Sound Transits Second Big Lie,

Several of my blog posts have described how Sound Transit has lied with claims their 4-car trains every 9 minutes across I-90 bridge center roadway provided the same capacity as 10 lanes of freeway.  The second big lie was their 2008 DEIS claim “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.

Sound Transit’s plan for accommodating cross-lake vehicles and trucks forced to use the outer roadway by their center roadway confiscation is to add a 4^th lane to the outer roadway.   I-90 was never designed to accommodate 4 lanes in the outer roadways.  The WSDOT never had plans to add a 4th lane in each of the outer roadways, per agreement with Seattle. 

The outer roadway 52 ft width requires reducing the lane widths from the FHWA standard of 12 feet to 11 feet and reducing the speed limits to 50 mph.   The combination of buses and HOV traffic on the 4^th lane will surely exacerbate the congestion problem.  Any sort of failure on the bridge will totally disrupt traffic flow. 

Sound Transits own studies warned of capacity problems when HOV traffic is combined with buses.  A Federal Highway Administration document FHWA-WA-EIS-3-01-F, “Interstate-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Record of Decision” concludes the HOV traffic severely limits bus capacity.  Even switching from 2 to 3 person carpools didn’t affect the conclusion of unacceptable congestion with combined traffic.   Sound Transit could opt for limiting the 4^th lane to buses leaving non-transit commuters facing gridlock on the other three lanes.

What is truly remarkable is Sound Transit told a Kittitas judge moving the HOV and bus traffic to the outer roadway would eliminate the need to use the center roadway for highway needs.   This claim is what convinced the judge to proceed with installing light rail on the center roadway.   Again, their 2004 studies showed that simply wasn’t true. 

Perhaps the biggest indication of Sound Transit duplicity on the outer roadway modification is the fact they’ve delayed it until 2016.  They could have added the lane nearly 20 years ago.  The costs would have been minimal and the benefits to cross-lake commuters, particularly “reverse commuters” immediate.   

The reasons are obvious.   They were concerned the lane addition would lead to a temporary closure of the center roadway to demonstrate the modified outer roadway could accommodate vehicle traffic.  A demonstration they knew would fail.  

Even more important was concern they would be forced to divide the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus lanes.  A configuration they knew would be so successful the center roadway could never be shut down to install light rail.

One thing is certain, if Sound Transit proceeds as planned their 2016 closure of center roadway will forever change cross-lake commuting.    I believe my concerns will be vindicated.  Unfortunately by then it will probably be too late.

 

The Question Sound Transit Refuses to Answer

Sound Transit has been studying various cross-lake configurations for more that 30 years.  Their 2008 DEIS described their preferred “no build” solution R-8A, which added a 4^th lane to the outer roadway and maintained the existing center roadway configuration with combination bus/HOV lanes both going in the peak commute direction.  The DEIS explained how ST had concluded the lack of capacity for this “no-build” solution had led then to select light rail for cross-lake commuting.

The problem with these years of study is ST never seriously considered dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus only lanes.  Their 1996 study had initially included configuration R-4 that did include two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway and a 4^th lane on the outer roadway for HOV traffic.  However, it was discarded apparently because Mercer Island objected to the loss of their exclusive SOV access. 

ST never reconsidered R-4 in their 2004 study which selected R-8A as the “no-build” solution even though it also eliminated the Mercer Island SOV access to center roadway.  Each bus only lane could accommodate up to 20 buses per minute, more than enough to meet any future cross-lake transit needs.  Every east side P&R could have a direct bus route connection into Seattle.    The costs would be minimal and the commuting benefits immediate   

Yet ST simply ignored this approach.  Why?  The center roadway is 40 ft wide, more than enough for the two bus lanes with an access lane in between.  Instead they have persisted with their plan to spend 6-7 billion on East Link which, per 2008 DEIS, provides one 4-car train every 9 minutes.  Even worse, its only access point for most cross lake commuters is the South Bellevue P&R which will never have the capacity or accessibility commuters need.

