Why BCC Should Rescind Shoreline Permit Approval

(I presented the following to the BCC Jan 26^th meeting Sound Transit attended to update plans for mitigating light rail noise.  My impression was both the BCC and ST were immune to the realities of East Link debacle.  For example ST officials later told the council they intended to acquire up to 91 properties along 112th, presumably for noise concerns.  Yet not one bothered to ask about this noise impact on Mercer Slough Park)

Why BCC Should Rescind Shoreline Permit Approval

     My name is Bill Hirt and I am here tonight to again object to your approval of Sound Transit’s Shoreline permit.  Typical of ST, their permit application begins with two fallacious “findings”. 

 

     The first is the claim “Regional Light Rail Transport is an essential public facility”.  East Link will provide at most, one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or 30 light rail cars an hour.  No one can rationally argue what amounts to a single 74-seat car every 2 minutes, constitutes an essential public facility.

      

      The second is the claim “East Link will bring long-term economic gain and environmental benefit to the City and the region by improving access to transit and transportation facilities”.  East Link will provide less cross-lake capacity than what’s currently available with buses. Access to this limited capacity will be a nightmare with ST plans to force thousands of commuters to transfer from East Gate buses to light rail at the South Bellevue station.

     Even these fabrications pale in comparison with the mendacity in their next finding, “No long-term adverse effects on the shoreline are anticipated.”  They presumably base that “finding” on two claims in their Supplemental DEIS.

     1)  Preferred Alternative B2M would not impact noise levels in the park.

               2)  Preferred Alternative B2M would not substantially affect park use, the      park’s features, activities, and attributes, or diminish the park’s value.    

     Yet Appendix G of the same document identifies homes on the west side of Bellevue Way that require “Sound walls on their structure”.  Along 112^th” they plan to install a “Sound wall on the west side of the tracks”.  ST is basing their Shoreline permit application on the totally absurd claim light rail noise, sufficient to require shielding homes on the other side of a major roadway hundreds of feet away, will have no impact on the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough park.

     In 2008, the ST DEIS concluded federal environmental law stipulated approval of any transportation project required it have a de minimis effect on the Mercer Slough Park.  In 2010, their noise mitigation efforts in the SDEIS demonstrated, despite claims to the contrary, East Link noise would surely violate that requirement.  The bottom line is ST has spent nearly a billion dollars on a light rail program they’ve known for years will violate federal environmental law.  It’s time for the council to justify the trust of those who elected them by rescinding approval of the Shoreline permit application and end this debacle. 

Sound Transit's "Quiet" $1.33B Loan

It’s “interesting” the Seattle Times chose to put the news “Sound Transit takes out loan” in “Around the Northwest” on page B2, next to the obituaries on Sunday’s paper.  The only reason I noticed it was my wife, who always reads the obituaries and is “aware” of my ST interests, pointed it out.  It’s not clear why the Seattle Times staff selected this location.  (It was paired with other “important” news “Witnesses catch stabbing suspect”.)

The $1.33B loan has a rate of 2.4 percent interest and won’t be paid off until 2058.  Doing so, according to my amortization calculator, will require an annual payment of $48,972,904.   One would have thought the news ST was committing to spend nearly $50M a year of the area’s transportation funds for 44 years would have merited more than a B2 page article next to the obituaries.  Particularly since ST 2015 budgets projected the total revenue from all their passenger fares for the year would only be $58M, with  only $16M anticipated from light rail.  

It’s clear why ST needs the money.  Their 2015 projected expenses, $1.213B, exceeded expected revenue, $933M, by $279M.  Thus it’s likely they’ll need additional loans within the next few years since ST expenses will increase dramatically with major expenditures on East Link and other Prop 1 extensions.  The fact that other revenues aren’t likely to increase substantially “probably” explains why they’ve recently announced plans to ask voters in 2016 to approve property taxes for needed funds.  

As a result, when all of the Prop 1 light rail extensions are finally completed in 2023, the area's taxpayers will likely be forced to pay a minimum of $50M and more likely twice that amount for 35 years to pay off the construction loans.  Unfortunately those millions are only a part of funds ST will need to meet future revenue shortfalls. 

ST has two problems.  The first is light rail fare box revenue will be minimal.  More than 80% of light rail riders will be commuters who transfer from buses for one reason or another.  (The East Link Integrated Transit System forces all I-90 transit riders to transfer to buses for the commute into and out of Seattle.)  Since it’s unlikely they’ll be forced to pay two tolls for their commute, the Prop 1 extensions will add a minimal amount to fare box revenue.

However, the fare-box-revenue problem pales in comparison to ST’s second problem, the increased operating costs for the Prop 1 extensions.  A light rail car costs ST $23 per mile to operate (2015 budget).  ST plans to route East Link’s 4-car trains the 77 miles to Lynnwood and back to Redmond will cost them $7,084 per trip.  With 121 trips each weekday and half that on weekends, East Link will provide 726 trips per week, 37,752 trips per year, with operating costs of $267M.  (It’s hardly worth mentioning depreciation costs will add another $30M annually.)   East Link alone will require more than a $250M subsidy to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  

The bottom line is ST’s current “quiet” loan is only the beginning of their financial problems.  Similar loans or other financial sources are going to be needed to create a light rail system that, in the end, will be too expensive to operate.  The fact light rail will do essentially nothing to ease I-5 congestion and actually increases I-90 congestion simply adds to the insanity.

