Legislative Car-Tab Fix only the Beginning.

The Jan 25^th Seattle Times B1 page article, “State house OKs bill to cut car-tab taxes" is welcome news to the area’s residents and is surely justified.   Prior to the 2016 vote Sound Transit “misled” voters with a 7/08/2016 post entitled,“ST3 plan would cost typical adult $169 annually or $14 per month”.

It included the following:

Here’s how much a typical adult would pay if ST3 is approved:  MVET

An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed. The updated calculation reflects an annual median value $5,333 of vehicles in the Sound Transit District. MVET taxes are determined by a state of Washington depreciation schedule for a specific vehicle’s model and production year. The previous calculation relied on a less representative average vehicle value of $10,135 for the more expansive tri-county area, for a significantly higher annual cost of $78 per adult. 

However the Sound Transit 3 Tax Calculator used in the 7/08/16 post was dropped from the Internet and replaced with an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett”, included the following:

During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes. We all knew that our car tabs would increase a lot in 2017 to help fund Sound Transit. So when the first invoices arrived, the vast majority of people just paid their tabs. But a vocal minority, with big tabs from expensive cars, took their displeasure to Olympia, hoping that the Legislature would listen to their stories and disregard the will of the people.

A Joel Connelly June 8^th,, 2017 Seattle PI article included the following:

 A survey by Moore Information, the venerable Portland-based polling firm with Republican and business clients, shows that ST3 would get only 37 percent support were voters given a do-over.

Thus it’s fair to say there would be no ST3 funding package if Sound Transit had been honest with voters.   Surely residents in the area, many of whom will never use the light rail spine, shouldn’t be forced to pay a car-tab tax based on Sound Transit’s inflated valuations. 

However, the car-tab fix should be only the beginning of the legislature’s actions regarding Sound Transit. They need to pass legislation requiring they be audited.  Not only would an audit reveal they’ve been mendacious regarding car-tab taxes, their claims as to light rail spine benefits would “likely” be debunked as sheer fantasy.

Prior to the 2016 vote 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.  However, a 2004 PSRC “High Capacity Corridor Assessment” concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour. The limited capacity means billions will be spent creating a light rail spine where even a fraction of predicted riders would fill transit trains before they ever reach Northgate and Angel Lake, ending access for current Central Link riders.  

An audit would also expose the huge increase in operating costs for the ST3 extensions.  It costs Sound Transit nearly $25 a mile to operate a light rail car or $100 per mile for a 4-car train.  Extending Central Link beyond Northgate to Everett will increase round trip operating costs by nearly $5000.  Yet they do absolutely nothing to increase capacity.  Commuters added by the extensions will either have to pay a huge fare increase or the area will face a financial “black hole” from the resulting fare box revenue shortfall. 

Even more basic, an audit would reveal  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.

Yet 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. 

Clearly the legislature needs to require Sound Transit be audited.  “Unfortunately,” Rep. Judy Clibborn, who chairs the  House Transportation Committee, response has been any car-tab fix should not “endanger Sound Transit’s projects” with the following:

 “We’re making sure the system is built and we’re going to make sure that this is fair”

She seems intent on using her control of the transportation committee agenda to assure Sound Transit is allowed to proceed with their light rail spine rather than reduce the area's congestion.  Apparently unaware or not concerned about the need for an audit that could reveal the possible devastating effect East Link could have on her  Mercer Island constituents' commute into Seattle.  I doubt if they consider that “fair”.

In conclusion, Sound Transit is about to embark on a plan to spend $54B and 25 years on ST3 extensions of dubious value and in clear violation of the state RCW.  While the legislator’s car-tab fix is surely justified, it should be only a beginning, they need to require Sound Transit be audited.

"Ride Assurance" Fee Public Transit

One advantage of increased bus service over light rail extensions is that buses can be routed to where the commuters are while commuters who don’t live within walking distance of light rail stations have to find ways to get there.   Buses can be routed to P&Rs near where people live.  Pay-to-park lots could offer commuters the opportunity to pay a fee to reserve a parking stall for priority access to a bus route for where they want to go.   The buses they ride on could include access to Wi-Fi during their commute into and out of Seattle, Bellevue, or Overlake.

However, buses can also be routed to wherever there are sufficient numbers of commuters.   For example the entire eastside has seen an explosion in high-density housing with hundreds of apartments and condominiums in Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and Sammamish.  (Presumably other areas have seen similar developments.)  Many of those developments could surely provide sufficient numbers of commuters who live within walking distance of where a bus could park to justify providing access.  

