How BCC Should Respond to ST3

I doubt if many of those who watched the April 25^th Bellevue City Council meeting on TV or later viewed the video were favorably impressed by the council’s approach to their April 29^th response to ST3 proposal.  What was billed as the council’s approval of their transportation staff’s “final” draft response was anything but an “approval”.  

The draft was supposedly the result of several months of consultations with the staff and Sound Transit to update their January ST3 response. Yet every councilmember had some objections.  For example one suggestion was to ask Sound Transit to come out with an interim “ST2.5 proposal” rather than ST3.  How’s that for a last minute change?

Others expressed concern over the lack of sub-area equity, transparency, cost, or whether Issaquah-to-Bellevue should be light rail or BRT.  They all seemed enthused by BRT without recognizing the lack of ST3 funding for the thousands of additional parking spaces needed to make it effective. 

Both the draft and all of the council’s comments ignored the concerns in my earlier presentation about the ST3 failure to accommodate cross-lake commuters or reduce I-90 Eastgate congestion.   It makes one wonder whether anyone on the transportation staff or council had every experienced either.

I’m curious as to how the transportation staff will respond to all the council ST3 “suggestions”.   Presumably they’ll submit the "final" version to the Bellevue Reporter for publication telling residents what they’ve asked for in exchange for the hundreds if not thousands they’ll be forced to pay each year for the next 25 years if ST3 passes.

My response from the council would have been as follows;

The Bellevue City Council believes the current Sound Transit ST3 proposal fails to address the congestion commuters from throughout the east side face during their daily commutes both into and out of Seattle, and into and out of Bellevue.  ST3 funding perpetuates an ST2 Prop 1 East Link light rail system whose capacity will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes or about 4500 riders per hour. 

Thus ST3 does nothing to provide the capacity needed for current peak cross-lake transit demand let alone any future growth.  The only way to do so is to initiate BRT on both the I-90 and ST520 Bridges.  BRT on the I-90 Bridge would use the two center roadway lanes for inbound and outbound buses only.  BRT on SR520 would use the HOV lanes with +3 riders required during peak commuter hours.

I-90 BRT would avoid the likely gridlock on the outer roadways resulting from closing the center roadway, the disruption to those living near or commuting on 112^th Ave from light rail construction, the impact on downtown Bellevue from the need to tunnel under the city, and the loss of transit access from the closure of the South Bellevue P&R.  

SR520 BRT to a T/C at the University Link light rail station near the stadium would provide thousands of cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake with a combined BRT/Light rail commute.  The University Link has twice East Link's  capacity and BRT riders could avoid paying bridge tolls and downtown parking fees.  Both could begin operation in 2017 yet ST3 precludes I-90 BRT and ignores BRT on SR520.

Light rail funds should be used to add thousands of parking spaces to existing and new P&R facilities with direct BRT routes either into Seattle or Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  Thousands of eastside commuters would be able to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work easing congestion throughout the area.  Since all of this could be easily done with existing Prop 1 funds the council recommends eastside voters reject ST3. 

Bellevue City Council Should Reject ST3

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council at their 4/25/16 meeting where one of the agenda items was the council’s approval of the Bellevue transportation staff’s April 29^th response to Sound Transit’s ST3 proposal.  As expected they ignored it during their subsequent discussions about the staff's response.  They refuse to accept the fact that East Link's one 74-seat light rail car every 2 minutes doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate current transit ridership let alone any future growth.  They made a big deal about sub-area equity in spending but ignored the lack of benefits for eastside commuters, particularly cross-lake commuters.

Bellevue City Council Should Reject ST3

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to urge the council tell Sound Transit in their April 29^th ST3 response that its current proposal does not adequately address the transit needs of eastside cross-lake commuters. The vast majority of I-90 commuters won’t even be able to access the limited light rail capacity with East Link’s one 4-car train every 8-minute schedule.  That bus rapid transit (BRT) is the only way to provide the needed cross-lake capacity on both the I-90 and SR520 bridges.  BRT has ten times East Link capacity, at 1/10^th the cost, and could begin operation in 2017, not 2023.

