The Seattle Times Could...?

Saturday’s Seattle Times Editorial is just the latest example of their past ineptitude when it comes to transportation matters.  It begins with the highly dubious assertion:

To ensure that the May 23 bridge collapse was a rare, freak accident, lawmakers should move swiftly and pass and pass a transportation-funding package paid mostly with a 10-cent increase in the gas tax.

A far more cost effective way of avoiding problems would be to revise the “permitting” procedures for over-size vehicles.  They follow that with the following threat:

Failure to include $450 million for the crossing — as Oregon already has — would set back 12 years of work and cost $850 million in federal funding tied to light rail. King and his colleagues should budge, and allow Vancouver to tie into Oregon’s 52 miles of light rail.

The idea federal authorities would refuse to fund part of the Columbia Bridge because it doesn’t include light rail is also highly speculative. 

The Times pro-light-rail attitude has blinded them to a far better way to fund the areas local transportation than the 10-cent gas tax increase namely: redirecting the $20 billion Sound Transit is currently planning to spend over the next 10 years on light rail. 

The 10-cent gas tax would annually raise about $200-250 million or a tenth of what ST will spend each year extending light rail to Bellevue, Federal Way, and Lynnwood.  Stopping East Link would prevent the devastation of large areas of Bellevue and stop light rail’s confiscation of the center roadway that will increase, not decrease, cross-lake congestion (See 6/19/13 Post). 

Stopping Central Link extensions to Federal Way and Lynnwood would keep ST from incurring a huge public construction debt and the need for large increases in subsidies necessitated by the longer routes.  Again transit times for light rail on both extensions would likely be longer than those currently available with buses (6/21/13 Post).

In conclusion, the best way for the Seattle Times to improve transportation funding is to urge the legislators to use their WSDOT oversight to insist ST hire outside consultants to justify their light rail expansion plans by conducting a cost/benefit analysis for each extension.  One would think a state DOT would have done this without any legislative direction.  Unfortunately the WSDOT has been an active partner with ST for years (7/19/12 Post).   (Last years financial audit was, to put it charitably, “incomplete” (11/06/12 Post).)  It’s highly unlikely any extension could survive a competent review.

Stopping Central Link Extensions Could...?

This post examines what could happen if Central Link extensions beyond University and SeaTac were cancelled.   As the 6/19/13 post explains, cancelling East Link would eliminate light rail devastation along the route, and could allow part of the EL money ($91 million in 2013) to be diverted to eliminate the tolls needed for 520 rebuild and to initiate BRT service for improved commuting throughout east side.

Truncating Central Link would have a major impact on transportation infrastructure spending and future indebtedness.  For example, the 2013 budget allocates about $210 million for CL extensions beyond SeaTac and University.  However, spending for the Prop 1 extensions must expand to nearly $2 billion annually over the next 10 years to complete the projected $17.9 billion (2007 dollars) cost for the EL and CL extensions. 

Even the modest $210 million spent on the extensions in 2013 will result in a projected budget shortfall of $264 million.  Since income is not expected to grow significantly over the coming years, cancelling the extension would avoid a dramatic increase in debt.  It would also eliminate the need to purchase additional train cars and other equipment and the increased operating costs with the longer routes.  

The combination of the high operating costs with light rail ($45.60 per mile for 2 car train) and the longer routes will require huge subsidies for both extensions.  The 12.8-mile Lynnwood extension costs over $1167 for a round trip.  The 11-mile Federal Way extension adds over a $1000 to round trip costs for the current Seattle to SeaTac route.   Both routes would have to average about 165 boarders-per-round-trip to maintain the 2013 $6.07 cost-per-boarding.

It’s not clear whether all of the approximately 120 daily light rail round trips would extend to Lynnwood and/or Federal Way.  Lynnwood Route SR511 in 2012 averaged about 4520 boarders per weekday.   The Federal Way route ST577/578 averaged about 2860 boarders.  Neither extension will ever provide more than a tiny fraction of boarders needed to maintain current costs per boarder.   Thus, truncating CL would avoid a substantial increase in the subsidies required to operate light rail.

