WSDOT Connivance Enables East Link Debacle

The previous post details how King County Executive Dow Constantine’s inept leadership has resulted in Sound Transit already wasting hundreds of millions extending a Central Link light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  As such it will never have the capacity to reduce I-5 corridor congestion and their confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will increase cross-lake congestion and do nothing to relieve I-90 corridor congestion.  That the money already wasted pales in comparison to the $54 B they plan to spend completing those extensions. 

The earlier post details how none of this would have been possible without the connivance of the Seattle Times.   Their “Livewire Event Forums” and more recent “Traffic Lab” articles apparently don’t recognize that, barring additional highway lanes, the only way to reduce congestion is to increase the number of commuters who use public transit.   They refuse to criticize Sound Transit for spending billions on light rail’s limited capacity and continued refusal to spend the hundreds of millions each year adding parking stalls with access to bus service needed to do so. 

This post deals with the critical “third leg” for this “stool of incompetence,” the WSDOT.   One spot on the Sound Transit Board is reserved for the WSDOT Secretary, presumably to make up for the fact that neither the county executive nor the board members he selects are required to have the “background” normally needed to serve as “directors” of a public transit system.  (The previous post clearly indicates they don’t.)  

 Unfortunately the WSDOT during the last eight years has been a co-conspirator with Sound Transit, especially when it comes to their East Link extension across I-90 Bridge.  They helped write a 2008 East Link DEIS that was sheer fantasy when it comes to purported East Link benefits.  They were either unaware of, or ignored a 2004 PSRC conclusion the DSTT limited total capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  East Link’s share will be a fraction of the 9-12,000 rph claimed in the DEIS.

The WSDOT presumably concurred with Sound Transit decision not to consider inbound and outbound BRT routes on I-90 Bridge center roadway as the “no-build” option to light rail in the DEIS.  Even a cursory analysis would have concluded BRT had ten times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost. 

There would be no East Link if the WSDOT lawyers hadn’t convinced a federal judge to reject the 2012 “Freeman” suit opposing Sound Transits confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail.  His decision included the following:

“The court respectfully declines to review the administrative decisions of the State (WSDOT) regarding its determination the center lanes of I-90 in question will not be needed for highway purposes upon the completion of the R8A project and fulfillment of the Umbrella Agreement.”  (The R8A project adds a 4th lane the outer bridges for bus and HOV traffic.)   

 He based his decision on the following WSDOT statement concerning the need for vehicles to use bridge center roadway.

“The State’s determination that the center roadway of I-90 will not be presently needed for highway purposes after the completion of the conditions set forth in the Umbrella Agreement (i.e. completion of R8A) is based upon years of study and analysis set forth in the record including the I-90 two way transit and HOV operations FEIS and ROD……….”.

Yet the very document the WSDOT referred to, the September 2004 FHWA I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision recommended the R-8A configuration provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways but maintain the center roadway for vehicle use.   

They subsequently allowed Sound Transit to close the I-90 Bridge center roadway, forever limiting the capacity of an interstate highway center roadway to a share of the 8880 rph DSTT capacity; inevitably leading to gridlock on bridge outer roadways. 

Whatever the reason for WSDOT “agreement”, they benefit from the resulting I-90 congestion.  First, it will “likely” result in more cross-lake commuters choosing to pay tolls on SR-520.  (Sound Transit’s “neglected” to include BRT service there as part of ST3 that would have reduced the numbers paying the tolls.)  Second, the WSDOT will use the increased outer roadway congestion to “justify” implementing HOT on the bridge HOV lane.  (Their “negotiations” with Mercer Island officials concerning Islander SOV use of outer roadway HOV lanes in 2007 limited that access until HOT lanes were implemented, “suggesting” intent to do so.)  

Thus, it’s clear without the WSDOT’s critical third leg, there would be no East Link.   Competent WSDOT representation on Sound Transit Board would have insisted they consider BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway, ending cross-lake light rail.  That Sound Transit should have added 4^th lanes to the outer bridge roadways 15 years ago reducing congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake.  That money wasted on countless East Link studies should have been spent adding thousands of parking stalls with access to inbound and outbound BRT routes on bridge center roadway. 

Instead, the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t even have access to East Link, leaving them the choice between paying very expensive HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.

All courtesy of the WSDOT!