Bellevue City Council's Self-Inflicted Wound

This whole imbroglio over attempts by the Bellevue City Council to reduce costs for implementing a tunnel underneath downtown Bellevue is a self-inflicted wound.  Sound Transit needs city approval of 9 different permits to begin light rail construction.  The BCC can and should make these approvals contingent on getting the light rail route they want. 

Build a Better Bellevue announced intentions to sue ST because they violated federal environmental law by not considering a tunnel that would have eliminated BCC concerns.  Taxes generated on the eastside provide about 40% of ST funds, more than enough to pay for whatever route the BCC wants. 

It’s noteworthy that on the same day BCC reached an “agreement to study” cost cutting options ST announced they were planning to use a tunnel to connect UW and Northgate.   ST, which demanded the BCC come up with an additional $200 million for a tunnel under downtown Bellevue and refused to even consider a tunnel from P&R, violating environmental law, decided that tunnels in Seattle were worth the additional cost.  A good part of which is paid for by Bellevue taxes.

Unfortunately, arguments over light rail route through Bellevue are like arguing which side of the Titanic is safer.   The 1-90 bridge outer roadways will never have the capacity to accommodate the vast majority of commuters who won’t have access to light rail.  When light rail finally begins operation in 2023, most riders will be those with access to the South Bellevue P&R who previously rode the bus.  Not exactly a boon to cross-lake congestion.

2nd Presentation for 48th District Republicans

For years I’ve been amazed at Sound Transits ability to claim that light rail was the answer for cross-lake commuters.   Their 1996 study had initially considered adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadways and two-way bus rapid transit, or BRT, lanes on the center roadway.  Even a cursory analysis would have determined BRT lanes could provide far more capacity than light rail, easily enough for any future cross-lake transit demands.  

15 years ago Sound Transit could have initiated this BRT service across 1-90 providing express bus routes from every eastside P&R directly into Seattle.  Commuters could have left their cars near where they live rather than where they work, reducing congestion throughout eastside.

Instead, Sound Transit has spent years and hundreds of millions promoting cross-lake light rail along with studies of nearly every conceivable route through the eastside.  Their 2008 Environmental Impact Statement never mentioned BRT; instead insisting center roadway retain the two existing reversible combination bus and HOV lanes.  It’s hard to believe they spent years studying cross-lake commuting without recognizing BRT was better than light rail.  My guess is they just didn’t like that answer.

Sound Transit deceptions didn’t end there. They’ve claimed for years that all the cross-lake vehicles could be accommodated on the outer roadway once they added the 4^th lane for bus/HOV traffic.  However, their 2004 studies showed combined bus/HOV traffic on a single lane didn’t provide needed capacity.  They also lied with claims light rail would be like adding 10 lanes of freeway across I-90 bridge increasing cross-lake commuting by 60%.   The reality is East Link will provide, at best, one 4-car train every 7 minutes.  Most cross-lake commuters won’t even have access to light rail.

What’s remarkable is Sound Transits ability to get away with these fabrications for all these years.  I’ve tried to raise these issues with the Bellevue City Council, legislators from both parties, and most importantly the media.   The council could have refused to approve building permits, the legislators could have directed the DOT to stop light rail, a single story in any major media outlet detailing their mendacity would have ended it.   Instead, they’ve been allowed to continue spending millions each year promoting East Link with countless studies and planning. 

Fifteen years after agreeing a 4^th lane should be added to the outer roadways Sound Transit still hasn’t done so.   The added lane could have benefitted cross-lake commuters, particularly reverse commuters.  Instead they intend to wait until 2016, adding 4 more years of cross-lake congestion.  Congestion that recently increased because of the additional traffic from those avoiding 520 tolls.

My primary reason for running is to use the voters’ pamphlet to attract voters to my blog so they can read for themselves about East Link problems.  I had hoped my emails to the media would get more attention if I mentioned my candidacy.  It hasn’t worked.  I still get ignored.  The Bellevue Reporter won’t even acknowledge my candidacy.

