Dear Attorney General Ferguson

I wrote the following intending to submit as a “Contact” to Attorney General Ferguson prior to posting it.  I did so because I (a retired Boeing engineer) thought the Davidson, BBB, Kemper Development petition failed to address my concerns about East Link Shoreline permit approval.  My attempts to inform the Shoreline Hearings Board were rebuffed with the following response:

There is an open Shorelines Hearings Board case open regarding this matter, case number S14-025. The Board does not take comments from the public regarding any matter which could or has come before them.  

Unfortunately “Contacts” to the Attorney General are limited to 5000 characters so decided to include only the first paragraph and refer him to this post.

Dear Attorney General Ferguson,

I am writing to inform you that Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of Transportation in connivance with the State Environmental Protection Agency are attempting to perpetrate a monumental fraud that will end forever the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Natural Park.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act precludes approval of a transportation project that adversely affects waterfowl and wildlife refuges unless the impact is de minimis.  Surely the Mercer Slough Natural Park falls into that category.

The ST response to that requirement is included in the following statement from Section 1.2 “Environmental Evaluation and Procedures” of the Dec 2013 “Bel Red Design & Mitigation for East Link Light Rail”:

Sound Transit has complied with both the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by conducting an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the East Link Project. On July 15, 2011, Sound Transit issued the East Link Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued its Record of Decision (ROD) on the East Link Project on November 11, 2011, and the Federal Highway Administration issued its ROD on November 17, 2011. On March 26, 2013, Sound Transit completed and published the East Link Extension 2013 SEPA Addendum.

They neglected to list their July 2011 Draft Supplemental Environmental Document that both the FHA and FTA used as the basis for ROD’s approving East Link.  (They don't even list it with their East Link document archives.) Chapter 3 of that document, "Environmental Consequences" included the following regarding the current light rail route into Bellevue:

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.    

Another example of ST approach to noise concerns was their response to “Comment ELFEIS014-27” concerning light rail noise in the Aug.11 Attachment D “East Link Final EIS Comments and Response". 

This statement explains that the peak-transit hour noise generated by light rail operations at these locations would be below the existing ambient hourly noise level. Therefore, although the train may still be heard when it passes by, it would not be louder than the existing ambient hourly noise.

The “locations” ELFEIS014-27 comment was referring to were unclear since the comment was illegible. Whatever the location, the ST response “light rail noise would be below existing ambient noise level” is belied by the millions ST is spending to mitigate the light rail noise.

Given ST inputs about lack of light rail noise concern, the fact that both the FHA and FTA approved East Link should be no surprise.  Yet ST did include the East Link Extension 2013 SEPA Addendum.  It goes into explicit detail about all the mitigation efforts for all the properties along Bellevue Way and 112^th Ave.   One would have thought the State Environmental Protection Agency would have recognized noise levels requiring that level of mitigation could hardly be classified as de minimis. 

I attempted to raise this issue with SEPA with the following Feb 11^th email to the designated ETA “contact” person

Dear Mr. Burcar,

I presented the below information to the Bellevue City Council at their Fed 9 meeting in response to Sound Transits Mr. Lewis comments regarding the FTA and FHA approval of East Link. They chose to ignore my concerns.  Its clear ST mitigation efforts belie their claim East Link will have no impact on Mercer Slough Natural Park.  Its also clear that such impact is a clear violation of federal environmental law requiring any impact be de minimis that would require it be rejected. 

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt

wjhirt@yahoo.com

           “I was particularly interested in Mr. Lewis’s comments about the importance of the FTA and FHA East Link approval.   What he neglected to mention was the fact their approval was based on the ST Supplemental DEIS.   That was where ST claimed East Link would have no effect on noise levels in the park or substantially affect park use, the park’s features, or diminish the park’s value.  Thus it’s not surprising both organizations chose to approve East Link.  Yet ST has spent years and is here again tonight to explain how they intend to spend millions to mitigate this non-existent noise.  The bottom line is ST mendacity has made a mockery of the whole environmental review process.”

He has yet to respond.  Your office surely has an obligation to prevent ST from making a mockery of environmental review process by devastating a treasured part of our city.

I-90 Center Roadway Closure Debacle

The previous post explained how anyone who viewed the video of the Sound Transit Feb 9^th presentation to the Bellevue City Council concerning their plans for replacing the South Bellevue P&R they plan to close next March will realize ST has no idea as to how to viably do so; something the council failed to recognize. 

As a result hundreds of cross-lake commuters will be faced with a choice of trying to arrive very early at the Issaquah, East Gate, or Mercer Island P&R lots or join those who arrive too late to find parking and are forced to drive into Seattle and find potentially very expensive parking there.  (It’s hardly worth mentioning the loss in fare box revenue from those unable to find access to ST550, their most lucrative route, along with ST555, 556, and 560.) 

