Coal Terminal "Myths"

(I submitted the following to the Seattle Times some time ago as “My Take” concerning stopping Longview coal terminal.  They declined to print it so I decided to post it because my county executive candidacy has resulted in questions about my opinion about "Climate Change".)

Coal Terminal Myths,

The Oct 10^th opinion letter “Good Riddance” praising Oct 6^th Seattle Times editorial  “Environmental victory but challenges remain,” derides the Trump attempts to revive the coal industry as a “cruel myth”.   It’s doubtful those getting the jobs despite the claim “coal comes in dead last among energy production industries” consider them a “cruel myth”.    It’s not clear what “energy production industries” coal lags in terms of jobs since millions spent on oil pipelines create very few “permanent jobs”. 

It’s also no myth the Longview area would have “benefitted” from the $680 million spent to create the terminal and the 135 permanent jobs, despite the fact ”That’s just one job per $5 million invested.”    By that criteria the billions spent creating freeways, but very few “permanent jobs,” are a total waste.    

The myth is the claim the Longview area and other like it would benefit from a company offering to provide “information and technology intensive jobs”.   It’s also a myth to claim the EPA decision to stop the Longview terminal as an “Environmental victory” since it will have absolutely no effect on climate change or global warming.   

The biggest myth of all is the claim CO2 is an environmental pollutant.  CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that currently makes up about .04% of the atmosphere.  Man made CO2 emissions currently account for about 5% of the total.  Increasing CO2 enhances plant growth.  For years growers have benefitted by increasing CO2 to 1000 parts per million in green houses. 

Meanwhile years of attempts to use computer models to predict the effects of increased CO2 on global warming have failed to match measured temperatures.  The latest results show far less sensitivity to CO2 increases than earlier.    A report in the CERN (Centre for European Nuclear Research) Currier recently indicated all the climate models must be re-done led to the following:

                   Their CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real ‘mystery factors’ in earth’s climate. The research supports the contention that CO2 is only a bit player.”

The real “challenge” for environmentalists is to recognize that reality.

The Demise of the “Link” to East Link

As the title “Stopeastlinknow” suggests, this blog began as an effort to use the Internet to expose problems with Sound Transit’s East Link.  It followed more than three years of failed attempts to persuade the Bellevue City Council to disallow permits needed for construction.  That Sound Transit’s failure to consider two-way BRT for transit on I-90 Bridge center roadway was a major blunder.  (I later learned it also violated RCW regarding High Capacity Transit planning.) That their DEIS claims for East Link capacity were sheer fantasy. 

My current campaign for King County Executive is the sixth attempt to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract “page views” (More than 95,000 so far).  What began as opposition to East Link evolved into recognition Sound Transit’s other Prop 1 extensions along I-5 were also fatally flawed due to capacity limitations imposed by the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  

Sound Transit’s ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions spend billions more but do nothing to increase transit capacity.  That, as a result, the Sound Transit ST3 light rail spine along I-5 will do nothing to reduce congestion and its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.

Unfortunately the blog has so far failed to generate sufficient opposition.  Thus, its “likely” Sound Transit, in connivance with the WSDOT, and Seattle Times “aiding and abetting,” will continue with their current plans.  It can, however, continue to warn residents what’s “likely to happen”.   This post deals with what’s likely to happen with East Link.

Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue and Overlake P&Rs has already ended access to transit for many. The current disruptions along the route into Bellevue will only increase with future construction.  Their confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to outer roadway gridlock, “justifying” 2007 WSDOT plans for HOT on the 4^th lanes added for HOV.   The current I-90 corridor congestion from Issaquah will only increase with future growth during East Link construction.

After enduring all that disruption and congestion, those relying on East Link  to ease cross-lake congestion will be “disappointed” when it begins operation.   What Sound Transit’s 2008 DEIS claimed was the equivalent of up to 10 lanes of freeway, will be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.   Sound Transit plans to use East Link to replace cross-lake buses to reduce bridge congestion.   

They’ve claimed 40,000 of the 50,000 riders by 2030 would come from terminated bus routes.  However, even if the trains are empty when they arrive at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island transfer stations, their limited capacity can only accommodate riders from about 50 buses an hour during peak commute, about half current bus schedule routes.  

