A Better Choice for 520 Commuters,

The previous post proposed a South Lake Union type streetcar system for promoting Bel-Red development rather than East Link light rail.   This proposal would presumably end any light rail extensions to Overlake area and beyond, particularly the Microsoft campus.   However, Sound Transit claims that a large number of Seattle residents would use East Link to reach Microsoft is another one of their myths. 

Most Microsoft employees who commute across Lake Washington live north of the city center and commute across 520.   Those who wished to ride East Link when (and if) it is completed in 2023 would probably have to ride a bus to the University Station  (no parking) or a station on the planned extension to Northgate or in downtown Seattle.   East Link rides from any of these locations would involve stops in Seattle (6), Mercer Island (1), and Bellevue (7) before reaching the Overlake T/C.  Presumably Microsoft would provide shuttle service to the respective campuses.  

BRT service across 520 offers a far better option.  During the peak commute hours express bus routes could provide direct connections between the University Light Rail station and specific Microsoft locations as well as current Bellevue T/C and eventual hospital station.  Again, riders would have to get to the University station either by bus or from other light rail stations.  However, the direct connection to close to their final destination would be far faster. 

The other advantage is that the BRT return routes could provide the Bellevue T/C and several other eastside P&Rs lot with direct connections to the University Station for UW access and light rail connections with downtown Seattle.  Residents from throughout the eastside could benefit.  In the afternoon the routes would be reversed.  Conventional bus routes would still be maintained as needed.

This type of BRT service is well suited for the 520 corridor where the number of inbound and outbound commuters is relatively well balanced.  The number of buses needed may require limiting HOV traffic to 3+ riders during peak commute hours.  (Its possible but unlikely all HOV traffic would be relegated to other two lanes during peak commute)

The only impediment to initiating BRT service across 520 when rebuilt is the lack of space near the Husky Stadium station for buses to drop-off and pick-up riders.  Typical of Sound Transit incompetence, their current stadium station plans make no provisions for this feature.  They apparently let University objections or their desire to eventually extend light rail across 520 outweigh their responsibility to commuters.

Street Cars Not Light Rail for Bel-Red (updated 7/26)

A recent Bellevue Reporter article raises concern the Bellevue City Council’s emphasis on integrating Bel-Red development with East Link is causing zoning problems.  East Link proponents have claimed for years light rail is critical to attracting future development.

Why does anyone think light rail’s four-car-trains trundling noisily through an area every 3 ½-5 minutes for 20 hours is an attraction?   (Central Link has attracted very little development as attested by light rail ridership in 2011 being a quarter of what Sound Transit had projected.)  

The BCC recently concluded nearly two years of “negotiations” with Sound Transit because no one wanted light rail in their neighborhood.  They lost!   What makes light rail a “magnet” for Bel Red development?  Sound Transits plans to use a large part of the area to overnight trains, for maintenance, and parking for transit workers aren’t exactly a boon for development.

The Bel-Red area would be far better served with a streetcar system similar to what’s been so successful in South Lake Union.  The tracks could run adjacent to each other or in a loop between 116th and 140^th (or 148^th ).   Both routes could include frequent stops for easy access  (vs two stations with light rail).   The 116^th terminus would provide access to BRT service directly into and out of Bellevue T/C and downtown Seattle. 

The streetcar system would cost far less than light rail and would be far more esthetically appealing.  It could begin operation in two years, depending on Bel-Red development requirements not Sound Transits 11-year East Link schedule.  When operation begins streetcar schedules could be easily adjusted to meet local needs with 5 to 30 minute intervals between cars. 

Sound Transit’s faulty Bel-Red proposal is just another example of why East Link would fail any rationale cost/benefit analysis.  They’re using eastside tax money for a Capital Hill streetcar system.  The BCC needs to “persuade” them to do the same here.

