Sound Transit Should Expedite Second Tunnel

The May 28^th Seattle Times, Traffic Lab article concerning the impact of Sound Transit’s second tunnel light rail station on Chinatown neighborhood again ignores the most important tunnel issue, it won’t be completed until 2035.  The 2016 Sound Transit 3 Map details the 1.7 mile tunnel will cost $1,638--$1,752 (2014 $M), include 4 stations, and add 110,000–136,000 daily riders. 

When completed in 2035 the ST3 Map indicates the new tunnel will connect the Ballard link with East Link.  The 5.4-mile Ballard Link will add 5 stations, cost $2,383--$2,550 (2014$M) and add 47,000 –57,000 daily riders (per ST3 Map).  It's not clear why Sound Transit chose to use the new tunnel to connect East Link with Ballard Link since most east side commuters would prefer connections to UW. 

The West Seattle Link, scheduled for completion in 2030, will connect with Central Link routed through existing Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  It will also add 5 stations, cost $1,431--$1.531 (2014$M) and add 32,000–37,000 daily riders (per ST3 Map)

Apparently, until the new tunnel is completed in 2035, both West Seattle Link and East Link will share Central Link’s DSTT tunnel capacity.  Sound Transit has claimed 42,000—52,000 daily by 2026 for East Link so the two extensions will add up to 89,000 daily riders to those riding Central Link. Apparently Sound Transit has its own way of estimating DSTT capacity since a 2004 PSRC study they funded limited tunnel capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

Clearly the Traffic Lab needs to demonstrate more concern about the need to expedite the second tunnel rather than the impact of a second light rail station on Chinatown.  The second tunnel and the Ballard and West Seattle light rail extensions will increase transit capacity into downtown Seattle.  The billions spent extending Central Link beyond University and SeaTac will do nothing to increase DSTT transit capacity into Seattle.

The second tunnel adds up to 136,000 daily transit riders, with 57,000 from Ballard. When finished it will avoid the need for East Link to share DSTT capacity with Central Link.  Ballard and West Seattle Link ridership benefit because 70 to 80% of riders are anticipated to live within walking distance of a light rail station, avoiding the need to spend $70,000-$100,000 for parking to provide access for a rider.  

(By comparison only 20-30% of potential riders for the Central Link extensions will live within walking distance of light rail stations.  Sound Transit refuses to provide access with added parking or local bus routes, choosing instead to force current bus riders to transfer to light rail; adding nothing to public transit ridership.)

Sound Transit budgets 4-car, light-rail-train operating costs at ~$100.00 per mile.  Thus each mile of light rail extension adds $200.00 to round trip costs.  The round trip costs for the 4.7 and 5.4 mile West Seattle and Ballard links are a fraction of costs for extensions to Everett and Tacoma.  Even worse, the former adds transit riders into Seattle, the Central Link extensions doesn't, requiring either a huge increase in fares for those riding, or subsidies to cover the increased operating cost.

The bottom line is the Seattle Times has conceded ST3 extensions won't reduce congestion.  It's too late to do anything about the billions and years Sound Transit wasted on an East Link that will increase not decrease I-90 corridor congestion.  Additional billions and years have already been spent on extensions beyond UW and SeaTac that do nothing to increase capacity into Seattle.

However, billions and years remain to be spent on Central Link extensions to Lynnwood and beyond, and to Federal Way and beyond.  The Seattle Times needs to recognize those funds should be diverted to allow expediting the second tunnel and the Ballard and West Seattle Links.  Something that will increase transit capacity into Seattle, reduce congestion, and far more important than the impact of a light rail station on Chinatown.    

Bellevue Bike Lanes Didn’t “Work”

The May 23^rd, Seattle Times front page article, “Downtown Bellevue’s bike lanes will stay put as expanded network is planned,” typifies the Traffic Lab failure to “dig into the region’s thorniest transportation issues”.    

The article fails to recognize the “thorny issue” in Bellevue Mayor Chelminiack’s claim:

“This demonstration project has proved its worth. It’s done in a way that’s had minimal, if any, effect on traffic. It’s a protected lane. People who are in the bike lanes feel better about it. People who are driving feel better protected from a bicyclist.  There’s a point at which you just have to accept the fact that it works. And this works,”

No one can rationally conclude eliminating a lane doesn’t reduce the roadway capacity.  While there is “ disagreement” as to the current impact of the lost lane on congestion, it’s impact is surely going to increase with future growth.  Drivers are also far more concerned about hitting a bicyclist than the “need to be protected from one”.

