Why Traffic Will Get Worse

The Jan 7^th Seattle Times front page Traffic Lab article headline, “If you think Seattle Traffic is bad now . . .” again exemplifies the paper’s ability to identify problems but neglects proposing ways to effectively reduce congestion.   To say the “traffic scrum began unofficially New Year’s week” may reflect Seattle’s problem but those commuting into and out of Seattle have already endured years of congestion as attested to by the Dec. 26^th Seattle Times front-page article “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning”.   

The article includes concern about gridlock from “hundreds of buses a day out of the transit tunnel and onto city streets”.   Traffic Lab apparently doesn’t recognize Seattle congestion is not due to too many buses.   A single bus can replace up to 100 cars on the streets, so any increase can reduce Seattle congestion. The increased number of buses could be accommodated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated T/C.  Each route would have one or two designated drop off points on one side and pick up points on the other side to reduce transit times.

The article’s proposal to, “create a quick transfer from 520 buses to UW Station trains” as a way to “reduce central city gridlock,” is another example of anti-bus attitude.    Sound Transit used the same justification for implementing East Link on I-90 bridge center roadway, terminating I-90 corridor bus routes at South Bellevue light rail station.  Still not recognizing buses aren’t the problem.

Both proposals are seriously flawed.  East Link because it limits the bridge center roadway capacity to a fraction of what’s needed to meet cross-lake transit needs.  At least during peak commute, East Link trains will be full well before they ever reach the South Bellevue station. 

Those transferring at the UW station will initially have the benefit of twice East Link capacity.  However once the extensions to Lynnwood and Everett begin operation even a fraction of Sound Transit ST3 ridership projections will fill trains before they reach UW.  However, the current plans for transfer appear to have a more immediate problem in that it doesn’t include a T/C where buses can wait for returning commuters.  

The UW T/C could have been a major benefit for commuters from both sides of the take.  It had been included in the initial Sound Transit light rail proposal as the terminus for Central Link, with a second bridge across the Montlake Cut to facilitate access.  Not only would the T/C provide 520 bus commuters with access to light rail, the return routes would provide Seattleites with access to Overlake and Bellevue T/Cs. 

While the T/C would reduce the number of buses into Seattle, its primary benefit was it took advantage of light rails fast reliable service, again in both directions. Thousands of eastside commute could have used the T/C to transfer from 520 BRT routes to light rail trains running every 4 minutes into downtown Seattle. The return routes would provide access to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs for thousands of Seattleites.  (The afternoon routes would be reversed)   The large ridership on both inbound and outbound routes would’ve taken maximum advantage of the 520BRT/Central Link capacity.

Instead the second bridge was dropped and Sound Transit signed a “Master Implementation Agreement with Sound Transit”  (MIA) that precluded a UW T/C.   It also included a provision whereby Sound Transit gave the UW a lump sum payment of $20,000,000 for “conditions and easements” with the Northgate extension. Eliminating the UW T/C allowed Sound Transit to promise construction companies years of lucrative contracts and high paying jobs for their labor unions extending light rail to Northgate and beyond that do nothing to increase capacity.     

The T/C would have allowed direct BRT routes to and from Microsoft rather than East Link’s multi-stop, circuitous route across I-90 Bridge through Bellevue to Overlake T/C.  The Sound Transit decision not to include 520 BRT in the ST3 funding “may” have been influenced by the same concerns.  The result is thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake don’t have access to adequate public transit. 

Traffic Lab needs to recognize more buses aren't the problem, they’re the solution.  Without increased buses traffic is only going to get worse.

Seattle Times Legislative Priorities

In 1807 Thomas Jefferson concluded, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper…the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them”.   The Jan. 7^th Seattle Times editorial, “Lawmakers should focus on these issues” validates Jefferson’s advice.   It devotes two full columns urging legislators to, “stay focused on a handful of key priorities” but ignores the most pressing issue.    

