Building a Better Bellevue handed out paper copies on June 29, 2011 of our new study termed “Inconvenient Truths” to citizens who attended the ARUP/ City of Bellevue Q & A meeting at Bellevue City Hall. We also sent copies of the study to our supporters via email, and will make the pdf version of the study and visual supporting materials available online ASAP.
UPDATE: We have since updated and expanded upon some information in the study, which we subsequently provided to the Bellevue City Council, and have updated the information immediately following.
Here is the text of the study:
Inconvenient Truths –
- That Prove the Feasibility of B7R for East Link
Would it be possible to build the City of Bellevue’s B7R light rail route preference (from I-90 and Bellevue Way, via the BNSF corridor, linking to a tunnel entrance into the downtown at NE 2nd Street):
• for less cost than Sound Transit’s other tunnel options,
• with similar or better ridership with shorter travel times,
• with fewer community and environmental impacts, and
• with less traffic impacts during construction and thereafter
compared to Sound Transit’s B2M/C9T (Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue SE) route preference?
That was the goal that Better Bellevue’s Experts Panel members were charged with by BBB’s Steering Committee three months ago. In examining this goal they were also instructed to understand, in detail, all the previous work of Sound Transit’s DEIS, and SDEIS studies, as well as the work of our city’s consultants, ARUP, and of our Bellevue Transportation Department staff.
Our Experts Panel’s key findings:
• an optimized B7R rail line route can be built for up to $150 Million less than Sound Transit’s fully mitigated B2M/C9T route, and perhaps even for a cost approaching Sound Transit’s cheapest route option – the at-grade route through our downtown,
• ridership can be comparable, or even better than B2M-C9T
• environmental impacts along the Bellevue Way/112th Mercer Slough area, and in nearby neighborhoods are obviously eliminated,
• the existing South Bellevue Park and Ride is a major bottleneck for southbound traffic flow on Bellevue Way presently. This bottleneck will be greatly exacerbated by the threefold expansion of that facility to serve B2M,
• Bellevue Way traffic throughput can be sustained and even improved, while cut-through traffic in nearby neighborhoods is dramatically reduced, and
• the South Bellevue Park and Ride facility can be returned to park land for a huge offset to the small amount of park impact of the B7R alignment while at the same time removing the Bellevue Way bottleneck that the existing park-and-ride traffic has created.
In arriving at these conclusions our Experts Panel uncovered a series of “Inconvenient Truths” regarding our City Staff and Sound Transit’s guidance to our City Consultant, ARUP. Our Panel Members found much excellent work by the ARUP team in their various documents but, unfortunately, also found the heavy editing hand of either our City staff and/or Sound Transit that dampens and distorts many of their findings. Furthermore, ARUP was apparently required to accept assumptions and design approaches that appear unnecessary, costly and sometimes unimaginative.
This work by our Experts Panel has been essential due to the claims emanating from Sound Transit, and even some of our own City Council members presently, trumpeting that our City’s proposed B7R alternative is at least $140 Million more expensive to implement compared to Sound Transit’s least expensive tunnel route preference (B2M/C11A C9T – via Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue, and at-grade into our downtown). The maddening part of such claims is that they are based solely on ARUP’s “Interim Report” numbers, which were acknowledged, almost parenthetically at the end of the ARUP document (the unexplored opportunities), to save in excess of $100 million in construction and Right of Way costs.
BBB’s leadership, and our Expert Panel members have previously found in our original study of Sound Transit’s B7 Route plan (see: BBB’s Report – “Sound Transit’s B7 Rail Line Design – Unnecessary Features Intended to Defeat Its Acceptance” – December 1, 2010) a significant number of anomalies and unnecessary design elements that caused Sound Transit to reject their original B7 route option. So, it was with an abundance of concern for assuring that honesty and common sense engineering solutions prevail in this latest work that our Experts approached this new analysis in order to provide a fully credible review of ARUP’s work, work that was conducted under the guidance of, and at the direction of our own City Staff, rather than of Sound Transit.
