New ST CEO Could Expedite Light Rail “Spine” Demise.

The June 4^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, “Sound Transit names its nominee for CEO”, could be good news for the area.  The CEO Selection Committee has gone from replacing a CEO able to construct light rail extensions but had no idea of what constituted effective public transit with a CEO who has little experience in extending a light rail system but hopefully understands what constitutes effective public transit. 

 

The result may be Sound Transit inadvertently selected a CEO with the modicum of transit competence needed to recognize the futility of attempting to use a “light rail spine” to reduce congestion into Seattle. That effective public transit on multi-lane freeways requires a transit system with the ability to adjust capacity from what’s required to attract the riders needed to reduce peak hour congestion to what’s needed to meet off-peak demand.  That 4-car light rail trains don’t have the needed peak hour capacity and cost too much to operate during off-peak commute.  

 

Thus, her lack of experience in constructing light rail is of little import if she recognizes the futility of extending light rail lines beyond Northgate and Angle Lake.  That her experience in directing a bus transit system could provide the background for implementing a bus transit system with schedules to meet both peak and off-peak multi-lane freeway capacity demands.  Something CEO Rogoff has refused to do, extending a decade of the Sound Transit Board failure to add bus routes through 2041.  

 

The results been Sound Transit projected bus ridership remains relatively flat over the entire period with current 20,000 daily ST Express Bus Boardings eventually replaced with Stride Rapid Transit Boardings along I-405.  Her success in implementing the Richmond, Virginia’s bus routes 30,000 daily passengers, 50% more than Sound Transit’s, bode promise for avoiding that future.  

 

The ST3 Map ridership projections CEO Rogoff used to promote 2016 vote for the light rail spine extensions reflected his failure to understand extending light rail did nothing to increase capacity, it only increased operating costs. He ignored the ST3 Map "details" that 65-80% of the riders would need “motorized access” with parking near light rail stations or with access to bus routes to stations.  Instead, choosing to manage parking demand on the routes by “maximizing efficient use of available transit parking resources”.

 

That lack of access resulted in Northgate Link ridership “likely” a fraction of what Seattle Times Traffic Lab had heralded as “Transit Transformed” with 42,000 to 49,000 riders added by the links’ three stations. (It’s “likely” because Sound Transit has yet to release what used to be a  Service Delivery Performance Report for 2021-Q4 with the ridership added by each of the stations.)  

 

The lack of "motorized" access to all the "voter approved" light rail spine extensions portends similar results. A CEO with bus transit experience could recognize bus routes through areas where residents live could provide the access needed at a fraction of the cost of additional parking.  

 

The bottom line is the new CEO may or may not recognize the futility of attempting to use 4-car trains to reduce peak congestion on multi-lane freeways.  That reducing congestion on I-5 and I-90 into Seattle requires providing commuters with local bus routes to transit stations with access to BRT routes into Seattle.  A new Sound Transit CEO could expedite that recognition and the demise of the light rail spine. 

 

U.S. Senate Voters' Pamphlet Statement

Bill Hirt

 

(425) 747-4185

wjhirt2014@gmail.com

http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com

Elected Experience

Elected as president of class of twenty-five 1957 Armstrong Iowa High School graduates

Other Professional Experience
Boeing Engineer 1962 to 1998

Education
BS in 1961 and MS in 1962 in Aerospace Engineering from Iowa State Engineering 

Community Service
No Information Submitted

Statement

This year's candidacy marks a decade of not trying to win but to use the Voters' Pamphlet to attract viewers to the posts on my blog http://stopeastlinknnow.blogspot.com. It began in response to the Seattle Times failure to recognize Sound Transit had a board of elected officials and a CEO that didn't understand the basics of public transportation.

That 4-car light rail trains don't have the capacity to reduce peak-hour congestion on multi-lane freeways and cost too much to operate during off-peak commute. That the billions already spent on Prop 1 extensions will do nothing to reduce freeway congestion.  They're only a down payment on ST3 "voter approved" extensions whose costs have increased from the $54B voters approved in 2016 to $135B in 2922; yet don't increase capacity but add to operating cost.

The Times has abided Sound Transit no longer releasing quarterly service reports that would have shown Northgate Link ridership was ~8000, a fraction of the 42,000-49,000 the paper had heralded as "Transit Transformed". Portending even worse debacles for the "voter approved" ST3 extensions; my goal to expose.

