Why "Traffic Lab" Should Consider "Pay-to-Park"

The Seattle Times describes their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock”.   However, it was a front page, Seattle Times, Nov 4^th 2016 Traffic Lab article that reported the answer to the question, “Would transit plan ease traffic?” was, “It would not”.  The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”.   Yet Traffic Lab didn’t oppose the ST3 extension proposal.

Eight months later a June 19^th 2017 article conceded Sound Transit’s failure to address problem with the following:

Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic, but it will give some commuters an escape hatch to avoid it”.

Apparently the Traffic Lab didn't recognize the "expansions" do nothing to increase capacity, so any "escape hatch some commuters" have, at least during peak commute, ends access for those nearer Seattle. 

Their solutions included a June 26^th Seattle Times headline “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock” proposed to use tolls. They failed to recognize that unless commuters have a viable alternative,  (alternate routes or access to adequate bus service) the only thing tolls do is raise the cost of commuting.  

An August 10^th Seattle Times article “Daily parking fees reduce solo car commuting” suggested forcing commutes pay daily for parking would reduce congestion.  (I’m "doubtful" how often one has to pay for parking has much impact on their decision.)   The increasing congestion “suggests” the Times Traffic Lab attempts to "spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock" have been “less than successful”.

I initially referred the Times to four July 2016 posts proposing, “paying to park rather than ride” as a potential solution. (They were the result of a visit to Aspen where commuters ride free.)  I recently referred the Traffic Lab columnists to the 12/03/17 post, “Public Transit That ‘Works’” providing details as to how Pay-to-Park lots could reduce congestion. That the loss in fare box revenue for a rider was trivial in comparison to the cost of a parking stall for their car. 

Sound Transit could use the parking fees from three 1000-stall P&R’s near Lynnwood, and two near Everett to cover 35% of bus operating costs (Their normal fare-box recovery)  for 40 round trips every morning and afternoon from each of the lots.   The 5 lots could provide bus capacity for 20,000 commuters to ride free into and out of Seattle.  Pay-to-Park lots could also fund free bus rides for east side and south end commuters.

A freeway lane can accommodate up to 2000 vehicles per hour.  Thus five Pay-to-Park lots could provide the capacity of two freeway lanes for 5 hours each morning and afternoon; reducing congestion for everyone.  And more Pay-to-Park lots can be added if needed.  

Meanwhile, the light rail extension from Northgate to Everett, Angel Lake to Tacoma, or across I-90 Bridge center roadway will never add any transit capacity.  The fact the light rail extensions' operating costs will create a financial “black hole” adds to the insanity of spending billions on the extensions.

The Seattle Times could go a long ways towards making Pay-to-Park” a reality by advocating Sound Transit be audited to expose ST3 flaws.  Instead they ignore it despite their Dec 8^th B1 Traffic Lab article “Report: Roads are getting worse” concedes, “congestion causes delays to jump 12 percent”.   

They blame it on “cheap gas and economic growth”.  The more likely reason, most commuters don’t have any choice.  Sound Transit has refused to add the P&R lots and bus service needed to allow them to use public transit.  (A single bus can replace 100 cars) Yet ST3 adds neither significant parking nor transit capacity. 

The Times also apparently fails to recognize congestion is a major reason for their earlier reports on the high cost of housing and the December 9^th front page article “Seattle Rents Climb to 5^th Highest in U.S".  Living in Seattle is the only way to avoid some of the worst congestion in the country.  Again, the billions spent on ST3 will do nothing to reduce it.  

If the Traffic Lab goal is to "Spotlight promising approaches to easing congestion" an independent audit could either confirm or refute the “Pay-to-Park” benefits.  Again, the Seattle Times  should  point out the need to do so.  The entire area would benefit from the "likely" result.                                                                             

Public Transit That "Works"

An earlier post urged Republican legislators require Sound Transit be audited to resolve whether they “misled” legislature and voters regarding what ST3 “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions would cost residents; whether the operating costs for the extensions would create a financial “black hole”; and more important, whether the extensions would reduce congestion.   This post suggests that, rather than use ST3 funds for light rail extensions they should be used to add parking with access to BRT routes, and how best to do so. 

