Sound Transit Integrated Transit Service "Crashes and Burns"

I recently noticed a Sound Transit depiction of I-90 Bridge showing three-car trains going both directions on the center roadway and a Sound transit bus on the eastbound I-90 outer roadway.  (I’m always amused by the paucity of vehicles on ST 1-90 depictions.)  The fact that an ST East Link I-90 depiction includes a bus implies the end of their Integrated Transit Service (ITS) plan to use light rail to replace all I-90 bridge buses.  The implication, at least for Mercer Island, would seem to be confirmed by ST charts showing the five different options for routing ITS buses on and off MI are marked “No longer under consideration”. 

The decision was probably the result of Mercer Island objections to ST plans to terminate I-90 bus routes at their light rail station.  However, I’ve seen nothing in the MI Weekly about it.  Apparently ITS, which was “still up in the air” as of mid October at least for MI, has very quietly “crashed and burned“.  The congestion along the I-90 off ramps to Bellevue Way and the return routes from the P&R lot to I-90 make it unlikely ST would attempt to route the buses to South Bellevue P&R station.

The implications of the demise of Mercer Island and presumably South Bellevue ITS go way beyond simply easing islander concerns.  It’s unlikely to have a significant effect on the $3.6B East Link construction costs.  Also the other “costs” for eastside residents namely: disruption to those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue; loss of P&R access to transit with South Bellevue P&R closure; and the increased congestion from the loss of one on the two HOV lanes on center roadway won’t change,

However, without ITS, East Link’s supposed benefits will be dramatically reduced.  It will lose 40,000 of the 50,000 riders they predicted would access light rail via the bus routes in 2030.  ST “sold” East Link to east side residents with claims 20,000 commuters would be able to use light rail for their morning and afternoon commutes into and out of Seattle.  Without ITS the only ones with access will be those within walking distance of light rail stations or those able to use their very limited parking, a tiny fraction of the 20,000. The vast majority of East Link commuters not losing benefits will be Seattleites whose access to Bellevue and beyond won’t change.

The reality is East Link will be a disaster for eastside commuters with or without ITS.  Its 4500 rider-per hour capacity (per PSRC) would require nearly 4½ hours each morning and afternoon to accommodate the 20,000 commuters.  ST claims ITS would have reduced the number of buses and congestion on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways ignore the fact the congestion there is not due to too many buses.  Instead East Link with ITS would have increased outer roadway congestion since the lack of light rail capacity would have forced more commuters to drive rather than ride.

The bottom line is the ITS demise essentially ends east side access to light rail.  It’s time eastside commuters recognize it’s no big loss. They need to insist ST use their tax moneys to divide the I-90 center roadway into inbound and outbound bus only lanes and add thousands of parking spaces at existing P&R lots and adding new ones where needed.  Allowing commuters to leave their cars near where they live is the only way to reduce the area’s congestion.  

Instead, if allowed to continue, ST will spend $3.6B on East Link so that 5000 commuters, the vast majority of whom will be Seattleites, can ride light rail across I-90 Bridge each morning and afternoon.  This blog's goal is to stop them.

Dear Bellevue City Council

(Another undoubtedly futile effort to influence the BCC)

Dear Bellevue City Council

My name is Bill Hirt and I live at 2615 170^th Ave SE.  Last time I was here I explained how East Link had already resulted in Sound Transit devastating 112^th Ave and that next March their closure of the South Bellevue P&R will make it impossible for many commuters to use P&R lots for access to transit. 

In 2017 ST will close the I-90 Bridge center roadway to begin light rail installation.  The chart I’ve given you from a PSRC May 5 “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” should be a warning as to the result.  It shows that the large number of vehicles using the two HOV lanes have increased peak commute times between Everett and Seattle to 75 minutes in the morning and near 70 in the afternoon.  

The council can assure that won’t happen on I-90 by making permit approval contingent on ST expediting the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways and temporarily close the center roadway.  If, as the I-5 data suggests, the resulting outer roadway congestion is excessive the FHWA will never allow ST to close the interstate highway’s center roadway.  Instead, it could be divided into two-way, bus-only lanes with far more capacity than needed to meet foreseeable transit requirements. 

