East Link's I-90 Bridge "Surprises"

An earlier post opined the results of Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue P&R in November will be an unwelcome “surprise” for anyone who uses an east side P&R for access to transit.   I suspect far more commuters will be “surprised” when Sound Transit closes the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year to begin their 6-year plan to install light rail tracks there.  (At least many if not most of those I’ve talked to weren’t aware of the closure.)   

The only reason Sound Transit will be allowed to close the center roadway is the WSDOT lawyers told a federal judge in the Freeman case the R-8A configuration, which added the 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadway, didn’t need the center roadway for vehicles.  Yet, the very document the WSDOT cited “I-90 Twp-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project, Record of Decision, Sept 2004", included the following:

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

Sound Transit’s decision to ask voters to approve ST3 prior to the bridge closure “might” reflect concern the “possible” congestion would result in many commuters voting to reject it.  (Its also the “possible” reason they delayed closing the South Bellevue P&R, initially scheduled for March, until after the vote.)

Sound Transit has ample reason to be “concerned”.   The congestion on I-5 HOV lanes is a clear indication that a single lane cannot accommodate both non-transit and transit HOV traffic.   One would reasonably expect the WSDOT would feel compelled to demonstrate their claim to the judge that the center roadway was not needed for vehicles. 

They could do so by temporarily closing the center roadway once they added the HOV lanes to the bridge outer roadways.  Yet WSDOT has no plans to force Sound Transit to do so.  I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the potential for increased SR520 toll revenue from those avoiding the resultant I-90 congestion influenced their decision. 

The other potential “surprise” is the fact that Sound Transit may still not have an acceptable bridge design.  East Link is the first attempt to install light rail on a floating bridge.   Last August Sound Transit signed a $20 million contract to complete the design they’d already spent $38 million on earlier.  The Aug 16^th Seattle Times article about the new contract 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”

Yet nine months later the March 24^th Sound Transit board minutes included the following regarding the East Link extension:

“In the I-90 corridor the system design is at 90% and civil design is advancing to 90%.  The independent review team (IRT) identified 23 issues as part of the preliminary engineering. Twenty-two issues have been closed and the staff is working to close the final issue.” 

The fact that nearly 9 months after signing the contract they still apparently hadn’t completed the design suggests the flaws if not “fatal” are surely “serious”.  None of the subsequent monthly board agendas includes any update of the bridge design status.  Failure to do so could be the “ultimate” surprise.   Knowing Sound Transit, if they do fail to come up with an acceptable design they'll wait until after the vote this fall to admit the problem.

ST3 Flaws

The Aug 21^st, Seattle Times B1 page article “Sound Transit’s cost overruns for first phase hit about 86%” provides an excellent analysis of their inability to provide the  1996 promised light-rail service from SeaTac to the University district within decade for $1.67 billion.   The rest of the article then goes into considerable detail about the validity of Sound Transit cost projections for the “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions voters will be asked to approve this fall with ST3. 

The article fails to deal with the far more important issues.  For example, “Should any organization, no matter how accurate its cost estimates, be given an additional $1billion a year from taxes and fees plus borrowing whatever additional funds are required to spend $54 billion over the next 25 years?”   That seems like an awful lot of money to spend over a very long time.  Particularly since once ST3 is approved voters will have very little if any control over how the money is spent. 

Sound Transit will undoubtedly reject John Nile’s suggestion, “The agency shouldn’t attempt Sound Transit 3 until the second round to Lynnwood, Overlake, and Highline College is completed in 2023” since they won’t have the funds for those extensions without ST3.

There is also the issue as to how much it will cost residents.  The article quotes $326 per household.  It's difficult to believe that the additional sales tax, property tax, and license fees for a typical household living in Seattle or most areas affected by the ST3 funding proposal wouldn’t be far higher.   For example an earlier Times editorial quoted former Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald's estimate ST3 would bring the overall transportation taxes and fees paid by the typical Seattle household to nearly $2,800 per year.  

