Where ST "Integrated Transit Service" Could Work

The 11/29/14 post “Sound Transit’s ‘Integrated Transit Service’ Insanity” detailed the problems with their decision to force all cross-lake transit riders to transfer to and from light rail at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations for their commute into and out of Seattle. 

ST plans for East Link service, one 4-car train every 8 minutes or 30 cars per hour will limit ITS capacity to far less than current bus ridership and a fraction of their DEIS promise to increase I-90 capacity by 60%.  The result will be more commuters forced to “drive” rather than “ride” exacerbating the outer roadway congestion from loss of center roadway, inevitably leading to future gridlock.

However, a T/C at the University light rail could make ITS a major contributor to improving Central Link light rail efficacy.  The UW T/C would have twice the number of trains as East Link and the easy access to the resulting bus/rail combination could attract thousands of 520 transit commuters from both sides of the lake.  Terminating 520 buses there would also reduce the number of buses merging on to I-5 and in downtown Seattle.

Even if they insist on extending light rail to Northgate, there will still be plenty of light rail capacity at the UW station when service begins in 2021.   The T/C would also provide needed riders if operating costs forced ST to terminate some Central Link routes there.

ST claimed the following benefits from ITS in the Nov 19^th MI presentation.

• Smooth bus-rail transfers

• Help improve efficiency and cost-savings

• Provide more reliable and frequent service

• Enhance rider experience

• Help optimize transit operations

A UW T/C could make those benefits a reality.

Easing "I-405 Misery" Problem

The Seattle Times article “I-405 Misery” lamenting the sorry state of commuting on the eastside identifies the problem “more people in their cars”.   Yet they fail to mention the obvious fix is to convince more commuters to use public transit.  Instead, Sound Transit is spending our precious transportation dollars on Prop 1 Central Link extensions that will have a minuscule effect on I-5 transit ridership, none at all on I-405 transit, and East Link will actually reduce transit capacity across I-90 bridge.

A single 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 riders.  100 bus trips could eliminate 10,000 cars from the freeways and the roads connecting work centers around the area.   Parking spaces near where people live would replace those near where they work.   The problem is to find where to add the parking spaces and what bus routes are needed to connect the local P&R with the work locations. 

Someone needs to survey employees at all the work centers in the area.  Find out where people would like to leave their car or be dropped off and when and where they would like to commute.  Some may need their cars at work or where improved bus service is not practical.  However, surely these results will identify a large number of commuters who would chose transit, if provided with additional parking spaces and bus service, to justify the cost of the improvements. 

While it may not "solve" the "I-405 Misery" problem, it will surely ease it, something the billions spent on Prop 1 will never do.

Dear Governor Inslee

I emailed the following to Governor Inslee’s web site today.  I decided to post it since he is unlikely to do anything about it.

Dear Governor Inslee,

I believe there is a “fairer” way to “pay for transportation projects” than your proposal in the Dec 17^th Times for taxing CO2 emitters.  The vast majority of Seattle and surrounding area residents already pay hundreds of millions every year to Sound Transit ($651M in ST 2015 budget) to fund their $16-20B Prop 1 light rail extensions.  You need to use your executive authority along with the legislature’s WSDOT oversight responsibility to “persuade” Sound Transit to redirect a major portion of those funds towards transportation projects that will alleviate our areas transportation problems.  This email is my attempt to explain why you should do so.

The problem with Sound Transit and the WSDOT is they ignore the reality of light rail limits in our area. Their joint 2008 DEIS referred to a PSRC 2004 document “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” to “establish a basis for more detailed planning studies and environmental analysis”.  Yet the document they cited concluded the tunnel limited light rail through Seattle to a maximum of one 4-car train every 4 minutes, 60 cars per hour, with a capacity of 8,880 pphdh (people per hour per direction).  A relatively small number of riders for the huge financial investment required for the Prop 1 extensions.

The only rational justification for spending billions on the Prop 1 extensions to Lynnwood (2008 Prop 1 route went to Mill Creek) would be to reduce congestion on I-5.  However, the majority of those who will ride on light rail trains will be those who previously rode buses.   Since current transit ridership along I-5 is a fraction of the 8880 rphpd  its not "clear" how they intend to attract or find parking for all the additional riders.  

A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 riders.  If the buses they replaced averaged 90 riders during the peak commute, Central Link would reduce the number of I-5 buses by 99 buses per hour.  A freeway lane can accommodate 5000 vehicles an hour so 99 fewer buses on I-5 will have a minuscule effect on capacity.  Similarly, if the goal were to increase I-5 capacity, 75 buses would provide the same increased capacity without spending a dime on construction, again with a minuscule effect on I-5 congestion.

