Building a Better Bellevue

Please see link (click here) for the text of the presentation made by Ron Bartl on June 6, 2011 to the Bellevue City Council re: a group of property owners in S.E. Enatai.

Here’s another letter to the editor of the Seattle Times that we appreciate (our highlights):

“Group paints inaccurate picture

The guest commentary [“Bellevue council majority running city off the rails,” Opinion, June 15) written by a few former Bellevue mayors who make up part of the Move Bellevue Forward (MBF) group paint an inaccurate and incomplete picture of the Bellevue City Council.

One of the ex-mayors in this group hasn’t lived in Bellevue for years, and another actually served on the Sound Transit Board.

The claim to be “a nonpartisan coalition dedicated to a long-term vision for the city” is an oxymoron statement by an apparent liberal political group.

MBF states “Bellevue city councils have supported (light rail concept) since the 1980s.” What they don’t mention is a prior council approved (but did not fund) a downtown “Circulator Bus System,” and a current Bellevue/Redmond company (Microsoft) has had to implement its own employee bus system.

Such a flexible bus system tied into either route could negate or reduce much of the current political bickering and costs and could eliminate the need for a short, expensive tunnel.

— Dick Applestone, Bellevue”

Request for more public comment presented to Bellevue City Council for greater public participation in presentation of final ARUP Study results

On Monday, June 20, 2011, BBB spokesman Joe Rosmann presented this speech to the Bellevue City Council:

I am here this evening representing the many Bellevue citizens, and supporters of Building A Better Bellevue, who deeply appreciate the commitment of this Council to support both neighborhoods and our business community by upholding our city’s very long term policy in favor of siting light rail along side the 405 corridor.

My comments are brief this evening and are related to the upcoming meeting on June 29 where ARUP and our city staff will finally present to the public the results of our City’s special study regarding the Council’s B7R route preference.

BBB’s supporters have many questions regarding the way in which the findings of our city’s ARUP study are being portrayed and discussed, long before a final report has even been completed.

A month ago Sound Transit staff presented their own summary of our city’s study, which at the time was still only in an interim form, to the Sound Transit Board, using their review as evidence to claim that the city’s preference was far too costly, based on our city’s own work. Immediately thereafter reports began appearing in the press claiming that the cost of our city’s preference would make a downtown tunnel impossible.

Other experts who have been examining the preliminary findings of ARUP’s work are drawing different conclusions from ARUP’s work than those being portrayed in the press. In doing so they have also identified many questions regarding critical technical elements of our city staff’s work with ARUP, as well as with ARUP’s own draft statements.

Something has clearly gone awry with our City’s management processes, if such preliminary findings of what has only been an interim document, can be so easily manipulated to support only the position of Sound Transit, and its supporters.
The public deserves a very different approach for considering and discussing the results of ARUP’s work than has been utilized in the prior two public meetings to date.

The public was forbidden, at these two meetings, from addressing either ARUP or our city staff before the rest of the public as a whole. As a result, Bellevue citizens lack information of the scope and variety of concerns regarding the assumptions and judgments made both by ARUP and our City staff, as are being raised by other transportation planning experts.

The public also does not understand the very extensive efforts that have been made by Sound Transit itself in seeking to:

• Direct elements of the study in such a way as to add to the costs of the B7R route, as well as to
• Complicate the construction of the city’s design preferences.

BBB’s leaders and our supporters call upon this Council to require that the session on June 29 provide for a formal oral question and answer process where members of the public can question both ARUP staff, and our City staff regarding important aspects of this study.

Also, let us keep in mind that, so far, Sound Transit has refused to discuss the massive environmental implications of its B2M route plan for building the train IN THE SLOUGH, not on Bellevue Way/112th, as has been inaccurately stated by the press and by another group that supports this route. Sound Transit has also refused to answer how they will mitigate for the noise which to date they cannot mitigate in Tukwila or in Rainier Valley. Sound Transit has also refused to disclose the real costs of all this, as well as other mitigations that will be required to construct and operate their B2M plan.

