Seattle Times Still Doesn’t “Get ST3 Problem”

The October 28^th Seattle Times editorial “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority” exemplifies the fact they still don’t understand the real problem with ST3.  The ST3 problem is not that it will allow Sound Transit to extend taxes some 25 or 30 years from now.  The problem with ST3 is it allows Sound Transit to spend billions beginning next January over the next 15 years extending light rail tracks for a light system that is routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  

In 2004 the PSRC concluded the DSTT limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour (RPH).  They apparently based that capacity on the assumption that the tunnel station lengths limited each train to 4 cars, that safe operating procedures required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains, and that each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders. 

While others may disagree with some of the assumptions any rational analysis would conclude light rail through the DSTT will never have the capacity to accommodate the number of riders needed to significantly reduce congestion on either I-5 or I-90.  Thus it makes no sense for Sound Transit to spend the hundreds of millions per mile on light rail extensions beyond the UW stadium light rail station, across the I-90 Bridge to Overlake, and beyond SeaTac to Federal Way.    (It presumably costs the same to extend light rail tracks for 4-car trains as for 10-car trains (ala BART)).

The SeaTac and East Link extensions, having to share the DSTT capacity, are particularly nonsensical in terms of cost/capacity.  East Link, which confiscates the I-90 Bridge center roadway, will have about half the current cross-lake transit capacity.  Even worse, a 2004 FHWA ROD concluded adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways for HOV (R-8A) did not make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  Yet, Sound Transit has no plans to temporarily close center roadway and demonstrate outer roadways have needed capacity.  The Times apparently is either unaware of the potential congestion problem or unconcerned.

They’re also apparently no longer concerned Sound Transit has failed to provide “Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified”, something they requested in a 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers”.  Any rational review of BRT would conclude it had far more capacity, at far less cost, far sooner than light rail. 

The Times also doesn't recognize part of Sound Transit’s “Prop 1 and Beyond” ST3 problem is it fails to provide access to even its limited capacity.  Those living within, or able to find parking within, walking distance of likely light rail stations are only a fraction of the numbers required to reduce current I-5 or I-90 corridor congestion.  (Most of those are already riding buses.) The fact that “future growth” could provide more riders doesn’t change the fact that current commuters need better access.  

Thus if Sound Transit wants to use the proposed light rail extension capacity to increase rather than simply replace transit capacity they will have to route buses to light rail stations from P&R lots.    However all the existing P&R lots with reasonable access to I-5 and I-90 are essentially already full.  Yet ST3 makes no provisions for adding the hundreds of millions required to provide the $40-50,000 per-space P&R lots.   If they did manage to add the parking the limited light rail capacity would still preclude any significant congestion reduction over what could be achieved by routing the buses directly to Seattle.

The Times also seems unconcerned about the costs associated with operating light rail trains on ST3 light rail extensions.  Sound Transit’s 2016 budget anticipated fare box revenue would provide 28.5% of light rail operating costs.  They estimated average trip lengths would be ~ 17 miles.  Presumably operating costs would increase directly with trip lengths. 

Part II of Sound Transits July 13, 2015 Expert Review Panel (ERP) provides the ST3 Financial Plan detailing their sources of revenue and use of funds up to the year 2060.  One assumption on the revenue side was fare box revenue would provide 40% of operating costs.  Its not clear what the average trip lengths would be with ST3, but the added 100 miles of track would surely increase them “substantially”. 

Increasing fare box recovery to 40% of the “substantially” increased operating costs would seem to require a “substantial” increase in tolls.  Not only are they apparently anticipating increasing tolls, their June 2015 financial plan predicts thousands more will be willing to pay predicting ridership will increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030.  Again, the Times is either unaware of, or unconcerned with, this “optimism”.  The "likely" result will be a huge subsidy (ST3 taxes?) will be required to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs for far into the future.   Sound Transit may need to make use of one of the more interesting provisions in the ERP presentation: “Sound Transit determines the optimal debt-to-equity ratio”.   

