Council and Board Member Obligations

The prior 5 posts dealt with the two pending lawsuits concerning stopping East Link: The BBB suit attempt to overturn the Records of Decision (ROD) issued by the U.S. Dept. of Trans. and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and the Freeman/ETA action appealing the Kittitas judge's ruling allowing Sound Transit to install light rail on I-90 Bridge.

Both present potentially very strong arguments. ST surely violated federal environmental law when their DEIS and FEIS documents failed to consider BRT, a feasible and prudent alternative that would have avoided the environmental damage along the route into Bellevue.  The Kittitas judge’s decision should be easy to reverse because ST and WSDOT lied when they claimed adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadways would eliminate the need to use the center roadways for highway needs and could therefore be used for light rail. 

Unfortunately, judges may not agree with a retired engineer’s belief it’s a “slam dunk”.   I therefore sent the following email to Sound Transit Board members, King County Council, and the Bellevue City Council. 

Dear Sound Transit Board, Bellevue City Council, King County Council,

Your organizations would be well advised to give serious consideration to the information included in the 12/15, 12/12, and 12/07 posts on my blog http;//stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt (former candidate for 48th District No 1)

My intention was to contact those who might have been swayed by WSDOT East Link support and were unaware of East Link legal challenges.  I also hoped they might choose to read some of the earlier posts.  For example the 7/19 post concerning WSDOT culpability and the 11/14 post identifying the big East Link benefactors, the ABCWW and their unions.

None of the organizations' members chose to respond directly.  However, my blog has had a huge increase in number of page views.  Not only were they “viewing” the posts dealing with the legal arguments many have also read the 7/19 and 11/14 posts along with the original 05/15 post, “The Case Against East Link”.   

I’m assuming several of the “new” viewers were council or board members.   If ST does happen to prevail in the upcoming legal actions, responsible board or council members will hopefully speak out against the East Link debacle. 

Hundreds of millions have already been wasted on light rail.   The ST delay in adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways for 15 years is most likely due to their concern that moving the HOV traffic would force them to consider BRT for the center roadway.  Allowing ST to continue another 3-4 years will waste additional millions and needlessly extend congestion. 

The wasted millions and needless congestion pale in comparison to the debacle if ST is allowed to proceed.   In 2016-17 they'll close down the center roadway and begin spending billions installing light rail on the bridge and devastating the area along the route into Bellevue.  Anyone who would knowingly allow that to happen is not fit for public office.  This blog is an attempt to make the board and council members aware of their obligation to the entire eastside.

Sound Transit Board Advice

For nearly 4 years my emails to the Sound Transit Board, the WSDOT, Bellevue City Council, Seattle Times and many others concerning East Link have been ignored.  That’s why I was so pleased with the Building a Better Bellevue lawsuit challenging the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) and Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”)  “Record of Decision” (ROD) approval of East Link.  It forces ST to defend in a federal court actions that give a whole new meaning to the term “incompetent”.

I believe this lawsuit will show ST made a monumental blunder when they selected light rail for cross-lake public transit instead of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system.  (The fact the ST board, many of whom were appointed with few transportation qualifications, could have this decision supported by purported transportation “experts” in the WSDOT says a lot about that organization’s competence also.)

Their original decision was followed by years and hundreds of millions spent promoting a totally flawed transportation program. They made promises for light rail capacity that simple multiplication showed was impossible along with ridership projections that ignored the fact that the vast majority of cross-lake commuters wouldn’t even have access to light rail. 

Their own studies showed they lied when they claimed that a 4^th lane added to the outer roadways could accommodate all the Bus and HOV traffic.  As a result East Link would devastate the area along the route into Bellevue, eventually lead to gridlock on I-90 Bridge and do nothing to ease congestion along SR405 and I-90 corridors. 

The 12/07 and 12/12 posts on this blog show Sound Transit’s response to the BBB lawsuit is devoid of substantive justification for their actions.  They have already wasted hundreds of millions and forced thousands of commuters to needlessly endure years of increased congestion.   The sooner they recognize that fact the sooner eastside taxes can be used to reduce eastside congestion not increase it.

Sound Transit's Opposition to BBB Lawsuit Absurd (Part 2)

The previous blog debunked Sound Transit claim that bus rapid transit (BRT) would not meet their transit requirements for I-90 Bridge.  This post identifies problems with the way they’ve dealt with the environmental aspects of their East Link program.