The way to provide access to this cross-lake capacity is to add thousands of parking spaces to existing and new eastside P&R lots.  The combination of the adding parking and increased transit capacity would reduce congestion throughout the east side by allowing thousands of commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.  ST3 will do neither forcing eastside residents to continue enduring the ever-increasing congestion during their daily commutes not only into and out of Seattle, but also into and out of Bellevue.  The idea they should be expected to pay hundreds if not thousands each year for a light rail line between Issaquah and Bellevue in 2041 or towards a $4.4B subway to Ballard in 2038 is absurd.

Rather than approving ST3 the council should “recommend” Sound Transit initiate two-way BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway in 2017.   Doing so would eliminate the disruption to those living near or commuting along 112^th, the tunnel excavation under Bellevue, and the closure of the South Bellevue P&R.  It would also keep Sound Transit from closing bridge center roadway for light rail without ever demonstrating outer roadway could accommodate all cross lake vehicles.

SR520 BRT to a T/C at the UW light rail station could facilitate transit for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.  Light rail funds could be used to begin adding P&R capacity and initiate BRT on both bridges next year.  The council surely has an obligation to recommend Sound Transit do so rather than agreeing to an ST3 debacle that will do neither. 

Mobility 21 Ignores BRT Congestion Relief

(I submitted the following to the Bellevue Reporter in response to the “Kemper Freeman transportation plan" in their 4/15/16 edition)

Mobility 21 Ignores BRT Congestion Relief

The Kemper Freeman Mobility 21 contention in the April 15^th Bellevue American that “light rail is not the answer” is well founded.  However, the claim the regional plan “is too Seattle-centric” ignores the reality the desired destination for the majority of commuters, wherever they live, is in Seattle.  The claim the plan “focuses too heavily on transit” fails to identify the real problem; Sound Transit’s decision to emphasize light rail rather then bus rapid transit (BRT) for the area’s commuters. 

The fact the Freeman team only wants to “contain light rail to what already had a record of decision” presumably means they concur with Sound Transit proceeding with the Prop 1 extensions. Limiting light rail extensions after Prop I wastes billions.  It allows Sound Transit to spend billions on an East Link light rail system that will increase rather than decrease I-90 Bridge congestion. While the billions Sound Transit will spend on Central Link extensions to Lynnwood won’t increase congestion, they will do little if anything to reduce I-5 travel times for the vast majority of commuters.

They use the fact that only 2.9% of commuters use mass transit to justify the claim that “highways would continue to be the future under the Mobility 21 plan”.  Yet, the likely reason for the limited mass transit use is the vast majority of commuters don’t have access to it.  The less than 10,000 parking spaces in the major King County P&R lots are already more than 95% ”in use”.   Those finding parking will likely be forced to commute on “standing-room-only” buses during peak commute. 

Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine is right with his claim “the age of freeway building is over” as its “unlikely” highway lanes, that could be added on I-5 and I-90, would significantly reduce congestion. While light rail capacity far exceeds that of highway lanes, Constantine’s 16,000-rider-per-hour-capacity claim is nearly double the 8880 level the PSRC concluded due to Seattle tunnel restrictions. Even this capacity requires Sound Transit provide access via bus routes from P&R lots since few commuters will live within walking distance of light rail stations and parking will be limited. Yet Sound Transit Prop 1 funding doesn’t appear to provide increased access.   While existing bus routes could be routed to light rail stations, doing so will have a miniscule effect on congestion.

Even Constantine’s “optimistic” light rail estimate is only a fraction of potential bus rapid transit (BRT) capacity.  A bus-only lane can easily accommodate more than 1000 buses dwarfing light rail capacity. Rather than routing buses to light rail stations they could be routed directly into Seattle (or Bellevue and Overlake T/C) eliminating the need to spend billions on light rail tracks.  The bus routes could take advantage of two-way bus only lanes on the I-90 Bridge center roadway and limiting I-5 express lanes to buses only or +3HOV traffic.

