Stopping Light Rail Debacle

It seems like Sound Transit and their Board of Directors are doing whatever they can to make their Prop 1 light rail expansions appear to be a fait accompli.  They’re spending hundreds of millions to expedite boring the tunnel, supposedly a 2-year project, for a Northgate extension that’s not scheduled to start service until 2021. 

On the east side they’ve spent millions creating detailed designs and conducting open houses asking for “public input” for things like light rail stations that won’t be needed until 2023.  Their latest “flyer” invites residents to an East Link open house to learn details about “early construction work coming in 2015 and 2016 along Bellevue Way and 112 Avenue SE”.  Again, for a light rail service that begins in 2023.

What’s the rush?  They’re spending all this money even though the City of Mercer council hasn't approved the permits they need to cross Mercer Island.  ST and the Bellevue City Council are still apparently going through the charade of “convincing” the Citizens Advisory Council to approve the permits needed for the route through Bellevue. 

Maybe ST feels all this early effort explaining these “details” will enhance the appeal of their light rail extensions.  (It’s “doubtful” those reviewing the station designs were aware the South Bellevue and Mercer island stations will both be inundated with 10,000 bus riders forced to transfer to and from light rail during the morning and afternoon commutes.)  

Then again, maybe ST and the board are concerned the “public” will recognize the utter stupidity of spending billions on Central Link extensions that will do nothing to ease I-5 congestion and will result in a light rail system too expensive to operate.  Or that eastside commuters will realize the insanity of spending billions for a transportation project that forces 20,000 transit riders to transfer to a light rail system consisting of one 4-car train every 8 minutes to commute into and out of Seattle.  These early "investments" may be ST's attempt to convince skeptics that light rail extensions are a "done deal".   

The reality is this debacle can still be stopped.  The Seattle Times could stop it with a single article exposing the above problems.  Eastside legislators and the legislature's Joint Transportation Committee could use the upcoming session to commission an "independent review team" (similar to the IRT review the JTC commissioned that led ST to finally conduct tests demonstrating I-90 Bridge/light rail structural compatibility) to review light rail efficacy for the area's transit system.  It's highly "unlikely" any competent review would allow ST to proceed.  The same would undoubtedly result if the Mercer Island and Bellevue City councils were to jointly fund an independent study of the issues.  

While I'm still not optimistic,  blog viewers can improve the chances for stopping this debacle by contacting the Times, their legislators, and the city councils urging them to question light rails efficacy.   The entire area will pay dearly if ST is allowed to continue.  

Seattle Times Culpability For Transit Debacle

The recent Seattle Times article “Region’s commute times worsen” typifies their approach to the area’s transportation problems.  They define the problem with  “If you’re serious about driving Interstate 5 from Everett in time for work in Seattle, you need to reach the freeway 18 minutes earlier than three years ago”.    They provide data showing both Everett and Federal Way commuters riding transit reach Seattle 31 minutes sooner than those in single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and that 44% of I-5 commuters already take advantage of HOV lanes or buses to commute into and out of Seattle.  The obvious solution to the problem is to convince more of the SOV drivers to ride buses.  A competent newspaper would ask  “Why do 56% of commuters choose to add 31 minutes to their morning commuter by driving into Seattle?”

Granted, some work locations may not be readily accessible by transit or commuters may need their cars at work.  However, some may know the local P&R will be full when they get there.  Many may find the buses too full or not like the idea of standing in an over-crowded bus for 40 or 50 minutes each morning.  The fact the article reports I-5 corridor buses between Everett and Seattle are operating at 79% of capacity during the 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes “suggests” that possibility.  (Presumably the HOV lanes and bus utilization rates are similar for the Federal Way to Seattle corridor.) 

The Times should have recognized the key to reducing commute times is to survey all the major employment centers in Seattle.  Find out why commuters choose to drive rather than ride.  Ask where and when they would prefer to leave their car or be dropped off to catch a bus into Seattle.  Use this information to expedite additional parking where needed and to supplement the current bus schedules from P&R lots or T/Cs.  Some routes could be improved to shorten transit times.  For example, the current ST510 route between Everett into Seattle could be supplemented with direct connections between Everett Station and downtown Seattle, skipping the stop at South Everett Freeway Station.   (A similar survey of eastside employers could be used to improve transit service to Bellevue and other eastside destinations.) 

