My Blog Lives On

The campaign for most of the candidates will be ending in a few days.  My campaign has never been about the upcoming elections but to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog about Sound Transit policies in general and their East Link program in particular.  Unfortunately those responsible for the Voters’ Pamphlet have not been particularly helpful.   The general election pamphlet didn’t include my blog address or my biography.  However, I’m still pleased with the large number to those who have viewed this blog.

This has never been personal with me as I don’t live near any light rail route and I never use I-90 Bridge during peak commute.  I’m doing what I can because its’ my way to make a difference and because I know in the end I’ll be vindicated.   If East Link is allowed to proceed, many cross-lake commuters will be surprised in 2016 when Sound Transit closes down the center roadway to install light rail. (As well as begin the devastation along the route into Bellevue.) They will not be happy when they are forced to endure the inevitable congestion and frequent gridlock on the outer roadways.  However, I’m betting they will be enraged when after 7 years of construction they realize the billions spent on East Link will have such a miniscule effect on their commute.

Still, contrary to what many believe, East Link is not a fait accompli.   Serious construction doesn’t begin until at least 2016.  The Bellevue City Council can still refuse to approve permits ST needs for construction. (That’s what so pernicious about BCC current negotiations with ST concerning permits.  Why the big rush?)    The Build a Better Bellevue and Enatai and Surrey Downs residents can proceed with their suit.  Someone in the media or some legislator (I’m pretty sure it won’t be me) will make such an issue of ST incompetence and mendacity they will be forced to drop East Link. 

Until that happens this blog will continue.

Times Editorial Wrong Again,

When I first glanced at the Wednesday (10/24) Times Opinion page headlining “No Way to Run a Commuter Line” I thought they’d finally decided something had to be done.  Boy was I wrong!   Somehow the Times concluded that the reason for “Sounder ridership not meeting expectations” was “Sounder North had not met expectations” for reliability with comments “getting to work cannot be a roll of the dice”  

What an absurdity! First of all, anyone whose ride on the train was cancelled can easily switch over to the ST510 bus that leaves the same station every 10 to 15 minutes and takes them to 5^th and Pine in less than an hour.  Second, since most of the cancellations are due to mudslides it’s not clear what the Times is suggesting as a remedy.  Surely any attempt to prevent future blockages would be expensive or they would have been done long ago.

The editorial touches on the fundamental Sounder problem that most commuters would rather ride a bus that takes them to near where they work rather than a train to the King Street Station.  Their solution is “Sound Transit needs to simplify things”.  What the hell does that mean?  Simplify what?

For years the Times has turned a blind eye to Sound Transit’s mendacity and incompetence.  The fact they would chose this rationale to finally criticize them continues their refusal to meet responsible journalism standards.  

Seattle Times Abets East Link Debacle

 One of the more disturbing aspects of this whole Sound Transit/East Link imbroglio is the complete lack of media interest. This lack of any interest by King, Kiro, and Komo news, the Seattle Times and Bellevue reporter, the local radio commentators is what prompted me to file as a candidate to use the voters pamphlet to attract attention to this blog. 

Many of the posts point out that even a cursory examination of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system would have concluded it was far superior to light rail for the bridge center roadway.  All it would have taken was one investigative TV report or one article in a paper to expose the fact Sound Transit board made an historic blunder in selecting light rail. 

Instead the media has either actively supported or at least abetted ST spending nearly a billion dollars promoting a fatally flawed light rail system.  Even worse they are acceding to ST spending additional billions construct ing a light rail system that will devastate parts of Bellevue and gridlock the I-90 bridge.

I mention this because the Sunday Times included an article by their Executive Editor defending the integrity of the paper’s decision to pay for advertising for the Governor’s race and referendum 74.  I thought if he was really interested in protecting the paper’s reputation he would be interested in my ST concerns.  I therefore emailed him the following that day.  So far, no response.    

