My Blog Lives On

The campaign for most of the candidates will be ending in a few days.  My campaign has never been about the upcoming elections but to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog about Sound Transit policies in general and their East Link program in particular.  Unfortunately those responsible for the Voters’ Pamphlet have not been particularly helpful.   The general election pamphlet didn’t include my blog address or my biography.  However, I’m still pleased with the large number to those who have viewed this blog.

This has never been personal with me as I don’t live near any light rail route and I never use I-90 Bridge during peak commute.  I’m doing what I can because its’ my way to make a difference and because I know in the end I’ll be vindicated.   If East Link is allowed to proceed, many cross-lake commuters will be surprised in 2016 when Sound Transit closes down the center roadway to install light rail. (As well as begin the devastation along the route into Bellevue.) They will not be happy when they are forced to endure the inevitable congestion and frequent gridlock on the outer roadways.  However, I’m betting they will be enraged when after 7 years of construction they realize the billions spent on East Link will have such a miniscule effect on their commute.

Still, contrary to what many believe, East Link is not a fait accompli.   Serious construction doesn’t begin until at least 2016.  The Bellevue City Council can still refuse to approve permits ST needs for construction. (That’s what so pernicious about BCC current negotiations with ST concerning permits.  Why the big rush?)    The Build a Better Bellevue and Enatai and Surrey Downs residents can proceed with their suit.  Someone in the media or some legislator (I’m pretty sure it won’t be me) will make such an issue of ST incompetence and mendacity they will be forced to drop East Link. 

Until that happens this blog will continue.

Times Editorial Wrong Again,

When I first glanced at the Wednesday (10/24) Times Opinion page headlining “No Way to Run a Commuter Line” I thought they’d finally decided something had to be done.  Boy was I wrong!   Somehow the Times concluded that the reason for “Sounder ridership not meeting expectations” was “Sounder North had not met expectations” for reliability with comments “getting to work cannot be a roll of the dice”  

What an absurdity! First of all, anyone whose ride on the train was cancelled can easily switch over to the ST510 bus that leaves the same station every 10 to 15 minutes and takes them to 5^th and Pine in less than an hour.  Second, since most of the cancellations are due to mudslides it’s not clear what the Times is suggesting as a remedy.  Surely any attempt to prevent future blockages would be expensive or they would have been done long ago.

The editorial touches on the fundamental Sounder problem that most commuters would rather ride a bus that takes them to near where they work rather than a train to the King Street Station.  Their solution is “Sound Transit needs to simplify things”.  What the hell does that mean?  Simplify what?

For years the Times has turned a blind eye to Sound Transit’s mendacity and incompetence.  The fact they would chose this rationale to finally criticize them continues their refusal to meet responsible journalism standards.  

Seattle Times Abets East Link Debacle

 One of the more disturbing aspects of this whole Sound Transit/East Link imbroglio is the complete lack of media interest. This lack of any interest by King, Kiro, and Komo news, the Seattle Times and Bellevue reporter, the local radio commentators is what prompted me to file as a candidate to use the voters pamphlet to attract attention to this blog. 

Many of the posts point out that even a cursory examination of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system would have concluded it was far superior to light rail for the bridge center roadway.  All it would have taken was one investigative TV report or one article in a paper to expose the fact Sound Transit board made an historic blunder in selecting light rail. 

Instead the media has either actively supported or at least abetted ST spending nearly a billion dollars promoting a fatally flawed light rail system.  Even worse they are acceding to ST spending additional billions construct ing a light rail system that will devastate parts of Bellevue and gridlock the I-90 bridge.

I mention this because the Sunday Times included an article by their Executive Editor defending the integrity of the paper’s decision to pay for advertising for the Governor’s race and referendum 74.  I thought if he was really interested in protecting the paper’s reputation he would be interested in my ST concerns.  I therefore emailed him the following that day.  So far, no response.    

Dear Mr. Boardman

I read your defense of the Times in today’s paper and thought you might be interested in my disappointment with your publication.  I’ve been concerned for several years that Sound Transit’s policies in general, but especially their East Link light rail program have failed the commuting public. 

For more than 3 years I’ve tried to raise these concerns with the Bellevue City council via personal appearances and many emails.  I also sent several emails to your paper as “opinion” letters as well as offer to meet with the editorial board to discuss these concerns.   The BCC ignored my efforts and your paper declined to print my “opinions” and refused to meet with me.