The Times suggests if ST3 is rejected “Sound Transit should return with a measure specifying which taxes would be terminated and when”.  They apparently don’t understand the impact of Sound Transits plans for East Link beginning in January.  They include a closure of the south Bellevue P&R that will result in all the other eastside P&R lots being full well before many “transit hopefuls“ arrive.  Beginning construction that will require closures creating a nightmare for those living or commuting along Bellevue Way.  Closing the I-90 Bridge center roadway without demonstrating the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways (R-8A) can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. 

Its unlikely those affected will be more likely to support ST3 because they know which taxes will be terminated and when.

Make Sound Transit Delay East Link

A page 3 article in the Fall/Winter edition of the "Bellevue, It’s your City” news letter, “January start anticipated for East Link construction in south Bellevue” provides the first clear indication of what East Link construction will be like for east side residents.  (I’ll leave it to others to decide whether Bellevue City Council choosing that venue rather than the more widely read Bellevue Reporter was due to the council's ST3 support)

It clarifies that Sound Transit has simply ignored their MOU agreement to provide replacement parking and connecting bus routes for those using the P&R.  Their solutions, “incentives that encourage transit as a commute option, advertising alternate P&R lots and providing transit route information” will surely result in all the remaining east side P&R lots being full well before many arrive.

Most of the article deals with the impact from the construction along Bellevue Way from the P&R lot to 112^th Ave.  The planned closures will create a nightmare for those who live in or commute in the area.  The proposed solution, “a traffic committee has proposed mitigation tools (e.g. turn restrictions) to be in place during East Link construction” seems “less than sufficient”.

Clearly, transit commuters and those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue deserve a second look at East Link.  They are not alone!  Anyone who commutes across the I-90 Bridge should be aware of the potential impact from Sound Transit’s I-90 Bridge center roadway closure next year.  They will be able to close the roadway because they convinced a federal judge (Freeman litigation) that it wasn’t needed for vehicles once the 4^th lanes (R-8A) were added to the outer bridge roadways for HOV.  Yet the document they cited, a Sept. 2004 FHWA ROD, stipulated the center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles. 

Sound Transit surely needs to demonstrate the outer roadways will have the needed capacity by temporarily closing the center roadway once they finish adding the outer roadway lanes.  Yet they currently have no plans to do so.  The outer roadway capacity is particularly critical since Sound Transit has yet to explain how their schedule for East Link operation, one four car train every 8 minutes, has more than about half the current I-90 transit capacity.  The remaining buses will only add to the outer roadway congestion.

An even more fundamental concern is the ability of the I-90 Bridge to withstand the loads from light rail trains.  (No one else has every attempted to install light rail on a “floating bridge”.)  Last August, a Seattle Times article indicated Sound Transit had signed a $20 million contract to complete the design, an extension to an earlier $38 million contract.  As of a March Sound Transit Board meeting update they were at 90% completion.  They may have finished the design though don’t recall seeing anything in the media.  If not they surely need to do so before their January actions in Bellevue. 

All of the above concerns apply if ST3 is approved.  Rejection raises a whole new level of concern: the financial viability of not only East Link but all of Sound Transits Prop 1 extensions. The additional $1.7 billion they were able to obtain in 2015 via loans and bonds will likely fund at least part of their future needs. 

They need to explain what additional funds they need and how they intend to get them.  They also need to explain if they do get the added funds, how they intend to pay them off given the huge increase in operating costs with four to five times the number of high-operating-cost-per-mile light rail cars and the added 60 miles of track. 

Their July 13, 2015 Expert Review Panel presentation made the rather “optimistic” assessment that fare box revenue would provide 40% of the increased operating costs.  Their predicted fare box revenue for 2016 was 28.5% of operating costs with ~17 miles of track.  The major reason for the "optimistic" fare box revenue increase is the even more dubious (optimistic?) assessment in Sound Transit’s June 2015 Financial Planning document that light rail ridership would increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030. 