The ST3 problem is light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) prevents extending light rail beyond Northgate (or Angel Lake) from adding any capacity. That Sound Transit neglects to add the parking needed to use even its limited capacity.  That, as a result Sound Transit will likely use the extension capacity to replace bus routes into the city; apparently not recognizing that congestion on I-5 and I-90 corridors is not the result of too many buses.

Lacking additional highway lanes, the only way to reduce congestion is to attract more commuters to public transit. One way to do so is, rather than making parking free and paying for transit, have commuters pay for parking, but ride free.  Commuters would pay a monthly or yearly fee to reserve parking at a “Pay-to-Park” P&R.  Those doing so would be guaranteed parking and have access to frequent free bus service during peak commute hours with less service during off-peak hours

Those within walking distance, who can carpool to the P&R, or who can be dropped off, would also ride free. The goal being to reduce congestion by adding riders at minimal cost.  The loss in fare revenue for a rider would be trivial compared to the cost of providing a parking stall for his car.  

Each Pay-to-Park lot would nominally provide 1000 stalls. Current P&Rs would continue to provide free parking and bus fares with routes to either Pay-to-Park lots for free BRT routes or directly into Seattle.  Parking fees could be based on bus operating costs and route lengths.  Sound Transit’s 2017 budget assessed bus-operating costs as ~$10.00 per mile.  The 17 miles from Lynnwood Transit Center to 4^th and Madison would cost approximately $350 for a round trip. 

With pay-to-ride, 100 commuters, each paying a $3.50 toll, would cover the entire bus round trip cost.   (While 70-ft articulated buses are rated as having 119 sitting and standing riders they would probably cost more to operate.)  With “Pay-to-Park,” Sound Transit could charge $10.00 per day.  While more than the $7.00 round-trip fares, commuters would likely leap at the chance for an assured parking stall,  access to bus, and avoiding driving expenses (~$17.00 @$0.50 a mile) and downtown parking fees. (Their employers may pay the fees to avoid providing employee parking.)

The $10 charge would generate $10,000 for a 1000-stall “Pay-to-Park” lot, enough to pay for 28 round trips.  However, Sound Transit fare-box revenues typically cover less than 35% of operating costs.  A 35% recovery requirement would allow Sound Transit to provide 81 round trips into and out of Seattle.  Again assuming capacity for 100 riders per bus, the 1000 “Pay-to-Park” commuters would add capacity for 4000 riders each morning and afternoon. 

Those paying for parking would be polled to establish schedule and have priority access to buses.   While most routes will be during peak commute, 40 daily round trips each morning and afternoon would allow frequent service throughout day.  Again, existing P&Rs and current bus routes would continue operating.

The 24-mile route from South Everett into Seattle would cost $480 per round trip.  Sound Transit could likely charge $15.00 for a stall there.  (Again cheaper than $24.00 round trip driving cost @ $0.50 per mile.)  The $15,000 could provide 89 round trips; again assuming 35% operating cost recovery.   The 44 morning and afternoon round trips would provide capacity for 4400 riders.

Over the next three to four years Sound Transit could divert light rail funds to create 3 Pay-to-Park lots near Lynnwood and 2 near Everett, allowing 20,000 more commuters to use public transit each day.  Additional Pay-to-Park lots could be added as needed.  Meanwhile, the light rail extension from Northgate to Everett will never add any transit capacity.  While some residents may object to living near Pay-to-Park lots, many will be attracted by the prospect of free commutes.  They would also tend to attract more density within walking distance, reducing urban sprawl.     

Each Pay-to-Park lot would have its own direct bus route into and out of Seattle.   Limiting HOV lanes to buses and +3HOV during peak commute and eliminating intermediate stops would reduce transit times.  Each route would have one or two designated drop-off and pick-up points at an elongated T/C along 4^th Ave in Seattle.  Avoiding the need to pay fares at either end would facilitate egress and access at those locations. 