My Other Ideas for Legislature

Now that the voters’ pamphlet is out and my candidacy is attracting more interest I want to emphasize it’s not primarily an attempt to have the honor of representing the 48^th district but to publicize my concerns about Sound Transit’s East Link light rail.  (My wife would probably suggest I demand a recount if I win)  However, as long as I’ve spent the filing fee, I thought I would use this post to detail some other ideas voters might consider. Bare in mind my engineering background has dealt with identifying and working with others to solve technical problems not political ones so I’m unclear how doable they are. 

My concept of tax “fairness” requires Indian casinos share their profits with the state treasury.  Whatever the process, most if not all the states share the Indian profits.   The other “fairness” issue concerns the regulation of utility rates, namely costs for gas heating.  Natural gas prices have dropped to ten-year lows recently yet my heating bills remain high.  The utilities commission should require PSE rates reflect the reduced price of natural gas.

I also have some ideas that require legislative action. The first is health insurance reform.  Health insurance companies from outside the state should be allowed to offer coverage to all Washington residents.  My wife and I can buy Medicare supplemental insurance from whomever we wish.  Younger residents should have the same opportunity.   The insurance companies should also have the ability to offer policies for those willing to accept mediation rather than litigation to resolve disputes.   Let the insurance companies decide what avoiding costly malpractice suits means in terms of reduced premiums and let those buying policies decide whether they want them.

            The second is reforming a legal system where 4.5 years after a family of 6 was brutally murdered, $4.9 million of our tax dollars has been spent by attorneys for their killers.  It’s expected more millions will be spent before trial begins next year.  Some would say it’s the price we pay for our “death penalty” prosecutions.   I consider it lawyers writing laws that benefit other lawyers, along with judges (also lawyers) who supposedly demand these expenditures in order to avoid being overturned.   The defense’s claim they need to spend these millions and years in order to “not get it wrong” or to “let the jury see the whole person in the context of the crime” is patently absurd.   Defense teams should be given 6-12 months and “reasonable” funds to prepare the defense.

The third idea for legislative action is to allow Washington farmers (and others) to initiate a “guest worker” program.   Those needing temporary help should be allowed to set up combines of some sort that would allow contracting migrant workers from Mexico and elsewhere to come here for a 6-9 month period.  Farmers and their communities would benefit from knowing they would have a reliable pool of workers when needed.  At the end of their contracted period the workers would be transported back to Mexico with promises for work the following year.

The legislature should also consider enacting financial legislation that allow those with mortgages that exceed their home’s value to refinance by reducing the balance owed to the homes current value with the proviso any subsequent appreciation of the home value above the new principal would be shared with the lender when the house is sold.  (California is considering something similar where outside investors buy the houses at “current value” from the lender leaving the current mortgage holders with a big loss)  This adjustment would only be allowed if the owner had the ability to finance this reduced payment.  Owners (and their neighbors) would benefit by not having the house foreclosed on along with reduced monthly payments.  Lenders would benefit from future appreciation and not having to go through foreclosure and then resell the home at its current value.

In conclusion, my last issue has to do with K-12 funding where two numbers stand out.  The first is that a typical classroom has something like 20 students.  The second is schools receive $12-14,000 (or more) per year to cover each student’s education    It seems logical (at least to this former engineer) that the $240,000 to $280,000 income for each classroom would provide plenty of funds to fairly compensate the teacher.   The legislature needs to be pay more attention to where the rest of the money goes.

WSDOT Major Culprit In East Link Debacle

The previous post commented on the absurdity of Sound Transit using a document called the "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) to "promote" East Link light rail.   This post examines another improbable aspect of this debacle, namely the Washington State Department of Transportation support for East Link.  The EIS includes the WSDOT as the “Co Lead Agency”. 

East Link originated more than 30 years ago when the Sound Transit Board, “decreed” that light rail was the answer for cross-lake commuting.  The board, recognizing that a major part of the Central Link funding came from eastside taxes, apparently felt the need to include light rail service to attract support.   It was this need for eastside support that presumably led to Sound Transit making the absurd promises for East Link detailed in other posts.  (eg  5/15, 5/19, 5/24,5/30, 6/27) 

The ST board could be forgiven for “over-promising” (which I believe had a major impact on Prop.1 vote in 2008). The members were all appointed to their positions, with very few having any mass transit experience.  What is truly unconscionable is the WSDOT going along with this debacle. (I vaguely remember a WSDOT official resigning in protest commenting East Link was more interested in “construction” than “transportation”.)   

