Livewire Event Forum Pessimism Justified

I emailed the following to the Seattle Times in response to their request for feedback regarding their “Livewire Event” forum.  I posted it since they will likely ignore it.

Livewire Event Forum Pessimism Justified

While I did have the option of attending your Oct 29^th “Livewire Event” forum I chose not to do so.  The participants' Oct 27^th Times Opinion page suggestions for reducing I-5 congestion showed they were unlikely to offer meaningful “solutions” to our area’s congestion.   I referred the Times to my 10/27/15 post “Why I’m pessimistic about Seattle Times Livewire Event” on my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com explaining my concerns.

The article in the Oct 30th Times and the videos of the four participants discussing “Solutions” to the area’s congestion justified my pessimism.  One participant espoused the benefits of “retiming signal lights”, something apparently already planned for downtown Seattle.   The other suggestions involved “ driverless smart cars and other technology improvements, providing a transportation system that "serves all users" (whatever that entails?), questioning the need for so many people to have cars, and “car sharing”.

What was a disappointment was the failure of Thanh Tan, the moderator, to even raise any of the issues from the emails I had referred her to.  I was also disappointed that Mike Lindblom’s Oct 30^th story about the forum made no mention of the fact that none of the forum participant’s suggestions would have any significant effect on the congestion he lamented on Oct 26^th Times front page.

In conclusion, the fact the forum was sponsored by Sound Transit “explains” the forum participant’s comments.  The fact that the Seattle Times moderator did not chose to “question” their “solutions” is unfortunate but no surprise.  The likely result will be Sound Transit will continue with their plans for spending billions on Central Link extensions that will do absolutely nothing to reduce I-5 congestion and increase rather than decrease I-90 congestion. 

The Realities if the Mercer Island Debate

The Times Oct 29^th B section article about the upcoming Mercer Island election is another example of Sound Transit efforts to do whatever they can to perpetrate their East Link debacle on the entire east side.  Thomas Acker is absolutely right when he “argues the current council is too willing to let Sound Transit dictate the terms of a planned Mercer Island light rail station”. 

However, even he doesn’t go into the absurdity of the current council “Loss-of-Mobility-Compensation” discussions with Sound Transit.  How in the world do you “compensate” islanders for the fact that in 2017 they will lose access to the I-90 center roadway?  That islanders will be the last with access to an I-90 outer roadway already gridlocked from the loss of the two center-roadway lanes?  That, if East Link is allowed to precede, the light rail trains during the peak commute will be full well before they get to the island?

Acker’s slogan challenging current Mayor Basset, “Residents before Region” summarizes the whole debate.  Basset argues “the center is the right place for growth” and “by putting it there we have saved the rest of the island from redevelopment”.  Saved it from whom?  Surely the council has ways of limiting “redevelopment” on the island for whatever their "share" of regional growth means.    

The current council voted 6-0 to oppose “Sound Transit’s initial proposal to have future buses into the light-rail station make their turnarounds back to I-90 through the Town Center”.   Typical of ST they didn’t reject it outright instead saying “it has no plans to significantly increase the number of buses that go to the island today, about 350, but plans for the turnaround are still up in the air”. 

The ST spokesman opined “This is no different than the negotiations with any of the 50-plus municipalities we work with” and “There’s always room for give and take”.  Again ST refused to recognize that the MI concern wasn’t the number of buses going to the their light rail station, the problem was the 350 bus loads of riders using it every morning and afternoon to transfer to and from trains.  The statement “plans for the turnaround are still up in the air” suggests ST will likely proceed with the bus "turnaround" plans despite the fact that East Link’s one 4-car train every 8 minutes won’t have the capacity needed for all the transferees.

In conclusion Acker and “Save our Suburbs” are exactly right.  However, using the “development” issue to oppose Sound Transit doesn’t expose the real problems islanders face with East Link.  They need to expose the willingness of Mayor Bassett and other incumbents to negotiate away islander access to Seattle. Once that's lost Mercer Island will be far less attractive to everyone.

