About this blog

My name is Bill Hirt and I'm a candidate to be a Representative from the 48th district in the Washington State legislature. My candidacy stems from concern the legislature is not properly overseeing the WSDOT and Sound Transit East Link light rail program. I believe East Link will be a disaster for the entire eastside. ST will spend 5-6 billion on a transportation project that will increase, not decrease cross-lake congestion, violates federal environmental laws, devastates a beautiful part of residential Bellevue, creates havoc in Bellevue's central business district, and does absolutely nothing to alleviate congestion on 1-90 and 405. The only winners with East Link are the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington and their labor unions.

This blog is an attempt to get more public awareness of these concerns. Many of the articles are from 3 years of failed efforts to persuade the Bellevue City Council, King County Council, east side legislators, media, and other organizations to stop this debacle. I have no illusions about being elected. My hope is voters from throughout the east side will read of my candidacy and visit this Web site. If they don't find them persuasive I know at least I tried.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Constantine "Unaware" of BRT Advantages

I submitted the following to the Seattle Times in response to their March 29th article where County Executive and Sound Transit chairman Dow Constantine extols the benefits from spending $50 Billion over the next 25 years extending light rail throughout the area.  Again I post it since they will  “likely” ignore it. 

Constantine “Unaware” of BRT Advantages,

A March 29th Seattle Times article reported that County Executive and Sound Transit Board Chairman Dow Constantine’s opined during his “State of the County” presentation “There is simply no other option (than transit) that can add the kind of capacity we need to our transportation system”.  He did so to argue the case for the $50 billion Sound Transit 3 proposal that will go to the voters in November.  The only apparent “pushback” to the proposed ST3 light rail extensions was “We want it sooner and we want more”.

Apparently neither Dow Constantine nor those in attendance were aware of the other “transit” option: Bus Rapid Transit or BRT.   BRT could go a long ways towards providing the area’s commuters with fast, reliable transport for a fraction of the cost and time required for light rail.    A bus-only lane can easily accommodate more than 1000 buses an hour with capacity dwarfing the 16,000 people per hour Constantine claimed for light rail. 

It’s most effective when access is limited to one or two large P&R lots rather than with multiple stops along the route.  Fast, reliable transit requires it use either dedicated transit lanes or lanes requiring +3HOV to minimize non-transit vehicles to one or two dedicated drop-off locations rather than multiple “on demand” stops along the route.   

The I-90 Bridge center roadway would be ideal for BRT across Lake Washington.  Non-transit HOV traffic could be moved to 4th lanes on the outer roadways and two-way BRT initiated on center roadway with capacity dwarfing any foreseeable cross-lake transit demands.  (With ST3 Sound Transit will close the center roadway next year, exacerbating cross-lake congestion for 7 years while they construct an East Link light rail system capable of just one 4-car train every 8 minutes that most I-90 corridor transit commuters won’t even have access to.  ST3 will increase not decrease I-90 Bridge congestion.)

During peak commute hours every eastside P&R would have added BRT express bus connections to and from one or two dedicated drop-off and pick-up locations in Seattle (or to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs).   4th Ave could be converted into an elongated, two-way, bus-only T/C with egress on one side and access on the other depending on the routes.   (The limited BRT stops on 4th Ave would still likely be more convenient for most commuters than the light rail stations.)

For SR-520, BRT could provide eastside commuters with direct routes from eastside P&R’s to a T/C at the UW light rail station and Seattleites with return access to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  The large numbers wanting to go both ways during the peak morning and afternoon commute epitomizes effective public transit.  Restricting the SR-520 HOV lane to +3HOV during peak commute hours would minimize cross-lake transit times.  During off-peak hours all the lanes could be open to general-purpose traffic to ease congestion. 

The same approach could be used for I-5 commuters south of Seattle with access from expanded P&R capacity during peak commute hours to added direct BRT connections into the Seattle 4th Ave T/C or along I-405 to Bellevue T/C.   HOV lanes on both I-5 and I-405 would be restricted to +3HOV during peak commute but could be open to general-purpose use during off peak hours.   North end commuters would also have similar access to BRT from expanded P&R capacity during peak commute into Seattle with one of the two HOV lanes on I-5 limited to buses (and possibly +3HOV if doing so doesn’t increase travel times).

