Light Rail Costs Threaten Entire Area

In 2013 Sound Transit is intending to spend over $300 million on dubious light rail projects.  In future years the entire area will pay heavily if they’re allowed to continue with plans to expand Central Link north and south and with their East Link plan extending light rail service through Bellevue towards Redmond.  They initially sold Central Link light rail with promises of more than 100,000 daily riders by 2010 and light rail operating costs that offset the cost associated with the construction and implementation of light rail service.  They sold East Link as the equivalent of 10 highway lanes across Lake Washington that would increase cross-lake capacity by 60%.

The reality is Central Link projected ridership for 2013 is only 27,900 and their operating costs for a two-car train are $848.06 per revenue hour or more than 4 times their projected 2013 bus operating costs ($194.57).    The nominal train capacity of 300 riders (150 per car) is about 4 times the bus capacity (60-70 for regular buses and 80-90 for articulated buses).   However, in 2012 they only averaged 91 boardings per trip suggesting very few of their “trips” needed the high capacity.  Sound Transit deployed “one-vehicle” trains on about 20% of their trips to reduce costs.  However they could have achieved far greater savings by replacing half of the train trips with buses.  

It’s unclear how the north or south Central Link extensions will impact “trip revenue vehicle hours”.   The Federal Way extension adds about 11 miles of track or 22 miles to a round “trip”.  Sound Transit projected a $22.80 cost per revenue vehicle mile for 2013 or $45.60 per mile for a two-vehicle train.  Using the two-vehicle, $45.60 per mile mileage charges, the extension to Federal Way would add $1003.20 to each round trip cost.  Even more absurd, the commute time on light rail would be about 30 minutes longer than on a bus.  It surely should be a “no-brainer” to stop any south end extension.

The 4.3-mile Northgate extension will add 8.6 miles or $379.60 per two-vehicle round trip.  Each round trip would have to add close to 60 boarders to maintain a $6.50 cost per boarder.  While possible, Northgate commuters already have excellent transit service with Metro Route 41 buses that depart Northgate every 4-5 minutes during peak morning commute and take 18 minutes to reach University St Station.  The afternoon return commute routes provide similar frequencies and commute times. 

None of Sound Transits north end bus routes (ST510, ST511, and ST512) even stop at Northgate; presumably because of the excellent metro bus service.   Thus it would seem hard to justify the expense of extending light rail to add far more expensive light rail operation to the area.   Sound Transit promises for 15,000 daily light rail boarders on the Northgate extension by 2030 seems highly “speculative”.  

If the Northgate extension is questionable, the additional 8.2-mile extension to Lynnwood makes absolutely no sense.   Similar to the Federal Way extension, the 16.4 miles will add nearly $750 to a two-vehicle, round-trip operating cost.  ST511 currently leaves the Lynnwood T/C every 15 minutes and takes 34-38 minutes to reach 5^th and Pine.  It averages about 4400 boarders per weekday.   It’s shear idiocy to spend hundreds of millions to install light rail to Lynnwood and replace the buses with far more expensive trains.

Rather than extend Central Link northward from the University Sound Transit should use the station as a terminus for 520 cross-lake BRT.   BRT service across 520 would provide eastside residents with express bus routes from each P&R in the area to light rail connections at the University for fast reliable commutes into and out of downtown Seattle.   Seattleites could use the return routes for those buses from the University to and from Microsoft and other eastside work destinations.   The University terminus takes advantage of light rail capacity on the west side and BRT flexibility on the eastside to better serve both sets of commuters.   The fact that the number of commuters in both directions is similar makes cross-lake BRT particularly effective.

The Central Link construction and train operating costs are a primary reason Sound Transit currently gets only about 5% of its funds from toll box revenue.   The best way to keep Central Link from continuing to be a huge financial burden on the area is to reject any extension that can’t be justified by potential increased ridership and to substitute buses for those trips that don’t need light rail capacity.  