Thus any HOV lane benefits from fewer buses due to East Link will be miniscule.   The more likely result will be those on routes forced to transfer will choose to drive rather than ride to avoid the hassle of transferring to and from crowded light rail trains: increasing GP lane congestion.  

The vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t have access to East Link, forcing them to choose between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.    Sooner or later they will question the "efficacy" of using the I-90 Bridge center roadway for a transit system consisting of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.   From there it’s only a small step to demand Sound Transit tear out the tracks and initiate two way bus service.  Especially since the only other option is another very costIy I-90 bridge.  That by 2030, rather than having 50,000 cross-lake riders there will be no “link” to East Link. It would be up to Sound Transit as to whether to operate East Link without it.

South Seattle commuters would also cheer this result since it would at least double Central Link capacity.  Eliminating the need to integrate East Link operation with its far shorter routes and fewer stations than Central Link would allow even more frequent service.

It’s beyond “unfortunate” Sound Transit didn’t recognize this eventuality earlier.

Why Legislators Should Stop ST3

(The 10/24/17 Seattle Times B1 “Traffic Lab” article, "GOP-led panel: Lawmakers misled by Sound Transit", prompted the following post.)

Why Legislators Should Stop ST3

The Republican lawmakers surely have ample reason to claim Sound Transit “misled” them.  They’re not the only ones.  Sound Transit not only “misled” the entire area with their claims for what ST3 would cost, they “misled” voters about what ST3 would do to reduce congestion.  

To claim Sound Transit merely “misled” legislators and voters doesn’t do justice to their blatant mendacity concerning car tab fees. The article claims legislators were well aware of the  “inflated car valuations” in 2015.  Yet Sound Transit didn’t use the inflated valuations in their own ST3Tax website telling voters what car tabs would cost in 2016.  They later eliminated the website and denied ever "misleading" voters; essentially “lying about lying”.  

They averaged property values from King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to “estimate” what voters could expect to pay in ST3 property taxes.  Grossly understating what the vast majority of those paying the taxes would have to pay.

However, Sound Transit’s “misleading” what ST3 would "cost" pales in comparison to their mendacity about what it would “do”. Most of the $54 billion, spent extending a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

Yet Sound Transit’s “ST3 map” claimed light rail to Everett and Tacoma would add up to 110,000 and 95,000 riders daily respectively by 2040.  The "spines" limited capacity means even a fraction of their predicted riders would fill transit trains before they ever reach Northgate and Angel Lake, ending access for current Central Link riders.  

Sound Transit also ignores the “likelihood” fare-box revenue shortfall from the increased operating costs with the longer routes without increased capacity will either require a huge increase in fares or create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds.  

Sound Transit not only “misled” legislators and voters about what Sound Transit would cost and do, they violated the Revised Code of Washington regarding planning requirements for high capacity transit.  RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) requires the following: 

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.

There’s no indication Sound Transit ever considered far lower cost BRT routes along restricted access lanes for I-5 corridor despite claims they had complied with RCW.  Even worse, Sound Transit claimed the RCW didn’t apply to East Link.  As a result they're spending billions constructing East Link, disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue for years, and inevitably leading to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways for light rail with less capacity than 50 buses an hour.  (That East Link also halves the capacity of Central Link for south Seattle adds to its absurdity)

The bottom line is legislators are justified in taking legal action forcing Sound Transit to cease using inflated car tab valuations.  Sound Transit’s blatant mendacity concerning costs to voters surely outweighs any claims they’ve already issued bonds based on inflated values.   However, Sound Transit’s failure to comply with RCW and their mendacity about what ST3 would do and what the extensions will cost to operate will have far more impact on the area’s transportation future.  It’s time legislators recognize that reality with legal action to stop them.    

I urge residents tell their legislators to do so.  

Seattle Times Constantine Endorsement

The Oct 19^th Seattle Times editorial deriding my candidacy for King County Executive is no surprise.   They've never accepted the fact that it and all my other candidacies (they neglected to mention I also ran for governor and received nearly 50,000 votes) have never been about winning but to use the “Voters’ Pamphlets” to publicize the debacle awaiting the area from Sound Transit’s light rail extensions.  

