Candidate's Statement

(I submitted the following in hopes of being on general election ballot)

Candidate's Statement

My candidacy is to attract attention to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com exposing Dow Constantine’s Sound Transit Board plan to spend $54B on “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to ease area’s congestion. 

They made a monumental blunder when they chose to route the extensions through a DSTT, limiting capacity to 8880 riders per hour rather than a second tunnel.  Whatever riders the extensions attract along I-5 will reduce current transit ridership.  Their increased operating cost with no increase in capacity is a recipe for a financial “black hole” from fare-box revenue shortfall

They compounded that blunder by choosing to use half the capacity to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway rather than an extension to West Seattle.  They did so despite FHWA stipulation they maintain the center roadway for vehicles with R-8A lanes added to outer roadways, inevitably creating future gridlock. 

They plan to spend $3.6B, having closed P&R lots ending transit access for many, devastating the route into Bellevue and doing nothing to ease I-90 corridor congestion, for light rail with less capacity than 50 buses.

They could have eased congestion years ago attracting thousands more transit riders adding parking with access to BRT routes along limited access lanes on both corridors.  On I-90 they could’ve added outer roadway lanes for non-transit HOV and BRT on center roadway. The 10,000 vehicles an additional 100 bus routes could’ve replaced on both corridors would only be the beginning. 

They could’ve added thousands of parking stalls each year for access to BRT for a fraction of what they’ll spend on light rail.  It would’ve increased transit riders, they only way to reduce congestion. 

My goal is to convince those with the power to “persuade” Sound Transit to do what could’ve happened do so.

East Link Beyond Mere Stupity

The previous post detailed how Sound Transit had made a “big blunder” when they chose to route their “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) rather than a second tunnel.   That, as a result, spending billions extending Central Link beyond the UW that will do nothing to increase transit capacity along I-5 into Seattle.  The only way to reduce I-5 congestion is to add thousands of parking spaces with bus capacity into Seattle. 

This post details how Sound Transit compounded the problem by choosing to route half the DSTT capacity across I-90 Bridge rather than to West Seattle.   West Link could have added transit capacity that would have been readily accessible to thousands of commuters without the need to add thousands of parking stalls.  East Link confiscates the I-90 Bridge center roadway, forever limiting its capacity to half the DSTT capacity.  (4440 riders per hour per PSRC).  Its construction and operation will also be far more onerous for eastside. 

Central Link construction will have a minimal effect on those living or commuting along the route.  East Link construction has already forced closure of two east side P&R lots, effectively ending access to transit for many I-90 corridor commuters.  The I-90 Bridge center roadway closure has already increased congestion on bridge outer roadways.  For example the 8:35 am, 7/24 travel times from Issaquah to Seattle increased from 28 min (average presumably pre-closure) to 35 min. on GP lanes.

Sound Transit chose to tunnel between UW and Northgate, minimizing disruptions along the route.  Sound Transit refused to consider a tunnel along the route into Bellevue and extorted millions from Bellevue for a tunnel in downtown area.  East Link construction is also already disrupting those who live or commute along Bellevue Way and 112^th.   It’s only going to get worse with Sound Transit ripping out hundreds of trees along part of what made Bellevue the “City in the Park” for an elevated roadway.   Sound Transit made a mockery of environmental laws telling the FHWA and FTA East Link would have no impact on Mercer Slough despite agreeing to spend millions protecting properties hundreds of feet away from light rail noise.  East Link will end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.

Clearly east side residents will be more adversely affected during East Link construction than those along the Central Link extensions.   The above increased travel times indicate Sound Transit also “blundered “when it ignored the September 2004 FHWA Record of Decision “I-90 Two-way Transit and HOV Operations Project”.   The ROD stipulated the two center roadway lanes be maintained for vehicle use with the lanes added to outer roadways (R-8A).    Any increased cross-lake commuting during construction will add to those delays. 

However the most onerous comparison between the Central Link extensions to Everett and East Link is that Sound Transit chose to route it along side I-5 adding 8880-rph-transit capacity to those living north of the city.   East Link confiscates the I-90 Bridge center roadway effectively limiting its transit capacity to 4440 rph; a fraction of what’s needed for current cross-late transit and an even smaller fraction of future needs.   Yet Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS claimed East Link was needed to accommodate their projected 60% transit increase by 2030. 

The limited capacity means the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters will never be able to access light rail.  The longer travel times with I-90 center roadway closure are only going to lengthen with future growth.   The $3.6B spent on East Link means the years of congestion that frequently began at Issaquah will extend across I-90 Bridge, with inevitable gridlock on outer roadways.   