Pay-to-Park commuters would not only have shorter commute times, Sound Transit operating deficits would be far less.  They budget ~$25.00 per mile operating cost for light rail cars.  The 25-mile extension from Northgate to Everett adds nearly $5000 for a 4-car light rail train round trip. 

While Pay-to-Park bus schedules would be set by local demand, light rail train schedules would likely be set by transit demand from UW or Northgate or across I-90 Bridge to Bellevue.  Most if not all of the trains would have to go to Everett since scheduling the return routes of those trains with those only going to Lynnwood would be “problematic”. 

Assuming 200 trains are required, the extension to Everett will add $1 million to the daily operating costs.  (The 5 Pay-to-Park lots would increase Sound Transit operating costs by ~$110,000.)  Again, the extensions do nothing to increase capacity.  The riders they add, at least during peak commute, would displace those from Northgate and other stations nearer Seattle.  While fares from Lynnwood and Everett would be higher, the increased revenue would do little to reduce operating deficit.  

Pay-to-Park lots would have similar transit capacity and cost advantages for Sound Transit extensions beyond Angel Lake to Tacoma.  However, having only half the number of trains would reduce the daily deficits. 

The East Link extension won’t increase transit capacity, but the shorter route lengths with riders in both directions would reduce operating costs shortfalls.  However, Sound Transit’s confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link’s limited capacity will create gridlock on bridge outer roadways.  Pay-to-Park lots with BRT access to center roadway is the best way to avoid it.

The bottom line is ST3 will not only fail to reduce congestion, it will create a financial black hole.  Sound Transit needs to be "persuaded" with an audit.  While it's probably too late to stop East Link, it would expose its failure to reduce I-90 congestion.  However, there is still time to replace the ST3 extensions beyond Northgate to Everett and Angel Lake to Tacoma with public transit that "works". 

P.S.  Seattle residents especially would benefit since current Central Link riders would no longer be crowded-out by extension riders and light rail funds could be used to expedite extensions to West Seattle and Ballard.

Seattle Times Sound Transit “Frugality” Concerns

The November 26^th Seattle Times Editorial “Sound Transit should consider Bellevue as its headquarters” opines “Before making further commitments to rent pricey Seattle office space, Sound Transit’s governing board should explore options for less expensive and more regional offices.”   They were particularly concerned:

The regional transit authority this year signed leases for downtown Seattle office spaces that will cost taxpayers $90 million over the next four to five years. A fourth of the space will be occupied by consultants, who should be paying for their overhead.

They also urged readers to

Remember, just a few months ago, it was revealed that Sound Transit’s Lynnwood extension is $500 million over budget. This doesn’t exactly assure the public that the agency getting a lion’s share of the Puget Sound’s tax revenue is being frugal.

The Times concern Sound Transit was not “frugal” because they'll spend $90 million over the next four to five years leasing property in Seattle rather than less expensive or permanent facilities in Bellevue seems to reflect a "new interest" in how they spend our tax money.  After all, this is the same Seattle Times whose "answer" to their Nov 4^th 2016 edition front-page article question, “Would transit plan ease traffic?” was, “It would not!”.  The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”. 

Yet the Times only objection to the $54 billion ST3 vote was an Oct 28^th editorial  “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority” recommended rejection, not because it cost too much, or wouldn’t reduce congestion, but because “Prop 1 would give Sound Transit permanent tax authority”.  The editorial opined “If voters reject ST3, Sound Transit should return with a measure specifying which taxes would be terminated and when”.

Pierce and Snohomish Counties rejected ST3 with 53% voting against approval even though most of the extension money will be spent there.  After the ST3 vote, a 11/14/16 post urged Sound Transit be audited.  The results of the last state Sound Transit audit were reported in an Oct 25, 2012 Seattle Times article,  “Sound Transit gets mixed reviews in state audit”.   A more recent audit was certainly needed.  Yet the Times refused to advocate for one despite concerns the $54 billion wouldn’t reduce congestion.

