Legislature Should Block WSDOT Two-lane I-405

(This post was prompted by a  ETA presentation)

Legislature Should Block WSDOT Two Lane I-405 HOT 

The whole premise for HOT is that fees can be set to limit the number of vehicles to what’s required to maintain the desired speed.  A typical example is that achieving 45 mph requires limiting the number of vehicles to 2000 per hour.   The most rational justification for doing so is the HOT lane can reliably assure the desired speed for the high capacity bus routes needed to attract more commuters.  While a +2HOV lane doubles the lane capacity to 4000 commuters, a high-capacity bus can accommodate more than 100 commuters.   Up to 900 buses per hour use a single lane into Manhattan.  A single HOT  I-5 lane could easily facilitate BRT with capacity far in excess of what’s needed to reduce congestion.   

The problem in our area is Sound Transit  has refused to add the parking and bus service needed for HOT lanes to increase public transit commuting.  All the current P&R lots with access to major roadways are already full.  (The 12/03 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.)  Instead they’ve spent that last 10 years promoting Prop 1 and ST3 extensions that will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle along I-5 or I-90 corridors.

Meanwhile along I-405, the WSDOT is planning to to implement, not one, but two HOT lanes  between Lynnwood and Renton.  Again Sound Transit is refusing to add the parking and bus service to take advantage of the justification for even a single lane; namely reliable high-capacity vehicle velocities. 

My “interest” in HOT prompted me to attend a  2/21/18 presentation to the Eastside Transportation Association (ETA) by Kim Henry, Program Director for the I-405/SR 167 Corridor Program.  He  detailed  WSDOT plans to improve traffic flow along the entire corridor, part of which dealt with plans for HOT.  Expanding on a Seattle Times Dec 25^th  (and updated on Jan. 2^nd) Traffic Lab article concerning HOT, “I-405 express toll lanes between Renton and Bellevue are on their way”.   It included the following excerpts detailing planning and cost:

In 2019, work crews on Interstate 405 will start building a new lane in each direction between Renton and Bellevue, as part of a series of changes that aim to improve traffic flow on what officials call Washington’s worst corridor for congestion.

Then, five years later, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will open the new lanes, and an existing one each way, to traffic as express toll lanes, extending the interstate’s current tolling system between Lynnwood and Bellevue that opened in 2015.

WSDOT will spend $1.22 billion on the upcoming project, funded by the statewide gas-tax increase approved by the Legislature in 2015.

The article also included purported benefits for two HOT lanes:

WSDOT says the upcoming I-405 project will cut driving time in the general-purpose lanes by about 30 percent

The WSDOT apparently doesn’t recognize reducing the numbers of vehicles in the HOV lane increases the number of vehicles and congestion in GP lanes.  Again, a single HOT lane could accommodate far more buses than needed to reduce congestion.  But, again, Sound Transit refuses to add the thousands of parking stalls and delays any BRT service until 2024.  

The WSDOT I-405 HOT lanes are currently failing to meet the 45-mph requirement for 90% of the peak commute between Lynnwood and Bellevue.  They ignore the “possibility” that congestion on the remaining GP lanes is forcing too many commuters to use HOT.  Their solution is to reduce the number of HOT users by increasing tolls above the current $10.00 limit and is looking for authority to do so. 

While raising the fees will reduce HOT congestion, they could impose them on a single HOT lane and raise them to whatever’s required to meet 45 mph.  The remaining lane could be converted to GP use, providing additional capacity and reducing congestion. The reduced GP lane congestion would lessen the incentive for commuters to pay for HOT and minimize the fee increase. 

During Henry’s presentation I asked why they didn’t consider single-lane HOT with fares set to limit traffic to maintain 45 mph.  He said they had considered it and would discuss it later.  He never did.  Instead the WSDOT is preceding with plans to add a second HOT lane between Lynnwood and Bothell and to implement HOT on the existing HOV lane and new lane between Bellevue and Renton. Clearly the WSDT is more interested in increasing revenue than in reducing congestion. 

The bottom line is the legislature, at least so far, has shown no interest in requiring an audit of Sound Transit that would expose the “likely” failure of their $54 billion ST3 “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail spine to reduce I-5 and I-90 congestion.  Meanwhile, along I-405, the WSDOT solution to “Washington’s worst corridor for congestion” is the claim implementation of two HOT lanes between Lynnwood and Renton will reduce GP lane congestion by 30%. 

