Salvaging Light Rail In Seattle

Sound Transit current plans for light rail extensions will create a perpetual “black hole” for the area's transportation funds.  The only reason high light rail operating costs ($45.60 per mile for a two-car train) and limited ridership (26,000 projected for 2013 vs. original prediction of 110,000 by 2010) aren’t an issue is light rail “trips” are limited to the 15.6 miles from Westlake to SeaTac.  They still cost $6.21 per boarder in 2012 nearly as much as the comparable $6.51 for express bus trips that average 25.42 miles. 

Sound Transit should ensure that any extension attracts sufficient additional riders to justify both the construction costs and the increased operating costs.   In 2012 they’re spending $500 million as down payment on a  $17.9 billion (2007 dollars) plan to add 34 miles of extensions.  They include extending Central Link south from SeaTac towards Federal Way, north from the University to Lynnwood and across I-90 through Bellevue to Redmond/Overlake area.  All three extensions fail to meet any reasonable initial construction cost/benefit analysis as well as subsequent operating costs rationale.

The 11-mile extension from Sea-Tac to Federal Way is a total waste.  Construction and additional equipment costs will probably total around $1.5 billion.   The extension will add over $1000 to the trains operating costs for a round trip.  Even more idiotic, it’s unlikely to attract many riders since it will take 30 minutes longer than the existing bus service. 

Rather than spending money extending light rail tracks Sound Transit should consider adding a T/C and improving bus access at the Tukwila Station.  The T/C would allow bus rapid transit (BRT) service to each of the south end P&R lots.  Doing so would attract far more riders at far less cost than the extension.

Sound Transit made a huge blunder when they allowed the UW to veto a T/C near the University Station.  The T/C is not only the way to justify the $1.9 billion University Extension, it’s critical to making the entire Central Link light rail system financially viable.  The 7/29/12 and 4/15/13 posts explain how a University T/C in combination with BRT service across 520 can attract the thousands of riders needed to justify the costs of construction and operation of light rail in Seattle.  Sound Transit’s agreement with the UW that precludes a T/C must be overturned. 

Extending light rail to Northgate is “problematic”.  The 4/10/13 post explains the ST/UW agreement concerning vibration and magnetic field affects adds a major risk to the extension.  It’s hard to justify since it will only attract significant ridership if Metro decides to stop operating their far less expensive bus service from the Northgate P&R.

 

Sound Transit plans for their East Link light rail extension across I-90 Bridge and through Bellevue to Redmond/Overlake are way beyond “problematic”.  The current plans for the Central Link extensions “only” waste hundreds of millions every year.  The $2.8 billlion spent on East Link will increases cross-lake congestion as well as devastate parts of Bellevue.  

Sound Transit concluded nearly 20 years ago any cross-lake improvement would include adding 4^th lanes to the two outer roadways.  They could have added the lanes and initiated BRT on the center roadway more than 15 years ago.  Instead ST has spent the intervening years spending hundreds of millions promoting light rail for cross-lake mass transit. 

The initial 5/15/12 post on this blog explains the “Case Against East Link”.  What’s amazing is ST apparently spent all those years evaluating different options and never seriously consider bus rapid transit (BRT).    Even a cursory analysis would have concluded BRT had more than 10 times light rail capacity at a tiny fraction of the cost.  BRT would have provided mass transit access to every east side P&R and reduced congestion throughout the eastside.  The only East Link access will be a South Bellevue P&R with limited capacity and difficult access.  The 8/08/12 post provides additional details about BRT advantages.

In conclusion Sound Transit sold these extensions to the public in 2008 as Proposition 1 on the premise the $17.9 billion spent on construction would be justified by light rail train capacity.  The reality is none of the extension will ever attract enough riders to justify the added construction costs as well as the increased operating costs with the longer routes. 

Salvaging light rail in Seattle requires Sound Transit to attract more riders to a SeaTac-to-University Central Link with T/Cs at the University and Tukwila Stations.   The $300 million they’re "investing" in 2013 on extensions beyond those stations is a tiny fraction of the $17.9 billion planned for the next ten years.  If nothing is done Sound Transit will soon be “investing” nearly $2 billion annually with the end result a massive public debt and a light rail system requiring a huge subsidy because of the increased operating costs and limited ridership with the extensions.
       