Sound Transits Central Link financial “hole” pales in comparison to the costs if their East Link program is allowed to continue. The money Sound Transit spends on Central Link extensions increases their debt and operating costs.   The cross-lake portion of Sound Transit’s $2.8 billion 14-mile East Link extension not only has a huge cost it actually increases cross-lake congestion.  (It also devastates part of Bellevue, forces the city to spend $200 million for a tunnel, and does nothing to relieve SR405 and I-90 corridor congestion.)

Simple mathematics shows that Sound Transits 2008 DEIS East Link light rail proposal of 4-car trains every 9 minutes will carry less than half the promised “up to 24,000 riders per hour”.   Whatever capacity East Link has will be of dubious value since the vast majority of cross-lake commuters will have very little access to light rail trains.  The only significant parking for I-90 corridor commuters will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and difficult access from 1-90.  

Those with access to the P&R can currently commute into Seattle on a ST 550 bus that departs every 6-8 minutes during peak commute to reach International District in 16 minutes. (It includes stops on Mercer Island and at Rainier Ave South that increases commute times)   ST550 average weekday ridership for the 2012, 4^th quarter was less than 8700.   Again, Sound Transit East Link projection for 50,000 daily riders by 2030 seems highly “speculative”.

The vast majority of those forced to use the outer roadways because of problems accessing light rail will face ever increasing congestion.  Sound Transits own 2004 studies show their plans to add 4^th lanes to the outer roadways won’t provide the capacity required to avoid increased congestion and commute times.

The real tragedy of East Link is the confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway precludes the only viable way to accommodate Sound Transits projected 60% increase in cross-lake traffic, namely bus rapid transit or BRT.   Sound Transit's refusal to seriously consider BRT as the “no-build” option for the I-90 Bridge center roadway is an historic blunder.  Even a cursory analysis would have concluded moving non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the outer roadways and dividing the center roadway into inbound and outbound bus only lanes for BRT operation was infinitely better than light rail.  Not only did BRT have 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of light rails cost, it could have been in operation 15 years ago with express bus routes from every eastside P&R.   

The $300 million spent in 2013 is just a down payment on an ever increasingly costly light rail extension program that will undoubtedly result in increasing operating deficits.   Sound Transit needs to reassess its whole extension program.   Those who will be disappointed by their inability to ride light rail in the future will be vastly outnumbered by those who will benefit if Sound Transits is “persuaded” to better use their revenue.

It would only take part of the $300 million to eliminate the need for 520 tolls or the recent attempts to add I-90 tolls.  Additional money could be used to initiate cross-lake BRT and for 405 improvements to further reward Eastside residents who for years have seen the Sound Transit portions of their sales taxes used primarily for Central Link funding.  

Sound Transit needs to recognize that light rail in Seattle will never have the 100,000 daily riders they promised and that any extensions beyond SeaTac in the south and the University in the north need to be justified by rationale ridership projections.  They also need to acknowledge their error in ever selecting light rail for cross-lake mass transit.  Their probable failure to do so is why I keep writing this blog.

Light Rail Operating Cost Debacle

The 3/06/13 post suggested that Sound Transit’s 2013 East Link $93 million budget was not “prudent” when it failed to include “re-striping” needed to complete the 4^th lane addition to the outer roadway or verifying the I-90 Bridge expansion joints could withstand the loads from their planned 4-car trains.  The 3/09/13 post argued it made no sense for Sound Transit to spend $86 million towards the $1-1.5 billion cost for extending Central Link to Federal Way when the resultant train commute times will be 30 minutes longer than the current bus service.  The 3/14/13 post proposed replacing some of the light rail train operations with less expensive buses.

