WSDOT Should Require R-8A Capacity Demonstration

The previous post opined that the Mercer Island response to the FHWA August decision not to allow MI commuters use the HOV lanes to access the I-90 Bridge typified its failure to recognize Islander commuting problems.   This post details how all I-90 Bridge commuters could face extensive delays and potential gridlock unless the WSDOT demonstrates the 4^th lanes added to the bridge outer roadway (R-8A configuration) for HOV will allow it to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles when they close the center roadway in 2017. 

One would have thought the FHWA would have required the demonstration.  They were the ones who, in a September 2004 Record of Decision (ROD), included the following description of R-8A

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

Instead Sound Transit and the WSDOT persuaded a federal judge as part of the “Freeman” litigation that their R-8A, which added the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways didn’t need the center roadway for vehicles.   It was this decision that allowed Sound Transit to proceed with plans to install East Link on the center roadway.  What’s “interesting” is the WSDOT cited the very same ROD to justify allowing center roadway closure. 

Thus, the modified outer roadway’s capacity is of some “concern”.  Particularly since extensive delays on HOV lanes between Everett and Seattle indicate a lack of capacity.  At least on I-5, allowing both non-transit and transit HOV on the same lane dramatically increases travel times.  On I-5 transit travel time could easily be shortened if the WSDOT restricted one of the two HOV lanes to buses.  (They will probably have to do that eventually because the billions spent on Central Link spine will never provide the transit capacity needed to reduce congestion.)

The risk of extensive delays on I-90 Bridge outer roadway is even higher.  While they could restrict the HOV lane to buses to avoid transit delays forcing non-transit HOV onto GP lanes would increase their congestion.  (The WSDOT 2006 and 2007 agreements with Mercer Island indicate their intent to implement HOT lanes, purportedly to reduce congestion but a sure way to gain revenue.  The increased I-90 congestion would also "likely" increase WSDOT toll revenue from 520, especially since Sound Transit 3 "declined" to include BRT on 520)  Even when East Link begins operation in 2023, its limited capacity (~ 6000 riders per hour in each direction) will force the vast majority of cross-lake commuters to use non-transit HOV and SOV’s.

Surely the concerns justify demonstrating the modified outer roadways have the needed capacity.  They could do so after completing the HOV lanes on outer roadways by temporarily closing the center roadway. (A cynic might suspect Sound Transit delayed adding the 4^th lanes until they were ready to close the center roadway to preclude doing the demonstration.)  It’s unlikely any delays in final roadway closure due to the temporary closure would significantly affect light rail construction schedule.

Unfortunately neither Sound Transit nor the WSDOT have any plans to do so.  They need to be “persuaded”.  Again, the FHWA should be queried about the differences between their version of R-8A and WSDOT/Sound Transit’s.  The Seattle Times could bring public pressure to demonstrate capacity.  The legislature’s House and Senate Transportation committees could use their WSDOT oversight to insist on a demonstration in the upcoming session if not before.  

In conclusion, I-90 commuting could change forever in 2017 if the lack of capacity results in extensive delays and frequent gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.  Future growth will only exacerbate the problem.  The WSDOT needs to be “persuaded” to demonstrate it won’t happen.   

Mercer Island Commuters Deserve Better

“The Mercer Island I-90 Access & East Link Light Rail Project Update” presented at the Sept 19^th 2016 council meeting is another example of the failure of the council to effectively deal with their constituents’ commuting problems.  The update was in response to an August FHWA notification they would not allow single occupancy vehicles (SOV) to use the ICW HOV lane on Mercer Island for access to 1-90 Bridge.

MI SOV access was the result of mitigation between Sound Transit, WSDOT, and MI to compensate Islanders for “the loss of mobility” from Sound Transit’s I-90 Bridge center roadway closure in 2017.   MI access via the HOV lane would have allowed SOV commuters to avoid using controlled onramps to access the bridge outer roadway.  Doing so would avoid the long lines other I-90 corridor SOV commuters encounter on all the controlled onramps.  MI SOV onramp lines will likely be even longer since they’re the last with access.   

