What I Would've (Will?) Told Seattle Times

One of the reasons I filed as a 48^th District candidate two years ago was I assumed it would give me an opportunity to talk to the Seattle Times about my Sound Transit concerns.  They had declined to respond to my previously efforts to raise these issues via emails.  The interview didn’t go well as they weren’t interested in my concerns and I was “excused” early (see 9/13/12 post).   As of today, they still haven’t contacted me concerning my current candidacy so have decided to post what I would've (will?) told them if given the chance.

Why I’m running

17 years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  The cost would have been minimal and cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted, particularly those going in the reverse commute direction.  By the time ST finally adds the 4^th lanes in 2017 thousands of commuters will have needlessly faced nearly 20 years of increased congestion.

Why the delay?  My guess is ST was concerned they would be forced to consider moving non-transit HOV to the 4^th lanes and dividing center roadway into inbound and outbound bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes.  They knew or should have known they could have initiated two-way BRT on center roadway some 15 years ago for a tiny fraction of light rail cost.  It had 10 times light rail capacity that could provide every eastside commuter bus routes from local P&R lots directly into Seattle, reducing congestion throughout east side.  They were “concerned” they’d never be allowed to shutdown BRT for light rail and never “considered” it for the center roadway as the “no-build” alternative in the DEIS. 

Instead ST sold East Link with claims in the 2008 DEIS it could accommodate up to 12,000 riders per hour (RPH) in each direction and increase I-90 transit capacity by 60%.  However, their East Link operating schedules call for a maximum of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or 30 cars per hour.  If each 74-seat car carries 150 riders, the maximum capacity is 4500 RPH, slightly more than 1/3 of promised capacity.

ST claims 40,000 of the projected 50,000 riders will come from terminating all the cross-lake bus routes at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  Thus, each morning and afternoon 20,000 transit riders will be required to transfer to and from trains at the two stations.   ST apparently doesn’t recognize the nearly 4½ hours required for the 20,000 riders (peak capacity 4500 RPH) may not be acceptable for many commuters.

Mercer Island transit riders and those forced to transfer from buses there will have a particularly difficult time since all the light rail cars will likely be full well before they ever reach the station.  The lack of capacity and the hassle of transferring will undoubtedly convince many to “drive” rather than “ride”.

Unfortunately “drivers” will encounter another example of ST failure to meet DEIS claims, namely:

“Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”

In essence, ST assumed the long delayed 4^th outer roadway lanes would make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  ST was allowed to proceed with East Link because the WSDOT convinced a Kittitas Judge the added lane, (R-8A) configuration made up for closing the center roadway.   Yet the FHWA 2004 Record of Decision requires the “approved R-8A configuration" to maintain the two center roadways for vehicles.  The WSDOT/ST lied.  The single added lane doesn’t have the needed capacity.

The outer roadway congestion will actually increase when East Link begins service (2023?).   First, as mentioned earlier many former transit commuters will chose to “drive” rather than “ride”.  Second, ST will “likely” be forced by the lack of East Link capacity to allow many of the cross-lake bus routes to continue into Seattle on the outer roadway during the peak commute.  Hardly the way to meet the DEIS need for “increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by up to 60 percent".

ST East Link problems go way beyond its devastating effect on eastside residents and cross-lake commuters; it will also create a “financial black hole” for the area’s transportation funding.  The problem is the decision to route all the East Link trains to Lynnwood (and beyond) even though the Central Link trains will have more than sufficient capacity to meet the area’s transit needs.

The 12.8-mile Lynnwood extension adds 25.6 miles to the East Link route.   ST schedules call for 484 cars daily so the Lynnwood extensions will result in an additional 12,390 car-miles-per day.  If weekend car miles are half that level, East Link will add 74,342 car miles per week or 3,865,805 car miles per year.  

ST 2014 budget estimates light rail operation costs $22.48 per car mile (excluding depreciation) for a yearly total of $86,903,291 in direct operating costs.  Assuming the sixty ~$5 million light rail cars East Link will require for the longer route lengths and scheduled service can last an average of 10 years, depreciation will add another $30 million to the annual costs. 

Thus routing East Link to Lynnwood will add nearly $117 million to ST operating costs for capacity that will never be needed.   Even more absurd, the ST 2040 plan to extend light rail the ~10 miles to Everett will nearly double the annual operating deficit for the northern route.  Stopping East Link is the only way to make any Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and beyond financially viable.