Rather than paying parking fees to assure access to a particular bus route, commuters could pay a monthly or yearly “Ride Assurance” fee.  The rate could be set such that fees from half the bus capacity cover the typical 35% of bus operating costs, leaving half the bus capacity available for free rides. Potentially thousands of additional commuters could be attracted to public transit, reducing roadway congestion without the need to create expensive P&R lots  

Implementing “pay-to-park” lots and “ride assurance” bus stops requires a comprehensive survey of all the major employment centers in the area.  Find out where commuters live, and when and where they want to go.   Also how far they would be willing to walk to a “ride assurance” stop or drive to a “Pay-to-Park”, walk to and from their destination, and how much they would be willing to pay to assure access.  While the results would be used to prioritize pay-to-park locations they could initially be used to locate "Ride assurance" stops.

Buses could be sized to meet current demand and increase with future growth.  Again the goal being to find a single acceptable pick-up and drop-off location for each route so free access to “unpaid” capacity would be available.   Again the “Ride Assurance” fee approach would enable Sound Transit to quickly attract thousands of additional commuters, the only expense being providing additional bus routes. 

The current Sound Transit Board is far more interested in constructing a light rail spine than in implementing a transit system that reduces congestion.  The area’s commuters surly deserve they consider "Ride Assurance" as a way to do so.

The Pragmatic Transportation Choice

The following post is the follow up to the previous post critiquing the PSRC Transportation Plan with a response to Seattle Times editorial request for a pragmatic approach.    

The Pragmatic Transportation Choice 

A pragmatic approach to transportation is based on the recognition that reducing congestion requires adding transportation capacity by either increasing capacity with added transportation “lanes” or increasing the capacity of existing lanes.  The Sound Transit decision to use ST3 funds to extend the Central Link “spine” to Lynnwood and beyond to Everett, and to Federal Way and beyond to Tacoma, adds another transportation “lane” along I-5.  

“Lane” capacity is defined by the number of vehicles per hour times the capacity of each vehicle.  The decision to route the “spine” through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT limits the number of vehicles per hour. The PSRC 2004 Technical Workbook,  “Central Puget Sound Region High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” concluded the DSTT station lengths limit trains to four cars and that safe operation requires a minimum of 4 minutes between trains, or 60 light rail cars per hour.   

The PSRC Technical Workbook also concluded the capacity of the 74-seat light rail cars was limited to 148 riders for a total capacity of 8880 riders per hour (rph).   The DSTT capacity will presumably be split between the extensions to Federal Way and across I-90 Bridge, or 4440 rph each.  A pragmatist recognizes spending billions extending light rail along the I-5 corridor does nothing to increase the DSTT capacity.  At least during peak commute, riders attracted by the extensions will reduce access for those currently using Central Link. 

The I-90 Bridge East Link extension utilizes the two center roadway lanes rather than add another “lane”.  A pragmatist recognizes the billions spent implementing light rail on the center roadway for East Link’s limited capacity reduces cross-lake transit capacity rather than increases it.  

The capacity increase from an added freeway “lane” varies with vehicle velocity.   At 45mph a freeway lane can accommodate 2000 vehicles per hour (vph).   Achieving higher velocities requires reducing the number of vehicles and adding more vehicles tends to dramatically reduce speed, increasing congestion.   Thus a pragmatic approach recognizes adding a new lane increases roadway capacity by up to 2000 vehicles per hour. 

A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.  If 120 of the 2000 vph were 70-ft articulated buses the lane capacity would increase by more than 14,000 rph, equivalent to 7 freeway lanes, and more could be added. (900 buses per hour are routed into Manhattan on a single lane.)  A pragmatic approach to transportation would increase bus routes to what’s needed to meet capacity and limit the number of non-transit vehicles to maintain the 2000 vph.  One way to do so is implement HOT on the bus lane and adjust fees to limit non-transit vehicles. 

Reducing congestion requires attracting sufficient numbers of commuters to the added bus service.  Thousands of additional parking stalls are required since all the existing parking with access to transit is essentially full.  Allowing commuters to pay to park and ride free at the new P&Rs gives them the opportunity to assure access to a parking stall whenever they wish.  Those paying for parking would have priority access to their bus route. 

