Comments on: The Coming Months: I-90 and the JTC http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Fri, 25 May 2012 14:11:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Paul http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48732 Paul Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:44:57 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48732 It doesn't matter that they signed off on the NEPA documentation unless the terms of the MOA were incorporated into the Record of Decision. I didn't see anything about future conversion of the center roadway in the Two-way Transit and HOV ROD. I haven't looked at the earlier I-90 ROD in a long time, so I'm not sure what it says about this.
It doesn’t matter that they signed off on the NEPA documentation unless the terms of the MOA were incorporated into the Record of Decision. I didn’t see anything about future conversion of the center roadway in the Two-way Transit and HOV ROD. I haven’t looked at the earlier I-90 ROD in a long time, so I’m not sure what it says about this.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48672 Bernie Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:28:36 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48672 No, read the report and the engineering analysis. 100% was the limit at which structural degradation was expected. It doesn't mean catastrophic failure but it does mean a shortened life span and increased maintenance. The whole lifespan issue hasn't really been addressed.
No, read the report and the engineering analysis. 100% was the limit at which structural degradation was expected. It doesn’t mean catastrophic failure but it does mean a shortened life span and increased maintenance. The whole lifespan issue hasn’t really been addressed.

]]> By: Nathan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48670 Nathan Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:14:23 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48670 Bernie, 97 percent of "allowable" doesn't mean "3% away from failure." Allowable means what is <i>safely allowable</i>, with a reasonable margin of safety on top. Using 100% of allowable design load is safe and OK.
Bernie, 97 percent of “allowable” doesn’t mean “3% away from failure.” Allowable means what is safely allowable, with a reasonable margin of safety on top. Using 100% of allowable design load is safe and OK.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48669 Bernie Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:08:44 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48669 All of the engineering analysis is here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/irt/MaterialsSources/default.htm <blockquote>The analysis showed that LRT loading combined with the 1-year storm loads produced stresses that were 97% of the allowable stresses becoming the controlling case for operational limitations of LRT.</blockquote> Cutting it a bit close I think considering we seem to have 100 year storms every ten years of so. And if you've ever been on a boat at the end of Seafair you know that 3-5' waves are the rule which exceeds the wind driven loading used in the analysis. The other troubling part to me is that the bridge is going to last 100 years because WSDOT and ST say so. Paula Hammond was just on TVW Impact claiming the new 520 was going to be a 50 year bridge (about right based on all of our experience) and WSDOT design standards for normal bridges is 70 years. There's no accounting for how high point loading from rail might shorten bridge life or how the pattern of increasingly strict design standards have always shortened the projections for useful life. They do point out that this will require substantial seismic upgrades; not because of the stress from rail but just because of a change in standards. The rail expansion joints aren't a big deal. All they do is allow the iron rails to slide back and forth to match the movement of the bridge. They have nothing to do with the structure of the bridge. The bridge expansion joints that join the approaches to the floating section are a different story. That's the part they just replaced. It's not really clear if those will need to be replaced again for rail but I don't think so. The IRT also points out that the two big killers of floating bridges are storms and construction projects and suggest a contingency plan in case we sink the I-90 again.
All of the engineering analysis is here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/irt/MaterialsSources/default.htm

The analysis showed that LRT loading combined with the 1-year storm loads produced stresses that were 97% of the allowable stresses becoming the controlling case for operational limitations of LRT.

Cutting it a bit close I think considering we seem to have 100 year storms every ten years of so. And if you’ve ever been on a boat at the end of Seafair you know that 3-5′ waves are the rule which exceeds the wind driven loading used in the analysis.

The other troubling part to me is that the bridge is going to last 100 years because WSDOT and ST say so. Paula Hammond was just on TVW Impact claiming the new 520 was going to be a 50 year bridge (about right based on all of our experience) and WSDOT design standards for normal bridges is 70 years. There’s no accounting for how high point loading from rail might shorten bridge life or how the pattern of increasingly strict design standards have always shortened the projections for useful life. They do point out that this will require substantial seismic upgrades; not because of the stress from rail but just because of a change in standards.

The rail expansion joints aren’t a big deal. All they do is allow the iron rails to slide back and forth to match the movement of the bridge. They have nothing to do with the structure of the bridge. The bridge expansion joints that join the approaches to the floating section are a different story. That’s the part they just replaced. It’s not really clear if those will need to be replaced again for rail but I don’t think so.

