Sound Transit's "Integrated Transit Service" Insanity.

(I wrote the following in hopes of "influencing" the Mercer City Councils Dec 1 study session concerning Sound Transit's Integrated Transit Service proposal.  They didn't respond to my attempts to talk to them directly so I decided to post it)

Sound Transits “Integrated Transit Service” Insanity

One of the most blatant examples of Sound Transit incompetency is their plan for terminating all the I-90 corridor bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  They claim their  “Integrated Trans Service” (ITS) plan at the two stations will have the following benefits:

• Smooth bus-rail transfers

• Help improve efficiency and cost-savings

• Provide more reliable and frequent service

• Enhance rider experience

• Help optimize transit operations

However, their Nov 9^th presentation to Bellevue residents, “Completion of final design—South Bellevue Open House” made no mention of “Integrated Transit Service”.   It’s “questionable” whether those responsible for the Bellevue station were even aware of ITS since the presentation assumed only 4500 daily boarders, a fraction of those anticipated to transfer there.  The design also included no provisions for accommodating the buses carrying the I-90 corridor commuters.

The subsequent (Nov 19^th) Mercer Island presentation went into considerable details about ITS.  Their preferred approach was for buses to exit I-90 on WB HOV off ramp to a 200 ft drop off and pick-up area on the 80^th Ave overpass before returning to I-90 on EB HOV on ramp.  During the peak commute, ST assumed 84 buses per hour would make the circuit. 

It wasn’t clear whether the 84 bus-per-hour rate represented current bus schedules, those anticipated for 2023 when service begins, or 2030 when according to ST EIS, “person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 needs to increase by up to 60%".  What is clear is the average “headway” between the buses at that rate is only 43 seconds, a tiny fraction of ST EIS claims buses required headways “15 to 30 minutes or longer”.  (It was this assumption that led ST to select light rail over improved bus service in the first place).  Obviously in some instances the headway will be substantially less than the 43-second average.

The other obvious problem is that only 2 buses can be accommodated at a time on the 200-ft drop-off and pickup area.  Thus each bus will have, “on average”, 86 seconds to drop off or pick up the nearly 120 riders a standard 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate.  That simply is not going to happen.  Clearly substantially longer drop off and pick up areas are required.

The ITS problem associated with finding space for buses to load and unload commuters pales in comparison to those with ST plans for providing cross-lake commuting for those using MI light rail station.   East Link will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or 30 cars per hour during peak commute.  If each 74-seat car can accommodate 150 riders, the maximum capacity is only 4500 riders during per hour. 

However, if the average ridership on the 84 buses is 90 commuters, 7560 I-90 corridor commuters will arrive at the station during the hour.   They will be joined by MI residents from 12 buses per hour with their own drop off and pick up areas.  Assuming the MI buses average 50 riders or 600 per hour gives a total of 8160 riders, and that doesn’t include those using the P&R or dropped off at station. 

If East Link trains arrived empty at the MI station it will still take almost 2 hrs to accommodate all the MI cross-lake commuters.   Presumably a similar number of transit riders will be attempting to switch from buses to light rail at the South Bellevue station or use the expanded 1500 car P&R for access.  Thus, at least during the peak commute the light rail cars will be full before they ever reach MI station.

The ST claim ITS would provide benefits for MI transit riders is insane.  Equally insane is their claim ITS would improve efficiency and save money.  Forcing bus riders to switch to light rail at MI will shorten the bus route by about 7 miles.  As other posts have detailed, the money saved will be “drop in the ocean” compared to the $285 million in operating subsidies ST will be required to pay to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue for East Link.  The ST ITS plan is just another example of why its way past time to end this debacle.

Legislature's Light Rail IRT Could Stop ST Prop 1 Extensions

It’s clear Sound Transit, in partnership with the WSDOT, is determined to proceed with the Prop 1 extensions voted approved in 2008.  They still apparently believe “it will be a gift to our grand children”.  The Seattle Times could have stopped them years ago with a single article detailing ST mendacity, incompetence, and arrogance in promoting light rail in our area. 

