Seattle Times Traffic Lab Priorities

The Seattle Times describes its Traffic Lab as a “Project that digs into region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches, helps readers find the best ways to get around.”  

 

The November 27^th edition headline “Sound Transit fare ambassadors checking if you paid, but nicely” typifies their approach.  Quotes the board’s dubious expectation that a “friendlier, non-threatening collections system” will increase the number of those willing to pay. 

 

The article reports “fare revenue accounts for roughly 7% of total budget”.  Yet,  Sound Transit’s 2024 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget pie charts “Revenues and Other Financing Sources” anticipates Passenger Fare Revenue will make up only 2% of total revenue in 2024 and 4%  from 2017 to 2046.  However, the 2019 budget, prior to the falloff in those willing to pay, anticipated fare revenue would make up only 4% of budget revenue in 2019 and 7% through 2041.

 

Thus, the Traffic Lab apparently considers the loss in fare revenue due to the 2-3% of budget lost from those unwilling to pay fares worthy of “digging into” and a front- page headline.  Yet they fail to mention that Sound Transit has decided their version of “equitable fares” requires riders from Capitol Hill to Westlake pay the same fare as someone riding from Lynnwood to SeaTac. 

 

That Sound Transit is willing to pay more than $13B and 6-10 years disrupting downtown Seattle boring a second tunnel and implementing 5 new stations for access.  All to allow East Link and West Seattle commuters  ride to Lynnwood and beyond and those from Ballard ride to Federal Way and beyond without changing trains. 

 

That Sound Transit’s 2024 budget’s Long Range financial plan will result in a $27.5 in Principal Balance on Tax Based Debt in 2046 while ST3 taxes voters approved voters in 2016 to pay the debt will end in 2041.

 

The bottom line is the Seattle Times Traffic Lab “digging into” Sound Transit’s financial concerns needs to go way beyond detailing attempts to increase those paying the fares.

An Equitable Sound Transit Fare Structure.

The November 15^th meeting video of the Sound Transit and Board continued with what had been presented earlier to the Executive Board on November 2^nd.  It followed a “Public Hearing on Proposed Link Fare Structure” where a question was raised about using “zone-based” fares.  The response being, “they had not been considered out of direction by the board to consider flat fares”.  

 

The afternoon briefing was a recap of fare-related work in 2023 and details of the staff recommendation on fare structure.  That their fare guiding framework was:

 

We serve passengers with a fare structure that is regionally integrated to encourage transit ridership through equitable and simple pricing, and financial stewardship.

 

That a key takeaway was:

 

No other agency in the region uses a distance-based fare structure.”  

 

That flat fare considerations included:

 

All trips would be the same fare.

 

Passengers would no longer have to tap off when completing their trip.

 

That the initial staff recommendation for the December 15^th Board was:

 

Staff will recommend a flat fare structure on Link.

 

Thus, Sound Transit’s version of” “equitable and simple” is charging someone traveling from Capital Hill to Westlake the same as a rider from Lynnwood. While a flat fare is “simple”, most would believe “equitable” fares should be based on the cost of providing that service. Especially for what Sound Transit proudly proclaims as the "largest transit system expansion in the country". 

 

While other cities use flat fares based on routes into the city, Sound Transit exacerbates the distance problem with fares for routes through the city.  The rider from Lynnwood could continue to SeaTac with no increase in fare.  Thus, Sound Transit’s choice for flat fares is apparently due to concern that with a “distance-based fare” the Lynnwood commuter wouldn’t tap off at Westgate.

 

Sound Transit could avoid the tap-off problem with an equitable combination of flat fares and distance-based fares.  A flat fare could be used along routes from UW, Mercer Island, SeaTac and eventually Ballard and West Seattle into the DSTT.   The fare would reflect the cost of both into and out of DSTT with no fares collected in tunnel, avoiding the need to  identify and pay to reach their return destination.  

