The Seattle Times describes their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock”. However, it was a front page, Seattle Times, Nov 4th 2016 Traffic Lab article that reported the answer to the question, “Would transit plan ease traffic?” was, “It would not”. The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”. Yet Traffic Lab didn’t oppose the ST3 extension proposal.
Eight months later a June 19th 2017 article conceded Sound Transit’s failure to address problem with the following:
Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic, but it will give some commuters an escape hatch to avoid it”.
Apparently the Traffic Lab didn't recognize the "expansions" do nothing to increase capacity, so any "escape hatch some commuters" have, at least during peak commute, ends access for those nearer Seattle.
Their solutions included a June 26th Seattle Times headline “Time to pay? Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock” proposed to use tolls. They failed to recognize that unless commuters have a viable alternative, (alternate routes or access to adequate bus service) the only thing tolls do is raise the cost of commuting.
An August 10th Seattle Times article “Daily parking fees reduce solo car commuting” suggested forcing commutes pay daily for parking would reduce congestion. (I’m "doubtful" how often one has to pay for parking has much impact on their decision.) The increasing congestion “suggests” the Times Traffic Lab attempts to "spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock" have been “less than successful”.
Their solutions included a June 26th Seattle Times headline “Time to pay? Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock” proposed to use tolls. They failed to recognize that unless commuters have a viable alternative, (alternate routes or access to adequate bus service) the only thing tolls do is raise the cost of commuting.
An August 10th Seattle Times article “Daily parking fees reduce solo car commuting” suggested forcing commutes pay daily for parking would reduce congestion. (I’m "doubtful" how often one has to pay for parking has much impact on their decision.) The increasing congestion “suggests” the Times Traffic Lab attempts to "spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock" have been “less than successful”.
I initially referred the Times to four July 2016 posts proposing, “paying to park rather than ride” as a potential solution. (They were the result of a visit to Aspen where commuters ride free.) I recently referred the Traffic Lab columnists to the 12/03/17 post, “Public Transit That ‘Works’” providing details as to how Pay-to-Park lots could reduce congestion. That the loss in fare box revenue for a rider was trivial in comparison to the cost of a parking stall for their car.
A freeway lane can accommodate up to 2000 vehicles per hour. Thus five Pay-to-Park lots could provide the capacity of two freeway lanes for 5 hours each morning and afternoon; reducing congestion for everyone. And more Pay-to-Park lots can be added if needed.
Meanwhile, the light rail extension from Northgate to Everett, Angel Lake to Tacoma, or across I-90 Bridge center roadway will never add any transit capacity. The fact the light rail extensions' operating costs will create a financial “black hole” adds to the insanity of spending billions on the extensions.
Sound Transit could use the parking fees from three 1000-stall P&R’s near Lynnwood, and two near Everett to cover 35% of bus operating costs (Their normal fare-box recovery) for 40 round trips every morning and afternoon from each of the lots. The 5 lots could provide bus capacity for 20,000 commuters to ride free into and out of Seattle. Pay-to-Park lots could also fund free bus rides for east side and south end commuters.
Meanwhile, the light rail extension from Northgate to Everett, Angel Lake to Tacoma, or across I-90 Bridge center roadway will never add any transit capacity. The fact the light rail extensions' operating costs will create a financial “black hole” adds to the insanity of spending billions on the extensions.
The Seattle Times could go a long ways towards making Pay-to-Park” a reality by advocating Sound Transit be audited to expose ST3 flaws. Instead they ignore it despite their Dec 8th B1 Traffic Lab article “Report: Roads are getting worse” concedes, “congestion causes delays to jump 12 percent”.
They blame it on “cheap gas and economic growth”. The more likely reason, most commuters don’t have any choice. Sound Transit has refused to add the P&R lots and bus service needed to allow them to use public transit. (A single bus can replace 100 cars) Yet ST3 adds neither significant parking nor transit capacity.
They blame it on “cheap gas and economic growth”. The more likely reason, most commuters don’t have any choice. Sound Transit has refused to add the P&R lots and bus service needed to allow them to use public transit. (A single bus can replace 100 cars) Yet ST3 adds neither significant parking nor transit capacity.
The Times also apparently fails to recognize congestion is a major reason for their earlier reports on the high cost of housing and the December 9th front page article “Seattle Rents Climb to 5th Highest in U.S". Living in Seattle is the only way to avoid some of the worst congestion in the country. Again, the billions spent on ST3 will do nothing to reduce it.
If the Traffic Lab goal is to "Spotlight promising approaches to easing congestion" an independent audit could either confirm or refute the “Pay-to-Park” benefits. Again, the Seattle Times should point out the need to do so. The entire area would benefit from the "likely" result.
No comments:
Post a Comment