MI Council Can Mitigate the East Link Debacle

 

This blog started because three years of emails and personal appearances failed to persuade the Bellevue City council to disallow the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS claims for light rail benefits were a total fantasy.  That Sound Transit had ignored RCW 81.104 requiring they consider two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge as a “no-build option.  Instead diverting half the limited capacity of Central Link trains routed through the DSTT across I-90 Bridge; leaving neither I-90 corridor nor south Seattle adequate transit capacity.  That confiscating I-90 Bridge center roadway precluded two-way BRT with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th cost.

In the end Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond city councils all approved the permits Sound Transit needed.  Hundreds of posts and multiple candidacies attempting to attract support for stopping East Link construction failed.  As a result the $3.5B spent constructing East Link has increased I-90 bridge congestion and devastated the route though Bellevue ending forever its persona as the “City in the Park”.

East Link’s real debacle however is that the funds spent constructing light rail, increasing bridge congestion, and devastating the route through Bellevue also created a light rail system whose operation will further increase not only I-90 Bridge congestion but congestion along the entire I-90 corridor from Issaquah into Seattle.  The reason being the Mercer Island city council "bud intercept" agreement to terminate I-90 corridor buses on island. 

It began when Sound Transit, in a January 2014 meeting, told Mercer Island city council 40,000 of East Link's 50,000 riders would come from terminating I-90 bus routes in South Bellevue and Mercer Island.  Acknowledging, that except for South Bellevue P&R, none of East Link stations were within walking distance or had parking needed for access for large numbers of commuters.   Sound Transit’s need for transit riders outweighed the fact I-90 Bridge congestion was not due to too many buses.

Despite nearly universal objection from residents at a July 16, 2019 meeting, the Mercer Island city council used a 2017 Settlement Agreement” with Sound Transit to justify terminating buses on island.  The council set up a Working Group which met four times to review Sound Transit's “bus intercept” configurations”.

Those reviews apparently resulted in Mercer Island council objecting to Sound Transit’s proposed configurations in the following open letter to the community. (posted on the city’s website on Aug. 25:)

 “It is essential for all Islanders to understand that the Bus/Rail Interchange, as currently proposed by Sound Transit, is in breach of the 2017 Settlement Agreement between Sound Transit and the City with the potential to adversely impact traffic patterns and public safety for all of our residents,”

 

Sound Transit’s response to Mercer Island concerns, dated Aug. 10 five days after an earlier city/Sound Transit meeting, included the following:

 

“The City keeps insisting that we take the issue to mediation — an approach that Sound Transit has rejected with good reason. Metro was not a party to the Agreement or the underlying litigation and would not be party to any mediation. And Metro cannot be bound by any mediated resolution agreed by the City and Sound Transit,

 

If KCM was "not a party to the agreement" the only I-90 bus routes involved in the dispute are Sound Transit 554 routes.   It currently runs every 14-15 minutes during most of the commute.  Any problems associated with a “bus intercept” configuration allowing 4 buses an hour to stop on island are surely minimal.  

 

It’s KCM routes 111,114, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, and 219 causing problems with the Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” configuration. Rather than spending $1.5 M attempting to modify Sound Transit's “bus intercept” configuration the council should minimize their affect on island.

 

Currently only KCM 219 stops on Mercer Island.  There is no reason East Link operation should result in any KCM buses ever stopping there.  I-90 commuters can use Sound Transit 554 and Bellevue can use East Link for access to island.  (it's "doubtful many I-90 commuters will need access to Merceri Island)  Whatever configuration Sound Transit uses to accommodate a 554 bus stopping on island even every 15 minutes will have minimal affect on island.

 

The Mercer Island decision to disallow terminating KCM buses on island would end the need for thousands of cross-lake commuters to transfer to and from East Link for their commute into and out of Seattle.   Mercer Island residents would no longer have to share their access to East Link at their light rail station with thousands of I-90 corridor commuters.

 

Even more important, continuing to route KCM buses across I-90 Bridge means cross-lake transit capacity would no longer be limited to East Link’s share of DSTT.   Congestion along the entire I-90 corridor will be reduced if KCM buses are added to increase transit capacity rather than reduced to meet some requirement to terminate buses on island.

 

The bottom line is the Mercer Island city council does not need to spend $1.5 million opposing Sound Transit’s Settlement Agreement configuration.  They can minimize the impact of any configuration by not allowing KCM buses to use it.