No Climate Change Emergency

The July 25^th Seattle Times Editorial “No Time to Dither on Climate Emergency” opened with the following:

“Climate change is an imminent threat to humanity and the planet, and we are running out of time. This is as settled as science can be, yet Congress continues to hem and haw and fail to meet to take meaningful actions.”  

 

It concludes with the following:

 

The danger of climate change demands that whole government approach. Biden says he understands the urgency---that means hurry up and do something

 

The seminal “science” behind global warming is a 2007 Scientific American article “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”.  That computer models using the authors’ “Radiative Forcing” didn’t match with “observed climate change” unless they "assumed" the increase in carbon dioxide had ten times the effect on temperatures as increases in warming from the Sun. More recent studies have increased the effect of a CO2 increase to up to 30 times that of an increase from the Sun

 

Yet, a National Academy of Science, Nov 10^th 2015 paper entitled, "Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO2" concluded 

 

Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR)

 

That CO2 effects on global warming were also included in NASA, Dec 9^th 2019 paper “Solar Cycle 25 Prediction 2019 – Bing”.  It included charts concluding the following:

 

CO2 warming effect decreases with concentration. CO2 has less and less effect with increased concentration.   CO2 can go to 1,000 to 2000 or to 5,000 and it won’t warm the earth.  

 

Clearly the “science” behind claim CO2 driven “Climate change is an imminent threat” is hardly “settled”.  

 

That climate change demands a “whole government approach” ignores the fact the "whole country" only emits 15% of the planet’s CO2. China and India emit nearly 45% and have plans to continue adding coal fired power plants at least through 2030. Thus, it’s unlikely a whole US government approach would significantly change atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

As far as actual data, ice core studies have been used to compare CO2 levels and global temperatures during the last 800,000 years. That during the Eemian period, some 130,000 years ago, temperatures were 4 deg C higher than current levels with 290 ppm CO2 levels.  Thus, CO2 levels alone aren’t determinative. More important, the ice core data showed a lag between global temperature and CO2 during periods they’re both increasing and decreasing.

 

That indicates increasing global temperatures, driven by the Sun, increases CO2 out gassing from ocean, raising CO2 on the way up.  The lag is even greater when global temperatures go down, again, driven by the Sun, increases CO2 dissolution into the ocean, lowering atmospheric levels on the way down.  The ice core data indicate atmospheric CO2 level is the result of global warming not the cause.  Any additional CO2 emissions from fossil fueled power plants will increase atmospheric levels but not global temperatures or constitute a climate emergency.   

 

The bottom line is the “science” is far from “settled”.  That the whole country only emits 15% of the planet's CO2 emissions.  That ice core data indicate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is the result of global warming not the cause.  Thus, there is no need to use solar and wind power to replace fossil fueled generators.  (In 2021, they only provided 12% of the electric energy consumed.) That until there are ways to store renewable energy, fossil fueled generators are the only way to avoid the blackouts that will inevitably arise when the Sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow.

Avoiding the East Link Debacle

 

Previous posts have detailed the June 9^th Sound Transit System Expansion Committee meeting had included a chart showing the Lynnwood Link debut “Target Date” had been delayed for at least two years.  That the Seattle Times Traffic Lab, who were asked to “dig into” why, had instead chosen to ignore it.  That, as a result, Sound Transit could delay another demonstration of the Northgate Link problems; the inability of 4-car light rail trains to reduce multi-lane freeway congestion during peak congestion and costing too much during off peak.  

Sound Transit still refuses to release their quarterly Service Delivered Performance Report 2021-Q4 and Quarterly Financial Performance Report 2022-Q1.  They would have provided how many of Sound Transit’s projected 41,000 to 49,000 riders actually used the 3 stations, how much did each boarding cost, and the farebox recovery of operating costs with the longer routes.

