Sound Transit's "Air of Haughtiness"

(I submitted the following to the Bellevue Reporter and am posting it since they may not use it and to reach those who don’t have access if they do.)

Sound Transit’s “Air of Haughtiness”

The Bellevue Reporter’s Oct 25^th recognition I-976 “is not about rebar spikes and rail stations, it’s about an air of haughtiness of Sound Transit decision-makers” is surely justified.  However, Sound Transit’s “air of haughtiness” goes way beyond MVET taxes. 

Their 2019 budget plan will require Seattle Transit service area residents pay $64 billion in taxes between 2017 and 2041 for “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions, primarily to replace buses with light rail trains. Sound Transit simply refuses to recognize that congestion on the area’s roadways is not due to too many buses. 

Sound Transit’s “air of haughtiness” is exemplified by their “bus intercept” plan agreement with Mercer Island. It halves current I-90 corridor bus routes and terminates them at the island light rail station.  Commuters from even that reduced number of buses will inundate the station and limit island commuter access to East Link.  Those able to ride buses will be forced to endure the hassle of transferring to and from East Link for commutes into and out of Seattle.  Those unable to do so will add to congestion I-90 corridor commuters already face.    

Even worse, east side commuters and residents will both have to pay hundreds if not thousands each year in ST3 taxes for Sound Transit Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and beyond, and to Federal Way and beyond.  This despite the fact they’ll rarely use them and that replacing buses with trains only increases transit operating costs and nothing to reduce congestion. 

However, Sound Transit’s “air of haughtiness” went too far with their response to RCW81.104.100 requiring they consider “no-build” HCT alternatives.  They claim East Link didn’t need to comply and they never considered adding Prop 1 bus routes along I-5 as a “no-build” alternative.  East side residents should use those failures to initiate a class action suit forcing Sound Transit stop the East Link “bus intercept” and use their ST3 funds to add bus routes rather than fund light rail extensions

As the editorial concludes, “I-976 is not about fixing roads, repairing bridges and saving lives, it’s about Sound Transit, its past, present and future”.  The east side future should include ending Sound Transit “bus intercept” and more funds for buses.

Bellevue Should Send Sound Transit Message

Thursday’s flyer urging support for the current Bellevue City Council members reminded me of why I became an “activist” more than ten years ago.  I recognized Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS claims for benefits for light rail extensions across the I-90 Bridge center roadway were sheer fantasy. 

My efforts to stop East Link began with frequent council appearances urging they use the permitting process to require Sound Transit consider other I-90 Bridge transit options.  Even a cursory analysis would have concluded Sound Transit could've expedited their plans for 4^th lanes on the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and use the center roadway for two-way BRT.  That doing so would have provided 10 times East Link capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost. 

The council refused to do so, choosing to abide Sound Transit delaying for years the added 4^th lanes that would have benefitted commuters from both sides of the lake.  They abided Sound Transit making a mockery out of FHWA environmental laws with claims light rail noise would have no impact on Mercer Slough Nature Park.  Yet they required Sound Transit spend millions shielding properties hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway.

They allowed Sound Transit to ignore an MOU committing them to finding alternative parking when they closed South Bellevue P&R, ending parking for access to transit for many. They justified allowing Sound Transit proceed with their Operation Maintenance Facility in Bel-Red with the absurd claim it would attract “1.1 million square feet of housing, office, and retail space" of "Transit Oriented Development".   They plan to spend millions transforming the East Main business district into a residential area to provide riders for Sound Transit’s light rail station there.

The bottom line is the Bellevue council has played a major role in Sound Transit confiscating the I-90 Bridge center roadway and devastating the route into the city for a light rail extension that will inevitably be considered as one of the biggest boondoggles in transportation history.  It’s time they finally did something to mitigate that debacle.

They can begin by joining other east side cities and take action to prevent Sound Transit from implementing their bus intercept plan.  Mercer Island residents will benefit from not having their island station used as a terminus for I-90 corridor buses.  Transit commuters will avoid the hassle of transferring to and from East Link for their morning and afternoon commutes. And all I-90 commuters will avoid the increased congestion when I-90 bus routes are halved when East Link begins operation.