Good things have happened.  Build a Better Bellevue has sued to block East Link on grounds Sound Transit didn’t consider their “Deep Bore Tunnel” option, a clear violation of federal environmental law.  However I have concerns any study they do will show the tunnel option, while feasible, could be rejected because it was not “prudent” due to their assessment of the additional costs.  I referred Build a Better Bellevue to a post on my blog proposing cross-lake BRT as an alternative.  No one could deny BRT was both feasible and prudent.  It would avoid devastating a beautiful part of Bellevue, gridlock on I-90, and save billions while doing so.  They haven’t responded.

Some things haven’t gone as well.  I had a meeting with the Municipal League where I got the distinct impression they considered me some sort of a Don Quixote type going around attacking “windmills”.  They simply couldn’t believe some retired Boeing engineer’s claim Sound Transit had lied for years about the modified outer roadway capacity for vehicles and about East Link light rail capacity and accessibility.  

As I pointed out earlier, Sound Transit has had lots of help in perpetuating East Link.  Many of the people I talk to have no idea Sound Transit is planning to permanently shut down the center roadway in 2016 forcing all cross-lake vehicles onto the outer roadways.  Sound Transits own studies show outer roadway congestion will increase, inevitably leading to eventual gridlock.  Sound Transit’s closing the center roadway will allow them to precede spending billions constructing a light rail system which, when complete in 2023, will consist of one 4-car train every 7 minutes.  Again, most cross-lake commuters won’t even have access to it.   It doesn’t have to happen.   

Stopping East Link requires making the entire eastside aware of its problems.  My blog is my attempt to do so.  I’m hoping it will spur them to 1) urge Build a Better Bellevue propose BRT as the alternative to light rail, 2) insist Bellevue City Council use their permitting authority to stop East Link, and 3) persuade legislators to use their oversight authority of DOT to end light rail.  I need your help to spread the word.   My campaign staff, my daughter, has printed some cards that refer to my blog.  I’ll leave them on the back table.  I urge you to read my blog and if you agree with my concerns spread the word. 

East Link Obscenity

This morning I made another of my weekly futile attempts to improve my golf game at the Bellevue golf course driving range.   Afterwards, as I frequently do, I headed south towards Chase’s Pancake Coral for one of my favorite breakfasts, potato pancakes.   As I drove along 112^th Ave I was once again reminded of its idyllic nature.   After breakfast I headed south along Bellevue Way to I-90 and home, passing the Winters House and the Mercer Slough Park.  I challenge anyone to travel along 112^th Ave and Bellevue Way and not regret the devastating effect of Sound Transits East Link light rail on the area.

This obscenity doesn’t have to happen.  Sound Transit’s plan to gouge out the landscape, ripping out hundreds of trees and other flora to install two sets of train tracks and 5000-volt power lines can be stopped.  Build a Better Bellevue is suing to block East Link because it encroaches on the Mercer Slough Park.  This may or may not be effective in stopping East Link devastation along 112^th Ave.

The best way to stop East Link is to expose the fact it not only devastates a beautiful part of Bellevue, it results in gridlock on the 1-90 bridge.   Sound Transit’s own studies show they lied with claims adding the 4^th lanes of the outer roadways would enable vehicles to cross I-90 bridge with no increase in travel time when they closed down the center roadway to install light rail.   

They also lied with their claim light rail on the center roadway was like adding 10 lanes of freeway across the lake that would allow 60% more cross lake commuters.  At best East Link will provide one 4-car train every 7 minutes.  Most cross-lake commuters access to even this meager capacity will be the South Bellevue P&R: a lot too small and inaccessible for most commuters.  The majority of commuters who ride East Link when completed in 2023 will be those with access to the P&R who switch from buses to trains.  Hardly a boon for cross-lake congestion.

For more than 15 years Sound Transit has refused to publicly accept the fact bus rapid transit (BRT) on the center roadway and HOV traffic on the outer roadways 4^th lane is the answer for cross-lake commuting.   Millions have been wasted and thousands of commuters have already endured far too much congestion as a result.   Eastside residents need to support the BBB suit and to urge the Bellevue City Council to use the permitting process to end this obscenity.

BRT Not Tunnel Answer to East Link

I was pleased to read in the papers that Build a Better Bellevue was suing to block East Link on environmental grounds.  This should be an easy suit to win.  Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 United States Code Sec.138) protects parks and recreation areas, historic sites, and waterfowl and wildlife refuges that may be affected by a project with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) involvement.  Under the law, the Secretary of Transportation cannot approve a transportation project that uses or adversely affects such properties unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and (2) the project minimizes the impacts as much as possible.