Why I'm Pessimistic About Seattle Times Livewire Event

(I submitted the following to the Seattle Times in response to their Oct 27th Opinion page column.  I'm posting it since they will likely ignore it.)

Why I’m Pessimistic About Seattle Times Livewire Event

The responses to the “How to fix the I-5 Bottleneck?” on the Oct 27^th Seattle Times “Opinion Page” by the four “local and national transportation leaders" the Seattle Times selected “to explore creative ideas about how to keep people and commerce moving forward” at their Oct 29^th “Livewire Event” sponsored by Sound Transit exemplify why I’m pessimistic about the result. 

The responses by the four are “summarized” below

Mark Hallenbeck

There is no “fix” to the I-5 is congested” problem.  It will continue to be congested in the foreseeable future

Scott Kubly

The best thing we can do to fix I-5 is to complete the Sound Transit route between Tacoma and Everett

Bryan Mistele

The data now exists to identify the bottlenecks, model the impact different alternative would have and make better investment decisions

Jarett Walker

We’ve figured out that a fast trip can only be provided for those willing to pay for it

The I-5 congestion problem is not that complicated.  A May 8^th, PSRC presentation to the Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP) “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” includes a chart (Page 20) showing I-5 HOV travel times in 2014 between Everett and Seattle had increased to ~75 minutes in the morning and ~68 minutes in the afternoon. Comparable times between Federal Way and Seattle were ~52 minutes and 48 minutes.

No one in their right mind would conclude that the delays in the HOV lanes are due to too many buses. Yet none to the four seems to recognize the futility of Sound Transit spending billions over the next 8 years on Central Link extensions to stations where the only ones with access will be to those who previously rode buses. That even if ST manages to utilize all of the Central Link capacity (8880 rider per hour per direction per 2004 PSRC report) they will only reduce the number of buses on I-5 by 100 per hour and have a minuscule effect on the 5000-per-hour-vehicle capacity of each lane.

None of the four seems to recognize the solution to the I-5 HOV congestion problem is to reduce non-transit HOV traffic on the HOV lanes.  The way to do so is a combination of the “carrot and stick”.  The “carrot” would be to provide carpoolers with the option of using added P&R capacity and additional bus routes to Seattle.  An additional 100 buses per hour could reduce the +2HOV traffic by 5000 vehicles an hour, dramatically reducing HOV lane congestion.  The “stick” would be to limit use of HOV lanes to +3HOV during peak commute. 

None of the four seem to recognize additional parking and bus routes could also reduce the I-5 regular lane congestion.  An additional 100 buses per hour could have the capacity to reduce the traffic on I-5 by more than 10,000 vehicles per hour.  ST should use the Central Link funds to add parking for the additional transit riders and bus routes to service them.  If each parking space in the suburbs cost $20,000 they could add 15,000 parking spaces with the $300 million ST will spend on the Northgate extension next year alone.  And they could begin doing so in 2017.

The increased I-5 bus frequency could be facilitated in Seattle by converting 4th Ave. to a two-way, bus-only lane configuration. Buses would use one side to drop off riders and the other to pick up riders depending on which direction they came from.  Doing so would allow each route to have one or two dedicated egress and access locations making maximum use of the roadway and further reducing transit times.

Again, based on their Oct 27th “Opinion” page comments on I-5 congestion it’s unlikely the four participants in the Oct 29th “Livewire Event” will propose these "Solutions".    

The Unlikely I-5 "Livewire Event Solution"

 The previous post opined the Oct 29^th Seattle Times “Livewire Event” sponsored by Sound Transit was “unlikely” to recognize the “Solution” to the I-90 corridor congestion problem was to move the non-transit HOV to 4^th lanes on the outer roadway, initiate two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway, and use the East Link funds to add thousands of parking spaces throughout the east side and bus routes to serve them.