The Mercer Island city council is apparently willing to approve permits ST needs for an East Link that will end their constituents’ easy access to Seattle.  The Bellevue City Council rewrote their land use code to allow light rail construction and operation that will not only gridlock their cross-lake commuters, it will devastate those living along the route and end the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.  The Puget Sound Regional Council has spent nearly $1B over the years funding ST, apparently without any in the 19 member transportation staff objecting.  The Washington Policy Center seems to ignore the issue entirely.

At this point the most viable way to stop ST is for the legislature to use the upcoming legislative session to commission an Independent Review Team (IRT) study of the efficacy of ST light rail plans for dealing with the area’s transportation crisis.  To that end I sent the following email to leaders of the legislative Joint Transportation Committee (JTC).

Dear Sen. King, Rep. Clibborn and Rep. Orcutt,

As leaders of the Senate and House Transportation Committees I urge you to use the upcoming legislative session to  commission an Independent Review Team (IRT) to assess the efficacy of Sound Transits current light rail plans for dealing with the areas transportation problems.  This IRT study would be similar to what the Joint Transportation Committee commissioned in 2008 concerning I-90 Bridge/Light rail compatibility.  My reasons for making this request are detailed in my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt

wjhirt@yahoo.com

That IRT was commissioned because East Link was the first attempt to install light rail on a floating bridge.  In Sept 2005, the WSDOT attempted to demonstrate the I-90 Bridge could withstand the loads using flat bed trucks to simulate the 74-ton light rail cars. The WSDOT concluded "the results of the test confirmed previous findings that the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration”. 

However, the JTC (along with the FHWA) was not satisfied with WSDOT test and conclusion.   They commissioned an independent review team (IRT)  to evaluate whether the bridge could be redesigned to accommodate light rail.  The IRT concluded in Sept 2008 that additional tests were needed for the bridge expansion joint.  ST finally came up with an expansion joint which they claim was successfully demonstrated in full-scale tests of the expansion joint in Pueblo Nevada in 2013.

The bottom line is the legislature has the authority to commission an independent review of Sound Transit and WSDOT light rail policies. While not as critical to safety as bridge structural concerns, the legislature surely has an obligation to determine the efficacy of the Prop 1 light rail extensions for meeting the area’s transportation needs. 

I am absolutely certain any competent IRT would reach the following conclusions detailed in many posts on this blog:

1) The only practicable way to reduce peak congestion is to increase the number of people choosing to ride buses to and from work. 

2) The existing I-5, I-90, and SR405 routes already have or can easily have the needed capacity to accommodate the additional buses.

3) The billions spent on ST Prop 1 extensions aimed primarily towards replacing bus routes will do nothing to reduce I-5 congestion and will increase I-90 congestion with their plans to eliminate all cross-lake buses.

4) The costs of constructing and operating light rail trains over the Prop 1 extensions will dwarf fare box revenue to the point where hundreds of millions of subsidies will be required annually to cover the short fall.                

The only way to effectively ease the area’s 4^th worst congestion is to:

1) Cancel Central Link Prop 1 light rail extensions

2) Replace the Northgate extension with a T/C near the University light rail station that will attract thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake. 

3) Expedite the 4th lane on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway for non-transit HOV and initiate two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway to increase cross-lake capacity

4) Use East Link funds to create a West Link light rail connection between West Seattle and UW T/C    

The fact the JTC leaders have so far declined to respond is not promising.  They along with the rest of the committee need to be encouraged to commission the IRT in the upcoming session.  The Seattle Times could do so.  The Mercer Island city council could make approval of the permits ST needs contingent on IRT study results.  (They could use their legislative "influence" (Rep. Clibborn) to insist on an IRT for a fraction of the time and money spent fighting I-90 tolls.) The Bellevue City Council could use an IRT result rather than their Citizens Advisory Committee to justify the permits.   Time will tell whether any will do so.

Mercer City Council Added to Light Rail Hall of Shame

One of the reasons Mercer Island is such an attractive place to live is its easy access to Seattle.  Other I-90 corridor commuters go through the trouble of getting on and off the island in order to take advantage of its access to SOV lanes on the center roadway.  The MI P&R frequently includes a majority of “non-resident” vehicles for access to bus service there. 