This year it will also allow state residents to vote for someone who doesn't believe the country is systemically racist, believes teaching CRT doesn't benefit students, and that sex education should be age appropriate.  That Gov. Inslee should explain the benefits of EVs whose batteries are charged by fossil fueled generators and whose owners don't pay gas taxes to fund roads.  Who questions its efficacy with a 2019 NAS paper conclusion:

CO2 warming effect decreases with concentration. CO2 has less and less effect with increased concentration.  CO2 can go to 1000 to 2000 to 5000ppm and it won't warm the earth

 

Sound Transit Doesn’t Need 2nd Seattle DowntownTunnel

The June 1^st Seattle Times Traffic Lab front page article “Chinatown says not so fast to building second light rail station in neighborhood” exemplifies a decade of the Seattle Times abetting Sound Transit Board incompetence.   The problem,  

 

“A second station is part of the ST3 ballot measure voters from King Snohomish and Pierce counties passed in 2016, to help anchor what’s currently a $13 billion corridor linking downtown to West Seattle and Ballard”

 

The reason

 

To provide a new tunnel and greater capacity for the whole region to traverse downtown Seattle

 

It continues the Sound Transit approach to public transit is to create 3 light rail lines to “traverse downtown Seattle.” The 1 Line will use the new tunnel to “traverse downtown Seattle” from Ballard to Tacoma.  The 2 Line light rail route will “traverse Seattle” from Redmond to Mariner through DSTT and the extension to Everett. It will share the route with the 3 Line route through  DSTT to “traverse Seattle” from West Seattle to Everett.  

 

Sound Transit seemingly doesn’t recognize its goal should be to provide transit ridership into and out of downtown Seattle, not traverse the city.   Ballard commuters have very little reason to “traverse downtown Seattle” to Tacoma.  Sound Transit should use a tunnel that terminates the link at Westlake and avoid the cost and disruption of creating a tunnel that traverses Seattle.  Terminating the Ballard Link at Westlake would avoid operating schedules set by the need for capacity to and from Tacoma. Those wanting to go further could transfer to trains at the station.

 

East side commuters also have little need to traverse downtown Seattle to reach Mariner, and vice versa.  Sound Transit should terminate the 2 Line at the International District/Chinatown Station.  It would allow schedules needed to meet east side demand rather than limited to half of the DSTT light rail trains.  Line 1 routes to and from Tacoma would have access to full DSTT capacity that could be shared by Line 3 from West Seattle into downtown Seattle.  Again, east side commuters could transfer at the International District/Chinatown station to go further. 

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit doesn’t need a $13 billion “tricky path through Chinatown International District” that wrecks years of havoc on the area as well as along 4^th and 5^th Avenues.  What it needs is a light rail route system that reflects the need is to get commuters into and out of downtown Seattle not to traverse through.  Terminating the routes from Ballard and Redmond  at Westlake and International District/Chinatown will allow schedules that reflect their need for public transit capacity.  

What it also needs as a transportation system is one that recognizes Line 1 doesn’t need to be extended beyond SeaTac or Line 2 and Line 3 beyond Northgate. 4-car light rail trains on those routes don’t have the capacity to reduce peak hour multi-lane freeway congestion into Seattle.  That requires using BRT routes along limited access lanes to an elongated bus only 4^th Ave T/C.

 Something neither Sound Transit nor Seattle Times Traffic Lab recognize.

 

ST Board Still Doesn’t Recognize CEO Rogoff's Transit System Incompetence

The video of the May 26^th Sound Transit Board meeting epitomizes more than a decade of elected officials pretending to be directors of a public transit system without having any understanding of what constitutes effective transit or an effective transit CEO.  The video provided several examples of incompetence, but the most egregious example was the board’s accolades of CEO Peter Rogoff during his last meeting as Sound Transit CEO.

It was the end of a process that began with a Sept 23^rd Board Meeting announcing the decision to replace him.  It ended 8 months later with a CEO Selection Committee that still hasn’t found anyone to replacement him.  That’s likely because anyone with a modicum of transit system competence would recognize the folly of attempting to implement what will inevitably be regarded as one of the biggest transit boondoggles in history. 