The common denominator for improving congestion on all of the traffic corridors is the need for added P&R capacity.  If each P&R space costs $40,000, 10,000 parking spaces could be added for  $400 million, slightly less than Sound Transit’s 2016 budget for light rail extensions beyond UW, Angle Lake, and East Link.  Total light rail capital expenditures averaged slightly more than $575 million from 2013-2015, presumably with Prop 1 funding. 

Thus if Sound Transit stopped light rail extensions they could still presumably “afford” to spend $400 million a year adding parking without the ST3 funding.  After 5 years they’d have 50,000 additional spots available near where commuters “live”.

Getting them to near where they “work” would presumably require additional buses.  Assuming each bus can complete a circuit in an hour, roughly 35 buses could accommodate the 10,000 riders during the 3-hour peak morning and afternoon commutes.   Assuming each bus costs $1M,  $35M could buy the needed buses each year to provide transit from and to the added parking. 

Assuming the 35 buses average schedule includes 6 hours of operation a day for 300 days gives 63,000 hours of revenue service annually.  Sound Transit’s 2016 budget projects a $217.89 cost per revenue hour for buses.  Thus transporting those using the added 10,000 parking spaces would increase operating costs by $13.7M annually each year (This could be more than offset by the  $15M Sound Transit would receive in fare box revenue from 10,000 commuters paying $5 a day for their commute into and out of Seattle for 300 days.)     

Thus, Sound Transit could, for ~$450M each year for 5 years or a total of  $2.25B, add parking and BRT service for up to 50,000 commuters.  They could surely do that without ST3 funding by adding a T/C at the University light rail station rather than extending light rail to Northgate, stopping East Link, and any Central Link extensions past Angle Lake. 

As transit demand increases an additional $2.25B could be spent over the next 5 years, again without needing ST3 funding, adding 50,000 more parking spaces and bus routes where needed to meet commuter demand. (The 100,000 spaces may seem like a lot but then those commuters have to park their cars someplace; the nearer to their homes the better.)
  
Compare that to what the area will have in 2027 if ST3 is passed.  Presumably some $20 Billion will have been spent on Prop 1 Central Link extensions to Lynnwood, Des Moines, and East Link to Overlake. Until Sound Transit adds the 2nd tunnel Central Link “North” capacity will be limited by the tunnel to 9000 riders per hour (slightly more than half the Constantine claim) and not even sufficient to accommodate the 33,000 commuters who currently use transit during the three-hour peak morning and afternoon commutes. 

Routing the buses that Central Link could accommodate to light rail stations rather than into Seattle would have a miniscule effect on I-5.  Sound Transit could increase transit capacity by continuing to route the existing buses into Seattle and adding parking with bus connections to new light rail stations.  (However neither Prop1 or ST3 appear to include the needed funding.) Again they could route those buses directly into Seattle with a minimal impact on I-5 congestion without spending a dime on light rail.   East Link and Central Link “south” would presumably each get 4500 people per hour capacity with Prop 1, a tiny fraction of what BRT could provide.  


The first “ST3 funded” extension to Redmond would still be a year away from completion in 2028.  Other areas would have to wait even longer to get any light rail “benefits” from all the additional billions they will have provided to Sound Transit for ST3.  Again, accessing those “benefits” would still require the, as yet “undefined”, added parking and connecting bus routes.  

The only ST3 benefits for Seattleites currently using Central Link from the years of doubling their taxes will be access to Lynnwood and the ability to transfer to East Link.  The only ST3 extension that makes any sense is a “West Link” tunnel light rail that could supplement the West Seattle Bridge transit capacity rather than attempt to replace it like East Link.  However, typical of Sound Transit, with ST3 “West Link” won’t be available until 2033.  It’s not “impossible” Sound Transit could see the “wisdom” of spending East Link funds on West Link if ST3 is rejected, expediting its completion.   

In conclusion, BRT is surely a “viable” alternative to spending $50 billion over the next 25 years on light rail extensions attempting to reduce congestion.  The area’s commuters have already endured years of needless expenditures and congestion because of the failure of Constantine and others to recognize that reality.   Voter rejection of ST3 this fall is probably the last chance to give them a “wake up” call.   




Saturday, March 26, 2016

What I Think of ST3

I submitted the following as a “Special to the Times” in response to their query “What do you think of Sound Transit 3 draft plan?”.  I posted it since they are “likely” to ignore it.

