8/28 Presentation to 48th District Republicans

It’s been an interesting 3 months since I introduced myself as the anti-East Link candidate.  I’ve added some 40 posts to my stop-east-link-now blog and had over 1700 views.  Nearly all of the posts have been aimed at exposing Sound Transit’s East Link light rail debacle. 

Several posts have detailed Sound Transit’s truly historic blunder; their decision to select light rail as the transit choice for cross-lake commuters.  Sound Transit knew, or should have known, that a bus rapid transit system was far superior.   BRT has 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost and could be in service 10 years sooner.   Equally important, a BRT system could provide access from every eastside P&R.   East Link’s only access for most cross-lake commuters would be the South Bellevue P&R.  This lack of capacity and access will force the vast majority of cross-lake commuters to use the outer roadway.

Those forced on to outer roadway will fall victim to another Sound Transit fantasy; their claim a 4^th lane added to the outer roadways can accommodate all the HOV and bus traffic.  They used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge the center roadway could be used for light rail.   Yet their own 2004 studies showed a single lane would not have the capacity needed for both bus and HOV traffic.  The lack of capacity and accessibility on both the center and outer roadways will inevitably lead to cross-lake gridlock.

Another post refutes the idea that light rail is the way to enhance development of the Bel-Red area.  Sound Transit’s claim light rail trains trundling through the area every 3 ½ to 5 minutes for up to 20 hours a day, will attract development is dubious at best.   Bellevue residents fought unsuccessfully for two years to keep light rail out of their neighborhood.  The post explains how a South Lake Unions streetcar system is a far better choice for the area.  It would be less intrusive, far more accessible and far less expensive.  Its construction could also be timed to meet the area’s development schedule not some 2023 light rail schedule. 

Another post questions the assumption East Link is needed to provide Seattleites access to Overlake area and Microsoft.  A 520 BRT system would be far faster for the majority of Microsoft employees who live north of the city center.  The 520 BRT service could also provide eastside residents with improved access to UW and to the light rail station there for downtown connections. 

The bottom line is there is absolutely no justification for East Link.  It will result in gridlock on 1-90, won’t benefit Bel-Red development, and is a poor choice for Microsoft commuters.  Fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have added the 4^th lane to the outer roadway and initiated BRT service on the center roadway.  Thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted.  Instead they’ve refused to do either, wasting hundreds of millions perpetrating a totally flawed light rail system.  They give a whole new meaning to the word “incompetent”.

What’s truly incredible is that, after another four more years of this debacle, it gets worse.   In 2016 Sound Transit will close off the center roadway and force all cross-lake traffic onto the outer roadways.  Their own studies predict a substantial increase in congestion.  They’ll spend billions over the next 7 years devastating Bellevue to construct East Link:  A light rail system that will have a truly miniscule effect on the gridlock that will inevitably result on the outer roadway.

My candidacy is the culmination of three years of failed efforts to convince the Bellevue City Council, King County Council, the media and many others to stop East Link.  My opponents response was “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across Lake Washington come hell or high water”.  

My goal is to prove him wrong.  The best way to do this is to tell not only 48^th District voters, but the entire eastside about East Link.  I believe every eastside candidate could benefit by coming out against this debacle.  Candidates should promise to work towards requiring Sound Transit add the 4^th lane to the bridge next spring, not 2016, and initiate BRT service soon after.  Tell voters BRT service is the only way to avoid gridlock on Lake Washington and alleviate congestion throughout eastside.  BRT will also end the devastation of parts of Bellevue and put a stop to paying the additional 200 million Sound Transit is attempting to extort for a tunnel.

Lastly candidates should tell voters Sound Transit should be required to use eastside taxes to end the 520 bridge tolls rather than fund East Link.   Every eastside-precinct-chairperson should be urged to use their facebook page to spread the word that East Link can and should be stopped.   Their candidate may not win, but their efforts to end this debacle will be appreciated by all.

Marijuana Risks,

An editorial in the Seattle Times supporting Initiative 502 prompted my to respond with the following.  I’m sure they will ignore it so I've posted it on my blog to at least inform readers of the risks involved. 

Opinion,  Marijuana Risks,

The Times editorial page supporting Initiative 502 urges opponents to “get real” because it “for the first time allows marijuana to be grown, processed and used for recreational purposes”.   Thus, “recreation” rather than “pain and nausea relief” is the new justification.

