Sound Transit Needs New CEO and Board.

The videos of the December 17th Sound Transit Finance and Audit committee and subsequent board meeting are the clearest evidence yet Sound Transit needs a new CEO and board.  They prompted me to announce my candidacy for King County Executive in 2021.  As with my previous nine candidacies with no expectation or desire to win.  It's an attempt to make up for the Seattle Times decade-long failure to inform the county about Sound Transit's inability to deal with the area's congestion.

The videos showing the Sound Transit Board response to the October 10th "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2021" exemplified that failure.  That neither Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff nor Dow Constantine's Board of Directors understood a light rail spine routed through DSTT wouldn't reduce congestion.  That the way to reduce congestion on existing roadways was to increase access to transit with increased capacity along roadway into Seattle.

The December 17th videos recorded Sound Transit CEO Rogoff and board failure to do either.  The presentation included the "Long Range Financial Plan Projections 2017-2041" and "Proposed 2021 Budget" charts as the October 10th budget.  However the presentation also included a "Transit Improvement Plan to 2026" chart that wasn't in the October 10th budget.  It showed $21.46 billion in "Board-approved costs for active projects through 2026".

The presentation included 4 charts with budget numbers and took about 10 minutes. No one asked any questions and all 17 board members approved the budget in less than 10 minutes. (All of the board members ignored an email of my objections that was distributed prior to meeting.) Afterwords CEO Rogoff congratulated the board and the staffs for this year's approach to the budget.  

A competent board would've never approved a ten-minute presentation of a budget.  A competent CEO would have included the boards approval of spending $21.46 billion between 2021 and 2026 in the October 10th "Financial Plan update and Proposed 2021 Budget".  Especially since the October 10th budget response to COVID-19 was a 4-year realignment with no increase in "Outstanding debt" until 2029.  Yet even the $2.5 billion expansions in 2021 budget required a $700 million TIFIA loan.

Still no one on the board objected to the plan to spend the $21.46 billion or to the fact it wasn't even included in the October 10th budget.  The end result being the only ones aware of the plan are those who watched the video.

  

Those failures pale in comparison to the fact that even if they find the funds, extending light rail through the DSTT increases operating costs, not capacity.  What riders the extensions add will limit access to current Central Link riders.  Northgate Link operation next September will demonstrate CEO Rogoff and board claims for 41,000 to 49,000 are delusional.  That the end result of the $21.46 billion TIP will be a huge bond debt, a light rail spine too costly to operate, and no reduction in congestion.

Clearly Sound Transit CEO Rogoff and board need to be replaced  This would normally be a Seattle Times Traffic Lab "thorny issue to dig into".  Yet the day of the videos a Traffic Lab article heralded CEO Rogoff's "skipping his $21,000 raise" to his $379,000 salary.  Since then they've neglect to report on the "issue".

My candidacy for King County Executive is an attempt to make up for that failure. 

 

Traffic Lab Ignores ST CEO Rogoff's 2021 Budget Debacle

The Settle Times refers to Traffic Lab as a "project that digs into the region's thorny transportation issues".  It's not clear what "thorny issue" led to the December 17th Traffic Lab article "Sound Transit CEO will skip $21,000 pay boosts next year".  It's also not clear how his decision to give 1100 employees $3000 for "successful performance" comports to "his agency working toward containing operating costs"

What the Traffic Lab article neglected to "dig into" was the debacle awaiting the area from the Sound Transit Board approval of Rogoff's 2021 budget, also on December 17th.  The CEO they heralded for skipping a $21,000 raise was still going to get $379,000 next year for his plan to spend $2.5 billion as next year's installment of $96 billion by 2041 from ST3 approval.

More than $1.5 billion will be spent in 2021 on light rail spine extensions routed through the DSTT that will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  The result in 2041 will be $20 billion owed in bonds and light rail extensions too expensive to operate.  

Sound Transit's "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2021 Budget" was presented to the board's Finance and Audit Committee on October 14th so the Traffic Lab had ample opportunity to "dig into it". The budget can best be described as an "overview" with a series of charts showing the pandemic's impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2121 Budget".  The primary result of the "Long Range Financial Plan" will be a 4-year delay in the West Seattle-to-Ballard link and an increase in bond debt in 2041 from $17 billion to $20 billion when ST3 funding ends.

However the 2041 bond debt is just the "tip of the iceberg" regarding Sound Transit long-range financial problems.  The 2021 budget did not include long-range forecasts for debt service payments, ridership, or operating costs for the transit modes.  The first budget to do so was the 2019 Financial Plan & Proposed Budget".  It included charts showing a "Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Borrowing" and "Ridership by Mode" projections from 2017 through 2041.  

The expenditures included costs for system expansion, transit mode capital purchases, and mode operating costs.  The 2041 projections were $2.7 billion in expenditures and $1.2 billion in debt service payments.  The 2041 "Ridership by Mode" predictions were 160 million link light rail riders out of 190 million total.  Rogoff continued Sound Transit's decade-long refusal to add bus transit capacity for another 20 years.

The 2019 budget "iceberg" should have been the budget projections for 2041 to spend $3.9 billion in costs for 190 million riders or $20.53 per rider. Any transit board member with a modicum of competence would have recognized the folly of a budget spending billions on any light rail extensions that cost more than $20 per rider. 

Operating costs for the light rail spine extensions far exceed any rational benefits from added riders, especially when they don't increase capacity through the DSTT.  Any competent transit board member would recognize DSTT limited light rail ridership to a fraction of Rogoff"s 160 million, multiplying the cost per rider.   Unless another light rail route was added the only way to increase transit capacity into Seattle was additional bus routes.

Even more important, a competent board member for any organization would've required some explanation as to how the expenditures would be paid in 2042 when ST3 funding ended.  Instead the Sound Transit Board's response was to extend Rogoff's contract for three years with a hefty raise.  The Traffic Lab either didn't "dig into the issue" or didn't consider the 2019 budget projections for 2041 and beyond a problem.

Rogoff's 2021 budget, after 2 years and $1.5 billion spent extending the spine to Lynnwood and Federal Way, exacerbated the problem.  A competent transit CEO would have recognized the lost revenue necessitated diverting spending from high cost to construct and operate extensions to far lower cost West Seattle-to-Ballard link.  

Instead Rogoff's 2021 budget delayed the less costly link for four years and borrowed an $700 million to increase system expansion funding with $1.5 billion spent on extensions beyond Northgate  and Angel Lake.

As of December 20th there was no video of the December 17th Board of Directors meeting.  I had submitted my rational for rejecting the budget  and received the following response:

On behalf of the Sound Transit Board of Directors, thank you for submitting your public comment regarding the proposed 2121 Budget.  Your comment will be provided to the Board of Directors for consideration prior to its Board Meeting tomorrow.

Please note that this submission is now a public record and the body of your comment will be posted to the Sound Transit website following the meeting for review by the public.

The board presumably approved the budget though I'm still waiting for the video of the meeting and for the Sound Transit website to post my submission.  The Traffic Lab needs to follow-up the article heralding CEO Rogoff's "skipping his $21,000 raise" with a response to his October 14th plan for 2021.  

