Sound Transit Problems Way Beyond East Link

Many posts on this blog have explained how East Link construction and subsequent operation will devastate Bellevue residents, increase cross-lake congestion and do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion on 405 and I-90 corridors.  To make matters worse, eastside residents will also be saddled with paying a major portion of the huge construction debt and increased operation costs for Sound Transits Central Link extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood. The reason is the majority of the transportation sales taxes generated on eastside (about 40% of Sound Transit funding) are needed to fund Central Link construction and operation.

Construction costs for the Central Link extensions dwarf the $2.8 billion Sound Transit plans to spend on East Link.  (Their plans to tunnel all the way to Northgate, something they wouldn’t even consider on the east side, is particularly obnoxious.)   In addition, the costs of providing the added equipment and operating costs necessitated by the longer Central Link routes far exceeds any possible revenue from additional riders.  (The fact commute times on light rail will exceed those available on buses doesn’t help).    The resulting financial “black hole” due to construction debt and increased operating subsidies is detailed in other posts (3/9/13, 3/29/13, 4/26/13, 5/01/13 and 6/21/13) posts.

Sound Transit has a moral if not legal obligation to spend east side tax funds on east side transportation improvements.  It's bad enough they're spending that money on East Link rather than on BRT and funding 520 bridge or 405 and I-90 improvements.  What’s even worse is that most of eastside taxes will be perpetually required to fund Central Link extensions and operations they will never use.

BBB Appeal Could Stop East Link

This post explains another way to stop East Link is for “Build a Better Bellevue” to appeal the decision earlier this year regarding Sound Transit’s refusal to consider bus rapid transit BRT for cross-lake public transit.  The 3/16/13 post explained how the judge didn’t make his decision based on the defendant’s argument “Sound Transit had no obligation to study bus-based options”.   Instead he concluded Sound Transit had used “a long, careful, deliberative process to select light rail rather than BRT”. 

Both the defendant’s argument and the judge’s decision are nonsensical.  Sound Transit obviously felt the need to look at “bus-based” options other than light rail” when their DEIS went into considerable detail on the “no-build” option.   The fact they refused to consider two-way bus only BRT on the center roadway as the “no-build” option in the DEIS belies any possible claim for a “long, careful, deliberative process to select light rail".

Thus the judge's decision would seem to be any easy one to reverse.  Unfortunately the BBB decided not to appeal apparently citing lack of funds as one reason.   Instead they chose to rely on Sound Transit promises to mitigate the very noise and vibration issues that presumably led them to file the suit in the first place (4/21/13). The BBB’s own data suggests “mitigation” potentially exposes many residents to devastating noise levels for up to 20 hours a day.

Its not clear whether anyone can appeal the judge’s decision at this late date.   However, anyone living within 500 feet of the tracks should urge the BBB to raise the issue and offer to support any legal action.  For that matter, anyone who regularly commutes into Seattle or has to endure the congestion in the Eastgate area during the evening commute should do the same.  

East Side Legislators Can Stop East Link

 I emailed the below “Letter” to the Bellevue Reporter in response to an article in their July 19^th paper.   Its unlikely they will print it so have posted it along with more details on how the east side legislators can and should stop East Link.

One would never know from reading what our legislators said to the chamber regarding transportation that in three short years, Sound Transits East Link program will change our area forever.  Closure of the bridge center roadway to install light rail will result in increased congestion and inevitable gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.

Light rail construction will devastate a beautiful boulevard with huge trenches and elevated roadways.  Light rail operation will result in noisy trains trundling through the neighborhoods for 20 hours a day.  Sound Transits pitiful attempts to mitigate will be of little help to many.  

It doesn’t have to happen, but will if our legislators let it.

Quite frankly I don’t know which is worse.  The fact the legislators didn’t discuss East Link or the East Side Chamber Legislative Coalition didn’t ask about it.  Instead they lamented the legislature’s inability to pass the 10-cent increase in gas taxes.  Presumably the chamber members were more aware than many of the people I talk to who don’t realize that East Link will close the center roadway forever.

Again, East Link can be stopped.  For example the legislature can use its oversight of the WSDOT to require Sound Transit substantiate the East Link benefits in their Environmental Impact Statement prior to allowing them to proceed.  Two claims in particular need more explanation;

1)     With East Link, the center roadway would have a peak hour capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour, equivalent to between 6 to 10 freeway lanes of traffic.

2)     Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link.

Simple mathematics for their 4-car trains every 7 minutes belies the capacity claims even if they manage to cram 200 riders on each of the four 74-seat cars.  Their 4-car train assumption also ignores the fact they have yet to verify the I-90 Bridge can support four 74-ton cars, more than 4 years after warnings from the FHWA their 2006 tests were inadequate. 

