Seattle Times Ignores Lack of P&R's

The Seattle Times Sept 15 edition front-page article concerning the Kent Park and Ride costs and a subsequent Sept 20^th Opinion page supporting the “costly” facility typify their failure to recognize Sound Transit’s flawed approach to public transit.   The Times asserts the increased costs for the 550 stalls are “evidence that Sound Transit needs to do a better job at estimating and controlling costs”.

Neither the Times nor Sound Transit seem to recognize the 550 stalls causing all the cost concerns are a “drop in the bucket” when it comes to providing the parking needed to reduce the area’s congestion.  Those commuting into Seattle have to leave their car somewhere.   The way to reduce congestion along the routes into Seattle is to allow more of them to park near where they live rather than where they work.   One would also think a park and ride stall near where the live would be far less expensive than one near where they work.  Thus money spent on Park and Ride lots is money well spent. 

Yet neither Sound Transit nor Seattle Times recognize that reality.  If they had Sound Transit would have used part of the ST2 funds to add the stalls years ago.   It didn’t happen.   The Times could have made their support for ST3 contingent on adequate park and ride funding.   Instead a November 1st, 2016 Seattle Times front page article “Parking finds its place in Sound Transit vote” exemplifies their inability to recognize the problem.  The Times was apparently satisfied with Sound Transit plans to begin spending $698 million in 2024 on 8560 parking stalls over the next 17 years.

The idea that an additional 8560 parking stalls by 2041 can provide adequate access to their $54 billion light rail extensions is absurd. Particularly since the same article also reported, "19,488 cars occupied park-and-ride facilities each weekday in Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties” with the  “51 facilities next to express bus or train stations that were at least 95% full”.  

A recent Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) study reported “We’ve added 350,00 more people in the region in the last six years” and that “328,000 jobs have been added since 2010”.   The added residents, who don’t live within walking distance of a bus route, a light rail station, or choose to walk or ride a bike are forced to attempt to find parking at a local P&R or drive to work.   Yet the “at least 95% full” parking lots make that option “problematic”

During those same six years the only significant parking Sound Transit has added is the 1120 stalls at Angle Lake light rail station.  It’s no wonder that a PSRC “Stuck in traffic: 2015” report showed huge delays for commuters on all the major roadways in the area since 2010. (And that was for 2014)

The 8560 stalls they intend to add beginning in 2024 are far to little and far too late.  While the added 550 stalls will help those in Kent, the Seattle Times needs to show more concern for the tens of thousands throughout the area currently forced to endure hours of congestion because of inadequate parking.  

Congestion Impact on Amazon HQ2 Decision?

(The below post was prompted by all the “angst” about Amazon HQ2)

Congestion Impact on Amazon HQ2 Decision?

Amazon’s decision to locate a second headquarters elsewhere may be due to a combination of Seattle housing prices rising faster than any other major city in the country at the same time the area has the 4^th worst congestion in the country.   Newcomers unwilling or unable to afford homes in Seattle will be forced to frequently endure hour-or-more long commutes on all the major roadways into and out of the city.  Not an attractive option for the numbers of new hires Amazon would likely need to expand. 

The long commutes are already probably contributing to the dramatic increases in Seattle area housing prices.  An August 10^th Seattle Times article reported only 34% of Seattle residents who worked for large companies in Seattle “drove alone to work”.   While some may walk or bike to work, majorities were able to use Metro buses or Central Link light rail for their commute.  Doing so allows them to avoid parking fees and minimize the expense and hassle of driving.  While commute times may be longer they are normally more reliable.   Access to public transit is an incentive to pay more to live in Seattle.

The same Times article reported more than 75% of those living in surrounding cities are “choosing” to drive alone to work.  While walking or biking are less of an option, many if not most of those commuters are likely “choosing” to drive alone because they don’t have access to public transit.   For years every P&R in the area with access to transit on major roadways has been full well before many commuters arrive.  This lack of parking is matched by the fact that scheduled bus service hasn’t significantly increased either.   

The lack of access to public transit has already forced those commuting into Seattle pay a heavy price in terms of frustration with time wasted on congested freeways and the costs of driving and parking their car.  One can only assume Amazon leadership is aware of the problems their employees have with their commutes.  Those with a modicum of competence regarding public transit will recognize the problems are a direct result of Sound Transit’s failure to add parking and bus service to increase transit ridership.  That ST3 funding does little to add either parking or bus service. 

From there it’s only a small step to recognize that Sound Transit instead is proceeding with plans to spend most of the recently approved $54B on a light rail spine that will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  Along I-5 corridor the riders the extensions attract to its limited capacity will inevitably displace those in Seattle currently using Central Link.  Sound Transit’s spine extensions will force more Seattle residents to “drive alone”.  Especially for south end commuters where Central Link capacity will be limited to half the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, 4440 riders per hour (per PSRC), inevitably ending access for many during peak commute.

