Seattle Times Ignores Sound Transit SNAFU

The Sunday Seattle Times Editorial “Seawall SNAFU Adds to Voter Skepticism” is another example of their ability to expose problems.  Yet they fail to recognize or show any concern for the real “SNAFU” facing the area: the Sound Transit Light Rail Debacle.  If there was ever an organization that "qualified" for the acronym of “Situation Normal All F***ed Up,” its Sound Transit.

The ST “qualifications” began more than 20 years ago when they selected light rail over two-way bus only lanes on 1-90 Bridge center roadway for public transit.  The bus lanes would have provided 10 times light rail capacity, ten years sooner, at one-tenth the cost.  The capacity could have been used to provide every east side P&R with BRT service reducing congestion throughout the area.

They perpetuated that “qualification” by refusing to consider BRT as the “no-build” option in the 2008 DEIS.  Instead their DEIS was filled with sheer fantasies about light rail being the equivalent of “up to 10 lanes of freeway” that would “increase cross-lake transit capacity by more than 60%".  The reality is East Link’s one 4-car train every 8 minutes will reduce peak transit capacity by ~50%.

They added to their East Link SNAFU “qualifications” by insuring BRT could never be considered for I-90 center roadway, refusing for more than 15 years to add 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways to accommodate non-transit HOV.  Doing so would have made the center roadway available for two-way bus lanes providing BRT service that would have ended any public support for East Link.  Commuters from both sides of the lake, but particularly “reverse commuters” have already endured years of increased congestion as a result.  

The “all f***ed up” descriptor also surely applies to the following:

1)    ST decision to ignore the fact the R-8A configuration the FHWA approved in Sept 2004 ROD “I-90 Two-way Transit and HOV Operations Project” required “maintaining existing reversible operation on the center roadway”. 

2)    They still haven’t completed the I-90 Bridge design both the FHWA and the legislature told them was a priority 6 years ago. 

3)    They still have no viable alternative for commuters who use the South Bellevue P&R lot when they close it next March.

If the Times is so concerned about “Voter Skepticism” with seawall costs, 520 Bridge replacement, and Big Bertha delays they should recognize voters will "be less than happy" when they learn East Link will reduce peak transit capacity by 50%, inevitably result in gridlock on I-90 outer roadways and devastate the route into Bellevue. 

The Times needs to recognize that reality along with the fact the billions ST is planning to spend on the other Prop 1 extensions, plus the additional billion they intend to ask voters to provide each year for ST3 will do absolutely nothing to ease the area’s congestion.  Failure to do so will surely qualify the paper's  transportation policies as “Situation Normal All F***ed up”.

Bellevue Well Rid of Balducci

 The Seattle Times editorial endorsing Claudia Balducci for the King County Council is just another example of how neither they nor Balducci recognize (or care about?) the debacle that awaits the area from the Sound Transit East Link light rail extension.

They credit Balducci with having “shepherded Bellevue through a contentious planning process for Sound Transit’s East Link expansion” and “set aside contentious partisanship on the Bellevue City Council to hammer out the Sound Transit deal.” 

The reality is Balducci has used her position on Bellevue City Council, her chairmanship of the PSRC Transportation Policy Board, and Sound Transit Board membership to push through an East Link light rail extension that will be a disaster for the east side.  Her efforts in the council largely consisted of convincing the other members to accede to Sound Transit demands.

The Times criticizes Janet Hague for not “questioning” a Metro levy last fall but has no objections to Sound Transit (and Balducci) plans to spend $3.6B on an East Link extension that will reduce I-90 peak transit capacity by 50%, gridlock vehicles on the bridge outer roadway, devastate those living along the route into Bellevue, and end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.

They credit Balducci for having “proven to be a leader with intellectual honesty”.  One has to question the "intellect" of both the Times and Balducci since neither paid any attention to more than 6 years of my attempts to point out the following:

1)    Sound Transit made a monumental blunder when they selected light rail rather than two-way bus only lanes on the I-90 center roadway for cross-lake transit.  The bus lanes would have allowed BRT service with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, and for less than a 1/10^th of the cost.  The increased capacity could've provided direct access into Seattle from every eastside P&R, easing congestion throughout area.  By contrast, East Link access for I-90 corridor commuters will be limited to light rail stations at South Bellevue and Mercer Island 

2)    Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways 15 years ago.  Commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefited, but particularly “reverse” commuters.

