An earlier post detailed a “benefit” of Sound Transit’s decision to implement an East Link Starter Line between Redmond T/C and South Bellevue P&R. That Starter Line operation with 2-car trains would demonstrate the lack of access limited ridership to where Sound Transit will never be able to justify the costs of routing 4-car trains the 14-mile round trip from South Bellevue to Redmond T/C every 10 minutes for 14-16 hours a day. Sound Transit will “benefit” because the 2024 result will provide the time needed to facilitate 2-car trains by terminating East Link at CID.
The recent July 27th Sound Transit Board meeting agenda identified a second “Benefit” of the 2024 Starter Line regarding 2-car trains. Whether East Link operation will be limited to avoid exceeding Bellevue environmental noise limits. The below resolution was in the agenda as Business Item A. While I didn't see it discussed in the video, I'm presuming it reflects their approach.
Resolution No. R2023-15: Adopting a Noise and Vibration policy and superseding Motion. No. M2004-08.
The resolution included the following “Key Features” summary:
Revising the existing Link Noise Mitigation Policy (Motion No. M2004-08) is appropriate because it is out of date, applies only to Link light rail noise and can be improved to reflect lessons learned from implementing Sound Move and ST2 projects.
While Sound Transit “learned" from implementing Sound Move and ST2 they also “learned” East Link noise levels from preliminary light rail tests in the Bel-Red area. It was presumably those results that led to resolution including the following revisions:
The chief executive officer (CEO) has discretion to assess and mitigate impacts to new development that are built after this date.
And
Eliminates detailed procedures on how to implement the policy.
The resolution background included the following:
The intention behind this policy point is to avoid or minimize revisiting the design of noise and vibration mitigation late in the design or construction phase of projects. To ensure Sound Transit has flexibility in applying this proposed policy, the chief executive officer (CEO) is granted discretion to address new developments that occur after this date, considering project scope, schedule, budget, community concerns, and other factors as appropriate.
And
Key policy points in the existing policy have been retained, such as the need for mitigation to be reasonable and feasible. Procedures and details deleted from the existing policy will now be documented in agency
However, contrary to Sound Transit claim, Motion No. M2004-08 did not include any mention of “the need for mitigation to be reasonable and feasible”. What was included, the rationale for the motion the Board voted to replace, was detailed in the History of Project including the following”
Potential noise impacts from operation of the Initial Segment occur primarily along MLK Jr. Way S. and in Tukwila. Within Rainier Valley, there are projected to be 123 noise impacts. All of these include traffic noise impacts from widening MLK Jr. Way S. and 70 of them also include noise from the light rail vehicle. Of the 29 noise impacts in Tukwila, 24 are light rail generated and 5 are from buses at the station park-and-ride. Pursuant to the amended ROD for the Initial Segment, mitigation for these impacts shall consist of designing and operating the light rail vehicles and tracks to minimize noise, noise barrier installation and the implementation of a residential sound insulation program (RSIP).
And
Many of these issues also apply to noise mitigation for the Link Light Rail project in general. This staff-recommended Link Noise Mitigation Policy on noise mitigation responds to these issues and the staff desire for guidance on noise mitigation implemenntation.
Thus, M2004-8 committed to minimizing train noise, noise barriers, and sound insulation to mitigate noise levels, presumably in response to Bellevue Municipal Code. Section 9.18.030 of the Noise Code details the maximum permissible environmental noise levels for the environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA). The area within which maximum permissible noise levels are established by the Washington State Department of Ecology and this code.
No person shall cause or permit sound to intrude onto the real property of another person which exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels established by this chapter. The point of measurement shall be at the property boundary of the receiving property or anywhere within.
Class A property, residential, was limited to 55 dBA and Class B property, commercial, limited to 60 dBA. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m. the maximum permissible levels were reduced by 10 dBA for Class A property.
Sound Transit concern with meeting those noise levels on the route into Bellevue presumably led to the “Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application”. It included details about the extensive mitigation efforts for ~200 properties some distance from the tracks along the west side of the Bellevue Way into the city. (Though nothing to prevent train noise from ending the Mercer Slough’s “quiet solitude” on the east side of the tracks).
Yet, Sound Transit has made no attempt to mitigate noise level along Bel-Red to Redmond. Their approval of Resolution R2023-15 indicates their response to the lessons learned from implementing Sound Move and ST2 projects was to newly empower their own CEO to decide what is “reasonable and feasible”, ignoring the Bellevue Municipal Noise limits.
The result of R2023-15 is Sound Transit’s efforts to mitigate light rail noise have devolved from spending millions to insulate property along route in Seattle and to shield those living along the route into Bellevue, to empowering their CEO to decide what is “reasonable and feasible” for those living along light rail on the route between Bellevue and Redmond.
Again, the measurements from preliminary light rail testing along Bel-Red "likely" necessitated replacing M2004-8. (yet still claiming it also it included the "need for mitigation to be reasonable and feasible") What makes R2023-15 so consequential is it demonstrates Sound Transit apparent belief that whatever the noise levels, all that’s required are “reasonable and feasible” attempts to mitigate the noise.
Yet the only way to significantly reduce noise is slow down the train or reduce the number of cars. The Starter Line test of 2-car trains will provide environmental noise levels from half the noise source of 4 car trains. If it exceeds Bellevue code limits, 4-car trains will exacerbate the problem. The Starter Line train operation will presumably reflect what Sound Transit considers as "reasonable and feasible" to limit the noise. R2023-15 suggests they may not even measure Starter Line 2-car-train environmental noise.
Thus, it will be up to “others” to determine whether Bellevue environmental noise limits are violated and force Sound Transit to limit the speed of East Link 2-car trains. The problem is the Bellevue City Council has spent more than a decade of acceding to Sound Transit desires.
This blog began because the council ignored multiple appearances at meetings as well as emails attempting to convince them they should disallow permits Sound Transit needed for East Link construction. That not only would it not reduce I-90 congestion, it precluded 2-way BRT I-90 routes on I-90 Bridge center roadway with 10 times the capacity, ten years sooner at I/10th cost.
The East Link Starter Line noise levels will provide another test of the council. Will they require Sound Transit to provide environmental noise measurements or have the city fund their own measurements. If the measured levels for 2-car trains indicate 4-car trains will exceed the limits will they require Sound Transit limit East Link to 2-car trains with speed limited to meet Bellevue Municipal Noise Codes.
The 2024 Starter Line benefit is it provides another reason and time for Sound Transit to modify CID station to terminate East Link and facilitate operation with 2-car trains.
No comments:
Post a Comment