However, even more important, all east side residents would benefit if the council took legal action to end Sound Transit using their ST3 taxes to fund their light rail spine.  They could do so for the same reason Mercer Island and other east side cities could sue to stop bus intercept.  

Sound Transit violated high capacity transit (HCT) planning requirements in RCW 81,104.100 (b).  They never considered adding BRT as the No Build Alternative for Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and beyond and to Federal Way and beyond. 

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. 

When I raised this issue regarding East Link South Transit’s response was:

Sound Transit is in receipt of a complaint you filed with the Attorney General’s office asserting that Sound Transit failed to comply with RCW 81.104.100 in the development of options for the 1-90 Project.

As you noted in your complaint, Chapter 81.104 RCW requires development of a high capacity transportation system plan, and RCW 81.104.100 specifically sets forth the requirements that must be included in that system-wide plan. Sound Transit developed draft and final system plans that complied with these requirements and included extensive public outreach from 2005 to 2008. Draft and final supplemental environmental impact statements (EISs) on the updated system-wide plan were prepared in 2004 and 2005 respectively. The decision to implement East Link light rail was made as part of Sound Transit 2 (ST2), the system plan that was adopted by the Sound Transit Board and authorized by voters in Sound Transit’s taxing district in 2008.

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 RCW81.104.100(2)(b) is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project level reviews. In addition, the project did evaluate conversion of the center roadway to two-way bus and operation, among other alternatives. The project to build chosen by the Sound Transit Board for the project includes lanes on the outer roadways of and the work to add those lanes will be completed this year.  

Sound Transit’s claim East Link was not required to comply with RCW 81.104.100 would seem to be grounds for legal action.  Especially since Sound Transits justified their “bus intercept” on compliance with RCW81.104 and 81,112. 

Even more important, the Sound Transit claim “Sound Transit developed draft and final system plans that complied with these requirements” would also seem “legally defective” regarding light rail spine RCW compliance.  

There is no indication Sound Transit ever considered adding more bus routes along I-5.  A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.  Clearly any study would have concluded an additional 100 such buses an hour could have added more transit capacity than light rail at a fraction of the cost. 

The Bellevue council could use Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the RCW to take legal action to prevent east side taxes being used to fund a light rail spine they will rarely if ever use. Send Sound Transit a message that, unlike the Seattle Times, the Bellevue City Council  no longer condones the stupidity of spending billions to replace buses with light rail. Use the money to add the 100 bus routes an hour on I-90 and local bus routes from near where commuters live to provide riders. 

Candidates should justify voter support by promising to do so.

Seattle Times Car-Tab Malfeasance Continues

The Times Oct 22^nd editorial “Addressing The Confusion I-976 Created” continuing their slavish support for Sound Transit qualifies as journalistic malfeasance: “wrong doing or misconduct”.   Again they chose to disparage the messenger rather than the message.   

It’s journalistic “misconduct” to suggest Tim Eyman’s legal problems justify I-976 rejection.  The Times claims, “The dishonesty is Eymans” yet gives no examples.  It was Sound Transit who “misled” voters with their 7/08/16 post claiming “An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed.”  

Yet the Times abided Sound Transit’s response to objections to the higher taxes in an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett” claiming, “During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes.”

The message is a Joel Connelly June 8^th, 2017 Seattle PI article concluded that mendacity enabled ST3 since it would get “only 37% support were voters given a do-over”.   Yet the Times continues to abide Sound Transit mendacity.  That Sound Transit claims the $6.5 billion loss out of their projected $64 billion in tax revenue. per 2019 budget, will add 20 years to light rail completion.

The Times claims this proposal will also “eviscerate transportation solutions chosen by gridlocked communities across our state” such as “sidewalk repairs”.  Yet the Times laments the fact “voters hundreds of miles from Puget Sound can weigh in.  Apparently concerned “communities across our state” aren’t that supportive.

Even the Times admits the car tab taxes are based on inflated car values.   That the “lawmakers should have reformulated the tax to better reflect car values”.   Yet the Times neglected to include that legislation as one of their top ten priorities.   