When I responded to ST’s request for comments on their 2008 DEIS with questions as to why they had not considered two-way bus lanes .   James Irish, the Environmental Manager for Link Light Rail responded:

The Sound Transit Board considered this issue (added bus service) over the last few years as part of its Long Range Planning update and development of the Sound Transit 2 Program. After consideration of the issues the Board found that additional bus service would not meet the needs of the Eastside for high capacity transit and that light rail is the best solution.

As mentioned above ST’s “added bus service” studies never, at least publicly, evaluated two-way bus lanes on the center roadway.  The idea they could spend millions and years evaluating cross-lake options and not consider the bus-only lanes on the center roadway is ludicrous.  Even a cursory analysis would have shown the bus lane capacity, rider accessibility, costs, and completion date were infinitely better than light rail.  Its really a question of whether Sound Transit was totally incompetent or worse.

I’ve spent the last three years asking the Bellevue City Council, the King County Council, and the media to ask Sound Transit why they’ve never publicly evaluated the bus lanes.   If they had, this debacle could have ended a long time and many millions ago.  

Bellevue Reporter Ignores My 48th District Candidacyy

 On May 14^th I filed to run as the 48^th District Representative for the position currently held by Ross Hunter.  I did so because for three years the media had simply ignored my many attempts to inform eastside residents about the problems with Sound Transits East Link light rail program.  My goal was to use the voters’ pamphlet to inform not only the 48^th District but the entire eastside about this debacle.

I was frankly surprised to find that no one else had filed.  Once my filing had been accepted I sent an email to the Bellevue Reporter announcing my filing and a copy of the “Statement” and “Biography” I had submitted for the pamphlet.  I didn’t expect this to be exactly "front-page" news, however I had thought they might have included it in the “Around Town” column.

Apparently someone filing to represent a major portion of Bellevue in the state legislature ranks behind such auspicious events as a “Bellevue women getting a PTA post” or  a “School prom for “seniors””.   I also think its note worthy that a quarter of the page was filled with a Sound Transit advertisement for a “Cost-Savings Open House”.   (The idea  Sound Transit is searching for ideas to “save money” is truly absurd.  Their East Link plan will spend 6-7 billion on a project that will cause gridlock on I-90, devastate Bellevue and do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on 405 and I-90.   They are also attempting to extort and additional 200 million for Bellevue for a tunnel even though eastside taxes make up about 40% of their revenue.)

The Bellevue Reporter snub of my candidacy wasn’t a total surprise. The Reporter could have put an end to East Link years ago if they had chosen to make an issue of East Link problems.  Instead, for three years they have essentially ignored my many attempts to expose how Sound Transit had lied to eastside residents about East Link.   Their 2008 DEIS made totally absurd claims that a light rail system, which at best, provided a  4-car train every 9 minutes, was like adding "10 lanes of freeway across Lake Washington" and that adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadway would provide sufficient capacity for all cross-lake vehicles.  

Frankly, they weren’t alone in the cover-up.  The Seattle Times editorial board ignored my attempts to meet with them to discuss these problems.   The local TV news organizations also ignored my suggestion they investigate these concerns.  Apparently, the media didn’t consider the  “possibility” of a monumental fraud by Sound Transit and the WSDOT worthy of some examination.

That’s why I run.

Bill Hirt

BCC Malfeasance

My final attempt to convince the Bellevue City Council to block East Link

Bellevue City Council,

For more than 3 years I’ve been regularly addressing the council regarding my concerns about East Link.  I’ve done so in an effort to convince the council to refuse to approve the 10 permits identified in Sound Transit 2008 DEIS

During that time I’ve explained in great detail how ST had lied to the voters with their truly absurd claims in the DEIS that a 4-car train every 9 minutes was like adding 10 lanes of freeway across the bridge that would increase cross-lake capacity by 60%.  I frankly didn’t believe anyone could possibly believe that claim.  Apparently I was wrong. 

The council ignored my claims that two-way bus lanes on the center roadways would have 20 times light rail capacity, with access from all east side P&R lots, 10 years sooner, at a fraction of the cost.    You also ignored my suggestion you hire your own consultants to evaluate these claims.   Instead you persisted in totally futile efforts to reroute light rail through Bellevue, which I said was like arguing over which side of the Titanic was safer.