The public deserves to know all the truth, not just those facts that our city staff, and/or Sound Transit leaders would hope to prevail in the public’s mind.

Thank you for listening.

~The Building a Better Bellevue Steering Committee

Here’s a comment from former Washington State Secretary of Transportation Doug McDonald on TOD and light rail specifically that we appreciate (our highlights), (click here for link to Crosscut)):

“Posted Wed, Jun 15, 8:55 a.m.

Among many Seattle area transportation advocates, it has been a tenet of faith that the light rail program will lead to the urbanist benefits tagged as transit oriented development or TOD. Indeed, it often seems that hoped for TOD benefits have weighed more heavily in the advocacy for some elements and locations of the light rail program than the very modest benefits (if any) that can be claimed for light rail as contrasted with much cheaper improved bus services for the actual transit purpose of conveniently and cost-effectively moving people.

One of the areas elsewhere that has invested in a significant light rail program (probably better balanced with a full range of transit modes than has been the course in the Puget Sound area) is Salt Lake City. Recently I heard the internationally well-regarded director of the Utah Transit Authority (one transit agency in Salt Lake City, not several as here in Seattle) point out that light rail should only be expected to produce TOD benefits if land use regulation and neighborhood receptivity are in place to support

significantly higher density

. Light rail transit by itself will not provide a TOD elixir. Light rail investments should not be made on mere hope that the other necessary conditions of denser development will necessarily follow.

Transit oriented development in relation to Sound Transit’s light rail program is proving to be a very sporadic and elusive object. Of course, it can be argued that it’s still early in the game. Many of the real estate developers who hold potentially valuable parcels (and have been big and financially generous promoters of TOD theology; it’s interesting when developers are seen as our “friends” as in the TOD discussion as contrasted to when they are the “enemy” as in “wouldn’t crass developers benefit from a resplendent Seattle waterfront?”) are still hoping to reap their TOD payouts. But TOD itself has made no appreciable dent in the demography of the region, although other strategies for denser development do show occasional bright results. See Ballard, downtown Kirkland and downtown Renton, for example.

The disappointments of TOD and the obstacles to achieving what many view as its promises – still to be honestly assessed in quite a complicated variety of specific situations – should become a much larger element in the discussion of how we want pressure and scarce transit taxes to be spent. Transit taxes are high in our region. How we spend them is critically important. Is the main object to attempt to provide development incentives for a very narrow set of locations? Or should the object be transit service and its benefits delivered more broadly, both by geography and community, to meet pressing needs for mobility?
— Douglas B. MacDonald

Here’s a letter re: the Sound Transit East Link B alignment that we appreciate that speaks to:

1. Noise mitigation (or lack thereof- the noise levels in Tukwila have still not been solved),
2. Ridership, and
3. Bellevue Way congestion & crossings:

Click here for the link

Jun 07 2011, 3:19 PM

“I am always astounded by the notion that Sound Transit has an accurate idea of what their preferred alignment will cost, considering that they are billions of dollars over budget. Not to mention the fact that the recently released, independent Arup study showed that the B7 alignment would have a ridership of 1,500 more per day than the ST preferred alignment.

Another thing that ST is not telling you – their estimates do not include the cost of sound mediation, i.e. concrete walls all along 112th. I’m not an expert, but I’m guessing that will be pretty expensive. Not to mention that the ST alignment would cross two busy streets every 5-10 minutes.

Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t mass transit supposed to decrease traffic congestion? I also love how ST portrays pro-B7 citizens as anti-sustainability, while ST proposes an alignment that will shave off a massive swath of the Mercer Slough wetland.

And who knows, maybe ST could stay on budget for once if it did not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on lobbying and by being fined by the Public Disclosure Commission for not reporting their expenditures.

That’s right Sound Transit – blame it all on those annoying Bellevue citizens who don’t want to have their homes taken from them.

