Everett Link Extension Needs Cost/Benefit Review

The June 23^rd Seattle Times column “Sound Transit charts the long light-rail trek to Everett” exemplifies the paper’s Traffic Lab” failure to “dig into issues” regarding Sound Transit’s approach to public transit.  Public transit’s goal should be to provide transit for those unable or unwilling to drive and to reduce congestion for those who do.  Sound Transit’s approach was to tell voters prior to 2016 ST3 vote that the 16.3-mile, 6 station Everett extension would cost $2,828M-$3,026M (2014$) and add 37,000-to 45,000 daily riders,

 

Sound Transit’s never acknowledged 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity needed to attract the number of riders required to reduce multilane freeway peak hour congestion. A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded a 4-car light rail train can accommodate 600 riders. That safe operation required 4 minutes between trains, so capacity was limited to 9000 per hour, belying the ability of the link to accommodate an additional 37,000 to 45,000 predicted daily riders, especially those commuting during peak commute into Seattle on I-5.

 

Thus, the Everett extension benefits are limited to how many new commuters the 6 stations will add and what will it cost to add them.  Snohomish Community Transit STC 400 and Sound Transit ST510-513 bus routes currently provide I-5 corridor public transit into Seattle for those who have access to stops along routes.   

 

However, beginning in 2024, all those routes into Seattle will be routed to Lynnwood extension stations.  The Everett extension will result in some of those bus routes terminating at Everett stations but very few additional riders until parking is added at Mariner P&R in 2046.

The Traffic Lab article reports costs were approved for three years of funding  a draft environmental impact study and 10% of the engineering the extension will need. (Presumably reflected in the April Agency Progress Report Everett Link budget for $197 Million for Project Development).  

Total cost ranged from $5.05 billion to $5.9 billion in 2023 dollars plus $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion for a maintenance base.  The cost and need for the maintenance base are largely predicated on the need for additional cars to maintain schedule over the 16-mile extension.  

However, the article failed to “dig into” the biggest drawback of all, the costs of operating the extension for those new riders.  Sound Transit budgets light rail cars as costing $30.00 per mile or $120.00 per mile for a 4-car train.  Routing trains 16.3 miles from Lynnwood to Everett and back will add ~$4000.00 per trip.  

Assuming the cost of route to Mariner P&R is half that, $2000, gives an average additional $3000 trip cost, and $45,000 per hour for 4-minute headways between trains during peak commute.  Assuming a schedule that reflects 16 hours of peak operation gives a $720,000 weekday operating cost to add a tiny fraction of 37,000 to 45,000 riders.

 

Clearly any effective "digging" into the Everett extension would recognize its operating cost problem.  Both Sound Transit and Seattle Times Traffic Lab should recognize that, prior to proceeding with an “environmental impact study” they need to  conduct a “cost/benefit” analysis”.  

 

Traffic Lab Should “Dig Into” Need for ST $12B 2nd Tunnel

  

The agendas for both the June 8^th System Expansion Committee Meeting and June 22^nd Sound Transit Board Meeting lack any mention of the status regarding plans to spend more than $12B on a second tunnel as part of the Ballard Link extension. For several months Chinatown residents have used Board Meeting "Comments" to urge Sound Transit include a Station near CID in any tunnel decision.  Even the Seattle Times had concern about Sound Transit proposing a “North of CID station” to access 2^nd tunnel.

 

The Board responded, concluding in the March 23^rd meeting the CID station provided a “once in a lifetime opportunity to create a space for people to transfer from light rail to light rail, to Sounder and Amtrak".   That more study was needed before the decision was made to give up that opportunity and proceed with the Pioneer Square  Station.

The May 1^st release of Sound Transit’s March Agency Progress Report had included the following response:

At its March 23 Board meeting, the Sound Transit Board identified a preferred alternative for the light rail route and station locations for the Ballard Link Extension. 

The preferred alternative includes stations South and North of the Chinatown-International District (CID) and shifts the Midtown Station to the location North of CID. The Board also directed that the CID 4th Avenue Shallower option be carried forward for additional environmental review.

That “Key Project Activities included:

Based on evaluation results and community feedback, in March 2023 the Board took action to confirm or modify the preferred alternative(s) for the Ballard Link Extension from the range of alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS and further studies directed by the Board in July 2022. 

Continued Phase 3 project development activities to prepare the Final EIS and conduct Preliminary Engineering for the preferred alternative(s) confirmed or modified by the Board. 

Yet the June 2 release of the April Agency Progress Report, Link Light Rail Ballard Link Extension, Project Schedule included the following:

In March 2023, the Board considered the results of the further studies and identified a Preferred Alternative for much of the project corridor but with direction to continue review of two station options in the Denny Station area and to return to the Board in May 2023. 

Thus, the need in the March Agency Progress report for “the CID 4^th Avenue Shallower Option be carried forward for additional review” wasn’t even an issue in the April report. What the Seattle Times preferred, the Chinatown residents wanted, and what the Board had requested of Sound Transit, “more study of a once in the lifetime opportunity” didn’t even merit a “progress” report.  

