Seattle Times Ignores Suburban Commuters

The April 26^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab front-page article ”Bus Agency can’t keep up with Seattle’s burgeoning ridership” laments the fact, “Drivers can’t be hired, trained fast enough; no space for new buses”.   The Times clearly understands the importance of adequate access to public transit for those living in the city.

Yet their April 22^nd, B1 page article,  “Why are Seattle-area home prices so high?” neglects to mention the lack of public transit for those living outside the city.    Their attempt to “go over the biggest reasons” comes down to standard market forces of supply, “There aren’t enough homes for sale” and demand, “Lots of people want to buy homes”. 

The April 25^th Times front page article “Home-price milestone: Surge surpasses bubble era’s growth” detailed “Seattle area continues its run as the nation’s hottest real estate market”.  Seattle’s home price increase of 12.7% compared to last year was again more than double the national rate of 6.3%.  The median cost of a single- family house in Seattle was $820,000,  (They seem to consider it something to applaud rather than a matter of concern.)

The article also noted housing in more affordable areas have also hit records with $485,000 in Snohomish County, $350,000 in Pierce County, and $341,000 in Kitsap County.  Typical of the Times, they make no attempt to explain why those buying homes in the area are willing to pay nearly $500,000 more to live in Seattle. 

No one can reasonably argue that schools in Seattle or improved access to restaurants, sports, or entertainment, justifies the higher prices.   Especially since one of the reasons houses cost less in surrounding counties is the increased supply of homes from new construction.  One would think the ability to buy a new, or most likely, newer home would be an extra inducement to buy outside Seattle.

 The most obvious reason for not doing so is living in Seattle is the only way to avoid the problems of commuting into and out of the city.   A Feb 12^th, 2018 Seattle Times Traffic Lab article reported “you had to budget 94 minutes to drive alone during the morning commute between Everett and Seattle”.  That 2016 traffic delays throughout the area were nearly 2.5 times the 2009 levels; and they’ve surely gotten worse. 

Again, typical of the Times, a second April 22^nd B1 page article opines, “Tacoma might eventually become Oakland to Seattle’s San Francisco”.  After all, the $6 billion Sound Transit has already spent on light rail expansions is only a tiny fraction of the billions they eventually intend to spend creating their light rail spine. 

However, even a Nov 4^th, 2016 Seattle Times article conceded the ST3 spine would not reduce congestion.  They apparently recognized Sound Transit’s decision to route the spine through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits its capacity to a fraction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit.  Thus, the “Tacoma Link” will never be the area’s BART.

Yet Sound Transit refuses to increase the area’s transit capacity with added bus service.  Their 115,163, quarterly bus trips during the 2012 4^th quarter only increased to 120,400 during the 2017 4^th quarter.   It’s no wonder comparable total average express-bus-weekday boarding only increased from 54,345 to 61,526 during the five years.  

The bottom line is the increased cost of homes in Seattle should be cause for alarm not applause.  The only way to make homes in Seattle more affordable is to reduce the number of potential homeowners wanting to live there.  They need the option of being able to live in the surrounding communities and still be able to work in Seattle.  Increased public transit is the only way to do so.  Instead Sound Transit continues to spend billions on light rail extensions that will do absolutely nothing to increase DSTT capacity.  

The Seattle Times needs to show the same concern for those potential commuters as they do for Seattleites and use its influence to persuade Sound Transit to increase bus service. 

OMF Exemplifies East Link Fantasy

The April 13^th, Bellevue Reporter front-page article, “Construction underway at Sound Transit facility in Bellevue” detailed the April 4^th ground breaking for their Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) East.  It follows by nearly two years an April 29^th, 2016 Bellevue Reporter front-page article heralding East Link light rail extension “breaking ground” as a “cause for celebration”. (It looked like they used the same pile of dirt.) Both “ground-breakings” exemplify the failure of those participating to recognize Sound Transit’s East Link will end forever Bellevue’s persona as “the city in the park” and increase, not decrease, cross-lake congestion.

Sound Transit’s decision to confiscate the I-90 Bridge for light rail reflects two monumental blunders.  First, their East Link 2008 DEIS neglected to consider implementing two-way bus only lanes on the center roadway as the “no-build” alternative to light rail.  They simply ignored RCW 81.104.100 requiring they consider a far cheaper alterative high capacity transit (HCT),  bus-only lanes, for the bridge center roadway.

Second, they compounded that failure by refusing to recognize East Link’s share of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) capacity was limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes, or thirty 74-seat light rail cars an hour.   They could have easily added light rail capacity with 50-60 additional buses an hour without spending a dime extending light rail.  (And, even more important, added buses could easily double or triple light rail capacity.)   Rather than increasing cross-lake transit capacity, Sound Transit plans to spend nearly $4 billion on East Link to replace existing cross-lake bus routes.  Apparently not recognizing the number of buses on HOV lane is not the reason for the bridge congestion.

