Five BCC Questions for Sound Transit

I intend to present the following at the Bellevue City Council’s 11/26 extended session meeting.

Bellevue City Council
My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to urge the council to ask Sound Transit five questions as part of your permitting negotiations.

1.   Why didn’t the ST Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ever consider Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the “no-build” option for the I-90 bridge center roadway?  BRT had 10 times light rail capacity, at 1/10^th the cost, 10 years sooner, and was far more accessible.

2.   How did ST conclude in their 2008 DEIS that a 4-car train every 9 minutes could accommodate up to 24,000 riders per hour?  If you crammed 200 people into each of the 74-seat cars the maximum possible capacity is less than 11,000.

3.   Why did ST claim single lanes on the outer bridge roadways could accommodate all the bus and HOV traffic  when they close down the center roadway to install light rail.  Their own 2004 study showed one lane wouldn’t have needed capacity for both bus and HOV traffic.

4.   Why didn’t ST add the 4^th lane to the outer roadways 15 years ago?  All cross-lake commuters, but particularly reverse commuters have had to endure years of increased congestion because of the delay.  Their plans to delay the lane for another 4 years are particularly onerous in view of the added traffic from those avoided 520 tolls.

5.   Why didn’t ST ever consider a tunnel from the South Bellevue P&R to 116^th?  They recently agreed to tunnel from the University to Northgate, a far greater distance.  The Bellevue tunnel would have eliminated the devastation along the route into downtown and the encroachment on Mercer Slough Park that violates federal environmental law.  

The council owes Bellevue residents and the entire eastside satisfactory answers from ST to these 5 questions before approving any permits.  The sooner the council recognizes that’s not going to happen the sooner this debacle can end, the $200 million tunnel expenditure driving the cities capital budget problem will disappear, and East Link money can be diverted to BRT reducing congestion for everyone.  It would also eliminate the recent concern about a maintenance yard in Bel-Red area.

More Times Editorial Page Absurdities

I emailed the following to the Seattle Times in response to Sunday’s (11/18) editorial page.  I’m posting it because I’m sure they’ll ignore it.

Opinion  “frightful traffic fix”,

The Sunday Times devoted one entire editorial page to the question “What’s one big fix for frightful traffic?”  The answers still managed to ignore the one easily available option that would greatly alleviate congestion on the east side.   That option is to “persuade” Sound Transit to install bus rapid transit (BRT) across Lake Washington center roadway rather than light rail.

Any competent analysis would quickly conclude BRT was infinitely better than light rail with higher capacity, greater accessibility, far less cost, and could begin carrying commuters in 6 months not 10 years.  The increased capacity would allow express bus routes for commuters from every P&R on the eastside directly into Seattle.  Attracting addition commuters to public transit would reduce congestion throughout the entire area.

The WSDOT secretary’s solution “we look for ways to make a corridor operate more efficiently” ignores the fact the WSDOT is a major culprit to allowing ST to proceed with spending billions on an East Link program that will devastate parts of Bellevue, eventually gridlock the I-90 bridge, and do nothing about SR405 and I-90 congestion.

The Kemper Development Company spokesman laments the money spent on public transportation including light rail, proclaiming the need to add more highway lanes along 405.   He criticizes light rail across I-90 Bridge but ignores the fact that public transit, namely BRT, is the only practicable way to alleviate congestion on the bridge or the entire I-90 corridor.

The answer to the “frightful traffic” problem facing most daily commuters is not to build more highway lanes but more P&R lots and better bus service.   Attracting commuters to park their car near where they live and use a bus and existing highways to commute is better than providing them with another highway lane to get to an undoubtedly more expensive parking space near where they work.

Washington Policy Center's Ambiguous East Link Policty

Washington Policy Center’s Ambiguous East Link Policy

The WPC describes their organization as “an independent, non-partisan think tank promoting sound public policy based on free-market solutions”.   It includes the WPC Center for Transportation that “researches and analyzes the best practices for relieving traffic congestion by recapturing a vision of a system based on freedom of movement”.  