Much of the first column urges legislators “find a way to substantially invest in areas of public schools that still need their attention”, whatever that means.   The rest of the editorial urges they pass a capital budget, resolve the Hirst water rights issue, crack down on "dark money" in politics, enact a state "Voting Rights Act”, and "open up" lawmakers' records.  

For months the Times has been replete with articles concerning the skyrocketing price of homes in Seattle.   Surely one of the reasons is that living in Seattle is the only way to avoid the delays on “some of the worst congestion in the country” on the roads into Seattle.  A Dec. 26^th Seattle Times front-page article “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning” exemplifies the problem.  Yet their editorial page “key legislative priorities” doesn’t include anything regarding transportation problems.  

A Nov 4^th 2016 Times article conceded the billions spent on ST3 would not reduce congestion.  Most papers would conclude spending billions on light rail extensions that do nothing to reduce congestion would merit some sort of review.  Yet shortly after the ST3 vote the Times ignored a Nov 9^th 2016 post urging Sound Transit be audited, the first since 2012.  Now more than a year later, with ever increasing congestion, the Times still doesn’t consider the need to audit Sound Transit a priority for the legislature.

The Times failure to do so makes it doubtful there are enough Republicans who aren’t “influenced” by the construction companies involved with extending light rail, or Democrats who aren’t “influenced” by their labor unions to pass the needed legislation. 

The entire area will likely pay a heavy price for the Times choice of legislative priorities.

Traffic Lab “Connivance?” with WSDOT I-405 HOT

The Dec. 25^th Seattle Times B1 Traffic Lab article “I-405 express toll lanes between Renton, Bellevue on way” does two things.  First it details WSDOT plans for I-405 HOT that are far more aimed at increasing revenue than in reducing congestion.  Second, that the Traffic Lab, whose purported objective is to “spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock” either doesn’t recognize that reality or chooses to ignore it. 

The article details WSDOT plans to implement HOT on the existing HOV lane and a new lane between Bellevue and Renton “as part of changes that aim to improve traffic flow on what officials call Washington’s worse corridor for congestion”.  When completed the two HOT lanes there will be combined with a second HOT lane from Lynnwood to Bothell and existing two HOT lanes from Bothell to Bellevue; purportedly reducing congestion along the entire route. 

 Again, it doesn’t take much foresight to recognize the decision to implement two HOT lanes along the route will do far more to increase revenue than reduce congestion.   The WSDOT plans for HOT on two of the four lanes on most of the route are particularly absurd.   With one HOT lane WSDOT could set the fares to limit traffic volume to 10% of the vehicles.  Reducing the number of vehicles from 25% of the total to 10% would reduce congestion and commute times for those willing to pay the tolls. 

Meanwhile the percentage of vehicles on the three remaining lanes would increase from 25% to 30% increasing their congestion.  The whole rationale for HOT is based on the assumption giving commuters unable to carpool the option of paying whatever it takes to meet the 45mph limit justifies the increased congestion on GP lanes.  The WSDOT perverts the entire HOT process by choosing to implement HOT on two of the four lanes.  

Again assuming they set the rates to limit traffic to 10% of the total on both lanes, the traffic on each of the two GP lanes increases to 40% of the total, dramatically increasing congestion and the incentive to pay HOT fees.   The end result is the increased number of those willing to pay to use the two HOT lanes "requires" the WSDOT raise the tolls to limit flow to 10% of traffic for each of the lanes; frequently exceeding the $10 limit they are currently allowed on the Lynnwood to Bellevue portion.  

The article reports the WSDOT response “increasing the maximum toll rate would need to be a discussion between the state legislature and the Washington State Transportation Commission”.   Until they raise the rates the WSDOT HOT approach not only dramatically increases GP lane congestion, it's failed to achieve the 45 mph average required;  Despite the millions paid in tolls and the $484 million the WSDOT spent implementing HOT between Lynnwood and Bellevue. 

