Looking Back on 2016

It’s the end of the year when many pause to review the year gone by and assess hopes and plans for the coming year.  When it comes to dealing with the area’s transportation problems it’s been another year and countless millions wasted.

Sound Transit wasted another year refusing to recognize routing light rail through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits operation to the point it will never have the capacity to significantly reduce congestion on I-5 or I-90.  Thus the ST3 funding package voters approved allowing them to spend $54 billion and 25 years primarily extending the light rail “spine” to Everett, Redmond, and Tacoma will do little to reduce congestion on those roadways.   Using even what capacity if does have requires Sound Transit allocate hundreds of millions more for parking with bus connections to future light rail stations. 

ST3 passed because 70% of Seattle voters approved it.  They did so presumably because it included light rail to West Seattle and Ballard, yet Sound Transit is making them wait until 2030 and 2035 respectively for the two extensions.  Rather than delaying the extensions they should expedite them, aiming for completion in the early 2020’s.  

Sound Transit claims they would cost about $4B and attract 80,000 to 100,000 riders, a bargain compared to their “spine” extensions.   The number of residents within walking distance of light rail stations would likely provide the ridership without the need to spend millions increasing parking.   Instead, it’s likely Sound Transit will waste hundreds of millions more and another year extending their spine.

The Seattle Times spent the year vacillating between ST3 “cheer leader” and “critic”.   For example in a March 29^th article about Dow Constantine’s “State of the County” presentation extolling the benefits of ST3, the Times uncritically reported the only “push back” was for “more light rail, sooner”.  Yet four days later the Times April 3^rd editorial, “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” included the following:

Public officials cannot prematurely dismiss questions about whether there are better ways for the region to spend $50 billion than the slate of trains, buses and stations in Sound Transit 3 (ST3). 

The point is voters need their representatives to provide clear, objective explanations of ST3’s pros and cons, not cheerleading.  Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified.

Sound Transit simply ignored those concerns.  The Times, rather than pursuing them, turned “cheer leader” with an Aug. 8th front page article heralding  “about 65,000 riders a day are taking light rail because of the University of Washington and Capital Hill stations.”   They ignored the fact Sound Transit had initially promised more than 100,000 daily riders by 2010.  They parroted claims “People love it” and “want to ride it” despite the fact many of the riders were forced to do so because two-dozen bus routes were rerouted to feed the trains.  That those voting for ST3 "will be voting for more high-capacity transit and for meeting the need for the million residents expected to move to urban Puget Sound".  Apparently assuming voters weren't aware of DSTT limits on light rail capacity.  

Later an Oct 28^th Seattle Times editorial objected to ST3, not because Sound Transit had failed to respond to their concerns, but because it would allow Sound Transit to extend taxes beyond 25 or 30 years from now.   A November 1^st Seattle Times front page article “Parking finds its place in Sound Transit vote” extolled Sound Transit promises ST3 would add 8,560 parking spaces between 2024 and 2041; ignoring the reality that number's a tiny fraction of the added parking required for the transit access needed to reduce congestion. 

After essentially “cheer leading” the light rail extensions for several months, the Times reverted back to “critic” with a Nov 4^th edition front-page article “Would transit plan ease traffic?”   The Time’s answer was “It would not”, with claims “even leading proponents don’t promise that traffic will improve”.  The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”.  Not much for $54 billion and 25 years. 

An April 29^th Bellevue Reporter front-page article typified the Bellevue City Council support for the  year celebrating Sound Transit's East Link light rail extension “ground breaking".   Later, the council’s Fall/Winter edition of the "Bellevue It's Your City” newsletter, described what East Link construction will be like for east side residents.  The newsletter made it clear Sound Transit had ignored their MOU agreement to provide replacement parking and connecting bus routes for those using the P&R.  Their proposals in the newsletter for mitigating the impact of the planned construction closures along Bellevue Way will do little to alleviate the resulting nightmare for those who live in or commute in the area.