Someone other than Sound Transit should be selected by the State Auditor to make an independent estimate of both fare box recovery with the longer route lengths and ridership projections reflecting the limits imposed on light rail by the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and Sound Transit's failure to spend the hundreds of millions required for parking and buses needed to provide access to light rail stations and even this limited capacity.

The bottom line is resolving all of the above concerns will take some time.  However, it’s unlikely the required delays would significantly affect the completion dates of any of the projects.   East side residents surely deserve to have them resolved before Sound Transit is allowed to proceed with their plans for January.  (They've delayed adding the 4th lanes for 10 years, something that would have benefitted commuters from both sides of the lake.)  Forcing them to delay East Link is the only way to do so.

Stopping ST3 is Not Enough

I was more than a “little surprised” with the Oct 20^th Seattle Times editorial “Reject Sound Transit 3”.  Their front-page Oct 13^th article “The Truth Needle” extolling the veracity of Sound Transit claims seemed a sure prelude to their ultimate decision to support approval.  Instead the recent decision likely ends any chance for ST3.  

The Time’s concern about household costs, limited benefits, and permanent tax authority are well founded, but hardly new.  An April 3^rd Times editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” raised those concerns six months ago.   This despite the fact in 2015 they’d urged the legislature allow Sound Transit ask voters to approve an additional billion dollars a year in taxes and fees for the next 15 years.

The editorial’s claim “Sound Transit already has funding to build a bus-and-rail network that will handle most of the region’s transit demand though 2040” may be “overly optimistic”.   First it makes one wonder why they advocated for passing the enabling legislation in 2015.  Second, it assumes Sound Transit 2 “wlll handle most of the region’s transit demand through 2040”.    

It’s not clear what “transit demand” will be in 2040.  What is clear is neither the Times nor Sound Transit appear to recognize a light rail system routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) won’t have the capacity to accommodate the number of riders needed to significantly reduce even the current congestion.  That the Times is concurring with “Sound Transit 2 projects now underway extending light rail from Seattle to Lynnwood and Federal Way, and between Seattle, Bellevue and Redmond” that will not significantly reduce I-5 or I-90 congestion

The Sound Transit 2 projects not only lack the capacity, they don’t include the added parking with bus connections to light rail stations to access even their limited capacity.  Without the parking many if not most of light rail riders will be those transferring from buses.  Moving riders from buses to light rail does little to reduce congestion.  With the parking, they could route the buses directly to their destinations rather than light rail stations: avoiding spending the billions on light rail tracks.

Only Sound Transit can confirm the Time’s claim they already have the funds needed for completing the ST2 extensions.  Whether the can or not, both need to recognize that doing so will do little to reduce congestion.  The only way to do that is to spend the hundreds of millions needed to add 15-20,000 new parking spaces each year with BRT connections to Seattle and Eastside for as long as it takes.  And they could provide more than sufficient funds without ST3 by abandoning East Link and terminating Central Link at the UW station and Angle Lake. 

"Abandoning" East Link also negates the need to close the South Bellevue P&R later this year and I-90 Bridge center roadway next year.  Those living or commuting along the route into Bellevue won't have to endure the years of disruption from light rail construction and the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park will continue to be a treasure for many. (The fact that, at least as of earlier this year, Sound Transit still hadn't finalized the I-90 Bridge design "could" be an extra incentive to do so)

Clearly "Stopping ST3 is not enough!"

What Sound Transit Should Do If ST3 is Rejected

This post is my answer to what Sound Transit should do in response to the post "What if ST3 is rejected" to achieve "What could have been" post.

What Sound Transit Should Do if ST3 is Rejected
The first thing Sound Transit should do would be to dismiss any plans to resubmit the ST3 package at a later date.   It’s unlikely voters will ever agree to allow any organization to spend so much of their taxes over such a long period of time with so little control.   The only way to attract the needed support is to come up with a “five-year plan” showing they understand how to deal with the area’s congestion.  Something ST3 failed to do.