Every additional bus route could eliminate 60 to 90 vehicles on the I-5 corridor and in downtown Seattle.  An additional 30 bus routes an hour during the 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes would provide sufficient capacity to reduce SOV traffic by a third.  The key is to match up the route improvements with the demands of potential riders.

An HOV lane can easily accommodate more than 5000 buses and carpoolers an hour.  The key to maximizing that capacity is to make more of the vehicles “buses”.  

Spending billions to replace some of them is insane.  The Times refuses to recognize the funds that should be used to make these improvements is currently being “invested” in fatally flawed Sound Transits Prop 1 light rail extensions.   During the next 8-10 years ST is planning to spend ~$15 billion to create a light rail system that will do absolutely nothing to improve commute times.  

What is also beyond belief is the fact the Times supports ST plans to replace I-90 Bridge bus lanes capable of 720 buses an hour with a ~$3 billion East Link light rail system that will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  How’s that for incompetence?.

Sooner or later the “truth” of this debacle will be evident to everyone.  I-5 commuters will realize ST, rather than simply improving bus service into Seattle, spent billions on light rail extensions that did nothing to ease congestion and resulted in a light rail service too expensive to operate.  East Side residents, whose commute into Seattle would have benefited from improved transit service from I-90 bus only lanes, will face inevitable gridlock from ST confiscation of center roadway.

Those responsible include: the ST Board of Directors,  particularly Chairman, County Executive Constantine and WSDOT Secretary Peterson, whose "direction" of ST policies can most charitably be described as "lacking";  East side legislators like Rep Clibborn, the head of the Joint Legislative Transportation Committee and others who could have used their WSDOT oversight to stop it;  Rep. Hunter, my 48^th District opponent, who showed his compete disregard for his constituents by his early advice “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across I-90 come Hell or High Water” and later reneged on his promise to do his own analysis;  The Mercer Island and Bellevue City Councils who are well on their way to approving pemits ST needs for East Link.  

Yet all of this could have been avoided if the Times had not ignored the obvious problems. The entire area will pay a heavy price for their failure.

Why i'll Likely Fail in my Campaign to Stop East Link

My campaign against East Link began more than 5 years ago when I realized Sound Transit had made a monumental blunder in selecting light rail on I-90 Bridge for cross-lake public transit.  They facilitated that blunder by simply refusing to consider two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway as the “no-build” alternative.

I believed there were three ways to stop it.1) Convince the Sound Transit Board to abort it. 2) Convince the legislator to use their WSDOT oversight responsibility to prevent ST from shutting down the center roadway to install light rail, 3) Convince the city councils along the route to disallow the permits ST needed to begin construction.

I initially sent emails to the Sound Transit Board and eastside legislators, and made several appearances at the Bellevue City council meetings detailing my concerns.  They were all ignored.   Similar emails sent to Seattle Times including offers to meet with them to discuss the issues were also ignored.  Emails to the WSDOT and the state’s Attorney’s General office were responded with suggestions from the WSDOT I hire my own “legal council”.

Lacking the wherewithal to do so, I created this blog about my concerns and filed as a 48^th District candidate to attract attention.  Since then I’ve also filed for the Bellevue City Council and repeated my 48^th District candidacy this year.  While none of my candidacies have been successful in the conventional way, my over 200 posts have attracted more than 20,000 page views.   The fact that none of the viewers have ever disputed any of my posts “suggests” the validity of my concerns.   Of particular interest, the Seattle Transit blog, which earlier had been critical of me (See 9/10/12 Post), has been totally mute.

One would have thought the Sound Transit Board would have some ST staff member review my concerns and attempt to refute them.  Surely board member, Lynn Peterson, the WSDOT director has ample resources for dealing with potential transportation problems.  Instead their recent decision to expedite boring the 3.4-mile tunnel portion of the $2.1 billion Northgate extension typifies incompetence.  They could have terminated Central Link at a UW T/C that would have attracted thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake.  Instead the extension will do absolutely nothing to relieve I-5 congestion and their current light rail operating plans will result in a “financial black hole” for the areas transportation funds.

