Seattle Times Highway Toll Fetish

The June 26^th Seattle Times headline “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock” is another example of the paper’s attempt to use tolls to address the area’s transportation problem.  The previous post dealt with a June 19th article advocating tolls and earlier posts, their apparent support for I-405 HOT lanes.  The article's chart show delays on I-405 continue to increase.   

The article also makes no mention of the ST3 funding the paper urged voters approve allowing Sound Transit spend $54 billion over the next 25 years on “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions.  Presumably because they concede the light rail spine will do nothing to ease congestion for the vast majority of commuters.  

The article reports traffic delays are at new highs, doubling between 2011 and 2015”.  However, the chart showed I-90 delays, which haven’t changed at all in ten years, are a tiny fraction of total delays. (It’s not clear how “un-delayed” travel-time baselines were established since congestion along I-90 corridor seems to have increased.) 

The limited I-90 corridor delays raises even more questions about Sound Transit spending $3.6 B on an East Link light rail extension that will end forever Bellevue's persona as the "City in the Park".  Particularly since its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will also increase delays, inevitably leading to gridlock on bridge outer roadways.  The WSDOT, according to commitments to Mercer Island, has anticipated HOT lanes on the bridge since 2007.  

Tolls in other areas have apparently reduced congestion.  They can reduce congestion by persuading those who have the option of choosing when and where they “wish” to go to minimize tolls or to avoid them completely.  Tolls on SR520 have reduced congestion because many  of those commuters have switched to I-90. 

However, tolls are unlikely to “ease gridlock” along roadways large numbers of commuters “need” to use for their morning and afternoon commutes.  (Most I-5 commuters have very little choice.) Those willing to pay only increase congestion for those unwilling or unable to do so.  Again, the increasing delays along I-405 with HOT are a perfect example.

The only way to “ease gridlock” for those commuters is to provide them with an alternative way of commuting.  Barring additional highway lanes the only viable alternative is to increase the 10% of commuters who currently use public transit.  That requires providing them with parking with access to transit with the capacity to take them from near where they live to near where they work.  

Unfortunately the parking in areas with access to major roadways is already fully “in use”.  Yet Sound Transit waits until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on 8560 parking spaces; not only way too late, but a fraction of what’s required to attract transit ridership needed to reduce congestion.  Even if Sound Transit added the parking their light rail spine won’t have the capacity needed to accommodate the numbers of commuters required to reduce congestion.

The Times needs to recognize the only way to reduce congestion for the morning and afternoon commuters is to give them access to addtional public transit.  The only way to do that is to add thousands of parking stalls throughout the area with access to bus routes when and to where commuters want to go.  The billions Sound Transit will spend on Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions will do neither.  They need to be “persuaded” to use ST3 funds to do both.  

Instead the June 26^th Times article is another example of the paper’s failure to recognize that reality.

More Seattle Times Shame

Anyone who travels on the area’s major roadways or listens to the radio about traffic problems during commute hours is surely aware of the area’s congestion.  The obvious problem being current roadways don’t have the capacity to accommodate current number of vehicles.  Yet, two articles in the Seattle Times, June 19^th edition typify their inexplicable failure to acknowledge that, barring additional highway lanes, the only solution is to increase the 10% of those who currently use public transit for their commutes into and out of Seattle.     

The paper’s front-page article “Here’s why I-5 is such a mess, and what keeps us moving at all” identifies the problem; the increased “daily vehicle volume”.  The article details the increased traffic volume, the resultant increase in traffic delays, and lauds those responsible for the “incident response” efforts to minimize their impact on travel times. 

However the article fails to provide any realistic “solutions”.  Instead, the article concedes Sound Transit’s failure to address problem with the following:

Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic, but it will give some commuters an escape hatch to avoid it”.

Yet the Times played a major role in allowing the Sound Transit Board to proceed with plans to spend the vast majority of $54 billion over the next 25 years on this “escape hatch”.   Sound Transit’s problem being their decision to route the spine through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited capacity to the point where it will do essentially nothing to increase the percentage of commuters who use transit.  Yet the Times limits their criticism to this relatively benign comment.

Even worse, if Central Link attracts even a fraction of the over 100,000 daily riders Sound Transit "anticipated" for the ST3 extensions to Everett, many trains will be full before they ever reach the UW station, at least during peak commute.  Thus the Times  “escape hatch” for some will severely limit access for many current riders.