I’ve also explained how ST has lied with promises that adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadway for bus and HOV traffic will, to quote the DEIS,  “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.   I left the council with pages from a 2004 FHWA document that concluded combining buses and HOV traffic on a single lane reduced the capacity resulting in unacceptable congestion.  You apparently ignored that conclusion.

I read recently where one of your constituents is faced with the prospect of light rail literally dividing his back yard in two.  Also that Bellevue is facing such dire financial straits needed capital improvements have been delayed for years.  At the same time the council is agreeing to give ST 200 million to fund a tunnel.  That truly is insane.

I have no idea what motivates the council to go along with this debacle.  I can only conclude that nothing I say will make a difference.   I’ve therefore decided to end my attempts to persuade the council with the firm belief that in the end I will be vindicated.  In 2016 when cross-lake commuters experience the effects of ST shutting down the center roadway, they will not be happy.  When your constituents see ST literally destroying a beautiful part of your city to install light rail and 5000 volt power lines, they will not be happy.  When construction companies dig a huge trench through downtown Bellevue, they will not be happy. What will really enrage them is after 7 years of this congestion and devastation they experience the miniscule benefit from spending 5-6 billion on light rail.

I’ve spent the last three years explaining these facts to the council.  No one has disputed any of them.  Your refusal to use the permitting process to stop it puts a whole new meaning to the term malfeasance. 

Bill Hirt

East Link's Fatal Flaw

Why East Link won't work

East Link’s Fatal Flaw

East Link violates a fundament transportation dictum, “you don’t install light rail and bus service on the same transportation corridor”.   If you want to use light rail, you need to have the capacity and the accessibility to transport large numbers of commuters.  A Paris subway route for instance has 10-car trains running every 4 minutes.  It is accessible to huge numbers of riders because of the population centers around the many stations it serves. 

By contrast, East Link, at best will consist of 4-car trains with minimum 7-minute intervals.   The only access point for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R.  This P&R will never have the capacity or the accessibility to attract a large number of 405 and I-90 commuters. 

East Link will result in the vast majority of cross-lake commuters forced to use the outer roadways.  Sound Transits own 2004 analysis concluded their proposed addition of a 4^th lane to the outer roadway for both bus and HOV traffic would not provide needed capacity.

Unfortunately, the media, BCC, KCC, eastside legislators, and other organizations refuse to recognize this reality.  I suspect the influence of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions along with the millions spent on light rail advertising is contributing to this reluctance.  In any case, if ST is allowed to proceed it will result in billions spent on a transportation project that will cause gridlock on 1-90, devastate parts of residential Bellevue, wreck havoc on downtown Bellevue and do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on 405 and I-90

Bill Hirt

My First Presentation to 48th District Republicans

May 22 48th District Republicans Meeting at Bellevue Golf Club

My name is Bill Hirt.

My wife Saundra  and I have lived in our current home since 1967 where we raised two daughters.

My last elective position was class president for 25 “class of ’57” seniors in Armstrong, Iowa.  I received an MS in engineering at ISU, worked at Boeing for 36 years before retiring in 1998. 

Since my retirement I’ve taken 8 Rick Steve’s tours in Europe.  I also spent considerable time traveling on my own before or after these guided tours so have covered most of Europe.  I mention this because it enabled me to experience a wide variety of public transit systems.   During my last 15 years at Boeing I commuted mainly on Metro buses.  This experience is part of why I’m a candidate.   In Europe everyone rode public transit.   More needs to be done here.

 

My primary reason for running is to use the voters’ pamphlet to inform east side voters that Sound Transit and WSDOT are attempting to perpetrate a monumental fraud with their East Link program.  Prior to the Prop 1 vote the media allowed them to lie with impunity about East Link. 

The light rail installation on the I-90 bridge center roadway will never have the capacity or the accessibility to accommodate more than a tiny fraction of cross-lake commuters.  Their planned 4^th lane addition to the outer roadways will never provide the capacity needed for cross-lake vehicles. 