The most likely result will be hundreds of additional cars carrying former transit riders adding to the I-90 bridge congestion.  That increased congestion is just a precursor of the problems with ST’s next stage in the East Link debacle: closure of the I-90 center roadway in 2017.  (Many of those I talk to still don’t recognize that reality)

By then, they will have finally added 4^th lanes to the outer roadways, something they could have done 15 years ago.   This is the so-called R-8A configuration they told a judge would make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.   Typical of ST, they lied.   The FHA I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project, Record of Decision, Sept 2004, they claimed allowed closing the center roadway included the following description of the R-8A:

Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways.  It will retain the existing reversible operations on the center roadway, with both lanes operating in the same direction.     

The bottom line is that while the South Bellevue P&R debacle will affect I-90 corridor transit riders who currently use P&R lots in the area, closure of the center roadway will affect all cross-lake commuters.  Even those who manage to find access to buses will find increased commute times because of lack of capacity on the single HOV lanes to accommodate both buses and car pools.  The likely result will be 3+ riders required for HOV lane exacerbating the already increased congestion from former transit riders.

What’s amazing, believe it or not, it gets worse.  Stay tuned!

ST's South Bellevue P&R Replacement Debacle

The previous post was presented to the Bellevue City Council at their 2/09/15 meeting.  It detailed my concerns that Sound Transit mendacity, regarding the East Link impact on the Mercer Slough Natural Park, made a mockery of the entire environmental review process and their implementation of light rail on I-90 will result in total gridlock for cross lake commuters.   As the post mentions, both the BCC and ST simply ignored my concerns in the video of the proceedings I viewed the next day.

Once they did get beyond all the platitudes about the “out reach efforts” the video  finally hit on an item that should be of concern to any cross-lake commuter.  While they’re not closing the I-90 center roadway until 2017, they plan to close the South Bellevue P&R next March.   The P&R has nominally 519 spaces but commuters use parking around the periphery for an additional 200 spaces, all of which are full by 7:30 AM.  During the peak commute an ST550 bus stops to pick up riders every 5 minutes.  The P&R also provides access to ST555, ST556 and ST560.  It, along with the East Gate P&R provide the major access to transit for I-90 corridor commuters; the ST550 route having more riders than any other ST route.

One would have thought ST would have well developed plans for accommodating the thousands of commuters when they close the P&R in 13 months.  I can only suggest anyone who uses these routes for their commute view the video to see the status of ST plans to accommodate them.  (It starts at 03:04 on the video where it appears the vast majority of the audience has left.) They start out by explaining “why we need to a replacement parking strategy" and the goals and their “strategy” to “maximize existing park & rides”. 

Their preferred alternative “existing P&R” was for I-90 commuters to drive to South Kirkland P&R.  Typical of the council, no one seemed to recognize the total insanity of forcing cross-lake commuters to join the already mile long line of I-90 corridor commuters attempting to get on a crowded I-405 and drive to South Kirkland to get on a bus into Seattle.  The ST suggestion they could ride a 520 bus to the University light rail station to connect with Central Link ignores the fact that, in another example  of blatant incompetency, ST chose not to locate a T/C near the UW station, making any transfer "problematic".

Their other general comment was they intended to use multiple small “Satellite P&Rs” to replace South Bellevue.   No mention was made of how they intended to route buses to all of these “Satellite P&Rs” and what that would do to commute times.  To be fair Mayor Balducci attempted to get some clarification of these “details” with vague promises of results. The fact ST has spent millions detailing station designs that aren’t needed until 2023 but can’t tell commuters where they will catch a bus in 13 months is another example of their monumental incompetence. 

The BCC needs to recognize ST will never have an adequate plan for replacing the P&R.  The resulting chaos from closure in 2016 for transit commuters will simply be a precursor to the disruption that awaits the entire area when they close the center roadway in 2017 and begin 6 years devastating the route into Bellevue.  All to create a light rail system with the capacity equivalent to a single 74-seat light rail car every two minutes, a far cry from current transit demand, let alone any future growth.  It's way past time for the council to end this debacle, rescind the permits.  

Sound Transit Monumentally Incompetent

(Last night I presented the following at the Bellevue City Council Meeting.  I went home to better hear the Sound Transit response but was unable to view the video until late this morning.  As usual, neither the council nor ST responded to my concerns.  (I say "as usual" because they've both been doing so for nearly 6 years.)  They both still refuse to deal with the fact ST mendacity has made a mockery of the entire environment review process and that East Link's lack of capacity will inevitably lead to gridlock on the I-90 bridge.   Typical of ST they were more concerned about naming the various light rail stations than providing definitive plans to accommodate commuters on the nearly 700 cars using the South Bellevue P&R they plan to shut down next March.