Spending $2.5 billion as the year's installment for spending $96 billion expanding a transit system that will end up with a $20 billion debt and light rail extensions too expensive to operate is surely worthy of comment.  Especially with no explanation for paying for after ST3 funding ends in 2041.

            

Inslee's COVID-19 Vaccination Priorities

The Seattle times December 14th article heralding Gov Jay Inslee's announcement for COVID-19 typifies much of the media.  In May they derided President' Trump's claim his "Warp Speed" plan would provide a vaccine by the end of the year.  This article now claims his attempt to expedite its approval was "political" rather than an attempt to save lives.

Inslee's decision for vaccine priorities, "mostly health care workers, to receive inoculations" comports with much of the media's priorities.  Yet the ones who are dying from COVID-19 are those in nursing homes or hospitals, not the ones treating them.  Clearly those in nursing homes should be the first to vaccinate.

Those over 75 make up 6.2% of the population.  However Seattle Times "COVID-19 in Washington State" pie charts show 50% of fatalities are those over 80.  These same pie charts show mortality rates for Washington resident over 60 was 50 times that of those under 60.

Clearly, if reducing fatalities is the goal, those over 60 and those with some other contributing factor should be among the first.  Vaccinating health care workers does nothing to reduce the number threatening hospital capacity.  The best way to help them is to reduce the number they need to treat.

If the goal is to maximize the vaccine's benefit those teaching in schools should also have priority.  Inoculating a teacher could allow 15 to 20 children to enjoy the benefits of in-person teaching and end the need for stay-at-home parents.  

Inslee's lockdown has done nothing to reduce the number of cases or fatalities in Washington.  The way to end that debacle is to reduce the number of cases and fatalities.  Inoculate those in nursing homes, those over 80, and those over 60 that currently die from the virus.  Inslee needs to understand his vaccine priority should be not those who treat it but who need it to live.

Seattle Times Ignores ST 2021 Budget Debacle

The Seattle Times Sept 2nd editorial, "Speak up on Sound Transit Plans" response to Sound Transit 30-minute comment period regarding their Transit Development plan 2020-2025 included the following:

"The comment period will provide an opportunity for a broad conversation about transit plans going forward, as Sound Transit decides which projects to delay and possibly shelve"

The editorial concluded:

"Concerned residents should review and comment on what's in the works'.  Consider it the start of a vital, regional discussion"

The Times was clearly concerned about Sound Transit's 5-year TDP. Yet they've ignored the upcoming December 17th Sound Transit Board meeting to approve CEO Peter Rogoff's budget for 2021 and his latest proposals for 2017-2041.  They continue to ignore Rogoff delusions about light rail ridership, failure to increase bus transit capacity, and long-term finances.

Rogoff's "2019 Financial Plan & Proposed Budget" should have been a "wake-up" call for the entire region.  It proposed spending most of $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 on a light rail spine that will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.

The budget included a "Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Borrowing" showing $2.7 billion in expenditures and $1.2 billion in debt service payments in 2041.  The budget also included "Ridership by Mode" predictions with 160 million link light rail riders out of 190 million total.  Thus, in 2041, the 2019 budget projected spending $3.9 billion in costs for 190 million riders, $20.53 per rider.  The "Fare revenue" for the modes totaled $480 million or $2.53 for each of the 190 million riders.

A competent transit board would have recognized the folly of spending more than $1 billion in 2019 as the year's installment on plans to spend $96 billion extending a light rail system that will cost more than $20 per rider.  Especially if they were competent enough to recognize actual ridership in 2041 will be less than half Rogoff's projection, doubling costs per rider and halving fare revenue.

Extending the light rail spine results in a transit system, not only too expensive to operate, it results in  a  $15 billion debt in 2041, with no means to pay after ST3.  All could have been avoided with bus routes using limited access lanes on existing roadways, adding far more capacity than the spine at a fraction of the operating cost

Instead the Sound Transit Board responded to Rogoff's 2019 budget by renewing his contract for three years with a hefty raise.  Apparently the Seattle times Traffic Lab, a project that "digs into the region's thorny transportation issues" either didn't "dig into the ridership cost" or chose to ignore the issue and board approval.  The result being two more years and hundreds of millions spent extending the spine.

The December 17th "likely" Sound Transit Board  approval of Rogoff's 2021 budget response to COVID-19 exacerbates the problem.  A competent transit board would have recognized the way to respond to the pandemic downturn would be to divert funds from the light rail spine to the West Seattle-to-Ballard link.  

It adds transit capacity into downtown Seattle at a fraction of the cost of spine construction and operation.  Transit capacity into Seattle and Bellevue would be increased if spine funds were used for local bus routes providing access to existing stations with added bus routes along I-5, I-90, and I-405.

instead the board will "likely" approve a 2021 budget that delays the West Seattle-to-Ballard link for 4 years and still results in an additional $2 billion in debt in 2041, adding to the cost per rider.  The Sound Transit Board needs to explain how they intend to pay for transit system debt service and operation in 2042.  Until they do the 2021 budget plan to spend $1.5 billion extending the spine simply adds to the problem.

It's time the Seattle Times, so concerned about Sound Transit's 2020-2025 TDP, expose the 2021 budget and light rail spine debacle.

Benefits From Inslee's Lockdown?

A previous post questioned whether the increase in Washington COVID-19 cases constituted a "Dire Situation".  Since then the increasing number of cases has resulted in demands from health officials and the media for more stringent lockdowns that will likely continue well into next year.  Thousands of lives will be disrupted if not devastated as a result.

This post questions the "benefits"of Gov Inslee continuing to heed their advice.  The Seattle Times "COVID-19 in Washington State" has included data during initial lockdown.  The April 1st mortality for 14-day average deaths, 22, from approximately 350 14-day average cases was 6.28%.   Clearly the early lockdowns reduced the spread and saved lots of lives.

However, the "benefits" from the current lockdown are far less.  Comparable numbers as of 11:59 p.m., Dec 3rd were 22 fatalities from 2482 cases or 0.89%.  That's up from those prior to the lockdown, Nov. 17th, 14-day average 15 fatalities from 2215 positive cases per day, 0.68%.

It's clear the current lockdown hasn't further reduced cases or fatalities.  The Department of Labor November jobs report prompted the following regarding the "costs" of the lockdown:

"Progress in the labor market has slowed at the worst possible time".  "We might be optimistic about the spring, but the winter could bring another round of economic pain".

Bank of America economists agreed, pointing out that the number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or more ticked up form 3.6 million to 3.9 million-- around 37% more unemployed people, largely workers in the hospitality sector. 

Inslee's current lockdown has caused economic problems in our state.  The question is what are the benefits from his current lockdown and likely decision to continue it. The Times reported the, "DOH doesn't track recoveries", however the WebMD website recently concluded

Experts also don't have information about the outcome of every infection.  However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%.

Their estimate limits both the fatalities and other long-term effects.

The problem has been Gov Inslee, health officials, and media pundits advocating for the lockdown have apparently ignored the Times COVID-19 "pie charts" detailing the ages of those who tested positive and those who died as a result.  (While they don't provide comparable data for hospitalizations the fatalities surely reflect COVID-19 "cost" on hospitals and staff.)  They've remained relatively constant for months.