General Findings Regarding the Feasibility and Costs of our City’s B7R Route Option
The chart below (which will be provided in pdf form ASAP) presents comparisons of construction costs for six different route options that our Experts Panel examined. The data used to develop the cost estimates for the first five options comes directly from reports released by Sound Transit and by ARUP and our City Transportation Department staff.
The data used to develop the cost estimate for BBB’s “opportunities-based” B7R design option (the last option in the chart) builds on the opportunities for cost savings suggested by ARUP, and on additional savings options that have been identified by our team in the course of their review of the ARUP documents. Many of these additional cost savings opportunities are reviewed below.
You will see here that the costs of an optimized B7R route, taking advantage of the cost savings opportunities identified both by ARUP, and our own experts, are less than the costs of a properly specified B2M/C9T route, and approach Sound Transit’s least expensive route – their at-grade route through downtown Bellevue – B2M/C11A, when likely mitigation challenges are included.
The BOTTOM LINE: Our experts remain convinced of the feasibility of the B7 route option based on Sound Transit’s principal decision criteria: cost, ridership, and environmental impacts.
The B7R route also meets other critical City of Bellevue requirements such as avoidance of Bellevue Way congestion both during construction and thereafter, avoidance of cut-through traffic in nearby residential neighborhoods, maximum avoidance of residential exposure to noise and other environmental impacts, and minimization of downtown traffic congestion.
The remainder of this document presents our Experts’ findings under the moniker of “Inconvenient Truths”, so chosen as the findings presented all involve issues that Sound Transit, and/or our City Staff have conveniently classified as: lacking in engineering science support, contrary to established engineering standards, not in keeping with legal and/or regulatory requirements; or, too risky to adopt.
BBB’s findings show that these “Inconvenient Truths” prove the feasibility of the B7R alternative.
Review and Analysis of B7R Study by ARUP and City of Bellevue Transportation Department Staff
This review presentation is organized into key topical areas of analysis, as well as by a structural flow framework, beginning at the north end of the proposed B7R rail line route, where it links to the proposed C9T tunnel utilizing a NE 2nd Street tunnel entry near 112th Avenue SE. The presentation then addresses key topics as the review moves along the rail line in a southerly direction, and then across Mercer Slough, near I-90, to its link to the “A“ section of the rail line at South Bellevue Way and I-90.
A. Findings Associated with Placement of a Station Near Main Street, Linking to the C9T Tunnel Along NE 2nd Street
ARUP, presumably at the direction of City of Bellevue Transportation Department Staff, did not challenge Sound Transit’s engineering criteria regarding the design of a Main Street Station.
ARUP initially considered (option 3 in their first presentation to City Council) placing this station on the east side of the Red Lion Hotel site, along the west side of 114th Ave SE and the future edge of I-405. This would require use of a curved station, which was noted to Council, in order to avoid a full taking of the Sheraton Hotel with the guideway’s northward extension, and to minimize damage to the Red Lion site. The suggested alignment would require a take of the Azteca restaurant as it curved around the north end of the hotel and into a cut and cover crossing of 112th Avenue NE at NE 2nd Street.
Sound Transit suggested that a curved station was a deviation from their design criteria that would likely require a variance. City of Bellevue Staff required that ARUP, as the City’s consultants, not deviate from Sound Transit’s criteria in specifying all elements of construction for the proposed Main Street Station.
Inconvenient Truth #1: Curved Stations Can Be Built
Curved light rail, as well as heavy rail train stations, exist throughout the world, and operate safely and effectively.
BBB’s experts are confident an at-grade curved station in the location described above is a particularly easy option to justify since the curve is extremely gentle. It would require regrading of the adjacent station area to the level of 114th Ave SE to facilitate the crossing under Main Street to avoid the costly trench station and wide stair access ARUP used in its alternative tangent station alignment. The property take impacts are hugely reduced as described in the introduction above. And costs associated with the station and the deep retained cut are dramatically reduced as well.
The foregone savings for this ill-advised decision are in excess of $110 Million. And if the residual value of the Red Lion site were allowed to be considered, there would be some $26 million of further savings added to that amount.
Inconvenient Truth #2: A Station At Main Street Is Not Cost-Effective
As suggested above, anything other than an at-grade curved station on the Red Lion site involves a large expenditure for a very small return in the form of increased access and ridership.
