Seattle Times Abides Sound Transit Board's 15 Year Incompetence

The Dec 19^th Seattle TimesTraffic Lab article “Sound Transit’s CEO nominated for an “excellent” rating and $6,000 bonus despite some problems” typifies their decade-long failure to recognize Sound Transit’s real problem.  It’s not that "Sound Transit’s ridership stopped growing this year, many downtown station escalators and elevators don’t work and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) primarily blamed the agency for failing to prevent a fatal Amtrak derailment two years ago in DuPont, Pierce County."  

Sound Transit's real problem is that, for at least the last fifteen years, they've had a Board of Directors that lacked the competence needed to “direct” public transit policies.  The board should have been aware of a 2004 PSRC study, “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment,” funded by Sound Transit.  It included a chart, “Light Rail Transit Technology Characteristics” with the following General Information, “Light Rail capacities were calculated to be at a maximum of 8880 pphpd (people per hour per direction)”.   

They based that capacity on their conclusions the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) stations limited trains to four cars, that each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders, and that safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.  (The PSRC has a “new version” of the 2004 study, replete with lots of images but lacking any comparable DSTT capacity conclusions.  Again, presumably funded by Sound Transit)

A competent transit board would have recognized light rail limited by the DSTT to 8880 pphpd didn’t have the transit capacity needed for the Prop 1 extensions.  They should have never proposed the extensions beyond UW, across I-90 Bridge, or beyond SeaTac. 

A competent transit board would instead have recognized the benefit of increased bus transit capacity.  An additional 100 high-capacity buses an hour could add the equivalent of 5 lanes of freeway, and more could be added as needed.   Prop 1 funds should have been spent adding parking near T/Cs or local bus routes to T/Cs to provide access to added BRT routes along restricted HOV lanes into Seattle along I-5 and I-90.  

BRT along SR 520 could have been routed to a T/C at UW station for a Central Link connection benefitting commuters from both sides of the lake.  And they could have done it for a fraction of light rail costs and 10 years sooner. 

Instead Sound Transit has spent the 15 years refusing to add the parking or increased bus service needed to attract the transit ridership required to reduce congestion.  Rather than terminate Central Link at the UW station they chose to spend $2.1 billion on the 4.3-mile extension to Northgate. They initially claimed 15,000 would ride the extension, reducing capacity available for University Link riders. 

The board chose to divert half the DSTT capacity across I-90 Bridge, spending $3.6 billion confiscating the center roadway for 4400 pphpd capacity, halving capacity to SeaTac, and ending forever Bellevue's persona as "The city in the Park".  The loss of the bridge center roadway ended its potential for two-way BRT with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner at 1/10^th the cost. 

Sound Transit exacerbated their lack-of-competence problem when they hired Peter Rogoff as CEO.  He was purportedly hired because he had used his prior FHA leadership to secure federal funding for the Lynnwood extension.  

Again anyone with a modicum of transit competence would have recognized it made no sense to spend $2.8 billion extending light rail routed through the DSTT 8.5-miles to Lynnwood: doubling the operating cost but nothing to increase capacity.  Rogoff also apparently having his own approach to calculating ridership, increased the Northgate ridership to 41,000 to 49,000 by 2022, and projected Lynnwood Link to 47,000 to 55,000 by 2026.  Even a fraction of that ridership would end University Link access for many.

CEO Rogoff's ability to "secure $1.4 billion in FTA grants and loans for the Angle lake-to-Federal Way line" is another example of "influence gone bad".  The Sound Transit 3 Map for the Federal way extension projected the 5.3-mile link would cost (2014$M) $962-$1,029 and, typical of Rogoff's delusions, would add 38,000 to 58,000 riders.  Even a fraction of that ridership would end access for many current riders to south Central Link's half of the DSTT capacity, 4440 pphpd per PSRC.

A competent transit board would have recognized Rogoff’s 2019 long-term budget plan to spend $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 on “the countries most ambitious transit system expansion" was, to put it mildly, "inept".  The budget claimed “What is not in question is whether we will get to Everett, get to Redmond and to Federal Way, or Tacoma, to Ballard and West Seattle”  His approach to ridership calculation was delusional, projecting 500,000 daily light rail riders by 2041 but no increase in bus ridership.  Yet the board renewed his contract for another three years with a hefty raise.