Since half of the Central Link capacity through the tunnel will be diverted to East Link, the Federal Way extension will have even less effect on I-5 congestion.  Yet their cost per mile of construction is presumably similar to the Lynnwood extensions.  It will take only 38 buses per hour to provide the same increased capacity from 30 light rail cars, again without spending a dime on construction. 

The ST East Link extension is the most absurd of all.  In this case they intend to use light rail to replace all cross-lake buses.   As a result I-90 transit capacity will be limited to the 4440 riders per hour, far less than the current peak transit ridership, and a fraction of ST EIS promises East Link would “Meet growing transit demands by increasing person-moving capacity across Lake Washington on I-90 by 60 percent”.   

East Link’s confiscation of I-90 center roadway forces two HOV lanes onto a single lane on the outer roadway, substantially increasing outer roadway congestion.  East Link construction will disrupt commuters who use the buses and the P&R along the route and devastate those who live along the route.  What’s “remarkable” is East Link operation will further increase outer roadway congestion since the lack of transit capacity will force many commuters to “drive” rather than “ride”.  Thus, while the billions spent on Central Link extensions will do nothing to reduce congestion on I-5, the money spent on East Link will increase I-90 congestion, inevitably leading to gridlock.

The Prop 1 extensions even defy the conventional wisdom that the high cost to initiate light rail service is offset by lower operating costs.  ST 2015 budgets show light rail cars cost $23.04 per mile to operate, more than twice their $10.00 per mile cost for buses.  Thus buses can provide the same capacity at about half the cost of light rail.  Also, transit times on buses, at least on south end routes, will be shorter than on light rail.  

Buses also have an advantage since they're far more accessible than light rail trains.  ST may decide to terminate some bus routes at Northgate to increase light rail ridership (They force all I-90 transit riders to transfer to East Link light rail trains.)  While doing so increases light rail ridership it does nothing to increase fare box revenue unless they decide to force those commuters to pay twice.  In either case not only will light rail operating costs be  higher, fare box revenue will be substantially less requiring a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall.

What is “beyond words” is ST long term plans (2040) to spend additional billions on Central Link extensions to Everett that will still be limited to 8880 rphpd by the tunnel.  The lack of increased capacity means very little additional fare box revenue but operating costs nearly double from the added route lengths.  Light rail capacity for the billions spent on extensions to Tacoma and beyond will still be limited to 4440 rphpd.    A huge construction cost with no increased capacity and a huge increase in operating cost with little added fare box revenue. 

The 2040 East Link plans are so stupid they’d be laughable if they weren’t such a potential disaster for the entire area.  They include extending Prop 1 route to Bothell, adding extensions to Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton, as well as adding various other light rail routes.  The billions spent extending light rail will have a minuscule effect on I-90 or SR405 congestion. 

The most effective way to reduce congestion is to attract additional commuters to buses with improved service along the two corridors.  Yet the ST plan to eliminate all cross-lake buses is a huge disincentive for transit riders.   The Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton light rail trains would presumably be routed along with the Prop 1 route across I-90 Bridge.  Yet all four routes will be limited to total of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or a total of 30 cars per hour, or 7.5 cars per hour per route, about 10 buses per hour.  Again, that is beyond words.

In conclusion, the only way to make light rail viable in our area is to terminate Central Link at a T/C near the UW light rail station and limit any southern extensions to the current 200 South extension.  East Link should be replaced with a light rail extension to West Seattle that will supplement existing bus routes rather than replace them. The ST 2040 proposal does just the opposite spending billions on light rail extensions that won’t reduce congestion but will double or triple the already heavy Prop 1 operating deficit.

The construction money saved by stopping the Prop 1 extensions and the sheer idiocy of their 2040 plans will be more than sufficient to cover needed highway improvements.  The fact that eliminating the routes avoids the operating deficits and “financial black hole” for the entire area’s transportation funds adds to the need to do so.    

Sincerely,

Bill lHirt

wjhirt@yahoo.com

BCC Can Disallow East Link Permits

Contrary to “popular” opinion the Bellevue City Council has ample justification for refusing to approve the 10 permits Sound Transit needs for East Link.  It’s true, applicable state regulations include RCW 36.70A.200, which stipulates “No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities”.  It’s also true RCW 47.06.140  states “Essential public facilities” include “regional transportation systems” such as “high capacity transportation systems” and  RCW 81.104.015 defines “high capacity transportation systems” as including “rail fixed guideway systems” such as “light, heavy, or rapid rail system”.

However, there is nothing in any regulation stipulating that “high capacity transportation systems” (HCT) are limited to “rail fixed guideway” systems.  There is also the question as to whether East Link, which will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or 30 cars per hour in each direction, can even be classified as HCT.  Particularly in comparison with bus rapid transit (BRT) which could provide more than a thousand buses an hour in each direction on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  

The fact BRT could provide access to every eastside P&R, whereas East Link access for I-90 corridor commuters will be limited to South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations makes it a far more effective HCT system.  The BCC can surely decide that BRT is a “better HCT” for its residents and disallow East Link permits.

