East Link's Fatal Flaws

I have difficulty hearing presentations to the Bellevue City Council so I frequently view videos of the meetings when the agenda is “interesting”.   The January 25^th agenda concerning the East Link Project Update was of particular interest, especially the status of the I-90 bridge design. 

East Link, as the first attempt to install light rail on a floating bridge, has been a concern item since February 2009 when the FHWA response to the Sound Transit 2008 DEIS concluded:

We think there is additional work to be done to determine if it is feasible to design an expansion joint to accommodate light rail.

While much has been done, the design is yet to be approved by WSDOT.  ST officials seemed to give great credence to their bridge engineers comment “he saw no fatal flaws whatsoever in putting light rail on a floating bridge’’.   I’m not sure whether his inability to “see any fatal flaw” means there aren’t any. 

Assuming the light rail/floating bridge compatibility issues are resolved still leaves East Link with “fatal flaws’.  The first of which will be evident next year when ST closes the I-90 Bridge center roadway to begin installing light rail.   The 4^th lanes they're currently adding to the bridge outer roadway will not have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes. 

This lack of capacity of the single lane is presumably what led to the Sept 2004 FHWA Record of Decision “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project” recommending the R-8A configuration they approved not only added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadway but maintained the two center roadway lanes for vehicles.  This conclusion was recently supported by a PSRC “Stuck in Traffic; 2015 Report” showing 75-minute commute times between Everett and Seattle on HOV lanes.  The ST refusal to expedite adding the 4th lanes and temporarily close the center roadway to demonstrate outer roadway capacity typifies their approach to East Link "flaws".

The second "fatal flaw” won’t be apparent to commuters until East Link begins operation in 2023.  That’s the lack of East Link capacity. The ST 2008 DEIS promised East Link would “increase cross lake transit capacity by up to 60%”.  Yet they recently conceded East Link operation will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Assuming an average of 150 riders in each of the 4-car trains gives 4500 rph, less than half current peak transit capacity.  

Presumably this belated recognition contributed to ST canceling plans to use light rail to replace even existing cross-lake buses.  It also was the likely reason ST abandoned their ST2040 plans for extending East Link to Bothell, Issaquah, and Renton in favor of the absurd separate light rail connection between Totem Lake and Issaquah.

Of course the most fatal flaw of all was the ST failure to add  4th lanes to the I-90 Bridge for non-transit HOV and initiate two-way BRT on the center roadway 10 years ago.  Commuters have already needlessly endured years of congestion because of that "flaw" and its only going to get worse. 

The end  result of all these "flaws" will be ST spending $3.6B on a light rail system disrupting cross-lake commuters, those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue, and a major portion of downtown Bellevue with the tunnel, all to create an East Link light rail system that will inevitably lead to gridlock on the outer bridge roadway.  Flaws that surely qualify as "fatal".  The real absurdity is it's all for one measly 4-car train every 8 minutes.

Sound Transit Board - Oblivious to 1-90 Reality

The previous post on this blog opined the Sound Transit Board was apparently oblivious to the realities of congestion on the I-5.  Their ST3 proposal to add a second tunnel and set of light rail tracts to Everett is "belated recognition" of the lack of Central Link capacity (either 8880 riders per hour (RPH) or PSRC or the 12,000 RPH per "somebody").

However, they still intend to spend billions extending Central Link to Everett.  They may or may not have recognized the need to spend hundreds of millions adding P&R lots with bus connections to light rail stations to provided access to the added capacity.  If they had, they "might" have recognized they could save billions on light rail construction by simply routing buses directly into Seattle rather than light rail stations.

The Board's approach to using light rail on the I-90 Bridge center roadway for cross-lake public transit is another example of being oblivious to reality.  East Link has half the capacity of Central Link.  If the 12,000 RHP Central Link capacity isn't sufficient for the extension to Everett, then 6,000 RPH is surely not sufficient to Mercer Island, Bellevue and beyond.

