Title
A MOTION relating to the I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations project, providing input to the I-90 Steering Committee, the Sound Transit Board, the Washington state Department of Transportation and the Washington state Transportation Commission, recommending that Alternative R-2B be identified as Sound Transit's Locally Preferred Alternative.
Body
WHEREAS, in November 1996, the voters of the three-county Sound Transit district approved Sound Move, the ten-year regional transit system plan, and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit (formally known as the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) is proceeding to implement the Sound Move plan, and
WHEREAS, one component of the Sound Move program approved by the voters in 1996 was to provide reliable, two-way transit service on I-90, and
WHEREAS, to meet this goal, Sound Transit empanelled the I-90 Steering Committee to develop recommendations on how to achieve reliable two-way transit service on I-90, and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2003, Sound Transit, the Washington state Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration issued a draft environmental impact statement to satisfy the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington state Environmental Policy Act, and
WHEREAS, King County has a significant interest and stake in the outcome of the I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations project, and the metropolitan King County council wishes to provide formal input to the decision-making process of the I-90 Steering Committee, the Sound Transit Board, the Washington state Department of Transportation and the Washington state Transportation Commission to identify the Locally Preferred Alternative;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:
A. The metropolitan King County council recommends that Alternative R-2B, which would convert the I-90 center roadway to a two-way facility for transit and carpools only, be chosen by the I-90 Steering Committee, and identified as Sound Transit's Locally Preferred Alternative. The metropolitan King County council's position is based on a review of the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS"), the Transportation Strategic Plan ("TSP") and other countywide goals and policies. Alternative R-2B is the right choice because of:
1. Sound Transit's mission: Sound Transit's mission is to build high-capacity transit. Much of the focus of Alternative R-8A (which would add high occupancy vehicle ["HOV"] lanes on the I-90 outer roadways) improves travel conditions for general-purpose traffic in the I-90 corridor. Sound Transit should not be spending its funds to create additional general-purpose travel capacity;
2. Consistency with the 1976 Memorandum Agreement: In an historic memorandum agreement signed in December 1976 by representatives of Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, King County, Metro and the Washington state Highway Commission, the parties agreed to support construction of a new I-90 facility "which will accommodate no more than eight motor vehicle lanes," including three general-purpose lanes in each direction and two lanes "designed for and permanently committed to transit use." The parties further agreed that "the design shall be such as to accommodate the operation of the two transit lanes in either a reversible or in a two-way directional mode." As initially built and currently operating, the facility does not allow the two transit lanes to operate in a two-way directional mode, but Alternative R-2B gives the region the opportunity to return to the intent agreed to so clearly by all parties to the 1976 Memorandum Agreement;
3. Safety impacts of narrower lanes: To accommodate additional lanes, Alternative R-8A would result in narrower travel lanes and narrower shoulders, thereby increasing safety risks and increasing the likelihood of accidents. The DEIS indicates that Alternative R-8A would have the highest potential injury crash rates of any alternative studied, in both 2005 and 2025. The travel benefits that might accrue from Alternative R-8A do not outweigh these safety risks;
4. Bicycle and pedestrian pathway: The metropolitan King County council supports maintaining or improving the existing bicycle and pedestrian pathway along I-90. Alternative R-8A would reduce shoulder widths on I-90, thereby necessitating installation of a railing along the bicycle and pedestrian pathway. While a railing could address negative impacts such as wind buffeting, road debris, and headlight glare, it would also have the effect of narrowing the pathway;
5. Hazardous truck loads: I-90 is currently a key route for transport of hazardous truck loads across Lake Washington. Alternative R-8A would narrow shoulders, thereby diverting trucks carrying hazardous or flammable loads to SR-520 and other routes. The resulting increase in truck volumes on these other routes, and the effects on safety and congestion have not been analyzed adequately;
6. Affordability: Alternative R-8A has the highest cost of any alternative (estimated cost of $90 to 100 million, compared with estimated cost of $28 to 30 million for Alternative R-2B), and pursuing it would limit resources for the other critical transportation safety needs in our region.
B. The metropolitan King County council recognizes that once high-capacity transit ("HCT") is implemented on I-90, a variation of R-8A would be appropriate as the
operation of HCT in the I-90 center roadway may reduce the number of lanes available for vehicle traffic.