Why Not a West Seattle-to-Ballard Tunnel

 The August 27th Seattle Times, Page A8, Traffic Lab article, "Sound Transit to spend $4.2M to find cost cuts" continues the paper's abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  The $4.2M increased payments to $92M for "preliminary engineering and environment studies in West Seattle-to Ballard corridor".

The need to "find cost cuts" is due to "cost estimated at $7 billion soared  past $12 billion".  The "Affordable Schedule" has delayed completion from 2035 to 2039.  The attempt to reduce cost is Sound Transit's attempt to reduce the delay.

Prior to the 2016 vote, the Sound Transit 3 Map projected the 5.4-mile Ballard Link would cost $2.38B to $2.55B. The 4.7-mile West Seattle Link would cost $1.43B to $1.53B.  Sound Transit needs to explain why a ~$4B total cost in 2016 escalated to $7B let alone the $12B in 2021.

The article reports "problems with soaring right of way costs and real estate specialists weren't involved with early estimating".  The concerns were "the board didn't pick a single preferred Ballard-toWest Seattle alternative" and "it's unclear if the board will make a prompt route decision."

The article also depicted the Northgate Link, a 4.2-mile extension routed through a tunnel from UW Stadium to Northgate.  Sound Transit was initially required to tunnel under UW campus. They later decided to tunnel all the way to Northgate.  Final design began in Oct 2010 and it's scheduled to debut in October.  Sound Transit's recent 2021 budget showed the extension's total cost will be $1.9B.

This raises the question, "Did any of the ~$90M spent on consultants include an evaluation of tunnels?'  Sound Transit intends to tunnel under downtown Seattle.  Why not tunnel all the way from Ballard to West Seattle?  Has anyone estimated how much it would cost?

The Seattle Times still doesn't recognize Sound Transit's West Seattle-to-Ballard Link is the only light rail extension that increases transit capacity into Seattle.  Thus it should have priority over extensions beyond Northgate or Angel Lake that won't.  Especially since operating costs for the shorter routes will be less and ridership will benefit from having 70% to 80% of riders living within walking distance of the light rail stations.

The bottom line is, whatever the cost, it should be expedited rather than delayed.  The goal should be 2030, not 2039.  Funds spent today should evaluate tunnels that make that possible not on providing "right of way" costs for surface routes.

 

A.G Ferguson Continues Enabling ST Debacle

The Washington State Office of the Attorney General offers the following for residents:

We offer an informal complaint resolution service to Washington state residents, and to consumers with complaints about business located in Washington state.

My conclusion Sound Transit's planning for Prop 1 extensions had failed to comply with RCW 81.104.100 requiring high capacity transit system planning consider far lower cost BRT prompted a 1/20/17 complaint.  The response was

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 un 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                                                         co Board Administrator                                                                      411 Jackson S                                                                                Seattle, WA 98104

That referral led to a Sound Transit Board response including the following: 

Project level reviews are not subject to the requirements of 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, the statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project levels reviews.  

When asked whether they agreed the Attorney General's Office response included the following:

Regarding Sound Transit, our office does not advise or represent regional transit authorities, nor does our office have the role of supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities.

Still, my concern with Sound Transit funding their realignment construction and "Tax Based Debt" beyond ST3 end date in 2041 prompted the following complaint:

My complaint is based on Sound Transit's attempt to use ST3 passage in 2016 for its 2019 budget claim "The Board has the authority to fund ongoing costs through a continuation of the local taxes authorized by the voters".  The result will be the area's residents will be obligated to fund construction costs and debt payments far beyond the 2041 end date they approved.  That Sound Transit has no legal basis for doing so and should be required to get voter approval of ST4 funding to do so.

However the following response was not unexpected.

Bob Ferguson                                                                         ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON                           Consumer Protection division - Consumer Resource Center             800 Fifth Avenue Suite 2000,                                                        Seattle, WA 98104                                                                      (206)464-6684

August 16, 2021

William James Hirt                                                                            2615 170th SE                                                                                Bellevue, WA 98008

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 S Jackson St.                                                                           Seattle, WA 98104                                                www.soundtransit.org                                                                        (206) 398-5000

Clearly A.G. Ferguson continues enabling ST debacle.