A competent Sound Transit Board would have never approved Rogoff’s 2020 budget.  Its operating budget for 2020 was limited to one page detailing the funding for each of the transit modes but nothing on how they will be used to fund operations.  Yet the board apparently approved it since the December 19^th announcement of Rogoff’s “excellent rating and $6,000 bonus” was the day they were scheduled to approve the 2020 budget. 

The bottom line is a competent transit board would have never claimed, "At a time when the federal government is not doing much to fund these kinds of systems, we've been successful working with the FTA" justified Rogoff's continued employment, let alone a raise.  

It's time the Seattle Times finally recognized that reality.  Until they do, billions more will be wasted and congestion will continue to increase.

Generation Z Climate Change Leadership?

(I  wrote the following to persuade my granddaughters the world wasn't ending in 2030.  I submitted this as a My Take response to the Seattle Times with thoughts others might use it and posted it since they will likely ignore it.)    
Letters: Generation Z Climate Change Leadership

The Seattle Times Dec. 21^st  Opinion page was replete with concerns about the need to reduce CO2 emissions claiming the younger generation who will be most affected should “take the lead”.  Presumably doing so would necessitate some demonstration of knowledge about the subject.

For example are they aware the rate global temperatures have been rising since significant green house gas (GHG), anthropogenic CO2 emissions began has not changed appreciable since the Little Ice  (LIA) in mid 1800s. The record high temperature over the last few years could simply reflect a continuation of that increase.   Especially since the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) in mid 1000’s when Greenland was “green” occurred well before any GHG emissions

Are they aware the rate at which glaciers have been retreating recently has also not changed over the last 170 years.  The lack of apparent GHG affect on glacier retreat is consistent with Vostok ice-core comparisons of CO2 emissions and global temperatures.  It showed after the Eemian interglacial period there was a 14,218-year delay between when CO2 emissions rose and global temperatures increased.  That lag was consistent with temperature lags during earlier glacial recoveries.  Thus it’s “unlikely” recent GHG emission have had a significant effect on glacial retreat. 

Are they aware GHG emissions currently make up about 5% of total CO2 emissions?   That emissions over the last 50 years have only raised CO2 from 0.035% to 0.040% of atmosphere?   That temperature sensitivity to increasing CO2 is predicated on climatologist’s computer simulations.   Their computer results failed to match measured global temperatures with their assumed effects (forcing) from natural sources.  

They assumed that failure was due to the lack of "forcing" from increasing GHG emissions.   The result was closing the computer results with measured data required increasing CO2 “forcing” on temperatures to ten times the effect of the sun’s variations.  It’s “unlikely” the Generation Z climate activists are aware it’s that temperature sensitivity to CO2 that’s driving the need to slash future emissions.

The Generation Z activists apparently aren’t even aware they should be thankful temperatures aren’t that sensitive to CO2.   China CO2 emissions are already twice ours and they intend to continue increasing until 2030.  The recent completion of a natural gas pipeline from Russia shows they have no intent to slow that growth.   India and developing countries continue to add more coal-fired power plants.  Clearly  spending billions attempting to end our countries use of fossil fuels to avert climate change is an exercise in futility.

The Seattle Times editorial board needs to recognize enthusiasm and confidence are no match for “knowledge”.
Bill Hirt
Bellevue

Repairing Sound Transit’s “Lost Public Trust”

The Seattle Times December 15^th editorial “Derailment Report Shows How Much Sound Transit Must Improve”, while justified, exemplifies the papers failure to recognize Sound Transit’s decade-long failure to deal with the area’s congestion problems.  The editorial critique the “trip proved catastrophic ruinous mismanagement by an agency whose operation are a massive regional concern” was well deserved. 

However the paper continues to ignore Sound Transit’s need to “repair its lost public trust” goes way beyond the need for “structural safety reforms”.   Sound Transit has spent a decade refusing to recognize the limited capacity of light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded the tunnel limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction. 

Yet Sound Transit decided to use the billions from 2008 Prop 1 approval extending light rail routed through the tunnel, doing nothing to increase that capacity.  Worse, they've chosen to use Prop 1 extensions’ limited capacity, not to add transit capacity into the city, but to replace existing bus routes, reducing total capacity into the city.  Thus, Sound Transit plans to spend billions on light rail extensions from UW to Northgate and beyond and across I-90 to Bellevue and beyond that will increase congestion into the city.