The Dec. 3rd charts showed those age 0-19 had 15% of 2482 cases but no fatalities, 0.00% mortality, those 20-39 had 40% of cases but only 1% of fatalities, 0.022% mortality;  those 40-59 had 28% of cases with 9% of fatalities, 0.28% mortality. The total morality for the 80% of Washington residents under age 60 was 0.11%.  The mortality for those over 60, with 17% of case but 90% of fatalities, was 4.69%.

By comparison the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 2018 mortality rates for ages 15-24 was 0.074%, ages 25-44, 0.328%, ages 45-64 1.29% and ages 65-84, 6.26%  The total NCHS mortality rate for ages 15-64 was 1.69%.  Thus for the one person out of the 1000 under the age of 60 who dies from COVID-19 14 others will die from other causes.  For those over 60, 95 out of 100 will survive the virus.  

More recently the COVID-19 data in the Dec 8th times reported the 14-day average number of cases increased from 1710 per day on November 17th when lockdown began to 2633 cases per day.  Again 14-day average fatalities had increased, from 13 to 20 per day and those over 60 had 16% of cases and 90% of the fatalities.

Fatalities for those under 60, the 10% of 20 fatalities, 2.0 per day, from 84% of the 2633 cased, 2212,  reduced the mortality rate to 0.09%  Comparable rates for those over 60, 16% of cases and 90% of fatalities was 4.74%, more than 50 times the mortality rate of those under 60.

Yet it's those under 60 who are enduring the "cost" of the lockdown.  They make up nearly all of the current 3.9 million long-term unemployed.  They either work at or patronize the restaurants and bars, bowling lanes, movie theaters and gyms.  They're also the ones enduring limitation on schools, social gatherings, travel and sporting events.  Limiting their access to religious service and forbidding weddings and funerals adds to their loss.

By comparison many of those over 60 are retired, less socially active, in elder care facilities, or have some additional health problem.  The lockdown hasn't changed their lives so it hasn't changed their mortality rate.  The only way to reduce their fatalities is by vaccination, justifying the recent CDC priority decision.  Eventually all those wanting vaccination will be able to do so.  The questions is whether the benefit of extending the lockdown until they're vaccinated justify the cost.  

The benefit of in-person teaching surely outweighs the cost of those under 20, with 0.0% mortality and teachers under 60 with 0.09% mortality.  The lockdown costs for all those under 60 surely outweighs the benefits of reducing their 10% of  fatalities until they're vaccinated, especially since continuing the lockdown will do little to reduce the cases or deaths for those over 60.

It's time Gov Inslee and all those advocating for continuing the lockdown recognized that reality.

Sound Transit Board Can Mitigate Northgate Debacle

The November 19th Sound Transit Board meeting video detailed preparations for the debut of Sound Transit's Northgate Link operation in Sept. 2021.  It's the first of Prop 1 extensions beyond UW that should have never been built.

Sound Transit agreed to pay UW $20 million to tunnel under the university to Northgate rather than use the UW station to interface between increased 520 BRT and Central Link into Seattle.  Thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake would have benefitted.  Instead Sound Transit extended Central Link to Northgate spending $2.5 billion on what was described in their website as "a 4.2-mile, 3-station extension that will operate every 6 minutes during peak hours with projected ridership 41,000 to 49,00 daily by 2022"

The November 19th video of Sound Transit's presentation to the board for Northgate's initial operation demonstrates the problem.  The first item on the agenda was the Northgate operating schedule.  Sound Transit's initial draft, "trains running every 8-minutes during rush hour,(rather that 6 min),  15-minute intervals midday & weekends,  and 30-minutes late night was revised due to survey results to 10 minutes midday & weekends, 15 minutes late evening.

A schedule of 6 hours of peak-operation 8-minute intervals, 10 hours of off-peak 10-minute intervals, and 2 hours of late-night 15-minute intervals requires 113 round trip routes each weekday to Northgate.  A light rail car costs ~$25 per mile, so routing a 3 or 4-car light rail train the 8.4 miles to Northgate and back adds $645 to $860 to the routes operating cost: $72,885  to $97,180 for the 113 daily round trips.

The purported reason for spending the $2.5B extending light rail to Northgate was to reduce I-5 congestion by attracting more commuters to public transit and reducing bus routes into Seattle. Again Sound Transit claimed 41,000 to 49,000 commuters would use Northgate daily in 2022.  If 80% of those commuters rode Northgate Link into and out of Seattle during the 6 hour peak commute, each of the 45 peak-hour trains would have to accommodate between 683 and 817 riders; if not exceeding total capacity, ending access for current University Link riders.

Only a fraction of ST CEO Rogoff's projected commuters will ride Northgate Link.  Even a smaller number will be the added transit riders needed to reduce I-5 congestion.  Sound Transit has refused to add parking at any of the three stops,  Rather than add new local bus routes to the station to increase access the November 19th video detailed plans to "truncate" current ST 511-513 routes at Northgate (ending access at NE 45th Freeway Station) and ST 522 route at Roosevelt station for riders.  

However, the survey results also showed commuters preferred riding buses directly into Seattle during rush hour.   As a result, ST 510, which runs from Everett station every 10-15 minutes between 5:00 and 8:45 a.m. and from 2:30 to 6:50 p.m. will continue into and out of Seattle. 

All of the Snohomish Community Transit 400 series buses  currently into and out of Seattle will continue. KCM41, which currently runs from Lakewood will continue into Seattle from Northgate.  Metro has even added new  KCM  322 & 361 routes from Northgate through  Roosevelt Station into Seattle.  

Thus Northgate operation will only replace 22 ST 511/513 buses into Seattle between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m., and 29 ST 511/513 routes out of Seattle to Northgate between 2:30 and 7:00 p.m.: trivializing any I-5 congestion benefits from Northgate into and out of Seattle.  It also raises questions as to why Sound Transit would route 21 3 or 4-car trains from UW to Northgate to accommodate those riding 22 morning ST 511/513 routes.

The last Sound Transit quarterly ridership reports for individual routes showed 9,138 daily riders on routes 510-513 in 3Q 2019.  However, 80% of those probably rode on ST 510 during peak commute.  The 5088 daily ridership for 3Q 2019 for ST 522 will be forced to transfer to either Northgate Link at Roosevelt station or to KCM 41,  KCM 322, or KCM 361 to continue into  Seattle.  Thus, daily ridership on Northgate Link in 2021 will likely be less than 8000.

That limited ridership would have prompted a competent transit board member to suggest they continue routing ST 510 after current 6:50 p.m. schedule rather than routing 3 or 4-car trains beyond UW station to Northgate.  Especially since the ST 511/513 routes being replaced cease operation after 7:00 pm.  The evening routes could include stops at Roosevelt and Northgate with "stops on demand" beyond Northgate, replacing ST 512 routes beyond Northgate ending the need for evening commuters to transfer from light rail to bus.  

A competent transit board member would recognize terminating Central Link at UW station would not only be more convenient for commuters, operating costs would be reduced.  Sound Transit budgets bus operating costs as about $10 per mile.  Routing a bus the 15 miles from 5th and Union to Northgate and back would cost $150.00, a fraction of  3 or 4-car train costs.