It was no surprise as they neglected to even interview me. Since my first campaign in 2012 they’ve never been interested in my concerns that Sound Transit’s confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link will inevitably result in gridlock on the bridge outer roadways.   They also neglected to mention my opposition is not only to East link, but to all of Sound Transit’s ST3 “light rail spine” extensions. 

That spending most of the $54 billion on a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  That the "spines" limited capacity means riders attracted by the billions spent extending light rail beyond Northgate and Angel Lake on I-5 corridor and across I-90 Bridge will fill trains, ending access for current Central Link riders.   That the increased operating costs with the longer routes without increased capacity is a sure recipe for a financial “black hole” to cover the shortfall between costs and fare-box revenue.   

The Times editorial "misled" when they claimed they did not support ST3 “after the proposal mushroomed from $16 billion, as it was billed in the legislature”.   Their only objections to ST3 funding in an Oct 28^th, 2016 editorial, “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority,” was over concern it would allow Sound Transit to extend taxes some 25 or 30 years from now. 

They were, however, less supportive of Constantine in the below excerpts from a 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers”.

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). 

That editorial concluded with the following:

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.

Apparently all those concerns have been forgotten since the Times endorsed Dow Constantine despite his and Sound Transit's failure to ever respond.   (Constantine "declined" opportunities to debate the issues directly)

Instead the Times, if not actively “supporting”, is quietly “acquiescing” to Constantine’s Sound Transit policies.   For example they’ve done nothing to expose how Sound Transit used their own ST3Tax website to mislead voters about what car tabs would cost and then eliminated the website and denied ever "misleading" voters; essentially “lying about lying”.  

That  all of the Sound Transit "Prop 1 and beyond" light rail extensions ignored Revised Code of Washington requirements high capacity transit (HCT) planning consider lower cost options.  That even a cursory audit of the costs and benefits of the extensions would fail any rational cost benefit analysis.  For example they're spending billions constructing East Link, disrupting those who live or commute along the route into Bellevue for years, and inevitably leading to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways for light rail with less capacity than 50 buses an hour.  That East Link will halve Central Link capacity available for future south end riders.

The bottom line is sooner or later the entire area will recognize the reality of Constantine's ST3 debacle.  My candidacies have never been about winning but to warn residents about what’s coming and that it didn’t have to happen.   The Seattle Times editorial deriding my candidacy and ignoring their earlier ST3 “concerns” continues their "aiding and abetting" the Constantine debacle.

What I Would Do

(A recent enquiry about what I would do if elected prompted the following post)

What I Would Do

In the “unlikely” event voters chose me to be the next King County Executive my first action would be to terminate light rail extensions along I-5 beyond Northgate and Angel Lake, and across I-90 Bridge to Bellevue.  Sound Transit’s decision to route the “light rail spine” extensions though the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) prevents the extensions from doing anything to increase transit capacity into Seattle.   

The billions spent on light rail construction vs. limited potential ridership fail any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.  Especially since even a fraction of Sound Transits claims for the number of those riding extensions along I-5 corridor would fill light rail trains before they ever reach Angel Lake or Northgate, ending access for current Central Link riders. The vast majority of I-90 commuters won’t even have access to East Link, forcing them to choose between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes.

The operating costs over the longer routes without increased ridership will require either a dramatic increase in fares or in subsidies to cover the shortfall between operating costs and fare-box revenue; a potential financial “black hole” for transportation funds.

Part of the funds allocated for the light rail spine would be used to expedite the proposed 5.4-mile extension to Ballard and 4.7-mile extension to West Seattle.  Seattleites surely deserve the extensions.  There would be no ST3 if they hadn’t voted 70% to approve it.  They shouldn’t have to wait 15 to 20 years to get light rail.  The two combined would cost about $4B and, according to Sound Transit, add roughly 80,000 to 100,000 daily riders.    

The numbers of residents within walking distance of light rail stations would likely provide the ridership without the need to spend hundreds of millions increasing parking.   The light-rail construction costs per rider are a fraction of those for the spine. The relatively short light rail extensions minimize the higher operating costs and subsidies.  