The parking fees could provide the funds needed to cover the 35% of operating costs Sound Transit normally requires, leaving capacity for others to ride free.  (The 12/03/17 post detailed how the parking fees from 3 Pay-to-Park lots near Lynnwood ($10) and 2 near Everett ($15) would allow 20,000 more commuters to use public transit each day.)  Thousands of commuters would likely welcome the chance to ride free.  Commuters could share a stall taking turns to use the priority.  Even non-commuters could provide local routes to and from Pay-to-Park lots.  The Pay-to-Park lots would make living within walking distance more attractive, increasing density and reducing sprawl. 

Sound Transit could make the added bus service from pay-to-park lots even more attractive with Wi-Fi access on all the buses.  Allow riders to use transit time to conduct business or personal items during the commute.  Those running their own business or employers would likely welcome the opportunity to pay for parking that assures access to Wi-Fi during commute.

Sound Transit plans to spend billions implementing a light rail spine limited by DSTT capacity fails any pragmatic cost/benefit analysis.  Even worse, the added operating costs for extensions without increasing capacity will either require a huge increase in fares or a financial “black hole” from the fare box revenue/ operating cost short fall. 

The bottom line is Sound Transit could begin adding thirty-to-forty, 1000-stall pay-to-park lots throughout the area over the next five years. The funds required would probably be less than what they would spend on their light rail spine during that time.  At the end of the five years the pay-to-park lots could be dramatically reducing congestion on all the major roadways.   Compare that with what the money spent on the spine during that period would provide.  Additional pay-to-park lots can be added as needed to increase capacity while funds spent on the spine will never increase DSTT capacity. 

Pay-to-park is surely the pragmatic choice. 

PSRC Transportation Plan

(I submitted the following to “transportationplan.participate”.   I posted it since the PSRC has ignored countless earlier emails referring to posts on this blog.)

PSRC Transportation Plan

The Jan 11^th Seattle Times Editorial, “New Transportation Plan Must be Pragmatic,” criticism of the Puget Sound Regional Council’s transportation plan is well founded.   The premise for the plan is summarized in the following excerpt:  

There should be an increased reliance on express lane tolls and user fees, such as a road usage charge, that are phased in as toll system technology and user acceptance evolves over time. Toll and fee rates should be set in a manner that strives to improve travel benefits for users of the express toll lane system and manages system demand during peak periods of the day. The use of toll revenues should also evolve over time towards increasingly broader uses.

The PRSC plan envisions $27.6B of the $39.9B in new revenue needed by 2040 will come from “Road usage charges”.  They assume user acceptance will “evolve over time” allowing them to increase tolls and divert revenues towards “increasing broader uses”.  They “strive to improve travel benefits for users of the express toll lane” but do nothing for those unwilling or unable to pay.

Those assumptions, along with the assumption, $5.1B from a “Carbon Tax on Fuel,” seem somewhat “optimistic”. They project Sound Transit won’t need any new revenue, having $61.6B to spend by 2040 with $42.4B spent extending light rail.

They propose to use the money to make “Key Investments”, in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties on highways, transit, and local roadway and trail projects.  What’s interesting is none of the PSRC "Draft" King County Investments include projects for cross-lake commuters.   They include light rail from Kirkland to Issaquah, but ignore East Link.   They could have proposed Bus Rapid Transit  (BRT) for I-90 commuters that would have been infinitely better than light rail.  Instead they proposed BRT for I-405 but nothing for SR 520: apparently ignoring the needs of cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake.

They applaud how, “Transit’s use in the central Puget Sound region grew at a faster rate than any of the 52 metropolitan areas with a population of more than one million people.”    Yet the PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” included a “pie chart” showing the percentage of transit riders had increased from 8.6% in 2010 to 9.8% in 2013, yet traffic delays between 2010 and 2014 increased by 52%.  The Dec. 26^th Seattle Times headline,  “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning” suggests 2016 transit ridership increase did little to reduce congestion. 

The entire PSRC plan is predicated on people choosing to live within easy access to transit or to work;

The strategy contains numeric guidance adopted for counties, cities, and towns to use as they develop new population and employment growth targets and update local comprehensive plans. These land use assumptions serve as the basis for local and regional transportation planning.

Their  “regional growth strategy” assumes an additional “510,000 people will walk or bike daily as a form of transportation” and “more than 620,000 additional people will live within half a mile of frequent transit”.  That by 2040, transit ridership will increase to 510 million annually.    Yet their “managed lanes network” does little to expand commuter access to transit near where large numbers of commuters currently live or may want to live. 

They admit current “park and rides fill very early in the morning” and assume 18,000 new parking stalls will be built; apparently unaware Sound Transit ST3 P&R funding is limited to adding 8560 spaces between 2024 and 2041.  Thus it’s not clear who will provide funds for the additional nearly 10,000 stalls: a significant improvement but far more are needed.

