Sound Transit's ST3 Eastside Transit Failure

Sound Transit’s purported plans for ST3 are just another indication of their inability to deal with the area’s transit needs.  Their ST3 plans for the east side are a perfect example. They’ve apparently finally recognized that East Link can’t possibly “meet growing transit and mobility demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent” they claimed in 2008 DEIS.   They’ve dropped their earlier ST2040 plans for extending East Link to Bothell, Issaquah, and Renton.

However, that recognition has not “influenced” their decision to close down the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail next year precluding ever initiating BRT there, the only way to provide needed cross-lake capacity.  The resulting increased congestion on the bridge outer roadways will simply add to the I-90 congestion in the Eastgate area.  East Link construction will devastate the route into Bellevue and disrupt the city with the tunnel for up to 6 years. 

When completed the vast majority of eastside commuters won’t even have access to East Link.  The ST claim for 50,000 riders by 2030 is belied by the fact they’ve recently dropped plans for transferring 40,000 of those 50,000 riders from buses at South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  It’s not clear how many riders they now anticipate.  Whatever that number East Link will change forever the commute into and out of Seattle.  

Rather than deal with the cross-lake commuting problems Sound Transit’s ST3 proposal simply ignores it.   They attempt to garner eastside support with “eastside-to-eastside” improvements.  Their Feb 8^th ST3 presentation to the Bellevue City Council included a separate light rail line between Totem Lake and Issaquah, BRT between Kirkland and Bellevue, and BRT between Lynnwood and Tukwila on I-405.

It’s difficult to believe that enough commuters would use light rail between Totem Lake and Issaquah to ever justify the cost of constructing and operating light rail.  ST’s belated interest in BRT is a welcome improvement.  The decision to initiate BRT between Kirkland and Bellevue would surely benefit Kirkland commuters who currently have no direct bus connections between the South Kirkland P&R and Bellevue T/C.  

However ST3 “neglects” to even propose BRT for cross-lake commuting on SR520.  Doing so in combination with a T/C at the UW light rail station could have provided an attractive transit option for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.  Their failure to insist on a UW T/C near the stadium with BRT on SR520 along with their failure to ever consider BRT on I-90 Bridge exemplifies their incompetence. 

BRT is also something they could begin doing in 6 months rather than waiting 6 years for ST3.  On I-405 they could initially double or triple the 7 buses per hour (ST532 and ST535) they currently route during peak commute from Everett and Lynwood.  Some of the added routes could skip intermediate stations to reduce transit times and some could be routed to the Overlake T/C to attract “Microsoft” employees.  On SR520 they could similarly increase cross-lake capacity with more buses both from P&R lots on the eastside to UW station and from UW station to Bellevue and Overlake T/C’s. 

The initial capital expenditures would be minimal and the only limitation would be the number of parking spaces commuters would have for access to the bus routes.  Parking for thousands of additional cars are needed along I-5, I-405 and throughout eastside before BRT will have any effect on congestion.  The fact the added parking was never considered in Prop 1 and has yet to be included as part of ST3 is a clear indication ST simply doesn’t understand the concept of BRT and is only proposing it to attract eastside support rather than ease eastside congestion.  

In conclusion, ST failure to ever consider BRT on I-90 Bridge has already been a disaster for eastside commuters.  It’s only going to get worse when they close the bridge center roadway next year.  Their ST3 proposal forces eastside voters to contribute a major portion of the additional $1 billion each year to perpetuate this debacle.  Despite ST claims to the contrary, voter rejection of ST3 is the most likely way to force them to “reconsider” it in the future. 

Bellevue City Council Should Reject ST3

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council in an attempt to persuade them to oppose the Sound Transit’s ST3 funding proposal as a way to stop East Link (and eventually Central Link extensions).  I had the feeling they thought I was some sort of Don Quixote "chasing after windmills".   Hopefully readers will think differently. 

