Lynn Thompson Typifies Seattle Times Approach to Sound Transit

After my June 23^rd “Candidate Evaluation Interview” I was pleasantly surprised to be asked to meet with Lynn Thompson, the Times Eastside reporter, for 30 minutes.   I assumed it was because the Times was interested in more details about my concerns with Sound Transit’s light rail I had discussed during the interview.

Boy, was I wrong!   She started out by saying the voters had approved East Link implying nothing I could say would change her favorable opinion about it.  I pointed out Sound Transit had lied to voters with claims East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway when they had recently conceded it was the equivalent of one 74-seat light rail car every two minutes.  She didn’t care.

I had her read the following concerning the judges decision in the Freeman lawsuit that allowed Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail.

“The court respectfully declines to review the administrative decisions of the State (WSDOT) regarding its determination the center lanes of I-90 in question will not be needed for highway purposes upon the completion of the R8A project and fulfillment of the Umbrella Agreement.” 

I then had her read the following from the “2004 I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision” the judge cited in making that finding:

Alternative R-8A will provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways.  It will retain the existing reversible operations on the center roadway

She didn’t care that the document the WSDOT told the judge proved they didn’t need the center roadway “for highway purposes” did nothing of the sort.

I had her read the following from the “Executive Summary, East Link Project Supplemental Draft” Sound Transit used to convince the FTA and FHWA that East Link would not violate Federal Environmental Law requiring any impact on Mercer Slough Park to be de minimus

Preferred Alternative B2M would not impact noise levels in the park.

Preferred Alternative B2M would not substantially affect park use, the park’s features, activities, and attributes, or diminish the park’s value.

She didn’t seem to recognize the “inconsistency” with Sound Transit decision to spend millions shielding homes some 300 feet away and across a major roadway from this non-existent light rail noise. 

I could go on with more examples of indifference that in the end was a major  “disappointment”.   To think that after 6 years of personal appeals to the BCC, 4 admittedly inept candidacies, more than 250 posts on this blog with more than 25,000 page views, my one chance to meet with someone who “could make a difference” wanted to end the interview after 15 minutes.  I guess I should not have been surprised since the editor, Kate Riley, and the other staff members I’ve contacted never showed any interest or quickly "lost" whatever interest they had.

Sooner or later someone is going to write a story about the Sound Transit light rail debacle.  It’s obviously not going to be Lynn Thompson.  Needless to say I doubt my candidacy will be viewed favorably by the Times or Lynn Thompson. 

What I do know is that in the end my concerns will be vindicated.  While the closure of the I-90 center roadway in 2017 may not “gridlock” the bridge outer roadways, it will certainly increase congestion.  The real “East Link debacle” will become evident to everyone in 2023 when ST attempts to force all transit riders to switch to and from light rail for their commutes into and out of Seattle.  The Seattle Times will bear a major responsibility for allowing that to happen.

Is Light Rail Investment Worth It?

I thought the June 23^rd Seattle Times Special to the Times Opinions response to the question “Is light rail investment worth it?” was rather ironic since that was the day for my “Candidate Evaluation” interview with their editorial board.  While they listened to my ~ 2 minute presentation (previous post) on my opposition to light rail, they didn’t seem particularly interested and didn’t ask any follow-up questions.

While the “Con” response provided some rationale arguments in opposition, my response would have been more direct.  For example Sound Transit has spent years and nearly a billion dollars on an East Link light rail system that will devastate the route into Bellevue, reduce rather than increase cross-lake transit capacity, and gridlock vehicular traffic on I-90 Bridge.  (That’s assuming they’ll finally be able to come up with a bridge design that’s compatible with light rail train operation.)  

Fifteen years ago they could have moved non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways and initiated two-way bus only lanes on center roadway.  The cost would have been minimal, the capacity 20 times light rail, and commuters could have had access to direct bus routes into Seattle from every P&R lot on the east side.

Their Central Link extensions are equally ill conceived.  For example they could have over-ruled UW objections to a T/C at the U/W station near the stadium.  It would have provided an interface between 520 BRT service and light rail into Seattle that would have attracted thousands of riders from both sides of the lake. 

Instead they’re spending billions on light rail extensions to Northgate and beyond that will have absolutely no effect on I-5 congestion.  They could provide 10 times light rail capacity by simply limiting one of the two HOV lanes to buses, and they could do it in a month.  (Part of that capacity could be used for +3 HOV until ST adds additional parking and bus service.)

