Seattle Should Sue to Block I-5 Corridor Central Link Extensions.

The previous post opined Sound Transits failure to comply with RCW 81.104.100(b) should be grounds for legal action to stop Sound Transit and Mercer Island from implementing their bus intercept plan.  This post details how and why Seattle officials should use Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the RCW to block Sound Transit plans to spend billions on Central Link extensions to Everett and Tacoma. 

Again the “how” is based on RCW 81.104.100 (b) detailing the HCT planning requirements:

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. Several higher capital options that consider a range of capital expenditures for several candidate technologies shall be developed.

Sound Transit’s response to my complaint to the Attorney General’s office regarding the East Link failure to comply included the following:

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.

Sound Transit went from claiming they didn’t need to comply with RCW regarding East Link to claiming they had complied with the “system wide plan” for Prop 1 extensions along I-5 corridor.

It’s not clear what system-wide plan they were talking about in 2004 and 2005.  There’s no indication Sound Transit planning ever considered the lower cost option of using buses to increase transit capacity into Seattle by adding more bus routes along I-5.  Failure to comply with RCW would seem to be a rationale for “how” legal action can block the I-5 extensions.

Seattle has ample reason for “why” they should do so.  A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction; a fraction of the transit capacity needed to reduce I-5 corridor congestion.  Especially south of Seattle since half the DSTT capacity will be diverted across I-90 Bridge.

The Central Link extensions beyond the UW north or SeaTac south do nothing to increase that capacity.  Even a fraction of Sound Transit’s delusional 2016 ridership projections for ST3 extensions to Everett and Tacoma would, at least during peak commute, end access for current Central Link riders.  Protecting current riders is surely ample reason to sue to block extensions.

Even more reason, as with East Link, Sound Transit intends to implement “bus intercept” along the I-5 corridor to boost extension ridership.  The reason being current bus riders are the only ones who live within or can park within walking distance of light rail stations.  (Sound Transit refuses to add parking despite the fact all the parking with access to stations is “fully in use”). 

Clearly reducing the number off buses on I-5 will do little to reduce corridor congestion and any riders added will reduce access for current riders.  The entire area will be burdened with paying for the extensions and the shortfall between increased operating costs for the extensions and fare-box revenue.

The bottom line is Sound Transit is currently proceeding with CEO Peter Rogoff’s 2019 budget plan to spend  $96 billion over the next two decades implementing ST3 light rail extensions.  Most of that money will be spent on I-5 corridor extensions that will reduce access for Seattle commuters and increase operating cost subsidies for everyone.   Seattle officials have ample reason to take legal action to stop them.  “Encourage” Sound Transit to divert I-5 extension funding towards expediting light rail from Ballard through 2^nd tunnel to West Seattle.  Doing so will increase Seattleites  access to transit not decrease it

There would be no ST3 without Seattle’s 70% approval.  They and the entire area deserve better.  Sue Sound Transit!

entire area deserve better.  Sue Sound Transit!

East Side Cities Should Sue to Block Bus Intercept

The August 20^th Mercer Island council meeting video shows the council has gone beyond abetting Sound Transit’s bus intercept to conniving with them to implement it. The council spent nearly 2 hours discussing how they can work with Sound Transit to implement the 2017 “settlement agreement” to terminate all I-90 cross-lake buses at the Mercer Island light rail station.  

The 2017 agreement was just the latest version of Sound Transit’s attempts to use light rail to replace bus routes into Seattle.  East Link needs bus riders since relatively few commuters will live within or able to park within walking distance of light rail stations.  A January 21^st 2014 Integrated Transit System (ITS) presentation to Mercer Island council proposed 40,000 of East Link’s projected 50,000 riders would come from terminating I-90 corridor buses at South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations. 

A subsequent (Nov 19^th) Mercer Island presentation went into considerable details about ITS.  Sound Transit’s approach was for buses to exit I-90 on west bound I-90 HOV off ramp to a 200 ft drop off and pick-up area on the 80^th Ave overpass before returning to I-90 on east bound HOV on ramp.  Five different configurations were proposed for routing 84 buses per hour on and off the island during the peak commute.  Mercer Island objections led to all five versions of Sound Transit ITS configurations being labeled as “no longer under consideration”.  