Bellevue City Council Should Reject ST3

Sound Transit Executive Director, Ric Ilgenfritz opined during the Feb 8^th presentation to the council that since ST3 will benefith the entire region, the entire region should pay despite where the funds were spent. 

The reality is if Sound Transit were  interested in “benefiting” eastside commuters there wouldn’t be a Prop 1 East Link extension, let alone an ST3 proposal.  15 years ago they could have used eastside funds to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  Other eastside funds could have been used to divide the center roadway into inbound and outbound BRT lanes, something they are belatedly proposing for I-405.  BRT capacity would have dwarfed any foreseeable transit needs. 

With BRT on I-90 there would have been no East Link.  Eastside funds could have been spent adding thousands of parking spaces to existing and new P&R lots to provide access to BRT. There would have been no need to devastate the route into Bellevue, disrupt the city with tunnel construction, or close the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year for light rail.  Closure that will likely result in gridlock for vehicles on bridge outer roadways.

In 2023, when East Link begins operation, the vast majority of eastside commuters won’t even have access to it.  It will increase not decrease cross-lake congestion.  It will do absolutely nothing to ease the current I-90 congestion near Eastgate let alone accommodate future growth.  No one can reasonably argue that eastside residents will “benefit” from the hundreds of millions they’ve already contributed to the $3.6 billion Sound Transit will spend on East Link.  Asking them to contribute a major portion of the additional billion dollars each year for a minimum of 15 years to an ST3 proposal for light rail between Totem Lake and Issaquah is practically obscene. 

In conclusion, Sound Transit claims they’ll only need $600 million of the $6 billion they’ll get from ST3 by 2023 for completing Prop 1.  They could easily save far more than that by diverting East Link funds from light rail construction to I-90 BRT and adding P&R capacity.  The entire area would “benefit”.  The council should encourage them to do so by rejecting ST3. 

Clibborn Should Also Go,

House Transportation Committee Chair, Representative Judy Clibborn’s response to the I-405 HOT imbroglio exemplifies the inability of those responsible for dealing with the area's transportation problems.  Her recent comments in the Seattle Times that she had “acquiesced” to changes to tolling “to show people we are hearing them” suggests she doesn’t “hear very well”.   Opening the toll lanes “to general traffic during night, weekends, and holidays – for free” will do nothing to ease their objections.

She refused to even allow a vote to convert one of the two HOT lanes from Bothell to Bellevue to full-time general-purpose (GP) use claiming it “would likely sabotage the whole program”.   The added general-purpose lane could accommodate nearly 5000 vehicles an hour substantially easing the congestion on all the GP lanes.  Less congestion there would reduce the incentive to pay HOT tolls and the HOV lane congestion.   The single HOV lane would also likely ease the problem near Bothell where the two HOV lanes are forced to merge. 

 Clibborn’s veto “suggests” she was more interested in raising revenue rather than reducing congestion.  (The fact her transportation committee allowed the WSDOT to spend $484 million creating the tolls “suggests” a lack of “financial acumen”.)    

She criticized  “the state’s past assurances that a single toll lane in each direction would suffice north of Bothell”.   Yet a PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” concluded very little of the I-405 delay between Lynnwood and Tukwila occurred before Bothell.  Any increased congestion there is likely due to more vehicles forced to use GP lanes because of +3 HOV requirements. 

Her support for spending $300 million for a 2^nd HOT lane to meet “the humongous growth” there is truly absurd.  Use the $300 million to add another GP lane.  Everyone would benefit.  As with the additional Bothell to Bellevue GP lane, the added capacity would reduce GP lane congestion, reducing the incentive and congestion on HOT lane. .   Until they do so they should open the three existing lanes north of Bothell to GP use since it’s probably not practicable to revert to +2HOV to avoid tolls for that portion.  

That's not "likely" to happen with Clibborn.