This post opines the forum is also “unlikely” to come up with “Solutions” to the congestion along I-5.  A May 8^th, PSRC presentation to the Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP) “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” quantifies the congestion along that corridor.  It includes a chart (Page 20) showing I-5 HOV travel times in 2014 between Everett and Seattle had increased to ~75 minutes in the morning, and ~68 minutes in the afternoon.   Comparable times between Federal Way and Seattle were ~52 minutes and 48 minutes.

No one in their right mind would conclude that the delays in the HOV lanes are due to too many buses. Yet ST apparently believes that fantasy.   Why else would they plan to spend billions over the next 8 years on Central Link extensions to stations where the only ones with access will be to those who previously rode buses. 

The PSRC concluded in a 2004 report “Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” that the Seattle tunnel limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction.  When the Central Link Northgate extension begins operation in 2021, the 8880 rph will far exceed the number if those who previously rode Metro from the T/C there into Seattle.  ST will presumably route other buses to Northgate rather than into Seattle to make use of Central Link capacity.  (They plan to terminate all the cross-lake bus routes on I-90 at South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.) However even if they manage to use the entire 8880 capacity, it will only reduce the number of buses between Northgate and Seattle by about 100 buses per hour. 

A freeway lane can accommodate up to 5000 vehicles per hour.  A hundred-bus-per-hour reduction would have a miniscule impact on the HOV lanes congestion.  Conversely if they chose to add 100 buses per hour they would provide the capacity to reduce the +2 HOV traffic by 5000 vehicles per hour dramatically reducing HOV lane congestion.  If each parking space in the suburbs cost $20,000 they could add 15,000 parking spaces with the $300 million ST will spend on the Northgate extension next year alone.  The added parking could not only accommodate the HOV commuters but more single drivers, also with a minimal number of added buses.  And they could begin doing so in 2017.

Rather than use the Northgate and beyond extensions to attract light rail riders, ST should override UW objections and insist on a T/C near the stadium station. It could provide thousands of 520 transit riders from both sides of the lake with an interface between cross-lake BRT and Central Link light rail, taking advantage of light rail capacity without the expense of the light rail extensions.

The increased bus frequency could be facilitated in Seattle by converting 4th Avenue to a two-way bus-only lane configuration. Buses would use one side to drop off riders and the other to pick up riders depending on which direction they came from.  Doing so would allow each route to have one or two dedicated egress and access locations making maximum use of the roadway and further reducing transit times.

Again, it’s “unlikely” the Seattle Times Livewire Forum will result in these “Solutions”

Unlikely "Livewire Event" I-90 Solution

Like presumably many others I recently received the following email invitation to an Oct 29th Seattle Times “Livewire Event” entitled “Gridlocked: Driving Solutions to our Region’s Traffic Jams” sponsored by Sound Transit and the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Please join Seattle Times journalist Thanh Tan for a forum about how to turn our transportation problems around. The Puget Sound area is one of the fastest-growing regions in the U.S., and rated among the worst for traffic congestion. Local and national leaders will explore creative ideas about how to keep people and commerce moving forward.

I have no idea who the “local and national leaders” are but, if Sound Transit is a sponsor, I’m dubious as to the results.  Especially since the Seattle Times has been so slavish in their support of ST despite the fact many of the area’s transportation problems are a direct result of ST and WSDOT incompetence.

For example, 15 years ago ST and WSDOT could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  The added lanes have been part of any cross-lake improvements since the mid 1990’s.  The costs would have been minimal and commuters from both sides of the lake, but particularly “reverse” commuters would have benefitted immediately.  Thousands of commuters have needless endured years of increased congestion because of the delay.  Recently those switching to I-90 to avoid 520 tolls have simply added to the problem.

ST could have used the outer-roadway 4^th lanes for non-transit HOV and divided the I-90 center roadway into two-way bus-only lanes.  Each lane could have accommodated more than 1000 buses per hour, allowing direct bus routes from every P&R on the east side.  The costs would have been minimal and ST could have spent most of the nearly $1 billion they’ve spent on East Link expanding existing P&R lots and adding new ones with connecting bus routes.  Eastside commuters would have had the option of leaving their car near where they "live" rather than where they "work" reducing congestion throughout the entire area.  