What’s particularly absurd about both extensions is the fact the 35-37 min. commute times into Seattle for both ST511 and ST577/578 routes are far shorter than those anticipated for light rail.  (The shorter commute times far outweigh light rail’s slightly better on-time performance; 96% vs. 91%.) The Lynnwood extension's stop at the Northgate T/C could obviously add additional boarders.   However Metro Route 41 already provides excellent service into Seattle with shorter commute times at a fraction of light rail’s operating cost.  (assuming ST doesn’t “persuade” Metro to stop the route.)

In conclusion, there might be some justification for incurring the huge construction debt if the CL extensions improved efficiency or reduced transit times.  However, while they probably will not devastate neighborhoods like EL, they will necessitate huge increases in subsidies and longer transit times.  In this time of serious transportation budget problems it's almost obscene Sound Transit would continue with such a project.  The goal of this blog is to stop it. 

Stopping East Link Would....?

This post is an attempt to answer the question as to what would happen if Sound Transit could be “persuaded” to stop East Link.

The first to benefit would be the hundreds of residents along the route into Bellevue who would no longer face the prospect of having their ambience devastated by light rail construction and subsequent operation.  The 2.4 million commuters who annually use ST550 would not have their access disrupted during light rail construction by temporary closures along Bellevue Way and South Bellevue P&R.

Commuters to-and-from the downtown area could continue to have access to ST550 at multiple stops along Bellevue Way and at the Bellevue T/C.   East Link completion would probably result in ST550 being replaced by light rail with stations near City Hall and South Bellevue P&R.

Cross-lake commuters would no longer face increased congestion when Sound Transit shuts down the center roadway to install light rail.  Instead they could benefit if ST finished the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways rather than wait until just before they close the center roadway (2016).   

Moving non-transit HOV to outer roadways would surely lead  (yes even Sound Transit) to BRT service into Seattle from each of the areas P&R lots reducing congestion throughout area.  Downtown Bellevue residents could have direct BRT access from Bellevue T/C into Seattle with return routes providing Seattleites access to city.

The Bel-Red area could incorporate a “South-Lake-Union-type” streetcar system rather than a huge maintenance facility with noisy light rail trains trundling through the area every 3½ to 5 minutes for 20 hours a day.  Residents there as well as those living in Redmond and Kirkland could use BRT connections from a nearby P&R lot or T/C to the University T/C for access to UW or to light rail into Downtown

The bottom line is nearly all commuters would benefit if East Link were cancelled.  Express BRT would provide far better access and shorter commute times by eliminating light rail’s many intermediate stops.  More BRT riders would reduce congestion throughout area.  Cross-lake vehicles would avoid the congestion that will inevitably result from loss of center roadway.

Bellevue residents would not face the devastation and the BCC could use the millions they agreed to pay for a tunnel to fund much needed infrastructure improvements.    Sound Transit might be “persuaded” to use part of the East Link funds to eliminate the tolls for 520 rebuild. 

The big losers would be the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions.  They could no longer count on hundreds of millions in contracts over the next ten years. 

That’s a loss I can live with and why I’m using my candidacy for the BCC to promote this blog.

Times Endorsement Interview

My email, on my return from recent travels, included an invitation from the Seattle Times for their “Endorsement interview”.   My BCC candidacy, as well as my prior 48^th District candidacy last year, is based in no small part on the Time’s complete lack of “interest” in my concerns about Sound Transits policies. 

Four years of attempts to attract their attention via emails of “opinions” and offers to meet with anyone on their staff to discuss the issues were ignored.  It was particularly frustrating since any competent investigative journalist would have quickly concluded Sound Transit made a monumental blunder when they neglected to consider two-way BRT as the “no-build option” for the bridge center roadway.  Revealing that reality in the paper could have saved the area hundreds of millions and years of increased congestion.  Instead they've spent the years abetting Sound Transit mendacity, incompetence, and arrogance (see 8/02/12 post)

When I attempted to make that point (9/05/12 post) during last year’s “Endorsement Interview” they simply weren’t interested.  To put it mildly, the rest of the interview “didn’t go well” and I was “excused” early.  I followed the interview with several posts concerning the paper’s lack of responsible journalism (9/13/12, 10/25/12, 11/19/12, 1/06/13, and 5/21/13).