 

Commuters outside that “flat fare” region would pay a fare based on the distance into the city.  Each Link station having a posted fare reflecting the cost of the route to and from the DSTT.  Doing so avoids the “inequity” of those traveling from Northgate having to pay the same fare as those from Lynnwood or beyond.  Again, a result of Sound Transit’s largest transit system expansion in country.

 

Flat-fare area commuters wanting to go beyond UW, Mercer Island, or SeaTac would pay fares on the return trip to reflect the cost from and to DSTT.  Distance-based commuters wanting to go beyond DSTT to SeaTac or Bellevue would pay fares to reflect cost of to and from on their return.  

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit needs to recognize that an “equitable” fare structure in the "largest transit system expansion" in the country requires a combination of flat fares and distance-based fares. The two fare structures avoid the “inequity” of the flat fare payers having to subsidize the distance-based commuters. Especially since ST3 would have never been approved without the 70% support from those in the flat fee area. 

More Sound Transit Board Incompetence

A previous post detailed reasons why the October 26^th Sound Transit Board’s approval of the 2024 Rail Service Plan demonstrated they didn’t “get it”.  That the board didn’t recognize neither the East Link Starter Line nor the Lynnwood extension will increase the transit ridership needed to reduce congestion into the city.  A precursor to similar results from Board approval of future Sound Transit “voter approved” extensions.

 

This post details another example of Board approving transit system incompetence. The Sound Transit failure to recognize the folly of routing East Link and West Seattle Links to Northgate and beyond and routing Ballard Link to SeaTac and beyond.  That terminating Ballard Link at existing Westlake station and terminating East Link and West Seattle extensions at the existing CID station would end the need to spend up to 10 years and $13B boring a second tunnel and 5 stations for access.  

 

Again, the Board could save the billions and years by modifying the existing CID and Westlake stations to accommodate terminating the Links.  The modified CID station could provide what the Board had called, “a once in a lifetime for a space for people to transfer from light rail to light rail, to Sounder and Amtrack”.  Satisfying a year of nearly unanimous public comment at board meetings expressing desire for a “near CID” station.  Instead, the Board abided Sound Transit ignoring the request for additional study of the “near CID 4^th Ave location.   

 

Terminating East Link and West Seattle at CID would allow operations to meet local demand rather than sharing what’s needed for the route to Northgate.  Ending the loss of half of DSTT trains diverted across I-90 Bridge.  Also ending the difficulty in merging the return routes for safe passage of the two trains through DSTT.  

 

East side commuters could easily transfer at CID to Line 1 trains to SeaTac or UW and beyond.  Terminating West Seattle Link at CID will end those commuters accessing at SODO, further reducing Line 1capacity to and from SeaTac.

 

Terminating Ballard Link at existing Westlake station would allow the Link to be expedited rather than wait for the second tunnel.  Riders would not have to use “new Westlake station” to transfer to existing Westlake station for access to downtown Seattle.

 

The bottom line is an earlier post opined the Board doesn’t recognize using “voter approved” light rail extensions to replace bus routes into Seattle reduces transit capacity and nothing to reduce congestion.  Their decision to proceed with boring the second tunnel just needlessly adds $13B and 6-10 years of disrupting  downtown Seattle to the debacle.

A Rational Approach to Link Fares

The November 2^nd Executive Board meeting included a 30-minute discussion on existing fare structure and rate and the rationale for a fare change now as the last Link fare change occurred in 2015.  That current fares are based on the distance from where you tap your ORCA card to get on and tap again to get off.  If you don’t tap when you get off, you are charged for the fare to the end of the line.  

 

However, the ST2 system extensions have resulted in large distance-based table and more fare rates that would be even more complicated with future extensions.  The result was to consider a single ”flat” fare for all trips as shown on a chart comparing fares used by “peer transit” agencies,  with some having a peak hour or airport surcharge.  

 

The presentation concluded flat fares benefited from being “simpler to understand and budget for” and required passengers to only tap on. Sound Transit surveys had shown riders were split with 52% preferring distance-based fare and 48% preferring flat rate.  The rider preference presumably reflected the distance of their commute. 

