Amazon and Expedia “Connectors”

Danny Westneat's June 26^th column, “Troubling Truth about our Parking Garages” laments the added Expedia parking and the 12,000 stalls added in South Lake Union.  That, “The transit through the Amazon Jungle is terrible for a growing city”. One proposed solution, congestion tolling, was rejected in an April 18^th Seattle Times editorial concluding tolling city streets or implementing a congestion charge downtown would do little to curb automobile usage. 

Westneat’s solution, “Seattle desperately needs more mass transit faster, to give better alternatives to all this driving, …. forcing this change sooner by turning some car lanes over to true mass transit, such as buses or light rail”.  However, Seattle street congestion is only a part of the problem.  Many if not most commuters have already likely endured long delays on I-5 and I-90 before ever reaching Seattle.  

Clearly reducing their commute times requires reducing congestion on those routes.  Yet a June 26, 2017 Times article admits light rail will never be the answer.

Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic

Sound Transit’s confiscation of I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link’s limited capacity will also increase, not decrease, cross-lake congestion.  Sound Transit and King County Metro recent plans to halve current bus service when East Link begins operation will increase congestion along the entire I-90 corridor. 

What’s needed both on the routes into Seattle and in Seattle is a viable alternative to driving alone or in carpools. Yet Sound Transit has refused to increase transit bus revenue hours for the last ten years and its 2019 long-term budget precludes any increases for the next 20 years. 

Earlier posts have detailed how additional local bus routes from near where commuters live to T/Cs with express bus routes into stations on an elongated T/C on 4^th Ave would reduce congestion along the entire route.  One option for Expedia and Amazon would be to implement their own transit systems for employees or contract with private charter companies for their employees and other South Lake Union employers.

For years Microsoft “Connector” has been providing transit for some of their employees to their Redmond campus.  However their ridership pales in comparison to the 34,000 Apple, Goggle, and Facebook employees using shuttles in Silicon Valley.

Some combination of vans and buses could be routed to near where employees live or to existing T/Cs with parking spots reserved for employees or new dedicated T/Cs.  (New T/C parking would presumably cost far less outside Seattle). The buses and vans could be equipped with WiFi to make better use of commute time.  it's something that could be in operation in months rather than years. 

Again, lacking any Sound Transit increased bus service, Expedia and Amazon “Connectors” are the only alternative to increasing congestion.

Abating the East Link Debacle,

The I-90 corridor congestion epitomizes Sound Transit’s failure to deal with the entire area’s congestion.   East Link is just the most egregious example of that failure.  It currently takes an average of 42 minutes for the 15.5-mile morning commute from Issaquah into Seattle.  Those traveil times are only going to increase If Sound Transit is allowed to proceed with current East Link plans. 

They should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway or devastate the route through Bellevue.  10 years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implemented 2-way BRT on bridge center roadway.  The increased capacity from added BRT routes could have easily accommodated future cross-lake transit needs for a fraction of light rails cost. 

Instead Sound Transit has been allowed to confiscate the bridge center roadway for a light rail extension limited by its share of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) to a fraction of BRT capacity.  (4400 riders per hour according to a PSRC 2004 study funded by Sound Transit.)   What’s worse, Sound Transit plans to use East Link to replace existing bus routes rather than add cross-lake capacity, forever limiting I-90 Bridge transit capacity   

In 2014 Sound Transit provided details of their "Integrated Transit System" proposal to terminate all cross-lake I-90 bus routes at the South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.   Up to 86 buses an hour would use the Mercer Island’s light rail station to transfer riders to and from light rail trains.  Mercer Island City Council objections led to Sound Transit and King County Metro agreeing to limit I-90 peak-hour transit to 20 buses an hour, half the current frequency and a quarter of their initial projected bus routes..

Clearly doing so will increase the number of current and future commuters forced to drive alone or carpool on I-90.  Those unwilling to endure the hassle of transferring to and from light rail will add to that number.  More will chose to do do because East Link’s limited capacity will limit access for transferees, especially during peak commute with full trains before reaching Mercer Island station .