All for a light rail system with the capacity for about 50 cross-lake buses an hour.  My candidacy is an attempt to make more people aware that East Link is beyond mere stupidity.

Sound Transit’s "Big Blunder"

The previous post detailed how Sound Transit, after having used their ST3tax.com website to “mislead” voters about ST3 car tab taxes, closed the website and “lied about lying”, claiming they had never done so.   This latest bit of mendacity is just the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to Sound Transit's lack of veracity and competence.  The impact of the increased tab costs pale in comparison to what awaits the entire area because of their “inadequacies”. 

Their big blunder was the decision years ago to route light rail through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).   A 2004 PSRC Technical Workbook “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” reported “Light Rail capacities were calculated to be at a maximum of 8,880 people per hour per direction (pphpd) through the DSTT”.  Sound Transit was “presumably” aware of the PSRC study since they referenced it in the 2008 East Link DEIS preface; “the cross-lake corridor connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue Overlake and Redmond had the highest potential for near-term development of high-capacity transit (HCT)”.

While the DSTT capacity was adequate for light rail between UW and SeaTac, spending billions to extend it does nothing to increase it; failing any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.  (Extending route lengths without increasing capacity is also a sure way to increase shortfall between operating costs and fare-box revenue.) Especially since the UW station could have included a T/C where SR520 transit commuters from both sides of the lake could take advantage of a combined BRT/light rail transit. 

Sound Transit claims for light-rail-extension ridership are a complete disconnect from the reality of the PSRC capacity limits.   For example, their ST3 claims the Everett extension ridership along with their earlier predictions for Lynnwood extension would total up to 119,000 daily.  Even a fraction of that number would fill light rail trains before they ever reach Northgate.  “Fortunately” that’s not likely to happen “very soon” since the 2017, 1^st quarter ridership reported only 8489 rode the 510/513 bus routes into Seattle.

Sound Transit will likely use light rail to replace those routes.  Those commuters are the only ones with access since all the available parking is full and they neglect to add what’s needed to increase access.  Reducing the number of buses on I-5 will do little to reduce congestion.  However, light rail riders from Everett and Lynnwood will reduce the available capacity at Northgate and stations nearer Seattle.

The decision to route light rail through the DSTT means its capacity from Everett is never going to increase. Rather than increasing transit capacity the billions spent extending light rail to Everett will reduce it.   Sound Transit could avoid the capacity loss by choosing not to use light rail to replace buses.  They could add parking with connecting bus routes to light rail stations.  However total capacity would still not increase since those riders would still displace riders from stations nearer Seattle.

The only way to increase capacity is to route the buses from the added parking directly into Seattle rather than to a light rail station.  A hundred additional buses an hour could increase transit capacity by 10,000 pphpd.  Additional buses could be added to meet future demand.  The only limitation would be having sufficient parking to access capacity.  Travel times could be minimized during peak commute hours by limiting an HOV lane to buses or buses and +3HOV. 

The bottom line is Sound Transits decision to route their "Prop 1 and beyond" light rail extensions through DSTT prevents it from ever having the capacity to increase transit ridership required to reduce I-5 congestion between Everett and Seattle. The fact that the extensions to Tacoma and across I-90 Bridge will each have only half that capacity makes them even more “problematic”. (More on those later)

The area has already paid a heavy price for the Sound Transit "blunder".  It’s probably too late to prevent Sound Transit from extending light rail to Northgate.  They've already closed the I-90 Bridge and begun constructing light rail their and disrupting the route into Bellevue.  Like their closure of the ST3tax.com website that "misled" voters about car tab taxes, a recent google search shows the 2004 PSRC report is no longer available on the internet. 

Still sooner or later the entire area will recognize the impact of Sound Transit’s “blunder”.   My candidacy for County Executive is an attempt to make that “sooner” rather than ”later”.

Sound Transit Car Tab Tax Mendacity

The July 12th Seattle Times B1 page “Traffic Lab” article, “Eyman initiative would toss Sound Transit car tab tax” should be welcome news for the entire area.   A Joel Connelly June 8^th Seattle PI article included the following:

        A survey by Moore Information, the venerable Portland-based polling firm with Republican and business clients, shows that ST3 would get only 37 percent support were voters given a do-over.

The survey results “suggest” large numbers of voters would respond favorably to the initiative.  Eyman is certainly correct to raise the question,

“Now that you know how much these car tabs are going to cost, do you think this is fair?”