However, “WSDOT hints of a problem with the FHWA” with MI SOV "using the HOV lane" led to a formal query in March.  In June the Mayor advocated for MI SOV use in a DC presentation to the FHWA and members of Congress.  However, in August the FHWA responded citing federal prohibition on SOV traffic for any part of the HOV ramps or lanes.

The Sept 19^th update described city plans to challenge the FHWA decision including using hired “experts” to assist in making a “formal rebuttal”.  The rebuttal will include “proposing several alternatives to allow continued SOV access; requesting equitable solution for Islanders; and urging the State and King County to keep the agreements they made with our community.

It’s not clear what the alternatives are, why allowing Islanders to use SOV on HOV lanes is equitable, and what agreements the State and King County have to do with the issue.  It’s also not clear why no one thought to “query” the FHWA about SOV use of HOV lanes until this March? 

What is clear is this imbroglio is just the latest example of the failure of those responsible to deal with the area’s transportation problems. Even in the unlikely event they manage to obtain HOV access to I-90 Bridge outer roadway they’ll still face heavy congestion there. 

The FHWA concluded in a 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) that the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadway for HOV will not provide the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  The current congestion along I-5 express lanes between Everett and Seattle typifies the problem. 

Not only did the WSDOT “mislead” a federal judge with claims the modified outer roadways could accommodate all cross lake vehicles they’re allowing Sound Transit to close the center roadway without ever demonstrating that capacity. 

Even more “interesting” was a chart in the “Update” entitled “40 Year History of Agreements Regarding Mercer Island access to I-90”.  It included a “2006 letter from the Governor’s office & WSDOT to MI” for:  

Reconfirming commitment to 1976 Memorandum Agreement and reaffirming that MI residents should be permitted HOV access until converted to HOT

It was followed with a “2007 letter from WSDOT to 1976 memorandum signatories” for:

Transmitting revised I-90 Access Plan and confirming access to R8A lanes until converted to HOT.

Both raise all sorts of interesting questions.  For example why did the governor even get involved?  Again, why didn’t the WSDOT and MI bother to ask the FHWA about the issue earlier?  The letters both seem to suggest MI SOV commuters would have access to I-90 HOV lanes as well as onramps.  It’s not clear how they intended to implement MI SOV cross-lake HOV lane access. 

What’s “newsworthy” is the fact both letters also “suggest” the WSDOT had plans to initiate HOT on the I-90 HOV lane 10 years ago.  It’s not clear when they intended to do so.  My guess is they would quickly use the outer roadway congestion resulting from the center roadway closure to justify HOT.  The tolls required to maintain 45 mph on the HOV lane will be “substantial” and those unable or unwilling to pay the tolls will only add to GP lane congestion.  A cynic might suggest the WSDOT neglected to require Sound Transit demonstrate outer roadway capacity because of the anticipated toll revenue.

Yet MI officials went along with WSDOT plans despite the fact their commuters, even if they have easy access to I-90 Bridge, would be forced to pay the tolls to avoid congestion.  It’s similar to their willingness to go along with an East Link whose operating schedule, one 4-car train every 8 minutes, will limit its capacity to about 6000 riders per hour in each direction.  As a result, at least during the peak commute hours, light rail trains will be full well before they get to the island. 

The bottom line is MI officials are ignoring the fact that Prop 1 will essentially end Islanders’ easy access to Seattle.  They even refrain from advising Islanders vote against a Sound Transit 3 which does nothing to improve cross-lake commuting and only forces them to pay, undoubtedly far more than most, for 25 years.  They deserve better.

BCC ST3 Support Reflects Their Vision of Light Rail Rather than Reality

The Bellevue City Council’s decision to support Sound Transit 3 during their Monday meeting (9/19/16) is a perfect example of their failure to recognize the difference between their “vision” of what light rail “could” do for the area and the reality of what it “can” do.  What light rail “can” do is limited by the fact that the Sound Transit light rail spine is routed through the Seattle bus tunnel. 

