ST Board’s Delusional West Seattle Decision

The YouTube video, “Sound Transit Board selects West Seattle extension route” finalizes its plan to spend up to $7.1B on a 4.1- mile light rail extension from Alaska Junction to SODO. That they’d okayed proceeding with final design and construction will begin in 2027 and take five years to complete.. Some caveats are the increase from the $2.3B in 2016 was attributed to costs based on increasing design from 10% to 30% of final. Thus, finalizing the design may require further costs increases. Also, the $7.1B was in 2024 dollars so nearly 8 years of inflation will see a substantial increase. 

 However, the real caveat is the West Seattle extension’s limited benefits. That spending whatever it takes to construct a second bridge over Duwamish waterway for a light rail connection between Alaska Junction and Sodo will do little to improve public transit.   

King County Metro already provides Rapid Ride C and Rapid Ride H, 24-hour service to the entire area.  During peak commute Rapid Ride C buses run every 15 minutes from Westwood Village, Fauntleroy Ferry to Alaska Junction, down Avalon Way, across West Seattle Bridge to Highway 99, 3^rd Ave in Seattle, and Westlake Ave to South Lake Union.  Schedules typically show 20 minutes from Alaska Junction to 3^rd Ave & Seneca.  Late night and early morning intervals stretch from 20 minutes to hourly.  

Rapid Ride H runs on a similar schedule from Burien T/C to White Center along Delridge Way to West Seattle Bridge to Highway 99 and 3^rd Ave, taking 18 minutes from Myrtle St on Delridge to Madison St on 3^rd Ave.  KCM also provides Route 21 along 35^th Ave in West Seattle, again down Avalon Way, across bridge to Sodo and 1^st Ave into Seattle.  It’s routed from 4:40 am to 12:42 am, again on similar intervals. All three routes provide multiple stops for access in West Seattle and egress on 3^rdAve in Seattle and beyond.  

By comparison West Seattle Link riders’ access will be limited to those withing walking distance of Alaska Junction, Avalon, and Delridge stations or those transferring from bus. It’s not clear what the extension’s schedule will be, but Sound Transit’s claim West Seattle Link extension Improves transit service frequency, reliability, and capacity is dubious at best.

That the “Preferred Alternative” benefits the passenger experience with “Direct and convenient bus/rail connections at all stations” apparently assumes commuters will want to transfer to and from light rail for the route to SODO. There they’ll have to transfer to get to CID and walk to desired destination and reverse the walk and transfers for their return.  The fact they’ll have “High quality transfer between Link Lines at SODO Station” does little to enhance the transfer.  That comments at the September board meeting indicated the SODO station will devastate the area's development prospects.

That benefits claimed for the extension, “Substantial eTOD & Joint Development opportunity in Alaska Junction” is hardly a benefit for the 63 businesses and 145 residents lost because of construction.  That it “minimizes residential displacements” is of little comfort for those losing their homes.  It’s also not clear why light rail from the Alaska Junction to Sodo “Enhances mobility and access”. Or the benefits of it saving 15 minutes for the commute to Westlake in 2042.

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board continues their “field of dreams approach” that if we build light rail riders will come.  That commuters who currently have access to three KCM routes to multiple stops in Seattle will choose to transfer to a light rail route to SODO for the commute. That they are willing to spend up to $7,100 million in 2024 dollars and years devastating the area along entire route to do so.

That’s way beyond being merely "optimistic",  that’s delusional.

 

 

Sound Transit Hides Lynnwood Debacle.

A previous post detailed how the initial Sound Transit Starter Line ridership for August showed 1695 riders, a fraction of 4000-5700 predictions.  That plans to use Line 2 to provide half the trains to Lynnwood would require Sound Transit double the number of light rail cars in the Starter Line area. The result being operating costs will dwarf any rational farebox revenue.  Subsequent Ridership—Ridership reports neglected to include the August results.

