Paying for "Pay to Park"

The “Pay to Park” concept is based on finding those willing to pay $250 monthly or $3000 annually for an assigned parking space.  Those who currently drive or car pool will have to leave their car someplace.  They may pay or their employer may provide them with parking. 

If the commuter pays the parking, the fees near where they “work” will likely be far higher than $250 a month near where they “live”.   Thus not only will pay to park reduce the commuters’ parking costs it saves wear and tear on their car, and the stress of driving.  (When I commuted by bus I enjoyed reading the paper on the way to work and a little “snooze” on the way home.)  

If the employer provides the parking, their costs for doing so in Seattle, Bellevue, or Overlake are also likely far higher.  Thus many employers would welcome the chance to pay for assigned parking spaces for employees near where they live.  Their employees would welcome the opportunity to avoid the costs not only of parking but also of commuting.

All the major employers in the area need to be surveyed to determine their willingness to pay.   All their employees need to be surveyed as to whether and where they would like to leave their car and when and where they would like to go.  Also whether commuters if asked to pay would do so.

My guess is Sound Transit could easily find thousands of commuters or their employers willing to pay the $3000 annually for 100,000 parking spaces over the next 5 years.  The $300 Million would fully pay for 30 million miles of bus service with the capacity to increase transit ridership by 500,000 a day.  Again after the initial 5 years they could continue to do so for as long as it takes to meet commuter demands.  (And they could do it without spending a dime on light rail extensions.)

By comparison Sound Transit’s 2016 budget for Express Bus Service anticipated roughly 12 million miles of revenue service with ~$36 million in fare box revenue providing only 28% of operating costs.   With "Pay to Park" the ones playing for transit are the commuters who use it.  With ST3 most of the transit costs are paid by those who rarely if ever use it.  

Rejecting ST3 may force them to seriously consider "Pay to Park", a far better option than allowing them to spend $54 billion and 25 years on "Prop 1 and beyond" light rail extensions.

Eyman ST3 Opposition Welcome

As one who has been opposed to Sound Transit’s Prop 1 since I recognized their promises to voters in the 2008 DEIS were sheer fantasy, I welcome Tim Eyman’s opposition to ST3.  I urged him at the April Eastside Republicans Club meeting to visit this blog as part of his $30 dollar car tab campaign.  I have no idea whether it played any part in his decision to co-write the anti ST3 statement. 

The real absurdity is the People for Smarter Transit calling the Eyman opposition “an attempt to poison the issue”.   First of all I’m surprised the agency’s governing board would have selected Eyman to write the statement against ST3.  Second I’m surprised the Seattle Times would choose to write a front page article about the Smarter Transit opposition to the Eyman statement. 

Particularly since the Seattle Times has ignored the more than 300 posts I’ve referred them to dealing with Sound Transit’s total failure to deal with the area’s transportation.  Apparently any “Special to the Times” or other submissions by the People for Smarter Transit would have been welcome.  Yet I don’t recall seeing any editorial page submissions detailing their organization’s opposition to Prop 1 or ST3.

While I look forward to reading the Eyman opposition in the voter’s pamphlet, my 200 words would have said the following:

The problem with ST3 is it enables Sound Transit to proceed with Prop 1 light rail extensions the vast majority of commuters will never be able to use due to limits on light rail trains through Seattle Tunnel.   A 2004 PSRC report concluded light rail capacity would be limited to 8880 riders per hour through the tunnel with half that to East Link and SeaTac.   As a result, the ST3 funds spent on the “light rail spine” will do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion along the area's major roadways.

Sound Transit could use existing Prop 1 funds (i.e. without ST3) to add 20,000 parking spaces a year with express bus service to T/Cs in Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake for as long as it takes to meet commuter demand.   Commuters have to park their car someplace.  Giving them the option of doing so near where they live rather than where they work is the only way to ease the congestion on the area's roadways.

While rejecting ST3 may or may not force Sound Transit to consider added parking and bus service, ST3 approval will certainly result in $54 billion and 25 years wasted on light rail. 

More on Pay to Park

This post provides more details about the previous post’s suggestion that the way to ease congestion is for Sound Transit to use their current Prop 1 funding to add 20,000 parking spaces at P&R lots each year for the next five years.  Each P&R lot would provide access to free BRT rides to T/Cs in Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake.  The operating costs for the buses would be covered by those willing to pay a $250 monthly or $3000 annual fee for an assigned parking space. They could use the space whenever they wish, share it with others when not needed, or car pool to the space with neighbors.