The legislature has the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) responsible for dealing with transportation issues.  In 2008 the JTC was sufficiently concerned about the ability of the I-90 Bridge to support light rail trains they commissioned and independent review team (IRT) to evaluate the bridge design with light rail.  Their report resulted in ST finally conducting additional tests last year in Pueblo Colorado that apparently were successful.  Yet the current committee headed by Rep Clibborn, whose Mercer Island constituents will lose their easy access to Seattle with East Link, is apparently unconcerned about ST.  (What’s ironic is Clibborn was probably instrumental in "persuading" the WSDOT to conduct a ~$9 million EIS in an attempt to avoid paying I-90 tolls.  In the unlikely event it's successful, it will make the bridge congestion even worse)

The Bellevue City Council, which could have use the permit process to "influence" ST, has simply capitulated to their demands. Council member Badlucci (now mayor) could have used her position on the ST board to demand they “consider” a tunnel from South Bellevue through the city.  Instead she and the council allowed ST to “extort” ~$200 million from Bellevue citizens to fund a “cut and fill” trench in downtown area.  Council member Wallace was instrumental in revising the city’s land use code to make East Link “permitable”.  Their recent decision to allow the maintenance yard "eye sore" to the Bel Red area is just the latest example.

As a result those living along the route into Bellevue will be forced to endure 6-7 years of construction followed by a lifetime of noise from light rail noise for 20 hours a day.   Light rail noise will also forever end the quiet solitude of Mercer Slough Park, a clear violation of federal environmental law.  Commuters will face I-90 congestion and have their South Bellevue P&R inundated with thousands of bus transferees.

The council is apparently trying to pawn off “responsibility” for approving the permits to the “Citizens’ Advisory Committee”, a group of well-meaning citizens who, when I appeared before them, appeared to be completely devoid of transportation expertise.  They were being “spoon fed” by ST officials and had absolutely no interest in my concerns or this blog.

My failure to persuade the ST board, legislators, or BCC to require ST change policies led to other potential allies.  For example the King County Council also had a Regional Transit Committee dealing with the area’s transportation issues. Its purported mission was to:

Review and make recommendations to the council on countywide policies for public transportation services operated by the County. The committee’s responsibilities include the Strategic Plan for Public Transportation, which is the blueprint establishing guidelines for allocation of transit service throughout King County.  

They were sufficiently concerned about the Metro funding shortfall and the resulting service cuts to propose a bill last June to defer the cuts.  County Executive Constantine vetoed the bill saying “somebody had to be ‘the adult in the room’ to face reality”.  (I thought at the time Constantine’s referring to himself as the “adult in the room” was almost laughable since he was obviously responsible for ST decision to “expedite” boring the Northgate tunnel, spending money they don’t have on a $2.1 billion light rail extension that will do nothing to ease I-5 congestion and will result in a light rail extension too expensive to operate for any rational ridership projection.

All of these council Metro concerns have been about a ~$60 million annual revenue shortfall. Yet the response from many emails referring Constantine and council members (several who are also on the ST board) to ST problems like gridlock on I-90 Bridge and a $285 million shortfall between East Link operating costs and fare box revenue has been limited to a few “Thank you for your information” replies. 

The other governmental organization that could “influence” ST was the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).  They’re responsible for doling out federal dollars for transportation projects throughout the state.  Over the last five years they’ve contributed over $800 million to ST. I would have thought one of the nineteen staff members dedicated to transportation activities would have been “interested” in the potentially devastating effect of light rail on the areas commuters and transportation funding. Yet when I referred several blog posts to Josh Brown, the Executive Director of the PSRC and Charlie Howard, the Director of the Transportation the only response was “Thank you for your insight” and ”Have a nice day”. 

The non-governmental organization capable of influencing ST was the Washington Policy Center (WPC):  “An independent, non-partisan think tank promoting sound public policy based on free-market solutions”.  Their Center for Transportation purportedly “researches and analyzes the best practices for relieving traffic congestion by recapturing a vision of a system based on freedom of movement”. 

I've referred the WPC to many posts on this blog as they seemed to be a “public voice” for exposing ST problems.  Yet the only critical WPC  comment concerning ST over the last two years was an Oct 25, 2012 post “Auditor confirms Sound Transit light rail ridership forecasts are unrealistic”.   Hardly earthshaking news to anyone!

The bottom line is it’s unlikely my current attempts to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of ST policies will stop them.  The problem is reaching enough people.  I’ve never had the resources or the desire to ask for financial support from others to mount an effective stop ST campaign.  I’ve always been suspicious ST was able to use the millions they were dolling out to construction companies and their labor unions to garner support for candidates for various  offices and to use advertising money to assure media support.

It’s the media support that’s been so critical to ST ability to get this far.  The issues have never been very complicated.  Any competent investigative journalist would have quickly concluded ST’s 2008 DEIS was sheer fantasy.  A single Seattle Times article asking ST why they never considered two-way bus only lanes on the I-90 Bridge center roadway as the “no-build” alternative to light rail would have ended East Link.