A 2004 PSRC study concluded that it could only safely accommodate one four-car train every four minutes in each direction.  It’s that limitation that presumably led Sound Transit to propose a second tunnel and set of tracks to Everett as part of their initial ST3 package last fall.  They quietly dropped that idea knowing voters would be less than enthused about paying for two light-rail extensions to Everett. 

The limits on trains and cars-per-train means no matter how many riders Sound Transit claims each 74-seat car can accommodate, the Sound Transit spine will never have the capacity to significantly reduce congestion on any of the area’s major roadways.  Sound Transit’s operating schedule for East Link during peak operation of one four-car train every 8 minutes utilizes half of the tunnel capacity.

Both those for and against recommending ST3 approval were allowed an initial 10 minutes to address the council plus five speakers each allowed three minutes.  The 10-minute-pro ST3 spokeswoman made some interesting comments to the council.  She started out mentioning the fact that the ST550 bus she rode to Bellevue was full to the point that she was forced to stand on the “yellow” line, apparently violating safety rules.  She used that to indicate eastside commuters desire for transit.  One would have thought it would also suggest Sound Transit increase the frequency of bus service.

She later showed a chart showing “What it would take to transport 800 people”.  That it would take 500 cars and 10 buses to transport the 800 people who could ride on one 4-car light rail train.  She “neglected” to mention that East Link operation only provides one of those trains every 8 minutes, or 7.5 trains per hour.  Even with the rather dubious assumption the four-74 seat cars can average 200 riders each the total capacity is 6000 riders per hour, about half the current cross-lake bus capacity and a fraction of what’s needed to meet the growth Sound Transit is projecting to justify ST3.     
                                                                                                 Meanwhile, a 70-ft articulated bus has a rated capacity of 119 standing and sitting riders.  Thus Sound Transit could achieve nearly the same increased transit capacity by simply adding 50 high capacity bus routes per hour.  And they could add more bus routes to meet future growth, something East Link can never do. 

They could do so even if East Link confiscates the I-90 bridge center roadway by restricting the 4^th lanes Sound Transit is currently adding to the outer roadway to buses.  ST3 perpetuates the stupidity of Prop 1 spending billions for light rail rather than for two-way bus rapid transit (BRT) on the center roadway.  The added 4^th lanes on outer roadway could be used for non-transit HOV.

In conclusion, the only way to reduce the congestion on the area’s roadways is to convince more commuters to use transit.  Doing so requires adding thousands of parking spaces near where people live with access to transit to near where they want to go.  Prop 1 does neither and ST3 spends $54 billion and 25 years perpetuating that failure.  It's clear the ST3 reality is far different from whatever vision the Bellevue City Council had that led them to recommend approval.  One can hope voters will recognize the difference.  

Why BCC Should Recommend Rejecting ST3

The Bellevue City Council's resolution during their last meeting (9/12/16) allowing those for and against ST3 to make presentations prompted me to write the following.  (It's "unfortunate" the Bellevue Reporter never made any mention of the resolution.)  However, they selected the “People for a Smarter Transit Coalition” to make the 10 minute “con” argument.  Since my presentation far exceeded the 3-minutes allowed for other speakers I decided to post it instead. 

Thank you Mayor,

First I would like to thank the council for the opportunity to express my opinions on ST3.  My public transit experience began during the 15 years I spent commuting primarily by bus to Boeing.  After retiring in 1998 my travels to the UK and throughout Europe allowed me to sample public transit in London and all the major European cities.   Last year I experienced subways in New York and Toronto.    It’s that experience that’s led me to conclude the Seattle Tunnel limitations prevent Sound Transit’s ST3 light rail extensions from ever significantly reducing congestion on the area’s major roadways.

The ST3 proposal asks voters to approve spending $54 billion or roughly $2 billion a year over the next 25 years, primarily on light rail projects.  Their 2016 budget included $480 million for expanding light rail.   Thus ST3 approval will allow Sound Transit to spend roughly 4 times their current expenditures each year for the next 25 years.   And they will be able to spend it at the discretion of a Sound Transit Board with little or no accountability to the public. 