Again Sound Transit will continue route ST 510 in the morning. They need to recognize commuters "preference" would be to avoid having to transfer during their returns routes.  They could do so by using ST 510 to replace 26 evening Central Link routes to Northgate. They include the 6 light rail trains for each of the 3 off-peak routs from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. and the 4 for each of the two late hours from 10:00 pm to 12:00 am.  

Terminating Central Link at UW rather than at Northgate would reduce daily evening operating costs by $16,770 for 3-car trains and $22,360 for 4-car trains.  Again, ending the 21 morning 3 or 4-car train routes from UW to Northgate would save an additional $13,545 for 3-car and $18,060 for 4-car trains each weekday.

Extending ST 510 operation to replace the current 16 ST 512 routes rather than routing 26 light rail trains to Northgate would cost $2400 a day.  Additional ST 510 routes could easily be added to meet future demand.  Doing so would also end the need for evening commuters to transfer to buses at Northgate to reach final destination. 

Again, a competent transit board would have never approved extending Central Link beyond UW station to Northgate.  It does nothing to increase either the number of transit riders or transit capacity into Seattle needed to reduce congestion.  A fraction of the billions and years spent extending Central Link to Northgate could have been used to add parking with access to added bus routes into Seattle.  The least the Sound Transit Board can do is mitigate the damage by limiting its use.

Inslee's "Dire Situation"?

The Seattle Times November 25th edition front-page article, "Inslee: State faces dire situation as virus cases skyrocket," portends an eminent disaster.  That 3,482 new cases and 35 new deaths "shattered previous records".  That, "hospitalizations for the new virus mean hospitals could have to delay treatment".

However if one bothered to look at the actual data on page A6 the 3482 cases and 35 deaths were preceded by 2 days with no cases and no deaths.  Virus hospitalizations were a tiny fraction of the total and total hospitalizations were 3000 below the 11,362, 80% capacity level.

It's unclear how many people were tested during the 3 days however the 28-day average positive test rates increased from 4% on November 1st to 12% on the 23rd.   Meanwhile, from November 17th, when directives began, the 14-day averages for positive cases increased from 1710 to 2215 per day and for deaths from 13 to 15 per day.  Those resulted in overall mortality rates declining from 0.76% to 0.67%.  However it's not enough to look at the overall rate.

The A6-page pie charts show those under 60 had 83% of the 2215 cases but only 10% of the 15 deaths.  Thus the mortality rate for Washingtonians under 60 was 1.5 deaths/1838 cases or 0.08%.  (For those under 20 the mortality rate was 0.)  However the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 2018 mortality rates for those 15-64 was 1.69%.  Thus approximate 20 times the number of people under 60 who died from virus did so from over causes.

For those over 60 the 17% of cases but 90% of deaths the mortality rate was 13.5 deaths/376 deaths or 3.6%.  Again the NCHS mortality rate in 2018 for those from 65 to 84 was 6.26%, 74% higher.

By comparison an estimated 61,000 out of 45 million U.S. residents who had the flu in 2017-2918 died, a mortality rate of 0.135%.  Comparable numbers in 2018-2019 were 34,157 out of 35.5 million died, 0.095% mortality.  And this was with a vaccine.

Clearly COVID-19 is no more serious for those under 60 than the common flu.  Yet Inslee's directives fall far more heavily on the 80% of Washingtonians  under 60.  They are the ones who either work at or patronize the restaurants and bars, gyms, bowling lanes, movie theaters and gyms.  Limiting their access to religious service and forbidding weddings and funerals adds to their loss.  All of the limitations on schools, social gatherings, travel, and sporting events will have little impact on mortalities for the 80% of Washingtonians under 60.

Meanwhile Inslee's directives will have less impact on the 20% of Washingtonians over 60.  Many  will be retired,  less active socially, have pre-existing conditions, or in nursing homes, so its unlikely his directive will significantly reduce their mortality.  However, for the ones most impacted by the directives, the 80% under 60,  for the 1 person out of 1000 who dies from the virus, 19 will die from other causes.

The bottom line is Governor Inslee (and apparently the Times) refuses to recognize that COVID treatments have improved to where more than 999 out of 1000 of those under 60, and 96 out of 100 of those over 60 will survive the virus.  The entire state will pay a heavy price if he continues to do so.  On December 15th residents can make their own decision as to whether the reduction in cases or deaths per day was worth the lives disrupted if not devastated by the directives.

Abating the ST Board "Light Rail Spine" Debacle.

Sound Transit held a virtual public hearing 11 a.m. November 12th to accept public comment on their proposed 2021 Budget'.  I had responded to their offer to accept comments prior to the meeting with a somewhat revised version of the, "Sound Transit CEO Rogoff Incompetence" post on this blog.  It was one of three submitted to the board prior to the meeting.  I've been waiting for the meeting video to post Sound Transit's response on the blog.

The Nov 12th morning meeting video became available on the 17th.  However the participants failed to mention any of the prior submissions.  (They were originally posted but are no longer available on Internet).  Since no one had signed up to speak during the meeting it was adjourned as having "no public comment".  

The video of the subsequent board member meeting also became available on the 17th.  It mentioned the fact Bill Hirt and two others had submitted comments.  However, none of the submissions generated any response from the board members present.  Instead they recommended the Sound Transit Board accept Sound Transit's Finance Department  budget for 2021 in their December 17th meeting.

It's just another year of more than a decade of Sound Transit Board incompetence.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to extend light rail routed through the DSTT beyond UW to the north, SeaTac to the south, or across Lake Washington.  The way to reduce I-5 and I-90 congestion was to increase access to transit with additional parking with access to increased bus capacity into both Seattle and Bellevue.

Instead the board has allowed Sound Transit to spend billions on light rail extensions that don't increase transit capacity and spend nothing to increase bus transit ridership that would.  The board's "likely" approval of the 2021 budget on December 17th continues the incompetence.  

The most blatant example was the board's prior approval of CEO Rogoff's 2019 budget for 2017-2041.  It proposed spending $96.2B over those years implementing the country's most massive transportation system expansion.  The budget's light rail ridership projections were delusional and it continued the decade long refusal to increase bus ridership.

The 2019 budget projected in 2041 Sound Transit would have a debt of $17B, requiring $1B annually for debt service payments, a $1.5B annual Operation and Maintenance Budget, and $0.8B for State of Good Repair by Assets cost.  The budget projected paying for those expenditures in 2041 with $3.7B in tax revenue, $0.1B in grants and $0.47B in fares.

However the ST3 funding voter approved in 2016 ends in 2041.  (Sound Transit used legislation enabling them to ask voter for $1B annually for 15 years to extend the ST3 taxes to 2041).  Thus all the ST3 tax revenue will disappear in 2041.  The budget accounted for that loss with,  "Upon completion of all voter approved transit projects, the Sound Transit Board will initiate steps to roll back the rate of sales and use tax collected".  I't not clear "initiating steps to roll back taxes", reflects that loss.  

Two years ago a competent transit board would have recognized the folly of CEO Rogoff's plan to spend $96B on a transit system expansion that in 2042  results in a $1B annual debt service payment and $2.3B operating expenses with no way to pay.  (A competent transit board wouldn't have even allowed the Prop 1 extensions.)  