A 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluded 4-car light rail train capacity was limited to 8880 riders per hour in each direction; far less than required to reduce peak hour multi-lane freeway congestion.  Yet, Rogoff’s tenure as CEO resulted in a 2016 Sound Transit 3 proposal promising ridership for “voter approved” light rail extensions that simply ignored that limit.  That Rogoff and the Board also ignored the ST3 Map proviso requiring between 65-80% of the riders needed “motorized access”

The result’s been Rogoff proposed and the Board approved a 2019 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget Long-Term prediction light rail ridership would increase from 25 million in 2017 to 175 million in 2041; despite the fact the extensions did nothing to increase capacity.  The budget ignored the option of using local bus routes for “motorized access” to BRT routes along limited access lanes into Seattle. That the riders added by the 2019 budget’s light rail extensions reduced access for existing Central Link commuters. 

The subsequent budgets proposed and approved continued the delusional ridership projections and failure to add “motorized access”. Meanwhile, the ST3 funding the voters approved in 2016, $54B from 2017 to 2041, increased in 2022 to $135B from 2017 to 2046.  By the time the board decided to replace him some $10B had already been spent on the extensions and nothing to add “motorized access”.  Choosing instead to use existing bus routes for access, reducing transit system capacity into Seattle and nothing to reduce freeway congestion.

The Northgate Link debut in October demonstrated the result of the lack of motorized access.  Sound Transit refuses to release a quarterly “Service Provided Report-2021Q4 that would provide riders added by each of the three stations.  However, the increase in daily ridership between September 2021 and January 2022 indicates the Northgate Link added 8000 riders.  

The 8000 riders validate the 20% fraction of the 41,000 to 49,000 commuters who had motorized access with parking and bus routes to stations.  And, the 2016 ST3 Map need for more of that access for Prop 1 and ST3 extensions.  Yet, the Sound Transit Board ignored that result, recently approving a Sound Transit System Access Policy update to continue “managing parking demand” by “maximizing efficient use of available transit parking resources”

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board’s Rogoff accolades show they still don’t recognize the results of his tenure.  While Rogoff was good at managing the construction of light rail extensions, he didn't recognize the extensions lacked the capacity and access needed to reduce congestion into Seattle.  He and the Board ignored the Northgate Link demonstration of the need for access.  They’ve delayed the East Link debut that will demonstrate the folly of diverting half the DSTT’s light rail trains across I-90 Bridge to replace cross-lake bus routes. 

Those billions will be dwarfed by what Sound Transit will spend if they don’t recognize the debacle awaiting the area if they continue with plans to implement Rogoff’s “voter approved” extensions the Seattle Times continues to abet.  

Sound Transit Board Incompetence Continues

The video of the May 12^th System Expansion Committee typifies a Sound Transit Board made up of elected officials who have no understanding of how to use public transit to reduce roadway congestion.  The first requirement is commuters need access to the transit system.  The Northgate Link debut demonstrated that failure with only 8000 riders, a small fraction of Sound Transit’s website 41,000-49,000 predictions. That the Link lacked access with parking near stations or near bus routes to stations for those unable to walk to stations.  A requirement that should have been obvious has instead been ignored.  

All the Prop 1 and ST3 “voter approved” extensions face similar problems. Sound Transit “sold” the extensions as the way to reduce freeway congestion into Seattle.  That the Prop 1 and ST3 “voter approved” extensions would attract a total of between 238,000 and 282,000 commuters to the Prop 1 and ST3 light rail spine along I-5 and I-90 for the ride into Seattle.  

However, the 2016 Sound Transit 3 Map “More Project Details” included the following;

Percent of non-motorized access.            20-35%

The Northgate Link debut ridership, 8000 of the Sound Transit’s 41,000-49,000 prediction, attests to the need for that “motorized access”. Providing access for the remaining 65-80% of Sound Transit’s claimed ridership would require adding between 154,700 and 225,600 parking stalls near transit stations or with access to routes to stations.  

However, Sound Transit has no plans to add any significant parking.  A November 2016 Seattle Times article reported the 51 existing park and ride facilities next to express bus or trains stations in Snohomish, King, and Pierce County were already 95% full with 19,448 cars.  

Yet, a May 5^th video showed their Sound Executive Council approving a System Access Policy Update that “manages parking demand” by “maximizing efficient use of available transit parking resources”. They neglected to even mention the  option of providing access with local bus routes.

The Executive Council not only ignored the ST 3 Map identifying the need for motorized access, they ignored the Northgate Link debut that demonstrated that need.  Spending billions on light rail extensions but nothing on parking for access. The result will be the Prop 1 and ST3 extension ridership will all be a small fraction of Sound Transit's claims.

The second public transit system requirement the Sound Transit Board seeming ignored was the need for capacity. 4-car light rail trains lack the capacity needed to attract the number of riders required to reduce peak hour multi-lane freeway congestion.  That riders added by extensions reduce access for Central Link riders.  