Even more important is “What will voters get for their money?”  Those who don’t commute will get absolutely nothing.  ST3 will also do nothing for the 78,000 Seattle commuters who, according to an April 11^th Seattle Times article, ride buses.   It will also do very little to increase the 32,000 Seattle area commuters who currently ride Central Link light rail trains. 

The only way to attract the 189,947 commuters who (according to article) drive alone is to make transit more convenient.   Presumably most of those with access to either Central Link or current Metro bus routes are already using transit. Thus the only way to attract significant additional riders is to add more bus routes.  ST3 includes no money for additional Metro bus routes.   

The only real hope for reducing congestion on the area’s major roadways is to dramatically increase the number of commuters (currently 10%) who ride transit for their morning and afternoon commutes.   The best way to do so is to provide them with access to transit near where they live with capacity and routes to near where they work.  ST3 will do neither. 

It doesn’t provide the hundreds of millions required to add the thousands of parking spaces (@$40,000 or more per space).   The ST3 funding also doesn’t change the fact that a 2004 PSRC study concluded the Seattle tunnel limited light rail service to one 4-car train every 4 minutes in each direction.  Sound Transit conceded that East Link service will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes. 

Thus even if Sound Transit adds thousands of parking spaces to increase access neither Central Link nor East Link will have the capacity required to accommodate the numbers of commuters needed to significantly reduce congestion.  The fact that Sound Transit could provide the “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions within the $54 billion budget over the next 25 years is no justification for approving ST3.  And despite what Sound Transit says, rejecting ST3 could jeopardize the finances for all the extensions.  The entire area should celebrate if that happened.

East Link Mercer Slough Impact far Beyond Mere Encroachment

The Seattle Times Monday 15^th headline “Light-rail project making tracks along beloved slough” is another example of the Bellevue City Council’s willingness to go along with an East Link light rail system that will be a disaster not only for commuters, but the entire eastside.   (It's also an example of the Seattle Times failure to recognize the encroachment issue is just part of the problem.)  

It should have never gotten this far.  Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link Project DEIS promises for light rail capacity were sheer fantasy.  However, it did include the following in section ES.9 “Other Environmental Considerations”

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act protects parks and recreation areas, historic sites, and waterfowl and wildlife refuges that may be affected by a project with US Department of Transportation (DOT) involvement.  When the DOT determines that there is a transportation use of a section 4(f) property if the impact is de minimis after avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, then an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required.

The Mercer Slough Park surely qualifies as needing protection from light rail.  Sound Transit could have satisfied the environmental laws by tunneling between I-90 into Bellevue.  Yet neither Bellevue nor Sound Transit even bothered to consider that alternative.  

Instead the two agreed to portray light rail impacts as “de minimis”.  Sound Transit did so by submitting the East Link Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact (SDEIS) document to the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration.  The FTA and FHA used that document as the basis for their approval via a Record of Decision (ROD) later that year.

It included Chapter 3, "Environmental Consequences" regarding the current light rail route into Bellevue:

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

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

Sound Transit presumably used that same document to demonstrate compliance with the State environmental Policy Act (SEPA).  Given these inputs about lack of light rail noise impact, it’s no surprise the FTA, FHA, and SEPA all agreed East Link would comply with federal environmental law (and presumably similar state law). 

At the same time they were making these claims for “de minimis” noise levels the two were negotiating on the need to spend millions shielding the properties along Bellevue Way and 112th Ave. They included:

1) Sound Wall on structure    

2) Sound wall on west side of tracks (up to 12 ft high)

3) Sound insulation, if required

Surely the admitted need to spend millions shielding homes across a major roadway and hundreds of feet away from tracks belied their claim light rail noise impact on Mercer Slough would be de minims.  Yet the Bellevue City Council used the same rationale for approving the Shore Lines permits Sound Transit needed. 

Despite Sound Transit spokesman Bruce Grey’s claim “We’ve been incredibly diligent about protecting the slough” they’ve done absolutely nothing to protect the slough from the light rail noise.

The bottom line is that while the loss of land and trees is bad enough, the fact the two made a mockery of the environmental law means East Link will end forever the quiet solitude of the slough. 