What I Think of ST3

The fundamental problem with ST3, like Prop 1, is it continues Sound Transit’s refusal to recognize that, unlike BART, the limited number of commuters who live within “walking distance” of light rail in this area will never be able to justify the cost of light rail construction or operation.  The only way light rail can effectively reduce the area’s congestion is to provide access via thousands of additional parking spaces with bus connections to light rail stations.  Yet neither their Prop 1 nor ST3 proposals make any attempt to do so.  

The likely reason is Sound Transit “recognizes” those using buses would question why don’t they route the buses directly into Seattle rather than to a light rail station.   The commute directly into Seattle avoids the hassle of transferring to and from trains and Sound Transit’s apparent requirement they pay a second toll for light rail.  (The decision to boost University Link ridership by “feeding” many Metro commuters to UW station typifies Sound Transit’s approach.)

Vastly more important however, routing the buses directly into Seattle would negate the need to spend billions and years on both Prop 1 and ST3 extensions.  Particularly since the added parking and bus routes would be needed to provide access to any light rail extensions.  Two-way BRT on I-90 center roadway would dwarf East Link capacity and end the stupidity of Sound Transit closing the roadway for light rail construction. 

BRT on SR-520 to a University Link T/C could improve the commute for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.  (It would be particularly attractive if Sound Transit recognized the operating savings from the shorter bus trips and commuters didn’t have to pay two tolls.)   

On I-5 from Everett, one of the two HOV lanes could be limited to +3HOV during peak commute.  From Federal Way, the single HOV lane would also be limited to +3HOV during peak commute.  Bus egress and access in Seattle could be facilitated by converting 4th Ave into an elongated two-way bus only T/C with dedicated drop off and pick up points for each route.

The bottom line is the only way to ease this area’s congestion is to convince thousands of commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than where they work.  The only limitation will be on Sound Transit’s willingness to add parking and bus routes into Seattle.  They could begin doing so next year.  ST3 simply perpetuates Prop 1 light rail extensions to the detriment of the entire area’s congestion problem. 





Sunday, March 20, 2016

The "Selling" of ST3

The recent full-page ads in the Seattle Times heralding the start of the Sound Transit University Link by asking “Where do you want to go?” is just a precursor to a very expensive (and very lucrative for the Times and the other media outlets) campaign aimed at garnering voter support for their ST3 funding proposal this fall.

The “Selling” of ST3 began with County Executive and Sound Transit Board Chairman Dow Constantine’s response to the 2015 legislation enabling the vote.

“What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school”    

The recent ads were slightly more “modest”.

 “Link light rail makes it easy to get around Seattle, whether it’s to school, to soccer practice or just to hang out with friends”

Both of these “visions” for light rail would seem to be based on the rather dubious assumption that large numbers of residents would live within easy walking distance of light rail stations and that their destinations, schools, soccer fields, areas to play and "hang out" would also be within walking distance of light rail stations.  

The reality is, like Sound Transit’s East Link “vision”, they're sheer fantasy. East Link, which ST “envisioned” as the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway capable of increasing I-90 transit capacity by 60%, is now conceded to consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes most I-90 corridor transit commuters won’t even have access to.  East Link will increase congestion for the vast majority of cross-lake commuters.  The Sound Transit recent claim the University Link will add 45,000 transit commuters by 2021 is another fantasy because of their failure to insist on a T/C at the UW stadium station.   

The problem with their ST3 proposal is, like their Prop 1 extensions, Sound Transit doesn’t “recognize” the only way to ease congestion in this area is to provide thousands of additional parking spaces allowing commuters to leave their cars near where they live rather than near where they work. Neither Prop 1 nor ST3 include any provisions for adding the parking or the bus routes needed to connect the P&R lots to the light rail stations.      

Their “reluctance” to do so “may” reflect the concern commuters may ask “Why not save the billions they intend to spend on light rail extensions and route the buses directly into Seattle rather than a light rail station?”.  (Particularly if doing so requires they pay another toll for light rail.) The added bus routes would have a negligible effect on congestion and could be facilitated by limiting one of the two HOV lanes on I-5 to buses-only during peak commute hours.  Commuter egress and access in Seattle could be accommodated by converting 4th Ave into an “elongated two-way, bus only T/C” with assigned drop-off and pick-up locations for individual routes. 