James Alastair”

Dear Neighbors -

Last evening the Bellevue City Council received a petition from a group of property owners whose homes lie along the east side of SE 113th Avenue, at the southeast corner of Enatai, overlooking Mercer Slough.

The petitioners all own homes that would be required to construct the A2 Park and Ride Station that the City of Bellevue has proposed to be included as part of its B7R preferred rail alignment route.

The petition called upon Sound Transit to purchase their homes because of the adverse effects they will experience from placement of a light rail line in the area of their homes regardless of whether either the B2M (Sound Transit’s preference), or the B7R (our City’s preference) is finally adopted for developing the B-segment portion of Eastlink.

The petitioner letters presented last evening apparently account for a substantial majority of the homes that would fall within the area of the proposed A2 station.

The representative of the group of petitioners, who spoke before the Council last evening, has kindly provided BBB with a copy of his presentation and petition so that BBB can inform local community leaders of this development.

Best Regards,

The Building a Better Bellevue Steering Committee and Technical Experts Team

Here is the presentation to the Bellevue City Council made by Ron Bartl (property owner from Enatai) on June 6, 2011:

“Presentation on Behalf of A-2 Station Area Property Owners

Good evening Mayor Davidson and Members of the Council.

My family has lived for more than 50 years along the southeast corner of the Enatai community, on the hillside overlooking Mercer Slough and its wonderful natural environment. We were living there well before there even was a 113th Avenue SE roadway.

Our family, as well as other neighbors, once operated agricultural businesses there. Later we built several homes on our property and contributed to the development of the small residential community that now calls this area their home.

There have been a lot of changes in the last few decades. Biggest was I-90 along the southern edge of our neighborhood. Then came Bellevue Way. The combination of these changes has seriously impacted our homes. Every day we deal with increasing roadway noise, smog, visual blight – but, we have managed to live with it.

Now comes a proposed light rail line along side our homes and this is just more than we can take. Sound Transit won’t buy our properties if the line travels along Bellevue Way, so we will have to put up with even more noise, trains squealing 24 hours a day, and massive visual blight of our views of our beloved Mercer Slough.

Our community of neighbors has been discussing this situation to fully understand and assess our options.

We know that the City wants to place the light rail line on a different route, going over Mercer Slough, along with a new parking garage in the area of our homes.

I am here tonight to tell you that a substantial majority of our neighbors has decided we would rather sell our homes to create this new parking facility, especially if doing so will help protect the rest of our beloved Mercer Slough, Bellevue Way, Winters House, and 112th Avenue, than to have to endure the constant noise and visual blight associated with Sound Transit’s proposed Bellevue Way and 112th route.

We have signed letters and we hope that you will proceed immediately to present our offers to Sound Transit and have them start discussions with each of us to purchase our properties for a fair and reasonable price.

It is high time that Sound Transit behave responsibly and stop the disruption to our lives and livelihoods caused by their actions.

We also ask that every possible effort be made by our City and by Sound Transit to fully protect the environment and well-being of our neighbors to the west side of 113th Avenue SE, if the A-2 Station comes to pass.

We have made the ultimate sacrifice of our own homes. Our City, and Sound Transit, must take equally comprehensive action to assure that the sacrifice of all of our westerly neighbors’ lifestyles and livelihoods be fully spared.

Thank you for listening.”

Dear Supporters of Building A Better Bellevue -

The turn-out for last evening’s session at Bellevue City Hall regarding the Eastlink B7 Revised Alternative was outstanding.

The ARUP project team leaders told me personally that they were amazed at the strong community participation demonstrated by your attendance last evening. It was unusual in size, and also in interest level and demonstrated knowledge, they said.

That counts for a lot both with them, and with our City leaders.

Once again, the real quality of commitment of our citizens to the preservation of what is truly great about our Bellevue communities was well demonstrated.

Thank you for your dedication to our shared cause.

