County Executive Voters' Pamphlet Candidate Statement

(I intend to send the following out to the local media outlets as a follow-up to my earlier County Executive candidate announcement.)

County Executive Voters’ Pamphlet Candidate Statement

My candidacy goal is to inform the area about Dow Constantine’s failure to use his position as County Executive to promote Sound Transit Board policies that effectively deal with the area’s transportation crisis. I have no expectation or desire to win and will not seek nor accept any contributions. 

My campaign will use the voter’s pamphlet to attract attention to the 400 posts on my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com detailing my concerns.   Sound Transit violated the RCW when it refused to consider lower cost alternatives for their light rail “spine” along I-5 corridor and across I-90 Bridge.  They could have eased congestion years ago by attracting more transit riders by adding P&R stalls with access to BRT routes along limited access lanes on both corridors.

Instead they route the “spine” through the DSTT, limiting capacity to the point where Sound Transit will use the vast majority of the $54 billion from ST3 to create light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on I-5.   That the confiscation of the I-90 bridge center roadway for the East Link portion of the spine will increase, not decrease congestion on that roadway. 

Prior to the ST3 vote Constantine’s hand picked Expert Review Panel lied to the public claiming ST3 would only increase average costs by $169.  They did so by assuming the median car value was $5333 for license tab fees and property values of $360,776 for added taxes, neither of which represented most residents.  They managed to pass ST3 because 70% of Seattle voters approved it, yet they’ll have to wait 20-25 years for Ballard and West Seattle extensions. 

While it’s not likely my efforts will stop current Sound Transit plans, my goal is to tell commuters what to expect and that it didn’t have to happen.

The East Link Debacle Continues

The March 14^th Seattle Times front page “Traffic Lab” article, “I-90 light-rail cost estimate takes a $225 million jump” is just the latest chapter in the saga dealing with an East Link problem that began nearly 12 years ago.

East Link was the first attempt to put light rail on a “floating bridge”.  The problem was assuring the “expansion joints” connecting the floating and fixed portions of the bridge could withstand the loads from light rail trains.  In Sept 2005, the WSDOT thought they'd demonstrated the I-90 Bridge/light rail compatibility using flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars. They claimed the “results of the test confirmed previous findings that the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration, in addition to general traffic on the roadway”.

Apparently the Washington Sate Legislature Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) was not satisfied because they commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail.  The results of the IRT study included the following:

Several issues could affect project cost estimates and schedules and therefore should be resolved at the earliest states of the project design.  One issue deals with a required design element (LRT Expansion Joint Tract Bridge) has no history of use on floating bridges, and therefore requires careful study and testing in the early stages of the project.

Since many of the issues require additional study, analysis, and design the IRT recommends that an independent review or peer review panel be organized to provide oversight throughout the LRT East Link design process.

In response to these IRT concerns ST, three months later in the Dec 2008 DEIS included the following statement regarding floating bridge/light rail compatibility:

The IRT concluded that all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration had similar concerns in a February 2009 letter responding to Sound Transits 2008 DEIS for the East Link Project included the following:

“We do not agree that there has been enough work done to justify the conclusion that it is feasible to design a light rail track system to accommodate the movements of the I-90 floating bridge” and “there is additional work to be done to determine if it is feasible to design an expansion joint to accommodate light rail”.

Yet, two years later the ST 2011 FEIS included the same confident response as the 2008 DEIS.   

Finally in 2012, four years after the IRT recommended “careful study and testing in the early stages of the project” ST signed a $28M (later $36M) contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to finish the design.  It was presumably their expansion joint design ST demonstrated at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.  The tests, conducted during the summer and fall of 2013, were initially reported to be a success with claims their design passed with “flying colors”.

Later, in a Jan 16^th 2015 meeting with Bellevue City Council, ST claimed that, while they had not completed the bridge design, they still didn’t think it was a major problem.   However they waited until August to announce plans to spend another $20 million to complete the design.  While the Sound Transit board was reportedly “disappointed” with the recent design problems the WSDOT told them:

“We have not indentified any fatal flaws that would prevent light rail from being installed on this corridor”

Yet nine months later the March 24^th 2016 Sound Transit board minutes included the following regarding the East Link extension:

“In the I-90 corridor the system design is at 90% and civil design is advancing to 90%.  The independent review team (IRT) identified 23 issues as part of the preliminary engineering. Twenty-two issues have been closed and the staff is working to close the final issue.” 