Voters should know that their “recreational use” is not without risk.  Dr. Jeanette Norden, is a neuroscientist, Professor of Neurosciences in the School of Medicine at Vanderbilt  University.  Her lectures on “Understanding the Brain” are featured in the Teaching Company Great Courses.  

Her course includes the following information concerning Marijuana affects on the brain:

A.   Contrary to popular belief, 2/3 of users show drug dependence, with anxiety, anger, and irritability upon withdrawal: drug dependency can also be induced in animals.

B.    A number of areas in the limbic system have receptors which bind marijuana, or are affected by its use. 

C.    These areas include the prefrontal cortex, VTA, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, and amygdala.

D.   Effects on the prefrontal cortex may affect judgement and the ability to associate behaviour with consequences, resulting in disinhibition and risky behaviours.  It is implicated in a clinical disorder called amotiviational syndrome, which is seen in chronic and long-term users of marijuana.

E.    The hippocampus also shows a high concentration of receptors that bind marijuana: significant impairment in memory is seen in some long-term users.

So much for “fun and games”

Bellevue Reporter's "Lord Vodemort" Candidate

I’ve been rather amused by the Bellevue Reporter’s decision to consider me the “Lord Voldemort” of this election.  For those not familiar with the Harry Potter books, the “Dark Lord” was referred to as “he-who-must-not-be-named”.  

One of the reasons I chose to run was because the BR “declined” to include many of my “letters” emails critical of Sound Transit’s East Link program on their editorial page.  Many of their articles and editorials have supported Sound Transit policies that will devastate parts of Bellevue and require residents to pay 200 million for a tunnel.
When I filed, I emailed them my “Statement” and biography data.  They “declined” to acknowledge my candidacy (5/26 Post).

Their Aug 12 edition headlined “Local incumbents roll through Primary” and featured pictures of 4 incumbents along with pictures of Cyrus Habib and Hank Myers, neither of who is an “incumbent”.   Apparently the two of them met some other BR criterion.

They did deign to mention me on the editorial page with Ross Hunter being “far above his challenger, Republican Bill Hirt”.  It would not have surprised me if they had instead reported “far above his Republican challenger”.  

As far as the election results are concerned, I was pleased that I managed to get nearly a third of the votes.  The only mention my candidacy received in the media was on page 11 of the Aug 3^rd edition of the Kirkland Reporter.  (Since many ballots had already been returned by then, the impact on voters was probably minimal.)    

My entire campaign effort has been limited to this blog.  The election results suggest it has convinced a significant number of voters that East Link will be a disaster for the entire east side.  Unfortunately some of the people I’ve talked to didn’t have access to the internet.   They’re limited to the 100-word statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet for information on my candidacy.   I think the lack of any media coverage on why I chose to run detracted from my vote count.

However, my candidacy is not primarily about having the honor of representing the 48^th District.   It’s about informing the entire eastside of the debacle that awaits the area if Sound Transit is allowed to proceed with East Link.  It can be stopped!  Bellevue residents need to know their council can insist on a BRT system rather than light rail.  To that end I look forward to continue to use the blog, as well as any public forums I'm invited to attend to make this case in the future. 
 

That’s why I run. 

Times Interview Presentation

(I had intended to present this as part of my Seattle Times interview this week.  The interview has been delayed until mid September and thought voters might be interested)

My qualifications for representing the 48^th District are different from most who seek elective office.  My only previous experience in community activities was some 40 years ago when I circulated a petition in the neighborhood to underground the power and telephone lines.  Not only did the “undergrounding” enhance the entire neighborhood, it also stopped the infrequent but disconcerting occasions when the neighbor’s son kicked a football into the power lines and seemed to shake the whole house.

If elected this fall, I believe I have two qualities that would make me an effective representative.  The first is my “curiosity” about things.  A large part of my reading and internet activity is dedicated to learning more about the world around us.    I have a whole shelf filled with discs from the “The Teaching Company” on a wide range of subjects.  I particularly enjoy learning about how we got to where we are and how things “work”.   My current “course” interest is on  “nanotechnology” the technology of the future.  My latest book is “An Appeal to Reason – A Cool Look at Global Warming”

My second qualification is my ability to work with others.  During my 36 years at Boeing I worked in several different organizations that were forced to either layoff or relocate personnel to other states.   I once estimated I’d sat either beside or directly in front of or behind 23 other engineers who were laid off or transferred.  The fact I was retained when so many very competent engineers weren’t suggests several organizations recognized my ability to work with others.