 The only winners are the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions and the media.  The contractors fund Republicans, the labor unions fund Democrats, and Sound Transit advertising revenue funds the media.   East side legislators, King County and Bellevue City Councilmen, and the media don’t seem to care about the disaster that awaits commuters.  

The sordid details of this debacle are included in my blog stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  Suffice to say Sound Transit gives a whole new meaning to the term incompetent.  Fifteen years ago they could have moved the HOV traffic to a 4^th lane on the outer roadway and divided the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus lanes.  The bus lanes would have had 15 times light rail capacity available from every eastside P&R.  The added transit riders would have reduced congestion throughout eastside.  

Instead Sound Transit plans to spend the next 12 years and 5-6 billion on a transportation project that will gridlock the 1-90 bridge, devastate a beautiful part of residential Bellevue, wreck havoc in downtown Bellevue, and do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion on 405 and I-90.   

I’ve spent the last three years trying to convince the Bellevue City Council to use their permitting process to stop East Link.  Their lack of concern for eastside residents is unconscionable.   A recent Times article showed how light rail would literally split one resident’s yard in half.  The BCC recently lamented the cities dire financial problem that will force them to delay needed capital improvements for years.  At the same time they’re agreeing to give Sound Transit 200 million to pay for a tunnel. 

What’s also amazing is community leaders throughout east side seem perfectly willing to go along with a project that will cause gridlock for their constituents.   My opponent’s response when I raised these concerns was “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across Lake Washington come hell or high water.”  My goal in running is to prove him wrong.

The best way to do that is to use “Social Networking” such as Face Book to get this story out.  The media will deride my candidacy.   For years, the Times editorial board has refused to even meet with me.  King, Komo and Kiro news have ignored my frequent requests for their organizations to look into this issue.   

While I welcome the opportunity to visit all the precincts or any other public forums I’m not asking people to contribute to my campaign or post signs of support.  I’ve promised my wife she will not have to be involved in my campaign and she is not enthused about my spending a lot of time in Olympia.  I told her not to worry yet.

What I want is for those who agree with me to use their Face Book pages to urge their friends to go to my blog “stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com”,  In particular the “Case against East Link”.    Its not just the 48^th District, it’s the entire east side that needs to say this debacle has to end.

Sound Transit Incompetence

I submitted this to the Bellevue Reporter.  They declined to publish it.

Letters

Recent articles in local papers have criticized the majority council members for objecting to Sound Transit’s preferred light rail route through Bellevue.  The council proposal would apparently create a huge “hole” in Sound Transit funding. 

Sound Transit needs to be reminded 40% of their funds come from the Eastside.  The added costs of the council’s preferred route in no way makes up for Sound Transit failure to meet obligations to spend that money on eastside transportation.

The Sound Transit financial “hole’ is a direct result of their own incompetence.  The Sounder train operating costs, along with the limited number of riders, are such that each commuter riding from Everett into Seattle costs Sound Transit more than $45 and another $45 for the return trip.  

Their Central Link rail was originally projected to carry 110,000 riders daily by 2010.  They had less than 25,000. The $75 million dollars lost because of the missing riders is 50% more than the expected yearly revenue from 520 tolls.

What is truly absurd is Sound Transit’s proposal to speed up extending Central Link southward, eventually reaching Federal Way.   The costs associated with constructing the extension along with the added equipment and operating costs to maintain service over the longer route will far exceed any potential revenue from additional riders.

Sound Transit incompetency soars to even greater heights with their East Link proposal.  Central Link, for all its financial problems, has minimal effect on other traffic.  East Link will actually increase congestion for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters by forcing all vehicular traffic onto the outer bridge sections.  

Prior to Prop 1 vote, East Link was promoted as the equivalent of up to 10 highway lanes across the bridge.  We later learn service will be limited to one train every nine minutes.  Each train will be restricted to between two to four cars by either bridge structural concerns or station design. 

Sound Transit compounds this capacity problem by restricting access for potential riders.  Only one P&R is planned along the route.  Thus, East Link ridership, like Central Link, will fall far short of Sound Transits projected 50,000 daily riders by 2030.