The WSDOT knew (or should have known) that bus rapid transit (BRT) was a far better choice for cross-lake commuting than light rail.  The 40-ft. wide center roadway was ideal for two-way bus only lanes separated by a third lane for increased safety and maintenance access.     The bus lanes had 10 times light rail capacity, at 1/10^th light rail cost, and could have been in operation more than 10 years ago.   Every eastside P&R could have had direct bus routes into Seattle alleviating congestion throughout east side. 

Instead it was the WSDOT who conducted the September 2005 test attempting to ensure the I-90 bridge could withstand light rail loads, the first light rail installation on a floating bridge.  As detailed in my 7/04 post, the FHWA was not convinced and the legislature commissioned an independent review.  Their conclusion that “issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed” was wide open to interpretation.

It was the WSDOT who told a Kittitas judge the center roadway wasn’t needed for highway uses and could therefore be closed down to install light rail.  They ignored a 2004 study that showed HOV traffic dramatically reduced combination bus/HOV lane capacity.  (See 5/15 and 5/16 posts for details)

It was this WSDOT support that undoubtedly played a role in convincing the media that light rail was indeed the answer for cross-lake commuting.   When it comes to transportation, a retired Boeing engineer's concerns don’t rate that high on their credibility scale.  (All the money the media received from “ride the waves” advertizing revenues didn’t hurt.)   

When I contacted the Attorney General’s Transportation and Public Construction Division on these issues last year I received a letter from the “Chief Counsel for the Washington State Department of Transportation.  It included the following “I believe your best course of action is for you to retain private council if your concerns are not adequately addressed by the appropriate entities“.

That’s why I run!

East Link’s Real Environmental Impact

One of the more bizarre aspects of this debacle is Sound Transit promoting East Link with a document they call an Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS).    Their EIS document gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”.   Any rationale review would surely conclude that East Link has no redeeming qualities when it comes to environmental impact.

Cross-lake commuters and the environment have already suffered because of East Link.  15 years ago Sound Transit could have moved the non-transit HOV traffic to a 4^th lane on the outer roadways and initiated two-way Bus Rapid Transit lanes, or BRT on the center roadway.  The costs for the 4^th lane would have been minimal and commuters,  particularly “reverse commuters”, and the environment would have benefitted from the reduced congestion.  The BRT lanes would have enabled express bus routes from every eastside P&R directly into Seattle.  Commuters could have left their cars near where they live rather than where they work, reducing congestion throughout eastside.

Sound Transit’s plan to delay the 4^th lane until 2016 when they shut down the center roadway adds more years of congestion.  (The delay also assures they’ll never initiate BRT service.)  The 2016 closure date is when the environmental “s**t hits the fan”.   The outer roadway 4^th lane will never have the capacity to accommodate all the bus and HOV traffic.   ST’s 2004 study showed increasing the HOV requirement from 2+ riders to 3+ didn’t make a significant difference.  The end result will probably be all the non-transit HOV traffic will be forced onto the other lanes inevitably leading to gridlock, an environmental debacle.

The 2016 date also represents the beginning of an environmental nightmare for those living near the route between the south Bellevue P&R and city center.  Sound Transit plans to rip out hundreds of trees and other flora and spend the next 7 years installing two sets of tracks and 5000-volt power lines.  In some instances the tracks apparently run through residents’ back yards.  Build a Better Bellevue has announced their intention to sue because light rail encroachment on the Mercer Slough Park violates federal environmental law.  The historically sensitive Winters home is also threatened.

What ‘s practically obscene is the truly miniscule benefit from East Link when service finally begins in 2023.   After all the money has been spent, neighborhoods wrecked, and commuters frequently gridlocked on the bridge, light rail service will consist of one 4-car train every 7 minutes.  (That assumes ST will be able to show the floating bridge “expansion joints” can withstand the loads from 4 74-ton cars: something they apparently have not yet done to FHWA satisfaction.) 

