Drink the Water

(I wrote the following in response to those urging I continue)

Drink the Water

First of all I want to thank those of you who chose to support my Sound Transit concerns in the recent election with votes (110,972 as of Nov 13th), emails, and phone messages.   My blog has attracted nearly 100,000 page views.  Unfortunately the old adage “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink” has limited their impact on Sound Transit policies.  

Whatever impact they have had is “likely” offset by those who supported Dow Constantine’s ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions with much of the $1.3 million in campaign contributions.   Sound Transit plans to spend most of $54B over the next twenty-five years constructing their “light rail spine” have “presumably” attracted support from construction companies and their labor unions.  

No one can reasonably blame those profiting from constructing the “spine” for its failure to reduce congestion along I-5 and the resulting gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways.   Those failures are strictly the result of Dow Constantine’s Sound Transit Board inability to recognize the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits on light rail capacity.   That the DSTT limits will result in any riders attracted by extensions reducing access for those currently using Central Link.  That operating costs over the longer routes with no increase in ridership will inevitably result in a financial “black hole” because of the fare-box revenue shortfall. 

 None of this would have been possible without the ST3 enabling legislation, the WSDOT connivance, and the Seattle Times aiding and abetting Sound Transit policies.   At this point the most feasible way to prevent Sound Transit from proceeding is for legislation requiring Sound Transit be audited.  It's something they've avoided for nearly 10 years.

Make them explain why they ignored RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) by not considering BRT on I-90 Bridge as a low cost alternative to East Link light rail.  Make them justify the ridership claims they made prior to the ST3 votes.  What impact will those riders have on current Central Link riders?   Make them explain how they intend to cover the operating costs over the longer routes.  

The legislature needs to hear from someone other than the construction companies that support Republicans and the labor unions who support Democrats.  Legislators from both parties were “likely” swayed by Sound Transit commitments to contribute more than $500 million to the state’s general fund if the enabling legislation was passed.  (Sound Transit “extrapolated” what was a 15 year program to as long as their board feels it's “warranted”)

I urge those concerned to "drink the water” by urging their legislators require the audit and use "social media" to urge others to do the same.  

Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support

(This post was prompted by the Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial support for a “permanent men’s shelter” in Bellevue in response to questions as to my approach to issues beyond Sound Transit.)  

Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support,

The Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial urges “Bellevue voters cast their vote for progress and compassion and support the candidates who want to build a permanent men’s shelter as soon as possible”.    Apparently the Times believes voters should base their decision as to who should be on the Bellevue City Council solely on whether they support the Eastgate shelter.

One wonders if this sense of urgency isn’t a result of problems concerning Seattle’s difficulty in dealing with their homeless-camp problems on the paper's front page.   The fact they consider Eastgate as the “logical choice” may have to do with it being easily accessed by bus from Seattle.   Seattle would likely welcome the opportunity to “encourage” their homeless with a free bus pass to the shelter. 

On Oct 16th I emailed the following to the Seattle Times, and Seattle  and Bellevue City Councils as a way to make the shelter more effective regardless of where it was located.   Its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

All the discussion about the location of the Bellevue homeless shelter ignores a major concern, namely how do you prevent it from attracting even more homeless to the area.    The fact the number of homeless in Bellevue has doubled since the council began planning to add the shelter should be a warning. 

One way to address the issue is to require those using the shelter work for the city’s parks department for up to 40 hours a week.   They would receive half of whatever and however Bellevue pays their park employees.  The remaining half would be put into a separate fund for each shelter worker to accumulate for as long as he remains there.   He can get access to the fund by leaving the shelter with the proviso that he will not be allowed to return within some minimum length of time.   Whether he would remain working with the parks department would be by mutual consent. 

The work requirement would likely make the shelter less appealing, reducing “demand”.  (Those who work for others would have their employer deposit half their wages into the fund.)  It would provide those living in the shelter with something to do during the day and potentially enhance their ability to find work elsewhere.   And the fund would provide a “nest egg” that might make ‘leaving” a more viable option. 

Again, its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

P.S.  The Times recommendation voters dismiss the "Wrong on Heroin" flyer concerning candidates Brown, Zahn, and Robinson because they aren't "campaigning" for an injection site fails to mention the three received funding from the Architects of the King County Injection Sites.

Coal Terminal "Myths"

(I submitted the following to the Seattle Times some time ago as “My Take” concerning stopping Longview coal terminal.  They declined to print it so I decided to post it because my county executive candidacy has resulted in questions about my opinion about "Climate Change".)