In conclusion, the council should refuse to approve permits Sound Transit needs for East Link construction.  This action would not only prevent them from devastating Bellevue, it would also stop their confiscation of the bridge center section and avoid the resulting increased cross-lake congestion. 

A small part of the $5-6 billion saved could be used to convert the bridge center section to two-way bus only lanes with ten times light rail capacity ten years ahead of light rail.   The remaining funds could be used to eliminate the need for 520 tolls and to improve 405.

The Emperors New Clothes

I submitted this to the Build a Better Bellevue website.  They declined to allow it.

Sound Transit East Link proposal reminds me of Hans Christian Andersons fable  “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.  In this version the weavers, played by Sound Transit, are proposing a magic carpet, East Link, for crossing a nearby large lake to reach the neighboring village.  The weavers’ friends in the media who willingly pontificate about the magic carpets merits play the wise men.

My role is that of the little girl who tells the villagers here tonight and throughout the land of Bellevue.  East Link is no magic carpet.  It won’t have the promised capacity, it will increase not decrease congestion,  it will needlessly devastate parts of our village and those who live there, and it violates the laws of our land.  In short, East Link, like the weavers’ magic cloth, is a fraud that must be rejected by the council.

Bill Hirt

More on Why I Run

I’m running to inform voters that Sound Transit and WSDOT are attempting to perpetrate a monumental fraud with their East Link program.  Their light rail installation on the I-90 bridge center roadway will never have the capacity or the accessibility to accommodate more than a tiny fraction of cross-lake commuters.  Their planned 4^th lane addition to the outer roadways will never provide the capacity needed for cross-lake vehicles. 

East Link will result in billions spent on a transportation project that will lead to gridlock on the 1-90 bridge, devastate a beautiful part of residential Bellevue, wreck havoc in downtown Bellevue, and do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion on 405 and I-90.  The only winners are the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions. 

I believe the contractors provide funds to Republicans, the labor unions give to Democrats, and Sound Transit provides advertising revenue to the media.   East side legislators, King County and Bellevue City Councilmen, and the media don’t seem to care about the disaster that awaits commuters.   

The East Link debacle began in the 1990’s with preliminary studies of several alternate cross-lake configurations.  A May 2004 document, “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Final EIS” provides the results.  One of the configurations initially studied was R-4 which added a 4^th lane to the outer roadway for HOV/Transit and divided the center roadway into west bound and east bound bus only lanes.   This configuration was rejected apparently because of Mercer Island objections to their loss of SOV on center roadway.  The study recommended configuration R-8A, which added the 4^th lane to the outer roadway and retained the current center roadway configuration with two reversible lanes for bus and HOV traffic and Mercer Island SOV.

A September 2004 Federal Highway Adminstration document, FHWA-WA-EIS-3-01-F, provided more details.   It evaluated configuration R-2B which kept current 3-lane-outer-roadway configuration but divided center roadway into east bound and west bound bus and HOV lanes. It concluded that single lanes did not have the capacity to accommodate both bus and HOV traffic.   They never considered increasing center roadway capacity by moving the HOV traffic to outer roadway and limiting center roadway to two-way buses, the R-4 configuration.  Each bus lane could accommodate up to 1200 buses per hour, more than enough to meet any future cross-lake transit requirements.  Instead R-8A, which added the 4^th lane to the outer roadway and maintained the existing center roadway configuration, was preferred.   

Sound Transit and the WSDOT decided to tell the public a 4^th lane on the outer roadways could accommodate both bus and HOV traffic. .  Their 2008 DEIS Executive Summary included the following; “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  Sound Transit used this argument to convince a Kittitas judge to allow them to continue with light rail.  They simply ignored the results of their own 2004 study.

 Sound Transit’s decision to delay adding the 4^th lane until 2016 is a clear indication of their duplicity.  They could have added the lane more than 15 years ago.  It would have cost very little and immediately benefitted cross-lake commuters.  The 4^th lane would have been particularly beneficial for reverser commuters and to provide added capacity to meet recent increased demand from those avoiding 520 tolls. 

Moving the HOV traffic to the outer roadway would have also freed up the center roadway for two-way bus-only lanes.   The bus lanes would have enabled direct bus routes between every eastside P&R and downtown Seattle.  The additional transit riders could reduce congestion throughout eastside.    