The IRT also points out that the two big killers of floating bridges are storms and construction projects and suggest a contingency plan in case we sink the I-90 again.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48665 Ben Schiendelman Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:22:20 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48665 No, but they signed the NEPA.
No, but they signed the NEPA.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48664 Ben Schiendelman Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:20:39 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48664 Seriously. "We would like copies ofthe report on the full-scale load test and the planning-level analysis of the feasibility of the rail expansion joint necessary for construction and operation of light rail on the 1-90 floating bridge." They haven't even looked at the depth and detail that already exists yet. Interesting how you omit that part, isn't it, John?
Seriously.

“We would like copies ofthe report on the full-scale load test and the planning-level analysis of the feasibility of the rail expansion joint necessary for construction and operation of light rail on the 1-90 floating bridge.”

They haven’t even looked at the depth and detail that already exists yet. Interesting how you omit that part, isn’t it, John?

]]> By: Oren http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48658 Oren Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:19:47 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48658 What law requires ST to pay the State anything? WSDOT has the right to give ST the transitway agreement at no charge (just like Seattle gave SMP the transitway agreement at no charge). This is bullshit - no way should ST pay anything to the State for the transitway agreement absent some legal requirement.
What law requires ST to pay the State anything? WSDOT has the right to give ST the transitway agreement at no charge (just like Seattle gave SMP the transitway agreement at no charge). This is bullshit – no way should ST pay anything to the State for the transitway agreement absent some legal requirement.

]]> By: John Niles http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48636 John Niles Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:58:14 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48636 Google for [FHWA "East Link DEIS comments"] to find one set of USDOT comments on Sound Transit's scheme for floating light rail. "FHWA believes that the analysis on highway operations and safety is too focused on the transit element and does not go into enough depth and detail on the impacts to the highway·impacts resulting from this project."
Google for [FHWA "East Link DEIS comments"] to find one set of USDOT comments on Sound Transit’s scheme for floating light rail.

“FHWA believes that the analysis on highway operations and safety is too focused on the transit element and does not go into enough depth and detail on the impacts to the highway·impacts resulting from this project.”

]]> By: Paul http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48597 Paul Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:53:48 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48597 I don't think the feds signed the I-90 MOA.
I don’t think the feds signed the I-90 MOA.

]]> By: Chris Stefan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48590 Chris Stefan Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:28:34 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48590 Not to mention there was a specific agreement WRT completing I-90 signed by the feds, the state, and various local governments that provided for converting the I-90 center roadway to high capacity transit. Besides the federal dollars come with federal strings, one of which is the Feds get to claim up to 93% of anything the state gets for selling various rights related to a federally funded highway project.
Not to mention there was a specific agreement WRT completing I-90 signed by the feds, the state, and various local governments that provided for converting the I-90 center roadway to high capacity transit.

Besides the federal dollars come with federal strings, one of which is the Feds get to claim up to 93% of anything the state gets for selling various rights related to a federally funded highway project.

]]> By: Paul http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48587 Paul Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:11:03 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48587 USDOT is already involved. FTA is the lead agency for the NEPA process and FHWA is a cooperating agency. The issue was described in the DEIS that they both reviewed.
USDOT is already involved. FTA is the lead agency for the NEPA process and FHWA is a cooperating agency. The issue was described in the DEIS that they both reviewed.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48576 Ben Schiendelman Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:01:53 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48576 Actually, there are very specific laws regarding the use by RTAs of facilities paid for by the federal government. It may really not be the state's decision. Check out 23 CFR 810.212, for example.
Actually, there are very specific laws regarding the use by RTAs of facilities paid for by the federal government. It may really not be the state’s decision. Check out 23 CFR 810.212, for example.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48569 Bernie Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:42:20 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48569 Just because federal funds pay for something doesn't mean they own it. Remember, those federal dollars come from the States in the first place. They don't just print up <i>all</i> of the money ;-) You're right that there are "strings" attach but it's going to be an interesting battle. BTW, TV Washington will be broadcasting the JTC meeting at several times Friday through Sunday (channel 23 on Comcast) for those that would rather watch it on TV than streaming video.
Just because federal funds pay for something doesn’t mean they own it. Remember, those federal dollars come from the States in the first place. They don’t just print up all of the money ;-)