The BCC can also disallow the permits because East Link violates federal environmental law.  Section 4(f) of the Dept. of Trans. Act protects parks, recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges from encroachment unless there is no feasible or prudent alternative or the impact is de minimis. 

The noise from the elevated light rail tracks near the East Link South Bellevue Station will devastate the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.  No one can rationally argue that cross-lake BRT is not a feasible or prudent alternative.  Also, no one can reasonably argue that a light rail system that requires ST to “sound proof” homes more than 300 ft from Central Link light rail  in order to be “livable” would qualify as de minimis.  The BCC is surely “legally justified” in preventing this disruption to the park for more than 20 hours a day.  The fact that residents along the route would also benefit is only more reason to do so.

However, the most obvious justification for disallowing the permits does not involve East Link “legality”.  It’s the utter stupidity of ST “Integrated Transit Service” (ITS) to terminate all cross-lake buses at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  As a result, the billions spent on East Link will create a light rail system that limits I-90 transit capacity to 30 light rail cars an hour, the equivalent of thirty-eight 70-ft articulated buses; a fraction of current transit capacity, and a far cry from the promise East Link would double the person-moving capacity of I-90. 

ST 2040 Proposal Beyond Words

Sound Transit recently released their Long-Range Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS).  It supposedly “evaluates the potential transportation and environmental effects of implementing the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative using a 2040 planning horizon”. The plan proposes spending untold billions on Central Link extensions north to Everett and south to Tacoma and beyond to Dupont.  The 2040 East Link plan includes billions for extensions to Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton. It’s just another example of how they fail to recognize the reality of light rail in our area.   

ST seems to believe they can replicate the very successful Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.  They presumably knew a BART route provides trains with up to 10 cars every 4 minutes across the bay area bridge.  They should have learned from a 2004 Puget Sound Regional Council report that the Seattle tunnel limited light rail in our area to 4-car trains, with 4-minute headways, or 60 cars per hour.  The PSRC report also concluded the maximum capacity for the 74-seat cars was 148 riders or 8880 riders per hour, a fraction of BART route capacity.  

Unfortunately, the costs of creating light rail tracks and power lines for 4-car trains are essentially the same as for a 10-car train system.  Assuming the costs per mile of construction are similar, light rail here will cost 2 ½ times what BART costs per rider.   It’s also difficult to believe that attracting 8880 riders per hour to trains will have a significant effect on I-5 congestion, particularly since most will be former bus riders.  Any reduction in the number of buses on I-5 because of light rail will have a miniscule effect on congestion.

 A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 riders.  Seventy-five buses could provide the same additional capacity as light rail without spending a dime on I-5 construction.   The added buses would also have a miniscule effect on congestion.  They would not only eliminate the cost of construction and added equipment for the light rail extensions, they would result in lower operating costs.  A light rail car costs ST $23.04 per mile to operate or $1382 per mile for the 60 buses, nearly twice the comparable bus cost, $10.00 per mile or $750 per mile for the same capacity.

It’s clear from their Prop 1 extension plans ST didn’t recognize terminating light rail at a University T/C and using Prop I funds to improve bus service along I-5 corridor could attract more riders than the far more expensive Lynnwood light rail extension.   Their recent decision to expedite boring the tunnel to Northgate, a two-year project, for a light rail system that won’t begin service until 2021 is just the latest example.  Their 2040 extensions to Everett add billions to the cost for constructing and operating a fatally flawed transportation system.

The 2040 plan for extending Central Link to Tacoma and beyond to DuPont is equally absurd.   Only half of the 60 cars per hour through the tunnel will be available for the south end extensions.  Thus ST will spend billions creating light rail extensions that will provide 30 cars per hour, the equivalent of 38 buses.  Again the light rail operating costs per mile,  $691, are nearly double the $380 for buses having the same capacity.   Even more absurd the transit times on buses would be substantially shorter.

ST plans for the Prop 1 version of East Link are already beyond “absurd”. Like the Central Link south end extensions, the East Link extension will be limited to 30 cars per hour, a fraction of the 150 car-per-hour capacity of BART across bay bridge. (Even that number is questionable since it is based on 4-car trains whereas ST only used 2-car trains in last years test to demonstrate their new I-90 Bridge expansion joints.)  East Link, which ST in the 2008 DEIS claimed was needed because “Transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to nearly double in the next 30 years”, will have the capacity of 38 buses per hour. 