Instead we have Sound Transit “selling” ST3 as light rail extensions “beyond” Prop 1.  This whole scenario reminds me of the recent movie “The Big Short”.   In this case the part of the “big banks and brokerage houses" who proclaimed the soundness of their mortgage lending practices is played by Sound Transit and their “vision” for light rail. 

The parts of the regulators and other organizations that gave the bonds AAA ratings until the end is played by the WSDOT and the members of the House and Senate Transportation committees in the legislature who “oversee” the WSDOT.  The part of the politicians who insisted the bankers make housing “more affordable” with “sub-prime” loans to those “unlikely” to afford payments is played by the Times, other media outlets, and other organizations who, if not “cheer leading” Sound Transit, are quietly acquiescing to ST3. 

The ratings agencies presumably did so to attract business from those wishing the good ratings.  The WSDOT has been an active partner with Sound Transit, co-signing their fantasies in the 2008 DEIS and refusing to require they demonstrate the I-90 outer roadway can accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles before they close the center roadway next year.  The legislation allowing the ST3 vote that, if approved, will surely benefit the construction companies and their labor unions.  The Seattle Times and the other media outlets have “benefited” from the money they’ve gotten and will continue to get from advertisements promoting ST3. 

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the legislators’ approval, the Times actions as Sound Transit’s “cheer leader”, and other organizations support are “influenced” by campaign funds from construction companies, unions, advertising revenue, or financial support.  (The Times refusal to recognize the futility of Sound Transit’s Prop 1 and ST3 extensions in dealing with the area’s 4th, or 7th worst congestion in the country is a sad commentary on a paper that has earned 10 Pulitzers.) 

The current “Selling” of ST3 raises the question as to why Sound Transit is asking for the additional funds this fall for ST3 extensions that won’t begin until 2023.  Everyone’s aware of the fraudulent-mortgage-induced housing “bubble” and subsequent collapse of home values around the country.  What’s “interesting” is the possible effect of ST3 rejection on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 and ST3 extensions. 

In 2015 they borrowed $1.3B and issued bonds that netted then $600 M.  Their ST3 proposal this fall asks voters to essentially double their total revenue by approving an additional $1B in funding beginning in 2017 for at least 15 years. The fact they’re asking for the additional funds in 2017 coincides with their reported need for $6B over the next 6 years to pay for the Prop 1 extensions.

It raises the question as to what happens if their “Selling" of ST3 fails and voters reject the funding proposal.   Presumably they’ll have to find other funding sources.  While government grants are possible it’s likely they’ll have to find lenders or issue bonds for billions of additional dollars over the next six years to pay for Prop 1 extensions.  Unlike those who perpetrated the housing crisis, those with money to loan or to buy bonds "may" require Sound Transit demonstrate an ability to pay.   

My background is in engineering not finances but I suspect those with money could have serious doubts about Sound Transits ability to pay given their current deficits and the huge increase in operating and maintenance costs with all the light rail extensions.  It’s not “Impossible” their failure to get the added funds would result in Sound Transit “recognizing” the advantages of BRT over light rail.


The whole area would benefit. 

Monday, March 14, 2016

The Stupidity of Sound Transit's University Link

The Seattle Times Sunday front page article heralding the start of the University Link can best be described as another example of the paper’s attempt to turn a “sow's ear into a silk purse” when it comes to Sound Transit’s transportation policies.  The tragedy is the UW link could have been the proverbial “silk purse” for many of the area’s transit commuters. 

Sound Transit could have done so with a T/C near the UW stadium light rail station.  It would have provided an interface for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake between 520 BRT and Central Link light rail.  Eastside commuters could have used the BRT/light rail connection for a fast reliable morning commute into Seattle.  Seattleites could have used the “reverse” light rail/BRT connection for fast morning commutes to Bellevue and Overlake T/Cs.  The routes could have been reversed for the afternoon commutes. 

The large number of commuters in both directions for both morning and afternoon commutes would take maximum advantage of both BRT and light rail capacity.  The only limitation would be Sound Transit providing the added P&R capacity on the east side and 520 bus service.  

Instead Sound Transit “allowed” UW objections to the T/C to preclude the stadium station T/C.  The fact the light rail/520 BRT route to east side would have detracted from Sound Transit’s East Link “Microsoft” and Bel-Red connections “may” have made them more “amenable”.