The number of net added daily riders (1,000) generated by such a station is small because this station is only a short distance from the primary downtown Bellevue station, has no nearby park and ride facility, and provides access to only a limited geographic ridership population.
An additional station could be built in the general vicinity (e.g., at the Wilburton Park and Ride location, further to the south) at some future point if ridership demand were to increase to a reasonable level.
It would appear that the primary reason for this station placement is principally associated with fostering Transit Oriented Development in the vicinity of this proposed station.
B. Findings Associated with Placement of the Elevated Track Near the Greenbaum Furniture Store, South of S.E. 8th Street, Along I-405
Inconvenient Truth #3: The B7R Line Can Fit Next to I-405, South of SE 8th Street
The ARUP study shows the alignment crossing over a portion of the Greenbaum building with a partial take thereof per Sound Transit policy.
BBB experts have concluded that it is possible to avoid going over the building, and the partial take thereof, by locating the elevated guideway piers along the I-405 Master Plan edge of shoulder in the existing 118th Ave SE Right of Way. This would require interim widening of a short section of 118th Ave to accommodate two piers.
Estimated cost savings — $0.9 million.
C. Findings Associated with Trackage Placement Along the BNSF Portion of the Rail Line, Along I-405
This is one of the most contentious and confusing elements of the entire alignment selection process as one might conclude from the discussion below.
Inconvenient Truth #4: Rail Banking of Any Portion of the Former BNSF Corridor Along I-405 Is Illogical and Unnecessary
The BNSF Railroad Company intended to abandon the portion of the BSNF right of way from Renton to approximately NE 8th St when it disposed of its rail line property that extended into Snohomish County. This should have rendered application of the Federal Rail Banking requirements moot. It was only because Sound Transit demanded that King County and the Port Authority purchase the Rail Banking rights, as well as the property itself, that any application of the law might apply.
The reality – No commercial freight will ever again run in this segment of the BNSF corridor due to the costs of rebuilding the Wilburton Trestle, which is on the Historic Register, and the bridge over I-405. These costs would have to be borne by any firm that would seek to exercise these Rail Banking requirements. As further evidence of the non-freight use reality, the City of Bellevue in its design of the NE 4th Street Extension has designed a trench through the rail right-of-way that will remove the rails and require any future rail user to raise the track some 10 feet (over 1000 feet horizontal relocation) as the roadway’s base elevation is limited by a very large unmoveable Metro sewer.
BBB’s experts believe this is little more than a strategic hedge by Sound Transit to challenge use of this Right of Way for light rail trackage.
Inconvenient Truth # 5: Requiring Freight Rail Accommodation Along the Former BNSF Rail Line Is Solely to Burden the Right of Way With Added Construction Costs and Controversy
ARUP reportedly was directed by a late arriving opinion from our City of Bellevue General Counsel to include accommodation for future freight rail use in either a shared mode with light rail trains, or in a separated placement in the corridor.
Shared rail mode was selected for base costs in the “Interim Analysis Report”, but for unapparent reasons, ARUP moved the new southbound track some 8 to 9 feet west of the existing BNSF track, when utilization of the existing rail bed for the southbound operation would have been the optimal choice for minimization of walls and earthwork and protection of the abutting multi-family dwellings. Moving the rail line westward in this concept adds some $4 Million to the cost of constructing the B7R guideway in the BNSF Right of Way.
The “Final Analysis Report”, however, suggests preference for a separate rail corridor which is stated as adding some $ 6 million (with soft costs). This concept would require removal of extensive lengths of earthen berm with its tree cover, and installation of substantial amounts of additional retaining wall on either side along a major portion of the BNSF right of way.
Despite this switch in the latter document, ARUP staff, at the City’s public briefing for Bellevue residents stated their decision in support of the shared rail concept, while keeping the requirement for moving the rails westward, along with the attendant removal of flora and the requirement for added retaining walls.
Our experts believe that our City should assume the shared rail concept and rail placement for rail banking resolution, and move forward with the knowledge that there will never be a freight rail operator in this corridor.