For example, their plans to close the South Bellevue P&R this year, next year disrupt those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue and close the I-90 Bridge center roadway, will surely “detract” from eastside support.    The best way to garner eastside support would be to abandon East Link, a light rail extension that would increase not decrease I-90 Bridge congestion.  (It’s still not clear they’ve solved the light rail/floating bridge compatibility problems) 

Proceed with adding the 4^th lanes on the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and initiate two-way BRT on the bridge center roadway.   Propose using existing Prop 1 funds and any needed additional funds over the next five years adding thousands of parking spaces throughout eastside.   Use more of the funds to add the buses needed not only for BRT routes across I-90 Bridge into and out of Seattle but also to and from Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs from some of the P&R’s.

“Abandoning” East Link would avoid disrupting those who use the South Bellevue P&R or live or commute along the route into Bellevue.  It would also negate the need to close the I-90 Bridge center roadway avoiding the resulting congestion on bridge outer roadways.  Bellevue residents could retain their “City in the Park” persona and the Mercer Slough Park’s quiet solitude.   Cross-lake BRT capacity could dwarf any foreseeable transit needs.   Thousands of additional transit riders would reduce congestion throughout the eastside and garner widespread support for Sound Transit.

Sound Transit should also acknowledge the limitations imposed on light rail operation by the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel prevent it from ever having the capacity to significantly reduce congestion on I-5.   (Their initial plans last year for a second tunnel and tracks to Everett reflected that reality)  Stop funding the Central Link tunnel extension to Northgate.   Again propose using the Northgate extension funds and whatever additional funding is needed over the next five years adding parking and buses for BRT routes into Seattle.   

Part of the Northgate and beyond moneys should fund a T/C at the UW light rail station with BRT routes across SR-520.  Again added parking would allow eastside residents to use BRT for the morning commute to the UW or light rail connection into Seattle.  Seattleites could use the return routes for access to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  The routes would be reversed in the afternoon.

Sound Transit’s five-year plan should include surveying all those who regularly commute into Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake.  Find out where they would be willing to leave their car or be dropped off at, and when and where they would like to go.  Use those results to prioritize where to add up to ten 2000-car P&R lots each year.  Each of the P&Rs would have direct BRT routes into Seattle and, depending on their location, to Bellevue and/or Overlake T/Cs.  Service frequency would be set by P&R demand.

Sound Transit should make the BRT routes from the new P&R's especially attractive by making them toll free.  Fare box revenue would be replaced by parking fees. Those within walking distance or dropped off at the P&R could ride free.  Those needing to leave their car there would be required to pay a monthly or annual fee for an assigned parking space.   They would be assured of parking whenever they needed it and could share its use and cost with others.  

"Ride Free" operation would avoid the delays associating with paying to get on or off the buses. Sound Transit could set the parking fees to cover a to-be-determined portion of operating costs for the BRT routes from the P&R.   (Sound Transit’s fare box revenue currently pays less than 30% of light rail operating costs.) 

Commuters would benefit from leaving their car near where the live and avoiding the likely far higher costs for parking near their destination.   Sound Transit could benefit from somewhat higher operating cost recovery from parking fees.    Those unable or unwilling to use transit would benefit from having fewer vehicles on the road.  Sound Transit’s lost fare box revenue from each “free rider” would pale in comparison to the ~$50,000 it would cost to pay for their parking space.     

After five years the added 100,000 paid parking spaces and the ability to ride free on BRT to where commuters wish to go would significantly reduce congestion.  (100,000 added parking spaced, about 5 times current capacity, seems like a lot but those cars have to be parked somewhere and the closer to where commuters live the better.)

That’s what they should propose to do for the next five years.  The additional costs beyond what Prop 1 funding provides will be a fraction of ST3 and far more likely to be approved.   Future growth would require additional years of added parking and bus service.  Sound Transit would likely have no trouble getting additional funding for doing so. 

What if ST3 is Rejected?

The previous post detailed what the area’s public transit “could have been” if not for the collaboration between Sound Transit and the WSDOT.   The two were either “unaware of” or "ignored” the limitations with any light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).   An August 2004 Puget Sound Regional Council Technical Workbook, “Central Puget Sound Region “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” limited the DSTT light rail capacity to the point where it will never be able to accommodate the number of commuters required to reduce the congestion on either I-5 or I-90 into Seattle. 