Even today the Times could stop East Link with an article explaining the only purported “benefits” from the $3 billion spent on a light rail project that will devastate the route into Bellevue and likely gridlock I-90 will be cross-lake transit ridership will increase from 40 to 50,000 riders.  Particularly if the article detailed that 40,000 of the riders would come from forcing 20,000 eastside commuters to transfer to and from light rail trains at South Bellevue or Mercer Island for their commutes into and out of Seattle.  (The article needn't even mention the transfer would take East Link 4½ hours every morning and afternoon)

Even a cursory analysis by the media would conclude ST problems go way beyond the east side.  Light rail cars cost more than twice as much as buses per mile of operation.   The fact they have higher capacity is only beneficial on routes where the additional capacity is needed.  Yet ST plans to route twice the number of trains serving the entire east side to Northgate.  The resulting overcapacity will generate a ~$285 million shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  A Times article exposing this reality along with the absurdity of ST plans to add to the shortfall by extensions to Lynnwood, and eventually to Everett would stop it.

Instead the Times has concentrated its transportation concerns on King County Metro’s revenue problems.   They opposed King County Council’s April proposal to provide additional funding but have supported their November proposal.  They supported the later $45 million proposal because of the council’s promises for “renewed scrutiny of Metro”.  The Times also required an annual financial audit and “open access to the agencies financial and service data”.

The $45 million revenue increase the Times is supporting isn’t exactly “chicken feed”.  However it pales in comparison to the $285 million shortfall from East Link.  Yet the Times has not shown the slightest interest in Sound Transit policies which have already forced thousands of cross-lake commuters to endure years of increased congestion and whose future plans will devastate the entire area.  Their lack of interest led to my decision (4/24/14 post) to induct Kate Riley, Ryan Blethen and the other Times editorial board into my “Light Rail Hall of Shame”.

In conclusion I know with absolute certainty many of my concerns will be vindicated.  Cross-lake commuters will not be “happy” with the increased congestion from closure of bridge center roadway in 2017.  Neither will those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue “enjoy” the years spent constructing light rail tracks and power lines on what was a beautiful tree-lined avenue into Bellevue.  What will absolutely “enrage” them will be the "benefits" from years of increased congestion and disruption when East Link begins operation.  Even the Times may recognize their culpability in this debacle

What was initially promised as the equivalent of "up to ten lanes of freeway" will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Every morning 20,000 bus riders will inundate the South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations in a futile attempt to be get on one of those 4-car trains.  The end result will be fewer not more transit riders and more vehicles added to over-crowded outer roadways.

It doesn’t have to happen!.  The eastside legislators and the JTC can use the upcoming session to demand the WSDOT demonstrate, not use some phony ST “modeling”,  the I-90 outer roadways can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles well before they close down the center roadway in 2017.  It's highly "unlikely" they'll succeed.   It's also "unlikely" the WSDOT can explain how a light rail system that consists of one 4-car train every 8 minutes can accommodate 20,000 eastside bus riders for their commute into and out of Seattle.  The Bellevue and Mercer city councils can still stop East Link by disallowing the permits ST needs.

I can well imagine many who initially visit this blog will think the idea ST, with it's billion dollar annual budgets could be so incompetent for so long, is far fetched. (Especially from a retired Boeing engineer) It's nothing personal as I don’t live near East Link route and rarely commute into Seattle during peak commutes.  This entire effort has been my attempt to “make a difference” and to identify those who, if not directly responsible, allowed it to happen.   (LIght Rail Hall of Shame)  The only way I can succeed this year is for viewers who agree with the blog concerns to use “social media” to “spread the word” about it.   I’m sure many who “visit” will recognize the need to stop ST.  What’s needed is enough of those willing to contact the Seattle Times, the ST board, legislators, or councils with their concerns.  

Unfortunately, if "past is prolog" that's not likely to happen.   Maybe next time!



 

48th Dist. Candidate Forum Presentation

I had intended to present the following opening statement as well as talking points for several related issues at the 48^th District Candidates forum.  Unfortunately my recovery from long delayed back surgery was far more restrictive than what I had anticipated and so was unable to attend.  I decided to post it.

Opening Statement

I’m here today not to attract votes but to make more people aware of the impact of Sound Transits Prop 1 light rail extensions on the entire area.

