County Executive Candidacy BCC Announcement

(Since the media has ignored my previous emails concerning my County Executive Candidacy I decided to do so “publicly” with the below presentation to the Bellevue City Council during the “public comment” period prior to their April 24^th meeting)

Dear Bellevue city Council,

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to announce my candidacy for King County Executive.  I do so with no expectation or desire to win and will not ask for nor accept any financial support.   I’m doing so because the council has failed to represent the best interests of the entire eastside with its slavish support of Sound Transit’s policies.

Your decision not to require ST comply with your MOU means countless commuters will lose access to transit when they close the South Bellevue and Overlake P&R.  You rewrote the land use code requirements allowing them to begin ripping out hundreds of trees along the route into Bellevue.  They’ll spend the next several years creating an ambiance-destroying elevated roadway with light rail tracks and high voltage power lines along what was a tree-lined boulevard.   Meanwhile they’ll permanently close the I-90 Bridge center roadway without demonstrating the outer roadway lanes can accommodate cross-lake vehicle traffic.  A sure recipe for inevitable gridlock,

It could have been avoided.  You could’ve used the permitting process to require ST comply with the Revised Code of Washington by considering BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  By now BRT could have been operating for years providing 10 times East Link capacity at 1/10^th the cost.   You even allowed them to delay adding 4^th lanes on outer roadways forcing cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake to endure years of needless congestion. 

Instead ST will spend 6 years and $3.6 billion creating East Link.  At best it will reduce I-90 Bridge traffic from 160,000 to 159,500 vehicles daily.  Those years and billions will do absolutely nothing to ease the miles-long congestion I-90 corridor commuters already face.   When East Link does begin operation the vast majority of commuters won’t even have access.   Instead they’ll be forced to choose between very expensive HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.   You even helped pass ST3 forcing eastside residents to spend thousands more on transit that will do nothing to help cross-lake commuters.

It’s only fitting I announce my candidacy to the council whose complicity enabled this debacle.  While it’s unlikely to change ST plans, residents will be alerted to what’s coming and that it could have been avoided.

Sound Transit South Bellevue P&R SNAFU

The Sound Transit Apr 18, 2017 News Release “South Bellevue park-and-ride to close May 30” is just another example of their failure to live up to “promises made”. 

Two years ago, 4/17/15, Sound Transit and Bellevue City Council sent out an email notification announcing access to their joint East Link MOU.  It included Section 23.0 PERMITTING, PROJECT CERTAINTY, AND MITIGATION where paragraph 23.4 South Bellevue Park-and-Ride Closure, included the following:

At least 60 days prior to the closure Sound Transit will identify and implement alternate parking and transit access for the commuters who utilize the existing park and ride in consultation with the Transportation Department Director and King County Metro.

Anyone who viewed the earlier Feb 9^th Sound Transit presentation to the Bellevue City Council for accommodating those who used the South Bellevue P&R would have concluded they didn’t have a clue as to how to accommodate them.  The council’s request for “clarification” presumably led to the formal MOU.

Updates for P&R replacement strategy were scheduled for later in the year and closure was scheduled for March 2016.  The updates never happened but the closure was delayed until this year.  I’ll leave it to others to decide whether they did so over concern the resulting lack of access to transit might “detract” from ST3 support.   

Rather than complying with MOU Sound Transit put out the following in an April 18^th News Release. 

Commuters are encouraged to explore other options before East Link light rail construction begins at the site.  The South Bellevue Park-and-Ride lot will close on Tuesday, May 30 as part of construction of the East Link Light Rail extension from Seattle to Mercer Island, Bellevue and Redmond. Drivers who park at the facility will need to identify other parking or commute options while it is closed for construction.  Sound Transit asks affected riders for their patience and understanding as crews work to significantly improve transit service in East King County. Information about other park-and-ride locations and commute options is available at www.soundtransit.org/eastlink. Drivers are encouraged to begin using alternate parking or commute options as early as possible.

The basic message is "you’ve been warned and you're on your own".  Even more absurd is the "promise” it (East Link) will significantly improve transit service in East King County”.  It will do absolutely nothing to improve transit service or relieve the congestion along the I-90 corridor between Issaquah and I-405.  Current transit riders will likely be forced to transfer to light rail at either the South Bellevue P&R or Mercer Island stations.  Their transfer will involve waiting to find space on overcrowded trains due to East Link’s limited one 4-car-train-every-8-minute operating schedule.  Those attempting to transfer during peak commute will have a particularly difficult time. Hardly an improvement!

My view of the website found little advice on parking alternatives.    Meanwhile the Bellevue City Council continues in their steadfast support for Sound Transit.  Their only response to the problem I’m aware of are plans to make it illegal to park on nearby streets in hopes of using the new bus stop on the west side of Bellevue Way for transit access. 