 

What Sound Transit Realignment Should Do

The August 15th Seattle Time Traffic Lab B1 page article "Sound Transit 'realignment' takes on $6.5 billion shortfall" exemplifies a decade of the Times abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  First there's the extended revenue they and Sound Transit expect from ST3 taxes.

Sound Transit's need for the taxes began with the following April 23, 2015 announcement:

Board advances planning for Sound Transit 3 ballot measure:

Currently, the Sound Transit Board is seeking authority from the Washington State Legislature for regional voters to consider $15 billion in new revenue for the regional mass transit extensions.  The full authority is essential for the Board to consider advancing a measure that responds to the strong public interest registered so far in extending light rail to Everett, Tacoma, downtown Redmond, Ballard and West Seattle while building bus rapid transit on I-405 and expanding express bus services.

The Traffic Lab and Sound Transit refuse to recognize residents were told, prior to the November 2016 vote, that the resulting legislation only enabled ST3 taxes from 2017-2041.   That the ST3's additional 0.5 percent sales and use tax, additional 0.8 percent motor vehicle excise tax, and property tax of up to twenty-five cents per $1000 of assessed valuation, would end in 2042.

That in 2042 Sound Transit will be left with the November 2008 ST2 approved 0.9 percent in sales tax, 0.8 percent in rental car tax, and 0.3 percent in motor vehicle excise tax to fund whatever construction is needed, operation, and any bond payment.  The revenue from the three taxes in the 2016 budget totaled $792 million.  Assuming a 3.5 percent annual inflation rate to 2041 the tax income will increase to ~$1.8 billion annually.

Yet the Long Range Plan in Sound Transit's 2021 Financial Plan and Adopted Budget projects $3 billion in "Expenditures" and $1 billion in "Debt Service Payments" in 2041.  The article claims "the agency must repay the bonds after projects are built".  Doing so with the $1.8 billion in taxes will leave very little for funding construction and operation.  Diverting baseline funding to expediting the far less expensive West Seattle to Ballard link would minimize the need for both.

Second, there is the issue of the capacity of "baseline" light rail extensions routed through Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  A 2004 PSRC Technical Workbook, "High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment", funded by Sound Transit, concluded the DSTT stations limited trains to 4 cars. That safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.  They assumed each car could accommodate 148 riders, limiting capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

While Sound Transit ridership projections are more "optimistic" (delusional), none of the "baseline" extensions will increase DSTT capacity. Thus, the paper's assurance "light rail lines to Lynnwood and Federal Way will still be finished" will result in reduced access for current Central Link riders.  

The loss to Central Link riders from Federal Way commuters will be especially onerous since they'll have previous lost half the DSTT capacity when East Link begins operation.  Clearly extensions beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way add to Central Link rider loss.

The third concern is the lack of access to light rail spine extensions.  70 to 80% of "baseline" extension riders will need "motorized access" to station, either with parking or being dropped off.  Yet Sound Transit has spent a decade neglecting to add significant parking near transit stations. ( Instead planning to provide "access" by forcing existing bus riders to transfer to light rail for the commute, reducing total transit capacity into Seattle.)

The latest data available, an Oct-Dec 2016, WSDOT "Park and Ride Inventory" showed nearly all of the parking with access to future baseline stations was already essentially "fully in use".  The only near-term Sound Transit parking is a plan to spend $200,000 per stall for Sounder-commuter train stations by 2025.  All of the other added parking for light rail and BRT has been delayed, with no estimate as to final cost.

Sound Transit refuses to consider the alternative of providing access via local bus routes from where commuters live to BRT and light rail stations.  Again, they delay the Ballard and West Seattle extension which minimizes the access problem having 70-80% of potential riders who live within walking distance of one of the 5 stations on each route.