This post explores the train/bus operating cost comparisons in more detail. The Sound Transit Quarterly Report for 2012 along with the Sound Transit 2013 Budget document provides the relevant information.   The 2012 quarterly reports that express buses completed 453,004 trips during over 549,860 revenue hours of operation for an average 1.213 revenue hours per trip.  The 2013 budget document (Page 44) includes an “Amended 2012” value of $183.15 cost per revenue hour  (excluding depreciation) for a trip cost of $222.16.  The quarterly report gives an average of 34.06 boarders per trip resulted in an average cost of $6.52 per boarder, essentially agreeing with the $6.51 value in the quarterly report.

The same report shows Central Link completed 90,834 trips using 136,167 revenue vehicle hours for an average of 1.499 rev.veh.hrs per trip.  The 2013 budget document (Page 32) includes a 2012 Amended $411.08 per revenue vehicle hour (again excluding depreciation) for a trip cost of $625.85.  The quarterly report average of 95.78 boarders per trip gives an average cost per boarder of $6.53.  (Sound Transit apparently has a different method for light rail costs resulting in a $6.07 cost).   The higher trip operating costs for trains can only be justified during the peak commute when demand justifies their added capacity.  The higher train operating costs are also contrary to the commonly held perception that their high construction costs and other setup charges would be offset by reduced operating costs.

Obviously any light rail extension will increase the “trip” costs.   The added costs make the Federal Way extension even more idiotic (3/09/13 Post) and raises question as to whether the Northgate extension will add sufficient riders to justify construction as well as increased operating costs.  (It's particularly hard to justify any extension during two-vehicle operation with twice the operating costs)  Light-rail-operating costs are just another reason among many (See 5/15/12 post) to replace Sound Transits East Link light rail system with BRT.  

BBB Should Appeal Judge's East Link Suit Decision

Judge John Coughenour’s recent decision rejecting the Building a Better Bellevue and Friends of Enatai suit can most "charitably" be described by the legal term “unfounded”: not founded on fact or truth.  His claim “the decision to build rail instead of an alternative such as bus rapid transit was the result of a long, careful, and deliberative process” is simply wrong. 

The brief filed by the federal defendants  (Case 2:12-cv-01019-JCC Document 35 filed 01/25/13) doesn’t even attempt to make that argument.  Instead on page 1, lines 11-15 include the following:

As applied to this case, where the planning efforts of state and local transportation officials have come to focus on the problem of extending the light rail system to serve a particular corridor, it makes little sense in an environmental analysis to study the environmental impacts of the bus-based options which plaintiffs say federal defendants should have also evaluated.    

The judge apparently decided to ignore the defendants’ argument that the light rail study wasn’t needed by concluding that Sound Transit had instead done a long, careful deliberative process to select light rail rather than BRT.   It’s not clear what “long careful deliberative process” the judge is referring to. 

Sound Transit didn’t even consider BRT (two-way-bus only lanes on center roadway) as the “no build” alternative in the 2008 DEIS.  (See 5/30/12 Post for details)  The WSDOT and Sound Transit did make a similar claim to a Kittitas judge in response to the Freeman/ETA suit. 

The WSDOT/ST in the Freeman/ETA suit also made the claim the center roadway wasn’t needed for “highway needs” once Sound Transit had added the 4^th combination Bus/HOV lane to the outer roadways.  The 5/15/12 and 5/16/12 posts refute that claim by referring to FHWA 2004 documentation showing the center roadway was still needed for “vehicle” use with the 4^th lane on the outer roadways.  

The 2/01/13 post explains why this should have been an easy case for the BBB and FOE to prevail.  They didn't because the judge made his decision on a "finding" that the defense did not even mention in their filing.   Sound Transit never seriously considered BRT for East Link.  If they had they would have quickly concluded BRT was infinitely better than light rail in terms of capacity, accessibility and cost. (See 8/02/12 Post).  This historic blunder has already resulted in hundreds of millions wasted and years of needless congestion for cross-lake commuters.