Once on I-90, Bellevue commuters as well as other corridor commuters will encounter the congestion resulting from Sound Transit’s 2017 I-90 bridge center roadway closure.  Sound Transit has apparently decided to ignore a 2004 FHWA ROD stipulating the center roadway was required for vehicles even with the R-8A fourth lanes added to outer roadways.  The likely result will be cross-lake commuters will be forced to endure heavy congestion on bridge GP lanes or very expensive tolls on HOV lanes due to WSDOT “requirements” to maintain 45 mph.

Yet the council urged voters to approve ST3 funding needed for East Link.  If it’s allowed to proceed, in 2023, after 6 years of disruption on the route into Bellevue and increased I-90 Bridge congestion, East Link light rail will have about half the current cross-lake bus capacity.  It will do little to ease the increased bridge congestion and nothing to ease the congestion along I-90 corridor.  Those commuters only access to East Link will be the South Bellevue Station.  If able to get there and find parking, they'll face the probability the trains will be full before they reach the station during peak commute.

The year has been sort of a “wakeup call” for the Mercer Island Council. While Islanders will have less disruption from light rail construction, East Link will essentially end their easy access to Seattle.  It’s unlikely the council’s discussions with Sound Transit concerning “loss of mobility” compensation will appease the island’s cross-lake commuters.  

Earlier they had bought into Sound Transit promises they would have SOV access to the R8-A HOV lane on I-90.  An August FHWA letter apparently ended that.  Thus, like other I-90 corridor commuters, Islanders will encounter long lines on controlled onramps for access to I-90 and heavy congestion on bridge outer roadway GP lanes or HOT fees on HOV lanes.  Once East Link begins operation the 2000 Mercer Island light rail station boarders Sound Transit predicts will have to be “very patient”.  They’re the last with access to its limited capacity making it "likely" the trains will be full when they reach the Island during peak commute.  

The council is, at last, attempting to do better.  Deputy Mayor Debbie Berlin’s goal in her year-end “Mercer Island mobility Island Forum” is to "secure a positive outcome in our negotiations regarding access to Interstate 90 and Islander mobility".  It’s unlikely Islanders will retain SOV access to I-90 HOV lanes.  It’s also not clear the council recognizes the impact of East Link’s limited capacity on Islander “mobility” via access to light rail.   The council’s best chance for minimizing both problems is to rescind the East Link building permits.  Sound Transit’s mendacity regarding East Link capacity is surely a legally defensible reason for doing so. 

In the meantime, this blog had success attracting viewers, more than 8000 this month.  (My candidate’s statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet as a candidate for governor garnered more than 48,000 votes.)  However, as the old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water but...."

As for next year, the FHWA could require Sound Transit demonstrate the 4^th lanes added to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways can make up for the loss of bridge center roadway for East Link; refuting their claim the center roadways were still needed for vehicles.  It’s “possible” Sound Transit CEO Rogoff will acknowledge the futility of spending billions on a light rail spine routed through the DSTT and divert those funds to light rail extensions to Ballard and West Seattle.  The Seattle Times “might” decide to recommend that approach in an editorial or an audit that would substantiate the need to do so.  The Bellevue and Mercer Island council’s “could” rescind their approval of the East Link permits citing Sound Transit mendacity as grounds for doing so. 

Next year’s blog activity will depend on the above “events”.  (It's already shown plenty of "water".) The first indication will be if Sound Transit goes ahead with their plans for East Link.  Their January closure of the South Bellevue P&R, the beginning of serious construction along the route into Bellevue, and the subsequent closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will mark the beginning of the end of the "City in the Park" and change cross-lake commuting forever.  

Those "events" may merit future posts including the announcement of another candidacy; this time for county Executive.  Again, not to attract votes but to use the Voters' Pamphlet to tell those paying the ST3 taxes and seeing the results "it didn't need to happen".

Happy New Year!!!

Mercer Island Should Rescind East Link Permit Approval

Mercer Island Deputy Mayor, Debbie Berlin, begins her Dec 13^th MI Reporter Opinion, “Year in review, assessing the path ahead for Mercer Island mobility Island Forum” with the following:

We find ourselves at the end of the year, the time when many pause to review the year gone by and assess hopes and plans for the coming year. This year my attention is entirely with the council’s and the community’s need to secure a positive outcome in our negotiations regarding access to Interstate 90 and Islander mobility.