An aside — the notion of needing special pickup arms on the light rail vehicles, and thus special trains (as was identified in the ARUP report), due to the possible extra clearance requirement for freight, is based on the jaw dropping belief that a phantom freight rail operator would be running double stack container cars – something that only happens on high volume mainline railroads.
This lack of clarity regarding the entire question of use of the BNSF corridor for East Link suggests that ARUP was subjected to extensive pressure to accommodate added costs without reasonable justification for any future commercial heavy rail usage ever occurring.
D. Noise Mitigation Costs Along the BNSF Portion of the Rail Line
Inconvenient Truth # 6: Noise Mitigation Costs Along the BNSF Right of Way Are Minimal if the Tracks Are Not Moved Westward
Eliminating the westward movement of the LRT guideway within the BNSF rail bed footprint avoids the loss of noise-cancelling topographic features, which should minimize the need for added noise mitigation.
Furthermore, most, if not all, of the existing residential properties have already been mitigated for excessive noise associated with I-405 and the prior railroad use of the corridor as a condition of building permit approval.
This rail movement issue was previously extensively analyzed by BBB as being unnecessary – at that time it was for a 25ft wide trail –, and that doing so comprised a convenient means of adding to the costs and impacts of the B7R light rail line.
In addition, the presence of a crossover track constitutes the major source of noise for the first large group of apartment units. This crossover problem was called out in the SDEIS reviews but ARUP continued to use the same location, which could have easily been moved to a non- residential section of track.
E. Construction Costs and Environment Mitigation Costs Associated With Building the Bridge Across Mercer Slough
Inconvenient Truth #7: The LRT Bridge Can Be Built Over Mercer Slough Without Risk to I-90 Bridge Stability
The plan for placing the LRT the bridge across Mercer Slough calls for 85’ to 100’ of pier-to-pier separation from the existing I-90 collector road bridge. Despite this substantial separation, the ARUP final report states that the proposed structure is only “a few feet away” from the I-90 bridges, and that building the new bridge a few feet away introduces risk to the stability of the I-90 bridges due to the possible impacts on peat movement flows that are currently impacting the existing bridges.
ARUP’s report states this “few feet away” location is necessary to retain a “de-minimus” status with respect to FHWA classification of parkland impacts and imply that, if further away, the bridge may fall in a higher classification and be more difficult to approve. Interestingly, the location proposed for B7R is the same as in the DEIS B7 which has already received a “de-minimus” approval from FHWA.
BBB has reviewed the soil movement impact question with geotechnical engineers with direct experience in related bridge and other large structures construction in similar settings. These consultants include a senior geotechnical engineering specialist formerly associated with the Washington State Department of Transportation.
These advisors have stated that they see no basis for any influence on the I-90 bridge structures resulting from the new LRT bridge given the very substantial distance from those structures.
Inconvenient Truth #8: Building The Bridge Over Mercer Slough Is Feasible Utilizing a Continuous Extension Construction Technique Involving Use of a Gantry Crane
Sound Transit in their DEIS cost estimate documentation assumed a method of constructing the bridge that included building a second temporary pile-supported construction platform or bridge.
Doing so substantially added to the cost of constructing the final bridge structure. Then, in the SDEIS Sound Transit assumed use of much longer spans, presumably to reduce foundation costs and perhaps the need for some of the platform itself and its environmental impacts. However, the costs for this new design concept were some $28 million higher than in their DEIS and there was no improvement in wetland or park impacts.
BBB had asserted that use of a method of construction like the gantry crane solution proposed by ARUP, whereby the bridge could be continuously extended across the slough from either end of the new bridge structure, should save many $Millions and reduce environmental impacts.
ARUP has validated this alternative construction technique, thereby reducing the costs of building the bridge set out by Sound Transit by, coincidentally, some $28 Million. However, one would expect that this seemingly more efficient method of construction for this setting would have resulted in cost savings versus the DEIS costs, not just the SDEIS.
Inconvenient Truth #9: Use of the Continuous Extension/Gantry Crane Technique Dramatically Reduces Environmental Impacts on Wetland Property in the Slough
Sound Transit posited that building a bridge across Mercer Slough would cause large temporary and permanent impacts on the Slough wetland.