If Sound Transit insists on installing light rail across Lake Washington the only way to do so is another bridge.  Their recognition of the "reluctant support" for a second bridge is presumably what led to their proposal for a second light rail system between Totem Lake and Issaquah to appease voters.

The real absurdity of East Link is not only will it never have the capacity to meet cross lake requirements, it will preclude the only way to do so; namely two-way BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  Move the non-transit HOV traffic to the 4th lanes on the roadways and divide the center roadway into permanent inbound and outbound bus only lanes.  A bus only lane can easily accommodate more than 1,000 buses per hour with capacity far beyond foreseeable future transit needs.

Use light rail money to pay for the buses needed to take advantage of this capacity for thousands of additional commuters.  Provide access to the capacity by spending more of the money adding thousands of parking spaces at existing and new P&R lots.  Giving commuters the option of parking their car near where they live rather than where they work will ease congestion throughout the area.

In conclusion, commuters have already paid dearly for the Sound Transit Board failure to recognize some 15 years ago they could have moved non-transit HOV traffic to added 4th lanes on the the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiate BRT on center roadway.  The tragedy will be if Sound Transit remains oblivious to this reality and continues with their plan to close the center roadway in 2017 to install light rail.

Sound Transit Board Oblivious of I-5 Congestion

Friday evening, Jan 8^th, I experienced first hand the congestion that is the I-5 commute north of Seattle.  The occasion was a 6:00 PM drive to the Richmond Beach area. The approximate 11 miles from I-90 to 175^th took nearly 40 minutes.  Apparently this was pretty standard.  (The 1/13/16, 6:00 PM travel times between Seattle and Lynnwood on the regular and express lanes were 47 and 46 minutes on the WSDOT Seattle Traffic website.)  The PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report”  HOV peak travel times from Seattle to Everett were 70 minutes indicated congestion continued way beyond Lynnwood. 

Since I wasn’t driving I had “ample” time to observe the traffic flow on the regular lanes and part of the way on express lanes. Doing so gave me an indication of what the “red” and “black” colors for “Heavy” and “Stop and Go” on the WSDOT website really meant in terms of congestion.

I-5 traffic, as far as the eye could see, consisted of a sea of headlights.  Every once in a while we would get up to 20-30 mph for short distances but it was mostly stop and go.  Past Northgate we were able to use HOV lane until we had to work our way across to the 175^th exit.  Again, the PSRC data indicated the congestion extended well beyond our exit. 

I was struck by the fact that all those commuters had to endure that ordeal every night.  (Presumably the morning congestion going into Seattle was similar.)  Prior to my retirement I commuted via bus from the east side into Seattle for bus connections to work at Boeing near Boeing Field.   It took a little longer because of the initial wait for the bus, the intermediate stops, and the need to transfer.  However, I used the extra time in the morning to read the paper and to relax (doze) on the way home and appreciated the economies of transit.  I thought if I lived in the Richmond Beach area I would surely try to use buses to commute, particularly if faced with parking fees in Seattle.    

Doing so however was easier said than done.  The nearest parking was the 388 spaces in the Shoreline P&R.  Those using the P&R had to ride M348 bus route to Northgate to catch M41 to reach Seattle.  The M348 bus ran only every 30 minutes and took 40 minutes to reach Northgate.  From there it was an additional “nominal” 20 minutes to the University St station in Seattle.  Not exactly an attractive option.  Even so, many seemed to be using transit since, according to the WSDOT spring 2015 “Park and Ride Inventory”, the P&R was 88% in “use”.

What surprised me was that according to the WSDOT inventory there were less than 5000 parking spaces with access to I-5 in all the P&R lots north of Seattle; nearly all of which were regularly in “use”.  Since two of the biggest P&Rs, Ashway with 1022 spaces, and the Lynnwood T/C with 1370, were also used by I-405 commuters, even fewer spaces were available for I-5 transit riders.   