Rather than spending hundreds if millions on light rail extensions Sound Transit could have added thousands of parking spaces with BRT into the city. (Sound Transit apparently still doesn’t recognize the need to add the parking with bus access to even their limited light rail capacity.)  On I-5 the WSDOT could have facilitated the routes by limiting one of the HOV lanes to buses.  On SR 520 BRT could have been routed to a T/C at the UW stadium station.  On I-90 the two could have added the 4^th lanes on the outer bridge roadways for non-transit HOV and two-way BRT on bridge center roadway.  None of that has been done.  

ST3 simply perpetuates this debacle.  They’ve spent the last year promising “benefits” from spending $54 billion over the next 25 years on “Prop 1 and Beyond” that are mostly sheer fantasy.   It’s time Sound Transit detailed what the plans are if ST 3 is rejected.  The additional $1.7 billion they were able to obtain in 2015 via loans and bonds will likely fund next years plans to close I-90 Bridge center roadway.  They plan to begin installing light rail there and along the route into Bellevue.  (Sound Transit’s decision to ask for the funding this year rather than 2017 “may” have reflected concern the resulting bridge outer roadway congestion would “detract” from eastside support.   It’s unlikely any later vote will do better.)

However Sound Transit needs to detail how they would proceed in 2017 and beyond without the $1 billion they could expect each year with ST3 to complete the extensions purportedly already funded by Prop 1 until 2023.   Do they intend to get loans or issue more bonds to maintain current spending levels or do they intend to  “rearrange” their extension plans.   “Most” of those with money to lend require some sort of assurance Sound Transit’s revenue sources will be sufficient to pay off the loans, the interest on the bonds and their face value when they mature. 

Assuming the existing $1.7 billion and the $6 billion added debt for finishing Prop 1 from 2017 to 2023 is combined into a $7.7 billion 4% loan.  Amortizing it over 45 years will require an annual payment of $385 million.   That’s more than a third of their entire 2016 budget.

Increased operating costs once the Prop 1 extensions are completed could also be a “significant” financial burden.  The light rail extensions to Lynnwood, Overlake, and Des Moines will nearly triple the current average miles per trip.  The need for capacity will likely result in most trains having 4 cars rather than the current two.  Assuming the same frequency of service with twice as many cars using routes three times as long will result in six times the car miles per hour with 6 times the operating costs. 

Lenders "may" be concerned about Sound Transit's ability to pay off the loans and cover the increased operating costs if ST3 is rejected.   Sound Transit presumably has an “in house” plan for doing so.   They need to tell us what it is.  Tell voters what will happen if ST3 is rejected.   Does Sound Transit still intend to continue with their Central Link extensions to Lynnwood or close the South Bellevue P&R later this year and the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year and spend $3-4 billion extending light rail across I-90?    Let voters decide if the “benefits” from ST3 justify the $54 billion spent over 25 years on the extensions.    It would be “reassuring” if the State Auditor would validate Sound Transits financial plan.

Sound Transit surely has a plan if ST3 is rejected.  They need to tell voters what it is before the vote in November.

What Could Have Been

Sooner or later some enterprising journalist is going to write a potentially Pulitzer Prize wining article or a series of articles that could aptly be titled “What Could Have Been”.   It would be about what public transit in our area could have been if not for the collaboration between Sound Transit and the WSDOT and their efforts to create a light rail “spine” for commuters to reduce congestion on the major roadways into Seattle.  

They first began more than 25 years ago with plans to route light rail trains through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) in what then appeared to be a reasonable attempt to emulate light rail in Portland and the San Francisco area.  They apparently were unaware of limitations the tunnel might impose on light rail operation.   An August 2004 Puget Sound Regional Council Technical Workbook, “Central Puget Sound Region “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” should have “clarified” the issue.  

It concluded light rail in our area was limited by the DSTT to 8880 riders per hour (RPH) in each direction.  They apparently based that assessment on the assumption the tunnel station lengths limited the trains to 4 cars; that light rail trains required 4 minutes between trains for safe operation; and that each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders.   