I urge the BBB and FOE to appeal because allowing East Link to proceed will result in additional  billions spent, money that could be used to fund 520, SR405 and I-90 improvements, on a light rail program that will devastate parts of Bellevue, require the city to come up with $200 million for a tunnel, and inevitably lead to gridlock on the I-90 Bridge.

Post for Washington State Legislative Committee on Transportation

(I sent an email to all the committee members referring them to this blog)

This post is an attempt to urge the Washington Legislatures Joint Committee on Transportation to take a more active role, either directly or through its oversight of the WSDOT, in monitoring Sound Transits activities.  It’s the latest of the 89 posts I’ve included on this blog during the last nine months concerning problems with Sound Transit policies in general and their East Link light rail program in particular.  

Any competent analysis would have quickly concluded Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, two-way bus-only lanes on center roadway) was a far better choice than light rail for cross-lake mass transit than light rail  (See 8/08/12 Post).  Sound Transit could have initiated BRT some 15 years ago, alleviating congestion for cross-lake commuters and saved the hundreds of millions spent on light rail.  Instead ST failed to even consider BRT on the I-90 center roadway as the “no-build” option in the 2008 DEIS.

Since the DEIS publication I’ve spent the last four years attempting to expose this truly historic blunder.  This includes emails to the Sound Transit Board, Bellevue City Council, WSDOT, Seattle Times, Bellevue Reporter, eastside legislators, local radio personalities, and others.  I’ve also made many presentations during the Bellevue City Council “public comment” sessions.  All have been essentially ignored. 

My goal in last year’s campaign for 48^th District Representative was to use the “Voters’ Pamphlet” to attract attention to this blog.  Unfortunately, that effort was “hampered” by the Secretary of State’s failure to include the blog address in the general election pamphlet.  I have since continued with the blog as my way of making a “difference” and knowing in the end I will be “vindicated”.

The Bellevue City Council has been “less than helpful”.  They’ve

apparently reached an agreement with Sound Transit to approve  permits needed for construction.  The 3/06/13 post explains the devastating effect this agreement will have on those living along the route; the added cost to all of Bellevue for the BCC inexplicable decision to pay $200 million for a tunnel when eastside residents have already paid far more than their fair share of ST revenues; and the inevitable gridlock on the I-90 Bridge from East Link confiscation of the bridge center roadway.  Cross-lake light rail will be a disaster for the entire eastside.

More recent analysis of Sound Transit policies has led to the conclusion their problems go far beyond East Link.  The whole light rail concept was based on the premise that the capital costs associated with creating a light rail system would be offset by lower operating costs for the trains.  Yet ST light rail trains cost $797.58 per revenue hour, 4 times the $194.52 (per ST 2013 Budget) revenue hour costs for buses.

Central Link trains have higher capacity with about 150 riders sitting or standing in each car.  Comparable numbers for conventional buses are 60-70 riders and 80-90 riders for articulated buses.  Thus it would take 4 buses to match the capacity of a 2-car light rail train and the operating costs would be comparable.  However, anything less than peak capacity would allow fewer buses and lower operating costs.  It makes no sense to operate 2 or even 1-car light rail trains for 20 hours a day.  Replacing trains with buses after 7:00 or 8:00 PM and maybe during mid-day would substantially reduce operating costs.  Reducing the number of train trips would also probably result in less depreciation and further savings.

As the 3/09/13 post explains Sound Transit plans to extend Central Link to Federal Way is truly idiotic. The Central Link extension to Northgate can potentially be justified by the anticipated increased ridership.  However, the decision to tunnel makes it less financially viable because of the resultant increased costs and reduced access from fewer stations.  Light rail's high operating costs make any further extension even less viable. 

Central Link ridership could be increased if the University light rail station was designed to serve as the terminus for 520 BRT service (see 7/29/12 post).  If needed, the number of cars in each train could be doubled for additional capacity greatly improving light rail economics.  (A typical Paris subway train has 10 cars).  Cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake would benefit and Seattle congestion would be reduced because of fewer buses.