The bottom line is any “confusion” about car tab taxes is more the result of Sound Transit mendacity and the Seattle Times continued support.  That surely qualifies as journalistic malfeasance.  

Seattle Times Still Doesn’t Get It

The Oct 19^th Seattle Times editorial denigrating my candidacy is just the latest example they still don’t “get it”.  Even I was surprised that no one more “credible” had filed, ending my candidacy in the primary.  However I never expected such vitriolic responses to my being on the general election ballot. (I hope I'm not the only one who had to look up "nihilist")

The paper still doesn’t recognize (get it) that my candidacies have never been about winning but to use any candidate forums and the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog.  I recognized a long time ago that a single city or county council member or legislator wouldn't be able to deter Sound Transit plans for light rail extensions.   Those candidacies and my candidacies for King County Council Executive and Governor were attempts to reach larger audiences with my concerns rather than a rational chance for success. 

Even more important, the Seattle Times still doesn’t “get it” that Sound Transit is far more interested in constructing light rail extensions than in providing the increased public transit capacity needed to reduce congestion.  The Times Oct 11^th article “Upstarts face well-heeled incumbents in races for King County Council” exemplified my concerns the transit agency’s light rail extensions will be “one of the biggest transportation boondoggles in history”.  That light rail operation will be a “disaster for the entire Eastside”.  That Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway and devastate the route into Bellevue.

The Times Oct 19^th editorial chose to denigrate the messenger rather than debunk the message.  But then the editorial board has spent the last decade ignoring my message.  My first candidate interview in 2012 ended abruptly when I persisted with my view  48^th district voters should be more concerned about Sound Transit’s plans for East Link than with the McCleary school funding issue. 

Since then I’ve referred the Times to more than 500 posts on this blog.  It has attracted more than 140,000 views to posts detailing problems not only with Sound Transit’s East Link but with all the Prop 1 extensions.  Several of the posts have detailed the paper’s Traffic Lab failure to “dig into the region’s thorny transportation issues”. 

For years the editorial board has ignored emails referring them to posts urging they include the need for the legislature to audit Sound Transit in their list of top ten priorities.  Even a cursory review would have shown Sound Transit’s decision to route the Prop 1 extensions through the Downtown Settle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited its capacity to a fraction of what was needed to reduce congestion.  That the billions spent on extensions will do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

An audit would have also concluded any riders added by the billions spent on extensions would reduce access for current riders during peak commute.  That Sound Transit plans to use the extensions to replace bus routes will do little to reduce HOV lane congestion and nothing for GP commuters. 

Meanwhile Claudia Balducci, who may be a fine council member in many respects, also, still doesn’t “get it” regarding public transit.  For years Bellevue residents have considered congestion as a major concern with 67% doing so in the latest survey.  Yet East Link is never going to be the “fixed route, high capacity transit system” Balducci claims will reduce it.  Again, that possibility ended ten years ago when Sound Transit decided to route all the Prop 1 extensions through the (DSTT).  Even worse it precluded increased I-90 Bridge center roadway BRT that could.

As a Bellevue City Council member and later as mayor she ignored my many appearances urging they disallow the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  She ignored the results of a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluding the DSTT limited Central Link capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.   East Link’s share of that capacity would never be sufficient to justify confiscating I-90 Bridge center roadway or devastating the route into Bellevue. 

She also ignored a 2004 FHA Record of Decision conclusion Sound Transit plans to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways would not make up for the loss of two lanes on center roadway.   Increased I-90 corridor travel times since center bridge closure reaffirm FHA concerns.  

Even more important, Balducci and the council ignored the opportunity to demand Sound Transit add the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge center roadway ten years ago for non-transit HOV.   Commuters from both sides of the lake would've benefited from both the added outer lane and the option of two-way BRT on bridge center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of the cost.

Instead Balducci’s steadfast East Link support “presumably” played a major role in her appointment to the Seattle Transit Board.  Anyone with a modicum of public transit competence would have recognized Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s 2019 budget plan to spend $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 was delusional.  That Rogoff didn't recognize the DSTT limits on light rail capacity or the benefits of added bus transit.  Yet she and the board chose to extend his contract for another 3 years with a substantial raise.