While one could argue their light rail cars could accommodate more riders, it should have been clear light rail routed through the DSTT would never have the capacity to accommodate the riders required to reduce I-5 congestion.   The combination of the several-hundred-million-cost per mile with the limited capacity meant the Prop 1 light rail extensions in our area failed any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

Sound Transit and the WSDOT should have recognized the only way they were going to significantly reduce I-5 congestion was to make better use of the existing freeway lanes.  Sound Transit could have used Prop 1 funds to add thousands of parking spaces near where residents lived with additional bus routes to near where they worked.  The WSDOT could have facilitated the added bus routes by limiting one of the HOV lanes to buses only during peak commute.  (+3 HOV use might have been allowed depending on resulting congestion.)

Instead, WSDOT continued to allow transit and non-transit HOV use resulting in 75-minute HOV travel times between Everett and Seattle.    The only beneficiary being Sound Transit’s plans for Prop 1 light rail extensions beyond the UW station.  BRT service along a limited-access I-5 lane would have ended any plans for extending light rail, particularly one with such limited capacity.  

“What could have been” was Sound Transit, rather than spending hundreds of millions towards the more than $2B Northgate extension, could have spent Prop I funds adding thousands of parking spaces each year with access to added bus routes.   4^th Ave could have been converted into an elongated two way T/C with dedicated drop-off and pickup spots for egress and access for each route.    “What could have been” was reduced travel times for everyone since thousands of additional transit commuters would also have reduced congestion on GP lanes.

Rather than extending light rail to Northgate Sound Transit could have terminated the University Link with a T/C near the UW Stadium station.  It would have provided an interface between SR 520 BRT and Central Link light rail.  “What could have been” was improved transit for commuters from both sides of the lake.  The only loser would have been the WSDOT SR520 toll revenues.  (I’ll leave it to others to decide if the loss in toll revenue with BRT on SR-520 “influenced” Sound Transit’s decision not to include BRT there as part of ST3)

The Sound Transit and WSDOT collaboration has been particularly burdensome for east side residents.   The two managed to spend years studying all sorts of options on the eastside without ever considering two-way BRT on the I-90 bridge center roadway in their joint 2008 East Link DEIS.   They simply ignored the fact that the East Link share of the DSTT capacity would be a fraction of their 2008 DEIS claims it was the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway that could increase cross-lake transit by 60%. 

The two also persuaded a federal judge during the Freeman litigation that 4^th lanes added to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways would enable them to accommodate all vehicle traffic.   Their success in doing so allowed them to continue with plans to install light rail on the bridge center roadway.   Yet the very document they cited, a September 2004 FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) stipulated the two center roadway lanes would still be needed for vehicles.   

The two have even “collaborated” to the point where the WSDOT will not require they demonstrate the modified outer roadway can accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles when they close the center roadway next year.  The WSDOT “benefits” from the “potential” increased I-90 congestion in two ways.  The first is it will boost SR-520 toll revenue from those attempting to avoid the congestion.  Second, in 2006 and 2007 they informed Mercer Island officials of their plans to initiate HOT lanes on I-90 Bridge.  Revenue from HOT lanes on I-90 Bridge will be especially “lucrative” since the WSDOT will be “required” to raise tolls to whatever it takes to maintain 45 mph. 

“What could have been” for east side commuters?   The 2004 FHWA study should have convinced the WSDOT, if not Sound Transit, that the east side’s share of the DSTT light rail capacity would never be sufficient to meet cross lake commuting needs.   That all the studies about light rail routes aimed at improving cross-lake transit for eastside commuters were a waste of time.   That the only way to improve cross-lake commuting for everyone was to add the 4^th lanes to the outer bridge roadways for non-transit HOV and initiate two-way BRT on the bridge center roadway. 

 Sound Transit could have spent the hundreds of millions they wasted on light rail studies and promotions adding thousands of parking spaces and connecting bus routes.   The reduced congestion from allowing cross-lake commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work would have benefited the entire area.  And they could have been doing it for ten years by now. 