Commuters currently within walking distance of transit or using one of the ~20,000 parking spaces in P&R lots around the area to access transit could continue to do so.   The 20,000 new spaces added each year for “Pay to Park” (doubling current level) could be divided between 10 new P&R lots.  Depending on demand, two or three would be along the I-5 corridor between Everett and Seattle, one or two along I-405 between Lynnwood and Bellevue, and two each along south I-5, I-90 and SR520 corridors. 

If the distance from P&R to T/C were 10 miles, the $20,000 daily parking fees for each 2000 space P&R could pay the total operating costs for 50 bus routes for two twenty-mile morning and afternoon inbound and outbound round trips.  Longer commutes would have fewer bus routes or require higher parking fees or some subsidy to cover operating costs. 

The 50 bus routes could provide each P&R with its own dedicated BRT service to and from the desired T/Cs.  Each bus route could accommodate more than100 riders leaving plenty of room for those not needing parking.  Depending on commuter demand, each of the P&R lots between Everett and Seattle could have different splits between BRT I-5 routes into and out of Seattle and along I-405 to and from Bellevue and Overlake.  While most of the routes would be during the peak commute, those having different schedules could be assured of a parking space and less frequent bus service to and from destination.   Those using “Pay to Park” along other corridors would have similar options.    

The 20,000 parking spaces and 250 buses added annually for five years could provide 100,000 parking spaces with more than 5000 new daily bus routes between P&R lots and destinations.  The capacity and the resulting ridership would dwarf any rationale ridership estimate for Sound Transit's $54 billion 25-year ST3 "Prop 1 and Beyond" light rail extensions at a fraction of the cost and time.   

Minimizing the Area's Roadway Congestion

The previous post and the following were prompted by a recent trip to the Aspen/Snowmass area that features free bus rides.   I submitted it to the Times as a “Special to the editor” but have posted it since they will likely ignore it.

Minimizing the Area’s Roadway Congestion

The way to reduce the congestion on the area’s major roadways is to offer free transit from all the major P&R lots to T/Cs on 4^th Ave in Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake.  Rather than paying for the ride commuters will pay a monthly or annual fee for an assigned parking space.  Those within walking distance or who can be dropped off at P&R could ride free. 

Sound Transit’s ST3 proposal to spend $54 billion and 25 years on “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions will never provide the needed capacity, the access to even its limited capacity, or the route flexibility needed.  Instead they should allocate funds to add 20,000 parking spaces and connecting bus routes each year for as long as it takes to reduce congestion.  

Each P&R lot would have its own BRT connection to and from the various T/Cs.   All those who regularly commute into Seattle, Bellevue, or Overlake area will be surveyed to determine if, when, and where they would like to leave their car, where they would want to go, and how much they would be willing to pay.    Use this information to prioritize where to add the parking, and when and where to route the buses. 

Commuters would likely welcome the chance to pay $250 a month or $3000 annually for an assigned parking space.  They could use it whenever they want, share its use (and cost) with others, or carpool with neighbors to and from the P&R. 

A Sound Transit bus costs approximately $10 per mile to operate (per 2016 budget).  Thus, the $200,000 parking fees from the 20,000 parking spaces would cover operating costs for 20,000 bus miles daily.   If the average distance between P&R and T/C were 10 miles, the $200,000 would cover the complete cost of 500 daily 40-total-bus miles required for inbound and outbound trips.  The 500 buses could easily accommodate 50,000 daily riders leaving ample room for those not required to pay.

Longer commutes would either require higher parking fees or less frequent service if P&R fees are required to cover operating costs.  (By comparison, Sound Transit’s approach to use fare box revenue rather than parking only covers 28% of bus operating costs (Per 2016 budget)).    

Assuming the average cost for a parking space is $40,000 and each bus can make 2 round trips during the morning and afternoon commutes, the 20,000 parking spaces and the 250 buses required will likely cost  ~$1.2 billion annually.  However, it would require no subsidy to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating cost. 

Sound Transit could spend ~ $6B over the next 5 years adding 100,000 parking spaces and BRT service that would dramatically reduce congestion and require no subsidy to cover operating costs.  While transit may not be the answer for all commuters.  "Free rides" will minimize the congestion.  And they could do so without ST3.  Compare that with Sound Transit’s alternative.

Paying for Transit Without ST3

The only way to reduce the area's congestion is to provide commuters the option of using transit.  They can either live within walking distance of transit, be dropped off near transit, or use parking near transit.   All of the existing parking spaces used by commuters in the area are essentially full.  Since most will have to use parking, significantly reducing congestion requires adding parking.