 It’s bad enough any board would have that authority.   What’s worse, residents have no choice as to who is on the board.   Private company board members while nominated by the board chairman generally must be approved by the company stockholders.   The Sound Transit board chairman gets to select whomever he chooses.    This is particularly unfortunate with ST3 given current chairman Dow Constantine’s response to the legislature allowing the transportation package vote.  

“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”    

I doubt even he really believes that.  What is clear is he apparently doesn’t understand the limits on light rail capacity because of the Seattle tunnel.   It limits the number of light rail cars per hour that can safely pass through the tunnel in each direction.  (Its that limitation that presumably led Sound Transit to initially propose a 2^nd tunnel and light rail tracks to Everett)  As a result, no matter how many riders they cram into each 74-seat car, the ST3 spine will never have the capacity for more than a fraction of the 500,000 riders Sound Transit projects.  

Even the capacity if does have will be of little use unless Sound Transit adds hundreds of millions to ST3 funding for added parking to provide access.   Any rational analysis would conclude the costs to construct, equip, and operate their ST3 spine will far exceed any benefit.    

 What’s even more disconcerting is apparently there is no fixed end date for the increased taxes.   Sound Transit simply extended the 15-year package approved by the legislature for an additional 10 years for ST3.   If the board determines more light rail extensions are needed the taxes can be extended to pay for them. This lack of accountability for so much spending over such a long time is reason enough for the entire area to reject ST3.

The council has even more reason to recommend eastside voters reject ST3.   First of all, many if not most eastside residents will pay far more than the $370 additional taxes Sound Transit claims if ST3 is passed.  Second, most of the eastside ST3 taxes will be used to pay for the "limited benefits" of the Everett-to-Tacoma portion of the spine along I-5.  

It’s clear Sound Transit board simply abandoned the “obligation” to spend taxes generated on the eastside to benefit east side commuters.   Apparently state law regarding sub-area equity only requires they tell people what they’re getting not whether they’re getting their “fair share”.  Eastside residents are certainly not getting their “fair share” from ST3. 

What eastside residents are getting from the ST3 taxes should also raise alarms.  Sound Transit in their 2/08/16 meeting with the council dealt with the financial aspects of ST3.  One of the more interesting comments was they didn’t need ST3 funds to complete the Prop 1 extensions.  They claimed to have 98% of the funds required even if ST3 were rejected and the remaining 2% would simply extend the program slightly.   

Thus, if ST3 is rejected Sound Transit's promised East Link portion of the spine to the Overlake T/C would still be completed.  The Bel-Red area would still have the benefits of light rail.  I happen to believe a South-Lake-Union style streetcar system is a far better choice.   It would cost less, be far more accessible, more esthetically attractive, and far less intrusive than elevated light rail tracks with four 74-ton-car trains trundling through the area for 18 hours a day.  However, either option would provide the Bel-Red area with the benefits of public transit without ST3. 

What will eastside residents get if ST3 is approved?  Well, apparently in ten years they’ll get East Link extended to downtown Redmond, something that was promised as part of Prop 1.   Sound Transit 3’s only potential new light rail project on the eastside is the link between South Kirkland and Issaquah and its not scheduled to begin operation until 2041. Until then, the anticipated growth Sound Transit is using to justify ST3 will only add to the current congestion along I-90. 

I-405 commuters will get BRT service around Lake Washington to light rail stations at Lynnwood and 145^th in 2024.   ST3 also includes funding for a “future investment study across SR-520" and an “environment study to examine HCT options from Bothell to Bellevue”.  Wow!  First of all, I-405 commuters deserve BRT in 2018, not 2024.  The limited amount of funds required could put an end to the less-than-popular HOT. 

Rather than a “future investment study” ST3 should have included BRT across SR-520 to the UW light rail station.  Doing so would provide commuters from both sides of the lake with an effective BRT/light rail commute. 

(Of course Sound Transit could have initiated two-way BRT on the I-90 bridge center roadway years ago and save the entire area the problems associated with the closure of the South Bellevue P&R this year, the closure of the I-90 bridge center roadway next year, and the disruption from light rail construction along the route into and through Bellevue.)