As sort of a last resort I filed in May for Pos No 1 in the 48^th District primarily to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to my blog http;//stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  I had also hoped to use my “candidate’s” interview with your editorial board to explain in more detail my concerns.  They simply were not interested and I was “excused” early.  My 9/13/12 post goes into some of the details of the interview and my concerns about the papers lack of interest.

I believe the Seattle Times could benefit commuters throughout the area by exposing problems with Sound Transit policies.  I urge you to go to my blog and read some of the posts.  The concerns they raise are too important to ignore.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt  Candidate for 48^th District Pos. No 1.

Another Undoubtedly Futile BCC Appearance

(I presented the following to the BCC at their 10/22 meeting)
My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to speak out against a proposal before the council to raise property taxes to fund capital projects. This proposal to increase taxes by 4% will apparently raise $1.4 million annually.  While not exactly “chicken feed” it pales in comparison to the $200 million the council recently agreed to pay Sound Transit for a tunnel under the city center.

No one in Seattle had to pay any extra to Sound Transit for the recent decision to tunnel from the University District to Northgate.  Why did Bellevue get stuck for an additional $200 million?  Especially since Sound Transit already gets about 40% of their funds from east side taxes.  The council could have threatened to refuse approving the permits Sound Transit needs to begin construction. 

Instead you allowed ST to proceed with their current plan without ever considering a tunnel from South Bellevue P&R through the city.  You then agreed to a route that will devastate the lives of many in Enatai and Surry Downs.  On top of that you’re currently negotiating with ST to eliminate some of the features that mitigate this devastation.

Before you raise anyone’s taxes the council needs to explain in detail how they intend to pay for the rest of the $200 million.   Also why don’t you ask Sound Transit to consider a BRT system that would eliminate the need for the $200 million, avoid the devastation along 112^th Ave. and prevent ST from grid locking I-90 with light rail. 

Evan more important, don’t negotiate away your right to use the permitting process to stop this debacle.  Doing so now would be unconscionable.

Voters Pamphlet “Oversight”

Maybe it was just an oversight, but those responsible in the Secretary of States office for the General Election Voters Pamphlet decided to truncate my blog address from http;//stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com to stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  I can only hope voters will recognize the need for the full address.  They earlier declined to print my biographical information in the primary pamphlet though it had included the full blog address that the printer added.  

Obviously those who are reading this post know how to reach the blog.  I'm posting it to urge those who share my concerns to use the "social networking" (facebook?) to spread the word to those who might not be able to.  Thank you!

Sound Transit's Sounder North Line Debacle

The Tuesday (10/16) Times article “Too many empty seats on Sounder North Line” epitomizes Sound Transit incompetency.   The North Sounder operation was based on the dubious idea that large numbers of commuters would chose to ride a train rather than an express bus from Everett to Seattle. 

The bus service, ST510, begins service southbound from the Everett Station at 4:20 a.m. with departures every 10-15 minutes during the peak commute.  It takes 52 minutes to reach 5th and Pine in Seattle.   The return routes leave 4^th and Union at similar intervals and take about an hour to reach Everett.  The fares in both directions are $3.50.  

Sounder trains leave Everett every 30 minutes from 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 a.m. and reach the King Street Station in an hour.  The four return routes begin at 4:05 again every 30 minutes, and reach Everett in an hour.  The train fares for Everett are $4.50. 

While riding a train may be more attractive than a bus, the King Street Station location is not nearly as convenient as the options with the bus routes.   Thus it should not be a surprise (unless you’re Sound Transit) that ridership levels are low.

In 2011, this failure to attract riders along with the high operating costs for the trains forced Sound Transit to subsidize each rider by $20,000 a year (See 6/12/12 Post) This has been going on for years.  Yet ST response is a threat to reduce service if ridership doesn’t double by 2020.  Wow, that ought to get peoples attention! 

They spent untold millions on stations in Mukilteo and Edmonds yet Mukilteo has only 56 parking spaces and Edmunds 156.  ST’s aversion to putting P&R lots near Central Link has apparently carried over to the Sounder.

I was particularly struck by the women who commented “When not in a hurry, she drives to Edmunds Station instead of catching a crowded bus for a ride into Seattle”.

Think about that for a moment.  ST is spending tax dollars so riders can take a somewhat slower but relatively empty train rather than a crowded bus for their commute.  Any rational analysis would lead to quickly reducing the number of trains and increasing the number of buses.  Not ST, they want to give the system another 8 years because of their $368 million initial investment.  Talk about “throwing good money away after bad”.