The bottom line is ST is planning to spend ~$3 billion on an East Link light rail program that will force cross-lake commuters to chose between trying to drive into Seattle on a totally gridlocked outer bridge roadway or trying to ride on light rail cars that will never have needed capacity.  The fact that East Link will also devastate the lives of those living along the route and create a “financial black hole” because of high operating costs simply adds to the insanity.

What's With the PSRC?

The Puget Sound Regional Council is an association of local governments and state agencies in the central Puget Sound region of Washington State. It serves as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about important regional growth and transportation issues.  Its objectives include “Manage and administer transportation, growth, economic development, and data and analysis planning work programs” and “Support the Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board”.  The PSRC FY2014-2015 budget includes $29.3 million in revenue with $15 million from federal and state grants and $10 million from carry-over of previous grants.  The PSRC includes a staff of 19 to deal with transportation issues.

The PSRC mandate to “Support the Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board (TPB)” is presumably the reason they’ve provided Sound Transit over $600 million during the last four years to support their Prop 1 light rail extensions.  The fact that the former head of the PSRC TPB, Claudia Balducci, President Pat McCarthy, Vice President John Marchione, King County Executive Dow Constantine, and WSDOT Secretary Lynn Peterson, are also members of the Sound Transit Board “may” have had some influence on the PSRC funding.

What’s "unfortunate" is none of the 19 transportation staff members has apparently bothered to conduct an independent analysis of the TPB recommendations.  The 8/14/14 post explains the issues involved are relatively straight forward.  Any rational review would quickly conclude ST blundered in not adding the 4^th lanes to the I-90 bridge outer roadways some 15 years ago; closing the center roadway would increase bridge congestion; East Link would never have capacity needed for peak commute mass transit: and routing the 484 East Link light rail cars daily to Lynnwood and beyond would bankrupt the areas transportation funding.  In short, the PSRC is supporting TPB recommendations and ST plans that will be a disaster for the entire area.

When I referred the 8/14/14 post to Josh Brown, the Executive Director of the PSRC and Charlie Howard, the Director of the Transportation for PSRC the only response I received was the following from Mr Brown:

             Thanks for passing along your thoughts.  Warm regards.

Not especially encouraging.

Local Transportation Leaders Inept or ???

One would have thought those responsible for the area's transportation system would have at least some knowledge of the issues involved.  This post is another attempt to show why those directing or approving the local transportation policies seem unable to understand the basics

The issues involved are very simple.  One way to increase cross-lake capacity is to add a fourth lane to the I-90 bridge outer roadways, particularly for those on the three lanes going in the reverse commute direction.  The added lane has been part of any I-90 transportation improvement since the mid ‘90’s.  Sound Transit apparently doesn’t recognize the benefit since they’ve delayed it until 2017.

Conversely they don’t seem to realize the impact from reducing the number of lanes in the peak commute direction.  They apparently think the 4^th lane they refused to add for 20 years suddenly has the capacity to make up for the loss of two lanes on the center roadway they’re closing to install light rail.  Closing the center roadway, forcing the traffic from the two HOV lanes onto the outer roadway obviously reduces capacity in the peak commute direction and increases cross-lake congestion for all vehicles.

A transportation lane's capacity is easily defined by the number of vehicles per hour times the number of riders per vehicle.  East Link peak commute operation will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes for a total of 30 light rail cars per hour.  If each 74-seat car can accommodate 150 riders, the capacity is 4500 riders per hour (RPH).   At that rate it will take nearly nine hours to accommodate the 40,000 eastside bus riders ST intends to transfer to and from light rail at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  ST apparently has its own definition of "peak commute" hours.

By comparison, a single bus-only lane can easily accommodate 720 buses per hour.   Assuming 70 riders-per-bus gives a total of 50200 RPH, more than 10 times light rail capacity.  Equally important, the bus-only lanes could provide I-90 corridor commuters access from every eastside P&R lot whereas access to East Link for those commuters is limited to South Bellevue P&R. Yet ST neglected to even consider this option as the “no-build” alternative in the 2008 DEIS.  

ST plans to route the East Link trains as well as the Central Link trains to Lynnwood (and beyond) is another example they don’t understand the idea of “capacity”.   Central Link, assuming ST continues routing their current 120 mostly 2-car trains there, has more than enough capacity to meet reasonable current ridership projections.  If needed for future growth, they could easily add one or two cars to the trains during the peak commute.  Yet, ST currently plans to add the East Link trains’ 484 cars daily to the ~240 Central Link cars, dwarfing any rational capacity requirements.