Mercer Slough Concerns Justified

I wrote the following “Special to the Times” submission to the Seattle Times in response to the Sunday Times article “Group Challenges Light rail permits for route near Mercer Slough Park.  I posted it because it’s doubtful they’ll ever use it.

Mercer Slough Concerns Justified. 

Those petitioning the Shorelines Hearing Board to vacate the land use permits the city of Bellevue issued for Sound Transit’s East Link project have a right to be concerned. Sound Transits own June 2011 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) justifies their assertion the environmental impacts of the East Link’s B segment need to be studied more extensively.

The ST East Link Final Environmental Impact Statement includes the following regarding federal environmental requirements for transportation projects.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, as amended and codified at 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) §303, states the following:

……[It] is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.

Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 774 as amended March 2008 states the following:

The Administration may not approve the use, as defined in §774.17, of Section 4(f) property unless a determination is made under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. (a) The Administration determines

East Link Project Final EIS July 2011

that: (1) There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as defined in §774.17, to the use of land from the property; and (2) The action includes all possible planning, as defined in §774.17, to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or (b) The Administration determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to by the applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as defined in §774.17, on the property.

Thus in order for East Link to proceed Sound Transit must show there is no feasible or prudent alternative or that East Link will have a de miinimus impact on the property. 

It's bad enough Sound Transit has never bothered to consider two-way bus only lanes on the I-90 bridge center roadway for cross-lake public transit.  It surely is a “feasible and prudent” alternative to light rail.  What's worse, the ST SDEIS belies their contention East Link will have a de minimis impact on wildlife and waterfowl refuges (i.e. Mercer Slough Natural Park).  

Attachment "G" of the document includes a list of all the properties on the west side of the tracks.   A large number of the properties require one of the below options to mitigate light rail noise.

1) Sound Wall on structure     --

2) Sound Wall on structure,     -- and special trackwork

3) Sound wall on west side of tracks.

4) Sound insulation, if required

In addition Sound Transit has listed several properties they may purchase because of noise concerns. 

These concerns are “probably” the result of noise from Central Link trains that has forced ST to “sound proof” homes up to 300 feet from the tracks.  East Link 4-car trains and elevated light rail tracks near light rail station will “likely” be noisier than Central Link 2-car trains.  Yet ST is doing absolutely nothing to mitigate East Link noise on Mercer Slough park even though light rail tracks encroach on park, hundreds of feet closer than most of the properties across Bellevue Way and 112^th Ave needing mitigation. 

Its clear those challenging the permits surely have reason to question whether East Link light rail noise impact on Mercer Slough Natural Park will be de minimis.

What I Hoped to tell MI Residents

I wrote the following in hopes of presenting it to Mercer Island residents at their Jan 14^th meeting at their Community Center.  It was an opportunity to explain to island residents how Sound Transit’s East Link will end their easy access into Seattle and why the ST Integrated Transit Service will result in the MI light rail station being inundated with thousands of transit riders every morning and afternoon attempting to transfer to and from over-crowded light rail cars.  It was a major disappointment I was not allowed to do so as “East Link” was not on the meeting’s “agenda”.   I’m certain residents will eventually learn to regret that decision if  the lack of "public awareness" results in the city council approving the permits needed for East Link to proceed.

East Link Impact On Mercer Island

1) Mercer Island residents will lose their easy access to Seattle for a light rail system that provides one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or thirty 74-seat cars an hour.

2) MI residents and transit riders forced to transfer to trains at MI light rail station will have a particularly difficult time accessing this limited light rail capacity during the peak commute hours since the cars will likely be full before they even reach MI.

3) The 200 ft drop off and pick up areas cannot possibly accommodate the 84 buses per hour the ST Integrated Transit System (ITS) expects to route to and from MI Station during peak commute.  Riders attempting to transfer to buses on the return commute will have a particularly difficult time making connections.

4) MI Single Occupancy Vehicles will have a particularly difficult time accessing I-90 outer roadway.  The increased congestion due to the loss of center roadway and additional drivers forced to drive because of limited light rail capacity will require severe “throttling” by I-90 onramp control lights.

5) Once on I-90, MI commuters will join all the other vehicles facing inevitable gridlock on the route into Seattle.

6) All of this can be avoided if MI disallows the permit ST needs.

Dear Bellevue City Council

(I presented the following at the Bellevue City Council meeting last night.  Only time will tell whether it made any difference.)

Dear Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I’m here tonight to object in the strongest possible terms to your decision to approve the Sound Transit Shoreline Development permit and the other permits ST will need for East Link.