Use of the continuous extension/gantry-based construction method should result in substantially less temporary environmental impacts, and leave essentially no meaningful residual permanent environmental damage, other than the pier footprints, which are less than 0.2 acres.
F. Station Feasibility and Benefits
Inconvenient Truth #10: The A2 Station and Park and Ride Facility Can Be Built in South Bellevue Without Significant Environmental Impacts
Because most of the A2 Station components, and nearly all of the Park and Ride infrastructure are being placed on the competent soils to the west of the Bellevue Way I-90 on-ramp there is little impact on the nearby Mercer Slough Waterway and adjoining narrow wetland strip lying along the west side of the waterway.
Our Experts have also identified a way to minimize intrusive effects within the adjacent Slough area by modifying the construction method for the circular ramp proposed on the east side of Bellevue Way. Instead of utilizing a massive retained fill wall structure, it would be far preferable to utilize a box girder and columns design to support the aerial roadway. This would vastly improve the visual aesthetics and pedestrian experience for the Sweyolocken trail and significantly minimize permanent environmental impacts and parkland footprints.
Also not noted anywhere in the ARUP documents is the huge amount (11.5 acres) of new park land that could be created with the removal of the South Bellevue Park and Ride lot. This of course can be used to offset parkland impacts of this ramp and the B7 Slough crossing.
Furthermore, in comparison, all of the proposed South Bellevue Park and Ride station and facility, set out by Sound Transit, would be built on wetlands which were previously recovered from their primordial state by a large amount of landfill.
Mitigation costs required to protect the wetlands during construction of the A2 Station and Park and Ride facility are small compared to the permanent mitigation costs associated with the South Bellevue Station and Park and Ride facilities proposed by Sound Transit.
Inconvenient Truth #11: Noise and Visual Impacts to the Nearby Enatai Neighborhood Are Minimal and Easily Mitigated
ARUP has proven that the A2 Park and Ride facility can be built without causing massive noise and visual blight to the nearby Enatai residential neighbors. This is accomplished by building the facility into the existing hillside, with a top surface typically below the level of the adjacent ground level to the west, occupied by private homes.
Remaining visual impacts are easily mitigated through use of evergreen vegetation (trees and shrubs) on the east side of 113th Avenue SE. Potential noise impacts from circulating buses, if noticeable, could be mitigated with a sound wall placed along the western side of the transit center deck.
Placing the bus ramp along the east side of the facility, from the level of Bellevue Way to the top level of the facility, at the farthest distance from the neighborhood to the west, effectively mitigates for the most significant noise that would be generated by buses.
This is in dramatic contrast to the South Bellevue Park and Ride facility whose station, and parking facility will be fully exposed to all the homes to the west of the facility and cannot be mitigated by any type of sound wall or visual appearance camouflage.
Inconvenient Truth #12: The A2 Station Access Ramps and Interfaces with Bellevue Way Will Dramatically Improve Traffic Flows on Bellevue Way and Protect Enatai and other Neighborhoods from Traffic Diversions
ARUP’s analysis uses traffic simulation modeling that is vastly superior to the method Sound Transit used in the DEIS and SDEIS as it measures corridor queuing and delays. This work has proved that closure of the South Bellevue Park and Ride lot, which is a major bottleneck for PM peak period southbound Bellevue Way corridor flow, dramatically reduces future delays in the Bellevue Way and 112th Avenues SE corridors. This results in vastly superior southbound travel times through the corridor versus a 108th Ave SE routing through Enatai to I-90. This lot closure is allowed by the A-2 garage proposal.
Furthermore, the A-2 garage, with its unique partial interchange mode of access to Bellevue Way, improves access for the Enatai community. Left turn crossing movements to and from 113th Avenue SE are accommodated via the new overpass eliminating thus the need for signal protection for those moves that would otherwise be highly congested and unsafe. And right turning traffic to I-90 from 113th would be facilitated by southbound signal protection on Bellevue Way. But since this is only one movement and there will be an additional southbound lane added to Bellevue Way for this intersection, this signal protection comes at little delay cost to southbound Bellevue Way traffic flow. And northbound flow remains free of any impedance thus protecting the neighborhood from traffic diversion in the AM period.