The only access for most cross-lake commuters to his very limited capacity will be the South Bellevue P&R.  A P&R which will never have the needed capacity or accessibility.   The majority of those who do have access to the P&R and chose to ride light rail will presumably be previous bus riders.  Switching riders from a bus to light rail will do little to reduce cross-lake congestion.

What is really absurd is the fact Sound Transit rather than the state Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the final say regarding state environmental protection act (SEPA) requirements.  Only an organization so oblivious to environmental reality as Sound Transit would put the following claim in their EIS:

The East Link Project would also offer environmental 
improvements over the No Build Alternative.

One Way to Stop East Link

In previous posts I’ve answered the question “why?” I want to stop East Link.  This post proposes one answer to the question  “how?” to stop it.   Sound Transits 2011 Environmental Impact Statement lists 9 “permits or approvals” the city of Bellevue has to issue.   Thus four of the seven Bellevue City Council members can stop East Link by refusing to issue the permits.  

Claudia Balducci and John Chelminak are staunch supporters of East Link (Neither could find time to meet with me to discuss my concerns privately three years ago.).   Those two along with recently elected John Stokes were heavily supported by pro rail “Move Bellevue Forward “.   Typical of much of the “pro rail” support, three of the five MBF board members weren’t even from Bellevue. 

The other four would seem to be persuadable.  They’ve all argued for the BSNF route from I-90 into downtown. Don Davidson has recently been particularly outspoken in his opposition to the current route.  Jennifer Robertson, prior to her election to the council, promised to use the permitting process in negotiations with Sound Transit.   Mayor Lee and Kevin Wallace both seem willing to listen to reason on the issue. 

Prior to my candidacy I spent more than three years using the “3 minute Public Comment” portion of BCC “extended sessions” to explain my concerns.   The council, as is their “policy” never responded.   To my knowledge no one else raised any concerns.  The Bellevue Reporter refused to publish my emails critical of East Link (and still hasn’t acknowledged my candidacy).   The Seattle Times editorial board ignored my offers to meet, choosing instead to promote East Link as the answer for cross-lake commuters.  (Needless to say I'm not expecting their endorsement.)

The BCC, Bellevue Reporter, and the Seattle Times need to be “persuaded” to pay attention to East Link problems.  Those who share my concerns should speak out at BCC meetings or email the council at council@bellevuewa.gov and email the Bellevue Reporter and Seattle Times.

My post “The Cast Against East Link” explains how the billions spent on East Link fails any rational “cost/benefit analysis”.   Its not only those who live along the current route who will suffer, anyone who commutes into Seattle, or for that matter, commutes along 405 and I-90 will be affected.  East Link can be stopped.

Eastside Republican Salmon Fest Presentation

I’m Bill Hirt, what you might call the 48^th District’s “stealth” candidate.    I’m a retired Boeing Engineer whose last elective position was that of president for 25 “class of ’57 seniors” in Armstrong, Iowa.  My wife and I have lived in the Sammamish Heights area since 1967 where we raised two daughters.

I’m running for office to inform voters that the billions Sound Transit is planning to spend on their East Link light rail system will gridlock the 1-90 bridge, devastate a beautiful part of Bellevue, create havoc in downtown Bellevue, and do absolutely nothing to relieve I-90 and SR405 congestion.

This debacle began a long time ago.  Sound Transit’s 1996 study initially considered adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadways and dividing the center roadway into two-way bus rapid transit, or BRT, lanes.  Even a cursory analysis would have determined that BRT lanes provided far more capacity than light rail, easily enough for any future cross-lake transit demands.  

Sound Transit could have initiated the BRT service 15 years ago providing express bus routes from every eastside P&R directly into Seattle.  Commuters could have left their cars near where they live rather than where they work, reducing congestion throughout eastside.

Instead, Sound Transit has spent the 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars promoting cross-lake light rail along with studies of nearly every conceivable route through the eastside.  Their 2008 Environmental Impact Statement never mentioned BRT; instead insisting the center roadway retain the two existing reversible combination bus and HOV lanes.  