The September 26th Sound Transit Board meeting presntations included reports the light rail extension had  68,000 residents living within a mile of the 4 new Line 1 Lynnwood stations.   That “71,000 rode the system just on opening weekend”.

The initial October release of Ridership—Ridership data indicated very few of those residents chose to ride Lynnwood Link.  It included the September ridership from the August 30^th debut for each of the four link stations and total boardings are listed below: 

Lynnwood T/C                                5094

Mountlake Terrace                         1353

Shoreline North                              947

Shoreline South                             1002

Total Boardings                              8395

Again, subsequent Ridership—Ridership reports neglected to include either August or September results. Thus, the ridership data detailed here is limited by what was recorded prior to deletion.

The 8395 ridership was "good news" for Line 1 riders because those using downstream stations won’t be “crowded out” by Lynnwood Link riders.  (Sound Transit concerns resulted in their implementing a 515 route from Lynnwood to Seattle and an additional Sounder route from Everett.)

The “bad news” for Sound Transit was the 8395 riders were far less than the 25,333 to 34,200 Sound Transit predictions and a tiny fraction of the 71,000 who rode the system on opening weekend. Clearly, 8395 riders using light rail each day for the commute into and out of Seattle does little to reduce I-5 congestion.  Especially since most of the Lynnwood Link riders previously rode buses.

For example, the Initial release of those boarding at Northgate dropped from 8007 in August to 4085 in September.  A clear indication many of the 5094 Lynnwood T/C boarders previously rode buses to Northgate for the commute.   Some of those boarders were the result of Sound Transit’s decision to terminate ST512 there rather than continue into Seattle. However, the number of ST512 boardings for September in the initial release wasn’t recorded prior to it being deleted.

Also, many of the Lynnwood Links 8395 total boardings were presumably the result of Community Transit’s decision to use the Link to replace all the 400 routes into and out of Seattle.   Commuters from Stanwood, Marysville, Lake Stevens, Mukilteo, Edmonds, Mill Creek and others were all routed to one of the Link’s 4 stations.. However there’s no information about how many or where they transferred or how many were dissuaded from using transit because of the need to transfer to and from light rail for the commute.

The ”bad news” resulting from only 8395 riders is also the cost of providing those rides. The 8.5-mile extension essentially doubles trip length and cost from Northgate to Westlake. Sound Transit budgets light rail car operating costs at ~$30.00 per revenue vehicle mile.  Thus, the 8.5-mile extension from Northgate to Lynnwood adds $2040 for each 4-car train’s round trip.

Sound Transit’s current Line 1 schedule shows trains every 10 minutes from 5:07 am to 8:47 pm, 12-minute intervals to 10:23, 15 until12:08 and a final train at 12:50 am. The resulting 107 trips add $218,280 to Line 1 daily 4-car operating costs.  That next year when Line 2 trains are also routed to Lynnwood, enabling Sound Transit plans for routes every 4 minutes during most of the day. The costs of operation will more than double but do little to increase riders.

The “really bad news” for Sound Transit is the Lynnwood Link ridership again demonstrates the fallacy of its "field of dreams" approach that “if we build it riders will come”.  That extensions to Everett and Federal Way are not only unlikely to reduce I-5 congestion, their operating costs will be a huge financial burden for the entire Sound Transit service area.

One can only hope the Sound Transit Board recognizes that reality rather than continue to hide the debacle.

Seattle Times I-2117 Poll Results

The Sunday Seattle Times front page column “Poll: Initiative to repeal state carbon market loses ground” typifies the result of voters seeing on TV or reading on newspapers misinformation at best or outright lies about I-2117.  That those funding Bill Nye the “Scientist Guy” and similar anti I-2117 claims on TV care more about funding they’ll get from taxes on carbon than the lies their money is funding. 

A previous post detailed what they're reading. That the Seattle Times editorial page writer, Kate Riley “didn’t get it” in last Sunday’ Opinion page. That there’s ample evidence that global warming is the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2 not the result of increasing emissions.  That any benefit to Washington to reducing CO2 emissions (0.117% of total planet) is dwarfed by CO2 on jet stream from China.