Rather than Central Link extensions to Federal Way and across I-90, ST could route light rail to West Seattle.  It could supplement transit service on the West Seattle Bridge rather than replace it as they’re doing with East Link.

What’s worse, after spending billions they don’t have, on light rail extensions that will do nothing to ease congestion, they’ll end up with a light rail system too expensive to operate.  The problem is using even the limited capacity of Prop 1 extensions  (and ST3 extensions) requires they route riders to and from the light rail stations on buses.  It’s unlikely those riders will be required to pay two fares for the commute.  Thus light rail net fare box revenue will be minimal for the extensions.

Light rail cars cost more than twice as much as buses to operate (~$25 per mile per car vs. ~$10 for buses).  Thus forcing riders to transfer at light rail stations not only dissuades commuters from using transit, it adds to operating costs.  (While the proposed UW T/C would do the same thing, it would have twice the capacity of East Link and attract thousands of additional cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake adding to transit revenue)

In conclusion, the answer to the question “Is light rail worth it?” is a resounding "NO".  A "NO" not only for the likely ST3 extensions but for the ST2 Prop 1 extensions ST has already spent years and billions on.  The sooner they recognize that the better.

Why I'm A Candidate

I read the following to the Seattle Times Editorial Board at their “recommendation interview” for the Bellevue City Council Pos 7.  They appeared interested though didn’t ask any follow-up questions.  I was later contacted and agreed to meet with another Times reporter which could be promising.

Why I’m A Candidate,

I’m running to use my candidacy for the Bellevue City Council to make people aware that the East Link the council is about to approve will devastate the route into Bellevue, forever changing the “City in the Park”.  It begins next March with the closure of the South Bellevue P&R ending easy access to transit for thousands of commuters.

A year later, ST closure of the center roadway to begin installing light rail tracks will increase congestion for all commuters from both sides of the lake.   ST will spend the next several years disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue.  Doing so will involve ripping out hundreds of trees, installing light rail tracks and power lines and an elevated roadway on what was a scenic tree-lined boulevard. 

What’s worse is that after years of disruption and increased congestion, East Link operation will require thousands of those who commute by bus to switch to light rail trains that will never have the capacity needed to accommodate them.  The fact that light rail operating costs will far exceed any fare-box revenue requiring a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall adds to the insanity.

The only way to meet cross-lake demand is to move non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiate two-way bus only (BRT) on center roadway.  They could do that in 6 months for a few million and avoid the devastation to Bellevue.  They could make Bel Red area a magnet for development with South-Lake-Union types of streetcars circling through the area with connections to Bellevue T/C.  

If the council allows East Link to proceed, the 6 years of construction and subsequent light rail operation will very quickly be recognized as an historic blunder.

Sound Transit ST3 Exacerbates ST2 Debacle

Sound Transit’s latest flyer asking “Where will Sound Transit Take You Tomorrow?” is just the beginning of a presumably multi-million dollar effort to convince the public to give them another $15B for ST3.  The answer to their question, at least beyond where they promised to take you in 2008 with their $18B ST2 Prop 1 extensions, is “Not Very Far”.   ST2 supposedly funded Prop 1 extensions to Overlake T/C, Federal Way, and Mill Creek. When it was approved Sound Transit officials called it a “Gift to our Grand Children”.   The ST3 extensions could hardly justify another very expensive “gift” of an additional $15B.

Wherever the Sound Transit’s ST3 light rail extensions end up “taking you”, the billions they’ll spend, like the billions they plan to spend on ST2 Prop 1 extensions, will do absolutely nothing to ease the area’s fourth worst congestion in the country.  The problem is, according to a May 8^th Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) presentation to the Eastside Transportation Partnership, “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report”, nearly 75% of commuters chose to drive alone (SOV) to destinations.  The solution is to get more people to use public transit.

Unfortunately, neither the ST2 Prop 1 nor the likely ST3 light rail extensions will ever have the needed capacity.  An August 2004 PSRC report, “Central Puget Sound Region High Capacity Corridor Assessment” evaluated several alternate HCT options and concluded the following regarding light rail.