While I believe I could be an effective legislator, my goal has always been to use my candidacy to publicize my concerns about Sound Transit, particularly their East Link light rail program.   Sound Transit’s 1990’s decision that light rail was the preferred option for cross-lake mass transit is a truly historic blunder.  Any competent analysis would have concluded East Link will never have the capacity or the accessibility needed to accommodate more than a small fraction of cross-lake commuters. 

Even worse, East Link’s confiscation of the center roadway will make it impossible to implement BRT, the only transportation mode that will provide the needed capacity for the projected doubling of cross-lake commuters over the next 25 years.

What’s most despicable is Sound Transit (and WSDOT) knew, or should have known, that BRT was far better than light rail.   Instead they’ve wasted hundreds of millions promoting light rail with countless studies and “public hearings”, money that could have been used for the 520 rebuild and other eastside improvements.  Cross-lake commuters have already had to endure nearly 15 years of congestion that could have been avoided.

One of the most disturbing aspects about this debacle is that the Seattle Times could have ended East Link a long time ago if they had shown any interest in investigating the issues involved.  Instead they chose to ignore my attempts to encourage their involvement.

Sooner or later everyone is going to wake up to the reality of the East Link debacle.  My goal is stop it now, "persuade" Sound Transit to redirect the money to the 520 corridor (potentially reducing tolls) and other eastside improvements.  If allowed to proceed ST will shut down the center roadway, create gridlock on outer roadways, and spend billions devastating parts of Bellevue for a totally flawed light rail system.   The Times should do their part to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Where’s Seattle Transit Blog Rebuttals?

Since I started this blog critical of Sound Transit I’ve been anticipating some sort of response on their Seattle Transit Blog. 

Two years ago it featured a post with the title “A Few Lies out of Many”, with the following:

                There’s no doubt that the debate revolving around East Link has yielded a number of lies.  Most are complete nonsense, but there are few that can spread dangerous misinformation.  I want to direct your attention to a letter from Bill Hirt, an anti-Link critic who has had a compulsive passion for writing an extraordinary amount of letters to local papers.  From the Seattle Times:

                    The Council majority could simply refuse to grant those permits, stopping the light rail in its “tracks.” Stopping East Link would undoubtedly please Bellevue residents, the majority of whom voted against its funding in 2008.

I realized shortly after my “opinion” page to the Times was published (One of the very few times they chose to do so) I had made a mistake.  (Although the 57% of voters in the 41^st and 48^th district who approved did not constitute a majority of the residents.)    I thought at the time it was truly ironic that the transit blog would classify my mistake as “dangerous misinformation” when Sound Transit had spent more than 10 years “misinforming” the public about cross-lake light rail.  (Which undoubtedly played a major role in 2008 vote.)

The blog also criticized my contention that the Bellevue City Council could refuse to grant the permits Sound Transit needed.    I’ve included the following excerpts:

I should point out RCW 36.70A.200 under Washington State Law, which stipulates the following:

No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

The section specifically mentions a “development regulation” meaning to include the issuing of municipal permits, coincidentally the ones that Bill Hirt believes that the City of Bellevue can withhold.  Furthermore, said “essential public facilities” include regional transportation systems that can be defined by a number of things, of which “high capacity transportation systems” are a part of under RCW 47.06.140.

If you’re still unconvinced, consider RCW 81.104.015, where the State defines “high capacity transportation systems” as including “rail fixed guideway systems” that are hereby defined as a “light, heavy, or rapid rail system.”  Last I checked, Link Light Rail fits the bill perfectly. 

Apparently the Seattle Transit blog doesn’t recognize that “high capacity transportation systems” can also include BRT.   Their claim that some state regulation would prevent the Bellevue City Council from refusing to grant permits because they prefer BRT service is another example of their mendacity or incompetence.  The fact the council hasn’t done so a long time ago has already resulted in hundreds of millions wasted and years of increased cross-lake congestion.  Allowing East Link to proceed would be unconscionable.

In conclusion, I’ve been expecting to see the Seattle Transit Blog respond to my stopeastlinknow blog for some time.  They were very quick to point out my “dangerous misinformation” two years ago.  It’s now been almost three months and 37 posts.  I’m still waiting for their rebuttals.