Instead they would have recommended funds for the light rail spine be diverted to the far less expensive to construct and operate Ballard-to-West Seattle link.  Some of the spine funds would be used to add parking with access to increased bus capacity to reduce I-5 congestion.  Instead the board not only approved Rogoff's budget, they renewed his contract for three years with a hefty raise.

Hundreds of millions have been spent on the spine but little to increase bus transit.  The board is currently on a path to approve his equally inept 2021 budget response to the corona pandemic.  The Nov 12th meeting video detailed plans to spend more than $1.5B on light rail expansions beyond Angel Lake, Northgate, and Overlake that do nothing to increase transit capacity.  (Doing so requires they need a new $700M loan.)  That when completed they'll increase operating costs, reduce access for current riders and do nothing to reduce area congestion.

The 2021 budget delays the West Seattle-to-Ballard link that would provide 100,000 commuters transit into Seattle.  It continues a decade of refusing to increase bus transit capacity and increases the outstanding debt in 2041. (It would seem the lack of ability to fund debt service payments might be a deterrent to lenders.) 

The "likely" Sound Transit Board approval of CEO Rogof's 2021 budget for light rail spine is just the latest example of incompetence.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to extend light rail beyond UW or SeaTac.  It's way past time for the Seattle Time editorial board and Traffic Lab to recognize that reality.  Doing so before the December 17th Sound Transit Board vote could prevent them from spending another $1.5B, at least abating the debacle.

The Times Abets ST CEO Incompetence

The September 3rd post "Seattle Times Response to ST Transit Development Plan 2020-2025" critiqued the Times Sept 2nd Editorial, "Speak up on Sound Transit Plans" response to TPD. 

The editorial opined:

"Concerned residents should review and comment on 'what's in the works'.  Consider it the start of a vital, regional discussion".

"Substantial revisions to Sound Transit's work plan, included the current mix of rail and buses, may be needed"

The Times urging residents comment on "what's in the works" 12 years after Prop 1 passed seems rather "belated".  The suggestion revising "current mix of rail and buses" ignores Times abetting Sound Transit decade long refusal to increase bus transit capacity.  The editorial shows the Times still doesn't recognize their real problem contending:

 

"The promised spine linking Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma must be completed".

The Times has never recognized the DSTT limited light rail capacity to where the riders added by the extensions will reduce access to current light rail riders, potentially ending access during peak commute.  However the public response they generated to the TDP led to it no longer being available on the Internet.

Still the Times continues to abet  CEO Rogoff incompetence.  His October 14 "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2121 Budget" can best be described as an "overview"with a series of charts showing the pandemic impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2021 Budget".

The "Long Range Plan" consists of a 4-year delay for the West Seattle-to-Ballard Link.  His Proposed 2021 Budget provides no details on current transit mode operation,  He funds his "System Expansion" with a $700 million TIFIA loan and a further increase in property tax.  Rogoff neglects to include the $700 million in the long-term  pandemic debt chart.  The Sound Transit Board had apparently previously approved a property tax increase, $125 for $500,000 home, to replace potential I-976 loss.

That remains in effect despite I-976 being invalidated and the board is being asked to impose an additional increase this year.  The Times apparently abets Sound Transit doing so with no clear indication as to what gave the Sound Transit the authority for either increase, what additional rate do they intend to ask for, and what limits that increase.

The Times abetting Sound Transit "spine" precludes a far better option to mitigate pandemic impact; use the existing funds to expedite the far less expensive West Seattle-to-Ballard link.  Thousands of additional Seattle commuters would benefit instead of existing Central Link riders losing access because of Lynnwood and Federal Way extension riders.

There would be no need for the TIFIA loan or the property tax increase.  The Times was right to suggest residents comment on "what's in the works" with Sound Transit's TPD.  It's even more important they stop abetting Rogoff incompetence by informing readers about better options than Rogoff's 2021 budget.  

ST CEO Rogoff Incompetent COVID-19 Response

The previous Sept. 30th post opined ST CEO Rogoff had failed to provide his 2021 budget detailing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  While Sound transit had detailed how service on all the transit modes will be adjusted it had not provided any information about the pandemic's effect on finances or on system expansion.

That was provided in an October 14th presentation to the Sound Transit Board Finance and Audit Committee, "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2021 Budget".  It can best be described as an "overview" with a series of charts showing the pandemic impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2021 Budget".

The Long Range Financial Plan provides a reasonable explanation of the problem.  The loss in available resources and the increase in expenditures along with the reduction in allowable debt will result in $2.7B unfunded expenditures by 2041.  That even a "moderate recession" required a "Realignment" consisting of a 4-year delay for some projects to avoid the projected need for debt exceeding the available debt capacity. A more "severe recession" could make even a 5-year delay unaffordable.

The 4-year delay also reduced Sound Transit debt at the end in 2041 from $25B to $20B.  That's still more than the $17B projected prior to the pandemic (It's never been clear how Sound Transit intends to pay off either level once ST3 funding ends)

Rofoff incompetence is exemplified by the plan's Proposed 2021 Budget.  His "Major cost-saving initiatives in 2020-2021", eliminating 77 vacant positions is offset by his adding 42 positions.  He claims they're needed for system expansion while delaying the expansions for 4 years.  His 2021 revenue projection fare revenues will increase 64% with pandemic seems "optimistic".  The major "other" revenue was listed as $700M from TIFIA.

TIFIA apparently stands for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.  TIFIA called the loan, "The largest single TIFIA loan to a transit agency in the country and the second largest TIFIA loan overall in the 25-year history of the program".  Yet he neglects to include the apparent added $700M debt in the charts showing pandemic effects on debt.

Rogoff demonstrates further incompetence with how he to uses the funds in response to pandemic.  Rather than reducing 2021 "System Expansion" funding he increases it from $2.242B to $2.306B, funding his decision, "Current construction continues".

He refuses to recognize light rail extensions beyond Northgate or Angel Lake will do nothing to increase light rail capacity through DSTT or reduce I-5 congestion. That any riders added will reduce access to light rail for current riders.

Those extensions are the ones he should at least delay if not cancel.  Rather than delaying the West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link for 4 years he should expedite their far less expensive construction, reducing the pandemic effect on debt.  Thousands of additional Seattle commuters would benefit instead of existing Central Link riders losing access because of Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions riders. 

Rogoff waits until page 41 of the 43 pages to mention his approach to increasing tax revenue with pandemic with following agenda:

11/5-Public Hearing--budget and property taxes 

11/5-Executive Committee--budget overview and property tax levy

11/19-Board Meeting--request for approval of a property tax levy

The  board had previously increased property taxes by $125.00 on a $500,000 home in response to I-976 passage.  Since I-976 was invalidated they could have ended that increase.  Instead it's not clear how much additional he intends to ask for, how this affects the debt problem, or what  limits the board authority to raise them. 

The bottom line is a competent transit CEO would have used the loss in funds as a reason to expedite the less expensive West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link.  Thousands of Seattle residents would have benefitted and the debt at the end in 2041 would be far less.

CEO Rogoff didn't and isn't.