It identified the following priorities from a Sept 2015 community listening tour:

1) secure access to the new “R8A” lanes;
2) mitigate traffic impacts in and around the Town Center;

3) increase commuter parking for Mercer Island residents;

4) improve “last mile” connection to light rail and transit;
5) minimize impact of regional bus operations;
6) require safe, convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to light rail.

An “unexpected” letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in August “disrupted” the negotiations calling into question Mercer Island single occupancy vehicle (SOV) access to the R8A HOV lanes.  The reason for the FHWA August 2016 letter is “likely” because Mercer Island, Sound Transit and the WSDOT apparently neglected to inform the FHWA about their plans prior to Mayor Basset’s June presentation to FHWA and Congress advocating they be allowed SOV access to HOV lanes.

The Opinion continues:

In order for Sound Transit to “mitigate” Mercer Island’s presumed loss of mobility, Sound Transit must conduct studies that measure, assess and document the impacts not only to Mercer Island, but also to adjacent communities. These studies are complex and are critical to the final resolution. The FHWA, Washington State Department of Transportation, Sound Transit and the council, with the help of traffic experts and legal counsel, are working through the complexities. The objective is to define mutual success that is legally defensible and consistent with historic agreements. In the end, all parties must concur.

Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s response was to characterize success “as an outcome that does not hinder Sound Transit’s ability to deliver its regional objectives and aligns with the requirements of the 1976 and 2004 agreements” and “that the complexity associated with the negotiations should not result in assumptions of bad faith”.

Deputy Mayor Berlin closes with:

Light rail will provide many positive benefits to our community, and equally I believe it is our duty to ensure that Sound Transit upholds the historic agreements. The council and I also remain open to all other options if negotiations do not progress favorably.

It’s not clear what the light rail benefits are since East Link trains, at least during peak commute, will be full well before they reach the island station.  Second, “what historic Sound Transit agreements?”  A 2006 letter from the Governor’s Office & WSDOT to MI confirmed a commitment to 1976 Memorandum Agreement that MI residents should only be permitted HOV access until it is converted to HOT.  

I-90 Bridge outer roadway congestion from Sound Transit’s closing center roadway will undoubtedly “force” the WSDOT to initiate HOT on HOV lanes to “maintain 45 mph speeds”.   Thus any “positive outcome in our negotiations regarding access to Interstate 90 and Islander mobility” will at best be “short lived”.

As far as other “options” Mercer Island should consider rescinding approval of the East Link permits they signed allowing Sound Transit to proceed.    A “Contract Law for Dummies Cheat Sheet” describes a contract as a legally enforceable exchange of promises. Contract formation requires “the offeror promise the offeree something in exchange for the offeree’s promise to do or not to do something”.  

Mercer Island, the “offeree” presumably approved the East Link permits because Sound Transit, the “offeror” promised in their 2008 DEIS that East Link would have “a peak capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour equivalent to between 6 to 10 freeway lanes of traffic”.   The DEIS further promised “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  

A “legally enforceable exchange of promises” would seem to require Sound Transit explain how their East Link Extension video depiction of East Link operation as a maximum of one 4-car train every 8 minutes can accommodate 18,000 to 24,000 riders and demonstrate the 4^th lanes added to the bridge outer roadways will make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  (An FHWA Sept 2004 Record Of Decision had stipulated the two center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles even with the added outer roadway lanes.) A December 6th Rogoff Sound Transit email was still promising 2000 MI boarders despite the fact the East Link trains would be full well before they ever reached the island.

The bottom line is Mercer Island officials, rather than relying on “Sound Transit to conduct studies that measure, assess and document the impacts not only to Mercer Island, but also to adjacent communities,” would seem to have a “legally defensible” reason for rescinding East Link permits. 

East Link funds could be used for additional P&R capacity both on MI and along I-90 corridor with two-way BRT on center roadway with 10 times East Link capacity.  While MI would still lose SOV access to center roadway, their commuters like those along the entire I-90 corridor would benefit from the ability to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.  Even if they're unable to use the HOV lanes for access, the reduced I-90 congestion will minimize controlled onramp delays. Those riding buses would also avoid the HOT charges the WSDOT seems eager to initiate.