However the mayor’s most dubious claim is “this works”.   One would think Chelminiack was referring to how many bike riders were added by the separate lanes.   From May 1 to June 11, before the lanes, there were 92 average daily bike rides.  Daily trips for the rest of June, July, August, September, and October were 126, 121, 138, 134, and 104 respectively.  (The March 2019 PDF “neglected” to include later bike rides)

The 125 average bike rides with the separate lanes from June through October did represent the reported 35% increase in bike rides with separate lanes.  However, assuming those riding bikes did so in both directions, the 62.5 who did so with the lanes were only 16.5 more per day than the 46 who did so before; about 1.5 per hour during work day.  And that was during the summer.

Apparently Mayor Chelminiack thinks spending $137,000 of levy money to take away a roadway lane for bikes with that benefit is a project that “works”.   However, those who claim “We’re excited for the bike lane. We think it’s a bellwether for what Bellevue initially indicated that the area could be,” might reconsider spending additional money doing so.

Those reported in the article as being “involved in the design process through Bellevue Downtown Association “REI, Microsoft, Overlake Medical Center, Seattle Children’s and Bellevue Chamber of Commerce” may also wish to reconsider their support in view of the results.   Especially since “Amazon has also announced plans that would bring thousands of workers to downtown Bellevue by the end of 2023.”

Again Mayor Chelminiack’s claim  “This works” for bike lanes replicates his previous advocacy for East Link.  He’s been one of the primary enablers of Sound Transit spending billions on a light rail expansion that should never have been allowed to proceed and will inevitably be rated as one of the biggest boondoggles in public transit history.  He later justifies Sound Transit’s huge maintenance yard near Spring District with the “dubious” claim it will be a “magnet” for transit oriented development.

Meanwhile the Traffic Lab article goes into great detail about how the project “survived and succeeded” because of  “positively approaching projects in an iterative process”.   While conceding, “not everyone is supportive” the Times again failed to “dig into the actual bike lane benefits”, 16.5 additional bike riders a day, during the summer.

 

Why I’m a Perennial Losing Candidate

The May 19th, Seattle Times BI page article, “Hundreds file to run in local elections” referring to me as a “candidate renowned for losing campaigns” and “perennial candidate and Sound Transit foe Bill Hirt” was no surprise.  There would have never been any need for me to ever file as a candidate if the Times had not ignored countless emails detailing why Sound Transit Prop 1 light rail extensions would never reduce congestion. 

Their failure to do so was a major reason I created my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com detailing the problems and filed as a candidate for 48^th District Representative in 2012 to attract viewers.  Doing so also gave me the opportunity to use the candidate interview to present my concerns directly to the Seattle Times editorial board.  “Unfortunately” that interview was “cut short” when I insisted the Times and the 48^th district residents should be more concerned about East Link problems than with the McCleary school funding issue.

This year’s candidacy is the 8^th time I’ve filed, again with no desire to win,  but with the more than 500 posts attracting more than 130,000 views without a single substantial rebuttal.  Many posts have detailed why East Link is only the most egregious example of Prop 1 extensions that will inevitably be regarded as some of the biggest boondoggles in public transit history.   Yet the Times continues to ignore the blog, abiding if not abetting Sound Transit incompetency, and refusing to even interview me. 

Sound Transit’s decision to route Prop 1 extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT)  limits transit capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to reduce congestion.  They compound that problem by using light rail to replace bus routes into the city apparently not recognizing the area’s congestion is not due to too many buses.  (Replacing bus routes does nothing to increase the 10% of commuters who use transit, or reduce the 85% who commute via SOV or carpool. (per PSRC 2015 Stuck in Traffic Report) ) They also ignore the reality those transferring from buses to light rail will, at least during peak commute, limit access for current riders. 

Even the Times in a 4/03/16 editorial recognized light rail limitations, urging Sound Transit  consider additional bus service for ST3.  Later an 11/04/16 article conceded ST3 would not reduce congestion.  Yet they continue a decade of refusing to make auditing Sound Transit one of their top-ten priorities for the legislature.   Their solution for congestion, imposing tolls, only increases commuters costs unless they have access to a reliable transit alternative. 