One can only hope the members of the House and Senate Transportation committees can recognize that absurdity and use their WSDOT oversight responsibility to require they limit HOT along the entire I-405 corridor to one lane.  If past is prolog I’m not optimistic.

Microsoft Should Use Driverless Vans to Reduce Congestion

Microsoft President Brad Smith’s recently announced their  Redmond campus expansion plans to accommodate 8,000 more than the current 47,000 employees are “good for our employees, good for the Puget Sound community, and makes good sense for our shareholders”.   However, its “doubtful” many east side residents who attempt to commute along West Lake Sammamish Blvd, 156^th, 148^th, or 140^th during several hours each morning and afternoon welcome the prospect of likely adding 8000 vehicles to those of the 47,000 employees who currently work there.   Presumably Microsoft congestion also affects other roadways in the area. 

Microsoft should be encouraged (required?) to limit the size of its new underground parking to 20,000 stalls.  They should greatly expand their current Connector Service to accommodate the remaining employees.  They’re all going to the same destination so it’s just a question of providing access to transit from where they live and when they need to commute.  Those living within walking distance of one or two potential bus stops could commute by Connector bus.   Connector buses could also provide transit from Microsoft funded P&R lots near where employees live.   (Its likely less expensive creating parking  there than on campus)  

In some areas Microsoft, rather than constructing a P&R, could provide transit via driverless vans.   A single trip by 500 12-passenger van would eliminate 5500 vehicles and over 16,000 if each van could make three trips during the morning and afternoon commutes.  Microsoft could adjust employee work schedules to facilitate the different route times.   Again eliminating the driver would reduce the cost and each van could provide Wi-Fi access  to allow employees to make use of commute time.

Microsoft employees would benefit from avoiding the costs of driving, Microsoft would benefit by reduced costs for parking and employee use of Wi-Fi during commute, and east side residents using local roads and others using major roads would benefit from reduced congestion.

Microsoft should be encouraged to do so.

Trump Budget Cuts Welcome News

The Feb 13^th Seattle Times B1 page  article “Trump’s budget would slash money for region” should be welcome news, at least regarding the cuts to Lynnwood and Federal Way light rail extensions.  First of all, why was the federal money needed since the 2008 Prop 1 was sold to voters as  funding light rail extensions to Mill Creek, Redmond, and Federal Way?  Sound Transit’s initial claim a poor economy forced them to truncate the extensions has been replaced by the claim the improved economy has dramatically increased their costs, necessitating federal help.

While it’s not clear what precipitated the funding cut, anyone with a modicum of competence would have recognized the stupidity of extending Central Link to Lynnwood and Federal Way.   The reason being that Central Link is routed through a Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) that 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).   A fraction of what’s needed to meet both current and future transit requirements

What’s “maddening” (quoting Rogoff”) is Sound Transit’s failure to recognize spending billions extending Central Link does nothing to increase its limited transit capacity into Seattle.  Whatever riders the extensions add will displace those currently using Central Link.  The extensions increased operating costs without the added capacity will either require a huge fare increase or very large subsidy to cover fare-box revenue shortfall. 

Even more “maddening” is Rogoff’s decision “Lynnwood  Link  will be completed whether it gets federal money or not, the question is when”.  What Rogoff and Sound Transit fail to recognize the “when” commuters in Lynwood (and presumably much later in Everett) get some help, need not be that far into the future.  They could have helped them years ago by adding parking with access to bus routes needed to attract more commuters to public transit.  They’ve neglected to do so to the  point where fewer commuters rode buses between Everett and Seattle in the third quarter of 2017 than in 2014. 

The parking problem is exemplified by a Nov. 1^st, 2016, Seattle Times article reporting "19,488 cars occupied park-and-ride facilities each weekday in Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties” with “51 facilities next to express bus or train stations that were at least 95% full”.  Yet the article reports Sound Transit waits until 2024 to begin spending $698 million of the $54 billion they’ll spend on ST3 extensions adding a measly 8560 parking spaces over the next 17 years. ‘’

Even without the federal funding Sound Transit could well afford spending $350 million over the next 3-4 years creating five 1000-stall parking lots with access to I-5 between Lynnwood and Everett with bus service to Seattle.  Commuters could pay a monthly or yearly parking fee to assure access to a stall and bus route to cover operating costs, allowing others to ride free. The 12/03/17 post detailed how the parking fees would provide capacity for 20,000 more commuters each day.

