A Transit System That Works

The previous post detailed the Seattle Times Traffic Lab failure to recognize Sound Transit’s decision to use Prop 1 funds to extend Central Link routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) prevented it from ever having the capacity needed to reduce congestion on I-5 and I-90 corridors into the city.  That even Central Link’s limited capacity was of “dubious value” since the two DSTT stations can’t provide the platform space riders need to access Central Link trains during peak return commute.  That the fare box revenue from Central Link's limited capacity will require a huge subsidy to cover the longer route operating costs.

It’s unlikely any tunnel under Seattle could provide the transit capacity into the city to reduce congestion on I-5 and I-90, or stations with sufficient platform space needed to access light rail trains for their return commute. However, a single freeway lane can achieve 45 mph if traffic is limited to 2000 vehicles per hour.    A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders so a bus-only lane or an HOT lane with fees set to limit vehicles to what’s required to achieve a target speed could easily provide fast, reliable transit capacity into and out of Seattle.

Egress from and access to the bus routes in Seattle could be expedited with an elongated T/C along 4^th Ave.   Each bus route could have one or two designated drop off locations on one side for egress in Seattle and one or two designated pick up locations on the other side for the return commute.  The designated drop off and pick up locations rather than "on demand" would expedite both egress and access.  They would still likely be more convenient for most commuters than the DSTT stations and would avoid the huge “hassle” of trying to get access to trains at the stations.

While increasing transit capacity into Seattle and expediting egress and access there is relatively easy, providing access to the increased capacity into Seattle is more problematic.   The DC Metro Orange line referred to in an earlier post had more than 3500 parking stalls at the New Carrollton P&R.  Presumably parking at the other four stations along that line and along the other five lines into DC were similar.  

Contrast that with Sound Transit, who despite the fact all the P&R’s with access to I-5 and I-90 have been full for years, has refused to significantly increase parking since Prop 1 was passed ten year ago.  Instead they recently began implementing “a new parking management strategy” where 50% of parking in existing P&Rs is reserved for “late arrivals,” eliminating parking for half the current early riders.  Their only plan for improving bus service, spending $300 million on an I-405 T/C, doesn’t include any parking for access.

Again, while additional bus service can be added relatively quickly, Sound Transit’s decade long failure to add parking has dramatically increased cost to where it now costs more than $50,000 to provide a commuter with parking for transit access.  Clearly reducing congestion on the area’s roadways requires better ways to increase access to transit into Seattle.  

One option would be for Sound Transit to turn all the existing P&R's into T/Cs, each able to accommodate waiting buses and stalls for cars to drop off and pick up commuters.  Each T/C would serve as the interface between local buses collecting commuters from near where they live with express bus routes into Seattle. The cost of providing a commuter with access via a local bus route to the P&R T/C would be a tiny fraction of what would be required to implement and maintain a parking stall for their car at an existing or new P&R.  The local routes and the P&R T/Cs could also begin adding transit access far sooner than any added parking.

Sound Transit could survey all those who commute into Seattle to determine how to schedule local routes to and from each P&R T/C.   Routes into Seattle could include stops at one or more suburban T/Cs. In some cases the local buses would be routed directly into Seattle.  As stated earlier each bus would have one or two dedicated drop off and pick up locations to facilitate egress from and access to transit there.

The bottom line is Sound Transit is spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions that don’t increase transit capacity into Seattle.   They fail to add the parking needed to access even this limited light rail into the city or the platform space at stations in Seattle needed to access light rail out of the city.

Sound Transit has already been allowed to spend nearly ten years and billions on a fatally flawed transportation system.  They need to be "persuaded" to begin implementing a transit system that works and that could begin doing so in 2-3 years.

Seattle Times Traffic Lab Incompetence

The Seattle Times touts their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock and helps readers find the best ways to get around.”   One would think the Times, whose banner proudly proclaims as “The Winner of Ten Pulitzers,” would assign journalists with a least a modicum of competence regarding transportation issues to the Traffic Lab.  However multiple posts on this blog have detailed the Traffic Lab’s failure to “dig into the thorny transportation issues” regarding both Sound Transit and the WSDOT response to area’s transportation problem

For example anyone with a modicum of competence would've recognized Sound Transit failure to increase express bus revenue miles over the last ten years has been a “major contributor” to the increasing congestion on I-5, I-90, and SR 520 corridors into Seattle.  Yet the Traffic Lab ignored their failure to increase bus service or to provide any significant parking with access to bus routes into the city during the ten years since Prop 1  approval.