Best Regards,

Joe Rosmann

for the Building A Better Bellevue Steering Committee

Dear Better Bellevue Supporters -

This is just a quick reminder to alert you, in case may have missed the notice mailed to your home by our City staff last week, that an update on the Eastlink B-7 Revised Alternative route project will be presented to Bellevue citizens this Tuesday, January 25.

The presentation takes place from 5 to 7 PM at Bellevue City Hall, Room 1E-108.

More information can be found online at: www.bellevuewa.gov/b7-revised-light-rail-route.htm

You can also contact the Project Manager for the study, Maher Welaye, at 425.452.4879, or mwel...@bellevuewa.gov

Hope to see you there Tuesday evening.

~The Better Bellevue Steering Committee

BBB Releases Its Eastlink B7 Light Rail Route Analysis and Findings

Building A Better Bellevue has completed its B7 Route Analysis study. Our study findings and recommendations were released to regional news media, and also presented to local community leaders on December 1.

The central conclusion of our study: Sound Transit’s B7 Route Plan To Bring Light Rail Into the City of Bellevue Included Unnecessary Features Apparently Intended to Defeat Its Acceptance.

Sound Transit’s preliminary design of the unselected B7 Rail Line alternative through the City of Bellevue includes elements that unnecessarily increase construction costs, property acquisition costs and environmental risks. The combination of design decisions made and construction techniques specified assured that substantial added costs would be required to build its B7 light rail line route option, thereby making the route unacceptable.

Analysis by Building a Better Bellevue’s B7 Experts Study Team has found that the cost of an “optimized” B7 route would likely be significantly less than the cost of Sound Transit’s B7 design alternative. The added costs of Sound Transit’s B7 route plan, compared to better design and construction options, range between $30 and $120 Million. Additionally, our experts found that an optimized B7 route would also succeed, when compared to Sound Transit’s preferred B2M route (Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue SE), when other B-Segment route decision criteria used by Sound Transit are evaluated.

Based on our team’s findings BBB has recommended a formal investigation into the reasons why Sound Transit purposely specified costly design elements, thereby making the B7 route unacceptable due to its cost and alleged environmental risks.

In more detail, the following B7 Route elements presented in Sound Transit’s DEIS and SDEIS reports raise significant questions as to their necessity and/or sufficiency of analysis:

1. A Redundant and Costly New Bike and Walking Trail

Placement of an exceptionally wide bike path and walking trail along the entire length of the BNSF portion of the B7 route provides evidence of requiring unnecessary and costly requirements. Adding this trail element became a “critical” design requirement for Sound Transit. The fact that a long-used, and superior bike path and walking trail already exists immediately adjacent to the B7 rail line route was given no consideration.

2. A Wide Project Footprint With Questionable Rail Line Placement

Choosing not to utilize the center area of the BNSF rail bed, instead moving the train rails to the west side of the right-of-way, requires extensive movement of soil, and construction of substantial retaining walls along the entire length of the north/south portion of the B7 route. This choice also adds to the noise burden by elimination of berms and moving the rail guideways closer to existing multi-family residences, thereby requiring greater use of noise walls and other noise mitigation techniques.

3. An Excessively Large Park and Ride Facility Placed Near Sensitive Areas, Requiring the Taking of Expensive Private Property

Also adding to the challenges of implementing Sound Transit’s B7 plan are its specifications for a large park and ride facility along 118th Avenue SE, at SE 8th Street, adjacent to a sensitive wetland, and requiring the taking of a substantial amount of private commercial property while incurring employment losses. The size specification for this facility is twice as large as needed for its projected usage. This specification makes it less feasible to locate the facility at a more logical place, such as the existing Wilburton Park and Ride lot on the north side of SE 8th Street along I-405. A more appropriate Park and Ride facility can be built at the intersection of I-90 and South Bellevue Way, yielding better ridership than ST’s preferred Bellevue Way option, plus better transit operations during the construction period and thereafter, as a result of retention of the existing South Bellevue Park and Ride function.