The subsequent discussion about “Next steps” resulted in a "12/15: Board for potential action on Link fare". The board should consider a fairer approach for both commuters would be to set fares based on distance from where riders got on buses or trains to either CID or Westlake stations. 

No fares would be collected at either CID or Westlake. Inbound fares would include the cost of the return commute to deal with the ambiguity to the return destination.  Commuters going beyond CID or Westlake to SeaTac, east side, or UW would pay the fares covering those costs on their return.  

It shouldn't be that difficult.

 

 

ST 2024 Plan Approval Demonstrates Board Doesn’t “Get It”

The October 26^th Sound Transit Board meeting again exemplified a Sound Transit Board of Directors who don’t recognize “voter approved” extensions won’t reduce area’s congestion. In this case it’s their response to a Sound Transit Staff draft of the 2024 Rail Service Plan and a request the Board approve 2024 major rail service changes. 

 

The service plan began with a chart “Riders continue to return to transit” claiming new light rail openings will drive ridership growth in 2024”.  That ridership had increased to 80% of 2019 levels. An earlier quarterly service provided performance report for showed 80,780 daily 2019 Q4 Link riders.  So current ridership was approximately 64,000. 

 

Yet the current ridership included the Northgate Link debut in 2021.  Sound Transit had projected it would add 41,000 to 49,000 riders.  Thus, the 64,000 current ridership was far short of Sound Transit projections.  Yet the Board didn’t comment, apparently not recognizing either the Northgate Link was far short of projections or the Line 1 Link to UW station was far short of recovery.  

 

The ridership chart also showed the 2024 East Link Starter Line and Lynnwood Link debuts would increase ridership to100% of 2019 levels or add approximately 16,000 daily riders.  Yet Sound Transit, who initially claimed the Lynnwood Link would add 37,000 to 57,000 riders, recently lowered projected ridership to 25,300-34,200.  

 

They’d also projected the Starter Line would add 7000 daily riders. Thus, Sound Transit projection for 16,000 riders added by Starter Line and Lynnwood trains in 2024 are far less than earlier projections.  Again, the Board didn’t comment, apparently not recognizing the shortfall.

 

The 2024 service plan began with the East Link Starter Line.  The Board had previously approved spending $46M to fund the debut.  It includes 8 stations with 2 car trains every 10 minutes for 16 hours between Redmond Technology and South Bellevue.  Yet, except for parking at Redmond Technology and 130th station access will be limited to those within walking distance of stations.  Riders will also be dissuaded  by the need to transfer to and from buses at South Bellevue.  Yet the Board didn’t question the ridership projections. 

 

The “1 line extension to Lynnwood” will add 4 new stations, with a combination of 3 or 4-car trains, 8-10-minute peak headways and 15 minutes during early morning and late evening.  The concern was “Likely crowding between Northgate and West Lake”.  The reason being Sound Transit and Snohomish Community Transit would use Lynnwood Link to replace 400 and 500 routes into Seattle.

 

The Board apparently didn’t’ recognize forcing bus riders to transfer to and from trains and the hassle of accessing light rail in DSTT for the return might dissuade commuters from using transit.  Instead, they were told Sound Transit would address the crowding by spending $2.5M to add two Sounder trains that added 300 to 350 rider capacity and consider implementing ST Express routes to downtown Seattle.  

 

The Board should recognize that the ST Express route from Northgate to Lynnwood and back costs one tenth that of a 4-car light rail train. The more the bus routes the greater the savings.  Yet their use will likely be limited to peak hour operation to make up for light rail train's lack of capacity.

 

The bottom line is the Board's approval of 2024 Rail Service Plan is another indication they don’t recognize their goal should be to reduce congestion into Seattle by attracting more riders to public transit.   The lack of access and need to transfer will severely limit Starter Line ridership. That using “voter approved” extensions to replace bus routes doesn’t increase transit ridership, they only restrict access for current riders and exacerbate the farebox revenue recovery shortfall. 

 

The Board's approval is just another example they still don’t “get it”.