Reducing Seattle Congestion

The April 18^th Seattle Times editorial “No to Seattle Congestion Pricing” claims tolling city streets or implementing a congestion charge downtown would do little to curb automobile usage.  It seemingly reflects a change in position regarding the efficacy of tolls.  

For example, June 26, 2017 Times headline “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock”.   Another article in the same edition, ”Can’t state ease I-5 traffic? Fixes exist, but most of them are pricey” included the following:

The most obvious way to reduce traffic on I-5 is to reduce the number of cars on the road.  The most obvious way to do that is to make it more expensive for them to be there.

Still 70% of commuters tolled opposed tolling.  The “obvious” reason being, unless commuters have an alternate way to reach their destination, tolls only increase their cost.  (It shouldn’t take an expensive study to recognize that reality.)  Even more “obvious” the Times also limits any potential benefits from the billions spent on light rail conceding:

Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic

The Times, however, ignores the ability of increased bus transit capacity “to reduce the number of cars on the road”.  A high capacity bus can replace 100 cars.  A hundred additional buses an hour can replace 10,000 vehicles an hour, the equivalent of 5 freeway lanes of traffic.   And more buses can be added! 

The only limitation for bus ridership is the need for access to the added bus capacity with either increased parking near T/C or local routes though areas near where commuters live to T/C. Yet Sound Transit has spent a decade of refusing to increase bus revenue miles and its 2019 budget proposes to continue doing so for the next 20 years.

The reason ST3 won’t reduce congestion is two-fold.  First light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will never have the needed capacity.  Even worse Sound Transit neglects to add access to even its limited capacity with additional parking at stations or local routes to stations.  Instead intending to use light rail to replace existing bus routes.  (Sound Transit's desire to replace I-90 bus routes with East Link led to an agreement to halve current bus routes in order to terminate them on Mercer Island.) Not only does replacing bus routes fail to reduce congestion into Seattle, any riders added will displace current riders.

The bottom line is a PSRC May 8^th “Stuck in Traffic: 2015 Report” details the congestion problem on routes into Seattle: only 10% of commuters rode on public transit compared to 85% who drove alone or in carpools.   Imposing tolls or spending billions to use light rail to replace buses will do nothing to reduce congestion into Seattle or on Seattle streets.  Increased bus ridership will.

Legislators Should Reject WSDOT I-405 2-HOT Lane FONSI

(As always I referred this post to the House and Senate Transportation committee members)

The April 12^th notice by the WSDOT and FHWA “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) for the I-405, Tukwila to I-90 Vicinity Express Toll Lanes Project shows neither understands the devastating impact of WSDOT plans for 2 HOT lanes on I-405 travel times.  The FONSI is a sales pitch for legislative approval for 2 HOT lanes on I-405 that ignores the reality of HOT benefits and should be rejected.

The “conventional” benefit from HOT is they increase HOV lane velocity by raising tolls to limit traffic; typically 2000 vehicles per hour (vph) will assure 45 mph velocities.  HOT fees avoid the HOV lane slowdown when more the 2000 carpoolers an hour use the lane. HOT also benefits public transit because the assured 45 mph velocity enhances bus ridership.  However using HOT fees to reduce traffic on HOV lanes increases traffic and congestion on GP lanes.

The WSDOT bases its plans for 2 HOT lanes on the presumption HOT fees increase HOV lane capacity.  The project director claims, “toll lanes often carry 35 percent more cars per hour than general lanes. That’s because rising prices prevent toll lanes from being clogged.  Express toll lanes flow better while GP lanes will be clogged from the start”. 

The FONSI uses this rationale to make the following claims for I-405 commuter benefits from 2 HOT lanes.

• Provides a reliable trip choice for I-405 users
• Increases vehicle capacity and person throughput
• Improves access for I-405 users
• Improves reliability for transit
• Reduces project-wide congestion

The FONSI “substantiates” these claims with the following excerpts:

Because this project adds a new lane in each direction, all travel lanes on I-405 would operate with faster, more reliable trips and would accommodate more vehicles than without the project.

With the project, average travel times during the morning and afternoon peak periods would improve in both the general purpose and express toll lanes.