In conclusion, the voters’ decision in November on ST3 will affect their lives for far into the future.  Many of them will be relying on the council’s recommendation tonight as to how to vote.  You surely have an obligation to provide them with a recommendation. 

You should consider the following.  Sound Transit uses the dramatic increase in the area’s population by 2041 to justify ST3.  The problem is eastside residents need help now.  ST3 will do very little to do either.  Instead ST3 approval will allow Sound Transit spend an average of $2 billion a year for at least 25 years with very little of that money going to help the eastside.  

It should be an easy decision.

BCC Response to South Bellevue P&R Closure

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council at their Sept 12^th meeting.  I’m posting it since they may chose to ignore it.

Dear Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to tell the council you’re “amazing”.  It’s not a compliment.   A Feb 9^th 2015 Sound Transit presentation to the council detailed their plans to close the South Bellevue P&R in March of this year to construct the new P&R.  It went into considerable detail about the large number of commuters who used it to access transit.  However, they were, to put it mildly, vague about their plans to accommodate those commuters. 

The council subsequently signed an MOU with Sound Transit requiring they do 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

Rather than doing so Sound Transit simply delayed the closure until after the vote this fall.  They knew the closure would not only limit transit access at South Bellevue, every eastside P&R would likely be full well before many commuters arrived.  They were concerned those who lost transit access would respond by rejecting ST3

What’s “amazing” is the council’s response.  Instead of requiring Sound Transit satisfy the MOU the Sept 8 East Link update to the council was dedicated to making sure none of the affected commuters could park on the nearby streets.  The council’s concern was how big to make the restricted parking zone or RPZ and how to enforce it making it impossible for commuters to walk to the station. 

You owe it to your constituents to publicize Sound Transit’s failure to meet the MOU.  That, as a result, any commuter who uses an eastside P&R to access transit will likely find it full when they arrive.  You need to do so before the vote this fall.

In closing I notice your agenda tonight includes a discussion as to whether the council should recommend voters approve ST3.   What’s “amazing” is you even have to discuss doing so.  Of course the council members have an obligation to publicly recommend voters approve or reject ST3 and why.  Refusing to do so would be absurd. 

Sound Transit 3 Operating Cost “Surprise”

Previous posts have opined on the “surprises” awaiting east side commuters from Sound Transit’s East Link extension.  This post is an attempt to explain why commuters throughout the area will likely be “surprised” by Sound Transit 3.   As with the East Link “surprises” it’s the result of the media’s willingness to go along with Sound Transit‘s approach that "the less voters know about ST3, the better their chances of approval". 

For example, many commuters will be "surprised" when the Central Link extensions to Northgate and beyond begin operation that the Seattle tunnel, at least according to a 2004 PSRC study “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment,“ limits light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction.  They based that capacity on their conclusion the tunnel limited light rail to one 4-car train every 4 minutes and that the 74-seat cars can reasonably accommodate 148 riders.   The 8880 rph is a fraction of what’s needed to reduce congestion on I-5 and the East Link share, 4440 rph, is about half the current peak transit capacity on I-90

Transit commuters will be further “surprised” to learn they won’t have access to even this limited capacity unless Sound Transit decides to spend hundreds of additional millions adding parking near the stations or on P&R lots with connecting bus routes to stations.

However,  another ST3 “surprise" will be the huge operating costs for the “Prop I and beyond” light rail extensions. The whole idea of light rail transit is based on the presumption that, compared to adding more bus service, increased light rail capacity and reduced operating costs will offset the costs for constructing the light rail extensions and buying the light rail trains. 

However, 75-80 high capacity buses could provide the 8880 mph capacity without spending a dime on light rail construction.  (A 70-ft articulated bus has a rated capacity of 119 sitting and standing riders.)  A light rail car costs ~ $6 million, about 5-6 times what a high capacity bus costs.   Sound Transit’s 2016 budget estimates each light rail car costs ~ $25 per mile to operate vs. ~ $10 per mile for buses.  (Both of these costs exclude depreciation, presumably far higher for light rail cars.) 