Part of the surprise of the limited parking was that, according to an Oct 2014 Seattle Times article, 33,000 commuters managed to use transit during the three-hour morning and afternoon commutes.  Obviously nearly all of them must live within walking distance of the bus routes.  The fact the same article reported the bus routes averaged 79% capacity suggests they were also at full capacity during peak commute.    Thus anyone attempting to ride transit faced problems with access and bus capacity. 

The relatively large number of transit riders suggest any commuter who had access to existing P&R and bus service or lived within walking distance of a bus route was already likely doing so. The obvious solution to increase transit ridership from Richmond Beach and all the other areas along I-5 was to increase both the access to transit with additional P&R lots and increased bus service.

Yet very little, if any, of the nearly $600M Sound Transit has spent annually since Prop 1 was approved in 2008 has gone into either.  They are projecting 60,000 daily riders by 2030 for the +$2B Northgate extension that begins service in 2021. Unless Sound Transit provides the additional P&R lots and bus connections to the light rail stations the only Central Link riders will be those who previously rode buses from Northgate or were on buses routed to Northgate rather than into Seattle.  Neither of which would do anything to reduce the congestion. 

What makes the current Central Link extension so absurd is that if either the PSRC estimate for 8880 riders per hour (RPH) or the more “optimistic” 12,000 is correct, the capacity is barely able to handle the current number of transit riders, let alone any they add with more parking and buses.  It’s presumably this “belated” recognition that resulted in a proposal for a second tunnel under Seattle and a second set of tracks to Everett. 

Sound Transit continues to plan spending hundreds of millions each year on a Northgate extension rather than using the money to add the thousands of P&R spaces and bus routes needed to reduce congestion. They are clearly oblivious to reality.  Hopefully the voters rejections of the ST3 funding proposal this fall will "wake them up".

Delay South Bellevue P&R Closure

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council at their 1/11/15 meeting.  I’m cautiously optimistic the Stokes led council will be more receptive to concerns about the devastating effect of East Link. While the closure delay will not stop it, it will at least delay the loss of P&R access until the ST3 vote this fall.  I’m hopeful voters will recognize the utter futility of giving Sound Transit an additional $1B annually to "fix" the area's transportation debacle.  The loss of funds would likely force ST to “reconsider” the financial viability not only of East Link, but all of the Prop 1 extensions.

Delay South Bellevue P&R Closure.

I’m here tonight because of Sound Transit plans to close the South Bellevue P&R in early March.  Both Bellevue and Sound Transit recognized the devastating effect of the closure on transit commuters who used any P&R on the east side with the following provision in their joint MOU:

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

The last public discussion about the closure was nearly a year ago at a February 9^th council presentation.  It listed the following 4 reasons for the closure:

1.            Site preparation

2.            Build the garage and guide way station

3.            Complete the garage and station finishes

4.            Add systems which include the electrical and safety components of the garage

They talked in general terms about their “replacement strategy” including maximizing existing park and rides, leasing 500 parking spots elsewhere, and modifying existing bus routes to accommodate replacement parking.  More details were promised later. 

I don’t recall seeing Sound Transit doing so.  Instead, typical of Sound Transit, they’ve lied. The March closure has nothing to do with building the P&R.  It isn’t needed until 2023.  It can’t possibly take more than two years to create a garage and guide way station.  It’s all about using the P&R for their construction equipment.  Apparently they believe the large parking area near the Humane Society they’re currently using for at least part of their equipment is “less convenient”.  

The council has an obligation to give Sound Transit the choice of either satisfying the requirements of the MOU or delaying P&R closure until at least 2020.  At least that way commuters will have only a two-year problem rather than 5 or 6 years with a March closure.  Anyone on the east side who uses a P&R will pay a heavy price if you don’t.