A year later, the below Nov 24^th email to the Times attempted to get support for an audit, referred them to this blog,

Dear Seattle Times Staff,

The 11/23/17 post on my blog http://stopeastlink.blogspot.com opines the Republican legislators were justified claiming Sound Transit misled them and voters about what ST3 would cost.  However they should be even more concerned the increased operating costs for the extensions will create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds and do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion.   It urges Republicans use the upcoming session to propose legislation requiring Sound Transit be independently audited to “investigate” these concerns.  While the results may not stop ST3, it will at least alert the area as to what to expect.

Not only is an audit needed because of Seattle Times concerns ST3 extensions won’t reduce congestion, it's needed because of concerns the extension operating costs will create a financial black hole for far into the future.  The Times concerns about frugality regarding lease costs, while well founded, surely warrant their support for an audit.

Republican Legislators Should Demand a Sound Transit Audit

(I only recently learned about the probe and the results.  Republicans can and should do more.)

Republican Legislators Should Demand a Sound Transit Audit

An Oct 24 King 5 report “Sound Transit deceived lawmakers and public, Republican-led probe finds” typifies the sorry status of legislative efforts to deal with Sound Transit’s fatally flawed ST3 "Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions.   The Oct 24^th report was based on the Sept 24^th and Oct 5^th testimony before the Senate Law and Justice Committee on whether the bill language for ST3 was unconstitutionally drafted and if Sound Transit misled the legislature on the size of the final ST3 package.

The Republican report’s conclusion could be summarized with the following:

The results of a state Senate investigation into Sound Transit found that the agency misled lawmakers and the public while trying to pass a $54 billion transit package. 

The response to the report from the Democrats on the committee and from Sound Transit could be summarized with:

"The committee’s final report is a sham that the minority members did not even have a chance to review before its release,” Sound Transit spokesperson Geoff Patrick said in a statement.  Sound Transit has also said it was completely transparent about all aspects of the ST3 ballot measure.

Apparently the Democrats on the committee (and Sound Transit spokesperson Geoff Patrick) were unaware a Sound Transit 7/8/2016 post entitled: “ST3 plan would cost typical adult $169 annually or $14 per month” included the following:

Here’s how much a typical adult would pay if ST3 is approved:

MVET

An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed. The updated calculation reflects an annual median value $5,333 of vehicles in the Sound Transit District. MVET taxes are determined by a state of Washington depreciation schedule for a specific vehicle’s model and production year. The previous calculation relied on a less representative average vehicle value of $10,135 for the more expansive tri-county area, for a significantly higher annual cost of $78 per adult. 

The committee Democrats (and the Sound Transit representative) may not have been aware of the post because Sound Transit discontinued the website ST3tax.com, “How much tax per year will you pay for if ST3 passes” soon after the Jun 8^th post.  The Republican conclusion Sound Transit merely “misled voters” doesn’t do justice to such blatant mendacity.  (see 7/13/17 post for details)

Sound Transit’s estimates for property tax increase, while not mendacious, are surely misleading.  They averaged home values throughout King, Snohomish and Pierce counties to arrive at a “typical” home value with taxes substantially lower than what those who pay the tax will pay.

Thus the Republicans concern about Sound Transit misleading the public about what they would pay to extend light rail are surely justified.  However they should be even more concerned about what they will have to pay for operating light rail trains over the ST3 extensions and what benefits commuters will get from all those paying the higher taxes. 

It cost roughly $25 a mile to operate a light rail car or $100 per mile for a 4-car train.  Extending Central Link from UW Stadium station to Everett adds 58 miles or $5800 to each round trip cost.  By comparison the UW to Northgate 4.3 mile extension adds only $860 to round trip costs.  The billions spent extending Central Link beyond Northgate to Everett increases round trip operating costs by nearly $5000.  Yet they do absolutely nothing to increase capacity.

A 2004 PSRC “High Capacity Corridor Assessment” concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour, slightly more than half Sound Transit’s 16,000 rider-per-hour claim.  The limited capacity, at least during peak commute, means any riders added by the extensions will displace those from stations nearer Seattle.  While extension riders will presumably have to pay higher tolls the added costs will dwarf any potential fare-box revenue increase. 