Top Ten Reasons to Stop East Link

I created this list for the recent Rotary Candidates Forum.  I only got to No 5 so thought I’d post the rest.

1.    Sound Transit made an historic blunder in the ‘90’s when they decided on light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  (Any competent analysis would have concluded Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) had more than 10 times light rail capacity at less than 1/10^th the cost)

2.    ST 20008 DEIS didn’t even mention BRT as a “no-build” option prior to selecting light rail.  (Its hard to believe they could spend 10 years looking at every conceivable East Link option and never consider BRT on the center roadway)

3.     ST lied in their 2008 DEIS when they claimed a 4-car train every 9-15 minutes could carry 24,000 riders per hour.  (If you crammed 200 people in each of the four 74-seat cars the maximum capacity is less than 11,000.)

4.    The only access for most cross-lake commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R.  (The Bellevue P&R will never have the capacity or accessibility needed while BRT would provide access from every eastside P&R.  The lack of capacity and accessibility will force most cross-lake commuters to use the bridge outer roadways and inevitable gridlock-see below).

5.    ST lied in their DEIS when they claimed the 4^th lane on the outer roadway could accommodate all the Bus and HOV traffic.  (Their own 2004 studies showed a single lane wouldn’t have capacity needed.)

6.    The 4^th lane for HOV could be added immediately to the bridge outer roadways.  (ST has proposed adding the 4^th lane since the 90’s yet their East Link plans delay the lane addition until 2016.  The added lane would immediately reduce cross-lake congestion, particularly for the “reverse’ commuters, with the added traffic from those avoiding 520 tolls.) 

7.    BRT could begin service on the center bridge roadway.  (Moving the non-transit HOV traffic to the outer roadway would allow BRT service to be added to the current bus schedules.  Every P&R lot could have its own express bus route into and out of Seattle during the peak commute hours.)

8.    The billions ST is planning to spend on East Link could be used to reduce congestion not increase it. (ST has a moral if not legal obligation to spend the 40% of their funds they get from the eastside on eastside transportation improvements.  In addition to BRT, the funds could be used for 520 bridge (possibly eliminating tolls), SR405 and I-90 improvements.)

9.    Enatai and Surrey Downs residents would not have their lives devastated by light rail construction and subsequent operation and Bellevue could avoid coming up with $200 million for a tunnel.  (Both of these problems could have been avoided if ST had agreed to tunnel from the South Bellevue P&R through city center as they recently committed for University/Northgate extension.)

10.Stopping East Link would enhance Bel-Red development.  (There would be no need for a large maintenance yard the BCC has recently objected to and a South Lake Union type streetcar system would be more esthetically appealing, have greater flexibility to meet local needs, and far more accessible than East Links two light rail stations.)

Lakewood Sounder Extension More ST Incompetency

Sunday’s Times (10/7) celebrated the initiation of Sounder service to Lakewood.  Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy, who chairs the Sound Transit Board proclaimed “This is a great day for Lakewood and a great day for the region”.    I believe it’s just another example of Sound Transit incompetence where they spend tens or even hundreds of millions to extend light rail in a futile attempt to attract more riders

Lakewood already had good transit service with bus routes ST590-595.  Their second quarter ridership of 430,840 trailed only the ST Bellevue-Seattle and Redmond-Seattle routes in total number of riders.  ST590 or ST592 buses left Lakewood SR512 P&R every 10 to 15 minutes from 4:20 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. and every 30 minutes until 6:00 p.m.   Buses leaving before 8:10 a.m. arrived at 4^th and Union in Seattle in 60-70 minutes.  Later routes included stops at the Tacoma Dome that increased route times by 10 minutes.

The return routes from 2^nd and Seneca began at 11:00 a.m. every 30 minutes until 2:00 p.m. when buses ran every 10-20 minutes until 11:42 p.m.  The return trips again took about 70 minutes during peak commute and 10 minutes longer for the early and later buses that stopped at the Tacoma Dome.  The standard fares in both directions are $3.50.

The Lakewood Sounder will provide 5 northbound trains from 4:42 a.m. to 6:37 a.m. and 5 southbound trains from 4:20 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.  The Seattle terminus is the King Street Station.  The standard fares from Lakewood will be $5.25 each way.