The edition’s companion article, ”Can’t state ease I-5 traffic? Fixes exist, but most of them are pricey”, attempting to propose solutions further exemplifies their incompetence:

The most obvious way to reduce traffic on I-5 is to reduce the number of cars on the road.  The most obvious way to do that is to make it more expensive for them to be there.

The Times apparently doesn't recognize the absurdity of warning about I-5's "pricey fixes" in the same edition they seem to have no concern about Sound Transit spending much of ST3's $54 billion on light rail extensions they admit won't reduce congestion.  Instead, typical of the Times, their "obvious" solution to congestion is to impose tolls.  (e.g their support for I-405 HOT)  The article quotes WSDOT estimates the tolls would raise $22 million, increase rush-hour express-lane travel speeds by up to 17 mph, but reduce GP velocities by up to 5 mph.  (The article fails to mention current GP lane velocities so it’s unclear if they will drop from 40 to 35, a 12.5 % increase in travel time; or 25 to 20, a 20 % increase.) 

They fail to even consider adding bus service “to reduce the number of cars on the road”.  A 70 ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders.  An additional 100 such buses could replace nearly 12,000 vehicles.  An additional 100 bus routes an hour during the 3 hour morning and afternoon commutes could replace nearly 36,000 cars going into an out of the city during peak commute.  

The buses could minimize travel times if the HOV lanes were restricted to buses or +3 HOV during the peak commute.  Commuter egress and access in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 2^nd Ave into an elongated, bus-only T/C.  Each bus route would have one or two designated drop-off points on one side and one or two designated pick up points on the other side.  The time saved by the limited number of stops and avoiding the need to cue up behind other buses more than offsets any loss of convenience with “on demand” egress and access.  (Also likely far more convenient than light rail stations)

The “pricey” part will be the added parking required to access the bus routes.  All the current lots in the area with access to I-5 and I-90 are essentially full.   Sound Transit could have added parking to increase access to transit years ago.  Instead, they typify their approach by waiting until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on 8560 parking spaces; as if that will provide sufficient access to their $54 billion light rail spine. 

At least 10 times that amount should be spent over the next 5 years adding thousands of parking stalls annually both expanding current and adding new parking facilities. The costs for the Seattle T/C, and for the added parking and bus service each year would likely be far less than what Sound Transit would spend on their light rail spine each year.  

After 5 years they could have an additional 50,000 parking stalls and bus routes able to accommodate the additional transit commuters.  Those willing to leave their car near where they live rather than near where they work would ease congestion throughout area.  Additional parking and bus service could be added to accommodate additional growth wherever that may be.

In conclusion, it’s unfortunate the Times is so “blasé ” about the inability of Sound Transits $54 billion spine to address the area’s congestion.  Also, that they don’t recognize that adding parking and bus service is not a “pricey” way to increase the number of transit riders needed to “fix I-5 traffic”.  The entire area will pay a very heavy "price" if they continue to do so.

Shame on Seattle Times Priorities

The Seattle Times June 16th editorial “Shame on Access transit for failing riders” typifies their priorities when it comes to dealing with the area’s transportation problems.   They profess great concern over some of those paying $1.75 to ride on Access, “being stuck in meandering trips”.   While any unnecessary delays are grounds for concern, the Times has shown little concern over the fact that this week Sound Transit began constructing an East Link light rail extension on the I-90 Bridge that will inevitably change cross-lake commuting for ever.

This debacle began years ago when Sound Transit ignored the Revised Code of Washington regarding planning for HCT by never considering the far lower cost option of two-way BRT on I-90 center roadway.  They perpetuated that failure by delaying the 4^th lanes on bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV, precluding any chance for center roadway BRT. 

The delay also “avoided” an early demonstration of their claim in the EIS, “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  After finally allowing I-90 Bridge commuters to use the outer roadway’s 4th lanes, the increased travel times with the closed center roadway are a clear indication they don’t have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  

For example, the June 8^th, 8:10am travel times between Issaquah to Seattle increased from 30 to 46 minutes, June 12^th, 7:10am travel times between Bellevue and Seattle increased from 15-24 minutes.   Both are a clear indication Sound Transit should not have ignored a 2004 FHWA ROD conclusion the center roadways were still needed for vehicles with the R-8A configuration that added HOV lanes on outer roadways. 

The current increased travel times are only the beginning.  Sound Transit claimed East Link was needed because “transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to double in the next thirty years”.   Yet East Link, which will only provide at most one 4-car train every 8 minutes, can’t accommodate current peak transit demand let alone future growth.  