The I-90 East Link extensions will do nothing to ease congestion that frequently begins near Issaquah.  Light rail confiscation of the bridge center roadway will extend that congestion across I-90 on bridge outer roadways.  The vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t have access to light rail, leaving them with the choice between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.  Hardly an incentive to attract future Amazon cross-lake commuters!

It’s not clear what impact the high cost of homes in Seattle and commuting problems for those living outside Seattle had on Amazon’s HQ2 decision. However, the Seattle area has hardly been “pro-business” for years so it’s doubtful the recent “anti-business” pronouncements dictated decision.   

Amazon however may have also recognized Sound Transit plans to spend $54 B over the next 20 years on light rail extensions will do nothing to reduce it.   Amazon’s acknowledgement of transit problem impact would be a strong message to those responsible.   They need to be queried as other potential future employers may have the same concerns.   

Att. Gen. Ferguson: Legally Malfeasant?

(The Seattle Times Sept 7^th headline concerning the latest actions by Attorney General Ferguson prompted the following post.)

Att. Gen. Ferguson: Legally Malfeasant?

Webster’s New World Dictionary defines malfeasance: ”wrongdoing or misconduct, especially in handling public affairs”.   Attorney General Ferguson’s office response to concerns regarding Sound Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, and others regarding implementation of light rail for public transit would seem to qualify as “legally malfeasant”.

The first example is the role Ferguson’s office played in convincing a federal judge to reject the “Freeman” litigation objecting to Sound Transit confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail.  He made the following comment regarding the decision allowing Sound Transit to proceed.

The Department of Transportation and Sound Transit developed an effective and fair partnership to upgrade and address traffic issues on the I-90 floating bridge.  This agreement respects the law and the Constitution while addressing a critical need.

As detailed in the 9/23/13 post Ferguson either didn’t bother to read the document his lawyers cited to justify their claim to the judge or ignored the fact it stipulated the center roadway lanes were still needed for vehicles even with the added R-8A outer roadway lanes. 

The second example is his office ignored concerns Sound Transit was making a mockery of federal environmental laws requiring light rail have a de minimis impact on Mercer Slough Park.   The 2/21/15 post detailed efforts to inform Ferguson’s office Sound Transit and the WSDOT in connivance with the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) were telling both the FHWA and the FTA light rail noise would have no impact on the park while agreeing to spend millions to shield property hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway from light rail noise.  Ferguson’s lack of response will allow East Link operation to end the quiet solitude of the park. 

His office’s most blatant example of apparent “legal malfeasance” is their failure to require Sound Transit comply with the Revised Code of Washington. RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) requires the following regarding high capacity transit: 

 High-capacity transportation system planning shall include a study of options to ensure that an appropriate range of technologies and services are evaluated. The law requires the study of a do-nothing option and a low capital cost option, along with higher capital options that consider use of different technologies.

The 1/12/17 post details problems with Sound Transit’s “Expert Review Panel" (ERP) attempts to show compliance. Their Sept 26, 2016 final report included the following item in the “Summary of Findings”.

Sound Transit identified high-capacity transportation system options and studied an appropriate range of services and technologies.

Sound Transit CEO Rogoff used the ERP report at an October 27^th Sound Transit Board meeting to claim the following:

Sound Transit has met its requirements for the required elements of a high-capacity transportation system plan.   

The 1/12/17 post and the subsequent 1/15/17 posts both pointed out the Sound Transit 2008 East Link DEIS failed to consider two-way BRT on the I-90 Bridge as a “do-nothing or low-capital cost option” for the I-90 corridor.  There’s also very little indication Sound Transit ever considered BRT along limited-access lanes as an HCT option for the I-5 corridor. 

Those concerns prompted the 1/20/17 post “complaint” to Att. Gen. Ferguson’s office about the “apparent” failure to comply.  Their response, in the 1/25/17 post, was to refer the “complaint” as to whether Sound Transit complied with RCW to Sound Transit. (Needless to say I was less than “optimistic”)

The Sound Transit Senior Legal Counsel’s response to the “complaint’, included in the 2/16/17 post, reflected a “different” approach.

Your assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced. As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews. 

In essence, the Sound Transit Legal Council was saying not only did they not comply with RCW, they had no requirement to comply; refuting Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s October 27^th report to the Sound Transit Board they had complied.  

“Doubts” concerning Rogoff’s choice to believe his “Expert Review Panel” rather than his own Senior Legal Council prompted a 2/18/17 P.S. letter to the 2/16/17 post.  It asked the Attorney General if his office concurred with the Sound Transit Senior Legal Council claim that East Link planning does not need to comply with RCW regarding high capacity transit planning.

Ferguson’s office response in 3/13/17 post included the following:

… regarding Sound Transit, our office does not advise or represent regional transit authorities, nor does our office have the role of supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities.  Furthermore, I previously pointed out that we are not in a position to provide legal advice or representation to private citizens.  The authority of our office may be found in RCW 43.10.030 and RCW 43.10.040.