 

The Reality of Battery Powered Cars

The previous post detailed how the Benton County Public Utility Department had concluded the intermittent nature of wind power precluded it being a reliable source of power.  This post details the need to charge most EV batteries overnight means very little power will come from solar panels.  That CO2 emissions from natural gas power plants to charge EV batteries offsets the benefits of reduced CO2 with EVs. That CO2 emissions from coal power plants to power EV batteries will  exceed the CO2 reduction with EVs.

Governor Newsom recently announced California will prohibit the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-powered cars in 15 years.  His rationale  presumably being electric vehicle efficiency, 70%,  is 3.2 times the 22% efficiency for gasoline vehicles.

 EV  mileage commonly refers to how many miles they'll get from the 33.7 kW of electrical power in a gallon of gasoline.  At 65 mph an EV typically takes .375 kWh per mile.  Thus the EV effective miles per gallon is ~90 empg, a significant improvement over the 28 mpg  for gasoline powered vehicles.

The question becomes where do they get the .375 kWh supplied to the EV.  A hybrid car gets the power from its gasoline engine.  The efficiency of using electric power to drive the wheels rather than the engine typically increases mileage to ~ 55 mpg.  However the power for a "plug-in" EV has to come from other sources.  

The problem is, even in California, the vast majority of EV batteries will be charged over night when solar power is no longer generated.  Unless EV owners have some way of storing the electricity during the day, the electricity used will likely come from fossil fuel powered generators.  Clearly EV car use will not be CO2 free.

A gas turbine converts about 38% of its energy into electrical power.  That loss along with loss during transmission results in it taking 2.8776 kWh of energy at the source to supply a kW to the car, reducing EV mileage to 31.2 empg.   A/C and heat under "ideal driving conditions" at 65 mph would reportedly drop EV empg ~10% on a new car and 18% on a 4.5 year old battery to 27.5 empg.  More severe conditions could drop empg by 25% on a new car and 30% on a 4.5-yer old car reducing mileage to 21.8 empg.  By comparison the 3% loss in a gasoline powered car from A/C and heat is presumable reflected in the 28 mpg rating.  Clearly there is very little mileage gain from EV power.

An EV battery currently costs about $100 for every kWh stored.  At .375 kWh per mile, an EV would require a battery costing $10,000 to travel 250 miles between charges.  Charging the battery coud take several hours.  The cost associated with storing gasoline in either a conventional or hybrid is minimal as is the time to "recharge"it.  It's a question of whether the cost of adding electric motors to drive the wheel rather than the engine outweighs the fuel savings.

The EV's principle benefit is their reduction in CO2 emissions.  Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2, so a car averaging 28 mpg will emit .71 lbs of CO2 a mile.  Natural gas combustion produces 117 lbs of CO2 per million BTU or 289.3 kW or .40 lbs per kW   Assuming .375 kW per mile at the meter and 1.08 kW at the source,  .43 lbs of CO2 will be emitted at the power station per EV mile, 40% less than a gasoline powered car.  (However a hybrid vehicle getting 55 miles from 20 lbs of CO2 would emit only .36 lbs of CO2 a mile.)

Again, A/C, heat, normal driving conditions, and age would increase  EV power generated CO2 emissions .  Their effects on gasoline engine and hybrid vehicles are presumably reflected in their 28 mpg and 55 mpg ratings.

Meanwhile in states using coal, 228 lbs of CO2 are emitted to generate the 289.3kW.  That equates to .79 lbs of CO2 per kW.  Again assuming the .375 kW per mile at the meter and the1.08 kW at the source, .85 lbs of CO2 will be emitted to power the  EV a mile, 20% more than a gasoline powered car averaging 28 mpg.  (Again real life operation would increase that penalty) 

That should give pause to those advocating EVs.

Washington State blows away wind fantasies

(The following, from the "Waat's Up With That" website, is another example of the futility of attempts to end the state's fossil fuel power sources)

Ronald Stein October 12th 2020

The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District (BPUD) has documented their actual battleground experiences  with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers.  Their message is "no more wind"

The Washington state utility 16-page report titled "Wind Power and Clean Energy Policy Perspective" of July 14, 2020 provides a devastating counter attack to the wind lobbyists that they question the efficacy of wind farms for power generation and resulted in the utility's commissioners saying they "do not support further wind power development in the Northwest".

Kudos to this Washington state public utility for speaking up after seeing the costs and dangers of California's experience with an over reliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar.  In a statement and report, the utility said overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts.

They go on to say the development of wind farms may be "politically fashionable" and appeal to many in the general public, but science and economics show that attempting to power modern civilization with intermittent electricity from wind and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost.

The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia, as power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe.  Today, German households pay almost 50% more for electricity than they did in 2006.  Shockingly, America, from California to New York, continues to take giant steps toward following Germany's failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere.

Rebutting 60 Minute California Burning Segment

 (The following is from the "Waat's Up With That" website)

By James Taylor from Climaterealism.com

Prominent scientist and climate activist Michael Mann appealed to an asserted scientific consensus to chastise President Donald Trump on CBS's 60 Minutes program last night.  Ironically Mann himself ignored clear scientific consensus in order to promote his own out-of-the mainstream climate change theories.

While interviewing Mann, CBS"s Scott Pelley said, "There have always been fires in the West.  There have always been hurricanes in the East.  How do we know that climate change is involved in this?' Pelley followed up with, "The president says about climate change, 'Science doesn't know'".

Replied Mann,  "The president doesn't know, and he should know better.  He should know that the world's leading scientific organizations, our own U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and national academies of every major industrial nation, every scientific society in the United States that's weighed in on the matter.  This is a scientific consensus.  There's about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity"

Mann's description of the conclusions of the "scientific consensus " however, is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report.

As documented in "Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes", the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC) expresses "low confidence" in any connection between climate change and changes in hurricane activity.

Similarly, as documented in "Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires," U.S. wildfires are much less frequent and severe  than they were in the first half of the 20th century -- 100 years of global warming ago.  Moreover the IPCC reports a decrease in drought conditions- which is primary climate factor regarding wildfires- in the global region including the U.S. West.  Moreover, the IPCC finds no evidence of an increase in drought globally, either.

Ultimately, data, evidence, and scientific facts are far more indicative of scientific truth that a real or imagined consensus of scientist. Yet, to the extent Michael Mann wishes to invoke consensus as a scientific argument, the clear consensus of scientists is that Mann is promoting extreme climate theories that have no basis in reality

Ending PSE Coal-fired Power Plant Questions

 (I submitted the following to UTC)

PSE Ending Coal Power Questions

My September 28th Puget Sound Energy bill included a "Notice of Requested Sale, PSE Coal-Fired Power Plant" detailing its intent to respond to the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act requiring PSE no longer supply its customers with power from coal-fired generation by January 1, 2026.

    "PSE filed a request with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to sell "all of its interests in coal-fired steam plant" in southern Montana by the end of 2020 to Northwestern Energy.  PSE also requested the UTC approve its proposed accounting treatment for the transaction that "addresses how decommissioning  and remediation costs as well as unrecovered plant, will be included in customer rates"

It's not clear what the "costs" will be for customers.  A Wikipedia Puget Sound Energy description included the following regarding their power sources.

