Mayor Durkan Still Doesn’t Get It

A 12/06/18 post opined Mayor Durkan needed new transit advisors.  It was written in response to a Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, “Durkan associate gets $720K to steer light-rail planning”.  It detailed concerns that Durkan had chosen Shefari Ranganathan, former executive director of Transportation Choices Coalition that’d garnered tens of billions of tax dollars for transit projects, as deputy mayor.  That the mayor needed someone with the modicum of competence required to recognize Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to deal with area’s congestion.

Friday’s The Durkan Digest, “The New SR99 Tunnel Opens Monday. But the Squeeze is Far from Over” indicates she still doesn’t get it.  Her “solution” for dealing with the “squeeze” once the tunnel opens included the following:

We can’t let up. We still need to work together to make space on the roads for transit and emergency vehicles to keep moving. If you absolutely do not have to, please do not drive alone downtown. So let’s continue the great work to keep people, transit, and goods moving in Seattle. Please go to www.seattle.gov/traffic for resources from the City of Seattle and our partners to help you plan your trip. If we all make a plan and do our part, we can get through this together.  

Urging people to “not drive alone downtown” or to use “resources from the City of Seattle to help plan your trip” is not likely to reduce the number of commuters clogging the area’s roadways.   What’s needed is to give more commuters the alternative of riding public transit.  

Sound Transit hasn’t increased bus revenue hours since Prop 1 passed.   CEO Rogoff is planning to spend $96 billion on light rail extensions that do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle but nothing expanding bus service that would.    

Durkan needs someone who would advise her the way to “keep people, transit, and goods moving in Seattle” is to persuade Sound Transit to dramatically increase the number of riders able to use buses for their commutes into the city.  That doing so requires local bus routes from near where commuters live to T/Cs with express routes into Seattle (or Bellevue).  

That she should also use her influence to persuade WSDOT to limit an HOV lane on I-5 and I-90 to buses or with HOT fees sufficient to limit total traffic to the 2000 vehicles per hour needed to achieve 45 mph.  That giving commuters the option of fast, reliable, commutes into the city is the best way to reduce Seattle congestion.

Tolls That Could Work

The January 21^st Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Poll: Tolling downtown Seattle, freeways deeply unpopular” typifies their failure to recognize both why tolls are so unpopular and how they could be used to reduce congestion throughout the area. 

Tolls are unpopular because, unless commuters have an alternate way to reach their destination, the only thing they do is increase the cost of commuting.  It shouldn’t take a $1.2 million study to recognize that reality. 

If Mayor Durkan thinks “people will really like a city that does not have as many cars in the downtown area” the way to do so is not a toll but an alternate way to commute into the city.    The only viable way of doing so is to increase public transit capacity into the city.

Unfortunately neither the Traffic Lab nor Mayor Durkan apparently recognize Sound Transit plans to spend $96 billion over the next 23 years extending a light rail spine routed through the Seattle tunnel that will do absolutely nothing to increase that capacity.   That, even worse, they plan to continue their decade-long failure to increase transit capacity that could reduce congestion with added bus routes until at least 2041.   

Not only do they fail to add bus routes, all the P&R’s with access to I-5 or 1-90 have been full for years.   Commuters need either added parking or local bus routes to existing or new T/Cs with express bus routes into Seattle or Bellevue.  It’s those express bus routes that could take advantage of tolling to assure fast, reliable commute times.   

Tolls could be used to limit traffic on an HOV lane to where those willing to pay don't exceed what's needed to assure desired velocity, typically 2000 vehicles per hour (vph) for 45 mph.  (It’s not clear why doing so is called HOT presumably for High Occupancy Tolls.) Raising tolls avoids the congestion when more than 2000 carpoolers use the HOV lane.

(Unfortunately the WSDOT perverts HOT implementing it on 2 lanes on I-405.   The additional HOT lane increases congestion on the remaining GP lanes to where more than 2000 drivers are willing to pay the tolls, slowing both HOT lanes.  They ignore the fact that two HOT lanes have increased congestion on GP lanes and failed to provide the 45 mph requirement for much of the commute between Lynnwood and Bellevue.)