However, if you neglect to do so, I-90 commuters will likely be forced to endure 6 years of increased travel times.  When completed in 2023 East Link service will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes or thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour.  Thus it will be able to replace between 40 and 50 buses an hour on the outer roadway. Doing so raises two questions, “Does anyone believe the I-5 congestion is due to too many buses"? and "Will eliminating 40-50 buses an hour on I-90 outer roadways have the slightest impact on congestion"?   ST must, they’re planning to spend untold  billions on Central Link and $3.6B on East Link doing just that.  

You can stop East Link by refusing to approve the permits until they demonstrate the outer roadway can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. The entire east side may pay a heavy price if you don’t.

Making Public Transit "Work"

A 11/18/15 presentation I attended to the Eastside Transportation Association (ETA) concerning the “Mobility 21” alternatives to PSRC’s "Transportation 2040 Plan Update for King County and Region" prompted me to propose my own alternative.

Making Public Transit “Work”

It should be axiomatic reducing congestion on the area’s roadways requires convincing more commuters to use public transit.  Doing so requires providing then with access near “where they live” to transit to “where they wish to go”.  This area is fortunate in that “where they wish to go” is mostly limited to downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake areas.  Conversely, the “where they want to go” in the Los Angeles area is so large that public transit will likely never “work” there. 

The transit problem here is most of those wishing to go “there” are spread out over a very large area. (The most notable exception is West Seattle, where ST neglected to include a Prop 1 extension.) By comparison, BART, the successful west coast light rail transit system, benefits from the fact that large numbers of commuters live within walking distance of its four light-rail lines. 

Having sufficient commuter access to light rail only reduces congestion if light rail has the capacity to accommodate them. BART not only has four separate lines, each line can accommodate 10-car trains.  The station lengths in the Seattle tunnel limit Central Link trains to only four cars.  Since light rail construction costs for 4-car and 10-car light rail systems are likely similar, Seattle light rail not only has less than half BART capacity it also has more than twice its cost/capacity ratio.

Each of the four BART lines operate with 15 minutes between trains, resulting in 64 trains an hour over the San Francisco Bay Bridge.   Central Link is scheduled to operate with 4 minutes between trains or 60 trains per hour through the tunnel. Since each car is limited to 148 riders (per PSRC) light rail will be limited to less than 9000 riders per hour (rph). 

An Oct 21^st 2014 Seattle Times article reported more than 33,000 riders already use transit buses between Everett and Seattle during the 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. peak commutes.  ST will likely route some of those buses to the Northgate station.  However the resulting reduction in the number of buses between Northgate and Seattle will have essentially no effect on congestion.  The only way for the $2.1B spent on extending light rail to Northgate to reduce congestion is to add more parking with bus connections to the station there.  Yet none of the planning documents I’ve seen include any funds for doing so.

The 9000 rph Northgate light rail train capacity is 80% more than the 5000 rph capacity of an added highway lane (assuming single occupancy vehicles (SOV)).  However, a 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders.  Thus fifty additional bus routes an hour could accommodate more than 5000 (rph), adding more capacity than the $2.1B Northgate extension. 

The money budgeted for extending light rail could be used to add thousands of parking spaces and bus routes needed to reduce congestion.  5000 parking spaces along I-5 with bus connections into Seattle could be added each year for three years for probably less money than what ST will spend on Northgate extension during that period.  At the end of the three years, the 15,000 parking spaces and the 50 added bus routes an hour, would add the capacity of an additional highway lane without increasing congestion.  (While adding 15,000 parking spaces along I-5 may seem like a lot, developers are reportedly adding nearly 12,000 spaces in South Lake Union area.) Meanwhile the Northgate extension would still be years from initiating service.