In conclusion, the Sound Transit Board, the WSDOT and the media have all ignored my many attempts to raise these issues.  Hopefully the members of the legislatures joint transportation committee will recognize that allowing Sound Transit to continue with its current plans will devastate the east side and burden the entire area with the costs of operating a fatally flawed light rail system.     

Central Link Federal Way Extension "Idiotic"

The 3/06/13 post opined it wasn't "prudent" for Sound Transit to spend $92 million on East Link “final design” in 2013 without finishing the 4^th lanes on the 1-90 Bridge outer roadways or verifying the bridge could withstand the loads from East Link 4-car trains.   This post details why another item on the ST 2013 plan, the $72 million spent on their plan to extend Central Link to Federal Way, is truly idiotic.

This funding is a down payment on an eventual 11-mile light rail extension to Federal Way.  The budget didn’t provide any costs for construction or for the additional trains and other equipment required to maintain current service levels.  Presumably these costs will total in the $1.0 - 1.5 billion levels.

The 2013 budget did include the fact light rail train operating costs were $22.80 per revenue mile and $779.58 per revenue hour.  Thus when completed, the 11-mile extension will add about 22 miles and over $500.00 to the operating costs for every Federal Way light rail train into and out of Seattle  

Central Link trains run on average every 10 minutes for 19 hours or about 114 times a day.   If all the trains operate between Westlake and Federal Way the extension will add $57,000 to Central Links daily operating costs.  Has Sound Transit bothered to determine how many commuters the extension will add?  

If the want to retain the current $6.08 cost per boarding or $12.16 per rider (assuming two way commutes) roughly 5000 additional daily riders would be needed.  Sound Transit Central Link ridership projections have been, to put it mildly,  “optimistic” with current 26,000 weekly daily rides about a quarter  of their original 100,000 predictions for 2010.  I doubt if even Sound Transit would predict the Federal Way extension would add 5000 riders.

Sound Transit already provides Federal Way commuters with good bus service.  For instance every 30 minutes ST574 connects Federal Way to SeaTac.  It takes 25 minutes to reach the SeaTac transit station with an additional 5 minutes to the terminal baggage area. The 11-mile Central Link route, depending on the number of stops, would probably take 20-25 minutes to the transit station, a far less convenient drop off and pickup point for most travelers.

Central Link Route ST577 runs between FW and 4^th & Union every 12-20 minutes.  It takes between 25-37 minutes depending on the time of the day.  Conversely, Central Link takes 38 minutes from SeaTac to Westlake, approximately 15 miles.  Again, the 11-mile FW extension would probably add 20-25 minutes for a total of about an hour from FW to Westlake or 30 minutes longer than the bus. 

In conclusion ST is planning to spend probably close to $1.5 billion to extend Central Link to Federal Way.  They’re doing so presumably with the belief that large numbers of additional transit riders will be attracted to light rail even though the commute takes 30 minutes longer than their current bus routes.  Even more absurd, they’re apparently trying to attract people away from a bus with operating costs of $194.52 per revenue hour (per ST 20113 budget) to trains costing four times as much.  That truly is idiotic.

Sound Transit East Link Funding Not "Prudent"

Sound Transit East Link Funding Not "Prudent"

Sound Transit, for all its faults, does provide a lot of information about their budgets.  For example a December 20, 2013 article,“ST moves into 2013 with major planning, engineering and construction efforts” includes the following planned expenditures.

A. $166 million to continue construction of the extension from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington

B. $83.8 million for Northgate Link Extension design and construction

C. $91.9 for East Link final design

D. $72 million for design-build work to extend light rail from Sea-Tac

Not surprisingly the largest was the $166 million to continue the tunnel construction for the expansion north to the University District.  Both the Northgate extension and the Sea-Tac extension apparently involve significant construction with the Ses-Tac extension scheduled for completion in 2016.  