Sound Transits attitude regarding East Link environment damage is typified by their FEIS response to my question, EL530-1, concerning their failure to consider options that would have eliminated environmental damage along the route: “Your opposition to the East Link Project has been noted”.    

Part of their approach probably stems from the fact that ST, not the state EPA, decides whether East Link meets the state environmental protection agency (SEPA) requirements.   However, ST has to comply with federal environmental law that protects parks, recreational areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges.  It states such properties cannot be adversely affected unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and (2) the project minimizes the impacts as much as possible.  Note the law requires project satisfy not (1) or (2) but both.  Thus potential environmental damage only becomes a factor if there is no “feasible” and “prudent” alternative that avoids the damage.

A bus rapid transit system (BRT) is a feasible and prudent alternative for East Link that would have negligible environmental impact.    The fact ST never seriously considered BRT for East Link should be sufficient grounds to deny them federal environmental approval.   

Regarding the BBB tunnel alternative, the criteria the Inter-Agency Team ST used to  “ scope” the various alternatives for further studies didn’t even include any assessment of the potential environmental impact of the various alternatives (Lines 7- 12 on page 4).   Thus, It’s no surprise the “tunnel alternative”, the Segment B alternative that eliminated the environmental devastation from South P&R through Bellevue, was not “advanced to the board”.  It also raises the question as to how ST concluded the tunnel alternative wasn’t “prudent” if the board had never studied it.

ST complains the Plaintiffs “did not comment on the draft EIS and did not advance a tunnel alternative in Segment B”, and “did not use the comment process to present any evidence or facts as to why a tunnel alternative should be considered”.     However, during that period the Plaintiffs were hoping alternative surface route B7 or B7R which would have eliminated their concerns would be selected.   Once those alternatives were eliminated the Plaintiffs only option was to advocate for the “tunnel” (or BRT) to protect their neighborhood.  

It isn’t clear if ST is using the delay in the BBB filing as a basis to deny their claim.  ST does attempt to exclude the tunnel because “voter-approved financing for East Link did not include a tunnel for any portion of the corridor”.  However, ST recently decided to use a tunnel for the Central Link extension from the University Station to Northgate that also wasn’t included in voter approved funding.   This decision would seem to negate both ST claims and raise questions about their other “tunnel” concerns.

The ST filing makes a major point that federal environmental law (NEPA) only requires them to (1) provide “detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts when it makes its decisions; and (2) to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger audience.”   Presumably ST Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) was their attempt to meet those requirements.  Typical of ST, both documents were, to put it mildly, “deficient”.  

The 7/15 post, “East Link’s Real Environmental Impact” details the environmental damage resulting from current ST proposal.   The post explains how East Link will result in several billion being spent on a transportation system which will devastate the area along the route into Bellevue, eventually result in gridlock on the I-90 Bridge, and do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on 405 and I-90 corridor.  

The post concludes: Only an organization so oblivious to environmental reality as Sound Transit would put the following claim in their EIS:  "The East Link Project would also offer environmental improvements over the No Build Alternative".

In conclusion, during my 36 years as a Boeing engineer I was involved in hundreds of studies involving various solutions to sometimes very complex problems.   In engineering parlance, this would be a “no-brainer”.   Hopefully lawyers will come to the same conclusion.

Sound Transit's Opposition to BBB Lawsuit Absurd

Sound Transit response to the BBB lawsuit filed on 11/30/12 typifies their arrogance and incompetence.   For example their response regarding their failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) for the I-90 Bridge included the following: 

“Despite decades of open and public processes that narrowed the potential modes of cross-lake transport, Plaintiffs now complain that the FEIS should have considered alternatives to light rail.”

The reality is the number 1 “Common Comments”, CC1a question regarding the 2008 DEIS was “Why is bus rapid transit (BRT) or increased bus service not included as an alternative?”   Their response in the FEIS was

 “BRT, as an alternative for East Link, was eliminated during the Sound Transit Long-Range Planning and ST2 process” along with their comment “light rail provides the highest level of ridership and the shortest travel times of all technologies evaluated in the corridor”

My 07/05/12 post (ST Response to DEIS Questions, "Questionable") explained the problems with the study ST used to eliminate BRT from serious consideration.    “The 1990’s study they referred to had initially included Configuration R4 which moved the non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the outer roadways and used the center roadways for two-way, bus-only BRT lanes.   The 40 foot wide center roadway would have been ideal for BRT with two bus lanes separated by a third lane for increased safety and maintenance.   It was dropped from serious consideration, apparently because of Mercer Island concerns they would loose their exclusive access to center roadway, a concern ST subsequently ignored for East Link.”  