Another example, the Seattle Times October 18^th front page Climate Lab article “State’s carbon market pumps billions into projects, but what happens if it vanishes” goes beyond mere incompetence. The Climate Lab, purportedly, “an initiative that explores the effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest and beyond” flat out lies.  

That any benefits from battery powered cars or ferries, electric appliances or heat pumps in homes is more than offset by the "likely" need for additional fossil fueled generators and transmission lost in distributing the energy.

The big lie is the claim CO2 emissions are pollutants. Atmospheric CO2 makes the earth livable temperature wise and fuels the plant life that feeds us and gives us oxygen to live.

The “consequence” of passing I-2177 will be some “commission” will not be allowed to charge CO2 emitters whatever fees they feel are necessary to meet some undefined reduction.  Charges those providing the gas for our cars or the cement for our buildings that will inevitably be passed on to their customers.  

Kate Riley Still Doesn’t “Get It”

 

The Sunday Opinion page “Get ready to vote” headlines Seattle Times editorial page writer Kate Riley’s response to a millionaire-activist funded initiatives. That he is pushing special interests’ agendas, rather than the general public’s interest, and bulldozing anyone in his way. That’s not leadership, that’s destructive and our state can ill afford. One of which is I-2117 claiming “it derails a critical path to Washington’s carbon reduction—and offers nothing in its place.  

She presumably played a major role in the editorial boards “Our “Guide to voting on the statewide initiative” with more details opposing I-2117.  It claims this “wrongheaded initiative would tie the hands of lawmakers attempting to make Washington more resilient to heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions already profoundly affecting the world around us.”  

She’s apparently not aware that Washington’s CO2 emissions make up only 1.56% of the countries.  That the United States made up 11.2% of the worlds. Thus, any reduction in global temperatures from rejecting I-2117 and limiting Washington’s emissions are limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the total. That, except for California, none of the other states with far higher CO2 emissions are making any attempts to charge emitters.

The claim greenhouse gas emissions already profoundly affect the world around us is belied by thousands of years of ice core data.  That CO2 levels lagged global temperatures, indicating CO2 emissions are the result of global warming not the cause.  That increased temperature caused by the Sun increase CO2 outgassing from oceans, increasing atmospheric levels. That lower temperatures result in more CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, reducing those levels.

The bottom line is the Opinion cartoon comments “Now the rest of you can sort out the consequences”.  The “consequence” of passing I-2177 will be some “commission” will not be allowed to charge CO2 emitters whatever fees they feel are necessary to meet some undefined reduction.  Charges those providing the gas for our cars or the cement for our buildings that will inevitably be passed on to their customers.  

That even if Riley’s dubious claims for rejecting I-2117 are valid.  Any effect on reducing the states CO2 emissions will be dwarfed by CO2 on jet stream from a China that’s planning to increase its 30% of the planets by 25% by 2030.  

The entire area will pay a heavy price is they heed Kate Riley’s opinion.

Traffic Lab Abides ST Dropping Agency Progress Report

A previous post reported that Seattle Times changed its Traffic Lab project from one that “digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues” to one that “comments about how money is spent on transportation”.  Yet they’ve abided the Sound Transit decision to “retire” the monthly “Agency Progress Report”. 

The June version of the report included the normal following Editor’s Note:  

Sound Transit’s Monthly Agency Progress Report summarizes projects and major contracts status, risk, and performance for capital projects. 