The bottom line is Sound Transit and King County Metro should not be allowed to limit I-90 corridor transit capacity.  An additional 100 high capacity buses an hour could replace 10,000 SOVs, adding the equivalent of 5 lanes of freeway.  Local routes could be used to provide commuters with routes from near where they live with access to BRT at  Issaquah and Eastgate T/Cs, avoiding the need for added expensive parking. (Parking at both T/Cs has been full for years.) 

The added bus routes would reduce I-90 congestion along the entire I-90 corridor from Issaquah to Seattle.  While the added routes would reduce the ciurrent 18-minute, Issaquah-to-Bellevue section, the biggest potential benefit is on the I-90 Bridge.   The best way for buses to avoid the current delays on bridge outer roadways is to allow them to use the center roadway, as was done in DSTT until recently..

East Link will be limited to a 4-car train every 8 minutes with capacity of up 592 riders (per PSRC).  With 30-sec headways, up to 15 buses could be routed between trains with capacity for more than 1500 addition commuters.  Cross-lake buses would access center roadway after Mercer Island and before Rainier Station to avoid interfering with light rail egress or access at stations. Most cross-lake buses would skip stops on Mercer Island on routes to designated drop off and pick-up stations in Seattle on an elongated 4th Ave T/C.  Additional I-90 corridor buses would be routed along I-405 directly to  the Bellevue T/C, avoiding stop at South Bellevue T/C and route through Bellevue

East Link would provide fast, reliable transit for those living within walking distance of, or able to find parking near light rail stations.  The center roadway bus routes could assure fast reliable transit across the I-90 Bridge for up to an additional 10,000 I-90 corridor commuters an hour into Seattle.  All I-90 corridor commuters would benefit from the additional transit capacity and cross-lake commuters would no longer be forced to transfer to and from light rail on Mercer Island.  

Doing so would not only abate the East Link debaclt, it would  end the absurdity of Sound Transit’s ST3 plans for light rail to Issaquah at a fraction of the cost and more than 20 years sooner. 

Bellevue Reporter Ignores This Republican Candidacy,

The June 7^th Bellevue Reporter editorial used the Republican failure to challenge Snohomish County Executive David Somers to “wonder whither the Snohomish County Republican Party”.    One would think Bellevue residents would be more interested in local candidates.  Yet the paper neglected to mention in the May 24^th front-page article, “Residents file for November general Election” I had filed as a candidate for the 6^th District King County Council. 

But it’s nothing new as they’ve refused to mention any of my previous 7 candidacies.  Admittedly they’ve never been about winning but to attract viewers to posts on my stopeastlinknow blog.  For years surveys have shown Bellevue residents considered congestion as one of their major concerns with the latest showing 76% thought so, nearly four times their second concern, the 17% concerned about the price of housing.  Yet the Bellevue Reporter has ignored countless emails referring the paper to posts on the blog detailing the problems and what could be done to ameliorate them.

While there are several reasons for the area’s congestion, the most egregious example of the Reporter’s failure to inform readers is their support for Sound Transit’s East Link.  There was never any need for Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway or to devastate the route through Bellevue, ending forever the city’s persona as “the city in the park”.

10 years ago Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implemented 2-way BRT on bridge center roadway.  The increased capacity from adding BRT routes could have easily accommodated future cross-lake transit needs at a fraction of light rails cost. 

Instead Sound Transit neglected to consider two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge as their “no-build” option.  Selling East Link to voters in its 2008 DEIS as the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway with capacity of up to 24,000 riders per hour.   A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the DSTT limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  East Link’s share, 4440 rph, is a fraction of the promised capacity.  Sound Transit could have added that capacity with an additional 50 buses an hour without spending a dime on light rail construction or devastating Bellevue. 