Assuming 200 round trips per day, the resulting shortfall between operating costs and fare-box revenue for the extensions will be nearly $1 million.  While shorter south end extensions beyond Angel Lake to Tacoma and across I-90 Bridge to Redmond would have lower operating costs the total shortfall will create a huge financial "black hole" requiring they extend ST3 taxes for far into the future.   

Sound Transit compounds the extension operating cost deficit by neglecting to add parking needed to access extensions.  All of the P&R facilities with access to either I-5 or I-90 corridors are essentially already full.  Sound Transit commitments to add parking within walking distance of the extension stations provide only a tiny fraction of what’s needed.  They wait until 2024 to begin spending a measly $698 million on 8560 parking stalls by 2041. 

Thus, the only way Sound Transit can use even the extensions' limited capacity is to route their buses to light rail stations rather than into Seattle.  The limited capacity means the resultant reduction in number of buses on HOV lanes will have a miniscule affect on congestion. 

Again, the Republican concern about Sound Transit “misleading” the legislators and voters about what it would cost for ST3 extensions are only a part of the problem.  Far more important is the fact they chose to extend Central Link rather than bore a 2^nd tunnel for the extensions limiting its capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to reduce congestion.  That the extension operating costs will create a financial “black hole” for the area’s transportation funds.  That they neglected to increase access by adding the 10s of thousands of parking spaces needed for even their limited capacity.

The only way to resolve these issues is to conduct an independent audit.  The Republicans on Law and Justice Committee along with those on the House and Senate Transportation committees should “publicly” demand an independent audit. The legislature previously used its oversight responsibility in 2008 when they authorized an Independent Review Team (IRT) because of concerns the I-90 floating bridge couldn’t withstand light rail loads.  They surely have the authority to require an audit.  

Make Democrats on both committees, especially Rep Clibborn, who reportedly has used her position as “chair” of the transportation committee to block any legislative attempts to “oversee” Sound Transit, explain their objections.  It could also force Sound Transit to explain why they neglected to comply with RCW 81.104.00 (2) (b) requiring they consider less expensive (e.g. BRT) options across I-90 Bridge.   Also ask them what procedures they used to estimate ridership for the extensions by 2040: for example the claim the extension to Everett would add up to 119,000 riders daily. 

Republicans surely have a responsibility to the entire area to demand the audit.  While the results may not stop Sound Transit they will at least alert commuters about what's coming and that is didn't have to happen.

jj

Mayor Durkan

(I submitted the following in response to the Seattle Times opinion page request for 150-word recommendations for Mayor Durkan.  I decided to post it since they will likely ignore it)

Mayor Durkan

The top issue for Mayor Durkan to address is the affordability of housing in Seattle.   A major contributor to the recent increase is buying a home in Seattle is the only way to avoid the congestion commuters currently encounter on all the major roadways into the city.   The only way to ease that congestion is to provide more commuters with access to parking near where they can afford to live with public transit capacity to where they wish to go.  

Yet the billions Sound Transit for will spend on ST3 will provide neither the added parking nor the transit capacity needed to attract the number of transit riders needed to reduce congestion.   Sound Transit needs to be “persuaded” to redirect the ST3 funds towards adding thousands of additional stalls with access to BRT routes along restricted HOV lanes into the city.  

The entire area would benefit of Mayor Durkan did so.

Bill Hirt

2615 170^th SE

Bellevue, WA

98008

425-747-4185

wjhirt2014@gmail.com

P.S. Seattle residents would particularly benefit since current Central Link commuters wouldn't be displaced by those riding extensions and ST3 funds could be used to expedite the Ballard and West Seattle extensions. 

Drink the Water

(I wrote the following in response to those urging I continue)

Drink the Water

First of all I want to thank those of you who chose to support my Sound Transit concerns in the recent election with votes (110,972 as of Nov 13th), emails, and phone messages.   My blog has attracted nearly 100,000 page views.  Unfortunately the old adage “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink” has limited their impact on Sound Transit policies.  

