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.