Yet, the City of Mercer Council is well on its way to approving permits for an East Link light rail project that will end this access forever.   The changes will begin in 2017 when Sound Transit closes the center roadway to install light rail tracks.  ST claims the 4th lanes they squeeze onto the outer roadway will make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes are belied by a 2004 FHWA study they participated in. 

MI commuters will go from exclusive SOV use of center roadway to long lines at onramps waiting for control lights to allow access to outer roadway lanes.  The fact they're the last to do so onto a crowded I-90 will likely exacerbate their wait.  Presumably many, at least during the peak commute, will chose to car pool or ride buses, even though the HOV lanes will be far more congested than today.

East Link construction along I-90 corridor will have minimal impact on MI residents, especially when compared with the devastation to those living along the route into Bellevue.  ST has attempted to give the impression that East Link is a fait accompli with several open houses allowing residents to review and comment about designs for a light rail station nine years before its needed.

East Link operation will add a whole new level of congestion for MI commuters.   The bus option disappears with ST plans to terminate all I-90 cross-lake bus routes at South Bellevue and Mercer island light rail stations.  As a result MI commuters will be joined by 10,000 other I-90 corridor bus riders who are forced to transfer to and from light rail trains every morning and afternoon for the commute into and out of Seattle.  They’ll have a difficult time doing so since ST plans for East Link, one 4-car train every 8 minutes during the peak commute, will frequently result in light-rail cars that are full well before they reach the station.  Forcing bus riders to transfer will likely result in fewer “riders” and more “drivers”, increasing I-90 outer roadway congestion.  The added congestion will further restrict MI access to I-90 as well as increase cross-lake transit times for everyone.

The Mercer city council has been aware of ST plans to transfer 40,000 bus riders to and from light rail trains at the Mercer Island and South Bellevue light rail stations since a Jan 21, 2014 meeting.  They presumably recognized doing so would mean nearly 10,000 bus riders would use the MI light rail station during the morning and afternoon commutes.  They also accepted ST assurances East Link would have the needed capacity, apparently unaware of the limited capacity with light rail schedules.

Their constituents are presumably the reason the council spent thousands last year objecting to a 1/23/13 WSDOT blog post proposing tolling I-90.   They forced the WSDOT to budget $8.32 M for an Environmental Impact Statement in hopes of avoiding tolling island residents.  (The 11/13/13 post explains why the EiS will likely result in tolls beginning in 2017) 

Meanwhile Mercer Island residents seem unconcerned about East Link.  An Oct 16 council member’s newsletter to constituents about issues before the council didn't include East Link concerns.  It did include a list of issues residents had contacted the council about.  The combination of I-90, East Link, and tolls ranked 7th on the list, the same as “Misc” and a tiny fraction of those concerned about “Library Renovation” and “Car Tab Tax”. 

This current lack of MI concern “may” be related to the council’s failure to inform constituents about East Link.  They email a weekly newsletter to residents presumably intended to inform them about the important issues facing the area.  Yet, my reading of the newsletters since the Jan 2013 meeting found no mention of East Link plans to force 10,000 bus riders to transfer every morning and afternoon at the MI light rail station.  Also no mention was found concerning the limited light rail schedules ST was proposing for East Link.

Some council members and others have objected to ST plans to terminate bus routes on the island.  Despite these concerns or whatever doubts they may or may not have about light rail capacity, the council is apparently well on its way to approving the permits ST needs to begin East Link construction.  The council, so concerned about I-90 tolls, is doing so having never included East Link concerns in their weekly newsletter to constituents.

As a result, the City of Mercer council members are joining the Sound Transit Board members, the Seattle Times editorial board, and the Bellevue City Council on my “Light Rail Hall of Shame”.  My hope is doing so will "persuade" them to disallow the ST permits.  If not, they’ll join those identified as allowing what most assuredly will be a debacle for the entire east side.

Bruce Bassett

Debbie Bertlin

Jane Brahm

Mike Cero

Dan Grausz

Tana Senn

Benson Wong

Implementing Transit Improvements

Those familiar with this blog should be aware of the reasons why Sound Transit’s Prop 1 light rail extensions will be a disaster for the areas commuters and transportation budgets.  Spending billions on Central Link light rail extensions that largely replace existing bus routes will do nothing to reduce transit congestion on I-5 corridor.   Even worse, the longer routes for the light rail trains will require huge subsides to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.  Here’s what can be done to fix it. 