ST could reduce the number of buses into Seattle without spending a dime on light rail extensions by adding a T/C near the University light rail station.  The T/C would allow eastside 520 transit riders access to the 9000 rph light rail capacity into Seattle and Seattleites with light rail access to 520 bus routes to east side.  Adding parking spaces and 520 bus routes from the east side would enable more eastside residents to use public transit.  Direct bus connections from the UW T/C to Bellevue and Overlake T/C would enhance Seattleites commute to the east side.

Transit times into Seattle could be minimized by eliminating either all non-transit HOV traffic or +2 HOV traffic during peak commute on one of the two HOV lanes.   The increased bus service in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into a 2-way, bus-only configuration, essentially creating a very long transit station.   Doing so would provide space for each bus route to have one or two dedicated drop-off locations on one side for egress and pick-up locations on the other side for access.  The limited number of stops would reduce transit times and the 4^th Ave location would be more convenient for most commuters. 

ST plans to extend light rail towards Federal Way and across I-90 to Bellevue and beyond are even less viable.  The two extensions would presumably split the tunnel 9000 rph capacity, doubling the north end’s high cost/capacity ratio.  Total weekday ridership on ST574, ST577/578, and ST590/595 routes into Seattle from the South averaged approximately 12,000 during 2014.  Presumably most of those rode on one of the 40 buses the three routes provided during the peak 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes.   

ST estimates their Angle Lake extension will attract “5400 riders daily coming and going”.   Since ST is planning to add only 1050 parking spaces they must assume most of the morning and afternoon light rail commuters will be those who transfer from and to buses.  Again, terminating bus routes at Angle Lake will have no effect on I-5 congestion and the only way to reduce congestion is to add both parking and bus routes. 

As with the Northgate extension, a three-year program of adding 5000 parking spaces and bus routes each year could add the equivalent of an additional highway lane.  Again, travel times could be reduced by requiring three riders for HOV lanes during peak commute and two-way 4^th Ave "transit station" to expedite egress and access in Seattle.

The East Link extension is even more absurd.  First of all, I-5 HOV congestion is a clear indication adding 4^th lanes of the outer roadways won’t have the capacity to make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  Thus closure of the center roadway will increase cross-lake vehicle congestion.  Second, the 4500 rph capacity will require 4½ hours each morning and afternoon to accommodate the 20,000 transit riders ST intends to transfer daily to and from light rail at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island stations.  Not exactly a “magnet” for attracting additional transit riders.  

Again adding 5000 parking spaces each year for three years will allow 15,000 eastside drivers to leave their cars near where they live.  Some of the I-90 parking could provide access to Bellevue and Overlake T/C routes.  Moving non-transit HOV traffic to the I-90 Bridge outer roadway will allow two-way, bus-only lanes on the center roadway with more than enough capacity to meet   future growth requirements.  Again egress and access will be facilitated by two-way 4^th Ave.  Return routes on I-90 could provide Seattleites with access to Bellevue T/C.

In conclusion the only way to reduce the area’s congestion is to increase public transit by adding parking and bus service to either light rail connections to where commuters want to go or for bus routes to those destinations.  The problem in Seattle is light rail will never have the capacity to do so while the capacity of buses, and if needed bus-only lanes, far exceeds foreseeable demand.   The fact that much can be done in three years with probably less money than would be spent on light rail during that period would seem to make it even more attractive. 

Make ST Demonstrate Modified I-90 Bridge Outer Roadway Capacity

(I sent the following to the Bellevue Reporter in response to a recent article.  I posted it and intend to send emails to others suggesting they read it.  My current planned addressees include the Sound Transit Board, Seattle Times, House and Senate Transportation Committee Members, Fox, Komo, Kiro, and King TV.  Hopefully someone will pay attention.)

Make ST Demonstrate Modified I-90 Bridge Outer Roadway Capacity

The November 13^th Bellevue Reporter included an article about Sound Transit’s second of four weekend partial closures of the I-90 bridge to implement changes required for adding 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways.  They currently don’t intend to finish the modifications and allow commuters to use the added lanes until 2017. 