Unfortunately,  the 3-minute limit on presentations didn’t allow me to also include the fact the entire area will pay for ST incompetence.  Not only will its construction costs create a huge financial debt, its operating costs will require ST to provide up to $285M annually to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  (See 1/22/15 post)   Its way past time to end this debacle.)

Sound Transit Monumentally Incompetent

My name is Bill Hirt and I’m here tonight in a last attempt to persuade the council to rescind Sound Transit’s East Link Shoreline permit.  I don’t hear very well so after my last appearance I was forced to view the ST presentation at home.

I was particularly interested in Mr. Lewis’s comments about the importance of the FTA and FHA East Link approval.   What he neglected to mention was the fact their approval was based on the ST Supplemental DEIS.   That was where ST claimed East Link would have no effect on noise levels in the park or substantially affect park use, the park’s features, or diminish the park’s value.  Thus it’s not surprising both organizations chose to approve East Link.  Yet ST has spent years and is here again tonight to explain how they intend to spend millions to mitigate this non-existent noise.  The bottom line is ST mendacity has made a mockery of the whole environmental review process.

ST policies, however, go way beyond such blatant mendacity.  For example, cross-lake commuters have endured years of increased congestion because ST refused to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 outer roadways some15 years ago.  I suspect they did so because of concerns they would be forced to initiate two-way bus only service on the center roadway.  Transit service they knew would be far superior to light rail at a fraction of the cost.  Instead their 2008 DEIS never considered the two-way lanes as the “no-build” option. 

It gets worse.  In 2017, they’ll close the I-90 center roadway even though they know the 4th lanes they’ll have finally added won’t make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.   They’ll spend another two billion over the next 6 years wrecking havoc on commuters and those living along the route completing East Link.   

When it does begin service it will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  What ST promised in 2008 would be the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway, will instead be the equivalent of one 74-seat light rail car every two minutes.  Even worse ST intends to force all transit riders to use this miniscule capacity to commute into and out of Seattle.  The end result will be total gridlock on I-90.

In conclusion, its bad enough ST is mendacious, its far worse they’re also monumentally incompetent.  Your constituents and the entire east side will pay a heavy price if you allow them to continue.  For one last time I ask you to end this debacle “rescind the shoreline permit”.

WSDOT HOT Avarice

The WSDOT plans to initiate HOT lanes between Bellevue and Lynnwood, similar to those on SR 167, is another example of their flawed approach towards dealing with the area’s congestion.  First of all, the SR 167 “pilot program” is hardly a huge success. In 2010 WSDOT reported it cost $18M to create, $2.4M that year to operate and garnered only $316,000 in tolls.   The latest report shows they’ve supposedly managed to reduce costs to $840,000 and increase revenue to $1.02M. Even this somewhat dubious claim of $180,000 positive cash flow is not much return after years of operating loses on an $18M investment. 

On SR167 the WSDOT adjusts the tolls for single occupancy vehicles from $.50 and $9.00, raising the tolls when congestion increases to keep traffic moving 45 mph or faster on HOT lanes.  While the speed advantage is a benefit to those who car pool or are willing to pay up to $9.00, those limited to the regular lanes are undoubtedly facing slower speeds than if the three lanes were available to all the drivers.  The fact that the toll revenue is just a fraction of original projections “suggests” the SR167 HOT lanes are not that beneficial for commuters. 

On I-405 the WSDOT plans to substantially increase the HOT revenue by effectively increasing congestion on the regular lanes.  They do so by making it far more difficult to carpool requiring 3+ rather than 2+ riders to avoid tolls during the peak commute.  They appear more interested in the revenue from those willing to pay to avoid the increased congestion than those having to endure it by being unable or unwilling to pay the $10.00 tolls or find 2 reliable riders. (It’s not clear what gives the WSDOT the authority to arbitrarily redefine carpools and initiate tolling on a federal highway.)  

Again, those unable to carpool or unwilling to pay the HOT tolls will undoubtedly require longer commute times than if they had access to all the lanes.  The Bothell to Bellevue section where they’ve decided on two HOT lanes is a particularly egregious example of WSDOT avarice at the expense of most commuters.  If they really wanted to reduce congestion they could work with Sound Transit to dramatically increase bus service (See 12/23/14 post Easing I-405 Misery Problem").  In the meantime they need to reconsider the 3+ carpool requirement to avoid tolls and the benefits of the second HOT lane on the Bothell-to-Bellevue portion.