It’s more difficult to understand the need to spend $91.9 million for East Link “final design” when serious construction doesn’t begin for 3 years.  What’s not “prudent” is that probably none of this money will be spent on two major concerns. 

The first is Sound Transit refusal to spend the relatively miniscule funds required to finish the 4^th lane on the 1-90 Bridge outer roadways by “restriping” the Seattle to Mercer Island portion.  This 4^th lane for bus/HOV traffic could have been added 15 years ago and would have reduced cross-lake congestion for everyone, but particularly “reverse” commuters.  

The delay until 2016 has had two additional results beyond the needless increased congestion.   Sound Transit could have verified their claims that the modified outer roadway could accommodate all the cross-lake vehicle by temporary closures of the center roadway.   They “may” have been concerned the closure would confirm their 2004 study (5/16/12 post) which concluded the single lane did not have the needed capacity.

Adding the Bus/HOV lane to the outer roadways could have also allowed dividing the center roadway into two-way bus only lanes (i.e. BRT). The delay has eliminated any ST concerns cross-lake BRT commuters might “object” to losing their express bus service because the center roadway was closed to install light rail.

The second East Link concern that ST will probably not address is the ability of the I-90 Bridge to withstand the loads from their planned 4-car trains.  The 7/04/12 post “LW Bridge Concerns With East Link” explains the problem.  Spending $91 million on light rail design without confirming the bridge integrity doesn’t seem “prudent”.  The ST risk is that further studies may confirm the FHWA 2009 “bridge-expansion-joint” concerns.  As the post explains the result could restrict the number of cars (74 tons each) in each train, eviscerating East Links already meager capacity. 

I may be wrong as to why ST money has apparently decided not to fund these issues.  However, as many posts on this blog have detailed, ST past actions don’t inspire confidence.

BCC and BR "Fiddle" While Bellevue "Burns"

The recent Bellevue City Council elation over the East Link permitting agreement and the Bellevue Reporters accolades for this achievement remind me of the infamous legend of “Nero Fiddling While Rome Burns”.   How else can one describe such elation about something that will be so disastrous for so many.

This new “understanding between Kevin Wallace and the Executive Director for Link Light Rail” appears to only require that light rail alignment provide a 60-foot clearance between the tracks and “an existing residential primary structure”.  

This seems to be a rather “optimistic” assessment since South Seattle homes up to more than 300 feet from the Center Link tracks have required significant structural modifications because of noise issues. The Federal Transit Administration’s vibration avoidance setback standard is 150 feet.  Presumably the East Link 4-car trains would have even a larger noise and vibration impact than the Central Link’s two-car trains.  

Its difficult to understand the Building a Better Bellevue claim the agreement will maintain property values.  Exactly what properties along the route is Sound Transit going to purchase?  What is Sound Transit going to do for those living up to 300 or more feet away that will likely be impacted by light rail noise and vibration?    It’s not inconceivable Sound Transit could claim that Bellevue, by virtue of agreeing to the route and the 60 foot clearance, would be responsible for noise and vibration issues outside that level.   ST managed to convince the BCC to pay $200 million for a tunnel through city center.  Why stop there.  

Whoever picks up the “tab" it's clear many Bellevue residents will face a hassle in getting the “improvements”, see the value of their homes plummet, and have their lives changed forever.   Residents and others throughout the entire city will be forced to come up with the $200 million the council has agreed to pay ST.  Commuters throughout the entire area, but particularly cross-lake commuters will face increased congestion because of ST’s confiscating the bridge center roadway for light rail when BRT could have alleviated the area’s congestion.   This “mitigation” agreement if it leads to BCC approving the permits ST needs will exact a heavy toll on many people.

As with light rail itself (see 11/14/12 post) the big benefactors from mitigation are the construction companies and their labor unions doing the “improvements”.  Presumably many of who belong to the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington (ABCWW)