A subsequent Sound Transit depiction of I-90 Bridge included both East Link trains and a Sound Transit bus “suggesting” the end of any proposal to use East Link to replace I-90 buses.  Thus it’s not clear what precipitated the 2017 Settlement Agreement.  Especially since ending bus routes on the I-90 outer roadway HOV lanes will do little to reduce congestion there and nothing on GP lanes.

What is clear is the Mercer Island council made a monumental blunder when they agreed to the following provision in the agreement.

Whereas, Sound Transit is a regional transit authority created pursuant to chapters 81.104 and 81.112RCW, with all powers necessary to implement a high-capacity transit system within its boundaries in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. 

Sound Transit has interpreted that proviso as allowing them use the Revised Code of Washington to do whatever they deem is needed for a high-capacity transit system.  What’s absurd is there would be no East Link if Sound Transit had complied with RCW 81.104.100 (b) detailing the HCT planning process:

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. Several higher capital options that consider a range of capital expenditures for several candidate technologies shall be developed.

There is no indication Sound Transit ever considered adding fourth lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implementing two-way BRT on bridge center roadway.  It could have provided 10 times East Link capacity, 10 years sooner, at I/10^th the cost.

Sound Transit’s response to an earlier query about its failure to comply included the following:

Your assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced. As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews. 

Clearly if Sound Transit declares East Link is not required to comply with RCW 81.104.100(2) they surely can’t use chapter 81.112 RCW to demand Mercer Island accept bus intercept.  Yet the Mercer Island council continues to allow Sound Transit to proceed with plans for a bus intercept plan that will be a disaster for the entire area. 

The plan includes limiting I-90 corridor transit to 16-20 buses an hour, a fraction of the 84 buses an hour they originally proposed.  Island residents objected to even that number at the July 17^th council meeting.  The  “Working Group” the council created failed to come up with an acceptable way to drop-off and pick-up bus riders. In the end the council will likely agree to whatever Sound Transit dictates, irrespective of any islander concerns.

The bottom line is the Mercer Island council has gone from abetting Sound Transit to conniving with plans to implement bus intercept.  Again, Sound Transit should have never been allowed to proceed with East Link.  Not only did they violate RCW planning requirements, the WSDOT allowed them to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway despite a 2004 FHWA conclusion the center roadway was still needed for vehicles with 4^th lanes added to outer roadway. 

If allowed to continue, bus intercept will limit I-90 corridor bus routes to 16-20 per hour during peak commute, adding thousands more current and future commuters to the resulting outer roadway lane congestion.  The $3.6 billion spent on East Link should not result in I-90 corridor transit capacity being limited to16-20 buses per hour.  The Seattle Times Traffic Lab is either unaware of the problem or chooses to ignore it.  Thus the most likely way to prevent Sound Transit from implementing the bus intercept debacle is for east side cities to take legal action to stop it.  There is plenty of justification for doing so and the entire area would benefit.

Mercer Island Continues Abetting Sound Transit Bus Intercept Debacle

(This post details how MI continues attempts to implement bus intercept rather than stop it)

Anyone who attended, or viewed the video of the July 16^th, 2019 Mercer Island City Council Meeting would have concluded Mercer Island residents were adamantly opposed to Sound Transit’s bus intercept plan.  Their objections were followed by a WSDOT claim:

ST is a regional transit authority—responsible for providing high capacity transportation system for Central Puget Sound under chapter 81.112 RCW

Mercer Island saying No will likely not stop ST from implementing a bus intercept unilaterally.  Sound Transit has statutory authority to provide regional transportation and to implement and operate high capacity transportation systems, including ST3 plans.

Despite islander objections the WSDOT claim nothing could be done to stop Sound Transit led to the council response to set up a “Working Group” to assess the bus intercept configurations based on: 

• Concerns about loss of intersection capacity,

• Concerns about pedestrian volume, pedestrian safety, and the volume    of crossings on North Mercer Way.

• Bicycle safety,

• Landscaping, and

• Addressing public safety and concerns about crime.