BBB Should "Litigate" Not "Mitigate" East Link

The entire eastside would benefit if the Building a Better Bellevue organization leading the fight for those living along the light rail route into Bellevue would chose to “litigate” to stop East Link rather than attempt to “mitigate” its impact on the area.   The 3/16/13 post “BBB Should Appeal Judge’s East Link Decision” explains why the judge’s inexplicable decision to reject their suit should be easy to reverse on appeal.  A successful appeal would seem to leave Sound Transit with the option of a tunnel along the current route or dropping light rail in favor of cross-lake bus rapid transit (BRT)

The whole reason for the “trench” vs. “at grade” debate is an attempt by the Bellevue City Council to reduce their portion for the $320 million downtown tunnel Sound Transit claims was not included in the Proposition 1 budget.  What’s absurd is apparently ST didn’t recognize the unacceptable devastating affects associated with the constructing and subsequent operation of a light rail system in the Bellevue business district.  (The BCC still hasn’t explained where they will get the funds needed for their “share” of the cost due to this ST incompetence).   The agreement to pay extra for the tunnel is particularly egregious since eastside sales tax revenue already provide more than enough funds to pay for any route or tunnel.  ST recent decision they had sufficient funds to tunnel the entire length of the Northgate extension just adds to the insult.

Even if the BBB does convince the BCC and subsequently ST to go with the “trench” those living along the route will be faced with years of disruption from its construction.  Also there’s no guarantee they still won’t not be exposed to high noise or vibration when service begins.  The other seemingly ignored issue is what happens to development in the Bel-Red area.  The BCC has apparently already agreed to allow ST to despoil a major part of the area with their maintenance facility.  What are their plans to “mitigate” light rail noise/vibration issues in the area? 

Again, a successful appeal by BBB has a far greater chance of success of ending the devastating impact of East Link along the route than any efforts at mitigation.  Forcing ST to tunnel would minimize the adverse affects along the route into Bellevue.  Convincing them to switch to BRT would do much more.  It wound eliminate the need for Bellevue to come up with nearly $200 million for a tunnel and maintain Bel-Red  as an attractive area for future development.   It would also benefit the entire east side if, along with the minimal funds needed for BRT, the rest of the $2.8 billion East Link funds could be used to eliminate the need for tolls to fund the 520 Bridge and fund other eastside improvements.

I-90 Tolls, Rubbing Salt on an Open Wound

(I wrote this post in response to an April 17, City of Mercer Island update of their efforts to oppose tolling of I-90)

The recent decision by the WSDOT to “study the possibility of tolling Interstate 90” and the apparent willingness of the Legislature to impose the toll gives a new meaning to the phrase “Rubbing salt on an open wound”.   The “wound” in this case is the fact eastside residents already pay more than their fair share towards funding cross-lake transportation through the .9% sales tax to Sound Transit. 

What makes the additional tolls so "painful" is the fact ST has spent much of what little sales tax revenue they've spent on the east side promoting East Link light rail;  a $2.8 billion project that will devastate parts of Bellevue and require Bellevue residents to pay an additional $200 million for a tunnel under the city center.

Fifteen years ago ST and the WSDOT could have added the 4^th lane to the outer roadways, reducing cross-lake congestion for everyone but particularly “reverse commuters”.   Instead they’re partners in a $2.8 billion project that includes confiscating the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail and forcing all traffic onto the outer roadways to face ever increasing congestion and inevitable gridlock. 

Even when East Link begins operation (2023), the vast majority of I-90 commuters won’t have access because of limited parking along route.  Forcing them to pay a toll to fund a bridge they will never use, knowing their taxes have funded a light rail system that increases their commute times is practically obscene.

It’s way past time for ST and WSDOT to acknowledge they made an historic blunder when they selected light rail for cross-lake public transit.  A small part of the East Link funds could be used to add the 4^th lane to the outer roadway and to initiate bus rapid transit (BRT) on the center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity accessible from every eastside P&R.  The remaining money could be used to eliminate the need for tolls on both bridges, a well-deserved benefit from years of supporting ST’s Central Link.

The best way to “find another source of funding” is for the City of Mercer Island to use its considerable influence with the legislature to “persuade” Sound Transit to divert East Link funds to projects that will help the entire east side.