ST delays did two things.  They wouldn’t need to demonstrate the modified outer roadway had adequate capacity by temporarily closing off the center roadway.  They also made it impossible for cross-lake commuters to benefit from the two-way bus only lanes.  Improved bus service ST knew could never be shut down to install light rail.  They also assume EL would be impossible to stop in 2016 when people realize how bad outer roadway congestion is with added bus and HOV traffic.   

East side voters need to send a message to legislators.  Don’t let this happen.

Lipstick on a Pig

I submitted this letter to the Bellevue Reporter earlier this year.  They "declined" to print it.

Letters,  Lipstick on a Pig,

For many years Sound Transit has promised cross-lake commuters that adding a fourth HOV lane to the outer bridge will enable it to accommodate all vehicular traffic when they close down the center section to install light rail.   Yet they continue to delay adding the outer lanes.  Lanes whose cost would be minimal and would immediately benefit cross-lake commuters.

I believe the delay is due to ST fear once HOV lane were moved to outer bridge they would be forced to divide the center bridge into inbound and outbound bus lanes. Bus lanes their own studies had shown were infinitely better than light rail.

These concerns explain their current plan to delay the outer bridge modification until just before they close the center bridge.  It’s their way of assuring the bus lanes could never be implemented.  Talk about arrogance!  What’s truly remarkable is they’ve been able to pull off this con job for more than 20 years.  They make Bernie Madoff’s investment swindles look trivial by comparison. 

For twenty years they’ve managed to force thousands of cross-lake commuters to daily endure needless congestion.  Instead of helping commuters they’ve used the time to spend millions promoting light rail; spending that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “putting lipstick on a pig”.  

Now they want the Bellevue City Council’s permission to switch from spending millions to spending billions on this pig.  A pig which will be begin with the devastation of a beautiful part of our city and eventually end with total gridlock on the Lake Washington bridge. 

Bill Hirt

BCC could stop East Link but won't

My May 14 BCC Presentation

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  At my last appearance I discussed the results of 2004 Federal Highway Administration document which evaluated several cross-lake configurations.  The study concluded that single lanes on either the center roadway or the outer bridge would not have the capacity to accommodate both bus and HOV traffic. 

Sound Transit could have provided the needed capacity by moving the HOV traffic to the outer bridges to leave two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway.   With 3 second, intervals each bus lane could accommodate 1200 buses per hour, more than enough to meet any cross-lake transit requirement.

Instead Sound Transit announced to the world the bus/HOV lane they planned to add to the outer bridges would enable them to carry all the cross-lake vehicular traffic.  The 2008 DEIS Executive Summary included the following; “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  Sound Transit used the same argument to convince a Kittitas judge to allow them to continue with light rail.  They simply ignored the results of their own 2004 study.

I left the council a copy of relevant pages from the study.   I later read the council continues to work with Sound Transit to finalize the route through Bellevue and to decide on how much Bellevue is going to have to pay to get a tunnel.   What part of this story don’t you get?  Would any of you care to explain why you continue to allow ST to proceed with East Link when you have a copy of a document that concludes it won’t work?

  

Which is it?  Didn’t you read it, don’t you believe it, or don’t you care?  Recent emails from council members lament you can’t do anything about East Link’s cross-lake configuration.  While true, its also true the council has no legal obligation to grant Sound Transit the permits they need for construction, particularly in view of the fact they lied so blatantly prior to the 2008 vote. If Sound Transit proceeds with an East Llnk program that devastates a beautiful part of residential Bellevue, wrecks havoc in the business district, and creates gridlock on I-90 bridge it will not be because the council could not stop them, its because you chose not to stop them.

In conclusion, your constituents, cross-lake commuters, the entire eastside deserve better than this.   I intend to raise these concerns here every 2^nd and 4^th Monday for the next four years or until the council uses the permitting process to stop this debacle.