Coal Terminal Myths,

The Oct 10^th opinion letter “Good Riddance” praising Oct 6^th Seattle Times editorial  “Environmental victory but challenges remain,” derides the Trump attempts to revive the coal industry as a “cruel myth”.   It’s doubtful those getting the jobs despite the claim “coal comes in dead last among energy production industries” consider them a “cruel myth”.    It’s not clear what “energy production industries” coal lags in terms of jobs since millions spent on oil pipelines create very few “permanent jobs”. 

It’s also no myth the Longview area would have “benefitted” from the $680 million spent to create the terminal and the 135 permanent jobs, despite the fact ”That’s just one job per $5 million invested.”    By that criteria the billions spent creating freeways, but very few “permanent jobs,” are a total waste.    

The myth is the claim the Longview area and other like it would benefit from a company offering to provide “information and technology intensive jobs”.   It’s also a myth to claim the EPA decision to stop the Longview terminal as an “Environmental victory” since it will have absolutely no effect on climate change or global warming.   

The biggest myth of all is the claim CO2 is an environmental pollutant.  CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that currently makes up about .04% of the atmosphere.  Man made CO2 emissions currently account for about 5% of the total.  Increasing CO2 enhances plant growth.  For years growers have benefitted by increasing CO2 to 1000 parts per million in green houses. 

Meanwhile years of attempts to use computer models to predict the effects of increased CO2 on global warming have failed to match measured temperatures.  The latest results show far less sensitivity to CO2 increases than earlier.    A report in the CERN (Centre for European Nuclear Research) Currier recently indicated all the climate models must be re-done led to the following:

                   Their CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real ‘mystery factors’ in earth’s climate. The research supports the contention that CO2 is only a bit player.”

The real “challenge” for environmentalists is to recognize that reality.

The Demise of the “Link” to East Link

As the title “Stopeastlinknow” suggests, this blog began as an effort to use the Internet to expose problems with Sound Transit’s East Link.  It followed more than three years of failed attempts to persuade the Bellevue City Council to disallow permits needed for construction.  That Sound Transit’s failure to consider two-way BRT for transit on I-90 Bridge center roadway was a major blunder.  (I later learned it also violated RCW regarding High Capacity Transit planning.) That their DEIS claims for East Link capacity were sheer fantasy. 

My current campaign for King County Executive is the sixth attempt to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract “page views” (More than 95,000 so far).  What began as opposition to East Link evolved into recognition Sound Transit’s other Prop 1 extensions along I-5 were also fatally flawed due to capacity limitations imposed by the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  

Sound Transit’s ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions spend billions more but do nothing to increase transit capacity.  That, as a result, the Sound Transit ST3 light rail spine along I-5 will do nothing to reduce congestion and its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.

Unfortunately the blog has so far failed to generate sufficient opposition.  Thus, its “likely” Sound Transit, in connivance with the WSDOT, and Seattle Times “aiding and abetting,” will continue with their current plans.  It can, however, continue to warn residents what’s “likely to happen”.   This post deals with what’s likely to happen with East Link.

Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue and Overlake P&Rs has already ended access to transit for many. The current disruptions along the route into Bellevue will only increase with future construction.  Their confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to outer roadway gridlock, “justifying” 2007 WSDOT plans for HOT on the 4^th lanes added for HOV.   The current I-90 corridor congestion from Issaquah will only increase with future growth during East Link construction.

After enduring all that disruption and congestion, those relying on East Link  to ease cross-lake congestion will be “disappointed” when it begins operation.   What Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS claimed was the equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway, will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.   Sound Transit plans to use East Link to replace cross-lake buses to reduce bridge congestion.   

They’ve claimed 40,000 of the 50,000 riders by 2030 would come from terminated bus routes.  However, even if the trains are empty when they arrive at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island transfer stations, their limited capacity can only accommodate riders from about 50 buses an hour during peak commute, about half current bus schedule routes.  

Thus any HOV lane benefits from fewer buses due to East Link will be miniscule.   The more likely result will be those on routes forced to transfer will choose to drive rather than ride to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from crowded light rail trains: increasing GP lane congestion.  

The vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t have access to East Link, forcing them to choose between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.    Sooner or later they will question the "efficacy" of using the I-90 Bridge center roadway for a transit system consisting of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.   From there it’s only a small step to demand Sound Transit tear out the tracks and initiate two way bus service.  Especially since the only other option is another very costIy I-90 bridge.  That by 2030, rather than having 50,000 cross-lake riders there will be no “link” to East Link. It would be up to Sound Transit as to whether to operate East Link without it.

South Seattle commuters would also cheer this result since it would at least double Central Link capacity.  Eliminating the need to integrate East Link operation with its far shorter routes and fewer stations than Central Link would allow even more frequent service.