However, it also included the following status update: 

As of June 2024, the Agency Progress Report is retired. Information about project status can be viewed on each projects web page

Thus, the  August 2 release of the June 2024 version was the last of 5 years of the latest version of the180-page report.  Different versions of the monthly progress reports have been released since at least 2015.  The last 5 years have  included a Link Light Rail Program Overview listing 16 projects detailing  "Authorized Project Allocation, Commitment to Date, Incurred to Date, and Estimated Final Cost" 

Each project had a Project Summary, Key Project Activities, Closely Monitored Issues, Project Cost Summary, Risk Management, Contingency Management, Project Schedule, Staffing Summary and a breakdown of the project into smaller packages to facilitate implementation. For example, the June 2024 version included 10 pages of details for the Federal Way Link Extension (FWLE).  

The webpage Sound Transit is recommending for information about project status includes a Map, a page with several paragraphs detailing “Overview”, what the FWLE is, its benefits, current project status, facts, and a winter 2022 picture of the Federal Way Station. The picture entitled “2023 Federal Way Extension accomplishments” includes a “Watch on YouTube”. Nothing on August 2024 status.

Again, for a project that “comments about how money is spent on transportation” the Traffic Lab has had little to say about how Sound Transit spends the funds voters approved in 2016.  What began as $54 billion collected between 2017 to 2041 has “evolved” into spending $145 billion between 2017 to 2046 and a $28 billion in "tax backed debt" in 2046 when taxes approved in 2016 end in 2041.

The Sound Transit Board deciding on how that money is spend is made up of 18 elected officials who receive an average of $200,000 annually in compensation.  Most who do so by sitting in front of computers at their office or home, two to three hours, two or three times a month. They sometimes comment but nearly always approve whatever they’re asked to spend. 

The bottom line is the Traffic Lab abided Sound Transit ending the Service Delivery Quarterly Performance Report more than 3 years ago. It had provided details of Link Revenue Vehicles Hours and Miles Operated, Trips Operated, Boardings per hour and trip, and Cost per Boarding.  The monthly Agency Progress Report has provided needed details on how the Sound Transit Board is spending the money to create that service. A Traffic Lab that’s called the board “non-specialists”, should not abide them no longer releasing it.

Ending ST Express Route 550

The previous post detailed Sound Transit should mitigate the costs of Starter Line’s limited ridership by terminating Line 2 at CID. Ending the need for 4-car trains and schedules set by need to provide half the light rail capacity to Lynnwood and beyond. This post details why Sound Transit should use the money saved to continue ST Express 550 into and out of Seattle rather than end it when Line 2 service begins.

Sound Transit currently routes ST550 from 4:57 am to 12:20 am from Bellevue T/C along Bellevue Way, South Bellevue and Mercer Way stations to 4^th Ave and Pike St to Convention Place in Seattle. Intervals between trains increase from 10-minute peak ,15-minute off peak, to 30-minute early morning and late evening.  The schedule shows during peak commute the 8:08 am ST550 bus takes 30 minutes to reach 4^th Ave & Cherry. 

Sound Transit’s August Ridership-Ridership website reports ST550 had 4362 boardings and presumably 2181 riders, 25% more than the Starter Line. The “likely” reason, commuters had access to ST550 at 6 stops between Bellevue T/C and South Bellevue Station and 7 stops in Seattle. Starter Line access on east side was limited to East Main in Bellevue and DSTT stations in Seattle

At $15 per mile, the ST550, 22.5-mile trip from Bellevue to and from Convention Place costs $337.50 or $33,750 for the 100 daily round trips. However, as the previous post details, terminating Line 2 would reduce Starter Line operating costs from $190,000 to $76,000.

Sound Transit could save an additional $29,000 by using ST550 to replace Starter Line to South Bellevue. Use the Bellevue T/C as the interface between ST550 and Starter Line.

The bottom line is Sound Transit’s plan to stop ST550 (and terminate all I-90 corridor buses on Mercer Island) is an attempt to boost Line 2 ridership. However, the Starter Line’s “ominous” results reflect the lack of access available with Rapid Ride B between Redmond and Bellevue.  ST Express 550 provides similar access between downtown Bellevue and South Bellevue T/C. (and better access in Seattle)  King County Metro will presumably continue with Rapid Ride B. Sound Transit should do the same with ST550.