During peak commute, the 4-car trains limited capacity will result in riders added by the extensions ending access for Central Link riders before ever significantly reducing freeway congestion. During off-peak commute the operating costs with the longer routes will dwarf farebox revenue from added riders.

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board apparently doesn’t recognize that “managing existing parking” won’t provide the “motorized” access for the 65-80% of Prop 1 and ST3 extension riders.  That the only way to provide that access is with local bus routes from where commuters live to stations with transit routes into Seattle.

The Board apparently also doesn’t recognize that spending billions on the Prop 1 and ST3 extensions does nothing to increase the capacity of 4-car light rail trains.  They only increase operating costs and reduce access for Central Link commuters.  

The only way to increase transit capacity into Seattle is to implement BRT routes on I-5 and 1-90.  They can be scheduled to meet demand and routed along limited access freeway lanes for reliable travel times.  They can require fare payment on entry, minimizing the fare avoidance problem for the longer, more expensive routes.

If instead, Sound Transit Board’s decade of incompetence is allowed to continue, more of their $135B expansion plan will be spent on light rail extensions with a fraction of ridership projections.  Peak hour freeway congestion won’t be reduced and Central Link riders will lose access.  The costs during off-peak extension operation will dwarf fare box revenue added by riders  

It’s only a question of how long it will take and how many billions will be spent to recognize that realty.  With this Sound Transit Board and Seattle Times continuing to abet them it could take some time. Especially since Sound Transit has delayed the East Link debut that will demonstrate the folly of diverting half the trains across I-90 and using the trains to replace all I-90 bus routes.

The Answer to Sound Transit's Access Problem

 I looked forward to the video of the May 5^th Sound Transit Executive Committee Meeting approach to the following agenda item:

 Reports to the Committee 

System access policy update – Kickoff briefing 

 

I assumed it would be a result of the Northgate Link demonstration that the lack of access was a major reason why Link ridership was a fraction of Sound Transit website predictions for 41,000 to 49,000.  Sound Transit still refuses to release the quarterly Service Delivery Performance Report Q4-2021 with ridership added by each of the three Link stations.  However, the increase in Link ridership between Sept. 2021 and Jan 2022 indicates the Northgate Link added ~8000 riders.  A clear indication not enough people lived within walking distance of stations, were able to park near stations, or could be dropped off near light rail station.  That those who could have been dropped off by buses didn’t have parking with access to bus routes to light rail stations. 

 

Sound Transit didn’t add parking near Central Link stations, instead based access on encouraging commuters to live near stations along with those using SeaTac. However, access to all of the Prop 1 extensions require parking near stations or to parking near bus routes to stations.  In January, 2014, Sound Transit initiated plans to terminate I-90 bus routes on Mercer Island to provide 40,000 riders access to East Link.  However, it still isn’t clear how Sound Transit intends to provide access to those bus routes.

 

Sound Transits “system access policy” in February 2018 was to “manage demand” at existing parking.  The problem was early bus routes were overcrowded when parking was available but empty when lots were full.  Rather than add bus routes and parking to increase transit ridership they decided to “manage demand” by limiting access to early commuters by reserving parking for later commuters. Carpooler permits were free and SOV could pay though it’s not clear how many reserved parking permits were issued or sold.

 

The Northgate Link debut was the first demonstration that Prop 1 extensions needed access with parking near stations or near bus routes to stations. Rather than add parking they used bus route to stations to provide access for riders.  The problem was those bus routes didn’t have the parking capacity needed, so ridership still suffered from lack of parking.

 

However, the May 5^th video “Kickoff briefing” showed Sound Transit’s System Access Policy Update for light rail is still to “manage parking demand”.  That their strategy was “to maximize efficient use of available transit parking resources”.  Charts detailed the new System Access Policy for “Parking Management” established tools to manage parking including “Permits, Fees, Technology”. That the Sound Transit 3 System Plan dedicates funding to improve safe and convenient access to existing and future ST stations.   

 

Typical of Sound Transit they provided no details as to how they will use the “tools” to manage parking or how, when, and where “funding to provide convenient access to existing and future stations” will be spent.  The cost problem is demonstrated by a Sound Transit System Expansion Committee April 14 meeting video.  It detailed final plans to spend $89M on a 500-stall Puyallup parking facility, $176,000 per stall to provide access to Sounder. 

