Rogoff’s Lynnwood Mendacity

The Seattle Times, May 25^th B1 page article concerning loss of $1.2B in federal funds for the Northgate-to-Lynnwood light rail extension exemplifies Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s mendacity.  His claim the extension “would add 67,000 daily riders and thousands more from an Everett line" goes way beyond “mere optimism”. The 2016-year-end quarterly ridership report showed approximately 9000 daily riders for the 510-513 Everett-to-Seattle routes; a ~25% increase since 2008, hardly dramatic.

The Sound Transit 2013-ridership report, which separated the Lynnwood-to-Seattle portion of the route, showed it had about half the Everett-to-Seattle total.   Thus the current Lynnwood-to-Northgate transit ridership is presumably around 4500 daily riders, a tiny fraction of Rogoffs 67,000 ridership claim he uses to justify the extension. 

I’ll leave it to others to speculate whether Rogoff’s “optimism” as former head of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) during most of the Obama administration had any affect on the FTA funding approval and subsequent selection as Sound Transit CEO.   The “Trump budget omitting the $1.2B for rail line to Lynnwood” is surely well founded.  Rogoff’s Sound Transit decision to “fight it” typifies their inability to recognize the realities of public transit. 

They simply ignore the Revised Code of Washington (RCW RCW 81.104.100) concerning high capacity transit system planning.  It requires Sound Transit consider, “a do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system”.  Added BRT routes along limited access HOV lanes could have easily provided needed additional Northgate-to-Lynnwood transit capacity at a fraction of light rail cost. 

  

Instead Sound Transit routes their light rail spine through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), limiting capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to reduce congestion on both I-5 and I-90.  Their attempt to provide added access to even the spine’s limited capacity consist of promising to spend $698 million on 8570 parking stalls beginning in 2024; a fraction of what’s needed.  (Typical of Rogoff's Sound Transit they promise to add about 500 stalls in the Lynnwood area to provide access for the 67,000 riders.)

The bottom line is the May 25^th Times article should be a “wake-up” call for the entire area.  CEO Rogoff’s Sound Transit plans for spending the vast majority of their $54B ST3 funds on their “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail spine will do absolutely nothing to ease the congestion on I-5 and will actually increase I-90 congestion for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters. 

The Trump budget cut may “wake up” CEO Rogoff to the realities of public transit.   Its likely failure to do so is the reason I’m running for County Executive to generate a loud enough voter “alarm” even he will “wake up”.

Mercer Island: Use Sound Transit RCW Violation to Stop East Link

The May 17^th MI Weekly article “City Files Motion for Injunction Against WSDOT and Sound Transit” details Mercer Islands next step in their efforts to maintain single occupancy vehicle (SOV) access to the HOV lanes on I-90 Bridge.  It included the following request regarding the City’s February breach of contract lawsuit concerning commitments made under a 1976 Agreement and subsequent 2004 amendment.   

In order to preserve the time necessary for adequate and effective Court-supervised consultation, the motion requests the Court to delay the June 3 closure of the center roadway, and delay the transition of newly-painted "R8A" vehicle lanes across the I-90 floating bridge to HOV-only operation.

Any rational review of the 1976 Agreement and 2004 Amendment the Mercer Island action cites would conclude they allowed Islander residents HOV access.  This access was later confirmed in a 2007 letter from the governor and WSDOT.  (Typical of Sound Transit, they disagree as their counter suit uses these same documents to insist they be allowed to proceed.  It’s “interesting” they chose not to object to Islander access prior to the 2008 Prop 1 voting which “might” have affected their support)

The problem is none of the parties involved bothered to check with the FHWA prior to March 2016.  The FHWA, which had the authority to decide, transmitted their decision not to allow HOV access to Mercer Island in August 2016. (It’s also not clear how exclusive Islander SOV access to HOV lanes could ever be implemented.)   Thus it’s “unlikely” the MI Feb. 17^th lawsuit regarding commitments made to MI regarding access to R-8A HOV lane under the “1976 Agreement and subsequent 2004 Amendment” will succeed. 