None of this would be possible without WSDOT connivance.  It was WSDOT lawyers who “misled” a federal judge in the Freeman litigation claiming the I-90 Bridge center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles if  4^th lanes were added to outer roadways.  They simply ignored a September 2004 FHWA Record of Decision stipulating the center roadway was still needed for vehicles with the added outer roadway lanes. 

The WSDOT allowed Sound Transit to confiscate the center roadway for a light rail system that will forever be limited to fewer than 5000 riders per hour, a fraction of what’s needed to meet future public transit requirements.  Since 2007 they've been planning to use the resulting outer roadway congestion to “justify” implementing HOT on the HOV lane.  Sound Transit has refused to add parking with access to bus service allowing I-90 corridor commuters to use increased public transit as an alternative.  The current congestion along the route is only a precursor to future gridlock on I-90 that will undoubtedly make 520 tolls more lucrative for WSDOT.  

Instead the April 4^th article details Sound Transit plans to spend $450 million on their OMF. When completed in 2020, it will “assure a safe, clean and comfortable ride for Sound Transit passengers, with light rail cars cleaned every night and regularly pulled out of service to perform routine maintenance”.  The light rail car fleet will grow from 62 to 214 vehicles to accommodate ST3 light rail extensions. 

The OMF overcame “backlash from the community” with claims it will attract Transit Oriented Development (TOD).  Typical of Sound Transit, their claim portions of the construction staging area can be developed for transit-oriented use providing, “1.1 million square feet of housing, office, and retail space,” seems overly “optimistic”.    

Bellevue Mayor Chelminiak apparently shares this fantasy claiming, “The transit-oriented design could serve as a model for other transit agencies around the country”.  He needs to identify developers who have shown an interest in property adjacent to a huge light-rail-car maintenance facility.  Especially one that presumably operates primarily between 12:00 and 5:00 every morning.  

It’s not clear how many of the planned 214 light rail cars will be cleaned and serviced at the Bellevue OMF.  However, apparently beginning in 2020, it's likely more than fifty 2, 3 and 4-car trains will trundle into and out of the OMF during those hours.  Sound Transit has already been forced to spend millions shielding Seattle homes from Central Link noise.  They’ve also committed to spend additional millions shielding homes adjacent to the route into Bellevue.  The potential for “noise” during the early morning hours would seem to be a “deterrent” for developers.

The bottom line is, like many of Sound Transit claims, their assumption developers will be attracted to provide TOD near OMF exemplifies their East Link fantasy.

Dear Federal Highway Administration

(The below post, an email to the FHWA, was prompted by an April 10^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab Article suggesting recent federal approval of bus line funding improved chances for Lynnwood extension funding. Hopefully they will demonstrate more competence than Sound Transit and Traffic Lab and reject the funding.  While doing so may not stop the extension it should be a wakeup call to supporters to end this stupidity.)

Dear Federal Highway Administration

The April 10^th Seattle Times B1 page Traffic Lab article “Federal funding OK’d for bus line” suggests “Approval may be good news for other projects—like Lynnwood Link”. I urge you to reject Sound Transit’s application for $1.2 billion in FHWA money for the Lynnwood Link. Even with the federal grant local tax payers will still be required to pay close to $2B of the $3.1B for an extension that will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

Sound Transit refuses to recognize routing Central Link through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) severely limits its capacity. A 2004 PSRC 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 through the tunnel into Seattle of 8880 riders per hour (rph). 

Light rail routed through the DSTT doesn’t have the capacity to justify Lynnwood extension.  Sound Transit’s 2017 4^th Quarter weekday average boardings at UW and Capitol Hill totaled 17,487 commuters into Seattle to Westlake or University Stations in DSTT.  They plan to spend $2.1B on a Northgate light rail extension they’ve claimed would attract 15,000 daily riders.   Assuming half of the 15,000 Northgate Extension riders were also commuting into Seattle gives a total of nearly 25,000 every morning.  Accommodating their projected ridership into the DSTT with the Northgate Link and PSRC 8880 rph capacity will take nearly three hours.  

Sound Transit intends to use the federal funding as part of the $3.1 billion they plan to spend on a light rail extension beyond Northgate to Lynnwood that does nothing to increase the DSTT capacity.  Yet they justify the extension claiming it will add 68,500 daily riders, presumably adding 34,250 commuters into Seattle every morning.  Accommodating their projected Lynnwood extension ridership into the DSTT with the PSRC 8880 rph capacity will take nearly four hours, essentially ending access for other commuters into Seattle.  Even more absurd Sound Transit justified ST3 plans to spend billions more extending light rail to Everett with claims for an additional 37,000 riders.  Again assuming half do so every morning adds two hours of full trains before reaching Northgate. 