ST and WSDOT lie to Kittitas Judge in Freeman Suit

My 4 22 presentation where I explain to the BCC that a 2004 FHWA document shows ST and WSDOT lied to the Kittitas judge  

Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  Tonight I’m going to discuss Sound Transit studies that purportedly show they could install light rail on the center bridge because it wouldn’t be needed for highway purposes with their R-8A configuration.   These claims convinced a Kittitas judge to allow Sound Transit to proceed with their East Link program in a recent suit.

A September 2004 Federal Highway Administration document,  “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operation Project, Record of Decision”, presents the most relevant study results.   Two of the several cross-lake configurations studied are of most interest.  The first, R-2B, is described on pages 3 and 4 of the document.  It maintains the current 3 lane outer bridge but divides the center roadway into inbound and outbound combination bus/HOV lanes. 

This configuration was rejected with the following comment “The study concluded R-2B would have all sorts of adverse affects on travel times and congestion and subsequently eliminated it from further study.”  The obvious problem with R-2B was the lack of capacity with combination bus/HOV lanes

The study’s preferred configuration, R-8A, is documented on pages 9 and 10.   It adds a 4^th lane to the outer bridges for the combined bus/HOV traffic.  However, it provides the needed additional capacity by retaining the two existing reversible bus/HOV lanes on the center roadway.  Thus, contrary to what Sound Transit and DOT told the judge, there is not a shred of data that supports their claim that R-8A’s installation of a Bus/HOV lane on the outer bridge would eliminate the need to use the center section for highway use.

In conclusion, last month I explained that East Link’s 4 car trains every 7 minutes will never have the capacity and the accessibility promised for cross-lake commuters on the center roadway.   That lie is what persuaded voters to support Prop 1 in 2008.  Tonight I’ve used an 8-year-old FHWA document to show they’ve also lied about the capacity of their proposed R8-A configuration for the outer bridges.   That’s why they’ve delayed adding the 4^th lane to the outer bridge until 2016.   They know it won’t work but apparently assume by then so much money and time will have been spent on light rail planning and construction it will be impossible to stop. 

Next month I’ll go over more details of this truly monumental fraud.  In the meantime I’ll leave a copy of the title page and the 4 pages mentioned above from the 2004 document.   You can read them, make your own conclusions, and ask Sound Transit to respond.  You surely owe cross-lake commuters, your constituents, and the entire eastside that much.

Bill Hirt

Freeman/ETA Appeal of Kittitas judge's rejection of their suit to block East Link

I submitted this to the Bellevue Reporter in response to their May 11 article about I-90 light-rail  appeal.

Letters,

The ETA has a far better basis to appeal the Kittitas judge’s decision not to block East Link than their rather esoteric constitutional arguments.  The judge’s rationale for allowing East Link to go forward is on page 10 of his March 5 Memorandum Decision.   “The court respectfully declines to review the administrative decisions of the State (WSDOT) regarding its determination the center lanes of I-90 in question will not be needed for highway purposes upon the completion of the R8A project and fulfillment of the Umbrella Agreement.”  The R8A project adds a 4th lane the outer bridges for bus and HOV traffic.   

He based this decision on the following statement from page 9 of the MD.  “The State’s determination that the center roadway of I-90 will not be presently needed for highway purposes after the completion of the conditions set forth in the Umbrella Agreement (i.e. completion of R8A) is based upon years of study and analysis set forth in the record including the I-90 two way transit and HOV operations FEIS and ROD……….”.

A September 2004 Federal Highway Administration document,  FHWA-WA-EIS-3-01-F, “I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operation Project, Record of Decision”, examined this issue in detail.  Its version of the R8A configuration added the 4^th lane to the outer bridges for both bus and HOV traffic.  However, as described on page 9, it retained the two existing reversible bus/HOV lanes on the center roadway.  The center bus/HOV lanes were retained because their evaluation of configuration R2B, page 3, with two-way bus and HOV lanes on the center roadway concluded, page 4,  single lanes could not accommodate both bus and HOV traffic.  

Thus, contrary to what Sound Transit and DOT told the judge, their own study refutes the claim R8A’s installation of a Bus/HOV lane on the outer bridge would eliminate the need to use the center section for highway use.  This seems to be a relatively easy basis to win an appeal.

Bill Hirt