The problem is the $40,000 or more cost of providing parking for a single rider dwarfs any potential rider fare revenue. Sound Transit’s ST3 budget simply ignores the need for added parking.  They apparently intend to route existing buses to light rail stations rather than add transit capacity, minimizing any congestion benefits.  Even if they added the parking, the limited capacity means the vast majority of commuters would still have to drive to work.

Sound Transit needs to be “persuaded” to spend the Prop 1 taxes to add thousands of parking spaces throughout the area rather than on light rail extensions.  Commuters would pay for parking rather than for transit.  Each commuter would pay a monthly or yearly fee for an assigned parking space for his car and ride free.  Those who didn’t need the parking space could also ride free since the loss in fare box revenue pales in comparison to the cost of providing the parking. 

After all, buses are not that expensive to operate.  It costs Sound Transit about $10 per mile to operate a bus. (vs $25 for light rail cars) Thus a 40 mile round trip would cost $400.  If 80 of the riders from P&R lots paid $10 a day for parking (and ride), the revenue would match the operating costs for the morning and afternoon commutes, far exceeding Sound Transits 2016 budgeted 28.4 % fare-box recovery.  Obviously shorter round trips make the "pay to park" rather than "pay to ride" benefits even more favorable.

Sound Transit could add 100,000 parking spaces and added buses over the next 5 years without ST3 for far less than what they will spend on light rail extensions.   Commuters have to park their car someplace.  Allowing them to pay for parking near where they live rather than where they work reduces congestion for everyone.  It can all be done without ST3 funding.  All it takes is to "persuade" Sound Transit to add parking rather than light rail extensions.  Rejecting ST3 "may" convince them to do so.

The Environmentalist's Transit Solution

One of the purported advantages of light rail is the environmental improvement from reducing the daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  While true, the Seattle tunnel restricts the ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond light rail” extension capacity and severely limits any potential VMT reduction. 

The real “environmental solution” for our area is to reduce VMT by allowing more commuters the option of parking their car near where they live and ride high capacity buses on BRT routes to near where they want to go.   Since all of the current P&R lots are essentially already full, Sound Transit needs to allocate the funds to add thousands of parking spaces at existing and new P&R facilities throughout the area.  At $50,000 or more per space the billions required represent a major expenditure.  (Even with their limited capacity, ST3 light rail extensions will require spending hundreds of millions, as yet un-budgeted, for added parking with connecting buses to light rail stations.)

The “environmental solution” along I-5 to Everett is to end Central Link at a T/C near the UW stadium station.  Use the Northgate and beyond light rail funds to add thousands of parking spaces along the I-5 corridor to Everett.  Use East Link funds for West Link light rail to West Seattle.  Doing so would eliminate the environmental problems from vehicle congestion on I-90 Bridge from center roadway closure.  West Link capacity could serve as a supplement to bus transit across West Seattle Bridge.  (Its population density would minimize the need for added parking.)  Drop southend extensions beyond Angle lake.

Use more light rail funds to add thousands of parking spaces on the eastside along SR 520, I-405, and I-90 corridors.  The UW T/C would provide thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake with light rail/520 BRT connections.   South-Lake-Union type streetcars with connections to Bellevue T/C would replace Bel-Red light rail.

Once Sound Transit added the needed parking, high capacity BRT buses would each be routed from one or two P&R lots along limited access roadway lanes to destinations.  Along I-5 from Everett one of the two “express lanes” would be limited to buses only or +3 HOV traffic during peak commute.  Along SR520, I-405 and south I-5 the peak hour HOV lanes would be limited to buses and +3 HOV.   The I-90 Bridge center roadway would be divided into inbound and outbound bus only lanes. 

Commuter egress and access in Seattle would be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated bus-only T/C with one or two designated drop off and pick up locations on both sides for each route depending on direction.  . 

Not only would BRT dramatically reduce the area’s VMT they could do so using hydrogen powered buses.  Some version of hydrogen fuel cells or highly pressurized or liquefied hydrogen fueled engines could minimize transit CO2 emissions.  Several California cities are currently evaluating buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells.  Oakland for instance is currently using hydrogen fuel cell powered buses to supplement BART. 

While early in the development the potential environment benefits of high capacity, essentially pollution-free transit merit more consideration.  Especially since we have ample “carbon free” hydroelectric power here to produce the hydrogen.  While light rail is also pollution free its limited capacity means the vast majority of commuters will still have to drive or attempt to find parking with access to buses.   