The way to reduce congestion is to take advantage of the BRT capacity by adding thousands of parking spaces.  Survey all the major employment centers in the area asking when and where commuters would like to leave their cars.  Use the results to prioritize locations for adding 10,000 or more parking spaces each year to existing or new P&Rs and connecting bus routes.  The added parking and connecting bus routes would cost far less than what Sound Transit will spend on light rail. 

After 10 years the added highway lanes Mobility 21 seems to propose will require parking near where the 100,000 or more commuters “work”.  With BRT they can do so near where they live.  The choice seems obvious.

Flocking To Buses!

The “Flocking to Buses” article in the April 11^th Seattle Times raises some “interesting” issues. The fact that 19,000 more commuters chose buses in 2014 than in 2010 to make Seattle’s 78,000 bus riders second only to San Francisco in bus ridership attests to the willingness to use public transit.  (It’s unfortunate no information was apparently available as to why the 189,947 commuters continue to “drive alone”.)

The article made no mention of light rail ridership.  If they had, the 2014 Sound Transit year-end ridership report of about 18,000 weekday riders would rank somewhat more than the 14,157 who rode bikes.  The billions spent on East Link has resulted in light rail ridership that’s a fraction of the local bus ridership and miniscule when compared to the 425,000 daily BART riders in San Francisco area. 

Seattle’s bus ridership comes at a cost. King County Metro reportedly spends nearly 50% more on operating costs per capita ($284) than Denver RTD, Orange County, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose.  It’s not clear how much Seattle households currently pay in taxes and fees for the bus and light rail service.  Whatever it costs, it likely “pales in comparison” to the $2800 a household will pay annually (per Seattle Times 4/03/16 editorial) for transit if ST3 is approved. 

Those who currently use Central Link will get very little if any benefit from ST3.  Other potential Seattle light rail riders will have to wait until 2033 for West Seattle service and 2038 for light rail service to Ballard.  That might be a “tough sale” for not only transit riders in those areas but particularly those who rarely use transit.

The article also suggests the 60,000 who commute by bus in King County outside of Seattle reflect less interest in the suburbs.  The reality is far fewer suburban commuters live within walking distance of a bus route. The only access for many potential transit commuters is via a local P&R.  The fact that 60,000 currently do so despite the fact there are only about 10,000 parking spaces in King County P&R lots attests to the popularity of buses for those with access.  (The Crossroad's success is presumably due to large numbers who have access by living near bus stops.)    

Thus the obvious way to improve the “slow crawl on I-5” is to add access to transit via thousands of added parking spaces with increased bus service into the city.  Unfortunately Sound Transit doesn’t “recognize” that reality. They persist in plans to spend billions on light rail extensions to increase transit capacity without recognizing the need to add the P&R capacity and bus routes needed to access that capacity.  Thus, the vast majority of those with access to light rail will be those who previously rode buses.   Reducing the number of buses on I-5 will have a miniscule effect on congestion. 

Sound Transit’s lack of “recognition” of the need for added parking and bus service may or may not reflect the fact that once you add the parking the buses can be routed directly into Seattle negating the need to spend billions on light rail.     They could add 100 bus routes an hour to one of the two HOV lanes, achieving the same increased transit capacity as Central Link Prop 1 extension without spending a dime on light rail. 

They could reduce transit times for the added bus routes by limiting the HOV lane to only buses or +3 HOV traffic.  Egress and access in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated, two-way, bus-only T/C with designated drop-off and pick up for each route on each side.   Commuters on I-5 south, I-90, ST 520 will all similarly benefit from added parking and bus routes.  They could begin doing so next year.   