Sound Transit admits that East Link encroaches on the Mercer Slough Nature Park.  It’s important to note all of the configurations ST considered for Segment B south of Bellevue also encroached.  The BBB proposal to tunnel from the South Bellevue P&R though downtown does not encroach and is surely feasible.  Sound Transit may argue that it’s not prudent because of the additional cost, as least in their estimation.

The surest way to stop East Link’s devastation of the park as well as the Bellevue residential area along the current route is to offer a “no-build” alternative to light rail.  The 1-90 center roadway is ideal for inboard and outboard bus rapid transit (BRT).  The HOV traffic could be moved to a 4^th lane on the outer roadway allowing more than 12 buses per minute to use the center roadway.  The lanes would have more than enough capacity for both current bus routes and additional express buses serving the entire eastside.  BRT capacity would dwarf light rail’s and it would be accessible from every eastside P&R not just the South Bellevue P&R.  No one could possible rationalize BRT is not both "feasible" and "prudent". 
 

The Sound Transit spokesman commented that all of the organization’s public involvement on route selection led him to conclude: “We are confident our process was compliant with the federal process and went above and beyond”.   All the public involvement in the world doesn’t change the fact it “violates” the law. 

I wasn’t surprised the Bellevue City Council avoided commenting on the issue.   Three years ago I raised this issue in one there “extended sessions”. They simply ignored it as they did with all my other East Link concerns.

In conclusion I urge the BBB to offer the BRT solution as the “feasible and prudent” alternative to East Link rather than the tunnel.  Commuters throughout the eastside would benefit.

Municipal League Candidate Evaluation Committee Presentation

My primary purpose for running for office is to do what I can to expose problems with Sound Transit East Link light rail program.   For more than 30 years studies have evaluated options for improving cross-lake commuting.   A study in the mid ‘90’s concluded any future improvement would include adding a 4^th lane to the two outer roadways.  Sound Transit’s problems began when their study considered options for this added lane and how best to use the center roadway.

Even a cursory analysis of the roadway would have concluded it was ideal for bus rapid transit (BRT).  It was 40 ft wide, more than enough for inbound and outbound lanes with a maintenance lane in between.   Moving the HOV traffic to the 4^th lane on the outer roadways would allow each center lane to accommodate more than 12 buses per minute.  The only limitation on bus frequency was assuring adequate spacing between buses to stop in the event of a problem with the bus ahead. 

The lane capacity would have been more than enough for existing bus routes and for new express routes serving the entire eastside.  An express route could be assigned to each eastside P&R providing non-stop service to one or two designated drop off points in Seattle on 4^th Ave and one or two designated pick-up points along 2^nd Ave for the return.  (4^th and 2^nd Ave would be restricted to buses to facilitate this service.)    Every eastside commuter could have the option of leaving his car near where he lived rather than where he worked.  The increased use of public transit would have eased congestion throughout eastside.  The increased capacity would also provide Seattleites with improved access to Bellevue T/C and other eastside locations.

The real tragedy is Sound Transit initially included this BRT option as configuration R4 in the ‘90’s study but dropped it for no apparent reason.   Their refusal to seriously consider BRT on center roadway and HOV on outer roadway has forced cross-lake commuters to needlessly endure years of congestion.  It’s difficult to believe ST never quietly considered BRT for the center roadway.  They just didn’t like the obvious conclusion it was better than light rail.

Instead, Sound Transit, in 2004 selected configuration R-8A as the preferred “no-build” solution.   R-8A used the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways for both bus and HOV traffic with the two center roadway bus/HOV lanes reversing direction between morning and afternoon commutes.    The center roadway HOV/bus lanes were retained because the study concluded a single lane for both HOV and buses did not have enough capacity.   HOV traffic reduced the number of buses that could safely use the lane resulting in insufficient capacity.

Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS conclusion the R-8A “no-build” configuration did not have sufficient capacity was used to justify the decision to install light rail on the center roadway.  They simply ignored the fact the R-8A configuration selected in 2004 had retained the two existing reversible bus/HOV lanes.  The DEIS claimed the 4^th HOV/bus lane would enable the outer roadway to carry all the cross-lake vehicles with no increase in travel time.  They later used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge the center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles and could be used for light rail.  They simply lied.