Rather than extend light rail to Northgate and beyond, ST should terminate Central Link at a T/C near the University light rail station.  The T/C would attract thousands of transit riders from both sides of the lake by serving as an interface between 520 buses and light rail trains. (Doing so may require they reconsider their decision to drop the 2nd bridge for the Montlake Cut.)  The costs of construction and subsequent operation of any extension beyond SeaTac will far exceed any potential fare box revenue gains.  Unfortunately nothing can be done about the extension to South 200th.

Stopping East Link would prevent ST from spending billions confiscating the I-90 Bridge center roadway for a light rail system with a fraction of the capacity of two-way bus only lanes.  East Link will not only inevitably result in cross-lake gridlock, it will devastate the area along the route into Bellevue.   It should be replaced with a light rail link to West Seattle, dramatically improving that area’s access to public transit.  The shorter West Link to UW T/C route would allow 4-car trains to maximize capacity without excessive operating The recent rejection of the monorail makes this extension particularly important.

All I-90 corridor commuters would benefit if ST also expedited adding the 4th lanes to the bridge outer roadways.  The added lanes could be used for non-transit HOV, allowing the center roadway to be divided into two-way bus only lanes.  The bus only lanes would provide sufficient capacity for supplementing existing bus routes with additional buses and additional routes between P&R lots and downtown Seattle for future growth.  Some P&R lots could merit bus connections to Bellevue T/C.  Attracting additional riders would reduce congestion throughout east side. 

The 2015 ST budget includes spending nearly $400 million on the Prop 1 extensions.  Presumably these expenditures will escalate in future years to spend the 18-20B voters approved in 2008.   However, the key to reducing congestion throughout the area is to attract more commuters to buses.   ST should use Prop 1 funds to survey the major employment centers in Seattle and Bellevue to determine what additional bus service is needed to attract more riders and where additional parking is required to allow them to do so.  Use the results to expedite additional parking and to supplement existing bus routes with additional buses and provide direct routes connecting P&R lots with dedicated drop-off and pickup points in Seattle.  

In conclusion, it’s way past time for the ST Board of Directors to recognize the following needs to be done to reduce the area's congestion:

1) Cancel Central Link light rail extensions aimed primarily at replacing existing bus routes, do nothing to reduce I-5 congestion, and will require a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue.

2) Replace the Northgate extension with a T/C near the University light rail station that will attract thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake. 

3) Expedite the 4th lane on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway for non-transit HOV and initiate two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway to increase cross-lake capacity

4) Use East Link funds to create a West Link light rail connection between West Seattle and UW T/C allowing 4-car trains to maximize capacity without excessive operating costs.   

If they fail to do so, others need to “convince” them.  This post continues the blog’s effort to make that happen.  Commuters will pay a heavy price for a very long time if it doesn't

Reducing the Area's Congestion

The only way to realistically reduce the area's traffic congestion, purportedly the 4^th worst in the country, is to increase the number of riders choosing buses for their commute.  A bus can accommodate 70 to 90 riders or 40 2-person carpoolers.   An HOV lane has the capacity for more than 5000 vehicles per hour.   The way to reduce congestion is increase the number of buses on the HOV lane and attract more riders.

Instead Sound Transit is spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions whose primary result will be to replace some of the existing bus routes with light rail trains.  They recently announced plans to spend another 15B to add more extensions to replace even more buses.  Their reasons for doing so were highly “dubious” claims by ST officials that people were "clamoring for light rail service in their area" and urging them to be “bold” with new light rail extensions.

It’s bad enough the billions spent on light rail extensions will do little to reduce congestion.  Increasing route lengths drive up operating costs, particularly for light rail cars that cost $23.00 per vehicle mile compared to  $9.02 for buses.  The costs for operating light rail trains over the extended lines will require subsidies to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue that dwarf those for buses.