Sound Transit no longer talks about 4 car trains, only that the I-90 Bridge can support East Link, the first light rail installation on a floating bridge.  The legislature should demand WSDOT and Sound Transit demonstrate the bridge can withstand the loads from four light rail cars. 

Sound Transit claims travel times for vehicle and trucks would not increase presumes the 4^th lane they plan to add to the outer roadways will make up for the loss of center roadway.  A 2004 FHWA study disagrees with that conclusion.   The legislature should demand WSDOT and Sound Transit demonstrate the outer roadways have the needed capacity to accommodate all trucks and vehicles.

Both of these demonstrations are critical to making East Link a viable alternative for cross-lake commuting.  Sound Transit has spent 100’s of millions promoting East Link.  Force them to spend part of the $90 million they’re spending this year (and presumably more next year) to demonstrate the bridge can withstand the loads and that the 4^th lane on the outer bridge can accommodate all vehicles.  The added 4^th lanes would immediately help cross-lake commuters and allow a temporary center roadway closure to verify their ability to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. 

My guess is they will fail both putting an end to this debacle.  Residents need to ask their legislators to demand the WSDOT require the two demonstrations.  Obviously the sooner the better. 

Sound Transit's Top Ten Blunders

This post is an attempt to summarize Sound Transit's ten worst blunders  

1)        The “granddaddy” of all Sound Transit blunders was their decision more than 25 years ago that light rail was the answer for cross-lake mass transit.  The idea that confiscating the center roadway for light rail, forcing all vehicles onto the outer roadways was the best way to improve cross-lake commuting demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding the relative capacity, accessibility, and flexibility of buses.  The fact the improved bus service would have cost a tiny fraction of light rail and would have been available in 12-18 months only compounded their blunder.

2)         Their decision in the DEIS that the “No Build” alternative retain the current operating procedures with both center roadway lanes going in peak commute direction was inexplicable.   It’s hard to believe they could spend millions and years evaluating options for east side transit without ever considering two-way bus only rapid transit on the center roadway.  (The most logical explanation for never “considering” BRT as the “no-build” alternative was they knew it was far better than light rail.)

3)         They exaggerated light rail benefits with claims it was like adding 10 lanes of freeway that would increase cross-lake capacity by 60%.  Simple mathematics belies their claims a 4-car train every 7-9 minutes could carry up to 24,000 riders per hour.  The only access for most cross-lake commuters will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and inconvenient access.  The limited light rail capacity and poor access makes it unlikely East Link ridership will ever by more than a fraction of the 50,000 daily riders ST promised.

4)         They blundered when their DEIS claimed that the increased capacity from adding 4^th lanes on the outer roadways for HOV traffic would result in “shorter or similar travel times for trucks and vehicles with East Link”.   They also used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge the center roadway was not needed for vehicles and could be used for light rail.   They apparently weren’t aware of a 2004 FHWA I-90 study that concluded the added lanes didn’t have the needed capacity.

5)         They blundered when they didn’t add the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways 15 years ago.  The added lanes would have reduced cross-lake congestion for everyone but especially “reverse commuters”.  They would have been particularly useful now with the added traffic from those avoiding 520 tolls or when 520 bridge is closed.  They claim lack of funding and planning has delayed the lanes until 2016.

6)         They blundered when they didn’t anticipate the noise and vibration from light rail train operation.  Central Link’s 2 car trains have forced ST to spend millions “sound proofing” homes up to 400 feet away from the tracks.  East Link’s 4-car-train levels will surely be comparable.  They refused to even consider a tunnel that would have minimized the problem.  Their attempts at  “mitigation” will likely result in many residents having their ambience devastated by light rail noise for up to 20 hours a day.  The noise issue also raises questions as to East Link’s ability to attract development to BelRed area.

7)         Sound Transit blundered with its Sounder Rail operation.  Its not clear whether they under estimated the costs to initiate service and later operate the trains or they overestimated the number of people who would ride trains to King Street Station.  The Everett Sounder cost over $500 million to set up and the high operating costs and limited ridership require ST to provide $20,000 a year for each rider to cover the costs.   They have budgeted $130 million in 2013 for expanding and operating Sounder even though the total ridership in 2012 was only 2.8 million 

8)          Sound Transit blundered when they allowed the University to veto a T/C near the University light rail station.  It could have provided an excellent interface between 520 BRT and Central Link light rail for thousands of commuters in both directions.  The resulting increased light rail ridership would have reduced downtown bus congestion and made Central Link far more viable financially.   