The best indication is the lack of parking with access to light rail stations or access to parking near bus routes to stations limited Link ridership to only 8000.  The Lynnwood Link exacerbates both problems by not adding capacity or parking for access during peak commute operation, and doubles operating costs, slashing fare box recovery,.  Again, delaying Lynnwood Link delays exposing Prop 1 light rail spine problems to Everett

However, the Lynnwood Link delay does nothing to delay the far bigger problems with the East Link debut in 2023. The July 7^th release of the May Agency Progress Report included a debut delayed from a June 30,2023 to Oct 20, 2023.  Whatever the date, the East Link debut will finally demonstrate that Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail. That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS claims for benefits were sheer fantasy.  

The Link’s confiscation of bridge center roadway precluded 2-way BRT routes with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  Sound Transit violated Revised Code of Washington RCW 81.104.100 (2 )by failing to consider that far less expensive BRT option.

 

Sound Transit also essentially ignored Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation's environmental policy. It “Precluded approval of a transportation project that adversely affects waterfowl and wildlife refuges unless the impact is de minimis”.  Sound Transit spent millions shielding homes across Bellevue Way but nothing to protect the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park. The route into Bellevue needlessly destroyed the city’s persona as “the city in the park”.

The East Link debut will confirm the debacle.  Rather than add transit capacity Sound Transit chose to use the $3.6B spent on East Link to replace all the I-90 Bridge bus routes.  They refuse to acknowledge the only way to reduce I-90 corridor congestion is to attract more commuters to public transit.  That attracting more riders requires providing commuters with local bus routes to transit stations with BRT routes into Seattle and Bellevue.

Instead, Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island terminates I-90 corridor bus routes on the island.  The agreement limits the number of corridor buses and requires those commuters to endure the hassle of being forced to transfer to light rail for the commute into Seattle.  The return trip will require they wait on the island for a bus back to their P&R.  Both a sure recipe for far fewer transit commuters when East Link debuts.  Avoiding that debacle requires most I-90 corridor buses bypass Mercer Island and route instead into Seattle.

Another East Link debut problem is Sound Transit plans to make the Link part of Line 2 and share tracks with Line 1 from Angel Lake through DSTT to Northgate and eventually to Mariner P&R near Everett.  Line 1 currently operates with 10-minute headways for 16 hours and 20-minute headways for 4 hours; 108 round trips daily.  Prior to East Link the 108, 8.4-mile round trips from UW to Northgate and back will add 3628.8 vehicle revenue miles for the 4-car trains. Sound Transit’s 2021 budget $30.17 cost per vehicle mile, so the link will add $109,481 daily.

  

When East Link debuts, maintaining the Line 1 schedule from Angel Lake and for Line 2 will double the number of routes through DSTT to Northgate, doubling the daily operating cost to $218,962.  When the Lynnwood Link does debut routing Line 2 the additional 8.5-mile extension will increase costs per trip from UW to Lynnwood and back to $3077 per trip, or $664,705 per day for the 216 trips. (It "may be" why Sound Transit has made the decision to delay if for two years)

  

The bottom line is Sound Transit's "bus intercept" plan will do nothing to increase the transit capacity needed to reduce I-90 corridor congestion.  That extending East Link though DSTT to Northgate and beyond will increase transit capacity and costs but nothing to increase access for riders.  Thus, costs for the extensions will dwarf any rational estimate for farebox revenue.  

The way to avoid the costs is to terminate Line 2 at the International District/Chinatown station.  Doing so allows Sound Transit to schedule Line 2 to meet transit capacity needs on the route through Bellevue to Redmond.  I-90 corridor BRT routes into Seattle could grow to meet the public transit demand needed to reduce congestion. If not, the East Link debut will force even the Seattle Times to concede the "likely"results of their decade long abetting Sound Transit's "voter approved" extensions.

Ballard Deserves Better

The July 13 Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “City Council goes public with light-rail line plans” indicates well-founded disagreements with Sound Transit plans with the “$13 billion West Seattle-to-Ballard” line.  Ballard residents deserve better than having construction that “will likely last until nearly 2040.” 

The “Program Schedule of Baseline Projects” for Light Rail Program in Sound Transit’s latest Agency Progress Report, the June 9^th release for May show light rail construction from Lynnwood to Federal Way and beyond Bellevue to Redmond are essentially complete by the end of 2024.  Ballard residents should not have to wait another 16 years for their link. 