While those buses could also use hydrogen fuel cells, spending $54 billion on light rail extensions with so little benefit fails any rationale cost/benefit analysis.  Taking 25 years to do so when the added parking and bus service could begin next year and likely completed within 5-7 years at a fraction of the cost is absurd.  Rejecting ST3 could prevent it.

Light Rail Not Obsolete Just Lacks Capacity Here

My first glance at Bryan Mistele’s “Special to the Times” on the July 10^th editorial page “Sound Transit’s expansion will be obsolete before it’s built” suggested the paper had once again gone from “cheer leader to critic” regarding ST3.  It included the following criticism of the $54 billion proposed expansion:

 “As proposed, it would be constructed over the next 25 years and is projected to provide transit an additional 1 percent of daily trips by 2040.”

While I agree ST3 will have a miniscule effect on congestion, I’m not sure where he got the “1% increase” in transit and I disagree with his objection to ST3 that “light rail may be obsolete before the ribbons are cut”.  The problem with ST3 is not because light rail will be obsolete, it works very well in San Francisco as BART and countless other cities and is unlikely to be "obsolete in 25 years".  It’s because the Seattle tunnel prevents the ST3 Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions from ever having the capacity needed to significantly reduce congestion.

There are two ways to reduce congestion.  You either add highway lanes or you increase the capacity of existing lanes.  Mistele’s INRIX proposes to increase lane capacity with ACES an acronym for  “autonomous, connected, electric, and shared vehicles".   Autonomous vehicles purportedly reduce congestion “by allowing vehicles to drive more closely”.  “Connected” drivers can use the internet to avoid roadways which are “congested”.  “Electric vehicles” may not reduce congestion but will decrease vehicle emissions.  “Shared vehicles like “Uber and Lyft reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles coming into the city”. 

It’s difficult to see how any of the four ACES will significantly increase capacity on any of the major roadways into Seattle.  I’m dubious any improvement because autonomous cars “can drive more closely” would significantly reduce congestion. Especially since any improvement would presumably require all the cars on the roadway be autonomous. Not likely to happen for a very long time. 

The “Internet Connection” is unlikely to help those forced to use I-5, I-90, or I-405 to avoid congestion during peak commute.  Electric vehicles don’t reduce congestion and its unlikely many commuters will use “shared vehicles” like Uber and Lyft for their daily commutes. 

While the car pool version of “shared vehicles” can reduce congestion the only way to significantly do so is to attract more commuters to high capacity buses.   If reducing emissions is the goal use engines running on liquified hydrogen (or hydrogen fuel cells) to power the buses.   Particularly since we can use our ample sources of “carbon free” hydroelectric power to provide the liquefied hydrogen rather than sending it to other states.   

In conclusion, while there are ample reasons to vote against ST3, light rail obsolescence isn't one of them.  High capacity buses are the only way to provide the capacity needed to reduce the congestion on the area’s roadways.  The environmental benefit from using hydrogen to power the buses is just an extra bonus.  

Why ST3 Can’t Reduce Congestion

A PSRC 2015 “Stuck in Traffic: 2014 Report” details the thousands of hours commuters are delayed by congestion on the area’s freeways.  Even those able to use HOV lanes are experiencing 75-minute commutes between Everett and Seattle and 55 minutes between Federal Way and Seattle.

The report’s “Commute Mode Share” chart shows that roughly 85% rode in cars, with ~10% of those in car pools, while ~10% used transit.  The obvious way to reduce delays for everyone is to convince more of those who ride cars to switch to transit.   The best way to do so is to provide them with the option of leaving their car at a P&R near where they live with access to transit with capacity to take them to near where they work.

The problem with the parking part of the solution is that the approximate 20,000 spaces in P&R lots in Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties for those commuting to Seattle or Bellevue are essentially already “in use”.  Thus thousands of added parking spaces are needed at existing or new P&R lots to attract additional transit commuters.  Yet neither Prop 1 nor ST3 include the billions required for the additional 50,000 or more parking spaces needed.  (While that seems like a lot commuters have to park their car someplace and it’s likely to be cheaper near where the live rather than where they work)

Once they provide the added parking reducing congestion requires providing commuters with access to transit with sufficient capacity to take them to within acceptable distance of where they want to go. The two options are routing the connecting buses to light rail stations or routing them directly into Seattle (or Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs).   Buses benefit from having the flexibility to be used on routes that don’t justify light rail service.  More importantly light rail in Seattle doesn’t have the capacity needed to significantly reduce congestion.