It’s also unclear what delaying center roadway closure to allow “adequate and effective Court-supervised consultation” could achieve regarding Islander access.  (Delaying adding HOV-only use of R-8A lanes on I-90 Bridge would benefit all SOV drivers at the expense of transit and carpoolers.  It would also avoid the problem of implementing exclusive Mercer Island use.)

Mercer Island however has ample justification to ask the courts to delay center roadway closure.  They could ask the judge to delay closure until Sound Transit complies with the Revised Code of Washington. RCW 81.104.100 details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning.  RCW 81.104.00 (2) and section (b) are shown below:

(2) High capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range of high capacity transportation system options, including: Do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities.  High capacity transportation system planning shall proceed as follows:

(b) Development of options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system shall be developed.   

However there was never any indication Sound Transit had ever considered bus rapid transit (BRT) as “a low capital option that maximizes the current system” on either the I-5 or I-90 corridors.  Sound Transit’s response to a request by the Attorney General’s office to respond to my complaint regarding the issue included the following:

Project level reviews are not subject to the requirements in RCW 81.104.100. As noted in your complaint, the project level review of the East Link project did include a no-build option. Your presumption that this was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project level reviews.

Your assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced. As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews.

It would be interesting to see if a judge concurs with this decision.  If not, Sound Transit could be “enjoined” from closing center roadway until Sound Transit complies.  That may take awhile!

Mercer Island needs to recognize the loss of access to HOV lanes is just the next step in their loss of easy access into Seattle.  Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue P&R will essentially end Islander access to transit since the Mercer Island P&R will be full with “off-islanders” well before most arrive. 

Sound Transit plans to transfer bus riders to and from light rail on the island will inundate their light rail station during the morning and afternoon commutes.  Their preferred "integrated service plan" shows 84 buses an hour arriving at the station during peak morning commute.  Yet Sound Transit's East Link schedule will provide only one 4-car train every 8 minutes or thirty 74-seat cars an hour. 

Being the last with access to this limited capacity means it's likely to be fully “in use” when the trains reach the island.  Thus those forced to transfer as well as Islanders hoping to use light rail will likely have a long wait.  Sound Transit’s closure of the outer roadway without demonstrating outer roadway capacity is a sure recipe for gridlock for Islanders as well as the entire east side; if not initially, with future cross-lake commuter growth.

The bottom line is the loss of access to HOV lanes is just the “beginning of the end” for Islander access to Seattle.  Mercer Island is right to ask a judge to require Sound Transit delay closing center roadway.  They just need to do so to force Sound Transit comply with the RCW.  It should be an easy decision for the judge to make and an impossible requirement for Sound Transit to satisfy.  The entire area would benefit!

Sound Transit’s Floating Bridge/Train Combination's Fatal Flaw

The May 14^th Seattle Times exemplifies the paper's efforts to promote Sound Transit’s flawed “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions.  In this case they herald their I-90 Bridge design “success” while ignoring the fact it enables an East Link light rail extension that will increase not decrease cross-lake bridge congestion.

  

The front-page article “World’s First: Floating Bridge With a Train” details Sound Transit’s apparently successful design for sections connecting the floating and fixed portions of the bridge that can withstand the loads from trains.  The “floating bridge/train” compatibility issue was first raised 9 years ago by both an independent review team (IRT) commissioned by the legislature and the FHWA.   The purported success in the paper is hardly new.  The Pueblo, Colorado testing described in the article was conducted nearly four years ago during the summer and fall of 2013.  At the time the design was acclaimed as having passed with “flying colors”.   

Apparently it later “crashed” since two years later an August 16, 2015 Times article announced Sound Transit had contracted to spend an additional $20 million completing the design they’d tested at Pueblo and had already spent $36 million on.   Nearly nine months later the problem was apparently still not resolved since the March 2016 Sound Transit board minutes included the following East Link Extension briefing

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. 