Instead ST and the WSDOT refuse to recognize two problems with East Link.  The first is the assumption that the 4^th lanes they intend to add to the I-90 outer roadways will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all the cross-lake vehicular traffic.  They used that claim to convince a judge in the Freeman suit to allow them to proceed with plans to close the center roadway for light rail (now scheduled for 2017). 

That claim is debunked by a May 8^th PSRC presentation to the Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP) “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report”.  It includes a chart (Page 20) showing I-5 HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle increased to ~75 minutes in the morning, and ~68 minutes in the afternoon in 2014.  The problem is carpools dramatically reduce the number of buses, slashing lane transit capacity.  (That reality is presumably what led the FHWA to conclude in a September 2004 "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision" that the center roadway remain open to vehicles even with the 4th lanes added to the outer roadway in the R8-A configuration they approved))

The lane could provide the needed capacity if limited to buses.  However, the lack of eastside parking and bus service precludes attracting the numbers of transit riders needed to take advantage of the capacity.  (The ST closure of the South Bellevue P&R with no plans to replace it adds to the problem.)  Thus, the lack of transit riders means ST closure of the I-90 center roadway in 2017 will undoubtedly gridlock vehicle traffic on the outer roadway.

The second problem is ST plans for operating East Link, one 4-car every 8 minutes, will never provide the capacity to accommodate the number of transit riders needed to reduce I-90 congestion.  It’s not clear whether they'll continue to insist East Link will replace all cross-lake buses.  If  they do East Link operation will reduce peak transit capacity by nearly 50%.  Those unable to use transit will add to the outer roadway congestion.  If they relent and allow some of the buses to continue into and out of Seattle, the lack of parking and buses will still limit number of transit riders needed to reduce congestion.

In conclusion, ST delays in adding 4^th lanes to I-90 Bridge outer roadways have already forced east side commuters to endure years of congestion.  However the current congestion, at least on I-90,  pales in comparison to what will happen when ST closes the I-90 bridge center roadway in 2017 and even worse when East Link begins operation. 

The “Solutions” to the I-90 congestion is for ST to use the light rail funds to add thousands of parking spaces throughout the east side and bus routes to service them. 

It's "unlikely" the forum will reach that conclusion.

HOV Lanes Finally Added to I-90 Bridge

The WSDOT recently came out with the following “Driver Alert”

Eastbound I-90 will be down to one lane and detoured to the express lanes from 11 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 23 to 5 a.m. on Monday, Oct. 26. There are three more weekend-long closures scheduled in 2015.

It included the following explanation

I-90 includes two reversible express lanes between Seattle and Bellevue for buses, carpools and vanpools. In the morning, traffic in the express lanes are westbound; in the evening they go eastbound. Buses and high-occupancy vehicles traveling opposite the express lanes must use the outer roadway. With no HOV lanes in outer roadway at the start of this project, buses and carpools experienced routine, rush-hour delays, undermining the benefits of ride sharing.

They anticipate this Stage 3 construction, which began in January 2015 and includes upgrading I-90 tunnels fire and life safety systems in Seattle and Mercer Island, will be completed in mid 2017 when the I-90 Bridge center roadway will be closed to begin light rail installation.

What’s “interesting” is the fact that the HOV lanes could have been added to the outer roadways 15 years ago.  They have been part of any cross-lake transportation improvement since the mid 1990’s.  The cost would have been minimal and the benefits immediate.  The added lanes would have been particularly useful in accommodating those recently opting for I-90 to avoid 520 tolls.

It may be pure “coincidence” the added lanes aren’t scheduled to open until the center roadway is closed for light rail.  The delay has not only forced cross-lake commuters to endure years of increased congestion it has also prevented two potential problems for East Link.

The first is the added outer roadway HOV lanes would make the center roadway “available” for two-way bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes.  BRT would have 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost of East Link.  They could provide direct access to transit for I-90 commuters from existing and added P&Rs throughout east side reducing congestion for everyone.  They would have ended East Link.