ST should be “persuaded” to expedite completing the lane modifications for two reasons. The first is the 4^th lanes will reduce congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake, especially “reverse” commuters.  Any delay adds to the years of increased congestion they’ve already endured without it. 

The second benefit is far more important to cross-lake commuters.   Implementing the 4th lane would “allow” ST to temporarily close the center roadway and demonstrate the modified outer roadways can accommodate all the cross lake vehicles.  ST asserted the added lanes could do so in the 2008 DEIS:  “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.   They also convinced a federal judge in the “Freeman case” the modified outer roadway could accommodate all cross-lake vehicles; allowing them to close bridge center roadway for light rail. 

However other data dispute this contention;  The problem being allowing non-transit vehicles on HOV lanes reduces the number of transit buses, diminishing transit capacity.  One example is the Sept 2004 FHA Record of Decision for I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project” approving the R-8A configuration.   The R-8A, approved in that ROD, added the outer roadway lane, however it also required the I-90 Bridge “maintain the existing reversible operations on the center roadway”; presumably reflecting concern that the added outer roadway lane could not accommodate all the non-transit and transit vehicles. 

Another reason for concern is a chart in a May 8^th PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” presentation to the Eastside Transportation Project.  It showed I-5 HOV travel time between Everett and Seattle had increased to 75 minutes during peak morning commute and 68 minutes in the afternoon.  I-5 HOV travel times between Federal Way and Seattle had also increased dramatically.  Both presumably due to non-transit HOV traffic degrading HOV lane capacity.  

In conclusion, ST surely has an obligation to demonstrate closure of the center roadway won’t cause similar problems on the modified I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  Expediting the 4^th lanes and temporary closures of the center roadway will allow them to do so.  Their current plan to delay the lanes until it’s too late to prevent center roadway closure poses an unacceptable risk for commuters. 

Making UW Link "Work"

(Sound Transit plans to initiate UW Link operation next year prompted the following post)

Making UW Link "Work"
Sound Transit’s video of a ride on the UW link exemplifies how light rail could “work” in Seattle.  However, their ability to complete it “under budget” and “6 months ahead of schedule” is overshadowed by two blunders.  The first was their decision not to include the link as part of the original Central Link route.  The UW Link’s initial projection of 71,000 daily riders should have made it a priority.

That blunder "pales in comparison" to the long-term effects of their second blunder; not including a T/C near the UW station.  The T/C would have provided an interface between 520 BRT routes and light rail for commuters from both sides of the lake.  Eastside residents could use BRT express routes for their morning commutes from P&R lots near where they live to the T/C for access to UW and light rail into Seattle. 

Seattleites could use the returning buses for direct service from UW station to either Bellevue T/C or Overlake T/C.  The routes would be reversed in the afternoon.  The number of inbound and outbound riders would likely be similar for both morning and afternoon commutes, taking maximum advantage of both light rail and BRT capacity.  And they could begin doing so in 2016

ST instead allowed the UW to reject the T/C.  It’s not clear what the university’s objections were.  I suspect ST was “agreeable” because the T/C-via-520-BRT route to Microsoft would have detracted from the Seattle-through-Bellevue-to-“Microsoft” East Link route.  Whatever the reason, until the Northgate extension is completed in 2021, UW Link ridership will be limited to those riding between Seattle and UW station.

The $2.1B Northgate Link was initially projected to add 16,000 riders daily, some of whom previously rode Metro 41 into Seattle.  However, the 16,000-rider prediction far exceeds those with direct access to transit at Northgate.  Thus ST is going to have to spend 10's of millions to add parking and bus service to the light rail station to provide access.  Yet I've seen no mention of ST plans to do so.

The Northgate Link concerns go beyond its limited access.  ST agreed to a UW  “Master Implementation Agreement” (MIA) that “Protects research and instruction by defining levels of vibration and magnetic field (MF) thresholds which ST shall not exceed without advance approval by the University”.  The MIA also required ST make a “lump sum payment of $20,000,000” to the UW; agree “Not to commence Revenue Service on University Properties if (Vibration and MF) Thresholds are exceeded; and gives the UW Board of Regents “ultimate approval authority on design, mitigation and monitoring plans required of ST under the MIA”. 