Sound Transit's could have resolved problems with over-crowded buses on early routes and empty seats on later buses with more bus routes for early commuters and more parking space for later commuters to ride buses.  Instead the Traffic Lab promoted Sound Transit’s recent decision to reserve 50% of the parking for later arrivals.   

Rather than add parking or bus service with access to corridors into Seattle over the last ten years Sound Transit recently decided to spend $300 million on an I-405 bus T/C near Kirkland with no parking for access.   The worst the Traffic Lab could say about this stupidity was to call the T/C a “gamble”.

Another example is the Traffic Lab’s apparent support for WSDOT plans to implement 2 HOT lanes on I-405 between Lynnwood and Renton.  Again anyone with a modicum of competence would’ve recognized the absurdity of  WSDOT claims they used to justify 2 HOT lanes. “HOT lanes often carry 35 percent more cars per hour than general lanes. That’s because rising prices prevent toll lanes from being clogged.”  Or that, “Express toll lanes flow better” while “GP lanes will be clogged from the start”. 

It doesn't take much transportation competence to recognize traffic volume on any highway lane, be they HOT or GP needs to be limited to around 2000 vehicles per hour (vph) to achieve 45 mph.   That implementing 2 HOT lanes between Bothell and Bellevue increases congestion on the remaining 3 GP lanes to where, during the peak commute, more drivers are willing to pay the $10 tolls than the 2000 vph the HOT lanes can accommodate and still achieve the 45 mph.   WSDOT plans to limit GP usage to only 2 lanes over the rest of the route will surely exacerbate the problem. 

The obvious solution is to limit HOT to one lane with fees set to what’s required to limit traffic to 2000 vph and allow GP use of an additional lane.  The added GP lane would likely reduce congestion to where fewer commuters would feel the need to pay for HOT, reducing the fees required to maintain 45 mph.  The assured velocity on the HOT lanes would also provide reliable bus schedules if Sound Transit would ever add the parking and bus routes needed to effectively use it.  Yet the Traffic Lab ignores this opportunity and continues to support WSDOT plans for 2 HOT lanes and ignores Sound Transit failure to add significant parking and bus routes along I-405.

However, the most egregious example of Traffic Lab’s  incompetence is their support of Sound Transit’s “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail spine.  Sound Transit made a major blunder when they decided to use Prop 1 funds to extend Central Link routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).

The previous post detailed how a DC Metro line provided up to eight 190-seat cars to reduce congestion along one of the major roadways into the city (e.g. orange line along I-50,)  The DSTT limits Central Link trains to four 74-seat cars.  Yet, Sound Transit attempts to use Central Link to not only reduce congestion on I-5 into Seattle from the north, but along both I-5 into Seattle from the south and I-90 from the east.

A 2004 PSRC report concluded safe operation through the DSTT required 4 minutes between trains and that each car could accommodate 148 riders for a total capacity of 8880 riders per hour in each direction; far less than what’s required to significantly reduce congestion on any major roadway (let alone two).  

Spending billions extending light rail does nothing to increase that capacity.  However, every mile extension, not only costs Sound Transit $300 million, it adds $200 to the operating cost for a 4-car train round trip. Since capacity doesn't increase fares will have toe increase substantially to avoid a huge revenue shortfall.  Meanwhile, any riders added by the extensions will simply reduce access for current riders.  That’s especially relevant to the vast majority of Central Link riders into Seattle from the south since they will have already had half their trains diverted by East Link across I-90 Bridge to Bellevue.  Traffic Lab also raised no objections to Sound Transit confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  East Link, limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes, will never have the transit capacity needed to reduce cross-lake congestion.

A competent journalist would have also recognized even the DSTT's limited capacity is of dubious value.  DC Metro lines typically include up to 6 stations into the city for commuter egress and access.  The vast majority of Central Link riders will use the two stations in the DSTT to do so.  The number of riders using stations at a given time will be limited by the train capacity so egress in the tunnel should not be a problem.

However, there’s no limit to the number of commuters wanting to use one of the two stations for access to Central Link for their return ride.  It’s “unlikely” platform space with stations limited to 4 cars will be able to accommodate all the potential return riders during peak commute.   The resulting chaos for those commuters would seem to be a strong disincentive to ever use Central Link.

The bottom line is the entire area has suffered because of the Traffic Lab’s failure to demonstrate even a modicum of competence.  Congestion on roadways into Seattle would have been dramatically reduced if Sound Transit had spent Prop 1 funds adding parking and bus routes.  Billions have already been spent on a light rail spine routed through the DSTT that will never have the capacity to significantly reduce congestion on roadways into Seattle.  That WSDOT implementation of two HOT lanes on I-405 increased GP lane congestion and failed to meet mandated 45 mph between Bothell and Bellevue. 