It wasn’t clear what the “final issue” was in the March briefing.  Presumably the WSDOT affirmation in the article, “light rail will be safe and not wear out the bridge prematurely” reflects the fact it has been resolved.  However, Sound Transit Board member Marchione’s warning “I’m never going to feel 100 percent confident until they get the real train on the real track” seems well founded. 

Especially since the WSDOT in 2005 thought they'd demonstrated I-90 Bridge/light rail compatibility using flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars. They claimed the “results of the test confirmed previous findings the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration, in addition to general traffic on the roadway”.

Assuming floating-bridge/light rail-compatibility success, the paper’s front-page depiction of the I-90 Bridge with East Link trains and Sound Transit buses is a tacit admission of the East Link failure: a lack of capacity.  Sound Transit for years has promoted East Link as the replacement for I-90 Bridge buses.  They claimed 40,000 of the 50,000 riders projected by 2030 would come from terminating all the cross-lake bus routes at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  

As recently as the April 2017 East Link SEPA Addendum, Sound Transit’s “Bus Transit Integration Configurations” used East Link to replace essentially all cross-lake buses.  The Sound Transit East Link Extension website video described operation as 3 or 4 car trains every 8 to 10 minutes. The May 14^th depiction showed three-car trains and their April 2017 East Link SEPA Addendum had 8 minutes between trains. 

The decision to show the buses crossing the lake presumably reflects Sound Transit recognition even a four car train every 8 minutes can’t accommodate all the cross-lake transit riders.  That, despite the fact Sound Transit apparently has a bridge design capable of accommodating light rail trains, its operation will not provide the capacity needed to attract the numbers of transit riders required to reduce congestion.   Particularly since any reduction will be on HOV lanes rather than the far more congestion GP lanes.

That requires adding cross-lake bus routes rather than replacing them.  Every 100 additional bus routes can replace 10,000 vehicles not only on the bridge outer roadway GP lanes, along the entire 1-90 corridor.  Spending far less than the $3.6B could provide the parking required for access to buses as well as fund the added buses.  That using the center roadway for inbound and outbound buses rather than light rail trains would benefit the entire area. 

Instead the Times, rather than questioning Sound Transit’s decision to spend $712 million on the cross-lake portion of East Link, describes it as “costing far less than building another bridge”.  It’s “unlikely” future cross-lake commuters will be enamored with the Seattle Times's “less expensive” result.

County Executive Candidate Voters Pamphlet Confirmation

(As promised I filed as a candidate for King County Executive.  I emailed the following confirmation of my Voter's Pamphlet submission to the Seattle Times and other media outlets.  I posted it since they will all likely ignore it.)

Dear Bill Hirt:

You have successfully submitted your local voters’ pamphlet information for the 2017 primary election with King County Elections.

Here is the information you submitted:

Ballot information

County, King County, Executive
Bill Hirt 

Education and occupation information

Education: BS and MS Engineering Iowa State University 

Occupation: Retired after 36 years at Boeing

Statement

My candidacy’s an attempt to attract attention to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com detailing County Executive Constantine’s Sound Transit “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail debacle. I have no expectation or desire to win and will not seek nor accept any financial support.

Sound Transit violated the RCW when they refused to consider lower cost alternatives to their light rail “spine” along I-5 corridor and across I-90 Bridge. They could have eased congestion years ago attracting thousands more transit riders adding parking with access to BRT routes along limited access lanes on both corridors. A hundred such routes could have added 10,000 riders a day.

Sound Transit could spend ST3 funds expediting light rail extensions to Ballard and West Seattle as a “reward” for their 70% support. Instead they’ll spend it on a “spine” routed through the DSTT; limiting capacity to the point the vast majority of the $54 billion will be spent on Central Link extensions that’ll do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on I-5. On I-90 they’ll spend $3.6B for East Link’s one 4-car train every 8 minutes. Even ST claims, at best, it will “reduce” daily bridge traffic from 160,000 to 159,500 vehicles.