Those opposed to the car tab costs surely have a reason to do so.  Presumably many were likely persuaded to approve ST3 by a Sound Transit 7/8/2016 post entitled: “ST3 plan would cost typical adult $169 annually or $14 per month”.

It included the following:

Here’s how much a typical adult would pay if ST3 is approved:

MVET

An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed. The updated calculation reflects an annual median value $5,333 of vehicles in the Sound Transit District. MVET taxes are determined by a state of Washington depreciation schedule for a specific vehicle’s model and production year. The previous calculation relied on a less representative average vehicle value of $10,135 for the more expansive tri-county area, for a significantly higher annual cost of $78 per adult. 

Thus it was Sound Transit who provided the MVET tax for ST3 that “misled” voters.  Yet Sound Transit's responce to voter complaints, an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett”, included the following:

During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes. We all knew that our car tabs would increase a lot in 2017 to help fund Sound Transit. So when the first invoices arrived, the vast majority of people just paid their tabs. But a vocal minority, with big tabs from expensive cars, took their displeasure to Olympia, hoping that the Legislature would listen to their stories and disregard the will of the people.

A May 12^th KOMONews.com article “State senators claim Sound Transit misled public about ST3 project impact and cost” also raised the issue:

Now, State Senators Steve O'Ban and Dino Rossi are calling for a special investigation into Sound Transit saying in a statement: "We are concerned about whether sound transit is engaged in a systematic effort to confuse and misrepresent the impact and cost of the Sound Transit authorization to legislators and the public."

It generated the following response from the Sound Transit Director of Media Relations and Public Information Communications & External Affairs, Geoff Patrick:

Sound Transit's interactions with the legislature and all of the extensive public materials related to the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure included clear and accurate information.   That the legislative language allowing regional voters to consider the Sound Transit 3 measure was extensively debated and covered by news media.

The “inconsistency” between what Sound Transit told voters before the vote and what they claimed they told them after the vote should be no surprise to blog viewers.   They sold East Link to voters with their DEIS claim it could double I-90 bridge transit capacity.  After Prop 1 was approved they conceded in their East Link extension website it was limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes with about half current peak transit capacity.

What’s unique about their car tab tax mendacity is the Sound Transit 3 Tax Calculator used in the 7/8/16 post no longer exists.  Those looking for their ST3tax.com website for “How much tax per year will you pay for Sound Transit if ST3 passes” will instead find its available to buy. 

The website was valued at $1385, however their have been no offers or bids.   Anyone “interested” will have to act pretty quickly since the 1-year auction ends 7/20/17 at 12:17 PM (PDT).   Apparently Sound Transit decided they wanted to close the website very soon after their 7/8/16 post about the “reduced” car tab tax.  Their "likely" objective being after lying about what car tabs would cost, they wanted to be able to "lie about lying".

What’s “unfortunate” is the Seattle Times apparent inability to recognize Sound Transit mendacity.  The July 13 2016 edition “Traffic Lab” article “Here’s what you’d pay to build a bigger Sound Transit network” essentially parroted Sound Transit July 8^th post.

Sound Transit itself made an important discovery while revising its estimates last week. After it initially projected an average car value of $10,135 in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, further research found the median value was only $5,333. In other words, a minority of people own new or luxury cars that drive up the average, while the masses own older wheels.

They surely were either aware of, or should have been aware of, the "insistency" between Sound Transit tab cost estimates before the ST3 vote and what they had said afterwards.  Yet their July 12^th article concerning the Eyman initiative makes no mention of their mendacity concerning car tab taxes.  Their  “neglecting” to do so exemplifies their "Traffic Lab" failure to alert the area about the debacle awaiting the area from Sound Transit Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions.

Light Rail Extension’s Financial “Black Hole”

Several posts on this blog have detailed why the billions Sound Transit plans to spend on their light rail spine will do nothing to ease congestion on I-5 and will inevitably lead to gridlock on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  Even the Seattle Times, whose support enabled the funding, concluded:

The Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic, but it will give some commuters an escape hatch to avoid it”.

However, those hoping to take advantage of the “escape hatch” may be in for a big surprise.  The problem being that high light-rail operating costs over the longer routes will dwarf rational estimates for fare-box revenue.  Their “escape hatch” will either require very pricey tolls or be a financial “black hole” for the entire area’s transportation funds. 

Per 2016 budget, a light rail car costs $24.36 per mile to operate vs. $10.35 for buses.   Every mile Sound Transit extends light rail beyond the SeaTac in the South and UW station in the North adds about $200 to the round trip operating costs for a 4-car train. 