They seemed like an organization that would be interested in my ST/East Link concerns so I sent them several emails detailing these concerns.  My last effort to garner their support was the following email I sent to the WPC board members on 8/15.

        Dear Washington Policy Center,

     Your recent letter asking for contributions to support your Center for Transportation efforts prompted me to respond.   You claim to be “promoting better, more responsible transportation policy” while apparently completely oblivious to the fact that Sound Transit and the WSDOT are attempting to perpetrate a monumentally flawed East Link light rail system.  

     The failure of my past efforts to expose these problems, which included several emails to the WPC, led me to file as a candidate for Position No 1 in the 48^th Legislative District.  I did so to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract voters to my blog, http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.   I would hope you  consider it worthy of some study.

      Respectively,

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

While they later used the recent State audit (see my 11/06 post for my audit critique) to advocate for changes to Sound Transit and pointing out unrealistic ST ridership forecasts, they never responded with any public criticism of the ST East Link light rail project. 

Bellevue's East Link Ineptitude

The Bellevue City Council claim in last week’s Bellevue Reporter (11/9) (Council upset at rail yard plan) that the East Link maintenance yard location in Bel Red was an “unwelcome surprise” typifies BCC mismanagement.   The BCC insists “we were assured by Sound Transit….that a maintenance base was not needed for East Link or on the Eastside”.  

ST mendacity has already been noted in several posts on this blog.  However, anyone who had bothered to read the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (or the 2011 EIS) would have learned of ST plans for the Bel Red yards.  The idea the council has been in constant negotiations with ST for 4 years and not clarified this issue “screams” incompetence.

This recent action is just the latest example of their ineptitude.  The 11/10 post explains how they could have used the permitting process to insist on BRT through the city or a tunnel from South Bellevue P&R to 116^th.   Either option would have avoided the devastation along the route into Bellevue and the violation of federal environmental law from encroachment on Mercer Slough Park.  There was surely no justification for BCC acquiescing to paying an additional $200 million for a tunnel under city center.  (They still haven’t explained where they will get that money)

Bellevue mismanagement is not limited to the BCC.  The city's associate transportation director belied his purported expertise by claiming cross-lake BRT on the center roadway would have “operational” problems and lack capacity.  Anyone who knows anything about BRT would recognize that its far greater capacity and accessibility, minimal cost and essentially instant availability made it the ideal solution for I-90 public transit.

This transportation “expert’” also supported the ST decision to delay adding the 4^th lane to the outer bridge until 2016 because of planning and funding problems with the modification.  He apparently didn’t recognize the fact the delay was adding to the nearly 15 years of increased congestion cross-lake commuters, but particularly reverse commuters, have already endured because of the lack of the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways.

The Bellevue Transportation Commission supposedly advises the City Council on transportation related issues.   Yet, the only response I received from several emails requesting the opportunity to discuss my ST/East Link concerns with the commission was an “out of office” from the BTC coordinator.   One can only assume they’re not aware of the “reply” option to emails.

With the city's transportation advisors so inept or unresponsive its no wonder its so mismanaged.  The citizens of Bellevue and the commuters throughout the eastside deserve better.

ABCWW Big ST/East Link Winner

The first post on this blog, “The Case Against East Link” (5/19) explains in some detail how the overwhelming majority of commuters, both cross-lake as well as those on the eastside, will face increased travel times because of East Link.  All the money and time ST has spent and will continue to spend over the next 10 years will devastate parts of Bellevue, gridlock I-90 bridge, and do absolutely nothing to relieve eastside congestion.

The big winners from this debacle are the construction companies represented by the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington, ABCWW, and their labor unions.  Both groups have profited mightily from past light rail contracts and can look forward to several more years of profits if East Link is allowed to proceed.   The other benefactors have been the media who have received extensive revenue from ST for “Ride the Waves” advertisements and other promotions.