ST/UW T/C Decision Beyond Incompetent

The 4/10/13 post recommended a Transit Center (T/C) at the U/W rather than the Northgate extension  as part of the Sound Transit/UW  “Master Implementation Agreement with Sound Transit”.  This post explains that whatever ST agrees to regarding the Northgate extension they need to insist on a T/C near the University light rail station.

Sound Transit estimates it will cost $1.9 billion for the 3.15-mile University extension or about $350,000 per yard.  ST justifies the extension construction costs with predictions it will add 71,000 weekday riders by 2030, nearly tripling Central Link ridership to 114,000.   (Raises the question why it wasn’t part of the original Central Link construction.)

Unfortunately, Sound Transit promise for 71,000 University Extension riders is the ultimate example of their “field-of-dreams-if-we-build-it-they-will-come” mentality.  ST will get the 15,000 riders they promise from the $2.1 billion Northgate Extension only if they “persuade” Metro to end their far less expensive bus Route 41 from Northgate T/C.

The only other significant potential source for riders is a bus T/C near the Central Link University Station.  The 7/29/12 post “A better choice for 520 commuters” describes how a University T/C would provide an excellent interface between cross-lake BRT bus service and Central Link light rail.  Eastside residents could have express bus service from every P&R in the area to fast reliable light rail connections into Seattle.  Seattleites could use the return routes to provide light rail/BRT connections to Microsoft and all the major work destinations on the eastside.   The large numbers in both directions could add many thousands of riders to Central Link.

Its possible Sound Transit didn’t insist on the University T/C because they eventually hoped to extend light rail across 520.   A more immediate concern was that the 520 BRT/Light Rail combination could eliminate one of East Link’s major selling points; providing Seattleites with light rail access to Microsoft.   Again the 7/29/12 post explains the 520 BRT route advantages.

In conclusion, Sound Transit’s acquiescing to the University demand not to include a University Station T/C will limit the University light rail extension ridership to a small fraction of the promised 71,000 riders so critical for making Central Link financially viable.   Doing so to maintain East Link as the “Microsoft” connection goes way beyond mere incompetence.

ST High Risk/No Reward Northgate Extension

One of the reasons light rail costs threaten the entire area is Sound Transits agreement with the University of Washington regarding the Central Link extension to Northgate.   The 3/29/13 post suggested Sound Transit use the University Station as a terminus for 520 BRT rather than extend light rail to Northgate.  A viewer referred me to a “Master Implementation Agreement with Sound Transit”  (MIA) dealing with UW requirements for Central Link. 

The MIA “Background” list of five principles begins with the following:

“Light rail alignment which provides reasonable pedestrian access to station locations from the University’s Seattle campus is desirable and wanted by the University and Sound Transit”

The UW apparently recognized extending Central Link light rail to the university would benefit students, faculty, and others.   However, the next principle stipulates

  

Sound Transit’s commitment and funding to extend the northern portal beyond the University District is necessary to minimize further congestion in the area.

They later require

Sound Transit shall aggressively pursue funding to extend the Light Rail Transit System beyond University property toward Northgate as expeditiously as possible

They reinforce their concerns with the following warning:

Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit the University’s ability to seek further remedies and/or compensation from Sound Transit or any other party should the Light Rail Transit System fail to extend to Northgate in a timely manner.

The UW obviously believes the way “to minimize congestion in the area” is to extend light rail towards Northgate.   However, later the MIA does open the possibility of a transit center (T/C) near the stadium with the following:

Sound Transit shall not include design features for public automobile parking or bus service changes with layover or loading areas in the vicinity of University of Washington Station that do not, in the University’s judgment, directly benefit the University

Currently Metro 271 and ST540 and ST542 provide bus connections across 520 to the University.  The HOV lanes on the new 520 Bridge will probably lead to increased eastside bus traffic.  However Central Link will presumably reduce the number of Seattle bus routes into the area.  Sound Transit could probably convince the University a 4-6 bay T/C near the University Station would not cause excessive congestion.   As the 7/29/12 and 3/29/13 posts detail, a University T/C could also provide eastside commuters with improved access to the University as well as access to light rail service into Seattle.  Seattleites could benefit from improved BRT service from University station to Microsoft and other eastside work locations.