The EIS claimed cross-lake light rail was like adding 10 lanes of freeway that would increase capacity by 60%.   The reality is East Link will provide, at best, one 4-car train every 7 minutes.  Most cross-lake commuters won’t even have access to this very limited service.

Sound Transit has also claimed a 4^th lane added to the outer roadway would accommodate all the bus and HOV traffic. They used that claim to convince a Kittitas judge that the center roadway could be used for light rail. They ignored their 2004 study which showed a single lane couldn’t provide enough capacity for both bus and HOV traffic.

Sound Transit could have installed the 4^th lane on the outer roadway 15 years ago, providing an additional lane across the bridge.   The costs would have been minimal and cross-lake commuters, particularly reverse commuters would have benefitted.  Instead they intend to wait until 2016, adding 4 more years of cross-lake congestion.  Congestion that’s recently increased due to those avoiding 520 tolls. 

The bottom line is Sound Transit’s refusal to initiate BRT service 15 years ago has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars wasted and forced cross-lake commuters to needlessly endure years of congestion. In 2016, their closure of the center roadway will change cross-lake commuting forever.  They’ll spend the next 7 years devastating part of Bellevue and installing a light rail system with, at best, one 4-car train every 7 minutes that most cross-lake commuters won’t have access to.

I know my concerns seem a bit far-fetched.  My opponent, Rep. Hunter’s response to many emails was “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across Lake Washington come hell or high water”.   My campaign goal is to prove him wrong. 

I consider myself the stealth candidate because I don’t intend to run a conventional campaign.  I’m not accepting any financial support.  My major campaign expenditure will be the filling fee I paid to allow me to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract readers to my blog about this debacle.  I’m confident that many who read it will agree with my concerns and support my candidacy.  While I probably won’t win, it will at least expose Rep. Hunter’s complicity in this debacle and generate some much needed publicity. 

I’m here tonight because the entire eastside will suffer if East Link is allowed to proceed.  For those who can’t wait for the voters’ pamphlet, my daughter has printed a few cards with details on how to access the blog.  Read it and if you agree, urge others to do the same.  East Link can be stopped!

ST Response to DEIS Questions, "Questionable"

Sound Transit asked for public comments concerning their December 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) promising to respond in the final version of the EIS.   Typical of ST, their July, 2011 EIS attempts to respond were less than satisfactory. 

Table 7-1 in Chapter 7 listed the most widely held concerns as “Common Comments” along with Sound Transits response.  As I pointed out in the previous post their response to 1-90 floating bridge structural concerns, CC3n, that “issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed” leaves many questions. 

The number 1 “Common Comments”, CC1a, was “Why is bus rapid transit (BRT) or increased bus service not included as an alternative?”   Sound Transits response “BRT, as an alternative for East Link, was eliminated during the Sound Transit Long-Range Planning and ST2 process” along with their comment “light rail provides the highest level of ridership and the shortest travel times of all technologies evaluated in the corridor” exemplifies their incompetence or worse.

BRT has been successfully reducing congestion for years with up to   20 buses per minute on each lane, dwarfing East Link capacity.  Sound Transits EIS response suggests they seriously considered BRT.  The 1990’s study they referred to had initially included Configuration R4 which moved the non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the outer roadways and used the center roadways for two-way, bus-only BRT lanes.   The 40 foot wide center roadway would have been ideal for BRT with two bus lanes separated by a third lane for increased safety and maintenance.   It was dropped from serious consideration, apparently because of Mercer Island concerns they would loose their exclusive access to center roadway, a concern ST subsequently ignored for East Link.  

The reality is ST was surely aware of BRT superiority over light rail.  They just didn’t like that answer.  This 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on light rail was not just the result of incompetence, ST was also mendacious.

The response to my question, EL530-1, concerning their failure to consider “no-build” options that would have eliminated environmental damage along the route was “Your opposition to the East Link Project has been noted”.   (That response was probably ST answer to any question they didn’t like.)   ST was not only incompetent and mendacious they were also arrogant.  They simply ignored the fact that failure to consider the BRT option violated federal environmental law because of East Link’s encroachment of Mercer Slough Park.