The fact that ST spent $38M on a design that initially passed with “flying colors” but subsequently “crashed” suggests the problems are, if not “fatal”, surely “serious”.  That more effort was still needed nearly 9 months after signing the contract extension "suggests" the serious nature of the problem.

Now, twelve months later and more than two years after ST told the Bellevue City Council what wasn’t a major problem has required adding $225 million to the $486 million construction cost.  Nearly 18 months after “disappointment” in August 2015 about spending $20 million completing the design the board apparently had no problem spending more than ten times that amount to fix the "flaws". 

And the FHWA apparently has yet to approve the design.  It’s also not clear whether the FHWA has approved ST closing the I-90 center roadway without some demonstration the R-8A configuration, which add the fourth lane to the outer roadways, can accommodate all cross lake vehicles; refuting their 2004 ROD conclusion the center roadway was still needed for vehicles.  

Assuming East Link is allowed to proceed, the added $225 million simply adds to the cost of a fatally flawed light rail system. The East Link share of the DSTT capacity will provide about half the current peak bus capacity.  That the only access to this limited capacity for I-90 corridor commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R doing nothing to ease the current congestion along that corridor.  And East Link’s confiscation of center roadway will “likely” lead to increased outer roadway congestion.  ST refuses to add the thousands of parking stalls needed to allow more commuters to use transit to even reach South Belllevue.

The bottom line is the vast majority of cross-lake commuters will never be able to use East Link leaving them the choice between paying very expensive fees on HOT lane or frequent gridlock on GP lanes.  And now they're going to be required to pay even more.

That surely qualifies as a debacle. 

County Executive Candidacy Announcement.

I wrote the following intending to present it during the comment period at the March 23rd Sound Transit Board meeting.   As sort of a last step I checked their agenda and found the following:

The Board will accept public comment on business items on the agenda.

Needless to say “candidate announcement” wasn’t on the agenda so I’m posting it.

 County Executive Candidacy Announcement.

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE in Bellevue.  I am here this afternoon in response to plans for Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s co-hosting a campaign-funding event for County Executive Dow Constantine this evening.  I thought it appropriate that I use this opportunity to announce I also intend to file for the office of County Executive.  My campaign however will not seek nor accept any contributions.   I also have no expectation or desire to win and intend to limit my public appearances.

My candidacy is an attempt to use the voter’s pamphlet to attract attention to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com .  It details the following concerns with Dow Constantine’s Sound Transit leadership.   The first is the vast majority of the $54 billion Sound Transit will use to create a light rail spine will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion on I-5.   That the confiscation of the I-90 bridge center roadway for the East Link portion of the spine will increase, not decrease, congestion on that roadway. 

The second is that ST3 funds should be used to expedite light rail extensions to West Seattle and Ballard.  ST3 was approved because 70% of Seattle voters supported it.  They surely deserve to get some benefits in the next 5-7 years not 20 to 25.

While it’s likely my efforts will fail to stop current plans, my goal is to tell commuters what to expect from Sound Transit and that it didn’t have to happen.

Why Mercer Island Should Sue Sound Transit

(I wrote the following in response to Mercer Island plans for legal action against Sound Transit.)

Why Mercer Island Should Sue Sound Transit

The entire area could benefit if Mercer Island sued Sound Transit to block East Link construction.  East Link exemplifies Sound Transit’s historic failure to address the congestion problem facing the entire area’s commuters.  However Islanders will pay an especially heavy price.

Barring additional roadway lanes the only way to reduce congestion is to dramatically increase the 10% of commuters who use public transit.  Doing so requires providing transit capacity, transit access, and transit routes to where commuters wish to go.   Sound Transit’s Prop 1 and ST3 “beyond Prop 1” proposals provide neither the capacity nor the access.

The Sound Transit 2008 DEIS promised East Link would have the capacity of up to 24,000 riders per hour (rph), the equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway, and will increase cross lake transit capacity by 60%.  Also, travel times across I-90 for vehicles would improve or remain similar with East Link

A 2004 PSRC Report concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) would limit the light rail spine to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd).  East Link’s share of DSTT capacity will be a fraction of the promised DEIS capacity.    A 2004 FHWA ROD concluded the center roadway was still needed for vehicles once ST had added 4^th lanes to outer roadways.  Seventy-five minute commutes on I-5 HOV lanes between Everett and Seattle exemplify the “likely” result. 

