Rail foes challenge I-90 plan Seattle Times Sound Transit argued that it will reimburse the Department of Transportation by paying for two carpool lanes, to replace the two express lanes that would be ... and more »

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit that seeks to ban Sound Transit's light-rail system from using space on Interstate 90. United States Supreme Court - Supreme Court - United States - Sound Transit - Law

In today's SeattlePI.com, Aubrey Cohen asks, Will more Washington roads take their toll on drivers? The story focused on widespread tolling and its impact on consumers: Individual drivers would shrug off tolls "as the cost of living in modern society, similar to an increase in gas prices," but businesses would pass the cost on to customers, Ennis wrote. "The overall effect of extensive tolling will be to depress total economic growth - it would be like handing everyone in the economy a ten-pound weight to carry around; it is not enough to stop anyone in their tracks, ...

Seattle Times reporter Mike Lindblom informs us today that there will be variable speeds on I-90 at times in the future, and that WSDOT has installed “electronic variable speed signs” from Seattle to Mercer Island and Bellevue (click here).

“Starting Tuesday, the speed limit on the Interstate 90 floating bridge will no longer stay at 60 mph.

When traffic is heavy, the speed limit might temporarily be 50 or 40 mph. Ice on the roadway could force the posted speed limit down to 30 mph.”

This is probably a good safety practice during windstorms or bad weather, but I doubt many folks around here know about this yet.

Can anyone say “revenue stream“?

Sometimes the comments are pretty interesting after an issue has been identified in an article on light rail- this time by the Seattle P-I (click here):

“Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/09 6:10 p.m.

This sounds like it will involve much more than installing rigid joints. The pontoons, and the anchors and cables holding them in place, would have to be greatly strengthened to prevent even slight motion of the rigid joints and the concrete to which they’re fastened. The amount of strengthening needed to withstand sixty years of storms without any measurable flexure is so far beyond what the bridge and its restraints were designed for that it isn’t just a matter of replacing joints. Even if the joints were made of the strongest material known to man, the pontoons are made of concrete, which has good compression strength but poorer tensile strength. The requirement for rigidity adds the necessity for the materials on both sides of the joint to have higher tensile strength as well, unless the anchors and cables themselves can hold the bridge absolutely still. But as designed they simply can’t do that in a winter storm.“

And again:

“Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/09 9:19 p.m.

Sound Transit did a study where they ran some trucks over the bridge to simulate a train of four 148,000 pound cars (in total a 296 ton train) at 30 mph. They did this in wind conditions of 3 mph and at a static lake level of 20.4 feet. As part of their effort they considered the effects of a 1-year storm, and found their report to be satisfactory after having considered that.

They did note at the end of the study that the lake level can drop as much as 3.8 feet and that this was not part of the study. They did say that under the conditions tested, the anchor cables each exert a 69 ton force.

They didn’t overtly mention that the current expansion joints expand and contract about 4 feet in normal use, but did cheerfully say that a future design effort would be required to come up with a solution to this unaddressed problem.

The Hood Canal Bridge was built 48 years ago and its eastern span sank in a storm. The original Lake Washington (now I-90) floating bridge was built in 1940 and it sank 50 years later in a storm while in poor condition and while being repaired. Don’t you think that this train retrofit should be designed with at least 100-year storms in mind and preferably somewhat more than that?

The report recommended not adding any extra total weight to the bridge. Instead, it proposed that portions of the bridge should be lightened to make up for the heavy additions needed to support the trains. The result could still withstand a 1-year storm, they concluded.

There’s more, but it’s all a recipe for a limited lifespan bridge and another eventual sinking.”

Here are comments from John Niles from March 31st via email:

“The following language setting up a careful last look at floating light rail across Lake Washington has been inserted into the State House version of the WSDOT funding bill now being considered in Olympia:

QUOTE: (17) The department [WSDOT] shall not sign the final environmental impact statement for the east link [light rail] project or negotiate an airspace lease with sound transit for the use of the Interstate 90 center roadway for exclusive use by light rail until completion of an independent facility asset assessment by the joint transportation committee. UNQUOTEThe complete bill is at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2009/ht0911bill_0330.pdf .

If you support this provision, now would be a good time to contact your legislators and say that. Light rail fans are screaming for its removal.

This provision fits nicely with the CETA input to the draft East Link EIS that demands a strong bus alternative be included in that light rail EIS assessment to put on record the higher transit capacity and wider geographic reach that is possible from Sound Transit’s billions.

This dust up is related to a House funding provision — described in the Seattle Times at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008952405_bridgerail31m.html and in the online PI at http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/165394.asp — that is proposing to delay State financial support for doing the restriping of the I-90 outer roadway lanes (3 lanes now into 4 narrower lanes) to get ready for passenger railroad takeover of that bridge’s center roadway, instead of filling it up with buses, vanpools, and carpools.

Point to remember — the Federal Record of Decision on East Link is at least a year away from completion. There is time available to do the analysis on I-90 the House wants to see done, and fold it into the final EIS.

Another point — Sound Transit’s daily tax revenue is about to double as a result of its Prop 1 victory. Why shouldn’t Sound Transit foot the bill for all I-90 changes related to light rail?

John Niles”

In an article today in the Seattle Times titled: “State budget cuts could hit I-90 light rail”, Mike Lindblom reports:

“As they look for budget cuts, state lawmakers are backing out of their earlier $29 million commitment to help Sound Transit build light rail across the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge.”