 It’s also “unlikely” many Ballard residents will need to use the second tunnel under downtown Seattle to reach SeaTac.  Sound Transit could expedite a tunnel from 15^th and Market to near Seattle Pacific University, under North Queen Ann to near Seattle Center Parking Garage, to South Lake Union and terminate at Westlake light rail station.  It could include shuttle bus routes or a short tunnel for trains from Freemont area to Seattle Pacific. 

The total distance is something like the 4.4-mile Northgate Link tunnel whose estimated final cost is $1.9B. There is no need for a 2^nd tunnel as those wishing to go beyond Westlake can transfer to Central Link.  There would be no disruptions for Chinatown and Ballard residents could have light rail access 10 years sooner, at a fraction of the $13 billion.

 

Traffic Lab Ignores 2-year Lynnwood Delay

The previous post opined the Seattle Times Traffic Lab should “dig into” Sound Transit Machinations regarding Lynnwood Link.  Instead, the July 14^th edition article “Sound Transit bets on isolated North Seattle station” epitomizes a decade of abiding if not abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  The paper continues to ignore the fact the $54 billion approved in 2016 for “voter approved” extensions has grown to $142 billion.  

In this case abiding Sound Transit's decision to “budget $240 million to accelerate a North Seattle station surrounded  by minimal housing and jobs".  It’s similar to the Sound Transit Board’s January 27^th decision to authorize spending “an amount not to exceed $287,260,000" for a NE 85^th St Stride Bus Rapid Transit station along I-405 into Bellevue, also without parking for access.

 

 

 

The July 14^th article justifies the 130^th station on the basis of a Sound Transit Board member’s claim “is a matter of social equity for the north side’s influx of people of color and lower-income families.”  It’s unclear how many will choose to live withing walking distance. Sound Transit is planning to spend $15 million improving 85^th St in Kirkland to facilitate bus routes for access from downtown Kirkland.

The article claims the “station estimates rose from $80 million to $144 million in 2020 and to $223 million this spring. The authors were apparently unaware it wasn’t until a June 9^th System Expansion Committee meeting the cost increase was approved with the following: 

 Resolution No. R2022-17: Adopting the NE 130^th Street Infill Station project baseline schedule and budget by (a) increasing authorized project allocation by $203,738,000 from $36,417,000 to $240,155,000, (b) increasing the annual project budget by $9,883,027 from $6,584,030 to $16,417,057, and (c) establish an open for service date of Q2 2026.

Also, Sound Transit’s June 7^th release of the April Agency Progress Report, and several earlier reports, had included an Estimated Final Cost (EFC) of $36.4 million.  One would think an article about the station would include information  about what prompted the $204 million increase and how the $10 million annual increase will fund the $204 million cost.   

Even more “interesting” is the fact the Traffic Lab article continues to describe the Lynnwood Link as “Open for Service: 2024”.  They chose to ignore rather than “dig into” why the June 9^th Sound Transit announcement delaying Lynnwood Link debut for at least 2 years.

One reason could be Sound Transit has recognized that the Traffic Lab ridership claims in the article are overly “optimistic”.  They're quoted as being based on a “Lynnwood Link Final Environment Statement, April 2015”.  They reflect the same “optimism” the Traffic Lab had when they heralded the Northgate Link debut as “Transit Transformed" with 42,000 to 49,000 riders added by the Link’s three stations.

Yet they abide Sound Transit not releasing the quarterly “Service Provided Performance Report 2021-Q4 that would have provided the data.  The best estimate is the change in total ridership with the debut was 8000 daily, a fraction of Sound Transit's 41,000 to 49,000 prediction.  The reason, the lack of access with parking near stations or near bus routes to stations. 

Since the Lynnwood Link adds little access, its debut will do little to add riders.  What riders it adds will reduce access for University Link riders and the longer route operating costs will further reduce farebox revenue recovery.   Portending even more debacles with all the light rail spine extensions.  The later that happens the better for Sound Transit.