A 2004 PSRC report concluded the tunnel limits Prop 1 maximum capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction. They based that capacity on their conclusion the tunnel limited light rail to one 4-car train every 4 minutes and that the 74-seat cars can reasonably accommodate 148 riders.  Assuming that capacity is split between East Link and south Central Link limits their capacity to 4440 rph each.  These light rail capacities are less than what’s currently available with buses.

At best Sound Transit could continue with current bus routes and use light rail to increase transit capacity.  They would still have to provide the as yet unfunded added parking with bus routes to light rail stations.  The limited capacity also means light rail cars could be full before they reach some of the light rail stations nearer Seattle during peak commute.  

Sound Transit could achieve the increased capacity of light rail in Seattle for a fraction of its cost by adding BRT routes from the added parking   A 70 ft articulated bus can accommodate a total of 119 sitting and standing riders.  Each bus can be routed from one or two P&R lots directly into Seattle.  Eighty such buses an hour would more than match Central Link capacity along north I-5 and forty would match East Link and south Central Link capacity. 

The benefits of potential BRT capacity go way beyond simply matching light rail.  A bus-only lane can accommodate more than 900 buses an hour.  If one of the two I-5 HOV lanes between Everett and Seattle were limited to buses during the peak commute, transit capacity would exceed 100,000 rph, dwarfing foreseeable requirements.  The only limit would be the needed parking and buses.      

The same capacity would be available on the I-90 Bridge center roadway if it were divided into inbound and outbound BRT lanes rather than light rail.  (Sound Transit plans for light rail on center roadway will increase cross-lake congestion for vehicles.) Less frequent BRT service on SR 520 Bridge and Central Link south of Seattle could be facilitated with +3HOV requirement during peak commute. Egress and access for all the bus routes in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated bus-only T/C with one or two designated drop off and pick up locations for each BRT route 

The bottom line is without additional funding for parking and bus routes to light rail stations Sound Transit’s $54 billion ST3 package will have a “miniscule” effect on congestion.   That even with this additional funding ST3 won’t have the capacity to significantly reduce congestion and pales in comparison to what could be achieved with BRT in a fraction of the time and for a fraction of the cost.

Seattle Times back to “Cheer Leading” ST3

July 3^rd marks the 3-month anniversary of an April 3rd Seattle Times editorial that prompted me to post “The beginning of the end of ST3” on this blog.  The editorial began with the following:

Expanding rail, bus transit is tantalizing, but questions must be clearly answered first.

It included the following excerpts:

Constantine exaggerated, using Sound Transit numbers to present a best-case scenario for rail while grossly undercounting freeway capacity. That may rally transit supporters, but it doesn’t help the rest of us trying to get our heads around the staggering investment the third phase of Sound Transit could require.

Public officials cannot prematurely dismiss questions about whether there are better ways for the region to spend $50 billion than the slate of trains, buses and stations in Sound Transit 3 (ST3). 

Former state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald has estimated  ST3 would bring the overall transportation taxes and fees paid by the typical Seattle household to nearly $2,800 per year.

The point is voters need their representatives to provide clear, objective explanations of ST3’s pros and cons, not cheerleading.  Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified.

The overarching question, though, is: What’s the best solution to improve mobility in a region expected to grow by 1 million people over the next 25 years?

Wading through this is a lot to ask of voters. So let’s not make it any harder by politicking.

As the April 4^th post indicated I thought the editorial was an indication the Times had switched from “cheer leader” to “critic”.  There never would have been an ST3 without the Times "cheer leading" passage of a "transportation package" in the legislature last year.  That the Times as "critic" would “diminish” ST3 chances.

The editorial at least “suggested” the paper’s support was contingent on Sound Transit providing some sort of “Special to the Times” in response to the concerns.   The “Beginning of the end of ST3” post was based on the conclusion that any response from Sound Transit would never be sufficient to merit the paper’s support. 

However, it’s now been three months since the April 3^rd editorial with at least no Sound Transit response in the paper.  The Times has gone back to its “cheer leader” role with their June 24^th headline uncritically heralding, “Region’s voters are next stop for $54 billion light-rail plan”. 

They’ve even gone to headlines like “Home prices higher near light rail” ignoring the fact Sound Transit has spent millions “sound proofing” homes 300 feet from Central Link tracks and plans to spend millions more shielding properties across Bellevue Way and 112^th Ave, hundreds of feet from East Link noise.

I leave it to others to speculate as to whether Sound Transit’s likely extensive advertising budget “influenced” the paper reverting back to "cheer leading".  Residents throughout the area will pay a heavy price for a very long time if it results in ST3 approval.