A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders.  If 100 of the 2000 vph were high-capacity buses more than 10,000 commuters would have access to transit each hour.  (A bus only lane onto Manhattan accommodates 900 buses an hour).  That’s the equivalent of adding 5 lanes of roadway.  The added reliable transit capacity could not only make it more attractive to many, those not choosing to ride buses will face less congestion on other lanes; lowering the tolls needed to limit HOT traffic to 2000 vph.

During peak commute 10 new or existing T/Cs could have 10 direct express bus routes every hour along toll lanes on each route into the city.  Their egress and access in Seattle could be facilitated by one or two designated drop-off locations along a 4^th Ave limited to buses with similar provisions for the return trip.  And more bus routes could be added when and where needed.

Commuters throughout the area could take advantage of the added capacity; and relatively soon.  Compare that with what they will get from Sound Transit CEO Rogoff‘s plans and the Traffic Lab approach to tolls; another year of increasing congestion and billions more wasted on fatally flawed light rail extensions.  

Eastside Benefits From Microsoft Pledge

The news Microsoft is willing to pledge $25 million in grants to address homelessness and $475 million in loans for low- and middle-income development projects is welcome.  However it’s not clear how they'll decide which developers get the loans and how Microsoft expects them to be repaid and with what interest.

It’s also noteworthy a recent Bellevue survey reported that 64% of residents considered traffic problems as their major concern; nearly four times the 17% concerned about affordable housing.  A major reason for their congestion concern is undoubtedly the nearly 40,000 Microsoft workers who commute through the area to and from their Redmond Campus.  Any east side resident attempting to use the area roadways from West Lake Sammamish to 140^th will encounter huge lines of traffic for several hours every morning and afternoon.

Yet Microsoft plans to provide room for 8000 more workers with an additional 2.5 million square feet and by renovating another 6.7 million square feet.  Redmond Mayor Marchione wants those employees to “live where they work”; maybe not an attractive option for either those already living there or for many current or future Microsoft workers.    

Redmond however has a far more effective way of reducing area's current and future congestion.  The city council could use the building permit approval process for Microsoft’s expansion to limit the number of parking stalls on the Redmond Campus. 

Microsoft should be required to pledge part of the $500 million to greatly expand its current Connector program.  An April 12^th 2009 Seattle Times reported 3000 daily trips are taken by Microsoft employees on the 53 Connectors buses' nineteen routes.  The buses provided Wi-Fi access to make commute time “productive time”.

Whatever improvements they’ve made since then, Connector should be expanded to where 30,000 employees are able to use the routes to make commute time “productive time”.  They could contract with Sound Transit to provide vans or buses with access to Wi-Fi for Microsoft workers during peak commute.  The Redmond city council could “encourage” them to do so by limiting Redmond Campus parking to 20,000 stalls. 

Microsoft could initially establish routes for vans or buses to within walking distance of where workers with compatible schedules live or schedules could be revised to fit routes.  The likely shorter routes for the vans would probably allow 2 or 3 routes each morning and afternoon. 

They could later decide to construct their own park and ride lots with express bus routes to Redmond campus.  The costs for doing so would probably be less than what their underground parking on campus will cost.

The bottom line is the east side would benefit it at least part of the $500 million is spent on expanding Connector.  The Redmond City Council should use the permitting process to “encourage” them.

Eastside Legislators and Mayors Priorities

( I submitted this to the Bellevue Reporter earlier but decided to post it since they’re not likely to print it)

The January 18^th Bellevue Reporter article concerning the eastside legislators and mayors priorities for 2019 suggests their major concern is housing affordability and the need for more infrastructure.   Yet none of the participants suggested lowering the prevailing $60.04 per hour King County carpenters are paid in 2019 as a way to reduce housing costs.   It wasn’t clear what additional infrastructure was needed. 

A recent Bellevue survey has listed traffic as the major concern for 64% of respondents, nearly four times the 17% concern for affordable housing.   Apparently most of the participants were “unaware” of their constituents' concerns.  While “transportation was a primary issue” for Issaquah and Bellevue mayors, they failed to propose any solutions.  

Bellevue mayor Chelminiak’s statement “he wanted to see the state investing money back into the infrastructure” is particularly absurd since he was one of the biggest Bellevue City Council advocates for Sound Transit’s East Link.   That bit of “infrastructure” not only devastated the route into Bellevue, it confiscated the I-90 Bridge center roadway increasing congestion for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters unable to even access light rail. 