Unfortunately, at this stage, the Seattle Times Traffic Lab is the only venue able to effectively expose the reality CEO Rogoff's Sound Transit plans to spend most of ST3 $54 billon over the next 20 years on light rail extensions will only enrich construction companies and their unions and do nothing to reduce congestion into Seattle.  That WSDOT plans for 2 HOT lanes on I-405 will not only increase revenue, they'll dramatically increase GP lane congestion and fail to provide the 45 mph velocities during peak commute for transit buses and those willing to pay. 

One can only hope the Traffic Lab will recognize the folly of allowing both organizations to proceed with current plans.  The entire area will pay a heavy price if they don't.

A DC Metro That Works and Why Prop 1 Won't

I recently returned from several days in the Washington DC area as part of my goal to visit all of the world’s major western art museums.  The National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Museum along with the National Air and Space Museum, White House, Capital, Library of Congress and other museums were welcome additions to my ”bucket list”.  It also provided the opportunity to sample the Washington DC Metro system and the 6 separate lines that accommodate nearly 800,000 daily riders.  Each train consists of up to eight 190-seat cars with additional room for those willing to stand.  Each line has more than 6 stations that can accommodate the 8-car trains in DC for riders to egress and access Metro.

Compare that with Sound Transit’s Central Link capacity through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  The DSTT station length limits Central Link trains to four 74-seat cars.  The PSRC concluded safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains and that each car can accommodate up to 148 riders, or 8880 riders per hour in each direction. 

However, since most of the Central Link riders will use the two DSTT stations for egress and access, even this limited capacity requires they accommodate nearly 150 riders a minute on each side of the two stations.  It’s not clear how the arriving riders will be split between the two stations.  A 5.5 wide stair can accommodate 30 ppm, escalators 90 ppm, so assuming up to 90 will chose either station, 16.5 ft wide stairs or escalator will be required at each station to accommodate riders arriving at the stations. 

Departures are even more "problematic".  Each person standing takes up ~7 sq. ft. so it’s not clear whether the two relatively small DSTT stations can accommodate all those waiting on the platform for trains.   Especially since an unknown number of commuters per hour will be choosing to use each station for the return commute.  With 4 minutes between trains, large numbers of commuters will be attempting to wait at platforms for access to Central Link north.  

Central Link south to Federal Way and East Link commuters will have to wait for 8 minutes between trains at each station.  In this case not only is it unclear how many will use each station, but which train they need to access.  Thus the number of commuters at the two station platforms needing access to the right train is even more "problematic".   Again it’s "doubtful" the stations will provide platform space for those waiting for access to their trains.

All of these concerns reflect the PSRC estimate the DSTT limited capacity to 8880 riders per hour.  Sound Transit’s claim the DSTT can accommodate up to 16,000 riders per hour in each direction nearly doubles the problem with access to stations and platform space for access to trains.

All the station concerns apply to initial Central Link operation.  The money spent on Prop 1 extensions along I-5 north of the UW station and south of SeaTac and across I-90 Bridge through Bellevue to Redmond do nothing to increase light rail spine or DSTT station capacity.  Riders added by the extensions will only reduce access into Seattle for existing Central Link riders and numbers waiting at stations for return trips.   The riders added by the billions spent on the ST3 spine further reduce their access into Seattle and increase number of those needing platform space for return trip.  

The bottom line is DC Metro provides a transit system with 6 lines, each with up to eight 190-seat car trains routed to six or more light rail stations in the city.  Sound Transit's light rail spine capacity and its egress and access in Seattle, are limited by two stations in the DSTT to four 74-seat cars, a fractions of what's required to reduce congestion on any transportation corridor.  It's bad enough they're spending billions on "Prop 1 and Beyond" extensions attempting to reduce congestion along the I-5 corridor from Everett.  It's absurd they're attempting to use its limited capacity to do so on both south I-5 and I-90 corridors.

It’s way past time for Sound Transit and the Seattle Times Traffic Lab to recognize why DC Metro works and why Prop 1 won't. 

Bellevue City Council Enabled East Link Boondoggle

Recent posts have detailed how Sound Transit and WSDOT failed to deal with the congestion on the area’s major roadways and how Seattle Times failed to either recognize that incompetence or chose to ignore it.   This post details why even with their incompetence, East Link, the most egregious example, could have been avoided.   