Again, the best way “to secure a positive outcome in our negotiations regarding access to Interstate 90 and Islander mobility” is to attempt to rescind permit approvals.  The question remains whether MI officials are willing to do so.  The entire east side would benefit if they did.

Mercer Island Commuting Problems Only Beginning

The December 15^th Seattle Times front-page article “Mercer Island fights to keep special HOV access for drivers” is just the “beginning of the end” of Islanders’ easy access to Seattle.   It exemplifies what happens when a city council accepts Sound Transit’s claims for benefits from light rail for their commute into and out of Seattle and approves the permits they need for East Link.  As recently as a Dec 6^th email, Sound Transit still continues to claim East Link will provide Islanders access to high quality, frequent service for 2000 Islander boarders and attract development near light rail station.   Despite the fact East Link will provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes that will, at least during peak commute, be full well before they reach the island station. 

The Times article tells the area what Mercer Island residents learned at a Sept. 19, 2016 council meeting presentation, “I-90 Access & East Link Light Rail Project Update”.  The presentation was in response to an August FHWA notification they would not allow single occupancy vehicles (SOV) to use the HOV lane on Mercer Island for access to 1-90 Bridge.  The FHWA letter was in response to Mayor Bassett’s June presentation to the FHWA and members of Congress advocating for MI SOV use of HOV lanes.  Sound Transit, WSDOT, and Mercer Island officials apparently "neglected" to involve the FHWA earlier.

A draft of the Mercer Island response to the FHWA, “I-90 Mercer Island Access Alternatives” was presented at the November 7, 2016 Mercer Island City Council meeting, and then again to the community at a public meeting on November 9.  My guess is the likely result will be MI cross-lake commuters having to endure the long lines other I-90 corridor SOV commuters encounter on controlled onramps. 

Even if Islanders manage to avoid the need to use controlled onramps their cross-lake commuters will quickly encounter the same outer roadway congestion all I-90 corridor commuters will likely face.  The problem is the WSDOT has no plans to demonstrate the 4^th lanes added for HOV on outer roadways can make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes closed for East Link.  The FHWA concluded in a Sept 2004 Record of Decision that the R8-A configuration which added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways still required maintaining the two center roadways for vehicles.  

If the FHWA is correct the resulting I-90 congestion will persuade many commuters to pay tolls on SR-520 and “force” the WSDOT to implement HOT on I-90 bridge sufficient to “maintain” 45 mph, something they’ve been planning to do since 2007.  I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the increased revenue influenced their decision not to require the demonstration.  

Thus East Link construction will likely result in Mercer Island commuters, like all I-90 corridor commuters, facing either heavy congestion on I-90 Bridge GP lanes or very expensive commutes on HOT lanes.  The only exceptions will be those able to use transit.  MI could maximize Islander ability to do so by allowing only residents to pay a monthly or annual fee for one of the 450 stalls in the P&R.  Those using the parking would also get a commensurate transit pass.  Additional parking and transit service could be part of Sound Transit’s “loss of mobility” compensation.  

They will need it if they expect to get transit for the 2000 MI boarders Sound Transit projects for East Link station.   Again, the problem being East Link will provide a maximum of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour.  If 80% of the projected 50,000 daily ridership Sound Transit projects for East Link are from the east side they will result in 20,000 morning and afternoon commutes into and out of Seattle.  Its going to take “considerable time” for the 30 cars to accommodate 20,000 riders no mater how many Sound Transit claims for each car. 

Thus,  many of the 2000 Mercer Island commuters, being the last with access to East Link, will likely have to depend on transit buses for their commute into Seattle at least during the peak commute.  The “loss of mobility” compensation could at least provide some combination of additional P&R capacity and added bus routes within walking distance for commuters. 

The bottom line is the island commuters’ potential inability to use HOV lanes to access I-90 is just the beginning of the end of their easy access to Seattle.  The irony is if Sound Transit is allowed to proceed, MI commuters who will have lost the most from East Link will be the ones most forced to use buses for transit. 