    "Coal accounted for 36% of PSE's electricity fuel mix in 2018.  PSE's partial ownership of Eastern Montana's Colstrip Generation Station represents the single largest  power-generating facility PSE owns, approximately 700 MW of generating capacity.  Hydroelectricity 31%, gas power 22%, and wind 10%, provided the remainder."

The PSE "Notice" included their agreement to purchase power from Northwestern Energy through December 31, 2025 to replace some of the power supply that will be lost in the sale.  The only reliable source in 2026 will likely be additional natural gas powered plants, of limited benefit from reduced CO2 emissions.  The costs will be "substantial" and the benefits of replacing CO2 will be offset by the global warming from increased H2O.

PSE needs to provide anticipated consumer rates and their post coal-fired power plant energy sources to meet Washington Clean energy Transformation Act requirements in 2026.

Sound Transit CEO Rogoff's 2021 Budget?

 One of a company CEO's responsibility is to provide the board of directors with a financial plan and proposed budget for the coming year.  Last year Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff's 2020 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget consisted of 144 pages and was presented to the board in October 2019.

It projected 2020 revenue and expenditures with the difference coming from cash balances and with comparisons with 2019 budget.  The expenditure side included $2.5 billion for system expansion projects and $370 million for the 2020 transit operating budget.  The budget summary included a breakdown of Projected 2020 Revenues and Other Financial Sources and Expenses & Outlays and comparisons with previous years.

CEO Rogoff's previous budgets have included extensive details as to where the funds come from and how they will be spent.  The problem has been his budget projections for benefits, namely ridership, have been delusional and they've continued Sound Transit's decade long failure to increase parking with access to added bus routes needed to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  (He fails to recognize using light rail extensions to replace buses does very little to reduce congestion, it only reduces access for current light rail riders.)

The pandemic-induced downturn anticipating losing between $743 million and $1 billion changed all those budget projections.  Rogoff's response was the subject o a June 26 Puget Sound Business Journal article "Sound Transit delays decision on expansion plan while economic outlook is still unclear".  It included the following:

    "Later this year the agency and board will adjust construction and project development plans through 2021 in order to develop next year's budget."

The next opportunity to respond was the annual 5-year transit development plan Sound Transit was required to provide for public input.  This year's TDP, "Transit Development Plan 2020-2025 was released on July 16th with public comment allowed on Sept 3rd.  However, rather than making some adjustments for the pandemic the TDP included the proviso, "did NOT reflect the impacts of COVID-19".

The Seattle Times apparently disapproved of the TDP with a Sept 2nd editorial "Speak up on Sound Transit Plans"

    "Concerned residents should review and comment on what's in the works.  Consider it the start of a vital, regional discussion"

Even the Times, which had spent the last decade abetting Sound Transit policies by refusing to require they be audited, objected to the TDP.   Apparently the Sept 3rd public comments were also critical since the TDP was removed from the Internet. 

Sound Transit did produce a September 2021 Draft Service Plans detailing operations for Link, Sounder and express bus routes in response to daily ridership falling from 160,000 on March 2nd to 29,500 in August.  However, Rogoff still hasn't provided the Capital budget response to the lost revenue..  A Sept 1st Urbanist article "Sound Transit Assesses Budget Damage and Which Projects to Unfreeze" included the following:

   

 "Sound Transit has continued work on how the agency and board will adjust construction and development plans for reduced revenue for projects including Northgate (opening 2021), East Link (2023), Federal way Link (20240, and Lynnwood Link (2024).  Those projects seem mostly on schedule." 

However, the 2020 budget for the 4 projects totaled $1.765 billion out of a total $2.063 billion System Expansion budget, far exceeding"likely" revenue.  It's not clear what the final revenue will be for 2020 or how much will be spent on each of the four projects.

Now it's October and "later in the year".  CEO Rogoff needs to produce a "2021 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget that reflects what was spent in 2020 amid pandemic realities.  Again his September 2021 Draft Service Plans detail "operations" for the transit modes.  He needs to produce plans for anticipated revenue and expenditure for system expansion.  In particular how much does he intend to spend on each of the four links and how does that affect their schedules. 

Dear East Side City Councils

Anyone who viewed the Mercer Island Sept 15 council meeting on MI TV21 or views it on Youtube will likely empathize with island residents treatment by their city council.   Especially the decision to raise their taxes to fund a $1.5M suit of Sound Transit without any discussion after spending an hour debating a rather arcane zoning issue.  This is the same council who, in a July 16^th 2019 council meeting where islanders nearly unanimously objected to Sound Transit plans to terminate I-90 corridor bus routes on the island, used a 2017 Settlement Agreement to justify allowing Sound Transit and KCM do so.

The Sept 15 meeting was a follow up their Sept 1 decision to raise islander taxes for 3 years to fund the $1.5 M suit opposing Sound Transit bus intercept configuration. The council could have avoided the need to raise $1.5 M and simply refuse allowing KCM bus routes from stopping on island.  (Whatever Sound Transit configuration wanted would have minimal impact since ST route 554 was limited to 4 buses an hour.) Instead, two hours into the meeting the council, without any discussion of the issue, unanimously approved proceeding with the tax increase and the suit.

Even If the suit "succeeded" in forcing Sound Transit to provide a more acceptable bus intercept configuration, Mercer Island will still be inundated with KCM commuters.  Islanders will be forced to share their access to East Link at their light rail station with thousands of KCM I-90 corridor commuters, potentially ending access during peak commute.

East side city councils should pay particular attention to the Sept. 15^th video.  It’s their I-90 commuters who will have to endure the hassle of attempting to transfer to and from East Link at the Mercer Island station.  Terminating both Sound Transit and KCM bus routes on Mercer Island will limit I-90 Bridge transit capacity to East Link’s share of DSTT capacity, a fraction of what’s needed to meet peak commute demand. 

Thousands of KCM riders will chose the option of driving rather than enduring the hassle of transferring to and from light rail to commute into and out of Seattle and the hassle of accessing light rail for the return trip in DSTT.  The result of any Mercer Island suit, whether they win or lose, will be more commuters driving cars and increased congestion along the entire I-90 corridor. 

The bottom line is East Link operation in 2023 will demonstrate the folly of allowing Sound Transit to confiscate I-90 Bridge center roadway.  Their bus intercept attempt to generate riders exacerbates that debacle,  increasing congestion along entire I-90 corridor, grid-locking I-90 Bridge during peak commute.  

East side city councils owe their commuters action to stop them. Demand their KCM bus routes bypass Mercer Island.

East Side Councils Should Demand KCM Routes Bypass MI

 

The previous post detailed how Mercer Island city council could mitigate the East Link debacle.  The council should not spend $1.5 million suing Sound Transit claiming their proposed “bus intercept” configurations violated their 2017 Settlement Agreement.  Instead the council should use the fact KCM was “Not a party to the Agreement” to simply prohibit KCM buses from using whatever bus intercept configuration Sound Transit wants.

 

Requiring KCM buses bypass MI on the route into and out of Seattle would limit routes terminating on island to Sound Transit 554.  It’s unlikely Sound Transit would even continue 554 current schedule of one bus every 15 minutes since very few I-90 corridor commuters need access to island.  Any arrangements needed to accommodate those buses would have minimal impact on island.