Again the Times has conceded light rail wouldn’t reduce congestion and the need for additional bus transit capacity.   Yet they’ve abided Sound Transit's decade of spending billions on light rail extensions that won’t reduce congestion and neglecting to increase annual bus revenue hours that would. 

Those billions, however, are only a down payment for Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s 2019 budget plan to spend  $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 implementing ST3 extensions.  Not only does the budget continue to provide no increase in bus transit ridership, Rogoff's light-rail-ridership claims are delusional, dwarfing any rational light rail capacity.  Yet the Times raised no objections when he was given a new three-year contract with a hefty raise.

King County’s 6^th District has already paid a heavy price for the Times failure to recognize East Link debacle.   For years, surveys have shown Bellevue residents considered congestion their biggest concern with  67%, nearly 4 times the 17% concerned with high home prices, listing it as their top concern in latest survey.  

Ten years ago Sound Transit could have added the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implemented 2-way BRT on the center roadway.  Doing so would have provided 10 times light rail capacity, dwarfing likely future I-90 transit needs, at 1/10^th East Link's cost.  It would have also avoided the need to close center roadway to vehicles or to devastate the route through Bellevue.

Instead the Times abides Sound Transit plan to use East Link’s limited capacity to replace all I-90 bus routes, halving current transit capacity, ending transit access for many commuters, and adding to ever increasing I-90 Bridge outer roadway congestion.   Not much “reward” for the hundreds if not thousands 6th district residents have paid and will continue to pay annually for as long as the Sound Transit Board wants.  

The bottom line is the Seattle Times has already abided a decade of Sound Transit incompetence.  They've failed to recognize using Prop 1 extension's limited capacity to replace bus routes will do nothing to reduce I-5 and I-90 congestion.  The previous post detailed how the Times had also abided WSDOT plans for 2-HOT lanes on I-405 that will increase congestion on GP lanes and fail to provide 45 mph for many of those who pay for HOT.  

Both reflect the Seattle Times inability to recognize the only way to reduce congestion is to provide commuters with access to reliable bus transit capacity.  Until that happens 6th District residents, like all those in Sound Transit service area, will only see increasing congestion for commuters and years of high taxes for residents.  The billions already wasted are only a precursor for  billions more wasted constructing light rail extensions and more wasted on increased extension operation costs.  

Again, this campaign, like my previous 7 has never been about winning.  It's to point out the Seattle Times failure to inform area about why congestion keeps increasing and what can be done to reduce it.  Until that happens I will continue to be a “perennial candidate renowned for losing campaigns”.  The sooner the better for everyone.

Seattle Times Ignores Real I-405 Problem

The Seattle Times May 10^th Editorial “A Costly Future For Transportation” exemplifies their failure to recognize the reasons for the area’s congestion problems.  The editorial picture of I-405 traffic heading south towards Bothell typifies the problem.   

First, the photo reflects a relatively recent increase in congestion. A 2015 PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015  Report” chart detailing I-405 delays between Lynnwood and Tukwila showed there were no delays until after Bothell going south or after Bothell going north.  Second the photo belies WSDOT claim implementing HOT was the way to reduce I-405 congestion, especially their claim for benefits for those willing to pay the $10.00 fees.  

However the most significant problem reflected in the photo is that all three lanes in both directions were filled with cars, but not a single bus.  A  high capacity bus can accommodate more than 100 riders,  easily more than those in all three lanes of traffic depicted in the photo. 

Yet Sound Transit has spent a decade refusing to increase I-405 bus routes despite the years of increasing congestion. Route ST 532 from Everett has been limited to 16 buses between 4:30 am and 8:25 am.  ST 535 from Lynnwood limited to 11 buses between 4:48 am and 9:48 am with additional buses every 30 minutes.  However between 6:30 and 9:30 am I-405 bus transit has been limited to a total of 12 buses.  Thus it’s no surprise there were no buses in the photo. 

Sound Transit no longer provides quarterly ridership reports for individual routes instead choosing to report system wide results.  (They’ve also ended access to archived ridership reports, ending comparisons with earlier years)  However the last “Service Delivery Performance Report- Q3 2018”  shows daily 532 and 535 ridership was 2,068 and 1718 respectively, nearly 1900 commuters each morning and afternoon.  Whatever percentage of the 1900 commuted between 6:30 and 9:30 am likely resulted in “standing room only” on the 12 buses. 