Sound Transit plans to use East Link to reduce cross-lake congestion by replacing buses with light rail for the commute into Seattle.  However, during peak commute, its limited capacity can only accommodate riders from about 50 buses an hour.  Even that reduction will be limited to the HOV lanes rather than the far more congested GP lanes.  In fact, East Link operation will probably increase GP lane congestion since many bus riders will decide to "drive" rather than "ride" to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from light rail.

In conclusion, Sound Transit would have never gotten this far if the Times had not allowed them to ignore their few critiques.  East Link capacity is never going to increase.  Even a fraction of Sound Transit’s “doubling of cross-lake commuting” will lead to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways during peak commute.   Seattle Times priorities need to recognize that reality.  If nothing is done, the start of East Link construction on center roadway will mark the “beginning of the end” for reasonable cross-lake commuting. 

That will truly be a “shame”.

Bellevue Reporter Letter

I submitted the below “Letter” to the Bellevue Reporter in hopes of informing the area’s readers more about Sound Transit.  This morning I noticed they chose to ignore it so decided to post it.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since they have also ignored my candidacy for King County Executive

Letters’

The June 9^th opinion page letter “Sound Transit has done nothing to address parking crisis” reflects only the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to Sound Transit’s failure to address east side commuting concerns.   The recent increased cross lake travel times with the closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway are clear indication the 4^th lanes Sound Transit added to the bridge outer roadways don’t have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  

For example, the June 8^th, 8:10am travel times between Issaquah to Seattle increased from 30 to 46 minutes, June 12^th, 7:10am travel times between Bellevue and Seattle increased from 15-24 minutes.   Both are a clear indication Sound Transit should not have ignored a 2004 FHWA ROD conclusion the center roadways were still needed for vehicles with the R-8A configuration that added HOV lanes on outer roadways. 

 The current increased travel times are only the beginning.  Sound Transit claimed East Link was needed because “transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to double in the next thirty years”.   Yet East Link, which will only provide at most one 4-car train every 8 minutes, can’t accommodate current peak transit demand let alone future growth.  

Sound Transit plans to use East Link to reduce cross-lake congestion by replacing buses with light rail for the commute into Seattle.  However, during peak commute, its limited capacity can only accommodate riders from about 50 buses an hour.  Even that reduction will be limited to the HOV lanes rather than the far more congested GP lanes.  In fact, East Link operation may increase GP lane congestion since bus riders may decide to drive rather than ride to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from light rail

In conclusion, East Link capacity is never going to increase, so outer roadways must have the capacity to accommodate future growth.  Sound Transit needs to delay their plans to start light rail construction until an independent assessment assures outer roadway lanes have sufficient capacity.   They surely have no reason to object since it was their delay in completing the 4^th lanes that prevented an earlier demonstration.

Eastside Cities Should Sue to Block I-90 Bridge Construction

The WSDOT website travel times during this past week of closure are a clear indication east side cities have ample reasons to prepare for planning to take legal action to prevent Sound Transit from beginning constructing light rail on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  They show the 4^th lanes added for HOV on the I-90 bridge will not make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  Three examples comparing current times with previous (i.e. before center roadway closure) averages are:

6/06/17 7:15 Issaquah to Seattle travel times increased from 27 to 37 minutes

6/07/17 7:30 Issaquah to Seattle travel times increased from 31 to 45 minutes

6/08/17 8:10 Issaquah to Seattle travel times increased from 30 to 46 minutes

The increases are no “surprise” to those who have “viewed” previous posts on this blog about the likely result.  It’s also a vindication of the 2004 FHWA ROD stipulating the center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles with the added R-8A HOV lanes.  (Earlier posts raised “suspicions” Sound Transit delayed adding the 4^th lanes for years to when they were ready to begin light rail construction in an attempt to avoid any outer roadway capacity demonstration.)

As a result of the center roadway closure I-90 commuters, who having had to endure years of congestion, frequently beginning near Issaquah to near I-405, now face congestion across Mercer Island and I-90 Bridge.  And it’s only going to get worse!  First with increasing numbers of cross-lake commuters based on Sound Transit's EIS predictions they'll double by 2030.   

Second, when East Link does begin operation, it will increase, not decrease the number of vehicles (and congestion) on the 1-90 GP lanes.  East Link’s share of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  The PSRC concluded that the 74-seat cars can reasonably average up to 148 riders.   East Link won't have the capacity to accommodate current transit traffic let alone future growth.  Yet Sound Transit intends to use this limited East Link to replace cross-lake buses, routing them to South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  Presumably their attempt to claim East Link will reduce I-90 Bridge congestion.