Again, as far as transportation is concerned, the area could benefit without adding expensive infrastructure.  The WSDOT could to be “persuaded” to limit HOT to one lane on I-405 with fees set to maintain 45 mph; use the added lane for GP traffic.  Sound Transit needs to be “persuaded” to end their decade-long refusal to add parking and bus service throughout the area.  The area’s mayors and legislature should make rejection of CEO Rogoff 2019 Budget’s plan to continue doing so until 2041 their top priority for transportation.

Their constituents deserve as much. 

Times “Critical to-do list” Ignores Area’s Transportation Debacle

The Seattle Times January 13^th editorial ,“A critical to-do list for 2019 Legislature” continues their years of failure to recognize the need for legislative action regarding the area’s congestion.  A February 5, 2018 INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard ranked Seattle as 9th worst in the country in 2017. They had Seattle as 10^th in 2016.  

For three years a City of Bellevue Survey has reported, “Traffic is the Top Concern”, more than the combined total of the next four concerns.  The congestion on the area’s roadways would likely result in similar poll results throughout the area. Unless something is done it’s only going to get worse.

Sound Transit is spending billions on Prop 1 light rail extensions that do nothing to reduce that congestion.  They don’t increase transit capacity into Seattle so any riders added by the extensions will reduce access for current riders.  They don’t provide the parking needed to access even this limited capacity into the city or the platform space at stations in Seattle needed to access light rail out of the city. They also fail to provide commuters with either added parking or local bus routes with access to express bus routes into Seattle or Bellevue that could reduce congestion.

Sound Transit needs a new audit.  In 2012, an Oct 26th Seattle Times article, “Sound Transit gets mixed reviews in state audit” reported the 125 page audit conducted by State Auditor Brian Sonntag claimed Sound Transit ridership forecasts were “over-optimistic”.   Unfortunately auditors since then have shown no interest in a new audit.  

Thus its up to the legislators to require either the state auditor do so or they commission an outside auditor.   They’ve previously demonstrated their authority to higher outside experts when they commissioned an Independent Review Team in 2008 to evaluate I-90 Floating Bridge structural concerns with light rail.  Yet multiple emails referring House and Senate transportation committee members to posts urging Sound Transit be audited have been ignored.  

This year not only does the Seattle Times legislative priorities list continue the years of not seeing the need for a Sound Transit audit, they fail to recognize the inability of WSDOT 2-HOT lanes to reduce congestion on I-405.   In this case, the legislatures transportation committees, who have responsibility for WSDOT oversight, are allowing them to proceed with extending two HOT lanes from Lynnwood to Renton, despite HOT failure to achieve the required 45 mph average between Bothell and Bellevue during 90% of the peak commute. 

The problem there has been the 2 HOT lanes limits GP to only 3 lanes, increasing congestion to where more drivers are willing to pay the HOT tolls than the lane can accommodate and still achieve 45 mph; typically 2000-vehicles per hour. WSDOT plans to limit GP to only 2 lanes will result in even lower HOT lane velocities on the rest of the route.

The WSDOT should be “persuaded” to limit I-405 HOT to one lane with tolls set to what’s required to limit traffic to achieve 45 mph.  The additional GP lane would reduce congestion for those vehicles, potentially reducing the need for higher HOT fees.  The assured 45 mph HOT velocities would make BRT attractive to thousands more commuters.

Again the House and Senate transportation committees have ignored emails referring them to posts detailing the problem.  The Seattle Times “critical to-do list” could persuade them to both audit Sound Transit and require WSDOT to limit I-405 HOT to one lane with tolls set to maintain 45 mph throughout the commute. 

Their failure to do so this year will not only add another year of billions wasted on light rail extensions and increased congestion on I-405.

Traffic Lab Could Boost Bus Ridership

The Seattle Times January 11^th Traffic Lab article “Maybe time to try a new ride” exemplifies their failure to acknowledge the inability of those responsible to deal with the area’s roadway congestion.   It’s not clear whether the recommendation to “try buses” is only until the tunnel opens or a welcome shift from their previous proposal to use tolls to reduce roadway congestion.