ST plans to route East Link to Lynnwood (and beyond) also “suggests” they don’t recognize the devastating effect of high light rail car operating costs on light rail finances.  Each light rail car costs ST $22.48 per mile (per ST 2014 budget) or $10,880 per mile for the 484 East Link cars.  The 12.8 mile extension from the University to Lynnwood adds 25.6 miles costing $278,536 daily and ~$87 Million annually in light rail operating costs.  Even worse, the current 2040 plan extending light rail ~ 10 miles to Everett will nearly double the East Link operating costs for the route.

Again, none of the issues involved are very complicated.  Yet Dow Constantine, the head of the Sound Transit Board is either unable to understand the problems or doesn’t care.  After all he is the one who insisted on cutting Metro bus routes because of a financial short fall that’s a tiny fraction of Sound Transit’s future deficits.  Lynn Peterson, the head of the WSDOT, while new to the board, seems willing to go along with ST plans to confiscate the center roadway for light rail that will devastate cross-lake commuting for the entire area.  Board members Balducci, McCarthy, and Marchione, whose supposed transportation expertise has also led to their leadership positions in the Puget Sound Regional Council’s transportation policy board advocating extending light rail to Everett, adding to the financial debacle.

Local legislators responsible for transportation issues are also culpable.  For example, 41^st District Rep Judy Clibborn, the head of the Joint Transportation Committee, and 48^th District Senate candidate Cyrus Habib, who served on the JTC, both seem unaware or unconcerned about issues with ST plans for the future.  

The area definitely needs new transportation leaders.

More on East Link "Stupidity"

Many posts on this blog have lamented the fact that fifteen years ago Sound Transit could have moved non-transit HOV to fourth lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and initiated two-way bus only lanes on the bridge center roadway.  The added lanes on the outer roadways would have reduced congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake, particularly those commuting in the “reverse” peak direction.  The center roadway lanes could have allowed direct bus routes between every eastside P&R that would have reduced congestion throughout east side by allowing commuters to park their cars near where they live rather than where they work. 

Instead ST has delayed adding 4^th lanes until 2017 that will never have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  They will spend the next six years constructing a light rail system to replace all the cross-lake bus routes.  However, ST’s proposed East Link operating schedules will never have the capacity  for their projected number of riders during their normal commute hours.   Thus what could have been a fast, reliable bus ride from a local P&R directly into Seattle will be a nightmarish choice between facing driving gridlock on the outer roadway or trying to transfer from a bus to a crowded light rail car at the South Bellevue or Mercer Island stations.

Not only will East Link devastate the lives of thousands of cross-lake commuters, it will also jeopardize the entire area’s transportation funding because of ST’s second major blunder.  That’s their decision not to terminate at least the East Link trains at the University Station.  The 7/27/14 post explains the combination of ST routing East Link the 77.6 miles from Redmond to Lynnwood and back, the high light rail operating cost, and their proposed light rail schedules will result in a $285 Million operating deficit.  That’s more than 5 times ST’s total fare box revenue.

Its also worth noting 40,000 of the 50,000 riders ST is projecting for East Link will only ride 6 or 9 miles of the 77.6 mile light rail circuit.  That’s the distance between the bus-to-light rail transfer points on Mercer Island or South Bellevue and Seattle.   One would think spending $285 million a year for so little benefit would be a “non-starter” (even if it did have the needed capacity).   Instead ST’s 2040 plans call for extending light rail to Everett adding ~ 20 miles to the circuit and $68 million to the East Link operating deficit.   Any rational review would conclude ST needs to either drop East Link or terminate it at the University Station.  

East Link's Monumental Stupidity

The two previous posts dealt with the devastating effect of East Link’s lack of capacity on I-90 Bridge commuters.  This post explains why East Link would be a monumentally stupid idea even if it had the needed capacity.  

The Sound Transit 2008 DEIS promoted East Link as the way to increase I-90 Bridge transit capacity by 60%.  They later “refined” light rail capability by projecting 50,000 daily riders with 40,000 coming from terminating existing I-90 bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  

The ST East Link plan raises the question,  “Why not terminate it at the South Bellevue P&R?”  Doing so would provide 40,000 of the projected 50,000 riders with transit access and eliminate the cost and devastation to those living along the route into Bellevue.  (A South-Lake-Union-style streetcar system with connections to the Bellevue T/C would be a far better way to attract development to BelRed.)

East Link’s proposed operating schedules provide 484 car trips per day, so shortening the route would reduce car miles per day by 10,600.  At $22.48 cost per car mile (per 2014 ST budget) nearly $240,000 per day would be saved in operating costs, or $24.00 for each of the 10,000 lost riders.  Presumably some of the 10,000 would find other ways to get to the South Bellevue station reducing the number of riders lost from the truncation. 