Since the election I’ve made a point of using email to refer the Editorial Board, the Executive Editor David Boardman, and columnists Danny Westneat and Bruce Ramsey to many of the posts on this blog.  While they may or may not have read them, I’ve yet to receive any response or read of any Sound Transit criticisms in their paper.  This “blind eye” to concerns has led me to conclude the Times has become a co-conspirator with Sound Transit on policies that, if allowed to continue, will devastate the entire areas transportation funding for a very long time.

Needless to say I declined their invitation for an Endorsement Interview.

Transportation Funding Concerns

(I returned from 8 days rafting the Grand Canyon to "inspiration" from a Bellevue Reporter "letter".)

The problem with transportation funding in our area is not that “it tilts too much to transit".  The problem is it “tilts” (a better word would be “wastes”) too much towards extending light rail.  Light rail in Seattle should be limited to a “trunk” line that extends from the University to SeaTac (see 4/26/13  post).  The Central Link extensions to Federal Way and to Lynnwood will never attract sufficient riders to justify the costs for construction and the added equipment and operation associated with the longer routes.  

North end commuters, who would be affected, could be better served by far cheaper and faster express bus service from P&R lots into Seattle.   South end commuters might use direct bus routes into Seattle or to light rail connections at Tukwila.  Service that could be expedited by restricting 2nd and 4th Avenues to bus-only use during commute hours.  

The University Station should serve as an interface between light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) across SR520 (4/15/13 post).  Eastside residents could have express bus service from a P&R lot near where they live to UW or a fast, reliable light rail ride into downtown.  Seattleites could use the return routes for direct connections to near where they work on the east side.  A University T/C is the only way to attract the large numbers of riders needed to make light rail viable.

Sound Transit could and should have moved non-transit HOV traffic to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and initiated two-way BRT on the center roadway 15 years ago (8/08/12 post).  In this case the buses would have provided express connections between east side P&R lots and dedicated drop-off and pick-up points along “bus-only” 4^th and 2^nd Avenues. 

Truncating light rail in this manner would avoid the need to use $15 billion (2007 dollars) in constructing transportation projects that will only increase the subsidies needed to cover the higher operating costs.  Eliminating East Link will not only eliminate the devastation along the route, it will also stop the idiocy of spending billions on a cross-lake transportation project that actually increases congestion.

Bellevue City Council "Ethics"

The recent Bellevue Reporter article “Bellevue City Council OKs Ethics Code” isn’t clear about any new requirements.  The ethics the BCC demonstrated in rejecting their staff’s February 11 proposed code revisions in favor of their own Alternative Light Rail Code (ALRC) revisions are surely “questionable”.

For instance, the revised ALRC didn’t include the original staff proposal requirement (Section V) to  

Develop a light rail system in collaboration with the regional transit provider that advances the City’s long-term transportation and land use objectives, minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts, and balances regional system performance.

The ALRC also eliminated the original staff proposal Sub Section C code requirement that states

The amendment is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue.

The ALRC changes recognized the fact that it would be very "difficult" to argue that the current East Link route into Bellevue "minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts" or was "not contrary to the best interests to the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue".  The only way for light rail to meet those requirements was a tunnel into Bellevue, something ST refused to even consider. 

The ALRC did include the following requirement:

The regional transit authority has the written consent of the affected property owner to apply for the permit(s); or) from the owner of the property affected by the RLRT Facility or System

Even these requirements are “questionable” depending on who decides what it takes to qualify as an “affected property owner”.  Noise and vibration from Central Link 2-car train operation has necessitated ST incorporate major sound proofing in homes more than 400 feet away from the tracks.  The impact from East Link 4-car trains every 3 ½ to 5 minutes for 20 hours a day will surely be comparable. 

Will ST be required to get “written consent” from those living up to 400 ft from the tracks before ST can apply for the permits?  Many home owners probably won’t even be aware of the potential problem.  ST has apparently identified 70 homes as “noise receptors” (how’s that for prosaic) in the EIS that will be mitigated.  It’s not clear what criteria they used. 

The ALRC appears to require light rail alignment only provide a 60-foot clearance between the tracks and “an existing residential primary structure”.   Whatever the BCC “Ethical Standards” it’s clear the recent East Link approval based on their ALRC threatens the ambience of hundreds of residents along the light rail route into Bellevue.