Instead, the Board apparently concurred since the May 25^th meeting dealt only with options for locating the Denny Station and neither the June 8^th System Expansion Committee nor the June 22nd Board meeting agendas included the issue. Clearly, Sound Transit and the Board have agreed on plans to bore a second tunnel without CID 4th Ave station to allow Ballard light rail trains travel to SeaTac, West Seattle trains to Everett, and East Link trains to Mariner P&R. 

Neither considered the option of terminating  East Link and West Seattle Link at the existing CID and terminate Ballard Link at existing Westlake station.  Use the existing CID as a “once in a lifetime opportunity to create a space for people to transfer from light rail to light rail, to Sounder and Amtrak".  Use the existing Westlake station to avoid Ballard residents having to get there by walking from new station to avoid having to exit at Pioneer Square. Use the existing DSTT for those needing to transit beyond existing CID and Westlake stations. 

The result being no need to spend more than $12B and up to ten years disrupting Seattle with boring the tunnel and implementing new stations at Westlake, Pioneer Square, South of CID, and SODO. Ballard residents wouldn’t have to wait until 2039 before having access to light rail. East side commuters  wouldn't have to transfer at Pioneer Square to travel south to Boeing and SeaTac. Operations for all three extensions could be matched to meet local demand rather than what's needed on routes to Lynnwood and beyond, and Federal Way and beyond. 

Unfortunately, the bottom line is the June 22^nd meeting showed neither Sound Transit nor the Board had any interest in using a CID location for access. Again, what the Seattle Times preferred, the Chinatown residents wanted, and what the Board had requested of Sound Transit, “more study of a once in the lifetime opportunity” didn’t even merit discussion. 

Both Sound Transit and the Board need to be “persuaded” to consider using the existing CID and Westlake stations for egress and access to light rail and the DSTT for those needing to go between.  The potential for saving billions and years of delay and disruption is surely worthy of any cost and delay. It’s something the Seattle Times Traffic Lab should “dig into”. 

Sound Transit's Bifurcated Approach to Parking

The June 8^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Sound Transit bets $350M on 3 new parking garages” exemplifies the Sound Transit Board’s “bifurcated” approach to providing access to public transit.  CEO Julie Timm says the line offers a true alternative to driving in traffic that residents will use.  That when ridership returns parking will be available.  

 

The $350M for the 1482 additional stalls along with the $88M spent on adding 510 stalls at the recently opened Puyallup Station totals $438M for 1992 stalls or $220,000 per stall for Sounder commuters.

 

Yet when it comes to access to light rail Sound Transit has a different approach.  They initially purposely neglected to add parking for access in Seattle, attempting to use light rail to attract commuters to live withing walking distance of stations. However, the ST3 proposed extensions required “motorized access” for up to 70% of riders.

 

A November 2016 Seattle Times article reported the 51 existing park and ride facilities next to express bus or trains stations in Snohomish, King, and Pierce County were already 95% full of 19,448 cars.   (The WSDOT hasn’t updated the Park and Ride Inventory showing “Location, Capacity, and In Use%” for the three-county area since Oct-Dec 2016.)

 

Yet Sound Transit has refused to add significant parking for light rail access.  In February 2018 they implemented a “Transit System Access Policy” to “manage demand” at existing parking. It reduced access to parking for early commuters by allowing late arrivers to pay to reserve stalls.

 

A May 5^th, 2022, video showed Sound Transit’s System Access Policy Update for light rail was to “manage parking demand”: maximize efficient use of available transit parking resources”.  Charts detailed the new System Access Policy for “Parking Management” established tools to manage parking including “Permits, Fees, Technology”

 

Yet an Oct 2021 debut of the Northgate Extension had already demonstrated Sound Transit’s “lack of parking” problem.  They had predicted the Link’s three stations would attract 41,000 to 49,000 daily riders by 2022.  Rather than add parking for access they chose to force bus riders currently using the stalls to transfer to light rail for the commute into and out of Seattle.  

 

While they’ve never released the Quarterly Service Provided Performance Reports that would have showed the actual results, the best indication was 8000 riders daily. Even bus riders forced to ride light rail didn’t increase ridership to more than a fraction of projections. A clear indication of the need for additional parking.   

 

The Lynnwood extension debut in 2024 will be the next demonstration of the light rail spine’s need for additional parking.  Sound Transit has projected between 37,000 to 57,000 riders for the extension intending to add riders by using it to replace ST350 and Snohomish Community Bus routes into Seattle.  

 

The extension includes adding “approximately 500 new spaces” at the Lynnwood Transit Center and the Shoreline North/185^th and Shoreline South/148^th stations.  It’s unclear what the costs were but the largest additional expenditure to provide access to the Link is the $240M planned for the NE 130^th St Infill Station. It doesn’t have parking and isn’t finished until 2026, two years after service begins.