The bottom line is rather than insisting on a UW T/C that could have added thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake ST agreed to a UW MIA that epitomizes their “High cost/minuscule benefit” approach to the entire light rail program, but especially to their Prop 1 extensions.

Sound Transit's "Curious" Ridership Numbers

Sound Transit’s ridership numbers in their various reports have always been rather “curious”.  For example their 2014-year-end quarterly reports “average weekday ridership” as 32,924 and total yearly ridership as 10,950,276.  However, if you multiply the “weekday” ridership by the number of weekdays (260) you get 8,560,240 or 78% of total.  The other 2,390,036 yearly riders must have used light rail on the 104 weekend days for an average of 22,981 riders.  That seems rather “high” for Saturdays and Sundays.  

The Sound Transit projection their “University Link will add 71,000 riders to the system by 2030, "bringing the system-wide total to 114,000” is also “curious”.    It “suggests” that Central Link will only have 43,000 daily riders in 2030.  Not exactly optimistic since their 2018 projection for their Angle Lake Station adds “5,400 daily riders coming and going”.    ST makes up for that lack of “optimism” with their 71,000-rider claim for the UW extension.

The 71,000-claim raises two questions.  First, one would have thought an extension that tripled the ridership would have a high priority.  Why wait until 2016 to begin operating the UW extension?  Second, where will all the riders come from?  It’s difficult to believe those commuting between Seattle and UW will be more than a fraction of that number. 

The UW Link could have added thousands of riders if ST had included a T/C near the UW station.  The T/C would have provided an interface between 520 BRT and Central Link for thousands of riders from both sides of the lake.  (The UW T/C would have twice the capacity of what ST can achieve with their plans to use South Bellevue and Mercer Island T/C's to transfer all I-90 cross-lake bus riders to East Link).  It would have generated more ridership than what ST will get from the billions they'll spend on Central Link extensions to Northgate and beyond. 

Other ridership numbers are even more “curious”.  For example the ST Table 1 “Sound Transit Ridership” from the 2015 Financial Plan (June 2015) predicts that Link Light Rail ridership will increase from 10.9 million in 2014 to 84.1 million in 2030.   Assuming 78% of the yearly ridership is on weekdays, 78% of the 84.1 million riders during 260 weekdays in 2030 would require 252,300 riders daily, 90,000 more than the combination of the 114,000 Central Link and 50,000 (also "curious") East Link predictions.

As “curious” as their June 2015 financial plan ridership predictions are, the Aug 5 Green bond announcement prediction is even “curiouser”.  That announcement, which presumably reflected what ST told investors, predicted daily ridership would be 350,000 by 2030.  It’s “likely” those buying the bonds will not be “pleased” with the 186,000-rider discrepancy and the potential loss in “fare box revenue”.  

It’s not clear whether Sytemalytics evaluated the financial as well as the environmental details.  Like everything else about Sound Transit, somebody should have.      

The Absurdity of Sound Transit's "Green" Bond Claim

(Earlier this morning I emailed Sustainalytics a copy of the following.  I’ll post any response if and when they do so.)

The Absurdity of Sound Transit’s “Green” Bond Claim

Sound Transit’s 2016 Proposed Budget included news they had issued $1 billion in new “Green” bonds in 2015.  The details of the bond sale were contained in an Aug 5 announcement:

 

The sale represents the world’s largest municipal sale of green bonds, which are a rising trend in the financial industry that offers the ability to invest in bonds that advance environmental sustainability.

They supported their claim with the following

The bond issuance is fully compliant with International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Green Bond Principles, validated through an independent opinion commissioned from Sustainalytics. The firm concluded “investors in Sound Transit green bonds can be fairly confident that their investments will result in positive environmental impact.”