Sound Transit’s use of University Link to replace local bus routes in Seattle was effective because it not only provided light rail access into Seattle, it provided Seattleites with light rail access to the UW. They could have also used it to replace 520 bus routes into Seattle with a T/C at the UW station. The T/C would have provided an interface between bus routes and light rail, benefiting east side commutes into Seattle, and Seattleites with BRT commute to eastside. 

The costs would have been minimal and while the T/C would do nothing to increase transit capacity it would allow existing capacity to reduce congestion into the city center.   Both sides of the lake could have begun benefitting when the University Link opened in 2016.

Instead Sound Transit has spent the last five years on the extension to Northgate.  When the $2.1 billion extension begins operation in 2021 they intend to use it to replace I-5 bus routes from Northgate into Seattle. Their website is claiming it will add 41,000 to 49,000 riders by 2022.  (It’s not clear where all the riders will come from since bus ridership is far less and very little parking has been added to increase access)   

Also, very few of the riders will choose to go to Northgate in the morning or to Seattle in the evening.  Northgate ridership would have to average more than 6500 rph if 80% of the 49,000 riders chose to use the extension to commute into and out of Seattle during the two 3-hour peak commutes. Clearly Northgate operation will limit access to Central Links 8880-rph capacity into Seattle for University Link riders.

Yet Sound Transit also intends to use the $3.2 billion Lynnwood extension to replace bus routes between Lynnwood and Northgate.  They predict the 8.5-mile extension will add 47,000 to 55,000 riders by 2026.  Again with very few  “reverse commuters", light rail ridership would have to average more than 7000 rph to accommodate 80% of the 55,000 riders.  That ridership would severely limit access to light rail at the Northgate station.  Spending $3 billion on the 16.3-mile extension to Everett to add 37,000 to 45,000 more light rail riders is even more absurd.

Clearly attempting to use light rail to replace I-5 buses is not the answer. While its too late to do anything about the Northgate extension, its use should be limited to providing I-5 commuters with access to UW. Sound Transit should divert the Lynnwood extension funds towards implementing bus routes to Northgate and adding buses directly into Seattle.  

An additional 100 high capacity buses an hour could accommodate more than 10,000 riders, adding the equivalent of 5 highway lanes to I-5 capacity.  The only limitation being the need for access with added parking or local bus routes to stations. HOT could be implemented on an HOV lane with rates raised to assure 45 mph for commute.  4^th Ave could be converted into an elongated T/C with dedicated drop off and pick up locations for each routes egress and access. 

South of Seattle, Sound Transit claims the $1 billion, 5.3-mile extension to Federal Way will add 38,000 to 58,000 daily riders.   It’s not clear where they’ll come from since fewer than 4000 rode buses into Seattle during 2019 2^nd Quarter.  However doing so will require light rail trains average more than 7700 rph to accommodate 80% of the 58,000 riders during the peak 3-hour morning and afternoon commute. 

That’s nearly twice South Link's 4400 rph share of the DSTT capacity, clearly ending any access for Central Link riders.  Sound Transit's proposal to spend $2 billion, on the 9.7 mile extension Tacoma to add 27,000 to 37,000 more riders only adds to the absurdity.

The only way to begin accommodating the numbers of commuters Sound Transit claims for light rail is to add the 100 bus routes and their 10,000-rph capacity.  Again, doing so along an I-5 HOT lane to the 4^th Ave T/C.

Along I-90, Sound Transit should have never been allowed to divert half the DSTT capacity across the Lake Washington bridge center roadway to Bellevue.  It didn’t have the transit capacity needed to reduce congestion on the bridge and it precluded 2-way bridge center roadway bus routes that would. 

Sound Transit’s failure to even consider additional center roadway bus routes as a "low-cost option" violated RCW requirements.  They ignored FHWA concerns 4^th lanes added to bridge outer roadways would not make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  The East Link funds would have been far better spent on a West Link extension.

Unfortunately, like the Northgate extension, Sound Transit plans for using East Link to replace cross-lake buses will increase, not decrease congestion.  The problem being Sound Transit doesn’t merely replace current I-90 bus routes, they and King County have agreed to halve corridor bus routes when East Link begins operation. They did so in order to use Mercer Island light rail station to terminate I-90 corridor bus routes.  Thus East Link operation will result in thousands of commuters loosing access to transit, adding to the I-90 Bridge outer roadway congestion from loss of center roadway.