It’s not clear what if any actions the ABCWW and unions have done to garner support for East Link.  What is clear is that any competent transportation consultant would have selected bus rapid transit for the I-90 bridge center roadway.  BRT was far superior to light rail in terms of capacity, accessibility, cost, and availability.  Yet ST never considered BRT as the “no-build” alternative to light rail in their DEIS.

Equally amazing, the supposed transportation experts, the WSDOT has been an active partner in East Link, going so far as to lie to a Kittitas judge about the ability of the 4^th lane on the outer roadway to accommodate all the bus and HOV traffic when the center roadway is closed off to install light rail (see 7/19 post).   

My emails to all the eastside legislators, several of whom were on the various transportation committees, were essentially ignored except for Rep. Hunter’s response “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across Lake Washington Bridge come ‘hell or high water”.    

My own candidacy was an attempt to attract more public interest to ST problems.  None of the other eastside candidates in the recent election expressed any concern. Countless emails to the media including Seattle Times, Bellevue Reporter, King, Kiro, and Komo TV news, along with several radio commentators were also ignored. 

Anyone on this long list could have ended East Link a long time ago by speaking out about the fact the ST decision to select light rail for cross-lake public transit was an historic blunder.   The fact it hasn’t happened and that ST apparently believes everyone will continue to turn a “blind eye” towards East Link problems for several more years does raise questions as to “why”.  It doesn’t take much to be suspicious of the influence of the big beneficiary.

    

Two Options to Save Bellevue

I thought viewers might be interested in the following presentation I intend to give to the BCC during their Nov. 13^th “public comments’ meeting.  My hope of course is this action by BCC would convince ST to switch to cross-lake BRT.

Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to protest in the strongest possible terms any agreement with Sound Transit that limits the council’s ability to use the permitting process to stop East Link.  I don’t think the council understands the concept of permit approval.  Those issuing the permit presumably agree with those seeking the permit that the project in question should be allowed to proceed.   The East Link Environmental Impact Statement identifies 10 different permits or approvals Bellevue has to issue before ST can proceed.

The ability to withhold permits is restricted by Washington regulation RCW 36.70A.200: “No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.”  RCW 47.06.140 includes high-capacity transportation systems as one of those essential public facilities. 

However, the requirement to allow the siting of high capacity transportation does not mean the council cannot select Bus Rapid Transit rather than light rail from the South Bellevue P&R through Bellevue for its high capacity transportation.  This option would eliminate the need to devastate parts of Bellevue including the Mercer Slough Park, a violation of federal environmental law. 

The other option would be for the council to refuse to approve the permits unless ST agrees to tunnel from the P&R to the station on 116^th.   ST recently agreed to tunnel from the University Station to Northgate, a substantially longer distance.  (Eastside taxes provide about 40% of the funds ST will use.) 

Instead, the council has allowed the ST board, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to refuse to even consider a tunnel into Bellevue, to select the light rail route through Bellevue, and to extort an additional $200 million if they want a tunnel under the city center.  

It’s nearly 4 years before serious East Link construction begins so there’s no reason to limit the “permitting” option at this time.   It may well be that future council members won’t be as eager to allow this debacle.   

Thank You For Your Interest and Support

I want to thank all of you who voted for me.  I know many of the 11,465 votes I received were simply “Republican” and not a result of my blog.  My efforts to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog were hindered by the Secretary of State’s office “oversight” in not providing the blog address in the primary election pamphlet.  Still I had over 3000 page views that hopefully contributed to my vote count.  Again my candidacy was never about winning, thus I’m happy to have reached so many and hope my concerns have at least sparked their interest.

As I promised in an earlier blog my intention is to continue with this effort.  I’ve got several ideas for new posts.  However, it’ a little like the question, “If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a noise?”  I intend to continue the blog making “noise” for my East Link concerns for as long as long is there are viewers to "hear". 

East Link can be stopped.  Hopefully interest will continue until that happens.  If not I'll end the blog with at least the satisfaction of knowing I did everything I could and with firm knowledge I will be vindicated in the end.