Whoever this Sustainalytics firm is, their conclusion “investors in Sound Transit green bonds can be fairly confident that their investments will result in positive environmental impact” is debunked by reality.  For example Sound Transit has already devastated 112^th Ave, turning a tree-lined boulevard, part of what made Bellevue the “city in the park”, into a transportation nightmare. Hardly a positive impact!   

Any competent environmental review would have also quickly concluded Sound Transit made a mockery of the federal environmental review process when they told the FHWA and FTA light rail noise would have no impact on the Mercer Slough Park at the same time they were planning to spend millions shielding properties some 300 ft away and across a major roadway from this non-existent noise.  No competent reviewer would consider the resultant loss of the quiet solitude of the park a “positive environmental impact.”

Sustainalytic’s credibility is further degraded by their presumed concurrence with the following statement by Sound Transit Board Chair and King County Executive Dow Constantine extolling light rail environmental benefits to investors with the following:

 “They need look no further than these green bonds, which will fund transportation projects that increase commuters' mobility while reducing reliance on cars.”

The ST claim light rail in Seattle will “increase commuters’ mobility while reducing reliance on cars” is sheer fantasy.  This area’s roadway congestion, like most congestion, is due to too many non-transit vehicles for the limited number of highway lanes.  Other than adding highway lanes the obvious solution is to convince more “drivers” to become “transit riders”. 

Rather than attracting “drivers”, ST is spending billions on Central Link light rail extensions to light rail stations where the vast majority with access will be former bus “riders”.  The resultant reduction in the number of buses on I-5 will have no impact on congestion (nor environment) 

East Link will actually increase I-90 congestion.  The ST 4^th lane additions to the I-90 outer roadways (R-8A configuration) won’t have the capacity for both non-transit and transit HOV traffic.  Thus closure of the center roadway in 2017 will increase I-90 congestion.  When East Link does begin operation ST plans to use light rail trains to replace all the cross-lake buses, refusing to recognize reducing the number of buses on the outer roadway will have a minuscule impact on congestion.

They compound that problem by refusing to recognize East Link’s one 4-car train-every-8-minute operating schedule won’t have the capacity to accommodate all the transit riders during the peak commute.  Thus East Link operation will further increase I-90 congestion because former transit riders will be forced to drive rather than ride.  

Again, even a cursory review would have concluded light rail in Seattle will not “increase commuters mobility while reducing reliance on cars” belying any claim for “Green”.

Sound Transit Funding Problems

(Sound Transit's 2016 Propose Budget prompted the following post.) 

Sound Transit Funding Problems

Sound Transit’s 2016 Proposed Budget included news they had issued $1 billion in new bonds in 2015.   They netted $600 million in new funds from the sale after paying off earlier bonds.  Their 2015 budget proposal had not included their intentions to do so suggesting the decision to obtain additional funds by increasing bond indebtedness in August was more recent. 

The bond sale included fixed-rate bonds paying 3.88% and approximately $150 million in variable rate bonds.  Thus the bonds will require nearly $40M annually just to pay the interest.  (The 3.88% interest seemed rather lucrative for presumably tax-free municipal bonds.)  No mention was made as to when the $1B bonds would be redeemed.  The 2015 budget also didn’t include ST plans for obtaining additional funding via a $1.3B January loan.  That loan will require ST pay nearly $50M annually until 2058.

I don’t recall seeing anything in the Times about ST increasing their bond indebtedness and they chose to put the news “Sound Transit takes out loan” in “Around the Northwest” on page B2, next to the obituaries on a Sunday paper.  ST had earlier indicated they would need to borrow $6.6B more by 2023 unless they obtained some additional funding to finish the Prop 1 extensions.  Presumably the $600M netted from the bond sale is just the initial installment.

ST claims their ST3 package they’ll be asking voters to approve next fall are for extensions beyond Prop 1.  The reality is they will likely need the $1B annually from ST3 approval, beginning in 2017, to pay for Prop 1 extensions.  Voter rejection of ST3 would require they either borrow or issue new bonds to obtain the $1B annually for the next 6 years.  My guess is neither would be attractive to the financial market.