Sound Transit’s East Link extension website features a video whose narrative describes operation as 3 or 4 car trains every 8 to 10 minutes.  As a result, East Link, at best, will have about half the current peak bus capacity.  Mercer Island commuters will pay an especially heavy price since, at least during peak commute, East Link trains will be full before they ever reach the island. 

Those unable to use East Link will face long lines on whatever SOV onramps the FHWA agrees to.  Being the last with access to I-90 will likely increase the delays.  Once on I-90, they will, like all cross-lake commuters, be forced to chose between paying very expensive tolls on HOT lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.

It didn’t have to happen. Fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit commuters.    They could have complied with RCW HCT planning requirements by considering two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway as the “no build” option in 2008 DEIS.   It would have been infinitely better than light rail for transit commuters with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost. 

The hundreds of millions spent on light rail planning could have been spent adding thousands of parking stalls at existing and new P&R lots.  Each P&R could have its own BRT route directly into Seattle or Bellevue.  Commuters would be allowed to leave the car near where they live easing congestion throughout the east side.   Mercer Island’s loss of center roadway SOV access would be offset by additional parking at P&Rs with direct BRT routes into Seattle or Bellevue

Instead ST delayed adding the 4^th lanes to I-90 Bridge outer roadways forcing thousands of cross-lake commuter from both sides of the lake, but especially “reverse commuters”, to endure years of additional congestion.   Doing so avoided concerns they would be asked to initiate inbound and outbound BRT on center roadway that would have ended any thoughts of installing light rail.  

They were also concerned temporarily closing center roadway to refute FHWA claim the center roadway was still needed for vehicles would fail to do so.  Their 4^th lane activation this summer just prior to beginning center roadway construction precluded both.  Their ST3 plans also included no funding for added Mercer Island parking.

The WSDOT has gone along with ST not demonstrating outer roadway capacity.   I’ll leave it to others to decide whether their decision was “influenced” by the potential for increased revenue from HOT lanes on I-90 Bridge they anticipated in 2007 as being needed to maintain 45 mph on HOV lanes with added congestion.  Also whether the potential for added SR-520 tolls from those who previously used I-90 contributed.  Others could also decide whether Sound Transit’s decision not to include 520 BRT in ST3 that would cut toll revenue contributed to WSDOT decision. 

The bottom line is Mercer Island should sue to stop East Link because its operation will essentially end Islander easy access to Seattle.  Not only are they the ones most adversely affected, they will likely pay the most to fund it.   Their property valuations will likely be 3-4 times and their “mean car values” 8-10 times those Sound Transit used to estimate ST3 yearly costs.

However, the best reason of all is it should be an easy case to win.   Sound Transit clearly violated RCW 81.104.00 (2) (b) regarding planning for their light rail spine.  Their lead council conceded they didn’t consider the “low cost” option the RCW required for East Link claiming they weren’t required to comply.  While I’m a retired engineer, my limited legal background “suggests” Mercer Island could successfully use the courts to block East Link. 

The only question is whether they will.  The entire area will benefit if they do. 

A.G. Ferguson Ignores Sound Transit RCW Violation,

As promised earlier this post details Attorney General Ferguson’s office response to the below email:

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

I received the following response from the Attorney General’s office.

Dear Mr. Hirt:

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the office of the Attorney General regarding Sound Transit RCW compliance.

As stated in my prior correspondence to you on March 5, 2009, March 17, 2009, September 26, 2011 and December 26 2014, regarding Sound Transit, our office does not advise or represent regional transit authorities, nor does our office have the role of supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities.  Furthermore, I previously pointed out that we are not in a position to provide legal advice or representation to private citizens.  The authority of our office may be found in RCW 43.10.030 and RCW 43.10.040.

Sincerely,

BRYCE E. Brown

Senior Assistant Attorney General

The earlier letters were Attorney Brown’s response to my concerns Sound Transit had “deceived” voters with claims in their 2008 DEIS that East Link was the “equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway” across I-90 Bridge. That WSDOT lawyers had “misled” a federal judge, citing a 2004 FHWA ROD as justifying the claim the R-8A configuration allowed center roadway be used for light rail despite the fact the ROD required maintaining center roadway lanes for vehicles. 

That Sound Transit had made a mockery of environmental laws when they told the FTA and FHWA that light rail noise would have no impact on Mercer Slough park while committing to spend millions shielding properties hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway.