Future east side taxes could be used creating a South Lake Union streetcar system for the Bel-red area.   The street level tracks routed through the area with access to the Bellevue T/C would be far more accessible and far less intrusive than four 74-ton light rail trains trundling through the area for 18 hours a day.

Instead, this fall Sound Transit will close the South Bellevue P&R having simply ignored their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Bellevue to find replacement parking and bus connections.  As a result many eastside commuters will be unable to use any P&R for access to transit since they will be full well before they get there.  

Every cross-lake commuter will fill the effects of Sound Transits closure of the bridge center roadway without every demonstrating outer roadway capacity.  Sound Transit will spend the next seven years disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue ending forever the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park and Bellevue’s persona as “the city in the park”.   All to create a light rail system that the majority will rarely if ever use.

In conclusion, “What could have been” is far from what the entire area will get from Sound Transit and WSDOT.    Approving Sound Transit 3 gives them the authority to spend ~$2 Billion a year for the next 25 years as they see fit with little if any outside control.  Doing so would be “unacceptable” even if they had demonstrated a high level of competence. 

Doing so with Sound Transit would be “insane”.

ST3 Questions More Than for "How Much or How Long"?

 The Seattle Times Oct 2^nd B1 page article “Sound Transit 3 Taxes: How much – and for how long“ raises some interesting questions.   For example, the $518 million Sound Transit agreed to send Olympia in order to be able to ask for ST3 tax increases.  I thought Sound Transit was prohibited from using public funds to urge voters approve ST3.  It’s “surprising” they would be allowed to send $518 million to Olympia, from funds they get from residents to improve transit, just to be given the “opportunity” to ask them to pay more.  If ST3 is defeated do they still have to pay? 

The article talks about another vote to provide ST4 funding.  The 2015 enabling legislation supposedly allowed Sound Transit to ask for the $1 billion annually for 15 years.  Yet the Sound Transit Board used that legislation to extend those taxes for an additional 10 years for ST3 and if approved they could extend those taxes for as long as they see fit to extend light rail.  

The ST3 fees people pay will surely escalate over the years and yet they would have little control over how the Sound Transit Board spent the money.  Their only option would be to elect a new King County Executive; a once-every-4-year opportunity.

The article quotes Sound Transit claim “ST3 helps them avoid 148 hours per year in traffic”.    The problem is only a tiny fraction of those who will be paying will ever use light rail to commute.  The PSRC concluded in 2004 that the Seattle Tunnel limited light rail capacity along I-5 between Everett and Seattle to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction;  A fraction of what’s needed to accommodate the number of commuters required to reduce peak hour congestion.   East Link’s share of that capacity is about half the current I-90 transit capacity and its confiscation of the I-90 bridge center roadway will increase not decrease vehicle delays on the bridge outer roadways. 

The article’s assumption “No shocking rise in operating costs” is also dubious.    According to Sound Transit’s 2016 budget, it costs $24.31 per revenue mile for a light rail car.   Dividing their projections for total revenue miles by total trips gives 35 vehicle revenue miles per trip with an average cost of $852.  Assuming each train trip includes two cars, the average train trip is 17.5 miles reflecting the current UW station to SeaTac Central Link operation. 

Completing the Prop 1 and ST3 portions of the spine will add 29 miles to Everett, 18 to Redmond, and 11 to Tacoma.   Thus the added track lengths will add 47 miles to a trip from Redmond to Everett and 40 miles from Tacoma to Everett.   Thus car-miles-per trip with ST3 will be about 3 ½ times current levels for the two routes.

Presumably with ST3 each train will consist of 4 cars rather than the current 2 average to maximize capacity and Sound Transit will attempt to maintain the same frequency of service.  Thus car miles per hour with ST3 will be about 7 times current levels.   The resulting increase in operating costs ought to shock the hell out of somebody.  (And those operating costs don't include the costs for buying and depreciation on 7 times the number of $6 million train cars)

It’s clear far more needs to be done answering questions beyond "how much and for how long" residents will pay if ST3 is approved.   It’s bad enough giving the Sound Transit Board the authority to spend so much of the public’s money with so little public control as to how it is spent for a minimum of 25 years.   The fact that so few will use it and the many unanswered questions surely adds to the reasons ST3 should be rejected.