In conclusion, the PSRC includes plans on how they intend to get additional funds but very little on how they intend to spend them. ("towards broader use"?)  Clearly, they would be well advised to be “more pragmatic”.

Why Traffic Will Get Worse

The Jan 7^th Seattle Times front page Traffic Lab article headline, “If you think Seattle Traffic is bad now . . .” again exemplifies the paper’s ability to identify problems but neglects proposing ways to effectively reduce congestion.   To say the “traffic scrum began unofficially New Year’s week” may reflect Seattle’s problem but those commuting into and out of Seattle have already endured years of congestion as attested to by the Dec. 26^th Seattle Times front-page article “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning”.   

The article includes concern about gridlock from “hundreds of buses a day out of the transit tunnel and onto city streets”.   Traffic Lab apparently doesn’t recognize Seattle congestion is not due to too many buses.   A single bus can replace up to 100 cars on the streets, so any increase can reduce Seattle congestion. The increased number of buses could be accommodated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated T/C.  Each route would have one or two designated drop off points on one side and pick up points on the other side to reduce transit times.

The article’s proposal to, “create a quick transfer from 520 buses to UW Station trains” as a way to “reduce central city gridlock,” is another example of anti-bus attitude.    Sound Transit used the same justification for implementing East Link on I-90 bridge center roadway, terminating I-90 corridor bus routes at South Bellevue light rail station.  Still not recognizing buses aren’t the problem.

Both proposals are seriously flawed.  East Link because it limits the bridge center roadway capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to meet cross-lake transit needs.  At least during peak commute, East Link trains will be full well before they ever reach the South Bellevue station. 

Those transferring at the UW station will initially have the benefit of twice East Link capacity.  However once the extensions to Lynnwood and Everett begin operation even a fraction of Sound Transit ST3 ridership projections will fill trains before they reach UW.  However, the current plans for transfer appear to have a more immediate problem in that it doesn’t include a T/C where buses can wait for returning commuters.  

The UW T/C could have been a major benefit for commuters from both sides of the take.  It had been included in the initial Sound Transit light rail proposal as the terminus for Central Link, with a second bridge across the Montlake Cut to facilitate access.  Not only would the T/C provide 520 bus commuters with access to light rail, the return routes would provide Seattleites with access to Overlake and Bellevue T/Cs. 

While the T/C would reduce the number of buses into Seattle, its primary benefit was it took advantage of light rails fast reliable service, again in both directions. Thousands of eastside commute could have used the T/C to transfer from 520 BRT routes to light rail trains running every 4 minutes into downtown Seattle. The return routes would provide access to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs for thousands of Seattleites.  (The afternoon routes would be reversed)   The large ridership on both inbound and outbound routes would’ve taken maximum advantage of the 520BRT/Central Link capacity.

Instead the second bridge was dropped and Sound Transit signed a “Master Implementation Agreement with Sound Transit”  (MIA) that precluded a UW T/C.   It also included a provision whereby Sound Transit gave the UW a lump sum payment of $20,000,000 for “conditions and easements” with the Northgate extension. Eliminating the UW T/C allowed Sound Transit to promise construction companies years of lucrative contracts and high paying jobs for their labor unions extending light rail to Northgate and beyond that do nothing to increase capacity.     

The T/C would have allowed direct BRT routes to and from Microsoft rather than East Link’s multi-stop, circuitous route across I-90 Bridge through Bellevue to Overlake T/C.  The Sound Transit decision not to include 520 BRT in the ST3 funding “may” have been influenced by the same concerns.  The result is thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake don’t have access to adequate public transit. 

Traffic Lab needs to recognize more buses aren't the problem, they’re the solution.  Without increased buses traffic is only going to get worse.

Seattle Times Legislative Priorities

In 1807 Thomas Jefferson concluded, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper…the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them”.   The Jan. 7^th Seattle Times editorial, “Lawmakers should focus on these issues” validates Jefferson’s advice.   It devotes two full columns urging legislators to, “stay focused on a handful of key priorities” but ignores the most pressing issue.    

Much of the first column urges legislators “find a way to substantially invest in areas of public schools that still need their attention”, whatever that means.   The rest of the editorial urges they pass a capital budget, resolve the Hirst water rights issue, crack down on "dark money" in politics, enact a state "Voting Rights Act”, and "open up" lawmakers' records.  