Light Rail capacities were calculated to be at a maximum of 8,880 pphpd (passengers per hour per direction)

Sound Transit referenced this document in the 2008 DEIS as their basis for “connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake and Redmond”.   The PSRC concluded light rail in Seattle would be limited to one 4-car train every 4 minutes.  They assumed each car had the capacity for 148 riders giving the 8880 pphpd through the Seattle tunnel, with half to Bellevue and half towards Federal Way.  (Sound Transit’s proposed East Link schedule confirms the one 4-car-train-every-8-minute operation.)

An Oct 21st, 2014 Seattle Times article “Region’s commute times worsen” concluded “the ‘reliable’ travel time for the Everett-to-Seattle drive, for solo drivers to be sure of reaching work on time 19 out of 20 days, has increased from 62 minutes to 80 minutes”.  It also included information that 33,900 commuters already used the two HOV lanes during the 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. peaks with 14 million annual transit riders keeping buses at 79% of capacity in the I-5 corridor. 

More recent data show even HOV lane users are feeling the effects of congestion.  The May 8^th PSRC presentation included charts showing I-5 HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle in 2014 were ~75 minutes into and ~68 minutes out of Seattle, essentially eliminating travel time advantages.  Thus, there is very little incentive to go through the hassle of finding a rider or going to a P&R and finding space for a standing-room-only bus ride into Seattle. 

The HOV lane delays for buses could be eliminated by simply restricting one of the two HOV lanes to buses.  Doing so would provide lane capacity for more than 1000 buses per hour with ten times light rail capacity.  They could do it in a month, although +3 HOV could share the lane until ST added the needed parking and bus service.  The reduced travel times would undoubtedly attract additional potential riders, reducing congestion for everyone.  ST could use the ST2 funds for more P&R lots and bus service instead of spending billions and 6 years for light rail to reach Northgate, 8 to reach Lynnwood, and likely additional billions and years for ST3 to Everett.   

When the Northgate extension is completed in 2021, the 8880 pphpd capacity will have a minuscule effect on congestion. While those with access will be able to ride light rail into Seattle, travel times would likely be longer than what bus-only lanes would provide. 

Meanwhile, the vast majority of commuters will see no benefit.   ST could potentially divert 100 buses per hour to Northgate.  However, that reduction in HOV lane traffic will have a minuscule effect on congestion into Seattle.  Also, the hassle of being forced to transfer to and from buses may dissuade many from even using transit.  Extensions from Northgate to Lynnwood and beyond add to the construction and operating cost but do nothing to reduce HOV or regular lane congestion.

It’s even more difficult for ST to justify spending billions on the ST2 and ST3 Central Link extensions to Federal Way and Tacoma, and East Link extensions to Overlake and Redmond.   The resulting 4440 pphpd capacity hardly qualifies as HCT.  It could easily be obtained with an additional 50 buses per hour that would have a minimal affect on congestion. 

While those with access to this limited capacity could benefit from having a reliable commute into Seattle, the vast majority of commuters will continue to encounter ever-increasing congestion. On a recent 9 a.m. commute from SeaTac to Bellevue I noticed "predicted" 52-minute SOV travel times from Tukwila to Seattle. The May 8^th PSRC presentation reported even HOV travel time from Federal Way to Seattle increased by almost 20 minutes to ~55 minutes between 2010 and 2014.   

The only way to reduce both SOV and HOV commuter travel times is to convince more of both to switch to buses.  Buses would be more attractive if HOV-lane travel times were reduced by limiting car pools to +3 HOV during peak commute (as currently planned for I-405 HOV lanes).   As with North I-5, ST needs to spend the light rail money on additional P&R lots and more buses. 

The billions spent on East Link for its 4440 pphpd capacity is particularly absurd since ST confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway precludes using two-way bus only lanes there.  Again, the 1000 bus-per-hour capacity could be twenty times East Link, could be available in 6 months for a few million, and attract thousands of additional transit riders with direct bus routes from existing and new P&R lots into Seattle, reducing traffic throughout east side.  Like I-5, the way to reduce I-90 corridor congestion is to spend the East Link money on additional P&R lots and more bus service throughout area. 

As bad as ST2 and ST3 are for the areas congestion, they’re even worse for the area’s transportation funding.  Just the initial phase of the Prop 1 light rail extensions has forced ST to borrow $1.3B.   Paying it off will require annual payments of $50M for 44 years.  Their 2015 budget has a deficit of $280M with only $16M expected from light rail fare box revenue.  Unless ST can come up with an additional revenue source billions more will have to be borrowed to pay for the Prop 1 extensions, adding to the annual amortization costs.  (That’s a “likely reason” they’re asking for ST3 funds next year, more than 6 years before they would even start ST3 light rail extension construction.)