Twenty years ago ST could have moved non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiated 2-way bus only lanes on the center roadway.  They could have done it in two years at a fraction of light rail costs.  The added outer roadway lanes would have eased congestion for all cross-lake vehicles and the center roadway lanes could each easily accommodate more than 720 buses an hour.

Instead ST will shut down the bridge center roadway in 2017 and spend six years and $3 billion completing East Link.  Shutting down the center roadway will increase outer roadway congestion and light rail construction will disrupt downtown Bellevue and those living or commuting along the route.  

When complete, East Link will provide at most thirty light rail cars an hour for I-90 transit riders.  Yet ST intends to terminate all cross lake buses forcing 20,000 commuters to transfer to and from light rail at South Bellevue or Mercer Island for the ride into and out of Seattle.  If each of the 74-seat light rail cars can carry 150 riders, it will take nearly 4 ½ hours each morning and afternoon for the 20,000 transit riders. 

As a result, East Link will force every I-90 commuter, not just transit riders, to choose between attempting to drive into Seattle on a heavily congestion outer roadway or ride a bus to South Bellevue or Mercer island and attempt to get on an over-crowded light rail car.  The fact ST will also be required to pay $285 million annually to cover the shortfall between East Link operating costs and fare box revenue simply adds to the insanity.

My opponent’s response to years of emails detailing these problems was “Get over it, Sound Transit is going to install light rail across I-90 come hell or high water”. 

My goal is to prove him wrong.

Stopping East Link

1. Persuade the Seattle Times to write a single feature article exposing East Link problems.  Doing so would likely convince the Sound Transit Board members, who are all elected officials, as well as all the other groups supporting Sound Transit to stop it.

2. Persuade local legislators to use their oversight responsibility to insist the WSDOT refuse to allow ST to close down the I-90 center roadway to install light rail.  3.

3. Persuade Bellevue City Council to disallow the 10 permits ST needs for East Link.  There is plenty of legal justification.  East Link noise impact on Mercer Slough Park clearly violates federal environmental law.  Also, there are no regulations forcing the BCC to accept light rail through the city.  While RCW 36.70A.200 and 47.06.140 limit the council from limiting high capacity transportation though the city there is nothing to keep them from selecting high capacity bus service rather than light rail.

Light rail noise problem

1.  Sound transit has been forced to spend millions “sound-proofing” homes more than 300 feet from Center Link 2-car trains.

2.  East Link 4-car trains, particularly on elevated tracks have forced ST to attempt to “mitigate” the noise for all the properties along the west side of the route into Bellevue.  However, they have done absolutely nothing to reduce noise impact on Mercer Slough Park, a clear violation of Federal Environmental Law.

3.  ST East Link plans for Bel Red also appear devoid of any mitigation particularly along elevated tracks.

Bel Red Development

1. A “South Lake Union” streetcar system would far better meet Bel Red transit needs.  Tracks could either circle through the area or run on parallel tracks from 116^th to 140^th with connections across 405 to the Bellevue T/C.

2. The tracks could be at street level, far more accessible with multiple stops along the route instead of the two huge light rail stations.

3. The streetcar schedule would be set by local needs rather than ST plans for 121 trains, each with four noisy 70-ton cars trundling though every 4-5 minutes for 20 hours a day.

4.  The maintenance facility for the streetcars would be far less objectionable than what ST needs for East Link.

520 Transit Needs

1.  520 bus routes to a T/C at the University station would be far better than East Link for cross lake commuters from both sides of the lake.

2.  East side residents could have direct bus connections between P&R lots and the UW station for fast reliable light rail connections into Seattle.

3.  Seattleites could use the return routes for these buses for direct bus connections to Bellevue T/C and other eastside work locations.

4. The routes would be reversed in the afternoon

5. The large number of commuters in both directions would take maximum advantage of Central Link capacity.

6. Terminating the 520 buses at UW would reduce congestion in Seattle.

East Link Budget Impact

Each light rail car costs ST $22.48 per mile to operate (excluding depreciation) or $90 per mile for a 4-car train.

ST intends to provide 121 East Link round trips daily, eventually between Redmond and Lynnwood and back, a 77-mile circuit. 

The operating cost is $90 per mileX77 miles per trip X 121 trips per day= $838,530 per day

The fare box revenue is 10,000 non transfer riders per day X $3.00 per rider = $30,000

Subsidy required $838,538 - $30,000 = $808,538 per day

Assume weekend subsidy half weekday so weekly and yearly subsidies are $4.85 million and $252 million respectively (without depreciation)

Assume 60 ~$5 million light rail cars last 10 years so depreciation averages $30 million a year.

