Lynnwood Ridership Debunks Need for 2nd Tunnel

The video of the November 21^st Sound Transit Board meeting included another example of the board ignoring Chinatown objections by not selecting the 4th Ave Shallow route for the second tunnel.  They objected despite all the problems with the 4th Ave route detailed in the prior System Expansion Committee meeting. 

The result being the Chinatown area will be devastated by a minimum of seven years boring the second tunnel through the area. However, the recent Lynnwood Link ridership debacle is not only another reason to not devastate Chinatown, it also provides another reason to not even bore a second tunnel.

Previous posts have detailed that 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to accommodate the riders needed to reduce multilane freeway lane peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate off peak. That Sound Transit should have never extended light rail beyond UW Stadium, across I-90 Bridge or beyond SeaTac.

What’s different now is the Lynnwood Link boardings have debunked the Sound Transit’s “Field of Dreams” approach, "if we build light rail, riders will come." That very few of the 80,000 residents who Sound Transit reported lived within a mile of one of its 4 light rail stations chose light rail for their commute into Seattle.  That routing Line 2 trains to Lynnwood would add very few riders but could double the high operating cost.

Thus Line 2 trains should be terminated at the existing CID station with easy access to northbound or southbound Line 1 trains, without the need for a 2nd tunnel northbound.  That the need for the 2nd tunnel southbound can also be negated by the Lynnwood Link’s ridership results.

In this case because the area served by Ballard to SODO link already has multiple stops for access along KCM routes with more convenient egress in Seattle.  A sure recipe for another failure of Sound Transit’s “Field of Dreams” light rail ridership and their need for a second tunnel.

The bottom line is the Lynnwood Link ridership debacle should be a “wake-up" call regarding Sound Transit’s heralded “largest transit system expansion in the country”.  Negating the need for the second tunnel is just part of the “alarm”.

 

My Candidacy for King County Executive

The November 13th Seattle Times headline “King County executive will not seek reelection” and the accompanying article “Claudia Balducci launches her campaign to succeed Constantine” prompted this early announcement I too intend to file. It’s something I’ve done against both Constantine and Balducci during the past decade.  Not to win, but to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to inform county voters of their failure to address the area’s roadway congestion.

While both may be fine people in many respects their actions as chairs of the Sound Transit Board and Board System Expansion Committee reflect a failure to understand what constitutes effective public transit.  That public transit’s goal should be to attract enough of those who can’t or don’t chose to drive to reduce congestion for those that do.

Neither has recognized that 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to accommodate the riders needed to reduce peak-hour multi-lane roadway congestion. That extending light rail doesn’t increase that capacity and adds to their costing too much to operate off-peak. Thus, light rail should have never been extended beyond UW stadium, across I-90 bridge or beyond SeaTac. 

Constantine selected board members based on their ability to attract support for the extensions and Balducci as the System Expansion Committee chair to expedite them.  He used his position as King County Executive to serve as Board chair with over $230,000 as compensation with compensation averaging over $200,000 for the other18 members he selected, presumably expecting their support..

The previous post detailed how that Sound Transit Board had apparently ignored a September ridership report showing boardings for both Lynnwood and Northgate Stations were far less than projected.  Debunking Sound Transit Board's apparent “Field of Dreams” approach “if we build light rail extensions, riders will come". 

The Line 2 route extensions next year will confirm that revelation, especially the folly of routing it thought DSTT and need for 2nd tunnel. A result that may have influenced Constantine’s decision to retire. However, Balducci apparently doesn't have concerns. Her recent flyer "What's ahead for King County" looks forward to "more light rail" to new stations at Marymoor Park Village and Downtown Redmond in 2025 spring.  That in late 2025, when the "I-90 segment connects Eastside light rail to Mercer Island, Seattle, and the rest of the system".

The bottom line is my King County Candidacy will use the Line 1-to-Lynnwood boarding results to validate concerns in previous Voters’ Pamphlets about light rail trains ability to reduce congestion. To advocate not extending light rail beyond Lynnwood T/C or light rail to Ballard, terminating Line 2 at existing CID, not drilling 2^nd tunnel or spending more than $6 billion on a light rail from Alaska Junction in West Seattle to SODO.  Again, not to win, just to inform voters.

Sound Transit Ignores Implications of Lynnwood Link Debacle

The video of the 11/14/2024 System Expansion Committee Meeting demonstrates the Sound Transit Boards continuing its failure to effectively deal with the areas transportation problems. It began with “interim” CEO Goran Sparrrman announcing Sound Transit had received awards for its construction of the Lynnwood extension. He neglected to mention the number of boardings the extension had attracted. 

The Sound Transit Ridership-Ridership website reported the four Lynnwood Link stations totaled 8400 boardings in September.  A fraction of the 24,400 to 35,000 they had projected prior to the debut, presumably based on their assessment of the link's four stations being within a mile of 80,000 residents.

