Seattle Times Still Doesn’t Get It

The Sunday Seattle Times headline “POWER HUNGRY Data centers guzzle electricity, threatening state’s clean energy push” details the "Times Watchdog" concern with the impact of data center energy use in Washington.  That the “clean energy push", was the result of Governor Inslee passing the “Clean Energy Transformation Act” in 2019, claiming ”Washington would lead the nation by eliminating carbon emitting energy sources”, 

It required Washington utilities become greenhouse gas neutral by 2030 and use only renewable or non-carbon-emitting power by 2045.  He vetoed legislation authorizing up to $400,000 to study data center power usage in Washington, claiming the data was available from other sources. The Grant County Public Utility District manager worried it will be impossible to generate enough clean energy fast enough to meet state mandates.

The study Inslee vetoed would have verified the district manager was right.  That the Clean Energy Transformation Act requiring utilities eliminate carbon emitting energy by 2045 requires replacing the 35% of the energy from the non-renewable and presumably carbon powered “unspecified emitting sources".   The problem isn’t that the data center power needs make up for 40% of the current renewable green energy power, it’s that those energy sources provide less than 10% of total energy available or only up to 4% of total for data centers.  Significant but hardly a crisis.

Thus, it’s highly unlikely utilities will be able to add the windmills and solar panels needed for the energy required to replace the 35% current carbon emitting energy.  Especially since those power needs will increase as needed for the energy required to replace natural gas and internal combustion powered cars.

The bottom line is it’s not that the data center energy needs threaten the need to meet state mandates.  It’s that the state mandate, the Clean Energy Transformation Act requires nearly quadrupling  the 10% existing “green energy sources”. Highly unlikely despite the hundred of millions planned for additional "green energy sources". (Even more problematic in states without hydropower.) Even if they did manage to do so, the effect on global temperatures will be limited by the fact that Washington emits less than 0.2% of the planets CO2.  

Clearly the Seattle Times still doesn’t get it's not the data center power needs that's the problem, it's the attempts to comply with the Clean Energy Transformation Act.

This Candidate for Governor's Plan for Climate Change

The Seattle Times July 24th front page article “How the candidates for governor plan to tackle climate issues” neglected to query my candidacy.  If they had my response would have been strong support for Initiatives 2066 and 2117 for several reasons.   First, is that prior to the Climate Commitment Acts passage in 2021 Washington’s CO2 made up only 1.56% of the country’s 11.19%  of planets.  Thus, any climate benefits from rejecting the initiatives are limited to reducing Washington’s 0.17456% of  global CO2 emissions. 

Even more important is the question as to whether anthroprogenic (APG) CO2 emissions increase global temperatures.  An April 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change” was one of the seminal proponents.  It used the failure of computer models to match measured temperatures unless the “forcing function” (influence) of  APG was ten times that of changes from the Sun.  That assumption was the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Asseessment Reports of the need to reduce CO2 emissions to reduce global warming

However a July 19th,  "Watts Up With That" Internet Report "Causality Analysis Finds Temperature Changes Have Determined CO2 Changes Since The Phanerozoic" includes the following: 

A comprehensive new study details a stochastic assessment determination of the sequencing of CO2 variations versus temperature variations since the 1950s, over the last 2,000 years (the Common Era), and throughout the last 541 million years.

The robust conclusion is that the causality direction – with the understanding that causes lead and effects lag – clearly shows the temperature changes lead and CO2 changes lag on yearly, decadal, and centennial/millennial scales. In other words, “the reverse causality direction [CO2]→T should be excluded.”

The claim that CO2 increases drive temperature changes is thus a “narrative” only, as the claim that “humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate” can be regarded as a “non-scientific issue.”

A far more “scientific” explanation of what a 4/30/20 post on this blog, “Ice-Core Results Debunk IPCC Global Warming Concerns” concluded from ice core CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. 

This “feedback” assessment may or may not be a rational explanation for CO2 lag during the warming.  How does  “feedback” explain the subsequent drop in CO2 from 290 ppm to 230 ppm over the next 25,000 years.  The only rational reason for the drop is reducing temperature increases CO2 dispersion into the ocean.  This rationale is supported by CO2 lagging temperature 10 deg C cooling.

 

Again the only rational reason for cooling for all five interglacial periods has to be that lower global temperatures increase dispersion into ocean.  Thus it’s “likely” the increase in CO2 in atmosphere is due to increased out gassing from ocean with higher temperatures.