To assist with this assessment, the City retained Modern Traffic Consultants (“MTC”) to review existing technical documentation and provide independent evaluation regarding the Mercer Island Bus Intercept facility. The City also retained KPG to assist with engineering review and drafting conceptual figures.  The Working Group met four times to review and discuss potential options for the bus intercept.

However nothing was done to assess the validity of the WSDOT claim Sound Transit could insist on bus intercept. Chapter RCW 81.104.100 details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning.  It requires planning include the development of a do-nothing and low-capital option that maximizes the current system.

Yet there was no indication Sound Transit ever considered adding fourth lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implementing two-way BRT on bridge center roadway.  It could have provided 10 times East Link capacity, 10 years sooner, at I/10^th the cost.

Sound Transit’s response to an earlier query about its failure to comply included the following:

Your assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced. As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews. 

Clearly Mercer Island council should legally challenge Sound Transit’s claim East Link is not required to comply with RCW 81.104.100.  That failure to comply would supercede any chapter 81.112 RCW authority.  Especially since any attempt to implement bus intercept will be a disaster for the entire I-90 corridor.

The above “Working Group” concerns ignore the most odious aspect of bus intercept, its lack of public transit capacity.  It limits I-90 corridor transit capacity to 30 buses an hour, half of current transit capacity and a fraction of what’s required to reduce I-90 corridor congestion into Seattle. 

Instead its primary goal was to evaluate an alternative to Sound Transit/King County Metro plan to use 77^th Ave to drop off and pick-up bus riders.  The concern being 75 or more bus riders attempting to cross 77^th Ave every 2 minutes to reach light rail station.   The KPG and MTC configuration avoided that problem by using roundabouts on 80^th St Overpass to drop off and pick up riders. 

However ST/KCM concluded the proposed turning movement on 80^th Ave roundabout into the drop-off area was too tight/narrow for their buses and did not meet minimum pedestrian space requirements near the station entrance.   They insisted on adding a roundabout on 77^th Ave.   It wasn’t clear where buses would stop to drop off or pick-up riders with the added roundabout.  

Those details will presumably be addressed when Staff and the City’s consultants (MTC & KPG) provide conceptual drawings for the proposed options and 77th Ave SE modifications at the August 20 Council meeting. (It’s not clear why the 80^th St options will still be presented) The Working Group is soliciting feedback from the Council regarding the proposed alternatives and seeking direction on where to focus improvements regarding the future bus intercept configuration.

The bottom line is the council's "Working Group" failed to find a bus intercept configuration that addresses their concerns.  It's "unlikely" any council "feedback" will allow them to do so.   It's time the council showed more concern about the disaster awaiting Mercer Island and the entire I-90 corridor from bus intercept.  They need to stop abetting Sound Transit and take legal action to stop them.  Failure to comply with RCW seems a viable way to do so.

Reducing Seattle Congestion with Parking Fees

(I'm back after a 7-day Alaska cruise)

Last year, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan directed the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to study congestion pricing—most simply, targeted tolls to reduce car traffic on city streets.  The SDOT released its initial findings, giving a little bit of a better view of how it could work in Seattle. The big takeaways, according to SDOT: It would likely reduce the city’s carbon emissions, and it would have to come with heavy investment in transit.

Rideshare company Uber recently sponsored a report on tolling downtown Seattle streets claiming it would increase transit use and bring in millions of dollars in revenue. The report proposed a morning and evening toll of $1.50 to $3.80 on all the downtown area.  Pushing more people to transit and save commuters an average of 6 minutes and generate $130 million in gross revenue a year.

 Mayor Durkin’s office responded with

“We are committed to additional community engagement and conversations with stakeholders as the City works to balance equity concerns with the immediate challenge of reducing carbon emissions and improving transit. The Mayor is committed to moving forward with congestion pricing in a fair and equitable way that includes community input.” 

However, a far easier way of implement congestion pricing to reduce congestion and the city’s carbon emissions is to do so not on the drive into Seattle but on the parking at their destination.  Parking fees could be implemented for a fraction of the cost of road tolls.  Fees at different locations could be raised to discourage traffic to the most heavily congested areas. 

Commuters or their employers could be forced to pay a fee for each parking stall used during the morning commutes.  Employers would be encouraged to subsidize transit for workers as an alternative to paying for parking (or paying road tolls).  However providing that alternative requires a “heavy investment in transit”.