Those living along the route into Bellevue have already endured years of disruption from light rail construction.  Sound Transit should not be allowed to use light rail trains to replace ST550 and end their access to transit.

Ominous Starter Line Ridership.

 Previous posts have questioned Sound Transit’s Starter Line farebox recovery expectation and the predicted 4000-5700 weekday riders.   Sound Transit stopped releasing their Quarterly Service Provided Performance Reports in Q1/2021. It had detailed vehicle hours operated, miles, trips, boardings per trip, and the cost per boarding. That the cost per boarding during Q1 2020, pre-covid, was $5.82. It also provided riders added at each of the light rail stations. 

Sound Transit replaced the boarding data with a “Ridership-Ridership” website with updates monthly on all its transit modes. The website initially included the following boardings for August. (It’s no longer available)

Bellevue Downtown.                               737   

BelRed                                                    181

East Main                                                142

Overlake Village                                      266

Redmond TC                                          999

Spring District                                         233

South Bellevue.                                       632

Wilburton                                                200

Total  Boardings                                      3390

Assuming each Starter Line commuter made to-and-from destination boardings, so the number of riders is half the boardings.  Thus, in August,1695 commuters rode the Starter Line daily, a fraction of the 4000-5700 projections. (Similar to the 14,721 riders for their 41,000-49,000 Northgate predictions)

The costs of providing that service is another concern. Sound Transit budgets light rail car operating costs as ~$30 per revenue mile, so a 2-car train will cost ~$800 for a round trip on the 6.6 mile route.  Their schedule, trains every 10 minutes for 16 hours a day, requires 96 trips. At $30 per-mile-per-car, the 6.6-mile extension would cost $76,000 per day.  

Thus, in August, it cost Sound Transit $19.50 for each of the 3390 boardings.  Dwarfing the Q1 2020 $5.82 cost. Assuming the commuter paid $3 for boarding, the farebox recovery $3/19.50 is 12.6%, about half Sound Transit’s target.  

What makes the number of Starter Line riders so egregious is Sound Transit plans to use Line 2 to provide half of the trains to Lynnwood and beyond.  Their current operating plans for Line 2 would require 4-car trains every 8 minutes during most of ot the day.  

Its “unlikely” 4-car trains every 8 minutes will attrack more Starter Line route riders.  However, increasing  the number of light rail cars from 2 to 4 and number of trains from 6 to 7.5 per hour will result in Starter Line operating costs 2.5 times higher, $190,000 for 16 hour service; 2.4% farebox recovery.

The bottom line is multiple posts on this blog have detailed why Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadways or extend light rail beyond UW or SeaTac.  The resulting increased operating costs have far outpaced firebox revenue, reducing recovery.   It's now limited to detailing attempts to mitigate the damage by terminating East Link at CID and opposing light rail extensions.  The ominous Starter Line ridership is another reason to do so.

I-2066 Pro and Con

The September 30^th Seattle Opinion Editorial Pro and Con I-2066 illustrates the lengths to which the paper will go to abide any attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. A previous post concluded, any benefits from reducing emissions was limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the planet’s total. That even these benefits would be dwarfed by the CO2 coming by jet-stream from China. 

The “Pro” argument is that I-2066 gives voters the chance to protect naturlal gas as an energy choice.for our state. The “Con” argument begins with the obvious “most people want two basic things: affordable energy bills and a comfortable, safe, temperature no matter the weather outside”. Yet concludes I-2066, requiring energy companies to offer natural gas, “puts those things in jeopardy". 

Yet Sec.2 (2) of the initiative includes the following:

 Every gas company or largecombination utility shall provice natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area even if other energy sources may be availalbe

Thus it’s unclear why it would “raise the cost upfront and long term costs of new housing, gut energy efficiency standards that keep energy costs bills low” or any of the other dire warning in the "Con" argument. Even more dubious is their purported concern about  those paying to fund the initiative when that funding is dwarfed by those opposing it.