Mass Transit Now ST3 Press Conference

(I submitted the following to the Bellevue Reporter.  I’ve posted it since they are unlikely to print it.)

Mass Transit Now ST3 Press Conference

The Sept 30^th Bellevue Reporter front-page article “Mayors, business leaders support ST3 in Bellevue” is a perfect example of what happens when a well-funded pro-light rail organization sponsors a press conference telling voters about ST3.  All one really needs to know about East Link and ST3 ability to reduce congestion can be gleaned from Sound Transit’s East Link Extension web site video.  The video depicting East Link includes a narrative describing it as providing a three or four car train every eight to ten minutes.

At best a four-car train every eight minutes will provide thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour.   Even with the rather dubious narrative assumption each of the four cars can average 200 riders, the total capacity is only 6000 riders per hour (rph) in each direction.  No matter how many riders Sound Transit assumes in each car, East Link will have about half the current transit capacity and a fraction of what’s needed to meet projected I-90 corroder transit growth.  East Link’s limited capacity also means it will increase cross-lake congestion because the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways won’t give it the capacity to accommodate all the buses needed for transit and all the other cross-lake vehicles.   

One can only assume the “leaders” quoted in the article were either unaware of those realities or unconcerned about the difficulties eastside commuters might have with cross-lake congestion.  It’s bad enough the Bellevue Mayor and the Downtown Business Association apparently have no objections to Sound Transit closure of the South Bellevue P&R later this year (after the vote), closing the I-90 center roadway in 2017, and spending more than $3 billion over the next 6 years disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue to create a light rail system that will actually increase cross-lake congestion.   Their willingness to recommend eastside residents approve paying close to $1000 annually for at least the next 25 years to fund ST3 “Prop 1 and Beyond” belies belief.

Mass Transit Now's approach to "informing voters" is exemplified by their decision to include two other mayors who are Sound Transit Board members in the "press conference".   Redmond Mayor Marchione opined, “We are wasting millions of hours of time as we sit in out car”.  Yet the East Link extension to Redmond was part of the Prop 1 package voters approved in 2008.  His recommendation constituents approve paying additional thousands over the next 25 years for something they’d thought they were already paying for would seem to be a “hard sell”. 

With East Link’s limited capacity, whatever riders the Redmond extension does add increases the likelihood the trains will be full before they even reach some of the subsequent stations.  That’s especially true with Marchione’s anticipated growth from 60,000 to 120,000.  The limited capacity means even Redmond transit commuters, while having a sure ride into Seattle, will face problems finding space on the return trips. 

Issaquah Mayor Butler opines “Congestion is already making getting in and out of Issaquah difficult”.  I-90 traffic can be “difficult” all the way from Issaquah through Eastgate to I-405.  The afternoon return commutes can be even worse.  Yet East Link extensions will do absolutely nothing to ease that congestion and the closure of the I-90 bridge center roadway increases cross-lake congestion.  Again, Butler’s recommendation I-90 corridor commuters approve paying thousands over the next 25 years in hopes for a light rail link between Issaquah and South Kirkland in 2041 seems like a “hard sell”. 

The bottom line is Mass Transit Now’s approach suggests its “goal” is not to increase mass transit capacity “now” but to convince voters to give the Sound Transit Board the authority to spend $2 billion annually for the next 25 years with little if any public oversight.  No organization should be given the ability to spend so much for so long with so little outside control.  

Particularly since really increasing mass transit “now” requires adding thousands of parking spaces near where commuters live with access to transit with capacity and routes to take them near where they want to go.  Not only does ST3 not fund the tens of thousands of parking spaces needed, the billions spent on Prop 1 and beyond, won’t provide the capacity and the routing needed to take them near where they want to go.  ST3 will never increase mass transit now!