The P&R replacement “promises made” failure is just one of many.  Three days later on Jun 2 Sound Transit intends to permanently close the bridge center roadway.  The 2008 DEIS “promised travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link".  Yet they refuse to delay permanent center roadway closure until they demonstrate outer roadway capacity.  The inevitable result will be gridlock with future growth if not with current traffic.

They made a mockery out of environmental laws “promising” the FHWA and FTA East Link noise would have a de minimus impact on Mercer Slough Park while conceding the need to spend millions shielding properties 100’s of feet away from this “non-existent” noise.  When East Link does begin operation its schedule belies the DEIS “promise” to provide the equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway across I-90.  The vast majority of cross-lake commuters will never be able to use it. 

Surely the South Bellevue P&R replacement strategy is just one example of Sound Transit’s response to "promises made" and an approach to transit that can only be described as “Situation normal all f****ed up”.

Make Sound Transit Demonstrate I-90 Bridge Capacity

(I wrote this in response to Bellevue City Council 4/14/17 email, *New look for I-90: Striping work to add HOV lanes across Lake  Washington begins April 21*)

Make Sound Transit Demonstrate I-90 Bridge Capacity

With two-and-a-half years work complete the WSDOT and Sound Transit are planning to spend three “dry” weekends restriping the I-90 Bridge outer roadways to add an HOV lane in each direction.  However, they don’t plan to open the HOV lanes until June 3 to coincide with their permanent closure of the bridge center roadway to begin construction of their East Link light rail extension.

This latest delay in allowing commuters to use the outer roadway HOV lanes typifies Sound Transit’s planning for the added lanes.  It’s something they could have done more than ten years ago, benefitting cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake, but especially reverse commuters.    One “possible” reason was the added outer roadway lanes could have been used for non-transit HOV and inbound and outbound BRT initiated on the center roadway ending any hopes of implementing light rail.   That option ended some time ago.

The recent delay is even more insidious.   They want to avoid any demonstration the added HOV lanes provide the capacity needed to accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles during light rail construction and when East Link begins operation.  The WSDOT/Sound Transit convinced a federal judge in the “Freeman” suit they had documentation showing the added lane configuration (R-8A) could accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.  Yet the Sept 2004 FHWA Record of Decision they cited required maintaining both center roadway lanes for vehicles.

It’s not clear whether the FHWA has “reconsidered” their position on outer roadway capacity.  Even if the have, common sense demands Sound Transit delay “permanently closing” the center roadway until they demonstrate outer roadways can accommodate both current vehicle traffic but future traffic as well.   Especially since East Link operation will likely increase not decrease cross-lake vehicle traffic. 

The problem being the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits East Link to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  It doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate the 63 buses currently using I-90 during the peak hour in the peak direction as well as those getting on light rail at earlier stations and Mercer Island commuters.   The hassle of trying to transfer to overcrowded light rail cars will persuade many to “drive” rather than “ride” more than offsetting any reduction in bridge bus traffic.  Even worse, those former transit riders will add to the far worse congestion on bridge GP lanes.

It’s also "unlikely" East Link capacity will ever increase.  Sound Transit will spend $3.6 billion disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue during light rail construction to create light rail the vast majority of I-90 commuters will never have access to.   The least they could do is demonstrate they and future commuters won’t face gridlock on outer roadways.  

The WSDOT refusal to require the demonstration "suggests" they’re more interested in the increased revenue from SR 520 tolls and lucrative HOT fees needed to maintain 45 mph on HOV lanes because of the I-90 congestion than in easing the congestion.  Thus it’s up to the Seattle Times to urge the demonstration, the east side city councils to sue for the demonstration, or the House and Senate Transportation Committee to require the demonstration. 

Failure  to do so will likely result this summer in congestion that is only a precursor to that when East Link begins operation and any future growth in cross lake commuting.

East Link SEPA Addendum Exemplifies Sound Transit Failure

The East Link Extension April 2017, SEPA Addendum exemplifies Sound Transit’s failure to effectively deal with the public transit system on the area’s major roadways.  Their failure is particularly egregious for the east side where their East Link extension will do absolutely nothing to reduce the congestion on I-90 corridor.  Its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail service consisting of one 4-car train every 8 minutes will increase not decrease cross-lake congestion.

On a daily basis, about 160,000 vehicles travel on I-90 across Lake Washington between Seattle and Mercer Island and about 174,000 on the East Channel Bridge between Mercer Island and Bellevue. The amount of volume on the floating bridge in the westbound and eastbound directions is fairly evenly split with about 80,000 vehicles per day. About 15,000 vehicles per day use the center roadway and about 6,500 of these go to or from Mercer Island.

Currently there are approximately 63 buses on I-90 during the peak hour in the peak direction and approximately 500 buses daily on I-90.   The addendum’s baseline East Link FEIS provides approximately 48 I-90 buses during the peak hour and 350 daily buses.   With Sound Transit’s Integrated Transit Proposal (ITP) all of the buses would stop at the Mercer Island station and riders would transfer to East Link in the morning and from East Link to buses in the afternoon.  