Looking Back On 2015 Sound Transit Debacle

The more than 8000 views of the seventy-two 2015 posts on this blog suggests large numbers of people are aware of my opinions about those responsible for the area's transportation problems.   Most of the posts detailed why I believe Sound Transit and WSDOT are both monumentally incompetent and flagrantly mendacious.   Others dealt with the failure of the Bellevue and City of Mercer councils to recognize the devastating effect East Link is going to have on residents; the PSRC continued financial support of Sound Transit despite their own studies showing the futility of Prop 1 light rail extensions; and the Seattle Time’s slavish support for Sound Transit plans to spend billions on "Prop 1 and beyond" light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to ease the areas congestion.   This post is limited to Sound Transits Prop 1 and beyond light rail extension debacle. (Others will follow.)

Several posts detail how Sound Transit mendacity regarding environmental issues made a mockery of the whole environmental review process.  The 1/26/15 post “Why BCC Should Rescind Shoreline Permit Approval” explains how ST claims light rail noise would not impact Mercer Slough Park were belied by ST plans to shield properties hundreds of feet away from this non-existent noise.  Without this mendacity the FHWA and the FTA would have recognized East Link noise violated federal environmental laws allowing only a de minimus impact

The 2/21/15 post “Dear Attorney General Ferguson” details how Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of Transportation in connivance with the State Environmental Protection Agency used this same “No impact on Mercer Slough Park” claim to perpetrate a monumental fraud that will end forever the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Natural Park.  He “declined” to respond.

The 11/06/15 post “The Absurdity of Sound Transit's "Green" Bond Claim” debunked Sound Transit Board Chair Dow Constantine’s claim:

“They (investors) need look no further than these green bonds, which will fund transportation projects that increase commuters' mobility while reducing reliance on cars.” 

(The Sustainalytics firm that supported Sound Transit’s “positive environmental impact” ignored my requests for comments on the post.) 

                                                         

Some thirty 2015 posts continued the three-year blog effort to expose Sound Transit incompetence. For example the 5/12/15 post “Sound Transit Central Link Debacle” used data from a May 8th PSRC   “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” report showing 2014 HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle had increased to nearly 75 minutes during morning commute and close to 70 minutes in the afternoon; a clear indication too many vehicles were attempting to use the HOV lanes.  The obvious solution would be to reduce the number of vehicles by attracting more car poolers and others to ride buses.  Instead Sound Transit plans to spend billions on Prop 1 Central Link extensions primarily to attract those who currently ride buses. 

Even worse, until recently, they refused to recognize the Central Link extensions would never have the capacity needed to reduce congestion.  Sound Transit essentially admitted the lack of capacity in a 12/05/15 Seattle Times article by adding a second set of tracks to Everett as part of ST3.   The 12/24/15 post “Sound Transit’s House of Cards” characterized the decision to go with two sets of tracks as both incompetent and mendacious. 

That belated light rail capacity recognition is also presumably why Sound Transit abandoned its “Integrated Transit System” (ITS) plan to use East Link to replace all I-90 cross lake buses.   The 11/27/15 post “Sound Transit Integrated Transit Service ‘Crashes and Burns’ " details the resultant loss of 40,000 daily riders and why the lack of light rail access for eastside commuters means most ridership will consist of Seatteites commuting to eastside.  The lack of capacity is also the likely reason Sound Transit abandoned their ST 2040 plans for East Link extensions to Bothell, Issaquah, and Renton in favor of light rail between Totem Lake and Issaquah.  The 12/24/15 post details the absurdity of that suggestion.

Of even more immediate importance, the 12/03/15 post “East Link Insanity Continues” once again (the last of at least 20 posts to do so) details Sound Transit’s monumental incompetence for refusing to recognize that adding the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadway will not make up for the loss of the two lanes on the center roadway when they close it in 2017.  The end result will be bus and car pools along with all the other vehicles will encounter the same congestion on I-90 Bridge as current HOV commuters do on I-5.  It's concerns over the "possibility" the resultant congestion would end any east side support that likely prompted Sound Transit to ask for the ST3 funding in 2016.

The reality is Sound Transit likely "recognizes" these problems.  The fact they fail to publicly "acknowledge" them goes way beyond mere incompetence.