 

The bottom line is this candidate for governor would “tackle climate change” by pointing out “the benefits of passing any benefit from the CCA is limited to reducing Washington’s 0.1745% of the planet's.  That there is no need to meet the “Clean Energy Transformation Act”, reduce green-house gas emissions, or spend millions on renewable clean energy. That passing Initiatives 2066 and 2177 will have absolutely no impact on global temperatures and save millions and allow natural gas in our homes.

Traffic Lab Concern with Sound Transit Spending

The Seattle Times has changed its Traffic Lab project from one that “digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues” to one that “comments about how money is spent on transportation”.  Yet they’ve spent the time since its inception neglecting to "comment" about Sound Transit Board’s malfeasant spending.  

A public transportation system’s goal should be to provide access for those unable or unwilling to drive to their destination in sufficient numbers to reduce congestion for those who drive. Instead, the board's spent years and hundreds of millions on light rail extensions across the I-90 Bridge and a light rail "spine" along I-5 for 4-car light rail trains. They don’t have the capacity needed to attract the riders needed to reduce peak hour freeway congestion and cost too much to operate off peak.  

The board could have implemented bus-only, 2-way BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway for a fraction of the cost of light rail extensions with 10 times light rail train capacity, 10 years sooner.  For a fraction of the money they’ve already spent and will spend on their “light rail spine” along I-5 the board could’ve added parking and local routes to T/Cs on I-5 with access to additional bus routes along a restricted access  lane into Seattle.  (King County Metro and Snohomish Community Transit already provide access to transit along  routes into Seattle with multiple bus stops at a fraction of a light rail station cost.)  Egress and access in Seattle could’ve been facilitated with dedicated stops along an elongated bus-only T/C on 3^rd or 4^th Ave

Even worse, rather than increase the bus routes into Seattle, the Traffic Lab has abided if not abetted the board using light rail to replace existing routes; reducing  transit capacity into Seattle and nothing to reduce GP lane congestion. Those forced to transfer to light rail will lose the more convenient egress and access along routes into and out of the city than stations in DSTT.  They’ll also limit access to current  Line 1 Link riders during peak commute and the 4-car light rail train operating costs will dwarf those of a bus they replace during off peak.

The Traffic Lab’s biggest failure to “comment on how money is spent on transportation” is their abetting the board plan to spend some $12.5 billion and years disrupting major roadways in Seattle for a Ballard-to-Sodo second tunnel.  The Ballard and South Lake Union areas already have excellent KCM service, again with better access to routes into Seattle with more convenient egress and access options than with 2nd tunnel.  Terminating Eastside and West Seattle links at the existing CID would allow both to operate to meet local demand. Those needing to go further could use the existing DSTT.  

Other examples of the the Traffic Lab abetting the board funding “dubious” transportation projects include spending $499.5 million on a 120-capacity Bus Base North(BBN) to maintain 48 battery powered buses for their Stride bus routes. (Buses Sound Transit will use for their S1 and S2 I-405 BRT routes to replace current Express Bus routes with far better access.) 

"They plan to spend nearly $300 million on a light rail station on 130^th Ave along I-5 and a similar amount on an in-line 85th St station along I-405; neither of which has parking for access.  They spend millions getting advice from outside consultants on how to “better implement” extensions who apparently don’t "advise" them the “process” is not the problem, it’s the product, the light rail spine.

The most "dubious" example of Traffic Lab apparently abiding Sound Transit Board spending  is the compensation board members get as Directors. King County Executive Dow Constantine selects the directors and has selected himself as the Chairman. His choice for the other  directors includes Snohomish and Pierce County executives, county council members and mayors. 

Their “direction” consists mostly of sitting in front of their computers at home or an office for three or four hours, two or three times a month.  They listen, sometimes comment, and nearly always approve what Sound Transit asks for. Yet the 18 directors, who a March 29th Traffic Lab article charitably called “nonspecilist”, receive between $150,000 to 231,000 annually, a hefty addition to what they get from their elected position. 

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board has used 2016 Prop 1 approving ST3 for $54 billion between 2017 and 2046 to now spend $145 billion between 2017 and 2046.  The Traffic Lab needs to "comment" to prevent them from doing so.