Here’s an interesting bit, pointing out the financial relationship (and possibly implied bias) between Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC)  & Sound Transit:

” I think it is a betrayal to the voters, especially Eastside voters who are counting on the commitment to get rail,” said Bill LaBorde, state policy director for the Transportation Choices Coalition. (Sound Transit is a contributor to the coalition’s education fund.)

This looks like a negotiation to see who will pay for the project:

“State Sen. Fred Jarrett, D-Mercer Island, said Sound Transit will have to pay for access to I-90 anyway and the $29 million car-pool-lane cost would become part of that discussion.”…

Interesting point re: the history of what Sound Transit previously promised…

….”Michael Ennis, transportation analyst for the conservative Washington Policy Center, said Sound Transit should bear the full cost, because the agency promised two-way car-pool and bus lanes as part of the 1996 Sound Move ballot measure. “

This information re: funding the R8A center roadway came in an email from Representative Fred Jarrett:

“The I-90 center roadway was funded with a combination of federal funds and state gas taxes.  Gas taxes are constitutionally protected and cannot be used to fund transit projects, and the federal funds come with strings attached to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).   It is critical all three parties (ST, the state and FHWA) have a sense of urgency regarding the negotiations driven by the ST schedule for construction of light rail across the floating bridge.

Funding R8A is dependent on these negotiations.  I have no doubt that the ST share of R8A, the compensation for FHWA funding of the center roadway and tolls (HOT lanes or full tolling of general purpose lanes) will provide adequate funding for the project and on a timeline which will support East Link schedules.”

More to come…

Crosscut writer David Brewster comments in his article: “Sound Transit 2 failure would be a political train wreck”, that:

“several factors have made passage (of ST2) less likely…

…One is the drop in gas prices by about $1 a gallon.

Another is the scary economy, making voters stingy with new taxes.

A third is crowded buses, which make a case for more transit but probably a stronger case for more immediate relief than the long lead time of a rail-heavy proposal. “

Brewster also states:

“Eastsiders are ambivalent (about Prop 1) because the rail line would take away bus and traffic lanes from the Interstate 90 bridge across Lake Washington.”

Representative Fred Jarrett confirmed this long ago, and said that the first thing that would be done after passage of last year’s Prop 1 (or ST2), would be that popular, efficient routes such as the 550 between Seattle and Bellevue would be cut.

Essentially, Sound Transit would exchange a popular, less expensive trip, for a more expensive trip, one heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Now Larry Lange at the Seattle Times is saying that: “As light rail comes, some buses may go“.

“Anybody living in those neighborhoods should be very interested” in what might happen, Metro service development manager Victor Obeso told Seattle City Council members this week.

The new rail service will duplicate service on at least two bus routes: Route 42 between downtown Seattle and the Rainier View area, and Route 194 between downtown, the airport and Federal Way.

According to Metro, both are examples of routes that could be discontinued along with others such as Routes 7 Express and Routes 32, 34, 35, 39 and 126.

Back to Brewster’s article:

“As for King County Executive Ron Sims, he’s already opposed to Prop 1 (though keeping quiet about it this time), is definitely on the bus side of the bus-rail balance beam, and will push to get some of the Sound Transit taxing authority for quick relief for his overloaded Metro Transit buses.”

Ron Sims seems to think that expanding bus service (possibly with dedicated lanes) would be a more responsive, quicker, less expensive way to move people. More buses to more destinations. Routes to respond to demand-where people need to travel to.

Ron Sims on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 bus plan:

“Sound Transit’s bus capital program is only 2 percent of the total expenditure plan for Sound Transit, Phase 2 (ST2). The estimated $17.8 billion dollars for this plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years…

The region’s bus systems are experiencing unprecedented growth, yet their current revenue sources are exhausted…

Buses across our region are full. Now is not the time to ask voters for a big tax increase tying up 30 years of transit investments for little short-term congestion relief. We can do better. Proposing the wrong plan simply because new voters may flock to the November ballot is still wrong.”

Here are a few highlights from some compelling arguments put forth by Eastside Rail Now at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion…”In fact, the plan could even increase congestion in some areas, such as the I-90 corridor.”

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.…”The most urgent need for rail transit on the Eastside by far is in the I-405 corridor (which would also be vastly cheaper than the I-90 corridor).”

4. It would downgrade some existing bus service. For example, several bus routes between Seattle and the Eastside would likely be eliminated or cut back in attempt to induce their riders to switch to the light rail line.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge. “Rail transit has never before been attempted on a floating bridge…”

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility. Constructing a rail line on the I-90 floating bridge would reduce the freight capacity of the region’s most important east-west road freight corridor.

14.   It is enormously expensive, despite only marginal benefits.  …”Furthermore, these are only the direct monetary costs — not included are a variety of other costs, including the opportunity costs, that is, the loss to the region from not using the same funds for more effective projects, such as lower cost rail lines with better routes.”

And here’s the kicker:

16.   It would preclude the region from taking on more worthy projects for decades. The region would become legally locked into this massive and unprecedented tax increase and its poorly planned projects for many years. Tax capacity would be exhausted for decades, and all flexibility to reduce taxes or to replace the Proposition 1 projects with more effective projects, including those that might become necessary due to changing circumstances, would be lost. 

It’s the Opportunity Cost, folks… see the link here