It didn’t have to happen.  It’s time the council recognizes they, like the Bellevue City Council, made a monumental blunder when it approved the  permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  Whether they will be able to use their considerable influence to prevent it remains to be seen. (One would think such blatant mendacity would be grounds for something.) However they owe it to their constituents (and the entire east side) to try.

Bel-Red Without East Link

Sound Transit has claimed for years one of the benefits of the East Link light rail extension is it will enhance development of the Bel-Red area.   Like many of Sound Transit claims I’m somewhat dubious.   Achieving even a fraction of the needed I-90 cross-lake capacity requires they maintain their one 4-car train every 8 minutes in each direction for much of the day.  Thus every 4 minutes a light rail train will travel through the neighborhood either coming or going during most of the day.    Even during the off peak hours, the trains will be frequent “intruders” during the anticipated 20 hours of operation.  The “intrusion” being the noise and vibration from four 74-ton “light rail” train cars. 

Sound Transit was forced to spend millions protecting homes up to 300 feet away from Central Link tracks in Seattle.  Those tracks were at street level and Central Link operation then consisted of two-car trains.  East Link operation will normally consist of 4-car trains running both on street level tracks and on elevated tracks for part of the route.  The longer trains and elevated tracks will surely exacerbate the light rail noise problem.

Bellevue’s concern has forced Sound Transit to allocate millions to shield properties along the route into the city.  The shielding includes noise barriers some 12 or more feet tall to protect homes hundreds of feet and across a major roadway from East Link tracks.  Yet the Sound Transit East Link video depiction of light rail in Bel-Red shows little if any attempt to attenuate the noise impact along that route.   Whether they’ve managed to reduce light rail noise or it’s another East Link “surprise” for those in the area remains to be seen. 

The noise issue is just one reason why streetcars would be a far better transit option for Bel Red.   They would be far less intrusive having operated in the South Lake Union area for several years with few if any noise complaints despite minimal efforts to attenuate noise.  The route would include connections between the Bellevue T/C and tracks circling through the area or on adjacent tracks between the hospital area and 148^th. .   

At street level, the streetcars would be far more accessible than the 120^th and 130^th Ave light rail stations with multiple stop locations or even "on- demand" stops.   Construction costs would be far less with no need to spend millions on light rail stations and elevated tracks.  The streetcar maintenance requirements would be minimal compared to the maintenance yard required for East Link and the disruption from overnight activities needed to support light rail train operation.  The streetcar track construction schedule could coincide with Bel-Red development rather than East Link's.  Streetcar operation would be set by local Bel-Red demand rather than I-90 Bridge demand.

Without East Link BRT routes across SR-520 from a T/C at the University light rail station would provide Seattleites with transit to the Microsoft campus and Overlake area.   The return routes would provide Redmond and Kirkland commuters with SR-520 BRT access to UW and light rail into Seattle.  (Sound Transit predicts the ~$1B spent extending East Link to Redmond will only add 7-9,000 riders.) The SR-520 BRT/University Link combination would have twice the capacity of East Link for cross-lake commuters in both directions.   Even with the time required to transfer at the UW station the transit times will likely be less with the shorter routes and fewer stops. 

The bottom line is Bel-Red, like the rest of the east side, would benefit if  East Link was aborted.  It’s way past time for Sound Transit to recognize that reality.

Sound Transit I-90 Segment Fact Sheet: Mercer Island

The 12/06/16 Sound Transit email, “Project Update East Link Extension” is their latest attempt to sell light rail to east side commuters.   Typical of Sound Transit they have the temerity to entitle it,  “I-90 Segment Fact Sheet: Mercer Island”.   The “Facts” include the following purported benefits:

1)              Provides access to high quality, frequent transit service that operates 20 hours per day

2)               Approximately 2,000 daily station boardings at Mercer Island (2030)

3)              Addresses the City of Mercer Island’s goals to promote mixed-use development at regional transit facilities and improves transit opportunities

While East Link will likely operate 20 hours per day, their East Link Extension website video narrative describes it as “providing three or four car trains every eight to ten minutes”; at best, the equivalent on one 74-seat light rail car every 2 minutes.  While that may seem “frequent” to some it will have about half the current peak cross-lake bus capacity and a small fraction of the capacity needed to provide the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway Sound Transit promised in their 2008 DEIS.  Thus it’s doubtful islanders will consider East Link  “high quality, frequent transit service”.  (By comparison Sound Transit could easily route more than 20 buses across the I-90 center roadway in 2 minutes with 10 times East Link capacity, without spending a dime on light rail.)