The reality is, at least during the peak commute, East Link can only replace about 50 buses per hour on the HOV lanes; and it's never going to increase!  Even worse, it’s not the HOV lanes that have the most severe problem, it’s the GP lanes. The 50-bus HOV reduction will do nothing to reduce their congestion.   Instead GP congestion will likely increase because many of those forced to transfer to and from light rail trains will decide its not worth the hassle and choose to “drive” rather than "ride".  The increased number of vehicles with future growth and former transit riders will surely further increase the above cross-lake travel times.

It’s not clear who will make the final decision regarding whether the I-90 Bridge outer roadways provide sufficient capacity.  One of the problems with the WSDOT making that assessment is they’ve already told a federal judge in the Freeman litigation the modified outer roadways would have adequate capacity. (It was that decision that allowed Sound Transit to proceed with East Link.) They may be “reluctant” to reverse their position.  

They would also loose potential revenue since stopping I-90 light rail construction would end any need for the outer roadway HOT lanes they included in their 2007 commitments to Mercer Island.  It would also minimize any increased 520 toll revenue from those avoiding I-90 congestion.   Even the FHWA has been reluctant to enforce their 2004 ROD requirement to maintain center roadways for vehicles. 

What’s clear is Sound Transit should not be allowed to begin construction on I-90 bridge until some independent assessment confirms outer roadway capacity.   They surely can't complain about any delays since they could have done the demonstration years ago if they hadn't delayed adding the 4th lanes. The most likely way of doing so is for Mercer Island and/or other east side cities to take legal action to prevent Sound Transit from proceeding until the outer roadway capacity is deemed adequate.  They surely have an obligation to their commuters to do so.

It obviously has to be done very quickly.  The entire area will suffer for a very long time if they don't and Sound Transit is allowed to proceed.

Addendum:  The 7:20 June 12th travel times from Bellevue to Seattle increased from 15 to 24 minutes.

Presentation to "The Stranger"

I prepared the following in response to an invitation to meet with the Stranger as a candidate for King County Executive.  I decided to post it since before I was halfway through they stopped me and told me they were not “interested” in transportation problems.

Presentation to The Stranger

My appearance this morning is not an attempt to get the Stranger’s endorsement but to urge you to tell your readers that while the current county executive may be effective in many respects, the policies of the Sound Transit board he controls can only be described as M,I,A; mendacious, incompetent, and arrogant. 

Mendacious, because their claims for the light rail spine ridership are sheer fantasy. The problem is all the Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions are routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. The PSRC concluded in a 2004 report the tunnel limited total ridership to 8880 riders per hour in each direction. Yet Sound Transit claims the Lynnwood and Everett extensions will add more than 100,000 riders. (Despite the fact daily bus ridership from the two cities totaled less than 9000 during 2017 first quarter)  

They make similar claims for the East Link and South Link extensions despite the fact their capacity will be limited to half the 8880.  Thus, none of the $54B spent on Prop 1 and beyond extensions will have the capacity to increase the 10% of commuters who currently use transit; the only way to reduce congestion.  Along I-5, their limited capacity means whatever ridership the extensions add will displace those who currently ride Central Link.  During peak commute they’ll likely lose all access to light rail. 

Incompetent because a competent Sound Transit would have recognized this reality and expedited the light rail extensions to West Seattle and Ballard.  Seattle commuters surely deserve it since their 70% support for ST3 made the extensions possible.  Along I-90, a competent Sound Transit would have recognized East Link would never have the capacity to make up for the loss of the center roadway.  They would have added the 4^th lanes more than 10 years ago reducing congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake, especially reverse commuters.  They would have initiated inbound and outbound BRT on the center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity at one-tenth the cost.

Arrogant because they simply ignored an FHWA 2004 ROD concluding that, even with the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadway, the center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles.  The increased Issaquah-to-Seattle travel times with the recent center roadway closure are a clear indication the FHWA was right.  Sound Transit’s likely claims East Link operation will reduce congestion are absurd since the 50 buses it will replace on HOV lanes will do nothing to reduce GP lane congestion.  Congestion that will only increase with Sound Transit’s predicted doubling of cross-lake commuters. 

They showed even more arrogance by claiming they didn’t need to abide by the Revised Code of Washington. RCW 81.104.100 requires high capacity transit planning consider “a do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system”.  Even a cursory study would have concluded BRT was infinitely better for I-90 center roadway and that increased bus service along limited access HOV lanes on I-5 could have provided needed transit capacity at a fraction of light rail cost. 