4. Bridge Structure Across the Slough Constructed Using Costly Methods

The construction methodology set forth calls for a separate temporary bridge structure to support cranes, etc. needed for installing the permanent bridge components. This is the most expensive method available for bridge construction, and also causes the greatest environmental damage. The temporary bridge cost approaches that of the new bridge itself. Other design alternatives and construction options are available that are cheaper and have fewer environmental impacts, and should have been considered.

5. Failure to Utilize Unused Roadside Right of Way Along the West Side of I-405, Requiring the Taking of Expensive Commercial Property

Sound Transit determined that a large new storage facility structure, on the west side of I-405, must be taken to accommodate its design for an elevated rail guide way placement near the north end of the B7 route. More than adequate space is available to build a retained fill guideway if an easement is sought from WSDOT to use a very small portion of their right-of-way along the western edge of the embankment running along the west side of I-405, thereby avoiding the taking of any private property.

6. Environmental Risks Overstated

Sound Transit’s DEIS and SDEIS reports found dramatic environmental risks associated with their B7 version. These risks included sizeable wetland and park area impacts, extensive wildlife challenges, as well as residential noise exposure issues. Many of these environmental risks are directly associated with the westerly movement of the rail line route to accommodate their proposed bike and walking trail. This resulted in unnecessary removal of existing berms and flora along the BNSF rail line right of way and construction of extensive retaining walls. Sound Transit also called for placement of a rail crossover very near residences at the south end of the BNSF right of way, when other alternative locations with little or no noise impacts are available. Wetland area and park impacts are primarily due to their conservative bridge construction techniques assumed for crossing Mercer Slough which led to assumption of construction seasons of more than one year and translating thus to permanent direct impacts. Sound Transit has also raised stability risks to the existing I-90 roadway, resulting from building a new rail line bridge across the Mercer Slough peat bog. However, this peat bog stability risk has been discounted by an expert within WSDOT and a geotechnical consultant experienced in working in this material.

Better Bellevue’s engineering Experts Team has identified a number of alternatives to the design options set out by Sound Transit for the B7 route. The team believes that a redesigned B7 route, utilizing these alternatives, would eliminate many of the costs and environmental risks identified by Sound Transit. If adopted, the reduced costs and environmental risks achievable through use of these alternatives are expected to make the B7 route considerably less expensive, along with having substantially fewer environmental impacts than Sound Transit’s preferred B2M route, while yielding comparable ridership and better speed performances. The new B7 engineering study now underway by the City of Bellevue is expected to substantiate these findings.

Building A Better Bellevue will release the complete details of our findings and recommendations in a series of reports on our website. These reports contain many tables, charts and graphs needed to fully explicate and detail our research and findings. Some of these materials are quite technical in nature, but are necessary to fully detail the complex engineering considerations used by Sound Transit in fashioning their proposed B7 design, as well as to substantiate the benefits of the route alternative proposed by Better Bellevue.

Readers who wish to view the entire scope of BBB’s findings immediately can download a copy of our formal presentation document, as well as of our complete documentary report by linking to the following two website URLs using your browser:

Presentation: http://c0029894.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/B7_Presentation.pps

Report Document: http://c0029894.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/B7_Fatal_Flaws.pdf

(Please note that the files are very large and will take some time to download.)

Better Bellevue’s B7 Experts Team began its analysis work in early August. This work included an exhaustive review of Sound Transit’s DEIS and SDEIS reports and other supplemental materials made available to our team by Sound Transit. The team also conducted extensive in-the-field observational research as well as geotechnical and structural engineering observations. Experts at WSDOT, and at other agencies and firms with expertise in constructing rail facilities in wetlands and along transportation rights-of-way, as well as environmental protection specialists were also consulted. Hundreds of hours of study and examination were dedicated to these activities.