 

The Mercer Island decision to prevent KCM from terminating buses on island would end the need for thousands of cross-lake commuters transfer to and from East Link for their commute into and out of Seattle.   Mercer Island residents would no longer have to share their access to East Link at their light rail station with thousands of I-90 corridor commuters.

 

Instead, during a Sept 1 meeting the Mercer Island council proposed implementing a temporary utility tax rate to raise $1.5 M to fund litigation opposing Sound Transit bus intercept configuration.   That was to be followed by final approval at the Sept 15 meeting.  The agenda for that meeting includes the following under Regular Business:

 

8. AB 5749: Temporary Increase in Utility Tax Rates (Ordinance No. 20C-20 Second Reading and Adoption) and Interfund Loans Authorization (Resolution No. 1586) for Potential Litigation Costs to Enforce the Terms of the City’s 2017 Settlement Agreement with Sound Transit.

Recommended Actions:

1. Adopt Ordinance No. 20C-20 temporarily increasing utility tax rates to raise additional revenue for potential litigation to enforce the terms of the City’s 2017 Settlement Agreement with Sound Transit.

2. Pass Resolution No. 1586 authorizing interfund loans in the amount of $750 thousand each, for a combined total of $1.5 million, from the City’s water and utility funds to the General Fund.

3. Appropriate $1.5 million in loan proceeds authorized in Resolution No. 1586 for litigation costs.

 

It’s not clear whether there will be any “public comment” allowed.  What is clear is the council still doesn’t understand the problem is not with Sound Transit’s bus intercept configuration, it’s with allowing KCM buses to use it.  Even If they "succeed" in the suit and get a more acceptable bus intercept configuration, Mercer Island will still be inundated with KCM commuters. Residents will be forced to share their access to East Link at their light rail station with thousands of KCM I-90 corridor commuters, potentially ending access during peak commute.

 

KCM commuters along the entire I-90 corridor will have to endure the hassle of attempting to transfer to and from East Link at the Mercer Island station.  Terminating both Sound Transit and KCM bus routes on Mercer Island will also limit I-90 Bridge transit capacity to East Link’s share of DSTT capacity, a fraction of what’s needed to meet peak commute demand. 

 

Thousands of KCM riders will chose the option of driving rather than enduring the hassle of transferring to and from light rail to commute into and out of Seattle and the hassle of accessing light rail for the return trip in DSTT.  The result of any Mercer Island suit to get an acceptable bus intercept configuration will be more commuters driving cars and increased congestion along the entire I-90 corridor. 

 

Again all of this could be avoided if the Mercer Island council, rather than suing Sound Transit over objections to their bus intercept configuration, prohibited KCM buses from using it, requiring they bypass island. Their Sept 15 council meeting they intend to proceed with the suit. Other east side city councils should take action to insist they not do so.

 

 

 

MI Council Can Mitigate the East Link Debacle

 

This blog started because three years of emails and personal appearances failed to persuade the Bellevue City council to disallow the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS claims for light rail benefits were a total fantasy.  That Sound Transit had ignored RCW 81.104 requiring they consider two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge as a “no-build option.  Instead diverting half the limited capacity of Central Link trains routed through the DSTT across I-90 Bridge; leaving neither I-90 corridor nor south Seattle adequate transit capacity.  That confiscating I-90 Bridge center roadway precluded two-way BRT with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th cost.

In the end Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond city councils all approved the permits Sound Transit needed.  Hundreds of posts and multiple candidacies attempting to attract support for stopping East Link construction failed.  As a result the $3.5B spent constructing East Link has increased I-90 bridge congestion and devastated the route though Bellevue ending forever its persona as the “City in the Park”.

East Link’s real debacle however is that the funds spent constructing light rail, increasing bridge congestion, and devastating the route through Bellevue also created a light rail system whose operation will further increase not only I-90 Bridge congestion but congestion along the entire I-90 corridor from Issaquah into Seattle.  The reason being the Mercer Island city council "bud intercept" agreement to terminate I-90 corridor buses on island. 

It began when Sound Transit, in a January 2014 meeting, told Mercer Island city council 40,000 of East Link's 50,000 riders would come from terminating I-90 bus routes in South Bellevue and Mercer Island.  Acknowledging, that except for South Bellevue P&R, none of East Link stations were within walking distance or had parking needed for access for large numbers of commuters.   Sound Transit’s need for transit riders outweighed the fact I-90 Bridge congestion was not due to too many buses.

Despite nearly universal objection from residents at a July 16, 2019 meeting, the Mercer Island city council used a 2017 Settlement Agreement” with Sound Transit to justify terminating buses on island.  The council set up a Working Group which met four times to review Sound Transit's “bus intercept” configurations”.

Those reviews apparently resulted in Mercer Island council objecting to Sound Transit’s proposed configurations in the following open letter to the community. (posted on the city’s website on Aug. 25:)

 “It is essential for all Islanders to understand that the Bus/Rail Interchange, as currently proposed by Sound Transit, is in breach of the 2017 Settlement Agreement between Sound Transit and the City with the potential to adversely impact traffic patterns and public safety for all of our residents,”

 

Sound Transit’s response to Mercer Island concerns, dated Aug. 10 five days after an earlier city/Sound Transit meeting, included the following:

 

“The City keeps insisting that we take the issue to mediation — an approach that Sound Transit has rejected with good reason. Metro was not a party to the Agreement or the underlying litigation and would not be party to any mediation. And Metro cannot be bound by any mediated resolution agreed by the City and Sound Transit,

 

If KCM was "not a party to the agreement" the only I-90 bus routes involved in the dispute are Sound Transit 554 routes.   It currently runs every 14-15 minutes during most of the commute.  Any problems associated with a “bus intercept” configuration allowing 4 buses an hour to stop on island are surely minimal.  

 

It’s KCM routes 111,114, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, and 219 causing problems with the Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” configuration. Rather than spending $1.5 M attempting to modify Sound Transit's “bus intercept” configuration the council should minimize their affect on island.

 

Currently only KCM 219 stops on Mercer Island.  There is no reason East Link operation should result in any KCM buses ever stopping there.  I-90 commuters can use Sound Transit 554 and Bellevue can use East Link for access to island.  (it's "doubtful many I-90 commuters will need access to Merceri Island)  Whatever configuration Sound Transit uses to accommodate a 554 bus stopping on island even every 15 minutes will have minimal affect on island.

 

The Mercer Island decision to disallow terminating KCM buses on island would end the need for thousands of cross-lake commuters to transfer to and from East Link for their commute into and out of Seattle.   Mercer Island residents would no longer have to share their access to East Link at their light rail station with thousands of I-90 corridor commuters.

 

Even more important, continuing to route KCM buses across I-90 Bridge means cross-lake transit capacity would no longer be limited to East Link’s share of DSTT.   Congestion along the entire I-90 corridor will be reduced if KCM buses are added to increase transit capacity rather than reduced to meet some requirement to terminate buses on island.

 

The bottom line is the Mercer Island city council does not need to spend $1.5 million opposing Sound Transit’s Settlement Agreement configuration.  They can minimize the impact of any configuration by not allowing KCM buses to use it.