Again, that’s why I run

LW Bridge Concerns With East Link

Sound Transit’s East Link is the first attempt at installing light rail on a floating bridge. The concern has been the durability of the expansion joints that connect the floating portion of the bridge with the fixed structure at either end.   The origina1 I-90 joints have already needed to be replaced, presumably because of degradation from existing vehicular traffic. 

Each loaded light rail car weights 74 tons, so a 4-car train represents a substantial increase in loads for the expansion joints.  The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted a test in September 2005 to simulate light rail operation on the bridge. The test involved eight flatbed trucks that were loaded to approximate the weight of light rail vehicles (148,000 pounds each, with two four-truck combinations each simulating a four-car light rail train). The WSDOT concluded “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”.

However, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, in a February 25, 2009 letter, HRW-WA/WA624 responding to Sound Transits 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the East Link Project had a different opinion.  Paragraph 5 of the letter concluded  “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”.

Chapter 7 of the 2011 Environmental Impact State did include a “Response to Common Comments” section that provided the following information concerning installing light rail on a floating bridge structure.

The Washington State Legislature Joint Transportation Committee commissioned an independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail. The IRT concluded that all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed. See Section 2.3.2 of Chapter 2 for further information.

Section 2.3.2 of Chapter 2 doesn’t have any information on the bridge structural concerns and the conclusion “all issues identified as potentially affecting feasibility can be addressed” is surely open to interpretation.  For instance, they could address concerns by reducing the number of cars in each train from 4 to 2, halving the already meager capacity.   It’s also not clear whether the FHWA agreed with the IRT conclusion.

What is clear is that Sound Transit hasn’t conducted any more structural tests on the bridge.  The wording concerning future studies of the expansion joint design is also exactly the same in the two EIS’s suggesting little has been done in the more than 3 years since FHWA raised concerns.

It’s another example of how Sound Transit’s has spent hundreds of millions promoting and planning light rail but very little on whether the damn thing is going to work.   What’s outrageous is they are counting on the WSDOT, the legislators, and the media to allow them to continue doing so for the next four years after which it will be too late to stop them.  

That's why I run.  

Muni League Not Qualified Rating No Surprise

My recent email from the Municipal League of King County informing me of my “Not Qualified” was no surprise.   The email comments “Candidate Evaluation Committee members felt that you had a low level of involvement in civic affairs. It might also reflect a lack of knowledge of the workings of city or county government. If you have previously held office, the Committee may be concerned that you did not produce effective results” are perfectly valid.   I did not fit the “template” they used to determine qualifications.

What they didn’t recognize was my primary goal for running is to inform the entire eastside about the monumental fraud Sound Transit and the WSDOT have been and will continue to perpetrate with the East Link light rail program.  The committee thought I was some sort of Don Quixote type charging at windmills.   They couldn’t believe some retired Boeing Engineer’s claim that Sound Transit and WSDOT had lied for years about East Link and that the legislators and the media had willingly gone along with them. 

The candidate evaluation committee couldn’t believe ST lied when their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) claimed light rail was like adding 10 lanes of freeway across Lake Washington or claimed adding a 4^th lane to the outer roadways would provide enough capacity to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles.  Sound Transit used that outer roadway capacity lie to convince the Kittitas judge to let them install light rail on center roadway.

The committee couldn’t accept the fact Sound Transit has spent the last 15 years wasting hundreds of millions promoting cross-lake light rail along with studies of nearly every conceivable route through the eastside.  Especially when ST undoubted knew bus rapid transit, or BRT, could have reduced congestion not only on the bridge, but throughout eastside using only a tiny fraction of that time and money.   

Again, my chances of winning are minimal at best.  I chose to challenge a many term incumbent because his response to my emails on East Link was  “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across the bridge come hell or high water”.  My campaign is to prove him wrong, and if I happen to replace him so much the better.