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.