Sound Transit had initially intended to use the Mercer Island station to transfer about half of the cross-lake bus riders to East Link (the other half at South Bellevue Station).   That would have resulted in about 10,000 bus riders transferring to and from light rail at the MI station every morning and afternoon.   MI objections ended that debacle. 

However, even the fact “approximately 2,000 daily station boardings at Mercer Island by 2030” is dubious.   The MI station is the last with access to East Link.  It’s more than “likely” the “one 74-seat light rail car” will be full well before it reaches Mercer Island, at least during peak commute.   After all, Sound Transit is currently still promising 50,000 East Link boarders by 2030.  While 2000 islanders may eventually be able to get on, the “fact” is they will likely have a long wait before doing so.  Thus it’s difficult to believe that East Link will  “promote mixed use development at regional transit facilities (i.e. MI light rail station) and improves transit opportunities.”

The “Fact Sheet” is just another chapter in the MI East Link “saga”.  A Sept. 19^th city council presentation, “The Mercer Island I-90 Access & East Link Light Rail Project Update” informed islanders about an August FHWA notification they would not allow single occupancy vehicles (SOV) to use the HOV lane on Mercer Island for access to 1-90 Bridge. (The FHWA notification was apparently in response to a March query and a June mayoral presentation advocating for MI SOV use in a DC presentation to the FHWA and members of Congress.  It’s not clear why no one thought to “query” the FHWA sooner)

The Sept 19^th presentation included plans to challenge the FHWA decision using “hired experts” to assist in making a “formal rebuttal”.  A draft of the rebuttal, “I-90 Mercer Island Access Alternatives” was presented at the November 7, 2016 Mercer Island City Council meeting, and then again to the community at a public meeting on November 9.  My guess is the likely result will be MI cross-lake commuters having to endure the long lines other I-90 corridor SOV commuters encounter on controlled onramps. 

The bottom line is ST3 funds a Prop 1 East Link extension that will essentially end Islanders’ easy access to Seattle.  It isn’t clear what Sound Transit/MI negotiations regarding the resulting “loss of mobility” compensation have yielded.  What is clear is Sound Transit’s “I-90 Segment Fact Sheet” does little to change that reality.

Issaquah Transportation Summit

The December 2^nd Bellevue Reporter included an article about a Nov. 22^nd “summit” meeting between state, county and city elected officials from east King County with “transportation experts” in Issaquah.     Issaquah Mayor Fred Butler organized the event to “look for a way the entire region could come together to work on a problem that effects everyone”.   That “Years from now, I hope we can look back at this first meeting as an important turning point in addressing traffic flow”. 

Another participant, Bellevue Mayor John Stokes, described Bellevue-to-Issaquah and Bellevue-to-Renton drives as “horrible” claiming, “We have been feeling the pinch of a regional transportation system that doesn’t meet our needs”.    Others commented “This is a crisis in terms of funding and prioritization in the region” and Sound Transit Board member Claudia Balducci added, “We could have this same conversation across King County”.  Everyone agreed on the “need to work together” and Butler later told the Reporter “the summit went very well and everyone is committed to solving regional pass through traffic”.

All of this is rather bizarre.   Those conducting the “summit” were at the forefront of the recent effort to convince voters to allow Sound Transit spend $54 billion over the next 25 years to relieve congestion.   What’s bizarre is the fact that after being given the authority to spend those billions, the summit participants, several of who were Sound Transit Board members, would still conclude, “we have a crisis in terms of funding and prioritizing in the region”.   