Adding a new lane will increase I-405 capacity.  However using the new lane for HOT limits capacity and implementing HOT on the existing HOV lane will force 2-person carpools to use GP lanes.   It currently takes up to 90 minutes during peak commute on the GP lane and up to 50 minutes on the HOV lane for the 23-mile commute between Federal Way to Bellevue.  Using HOT to reduce HOV traffic to what’s required to achieve 45 mph will add to GP traffic and further increase travel time.

The increased GP lane congestion will convince more commuters to pay for HOT, increasing HOV lane congestion and travel time.  Travel time between Lynnwood and Bellevue exemplify the problem with current HOT fees with HOV travel times  up to 30 minutes and GP lanes taking nearly twice as long.  Implementing HOT on 2 of 4 lanes between Bellevue and Renton rather than on 2 of 5 lanes will likely exacerbate the problem. 

The bottom line is with 2 HOT lanes on I-405 the WSDOT has to choose between raising HOT fees to reduce HOV traffic, exacerbating GP lane congestion or accepting longer commute times for those willing to pay with less increase in GP congestion. However, the slower HOV lanes also ends one of the WSDOT's HOT purported benefits:

The project is essential to provide speed for Sound Transit’s new I-405 Bus Rapid Transit line from Lynnwood to Burien, scheduled to open in 2024.

The WSDOT could reduce GP travel times and assure 45 mph HOV lane velocity by implementing HOV on one lane with fees raised to whatever was required to achieve 45 mph.  Doing so would assure 45 mph for those willing to pay and for BRT routes.  The additional GP lane would reduce congestion for those unwilling or unable to pay and lower the fees for those willing to pay.  

The WSDOT proposal for 2 HOT lanes on I-405 is more about raising revenue than for reducing congestion.  They need to be "persuaded" to accept the lower revenue from a single HOT lane.  The legislature should do so by rejecting the FONSI for 2 HOT lanes.

FTA Abets ST CEO Rogoff Delusion

(I submitted the following to Senator Cantwell)

The April 11^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab B1 page article “Light rail to Federal Way gets OK” heralds Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s ability to get federal funds for the light rail extensions.  The FTA approval allows “Sound Transit to seek $790 million in federal funds, a quarter of the project’s total cost”.  (It follows last fall’s agreement to provide “”$1.2 billion for Sound Transit’s extension to Lynnwood”.) 

Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray both called the Federal Way extension a “critical investment”.  Rogoff, who served as administrator during the Obama administration, apparently still has credibility with the FTA.  The $790 million funding was presumably based on Sound Transit's claims for “36,500 daily riders by 2035”.  (Sound Transit claimed the Lynnwood extension would add 68,500 daily riders)

However, a 2004 PSRC study funded by Sound Transit concluded light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) was limited to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd).    Since the Federal Way extension is limited to half the DSTT capacity, Rogoff’s claim for Federal Way ridership dwarfs light rail capacity. (As does the Lynnwood ridership claim)

Sound Transit also fails to provide commuters with access to even its limited capacity.  Commuters need to live within or have access to parking within walking distance of light rail stations.   However all the parking with possible access to light rail stations has been full for years with those riding buses.    Yet Sound Transit waits until 2024 to begin adding 8560 stalls over the next 17 years; a fraction of what’s needed for ridership claims. 

Rather than adding local bus routes to provide commuters access to light rail stations Sound Transit plans to use light rail capacity to replace bus routes into Seattle; forcing many commuters to transfer to and from light rail every morning and afternoon.  (In order to fill East Link trains they recently made an agreement with Mercer Island to halve existing I-90 bus routes in exchange for being allowed to terminate buses at island light rail station.)  

Spending billions to replace bus routes does little to reduce congestion into Seattle.   Riders transferring from buses to light rail along I-5 corridor also reduce access for those who currently use Central Link.
   
The bottom line is Rogoff’s claims for Federal Way and Lynnwood extension ridership are delusional.  The FTA funds are only a tiny fraction of the $96 billion Rogoff’s 2019 budget projects will be needed to implement the ST3 extensions. Rather than a “critical investment” they only abet his delusions, adding billions to the billions already spent on Northgate and East Link extensions that will inevitably be considered as two of the biggest boondoggles in public transit history.   