This A2 station traffic flow control is in dramatic contrast to the impacts on Bellevue Way traffic set out by Sound Transit to create their proposed South Bellevue Park and Ride facility. Sound Transit’s plan (B2M) calls for an extra traffic signal at the South Bellevue Park and Ride lot and a tripling of the traffic volumes from the lot that will dramatically increase delays for all traffic on Bellevue Way during extended AM and PM peak periods. Significant traffic diversion through the Enatai neighborhood is highly likely with this plan. ARUP’s work shows that with only the existing Park and Ride lot in operation in the future, there will be substantially increased delays for southbound Bellevue Way traffic from SE 10th to SE 30th (70 seconds) and on 112th Ave from NE 9th Street to Bellevue Way (161 seconds). Imagine the problem with a tripling of the traffic emanating from the B2M garage proposal.
Inconvenient Truth #13: The Proximity of the A2 Park and Ride Facility to the I-90 Freeway Will Speed Access to the Park and Ride Facility
Vehicles traveling on I-90 will be able to reach the A2 Park and Ride Facility more quickly than they could using Sound Transit’s proposed South Bellevue Park and Ride Facility as evidenced by the decrease in ridership at the Mercer Island station. This improvement in freeway access should contribute to added ridership by regional travelers.
Inconvenient Truth #14: The B-7R Alignment Completely Avoids the Extensive Visual Blight Caused by the B2M Rail Line
Sound Transit’s design specification for its B2M route into the South Bellevue Station and Park and Ride Facility calls for a massive elevated structure along the east side of Bellevue Way, from I-90 north to its South Bellevue Station location. This train guideway superstructure will rise to nearly 75 feet above the adjacent land level.
The height of this train line superstructure will cause direct line exposure by Enatai residents to the noisy squeal of the train wheels as the train turns along a curve running from I-90 to parallel Bellevue Way. This is the same kind of rail line and train wheel noise the Sound Transit has been unable to mitigate in Tukwila and in Seattle’s Rainier Valley, along the Central Link line.
The height of the tracks will also extensively block the visual line of sight eastward across Mercer Slough for residents along nearly a half-mile of the Enatai community.
A photomontage of the proposed B2M rail line’s likely appearance is appended to this document.
G. B2M (Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue) Construction Cost Drivers Not Yet Reported by Sound Transit – Likely to Make B7R A Bargain Compared to Sound Transit’s Preference
Inconvenient Truth #15: B2M’s Full Construction And Mitigation Costs Are Expected To Make Sound Transit’s Route Preference Substantially More Costly Than B7R, Once the B7R Route’s Unnecessary Cost Burdens Are Removed
ST has failed, thus far, to fully disclose the complete costs of constructing their B2M rail line preference – revised cost estimates reflecting 30% design were scheduled for May 26 release and we believe are being intentionally withheld. Despite this lack of disclosure, Sound Transit has trumpeted their belief that our City’s B7R route preference is at least $140 Million more expensive than their B2M/C9T route.
BBB’s experts have examined this set of facts and believe that three major heretofore unspecified construction cost drivers are likely to be in play:
a) Deep Foundation Piles – An extensive number of deep foundation piles will be required along the entire distance between the location of the Winters House and SE 6th Street to support the weight of the rail line, the retained cut rail line walls and bottom, and of the train itself given the bog-like conformation of the soils throughout this area of Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue SE. BBB’s experts estimate this construction cost to range between $40 and $60 Million.
b) Ground Water Removal Costs — This entire area also contains extensive ground water challenges, including the presence of underground streams, and totally saturated bogs along much of the sides of this portion of Bellevue Way and 12th Avenue SE. Construction of the retained-cut guideway will interfere with these subterranean water flows, causing back-up of water to the west of the rail line and the nearby road bed, leading to swamping, and possible subsidence of the nearby roadways and damage to private property to the west. These problems can only be avoided by installation of costly subterranean drainage solutions. These drains will be very expensive as they must intersect the existing adjacent roadways in numerous areas, and must also pass under the retained cut guideway. Building them will also introduce extensive siltation risks associated with water flows into the immediately adjacent Mercer Slough waterway during construction. This will destroy salmon habitat. BBB’s experts estimate this construction cost to range between $30 and $40 Million.
c) Noise Mitigation Costs – Sound Transit has a major problem with noise emanating from their trains. They have not been able to solve their noise problems in Tukwila despite having spent more than $10 Million to date. And now, in the Rainier Valley, they are presently obtaining proposals to install extensive exterior wall and window sound insulation solutions on many hundreds of homes with costs expected to rise over $30 Million. Homes in the Rainier Valley, up to 600 feet from the train line, are being mitigated with this new sound control solution.
