound proofing provisions”.

Lastly, a streetcar system running on street level tracks requiring no expensive stations and minimal maintenance facilities should be far less expensive to create and operate than light rail.  It could also be in operation well before East Link.   

In conclusion, streetcars are a far better choice for Bel-Red than light rail.  Rather than concern themselves with the “hyphen” the Bellevue City Council needs to make them a reality by refusing to approve the East Link permits.

Dow Constantine's Inept Sound Transit Leadership

The following comment in the Sunday Seattle Times by King County Executive and Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine exemplifies his inability to recognize light rail limitations.  

“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 did so in response to the legislature’s passage of legislation that, if approved, would allow Sound Transit to collect an additional $1B in annual revenue.  It would more than double their total 2015 projected $933M revenues, of which only $16M comes from light rail fares.  It supposedly is only for 15 years, but the .5% sales tax voters approved in 2008 and was expected to eventually end has now been declared “permanent”.  

The likely reason Sound Transit is asking for the money in 2016 rather than 2020 is they recognize without it they'll need $4-5B in loans to fund the already truncated Prop 1 extensions.  Those loans would be in addition to their existing $1.3B loan requiring they pay $50M annually for 45 years to pay amortize.

Constantine’s statement ignores the reality that light rail will never be able to take “everyone when and were they want to go”.  The costs for creating a light rail system can only be justified when it has sufficient capacity to accommodate large numbers of commuters and where there are large numbers who both live and work within easy access of this capacity. 

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is an example of what works.   During the peak commute, every 4 minutes, light rail trains, each with up to 10 cars, cross the Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco with Oakland and other cities in the East Bay and suburbs in northern San Mateo County. During 2014 BART averaged 422,490 weekday riders.

Sound Transit’s Prop 1 is no BART. What was promised to have more than 100,000 riders prior to the vote in 2008 currently averages 31,000.  The billions spent on Prop 1 will never provide the capacity or the access needed to significantly reduce the area’s 4^th worst congestion in the country.  ST3 likely will spend more money with the same result.

In 2004, the Puget Sound Regional Council concluded light-rail in Seattle was limited by the “bus tunnel” to one 4-car train every 4 minutes.  They assumed each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders for a total of 8880 rphpd (riders per hour per direction) presumably split between East Link and Sea Tac.  Even this limited capacity far exceeds current transit ridership along I-5.  Thus, Sound Transit is going to have to create more P&R lots (not clear where funding comes from) with bus connections to Northgate or other access points. 

While any added transit riders would reduce I-5 congestion, Northgate won’t begin operating for 6 years.  The added P&R’s could be available far sooner and would attract even more commuters if the buses took them directly into Seattle. A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 riders (sitting and standing).  Thus Sound Transit could achieve the same capacity as light rail (8880 rphpd) with 75 buses per hour.  Rather than spend billions constructing light rail extensions to Northgate and beyond, part of that money could be used to fund the added P&R’s.

The direct bus service would be particularly attractive if one of the two current “crowded high occupancy lanes” along I-5, were limited to buses. The lanes, with capacity of more than 1000 buses per hour, could be operating in a month for a minuscule amount of money.  (Part of that capacity could be used by +3 HOV until ST adds more buses and parking.)  The resulting commute times would be far shorter than light rail. They are the only way to provide the capacity needed to attract the numbers of commuters needed to ease I-5 congestion.

Not only does light rail cost billions to construct, light rail trains cost more than buses to operate. The Sound Transit 2015 budget projects a light rail car costs $23.04 per mile compared to $10.03 for buses.  At those rates a light car train carrying 148 riders costs I5.6 cents per mile per rider vs. 8.4 cents for buses carrying 119 riders.  While the 70 ft bus may have somewhat higher operating costs it’s clear that contrary to “popular” opinion, light rail cars cost more than buses to operate.  

The high train costs means Sound Transit intention to require commuters to use light rail rather than buses for part of the commute will increase trip costs.  Unless commuters are forced to pay two fares the bus/train combination will increase operating deficit. The cost for acquiring the added buses would also be a fraction of the cost of light rail cars.

The only limitation on bus ridership would be providing sufficient P&R’s close to where people live and dedicated drop off and pick up locations near where they work.  Again, the additional P&R lots would cost a tiny fraction of light rail and could be providing access to transit years before the Northgate extension begins operation.   Sound Transit could expedite plans to limit 2nd and 4th Ave to buses when East Link begins operating to facilitate bus egress and access.

Constantine needs to recognize there is no justification to spend billions extending light rail beyond the UW stadium station.  A small part of the Northgate extension funds should be used to create a T/C near the stadium station over riding objections from UW officials.  The T/C would provide an interface between 520 commuters and light rail attracting thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.  The expectation for those commuters is presumably what led to Sound Transit’s initial projection that the UW extension would add 71,000 light rail riders by 2030.  They need to make it happen.

The Central Link extension towards Federal Way and East Link extension to Overlake are even more “problematic” since they share the limited 8880 rphpd through the tunnel.  East Link is particularly absurd since Sound Transit confiscates I-90 Bridge center roadway lanes capable of 1000 buses per hour for light rail service that will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.   Even worse Sound Transit’s “Integrated Transit Service” will require all cross-lake transit riders use this limited capacity light rail service for their commutes into and out of Seattle.

Constantine’s comment “regional leaders are discussing bus rapid transit concepts” reflects a belated acceptance of BRT.  It’s basically what limiting one of the two I-5 HOV lanes to buses would provide.  They could have initiated BRT service along I-405 years ago and reduced congestion.  The hundreds of millions and years spent on East Link could have been avoided if, 15 years ago, Sound Transit had moved non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiated two-way BRT operation on the center roadway.

The bottom line is Constantine and apparently the rest of the Sound Transit board need to recognize spending billions on light rail extensions will do little to ease the areas congestion.   Also that BRT can do more than just ease congestion on parts of I-405.  The entire area has already paid a price that will only escalate if they continue on the same path.