Many of those arriving on the 63 buses during the peak commute along with Mercer Island commuters will likely have to wait since much of East Link's limited capacity will already be "in use" when it arrives at their station.  Also, returning commuters will need to wait at the station for their respective bus routes.  Not only will they face long delays in each direction they will likely not be enamored with the probability of paying a second toll. 

However, even if commuters are willing to go along with the addendum proposal it finalizes Sound Transit intentions to spend $3.6 billion that, at best, will reduce the current number of vehicles crossing I-90 daily from 160,000 to 159,500.  Sound Transit simply fails to recognize the congestion problem isn’t too many buses, it’s not enough buses.  The way to reduce congestion is to dramatically increase the number of cross-lake buses by initiating inbound and outbound BRT service on the bridge center roadway.  Every additional 100 bus routes can replace up to 10,000 vehicles crossing I-90.  That’s how you reduce I-90 bridge congestion. 

It can also reduce I-90 corridor congestion.  Light rail funds could be spent adding thousands of parking stalls at existing and new P&R facilities throughout the area.  Each P&R could have its own dedicated BRT route across I-90 to Seattle or to Bellevue T/C.   Commuters could leave their car near where they live rather than where they work reducing congestion throughout the east side.  Not only does the SEPA Addendum finalize an East Link extension that will do nothing to ease I-90 corridor congestion, it finalizes an East Link that makes public transit less attractive and has limited capacity to meet current requirements and no capacity to meet future growth. 

The entire east side will rue its result.

Why Not BRT on I-90 Bridge?

I was surprised a recent Seattle Times editorial page included a letter asking why Sound Transit had not considered BRT on I-90 Bridge; apparently in response to the $225 million increase in bridge construction costs.  It’s something I urged them to ask via emails eight years ago when the Sound Transit 2008 DEIS neglected to consider inbound and outbound BRT as the no-build option.   Later I referred them to more than 50 posts on this blog dealing with the issue.   All were ignored.

Sound Transit’s legal arguments against BRT on I-90 are “interesting”.  I’d always assumed the DEIS included a study maintaining the center roadway with both lanes in the “peak commute” direction was their “low cost” option required by RCW 81.104.100.  It 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. 

When recently queried about the issue Sound Transit responded claiming they developed draft and final system plans that complied with these requirements.  However, they also claimed my presumption the DEIS “no-build” option was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) was not correct claiming East Link planning was a “Project level review” and not subject to RCW requirements. 

Clearly any rational planning would have concluded BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway would have 10 times East Link light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at I/10 the cost.  Fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and used light rail funds to add thousands of parking stalls on the east side providing access to BRT routes to Seattle and Bellevue.

We now know Sound Transit’s legal justification for never considering BRT.  Their failure to do so with added parking to attract more transit riders has already forced eastside commuters to endure years of congestion.  East Link confiscation of the bridge center roadway will only make it worse.  It’s way past time for the Seattle Times to show concern.

Eyman Response to Attorney General Ferguson

I emailed Tim Eyman the following in response to the Seattle Times 4/1/17 front page article announcing Attorney General Ferguson’s intent to sue for alleged misuse of campaign funds.   I decided to post it since he may have other ways of responding.

Eyman Response to Attorney General Ferguson

Tim Eyman should respond to Attorney General Ferguson by filing a class-action suit against him because of the failure of his office to require Sound Transit comply with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) regarding its planning for both the Prop 1 and ST3 “beyond Prop 1” light rail extensions.  That as a result, the area’s residents will be forced to pay billions for light extensions that the Seattle Times in a Nov 4^th front-page article concluded  "would not reduce congestion".

I attempted to attract the Attorney General’s attention to these concerns by emailing the following letter as a General Consumer Complaint.  (Doing so avoided the 5000-character limit imposed on “Contacts”)

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 4^th 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.  An option that should have been considered as a 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.

Sincerely,

William J Hirt

I received 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

(206) 398-5000

www.soundtransit.org

Sound Transit responded with the following: (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 (EIS) 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 

When I asked the Attorney General’s Office if they concurred with the Sound Transit position on RCW compliance I received the following:

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.

Regarding the recent inquiry, 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.

Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the RCW requirement to consider low cost options in their planning for the “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions has already resulted in billions spent on light rail extensions “that will not reduce congestion”.   Money that could have been spent adding parking with access to BRT routes along limited access lanes to where commuters wished to go could have attracted thousands of additional transit riders, reducing the area’s congestion. 

Those funds pale in comparison to the $54 billion Sound Transit will spend over the next 25 years on a fatally flawed light rail system.  The fact that Attorney General Ferguson’s office is suing Tim Eyman for allegedly misusing campaign funds while ignoring the billions Sound Transit RCW violations allow them to spend needs more “publicity”.  An Eyman counter-suit could do just that.