When complete the longer routes along with the high light rail car operating costs (~$25 per mile per car compared to ~$10 per mile for buses) will also escalate light rail operating costs.   However, none of the light rail stations are within “walking distance” or provide adequate parking spaces for the numbers of riders even this limited capacity can accommodate. The only way to do so is to route buses to the stations. 

Providing the bus riders needed for even the very limited ST2 light rail capacity has two ramifications.  The first is additional P&R facilities will be needed to accommodate transit growth.  The second is it’s unlikely those transferring from buses will be forced to pay a second toll.  (As stated early, the need to transfer rather than a direct commute into Seattle may also dissuade many transit riders.) Thus light rail operation will provide very little additional fare box revenue.  The longer ST3 routes exacerbate the operating cost deficit.

The bottom line is light rail in Seattle will never have the capacity to justify the billions spent to construct and subsequently operate the ST2 or ST3 extensions.  The only way to ease congestion is to use the light rail money to dramatically increase both the P&R facilities throughout the area and the number of buses serving the added parking.  (ST belatedly recognizes the benefits of improved bus service with the ST3 plans for BRT along I-405. It's something they could have done on I-90 more than 15 years ago.)

Instead of extending light rail to Northgate (and beyond) they should limit one HOV lane to buses only.   Instead of light rail to Federal Way and beyond they should require +3 HOV during peak commute.  Instead of cross-lake light rail they should move non-transit HOV to fourth lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadway and initiate 2 way bus only service on center roadway.  The likely ST ST3 extensions simply exacerbate the ST2 problems.

I’m convinced sooner or later everyone will recognize these realities.  Obviously the sooner the better.

The I-405 Debacle

The 4/24/15 post explained 15 years ago Sound Transit could have moved non-transit HOV to a 4^th lane on I-90 bridge outer roadway and initiated two-way bus only lanes with 10 times light rail capacity on bridge center roadway and avoided spending billions on an East Link light rail system that will not only devastate the route into Bellevue but dramatically increase cross-lake congestion.  The 4/28/15 post explained how ST and the WSDOT could simply limit one of the two I-5 HOV lanes to buses and increase transit capacity by more than 10 times what they will get from spending billions on Central Link extensions to Northgate and beyond.   

This post explains the total failure to deal with the congestion along I-405.  While millions have been spent adding a new lane between Bothell and Bellevue, the WSDOT and WSTC decision to use the additional lane for $10 HOT fares and +3 HOV will minimize its effectiveness, apparently more interested in increasing revenue rather than decreasing congestion.   

The Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) May 8th report to the Eastside Transportation Partnership “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” includes charts showing the I-405 delay in 2014, 10,300 hrs was second only to the I-5 delays, 14,300 hrs. Even though the number of I-405 commuters is a fraction of those on I-5. 

One reason for the discrepancy is relatively few I-405 commuters use transit.  An Oct 21^st Seattle Times article reported 14 million riders use transit to commute on I-5 each year with more than 33,000 during the 6-9 a.m. commute into and 3-6 p.m. out of Seattle.  By contrast the Sound Transit 2014 ridership reports for ST532 and ST535, their routes from Everett and Lynnwood to Bellevue, totaled slightly more than 1 million.  The “likely reason”, the two routes are limited to a total of 15 buses during the 3 hr morning commute and 19 buses in the afternoon.

The Seattle Times article also reported a driver in a Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) needed to “allow 69 minutes between Lynnwood and Bellevue to reach work on time 19 out of 20 days”.   Again, the obvious solution to the problem is to increase the number of transit riders.  For starters, they should triple the number of buses during the peak commute to increase capacity.  Some of the added routes should skip some of the intermediate stops to reduce travel time.  Others could provide service to and from the Overlake Microsoft area on 520.  Survey the employment centers to identify potential riders.

The added bus routes would benefit from reduced travel time with the new I-405 HOV lane between Bothell and Bellevue; Currently 40-minutes between Lynnwood and Bellevue, with most of the delays between Bothell and Bellevue (per PSRC report during peak commute). The added bus routes could be particularly attractive in view of the WSTC decision to require +3HOV and $10 fares for HOT on both the existing and new HOV lanes.