Even more bizarre is the participants are right, “we have a crisis!”  But it’s not from lack of funding.   The reason “We’ve been feeling the pinch of a regional transportation system that doesn’t meet our needs” is not because of  a lack of adequate funding, it’s because of the way Sound Transit has been spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions that do little to reduce congestion.  The recently approved ST3 funding, which many of the participants presumably supported, simply spends billions more on a fatally flawed light rail system. 

Mayor Butler hopes “We can look back at this first meeting as an important turning point in addressing traffic flow”.   He’s been on the Sound Transit Board for many years.  It seems a “little late in the game” for a “turning point”.  Commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted if Sound Transit had added the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways 10 years ago and initiated two-way BRT on the center roadway.   The hundreds of millions “invested” in East Link could have added thousands of parking stalls throughout the eastside with express bus routes into Seattle and Bellevue.  Allowing commuters to leave their car near where they live rather than where they work is the only way to relieve the congestion along the I-90 corridor.   Instead his constituents will have to wait until 2040 to get even the minimal benefits from ST3 light rail. 

Mayor Stokes concerns about Bellevue-to-Issaquah and Bellevue-to-Renton congestion are well founded.   However the ST3 he also actively supported will do little to relieve “the pinch of a regional transportation system that doesn’t meet our needs”.   It provides funds for East Link construction that will close the South Bellevue and Overlake P&R facilities ending many commuters access to transit; disrupt those who live or commute along Bellevue Way; and close I-90 Bridge center roadway inevitably leading to frequent gridlock on outer roadways.  ST3 also does nothing to change the fact that East Link operation will provide about half the current cross-lake transit capacity and do little to relieve outer roadway congestion, hardly a way to “meet our needs”.

Needless to say, given the reported comments from the initial summit,  I’m not optimistic about future Issaquah summits solving regional traffic problems.

Bellevue City Council "Ignorance or Deception"

I intended to present the following at the 11/28/16 Bellevue City Councill meeting.  Unfortunately others had a higher priority for the 30-minute public comment period so I was unable to do so.

Bellevue City Council “Ignorance or Deception?”

Alexander Hamilton once said about those who opposed the Jay treaty with Britain  “If we suppose them sincere, we must often pity their ignorance: if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays”.   I’m here tonight to question whether it was council ignorance or deception that has resulted in East Link light rail for our area.

For example, was it council ignorance or deception they didn’t recognize Sound Transit had made a major blunder when they neglected to consider BRT for the I-90 Bridge.  That Sound Transit’s claim East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway was belied by its one 4-car-train-every 8-min operating schedule.   That rather than the promised 60% increase in cross-lake transit capacity East Link will have about half the current bus capacity.  That East Link will do absolutely nothing to reduce the congestion along the I-90 corridor and its confiscation of the center roadway will inevitably lead to gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.

Was it ignorance or deception the council made light rail “permitable” when they rejected their staff recommendation that the revised land use code require "light rail minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts and not be contrary to the best interests of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue".  That the council approved Sound Transit Shoreline Permits apparently agreeing light rail noise would have no impact on the Mercer Slough Park despite the fact the council insisted they spend millions on noise barriers for properties across a major roadway and hundreds of feet away.  That doing so made a mockery of environmental law and will end the quiet solitude of the park.

The Fall/Winter edition of the "Bellevue, It’s your City” newsletter, described how Sound Transit will close the South Bellevue P&R and begin construction along Bellevue Way.  Was it ignorance or deception the council allowed Sound Transit to ignore their MOU agreement to provide replacement parking and connecting bus routes for those using the P&R. That, despite “a traffic committee’s proposed mitigation tools”, the planned roadway closures for construction will create a nightmare for those who live in or commute in the area.

The bottom line is next year Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue P&R will end many commuters access to transit at their P&R, their construction along Bellevue Way will end Bellevue’s persona as the “city in the park”, and their closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will lead to frequent gridlock on the outer bridge roadways.  That, adding "salt to the wound", the WSDOT will likely use the congestion to justify HOT and +3HOV for the 4^th lanes Sound Transit has finally added.    

There wouldn't be an East Link if the council had rejected any of the ten permits Sound Transit needed for construction.  Whether their decision not to do so was the result of ignorance or deception, the entire area will pay a heavy price.