Thus a 4 car train costs ~$100 per mile to operate, and achieving the 8880 rph requires 15 trains costing $1500 per mile.  With 75 buses, the same capacity could be achieved at an operating cost of $750 per mile.  Sound Transit’s plan to use light rail cars rather than buses increases operating costs by $750 per mile.  Assuming they average that capacity over 15 hours per day and 90 hours per week means light rail operating costs will exceed bus costs by $3.5 million annually for each mile.  

Since each mile of extension adds two miles of operation for a round trip, the hundreds of millions spent installing a mile of light rail tracks rather than using buses will result in $7 million increased operating costs annually.  Sound Transit could have terminated Central Link at a UW stadium station T/C using its 8880 rph capacity for SR 520 BRT riders in both directions.  (That’s twice the capacity East Link will provide for I-90 commuters.)

Instead Sound Transit’s 28.2 mile “Prop 1 and beyond” ST3 extensions to Everett will add ~$200 million each year to operating costs over what buses would cost.  A similar analysis would presumably show the East Link and Central Link extensions to Tacoma will add another ~$200 million.  The higher light rail car depreciation costs will likely add another $50 million.

The bottom line is the billions Sound Transit 3 will spend extending light rail from Everett to Tacoma will have a miniscule effect on I-5 congestion and actually increase I-90 Bridge congestion.  The “surprise” the extensions will also increase annual operating costs by ~$450 million is truly “pouring salt on the wounds”.

East Link's Final "Surprise"

One would have thought that Sound Transit’s East Link light rail extension, which will result in closing the South Bellevue P&R later this year making it far more difficult to use P&R lots to access transit and next year close the I-90 Bridge center roadway inevitably leading to 6 years of frequent gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways, would be a boon for cross-lake commuters when it began operation in 2023.  If they did, they’d be wrong. 

East Link, which was sold to voters in 2008 as the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway, will provide at most one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Its operating schedule should be no “surprise” since the narrative on the video depicting East Link operation on the extension website describes its operation as being “one 3 or 4 car train every 8 to 10 minutes”.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of commuters (and voters this fall) will be "surprised" by East Link's limited operation.  

The other “surprise” is those who are  aware of the schedule, the Sound Transit Board and their supporters in the media and elsewhere apparently don’t “recognize” no matter how many riders they cram into each 74-seat car, capacity will be a fraction of what was promised.  Not only will it not (as was promised in the 2008 DEIS) “increase person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60%” it will have less than half the capacity needed to accommodate current peak transit ridership. 

The vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters’ only access to even this limited capacity will be the South Bellevue P&R station.  Many will be “surprised” to learn East Link operation will do nothing to ease the congestion they frequently encounter every morning, beginning near Issaquah through Eastgate to I-405, and is even worse during their return commute in the afternoon.

Sound Transit had earlier proposed their “integrated transit system” (ITS)  which terminated all the cross-lake buses at the two stations. (Initially 40,000 of Sound Transit’s projected 50,000 East Link riders were from the terminated bus routes.)  Mercer Island official objections ended that option at their station.  The East Link video indicates some bus routes will be terminated at South Bellevue though it's unclear how many.  Whatever bus routes they terminate there rather than continue into Seattle will have a miniscule if any affect on bridge outer roadway vehicle congestion.

Those forced to transfer will likely be less than "enthused" with the resulting hassle every morning and afternoon.  Particularly in view of the fact that, at least during the peak morning commute, East Link’s limited capacity will likely result in full trains before they even get to the South Bellevue station.  The probability those forced to transfer will have to pay a second fare makes if even less attractive.

The bottom line is that the South Bellevue P&R closure later this year (and after the ST3 vote) is just the beginning of Sound Transit’s East Link “surprises”.   They exemplify Sound Transit’s entire approach to dealing with the area’s congestion that “the less people know the better their chances of ST3 approval this fall”.   It’s unfortunate that, at least to date, the Seattle Times seems a willing accomplice.