The “Shoreline” permit approval is presumably based on the council’s conclusion East Link will not adversely impact the Mercer Slough Park.  Yet, the council forced ST to commit millions to mitigate noise for residents along the route but nothing to mitigate train noise that will end forever the quiet solitude of the park, a clear violation of federal environmental law.  However, allowing ST to proceed is a far more serious violation of the trust of all those who elected you to this council.  

In 2016 ST will close the South Bellevue P&R without, as yet, any clear plan for those driving the 700 cars that fill the P&R before 7:30 every morning or their plan for rerouting the ST and Metro bus routes that use the P&R.   Soon after they intend to tear out thousands of trees and spend the next 5 years installing light rail tracks, power lines, and an elevated roadway in place of a beautiful boulevard into the city.   While doing so they intend to route hundreds of cars along 108^th Ave, what was a quiet residential roadway.

When East Link does begin service, residents along the route can expect more than 20 hrs a day of light rail noise sufficient to force ST to sound proof homes more than 300 ft from Central Link tracks.  Commuters will find East Link, which was sold as the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway, will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or thirty 74-seat cars an hour.

ST’s Integrated Transit Service plan attempts to use this limited light rail capacity to replace all cross-lake buses.  The ITS diverts all the East Gate buses to the South Bellevue P&R along with up to 84 buses per hour to the Mercer Island station.  East Link simply won’t have the capacity to accommodate all those bus riders along with the other commuters attempting to use public transit into and out of Seattle.  Return connections will be especially onerous since neither light rail station includes adequate provisions for buses to drop off or pick up riders.

The lack of capacity and the hassle of transferring to and from light rail will induce thousands to attempt to drive rather than ride.  Unfortunately, the 4^th lanes ST adds to the outer roadway won’t have the capacity to make up for the loss of the 2 center roadway lanes, let alone all the former transit riders.

In conclusion, it’s bad enough ST will spend billions and years disrupting commuters and devastating the area along the route into Bellevue to create East Link.  What’s infinitely worse, the result will be a light rail system that turns commuting into Seattle a nightmare, not only for transit riders, but every eastside resident.   I urge you to not allow that to happen.

King/Clibborn Oblivious to ST Prop ! Insanity

I submitted this as a "Special to the Times".   I decided to post it as they are unlikely to use it.

King/Clibborn Oblivious to ST Prop 1 Insanity

The recent “Opinions” by Sen. King and Rep Clibborn concerning the need for the legislature to provide additional transportation funding in the upcoming session illustrates their failure to recognize the insanity of allowing Sound Transit to spend billions on totally ineffective Prop 1 light rail extensions. 

They and apparently the other transportation committee members, the Sound Transit board, and the WSDOT ignore the reality of light rail in our area.  A Puget Sound Regional Council 2004 document “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” concluded the Seattle tunnel limited light rail to a maximum of one 4-car train every 4 minutes, 60 cars per hour.   The legislative transportation committees need to use their oversight responsibility to stop ST from spending so much, $15-20B, for so little.     

No one can rationally argue that a single 74-seat light rail car every minute can have a significant effect on I-5 congestion.  The only way ST will fully use even that limited capacity is to stop competing bus routes and terminate other routes at the Northgate light rail station.  Moving transit riders from buses to trains does nothing to reduce I-5 congestion.  The fact light-rail cars are twice as expensive as buses to operate adds to the insanity.

Even worse, the East Link extension is limited to half the tunnel capacity, 30 light rail cars an hour, or one 74-seat car every 2 minutes.  That’s ST version of High Capacity Transit?  The legislators need to recognize the total stupidity of allowing ST to confiscate the I-90 center roadway and spend billions and 6 years disrupting the commutes of thousands and devastating the route through Bellevue for this debacle. (Even that capacity is “suspect” because ST chose to demonstrate the I-90 Bridge could support light rail with 2-car trains rather than the 4 cars they currently anticipate using.  The floating bridge/light rail compatibility issue may further restrict East Link operation.)

What’s absurd is they compound the I-90 capacity problem with an “Integrated Transit System” (ITS) that forces all bus riders to transfer to light rail at the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  The billions spent on East Link and ITS will limit I-90 transit capacity to far less is than what cross-lake buses currently provide. 

For example, the ST Nov 19^th Mercer Island presentation showed they anticipated 84 buses an hour would drop off riders there during peak commute. The presentation also showed that the East Gate buses would be routed to the S. Bellevue station although no number was given.  Whatever that number, its clear East Link will never be able to accommodate all the bus transferees, let alone all the other commuters wanting to use public transit into Seattle.
  
The return commutes will be even worse since thousands will be attempting to use the "74-seat car every 2 minutes".  Yet ST anticipates 84 buses per hour will be arriving at MI station and an undefined number at South Bellevue.  The transportation committee needs to convince ST that ITS is simply "unworkable".

What is “beyond words” was Rep. Clibborn’s support for ST spending an additional $15B on 2040 extensions that only add to the debacle.  The legislative transportation committees need to recognize the only way to make light rail viable in our area is to terminate light rail at T/C at the UW station and S. 200^th along I-5, and replace East Link with a light rail connection to West Seattle.  The money saved by doing so will go a long way towards funding any future projects.