The response raises the question as to  "Who is responsible?"  Attorney General Ferguson, who feels he has an obligation to "protect the rights of those trying to enter this country and those who are illegally here," apparently has no obligation to require Sound Transit comply with the Revised Code of Washington" 

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether his office’s “lack of concern” about Sound Transit policies reflects a desire for future campaign support from construction companies and their labor unions that benefit from light rail construction.  (I noticed he's already joining Elizabeth Warren in asking for people to "chip in" for his campaign. (for what?))

Whatever the reason, his office’s actions regarding Sound Transit policies surely qualify (at least to a retired Boeing engineer) as “legal malfeasant”.  Future voters, who  will undoubtedly face increasing congestion despite the thousands of dollars they will have paid for ST3, will do well to remember Sound Transit was "aided and abetted" by Attorney General Ferguson, whether or not he was "legally malfeasant".

WSDOT Connivance Enables East Link Debacle

The previous post details how King County Executive Dow Constantine’s inept leadership has resulted in Sound Transit already wasting hundreds of millions extending a Central Link light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  As such it will never have the capacity to reduce I-5 corridor congestion and their confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will increase cross-lake congestion and do nothing to relieve I-90 corridor congestion.  That the money already wasted pales in comparison to the $54 B they plan to spend completing those extensions. 

The earlier post details how none of this would have been possible without the connivance of the Seattle Times.   Their “Livewire Event Forums” and more recent “Traffic Lab” articles apparently don’t recognize that, barring additional highway lanes, the only way to reduce congestion is to increase the number of commuters who use public transit.   They refuse to criticize Sound Transit for spending billions on light rail’s limited capacity and continued refusal to spend the hundreds of millions each year adding parking stalls with access to bus service needed to do so. 

This post deals with the critical “third leg” for this “stool of incompetence,” the WSDOT.   One spot on the Sound Transit Board is reserved for the WSDOT Secretary, presumably to make up for the fact that neither the county executive nor the board members he selects are required to have the “background” normally needed to serve as “directors” of a public transit system.  (The previous post clearly indicates they don’t.)  

 Unfortunately the WSDOT during the last eight years has been a co-conspirator with Sound Transit, especially when it comes to their East Link extension across I-90 Bridge.  They helped write a 2008 East Link DEIS that was sheer fantasy when it comes to purported East Link benefits.  They were either unaware of, or ignored a 2004 PSRC conclusion the DSTT limited total capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  East Link’s share will be a fraction of the 9-12,000 rph claimed in the DEIS.

The WSDOT presumably concurred with Sound Transit decision not to consider inbound and outbound BRT routes on I-90 Bridge center roadway as the “no-build” option to light rail in the DEIS.  Even a cursory analysis would have concluded BRT had ten times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost. 

There would be no East Link if the WSDOT lawyers hadn’t convinced a federal judge to reject the 2012 “Freeman” suit opposing Sound Transits confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail.  His decision included the following:

“The court respectfully declines to review the administrative decisions of the State (WSDOT) regarding its determination the center lanes of I-90 in question will not be needed for highway purposes upon the completion of the R8A project and fulfillment of the Umbrella Agreement.”  (The R8A project adds a 4th lane the outer bridges for bus and HOV traffic.)   

 He based his decision on the following WSDOT statement concerning the need for vehicles to use bridge center roadway.

“The State’s determination that the center roadway of I-90 will not be presently needed for highway purposes after the completion of the conditions set forth in the Umbrella Agreement (i.e. completion of R8A) is based upon years of study and analysis set forth in the record including the I-90 two way transit and HOV operations FEIS and ROD……….”.

Yet the very document the WSDOT referred to, the September 2004 FHWA I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision recommended the R-8A configuration provide HOV lanes on the outer roadways but maintain the center roadway for vehicle use.   

They subsequently allowed Sound Transit to close the I-90 Bridge center roadway, forever limiting the capacity of an interstate highway center roadway to a share of the 8880 rph DSTT capacity; inevitably leading to gridlock on bridge outer roadways. 

Whatever the reason for WSDOT “agreement”, they benefit from the resulting I-90 congestion.  First, it will “likely” result in more cross-lake commuters choosing to pay tolls on SR-520.  (Sound Transit’s “neglected” to include BRT service there as part of ST3 that would have reduced the numbers paying the tolls.)  Second, the WSDOT will use the increased outer roadway congestion to “justify” implementing HOT on the bridge HOV lane.  (Their “negotiations” with Mercer Island officials concerning Islander SOV use of outer roadway HOV lanes in 2007 limited that access until HOT lanes were implemented, “suggesting” intent to do so.)  

Thus, it’s clear without the WSDOT’s critical third leg, there would be no East Link.   Competent WSDOT representation on Sound Transit Board would have insisted they consider BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway, ending cross-lake light rail.  That Sound Transit should have added 4^th lanes to the outer bridge roadways 15 years ago reducing congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake.  That money wasted on countless East Link studies should have been spent adding thousands of parking stalls with access to inbound and outbound BRT routes on bridge center roadway. 

Instead, the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t even have access to East Link, leaving them the choice between paying very expensive HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.

All courtesy of the WSDOT!