The bottom line is Clibborn's support for HOT lanes rather than GP lanes is "unfounded".  Like WSDOT Secretary Peterson, she needs to be replaced as head of the legislature's House Transportation Committee.  While others on the committee may have initially approved HOT lanes she seems incapable of recognizing the folly of continuing to do so.  Thus replacing her is the surest way of preventing the WSDOT from implementing HOT lanes between Bellevue and Renton and the other major roadways in the area. 

WSDOT Secretary Peterson Deserved Termination

Republicans were right to fire WSDOT Secretary Lynn Peterson.   It may or may not have been “triggered” by her decision to spend $484 million implementing HOT on I-405.   Thousands of commuters are rightly questioning how making it more difficult to car pool and increasing tolls as more drivers pay them could reduce congestion.  If it did, why don’t they add HOT to I-5.   Hopefully her replacement will end any plans to implement HOT between Bellevue and Renton as well as any other major roadways. 

However her HOT failure pales in comparison to her inability to exert “competent transportation leadership” on the Sound Transit Board.   The other board members were elected officials appointed by the King County Executive to represent their constituencies public transit concerns.    While obviously well thought of, there’s no requirement they have the background needed to “direct transportation policy”.   The WSDOT position on the board was presumably intended to provide that leadership. 

Secretary Peterson, at least publicly, didn’t.   Instead she continued her predecessor’s decision to allow ST board to continue with a light rail system totally incapable of meeting the area’s transit needs.   Their WSDOT was an accomplice to Sound Transit incompetence rather than a “corrective influence” as exemplified in their joint 2008 East Link DEIS.  

While the DEIS correctly advocated adding 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways, it never considered dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes.   The BRT lanes could have accommodated more than 1000 buses an hour, dwarfing any foreseeable cross-lake transit capacity needs.   Instead their DEIS “no-build” alternative maintained the existing “peak direction” for both lanes. 

The DEIS indicates neither ST nor WSDOT recognized light rail limitations in our area.  Instead they sold Prop I to the voters in 2008 with claims East Link would “Meet growing transit and mobility demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60%” with “peak hour capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour, equivalent to between 6 to 10 freeway lanes of traffic”.   Yet the PSRC document the DEIS cited as the basis for light rail, “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” concluded the “bus tunnel” limited total light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd). 

East Link would presumably be limited to half that capacity or 4440 in each direction less than half needed to meet even the 18,000 total.   Presumably this lack of Central Link capacity led to their ST3 proposal for a 2^nd tunnel and light rail tracks to Everett.  They surely don’t need both yet ST, presumably with Peterson’s concurrence, continues to spend billions extending Central Link to Northgate and beyond to Everett.  

Another example of Peterson’s “inadequacies” was her approach to adding the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.   They could have done so 15 years ago, reducing congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake, but particularly “reverse commuters”.   Instead she went along with her predecessor’s acceptance of the delay, adding years to the increased congestion

 Even worse, presumably under her direction, WSDOT lawyers told a federal judge the 4^th lanes made up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes, persuading him to allow light rail on the center roadway.  Yet the very document the WSDOT lawyers cited in making their claim, “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project- Record of Decision-September 2004” concluded the following:

Selected Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways.  It will retain the existing reversible operation on the center roadway”

The obvious conclusion that large numbers of non-transit vehicles dramatically reduces transit bus capacity has been reinforced by the HOV lane delays between Everett and Seattle.   Yet, the WSDOT, again presumably under her direction, has declined to require ST demonstrate the outer roadway can accommodate all the vehicles before they allow them to close center roadway next year.  They could do so by temporarily closing the center roadway after they’ve added the 4^th lanes.    

To be fair, Secretary Peterson is just one of 18 ST board members.  Thus any objections she may have regarding light rail may have been overridden by others more sympathetic to Chairman Constantine’s vision for light rail with ST3 funding.

“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”   

  

Constantine’s apparent failure to recognize the limitations of light rail in dealing with the areas transportation problems is why the WSDOT must do so.  