It’s not clear what the travel times will be from Lakewood, however the Sounder Tacoma to Seattle portion currently takes 58-59 minutes in each direction.  Presumably the additional 8 miles from Lakewood will add 15 minutes to route times. Thus, there is little difference between transit times for the two options. 

Total commute times, however, for most of those riding the train will increase because of the time required to either walk or ride a bus from the King Street Station to their final destination.  (No more free buses?)   Those riding buses would presumably be dropped off far closer to their destinations.   It’s doubtful many transit riders will switch from the bus to the train when faced with the early departures, the increased fares, and especially the problems associated with getting to and from your destination from the King Street Station. 

This overpromising of riders is similar to Sound Transits Everett Sounder program which had many of the same problems.  There they spent about $500 million in capital costs to initiate rail service.   The combination of the high train operating costs along with their failure to attract riders has forced Sound Transit to pay $20,000 a year to cover the operating costs for each rider. (see 6/12/12 post for details)    One can only hope they do better this time.  

No One Cares About East Link Devastation or Gridlock

Last night I joined eight other 41^st and 48^th district candidates at the Bellevue Downtown Association Candidate Forum.  I’ve included below what I had planned to say as introductory and closing comments.  I managed to say most of the first however they limited the closing statements to one minute rather than the two minutes I had expected.  I used that time to briefly explain my concerns about the East Link devastation to Bellevue and its affect on cross-lake congestion.

I thought the entire event was almost surreal.  None of the other candidates had any interest at all in the devastating effect East Link will have on Enatai and Surry Downs neighborhoods or the cross-lake congestion resulting from center roadway closure for light rail construction. 

It was clear how the incumbents, several of whom were in committees dealing with “transportation,” had allowed Sound Transit to spend hundreds of millions on a light rail program that will never have the capacity or the accessibility for more than a fraction of cross-lake commuters.  

They talked about a “transportation package” but ignored the fact most serious problems facing their constituents could be alleviated by directing ST to initiate BRT on the center bridge and spend the East Link billions on 520 rebuild and other eastside improvements. 

The most obnoxious idea of all was Rep. Hunter promising to impose tolls on 1-90 bridge.   He apparently wants to make sure all his constituents who cross Lake Washington pay their “fair share”.

 

Introduction

My name is Bill Hirt and I became a candidate for the 48^th District to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract readers to my blog.   It explains why I believe Sound Transit was not only mendacious; they gave a whole new meaning to the term incompetent. 

ST problems began in the ‘90’s when they made an historic blunder by selecting light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  They could have moved the HOV traffic to a 4^th lane on the outer roadway and initiated two-way bus rapid transit on the bridge center roadway.  They knew or should have known BRT had more than 10 times light rail capacity that could provide express bus service from every eastside P&R 

Instead ST lied about East Link for years and spent hundreds of millions on countless studies promoting a light rail system that will never have the capacity or the accessibility for more than a fraction of cross-lake commuters.  They also lied about the congestion on the bridge outer roadways when they close the center roadway to install light rail.  They used both lies to convince voters to support the Prop 1 initiative in 2008.

If allowed to continue, ST will spend billions on a light rail program that will devastate parts of Bellevue, gridlock the 1-90 bridge, and do nothing to relieve congestion on 1-90 and 405.  I’m running to do what I can to stop them.

Closing Statement

When I filed as a candidate back in May I recognized I had little chance of having the honor of representing the 48^th District.  I did so as part of a long term effort to stop an East Link program I thought would be a disaster for the entire eastside.  My concerns were never personal since my home is nowhere near light rail route and I rarely commute into Seattle.  I still felt an obligation to do what I could.  

I filed to use the Voters’ Pamphlet because more than three years of appearances before the Bellevue City Council and countless emails to the council, Sound Transit, the media and many others had been ignored.   My response from the state DOT was a letter advising me to seek private council if I was unhappy with Sound Transit’s lack of response.  Rep Hunter responded with “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across Lake Washington come hell or high water”

I’m here tonight to tell voters this debacle can be stopped.   Enatai or Surrey Downs residents need not have their lives devastated by light rail tracks, 5000-volt power lines and noisy trains trundling through their neighborhood every 3-5 minutes for 20 hours a day.  The vast majority of cross-lake commuters, who won’t have access to light rail needn’t endure the ever increasing congestion and inevitable gridlock because of East Link’s confiscation of the center bridge.  The billions ST planned to spend on East Link could be used to pay for 520 bridge and other eastside improvements.