It’s just another reason why voters should reject ST3 this fall.  The vote this fall, six years before they begin “beyond Prop 1” light rail extensions, suggests the loss of ST3 funds could put East Link funding in jeopardy.   Without ST3 light rail may not "be coming" after all.

East Link Surprises

The Martha Lane letter in the Aug 12th Bellevue Reporter, “Concerned about park and ride lot closure” reflects another example of the total failure of the Bellevue City Council to effectively address the problems with Sound Transit’s East Link.  The following excerpt from the 2/13/15 post on this blog describes the problem with the closure, initially scheduled for March of this year:

The P&R has nominally 519 spaces but commuters use parking around the periphery for an additional 200 spaces, all of which are full by 7:30 AM.  During the peak commute an ST550 bus stops to pick up riders every 5 minutes.  The P&R also provides access to ST555, ST556 and ST560.  It, along with the East Gate P&R provide the major access to transit for I-90 corridor commuters; the ST550 route having more riders than any other ST route.

The 4/19/15 post described how the council supposedly dealt with the closure issue with the ST/BCC East Link MOU they announced via a 4/17/15 email.  Section 23.0 PERMITTING, PROJECT CERTAINTY, AND MITIGATION where paragraph 23.4 "South Bellevue Park-and-Ride Closure" in the MOU included the following:

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.

That post opined that anyone who viewed the Feb 9^th 2015 Sound Transit presentation to the Bellevue City Council for accommodating those who used the South Bellevue P&R would have concluded they don’t have a clue as to how to do so.  More than two months later they still hadn’t responded to the council’s request for “clarification”.  

I later received an email from the deputy city manager that Sound Transit was to update their response in September of 2015.   Yet nothing in the council’s agendas for that period and beyond dealt with the issue.   The 10/13/15 post, “The East Link Debacle Begins” presented to the council during their Oct 12^th communication period included the following:

Next March Sound Transit will close the South Bellevue P&R.  You could have made permit approval contingent on ST providing their long-promised plan for accommodating the thousands of transit riders who use it daily.  Yet they still haven’t provided one and likely never will.  The end result will be thousands of would-be transit riders finding the remaining P&R’s full well before they get there leaving them little choice between driving into Seattle or attempting to find other means to access buses.     

I followed that up telling the council the following at their Nov 23^rd meeting:

…that next March their closure of the South Bellevue P&R will make it impossible for many commuters to use P&R lots for access to transit. 

Even Sound Transit, apparently “recognizing” the devastating effect of the closure on transit commuters, delayed it from March until after the ST3 vote this fall.  However the council still apparently "unaware" of closure concerns reaffirmed their East Link support by participating in the April 22^nd “groundbreaking” ceremony and responded favorably to the ST3 proposal.

Until the Lane letter I had no idea Sound Transit had even attempted to satisfy the MOU as none of the council’s agendas had included the closure issue.  The fact the council apparently agreed that Crossroads and Renton are adequate replacements for closing South Bellevue indicates they still don’t understand the problem.  Thus it's unlikely any letters to either the council or Sound Transit will make the slightest difference regarding the closure.  

The only way to potentially stop the closure is to convince the city council to publicly oppose ST3.  Those are the letters that could make a difference.  While the closure issue alone is  surely adequate reason, there are several more "surprises" awaiting east side commuters and others if ST3 provides the funding East Link needs  to proceed.  More on those later.

Times Ignores Their Own ST3 Questions

The 8/08/16 Seattle Times headline “Riders learn the light-rail squeeze” is another example of their decision not to follow-up their 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers”.  There they questioned Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine’s “veracity”, the “wisdom” of committing to spend $50 billion over the next 25 years on light rail extensions, and included former state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald's estimate ST3 would bring the overall transportation taxes and fees paid by the typical Seattle household to nearly $2,800 per year.  

The editorial concluded:

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.

Yet none of this has happened.  Instead the Times headline heralded  “about 65,000 riders a day are taking light rail because of the University of Washington and Capital Hill stations.”   They ignored the fact that Sound Transit initially promised more than 100,000 daily riders by 2010.   They parroted Sound Transit 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.  They allow Sound Transit to cite the additional $1 million in fare box revenue over 6 weeks without asking about the additional operating costs with the extensions.  