3)    Sound Transit refused to recognize the R-8A configuration the FHA approved in Sept 2004 ROD “I-90 Two-way Transit and HOV Operations Project” required “maintaining existing reversible operation on the center roadway”.  Instead they told a federal judge the center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles.

4)    Sound Transit refuses to recognize their scheduled East Link service, one 4-car train every 8 minutes, will never have the capacity to meet I-90 transit needs.  Their plans to force all transit riders to switch to light rail for their commute into and out of Seattle will reduce peak transit capacity by nearly 50%.

5)    Sound Transit refusal to recognize the combination of the increased congestion on the outer roadway because of center roadway closure and the large number of former bus riders forced to “drive” rather than “ride” by the lack of light rail capacity will inevitably lead to gridlock on outer roadways. 

As far as “honesty” is concerned, it’s clear she and the rest of the council approved the East Link Shoreline permit knowing (or should have known) Sound Transit had made a mockery of the environmental review process with claims light rail noise requiring millions to shield properties hundreds of feet away form the tracks would have no impact on the Mercer Slough Park.  This clear violation of federal environment law will end forever the quiet solitude of the park.

In conclusion, as far as commuters are concerned, Balducci has already been in the Bellevue City Council for far too long.  Her endorsement by the Times appears largely based on her steadfast support of Sound Transit policies the Times supports.  Cross-lake commuters, who have already endured years of increased congestion because of these policies, will face ever-increasing congestion during light rail construction, and inevitable gridlock when East Link begins service.  If allowed to proceed, Balducci and the Times bear a major responsibility for the devastating consequences. 

Let Them Eat "Cake"

The Aug. 21^st story in the Times about the I-405 express toll lanes expected to open Sept 27^th typifies the approach of those responsible for the area's transportation system.  The Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), surely at the behest of the WSDOT, has decided their objective is “to keep traffic flowing at 45 mph or better on the HOV lanes”.  Thus, rather than improving the commute for “Drivers on I-405 who experience some of the worst traffic in the state”, they intend to limit HOV lanes to +3HOV or $10 tolls to ensure they maintain that 45 mph speed.  They intend to do so even on the added lane between Bothell and Bellevue where the congestion is the worst.

The WSDOT attitude can best be described by a famous French response to "peasant" concerns, “Let them eat cake”.  They simply ignore the fact the “peasants” in this case have provided much of the money to build the lanes.  Yet requiring +3HOV or $10.00 tolls for the two lanes means those on the general traffic lanes will undoubtedly face even greater congestion than before. 

It would be nice if the “peasants” had the option of public transit.  However, like the WSDOT, Sound Transit seems to have little interest in providing it.  ST532 and ST535, their routes from Everett and Lynnwood, are limited to 15 buses during the 3-hour morning commute.  They could probably fill ten times that number if they chose to provide additional P&R lots and bus routes connecting them to Bellevue and Overlake. 

The bottom line is the WSDOT would rather have the toll money than reduce congestion.  Sound Transit would rather spend their billions on light rail extensions that will do nothing to reduce the area's congestion than a fraction of that on added parking and bus routes.  If allowed to continue the area’s commuters will be “eating cake” for a very long time.

I-90 Bridge Design Debacle

The story in the Aug 16^th Times about the need for an additional $20M to complete the I-90 Bridge design for East Link is just the latest example of Sound Transit, Sound Transit Board, and WSDOT monumental incompetence.  It began more than 15 years ago when the selected light rail rather than two- way bus only (BRT) on the bridge center roadway for cross-lake transit.

East Link was the first attempt to put light rail on a “floating bridge”.  The problem was assuring the “expansion joints” connecting the floating and fixed portions of the bridge could withstand the loads from light rail trains.  In Sept 2005, the WSDOT thought they'd demonstrated the I-90 Bridge/light rail compatibility using flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars. They claimed the “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 because they commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail.  The results of the IRT study included the following:

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.

In response to these IRT concerns  ST, three months later in the Dec 2008 DEIS included the following statement regarding floating bridge/light rail compatibility:

The IRT concluded that all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration had similar concerns in a February 2009 letter 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”.

Yet, two years later the ST 2011 FEIS included the same confident response as the 2008 DEIS.   

Finally in 2012, four years after the IRT recommended “careful study and testing in the early stages of the project” ST signed a $28M (later $36M) contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to finish the design.  It was presumably their expansion joint (tract bridge in article) design ST demonstrated 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”.