It’s beyond “unfortunate” Sound Transit didn’t recognize this eventuality earlier.

Why Legislators Should Stop ST3

(The 10/24/17 Seattle Times B1 “Traffic Lab” article, "GOP-led panel: Lawmakers misled by Sound Transit", prompted the following post.)

Why Legislators Should Stop ST3

The Republican lawmakers surely have ample reason to claim Sound Transit “misled” them.  They’re not the only ones.  Sound Transit not only “misled” the entire area with their claims for what ST3 would cost, they “misled” voters about what ST3 would do to reduce congestion.  

To claim Sound Transit merely “misled” legislators and voters doesn’t do justice to their blatant mendacity concerning car tab fees. The article claims legislators were well aware of the  “inflated car valuations” in 2015.  Yet Sound Transit didn’t use the inflated valuations in their own ST3Tax website telling voters what car tabs would cost in 2016.  They later eliminated the website and denied ever "misleading" voters; essentially “lying about lying”.  

They averaged property values from King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to “estimate” what voters could expect to pay in ST3 property taxes.  Grossly understating what the vast majority of those paying the taxes would have to pay.

However, Sound Transit’s “misleading” what ST3 would "cost" pales in comparison to their mendacity about what it would “do”. Most of the $54 billion, spent extending a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

Yet Sound Transit’s “ST3 map” claimed light rail to Everett and Tacoma would add up to 110,000 and 95,000 riders daily respectively by 2040.  The "spines" limited capacity means even a fraction of their predicted riders would fill transit trains before they ever reach Northgate and Angel Lake, ending access for current Central Link riders.  

Sound Transit also ignores the “likelihood” fare-box revenue shortfall from the increased operating costs with the longer routes without increased capacity will either require a huge increase in fares or create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds.  

Sound Transit not only “misled” legislators and voters about what Sound Transit would cost and do, they violated the Revised Code of Washington regarding planning requirements for high capacity transit.  RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) requires the following: 

High-capacity transportation system planning shall include a study of options to ensure that an appropriate range of technologies and services are evaluated. The law requires the study of a do-nothing option and a low capital cost option, along with higher capital options that consider use of different technologies.

There’s no indication Sound Transit ever considered far lower cost BRT routes along restricted access lanes for I-5 corridor despite claims they had complied with RCW.  Even worse, Sound Transit claimed the RCW didn’t apply to East Link.  As a result they're spending billions constructing East Link, disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue for years, and inevitably leading to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways for light rail with less capacity than 50 buses an hour.  (That East Link also halves the capacity of Central Link for south Seattle adds to its absurdity)

The bottom line is legislators are justified in taking legal action forcing Sound Transit to cease using inflated car tab valuations.  Sound Transit’s blatant mendacity concerning costs to voters surely outweighs any claims they’ve already issued bonds based on inflated values.   However, Sound Transit’s failure to comply with RCW and their mendacity about what ST3 would do and what the extensions will cost to operate will have far more impact on the area’s transportation future.  It’s time legislators recognize that reality with legal action to stop them.    

I urge residents tell their legislators to do so.  

Seattle Times Constantine Endorsement

The Oct 19^th Seattle Times editorial deriding my candidacy for King County Executive is no surprise.   They've never accepted the fact that it and all my other candidacies (they neglected to mention I also ran for governor and received nearly 50,000 votes) have never been about winning but to use the “Voters’ Pamphlets” to publicize the debacle awaiting the area from Sound Transit’s light rail extensions.  

It was no surprise as they neglected to even interview me. Since my first campaign in 2012 they’ve never been interested in my concerns that Sound Transit’s confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link will inevitably result in gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.   They also neglected to mention my opposition is not only to East link, but to all of Sound Transit’s ST3 “light rail spine” extensions. 

That spending most of the $54 billion on a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  That the "spines" limited capacity means riders attracted by the billions spent extending light rail beyond Northgate and Angel Lake on I-5 corridor and across I-90 Bridge will fill trains, ending access for current Central Link riders.   That the increased operating costs with the longer routes without increased capacity is a sure recipe for a financial “black hole” to cover the shortfall between costs and fare-box revenue.   

The Times editorial "misled" when they claimed they did not support ST3 “after the proposal mushroomed from $16 billion, as it was billed in the legislature”.   Their only objections to ST3 funding in an Oct 28^th, 2016 editorial, “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority,” was over concern it would allow Sound Transit to extend taxes some 25 or 30 years from now. 

They were, however, less supportive of Constantine in the below excerpts from a 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers”.

Constantine exaggerated, using Sound Transit numbers to present a best-case scenario for rail while grossly undercounting freeway capacity. That may rally transit supporters, but it doesn’t help the rest of us trying to get our heads around the staggering investment the third phase of Sound Transit could require.