Sound Transit’s “Last Chance”

Now that voters have approved ST3 Sound Transit has one last chance to atone for past failures to understand how to implement a public transit system that can reduce the area's congestion.    They need to recognize their light-rail-spine concept has two problems.  The first is that, as the PSRC concluded in 2004, the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits light rail to one 4-car train every 4 minutes.   

One can reasonably argue as to whether they could “safely” run the trains more frequently or how many riders each 74-seat car can accommodate.    Whatever the “conclusion,” light rail through the DSTT will never have the capacity to accommodate the numbers of riders needed to reduce congestion or to justify the hundreds of millions required for each mile of extension to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond. 

The lack of capacity means Sound Transit’s light rail ridership projections are sheer fantasy.   The 2015 planning document claimed annual ridership would increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030.   Their ST3 claims the Everett extension would add 37,000-45,000 riders to the 63,000-74,000 riders they project for the Lynnwood extension.  Yet, the combined 100,000 to 120,000-ridership projections from Everett and Lynnwood will likely require nearly twice the DSTT light rail capacity during peak commutes.   Even with half that ridership those living nearer Seattle or on Capital Hill will frequently loose access to light rail because trains will be full before they ever get to their station.

The extensions to Tacoma and Redmond, having to share the DSTT capacity, will have even less effect on congestion.   East Link, which was promised to be the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway will, according to the Sound Transit extension website video, be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  The fact it confiscates the I-90 bridge center roadway likely leading to frequent gridlock on bridge outer roadways makes it especially egregious.

Even more absurd, they only intend to add 8560 additional parking stalls between 2024 and 2041; not likely to provide the access needed to attract the 84 million riders by 2030.  ST3 only adds 532 stalls to the “chronically full” Lynnwood T/C to increase access for the 100,000 to 120,000 riders projected for the Lynnwood/Everett extension.   They apparently “assume” a huge increase in the number of commuters living within walking distance of light rail stations.  Their plans to use light rail to replace bus routes into Seattle will do nothing to increase the number of transit riders needed to reduce congestion.  

The second problem is once they’ve spent the billions on the light rail spine, they face a huge increase in operating costs.  Per 2016 budget, a light rail car costs $24.36 per mile to operate vs. $10.35 for buses.   Every mile Sound Transit extends light rail beyond the UW station adds about $200 to the round trip operating costs for a 4-car train.  Even accounting for the somewhat higher light rail car capacity (148 per PSRC vs. 119 sitting and standing in a 70-ft articulated bus) the billions spent extending light rail will essentially double transit operating costs. 

The obvious solution is not to spend ST3 funds on a 29-mile UW-to-Everett extension, spend it on the proposed 5.4-mile extension to Ballard and 4.7-mile extension to West Seattle.   The two combined would cost about $4B and add roughly 80,000 to 100,000 riders.   The numbers of residents within walking distance of light rail stations would likely provide the ridership without the need to spend hundreds of millions increasing parking.   The light-rail construction costs per rider are a fraction of those for the spine.  The relatively short light rail extension lengths minimize the higher operating costs.  

The bottom line is Seattleites surely deserve the extensions.  There would be no ST3 if they hadn’t voted 70% to approve it.  Rather than making them wait for 15 to 20 years Sound Transit should, over the next 5 years, spend half of the $2B funds they plan to spend each year adding the Ballard and West Seattle extensions.

Obviously, the money spent on the Ballard and West Seattle extensions will do little to relieve congestion on the area's major roadways.  That requires spending the remaining $1B each year  attracting more of those commuters to transit.  As other posts have opined,  by adding parking, implementing BRT routes, along restricted roadway lanes if necessary, to T/Cs along 4^th Ave and in Bellevue and Overtake.  Parking fees would replace fare-box revenue to cover operating costs so those able to walk to P&R could ride free.  The advantage of funding added parking and bus service is it could continue for as long as necessary to ease congestion, something light rail routed through the DSTT can’t.  And it could be done with a fraction of ST3's $54 billion and 25 years 

Sound Transit has a last chance to do so.