Sound Transit also made the absurd claim installing light rail on the center roadway was like adding 10 lanes of freeway that could increase number of cross-lake commuters by 60%.   East Link service will consist of one 4-car train every 7 minutes.   They assume each 74-seat car can accommodate 200 riders.  Even this very limited capacity will only be accessible at the South Bellevue P&R for most cross-lake commuters.   A P&R that will never have the capacity or the accessibility needed for large numbers of commuters.

The bottom line is Sound Transit’s East Link is a monumental fraud.   Their modified outer roadway and light rail installation on the center roadway will never be able to meet cross-lake commuter needs.  If allowed to proceed, the billions spent on East Link will result in gridlock on the bridge, devastation in Bellevue, and do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion on 1-90 and 405. 

It doesn’t have to happen.  It would have ended a long time ago but for the connivance of the WSDOT, BCC, KCC, legislators from both political parties, but most importantly the media.  Even more distressing is Sound Transit’s confidence they will be allowed to continue with this debacle until 2016 when it will be to late to stop it.

I’ve tried for years to raise these issues.  My offers to meet with the Times Editorial Board were ignored.  The Bellevue Reporter won’t even acknowledge my candidacy.  Many of the residents I talk to don’t even know what East Link is.  Most of those who do believe it only affects those living along Bellevue Way/112^th route.  They’re unaware it’s going to permanently shut down the center roadway.

Build a Better Bellevue has taken notice of my concerns about East Link encroachment on Mercer Slew Park, a clear violation of federal environmental law, and sued to block East Link.  However, their preferred alternative, a longer tunnel does nothing to abate East Link’s major problem, gridlock on 1-90.  The only answer there is BRT.

My whole reason for running is to expose this fraud.  If elected I will do just that.  If not, I know in the end I‘ll be vindicated.  Even if BBB succeeds in forcing the longer tunnel cross-lake commuters will not be happy with the outer roadway congestion when the center roadway is shut down in 2016.    What will really enrage them will be the miniscule benefit they get when light rail begins operation in 2023.  Again, it doesn’t have to happen.

Sound Transit's Other Debacle

One of the more interesting Sound Transit publications are their ridership reports they publish quarterly.  For example they provide costs per boarding (cpb) and boardings per trip (bpt) so costs per trip (cpt) can be determined.   The numbers for a Sounder Train for 2011 were $12.71 cpb x 379.98 bpt= $4829.54 cpt.  

The northern line (Everett to Seattle) made 8 trips per day for a total of 2080 trips per year (assuming 260 commuter days) and total cost of $10,045,443 for the year.  The total number of commuters for the year was 233,674 so the cost per commuter ride was $42.99.  Sound Transits 2012 budget document (more on that in a late blog) estimates the average Sounder commuter paid $3.05 per trip in 2011.  Thus ST lost $39.95 per trip or $79.90 for each riders round trip or $20,774 per rider per year. 

The small print at the bottom of the report explains these costs do not include depreciation (presumably significant on $4-5 million train cars).  They don’t mention the costs associated with the nearly $500 million ST invested to initiate the service.    

Sound Transit’s ST 510 provides bus connections between Everett Station and Seattle (5^th and Pine) every 10-15 minutes from 5:20 to 8:31 AM with the same return frequency from 2:26 to 5:28 PM.  (Less frequent service is available from 4:10 AM until 11:00 PM.)   ST’s ridership reports Express bus ridership costs, on average, $7.06 cpb of which riders pay (per budget document) $1.73.  Thus, ST subsidizes each bus rider $5.33 per trip or $2771.60 per year. 

To be fair, very few commuters will use public transit 260 days per year.  However, it doesn’t take a CPA to figure out which option is better cost wise.   Commuter rail takes 59 minutes from Everett to the King Street Station.   It takes 56 minutes for ST 510 route from Everett Station to 5^th and Pine in Seattle; much closer to most commuters final destination.  It’s no wonder about 1 million riders used ST510 in 2011.  (Their report combines ST510 riders with ST512 riders which goes via Lynnwood so exact ST510 number not known.)