All these good things can happen if the Bellevue City Council refuses to approve the permits Sound Transit needs for light rail.  Their failure to do so betrays not only their constituents, but the entire eastside.

The “Human Face” to the East Link Debacle

Today’s Bellevue Reporter (10/5) is finally putting a “human” face on the tragedy that awaits many as a result of the Bellevue City Councils approach to Sound Transit’s East Link program.  Last week the council was critical of ST’s plans for a maintenance yard in Bel Red area, something that had been in the plans for at least 4 years.  Even the Bellevue Reporter, a staunch supporter of East Link, objected to the yard location last week with a follow- up cartoon today.

Yet neither the council nor the BR appear the least bit concerned about the impact of their East Link complicity on the lives of those living along the current route.  They persist in plans to save a few million by deleting features that would have at least mitigated the damage for hundreds of residents.  The cities associate planning director commented ST needed the savings because the “$300 million tunnel under downtown Bellevue wasn’t part of the original Seattle to Bellevue light rail plan”.  (This is the same planning director whose competence is belied by his claim that “single bus lanes in each direction on the center roadway” (i.e., BRT) would have operational problems and insufficient capacity”)

What’s practically obscene is this same ST recently committed to tunnel between the University Light Rail Station and Northgate.  ST never made any commitment for a tunnel there, yet they opted to do so without demanding any additional funds from Seattle.  It’s particularly galling that ST gets nearly 40% of their funds from taxes generated on the eastside.

The council’s decision to essentially throw Enatai and Surrey Downs residents “under the bus” and yet object so strongly to a long-planned maintenance yard in Bel-Red is only part of their problem.  They have a very simple option to resolve both issues; refuse to approve the ten permits ST needs for construction and insist ST consider cross-lake BRT on the center roadway. (BRT would also prevent 1-90 gridlock that  would inevitably result from East Link.)  

Any competent evaluation would quickly conclude BRT was far superior to light rail in terms of cross-lake capacity and accessibility as well as eliminate the devastation to Bellevue.  "Persuade" ST to use the billions they were planning to spend on East Link to eliminate the need for 520 tolls.

What’s most troubling is apparently the council is in the process of finalizing a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) that limits their options for using the permitting process to restrict ST.  Doing so some four years before construction begins would be unconscionable.   

Bellevue Reporter and BCC East Link “Objections”

A recent article and editorial in the Bellevue Reporter suggests they finally found something to object to about East Link; Sound Transit plans to locate a light rail maintenance facility in the Bel-Red area.  Apparently even the BR found Sound Transit’s explanation a maintenance yard in Bel-Red would be closer to Seattle than one south of the city “questionable”.  This follows a recent Times article where the Bellevue City Council expressed similar concerns.

The BCC should have considerable “influence” over ST decisions since eastside taxes provide about 40% of their funds and ST needs Bellevue to issue 10 permits to begin construction.  

What’s remarkable is that of all the possible objections the BCC and BR could have had with Sound Transit, they chose the Bel-Red maintenance yard location.  It should not have been a surprise since Sound Transit’s 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ES-41 and ES-42 detailed their plans for “Maintenance Facilities” there.   Where have they been for nearly 4 years?

The BCC could have used the permitting process to insist Sound Transit consider a tunnel from south Bellevue P&R through city center.  The BBB announced their intention to sue because of this oversight.  They council surely could have rejected ST demands for an additional $200 million for a tunnel through downtown Bellevue.  Especially since ST apparently needed no extra funding for recently committing to tunneling from the University Station with Northgate.    

The council also could have objected to Sound Transit decision to reject a BSNF route that would have minimized impact of street level light rail.  Instead they’re currently haggling over design details that reduce Bellevue’s additional tunnel cost by eliminating features aimed at mitigating light rail damage along ST route. (Isn’t that generous of them?)

The BR and BCC both could have raised objections to Sound Transit’s biggest oversight of all; their failure to consider Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on the bridge center roadway for cross-lake mass transit. .  ST knew or should have known that cross-lake BRT had more than10 times East Link capacity at less than 1/10^th the cost.  Commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted from the increased capacity.  Every east side P&R could have had an express bus route directly into Seattle allowing commuters to leave their cars near where the live not where they work.  The entire eastside would have benefitted. 

It’s way past time for the BR to expose these “objections” and for the BCC to use the permitting process to block East Link.