The  Northgate Link boardings were also far less than expected.  The September result for the four link stations totaled 8401 boardings, again a fraction of the 41,000 to 49,000  they’d earlier predicted.  Thus, the total boardings added by extending light rail beyond the UW Stadium station was 16,001, belying Sound Transit “Field of Dreams” approach, “if we build light rail extensions riders will come".

Sparrman also neglected to mention what it cost Sound Transit to accommodate those riders. The 4.2-mile extension from UW Stadium to Northgate extension and 8.5-miles from Northgate to Lynnwood add ~25 miles to the round trip from the  Westlake Station.  Sound Transit budgets light rail cars at ~$30 per revenue mile.  Thus, the extensions add  ~$3,000.00 per 4-car 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 4-car  trips add ~$320,000 to daily operating costs.  

The combination of limited ridership and high operating costs results in a  $~20.00 per boarder cost.  Yet  Sound Transit CEO Sparrman neglected  to include either  “detail” in his presentation and typical of the Board’s System Expansion Committee, they didn’t ask.  Neither acknowleged  the significance of the Lynnwood results.  

The most obvious is the result of extending light rail to Lynnwood should end any plan to extend light rail to  Everett Station.  The cost of implementing the 16-mile extension and six new stations, routing trains to either Mariner P&R or Everett Station  will dwarf any potential benefit.  The Lynnwood Link failure to attract riders should also raise doubts about Sound Transit plans to spend $6 billion on a second bridge over Duwamish Waterway for a light rail extension from Alaska Junction in West Seattle to SODO.

Even more relevant is the “limited” ridership clearly indicates there’s no need to route Line 2 trains next year from Bellevue through DSTT to Lynnwood.   Thus, Sound Transit should terminate the East Link at existing CID Station.  Schedule its operation to meet I-90 corridor demands rather than provide half the trains to Lynnwood.   Avoid the need to limit Line 2 trains to avoid excessive costs for Lynnwood-to-UW stadium operation. Terminating Line 2 at the CID Station also allows the existing DSTT to accommodate all the current Line 1 trains from SeaTac to Lynnwood, mitigating  the need for a second tunnel

That result was especially timely since the 11/14/24 System Expansion Committee meeting also included a presentation concerning  the results of outside consultants evaluating three second tunnel alternatives: Dearborn Street, 4th Ave Shallow, and 5th Ave Shallow Diagonal.  All three alternatives would require disrupting  traffic and demolition of existing buildsings. They concluded that  “Construction Duration Drivers”  favored  the Dearborn Street Alternative, taking 7 years to complete.  

For comparison the 4th Ave Shallow Alternative, the favorite of the vast majority of those commenting at meetings,  would  take 12 year to complete.  Other details such as boardings or travel times weren’t significantly different.  Thus, the decision was made to proceed with implementing the Dearborn Street Alternative.

The bottom line is routing Line 2 through DSTT to Lynnwood will either double the cost of the Lynnwood extension or severely restrict Line 2 schedules.  Terminating it at the existing CID station will eliminate that problem and mitigate the need for a second tunnel. (Also appease those who supported the 4th Ave Shallow CID location) The potential for saving  $13 billion and a minimum of 7 years disrupting  downtown Seattle should not be ignored.

Seattle Times Didn't Get the I-2117 Message

The previous post opined that the fees imposed by voters’ rejection of I-2177 would have little effect on the state’s CO2 emissions.  The Seattle Times apparently didn’t get the message. Their Sunday Opinion Editorial “Voters State’s Landmark Climate Law at Critical Time”’ heralded the 60% of Washington voters who affirmed the Climate Commitment Act.  That the “CCA created a cap-and-trade auction market” with the premise, “Pay for what you emit”.

The previous post detailed how those paying the CCA for emissions included the refineries that provide fuel for our vehicles, bake the limestone to create cement, or burn natural gas to provide electricity to heat our homes, cook our food, or charge EV batteries.  

However, it also detailed how those burning fuel in vehicles made up 36.5 of the 42.5 million metric tons (MMT) emissions from transportation. That the power companies burning natural gas emitted 9.5 MMT, less than half the state’s 20 MMT CO2 from burning natural gas.  Thus those buying fuel or paying for natural gas won’t be “paying for what they emit”.  

The bottom line is that unless those emissions are subject to some tax the state will never achieve the Climate Commitment Act goal “net zero carbon emissions by 2050”.  That the fees resulting from the “political courage to keep to the cause of fighting climate change” by rejecting I-2177 are more the result of the Times misinformation and mendacious ads.

That I-2117 is highly unlikely to be the “gold standard” for the other 48 states.

 

Taxes From I-2117 Rejection

 The November 6^th Seattle Times article “Voters support state’s carbon market” exemplifies what happens when those opposing I-2117 were able to fund advertisements that dwarfed any attempts to support it.  That rather than inform readers about the mendacity of those efforts the Times abetted it with an October 18^th article concerns about what happens if the tax goes away.  