The Times quotes Sound Transit claims 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 by the time ST3 would be built out”.   They ignore the fact a 2004 PSRC study concluded the Seattle tunnel limited light rail to one 4-car train in each direction every 4 minutes with half those trains going across 1-90 and half to SeaTac.  

No matter how many riders they stuff in the 74-seat cars it’s doubtful it can meet current transit demands let alone those of the added urban residents.   Bellevue Council member Wallace’s claim “They’ve gone to a very expensive solution that takes a long time to build” misses the reality that the ST3 is no “solution” for urban Puget Sound commuters.    

Those among the 65,000 that currently “love” light rail may be less enamored when they realize that the added taxes and fees they’ll pay if ST3 is approved will do absolutely nothing to improve their commute.  In fact, the limited capacity when the ST3 funded extensions begin operating means, at least during peak commute, the trains will likely be full even before they get to the UW or Capital Hill stations.  Of course the nearly 75% of Seattle residents who don’t use transit will only be forced to pay much more for those who do.

The Seattle Times surely owes residents throughout the area more “answers” to their “questions”.

How Bryant Can Beat Inslee,

First I want to thank those who supported my candidacy for governor in the Aug 2 primary.   The fact that nearly 50,000 residents chose to support a candidacy whose primary purpose was to expose the failure of ST3 to deal with the area’s transportation problems should be “wake up” call to Sound Transit and their supporters in the media. 

I believe that Bill Bryant can use the failure of the Governor, Sound Transit and the WSDOT to address these problems to attract the support from west of the mountains he needs to win this fall.   First, he should come out in opposition to an ST3 proposal that will spend $54 billion and 25 years primarily on “Prop 1 and beyond light rail” extensions that will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on the area’s major roadways.  

He should promise to use his office (and the WSDOT Secretary he appoints) to “persuade” Sound Transit to use existing Prop 1 funds to add 100,000 parking spaces over the next five years with free bus rides to Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake.  Operating cost would be paid for by those willing to pay for an assigned parking space at one of the P&Rs.  Doing so will result in those using transit "paying" for transit rather than the vast majority of those who rarely if ever use it. 

Second, Bryant should promise to appoint a WSDOT Secretary that will end plans to add HOT tolls to any roadway in the state.  Along I-405 between Lynnwood and Bothell the WSDOT should not only end HOT lanes they should open all three lanes to general-purpose (GP) traffic and expedite adding a 4^th lane for HOV traffic.  Between Bothell and Bellevue they should open one of the two HOT lanes to GP use. 

Bryant could attract voters from both sides of the state by coming out in opposition to Initiative 732’s plan to tax carbon emissions.   It purports to do the following in Sec. 2. “Findings and Declaration of Policty”:

The people find that reduction of Washington state's high sales tax will increase commerce in this state; reduction of the business and occupation tax on manufacturers will encourage business formation and expansion by reducing the burden of this tax; the implementation and enhancement of the working families' sales tax exemption will provide the benefits expressed at the inception of that program; and the imposition of a carbon pollution tax to fund these actions will establish Washington state's national leadership in addressing both climate change and the acidification of the oceans.

Washington is one of the 45 states that haven’t mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the state level.  The state did, however, have a goal of reducing emissions to specific levels by a particular year since 2008 when the state legislature passed statutory emissions limits in order to reduce Washington's overall greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035, and 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  The initiative is presumably an attempt to meet those goals. 

In 2011, Washington ranked 28th in carbon emissions nationwide with 69 million metric tons.  If I-732 is passed a $15 per metric ton (pmt) of carbon dioxide will begin on July 1 2017.  It will increase to $25 pmt on July 1 2018 and 3.5% plus inflation each year up to $100 pmt.  At $25 pmt, the 69 million tons will generate $1.725 billion.   While substantial, the state’s budgeted revenue for 2015 totaled $37.6 billion.  Its difficult to believe that the carbon tax could provide benefits anticipated in the initiative. 