By comparison they could’ve added outer roadway lanes for non-transit HOV and BRT on center roadway years ago. The 100 bus routes there could’ve also replaced 10,000 vehicles, reducing congestion not only on the bridge, but along the entire I-90 corridor. Money spent on East Link could’ve provided thousands of additional P&R stalls. Instead ST will permanently close the bridge center roadway this summer without ever demonstrating outer roadways can accommodate current vehicle traffic let alone future growth; inevitably resulting in gridlock.

While my candidacy “likely” won’t stop ST plans, it’ll tell what to expect and that it didn’t have to happen.

Seattle Times: East Link Justifies Eastside Sacrifices???

The May 8^th Seattle Times front page article “Huge park-and-ride closure leaves angry commuters feeling stranded” reflects Sound Transit’s response to the Times May 3^rd editorial “Help Eastside Bus Riders Survive Rail Projects”.    The editorial claim, “officials cannot ignore the needs of riders traveling from Eastside cities to Seattle by offering longer, more complicated routes” was simply “ignored”.   As a result thousands of transit riders will undoubtedly find their normal P&R full well before they get there, effectively ending their access to transit.  

Rather than “speaking out” as the previous post suggests, the Times, apparently less concerned about bus riders concludes, “The multiyear parking closures are another sacrifice, beyond the median $600 or so a year per household in taxes, in the service of the future high-capacity rail network.”   They ignore the previous post concern regarding Sound Transit’s June closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  

A 2004 FHWA ROD concluded the two center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles even with added outer roadway lanes.  The Times apparently concurs with Sound Transit making no attempt to demonstrate capacity, forcing I-90 Bridge commuters to  “sacrifice” with longer travel times as a result, inevitably leading to gridlock with future cross-lake commuter growth.

The Times apparently believes the years of “sacrifice” from added taxes, loss of transit access and potential outer roadway congestion can be justified by light rail “high capacity transit” service when East Link begins operation.   They still don’t acknowledge East Link’s share of the light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes; The equivalent of thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour; hardly high capacity transit.  Sound Transit could have added that capacity years ago with 50 buses an hour without ever closing the P&Rs or bridge center roadway. (or spending billions in the process). 

East Link capacity limits the “they” in the Sound Transit spokeswoman’s claim, “In 2023 "they’ll" be on a train and avoid congestion completely” to a fraction of cross lake commuters.  It will do absolutely nothing to “avoid congestion” that frequently begins near Issaquah along the I-90 corridor.  East Link’s affect on I-90 Bridge outer roadway congestion will be miniscule since Sound Transit plans to use East Link to replace I-90 Bridge bus routes will at best replace about 50 of the thousands of vehicles creating congestion on outer roadway each hour.  Particularly since the worst congestion is on the GP lanes not the HOV.

Even those riding East Link may not be enamored with doing so.   Sound Transit’s 2030 ridership projections were originally based on East Link replacing all I-90 Bridge bus routes; providing 40,000 of their 50,000 projected daily riders.  Cross-lake buses were to be terminated at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations. 

As of their April 2017 East Link SEPA Addendum Sound Transit still had not finalized their “Bus Transit Integration” plans for doing so.  Transit riders who, prior to East Link enjoyed congestion-free cross-lake commutes but still had the benefits of HOV lanes for the commute into Seattle during construction, will be forced to transfer to and from light rail trains when East Link begins operation.   It’s doubtful they will be “pleased” with the hassle of transferring from buses to light rail in the morning and from light rail to their respective bus routes on their return; and likely paying a second fare in each direction.  Those choosing to drive rather than ride will only add to GP lane congestion.

Since the two stations are the last with access, East Link’s limited capacity means those transferring from buses along with those using the P&Rs at the stations will find it increasingly difficult to get access to crowded light rail trains; especially with growth of commuters within walking distance of earlier stations.  The limited capacity forces everyone to deal with the access problem for the return routes.  Neither station was designed to accommodate the thousands of transferees every morning and afternoon.  Thus more light rail riders will likely “regret” rather than “rejoice” the result of  “sacrifices” enabling East Link. 

