An earlier
post included the following letter concerning Sound Transit’s “apparent”
failure to comply with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) regarding planning for their
light rail spine.
Dear Attorney
General Ferguson,
The Revised Code of Washington RCW 81.104.100 details the code
requirement for high capacity transit system planning. RCW 81.104.00 (2) and
section (b) are shown below:
(2) High
capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range
of high capacity transportation system options, including: Do nothing, low
capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities. High capacity
transportation system planning shall proceed as follows:
(b)
Development of options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an
appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A
do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system
shall be developed.
Sound
Transit’s 2008 Draft Environment Impact Statement DEIS included a “no build”
option for their East Link light rail proposal, presumably their response for a
“Do nothing, low capital option”. It included adding 4th lanes to
the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and maintaining current procedure, reversing the
two center roadways for morning and afternoon commutes. They apparently
never considered initiating permanent inbound and outbound bus rapid transit
(BRT) only lanes on the center roadway. Doing so would have provided “low
capital” cross-lake capacity far exceeding light rail.
There is
also no indication Sound Transit ever considered BRT use of limited access HOV
lanes along the I-5 corridor. Again, an option that should have been
considered as a “do nothing, low capital,” response to the RCW.
Especially in view of the Seattle Downtown Transit Tunnel limitations on
light rail capacity.
Surely your
office has a responsibility to require Sound Transit comply with the RCW.
The
Attorney General’s Office response included the following:
We
referred your complaint to the following agency. Please contact the identified
agency directly with questions about the status of your complaint.
Sound
Transit Board of Directors
c/o Board
Administrator
401 Jackson
S
Seattle, WA
98104
I wasn't "surprised" Attorney General Ferguson refused to respond as he has done so earlier when I contacted his office regarding WSDOT lawyers claims about I-90 outer roadway capacity and light rail noise impact on Mercer Slough Park. I was “surprised”
Sound Transit chose to respond since they had ignored countless emails
concerning their “Prop 1 and Beyond” extensions. Apparently the Attorney General’s letter “persuaded them’. What was even more of a “surprise” was the below
response (the italics are mine).
Dear Mr. Hirt,
Sound
Transit is in receipt of a complaint you filed with
the Attorney General’s office asserting that Sound
Transit failed to comply with RCW 81.104.100 in the development of options for the 1-90 Project.
As you noted
in your complaint, Chapter 81.104 RCW requires development of a high
capacity transportation system plan, and RCW 81.104.100
specifically sets forth the requirements that must be included in that system-wide
plan. Sound Transit developed draft and
final system plans that complied with these requirements and
included extensive public outreach from 2005 to 2008. Draft and
final supplemental environmental impact statements (EISs) on the
updated system-wide plan were prepared in 2004 and 2005 respectively. The
decision to implement East Link light rail was made as part of Sound
Transit 2 (ST2), the system plan that was
adopted by the Sound Transit Board and authorized by voters in Sound Transit’s
taxing district in 2008.
Project level reviews are not subject to the requirements
in RCW 81.104.100. As noted in
your complaint, the project level review of the East Link project did include a no-build
option. Your presumption that this was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b)
is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to
system-wide plans, not project level reviews.
HOV lanes on 1-90 were
evaluated as part of the 1-90 Two-Way
Transit and HOV project (also known as R8A]. This
project is not a part of the
East Link project. Draft and final EISs were prepared for the
project in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Your
assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the
center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement
outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced.
As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews. In
addition, the project did evaluate conversion of the center roadway to two-way
bus and operation, among other alternatives. The project to build chosen by the
Sound Transit Board for the project includes lanes on the outer roadways of and
the work to add those lanes will be completed this year.
Sincerely,
Amy Joe
Pearsall
Senior Legal Counsel
Senior Legal Counsel
Their response should not have been a “surprise", as it typifies the level of “competence” Sound Transit has shown over the last several years with their "Prop 1 and Beyond" light rail extensions as a way to deal with the area's transportation problems. First of all my “complaint” concerned
Sound Transit’s apparent failure to comply with the RCW planning requirements
for the entire light rail spine.
There has never been any indication Sound Transit ever considered bus
rapid transit (BRT) along a limited access HOV lane as a “low-cost” alternative
to the Central Link extension now planned from Everett to Tacoma. Money that could have been spent adding
thousands of P&R stalls for access to BRT has instead been spent on light
rail extensions whose capacity will be limited by the Downtown Seattle Transit
Tunnel to a fraction of potential BRT capacity.
Second the
“legal council” neglected to refer to any documentation showing Sound Transit “complied
with these (RCW) requirements” for planning for any of the light rail spine extensions that are presumably part of the "system wide" plan. (What
difference does it make as to how ”the decision to implement East Link light
rail was made” if they ignored the RCW 81.04.100 planning requirements?) Even more absurd, the “legal council” claims East Link is not required to meet RCW 81.104. 100(2)(b) since "this statutory requirement applies to system wide plans, not project level reviews".
It’s not
clear why East Link is a “Project Level” review rather than a “System Wide”
project. Also what is Sound
Transit’s basis for claiming “Project Level reviews are not subject to
RCW81.104.100(2)(b)". If, as the
letter claims, ”project did evaluate conversion of the center roadway to
two-way bus”, why did they do so, and why wasn’t it considered as the “no build” option in the 2008
DEIS?
Again, the
bottom line is the Sound Transit letter exemplifies their level of “competence”
when it comes to dealing with the area’s transportation problems. They simply ignore the fact they failed
to comply with RCW on the light rail spine between Everett and Tacoma. Maybe they considered it another “Project
Level Review”. Only a Dow
Constantine led Sound Transit Board would claim East Link does not have to meet the RCW. The entire area will pay a
heavy price if they are allowed to continue.
P.S. 2/18/17
I decided to
send the following to Attorney General Ferguson. I will post his response if
he chooses to do so.
Dear Attorney
General Ferguson,
As your office
suggested the Sound Transit Lead Legal Council responded to my concerns about
their apparent failure to comply with RCW 81.104.00 (2) (b) regarding planning
for their light rail spine. Does
your office concur with the following response?
Project level reviews are not subject to the requirements in RCW 81.104.100. As noted in your complaint, the project level review of the East Link project did include a no-build option. Your presumption that this was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project level reviews.
Sincerely
Bill Hirt
No comments:
Post a Comment