Even worse, the extensions Sound Transit will spend billions creating, not only won't help the area's commuters, their operating costs will create a black hole for the entire area’s transportation funding.  Residents throughout the area will pay for the fact the longer route lengths in combination with the light rail car’s high operating costs, 2 1/2 times that of buses, will result in trip costs that dwarf rational fare-box revenues.   

Again, I don’t want your endorsement, I urge you to tell your readers these facts.

Make WSDOT/Sound Transit Demonstrate I-90 Vehicle Capacity

The Seattle Times June 2^nd B-1 page article “Mercer Island to get $10M in I-90 dispute” provides a glimmer of hope for I-90 commuters.  It’s not in the promises of “additional parking and safety”.   Islanders don’t need additional parking.  They only need Sound Transit to prevent “off-island” commuters from using existing parking by allowing them to pay a nominal fee to reserve a parking stall at their existing P&R.  Yet Sound Transit refuses to do so. 

It’s surely not the pontifications of Redmond Mayor John Marchione, “this was a cooperative, collaborative.”  Sound Transit has been anything but cooperative choosing to countersue instead.  Mercer Island Mayor Bruce Bassett’s comment “the agreement advances the mobility needs of our residents” exemplifies his refusal to recognize that East Link will essentially end Islander’s easy access to Seattle.  Not only will they lose access to center roadway, their access to outer roadway will be severely “throttled” on the last onramps to the congested outer roadway. 

When East Link begins operation its schedule will only provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Again, their last-with-access to East Link means the trains will likely be full before they ever reach the station, at least during peak commute.  Sound Transit plans to transfer hundreds of bus riders to East Link at their station will surely exacerbate the problem.   It’s absurd to think the $10M for parking will “advance the mobility needs of our residents” with Islanders and hundreds of bus transferees waiting for access to light rail at their station

The “glimmer of hope” is the statement “Sound Transit is scheduled to take custody of the center express lanes on June 14th to begin light rail construction”.   “Hopefully” the reason for the delay is to determine whether the HOV lanes added to the outer roadways provide the increased capacity needed to accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles.   Not only must the modified outer roadways accommodate all current vehicles, they must have the capacity to accommodate future cross-lake demand.

Part of that future cross-lake demand will be the fact that East Link operation will increase, not decrease, outer roadway traffic.  The problem being East Link's limited capacity can only replace about 50 buses an hour during peak commute.  Removing 50 buses from the likely 2000 vehicles an hour on the HOV lane will have a minuscule effect on congestion.   

More important, the congestion is on the GP lanes not the HOV lanes.  Even that reduction will be offset because large numbers of former bus riders will chose to “drive” rather than “ride” to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from East Link.  Those numbers will far exceed the 50 buses, adding even more vehicles to the already likely congestion GP lanes.  Added to the former transit riders will be future cross-lake transit demand.  East Link can't accommodate any of what Sound Transit’s East Link EIS said would double in the next 30 years. Thus, any assessment of the I-90 Bridge outer roadway ability to accommodate cross-lake traffic needs to consider future requirements. 

It’s not clear whether the delay was in response to WSDOT concerns or an FHWA requirement.  The WSDOT, in their 2007 commitments to Mercer Island, was already planning to  implement HOT on HOV lanes, presumably in response to the “need” to maintain 45 mph.  They "may" have been anticipating heavy congestion there as well as increased toll revenue on SR520 from those avoiding I-90 congestion.  Thus their requirements may be less “stringent” than the FHWA’s.  Particularly since the FHWA in a 2004 ROD concluded the center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles even with the outer roadway's added HOV (R-8A) lanes. 

Both the WSDOT and FHWA need to recognize that outer roadway congestion during the 10-day demonstration period is only going to increase.  That East Link capacity is never going to increase.   Any added light rail riders from Bellevue, Bel-Red, or Redmond will simply subtract from I-90 commuters accessing at the two P&R stations; at least during peak commute. 

The “glimmer of hope” for the entire eastside is the result will confirm the FHWA’s 2004 conclusion that the center roadway is still needed for future cross-lake vehicles; effectively ending the East Link debacle.