Even the Times, in a Nov 4^th front page article, concluded light rail extensions would not reduce congestion saying at best “it offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”.   Yet the May 8^th article, six months later claims the future of high capacity transit justifies multi-year parking closures and $600 or so a year in taxes.  That’s only 5 days after Sound Transit ignored their efforts to help eastside bus riders cope with P&R closures.   Yet the P&R closures are just the beginning.

In conclusion, the vast majority of those who benefit from east-side “sacrifice” will be those who live within walking distance of light rail stations for their commute into Seattle; and they will likely have problems on their return trip.  It’s not clear whether the Times is aware of the other likely “sacrifices” commuters will make.  What is clear is they need to reconsider the claim “East Link performance will justify the sacrifice”.

P&R Problem Only the Beginning of the East Link Debacle

It’s not likely the May 1 post concerning the Seattle Times ignoring the East Link debacle prompted their May 3rd editorial, “Help Eastside Bus Riders Survive Rail Projects”.  More than 2 years ago I referred them to a 2/13/15 post on this blog, “ST's South Bellevue P&R Replacement Debacle” where it was clear Sound Transit didn’t have a clue as to how to provide transit access to those affected by the closure. 

Typical of Sound Transit they promised the following in a 4/17/15 Memorandum of Understanding with Bellevue City Council:

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.

At the time the P&R closure was scheduled for March 2016.   Subsequent emails referred the Times to blog posts about the lack of promised ST updates on the “replacement strategy”.  Instead ST delayed the closure until 2017, “perhaps” concerned about adverse affects on ST3 vote. 

After the vote, ST came out, not with a replacement strategy, but with vague ideas about alternate parking and bus connections.  That culminated in an April 18 news release essentially warning transit riders about the closure and telling them “you’re on your own”.   Apparently even the Seattle Times finally recognized the problem.

Their belated response to the P&R debacle raises the question as to when if ever they will respond to Sound Transit’s next blunder:  Their June 2 closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway without ever demonstrating the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadway can make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.   A 2004 FHWA Record of Decision concluded adding the 4^th lanes to outer roadways (R-8A) configuration would not provide adequate capacity for cross lake vehicles unless the two center roadway lanes continued to be available for vehicles.  Sound Transit’s response was their 2008 DEIS claim vehicle travel times would improve or remain the same with East Link's added 4^th lanes.   The Times has ignored multiple emails referring to posts concerning the failure to demonstrate outer roadway capacity. 

As of their East Link Extension April 2017, SEPA Addendum, Sound Transit still hadn’t decided on whether to use the added lanes for GP traffic during construction and switch to HOV lanes when East Link began operation or go directly to the HOV lanes.  Allowing SOV traffic on all 4 lanes would minimize traffic times for those drivers but eliminate any benefit from carpooling and transit.  Going to HOV lanes initially would undoubtedly result in WSDOT initiating HOT in order to maintain the 45 mph such lanes “require”.  It’s likely the fees will be very high due to outer roadway congestion.  Thus, whether its used as HOV initially or later, I-90 Bridge drivers will inevitably be faced with the choice between finding two riders, paying very expensive HOT fares, or enduring gridlock on GP lanes.   Again the Times has yet to respond to countless emails referring them to posts on the problem.

Even more important the Times should also comment on the absurdity implied by the Sound Transit plan to use the 4^th lanes for GP only during construction: that East Link operation will dramatically reduce outer roadway congestion.   Their East Link Extension website video depicts its operation as “a three or four car train every eight to ten minutes".  A 4-car train every 8 minutes will only accommodate 4440 riders per hour in each direction (per PSRC guidelines).  