Public officials cannot prematurely dismiss questions about whether there are better ways for the region to spend $50 billion than the slate of trains, buses and stations in Sound Transit 3 (ST3). 

That editorial concluded with the following:

The point is voters need their representatives to provide clear, objective explanations of ST3’s pros and cons, not cheerleading.  Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified.

Apparently all those concerns have been forgotten since the Times endorsed Dow Constantine despite his and Sound Transit's failure to ever respond.   (Constantine "declined" opportunities to debate the issues directly)

Instead the Times, if not actively “supporting”, is quietly “acquiescing” to Constantine’s Sound Transit policies.   For example they’ve done nothing to expose how Sound Transit used their own ST3Tax website to mislead voters about what car tabs would cost and then eliminated the website and denied ever "misleading" voters; essentially “lying about lying”.  

That  all of the Sound Transit "Prop 1 and beyond" light rail extensions ignored Revised Code of Washington requirements high capacity transit (HCT) planning consider lower cost options.  That even a cursory audit of the costs and benefits of the extensions would fail any rational cost benefit analysis.  For example they're spending billions constructing East Link, disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue for years, and inevitably leading to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways for light rail with less capacity than 50 buses an hour.  That East Link will halve Central Link capacity available for future south end riders.

The bottom line is sooner or later the entire area will recognize the reality of Constantine's ST3 debacle.  My candidacies have never been about winning but to warn residents about what’s coming and that it didn’t have to happen.   The Seattle Times editorial deriding my candidacy and ignoring their earlier ST3 “concerns” continues their "aiding and abetting" the Constantine debacle.

What I Would Do

(A recent enquiry about what I would do if elected prompted the following post)

What I Would Do

In the “unlikely” event voters chose me to be the next King County Executive my first action would be to terminate light rail extensions along I-5 beyond Northgate and Angel Lake, and across I-90 Bridge to Bellevue.  Sound Transit’s decision to route the “light rail spine” extensions though the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) prevents the extensions from doing anything to increase transit capacity into Seattle.   

The billions spent on light rail construction vs. limited potential ridership fail any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.  Especially since even a fraction of Sound Transits claims for the number of those riding extensions along I-5 corridor would fill light rail trains before they ever reach Angel Lake or Northgate, ending access for current Central Link riders. The vast majority of I-90 commuters won’t even have access to East Link, forcing them to choose between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.

The operating costs over the longer routes without increased ridership will require either a dramatic increase in fares or in subsidies to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare-box revenue; a potential financial “black hole” for transportation funds.

Part of the funds allocated for the light rail spine would be used to expedite the proposed 5.4-mile extension to Ballard and 4.7-mile extension to West Seattle.  Seattleites surely deserve the extensions.  There would be no ST3 if they hadn’t voted 70% to approve it.  They shouldn’t have to wait 15 to 20 years to get light rail.  The two combined would cost about $4B and, according to Sound Transit, add roughly 80,000 to 100,000 daily riders.    

The numbers of residents within walking distance of light rail stations would likely provide the ridership without the need to spend hundreds of millions increasing parking.   The light-rail construction costs per rider are a fraction of those for the spine. The relatively short light rail extensions minimize the higher operating costs and subsidies.  

Part of the billions planned for extending light rail across I-90 Bridge center roadway would be used to initiate inbound and outbound BRT lanes on the bridge center roadway.  The South Bellevue and Overlake P&R lots would both be expanded and reopened as soon as practicable.  The devastating construction along the route into Bellevue would be terminated, as would the tunnel under downtown Bellevue.

Funds previously intended to install light rail tracks would instead be used to increase P&R capacity throughout the area.  The initial goal would be to add 10,000 parking stalls each year for 5 years with BRT access to I-5 and I-90 corridors.  (Those commuters have to park their car someplace;  the nearer to where they live the better.)  ST3 waits until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on 8560 stalls by 2041.  

The BRT routes would use I-90 bridge center roadway lanes and I-5 lanes limited to +3HOV during peak commute to reduce transit times.  BRT egress and access in Seattle would be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated two-way T/C with each route having one or two designated drop-off and pickup locations along the two sides.   

The bottom line is the only way to reduce congestion on the area’s roadways is to increase the number of commuters using public transit.  That requires providing increased parking with transit capacity to where commuters want to go. Sooner or later the entire area will recognize Sound Transit’s policies will do neither. 

My candidacies have been an attempt to make it "soon" enough to stop it.  While that's not "likely" to happen, at least it will inform those who visit the blog as to what they can expect from Sound Transit and that it didn't have to happen.