Even more absurd, Sound Transit doesn’t plan to use East Link to add cross-lake capacity, they intend to use it to replace existing bus routes. Apparently not recognizing spending billions to reduce the number of buses on I-90 Bridge will do little to reduce congestion.  They did so because of the limited number of commuters within walking distance of light rail stations and lack of parking with access   

The end result is east side commuters will no longer have access to cross-lake bus routes.  I-90 corridor commuters will be forced to transfer to and from light rail at Mercer Island light rail station.  Even worse their share of East Link’s limited transit capacity will be limited to 20 bus routes an hour, ending access to transit for many, and adding to those forced to use bridge outer roadway.  A sure recipe for gridlock on I-90 Bridge and added miles to I-90 corridor congestion.    

Again none of this had to happen.  The fact east side residents will also be forced to pay hundreds if not thousands in ST3 taxes to fund the construction of and later for the operation of a Sound Transit light rail spine that does nothing to reduce congestion is truly "pouring salt on their wounds".  The Bellevue Reporter’s decision to ignore my candidacy is just the latest example of their failure to inform readers of that reality.

Sound Transit’s Primary Mission?

The June 2^nd Seattle Times Opinion page editorial “Don’t Derail Sound Transit 3, Seattle” epitomizes the paper’s abetting Sound Transit’s decade-long failure to reduce area’s congestion.   The editorial claims Seattle must not bigfoot (whatever that means) Sound Transit 3 planning or hinder the transit authority’s primary mission “building a fast-transit spine connecting Tacoma, Everett, Seattle and the Eastside”.  

It’s the latest example of the paper’s support for Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s 2019 long-term budget to spend $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 implementing “the countries most ambitious transit system expansion”.  Yet a Nov. 4th 2016 Times front-page article concluded ST3 would not reduce congestion.  Later, a June 26^th 2017, “Time to Pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock” article included the following:

Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic

A PSRC May 8^th “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” detailed the area’s congestion problem.  It included a “pie chart” showing only 10% of commuters rode on public transit compared to 85% who drove alone or in carpools.  Clearly the way to decrease congestion is to give commuters the option of access to increased transit capacity.

However, Sound Transit’s “fast-transit spine connecting Tacoma, Everett, Seattle, and the Eastside” will do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. The PSRC concluded in a 2004 study (funded by Sound Transit) that the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction, a fraction of needed capacity. (Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s 2019 budget claims for light rail ridership are delusional.)

Spending billions on Prop 1 extensions to Everett or Tacoma will do nothing to increase DSTT I-5 transit capacity into Seattle.  The Prop 1 extension to east side will halve DSTT capacity to Tacoma and its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will increase I-90 corridor congestion.  Sound Transit compounds Prop 1 failure to increase capacity by using it to replace buses.  Those riding buses will be forced to transfer to light rail trains at stations along both I-5 and I-90 corridors; doing nothing to increase public transit ridership.

Clearly Seattle has far more to be concerned about than the “details” of the Ballard and West Seattle Links.  There would be no ST3 without their  70% support.   They like everyone else served by Sound Transit will be forced to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars annually funding the construction of Prop 1 extensions the majority will rarely if ever use. (The extensions operating costs will also undoubtedly result in a perpetual financial “black hole” for entire area’s transportation funds)  Any riders added by the extensions will reduce if not end access for Seattle commuters during peak commute. 

Seattle residents surely have the right to demand “tunnels instead of bridges in West Seattle and Ballard a more complex to build and less convenient to use Chinatown-International District station; and costlier routes in the Sodo industrial area".  Sound Transit’s insistence Seattle come up with extra funds is patently absurd since any additional funds required "pale in comparison" to what Seattle residents will be forced to pay for Sound Transit's fatally flawed ST3 extensions.   

The Seattle Times needs to recognize what was promised to the 3 million residents in Sound Transit’s tax district was a public transit system that would reduce congestion.  That even they've conceded the billions spent on the “rapid transit spine” will do little if anything to reduce congestion.  The Ballard and West Seattle extensions, along with the 2^nd tunnel, will. 

That’s where the money should be spent for Sound Transit to "get it right” with what should be its primary mission, reducing area congestion.