You’re right that there are “strings” attach but it’s going to be an interesting battle. BTW, TV Washington will be broadcasting the JTC meeting at several times Friday through Sunday (channel 23 on Comcast) for those that would rather watch it on TV than streaming video.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48567 Ben Schiendelman Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:27:26 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48567 Actually, those HOV lanes are 'owned' by the feds. They paid for 93%, and there are strings attached to that payment.
Actually, those HOV lanes are ‘owned’ by the feds. They paid for 93%, and there are strings attached to that payment.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48564 Martin H. Duke Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:17:03 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48564 Except that ST is paying the bulk of the cost of the replacement capacity -- the two-way HOV project. ST spends money on HOV projects all the time which are then given to the State. It seems like an odd time to suddenly start accounting this way.
Except that ST is paying the bulk of the cost of the replacement capacity — the two-way HOV project.

ST spends money on HOV projects all the time which are then given to the State. It seems like an odd time to suddenly start accounting this way.

]]> By: Gary http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48554 Gary Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:02:10 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48554 "state trying to charge a transit agency for a transit-intended project paid for almost entirely by federal dollars" This is just a tax shifting dodge. By making ST pay the state for the use of Federally funded state property, we will be taking tax money from the ST taxing district and giving it to the state's general fund. (or highway fund whatever..) In some ways it makes sense because the HOV lanes are "owned" by the residents of Yakima, and Eastern Washington as much as they are "owned" by the ST taxing district residents. And in other ways it's just another tax shift. It's all our money both ways, it's just that ST taxing district residents didn't vote to give it to Eastern Washington.... or at least that's what they thought. As for it going to Highway projects, there are plenty of bridges in this state that should have routine maintenance that could use this money. In case anybody on this forum didn't notice, general revenue collections are down, teachers are being laid off, health care for the poor is being cut. All of our tax money goes into this pot one way or another.
“state trying to charge a transit agency for a transit-intended project paid for almost entirely by federal dollars”

This is just a tax shifting dodge. By making ST pay the state for the use of Federally funded state property, we will be taking tax money from the ST taxing district and giving it to the state’s general fund. (or highway fund whatever..)

In some ways it makes sense because the HOV lanes are “owned” by the residents of Yakima, and Eastern Washington as much as they are “owned” by the ST taxing district residents. And in other ways it’s just another tax shift. It’s all our money both ways, it’s just that ST taxing district residents didn’t vote to give it to Eastern Washington…. or at least that’s what they thought.

As for it going to Highway projects, there are plenty of bridges in this state that should have routine maintenance that could use this money. In case anybody on this forum didn’t notice, general revenue collections are down, teachers are being laid off, health care for the poor is being cut. All of our tax money goes into this pot one way or another.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48546 Ben Schiendelman Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:47:03 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48546 Well, they have to know there's an issue first. :)
Well, they have to know there’s an issue first. :)

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48545 Ben Schiendelman Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:46:37 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48545 There's no if - it won't stick. They know that, too, USDOT would eventually get involved.
There’s no if – it won’t stick. They know that, too, USDOT would eventually get involved.

]]> By: Chris Stefan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48540 Chris Stefan Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:25:37 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48540 Chopp is no better than Dino Rossi or various area road advocates who keep trying to find a way to divert the Sound Transit taxing authority to road building. In particular the 520 replacement project. Then again maybe Chopp's real goal isn't to grab Sound Transit's piggy bank but to kill East Link once and for all. If the JTC demands an unreasonable amount for the I-90 center roadway and it sticks East Link is dead.
Chopp is no better than Dino Rossi or various area road advocates who keep trying to find a way to divert the Sound Transit taxing authority to road building. In particular the 520 replacement project.

Then again maybe Chopp’s real goal isn’t to grab Sound Transit’s piggy bank but to kill East Link once and for all. If the JTC demands an unreasonable amount for the I-90 center roadway and it sticks East Link is dead.

]]> By: Mike B http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/04/the-coming-months-i-90-and-the-jtc/#comment-48531 Mike B Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:58:25 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5507#comment-48531 Says the man getting at least 2 billion dollars worth of underground Link infastructure in his district. That Chopp is something else. I hope USDOT goes after the JTC.
Says the man getting at least 2 billion dollars worth of underground Link infastructure in his district. That Chopp is something else. I hope USDOT goes after the JTC.

]]>