The bottom line is the Seattle Times needs to acknowledge ST3 taxes were sold to the public in 2016 as a temporary supplement to ST2 taxes.  Sound Transit's current realignment plan, if allowed to proceed, will extend that financial burden to our children's children.  That any riders added by the plan that continues funding "baseline"extensions will diminish access for current Central Link riders.  That their decision to continue a decade long failure to provide access to transit with added parking or local bus routes to transit stations precludes the increased transit ridership needed to reduce roadway congestion.

The only way to minimize all three problems is a "realignment" diverting "baseline" funds to West Seattle to Ballard link.

Sound Transit Realignment Needs ST4 Fundaing Approval

 The August 6th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, "Two light rail stations escape ST3 budget chopping" typifies the paper's decade long abetting of Sound Transit incompetence.  They ignore the real issue with Sound Transit realignment.  That it results in construction costs and debt service payments extending decades beyond the end of the ST3 taxes voters approved in 2016.

ST3 began as the result of Sound Transit Board members asking the legislature to pass legislation enabling them to ask voters for an additional $1B in taxes beginning in 2017 for 15 years.  Sound Transit used the legislation in 2016 to get approval for taxes for the period from 2017 to 2041.  

The "Long Range Financial Plan 2017-2041" in Sound Transit's 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan was the first to include long-range planning.  (Previous posts have detailed how the long-range plan exemplified CEO Rogoff's delusional light rail ridership claims and failure to increase bus transit capacity.)

Prior to the 2016 vote, residents were told the ST3 taxes would fund the $54B  "Prop 1 and Beyond" transit system expansion.  The 2019 budget detailed how the $54B needed to fund the expansion had increased to $96B.  However the $64B in tax revenue for 2017-2041 still left a $17B "Tax Based Debt" in 2042 after ST3 taxes ended.

The budget justified the remaining debt with the following "Voter Approval Requirement"  statement:

The Sound Transit Board Recognizes that the taxes approved by voters are intended to implement a regional transit system and to provide permanent funding for its future operation.  Although the Board has the authority to fund ongoing costs through a continuation of the local taxes authorized by the voters..."

Yet nothing in the ST3 initiative approved funding beyond 2041 for implementation or operation.  Also passage didn't give the Board the authority to continue the local taxes beyond 2041. 

Sound Transit detailed the Board's purported "authority" regarding their ability to borrow funds in the 2021 Financial Plan and Adopted Budget, "Appendix A--ST3 Financial Policies"

Similarly the Board recognizes that bonds issued and loans incurred by Sound Transit will be secured by the pledge of payment through revenues including local taxes.  When bonds are issued or loans secured, Sound Transit will enter a binding contract with its bondholders and lenders that requires first lien claim against pledge revenues for repayment and for maintenance and operation of the transit facilities and services funded by the bonds.  Stated differently, bond holders and lenders will have a legal priority to Sound Transit's local tax revenues to repay the bonds and operate and maintain the transit system.

Not only did the 2021 budget claim the ability to issue bonds requiring payments after 2041, it gave the Board the following responsibility for "project scope," deciding how the money they borrow will be spent.

The LRFP assumes that future system expansion projects will retain the size and scope originally approved by voters under Sound Move, ST2 and ST3.  But as the system is built out the Board may determine that future projects' scope may need to be altered and potentially increased to meet voter approved goals, public concerns, or other reasons.  Such future expansion decisions cannot be known or captured in the current LRFP, and could potentially increase the Agency's financial risk.

Sound Transit's "Realignment "was the result of of conclusion the current plan was "unaffordable".  Not because ST3 taxes wouldn't fund it but because the increased costs resulted in needed "Tax Backed Debt" exceeding "Agency Debt Capacity".  The August 5th Sound Transit Board detailed how projects will be delayed until they can be funded by the allowable bond debt, "1.5% of the assessed valuation of real property within the regional transit authority district."

Again the Traffic Lab article typifies the Times abetting Sound Transit.  They and Sound Transit need to recognize there was no legal basis to claim the Board has the authority to fund ongoing costs through a continuation of the local taxes authorized by the voters..". Realignment should be based on what can be funded with ST3 taxes that end in 2041.  That realignment plans for extensions and extending bond terms beyond 2041 require Sound Transit get approval for ST4 for funding.