Instead the article estimates the UW link will add 45,000 of the 80,000 total riders by 2021, with rather “vague” explanations as to where all the additional riders will come from.   It claims a huge success for the fact 5,571 riders “willingly walk the 1,000-ft causeway from the terminal to a train” ignoring the fact they no longer have the option of a previous bus route directly to the terminal baggage claim area. 

The idea that a light rail ride to the UW station will enhance development near Columbia City and Othello light rail stations is the same argument originally used for Central Link.  The 35,000 current riders are still a fraction of the original more than 100,000 originally projected.  The fact that “the light rail by the stadium is just a bit far for walking distance” makes the added development and ridership even more “problematic”.   The access to Bellevue and Overlake via a UW T/C would do far more to enhance development near stations.

Presumably the vast majority of UW Link riders will be, as detailed in the adjoining article, due to “Metro shifts many bus routes into Montlake to feed light rail”.  Not only will bus riders be forced to endure the “hassle” of transferring to and from light rail trains, they’ll apparently be forced to pay an additional toll for the light rail ride since, according to the “How to pay” column “paper transfers from buses are not accepted on Link trains”.  Hardly a magnet for increased transit!


The bottom line is the University Link without the UW T/C is truly another Sound Transit stupid idea that can only be described as a “sow's ear” for transit commuters.  

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Bellevue City Council Ignores Cross-lake Commuters

(I wrote the following intending to present it March 14th to the Bellevue City Council before posting it.   I decided to post it since the meeting agenda didn’t allow their normal  “Public Comments”.)

Bellevue City Council Ignores Cross-Lake Commuters,

At the Feb 8th council meeting, Dave Berg, Bellevue Transportation director preceded the Sound Transit ST3 presentation with remarks about the work Bellevue had done with other east side cities leading up to the Sound Transit ST3 proposals for the east side.  They had agreed with Sound Transit that the way to accommodate the anticipated 700,000 added eastside residents by 2040 was to improve the eastside-to-eastside connections and to provide a “connecting ring" around the lake. 

These agreements led to the Sound Transit ST3 proposal for a separate light rail line from Totem Lake through Bellevue to Issaquah and BRT around the north end of the lake and along I-405 from Lynnwood to Burien.  However, the ST3 proposal did absolutely nothing to help any of the additional 700,000 eastside residents cross Lake Washington into Seattle.  They didn’t even bother to propose BRT for SR 520 Bridge.

Bellevue’s apparent ST3 concurrence is the latest example of their lack of concern for eastside residents who commute into Seattle.  Nearly 7 years ago I told the council Sound Transit’s claims in the 2008 East Link DEIS were sheer fantasy; That they’d made a major blunder by not considering BRT on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  (ST3 "may" have neglected to include BRT on SR 520 because doing so would raise questions as to why it was never considered on I-90.)  I also urged the council to ask Sound Transit expedite adding the 4th lanes on the outer roadways.   Doing so would have reduced congestion for commuters from both sides of the lake.  The council ignored me.

Rather than helping cross-lake commuters the council is acquiescing to Sound Transit closing down the I-90 Bridge center roadway next year.  In 2009 I gave the council excerpts from a 2004 FHWA study that concluded the 4th lanes they add wouldn’t make up for the loss of the two center-roadway lanes.  Again the council ignored me, instead acquiescing to Sound Transit shutting down the center roadway without ever demonstrating the outer roadways can accommodate all the vehicles.  The likely result will be eastside commuters, who’ve already endured years of congestion along the I-90 corridor through Eastgate, will now encounter gridlock on the I-90 Bridge.   

When East Link does begin service in 2023, what was promised in 2008 to be the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway across Lake Washington will consist of one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  After six more years of East Link related congestion the vast majority of I-90 corridor commuters won’t even have access to it.   Yet the council has no problems asking them to pay a major portion of the $1B a year Sound Transit will spend for at least 15 years on ST3. 

They surely deserve better.




Tuesday, March 8, 2016

The "Stupidity" of the "Spine"

(I submitted the following as a “Special to the Times” for their opinion page.  I posted it since they will likely ignore it.)