Truncating East Link by 11 miles at the Bellevue station would reduce the  route to Lynnwood and back from 77.6 miles to 55.6 miles.  The daily operating costs for the 484 car trips would still be $605,000.  The Seattle-to-Lynnwood portion will not provide any additional net fare box revenue since Central Link will have far more capacity than needed without East Link.  Thus the light rail operating cost for each of the 40,000 bus riders with the truncated route would still be ~$15.00. 

All of the transferred bus riders would presumably have paid the $2.50 fare when they entered the bus so ST would have to subsidize the entire $605,000 daily operating cost.  Assuming the weekend daily cost would be half that level requires ST to provide $3.6 Million weekly or ~ $187 Million yearly to cover operating costs.  Each weekday rider forced to switch to light rail rather than continue riding the bus the 9 miles into Seattle from Bellevue or the 6 miles from Mercer Island will require a subsidy of up to $7800 annually. 

Again, this assumes East Link had the capacity to accommodate the 20,000 riders morning and afternoon commutes.   Many of these commuters will be forced to find other ways into Seattle because of lack of capacity during peak commute.  Thus, the subsidy for actual “riders” will be substantially higher.  

ST is currently planning to spend ~ $3 billion in capital costs to initiate this East Link operation.  If doing so doesn’t qualify as a "monumentally stupid" idea, I don’t know what does.  The fact it will also gridlock vehicle traffic on the I-90 Bridge and turn what was an easy bus commute to Seattle into a transit nightmare for others simply adds to the stupidity.

More Losers in East Link Debacle

Some of the biggest losers from the East Link debacle are Mercer Island residents.  Their easy access to Seattle is undoubtedly one of the major reasons the island is such an attractive place to live.  Other I-90 corridor commuters go out of their way to use the MI P&R or to take advantage of their exclusive SOV access to I-90 Bridge center roadway.  One would have thought their city leaders and local legislators would do whatever was needed to protect this advantage.

These commuting concerns presumably prompted the MI city council's attempts to avoid I-90 tolls by forcing the WSDOT to conduct a 2-year, ~$9 million EIS.   An earlier post (9/04/13) explains why their attempt to stop the tolls is unlikely to succeed.  Even if they do succeed, East Link will change MI access to Seattle far more than any toll.

MI commuters’ first transportation “shock” will come in 2017 when Sound Transit shuts down the I-90 center roadway to begin installing light rail.  Not only will their SOV commuters lose access to center roadway, their access to I-90 will be severely restricted by control lights on the MI onramps due to heavy congestion.  

Once they get on the bridge outer roadway they’ll encounter the heavy congestion resulting from ST closure of the center roadway.   The 4^th lane ST added to the outer roadway doesn’t provide the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  The resulting outer roadway congestion will be even worse if MI succeeds in stopping I-90 tolls since those avoiding 520 tolls would continue to use I-90.

The MI commuter transit concerns from outer roadway congestion will be dwarfed when East Link begins operation in 2023(?).   ST will force all cross-lake bus riders to transfer to light rail at either the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  Not only will MI commuters no longer have access to cross-lake buses, the MI light rail station will be inundated with thousands of other I-90 corridor bus riders forced to transfer there. 

During the morning commute, MI riders will be joined by upwards of 10,000 other transit riders (assuming half of the 20,000 transit riders will transfer there) waiting at the station for East Link.  They will likely have a very long wait!   ST plans for East Link, one 4-car train every 8 minutes, provide capacity for only 4500 riders per hour (RPH).  By the time light rail trains get to the MI station all of the cars are likely to be full from the other light rail stations and the 10,000 transit riders transferring at the South Bellevue station.   East Link will be a disaster for MI commuters.

Whenever I talk to Mercer Island residents about the impact of East Link I get the impression they either have “doubts” about my concerns or that “nothing” can be done.   What is truly amazing is the MI city council seems to be of the same opinion.   They make this huge effort to avoid tolls but ignore my emails concerning the posts on this blog.  ST needs MI approval to proceed with East Link.  They’re apparently willing to do so without even seriously questioning ST about East Link’s affect on commuters.  

Even more “amazing” is the lack of concern by Rep Clibborn, a MI resident who, as head of the legislatures Joint Transportation Committee, would have considerable “influence” dealing with transportation issues.  Yet she has expressed absolutely zero interest in the many emails I’ve sent concerning the problems in the various blog posts.

MI residents will pay dearly for their negligence.