Total $282 million

Seattle's Real "Tunnel Boondoggle"

The 9/25/14 post explained the $3.1 billion Seattle tunnel project the U.S Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) listed as the top "highway boondoggle” was “dwarfed” by Sound Transit’s East Link.  This post explains that Seattle does have a true “Tunnel Boondoggle”; the 3.6 mile tunnel portion of ST’s $2.1 billion 4.3 mile light rail extension from UW to Northgate.  As currently planned by Sound Transit, it’s not only “valueless”, it will also result in a huge operating deficit.  

What’s “unfortunate” is ST has already starting boring the tunnel, supposedly a two-year project, even though the extension isn’t scheduled to begin operation until 2021.  Particularly since their 2014 budget, which already had a projected $180 million deficit, included the following description of scheduled Northgate activities: 

      "Completing the design of the Link extension to Northgate and 
site work at U District and Roosevelt Station locations".

When it does begin operation, it will replace the existing bus routes connecting Northgate and Seattle.  A $2.1 billion "valueless investment" since moving transit riders from buses to trains will have a minimal if any effect on I-5 congestion.  The Northgate T/C already has excellent bus service.  During the peak morning commute twelve Metro Route 41 buses an hour leave Lake City, stop at Northgate, and then continue into Seattle, taking 17-18 minutes to reach University St.   The peak return M41 service in the afternoon also has 12 departures an hour and takes the 17-18 minutes to reach Northgate. 

Assuming ST maintains the current Central Link schedule, 2-car light rail trains will depart Northgate T/C every 7-8 minutes providing 15-17 cars per hour for what ST estimates will take 14 minutes to reach downtown Seattle.  (it’s not clear what happens to Lake City commuters.)

The Northgate light rail trains will have substantially more capacity since the 15-17 cars can each carry 150 riders compared to the current twelve ~90 passenger M41 buses per hour.  However the extra capacity is only useful if it's needed.   Presumably more frequent buses could also be easily added if necessary.  

The increased light rail capacity comes at a cost.  Each light rail car costs ST $22.48 per mile compared to $9.75 for each bus mile.  The round trip mileage is about 14 miles so the 15-17 cars will cost ST $4720 to $5350 per hour.  The comparable bus costs would be ~$1650 for the 12 buses per hour.   Thus, they could easily double frequency and capacity whenever it's needed and still have far less operating costs than light rail. 

When East Link begins service in 2023, ST also intends to route its 30 light rail cars per hour to and from Northgate.  Transit service, which currently consists of 12 buses per hour, will increase to 45-47 light rail cars, more than the 30 cars serving the entire east side.  The end result will be light rail service to Northgate costing more than $15,000 an hour to operate, nearly 10 times the cost of bus service its replacing. 

Unfortunately ST’s decision to expedite boring the tunnel makes it more difficult to stop.  However, the resulting operating deficit can be alleviated.  Eliminate East Link and stop sending 30 unneeded light rail cars per hour to Northgate.  If any additional light rail capacity is ever needed they can easily increase number of Central Link cars by more frequent trains or 3 or 4 cars in each train.   “Reconsider” the 7 mile extension to Lynnwood since the added riders could never justify the increased costs with doubling the route length.  Drop the 2040 plans for an Everett extension since the ~10 miles would again double operating costs.  (I thought that’s why they had the Everett Sounder) 

A far better option is to replace the Northgate extension with a T/C near the UW light rail station. The T/C would provide an interface between thousands of 520 transit riders and light rail connections into Seattle.  East side residents could have direct bus connections between P&R lots and the UW station for fast reliable light rail connections into Seattle.  Seattleites could use the return routes for the buses for direct bus connections to Bellevue T/C and other eastside work locations.  The routes would be reversed in the afternoon benefitting large numbers of commuters in both directions.  

The T/C would allow Central Link to take maximum advantage of light rail capacity for up to 60 cars an hour and go a long ways towards meeting ST promised ridership and financial viability.  It’s the only way that’s ever going to happen. The fact the Northgate extension adds 8.6 miles to the route for all 60 cars makes it prohibitively expensive.

The bottom line is ST, rather than terminate Central Link at a T/C near the UW where it could have attracted thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake, has expedited boring the tunnel portion of the $2.1 billion Northgate extension.  When the extension begins operation in 2021 it will have absolutely no effect on I-5 congestion and its operating costs will create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds.  That surely qualifies as a boondoggle.