Again, the only solution for I-90 congestion, like along I-5, is to add something like a 100 buses an hour across I-90 Bridge into Seattle.  While some would include a stop on Mercer Island most would go directly into Seattle an I-90 HOT lane to a 4^th Ave T/C. Seattleites could use the return routes to commute to Bellevue T/C,

Clearly reducing congestion on I-5, I-90, or SR520 requires adding not only hundreds of additional bus routes into Seattle but thousands of additional parking stalls or local bus routes to T/C with access to buses into Seattle.  Instead Sound Transit has spent a decade refusing to increase ST Express revenue vehicle hours. CEO Rogoff’s 2019 Budget continues Sound Transit's  failure to increase bus ridership until 2041.  

The Seattle Times needs to recognize that if Sound Transit is to “repair its lost public trust” they need to do so with proposals to divert money from light rail extensions to added parking and local bus routes to T/Cs with added bus routes into Seattle. Every year the Times continues abiding Sound Transit's failure to increase bus transit capacity adds to the waste and increases congestion.

ST CEO Rogoff”s Real 2020 Budget Debacle.

The previous post detailed how Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s 2020 “budget” for public transit operation was limited to one page with how much each of the transit modes will receive but nothing as to how they will spend it.   This post details why the real 2020 budget debacle is that the more than $2 billion spent on system expansion is just the latest installment of Rogoff’s plan to spend  $96 billion on his 2019 budget for light rail extensions that do nothing to increase their capacity into Seattle.  That he compounds that problem by choosing to use light rail to replace bus routes reducing total transit capacity into the city.

The 2020 budget adds another year to Sound Transit’s decade of failure to recognize Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limitation on light rail capacity into Seattle.  The billions spent on Prop 1 extensions beyond UW, across I-90 Bridge to Bellevue, or beyond SeaTac to Federal Way will do nothing to increase that capacity.

Sound Transit compounds that problem by continuing its decade-long refusal to fund added parking or local bus routes needed for access to the light rail extensions.  (Their disdain for added bus routes is exemplified by annual bus revenue vehicle miles increasing from 11,627,380 in 2011 to 11,884,230 in 2018.)  

The lack of added access to even light rail’s limited capacity has forced Sound Transit to use it to replace existing bus routes into Seattle.  The result being Sound Transit is spending billions on Prop 1 extensions whose operation will reduce total transit capacity into the city, do little to reduce HOV lane congestion, and inevitably increase GP lane congestion. 

For example the budget includes $126 million funding for the Northgate extension.  When completed in 2021, operation of the $2.1 billion extension will result in Northgate bus riders forced to use light rail routed through the UW and Capital Hill into Seattle.  They’ll be joined by bus riders from beyond Northgate, forced to endure the hassle of transferring to the light rail route rather than commute directly into Seattle.  Worse, any light rail riders added by the extension will reduce access for current UW Link riders. 

Their exit at one of the two DSTT stations will “likely” be further from their desired destination than the stops along the bus routes they previously used.  Their return commute will require they endure the inevitable chaos resulting from thousands of riders attempting to find access at one of the two DSTT stations and the hassle of those transferring back to buses at Northgate.  Clearly Northgate operation would seem to be a disincentive to use public transit. 

The 2020 budget also includes $505 million for the $3.2-billion Lynnwood extension whose operation adds to that disincentive.  When completed in 2024, operation will simply move where many  commuters transfer to and from light rail the 8.5 miles north to Lynnwood.  The only difference being the longer route will require more light rail cars and will double its operating cost.

The $756 million spent on the East Link extension to Overlake and beyond to Redmond is even less “productive” congestion wise.  The reason being Sound Transit again insists on using the $3.6 billion project to replace I-90 buses.  However Mercer Island objections to using the island station as the terminus have resulted in Sound Transit and King County Metro halving their current I-90 corridor bus routes.  East Link operation will still result in Mercer Island being inundated with hundreds of transferees every morning and afternoon and thousands of I-90 corridor commuters will loose access to public transit.

The bottom line is the 2020 “budget” continues a decade of failure to recognize the benefits of increased bus service.  A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.  Adding 100 such buses an hour could accommodate more than 10,000 riders, the equivalent of 5 lanes of freeway, without spending a dime on light rail extensions.  Yet Rogoff's 2019 long term budget continues Sound Transit's refusal to increase bus transit capacity until 2041.