Dear Mr. Boardman

I read your defense of the Times in today’s paper and thought you might be interested in my disappointment with your publication.  I’ve been concerned for several years that Sound Transit’s policies in general, but especially their East Link light rail program have failed the commuting public. 

For more than 3 years I’ve tried to raise these concerns with the Bellevue City council via personal appearances and many emails.  I also sent several emails to your paper as “opinion” letters as well as offer to meet with the editorial board to discuss these concerns.   The BCC ignored my efforts and your paper declined to print my “opinions” and refused to meet with me.

As sort of a last resort I filed in May for Pos No 1 in the 48^th District primarily to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to my blog http;//stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  I had also hoped to use my “candidate’s” interview with your editorial board to explain in more detail my concerns.  They simply were not interested and I was “excused” early.  My 9/13/12 post goes into some of the details of the interview and my concerns about the papers lack of interest.

I believe the Seattle Times could benefit commuters throughout the area by exposing problems with Sound Transit policies.  I urge you to go to my blog and read some of the posts.  The concerns they raise are too important to ignore.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt  Candidate for 48^th District Pos. No 1.

Another Undoubtedly Futile BCC Appearance

(I presented the following to the BCC at their 10/22 meeting)
My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th SE.  I’m here tonight to speak out against a proposal before the council to raise property taxes to fund capital projects. This proposal to increase taxes by 4% will apparently raise $1.4 million annually.  While not exactly “chicken feed” it pales in comparison to the $200 million the council recently agreed to pay Sound Transit for a tunnel under the city center.

No one in Seattle had to pay any extra to Sound Transit for the recent decision to tunnel from the University District to Northgate.  Why did Bellevue get stuck for an additional $200 million?  Especially since Sound Transit already gets about 40% of their funds from east side taxes.  The council could have threatened to refuse approving the permits Sound Transit needs to begin construction. 

Instead you allowed ST to proceed with their current plan without ever considering a tunnel from South Bellevue P&R through the city.  You then agreed to a route that will devastate the lives of many in Enatai and Surry Downs.  On top of that you’re currently negotiating with ST to eliminate some of the features that mitigate this devastation.

Before you raise anyone’s taxes the council needs to explain in detail how they intend to pay for the rest of the $200 million.   Also why don’t you ask Sound Transit to consider a BRT system that would eliminate the need for the $200 million, avoid the devastation along 112^th Ave. and prevent ST from grid locking I-90 with light rail. 

Evan more important, don’t negotiate away your right to use the permitting process to stop this debacle.  Doing so now would be unconscionable.

Voters Pamphlet “Oversight”

Maybe it was just an oversight, but those responsible in the Secretary of States office for the General Election Voters Pamphlet decided to truncate my blog address from http;//stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com to stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  I can only hope voters will recognize the need for the full address.  They earlier declined to print my biographical information in the primary pamphlet though it had included the full blog address that the printer added.  

Obviously those who are reading this post know how to reach the blog.  I'm posting it to urge those who share my concerns to use the "social networking" (facebook?) to spread the word to those who might not be able to.  Thank you!

Sound Transit's Sounder North Line Debacle

The Tuesday (10/16) Times article “Too many empty seats on Sounder North Line” epitomizes Sound Transit incompetency.   The North Sounder operation was based on the dubious idea that large numbers of commuters would chose to ride a train rather than an express bus from Everett to Seattle. 

The bus service, ST510, begins service southbound from the Everett Station at 4:20 a.m. with departures every 10-15 minutes during the peak commute.  It takes 52 minutes to reach 5th and Pine in Seattle.   The return routes leave 4^th and Union at similar intervals and take about an hour to reach Everett.  The fares in both directions are $3.50.  

Sounder trains leave Everett every 30 minutes from 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 a.m. and reach the King Street Station in an hour.  The four return routes begin at 4:05 again every 30 minutes, and reach Everett in an hour.  The train fares for Everett are $4.50. 