Again, the Traffic Lab needs to “dig-into” the delay, not ignore it.

 

 

 

Traffic Lab Should “Dig Into” Sound Transit Machinations

The Seattle Times promotes their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock, and helps readers find the best ways to get around.”    Yet they continue their failure to “dig into” a decade of Sound Transit Board and CEO public transit system incompetence. 

They’ve allowed Sound Transit to spend billions on light rail extensions for 4-car light rail trains that don’t have the capacity to reduce multi-lane freeway peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate during off-peak commute.  They’ve allowed Sound Transit to use delusional ridership claims for “voter approved” extensions yet ignored the extensions' need for “motorized access”.

The paper’s Traffic Lab heralded the Northgate Link debut as “Transit Transformed” with the three Link stations adding 42,000 to 49,000 riders.  Yet they’ve “neglected” to “dig into” how many riders the three stations actually added.  Instead, abetting Sound Transit’s refusal to release the 2021 Q4 Service Delivery Performance report. It would have provided the riders added by each of the three stations and the cost per boarding for the Link.   (Sound Transit stopped publishing the reports with the July 12^th, 2021, Q1 edition) 

They’ve also abetted Sound Transit’s delay in publishing a Quarterly Financial Performance Report for Q1 2022.  The report would have shown the Year-to-Date (YTD) Link Boardings, Fare Revenue, Budget Performance, and Cost Per Boarding for Q1 2021 and predicted and actual for Q1 2022. The year-to-year comparison would have included the effect of the Northgate Link operation. Again, it's something the Traffic Lab should “dig into” but hasn’t.

A September 9^th, 2018, Traffic Lab article, “New bus station in Kirkland will be a $300 million gamble” detailed concern it funded an NE 85^th St Stride Bus Rapid Transit station along I-405 that lacked parking for access.  Yet, they’ve ignored a June 9^th, 2022, Sound Transit System Expansion Committee plan to spend “an amount not to exceed $287,260,000" on a NE 130^th St Infill Station that also lacks parking.  That funding is an increase from the $34.6 million in Sound Transit’s June 7^th April Agency Progress Report.  The Traffic Lab should “dig into” why the $204 million increased cost, especially for a station without parking for access.  

An April 28th Traffic Lab article announced, “Sound Transit’s light rail project to the Eastside is running late”.  The April Agency Progress Report details the Link’s Revenue Service Window had been extended from July to October 2024.  Yet they’ve ignored a June 9^th Transit System Expansion Committee meeting disclosure that the Lynnwood service date had been delayed for at least two years.  That a chart in the meeting showing the schedule for the 130^th station included a “star” indicating the July 2024 “target date” for Lynnwood Service Date was “subject to change” that extended beyond Q2 2026.  

Yet the June 7^th April Agency Progress Report’s Lynnwood Project Schedule showed LLE Master Schedule “Finish” 30-Feb-24, Revenue Service Preparation Finish, 17-Jul-24 and Revenue Service-FFGA 17-July 24.   The two-year difference surely merits Traffic Lab “digging”.

The bottom line is Sound Transit refuses to release quarterly Service Delivery Performance and Financial Performance Reports showing the results of the Northgate Link debut.  The best information available indicates the ridership was only ~8000, a fraction of the Link website predictions of 41,000 to 49,000 by 2022.  The “likely” reason the lack of parking for access.  The resulting loss in fare box revenue along with the increased costs for longer routes raised cost per boarding and reduced farebox recovery well below targets.  

Even more important, like all the light rail spine extensions, the Northgate Link did nothing to increase light rail capacity into Seattle.  That riders added by the Link reduced access for University Link riders.  Using the Link to replace buses reduced total transit capacity into Seattle and nothing to reduce GP lane congestion. 

The Lynnwood Link exacerbates all the Northgate Link problems. It adds little parking for access, doubles the operating costs, and any riders added further reduce University Link access, a precursor to similar problems with all the light rail spine extensions.  The Seattle Times Traffic Lab needs to “dig into” whether the two-year delay is an attempt to delay exposing the debacle.