If 20.000 commuters, who previously drove cars during the 2-hour morning and afternoon peak commutes, rode buses, the five Pay-to-Park lots could reduce traffic volume by up to 10,000 vehicles per hour; equivalent to adding 5 lanes of freeway.  (The highway capacity benefits would drop to 4 lanes if 20% of the bus riders rode during off-peak hours.)  Limiting non-transit access to +3HOV during peak commute would facilitate bus transit times.  Two-person carpools and GP lane commuters would  benefit from “added capacity”.

Clearly Rogoff has another option to insisting “Lynnwood  Link  will be completed whether it gets federal money or not, the question is when”.  While he may or may not provide effective leadership for extending light rail, he apparently hasn't recognized the limitations resulting from routing the light rail spine through the DSTT.  (e.g. his up to 120,000 daily ridership projections for Central Link ST3 extensions through Lynnwood to Everett.)   

Sound Transit’s failure to recognize the need to add  thousands of additional parking stalls with access to increased bus service during his tenure has failed to provide commuters with the access to public transit needed to reduce roadway congestion. The entire area will benefit if the Trump budget cuts provide the incentive to do so. 

ACES, Driverless Vans Fatal Flaws

The Feb 4^th Seattle Times editorial page submission “Let technology take the wheel for safer, less-congested roads” includes a mirror view depiction of a woman with her feet on a car dashboard with the other seats empty, enjoying commuting in an “autonomous” car; hardly a recipe for reducing congestion.  It concludes people will “adopt transportation as a shared device to be summoned on demand” reducing the number of individually owned vehicles”.  However it’s not clear how “autonomous” vehicles “summoned on demand” will reduce congestion.

Since there is very little actual data,  it’s also not clear how “experts” arrived at the conclusion “once 20% of the cars are “autonomous,” crashes will decrease by 90%, and traffic will improve with fewer traffic snarls”.    The editorial claims the area should lead in implementing “autonomous, connected, electric, and shared” vehicles (ACES) as a way to reduce congestion.   Surely more data is needed to assure  “cars without drivers” would make a significant difference before making any significant ACES commitments.

Former King County Metro Transit director, Chuck Collins, is even more optimistic about “driverless, electric vans”.  His Feb 5^th editorial suggests,  “A future free of congestion thanks to driverless vans can be ours”.  While initially claiming, ”It is hard to say precisely what it would take to free up our streets and highways,” proposes a solution; “25,000 van pools to carry 500,000 passengers round trip, or 1 million (passenger) trips a day”.  Each van would make 10 one-way trips daily, carrying 5 passengers an average of 11 miles..   He neglects to mention whether or how these “trips” would respond to “summoned on demand” requests proposed above.    

His “van-trip” approach for commuters in the morning would require someone or something identify either a route to or the location of 5 commuters living within reasonable distance of each other, all wanting to go at the same time, to destinations reasonable close to each other.   Similarly, the afternoon van “trip” would also require 5 commuters within reasonable proximity whose departure time and destination are also compatible.  Collins’s assumption each van could make 5 such trips during the morning and afternoon commutes seems rather “optimistic”.

It’s even more “optimistic” to claim 25,000 vans could carry 500,000 commuters each morning and afternoon.  Doing so would require a huge database of potential van commuters.  Identifying 200,000 routes, each of which need to provide acceptable commutes to and from desired destinations for 5 passengers.   His comment, “In the last 40 years, employment has profoundly decentralized to new employment centers: Bothell, Overlake, the Kent Valley, Factoria, South Kirkland, Tukwila, and countless other centers” makes scheduling 200,000 routes to the needed destinations even more “difficult”.    

Collins also expresses concerns  that “Most (commuters)  will run a gauntlet through the congestion of Interstates 5 and 405, Highway 167 and many other stretches of bogged-down traffic”.  (Its not clear how that concern is consistent with his claim 93% of commuters are heading someplace other than downtown Seattle.) However, driver-less vans are also not the best option for those concerns.

Reducing  roadway congestion nominally requires limiting the number of vehicles to around 2000 per hour.  While it’s not clear how autonomous cars would increase lane capacity, a 5-passenger van only results in 4 fewer vehicles.  By comparison, a 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and riding commuters, increasing the lane capacity by nearly 30 times that of the van.  

The lane capacity increase from any reasonably sized bus dwarfs that of a van, whether driver-less or not.   Also, congestion at destinations in Seattle,  Bellevue and other major locations  would be far less with buses rather than vans.  Up to 900 buses an hour are routed into Manhattan on a single lane.    Clearly buses provide far more  of the public transit capacity needed to reduce congestion on the areas roadways.  (They’re also far better than light rail as attested to by Collin’s estimate for 30,000 daily riders with ST3 extensions.)  The reduced congestion with bus routes to Seattle, Bellevue, and other major destinations will also benefit commuting to other “decentralized employment centers”.

