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.

 

Seattle Times Response to ST “Transit Development Plan 2020-2025

 

The Seattle Times Sept 2 Editorial, “Speak Up on Sound Transit Plans” typifies the paper’s failure to acknowledge ST incompetence. The editorial opines::

 

“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 concludes:

 

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

 

The Times apparently believes that after more than a decade of failing to urge Sound Transit be audited, a 30 minute comment period regarding their Transit Development Plan 2020-2025 will end Sound Transit incompetence.  

 

The paper neglects to mention those wanting to comment will have to go to the Sound Transit Sign Up window at 8:00 a.m.  That they will be called in the order they signed up.  That the 30 minute comment period will severely limit either the time each commenter will have or the number of those able to comment.

 

The Times still doesn’t recognize Sound Transit’s real problem contending:

 

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

 

The rationale being:

 

 “The needs of outlying areas that paid heavily into the system with little investment in return”.  

 

The paper apparently doesn’t recognize the DSTT limited light rail capacity to where the riders added by the extensions beyond UW and Angel Lake will reduce access to current Link Light rail riders, potentially ending access during peak commute.  

 

The editorial suggests:

 

Substantial revisions to Sound Transit’s work plan, including the current mix of rail and buses, may be needed

 

Apparent “may be needed” regarding buses is the paper’s response to the TPD reducing ST Express annual Revenue Vehicle Miles from 16.5 million in 2019 to 8.2 million in 2025 and bus passenger trips from 17.5 million to 8.0 million.  If the Times really wanted to help “outlying areas” they would have urged Sound Transit add thousands of parking stalls with access to added ST express bus routes into Seattle. 

 

Sound Transit doesn’t even add parking with access at light rail stations.  Choosing instead to use Link Light Rail to replace current ST express bus routes into Seattle.  Ending the bus routes will reduce transit capacity into Seattle, do little to reduce I-5 congestion, and reduce access for current Link riders. 

 

The bottom line is the Seattle Times has spent the last decade abiding if not abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  For years the “Traffic Lab” has been the Seattle Times project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues.  The editorial attempt to make up for their failure by urging “concerned residents” to respond to a 30-minute TPD comment period is absurd.

 

Sound Transit CEO Rogoff Incompetence Continues

Sound Transit is required to prepare a six-year transit development plan and annual report, as well as conduct a public hearing about the proposed plan.  This year’s Transit Development Plan 2020-2025 and 2019 Annual Report was released on July 16^th and is scheduled for public comment 12:00 p.m. -12:30 p.m. Sept 3^rd.  

Typical of Sound Transit they limit the comment period to 30 minutes.  Even worse rather than allow those wishing to comment to sign up prior to the meeting they’ll be required to go to the Sound Transit sign up window beginning at 8 a.m. on the day of the hearing.  They will be called in the order they signed up.  The 30-minute comment period will severely limit either the time each commenter will have or the number of those able to comment. 

Anyone reading the TDP would understand why Sound Transit would want to limit comment. In particular, their decision to wait until page 24, Chapter “V: PLANED ACTIVITIES, 2020 – 2025” for their response to COVID-19.

Sound Transit is evaluating service levels and the timing of capital projects as a result of reduced revenues stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic downturn.  The process began in May 2020 with an overview of potential financial impacts and will continue through summer of 2021.

The following information is accurate as of the adoption of the 2020 Budget and Transit Improvement Plan at the end of 2019 and do NOT reflect impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

One would have thought the results from a “process that began in May 2020” could have been included in a July 16^th TPD.  Instead they chose to call it a “Draft”.  Still the TPD illustrates CEO Rogoff’s incompetent approach to public the area’s transportation problem.

First, he’s apparently “unaware” I-976 passed with TPD projecting MVET revenue will continue, increasing from $346 M in 2019 to $407 M in 2025.  Even more important, the TPD projections for 2025 demonstrate Rogoff’s delusional approach to area’s congestion. 

He clearly doesn’t appreciate the benefits of increased bus transit capacity. The TPD reduces ST Express annual Revenue Vehicle Miles from 16.5 million in 2019 to 8.2 million in 2025, reducing bus passenger trips from 17.5 million to 8.0 million.  Rogoff does so while promising to implement BRT along I-405 and north of Lake Washington in 2024.

By comparison his TPD increases annual Link Light Rail Total Vehicle Miles from 5.7 million in 2019 to 24.0 million in 2025.  The increase reflects more frequent service, added cars per train, and additional route lengths with the extensions to Northgate and beyond to Lynnwood, across I-90 to Bellevue and beyond to Redmond, and beyond Angel Lake to Federal Way.

All of the Link Light Rail trains in 2025 will pass through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  An August 2004 PSRC Technical Report, funded by Sound Transit, “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment”, concluded DSTT station lengths limited Link Light Rail trains to 4 cars and safe operation required 4 minutes between trains.  Thus the PSRC study would limit Link Light Rail to 60 cars an hour in each direction.

It’s not clear what assumptions Rogoff was using for the TPD in 2025 since the billions spent on the extensions do nothing to increase the number of train cars through DSTT.  The PSRC concluded each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders so ridership was limited to 8880 riders per hour in each direction or 17,760 total.  Again, it’s not clear what Roffoff’s TPD assumed for number of cars per hour or riders per car.  The TPD projects Link Light Rail “Passenger Trips” will increase from 24.8 million in 2019 to 84.0 million in 2025, or 280,000 a daily.  Ridership would have to exceed 37,000 hourly during the 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes to accommodate 80% of the 280,000 daily riders.  

Clearly, at least during peak commute Link Light Rail doesn’t have the capacity. (Even 4 minutes between trains may be optimistic because of the difficulty of merging return trips from different East Link and Federal Way route lengths and stops.) Riders added by extensions will reduce access for current Link riders. All of the parking with access to light rail has been full for years yet the TPD Capital Improvement budget includes nothing for parking  Instead Rogoff intends to use extensions to replace existing bus routes.  The TPD “Planned Activities” includes “discontinuing service on ST Express” between Bellevue and Seattle in 2023, and between Lynnwood and Seattle and Federal Way and Seattle in 2024. 

Rogoff apparently doesn’t recognize congestion on I-5 and I-90 is not due to too many buses. He’s spending billions on light rail extensions that don’t increase transit capacity to eliminate bus capacity into Seattle.  During peak commute those former bus riders could end access for current Link Light Rail commuters.

It’s no wonder he wants to minimize TPD input.  He apparently has no idea how to deal with the COVID-19. It won't take until 2025 to see the his TPD problems.  The first indication will be failure of the billions spent on Northgate to reduce I-5 congestion when it begins operation.  East Link operation in 2023 will simply confirm the debacle.