Later, in a Jan 16^th 2015 meeting with Bellevue City Council, ST claimed that, while they had not completed the bridge design, they still didn’t think it was a major problem.   Even the Aug 16^th story quoted a WSDOT official telling the board:

“we have not indentified any fatal flaws that would prevent light rail from being installed on this corridor”

The fact that ST has spent $38M on a design that initially passed with “flying colors” but subsequently “crashed” suggests the problems are, “if not “fatal”, surely “serious”.   One wonders why ST is so confident another $20M will fix the problem.  Also since the WSDOT has been involved in this, so far. failed design process from the start, why are they given responsibility for approving the final design?

What is truly absurd is the Sound Transit Boards “disappointment” about the recent bridge design problems.  They should have been aware of them 7 years ago.  Instead of responding to the IRT and FHWA concerns they allowed ST to spend hundreds of millions promoting light rail on the east side with detailed depictions of light rail tracks and stations on the eastside without confirming they could put light rail on the bridge.  Since ST is closing down the center roadway in 2017, it’s a little late to say “preparation now reduces risk down the road”.

Of course the real debacle is the fact that none of the three seem to recognize the insanity of spending $3.7B for East Link’s one light rail train every 8 minutes.  Particularly since doing so will devastate the route into Bellevue and gridlock I-90 Bridge outer roadway. 

South Lake Union Parking Alternative

I submitted the following to the Times in response to their Aug 12th "South Lake Union: Pedestrian fantasy or car jammed reality" front page story.   I decided to post it since they're unlikely to use it.

Special to the Times, South Lake Union Parking Alternative

The recent front page column by Danny Westneat asks the question: "(If) South Lake Union is supposed to offer car-free living, why are they adding so many huge parking garages?”  It’s almost as if, those spending the millions to include the 11,835 new parking spaces would avoid doing so, those needing access to the area will find other ways of getting there, easing the area’s future traffic problems.

The reality is for thousands of commuters throughout the entire area, driving a car to a parking space near where they wish to go is the only way to get there.  It’s the reason our areas traffic is rated 4^th worst in the country with thousands of cars congesting the major roadways for much of the day. 

The primary reason for much of this congestion is the total failure of those responsible for providing adequate public transit.  It should be a relatively easy thing to do in this area.  The destination for the vast majority of commuters, where the congestion is most severe, is either downtown Seattle or the Bellevue/Overlake area.   Both areas could easily be accessible via public transit. 

Sound Transit sold light rail as the answer.  They claimed East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway that could increase I-90 transit capacity by 60%.  They lied!  East Link will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes or one 74-seat light rail car every 2 minutes.  Even worse their plan to force all transit riders to transfer to light rail for their commutes into and out of Seattle will limit transit ridership to half the current level during the peak commute. 

They plan to spend billions on Central Link extensions that will never have the capacity needed to reduced congestion.  Most of their riders will be those who previously rode buses.  Reducing the number of buses on I-5 will have no effect on congestion.

The only way to eliminate the need for more parking spaces downtown is to add thousands of parking spaces near where people live and provide those who park there with reliable bus service to where they want to go. The fact that doing so also reduces the areas congestion for everyone makes it even more imperative. 

Sound Transit needs to be “persuaded” to spend part of the billions they were planning for light rail tracks to add thousands of parking spaces to existing and new P&R lots throughout the area.  Use more of the money to add hundreds of new bus routes to provide those P&R lots with the needed transit capacity. 

To reduce transit times on I-90 they need to move non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the outer roadway and create two-way bus lanes on the center roadway.  On I-5 north they need to limit one of the two HOV lanes to buses and +3 HOV. South of Seattle the single HOV lane should be limited to buses and +3 HOV.  (The same +3HOV they plan to use on I-405 this fall)   

Commuters have to park their car someplace.  Doing so near where they live improves the entire area.

The Battle Goes On

As expected, the primary election returns ended my candidacy for the Bellevue City Council.  It did give me the chance to attract attention to my concerns about East Link and the other Prop 1 light rail extensions.  My being in a “contested” primary allowed me to use the Voters Pamphlet to raise concerns before the BCC approved the final East Link permits Sound Transit needed this fall.  The idea of attending “public forums” a general election candidacy would have required never appealed to me.

My candidacy did attract more than 3000 page views for a total of nearly 27,000 to this blog.  While I’ve gotten several positive responses its unclear whether getting the viewers attention will make a difference.  As the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”.   Time will tell whether the “viewers” will convince the BCC to stop East Link by disallowing the permits ST needs.  