ST claims “light rail provides the highest level of ridership and the shortest travel times of all technologies in the corridor” was debunked in my 8/08/12 post (BRT Obvious Choice Over Light Rail).  It explains in detail why BRT is infinitely better than light rail in terms of capacity, accessibility, and cost.  It could have been available in less than 2 years and would have eliminated a major problem with those who currently avoid paying light rail fares.

I’ll deal with their response regarding violations of federal environmental law in a subsequent post.

Freeman/ETA East Link Lawsuit Appeal Problematic

My 12/02 post explained the BBB lawsuit against Sound Transit should be a “slam dunk” since ST obviously violated federal environmental law by refusing to consider either a tunnel from I-90 through Bellevue or bus rapid transit across 1-90 Bridge.  Both options were “feasible” and “prudent” alternatives that would have eliminated the environmental damage with the current East Link light rail proposal.

The Freeman/ETA lawsuit is further along with their current attempt to appeal a Kittitas judge’s decision rejecting their I-90 lawsuit against Sound Transit.  That lawsuit contended that installing light rail on the floating bridge is unconstitutional because the bridge was built, in part, with gas-tax money. The state's 18th amendment bars the sale or lease of roads purchased with gas tax money for non-highway purposes.

The judge in Memorandum Decision (MD) No. 11 2001957 filed on March 5, 2012 concluded the money Sound Transit was committing for adding the 4^th lane to the outer bridge was adequate compensation for their confiscation of the center bridge for light rail.   The judge noted reimbursement of the federal-aid highway funds that paid for most of the construction of the center lanes of I-90 would not be required should the center lanes be used for light rail transit.

The second finding in the case was a rejection of the plaintiffs claim “The State’s decision that 1-90 center lanes will be no longer needed for a highway purpose and can be leased for light rail after two replacement I-90 HOV lanes are constructed is so arbitrary and capricious that it amounts to fraud or bad faith, requiring this court to abrogate such decision”.

The MD included the following response;  “WSDOT has determined that the center roadway will not be presently needed for highway purposes after the R8A project is completed.  This determination is based upon, including but not limited to the analyses contained in I-90 two way transit and HOV operations FEIS and ROD; I-90 two-way transit and HOV access point decision report:” and several others. 

My 5/15 and 5/16 posts explain in detail why the appeal on the decision “that the center roadway will not be needed for highway purposes” has a far better chance of winning than the “unconstitutional” claim.  Whether Freeman/ETA appeal on this basis remains to be seen. 

BBB East Link Lawsuit "Slam Dunk"

I was pleased when I first learned of the BBB intension to initiate legal action to block East Link because Sound Transit had failed to consider a tunnel from 1-90.  My 6/17/12 blog  “BRT Better Than Tunnel for East Link” suggested BRT was a better alternative because it was both “feasible” and “prudent”.  

When I wrote the blog my only source was the June 13 article in the Seattle Times that dealt only with the tunnel.  The lack of any recent information prompted me to look further.  I found a copy of the actual filing on King5.com, “Lawsuit seeking to block Bellevue light rail extension,” Case 2:12-cv-01019.  It was filed on 6/12/12 in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle by Gendler & Mann LLP on behalf of Building A Better Bellevue and Friends of Enatai.  

It seeks a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief claiming the Records of Decision (ROD) issued by the U.S. Dept. of Trans., Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and others violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider feasible and prudent alternatives.

The 25 page document describes in detail the needless environmental damage that will be done by the East Link along the route into Bellevue and criticizes Sound Transit for failing to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) for the I-90 Bridge.  I was impressed.  Here was a legal complaint filed in a U.S. District Court raising the same concerns I’ve had for years.   

I emailed Gendler & Mann for a status update but they have not responded.  I’m no lawyer but this seems like an easy case to win (slam dunk?) if the BBB continues with the lawsuit.  Sound Transit’s decision to tunnel from the University to Northgate eliminated my 6/17 post concerns the Bellevue tunnel alternative was not “prudent”.  Presumably Sound Transit would be "persuaded" BRT was the best alternative.  It's unfortunate the Bellevue City Council seems to be ignoring the issue.