The bottom line it’s too late to do anything about Balducci’s prominent role in the East Link debacle.  However, it’s only the beginning of her 6^th District residents being forced to pay for CEO Rogoff plan to spend most of the ST3 $96 billion on a light rail spine that will do nothing to reduce congestion and few  district residents will ever use. 

They and residents throughout the Sound Transit service area deserve better.  My candidacy is an attempt to attract the support needed to demand an audit exposing Sound Transit failure.  Sooner of later the entire area is going to recognize that failure.  Its time the Seattle Times “got it”, paid more attention to the message than the messenger, and demand the legislature expedite that recognition with an audit.

(I’m already looking forward to the Seattle Times response when I file as a candidate for governor in opposition to his attempts to reduce the state’s CO2 emissions.)

6th District Commuters Deserve Better on I-405 and SR 520

The previous post detailed why East Link will be a disaster for east side I-90 commuters.  6^th District commuters also deserve better from both Sound Transit and WSDOT on I-405 and SR 520.   Sound Transit waits until 2024 to implement their version of BRT on I-405 and to begin planning across SR 520.    It includes spending $300 million on a T/C near Kirkland with no parking for access.  Sound Transit plans for bus-only lanes on NE 85^th St to provide access have been rejected by Kirkland. 

Sound Transit plan for BRT service consists, at most, of one bus every 10 minutes, making 10 stops for a 57-minute commute from Lynnwood to Burien.  (It’s not clear why they even call it BRT.) Typical of Sound Transit CEO Rogoff, their BRT ridership numbers are delusional.  If 80% of his projected 15,000 to 18,000 riders did so during the 3-hour morning and afternoon peak commutes, each of the 36 buses would have to carry between 333 and 400 riders.  Clearly more BRT service is needed.

6^th District commuters deserve that additional BRT service to include direct routes from Woodinville, Brickyard, Totem Lake and Kirkland to Bellevue, Overlake and across SR520 to Seattle. Currently Woodinville commuters have to transfer to ST535 to get to Bellevue and none of the 3 have I-405 connections to Overlake or across SR520 to Seattle.

Meanwhile Kirkland commuters, who do have access to SR520 bus routes to Seattle, have no access to I-405 bus routes to Bellevue or Overlake.  Sound Transit waits until 2041 for light rail connections from Kirkland to Bellevue T/C and beyond to Issaquah.   

6^th District commuters in all four cities deserve better.  Sound Transit should divert the $300 million from the 85^th T/C to adding bus routes from all four along I-405 to Bellevue and to Overlake, and across SR 520 to Seattle.  Those working in all three locations should be surveyed as to where they live and when they would like to commute to and from work. 

That information could be used to add parking or route local buses to existing parking.    During peak commute each of the four should have BRT routes to Bellevue or Overlake, and across SR520 to Seattle every 10-15 minutes depending upon the demand. 

Those riding the buses should also be assured of reliable commute times.  Even Sound Transit BRT included the following proviso:

·  Relies on WSDOT to maintain adequate speed and reliability of I-405 express toll lane system

They recognized problems with I-405 HOV travel times with the WSDOT 2 HOT lanes between Bothell and Bellevue.  The benefit of HOT is predicated on raising fees on an HOV lane to limit the number of vehicles to what’s required to achieve the desired velocity.  The WSDOT target for 45 mph typically requires raising fees to limit traffic to 2000 vehicles per hour.

However, implementing HOT on 2 of 5 lanes has increased congestion on GP lanes during peak commute to where more than 4000 drivers were willing to pay the fees, reducing HOV lane velocities for both bus and +3 carpoolers.  Sound Transit is rightly concerned about the adverse affect on even its limited BRT service, especially with future growth.

Again, all 6^th District I-405 commuters deserve better.  The WSDOT should be “allowed” to raise HOT fees on one HOV lane to limit traffic to the 2000 vph and revert the 2^nd lane to GP.  The increased fees would assure 45 mph commute for those riding buses or willing to pay the higher fees.  The added GP lane would reduce congestion and travel times for those unwilling or unable to pay the fees.

6^th District I-405/SR520 commuters deserve the option of either increased BRT with reliable commute times or less congestion for their own commute.