Unfortunately, Sound Transit has spent a decade of refusing to provide the needed transit capacity.  They’ve refused to add parking despite the fact all of the existing parking has been “fully in use” for years.  They’ve also refused to increase bus revenue miles.  (CEO Rogoff’s 2019 budget for 2017 to 2041 projects no increase in bus transit ridership).

Thus, barring any dramatic Sound Transit changes, the only way to reduce Seattle congestion is for employers to provide shuttle service from near where workers live to near where they work.  Microsoft’s Connector does so for some of their workers and Silicon Valley shuttles accommodate 35,000 daily.

Without an alternative commute, neither congestion road tolls nor congestion parking fees will reduce congestion.  However congestion parking fees can be implemented far sooner and far cheaper. 

Bellevue and Mercer Island Can Mitigate East Link Debacle

It’s time the Bellevue and Mercer Island city councils concede they made a major blunder in approving the permits Sound Transit needed for its East Link light rail extension across I-90 Bridge.   That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) extolling the benefits of cross-lake light rail was shear fantasy.   East Link is only the most egregious examples of Prop 1 extensions that should have never been approved and will inevitably be considered as some of the biggest transportation boondoggles in history.

Ten years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implemented two-way BRT on bridge center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost.  There was never any need for Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway and devastate the route into Bellevue.   The FHWA concluded in 2004 the confiscation of the bridge center roadway will result in frequent gridlock on bridge outer roadways. 

East Link operation will inevitably end Mercer Island’s access to Seattle during peak commute.   East Link trains will likely be full before they ever reach the MI light rail station.  Islanders being the last with access to I-90 congestion will face long lines to get on roadway and slow traffic across bridge.    

East Link construction has devastated the route into Bellevue, ending forever its persona as the “city in the park” with elevated light rail tracks permanently scarring its skyline.  East Link operation will end I-90 transit bus routes forcing many riders to transfer to and from light rail for the commute into and out of Seattle.

At this point very little can be done about the past 10 years.  However both cities can at least mitigate the debacle.  Instead both are proposing to exacerbate the problem with agreements with Sound Transit to boost East Link ridership.   Sound Transit’s fundamental problem is very few commuters will live within or be able to park within walking distance of East Link light rail stations.

Sound Transit initially proposed boosting ridership with a Jan. 21^st, 2014 Integrated Transit Solution presentation to the Mercer Island city council.   It detailed plans to terminate all the I-90 bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations with 40,000 of East Link’s projected 50,000 daily riders from the terminated bus routes. 

Even then Sound Transit didn’t acknowledge reducing the number of buses on I-90 Bridge outer roadway would do little to reduce congestion on HOV lane and nothing for GP lane.  Mercer Island council objections to the 2014 proposal eventually led to a recent “bus intercept” agreement with Sound Transit and King County Metro.  They agreed to halve current I-90 corridor transit bus routes in order to transfer riders at the island station  The loss in bus transit capacity when East Link begins operation will force thousand of former transit riders to add to already heavy congestion along the entire I-90 corridor into Seattle.

The Bellevue council’s contribution to East Link ridership is their proposed “transit oriented development” in the East Main area.  It adds riders by using the  land use code to transform a thriving business district into a residential area with “open spaces to create a pedestrian oriented streetscape”.  It’s not clear how many millions they intend to spend or how many East Link riders they anticipate will be added.

Both city councils can mitigate the problem.  The Mercer Island council can refuse to allow Sound Transit and King County Metro to use the island’s light rail station to transfer riders.  (It was supposedly designed by Sound Transit to accommodate 4500 riders daily.)  Bellevue can simply tell Sound Transit to drop the East Main station. 

Both councils should “encourage” Sound Transit recognize the need to increase bus transit capacity along the I-90 corridor and across the I-90 Bridge.  Allow cross-lake I-90 buses to have access to the bridge center roadway as was done for years in Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.   Facilitate the cross-lake buses by reducing East Link frequency to reflect the ridership with limited access to stations. (Doing so will increase much needed Central Link south capacity.)

The entire eastside deserve as much