Anyone with a modicum of competence could have anticipated the likely failure of the WSDOT “experiment” of implementing two HOT lanes to meet 45 mph requirement.  Apparently not only did the Times Traffic Lab fail to do so, their Dec 25^th article indicates they agree with WSDOT implementing two HOT lanes along the entire Lynnwood to Renton route.

The way to achieve the 45 mph is to reduce the incentive to pay the tolls by maintaining three lanes for GP use and increasing the HOT fees to what is required on the fourth lane; potentially less the $10.00.   The WSDOT surely recognizes that reality but is more interested in the added revenue than in reducing congestion.  The Traffic Lab is either too incompetent to recognize the problem or is conniving with the WSDOT.

Neither speaks well.  

P.S.  The Seattle Times needs to urge the legislature use its oversight responsibility to require WSDOT end HOT along I-405 until they can implement it on only one lane between Bothell and Bellevue and on new lanes from Lynnwood to Bothell and from Bellevue to Renton.

Traffic Lab Ignores "Pay-to-Park" Congestion Relief

The Dec. 26^th Seattle Times front-page article “Everett to Seattle: 94 minutes in the morning” exemplifies Traffic Lab’s ability to identify the problem but nothing about “promising approaches to easing gridlock”.  (At least this article didn’t attempt to claim Sound Transit's light rail extensions would reduce the delays, it won't)   Typical of the WSDOT lack of concern about congestion, their "mobility and traffic" engineer called it a “good story in a way because it’s a booming economy, and a booming economy would lead to some kind of congestion”.

Neither the Traffic Lab nor the WSDOT seem to recognize that more commuters needn’t lead to more congestion.  That the problem is too few commuters rode buses.  During the 2017 3^rd quarter only ~4500 commuters daily rode Sound Transit 510-513 bus routes along I-5 from Everett into and out of Seattle, fewer than the ~4650 who did so in 2014.

One problem is Sound Transit has done nothing to increase the number of bus routes into the city.  At 45 mph, a highway lane can accommodate up to 2000 vehicles per hour, taking about 30 minutes from Everett to Seattle.  A 70-ft articulated bus an accommodate 119 sitting and standing passengers.  If 120 of the 2000 vehicles per hour were 70-ft articulated buses they could accommodate more than 14,000 riders, the equivalent of 7 lanes of traffic.  And more could be added to meet future growth.  The WSDOT could maintain the 45 mph speed on the bus lane during peak commute by limiting the number of non-transit vehicles.  Presumably +3HOV limits would suffice to stay within the 2000 level.

The second problem is, even with the additional bus routes Sound Transit has done nothing to provide the parking commuters need for access.  A Nov. 1^st, 2016, Seattle Times front page article “Parking finds its place in Sound Transit vote” typifies the problem.  It reported, "19,488 cars occupied park-and-ride facilities each weekday in Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties” with “51 facilities next to express bus or train stations that were at least 95% full”.  Yet Sound Transit’s “Place for Parking” consists of waiting until 2024 to begin spending $698 million of the $54 billion they’ll spend on ST3 extensions adding a measly 8560 parking spaces over the next 17 years. 

It’s not clear how many P&R stalls will eventually be added along Everett extension.  The 12/03, 12/10, and12/14 posts all advocated Sound Transit add 1000-stall P&R lots where commuters pay for parking but ride free.  (The Dec. 26th Traffic Lab article failed to consider that option.)  The 12/03 post detailed how the parking fees from 3 Pay-to-Park lots near Lynnwood ($10) and 2 near Everett ($15) would allow 20,000 more commuters to use public transit each day. 

Those paying the parking would have a designated stall whenever they chose to use it and priority access to buses.  If all the commuters rode during the 2 hour morning and afternoon peak commutes the five Pay-to-Park lots could reduce traffic volume by up to 10,000 vehicles per hour; equivalent to adding 5 lanes of freeway.  The highway capacity benefits would drop to 4 lanes if 20% of the bus riders rode during off-peak hours.  