Tip of the Iceberg

The recent article in the Seattle Times concerning my candidacy was a welcome surprise.  However, its comments about my opposition to East Link are only the “Tip of the Iceberg” when it comes to why I’m a candidate, (for the 8^th time.) 

The article fails to detail why East Link will be regarded as “one of the “biggest boondoggles in transportation history”. That anyone with a modicum of competence would have recognized East Link’s share of light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) wouldn’t have the capacity needed to reduce I-90 bridge congestion.

That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS was “mendacious” with claims it was the equivalent of up to ten lanes of freeway. They were “incompetent” when they failed to consider two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway as the “no-build” alternative.

That doing so violated the Revised Code of Washington RCW 81.104.100 requiring high capacity transit planning consider, “a do nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system”.  Even a cursory review would have shown 2-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway could have provided 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of the cost

That the WSDOT was malfeasant when it allowed Sound Transit to confiscate the center roadway for East Link.  They should have recognized East Link didn’t have the transit capacity needed to reduce congestion.  They also ignored a 2004 FHA conclusion adding 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge center roadway would not make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes. The fact it currently often takes more than 40 minutes during peak commute for the 15.5-mile commute from Issaquah to Seattle confirms the FHA assessment.

Even worse, when East Link begins operation, Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” agreement to use light rail to replace I-90 Bridge buses will transform East Link from being "merely" a boondoggle to “a disaster for the entire Eastside”.   Again, Sound Transit’s confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway has already increased outer roadway congestion. 

East Link was sold as a way to reduce that congestion, with DEIS promises “to increase person moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent”.  However, rather than adding transit commuters Sound Transit’s "bus intercept" uses East Link to replace I-90 bus routes.  Not only does ending cross-lake bus routes limit transit capacity to half the DSTT capacity, a far cry from the promised 60% increase, removing buses does little to reduce congestion on I-90 Bridge HOV lane and nothing on GP lanes.

Worse, the "bus intercept" plan has resulted in Sound Transit and King County Metro agreeing to half the current number of I-90 corridor buses.  Thus East Link operation will halve current transit capacity along the entire I-90 corridor. Thousands of vehicles will be added to the already heavy congestion along the entire I-90 corridor.

Those able to use remaining buses will be faced with the hassle of transferring to and from light rail on Mercer Island every morning and afternoon, a disincentive to even use transit.  Addition transit commuters will be dissuaded by the likely chaos in the two DSTT stations with thousands of commuters attempting to find access for their return trips.  Both will add to I-90 congestion and the East Link disaster.

That’s why the Seattle Times article, while welcome, was only the “tip of the iceberg" regarding billions spent on East Link.

Another year of Traffic Lab Failure

It’s been a year since Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s October 2018 presentation of his 2019 Budget Plan for 2017 to 2041 to the Sound Transit Board.   It should have been a “wake-up” call for those who believed Sound Transit’s ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions would reduce congestion on the area’s roadways.  That Sound Transit CEO Rogoff plan to use $64 billion in taxes to implement what he proudly called “the most ambitious transit system expansion in the country” would do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

The Traffic Lab could have told readers that $96 Billion will be spent over the next 22 years continuing King County Executive Dow Constantine’s Sound Transit Board decade of refusing to recognize the limitations of light rail and the effectiveness of BRT. That what Rogoff calls their new mission statement,  “We are connecting more people to more places,” was instead sheer fantasy.

Instead it’s been another year of their abiding if not abetting Sound Transit malfeasance.  Even the Seattle Times in a 4/03/16 editorial, “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” raised concerns. They questioned Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine’s “veracity”, the “wisdom” of committing to spend $50 billion over the next 25 years on light rail extensions. The editorial concluded:

The point is voters need their representatives to provide clear, objective explanations of ST3’s pros and cons, not cheerleading.  Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified.

Even a cursory analysis would have recognized the benefits of high capacity transit buses.  A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.  An additional 100 HCT buses an hour could provide rides for more than 10,000 commuters each hour, the equivalent of 5 lanes of 45 mph traffic; without spending a dime on light rail extensions.