ST should be asked to explain why they continue with this service.  Those who want to commute by rail from Everett to Seattle and back also have Amtrak as an option.  It leaves Everett at 10:02 AM and returns at 6:50.  Not as attractive time wise put available if needed.

Bellevue City Council “Dances” with Sound Transit on East Link

A recent Times article “Bellevue Citizens Group Propose Deep-Bore Tunnel” is a clear indication Bellevue citizens recognize the devastation resulting from East Link construction and operation.  The BCC's response “After you dance with someone for long enough, you understand the moves their willing to make” is a clear indication of the East Link problem.  The BCC has already spent far too much time “dancing with Sound Transit about East Link”.   (To be fair, some council members are also concerned but don’t have the votes to do anything.  I’ll leave it up to readers to find out which ones.)

Build a Better Bellevue, residents of Surry Downs, Enatai and other South Bellevue neighborhoods should not have to look forward to “living with East Link”.  The BCC could put an end to East Link by simply refusing to approve the 9 permits (identified in 2008 DEIS) ST needs to begin construction.  They have more than ample reason for doing so.   

ST has lied for years about East Link benefits with claims that light rail will provide the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway with 60% more cross-lake capacity.  They used these claims to convince voters to approve Prop 1 in 2008.  East Links promised service (in 2023) for one 4-car train every 7 minutes will never have the capacity or the accessibility to carry more than a fraction of cross-lake commuters.

Prior to the 2008 vote they also claimed their plans to add a 4^th lane to the outer roadway for bus and HOV traffic would enable it to accommodate all vehicular traffic without increasing travel time.  They’ve used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge to allow them to install light rail on the center roadway.    Their own 2004 studies concluded that claim was false.  East Link even violates federal environmental law (US Code Sec 138) with train tracks and 5000 volt power lines that encroach on the Mercer Slough Park.   

Its clear if  ST is allowed to go ahead with East Link, it won’t be because the BCC couldn’t stop it, but because they wouldn’t.  They need to change “dance partners”.

East Link Hurts Central Link Viablity

Its bad enough Sound Transit’s East Link program spends  $6 billion on a transportation project that will gridlock I-90 bridge, devastate Bellevue and do nothing to reduce I-90 and 405 congestion.  The real corker is East Link also makes it more difficult for Sound Transits Central Link light rail to be financially viable.

The “bus tunnel” underneath Seattle limits any light rail system to a single set of tracks in each direction.   The station designs in the tunnel allow only 4 cars in each train.  A typical London or Paris subway route provides 4-minute headways between trains.   Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS set East Link minimum intervals at 9 minutes rather than 8 presumably because of the need for the extra 30 seconds to merge with Central Link.   Their 2011 version shortened that to 7 minutes but provided no explanation.  It’s also worth noting their assumption that 200 riders can be accommodated on a 74- seat car “might” seem to require additional time.

Whatever the final headways, light rail capacity in Seattle is very limited.  It’s vital to maximize the number of people who will have access to that capacity.   East Link flunks that test!   It takes up at least half of light rail capacity (more if additional headway is required to merge) but most cross-lake commuters only access is a single P&R in South Bellevue.  This P&R will never have the capacity or the accessibility to accommodate the numbers of commuters needed to meet cross-lake demands.   (East Link’s confiscation of the center roadway also eliminates any two-way bus only lanes there, the only realistic cross-lake public transit commuting solution)

Sound Transit should concentrate on attracting more riders to Central Link.  Its current 20,000-30,000 daily ridership is a fraction of their original 100,000 projections.   Typical of Sound Transit, their plan to attract more riders is to extend light rail towards Federal Way, presumably with one or two stops at P&R lots along the way.   Unfortunately, the costs of extending light-rail tracks along with the additional equipment and operating costs for maintaining service over the longer system will far exceed the revenue from additional transit riders attracted by the trains.  Like East Link, the only real winners are the construction companies and their labor unions.

Sound Transit could attract far more riders at far less costs by offering direct bus service from every south end P&R to the Tukwila light rail station. .  Commuters throughout south end would be able to leave their car at a nearby P&R with fast reliable service into and out of Seattle.  Terminating the bus routes at Tukwila rather than in Seattle would also reduce Seattle congestion.