Team members also met frequently to consider findings and weigh their interpretation together in order to assure that all nuances and potential errors were uncovered. Drafts of the final report, and of the presentation document proceeded through numerous iterations to assure accuracy and completeness. Final drafts were then submitted to external peer review experts for their consideration, editorial advice and suggested revisions.

Based on this extensive work and independent review, the Building A Better Bellevue Steering Committee recommends this work with confidence in its conclusions and recommendations.

Building A Better Bellevue’s leadership, and our supporters, owe the members of our experts team much gratitude for their commitment and demonstrated performance. This work could not have been completed without their very generous contributions of time and expertise. This expertise is very extensive. The combined professional work history of the team members comprises more than 250 years of professional practice, working as principals/partners/executives in widely recognized firms, and with major clients, national and international, as well as local and regional. Their expertise includes training and experience in the fields of management consulting, civil engineering, structural engineering, traffic engineering, geotechnical engineering, transportation planning, financial analysis, financial accounting and auditing, land use law, regulatory analysis and review, and organizational behavior.

Building A Better Bellevue Steering Committee sincerely thanks all the members of our experts team for their very valuable contributions in helping to assemble our documents.

Bellevue’s residential neighborhoods, and our city‘s businesses will be greatly impacted by the B2M (Bellevue Way and 112th Avenue) light rail line option being pursued by Sound Transit. We anticipate that the findings reported here will make a valuable contribution to help shape an acceptable light rail alignment into our city.

We also thank those members of our Bellevue City Council who have courageously stood for placing the proposed light rail line on the B7 (I-90/BNSF) route.

As our Steering Committee noted in the announcement of the creation of our organization, “Compromising our core values is not the measure by which our city has thrived. Our city has thrived precisely because we have only undertaken that which would be best for our future.”

Building A Better Bellevue, and its supporters, will work tirelessly to protect the always quiet, peaceful and safe environment of our neighborhoods, as well as our wilderness areas, as we have long known them. We will accept no compromise in this regard.

The Building A Better Bellevue Steering Committee also thanks the many hundreds of Bellevue neighborhood residents who have contributed so generously of their financial resources and volunteered time to help aid our mutual cause. This work here would not have been possible without everyone’s help, and especially your financial and moral support.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions, as well as your questions. Look for a continuing flow of messages over the coming days as we serialize the presentation of the content of our report and presentation documents. All of this information is also being posted at our website: www.betterbellevue.org
Thank you for your attention, interest and support.

The Building A Better Bellevue Steering Committee
www.betterbellevue.org
i...@betterbellevue.org

P.O. Box 40453
Bellevue, WA 98015-4453

The Building a Better Bellevue Technical Experts Team has been hard at work for months, reviewing the technical details of Sound Transit’s East Link DEIS as it applies to the B7 alignment.

From this work, the Team has produced a BBB Study called “The B7 Case: A Lesson in Gamesmanship”, which you will find the links to here (you will need to have the latest version of Adobe Reader):

1. Document: http://c0029894.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/B7_Fatal_Flaws.pdf

2. PowerPoint Presentation: http://c0029894.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/B7_Presentation.pps

This BBB study includes numerous photos of Sound Transit’s B7 alignment as it appeared in the DEIS. The file is very large, and we have set up a system so that you can download it without bandwidth problems, but be patient- it does take a few minutes.

In this study, Better Bellevue’s Technical Experts Team evaluated the decisions that led to Sound Transit’s decision to reject the B7 alignment for future study.

Building a Better Bellevue has also included an “Optimized B7” alignment that offers a B7 alignment with improved cost considerations.

The BBB Experts Team has also included a review of information in the East Link SDEIS that was recently released, along with statements made recently in public meetings regarding the feasibility of including a bridge on I-90 in the ST2 project (Sound Transit has signaled its intention previously to include a bridge on I-90 in the ST3 time frame).

Thank you for your support for Building a Better Bellevue! This work could not have been accomplished without it!

~The Building a Better Bellevue Steering Committee and Technical Experts Team