The first indication of her successor’s competence will be whether he or she makes center roadway closure contingent on successfully demonstration outer roadway capacity.   Cross-lake commuting could likely change forever if they don’t.

ST3 Financing

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council at their 2/08/16 meeting during the “Communications” portion prior to official Study Session Items.  After viewing the video of the ensuing Sound Transit ST3 financial presentation I was “less than satisfied” with both the council’s questions and the ST response.  For example they never asked why they needed the ST3 funds in 2017.  It also wasn't clear to me how Prop 1 extensions would be affected without ST3 funding or the impact of ST3 rejection.   I’ll leave it to others to view the video to make their own conclusions.

ST3 Financing,

I’m here tonight because your agenda included a Sound Transit presentation on an item of particular interest, ST3 financing.  My understanding is this fall they intend to ask voters for an additional billion dollars a year beginning in 2017 for at least 15 years.  The added funding doubles the $997.9 million they anticipated from all revenue sources in their 2016 budget. 

The additional funds are purportedly needed to fund extensions beyond what voters approved in 2008 with Prop 1.  Yet those extensions won’t be completed until 2023 raising the question as to why the rush.  Ask them tonight.

The most likely reason is ST needs additional money to complete Prop 1 extensions.  Last year they raised $1.3 billion via a loan and an additional $600 million issuing bonds.  Paying off the loan and the interest on the bond will cost them close to $75 million annually.

Prior to issuing the bonds they indicated they would need an additional $6.6B by 2023 to complete the extensions.  Presumably the ST3 funding is intended to cover those expenses.  If so, that raises an even more important question.  What if voters reject ST3?  Do they have a plan B for getting the billion dollars a year (and the $50 million needed annually to pay off in 45 years) for the next 6 years or do they intend to scale back Prop 1?  Could any changes involve East Link?  

Tonight is a perfect opportunity to ask ST for answers. Insist they respond before they begin disrupting our city constructing their tunnel.  Since I don’t hear very well I hope I can look forward to seeing you do so and watching their response either on TV or video.

I-90 Eastgate Congestion

I recently once again witnessed the congestion that is the I-90 commute on the eastside.  The occasion was the need to reach the Xfinity store in Factoria to resolve problems with my Internet access and phone service.

On the 4:50 PM commute there I used SE 35^th to cross under I-90 and cut through the Eastgate Plaza shopping area to SE 38^th to avoid the long lines on SE 37^th waiting to get on I-90 onramp.  While SE 36^th towards Factoria was relatively clear, it was stop and go the entire way the other direction.   Presumably most of those were attempting to get on I-90 from Richards Road and Factoria Blvd.  My 5:30 PM return trip (I ended up scheduling a home visit to resolve problems) from Factoria Blvd to SE Eastgate Way to 156^th Ave and home was relatively clear.

I couldn’t help but sympathize with all those attempting to use I-90 for their home commute. The congestion begins well before Eastgate where cross-lake commuters are joined by those exiting northbound and southbound I-405.  The result is a sea of traffic lights slowly heading up I-90 towards Eastgate.  There they are joined by those from east of I-405 attempting to use the I-90 onramp near Eastgate Plaza for the commute further east.    

The lane for single occupancy vehicles (SOV) is severely “throttled” by control lights due to the congestion on I-90.  Even those in car pools are forced to endure blocks of stop and go traffic on all of the roads leading to the onramp.  The other option is to endure the two or more miles of stop and go traffic on West Lake Sammamish Blvd to an I-90 onramp off Newport Way near Lakemont Blvd.  Those doing so benefit from not having any control lights on the onramp. 

The bottom line is I-90 traffic in the Eastgate area is a debacle. Yet the $3.6B Sound Transit is planning to spend on East Link over the next 7 years will do absolutely nothing to ease the congestion.  They finally recognized East Link won’t have the capacity needed to accommodate current transit riders (let alone the 60% increase promised in their 2008 DEIS).   As a result, their decision not to transfer riders to East Link for the commute into Seattle eliminates access for all eastside transit commuters.  Those wanting access to East Link will have to drive to the South Bellevue (or Mercer Island) station, forcing them to endure Eastgate congestion in both directions. 