2021 Q1 Service Delivery Report Portends Northgate Link Debacle

 Sound Transit finally (July 17) released their Service Delivery Performance Report 2021 Q1.  It provided comparisons of transit system operations, costs and ridership during 2021 Q1 with Sound Transit budget predictions for the quarter.

They clearly portend bad news for the Northgate Link operation this fall.  The 2021 Q1 report predictions over estimated Link Light Rail ridership and under estimated operating costs.  The Link Light Rail 2021 Q1 budget predicted boardings, 3,695,750, were nearly 2.7 times actual boardings, 1,382,467.

The reduced boardings were reflected in the cost per boarding with actual costs, $26.12, 4.7 times $5.56 predicted in 2021 Q1 budget.  The boardings and cost per boarding in the report resulted in operating costs, $26.1M, 1.76 times predictions, $20.5M.

The predicted 2021 Q1 Revenue Vehicle Miles, 1,428,300 were 4.7 times actual vehicle miles, 305,226.  The operating cost and Revenue Vehicle Miles gave actual cost per vehicle mile, $118.39, 8.5 times $14.38 predicted in budget.

The Service Delivery Report 2021 Q1 predicted trips, 22,325, and actual trips, 16,664, in combination with Revenue Vehicle Miles gives 64.0 predicted vehicle miles per trip and 25.6 actual miles per trip.  The central Link route from UW to Angel Lake is ~20 miles.  Thus Sound Transit budget projected using 3-car trains for the route.  It's not clear how Sound Transit operated to limit actual vehicle miles per trip to 25.6.

The other "ominous" news for Northgate Link operation in the 2021 Q1 report is the drop in ridership in the bus routes it replaces.  They include Sound Transit routes 510-513, where weekday ridership fell from 6795 in 2020 Q1 to 1916, in 2021 Q1, and route 522 where ridership dropped from 3935 to 1127.  

The bottom line is Sound Transit's 2021 Q1 Service Delivery Report demonstrates their inability to predict light rail ridership and operating costs.  That it portends Northgate Link operation ridership will be a fraction of the 41,000 to 49,000 by 2022 Sound Transit projected in the website.  That operating costs will dwarf fare-box revenue resulting in huge subsidies required to cover shortfall.   That it's also a likely precursor for operating extensions beyond Northgate, Angel Lake, and across I-90 Bridge.

Northgate Link Debut Should "Inform" Sound Transit's Realignment

 The previous post opined Sound Transit Board's "unbridled" realignment ignored the end of ST3 taxes in 2041.  That it failed to provide the "project scope discipline" needed to limit funding to what voters approved with ST3 passage in 2016.  This post proposes delaying realignment until Northgate Link operation demonstrates their "Baseline" extensions' benefits.  That any realignment should also be paid for by 2041 when ST3 taxes end.

Any realignment should recognize the limits from routing the "Baseline" extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  A 2004 PSRC Technical Workbook, "High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment", funded by Sound Transit, concluded the DSTT stations limited trains to 4 cars.  That safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.

They assumed each car could accommodate 148 riders, limiting capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  While Sound Transit ridership projects presume more "optimistic" capacity, none of the "Baseline" extensions will increase DSTT capacity.  Thus riders added will reduce access for current Central Link riders.

The Northgate Link debut this fall will demonstrate DSTT limit on "Baseline" extension ridership into Seattle.  Whether Sound Transit's  website was justified with claims for 41,000 to 49,000 daily riders by 2022.  Will routing "Baseline" extension through DSTT limit current Central Link riders during peak commute?

None of the "Baseline" extensions include the added parking needed to increase access to light rail at their stations.  Instead Sound Transit is choosing to use the extensions to replace bus routes into Seattle.  Thus, "Baseline" operation will reduce total transit capacity into the city.  The Northgate Link debut will demonstrate whether replacing bus routes into Seattle reduces congestion into the city.