Its “difficult” to believe that anyone would spend $3B on a transportation project that will force closure of the I-90 center roadway in 2017, adding congestion to the outer roadway, and spend the next 7 years disrupting commuters and those living along the route through Bellevue to construct a light rail system with the capacity of 38 buses per hour.

Apparently not everyone in ST is aware of this limitation.  The ST November 19^th open house presentation to Mercer Island residents explaining their “Integrated Transit Plan” (ITP) indicated 84 buses per hour would be terminated there.  (It’s not clear how many cross-lake bus routes will also be terminated at the South Bellevue Station)  Those bus riders along with any MI commuters will both be attempting to find access on light rail cars that will likely be full before they even get to MI.

The East Link 2040 plan compounds the Prop 1 problem spending billions to add light rail extensions to Woodinville, Issaquah, and Renton.   These extensions along with the Prop 1 route through Bellevue will have to share the 30 car-per-hour capacity across Lake Washington.  Like I-5, the way to reduce congestion along 405 or I-90 corridors is to attract more commuters to buses.  The fact that ST instead would propose spending billions constructing four light rail extensions on the east side when the total capacity across the bridge is 30 cars per hour, the equivalent of 38 buses, is beyond words.

In conclusion, ST will spend up to $20B on Prop 1 light rail extensions that will do nothing to increase I-5 capacity, devastates the route into Bellevue and gridlocks I-90 for the vast majority of cross lake commuters.  These extensions will also require ST to spend 200-300M in annual subsidies to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare box revenue. Their 2040 proposal spends additional billions on light rail extensions that will also do nothing to reduce I-5 congestion, reduces Prop 1 capacity through Bellevue, and will double the revenue shortfall for the entire area.

ST needs to recognize the tunnel limits on light rail and the reality that the only way to make it viable in our area is to terminate Central Link at a T/C at the University Station, limit any southward extension to 200^th S, and replace East Link with a light rail extension to West Seattle.  Their recent FESIS makes it doubtful they’ll ever do so.

Joint Transportation Committee Presentation

(I had hoped to present the following to the Joint Transportation Committee at the Dec 11 meeting.  I decided to post it since they "declined" my offer yesterday.)

Joint Transportation Committee.

I recently sent you an email urging you use the upcoming legislative session to commission an Independent Review Team (IRT) to evaluate the efficacy of Sound Transit plans for easing the area’s congestion problems.  However, it really shouldn’t take an IRT study to conclude ST plans for light rail are not the answer and that any delay in reaching that conclusion wastes additional millions on fatally flawed light rail extensions.  

For example the I-90 bridge center roadway could be divided into inbound and outbound bus rapid transit lanes (BRT) with capacity for up to 1200 buses per hour.  A 70-foot articulated bus can accommodate 119 riders.  East Link will provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  The PSRC limits each 74-seat car to 148 riders although ST claims 200.  BRT is the only way to meet ST DEIS projection “transit demand across Lake Washington is expected to double in the next 30 years.”

The BRT lanes could provide every eastside P&R with direct bus connections into dedicated drop off locations in Seattle.  Each bus could reduce the number of cars on eastside highways by 119.  East Link will do nothing to relieve I-90 and SR-405 congestion since the only access to I-90 corridor riders will be the South Bellevue and Mercer Island P&R lots.  Both of which are already full by 7:30.  

East Link closure of center roadway will increase outer roadway vehicle congestion, inevitably leading to future gridlock. East Link construction will devastate the route into Bellevue and force closure of the P&R with no viable alternatives for commuters.  East Link operation will result in noisy light rail trains trundling through the area for 20 hours a day.  The ST plan for a Maintenance yard in Bel Red  will add additional hours of noise from empty trains traveling to and from yard. 

Stopping East Link would be a “no-brainer” in retired Boeing Engineers parlance.  Use the East Link funds for a light rail connection to West Seattle.  The extension needn’t affect surface traffic and the 5-6 mile extension would be far less expensive to operate than the 22-mile East Link extension.

The Central Link extensions are flawed because the billions spend will do nothing to increase the capacity of I-5 and light rail operating expenses over the longer tracks will bankrupt the area’s transportation funding.  The way to reduce I-5 congestion is to attract more commuters to buses.  Again a single bus can reduce the number of cars on I-5 and in downtown Seattle by 119. 

An HOV lane can accommodate up to 5000 vehicles an hour.  If 200 of them were added buses I-5 traffic (and downtown congestion) could be reduced by more than 20,000 cars per hour.  Central Link extensions will never have that capacity and will primarily replace existing bus routes.  Reducing the number of buses on I-5 will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion.

Again, it should be a “no-brainer” to use Central Link money to add a T/C near University Station for 520 commuters and to add P&R lots and more buses to existing and new bus routes throughout the area.  It shouldn't take an IRT study for the JTC to determine that ST should be stopped.