This post details what will happen because the tax didn’t go away.  A 2022 Energy Information Agency (EIA) reported Washington emitted 74.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2.  The emissions included 42.5 MMT from transportation, 11.5 MMT from industrial use, 9.5 MMT for electric power, 6.2 MMT residential, and 5.0 MMT commercial. 

The transportation emissions were from refiners refining crude oil into fuel and from vehicles burning that fuel. The five Washington fineries emitted 6 MMT of CO2.  Thus, the remaining 36 MMT were presumably emitted from burning the fuel.  The result of ~20 lbs. of CO2 emission from burning a gallon of gasoline and ~22 lbs. from diesel.  Somewhat less than a pound of per mile for cars but more for heavier vehicles. Charging refiners based on the CO2 they emit rather than the gallons they sell limits the effect of taxes on emissions.

A large part of the industrial 11.5 MMT CO2 emissions results from making cement. The energy needed to bake the limestone, and the CO2 released from the chemical reactions of making the cement result in one pound of CO2 emitted for every pound of cement. Thus, the cost for a ton of cement will increase by whatever the taxes are on a ton of CO2.  Costs that will undoubtedly be passed on to those using the cement for concrete in construction.

The taxes can be applied for the CO2 emissions resulting from those  burning natural gas to generate electric power.  However, like the taxes for refiners, the taxes won’t add to what residential and commercial users pay to burn the  natural gas.  

The bottom line is rejecting I-2117 will result in refineries, those  making cement  or  burning natural gas to create electricity, paying taxes for the CO2 they emit.  Costs that will inevitably be passed on to those buying the gas and those heating their homes with heat pumps and charging the batteries in their cars. 

However, the taxes won't apply to the emissions resulting from those using the fuel to power their vehicles or natural gas to heat their homes, where they work, or cook their food.  Thus, rejecting I-2117 is a very small step towards a CO2 free state

Current Seattle Times Board Doesn’t “Get It”

 The Tuesday Traffic Lab front page article, “Lynnwood light rail might just be too popular for its own good” typifies a Seattle Times that doesn’t “get it”.  The paper has spent more than decade abiding Sound Transit spending billions on light rail extensions beyond UW stadium, across I-90 Bridge, and beyond SeaTac that will do absolutely nothing to reduce the area’s congestion.

In this case claiming, “Every one of the garages connected to light rail stations in the region is out of room during the morning commute” attests to its success.  Failing to recognize filling the 3633 parking stalls added by the link provided a fraction of Sound Transits latest  25,300 to 34,200 projected riders. (substantially less than an earlier 37,000 to 57,000 prediction). That plans to charge $2.00 (that could grow) to reserve a stall for morning commuters does nothing to increase capacity. That those arriving after 2:00 pm won’t have to pay is of little solace as it’s “unlikely” they’ll find an open stall.

The paper has never recognized Sound Transit’s real problem is a Sound Transit Board that doesn’t understand what constitutes effective public transit.  (Despite each member getting ~ $200,000 in compensation).  That a transit system’s goal should be providing sufficient commuters who can’t or don’t want to drive to reduce the congestion for those that do. 

The Board either does not recognize or chooses to ignore the fact 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity needed.  The problem being safe operation requires 4 minutes between trains, whether they be Line 1 or Line 2 trains.  

The article claims “Ridership hasn’t been too much of an issue, for either Sound Transit or Snohomish Community Transit, now that its bus service better connects its passengers to the Lynnwood station".  Apparently not recognizing that using light rail trains to replace bus routes into Seattle reduces transit capacity, does nothing to reduce I-5 GP lane congestion, and the former bus riders reduce access for current link riders.

When queried about ridership, Sound Transit claimed, “numbers were taking longer to ‘vet and release’ due to the changes related to expansion.” The Traffic Lab apparently unaware Sound Transit’s initial October Ridership—Ridership website had included boardings at each of the four link stations that totaled 8395; again a fraction of the 25,300 to 34,200 predictions.  (Sound Transit’s later releases deleted both August and September boardings.)  

The bottom line is the September 28^th Sound Transit Board meeting heralded the success of the Lynnwood Link debut claiming “71,000 rode the system just on opening weekend”.  However, neither the October 10^th System Expansion Committee nor the October 24^th Sound Transit Board Meeting mentioned the subsequent weekday operating boardings.

That an October 19^th, 2016, Seattle Times editorial made the following recommendation:

Reject Sound Transit 3 and demand a better plan

Apparently concerned about giving Sound Transit authority to spend $54 billion funding ST3 from 2017 to 2041 suggesting:

Voters in the Puget Sound region should say no to Sound Transit 3 and ask Sound Transit to provide a more reasonable plan with more accountability.

It’s time the current Seattle Times editorial board takes note.