Sound Transit’s April 2017 SEPA Addendum detailed their “Bus Transit Integration Configurations” they’re considering for East Link to replace cross-lake buses.  It’s not clear how many riders Sound Transit claims each bus accommodates on I-90 Bridge during peak commute. (A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.)  Whatever that number, it’s absurd to think reducing outer roadway vehicles by 50 buses an hour on HOV lanes will reduce outer-roadway-GP-lane congestion. 

The P&R editorial is only the start. The Seattle Times needs to speak out far more about this $3.6 billion debacle.

Seattle Times Ignores ST “Prop 1 & Beyond” Light Rail Debacle.

The Seattle Times frequent “Traffic Lab” articles dealing with the area’s congestion typifies their approach to the problem.   They fail to recognize that, barring added lanes, the only way to reduce congestion on the area’s roadways is to dramatically increase the 10% of commuters who currently use public transit.

Doing so requires providing commuters added access to transit near where they live to transit capacity and routes to near where they want to go.  The Times fails to acknowledge the vast majority of the $54 billion Sound Transit will spend on their  “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail spine will do neither.   Their complicity in first encouraging the initial enabling legislation and later support for its expansion played a major roll in passing fatally flawed ST3 funding.

Providing access to light rail spine requires locating stations within walking distance of potential transit commuters or providing them with parking near where they live with bus connections to stations.   It’s unlikely sufficient numbers will live within walking distance so added parking and connecting bus routes are needed. 

However, all of the current P&R lots with potential routes to light rail stations are already “fully in use”.  Thus increasing commuter access to transit requires spending billions adding tens of thousands of parking stalls over the next few years.  Yet Sound Transit waits until 2024 to begin spending $698 million of the $54 billion ST3 funding adding a measly 8560 parking stalls over the next 15 years.  Far too little too late!

Even more problematic is Sound Transit’s light rail spine limited capacity.   A 2004 PSRC report concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) station lengths limited light rail to 4-car trains and that safe operation required a minimum average of 4 minutes between trains.   They also concluded each of the four 74-seat cars could accommodate an average of 148 riders.

Thus total light rail capacity through the DSTT is limited to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.   The East Link and Central Link south end extensions presumably share that capacity with each having one 4-car train every 8 minutes and 4440 riders per hour in each direction.   Thus even with the adding parking light rail will not have the capacity needed to attract the thousands of commuters required to reduce congestion on either I-5 or I-90 corridors.  

The limited capacity along I-5 means riders attracted by the ST3 extensions will likely restrict access for commuters using existing light rail stations, especially during peak commute.   ST3 approval, made possible by Seattle voters 70% support, will actually reduce access to those currently using Central Link.

Meanwhile all I-90 commuters will have reduced access to Seattle when Sound Transit closes the bridge center roadway to begin constructing East Link.  During construction, Sound Transit’s failure to demonstrate outer roadway capacity will inevitably force commuters to choose between high HOT fares on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes. 

When East Link begins operation Sound Transit plans to force many if not all bus riders to transfer to and from light rail trains at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  The hassle of transferring to overcrowded trains in the morning and return bus routes in the afternoon “may” dissuade many from using transit.  Those choosing to drive rather than ride will likely far exceed the 500 daily cross-lake-bus routes avoided with the transfer; increasing not decreasing outer roadway congestion.

All of this could have been avoided had the Seattle Times had exhibited a modicum of competence in dealing with the issues involved.   They could have alerted the public Sound Transit’s Prop 1 light rail extensions violated the Revised Code of Washington by neglecting to consider lower cost BRT options on both I-5 and I-90 corridors.  

They ignored the 2004 PSRC report limiting light rail capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to reduce congestion.   They promoted an ST3 that spends $54 billion and 25 years adding light rail extensions yet waits until 2024 to begin spending a measly $698 billion on parking; a fraction of what’s needed even for light rails limited capacity. 

Those currently using Central Link will lose access.  I-90 corridor commuters will endure ever increasing congestion before facing a choice on I-90 Bridge between HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.  

Again it could have been avoided if not ignored.