Again, the way to reduce the area’s congestion is to convince Sound Transit to provide access for thousands more commuters from throughout the area to “Flock towards Buses”.

Candidacy Announcement to Bellevue City Council,

The lack of media response to my post announcing my candidacy for governor prompted me to use the following to do so during the Bellevue City Council’s Public comment portion of their April 11^th meeting. 

Dear Bellevue City Council,

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  More than 7 years ago I first told the council that Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS was sheer fantasy.  That light rail across I-90 would never have the capacity needed to meet current peak transit demand let alone their projected 60% increase.   That Sound Transit’s decision to never consider bus rapid transit (BRT) on the I-90 Bridge center roadway for cross-lake transit had been a major blunder.   That Sound Transit had perpetuated that blunder by refusing to move non-transit HOV to their long-planned 4^th-lane additions to the bridge outer roadways.  That thousands of cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake have endured years of increased congestion because of the 4^th lane delays.  

The council could have stopped East Link by disallowing any of the ten permits Sound Transit needed to begin construction.  Instead you simply ignored all my concerns.    As a result ST will soon begin disrupting downtown Bellevue for 4½ years creating a light rail tunnel under the city.  Next year they will permanently close the I-90 Bridge center roadway without ever demonstrating the outer roadway can accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles.   

They’ll spend the next 6 years devastating the route into Bellevue disrupting all those how live near or commute along 112^th.   All to create a light rail system that the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t even have access to.   Topping that debacle, the council apparently concurred with Sound Transit asking eastside residents pay hundreds if not thousands more each year for an ST3 proposal that will get them a light rail line between Bellevue and Issaquah in 2041. 

I’m here tonight to announce my intent to make people aware of the debacle awaiting them by filing as a candidate for governor.  You may remember it was a little girl who told the village the "King has no clothes!" in Hans Christian Anderson's fable.  My goal is to tell the whole state that, not only will East Link increase not decrease I-90 congestion, that the billions spent on Central Link Prop 1 extensions will do very little if anything to ease I-5 congestion.  That ST3 perpetuates this fraud and should be rejected.

The "Beginning of the End" of ST3

The Seattle Times 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” marks the “beginning of the end” of Sound Transit’s ST3 funding proposal.   The Time’s decision to finally question Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine’s veracity, the “wisdom” of committing to spend $50 billion over the next 25 years on light rail extensions, along with including the anticipated $2800 annual cost per household is truly a watershed event.

I used the adverb “finally” since the Times, until recently, was actively supporting Sound Transit light rail extension efforts.   They were the ones who last year urged the legislature allow Sound Transit ask voters to approve an additional billion dollars a year in taxes and fees for the next 15 years.  They apparently agreed with Dow Constantine’s fanciful “vision” for ST3 when the legislation was approved. 

“What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school”    

Last October they co-sponsored a “Livewire Event” with Sound Transit dealing with the areas transportation problems that essentially substantiated  ST3 plans.  In December they heralded Sound Transits plans for a second tunnel and separate light rail extension to Everett as part of ST3.   As recently as a March 29^th article about Dow Constantine’s “State of the County” presentation extolling the benefits of ST3, the Times uncritically reported the only “push back” was for “more light rail, sooner”.    

The Times transformation from “Cheerleader to Critic” even at this late date should be welcomed by all.   (I‘ll leave it to others to decide whether any of the many posts I referred them to on this blog critical of ST3 had any influence.)   It may even convince the Sound Transit Board to concede the likely failure of ST3 this fall and “reconsider” their options not only for ST3 but Prop 1 extensions as well.      

The Times editorial, while accurately critiquing ST3 “problems”, does little to propose "solutions" for Sound Transit to consider.  For example they could “expand” on the editorial comment “I-5 is already heavily used by buses” by suggesting Sound Transit “options” include bus rapid transit (BRT) in combination with added P&R capacity as a way of dramatically increasing transit capacity into the city without spending billions on light rail.  