The added bus capacity is also more than the 8880 riders per hour a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded for light rail routed through the DSTT.  The billions spent on East Link and Central Link south will share that limited capacity.  While additional bus routes can be added to increase transit capacity, light rail capacity on the Prop 1 extensions will always be limited.  The 2020 budget is only the next installment of Rogoff’s 2019 budget plan to spend most of $96 billion on this debacle.  

This year's Sound Transit Board "likely" budget approval exemplifies their continued failure to understand the basics of effective public transit.  It's way past time for the Seattle Times to end its decade of abetting Sound Transit's incompetence and urge the board to reject the 2020 budget. That at least could be the "beginning of the end" for this debacle.

ST CEO Rogoff’s “No-Budget” 2020 Budget

It’s been over a year since Sound Transit CEO Rogoff presented his 2019 budget to the Sound Transit Board.  The initial 23 pages of the 232-page document provided an overview of Sound Transit’s plans for 2017-2041.  The Long Range Financial Plan included projections of sources of revenue, how the funds will be spent, and ridership for the various transit modes.

Previous posts have detailed how the 2019 budget’s long-range claims for light rail ridership ignored the limitations of light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT). That Rogoff’s budget continued Sound Transit’s decade-long refusal to increase bus service for the next 22 years.   That anyone on the Sound Transit Board with a modicum of public transit competence would have recognized Rogoff’s incompetence. They clearly didn’t since they unanimously approved renewing his contract for another three years and giving him a hefty raise.

However the rest of the 247-page budget, in keeping with previous budgets, provided the details about where the money is coming from and how the money was to be spent.  Projected revenue and financial sources for 2019 were provided and compared with 2017 and 2018.  Similar comparisons for 2019 projected expenditures were included for operations and maintenance, salaries and benefits, services, and administration.  

Of particular import were 2019 budget details on how the transit modes would deal with the need to provide public transit.   Projected ridership for five transit modes was compared with previous years.   Detailed comparisons about how the 2019 money was to be spent on Link, Express Bus, Sounder, and Tacoma Link were included.   The budget compared projected service, boardings, and financial performance for the four with previous years.  Operating costs, costs per boarding, and fare box recovery comparisons were also included.

By comparison Rogoff’s 36-page, 2020 Budget doesn’t even include a Table of Contents.  It’s called a “Summary of the 2020 proposed agency budget” claiming “We are here to provide information”.  The budget 2020 “information” included “”Annual revenue and appropriation for all agency expenditures” with charts showing revenue and funding sources, transit operations, debt service, and system and non-system expansion.  

Separate charts showed projected 2020 funding for the transit modes and details of how some of the money will be used for light rail fleet expansion, funding for the different Link extensions, Sounder improvements, and bus system expansion and I-405 BRT.     

The budget concluded with charts showing the timeline for 10/24 overviews of the budget and financial plan with Finance and Audit Committee and Sound Transit Board.  They were followed by a 10/31 budget presentation to the Citizen Oversight Panel and a 11/7 Executive Committee overview of budget. 

The budget timeline concluded with 12/12 final budget recommendations from Executive Committee and System Expansion Committee.  The final budget recommendation from Finance and Audit Committee and board meeting to approve 2020 Budget and Transit Improvement plan are scheduled for 12/19.   

It’s now been nearly 2 months since the 2020 budget was presented to the board.  It’s not clear what was presented to the committees during the October and November reviews.  It’s unlikely those reviews or any December reviews have materially changed the budget or will delay its final approval by the board. 

What’s “remarkable” is Rogoff’s 2020 budget for funding Sound Transit operations during the year is limited to a single chart. Where previous budgets have included 25-30 pages showing how funds will be spent on Link, ST Express, Sounder, and Tacoma Link,  the 2020 budget only details how much money each mode will get. 

Rogoff’s operating budget fails to detail how the funds will be spent during 2020 on Salaries & Benefits, Services, or Materials & Supplies for the four transit modes and how those expenditures compare with previous years.  It also neglects to provide similar comparisons for projected performance data like service provided, operating costs, ridership, and fare box recovery.

The bottom line is Rogoff’s 2020 operating budget fails any rational accounting standard. (It also raises questions as to how one could even audit the budget)  Its emphasis on funding light rail expansion continues his failure to recognize the DSTT capacity limitations.  It’s way past time for the Sound Transit Board and the Seattle Times Traffic Lab to acknowledge that reality