Part of the billions planned for extending light rail across I-90 Bridge center roadway would be used to initiate inbound and outbound BRT lanes on the bridge center roadway.  The South Bellevue and Overlake P&R lots would both be expanded and reopened as soon as practicable.  The devastating construction along the route into Bellevue would be terminated, as would the tunnel under downtown Bellevue.

Funds previously intended to install light rail tracks would instead be used to increase P&R capacity throughout the area.  The initial goal would be to add 10,000 parking stalls each year for 5 years with BRT access to I-5 and I-90 corridors.  (Those commuters have to park their car someplace;  the nearer to where they live the better.)  ST3 waits until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on 8560 stalls by 2041.  

The BRT routes would use I-90 bridge center roadway lanes and I-5 lanes limited to +3HOV during peak commute to reduce transit times.  BRT egress and access in Seattle would be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated two-way T/C with each route having one or two designated drop-off and pickup locations along the two sides.   

The bottom line is the only way to reduce congestion on the area’s roadways is to increase the number of commuters using public transit.  That requires providing increased parking with transit capacity to where commuters want to go. Sooner or later the entire area will recognize Sound Transit’s policies will do neither. 

My candidacies have been an attempt to make it "soon" enough to stop it.  While that's not "likely" to happen, at least it will inform those who visit the blog as to what they can expect from Sound Transit and that it didn't have to happen.

Why Seattle Should Oppose East Link

For more than 5 years this blog has attempted to expose why Sound Transit’s East Link will be a disaster for the entire eastside.  The blog had been preceded by more than 3 years of frequent appearances before, and emails to, the Bellevue City Council urging them to disallow the East Link permits Sound Transit needed.  My current candidacy for King County Executive is the 6^th attempt to use the “Voters’ Pamphlet” to attract attention to the blog.   

However, at this stage it’s “unlikely” the eastside can do anything to prevent Sound Transit, with WSDOT connivance, and with Seattle Times support, from proceeding with East Link.  The result being the vast majority of cross-lake commuters won’t have access to East Link’s limited capacity, inevitably forcing them to choose between high HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes. 

East side commuters are not the only ones impacted by East Link. Central Link riders will loose access because East Link operation will divert half of the Central Link trains through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) across the I-90 Bridge.   Central Link trains that currently run every 6 minutes during peak commuter will no longer be able to do so.   The PSRC concluded in a 2004 report that safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.   Thus, East Link operation will require Central Link trains maintain 8 minutes between trains. 

However, even 8 minutes between trains may not be sufficient.  The problem being East Link round trips from International District Station are far shorter and have fewer stops than Central Link routes to Tacoma and back.   It’s not clear how Sound Transit intends to integrate the two different round-trip times and still maintain the 4-minute intervals between them through the tunnel.   That “uncertainty” may explain why Sound Transit’s latest East Link website video depicting operation no longer includes the previous videos “one train every 8-10 minute” operating schedule.   It’s likely East Link operation will increase headways between Central Link trains beyond the 8 minutes. 

East Link’s impact on Central Link operation is only a part of the problem.  Sound Transit intends to complete the Federal Way extension in 2024.  They claim it will attract up to 58,000 daily riders by 2040.  By 2030 their extension to Tacoma will begin operation and attract up to an additional 37,000 riders by 2040.  With 8 minutes between four car-trains, the PSRC assumption each 74-seat car could average 148 riders gives a capacity of 4440 riders per hour.   Even a fraction of the projected riders would fill that capacity before Angel Lake, ending access for those currently using Central Link. 

Ending East Link would eliminate the problems with integrating the two routes, more than doubling Central Link capacity.   The added capacity would at least delay the lost access for current riders.  The increased frequency could also be used to reduce route times by scheduling alternate trains to skip half the stations.  While it would increase wait times at all the intermediate stations, eliminating half the stops would reduce route times for everyone. 

Central Link commuters as well as those from the east side surely deserve better than what they’ll get when East Link begins operation.