For $350 million, Sound Transit could provide the parking and bus routes needed to add the 4-5 lanes of capacity between Everett and Seattle.  (Assuming $50,000 per parking stall and $100 million for buses)  Similar benefits could be achieved on all the major corridors into Seattle.  And they could do so in 3-4 years.  It’s time the Times Traffic Lab considered this approach since it’s unlikely Sound Transit will do so without being "urged". 

P.S.  Reducing morning commute times into Seattle would also reduce the demand for housing, making living in the city more affordable for everyone.

CEO Rogoff and Traffic Lab Don't "Get it"

The Dec. 22^nd Seattle Times B1 article, “Sound Transit finds $200M savings for Lynnwood rail line” epitomizes Traffic Lab’s failure to “Get it”.   For a “project that digs into the region’s transportation issues” and “spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock” the article fails to do either.  The article reports, despite Sound Transit savings, CEO Rogoff’s concerns about Lynnwood extension budget problems due to “Suburban cities requests" and loss in car-tab taxes from not being able to “overvalue newer vehicles,” are overshadowed by the loss of the $1.17 grant from the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA).  

Rogoff was apparently “involved” with the grant since his biography included the following:

In May 2009 the Senate confirmed Rogoff as the President’s Federal Transit Administrator. As the nation’s chief public transit official, Rogoff led the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).   In July 2014, the United States Senate confirmed Peter M. Rogoff to the position of Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy in the U.S. Department of Transportation. As Federal Transit Administrator, Rogoff negotiated and signed a record number of full funding grant agreements with transit agencies across the nation to expand rail and bus rapid transit infrastructure.

Some may consider Rogoff’s background as justifying County Executive Dow Constantine’s decision to hire him as Sound Transit CEO.  Others may conclude he was hired as a “reward” for the grant.   Rogoff’s biography didn’t include any details as to what qualified him for either federal position.  What was his academic background or previous involvement with public transit? 

Whatever Rogoff’s background, apparently neither he nor the Transit Lab recognize problems with funding the Lynnwood extension “pale in comparison” to the fact it will do absolutely nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  Transportation system capacity is defined by the number of vehicles per hour times the number of riders in each vehicle.  Sound Transit’s decision to extend Central Link rather than create a 2^nd tunnel limits that capacity. 

The PSRC concluded in an April 2004 Technical Workbook, “Central Puget Sound Region, High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment” the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited capacity to 8880 rph.   They based that on the assumption the DSTT station lengths limited the number of trains to 4 cars, that safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains and that each 74-seat car can accommodate up to 148 riders.   (“Unfortunately” the PSRC Technical Workbook is no longer available on the Internet.)  The Sound Transit 2008 East Link DEIS described East Link operation as “having headways of 9-15 minutes” presumably reflecting its half of the DSTT trains . 

Clearly spending billions extending light rail beyond Northgate will do nothing to increase it. Sound Transit could achieve the 8880 rph capacity increase to Lynnwood with an additional100 bus routes an hour without spending a dime on light rail.

The Dec 22nd article included Sound Transit claim the Lynnwood extension would add 67,000 daily riders despite a Nov 4^th, 2016 Traffic Lab article conceding ST3 extensions wouldn’t reduce congestion.  They neglected to mention that prior to the vote last fall, Sound Transit had projected the ST3 extension to Everett would add up to 45,000 riders.  Even a fraction of Sound Transits projected ridership from the two extensions would end access at Northgate and other stations nearer Seattle. 

Clearly CEO Rogoff and the Seattle Times Traffic Lab need to “get it” regarding the Lynnwood extension.

What "Traffic Lab" Should Propose for I-405

The Dec. 14^th Seattle Times headline “Get I-405 Toll lanes moving by lifting $10 cap, state told” epitomizes the Traffic Lab's approach to the area’s congestion problem.  It’s purported as a “project that digs into the region’s transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to existing gridlock, and helps readers find the best ways to get around”.  As previous posts have suggested, while Traffic Lab has conceded ST3 extensions will not reduce congestion on I-5 and I-90 corridors, it has failed to “spotlight promising approaches to the existing gridlock".  This post proposes a “promising approach” they should consider for the I-405 gridlock.