While I never asked for any legal advice or representation, Brown’s response raises the question as to who is responsible for “supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities” when it comes to complying with the Revised Code of Washington.  An earlier complaint to the Attorney Generals office merited the following response:

Dear William James Hirt,

Thank you for contacting the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office. Your complaint has been reviewed and it was determined that the issues presented are under the regulatory authority of another agency. Your complaint has been closed accordingly.

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

Thus at least the Consumer Protection Division in the Attorney General’s office thought “someone” should respond.  The fact they chose to assign that responsibility to Sound Transit is like asking the “fox to protect the chicken house”.  Even worse, Sound Transit’s failure to consider “low cost” options will be exacerbated by their failure to recognize the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel limitations on capacity, trivializing any congestion improvements and wrecking havoc on any cost/benefit analysis for not only East Link but the entire light rail spine.   

The bottom line is if Attorney General Ferguson’s office isn’t responsible for assuring Sound Transit complies with the RCW, who is?   Failure to comply should be grounds for stopping Sound Transit from proceeding until they do so.  As it is, the area’s “chickens,” be they tax payers or commuters, will pay a heavy price if the “fox” is allowed to proceed

Rogoff’s Constantine Campaign Benefit?

A cynic “might” conclude Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s decision to host a political fundraiser for County Executive Dow Constantine’s upcoming re-election was in response to Constantine’s part in his selection in 2015.   Constantine has to be pleased Rogoff has continued to emphasize light rail as the answer to the areas transportation crisis, whether or not that played any part in his selection.  

Especially since Rogoff's claims regarding light rail led to ST3 approval mean major efforts will soon begin on the Constantine Sound Transit Board goal for a light rail spine between Everett and Tacoma along I-5 corridor and across Lake Washington through Bellevue to Redmond.   Rogoff will play a major roll in deciding how $54 billion will be spent over the next 25 years, mostly on the light rail spine.   

It’s “possible” some of those “other transportation leaders” invited to the fundraiser might be interested in “participating” in that effort.  Construction companies have been known to support Republicans while their labor unions support Democrats.  Both may feel a significant contribution to the Constantine campaign “wouldn’t hurt”.   Sound Transit Board members as well as Sound Transit employees “may” feel the same way. 

It’s almost enough to goad me to file (for the 6^th time) as a candidate.  Again, accepting no contributions and with no desire to win, but to use the voters pamphlet to point out that the disruption from initial light rail construction not only didn’t need to happen, it will only get worse, and when completed will do little to reduce congestion on the area's major roadways.  The only way to do that is to use part of ST3 funds, not on  Prop 1 extensions, but to add thousands of parking stalls with bus connections to where commuters wish to go.  Also use ST3 funds to expedite light rail to West Seattle and Ballard, light rail extensions that would reduce Seattle area congestion.  My hope is someone far better than me to articulate those improvements will choose to do so.

It’s about time!

The Sunday Seattle Times, B1 page article “Sound Transit ouster stalls, but car-tax bills could drop” is a welcome recognition by Republican legislators of the need to reform the Sound Transit Board.   Its members were appointed by County Executive, Dow Constantine, whose approach to public transit is “clouded” by his vision of light rail:

“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”    

Apparently neither Constantine nor his appointed board recognized the costs for creating and operating a light rail system can only be justified when it has sufficient capacity to accommodate large numbers of commuters.  That large numbers of commuters either live within walking distance of light rail stations or have access to P&R stalls with bus connections to stations.  And that light rail takes them near where they wish to go. 

The Sound Transit Board Prop 1 proposal was a clear indication they never recognized routing light rail though the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) severely limited its capacity.  The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) concluded in 2004 the DSTT station lengths limited light rail trains to 4 cars.  It “likely” costs as much for tracks for 4-car trains as it does for 10-car trains. 

The PSRC also concluded safe operation required an average of 4 minutes between trains and that each of the four 74-seat cars, could average a maximum of 148 riders.  The resultant capacity of 8880 riders is slightly more than half Sound Transit's purported 16,000 and a fraction of what’s needed to justify costs. 

The Prop 1 extensions beyond SeaTac and across I-90 Bridge, having to share the DSTT capacity, have even less justification.  The board made a monumental blunder (and violated RCW planning requirements for HCT) when they “neglected” to consider BRT on the bridge as a “low-cost” alternative.  Instead opting to promote the sheer fantasy that East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway in their 2008 East Link DEIS.