While riding a train may be more attractive than a bus, the King Street Station location is not nearly as convenient as the options with the bus routes.   Thus it should not be a surprise (unless you’re Sound Transit) that ridership levels are low.

In 2011, this failure to attract riders along with the high operating costs for the trains forced Sound Transit to subsidize each rider by $20,000 a year (See 6/12/12 Post) This has been going on for years.  Yet ST response is a threat to reduce service if ridership doesn’t double by 2020.  Wow, that ought to get peoples attention! 

They spent untold millions on stations in Mukilteo and Edmonds yet Mukilteo has only 56 parking spaces and Edmunds 156.  ST’s aversion to putting P&R lots near Central Link has apparently carried over to the Sounder.

I was particularly struck by the women who commented “When not in a hurry, she drives to Edmunds Station instead of catching a crowded bus for a ride into Seattle”.

Think about that for a moment.  ST is spending tax dollars so riders can take a somewhat slower but relatively empty train rather than a crowded bus for their commute.  Any rational analysis would lead to quickly reducing the number of trains and increasing the number of buses.  Not ST, they want to give the system another 8 years because of their $368 million initial investment.  Talk about “throwing good money away after bad”.

Top Ten Reasons to Stop East Link

I created this list for the recent Rotary Candidates Forum.  I only got to No 5 so thought I’d post the rest.

1.    Sound Transit made an historic blunder in the ‘90’s when they decided on light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  (Any competent analysis would have concluded Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) had more than 10 times light rail capacity at less than 1/10^th the cost)

2.    ST 20008 DEIS didn’t even mention BRT as a “no-build” option prior to selecting light rail.  (Its hard to believe they could spend 10 years looking at every conceivable East Link option and never consider BRT on the center roadway)

3.     ST lied in their 2008 DEIS when they claimed a 4-car train every 9-15 minutes could carry 24,000 riders per hour.  (If you crammed 200 people in each of the four 74-seat cars the maximum capacity is less than 11,000.)

4.    The only access for most cross-lake commuters will be the South Bellevue P&R.  (The Bellevue P&R will never have the capacity or accessibility needed while BRT would provide access from every eastside P&R.  The lack of capacity and accessibility will force most cross-lake commuters to use the bridge outer roadways and inevitable gridlock-see below).

5.    ST lied in their DEIS when they claimed the 4^th lane on the outer roadway could accommodate all the Bus and HOV traffic.  (Their own 2004 studies showed a single lane wouldn’t have capacity needed.)

6.    The 4^th lane for HOV could be added immediately to the bridge outer roadways.  (ST has proposed adding the 4^th lane since the 90’s yet their East Link plans delay the lane addition until 2016.  The added lane would immediately reduce cross-lake congestion, particularly for the “reverse’ commuters, with the added traffic from those avoiding 520 tolls.) 

7.    BRT could begin service on the center bridge roadway.  (Moving the non-transit HOV traffic to the outer roadway would allow BRT service to be added to the current bus schedules.  Every P&R lot could have its own express bus route into and out of Seattle during the peak commute hours.)

8.    The billions ST is planning to spend on East Link could be used to reduce congestion not increase it. (ST has a moral if not legal obligation to spend the 40% of their funds they get from the eastside on eastside transportation improvements.  In addition to BRT, the funds could be used for 520 bridge (possibly eliminating tolls), SR405 and I-90 improvements.)

9.    Enatai and Surrey Downs residents would not have their lives devastated by light rail construction and subsequent operation and Bellevue could avoid coming up with $200 million for a tunnel.  (Both of these problems could have been avoided if ST had agreed to tunnel from the South Bellevue P&R through city center as they recently committed for University/Northgate extension.)

10.Stopping East Link would enhance Bel-Red development.  (There would be no need for a large maintenance yard the BCC has recently objected to and a South Lake Union type streetcar system would be more esthetically appealing, have greater flexibility to meet local needs, and far more accessible than East Links two light rail stations.)