Clearly Sound Transit plans to spend $3.1 billion extending light rail to Lynnwood will reduce access to current Central Link riders as well as those added by the Northgate extension.  While FHWA rejection of Sound Transit’s application may not be “sufficient” to prevent them proceeding, approval will surely lead to their implementing not only the Lynnwood extension but also the extension to Everett. 

The entire area will pay a heavy price as a result.   Not only will it be burdened with the cost of paying for extensions that end access for many current and future riders, the operating costs for the longer routes will either require a huge increase in tolls for those able to ride or a financial “black hole” for the area's future transportation funds from the fare box revenue shortfall. 

Again, I urge you to reject Sound Transit’s application for Lynnwood extension.

Respectfully,

Bill Hirt

2615 170^th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA 98008

Seattle Needs More Public Transit not Tolls

The April 4^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, “Mayor pushes for tolls downtown” exemplifies the inability of those responsible to recognize how to deal with the area’s congestion problem.  First of all, rather than trying to put tolls on roads leading into or in downtown Seattle they could simply increase parking fees in the area, especially during peak commute hours.   Those arriving after 10 a.m. would not face the additional charge.  Employers who provide parking would also be required to pay the parking fee surcharge for their employees.  

However, the problem with either tolls or increased parking fees is neither will likely change the need for commuters to drive into Seattle, they’ll simply increase the cost of doing so.  The way to reduce Seattle congestion is to offer commuters an alternative, namely more public transit.  While King County Metro could increase bus service within the city, Sound Transit could reduce congestion both within the city and along the routes into Seattle.

A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders.   Fifty additional buses an hour into Seattle from Everett and Federal Way along I-5, and from east side across I-90 Bridge could replace nearly 6,000 vehicles on each of the three routes into Seattle.  Two hours of increased bus service each morning would dramatically reduce Seattle congestion.

The added bus service would also reduce congestion on the routes into the city.  A typical freeway lane can accommodate about 2000 vehicles per hour at 45 mph.  Replacing 6,000 vehicles per hour with 50 buses would add the equivalent of 3 freeway lanes reducing congestion on the three major routes into Seattle.  The added capacity into Seattle would also likely reduce the housing "premium" commuters are willing to pay to live there. 

Mayor Durkan should use her influence to “dissuade” Sound Transit from continuing with plans to spend most of the $54 billion ST3 funds on a light rail spine that will do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. (and nothing to reduce congestion.) Whatever riders the extensions add will simply displace those currently using light rail.  

Instead, over the last five years, Sound Transit has simply ignored the need to increase the area’s transit capacity.   Their Quarterly Ridership reported 115,163 4^th quarter bus trips in 2012 only increased to 120,400 in the 2017 4^th quarter.  That comparable total average express-bus-weekday boarding only increased from 54,345 to 61,526 during the five years.  The additional 300 morning and afternoon bus trips could more than double that ridership.

Not only do they need to increase bus service, they need to provide additional parking.  All the P&R lots with access to transit have been full for years, yet Sound Transit’s spent $6 billion on “System Expansions” with ~80 percent of that on light rail expansions, without adding a single major P&R with access to bus routes. They wait unto 2024 to begin adding a measly 8560 stalls by 2041. 

Rather than adding parking Sound Transit has proposed, “to better manage demand” at existing P&Rs.  These include having commuters pay to reserve a spot at an existing P&R and more recently subsidizing Lyft rides for Mercer Island commuters to and from their T/C.  Neither will provide the needed additional capacity.

Again, reducing congestion in Seattle requires reducing the number of vehicles entering the city.  Forcing commuters to pay tolls or higher parking without offering them increased public transit as an alternative only adds to their cost and does nothing to reduce congestion.  They need more transit capacity and parking.

Sound Transit should be “encouraged” to quickly add more bus routes, especially to areas with large numbers of new apartments and condominiums.  Those working in Seattle should be surveyed to determine when and where to route the buses.  Commuters could pay a “ride assurance fee” to guarantee a seat on their preferred route sufficient to provide Sound Transit's typical 35% recovery of operating costs, allowing others to ride free.

The survey results could also identify locations for added parking.  The new parking could be “Pay-to-Park” where commuters could pay monthly or annual fees to reserve a parking space and access to a preferred route that again cover 35% of operating costs, allowing others to ride free.

The bottom line is Seattle’s current congestion, along with congestion on the roads into the city, is largely the result of Sound Transit’s five-year failure to increase public transit capacity into the city.  The billions they intend to spend on light rail spine will do nothing to increase that capacity. 