 

However, as much as it costs, the Puyallup facility avoids Sound Transit’s real access problem, that any attempt to increase access to Prop 1 extensions reduces access for Central Link riders.  It probably wasn’t a problem with the Northgate Link because so few riders had access.  East Link operation will demonstrate the result of Central Link riders losing access to half of their trains. 

 

The bottom line is increasing access to Prop 1 extensions' limited capacity will end access for Central Link riders before ever reducing peak hour I-5 and I-90 congestion.  Spending money to add extensions does nothing to increase that capacity. That during off-peak, the longer Prop 1 routes make them even more expensive to operate, dwarfing any added fare revenue.

Prop 1 funds should be diverted to expedite the far shorter West Seattle and Ballard extensions whose riders can walk to stations not drive.  Those funds should also be used to implement BRT routes on limited access I-5 and I-90 lanes to bus-only 4^th Ave T/C.  Each route having designated drop-off and pickup locations to facilitate egress and access.

 

The BRT routes could be scheduled to meet both peak commute capacity requirements as well as off-peak commutes. Local bus routes from near where commuters live to the BRT stations would provide access, at a fraction of the cost of providing stalls for parking.  

 

That’s the access Sound Transit Service Access strategy should propose.

 

Sound Transit Delays East Link Debut Debacle

The recent Seattle Times Traffic Lab front page article “Sound Transit light rail to the Eastside is running late” typifies the paper’s abetting Sound Transit.  The article’s claim East Link “is expected to serve 48,000 passengers” indicates they’re still unaware of the Northgate Link debut results.  That what the paper had heralded as “Transit Transformed” with 42,000 to 49,000 riders was limited to 8000.  The article also abets Sound Transits apparent failure to find a CEO to replace Peter Rogoff whose ouster they announced in a Sept. 24^th 2021 headline. 

 

The article misses the most significant result of the delay is that it postpones the demonstration that East Link should have never been built. This blog began because 3 years of attempts to persuade Bellevue City Council the 2008 DEIS Sound Transit East Link benefits were sheer fantasy. That East Link made a mockery of environmental protection law with the route into Bellevue ending its persona as the “city in the park” and the Mercer Slough’s quiet tranquility. That it violated RCW81.104.00 (2) (b) requiring planning for High Capacity Transit consider lower cost options.  Yet Sound Transit never considered 2-way bus-only routes on I-90 bridge center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  

 

My first candidacy was for the 48^th District House, an attempt to use “Voters’ Pamphlet” to tell district residents the Bellevue City Council should disallow permits Sound Transit needed to proceed.  My Seattle Times candidate interview ended abruptly when I persisted with concerns that allowing East Link to proceed would have far greater impact on 48^thdistrict than the Mcleary school funding issue.  Since then my candidacies have been described as a “perennial loser” and haven’t merited a Seattle Times interview. 

 

In Sept 2013, Sound Transit persuaded a federal judge in the Freeman litigation that the center roadway could be used for light rail because their addition of a 4^th lane (Alternative R-8A) on the outer roadway would make the center roadway unneeded for vehicles.  Yet the document they referred to stipulated Alternative R-8A needed center roadway for vehicles.

 

And it went downhill from there. A Sound Transit January 21^st 2014 presentation to Mercer Island city council detailed their Integrated Transit System (ITS) plans to use East Link to replace I-90 bus routes.  With ITS, 40,000 of East Link’s projected 50,000 riders would come from bus routes terminated at South Bellevue and Mercer Island P&Rs.  Never mind that I-90 bridge congestion wasn’t due to too many bus routes.  Despite nearly unanimous islander resistance, the final result was the Mercer Island city council agreed to Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” plans to use Island station to terminate I-90 buses.  

 

Sound Transit responded to I-5 commuter objections to transferring to and from Northgate Link by continuing to route SR510 directly into Seattle, as did Snohomish Community Transit, and even some KCM bus routes.  I-90 commuters won’t have that option.  The Mercer Island city council is still haggling with Sound Transit and KCM with how many buses and how to accommodate them when East Link begins operation.  

 

The result will be Mercer Island inundated with transit commuters forced to transfer to and from East Link.  Islanders will have to share access to whatever East Link capacity remains as the last east side stop with those forced to transfer.  A “likely” problem during peak commute.

 

The bottom is the debut delay postpones the demonstration East Link should have never been built.  That I-90 transit riders will no longer have access to bus routes into and out of Seattle.  That current transit Central Link riders will lose have of the DSTT trains.  It will be interesting to read the Seattle Times Traffic Lab response.