For months the Times has been replete with articles concerning the skyrocketing price of homes in Seattle.   Surely one of the reasons is that living in Seattle is the only way to avoid the delays on “some of the worst congestion in the country” on the roads into Seattle.  A Dec. 26^th Seattle Times front-page article “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning” exemplifies the problem.  Yet their editorial page “key legislative priorities” doesn’t include anything regarding transportation problems.  

A Nov 4^th 2016 Times article conceded the billions spent on ST3 would not reduce congestion.  Most papers would conclude spending billions on light rail extensions that do nothing to reduce congestion would merit some sort of review.  Yet shortly after the ST3 vote the Times ignored a Nov 9^th 2016 post urging Sound Transit be audited, the first since 2012.  Now more than a year later, with ever increasing congestion, the Times still doesn’t consider the need to audit Sound Transit a priority for the legislature.

The Times failure to do so makes it doubtful there are enough Republicans who aren’t “influenced” by the construction companies involved with extending light rail, or Democrats who aren’t “influenced” by their labor unions to pass the needed legislation. 

The entire area will likely pay a heavy price for the Times choice of legislative priorities.

Traffic Lab “Connivance?” with WSDOT I-405 HOT

The Dec. 25^th Seattle Times B1 Traffic Lab article “I-405 express toll lanes between Renton, Bellevue on way” does two things.  First it details WSDOT plans for I-405 HOT that are far more aimed at increasing revenue than in reducing congestion.  Second, that the Traffic Lab, whose purported objective is to “spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock” either doesn’t recognize that reality or chooses to ignore it. 

The article details WSDOT plans to implement HOT on the existing HOV lane and a new lane between Bellevue and Renton “as part of changes that aim to improve traffic flow on what officials call Washington’s worse corridor for congestion”.  When completed the two HOT lanes there will be combined with a second HOT lane from Lynnwood to Bothell and existing two HOT lanes from Bothell to Bellevue; purportedly reducing congestion along the entire route. 

 Again, it doesn’t take much foresight to recognize the decision to implement two HOT lanes along the route will do far more to increase revenue than reduce congestion.   The WSDOT plans for HOT on two of the four lanes on most of the route are particularly absurd.   With one HOT lane WSDOT could set the fares to limit traffic volume to 10% of the vehicles.  Reducing the number of vehicles from 25% of the total to 10% would reduce congestion and commute times for those willing to pay the tolls. 

Meanwhile the percentage of vehicles on the three remaining lanes would increase from 25% to 30% increasing their congestion.  The whole rationale for HOT is based on the assumption giving commuters unable to carpool the option of paying whatever it takes to meet the 45mph limit justifies the increased congestion on GP lanes.  The WSDOT perverts the entire HOT process by choosing to implement HOT on two of the four lanes.  

Again assuming they set the rates to limit traffic to 10% of the total on both lanes, the traffic on each of the two GP lanes increases to 40% of the total, dramatically increasing congestion and the incentive to pay HOT fees.   The end result is the increased number of those willing to pay to use the two HOT lanes "requires" the WSDOT raise the tolls to limit flow to 10% of traffic for each of the lanes; frequently exceeding the $10 limit they are currently allowed on the Lynnwood to Bellevue portion.  

The article reports the WSDOT response “increasing the maximum toll rate would need to be a discussion between the state legislature and the Washington State Transportation Commission”.   Until they raise the rates the WSDOT HOT approach not only dramatically increases GP lane congestion, it's failed to achieve the 45 mph average required;  Despite the millions paid in tolls and the $484 million the WSDOT spent implementing HOT between Lynnwood and Bellevue. 

Anyone with a modicum of competence could have anticipated the likely failure of the WSDOT “experiment” of implementing two HOT lanes to meet 45 mph requirement.  Apparently not only did the Times Traffic Lab fail to do so, their Dec 25^th article indicates they agree with WSDOT implementing two HOT lanes along the entire Lynnwood to Renton route.

The way to achieve the 45 mph is to reduce the incentive to pay the tolls by maintaining three lanes for GP use and increasing the HOT fees to what is required on the fourth lane; potentially less the $10.00.   The WSDOT surely recognizes that reality but is more interested in the added revenue than in reducing congestion.  The Traffic Lab is either too incompetent to recognize the problem or is conniving with the WSDOT.

Neither speaks well.  

P.S.  The Seattle Times needs to urge the legislature use its oversight responsibility to require WSDOT end HOT along I-405 until they can implement it on only one lane between Bothell and Bellevue and on new lanes from Lynnwood to Bothell and from Bellevue to Renton.