Again, Mayor Durkan needs to recognize that tolls are "unlikely" to reduce Seattle congestion and that she should use her influence to “persuade” Sound Transit to add more transit capacity rather than extend light rail spine.

Mercer Island Needs Pay-to-Park, Not Lyft

The March 29^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article describing Sound Transit plans to subsidize Lyft connections to the Mercer Island T/C is another result of Sound Transit’s decision to “manage demand” at existing P&R lots rather than to ”increase parking supply”.   Last month their “manage-demand” approach entailed allowing solo-drivers reserve stalls at existing P&Rs.  It’s unlikely they will proceed with widespread use of that plan since those wanting to reserve parking for later commutes will fill all the available parking, eliminating access for those currently using P&R.

Todd Kelsey, Lyft’s general manager for the Northwest suggested the Mercer Island adopt the subsidized “ride hail” approach in 2015.  Lyft and Uber each contributed $10,000 towards the up to $226,900 Sound Transit will give Mercer Island to subsidize the ride-hail fares.  One can understand why they did so claiming “In the six-month pilot, we expect it to be thousands of rides.”   Especially since Sound Transit is considering “At least 26 other park and ride facilities in King County are chronically full, so these kinds of arrangements might spread”. 

The discounted rides begin April 23. Islanders can catch a car to or from their transit hub for $2 the first three months. During months four to six, the rate is $2 per rider for a group ride, $5 per solo ride.  It’s unclear how many rides the $226,900 will subsidize or what fares will be without subsidies.  Mercer Island Mayer Debbie Berlin “embraced the opportunity to investigate the future of transportation with this pilot project”.  Ross Freeman, city sustainability manager, claimed the “Mercer Island City Council Members didn’t fret about subsidizing ride-hailing markets, (Presumably unsubsidized ride-hailing is also ok.)

However, it’s not clear why Mercer Island commuters will be enamored with the idea of paying probably $10 or more to ride to and from their T/C.  They’ve already been forced to pay, likely more than most, increased car tab and property taxes to fund ST3.  Also, many won't welcome waiting for Lyft or Uber to pick them up at home or the hassle of waiting with hundreds of commuters at the T/C attempting to “hail a ride” home.

Mercer Island commuters deserve better from their city leaders.  The council could require Sound Transit allow Islanders the opportunity to reserve a parking stall at the Mercer Island T/C, similar to what they’d proposed in February.  Especially since it was Sound Transit’s closure of the South Bellevue P&R that forced many I-90 corridor commuters to use their T/C. 

The most absurd rational for the “ride hail” approach is the Traffic Lab claim “Taxpayers may benefit, if transit agencies avoid parking-structure expansions that can cost around $100,000 a space".  They profess concerns about tax payers having to pay to construct parking yet ignore Sound Transit plans to spend $54 billion of their tax money on light rail extensions they’ve already conceded won’t reduce congestion.

The best option would be for the council to “persuade” Sound Transit to construct a 1000-stall Pay-to-park lot at their Island Crest Park.   The ability to use existing space for parking would likely substantially reduce the costs.  Residents could pay a monthly or annual fee of $10 per weekday to reserve a space.  The $10,000 daily fees would be used to cover Sound Transit’s express bus operating costs allowing others to ride free.

Rather than providing access to T/C, the buses could provide express routes into Seattle and Bellevue with round trips to 4^th and University, or Bellevue T/C, both approximately 16 miles.  Sound Transit budgets bus operating costs as ~$10 per mile or $160 per round trip.  $56 in fares per trip would provide Sound Transit’s typical 35% of operating costs.   Thus the $10,000 could cover 178 round trips or 89 morning and afternoon commutes. 

A typical 40-ft bus can accommodate up to 75 sitting and standing riders.  The 89 round trips each morning and afternoon would provide capacity for 6675 commuters to and from the two destinations.  Those paying the tolls would have priority access to the bus route of their choice, however an additional 5675 could ride free, exceeding likely demand.   Their only need being to get to and from the Pay-to-Park lot.

The trips could be scheduled to meet demand with buses departing every 5 minutes to one of the two destinations during peak commute with 10-minute intervals during off-peak.  The afternoon return schedules would be similar.  Drop-offs in Seattle would be limited to one or two designated locations for each route but pick ups will be limited to one location to assure those paying for parking would have access to their preferred routes.

Pay-to-Park will be especially useful to Mercer Island commuters as congestion increases on bridge. Sound Transit intends to use East Link to replace many of the I-90 corridor bus routes reducing Islander access to buses.  East Link's limited capacity, at least during peak commute, will likely be full when they arrive at Mercer Island Station.  Mercer Island can surely justify having Sound Transit acquire a few more buses since there would be no East Link without their approval of the Shoreline and Construction permits that allowed it to proceed.