Whatever impact they have had is “likely” offset by those who supported Dow Constantine’s ST3 “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions with much of the $1.3 million in campaign contributions.   Sound Transit plans to spend most of $54B over the next twenty-five years constructing their “light rail spine” have “presumably” attracted support from construction companies and their labor unions.  

No one can reasonably blame those profiting from constructing the “spine” for its failure to reduce congestion along I-5 and the resulting gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways.   Those failures are strictly the result of Dow Constantine’s Sound Transit Board inability to recognize the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits on light rail capacity.   That the DSTT limits will result in any riders attracted by extensions reducing access for those currently using Central Link.  That operating costs over the longer routes with no increase in ridership will inevitably result in a financial “black hole” because of the fare-box revenue shortfall. 

 None of this would have been possible without the ST3 enabling legislation, the WSDOT connivance, and the Seattle Times aiding and abetting Sound Transit policies.   At this point the most feasible way to prevent Sound Transit from proceeding is for legislation requiring Sound Transit be audited.  It's something they've avoided for nearly 10 years.

Make them explain why they ignored RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) by not considering BRT on I-90 Bridge as a low cost alternative to East Link light rail.  Make them justify the ridership claims they made prior to the ST3 votes.  What impact will those riders have on current Central Link riders?   Make them explain how they intend to cover the operating costs over the longer routes.  

The legislature needs to hear from someone other than the construction companies that support Republicans and the labor unions who support Democrats.  Legislators from both parties were “likely” swayed by Sound Transit commitments to contribute more than $500 million to the state’s general fund if the enabling legislation was passed.  (Sound Transit “extrapolated” what was a 15 year program to as long as their board feels it's “warranted”)

I urge those concerned to "drink the water” by urging their legislators require the audit and use "social media" to urge others to do the same.  

Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support

(This post was prompted by the Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial support for a “permanent men’s shelter” in Bellevue in response to questions as to my approach to issues beyond Sound Transit.)  

Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support,

The Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial urges “Bellevue voters cast their vote for progress and compassion and support the candidates who want to build a permanent men’s shelter as soon as possible”.    Apparently the Times believes voters should base their decision as to who should be on the Bellevue City Council solely on whether they support the Eastgate shelter.

One wonders if this sense of urgency isn’t a result of problems concerning Seattle’s difficulty in dealing with their homeless-camp problems on the paper's front page.   The fact they consider Eastgate as the “logical choice” may have to do with it being easily accessed by bus from Seattle.   Seattle would likely welcome the opportunity to “encourage” their homeless with a free bus pass to the shelter. 

On Oct 16th I emailed the following to the Seattle Times, and Seattle  and Bellevue City Councils as a way to make the shelter more effective regardless of where it was located.   Its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

All the discussion about the location of the Bellevue homeless shelter ignores a major concern, namely how do you prevent it from attracting even more homeless to the area.    The fact the number of homeless in Bellevue has doubled since the council began planning to add the shelter should be a warning. 

One way to address the issue is to require those using the shelter work for the city’s parks department for up to 40 hours a week.   They would receive half of whatever and however Bellevue pays their park employees.  The remaining half would be put into a separate fund for each shelter worker to accumulate for as long as he remains there.   He can get access to the fund by leaving the shelter with the proviso that he will not be allowed to return within some minimum length of time.   Whether he would remain working with the parks department would be by mutual consent. 

The work requirement would likely make the shelter less appealing, reducing “demand”.  (Those who work for others would have their employer deposit half their wages into the fund.)  It would provide those living in the shelter with something to do during the day and potentially enhance their ability to find work elsewhere.   And the fund would provide a “nest egg” that might make ‘leaving” a more viable option. 

Again, its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

P.S.  The Times recommendation voters dismiss the "Wrong on Heroin" flyer concerning candidates Brown, Zahn, and Robinson because they aren't "campaigning" for an injection site fails to mention the three received funding from the Architects of the King County Injection Sites.