Another “option” would be to devote a fraction of the $2 billion Sound Transit will spend extending light rail to Northgate adding a T/C at the UW light rail station that could serve as an interface between BRT and light rail for thousands of SR-520 transit commuters from both sides of the lake.  

The BRT “option” on the I-90 Bridge center roadway, again in combination with added P&R capacity, could provide far more transit capacity than light rail.   (It would also end the absurdity of Sound Transit closing the center roadway next year for East Link without ever demonstrating the outer roadway could accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles.)  

Sound Transit could begin adding parking and BRT service next year with a fraction of the funds they would spend closing down the center roadway and spending six years on East Link.  Any remaining East Link funds would be far better spent on a West Link to West Seattle.

The Times may not be there yet, but their editorial is a welcome “start”.

Candidacy for Governor

I plan to submit the following announcement of my candidacy for governor to the Seattle Times and Bellevue Reporter.   I will also post it and refer it to the Sound Transit Board, House and Senate Transportation Committee members, King County, Seattle and eastside city councils, and area’s TV news investigators. 

Candidacy for Governor,

Once again I’ve decided to file as a candidate for elective office, primarily to raise concerns about the failure of those responsible to effectively deal with the area’s transportation mess.  It’s an effort that began more than 7 years ago when I attempted to persuade the Bellevue City Council that Sound Transit’s East Link DEIS was pure fantasy. 

Three years of futile appearances before the council led to my creating the blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com and 4 candidacies (2 for 48^th District legislature and 2 for Bellevue City Council.) to attract viewers.    My candidacies, while admittedly inept, along with frequent emails referring the Sound Transit Board, Seattle Times, local TV news “Investigators”, House and Senate Transportation committee members, King County Council, the Seattle and Eastside City Councils, and others to the blog have attracted nearly 33,000 page views without a single serious rebuttal. 

Unfortunately, as the old saying goes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”.   Those who could really make a “difference” are quietly acquiescing to, if not cheering on those unable to effectively deal with the problems.   I’ve therefore decided to file as a candidate where I can show more “horses the water” regarding reducing the area’s congestion. 

Dow Constantine’s not running this year and the Lt. Governor position has apparently attracted a large number of candidates.  Thus I’ve decided to file for governor to avoid being one of the “crowd”.  As before, my only significant campaign expenditure will be the filing fee and I will not accept any financial support.   I will likely decline most public appearances as I am far more comfortable using my blog to detail my concerns as my hearing problems and frequent failure to speak coherently degrade my effectiveness in front of an audience.       

As a candidate I intend to advocate for rejecting ST3 in favor of bus rapid transit (BRT) for reducing the area’s congestion.  BRT in combination with thousands of parking spaces added to existing and new P&R facilities could allow thousands of commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.  Sound Transit, beginning next year, could use the existing Prop 1 funding to add 10,000 parking spaces and connecting BRT service each year for the next ten years.  The result would dwarf any potential transit benefits from their $50B, 25 year ST3 proposal. 

I will also advocate for stopping the WSDOT attempts to add HOT lanes between Bellevue and Renton or any other highway in the state. Part of the $1.3B the WSDOT has budgeted for the Bellevue to Renton portion should be spent adding a 4^th lane to I-405 between Lynnwood and Bothell for HOV.  Until it’s completed the existing three lanes should all be used as general-purpose lanes as should one of the two existing HOT lanes between Bothell and Bellevue.

I will also “suggest” that Gov Inslee spend more time dealing with the state’s problems rather than grandstanding as one of the leading climate “saviors” with his proposals to reduce CO2 emissions.  His credibility as an environmental steward of the state’s natural resources is debunked by his support for using a huge share of our hydropower and water to convert Canadian natural gas into methanol for China. 

Again, I look forward to using my blog to expound further on these and other issues affecting voters throughout the state.   While it's "unlikely" I'll win my hope is it will convince enough “horses to drink the water” to make a difference.