The debut will also demonstrate the high cost of operating "Baseline" extension trains.  In their 2021 budget, Sound Transit assesses light-rail operating costs as $30.17 per mile per car.  Extending the route the 4.3 miles from UW station to Northgate and back adds $260 to the operating cost for a light rail car.  Sound Transit current operates 3-car trains, so extending the route to Northgate will add $780 to a round trip.

Sound Transit earlier scheduled Northgate operation to include 6 hours of peak-operation 8-minute intervals, 10 hours of off-peak 10-minute intervals, and 2 hours of late-night 15-minute intervals.  That schedule requires 113 round trip routes each weekday so Northgate operation will add $88,000 to daily operating cost for 3-car trains.  (When East Link begins operation Sound Transit will be forced to use 4-car trains to make up for having only half the DSTT trains.  The additional car adds another $29,300 to daily costs)  

The added cost along with number of riders added at the three Northgate Link stations will establish a cost per boarding for the extension.  Their fare box revenue can be subtracted from boarding cost to determine subsidies needed to cover funding shortfall. 

The results will also "inform" likely results with other "Baseline" extensions.  Northgate Link ridership can be compared to Sound Transit's website projections for 41,000-49,000 daily riders by 2022. Whether transit riders are willing to endure the hassle of transferring to and from light rail for their commute into and out of Seattle.

The Northgate debut clearly "informs" on the Lynnwood extension operation. Sound Transit's website projects the extension will add 47,000 --55,000 riders by 2026.  Yet they don't add significant parking at any of the extension's 4 stations. Again using the extension to replace bus routes to provide riders into Seattle.

Yet Sound Transit already intends to force those willing to transfer to light rail to transfer at Northgate.  Rather than adding transit ridership, the extension simply  replaces bus routes from Lynnwood to Northgate.  Without added access to stations the Lynnwood Link will do nothing to increase transit ridership intoSeattle.

Using light rail to replace the 8.5-mile bus routes from Lynnwood to Northgate adds 17 miles to round trip.  The $30.13 cost per mile adds $512 per car per trip; $57,900 per car per day for 113 trips; $174,000 for 3-car and $231,000 per day for 4-car trains.  Again, without added access, to replace bus routes between Lynnwood and Northgate.  

Unfortunately it's doubtful anything can be done about the $1.7B Sound Transit will spend completing the extension.  However they could mitigate the operating costs by terminating some light rail trains at UW Station.  Use buses for the commute from Seattle to Northgate and Lynnwood after 7:00 pm.  Sound Transit budgets buses at $12.95 per mile. The 16 miles to Lynnwood and back would cost $414, a fraction of the $3100 for a 4-car train the 12.8 miles from UW to and from Lynnwood.

(While not a current "Baseline" extension, Northgate operation should end any attempt to extend light rail to Everett.  Spending untold billions for the 16.3-mile extension would add $982 per car to round trip costs.  Again, without additional access, primarily to replace bus routes to Lynnwood costing a fraction of light rail to operate.)

The Northgate Link debut will also "inform" Sound Transit's East Link.  Whatever capacity it demonstrates will be halved for the route to Bellevue.  While nothing can be done to increase that capacity, the results could be used to mitigate the damage by ending Sound Transit's "bus intercept" agreement to terminate I-90 bus routes on Mercer Island.  Allowing buses to continue into Seattle would add needed transit capacity into the city.

The Northgate debut will also "inform" the "Baseline"extension to Federal Way.  Whatever capacity it demonstrates will be halved when East Link begins operation in 2023.  How much does its capacity exceed projected needed Central Link capacity from Angel Lake into Seattle?  Does that available capacity justify Sound Transit spending $1.3B needed to finish the extension?  Especially since the 5.3-mile route adds $1280 to each 4-car round trip

The Northgate debut demonstration of the Sound Transit light rail spine's limited capacity could prompt expediting light rail extensions from West Seattle and Ballard.  The two routes are far shorter than those to Lynnwood and Federal Way, reducing operating costs.  Neither displaces current light rail riders.  Sound Transit estimates total daily ridership at 79,000 to 94,000.  Both would benefit from the 5 stations on each extension having 70-80% of riders within walking distance, far greater than the 25-35% for Federal Way, minimizing the need for additional parking.