Eliminating East Link would allow Sound Transit to double the number of trains to meet the increased demand. The increased train frequency could allow alternate trains to skip half of the station stops between Tukwila and downtown, reducing transit times but still maintaining current service.   The shuttle bus service could be providing additional riders for Central Link, helping commuters and reducing congestion within a year.

Sound Transit Cost Savings Charade

One of the more absurd Sound Transit activities is their highly publicized “attempt” to come up with savings that supposedly will reduce Bellevue City costs.  Sound Transit gets about 40% of their funds from taxes generated on the east side.  Only a small portion of that money has been spent on eastside improvements as supposedly mandated.  Instead they’ve used the funds to pay for Central Link, the most expensive light rail system in history.  They’re continuing to use our taxes to fund their University Link and a streetcar system in Seattle.

Any rationale distribution of eastside taxes would have provided more than enough to pay for whichever route Bellevue wanted approaching downtown as well as how and where the tunnel underneath the city business district should be built.  Instead we have the spectacle of Sound Transit selecting the route and demanding that Bellevue come up with additional funds to pay for any deviations from their choice such as the tunnel. 

What is equally absurd is the apparent willingness of the Bellevue City Council to go along with this charade.   Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS lists 9 permits or approvals they need from the BCC.  Sound Transits planned route devastates a part of the Mercer Slough Park, a violation of federal environmental law (United States code Sec 138).   The council surely has no legal requirement to grant these permits or accede to ST’s extortion, particularly in view of their recent budget problems that have forced them to delay needed projects for years.

Unfortunately their willingness to go along with this charade pales in comparison to their failure to use their permitting process to stop East Link altogether. 

Response for LWVWA Voters Guide- I'll Be Vindicated in the End

  My response to the League of Women Voters of Washington request to participate in their 2012 online voters' guide.

•               How will you prioritize Washington’s infrastructure needs? (Max of 500 characters)

         My candidacy’s goal is to inform voters about the infrastructure problems commuters will encounter with Sound Transit’s current East Link light rail plan.  The 6-7 billion spent on East Link will cause gridlock on the I-90 bridge, devastate a beautiful part of Bellevue, create havoc in downtown Bellevue and do nothing to relieve the serious congestion on I-90 and 405. 

         Fifteen years ago ST could have added a 4^th lane to the bridge outer roadways to accommodate non-transit HOV traffic.  The costs would have been minimal with immediate benefits to commuters, particularly “reverse” commuters.  At the same time they could have safely divided the 40-foot center roadway into inbound and outbound bus lanes capable of 20 buses per minute.   

         Instead ST currently plans to delay adding the 4^th lane until 2016.  They also require the added lane accommodate buses to allow them to close down the center roadway for light rail construction.  Their own 2004 studies concluded HOV traffic reduces the number of buses the lane can accommodate resulting in excessive congestion.

         When light rail begins operation in 2023 cross-lake service will consist of one 4-car train (each car with 74 seats) every 7 minutes.  ST makes the absurd claim this very limited service would provide the same capacity as 10 freeway lanes and increase ridership by 60%.  East Link’s second problem is the only access for most 1-90 commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R.  This P&R will never have the capacity or the access needed.

         Conversely, bus-only lanes would allow direct routes between every east side P&R and downtown Seattle with better connections for Seattleite commutes to Bellevue.  It could be in operation in a year at a fraction of light rails cost.   The entire east side would benefit from the reduction in congestion that would result from allowing commuters to leave their car near where they “live” rather than where they “work”.  The remaining money could be used to help fund the 520 bridge and improvements to 405 and I-90.

          Again my goal in running is to inform the entire east side about the East Link debacle to the point where ST will be forced to “reconsider”.   If I fail, I know in the end, I will be vindicated.  The I-90 congestion and the devastation to Bellevue that begins in 2016 with center roadway closure will make people unhappy.  However, after 7 years of construction, cross-lake commuters will be enraged when they see the miniscule benefit from light rail. 

         When that happens, I hope my candidacy will have informed voters who to hold responsible for this debacle.  Those who’ve ignored my attempts to raise these concerns include Sound Transit, WSDOT, Bellevue and King County Councils, east side Republican and Democratic legislators, Seattle Times and Bellevue Reporter, King and Kiro News, and others.  The only beneficiaries from their complicity are the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions.  New York City garbage haulers could only hope for such a deal.