WSDOT’s Search for Money

The July 11^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab announcing “520 bridge tolls to rise even as fewer drivers take the route” is another example of a WSDOT that’s more about raising money than attempting to reduce roadway congestion.  The announced 40 cent increase in August and the extended peak hours is this year’s addition to the 15% increase and extended peak toll hours last year.  

The WSDOT concedes the 63,000 vehicles who currently use SR520 are reduced because drivers divert to toll-free I-90 or north-end Highway 522. However, the increased revenue the fees generate are more important to the WSDOT than the longer travel times, the increased mileage costs for those commuters along with added congestion for those using the alternate routes.   

Those not wanting to pay the SR520 toll are faced with another result of WSDOT’s quest for additional revenue: HOT on two lanes both north and south of SR520.  Imposing HOT on an HOV lane to achieve the optimum 2000 vehicles per hour (rather than number of carpoolers) reduces congestion on remaining GP lanes.  

The WSDOT’s imposing HOT on a second HOV lane increases congestion on remaining GP lanes and the incentive to pay the fees.  They recently increased the peak commute HOT fee to $15.  It did little to increase HOV lane velocity, instead reduced those willing to pay to where the increased GP lane congestion slowed to 20 mph during commute for those not wanting to pay SR520 tolls.   

The bottom line is the WSDOT is more about increasing funding than reducing congestion. Their quest for additional funds exacerbates the reality that east side commuters wanting to go into Seattle faced with two choices.  Pay the increased SR520 tolls or accept the long travel times to get to the alternatives.  

 

A.G Ferguson for Governor Biggest Caveat?

 The July 7 Seattle Times Editorial “Bob Ferguson for Governor” admittedly “makes this decision with caveats”.  However, those caveats didn’t include his biggest caveat, abetting Sound Transit malfeasance. 

For example, there would be no East Link if Ferguson had held WSDOT lawyers “accountable” in the 2013 Freeman litigation opposing light rail on I-90 Bridge. They told  the federal judge the center roadway could be used for light rail because their addition of a 4^th lane on the outer roadway would make the center roadway unneeded for vehicles.  Yet the document the WSDOT cited stipulated the center lanes were still needed for wehicles.  The result will be public transit on the  I-90 Bridge limited to one 4-car light rail train every 8 minutes, a fraction of what’s needed to reduce I-90 congestion.

 

Ferguson’s office abided Sound Transit making  a mockery of federal environmental laws claiming East Link would not impact noise levels in the Mercer Slough Park. Yet planning to spend millions shielding homes hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway from this “non-existent" noise.  Ending forever the quiet solitude of the park.

 

However, the biggest reason for Ferguson caveats is his failure to hold Sound Transit “accountable” for not complying with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the permanent laws now in force.   RCW 81.104.100 details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning.  

 

(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. 

 

Yet there was no indication Sound Transit ever considered two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway or additional bus routes along I-5 from Everett or Tacoma. That there was no reason to extend light rail beyond UW Station or SeaTac.  That when I raised the issue with A.G. Ferguson’s Consumer Protection Division 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

 

While his office apparently admitted I had a “legitimate concern” they delegated the response to whether Sound Transit had violated the RCW to Sound Transit.  The below excerpts from Sound Transit’s response gives a whole new meaning to attempting to “exculpate” their approach.

 

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. 

 

Yet there’s no indication Sound Transit ever considered 2-way BRT on I-90 Bridge or additional BRT on I-5. The below Sound Transit response concerning East Link was even more absurd.

 

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.

 

My attempts to get A.G Furgusons office response continued to be they lacked the authority to require Sound Transit comply.  The result has been billions have been spent on light rail extensions for light rail trains that don’t have the capacity to reduce multilane freeway peak hour capacity and cost too much to operate off-peak.  That Sound Transit exacerbates that problem by using the trains to replace bus routes, reducing transit capacity into Seattle.  

 One can only question whether much of Furguson’s overwhelming financial support comes from the Associated Builders and Contractors and their labor Unions who have prospered as a result.  A  potentially big caveat for A.G Ferguson’s candidacy.

Sound Transit’s Surplus Property Approach

The following “Business Item" in the June 27^th Sound Transit Board meeting agenda prompted interest in the Livestream video of the meeting.

Resolution No. R2024-09 (1) Declaring certain surplus properties at Surrey Downs near East Link Main Station in Bellevue, Washington as suitable for development as housing and (2) authorizing staff to offer the surplus properties for sale at fair market value to all interested parties.

 

The Sound Transit Board’s dealing with “Surplus Property” has been “uneven” at best.