For example the 29-mile UW-to-Everett extensions will cost $5800 to operate. Terminating the route at Lynnwood would reduce round trips by 32.5 miles, reducing operating cost to $2550.  Terminating them at Northgate would reduce operating costs to $860 per trip.  It isn’t clear how many trains Sound Transit would route to Northgate or beyond to Lynnwood and Everett. 

Typical of Sound Transit they sold ST3 claiming the extension to Everett would add 37,000-45,000 daily riders to their earlier estimate the Lynnwood extension would add 63,000-74,000 riders.   The 100,000 -119,000 total is more than ten times the 8489 riders they averaged daily during the 1^st quarter of 2017 with their four 510-513 bus routes between Everett and Seattle. 

What makes the Sound Transit Everett-to-UW projections particularly absurd is they wait until 2024 to begin adding a measly 500 parking stalls access to light rail. Apparently assuming more than100,000 commuters will chose to live within walking distance of light rail stations.  Worse, even a fraction of that number would result in full trains  before they ever reached UW during peak commute, limiting access for those who currently ride Central Link.

The Sound Transit bus schedule shows the departure times and the stops along the four routes. 510 provides 21 express routes daily during the morning and afternoon peak commute between Everett and Seattle. Their 512 bus schedule includes 54 round trips from Everett during “off-peak” hours from 9:00 am to 10:30 pm with 6 stops, including one at Lynnwood, along the way.  The 511 route provides 18 morning and afternoon peak hour trips from Ash Way P&R with stops at Lynnwood and Montlake Terrace.  The 513 route provides 11 buses from Everett with a stop at Montlake Terrace.   

Using Sound Transit operating costs the ~64 mile 510/512/513 bus round trip between Everett and Seattle costs $660.  The ~40 mile round trips from Ash Way to Seattle cost about $410.  The total daily operating costs for the 4 routes is $61,800, or $6.90 for each of the 8469 riders; matching the $6.87 for in 1^st quarter 2017 ridership report.  Moreover the $3.50 two-zone fares, nearly all pay, provides 50% of the operating cost, nearly double Sound Transit average fare-box recovery. 

By comparison light rail operating costs will dwarf any rational fare box revenues. Again, without added parking, the only ones with access will be those who currently ride the 510-513 bus routes.  Sound Transit’s Lynnwood extension website promises one light rail train every 4 minutes during peak commute hours.  Assuming they have 15 trains an hour for 6 hours and half that rate for the other 12 gives a total of 180 trains a day.  (Currently Central Link schedules show 152 trips daily) 

The 180 daily 25.5-mile round trips to and from Lynnwood to UW will cost $112,000 daily.  If half those using the 510/513 routes rode light rail from Lynnwood to UW, the revenue from $3.50 tolls would be $14,800 leaving a $97,000 daily short fall.  (Assuming round trips generate tolls in only one direction.)  They could double that ridership and still have an $82,000 daily shortfall. 

By comparison bus operating costs for a 35-mile Lynnwood-to-Seattle round trip would be ~$350.  Rather than spending $2.1B to create a light rail system requiring huge subsidies they could add more bus routes.  For an additional $14,000 operating costs they could add 20 bus routes during the peak morning and afternoon commutes; essentially doubling current capacity. As ridership increases to use added capacity the $3.50 tolls for an additional 2000 morning and afternoon commuters would cover the added operating cost.  A small part of the $2.1B could be used to add parking for access to the bus routes.  More buses could be added to meet future growth.

The operating cost for using light rail to attract commuters from North of Lynnwood is only a part of the Everett extension problem.  They already have Sounder trains through Mukilteo to Seattle.  Why spend an additional $2.8 to $3B for light rail.  If they did, routing 180 light rail trains the 32.5 miles from Lynnwood to Everett and back would cost $570,000 daily.  Presumably even Sound Transit recognizes they can’t afford to route that many trains to Everett. 

However, the only way they can reasonably schedule fewer trains from Lynnwood to Everett than from Seattle to Lynnwood would be to have a separate light rail line between the two.  The Everett trains could be limited to two cars, halving trip costs, and run every 15 minutes during 6 hour peak times and 30 minutes off-peak for 48 two-car trains a day.  (About the same number of light rail cars as current buses)   

While they could add more cars or trains, the daily operating costs for even this limited Lynnwood-to-Everett extension would be $78,000.  If half those currently using the 4 routes would ride light rail between Everett and Lynnwood, the $3.50 tolls would again provide $14,800 leaving a $53,000 daily shortfall.  Again 20 additional buses could be added during morning and afternoon commutes between Everett and Seattle.  (They could be express routes stopping only at Ash Way P&R.)  The 60 mile round trips each would cost about $600 for a total daily cost of $24,000. $3.50 tolls for an additional 2000 morning and afternoon commuters cover more than half the operating costs leaving a $10,000 shortfall.  Again avoiding spending $2.8 to $3B on light rail construction.