Faulty Sound Transit Audit

An Oct 26^th article in the Times, “Sound Transit gets mixed reviews in state audit” apparently summarizes the results from a 125 page report concerning State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s audit of ST.   It credits ST for “adjusting well to the recession” but criticizes its “over-optimistic” ridership forecasts and “its citizen-oversight panel lacks teeth.”   Overall, Sonntag said, he's pleased with the quality of the report and Sound Transit's cooperation.  The audit also praised ST for “a policy called Phase Gate, where leaders examine the spending trend at each step — engineering, bidding, construction, operations — before moving ahead.”

These audit results sure don’t jibe with what I’ve observed during several years of following ST actions.  Maybe accountants use different criteria than what I’m used to as a former engineer.  What’s clear from the “Phase Gate” policy is ST’s emphasis is on “construction” rather than “transportation’.  They may do a decent job of construction, but fail to consider whether light rail is the best “transportation” solution. Any competent engineer would have recognized ST made a historic blunder when they selected light rail rather than BRT for the center roadway.  ST spent 10 years and millions studying cross-lake and eastside mass transit options but never considered BRT as the “no-build” option.  It doesn’t take an engineer to calculate ST’s 2008 DEIS prediction of 24,000 riders per hour from a 4-car train every nine minutes is absurd.

A ST 2004 study concluded a single lane could not accommodate all the cross-lake bus and HOV traffic.  An engineer would not have ignored that conclusion as ST did when they concluded a 4^th lane on the outer bridge would have adequate capacity.  (And used that conclusion to convince a Kittitas judge to allow them to install light rail on the center roadway in a recent suit.)   However, an engineer would have recognized adding the 4^th lane to in the 90’s would have benefitted all cross-lake commuters, but particularly “reverse’ commuters.  ST has let “planning” and “funding” problems delay the 4^th lane until 2016.  

An engineer would not have spent about $500 million on a North Sounder train program that drops commuters off at the King Street Station, particularly since commuters already had easy access to express bus connections into downtown Seattle.  It’s hard to believe an audit wouldn’t do more to shut down a transportation system that subsidizes each rider by about $20,000 a year.  ST latest South Sounder extension to Lakewood is another example of millions spent in an expensive and probably futile attempt to attract riders.

Even the audits approval of ST “adjusting to the recession” is debatable.  Most of the construction won’t begin for several years, hopefully well after the recession has ended.  ST budget “adjustment” is more likely the result of their realization that fare revenue will be substantially less than predicted for far into the future. (The ST 2012 budget predicts only 5% of their revenue will be derived from passenger “fares”)  They initially predicted more than 100,00 riders daily by 2010 (not the 45,000 levels by 2020 cited in the audit).   The loss in revenue from only 30,000 current riders is substantial.   East Link’s lack of capacity and access belies ST projection of 50,000 riders by 2030, suggesting additional budget problems.

It’s clear to this former engineer that ST needs a new audit.

 

More Bellevue Reporter Machinations

This week’s Bellevue Reporter (11/03) continues their months long policy of refusing to acknowledge my candidacy.  (See 8/14 and 5/26 Posts)  They noted the opposing views of Janet Hague and Kevin Wallace concerning the 48^th district candidates for Position No 2, but never mentioned my opposition to Rep. Hunter for Position No 1. 

Not that there was any doubt as to whom the two of them would have supported.  Wallace has been a staunch supporter of East Link for some time and Hague has never chosen to respond to the many emails I sent to the King County Council concerning the Sound Transit/East Link.   

The BR obviously felt the less said about my candidacy and my opposition to Sound Transit, and East Link in particular, the better.   The Reporter publications could have stopped East Link a long time ago with a single story exposing Sound Transit incompetence and mendacity.  (I sent them many emails detailing the issues.)

Instead they continue to simply refuse to acknowledge the fact the billions spent on East Link will devastate the route into Bellevue, gridlock the 1-90 bridge, and do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion on SR405 and I-90.  

Sooner or later my concerns will be vindicated by some media outlet or by future cross-lake commuters.  This blog is an attempt to make it the former.