The “Stupidity” of the “Spine”

Sound Transit is reportedly in the process of finalizing the projects they intend to ask voters to support this fall with their ST3 proposal.  Sound Transit Executive Director, Ric Ilgenfritz’s Feb 8th presentation to the Bellevue City Council indicated ST3 will include funding for a light rail “spine” connecting Everett through Seattle to Tacoma.  Part of the funds will be used to extend Central Link to Everett along with a second tunnel under Seattle and a second set of tracks to Everett (or maybe Paine Field).  

According to an Oct 2014 Seattle Times article more than 33,000 riders used transit during the 3-hour peak morning and afternoon commutes.  As Central Link extensions are completed Sound Transit will likely route their buses to the light rail stations along I-5 for riders to complete the commute into Seattle.  Doing so is how most transit riders will have access to light rail.  The ST3 funding for the second set of tracks to complete the “spine” doubles Everett-to-Seattle transit capacity.

Those commuters are surely in need of some help.  For example the WSDOT traffic web site showed travel times at 8:06 AM today (March 7th) on the general-purpose lane were 88 minutes, 90 minutes on the express lane, and 70 minutes on HOV lanes.  The first stupidity of the light rail “spine” is Sound Transit’s failure to recognize that the congestion along I-5 is not due to too many buses.

The Central Link extension will replace some 100-120 buses an hour on the route into Seattle.   A single highway lane can accommodate nearly 5000 vehicles an hour.  There are four or five highway lanes including one or two HOV lanes along most of I-5 into Seattle. Using Central Link to replace the buses will have at best a miniscule effect on I-5 congestion. 

The second Sound Transit stupidity is sort of a corollary of their first stupidity, their failure to recognize they could achieve the same increased capacity by adding buses rather then spending billions on light rail tracks.  Sound Transit could provide an additional 100-120 buses an hour along the route with the same capacity as the second set of light rail tracks. 

Again, the added “vehicles” would have a miniscule effect on congestion.  Bus travel times for current routes and for the added buses could be reduced by requiring +3HOV during peak commute hours on one of the HOV lanes.  Some of the routes could provide direct connections between P&R lots and Seattle avoiding the time-consuming delays of all the light rail stops along the route.

Sound Transit’s third stupidity is there failure to recognize the need to provide commuters with access to the “spine”.   It’s “unlikely” many of the added 30,000 commuters will live within “walking” distance of light rail stations.  Thus Sound Transit is going to have to provide P&R lots with connecting bus routes to the light rail stations.  Yet none of their planning documents makes any mention of that need.  (They “may” have failed to do so because the obvious question would have been “Why not simply route the buses into Seattle and not some light rail station?”.)  

The fourth Sound Transit stupidity is their failure to recognize the “economics” of light rail operation.  A light rail car costs $24.31 per mile to operate, nearly 2 ½ times the $10.41 cost of a bus (per 2016 budget).  A 4-car train that can reasonably accommodate ~600 riders will cost ~$100.00 a mile to operate or 16.7 cents per mile per rider.  A 70-ft articulated bus can accommodate 119 sitting and standing riders or 8.7 cents per mile, slightly more than half the cost of light rail.  Not only will the “spine” require Sound Transit spend billions creating the light rail spine, the added parking, and connecting bus routes, the light rail operating costs for the I-5 portion of the commute will be nearly twice that of buses.   (And that doesn’t include the fact that the buses likely cost about a fifth of light rail cars.)

Of course the biggest “stupidity” of all is Sound Transit’s failure to recognize the above realities a long time ago.  Rather than spending hundreds of millions on a tunnel extending light rail to Northgate they could have terminated the University Link at a T/C near the UW Stadium light rail station.  Doing so would have provided thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake with a SR 520 bridge/University Link commute when they both begin operation this spring. 

The Northgate extension funds could have provided $200 million a year towards adding 5000 parking spaces and connecting bus routes.  Sound Transit could still begin adding the P&R lots next year, adding 20,000 parking spaces by 2021, reducing congestion for all the commuters.   They could do so with less than half of the funds they intend to spend on Northgate.  As it is, in 2021 the Northgate extension will have at best, a miniscule effect on congestion. 

That truly is the ultimate “stupidity” of the spine.



Wednesday, March 2, 2016

ST3 Perpetuates Sound Transit's Prop 1 I-5 Fiasco

The previous post opined how Sound Transit’s ST3 plans for the east side exemplified their competence.  This post details how their ST3 plans for light rail to Everett are, at least from a cost/benefit approach, even worse. 