It doesn’t take much “digging” to deduce implementing HOT lanes will always increase congestion on GP lanes.  Reducing congestion on a highway lane requires reducing the number of vehicles on the lane.  The HOT improvements are based on the premise that more drivers of vehicles will be unable to meet the +3HOV requirement than will be willing to pay the tolls.   HOT fees are increased to limit the numbers of vehicles needed to maintain that benefit. 

The result is those vehicles no longer using HOV lanes will increase congestion on the GP lanes.  For example, a PSRC May 8^th, Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report included a chart  “I-405 Delay: Lynnwood to Tukwila”.  It showed the delays prior to HOT implementation didn’t even begin until Bothell.  Yet an Oct 1^st Seattle Times B-1 article reported velocities between Lynnwood and N. E. 160^th averaged only 24 mph between 5:00 and 9:00 a.m.  (They were “likely” even slower when most were commuting.)  The WSDOT claim of “occasional time savings for all users” is absurd and it should be no surprise “more than 32,000 people signed an online petition to cancel the tolls". 

The purported reason for the tolls is to satisfy federal HOV standards requiring  “lanes must flow 45 mph or faster at least 90% of peak commute times”.  (It’s not clear why the standard doesn’t apply to I-5 corridor.)   The Traffic Lab could propose a relatively easy way to not only meet the federal standard, they would also reduce GP lane congestion. 

Between Lynnwood and Bothell the current HOT lane would be converted to a GP lane, eliminating the 45 mph requirement.  The WSDOT could expedite adding the 4^th lane for HOT tolls that could be raised to whatever is needed to achieve the 45 mph requirement.  Between Bothell and Bellevue, one of the two HOT lanes would also be converted to GP.  Again, the tolls on the remaining HOT lane could be raised to whatever is required to achieve the 45 mph requirement. (Typically limiting number of vehicles to 2000 per hour).  

Implementing the additional GP lane would reduce congestion for the vast majority of commuters along the entire route.  The increased velocities between Lynnwood and Bothell would reduce the delays for those wishing to pay tolls until the HOT lane is added.  Between Bothell and Bellevue, those willing to pay the fees needed to meet the 45 mph requirement would still be able to do so. 

The Traffic Lab support for “lifting $10 cap” is consistent with the Seattle Times June 26^th headline, “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock”.  It’s time they “spotlighted OTHER approaches to the existing gridlock”.

Why Seattle Should Advocate Pay-to-Park

The previous post detailed how fees from five 1000-stall Pay-to-Park lots near Lynnwood and Everett could fund bus capacity for up to 20,000 commuters into and out of Seattle.   That doing so was the equivalent of adding 2 lanes of freeway for 5 hours every morning and afternoon, or 3 lanes during the 3-hour peak morning and afternoons when most of the routes will be scheduled.  That instead Sound Transit will spend billions on light rail extensions from Northgate to Everett that do nothing to increase transit capacity but require a huge subsidy to cover the increased operating cost.  That any riders the extension adds will reduce access for those using stations nearer Seattle. 

South Seattle commuters have even more reason to advocate Pay-to-Park lots.  The 3^rd quarter, ~60,000 daily-ridership report indicates 30,000 commuters rode light rail between Westlake and Angel Lake.   During peak commute Central Link trains ran every 6 minutes.  The ST3 extensions to Federal Way and across I-90 Bridge will not only reduce train frequency they will essentially end light rail access at current light rail stations beyond International District. 

A 2004 PSRC report concluded safe operation through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.  When East Link begins operation half of those trains will be routed across the I-90 Bridge, limiting Central Link beyond the International District to one train every 8 minutes, half the frequency of the Everett extension.