9)          Sound Transit’s decision to extend light rail to Federal way and Lynnwood fails any cost/benefit analysis.  High light rail operating costs ($45.60 per mile for a 2 car train) in combination with the 11 and 12.8 mile extensions increase operating costs way beyond what the potential ridership could justify.   (The fact light rail commute times will be longer than buses doesn’t help)

10)  Sound Transit promoted East Link capacity based on 4-car trains although their recent depictions only show 3 cars in each train.  (They also assume each 74-seat car will carry up to 200 riders.)   However, East Link is the first attempt at installing a train on a “floating bridge”.  ST still hasn’t confirmed the “expansion joints” on the I-90 Bridge can withstand the loads from 4 74-ton cars.   (Prior traffic loads have already required the replacement of the original I-90 “expansion joints”.)    The other problem is it’s unlikely Central Link ridership will be sufficient to justify the costs of operating 4-car trains  ($24.80 per car per mile).  It’s not clear how ST could operate trains with different numbers of cars.   The combination of bridge structure concerns and operational problems makes 4-car trains highly “problematic.  

Seattle Times Not "Credible"

The Seattle Times editorial dismissing my candidacy as “not credible” is no surprise.   I guess that makes us even, because, as many posts on this blog detail (9/05/12, 9/13/12, 10/20/12,11/19/12, 1/06/13, 5/21/13, and 6/25/13) I don’t consider the Times a “credible” newspaper, particularly on transportation issues.  I declined their “Candidate Interview” invitation because my experience last year as a legislative candidate convinced me they had no interest in my Sound Transit concerns (6/13/13 Post).   My BCC candidacy, like last years legislator filing, is not about getting elected but to use the voters pamphlet to attract attention to this blog. 

Neither candidacy would have been necessary if the Times had demonstrated a modicum of interest by assigning someone to at least investigate the Sound Transit problems I detailed in several emails.  Even a cursory analysis would have concluded Sound transit made a monumental blunder when they selected light rail for cross-lake public transit.  A single dedicated bus rapid transit lane can accommodate upwards of 1000 buses an hour, dwarfing the capacity of the 4-car-trains every 7-9 minutes Sound Transit promises for East Link. 

The BRT lanes could surely meet any future growth requirements providing direct bus access from every east side P&R.  Light rail access for most cross-lake commuters will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and accessibility.  The increased ridership with BRT would have reduced congestion throughout area.  The billions spent on East Link will so nothing to ease 405 and 1-90 congestion and will force cross-lake commuters without light rail access to face ever increasing congestion on the bridge outer roadways.  

A single article in the Times detailing these BRT advantages and the fact it would have cost a tiny fraction of light rail and could have been available in 6 months rather than 10-15 years would have ended East Link years ago and saved the area millions. 

Instead they apparently have no objections to  ST using the next ten years to spend billions on light rail extensions that fail any rational cost/benefit analysis.  East Link will not only devastate parts of Bellevue, it will increase cross-lake congestion.  ST’s Central Link extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood will burden the entire area with a financial black hole associated with paying off the construction debt and increased subsidies due to higher operating costs with longer routes. 

Their solution to the current transportation-funding crisis was to urge the legislature to enact a 10-cent a gallon increase in gas taxes that will generate about $200-$250 million a year in additional revenue.  Their plea for additional funds seems a little disingenuous when they ignore the more than $2 billion a year ST will begin spending each year on very costly light rail extensions that, in most cases, will increase commute times for riders.

That’s why I don’t consider them  “credible”.

BCC East Link Justification "Flawed"

(I wrote this in response to comments during the Bellevue Patch candidate interview.)

The Bellevue City Council justifies their recent East Link agreement with Sound Transit with three  “questionable” assertions.

First, the council claims state regulations prevented them from using the “permitting process” to stop Sound Transit from installing light rail through the city.   The applicable code in the Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70A.200  stipulates the following with regard to what the council can and cannot do.

No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

“Essential public facilities” are described in RCW 47.06.140 as

Those including regional transportation systems that can be defined by a number of things such as “high capacity transportation systems”

However, there is nothing in the RCW that prevents the council from deciding to reject light rail in favor of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as its preferred “high capacity transportation system”.

Second, the council claimed they were required to approve of East Link because of voter support for Proposition 1.  The problem with that argument is Sound Transit greatly exaggerated East Link benefits for cross-lake commuters.  For example, the DEIS claimed East Link was like adding “10 lanes of freeway” that would increase “person-moving capacity by up to 60%”.  

Simple mathematics belies the DEIS claim a 4 car train every 9 minutes could carry up to 24,000 riders an hour.  (Their actual capacity is further limited by the number of riders in each 74-seat car (ST claims up to 200) and I-90 Bridge structural concerns and high vehicle operating costs that make 4 car trains highly “problematic”)  

Whatever limited capacity light rail has will be compromised because the only access for most cross-lake commuters will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and difficult access.  Those without access will be forced to endure ever increasing congestion on the bridge outer roadways despite DEIS claims “travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.