The $3B spent on 15-mile extension to the Tacoma Dome will have similar fare- box-revenue shortfalls.  The fact it will have half the capacity of the Everett extensions and again duplicates existing Sounder service  makes it even more"problematic"

The bottom line is the billions Sound Transit will spend on light rail extensions along the 1-5 corridor for an “escape hatch” will create a financial black hole for the entire area’s transportation funds.   By comparison, spending a tiny fraction of ST3 funds on parking and bus service along I-5 corridor would reduce congestion with minimal fare box revenue shortfall increasing public transit; the only way to reduce congestion. 

Bellevue City Council’s Eastside Betrayal,

(I wrote the following in response to the Bellevue City Council’s latest newsletter warning residents about East Link .  It was way too long to present during the 3 minute public comments they allow at meetings.) 

Earlier this week I once again drove along 112^th Ave on my way from the Bellevue Golf Course driving range to Chase’s Pancake House for their potato pancakes.   While it was clear preparations were underway the tree-lined avenue still had a pleasant ambience.   That’s all about to change thanks to the Bellevue City Council.  Nearly all of the several hundred trees on the east side will be ripped out and an elevated roadway constructed to accommodate light rail tracks and high voltage power lines.  It didn’t have to happen. 

More than 8 years ago I told the city council the Sound Transit East Link DEIS was sheer fantasy.  That claims East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway ignored the reality of Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnels limitations on capacity. That the council should make approval of the 10 permits in the DEIS needed for construction contingent on Sound Transit considering two-way BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  Even a cursory study would have concluded BRT would have 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost, effectively ending East Link.  (They could have funded the study themselves for less than what they spent on a totally futile attempt to reroute light rail into the city.)

Instead the council rewrote the city’s land use code allowing the devastation along the current route. They approved a shoreline permit allowing Sound Transit make a mockery of environmental regulations, claiming light rail noise would have no impact on Mercer Slough while demanding they spend millions shielding properties hundreds of feet away; inevitably ending the quiet solitude of the park.  They even allowed Sound Transit ignore the Revised Code of Washington requiring any high capacity transit planning consider lower cost options.

They acquiesced to Sound Transit delays in adding 4^th lanes to the outer roadways that would have reduced congestion from commuters from both sides of the lake.   Recently the council allowed Sound Transit ignore their MOU concerning replacing the South Bellevue P&R; effectively ending access to transit at P&Rs for many east side commuters.    Sound Transit’s confiscation of the bridge center roadway will increase outer roadway congestion, inevitably leading to gridlock with the projected doubling of cross lake commuters they used to justify East Link.       

The council ignored Sound Transit’s own website that limited East Link to one three or four car train every 8-10 minutes; at best, one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or 30 74-seat light rail cars an hour.  They could have easily added the same capacity with fewer than 50 buses without spending a dime on light rail tracks, disrupting cross-lake commuters, and devastating the route into Bellevue. 

Instead last year the April 29^th Bellevue Reporter front-page article featured the council heralding the East Link light rail extension “breaking ground” as a “cause for celebration”.  When East Link finally begins operation, Sound Transit intends to use it to replace cross-lake buses.  (Apparently like Sound Transit, the council doesn’t recognize the outer roadway congestion is not due to too many buses.)  

During peak commute, East Link will only have capacity to accommodate riders from about 50 buses an hour; that’s less than the current peak frequency.  Those on buses continuing into Seattle will be the lucky ones, avoiding the hassle of transferring to and from East Link at South Bellevue or Mercer Island.  Especially since those forced to transfer will frequently find trains full when they arrive at the two stations. 

The bottom line is many commuters have already lost access to transit from Sound Transit closing South Bellevue P&R.  Light rail construction will soon begin disrupting those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue.  Light rail confiscation of the bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to gridlock on outer roadways.  When East Link begins operation the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t even have access.   East Link will do nothing to reduce the congestion they’ve endured for years between Issaquah and I-405.  Reducing congestion with light rail along the route is another Sound Transit fantasy.

It will all happen “courtesy” of the Bellevue City Council.