The noise issue is expected to be even more challenging along the entire length of Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue SE, a distance of nearly two miles. Hundreds of homes lie uphill to the west of the Bellevue Way route. Because of their elevated location relative to the noise source, noise walls along the train guideways will be ineffective.
The entire length of the line along 112th Avenue will be even more challenging as homes in this area will be directly adjacent to the train line, requiring even more extensive mitigation, particularly because our City can be expected to require that Sound Transit must meet the City of Bellevue’s noise standard which is lower than that suggested by Sound Transit. Mitigation could reach far into these nearby communities if Sound Transit’s experience in the Rainier Valley holds true here in Bellevue. These noise mitigation costs could reach to $30 to $50 Million.
H. ARUP Did Not Use Practical Engineering Methods In Some Cases, Or Was Required To Utilize Sound Transit’s Assumptions for Critical Cost Factors
Inconvenient Truth #16: Lower Cost Construction Assumptions and Estimates Could Have Been Used
Some of the more easily described cost estimate assumption issues are as follows:
ARUP selected a cut and cover tunnel construction method from the portal at 112th AVE NE/NE2nd St to the Downtown Tunnel Station portal. The tunnel portion, from 112th Avenue to 111th Avenue, could have been in retained cut since the depth is shallower that that required for a tunnel, and even less than that on the Sheraton site where retained cut was used. Net savings — $15 million.
ARUP used a unit cost estimate for the guideway through the A-2 station that exceeded Sound Transit’s unit cost model. This results in a cost estimate result that is not an apples to apples approach. Net savings — $2 million of ARUP ‘s mezzanine cost for the A-2 station is based on an excessive width of platform. Net savings $3 million.
ARUP reduced the unit cost of the garage to adjust for foundation costs when foundation costs are actually embedded in the Sound Transit estimating model. Result is not an apples to apples approach. Net savings $3 million
ARUP assumed ties and ballast removal along the full BNSF right of way when one half has already been removed with the I-405 work. Net savings $2 million.
Inconvenient Truth #17: Right of Way Costs Are Distorted Due to Use of Sound Transit as the Estimate Source
ARUP’s team prepared Right-of-Way estimates, but they were supplanted by Sound Transit’s estimates in their final report. This was deemed necessary in order to maintain “apples to apples” comparison with SDEIS and DEIS data since Sound Transit would not disclose its estimate assumptions used therein.
The ARUP estimates were significantly lower, reportedly due primarily to lower real estate values in 2010 versus the 2007 base for the DEIS and SDEIS. This explanation is unconvincing.
Considering that the SDEIS added some $22 million to the right-of-way total, plus some 50 employees for a new STOR-House mini-storage building, leaves one skeptical of Sound Transit’s black box estimates. This is especially true for the C9T portion of the estimate wherein $137 million is allocated to right-of-way from SE 6th Street to the downtown station portal.
The ARUP team, to their credit, noted the inappropriateness of Sound Transit’s BNSF right-of- way cost method and made a strong case for a more appropriate valuation technique that they estimated to result in an astounding $15 to $20 million in savings. Net savings used herein — $18 million.
Similarly ARUP made a case for using residual value for the large hotel site parcels. Sound Transit has not used this for their work to date although residual value is an FTA required concept that is allowed at the conceptual engineering stage. In the case of C9T it would be especially appropriate due to the residual parcel sizes and strategic value for TOD development. A simple adjustment to add residual value estimates to the B2M-C9T route would have brought this to an apples to apples comparison that would show the decided advantage to B7R. As mentioned earlier the residual value of the Red Lion site is estimated at $26 million.