Sound Transit’s purported ST3 plans for a second tunnel and set of light rail tracks to Everett reflect a valid concern for the lack of capacity of their Central Link extension.  The current tunnel limits Central Link to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  While ST claims each 74-seat car can accommodate 200 riders or 12,000 riders per hour in each direction (rphpd) the PSRC concluded a more realistic maximum is an average of 146 riders or 8880 rphpd.

Even the more optimistic number is barely able to meet current peak transit demand of more than 33,000 riders during the peak 3 hour morning and afternoon commutes (per Oct 2014 Seattle Times article). Thus additional high capacity transit (HCT) is needed for the corridor.  The second tunnel could be designed to accommodate up to 10-car trains similar to BART with 2 1/2 times Central Link capacity.  It could be routed directly to Northgate avoiding all the stops to UW and University Link. 

With the second tunnel ST could terminate Central Link at a T/C at the UW light rail station and avoid spending $2.1 billion on a tunnel for their Northgate extension scheduled to begin service in 2021.  That’s what they could have done.  Instead ST has apparently decided to also design the second tunnel to Everett for 4-car trains. 

That conclusion is based on ST presentations asking ST3 inputs from people whether they preferred, “Light rail with 12,000 rphpd or 700 cars per hour on a gridlocked roadway.”   (Needless to say what they answered.)  Again presumably the 12,000 rphpd assumes 4-car trains.  Thus rather than terminating Central Link at UW and boring a second tunnel capable of accommodating 10 light rail cars, ST is going to construct two light rail lines operating 4-car trains to Everett.  (The Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington (ABCWW) must love ST).

The reality is neither the Prop 1 nor ST3 light rail extensions to Everett will have any significant affect on I-5 congestion.  Travel times on I-5 HOV lanes between Everett and Seattle have increased to nearly 75 minutes according to a PSRC “Stuck in Traffic: 2015” report; The obvious problem being too many vehicles on the two lanes.

In 2021 when the Northgate extension begins operation, ST will likely use its limited capacity to replace most of the Metro 41 and other I-5 transit bus routes for the Northgate to Seattle portion of the commute.  However, doing so will have no effect on I-5 congestion beyond Northgate and a miniscule effect on the congestion into Seattle because of the reduced number of “vehicles”.

Any rational cost/benefit analysis would quickly conclude it makes no sense to spend more than $2 billion on a Prop 1 Northgate extension to reduce the number of buses into Seattle.  The fact light rail travel times will “likely” increase because of the several intermediate stops along the route into Seattle makes if even less “beneficial”.  Extending Central Link beyond Northgate adds billions to the cost, does nothing to increase transit capacity, or have a significant effect on I-5 congestion. 

The ST3 extension doubles I-5 light rail capacity.  However, it does nothing to increase the number of transit riders with access to light rail.  The fact there are less than 5000 parking spaces in all the P&R lots along the corridor indicates most of the more than 33,000 2014 transit riders live within walking distance of bus routes.  It’s unlikely the “walk-ons” along the routes will increase significantly in the future. 

Thus, the only way to take advantage of the billions spent adding ST3 capacity is to spend a billion more adding the 30,000 parking spaces with bus connections to light rail stations.  Yet ST could achieve the increased 9-12 thousand per hour transit capacity along I-5 without spending the billions on ST3 by routing the 100-120 buses required directly into Seattle rather than to light rail stations. 

The additional buses would have a miniscule effect on HOV lane congestion if one of the two HOV lanes was restricted to buses during peak commute.  The increased bus traffic could be accommodated in Seattle by converting 4th Ave into a two-way, bus-only, elongated T/C with designated drop-off and pick-up locations on both sides to facilitate egress and access for each route.

With ST3 they’ll still have to add the 30,000 spaces and connecting bus routes.  Rather than spending billions on Central Link extensions ST should begin adding the P&R next year.  Ask all those who commute into Seattle where they would like to leave their car.  I’m sure many would like to do so near where they live rather than near where they work.  Use the results to prioritize adding 5000 parking spaces each year for the next six years.  By 2023, rather than simply moving existing transit commuters to light rail they will have added parking allowing 30,000 more commuters to use transit,  reducing congestion for everyone. 

Rather than let ST3 perpetuate the Prop 1 I-5 fiasco, adding the parking would end the need for ST3 and save billions in the process.