Sound Transit’s initial ST3 proposals included a second tunnel and set of tracks to Everett, presumably “concerned” with Prop 1 extension capacity.  In the end however ST3 simply extended Central Link from Everett to Tacoma and East Link to Redmond; spending the vast majority of $54 billion over the next 25 years perpetuating DSTT limitations on light rail spine capacity.

The Sound Transit Board compounded the problem by not providing access to even its limited capacity   Only a tiny fraction of commuters will "likely" live within walking distance of the Prop 1 light rail stations.  However, all of the P&R lots with potential access to the stations are already “fully in use”.   Yet, even with their ST3 funding they wait until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on a measly 8560 parking stalls over the next 20 years; a fraction of the parking needed for access to both the Prop 1 and ST3’s “beyond Prop 1” extensions.

Barring additional highway lanes, the only way to reduce congestion is to dramatically increase the 10% of commuters who use public transit.  Commuters throughout the area have already paid a heavy price because the Sound Transit Board has failed to recognize light rail in our area will never have the needed capacity.  For years, they’ve failed to consider the only way to do so, initiating BRT routes along limited access lanes on I-5 and on inbound and outbound lanes on I-90 Bridge center roadway.  Money spent extending light rail could have been used to add thousands of parking stalls.  And the real costs are only beginning.

Thus it’s way past time to replace the current board.  Rep Clibborn’s refusal to consider doing so claiming “we don’t get a lot of efficiency by going down that road” exemplifies incompetence.   She’s also used her leadership on the house transportation committee to rebuff attempts to revise WSDOT HOT lanes on I-405 insisting they be expanded as “the only unallocated source of revenue in the state”.  

Current Board Chair, Snohomish County Executive David Somers concern, “It could be really be disruptive to have a new board” fails to recognize the need to “disrupt” board current policies.  Another board member, Issaquah mayor Fred Butler’s comment, “This is a solution that’s looking for a problem” is belied by his own November 22^nd Issaquah Transportation Summit.  Its goal was to “look for a way the entire region could come together to work on a problem that effects everyone”. 

The bottom line is there is a "problem" that needs "fixing," and when it comes to starting to do so by replacing the Sound Transit Board, "It's about time!!" 

License Tab Fees – Another Seattle Times Failure

The March 3^rd Seattle Times editorial and their Feb 27^th “Traffic Lab” article “Sound Transit uses inflated car values to collect higher tab fees” is another example of the paper not recognizing the impact of Sound Transit and WSDOT actions until after the fact.   A competent newspaper would have alerted voters prior to the ST3 vote about Sound Transit’s inflated car values in combination with the 0.8% increase to 1.1% of their “car value” on tab fees.

Sound Transits decision to be the only state agency to not “charge a car-tab tax based on a car’s value for simplicity’s sake” typifies their arrogance.   Sound Transit claims they’ve already sold bonds requiring they continue to use the inflated values despite earlier claims they didn’t need ST3 funding until 2019.   It’s another example of Sound Transit issuing bonds, not because they need the money, but to protect their license tab revenue.

The Times “Traffic Lab” article allowed Sound Transit’s totally spurious claim that less than 20% of commuters would have cars worth more than the $25,000 needed to justify the $200 increase.   Typical of Sound Transit, they made no attempt to correct their own Expert Review Panel (ERP) conclusion the owner of the area’s “median car value” of $5333 would pay only $47 in increased tab fees.  Using Sound Transit valuations one would have to be driving a 10-year old $25,000 Toyota to qualify for their "median car value" tab fees.

Equally absurd Sound Transit used property values from the entire Snohomish, King and Pierce county area to establish a median market value of $360,776 to compute “median” ST3 property taxes.  Surely "median property values" for those forced to pay for ST3 will be far higher.  While the Times urged property owners to do their own calculations, the fact they even gave credence to Sound Transit’s $169 per adult claim is “regrettable”.

Again, the Seattle Times failure to inform voters about the real costs of license tab fees prior to the vote obviously contributed to ST3 approval.  However, the costs associated with increased fees “pale in comparison” to the “costs” for Times failure to acknowledge that the vast majority of ST3 $54 billion, spent on a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, will never provide the capacity to significantly reduce congestion on I-5 and I-90.  Also, that WSDOT plans to “manage congestion” along I-405 with HOT lanes will increase congestion for the vast majority of commuters forced to use GP lanes.

As a result, Seattle's standing as a "World Class City: for Congestion" is only going to "increase".