While the common perception the way to reduce the state’s CO2 emissions is to use renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel power plants, they only amount to ~7 million tons (11%) in Washington.   “Renewable” hydroelectric power already provides 70% of our electricity.   The major “contributor” in this state is the roughly 60% of carbon dioxide emissions or 41 million metric tons from transportation.  The remaining ~30% comes from Industry (~18%), residential (~8%) and commercial (~3%).

If the carbon tax on all the emissions is the same, approximately $1 billion of the $1. 725 billion will come from gas taxes.   Again at $25 pmt, the tax would range from 20 to 25 cents per gallon depending on whether it was diesel and the amount of ethanol in the fuel.    As the carbon tax increased the contribution to the budget and also the cost would increase. 

It’s not clear how the $1.725 billion will be allocated to meet the initiatives goals.  The initiative did include the following restriction despite the fact that ~$1 billion came from gas taxes.

The proceeds of the carbon pollution tax are not intended to be used for highway purposes and must be deposited into the state general fund.

Again it’s difficult to believe the carbon tax will generate sufficient revenue to reduce Washington state's high sales tax, increasing commerce in this state; and reduce business and occupation tax on manufacturers, encouraging business formation and expansion.   The more likely result will be a huge bureaucracy will be set up to parse out the revenue as they see fit.  

As far as meeting any carbon emission goals, the 69 million metric tons in 2011 was already lower than the 1990 level.  While more recent data may show increases, the 1990 levels have been achieved without the carbon tax.  It’s also unlikely that the I-732 approach of primarily increasing gas taxes to reduce transportation-generated emissions will ever achieve the mandated 25% reduction by 2035.   

I-732 contends “the imposition of a carbon pollution tax will establish Washington state's national leadership in addressing climate change”.   The reality is it’s more the result of Governor Inslee’s effort to promote his stature as a national “leader” against “climate change”.   His purported “environmental expertise” is belied by his support for using huge amounts of the states energy and water resources to convert Canadian natural gas into methanol for export to China.  Why not let Canada do it rather than use our states precious resources?

He and I-732 need to be defeated.  Bill Bryant take heed!

Mercer Island "Pay to Park" Benefits

Mercer Island residents should be especially supportive of “Pay to Park” as the way to meet their commuting needs.   Islanders or their employers could agree to pay $250 a month or $3000 annually for 2000 assigned “Pay to Park” spaces at one or two P&R lots on the Island. 

With ~$10 per-mile-bus-operating costs (per Sound Transit 2016 budget) the $20,000 daily fees would pay for 2000 miles of bus service.  If the distance between the P&R lots to either a T/C on 4^th Ave or in Bellevue were 6.25 miles, the morning and afternoon round trips would each take 12.5 miles or 25 miles total.  Thus the 2000 miles of bus service could provide 80 morning and afternoon round trips to the two T/Cs with capacity if needed for 8000 riders.  (That’s 2/3 or the ~12,000 islander residents between 20 and 64.)

The 2000 parking space “owners” could decide on how the 2000 daily miles of bus service would be split between routes to Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake.  Presumably most of the trips would be during morning and afternoon peak commutes but others could be throughout the day or even into the evening.   Again the assigned parking spaces would assure commuters of having a place to leave their car whenever they chose to do so. 

With “Pay to Park”, like East Link, Mercer Island commuters will lose the exclusive “Single Occupancy Vehicle” (SOV) access to I-90 Bridge center roadway.  However, the islander buses, along with all the other I-90 corridor buses, could use the bus-only, inbound and outbound lanes for fast reliable commutes on I-90 Bridge center roadway.  And they could begin doing so within 2 years.  

With East Link funding from ST3, Sound Transit will close the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year.  Not only will Islanders loose their SOV access, their on ramp lanes to I-90, being the last with access will likely be heavily throttled.  Once on the outer roadway they’ll likely encounter ever-increasing congestion due to loss of center roadway lanes.  Even when East Link begins operation its lack of capacity means the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters (and islanders) will still be forced to commute by car or by bus on likely gridlocked outer roadways.  

It should be an easy choice.