BRT Obvious Choice Over Light Rail

This post is an attempt to explain in more detail the advantages of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems for cross-lake commuters.  The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (nbrti.org/build.html) describes BRT as follows:

BRT is an innovative, high capacity, lower cost public transit solution that can significantly improve urban mobility.  This permanent, integrated system uses buses or specialized vehicles on roadways or dedicated lanes to quickly and efficiently transport passengers to their destinations, while offering the flexibility to meet transit demand.  BRT systems can easily be customized to community needs and incorporate state-of-the-art, low-cost technologies that result in more passengers and less congestion.

The web site goes into great detail about what makes BRT such a successful transportation system.  Any review would quickly conclude a BRT system is ideal for not only for cross-lake mass transit, it also benefits the entire east side. 

The primary criterion for effective BRT operation is the level of separation from other traffic.  “Increasing levels of segregation through exclusive arterial lanes, grade separated lanes or exclusive transit ways on separate rights-of-way add increasing levels of travel time savings and reliability improvement for the operation of BRT services.”

The I-90 center roadway is ideal once the non-transit HOV traffic is relocated to the outer roadways.  It’s 40 ft wide with room for inbound and outbound lanes divided by a third lane for increased safety and access in case of maintenance problems.  The only limitation on the “headways” or intervals between buses is the ability to safely stop if the bus ahead has a problem.   The resulting 15-20 bus-per-minute lane capacities could accommodate all current bus routes along with any foreseeable demands for BRT service.  (East Link will at best have one 4-car train every 7 minutes.)

The second requirement is to provide the access needed to “draw passengers from their market area”.   The BRT systems cross-lake capacity would allow direct routes from each of the eastside P&R lots into Seattle.  Each P&R route would have two or three dedicated drop off points along 4^th Ave and two or three pick up points along 2^nd Ave for the return routes.  (2^nd and 4^th Ave would be restricted to buses to facilitate this service at least during the peak commute).  Seattleites would use the return routes for access to and from Bellevue T/C and other eastside destinations.  (East Link’s only access for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters is the South Bellevue P&R.)

Each eastside P&R would have its own dedicated transportation system that operates independently of other P&R routes.  The service would be matched to demand as determined by surveys of the nearby residents at home or their place of work. Some P&R lots could also provide BRT connections to Bellevue T/C and Overlake area.

Another important aspect of BRT operation deals with collecting fares.  "An onboard payment to a fare box or a processing unit for tickets or cards adjacent to the operator does not require significant fare collection infrastructure outside the vehicle.  However, requiring passengers to board through a single front door and pay the fare as they enter can result in significant dwell times on busy BRT routes."

The fact that the only eastside access for most BRT routes will be at their respective P&R lot makes it relatively easy to collect fares when boarding in the morning and exiting at night.  Seattleites would also pay fares on the eastside when getting off in the morning and on in the evening.  Collecting fares only on the eastside eliminates the need to collect fares at multiple locations downtown.   Requiring payment adjacent to the operator minimizes the loss in revenue from fare evasion.  (Central Link losses due primarily to fare evasion in 2011 resulted in average fares of $1.30 per rider, about half the quoted fares.)

In conclusion, by every significant criterion, BRT is infinitely better than light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  (At 1/10th the cost and 10 years sooner.)  BRT’s capacity to provide every eastside commuter the opportunity to leave their car at a P&R near where they live can also potentially alleviate congestion throughout the eastside.  (Again East Link will do nothing to relieve SR405 and I-90 congestion.)

Sound Transit’s decision to selected light rail over BRT 15 years ago has already resulted in hundreds of millions wasted and forced commuters to endure years of increased congestion.   They should be “persuaded” to stop this debacle, initiate BRT service as rapidly as possible and use the billions they were planning to spend on light rail to help fund the 520 bridge rebuild and other eastside improvements.  

Allowing them to proceed with a plan to spend more billions on a transportation system that will, instead, gridlock I-90 and devastate parts of Bellevue would truly be unconscionable.

That’s why I run. 

Sound Transit; Mendacious, Incompetent and Arrogant

Sound Transit is not only “Missing In Action” when it comes to resolving eastside commuting problems their approach to the issues is mendacious, incompetent, and arrogant.