WSDOT HOT Lane Debacle Continues

The Oct 1^st Seattle Times B1 page article concerning the failure of the I-405 HOT to meet the 45mph requirement is another example of the WSDOT showing more concern for increasing revenue rather than for reducing congestion.  The criteria for whether HOT lanes sufficiently reduce congestion should be some percent of vehicles are required to average the 45 mph.   Instead the WSDOT legal requirement is the HOT lanes “move traffic at least 45 mph on average at peak hours, 90 percent of the time”.

What’s absurd is they chose to define “peak commute” as being from 5:00 to 9:00 am.  Only a small percent of commuters do so between 5:00 and 6:00 am.  Yet the WSDOT can use the resulting higher speeds to raise their “peak-commute” average velocities.    That allows them to claim the 81% success rate despite the probability most HOT commuters don’t average the 45 mph.    While the WSDOT might not be able to determine the percentage of vehicles that do average the 45 mph they could get a more relevant level by averaging velocities between 6:00 and 9:00 am.  Doing so would substantially drop the 81% “success” level. 

According to the article, “state law requires toll lanes meet the 45 mph standard and collect at least enough money to meet operating costs or they must be terminated as soon as practicable.”    Only the WSDOT would construe that as meaning “the toll lanes must fail to meet both requirements before they be terminated”.   Even their claim they meet the operating cost requirement is “dubious” since they had to spend $484 million implementing HOT lanes that “raked in $24 million in the first 21 months”. 

According to a February 5^th Seattle Times front-page article, “Life in the Toll Lane”, even the WSDOT has changed its prime HOT goal from "financing more road capacity to managing congestion”.   However, their approach to “managing congestion” is exemplified in the Oct. 1^st article claiming, ”whenever general lanes are added they soon fill up again”. They’re clearly far more interested in extracting tolls from those “that really need to get to…” than in reducing congestion. 

For example, the article shows that between 5:00 and 9:00 am the GP lanes between Lynnwood and N.E 160^th.average only 24 mph.  (Again, GP lane velocities for most commuters will be even slower.)  Yet the WSDOT approach to “managing congestion” is “looking into spending around $450 million on a second HOT lane”.    The ignore transportation committee chairman Sen. King’s suggestion the added lane be a GP lane. 

Another example of WSDOT “managing congestion”: It frequently takes more than an hour to commute along I-405 between Renton and Bellevue.  There the WSDOT is planning to spend $1 billion extending HOT on both the 4^th lane they’re adding and the current HOV lane.  Allocating two of the 4 lanes to HOT for those “that really need to...” along with making it more difficult to carpool will only increase congestion on GP lanes. 

In 2007, the joint Sound Transit/WSDOT “loss of mobility” negotiations with Mercer Island included plans for implementing HOT on HOV lanes: “presumably” in anticipation of heavy congestion.  Yet they later convinced a federal judge the I-90 Bridge center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles in the Freeman lawsuit, allowing Sound Transit to proceed with plans to install light rail.  The WSDOT recently allowed Sound Transit to close bridge center roadway despite 2004 FHWA conclusion it was still needed for vehicles, a sure precursor for HOT and more WSDOT revenue.

Despite all these obvious problems the Times article concludes “by some measures, I-405 is doing fine”.  (But then several of their earlier Traffic Lab” articles have advocated for tolls as the way to reduce congestion.)  The Times claims the 81 per cent of time they met the 45 mph compares favorably to the 62% two years ago.  Since then they've added another lane in each direction  between Bothell and Bellevue so it’s not clear where the improvements came from.  However, a PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” included a figure, “I-405 Delay: Lynnwood to Tukwila” showing southbound delays didn’t even begin until Bothell.  The fact HOT implementation has resulted in GP lanes averaging only 24 mph from 5:00 to 9:00 am along that portion of the route is hardly a case for concluding “I-405 is doing fine”.  

The bottom line is tolls only reduce congestion when commuters have an alternative.  The HOT alternative only reduces congestion on the HOV lane because more drivers are unable to meet the +3HOV requirement than are willing to pay the tolls.  Those former HOV drivers increase GP lane congestion causing more drivers to pay HOT fees.  That "forces" the WSDOT in increase tolls to limit the number of HOT vehicles to meet the 45 mph "requirement".  