Failing to do so still does not make East Link inevitable.  I believe Sound Transit’s rush to ask voters in 2016 for an additional billion dollars a year beginning in 2017 reflects a real financial problem.  Without it they will need to borrow $6.6 billion by 2023 to pay for the current version of the Prop 1 extensions.  (That’s in addition to the $1.3B they’ve already borrowed.) 

However, lenders may question ST ability to make the ~$300M annually payments.  The billions they lend for the Prop 1 extensions will create a light rail system “very” expensive to operate.   East Link is a particularly egregious example.  It will require an annual subsidy of nearly $300M to cover the shortfall between the operating costs and fare box revenue.  The other extensions will undoubtedly add substantially to that shortfall.  Thus, it’s not “unreasonable” to question ST’s ability to make the loan payments.

It’s also presumably this reality that led ST to ask voters to approve an additional $1B in taxes each year beginning in 2017, well before any “beyond Prop 1” extensions would need funding.  Without that funding ST may not be able to proceed with the Prop 1 extensions.  The most likely one they’d drop would be East Link, eliminating its huge operating cost subsidy.  Thus defeating ST3 could end East Link. 

 (Who knows?  Maybe even the Times may question the wisdom of giving ST $1.7B each year to fund light rail construction that will, not only do absolutely nothing to reduce the area’s congestion, but will require a $300M subsidy each year for an East Link extension that will increase cross-lake congestion.)

Assuming my current efforts don’t succeed I’ll likely file again to use my candidacy to attract attention to my opposition to ST3.  I would have liked to challenge County Executive Constantine, not only to get wider attention but to point out his appointments to the Sound Transit Board and his head of the board make him the one most responsible for the future light rail debacle.  Unfortunately, I will have to wait until 2017 to do so.  Next year it will likely be another go at Hunter.  By then ST will have closed South Bellevue P&R giving transit riders the first indication of the East Link debacle. To quote an old naval commander “Surrender Hell, I’ve Just Begun to Fight”!

Sound Transit's ST3 Gambit

All of Sound Transit’s “Where will light rail take you?” response to the legislature’s allowing them to ask voters approve the ST3 transportation package implies its all about extending light rail beyond Prop 1.  After all, ST board chairman Dow Constantine made the following comment when the package was approved:

“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 ST3 package will purportedly provide an additional $1B annually, more than doubling their budgeted $933 M for 2015.  They will definitely need it!  They’ve already been forced to borrow $1.3B even though major construction has yet to begin.  Unless they start getting the $1B each year beginning in 2017 they’ll be forced to borrow an additional $6.6B by 2023 to pay for the Prop 1 extensions.   Paying off all those construction loans would require annual payments of $300M for 45 years. 

Any lending institutions would be well advised to “question” ST ability to make those payments once light rail begins operation.  Even with the truncated Prop 1 extensions light rail operating costs will dwarf fare box revenue.  Excluding depreciation, a light rail car costs $23.04 per mile to operate (per ST 2015 budget), or $92.16 for an East Link 4-car train. Thus it will cost ST $6820 for the 74 mile round trip from Overlake to Lynnwood and back.  ST East Link schedules call for 121 such trips each weekday for a daily cost of $825,000.

ST estimates 50,000 East Link riders per day by 2030, with 40,000 from those transferring from buses at S. Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  ST has estimated 16,000 commuters will use the Northgate extension, but no estimates for those added by Lynnwood extension.  Whatever the final numbers, its “unlikely” ridership will exceed the capacity of Central Link trains along the route.  Any East Link ridership will simply reduce Central Link ridership with no net increase for Lynnwood extension.

Again, 40,000 of the 50,000 projected East Link riders will be from terminated bus routes.  Since its unlikely those forced to transfer will be required to pay two fares, the only light rail revenue will be from the other 10,000.  Assuming a $3.00 fare, gives $30,000 leaving a daily shortfall of $795,000.  If weekend levels are half that, the weekly operating shortfall from East Link will be $4.77M or $248M annually.  (It’s hardly worth mentioning that depreciation will add $30 million.)   The higher light rail operating costs ($23 vs $10) means other extensions replacing bus routes will also result in higher deficits despite the rail car capacity advantages (148 vs 119)

The bottom line is the ST current push for ST3 funding “likely” has very little to do with extensions beyond Prop 1.  They recognize lenders may be “reluctant” to lend an additional $6.6B to construct a light rail system, that when completed will require a huge subsidy (from somewhere) along with the $300M annually debt payment. (Particularly when they learn projected light rail fare box revenue for 2015 was $16M)

It’s not improbable a failure of ST3 would mean the end of Prop 1 extensions.  As far as I’m concerned it can’t happen soon enough.