Their only limitation on ridership is the need to provide commuters with access.  Commuters throughout the area need to be surveyed to identify how best to provide access.  Rather than attempting to identify 200,000 routes, the results could be used to prioritize locations for 1000-stall pay-to-park lots and bus stops within walking distance for large numbers of commuters. 

Those paying for parking would have a reserved parking stall and priority access to a bus.   Those using the bus stop could buy monthly or yearly “Assured Access” fares to also guarantee access to their preferred route.   In both cases the funds from those paying for parking or assured access will cover operating costs allowing many others to ride free.   A sure recipe for the increased ridership needed to reduce congestion.

The bottom line is reducing congestion is not that complicated.   Either add additional lanes or increase capacity of existing lanes.  ACES does neither and any increase in lane capacity with driverless 5-passenger vans will be dwarfed by increases from added buses.  While driver-less vans may have some use in Uber or Lyft types of operation,  they’re “unlikely” to significantly reduce congestion on the area’s roadways. 

Implementing the improved bus service requires converting Sound Transit from one that manages the construction of light rail extensions to one that increases public transit capacity with added parking and bus routes.   The most viable way to do so is to require an audit that would expose the total failure of their light rail spine to reduce congestion. 

Help for Issaquah-Hobart Road

For years those living south of Issaquah have endured long lines of traffic along the Issaquah-Hobart road during the morning and afternoon commute.   It’s  congestion that will only get worse despite the thousands of dollars those living in the area have been and will continue to pay  into Sound Transit.  Since its unlikely additional highway lanes can be added the only way to reduce congestion is to make better use of the existing lanes by attracting more commuters to public transit

One way to do so is to create a 1000-stall “pay-to-park” lot along Hobart near the Cedar Grove junction.   Commuters would pay a monthly or annual fee of $10.00 per weekday but would ride free.  Those paying the fee would have assured access to a parking stall and priority access to seats on their choice of bus route.  The buses would provide riders with access to Wi-Fi for use during their commute.

The $10,000 daily fees would be used to cover some portion of the bus operating costs.  With Sound Transit’s normal 35% fare-box recovery, the pay-to-park fees could provide more than $28,000 worth of daily bus service.  Their 2018 budget projects bus operating costs of approximately $10.00 per mile, so the parking fees could fund 2800 miles of daily bus routes. 

A round trip from the Cedar Grove junction to 5^th & Union in Seattle is approximately 44 miles and about 32 miles to and from Bellevue T/C.   The 2800 miles of service could provide 36 round trips to and from both destinations, or 18 round trips every morning and afternoon. 

For three hours every morning and afternoon a bus could be routed every 5 minutes from the pay-to-park either into and out of Seattle or to and from Bellevue T/C.  The routes into Seattle would be non-stop to one or two designated drop off locations on 4^th Ave.  The afternoon routes would be limited to a single pick-up point to assure access for those paying for parking.   Assuming each bus could accommodate 100 riders, the two routes would provide up to 3600 commuters with access to public transit.   

While the 1000 that paid for parking would have priority for their preferred routes, an additional 2600 commuters could ride free.   Commuters could be dropped off and carpoolers could share the cost of parking and use of priority access.  Others could set up local routes to and from pay-to-park collecting small fees for those wanting access to free buses.  Those that paid for parking would have  priority access to seats enabling them to use Wi-Fi on the bus during commute.   Those unable to find seats would still benefit from the free ride though might not be able to use Wi-Fi.     

While the buses would still face Hobart Rd congestion, replacing up to 1200 cars with 12 buses per hour would go a long ways towards reducing traffic to the 2000 car-per-hour limit needed to achieve 45 mph.   Those paying for parking, those riding for free, as well as those unable to use the bus routes into Seattle or Bellevue T/C would benefit from the reduced congestion.

It's something that could be done in 2-3 years for a fraction of the money residents in the area have already paid into Sound Transit.  Instead they'll be forced to continue to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars each year to fund policies that do nothing to ease congestion.   Commuters using other roads in the Sound Transit service area facing similar problems could also benefit from pay-to-park lots sized to their needs. 

Sound Transit needs to recognize they should use taxes collected from residents in those areas to increase access to public transit with pay-to-park lots rather than a light rail spine most will never use.