The WSDOT uses the need to increase tolls higher than $10.00 to meet the 45mph requirement to justify adding a second HOT lane between Lynnwood and Bothell.  Typical of their approach to "managing congestion" they ignore the "possibility" adding an additional GP lane might increase velocities, reducing the incentive to pay tolls and the need to raise them.  (I'll leave it to others to decide if the loss in toll revenue affected their decision there, as well as the decision to use the added lane between Bothell and Bellevue, and the new lane between Bellevue and Renton as second HOT lanes affected their decision.)  As it is, adding another HOT lane will do nothing to increase the current 24 mph between Lynnwood and Bothell.  

The House and Senate Transportation Committees need to use their WSDOT oversight responsibility to end this HOT debacle. 

Times Transparency Concerns: Too Little and Too Late

The Sept 28^th Seattle Times Opinion page editorial urged “Washington lawmakers and regulators bring more transparency and accountability to the powerful forces raising billions for transit projects in the Seattle area.” While knowing who is providing Sound Transit support may be relevant, it’s far more important to provide “transparency” about what those policies will cost residents and what their benefits will be.  Times “transparency” concerns on those issues has been far “too little and too late”.

For example the Times has yet to provide “transparency” concerning the increased taxes residents have to pay for ST3.  GOP legislators alleged in a Sept 27^th B1 article , “Sound Transit misled the legislature, and voters, in the way it calculates car-tab taxes”. 

Sound Transit Director of Media Relations and Public Information Communications & External Affairs, Geoff Patrick had responded earlier to the issue with the following:

Sound Transit's interactions with the legislature and all of the extensive public materials related to the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure included clear and accurate information.   That the legislative language allowing regional voters to consider the Sound Transit 3 measure was extensively debated and covered by news media.

Yet Sound Transit referred to their own website ST3tax.com, “How much tax per year will you pay for Sound Transit if ST3 passes” in their 7/8/2016 post voters, “ST3 plan would cost typical adult $169 annually or $14 per month”.  The Seattle Times parroted those numbers in a 7/13/16 article.  

A newspaper concerned with “transparency” would have revealed Sound Transit removed the ST3tax.com website later that July.   That the Sound Transit approach to providing “clear and accurate information” was to eliminate the website they used to mislead voters.   The Times either ignored or were unaware of Sound Transit’s duplicity.  Their failure to mention how the discontinued ST3tax.com “might have” mislead voters even in the recent article suggests the former.

The Times is also very late in providing “transparency” concerning what readers will get from the increased ST3 taxes.  They will get a light rail “spine”  routed through a Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) that severely limits its capacity.  The Puget Sound Regional Council concluded in an August 2004 “High-Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” that DSTT station lengths limited trains to 4-cars and that safe operation required 4 minute “headways” between trains. They chose to assume 148 riders in each of the 74-seat cars limiting light rail capacity through Seattle to 8880 riders per hour (rph). (The 2004 PSRC report, like the ST3tax.com website, is no longer available on the internet.)

The billions spent extending light rail beyond UW to Everett will do absolutely nothing to increase that capacity. Tacoma and Redmond extensions will presumably each be limited to 4440 rph.  All the ST3 extensions would surely fail any rational cost/benefit analysis.   The increased operating costs with longer route lengths, with no increase in ridership will also require either a large increase in fares or a huge increase in subsidies to cover the fare box revenue shortfall. 

The Times fails to provide transparency regarding light rails limited capacity, high cost/benefit, and likely financial black hole.  Instead they allow Sound Transit to claim ST3 extension riderships that are sheer fantasy.  For example claiming the extension to Lynnwood and beyond to Everett would add up to 118,000 daily riders.  Even a fraction of that ridership would fill the extension’s limited capacity before the trains reach UW.  It would take more than 21 hours for the Central Link extension to Tacoma to accommodate the up to 95,000 additional riders Sound Transit’s claimed for the ST3 extension to Tacoma.   

Light rail operation along I-5 extension will, at least during peak commute, end access for those currently using Central Link.  Sound Transit’s confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link’s share of DSTT capacity will force the vast majority of cross-lake commuters to choose between expensive HOT fees on HOV lanes or gridlock on GP lanes. 

The Seattle Times needs to provide more “transparency” for those commuters.