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit approach to provide parking for access includes spending $350M for when Sounder riders “return and need it” and $240M for an “infill station” on Lynnwood Link that won’t be available until two years after Link debuts and won’t have parking when it does. They delay adding parking on Everett extension until 2046, nine years after the extension to Everett.

 

Like the Northgate extension, the Lynnwood extension debut will demonstrate the lack of parking for access limits ridership to a fraction of the 37,000 to 57,000 voters were promised.  It’s also another demonstration extending light rail does nothing to increase capacity it only increases operating costs.  That replacing bus routes reduces transit capacity and that riders added will reduce access for current commuters.

 

Thus, Sound Transit’s bifurcated approach to parking is just part of its problem.

 

Sound Transit Delays East Link Debacle

My June 6^th Yahoo email account included the following: 

              Project update: East Link Extension

In late 2022, it was announced that East Link would fully open no earlier than spring of 2025, with the possibility of an Eastside only starter line opening in Bellevue and Redmond in 2024.

·   

     Ongoing replacement of the track in several spots along the East Link alignment between Seattle and Mercer Island, including sections of the I-90 bridge. Crews are working both day and night shifts. This work is scheduled to continue through the end of 2023.

The May 1^st release of the April “Agency Progress Report” included the following regarding the replacement:

Work is progressing slowly, and it is anticipated the forecast     completion date will continue to shift in the coming months. 

The email confirmed that when East Link opens, the 14-mile, 10 station extension, will have service every 8 minutes during peak commute.  Whatever the date, the result of the track problem is a delay in demonstrating that Eastlink should have never been built.  

That Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway for 4-car light rail trains. It reduces transit lanes into Seattle, precludes two-way, bus-only routes with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner.

Sound Transit compounded the lost-capacity problem by choosing to route East Link beyond Chinatown station through DSTT to UW, Northgate, and eventually to Mariner P&R near Everett.  The result being both Line 1 Link and Eastlink capacity are limited to half of the DSTT capacity,      

Even more absurd, Sound Transit will use East Link to replace bus routes into the city.  Apparently not recognizing I-90 Bridge congestion is not due to too many buses.  Spending more than $3B on a transit system that halves Central Link capacity and is used primarily to replace bus routes surely qualifies as a debacle.

Especially since the more than $3B spent will result in an operating cost that dwarfs any rational fare box revenue.   The $30 per vehicle mile cost of a light rail train and 14-mile extension length will cost $3360 per round trip.  With 8-minute peak service for 8 hours and 16-minute for 10 hours, the 100 trips a day will cost $336,000: again, dwarfing any fare box revenue

Sound Transit refuses to release Quarterly Service Provided Reports detailing how many riders were added by the three Northgate Extension Stations or what those riders cost.  However, Sound Transit would not have been able to hide the results of the East Link June 23 Revenue Service date.   

Thus, the result of the need to redo track attachments is a 2-year delay in exposing the East Link debacle.

Sound Transit’s Big Cost Driver

The Sound Transit Board May 25^th meeting included the 2023 Annual Program Review.  The “key takeaway” was the program remains affordable on the “affordable schedule” but the “target schedule” remains unaffordable.” That capital costs have increased $472M since 2022, that debt capacity is 15.9% higher than what’s needed to be affordable.

 

However, the project affordability gap, the ability to pay off the debt, DSCR, (Total revenue, minus operating cost divided by debt service) has decreased from 2.36x in 2016 when ST3 was approved, to 1.67x in Spring 2023, near 1.5X policy minimum.

 

The presentation included Sound Transit attempts to identify the “Cost drivers” reducing the affordability gap. That current cost drivers remain high but are plateauing and “Cost drivers are shifting to O&M cost to support a growing system with emerging and evolving needs".

 

Sound Transit chose to respond to the need to increase “affordability gap” (DSCR) by delaying the Ballard extension from 2037 to 2039. Yet the Ballard extensions “Cost driver” is not the 5-mile route from Ballard to Westlake, it’s the $12B needed to bore the second tunnel and to implement the four stations needed for access. Yet the Board concurred with the Sound Transit decision.

 

Prior to the Annual Program Review, Sound Transit had presented the Board with the status of the Everett Link extension. That the 16-mile, six-station extension had an “Affordable Schedule” for SW Everett Industrial as 2037. (Two years prior to Ballard Extension)

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit and the Board have chosen to give a higher priority to the 16-mile Everett extension than the 7-mile Ballard extension. They ignore the fact the Ballard extension will add transit capacity into Seattle while the Everett extension will be used to replace bus routes: Reducing transit capacity into the city and access for current riders.

 

That any rational “Cost Driver” assessment should include the nearly $4000 trip cost added by the 16-mile Everett extension for 4-car light rail trains from Lynnwood.  Sound Transit and Board could terminate Ballard extension at existing Westlake station, minimize operating costs as well as the $12B needed for 2^nd tunnel and stations. Doing so would provide an affordable Ballard extension in 2031, like the West Seattle extension.

 

Sound Transit service area residents, especially potential Ballard extension riders, deserve better.