Those riderships “suggest” increasing bus capacity would  attract more commuters.  Yet, Sound Transit’s response is to wait until 2024 to implement their version of BRT, spending $869 million for a bus route from Lynnwood to Bothell every 10 minutes.  They spend $300 million of the funds on an 85^th St T/C near Kirkland with no parking for access.

What’s needed are 50 additional buses an hour to supplement current ST532 and ST535 schedules.  They would provide direct BRT routes from each of the major P&R lots along I-5 between Everett and Lynnwood and along I-405 into Bellevue.   Surveys of those working in Bellevue would be used to allocate bus routes to P&R lots.  Local bus routes from near where commuters live to P&R would increase access, boosting transit ridership without the need for expensive new parking.

The added transit capacity would be especially attractive with reduced BRT commute times.  Implementing HOT with fees raised to what’s required to limit traffic to the 2000 vehicles per hour could assure 45 mph.  The photo shows $10 fees aren’t sufficient. 

Instead the editorial opined, “the Legislature wisely addressed Eastside commuter’s daily I-405 logjam through a widening project”. Yet the “widening project” will do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion in the photo.  The legislators (and Times) failed to recognize WSDOT plan for implementing 2 HOT lanes on I-405 is more about raising revenue than reducing congestion.

The WSDOT “pilot project,” HOT on 2 of 5 I-405 lanes between Bothell and Bellevue has increased GP congestion and failed to achieve 45 mph for many of those who paid HOT fees.  The WSDOT “widening project” between Renton and Bellevue does nothing to add bus routes needed to reduce congestion.  Forcing carpoolers to use GP lane will surely increase congestion and the incentive to pay HOT fees, slowing BRT routes and those who pay the fees.   Both belie the claim “the Legislature wisely addressed I-405 congestion” by allowing WSDOT to implement HOT on 2 of 4 lanes between Bellevue and Renton.

The bottom line is the Seattle Times should be more concerned about the failure of WSDOT plans for HOT fees on two I-405 lanes to reduce congestion than whether the revenue will be used to expedite construction. The editorial is another example of failure to recognize the major reason for congestion throughout the area is the lack of an adequate public transit capacity alternative. 

MI Council Exacerbates Eastlink Debacle

Previous posts have detailed how congestion in Seattle and on I-5 and I-405 can be reduced.  Reducing congestion along I-90 corridor has been made far more difficult by the Mercer Island City Council’s recent East Link agreement with Sound Transit and King County Metro.   

East Link should have never been approved.  It has always been the most egregious example of Prop 1 extensions that will inevitably be rated as some of the worst transportation boondoggles in history.  The PSRC concluded in a 2004 “High Capacity Corridor Assessment” funded by Sound Transit that light rail routed though the Downtown Seattle Transportation Tunnel (DSTT) will be limited to 8880 riders per hour, a fraction of the capacity needed to reduce congestion.   

Sound Transit will spend billions on an East Link extension across I-90 Bridge for half that capacity.  It not only halves capacity to SeaTac, it increases I-90 congestion.  Sound Transit violated the Revised Code of Washington 81.104.100 by never considering two-way bus only routes on the I-90 Bridge center roadway for lower cost HCT.  Doing so, along with added 4^th lanes on outer roadways for non-transit HOV, could have provided 10 times East Link capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  

Sound Transit also ignored an FHA Record of Decision conclusion the center roadway was needed for vehicles even with the 4^th lanes added to outer roadway   East Link confiscation of I-90 Bridge center roadway will increase outer roadway congestion.

The recent Mercer Island City Council agreement with Sound Transit and King County Metro will surely exacerbate that congestion.   Sound Transit does little to provide additional parking or even local bus routes to provide access to any of the Prop 1 extensions.  Thus, rather than using light rail to increase transit capacity, light rail extensions will be used to replace existing Sound Transit and King County Metro bus routes into Seattle. 

While spending billions on light rail extensions may assure faster commutes for current transit riders, reducing the number of buses on HOV lanes will do little to reduce congestion there and nothing  on GP lanes.  Again, the Mercer Island agreement exacerbates the problem with Sound Transit’s plan to use light rail to replace buses.

Sound Transit initially proposed replacing buses to the Mercer Island City Council with a January 21, 2014 Integrated Transit System (ITS) presentation.  It detailed how 40,000 of East Link’s 50,000 daily riders would come from terminating all I-90 corridor buses at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.  