The second is the WSDOT had told a judge in the Freeman case the added HOV lanes would allow the outer roadway to accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles.  He allowed East Link to proceed based on that claim.  Adding the outer roadway lanes would have allowed the center roadway to be closed temporarily to verify their claim.  The WSDOT knew, or should have known, a 2004 FHWA document concluded the existing center roadway lanes were needed for vehicles even with the added outer roadway lanes.  Delaying the lanes allows ST to avoid the "possibility" the demonstration would show the need to maintain center roadway lanes for vehicles and stop East Link.

I’ll leave it to viewers to make their own conclusions about “coincidence”.      

The East Link Debacle Begins

I presented the following to the Bellevue City Council last night in the first of several future appearances detailing the results of their East Link approval.

The East Link Debacle Begins

On my last appearance two months ago I told the council the entire area would pay a heavy price for the fact that for more than 6 ½ years you’ve ignored my many appearances here and countless emails detailing problems with Sound Transit’s East Link light rail. 

You ignored me when I told you Sound Transit had lied to the public with claims East Link was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway; that they had lied to a federal judge when they told him the modified outer roadway could accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles allowing ST to close the center roadway for light rail; and that they had lied to the FHWA and FTA when they claimed light rail noise would have no impact on the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park.

You ignored the fact you had more than ample reason to refuse to approve the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  Instead you rewrote the city’s land use code to make light rail possible.  ST has already devastated 112^th Ave, turning a tree-lined boulevard into a transportation nightmare, forcing I-90 commuters from both directions to endure long lines accessing Bellevue via I-405.

Next March Sound Transit will close the South Bellevue P&R.  You could have made permit approval contingent on ST providing their long-promised plan for accommodating the thousands of transit riders who use it daily.  Yet they still haven’t provided one and likely never will.  The end result will be thousands of would-be transit riders finding the remaining P&R’s full well before they get there leaving them little choice between driving into Seattle or attempting to find other means to access buses.

As bad as that is for commuters, its nothing compared to what closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway in 2017 will do.

All so Sound Transit, 8 years from now, can provide one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  That’s what you have done.

I'm Back

As the 9/17/15 post promised, I’m back from my visit to New York City and cross-Canada train ride.  Both were “eye opening”.  NYC, where public transit “works,” and the train ride, a “scenic extravaganza in comfort". 

The New York Subway is arguably the most effective public transit system in the world.  (At least in comparison to those I’ve used throughout Europe.)   Weekday ridership of 6 million is almost 15 times that of the west coast standard BART.  

It would allow me to ride from near my hotel on West 79^th to Times Square on 42^nd in less than 9 minutes.  The route included 3 intermediary stops along the way, including Lincoln Center and Columbus Circle.   The speed by which they went past made it literally impossible to count the number of cars in the train but it surely exceeded 20.  And they went by about every 4-5 minutes. 

By comparison, Sound Transit East Link service in 2023 will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  If each 74-seat car can accommodate 148 riders (PSRC Assumption), total capacity will be limited to 4440 riders per hour (RPH) in each direction. 

This limited capacity might be acceptable if it added to cross-lake transit capacity.  Instead, East Link’s confiscation of the I-90 bridge center roadway precludes using 2-way BRT with 20 times that of light rail.   Even worse, ST plans to use East Link to replace cross-lake buses will reduce peak commute transit capacity by nearly 50%.

ST East Link incompetence is “matched” by the WSDOT plan to reduce I-405 congestion by requiring +3 carpools during peak commute, or pay tolls up to $10.00 to use HOV lanes.   Increasing HOV requirements from +2 to +3 will surely reduce the number of riders that can use them.  Their plan to raise the tolls in order to reduce the number of drivers who use the HOV lanes seems rather “counter productive” in terms of reducing congestion on regular lanes. The fact that trip times for those unable to find two riders or unwilling to pay the tolls has increased should be no surprise.

With this level of Sound Transit and WSDOT incompetence, it's no wonder we have the 4^th worst congestion in the country.