In either case they acknowledge one of the problems is the lack of parking.  All of the P&R lots with access to transit have been full for years.  (The P&R lots at Kent/James Street and Federal Way/South 320^th are “likely” only 35% filled because Sound Transit neglects to provide them with access to bus routes.) 

Yet Sound Transit waits until 2024 to begin adding a measly 8560 parking stalls over the next 17 years.  (Raises question as to how new commuters will even get access to light rail.) Rather than adding parking the Traffic Lab abided Sound Transit plans to “manage transit access” by reserving half the stalls at current P&Rs for “later arrivals” ending access for half of current riders. 

Even more important the Traffic Lab apparently doesn’t recognize Sound Transit’s decade-long refusal to add bus service.  Their Service Delivery Performance Report for Q3 2018 reported ST Express Revenue Vehicle Miles Operated for the year through September was 8,957,069; the comparable revenue miles for 2010 was 8,475, 541.  Sound Transit no longer archives their quarterly Service Delivery Performance Reports making it more difficult to compare past with present.   (I was fortunate to have copies of the earlier data.)

The Seattle Times had earlier suggested the benefits of increased bus ridership.  A 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” had urged Sound transit to consider additional bus service with ST3:

The point is voters need their representatives to provide clear, objective explanations of ST3’s pros and cons, not cheerleading.  Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified.

Yet Sound Transit never considered increased bus service, ignoring Revised Code of Washington (RCW 81.104.100(2)(b)) requiring any high capacity transit system planning include considering increased bus capacity.  Buses routed through areas where commuters live to existing P&R or small T/Cs with access to bus routes into Seattle (or Bellevue) could reduce congestion without the need to add expensive P&Rs. 

Instead CEO Rogoff’s 2019 Budget for 2017-2041 plans to spend $96B “building the most ambitious transit system expansion plan in the nation” with no increase in bus transit. Rogoff, who chose to no longer archive Sound Transit’s past failure to increase bus service, proposes a budget that fails to do so for the next 23 years. 

The bottom line is any suggestion more commuters try buses does little to reduce congestion unless Sound Transit increases bus transit capacity. The entire area would benefit if Traffic Lab would advocate for doing so.  

Traffic Lab Needs Danny Westneat

The Danny Westneat column in the January 9^th Seattle Times concerning keeping the viaduct is the first example in years of someone at the Times recognizing what’s needed to reduce area’s congestion. Something the Traffic Lab January 7, 2019 front-page article, “A lot has changed in a decade: tunnel debate, not so much” failed to do.

Spending $3.2 billion on a tunnel for two lanes under Seattle in each direction could have added much needed capacity through the city.  Yet the Traffic Lab still doesn’t acknowledge the stupidity of using it to replace the three lanes on the viaduct, one of which provided downtown access. Or that much of the money that could have been spent reinforcing the bridge for safety was instead spent reinforcing it to allow tunnel boring. 

The “debate” should never have been about replacing the viaduct with “improvements to I-5 and to surface streets and public transit”.  The debate should have been how best to add capacity both into and through the Seattle.  While the tunnel added capacity through Seattle with the “best possible facility with the available technology", it didn’t add capacity into and out of downtown. Tearing down the viaduct not only eliminated the tunnel capacity benefits through the city, it ended the viaducts access to downtown.

Former Mayor Mcginn admitted the tunnel “is not for people trying to get to and from work in downtown”;  “Average travel times from Federal Way to Seattle were 24 minutes longer in 2017 than in 2009”.  The current 8:00 am, 37-minute travel times along I-5 (per WSDOT) will surely increase along I-5 without the viaduct.  

The Traffic Lab article continues to make dubious claims “our rapid shift to public transit--- faster over the last few years than anywhere else in the country”.   A PSRC “Stuck in Traffic-2015 Report” concluded that, at least between 2010 and 2013, transit ridership had increased from 8.6% to 9.8%.  That in 2013, 73.6% of commuters “drove alone” rather than the “just one in four” Traffic Lab claim. It's "unlikely" they've changed that much "in the last few years". 

Sound Transit’s decision to continue its decade-long failure to increase bus transit capacity make it “unlikely” those results will ever improve. Especially since the billions spent extending light rail beyond Angel Lake will do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle.  That any riders added will simply limit access for those currently using Central Link.

The Traffic Lab needs someone (Danny Westneat?) who recognizes that reality.