The bottom line is the Northgate Link debut will "inform" whether Sound Transit should have extended light rail across I-90 Bridge or beyond UW Stadium station to Northgate. Does the DST have the capacity needed to reduce congestion into Seattle?  Will half that capacity make up for the confiscation of I-90 Bridge center roadway. 

Will replacing bus routes with light rail trains reduce I-5 or !-90 congestion?  Will light rail spine operating costs dwarf fare box revenue?  Should realignment expedite West Seattle and Ballard extensions not delay them?

Sound Transit should delay any realignment until Northgate Link operation answers those questions. Any realignment should result in extensions paid for in 2041 when ST3 taxes end.  Ending extensions beyond Lynnwood and diverting Federal Way funds to West Seattle and Ballard extensions would do so.

Sound Transit Board's "Unbridled" Realignment

Previous posts have detailed how Sound Transit's Long Range Financial Plans are based on their contention ST3 passage constituted "voter approval of projects" not voter approval of ST3 taxes from 2017 to 2041.  Sound Transit's "2021 Financial Plan and Approved Budget" concluded ST3 passage resulted in "Projected tax revenues of $58.3 billion comprising 60.9% of total sources over 2017--2041."  It also included the need for an additional $17.9B in bonds for the period.  The result was a $25B, "Tax Based Debt" in 2041 with no ST3 taxes to fund payments in 2042.

Sound Transit's "Financial Plan Update: April 2021" increased cost, raising the 2041 debt to $34B, $7.9B more than the "Available Debt Capacity" they could borrow.  Their response has been delaying projects until the could borrow the funds needed.  The "Realignment" resulted in the need for funds for construction and added borrowing extending far beyond the 2041 end of ST3 taxes.

Sound Transit's basis for the borrowing is "Appendix A--ST3 Financial Policies", in their 2021 Financial  Plan and Adopted Budget.  It was adopted June 23, 2016,  giving the Board the following ability to borrow:

Similarly, the Board recognizes that bonds issued and loans incurred by Sound Transit will be secured by the pledge of repayment through revenues including local taxes.  When bonds are issued or loans secured, Sound Transit will enter a binding contract with its bondholders and lenders that requires first lien claim against pledged revenues for repayment and for maintenance and operation of the transit facilities and services funded by the bonds.  Stated differently, bondholders and lenders will have a legal priority to Sound Transit's local tax revenues to repay the bonds and operate and maintain the transit system.

Note it was adopted prior to ST3 passage in November and makes no mention of any constraints on borrowing.  The 2021 budget also gives the Board the following responsibility for "project scope", deciding how the money they borrow will be spent.

The LRFP assumes that future system expansion projects will retain the size and scope originally approved by voters under Sound Move, ST2, and ST3.  But as the system is built out the Board may determine that future projects' scope may need to be altered and potentially increased to meet voter approved goals, public concerns, or other reasons.  Such future expansion decisions cannot be know or captured in the current LRFP, and could potentially increase the Agency's financial risk.

Again, no mention of constraints on Board approved extensions, including those with"financial risk".  Instead the Board shows its disdain for ST3 ending in 2041 by funding the debt with 30-year bonds.  With "Realignment" resulting in funds needed for construction and new 30-year bonds issued beyond 2041. our grand children's children will still be paying.

Sound Transit Board's Realignment is best described as "Unbridled", free from any restraint.  It results from their contention ST3 passage constituted "Voter approval of Projects" rather than voter approval of ST3 taxes.  They assumed that prior to ST3 passage without informing the public of the need for taxes well beyond 2041.  

The bottom line is legal action is needed to limit Sound Transit "Realignment" to what can be funded by ST3 taxes.  At this point nothing can be done about the billions already spent on a "light rail spine".  The spine won't increase transit capacity or reduce I-5 or I-90 congestion into Seattle.  Any funds saved should be diverted to expediting not delaying Ballard and West Seattle extensions that will.   My King County Executive candidacy is an attempt to expose that reality.