Instead three years later Sound Transit’s response was typified by their 2019 2^nd quarter ST Express Revenue Vehicle Miles, 3,025,786; only 13% higher than the comparable 2,675,453 level in 2009.  Even worse Sound Transit intends to use light rail to replace existing bus routes rather than increasing bus service.  Rogoff’s 2019 budget projects no increase in bus ridership between 2017 and 2041. 

They also could have told readers CEO Rogoff’s 2019 budget projections for light rail ridership increasing over the 2017 to 2041 period were delusional.  A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited Central Link capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  The billions spent on light rail spine over the next two decades do nothing to increase that capacity.  Yet the Sound Transit budget projects light rail ridership will increase from 22 million annually in 2017 to 162 million in 2041.

Anyone with a modicum of transportation competence would recognize Sound Transit doesn’t recognize either the benefits of BRT or the limits of light rail in Seattle.  Unfortunately the Traffic Lab has spent another year refusing to do so.

Why I’m A Stop East Link Now Candidate

My candidacy this year, like my previous 7 candidacies, is not about winning but attracting attention to Sound Transit and WSDOT failed transportation policies and the Seattle Times failure to acknowledge that failure.  (I recognized there was very little any individual city or county council member or legislator could do to change their policies)

My candidacy allowed me to use my candidate’s statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog exposing those problems and also do so at candidate forums. My post has now attracted more than 135,000 views.  However it’s October and so far I have yet to be asked to participate in any forums so this post is intended to go beyond the 200-word limit in Voters’ Pamphlet detailing my concerns.

This year marks more than a decade of attempts to expose Sound Transit East Link mendacity and incompetence.  It began in early 2009 when I told the Bellevue city council a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited Central Link capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

That East Link’s share of that capacity debunked Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS claim East Link would have peak hour capacity of up to 24,000 people per hour, the equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway”.  

I urged the Bellevue City Council either require Sound Transit consider or fund their own study comparing light rail with BRT before approving the 10 permits Sound Transit needed for East Link. Even a cursory analysis would have concluded Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and implemented two-way BRT on center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of light rail cost. 

Instead the Bellevue council approved the permits Sound Transit needed, resulting in their confiscating the i-90 Bridge center roadway and devastating the route into Bellevue for an East Link light rail system that will never have the transit capacity needed to reduce cross lake congestion and precluding BRT that could.

The council also abided Sound Transit delaying the 4^th lanes to I-90 bridge outer roadways despite the obvious benefit for commuters from both sides of the lake.  Sound Transit “likely” recognized the added 4^th lanes would allow two-way bus routes on center roadway that would have ended any support for light rail.  

Those concerns prompted them to delay adding lanes until they closed the bridge center roadway precluding any central roadway BRT assessment.  Cross-lake commuters endured years of increased congestion because of the delay.

I also urged the council consider a 2004 FHA Record of Decision conclusion the center roadway was still needed for vehicles with the added outer roadway lanes.  That conclusion refuted Sound Transit DEIS claims "Travel times across I-90 for vehicles would also improve or remain similar with East Link". 

It also refuted Sound Transit/WSDOT claim to a federal judge in the Freeman litigation light rail could be installed on center roadway since it wasn’t needed for vehicles.  The fact that it currently takes an average of 42 minutes for the 15.5-mile commute from Issaquah to Seattle confirms the FHA assessment.

The real absurdity is East Link operation, rather than reducing that commute time, will undoubtedly increase it.  The problem being Sound Transit intends to use East Link to replace all I-90 buses.  First of all, using East Link to replace current I-90 buses would have minimal affect on HOV lanes and none on GP lanes. 

Even worse, Sound Transit and King County Metro both agreed to halve current I-90 corridor buses as part of their “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island.  Thus East Link operation will result in hundreds if not thousands of current transit riders forced to drive, adding to congestion along the entire I-90 corridor.

It's "unfortunate" the Bellevue city council has enabled Sound Transit to spend $3.6 billion constructing a light rail extension that precludes BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway and devastates the route into Bellevue.  Unfortunately very little can be done about that debacle.  However, it's "absurd" the Sound Transit/Mercer Island bus intercept agreement allows them to exacerbate the congestion.  Exposing that problem is just one of the reasons I run.