Third, the council claims revisions to the land use code have enabled them to work with local residents and Sound Transit and agree on a light rail route that “everyone is agreeable to”.   

What the revisions did was take out the code requirements to  “Develop a light rail system that minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance” and is “not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue”.

The only way light rail could meet those requirements was a tunnel into Bellevue, something ST refused to even consider. 

Instead the revised code includes the following

The regional transit authority has the written consent of the affected property owner to apply for the permit(s); or) from the owner of the property affected by the RLRT Facility or System

The question is “who decides what it takes to qualify as an affected property owner?”.  Noise and vibration from Central Link 2-car train operation has necessitated ST incorporate major sound proofing in homes more than 400 feet away from the tracks.  The impact from East Link 4-car trains will surely be comparable.  Is everyone within 400-500 ft an “affected property owner”?  

I doubt if those living along the route who were aware of the possible noise impacts from light rail, would "agree” with the council's decision.

In conclusion, there are no regulations that require the council to accept light rail through the city;  Sound Transit's blatant mendacity regarding light rail benefits is surely grounds to ignore the Prop 1 vote; and finally any code revisions that allow the construction of elevated roadways and a light rail system that will devastate so many is surely not something to be proud of. 

Bellevue Patch Interview

(I was unable to complete what I had intended to say during my Bellevue Patch radio interview so am posting it)

I’m a retired Boeing engineer whose only previous elective office was president of 25 class-of-‘57 seniors in Armstrong, Iowa.  I’m here today to attract listeners to my blog “stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  It’s my attempt to inform voters about the devastating effect of the Bellevue City Council’s East Link agreement with Sound Transit. The council could have used the permitting process and the fact eastside taxes provide more than enough funds to insist on whatever light rail route they preferred. 

For example they could have demanded ST tunnel from 1-90 through the city to the Hospital area as they recently agreed to do with their Northgate extension.  Or they could have demanded ST consider BRT through the city and across I-90 Bridge.  Either option would have eliminated the devastation to the city from construction and subsequent operation of light rail.  ST not only refused to even consider either option, they demanded the council agree to pay for half a tunnel under downtown area.

The council not only acceded to this extortion, their recent agreement allows ST to proceed with plans to spend billions installing a light rail system that will devastate parts of the city, disrupt commuters throughout the east side, do nothing for I-405 and I-90 congestion, and increase rather than decrease cross-lake congestion.

Listeners need to recognize that, for a fraction of light rails cost, ST could have moved non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the outer roadways 15 years ago and initiated BRT service on the center roadway.  Its far greater capacity and access from every east side P&R could have attracted additional transit riders and reduced congestion throughout the area.  It’s still not to late to do so.  That’s why I’m here today.

King County Metro/Sound Transit Comparison

I’ve never understood why there are two separate organizations dealing with public transit in our area.  What is clear is the difference between how the two agencies fund their operations.  Metro’s 2013 budget explains how they plan to spend their projected $639 million income for the year.  In 2012 they provided about 120 million passenger trips that included dial-a-ride-transit and Access service for people with disabilities who cannot use regular bus service. 

In 2013, fare box revenue and sales tax will make up 77% (23 and 54 respectively) of Metro’s income.   However, the anticipated loss in income from sales tax due to the slower economy and the phase out of the $20 “congestion reduction charge” for license plate tabs is projected to require a 17 % reduction in service in the near future.  The only way to avoid the cuts in service is to find additional funds from some source.

Sound Transit, however, is apparently under no obligation to match projected expenses with income.  Their 2013 budget of  $1.1 billion exceeds their projected income by $264 million.  The far box revenue from the 28.4 million riders they anticipate in 2013 makes up less than 5% of the budgeted expenditures.  Part of the problem is that while Metro helps those who cannot use regular bus service, ST has the Sounder program for those who prefer trains to buses. It's not clear what the extra service costs Metro but the limited ridership and high Sounder Train operating costs require ST to provide a $20,000 a year subsidy for each Everett Sounder rider (see 6/12/12 post). 

Even this subsidy pales in comparison with the fact ST, in 2013, plans to spend $92.4 million expanding a Sounder Rail system that already costs nearly $40 million to operate, and has projected annual ridership of only 2.8 million, slightly more than the 2.4 million riders from a single express bus route, ST550.  (The route ST will probably replace with  far more expensive and far less accessible East Link light rail.)

The $264 million deficit in 2013 will increase dramatically when the $300 million spent in 2013 on Central Link extensions expands to the nearly $2 billion required to complete the nearly $20 billion Prop 1 package over the next ten years.  The end result will be a financial “black hole” from the large construction debt and huge increases in subsidies to operate the longer routes (6/21/13 Post). 

Allowing both organizations to continue to operate in this fashion is truly unconscionable.