The PSRC report also concluded the DSTT stations limited each train to four cars and each 74-seat car could accommodate up to 148 riders, or 4440 riders per hour (rph).    (Sound Transit claims up to 16,000-rph-capacity through the DSTT, or 8000 rph capacity beyond International District.)

Again, light rail extensions beyond Angel Lake will do nothing to increase the Central Link capacity above 4440 rph, per PSRC.  Yet the ~$25.00 per mile 2017 budgets for light rail car operating costs for the 15 mile extensions to the Tacoma dome will add $3000 to the round trip operating costs for the 4-car train.  Assuming 100 of the current 132 Central Link weekday routes will continue after East Link begins operation, the resulting ~$300,000 fare-box-revenue short-fall will add significantly to the Everett extension financial “black hole”.

Even worse, Sound Transit’s told voters prior to the 2016 vote the ST3 extensions beyond Angel Lake to Federal Way and Tacoma dome would add up to 95,000 riders daily by 2040.   A fraction of that ridership would fill trains before they ever reach Angel Lake, even with Sound Transit’s dubious capacity claims.  The billions Sound Transit plans to spend extending Central Link through Federal Way to Tacoma will end access for the ~20,000 riders who currently ride Central Link every morning and afternoon between Angel Lake and International District.  

As with the congestion north of Seattle, other than adding additional freeway lanes, the only way to accommodate the “up to 95,000 additional riders” is to provide them with access to increased public transit capacity with added parking and bus routes.   With Pay-to-Park, commuters could pay a monthly or yearly fee to reserve a stall and ride free into Seattle.   Sound Transit budgets bus operating costs as ~$10.00 per mile.   The 22 mile round trip from Federal Way T/C to 4^th and James will costs $440.   However, Sound Transit normally expects fare box revenue to cover 35% of operating costs or $154 for the round trip.  

Sound Transit could charge commuters  $10.00 a day for a reserved stall or $10,000 daily for a 1000 stall Pay-to-Park lot enough to fund 65 round trips daily.  Assuming 100 riders per bus, the parking fees would provide 3200 riders into and out of Seattle every morning and afternoon.  With $15.00 daily fees, 97 round trips and 4800 commuters could ride free.

 The ~65 mille round trip from the Tacoma Dome to Seattle and back would cost $650, requiring $227.50 parking fees to meet Sound Transit’s 35% recovery.  A 1000 stall Pay-to-Park lot with $15.00 daily fees would fund 66 round trips with capacity for 3300 riders.  

As with transit to Lynnwood and Everett, Sound Transit could increase south end transit capacity along I-5 by more than 20,000 riders daily by adding three 1000-stall Pay-to-Park lots near Federal Way and two near Tacoma.  While current Sound Transit express bus service would continue the transit capacity funded by the Pay-to-Park lots would provide the equivalent of 2 additional freeway lanes (assuming 2000 vehicles per hour) for 5 hours each morning and afternoon or 3 lanes during the peak 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes.  Additional lots could be added when and where they’re needed to meet any future growth.

Tacoma and Federal Way commuters would also benefit from reduced transit times from Pay-to-Park lots, with direct BRT routes on freeway lanes limited to +3HOV during peak commute, to one or two designated drop-off and pick-up points at an elongated 4^th Ave T/C.  Seattle would benefit from continued Central Link access and Sound Transit’s “ability” to use the ST3 extension funds to expedite light rail extensions to West Seattle and Ballard. 

There would be no ST3 funds without Seattle voters 70% support.  They should not be used to reduced their access to light rail at current stations or future stations along the Northgate extension.  Commuters along the entire I-5 corridor from Everett to Tacoma deserve to have their ST3 taxes spent on transportation that reduces congestion, not create a financial black hole for future taxes.  

The Seattle City Council could benefit the entire area by urging legislature demand  Sound Transit's current approach be audited and whether "Pay-to-Par" lots are a better alternative.