When voters approved extending Sound Transit’s system last November, most people probably thought the controversial battle over light rail on the Eastside was over. But the agency did not release its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the possible alignment options until after the November election, so everyone was left to imagine for themselves the details on where exactly the tracks would lie.

Now, as Sound Transit has released the information in its DEIS showing a dozen and a half possible alignment scenarios, businesses, policymakers and neighborhood groups are lining up with different and competing views on where light rail should come through Bellevue.

After living through the region’s decades-long floundering on replacing the Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge, taxpayers have more than enough reason to doubt that this project will be on time and on budget.

Sound Transit has identified 19 alignment options, which are broken into five segments. Each segment presents its own set of challenges, but none more than the segment across the I-90 bridge.

Segment A replaces the center lanes across the I-90 bridge with light rail. Sound Transit officials downplay the negative impact light rail will have on traffic congestion and underestimate the potential for significantly higher costs.

Light rail will increase vehicle delay on the bridge by a third during peak commute times.

Stray electrical currents are common with light rail systems and can cause significant damage to surrounding buildings, infrastructure and in this case, the steel components of the bridge. Sound Transit would be on the hook for these added costs.

There is also the question of whether Sound Transit (and taxpayers) will have to pay for taking the center roadway for its own use. Some estimate the cost could be $1 billion or more.

Making matters worse, Sound Transit wants only the taxpayers on the Eastside to pay for the connection across Lake Washington, despite the proportional benefits that light rail brings to Seattle.

Segment B contains five options that connect the line from I-90 through south Bellevue. It could include laying track along Bellevue Way, an impossible option considering its negative impact on traffic, or using the old BNSF rail corridor that runs parallel to I-405.

Segment C through downtown Bellevue could be the most expensive. With each option reaching past $1 billion, three of the six proposed routes are tunnels and would cost about twice as much as elevated alternatives.

These added costs could threaten the link to Redmond (Segment E) however, which Sound Transit officials already say they cannot fund, despite promises made to voters and Microsoft during the election and the 0.5 percent sales tax increase.

Segment D contains four options to reach Overlake, but they each displace businesses and have environmental concerns with wetland and habitat impacts, which could lead to higher costs.

All of these issues have the potential to delay light rail to the Eastside, but none more so than the link across Lake Washington.

Sound Transit may never overcome the technical or funding obstacles to bring light rail across a floating bridge and as costs continue to climb and tax revenues fall, other segments and more effective alignment options are becoming unattainable.

Sound Transit might consider moving forward with the other segments before crossing I-90. The I-90 corridor between Seattle and Bellevue already effectively serves transit demand and running light rail over a lake would bring no additional land use benefits, population density or economic development.

The segment to Redmond must also be completed as promised and Sound Transit officials should choose an overall alignment scheme that has no negative impact on traffic congestion.

The voters approved Sound Transit’s plan to expand light rail in the region but as Sound Transit officials move forward with choosing a preferred alternative, they must do everything possible to help improve the region’s economic recovery by building a system that strengthens personal mobility.

Michael Ennis is transportation director at Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan independent policy research organization in Seattle and Olympia. He can be contacted at mennis@washingtonpolicy.org. For more information contact WPC at 206.937.9391 or washingtonpolicy.org.