East Link’s limited capacity is presumably why ST ST2040 extensions to Issaquah, Bothell, and Renton were dropped in favor of light rail between Totem Lake and Issaquah at least in their preliminary ST3 proposal.  Thus ST3, like East Link, will do nothing to ease I-90 congestion

The only way to do so is to reduce the number of vehicles both on I-90 going up to Eastgate and on the onramp to I-90.  Commuters who use the Eastgate P&R to access buses ease the congestion into Seattle.  However those needing to use the Eastgate onramp add to the congestion there.  Reducing Eastgate onramp congestion requires convincing more I-90 corridor riders to use transit from further east.   

Transit there consists of ST554 to the Issaquah T/C every 20 minutes and M214, M216, and M219 to Issaquah Highlands every 6-10 minutes during peak commute.  Access to even this transit capacity is limited by the less than 3000 parking spaces in the area.   Attracting additional commuters requires adding thousands of parking spaces to existing and new P&R lots along I-90 corridor with dedicated bus routes into Seattle, Bellevue T/C, and Overlake T/C.  

ST needs to be “persuaded” to use East Link money to initiate inbound and outbound BRT service on the I-90 Bridge center roadway to accommodate the added buses into Seattle.  More East Link money could provide the additional parking and buses needed to take advantage of BRT capacity.  The combination of the two is the only way to prevent the inevitable vehicle gridlock on I-90 Bridge from closure of center roadway and ease the congestion at Eastgate. 

University Link Ridership Predictions

The 1/27/16 Seattle Times article “University Link light-rail service starts March 19” raises several questions regarding its expected ridership.  The Times opined the Sound Transit claims for 45,000 added daily riders by 2021 as “arguably the biggest transportation advance in Seattle since 1989”.  If true, why did they wait until 2016 to begin service?  Particularly since they initially promised light rail to the area by 2006. 

The more critical question is where does ST anticipate getting the additional 45,000 daily riders.  Their 2016 budget projected the extensions would add more than 17,000 riders in 2016, what seemed to be an “optimistic” 46.7% increase over 2015 levels.  Their claim the extensions will nearly triple that added ridership in 5 years gives a whole new meaning to “optimistic”.

There are no major P&Rs along the University Link so the only people with access will be those who live within walking distance or ride metro buses to the Capital Hill station. Currently Metro Route 49 provides 4 buses an hour during the peak commute between the UW and 5^th and Pine in Seattle. Metro Routes 10 and 11 provide a total of 10 buses per hour during peak commute from the Capital Hill area at Broadway & Pine to 5th and Pine and 3^rd and Pine.  

The Metro routes presumably have stops near Capital Hill station that would allow riders to transfer to light rail.  However, its unlikely they would provide the daily riders needed to those within walking distance to total the 17,000 this year, let alone 45,000 in 2021.  Even those who do ride buses, may not be “enamored” with the hassle of transferring to light rail for a ride to the Westlake light rail station.  Particularly since the Metro routes only take 7-8 minutes to reach their destinations from Capital Hill.

Typical of ST, the “improbability” of the University Link ever reaching 45,000 daily riders is the result of a “self-inflicted wound”; namely their failure to include a T/C at the University light rail station.   The T/C could have provided thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake with connections between BRT on 520 and light rail on the University Link.  They likely did so not only because of UW objections to the T/C but also because the UW T/C would detract from using East Link for transit to “Microsoft”.   

Whatever the reason, thousands of eastside commuters won’t be able to use BRT on the new 520 Bridge for easy access not only to the UW, but also an “8 minute trip” on East Link to Seattle.   Thousands of Seattleites won’t be able to use the return BRT routes from the station to Microsoft or Bellevue T/C.  The combination of the two makes a mockery of any ST ridership projections.