The only way to make light rail financially viable is to restrict routes to where the increased light rail car capacity is needed to cover higher operating costs.  Doing so requires ST replace the Northgate extension with a T/C at the UW light rail station and to limit any extension past SeaTac. The UW T/C would enable thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake to combine 520 bus routes with light rail trains into and out of Seattle.  The added ridership would allow light rail to make the most of its limited capacity from restrictions on train frequency and number of cars per train imposed by the Seattle Tunnel

The 26-mile East Link extension should be replaced by a far shorter extension to West Seattle.   Replacing East Link also prevents ST from the absurdity of confiscating the center roadway and spending billions on a light rail system with a fraction of two-way bus only transit capacity.

Use the money saved to expand P&R facilities and supplement existing bus routes by increasing frequency or more direct routes.  Restrict 2^nd and 4^th (or other streets) in Seattle to buses and provide  dedicated drop off and pick-up points for the different bus routes to reduce commute times.  While the West Seattle Link will take several years, the added bus routes could be operating within a year and the added parking within 2-3 years, well before any light rail extensions and for a fraction of the cost.  

Fantasy Soars with Sound Transit's 15B Light Rail Extensions

For years I thought Sound Transit’s promises for Prop 1 light rail extensions were the height of “Fantasy Land”.   Their claim East Link was the equivalent of a “magic chariot” across I-90 Bridge with capacity for up to 10 lanes of freeway has turned into a “pumpkin” consisting of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Even more absurd they intend to require 20,000 eastside bus riders transfer to and from this “pumpkin” every morning and afternoon for the commute into and out of Seattle

The key to reducing congestion on I-5 (or for any other corridor) is to convince more commuters to use buses. A single bus can replace 60-80 single occupancy vehicles (and 35 2-person carpoolers) on that highway lane.  An HOV lane can accommodate more than 5000 vehicles an hour.  It is sheer fantasy for ST to claim spending billions extending light rail along I-5 to replace some of the buses with trains will reduce congestion.   What ST claimed, when their  $20B Prop 1 extensions were approved in 2008 was “a gift to our grand children” will do nothing to reduce congestion on I-5.   

The Prop 1 problems go way beyond the wasted construction costs. The extensions will increase track lengths from 16 to 50 miles, likely tripling operating costs.  The vast majority of riders will undoubtedly be due to ST closing down far less expensive and far more flexible competing bus routes.   The added operating costs will substantially increase the subsidy ST requires to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare-box revenue.

The only way to make light rail financially viable is to limit Central Link to a “trunk line” between a T/C at the UW and SeaTac.  Rather than extending light rail to Northgate the UW T/C could attract thousands of 520 commuters from both sides of the lake.  The added ridership would allow ST to fully utilize the tunnel’s maximum capacity of one 4-car train every 4 minutes.  Their extension to 200^th,, probably a done deal, will never attract sufficient additional transit riders to justify construction and increased operating costs.  The Northgate extension can and should be dropped in favor of the UW T/C.

Instead the 10/31/14 Seattle Times headline “Sound Transit floats $15B plan” indicates ST has managed to soar to far greater heights of fantasy with even more extensions.  (Maybe it’s their Halloween “trick”, it's certainly no "treat").  They talk about light rail from Tacoma to Everett, from Redmond and Issaquah to West Seattle and all places in between.  They claim nearly 40,000 daily riders despite the fact the latest quarterly ridership gives 31,532 weekday riders for the year.  Both numbers are a fraction of the more than 100,000 that was promised for 2010. 

They glibly talk about having 280,000 riders by 2030 despite the fact the Puget Sound Regional Council concluded (2004 document “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment”) the Seattle tunnel limits light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

What’s surprising is there was a “pony in this pile of manure”; the proposal to spend $4B on a light rail extension via a Duwamish River rail bridge and subway to West Seattle.  It wouldn’t effect vehicle traffic a welcome contrast with East Link which spends a similar amount to confiscate a I-90 bridge center roadway capable of more than 720 buses an hour with a light rail system having a fraction of that capacity.  Replacing East Link with West Seattle Link would benefit both sides of the lake.

Like the Prop 1 extensions, none of the other $15 B extensions can possible attract sufficient additional transit riders to justify the cost of extensions, let alone the additional operating costs.  The end result will be even further misery for the area.