The MIA also raises concerns any UW gains from not terminating Central Link at a T/C near the University station are offset by the potential adverse affects from light rail operation under the campus.  Excerpts from the MIA detail these concerns.

Concerns regarding impacts upon vibration and electromagnetic sensitive teaching and research located in buildings on the Seattle campus resulted in the Modified Mountlake Route (MMR).

The MIA requires that any light rail tunnel under the campus:

Protects research and instruction by defining levels of vibration and magnetic field (MF) thresholds which ST shall not exceed without advance approval by the University; includes a monitoring program to assure real time compliance as well as liquidation damages if any threshold is exceeded by ST.

The tunnel risks have resulted in:

ST and UW agree upon a lump sum payment of $20,000,000 by ST to the University as consideration for the terms, conditions and easements contemplated in the MIA as well as reflecting the allocation of risks and obligations afforded to each party associated with the first two segments of the North Link program on and under the Seattle Campus east of 15th and south of 45th.

They also resulted in the following tunnel design requirements:

               In order to minimize vibration and MF, Sound Transit shall have a continuing obligation to employ, over the term of this Agreement, the most current and effective design and material, including but not limited to quadrupole mitigation techniques at least within the limits of the University’s Seattle campus, floating slabs and ultra straight track designed to produce minimum undulation and vibration, particularly at low frequencies, from the University of Washington Station to at least the northwest boundary of the University’s Seattle Campus,

Even with these probably expensive design features the completed tunnel light rail must demonstrate compliance during “pre-Revenue Service Testing”:

               In no event shall Sound Transit commence Revenue Service on University Properties if  (Vibration and MF) Thresholds are exceeded.

Other parts of the MIA include huge fines if the tunnel takes too long or if problems during service result in vibration or MF exceeding limits.  The MIA assures any disputes regarding these issues will likely be resolved in favor of the University.

Board of Regents has ultimate approval authority on design, mitigation and monitoring plans required of ST under the MIA.

The bottom line is rather than attempting to persuade University to accept a T/C near the stadium as the Central Link terminus Sound Transit has agreed to risk hundreds of millions of public funds designing (presumably with UW design concurrence) and building a light rail tunnel with no assurance they’ll ever be able to use it.   Even worse, even if they succeed, the added ridership from the Northgate extensions will never justify the costs for the extension or the added operating costs.

Bellevue Reporter Blind to East Link Reality

(The Bellevue City Council is apparently in the final stages of approving permits Sound Transit needs for East Link: a project that will devastate parts of the city, force residents to pay up to $200 million for a tunnel beyond the hundreds of millions they’ve already paid in sales taxes to Sound Transit, and increase congestion for those who commute into Seattle.  One of the primary reasons for this debacle is the Bellevue Reported that for years has “declined” to print anything critical of Sound Transit.  The following is just the latest example of my attempts to influence their editorial page.  Believing “past is prologue” I’ve posted it on this blog.)

 

Letters, Bellevue Reporter Blind to East Link Reality,

For years the BR could “charitably” be described as viewing everything regarding Sound Transits East Link light rail program through “Rose Colored Glasses”.   How else could one characterize a media organization that fails to criticize the Bellevue City Council’s willingness to pay $200 million for a project that will devastate parts of Bellevue and increase cross-lake congestion.   

However, the April 5 headline “First Look at Light-Rail Noise sees Gain for Neighbors” suggests they’ve gone totally “blind” to reality.   The idea that trains trundling through the area for 20 hours a day will improve conditions along the route is totally absurd irrespective of whatever  “mitigation” techniques are used.

Prior to Central Link, Rainier Valley residents lived for years with traffic noise from a wide assortment of vehicles along Martin Luther King Way, apparently without significant noise issues. Central Link light rail noise has changed that region forever with homes 400 to 500 feet away from the tracks requiring extensive modifications to meet noise standards.  

Sound Transit’s East Link trains will have 4 cars rather then the Central Link 2-car trains, undoubtedly resulting in higher noise and vibration levels for longer periods of time than what Rainier Valley residents have been exposed to.  Any media outlet that doesn’t recognize that reality is, to put it mildly, “ill serving its audience”.