Addendum: I noticed the Tuesday 7:15 Issaquah to Seattle travel times had increased from 27 to 37 minutes
2nd Addendum:  Wednesday's 7:30 AM Issaquah to Seattle had increased from 31 to  45 minutes
3rd Addendum:  Thursday 8:10 AM Issaquah to Seattle increased from 30 to 46 minutes

Mercer Island’s Self-Inflicted I-90 Commute Problem,

The problems identified in the June 1^st Seattle Times headline, “Mercer Island braces for new I-90 bottlenecks” are at least partially the result of the Mercer City Council failure to recognize the reality of the Sound Transit East Link light rail extension.  Their East Link website video has described its operation as “one three or four car train every eight to ten minutes”.   At best, East Link will provide thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour that, per PSRC recommended capacity of 148 riders per car, can accommodate 4440 riders per hour.   A fraction of the capacity needed to meet current and future cross-lake transit demand to compensate for the loss of center roadway. 

The more immediate Mercer Island “problem” is their loss of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) access to I-90 HOV lanes.   They should have realized that WSDOT/Sound Transit promises of exclusive SOV access to I-90 HOV would need FHWA concurrence.  Yet none of the parties involved bothered to contact the FHWA until last March.   The FHWA August rejection should have been no surprise, at least partially because of the difficulty in implementing exclusive SOV access to I-90 HOV lanes.

The last minute Mercer Island lawsuit referred to in the paper made no attempt to provide Islanders access to an I-90 HOV lane; instead requesting the judge enjoin Sound Transit from implementing 4^th lanes as HOV only.  (Apparently they, unlike the Seattle Times 31^st editorial support for exclusive HOV access, recognized the implementation problem.)  

While doing so would reduce SOV travel times for Islanders and all I-90 corridor commuters, it would increase them for buses and HOV traffic.  Thus, it’s unlikely to change current plans for HOV lane implementation.   It’s also likely the other lawsuit objective to delay closure of the I-90 center roadway for 6 months to consider the issue will fail.   Again the problem is there is little that can be done in 6 months to change the FHWA dictate not to allow SOV access.

Thus Mercer Island commuters as well as all I-90 corridor commuters will face increased cross-lake congestion.   The WSDOT allowed Sound Transit to close the center roadway without demonstrating outer roadway had needed capacity.  They chose to ignore a 2004 FHWA ROD study concluding center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles with added outer roadway HOV lane.  The resulting congestion is likely the reason WSDOT, as early as 2007, was already planning to implement HOT lanes on I-90 Bridge.  Thus, future cross lake commuters can look forward to trying to find 2 riders or paying the very high tolls required to “maintain 45 mph” to avoid the inevitable GP lane gridlock. 

What is so absurd is the fact that, after enduring the 6 years of congestion during light rail construction, East Link operation will increase not decrease I-90 Bridge congestion.  The problem is East Link’s 4440 rph limited capacity hardly qualifies as High Capacity Transit (HCT).  Yet Sound Transit intends to use it to replace cross-lake bus routes. Presumably riders from about 50 bus routes could be forced to transfer to and from East Link at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  

Not only will removing 50 buses an hour from I-90 Bridge have minimal effect on outer roadway HOV congestion, far more commuters will likely chose to “drive” rather than “ride” to avoid the hassle of transferring; adding to GP lane congestion.  Meanwhile East Link trains will likely be full before they ever reach the stations.  Mercer Island residents, being the last with access, will have an especially difficult East Link access problem

The Mercer Island HOV access problem is just the beginning of the end of their easy access to Seattle.   Sound Transit closure of the South Bellevue P&R has probably already resulted in their P&R being full with “off-islanders” before many arrive.  Former Islander cross-lake transit commuters will be forced to choose between high HOT tolls or GP lane gridlock; and East Link operation will only exacerbate their problems.

While HOV access was never likely, a Mercer Island lawsuit could have dramatically reduced the impact of the loss. They could have asked the judge to require Sound Transit satisfy the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) regarding HCT planning prior to closing bridge center roadway.  RCW 81.104.100 requires they consider, “a do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system”.   It’s doubtful any judge would agree Sound Transit was justified in not complying with the RCW claiming they weren’t required to do so.

Its also doubtful any Sound Transit attempts to comply with the RCW will succeed since any rational analysis of cross-lake BRT would conclude it had far more capacity at far less cost than light rail: effectively ending East Link.  There would have been no need to close South Bellevue P&R or I-90 Bridge center roadway.

In conclusion the recent Mercer Island access problems are only the beginning of Islander commuting problems more effective legal action could have prevented.  Typical of the Times, rather than alerting the area about future Sound Transit problems, the article is likely way to late to change things.  The entire east side will pay as a result with East Link.  The entire area will pay as a result with the Sound Transit "Prop 1 and Beyond" spine.