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”.