A subsequent (Nov 19^th) Mercer Island presentation went into considerable details about ITS.  Their preferred approach was for buses to exit I-90 on WB HOV off ramp to a 200 ft drop off and pick-up area on the 80^th Ave overpass before returning to I-90 on EB HOV on ramp.  Sound Transit presented 5 different proposals for routing up to 84 buses an hour onto and off the island.

Mercer Island residents objected to their light rail station being inundated with thousands of transferees every morning and afternoon.  That objection was presumably the reason all five of Sound Transit proposals for terminating buses on the island as “no longer under consideration”; presumably ending ITS. 

However a March 13, 2019 MI Weekly resurfaced the issue.  It included notice of a March 19^th Sound Transit presentation of the results of a Mercer Island Transit Interchange Operational and Configuration Study to the City Council.  The end result of that presentation was a Mercer City Council agreement allowing I-90 buses to drop off and pick up commuters on 77^th Ave rather than 80^th Ave. 

However rather than the 84 buses an hour Sound Transit had initially proposed, Sound Transit and King County Metro agreed to limit I-90 bus transit to 20 buses an hour for East Link to replace cross-lake buses.  Meanwhile the council ignored previous objections to terminating buses on Mercer Island.  The result was both agreed to ending transit capacity for thousands of I-90 corridor commuters.    

The bottom line is East Link should have never been approved.  The recent Mercer Island City Council action exacerbates the debacle.

Residents Deserve Better from Legislature

The Seattle Times May 2^nd B1 page Traffic Lab article, “Winners, losers in legislation session” typifies their decade of abiding if not abetting the legislatures failure to provide effective oversight of Sound Transit and WSDOT.   The big “winner” was Sound Transit with the legislature continuing their decade-long failure to effectively oversee it by requiring an outside audit. 

Even a cursory analysis would have shown CEO Rogoff’s ridership claims for the “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions in his 2019 budget were delusional.   That light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will never have the capacity needed to reduce congestion.  That Sound Transit plans to use its limited capacity to replace transit buses shows a failure to recognize HOV lane congestion is not due to too many buses.  That any riders added will, at least during peak commute, displace current riders.

A legislative mandated audit would have also exposed Rogoff’s public transit incompetence with the 2019 budget continuing Sound Transit’s decade long failure to add bus transit capacity for the next 20 years.    Instead the legislature allowed Sound Transit another year to their decade of spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions that will surely go down as one of the biggest boondoggles in history.  

The WSDOT also “won” when the legislature allowed them to proceed with plans to implement 2 HOT lanes between Lynnwood and Renton.   Tolls can be used to increase lane velocities by reducing traffic on the lane; e.g. limiting traffic to 2000 vehicles per hour provides 45 mph velocities.   HOT can increase HOV lane velocities when carpoolers exceed the 2000 vph.  Thus HOT fees are widely used to reduce travel time.

The WSDOT plans for 2 HOT lanes are more about raising revenue than reducing travel time.   They attempt to justify 2 HOT lanes with the “unique” assumption “tolls increase lane capacity by up to 35%”.    It hasn’t happened between Lynnwood and Bellevue where GP lane travel times have increased and HOT lanes frequently fail to achieve 45 mph promised.

 Implementing HOT on two lanes increases congestion on remaining three GP lanes to where more than 2000 drivers per hour are willing to pay current tolls slowing both HOT lanes.   Limiting GP traffic to 2 lanes between Bellevue and Renton will surely exacerbate the problem.

Competent legislative oversight would recognize the WSDOT could assure 45 mph on one I-405 HOV lane by raising the tolls to what’s required to  limit traffic to the 2000 vehicles per hour.  Assuring 45 mph would also make BRT on HOT lane more attractive.  Adding another GP lane will reduce congestion lessening the fees needed to limit HOT traffic.  Clearly legislative approval for 2 HOT lanes makes WSDOT a “winner”.

However, the legislative session has been a “loser” for most residents.  Car owners will continue to be forced to pay tab taxes far higher than what they were promised prior to the 2008 vote (and later lied about lying) Residents will also continue to pay property and sales tax to fund light rail extensions to replace buses but nothing to reduce congestion.  Sound Transit will continue to refuse to increase bus ridership that would with added access to increased bus capacity. 

It’s time the Seattle Times recognizes the area deserves better from the legislature.