Sound Transit mendacity is typified by their claim cross-lake light rail is like adding “up to 10 lanes of freeway” that can carry “up to 24,000 riders per hour (rph)”.  Their 2008 DEIS claimed they could provide this capacity with a light-rail train every 9 minutes.   They assumed each train would consist of 4 cars each carrying 200 riders.  Simple math says 4 times 200 or 800 riders per train times 6 2/3 trains per hour gives 5333 riders per hour in each direction or 10666 rph total.

An earlier post (7/04/12) detailed concerns that four 74-ton cars could create structural problems for the bridge.  The 200-riders-per-car assumption also seems “optimistic” since each car only has 74 seats.   Thus, Sound Transits promised capacity far exceeds any rational estimate. 

Even this very limited capacity won’t be accessible to the vast majority of cross-lake commuters (5/15/12 post) who will be forced to use the outer roadways.     Those forced onto the outer roadway will encounter the results of more Sound Transit mendacity; Their DEIS claim “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.  

The details of how Sound Transit and WSDOT lied to a Kittitas judge regarding the capacity benefits from adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadway are in a 5/16/12 post. Their claim moving HOV and bus traffic to the 4^th lane would provide capacity needed to allow the center roadway to be used for light rail was belied by their own 2004 study.   ST lack of veracity in responding these and other questions concerning their 2008 DEIS are detailed in the 7/05/12 post.

Sound Transit also gives a whole new meaning to the word “Incompetent”.  Their decision “light rail was the answer” for cross-lake commuters that resulted in their failure to seriously consider (at least publicly) BRT some 15 years ago would rank high on anyone’s list of all time blunders.  Instead, they’ve spent, by some estimates, close to a billion dollars over the years promoting light rail with public hearings and countless studies of nearly every conceivable route on the eastside.   Yet questions still exist as to whether the I-90 Bridge can accommodate their 4-car trains.   
 

More Sound Transit incompetence is detailed in the 6/07/12 post explaining how East Link hurts Central Link viability and why it makes no sense to extend light rail toward Federal Way or beyond Northgate.  (The major beneficiaries of those extensions (and for East Link) are the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington (ABCWW) and their labor unions.)

The fact their 2012 budget estimates that “farebox revenue” makes up only 5% if their income or that costs for their Sounder Trains to and from Everett exceed fare revenue by $20,000 per year for each rider  (6/12/12 post) are hardly “reassuring”.    Sound Transit’s incompetence in refusing to recognize the costs associated with trying to provide rail service to anyone who wants it will cripple the areas transportation budgets for many years.

Sound Transits arrogance is typified by their attitude towards environmental concerns, Bellevue residents and other eastside cities.  The 7/15/12 post explains the East Link’s impact on the environmental.   They’ve also shown an utter disdain for Bellevue concerns.  They decided on a light rail route that will violate federal environmental law by encroaching on Mercer Slough Park, threaten the historic Winters house, devastate a beautiful boulevard, (and apparently some residents yards) and extorted $200 million from the city for a tunnel.

All of these problems could have been avoided if Sound Transit had considered a tunnel from the South Bellevue P&R through the city.  (Build a Better Bellevue is suing on this issue).   While obviously more expensive than a surface route, the increased costs didn’t deter Sound Transit’s from recently announcing plans to tunnel most, if not all the way from the University Station to Northgate.  East side taxes make up about 40% of Sound Transits tax revenue.  Any fair review of how that money is spent would quickly conclude that Bellevue deserves better.  (Again my 7/16/12 post advocates for BRT not the tunnel)

Sound Transit needs to recognize their responsibility is to provide a cost effective transportation system that meets commuter needs throughout the area.  Instead in an effort to garner voter support for their Prop 1 vote they promised light rail service from Mill Creek to Federal Way and across Lake Washington through Bellevue to Redmond.   They later “reconsidered” blaming lost revenue from current economic conditions.  (Though most of the extensions wouldn’t begin until 2020)

Cross-lake commuters and the entire eastside have already paid dearly for Sound Transit’s “MIA”.   The hundreds of millions could have been spent funding the 520 bridge rebuild and potentially eliminated the need for tolls.  Commuters throughout the area have endured years of needless congestion.  And it’s only going to get worse!  Sound Transit’s confiscation of the center roadway for light rail eliminates cross-lake BRT, the only way to accommodate the projected doubling of cross-lake traffic in the next 30 years.  East Link needs to be stopped.

That’s why I run.