The Bellevue City Council could have stopped East Link by disallowing any of the 10 permits Sound Transit needed for construction.  Instead they enabled what will inevitably be recognized as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, boondoggle in public transit history.  Bellevue residents living near or commuting along the route into Bellevue have already borne the brunt of light rail construction.  The council allowed Sound Transit to close South Bellevue P&R, ending access to transit for many, despite their Memorandum of Understanding with the council to provide alternatives.  

Their permit approval resulted in Sound Transit closing the I-90 Bridge center roadway, ignoring an FHA September 2004 Record of Decision “I-90 Two-way Transit and Operations Project”.  It concluded the center roadway was still needed for vehicles, even with the R8-A 4^th lanes added to outer roadways.   The FHA clearly believes East Link increased cross-lake congestion for Bellevue and all I-90 cross-lake commuters.

A Bellevue City Council East Link veto would have eliminated all the devastation along the route into Bellevue and the loss of South Bellevue P&R.    It could have forced Sound Transit to use east side Prop 1 funds to add parking with access to additional bus routes.  A veto could’ve “forced” Sound Transit to recognize the benefits of adding 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV with two-way bus only lanes on bridge center roadway to facilitate the added bus service. 

Instead Sound Transit ignored the need to increase transit capacity along the entire I-90 corridor for 10 years.   Their access for I-90 commuters to Bellevue has consisted of eight 555/556 buses between 5:20 and 9:00 am. via Bellevue Way to Bellevue T/C.  They’ve never provided any bus routes directly to the T/C for I-90 commuters.

The lack of a transit alternative along I-90 has increased congestion for both SOV and HOV commuters.  SOV commuters face long lines on I-90 on ramps.  HOV commuters (and those who do manage to get on buses) have easier access to I-90 but, like SOV commuters, face miles-long congestion on the lanes to Bellevue and I-405 connections.   The commuters added by recent construction along I-90 will surely add to the congestion during East Link construction. 

         All of the devastation and congestion resulting from Sound Transit decision to spend hundreds of millions each year on light rail construction rather than on increasing transit capacity might be justified if East Link operation reduced congestion on the areas roadways.  Instead East Link operation, will not only not ease I-90 corridor congestion, it will increase I-90 bridge congestion, and will halve Central Link capacity south of the International District.   

          Sound Transits decision to route Central Link through Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) severely limits capacity.  A 2004 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Central Puget Sound Region, “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” concluded the (DSTT) station length limited light rail trains to 4 cars, that safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains, and that the 74-seat cars could accommodate 146 riders; limiting its capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  Both Central Link, south of Seattle, and East Link, across I-90, will be limited by DSTT capacity to one 4-car train, every 8 minutes with 4440-rph.   A fraction of the capacity needed to reduce congestion on either I-90 or I-5.

         Sound Transit initially promoted East Link as the way to reduce I-90 Bridge congestion by replacing cross-lake buses.  (40,000 of the projected 50,000 riders were from terminated bus routes)  They apparently didn’t recognize reducing the number of buses on the I-90 Bridge HOV lanes does nothing to reduce GP lane congestion.  East Link will have about half the capacity of current bus routes and any buses routed to the South Bellevue light rail station will face miles of congestion on GP lanes to station.   East Link riders will largely be limited to those within walking distance of light rail stations.

         Again, a Bellevue City Council disapproval of permits could have forced Sound Transit to use east side funds to increase bus service.  A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate up to 119 sitting and standing riders.   Sound Transit could have added 40 such buses with more capacity than East Link without spending a dime on light rail construction.   Even more important, Sound Transit can increase number of buses to whatever is required to meet future growth.  (900 buses an hour are routed to Manhattan on a single lane.)  East Link (And Central Link South) will always be limited to less capacity than 40 buses.

 In conclusion I started this blog more than six years ago because the Bellevue City Council ignored three years of personal appearances and emails attempting to make the above arguments.  They simply ignored my concern that Sound Transit’s claims in the 2008 were sheer fantasy.  They ignored the FHA conclusion the center roadway was needed for vehicles and the PSRC conclusion the DSTT limits on capacity.  In 2016 they recommended ST3 approval, ignoring my attempts to point out its failure to do anything to reduce congestion.  They later justified allowing Sound Transit to proceed with the Operation Maintenance Facility with the totally absurd claim it would attract “1.1 million square feet of housing, office, and retail space" of "Transit Oriented Development".

At this point very little can be done.  Congestion throughout the area is only going the increase as more commuters attempt to use the area's roadways.  The Bellevue City Council, who could have prevented it, instead played a major roll in enabling it.  Both I-90 commuters and Central Link south commuters will pay a heavy price as a result.