 

Their Operation and Maintenance Facility East included plans for Transit Oriented Development (TOD).   It included Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue each providing property at no cost to support the development of affordable housing on the site. Bridge Housing and Touchstone has been  selected to develop the property that will include approximately 500 units of housing, over 400,000 square feet of office space, retail, resident amenities on the ground floor, and public park space. However, it’s not clear how much Sound Transit got for this TOD and very little has been done.

 

There is no doubt about how much money Sound Transit’s Bus Base North “surplus property” will provide. The 526,000 SF site will use 130,000 SF for an Administration & Operations Building, surface parking lot for workers, underground parking for 120 buses, and Maintenance Building.  (This despite the fact Sound Transit intends to use it to maintain just the 48 buses for their Stride and I-405 BRT) Apparently, in response to being allowed to locate the facility in Bothell, Sound Transit agreed to a Transfer Development Rights (TDR) to Bothell.  They’ll have no control over what Bothell does with the 225,000 SF in TDR  and an additional 171,000 SF because Sound Transit declaired “it was surplus and does not have a transit use.”   

 

The above “Business Item” was detailed in response to a $10-11million offer to Sound Transit to buy lots in Surrey Downs near East Main station.  Board member Balducci objected saying property should be used to provide “affordable housing” despite Surrey Downs covenants.  The decision was made to delay the decision for two months of further study. The June 27^th Board response to the “Business Item” was apparently Sound Transit was no longer offering to sell the property.  That without any discussion about the offer to buy the “surplus property” the Board decided to Table Resolution No. R2024-09 it indefinitely. 

 

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board’s approach to “Surplus Property” has gone from detailing how the OMFE will be used, though it’s not clear what they received for it or when it will be done,  to giving it away at BNN with no control as to how it will be used, to holding on to it near East Main station because a board member objected to it not be used for “affordable housing” in Surrey Downs. 

Mayor Harold Should Speak Up for Seattle

The June 28^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Largest property tax levy may get bigger” detailed plans to ask Seattle residents to fund a $1.7 billion eight -year transportation levy. It was similar to a June 16^th Seattle Times Opinion, “Road work ahead: Gubernatorial candidates diverge on transportation”.  

A June 11^th post concluded Sound Transit should be forced to allow some of the $1,850 million in sales tax revenue in 2024 ($93,728 million by 2046) be used to help fund roads, bridges, and ferries.  Especially since far more of those paying the taxes use the roads than ride light rail.

This post opines Seattle Mayor Bruce Harold should use his Sound Transit Board position to advocate they use part of the sales tax revenue to fund “basic infrastructure” for “safety, you can’t put a price on” in Seattle.  Again, more residents will benefit from road improvements than ride light rail. Even more important there would have been no ST3 taxes without the 70% approval of Prop 1 in 2016. 

Seattleites surely deserve more of the benefits than they are currently getting with extensions to Northgate and will get from Lynnwood extension since riders added will reduce access for Seattle commuters. Sound Transit will use the longer route operating costs to justify raising the fares to $3.00 for all Seattle commuters.  Plans to route Line 2 link through DSTT will halve the number of trains Seattle residents have from SeaTac.  

Mayor Harold should recognize that Seattle residents would benefit far more from money spend on road improvements than they’ll get from the Sound Transit plan for the $12.5 billion Ballard to Sodo extension. They’ll have to wait until 2039 to even use the extension. During much of the wait they’ll have to put up with disruption from boring a second tunnel and implementing stations that close off major roads in the area.  That when the link does begin those forced to transfer from bus routes to the Ballard to Sodo extension will be limited to egress and access at new Westlake Station rather than at multiple stops along 3^Rd Ave.

Sound Transit could avoid the need for a second tunnel northbound by terminating East Link and West Seattle extension at existing CID station.  Doing so would add needed flexibility for both extension operations and satisfy demand for a “near CID” station. The need for a second southbound tunnel could be avoided by recognizing Ballard and South Lake Union regions already have King County Metro routes with far better access to routes into Seattle than what they will have at a new Westlake station.  

The bottom line is Mayor Bruce Harold is the Sound Transit Director who represents the Seattle residents who made ST3 possible.  His service as their mayor on the board presumably earns him the high end of the $150,000 to $231,000 directors receive as compensation.  He should justify that compensation by insisting some of the taxes Seattleites pay be used to fund their roadway needs.