ST/MI "Connivance" Ends I-90 Bus Routes

This blog started because 3 years of presentations and emails to the Bellevue City Council failed to convince them to disallow permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  That East Link was part of Sound Transit Prop 1 extensions that will eventually be regarded as one of the biggest boondoggles in history.  Sound Transit made a fatal blunder when they ignored the capacity limits imposed by routing the Prop 1 extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT). 

They compounded that problem by refusing to add parking for access to even its limited capacity, choosing instead to use it to replace current bus routes, despite the reality reducing the number of buses on HOV lanes will do little to reduce congestion.  Even worse, any riders the extensions add will simply reduce access for current riders.  I’ve filed as a candidate seven times to use the Voters Pamphlet to attract viewers to the blog detailing these problems and intend to file again for King County Council 6^th District. 

East Link is a particularly egregious example.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to divert half the limited capacity of light rail routed through the DSTT across the I-90 Bridge center roadway. They’ve already devastated the route into Bellevue and the loss of the two center roadway lanes will inevitably result in gridlock on outer bridge roadways.

Again they decided to use East Link to replace I-90 Bridge bus routes. Sound Transit recognized they needed commuters to transfer from buses to East Link since the number of commuters living within walking distance or with parking near light rail stations wasn’t sufficient to fill even East Link’s share of DSTT capacity. (4440 riders per hour (per PSRC)).  

Their solution was to force those riding I-90 buses to transfer to East Link at South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations.   Again not recognizing closing off the I-90 Bridge center roadway and spending $2.8B to replace cross-lake buses will do little to reduce HOV lane congestion.

Sound Transit initially proposed replacing buses to the Mercer Island City Council with a January 21, 2014 Integrated Transit System (ITS) presentation.  It detailed how 40,000 of East Link’s 50,000 daily riders would come from terminating I-90 corridor buses at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island light rail stations. 

However, a Sound Transit presentation to Mercer Island residents, “Completion of final design-- Open House” claimed only 4500 boarders daily would use station.  A subsequent (Nov 19^th) Mercer Island presentation went into considerable details about ITS.  Their preferred approach was for buses to exit I-90 on WB HOV off ramp to a 200 ft drop off and pick-up area on the 80^th Ave overpass before returning to I-90 on EB HOV on ramp.  Sound Transit predicted 84 buses per hour would make the circuit during peak commute.

Mercer Island residents objected to their light rail station being inundated with thousands of transferees every morning and afternoon.  Sound Transit’s response then was they were “up in the air” about terminating bus routes on the island.  However, a year later an October 2015 depiction of East Link showed 3-car trains on the bridge center roadway and a Sound Transit bus on the east bound I-90 bridge outer roadway.  Also, all five of Sound Transit proposals for terminating buses on the island were deemed “no longer under consideration”.

However the March 13, 2019 MI Weekly included notice of a March 19^th Sound Transit presentation of the results of a Mercer Island Transit Interchange Operational and Configuration Study to the City Council.  The study was funded by Sound Transit to:

Explore ways to implement bus/rail integration consistent with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Mercer Island and Sound Transit for the East Link Project.

It’s not clear what was in the 2017 Settlement Agreement but the study title “suggested” the City of Mercer Island had agreed to terminating I-90 bus routes on the island.  What is clear is the study results show the extent to which Sound Transit will go, apparently with Mercer Island concurrence to make up for the lack of commuter access to East Link stations by forcing bus riders to transfer to light rail.  

Again all the initial Sound Transit ITS configurations showed during peak commute 84 buses an hour would use the 80^th Ave overpass to drop off and pick up commuters.  The 84 buses per hour apparently reflected anticipated future growth since currently only 45 buses an hour were routed across I-90 Bridge.  

The Mercer Island Transit Interchange moved the drop-off and pick-up areas from the 80^th Avenue to 77th Avenue SE.  However, rather than the 84 buses per hour as they had originally proposed or even the 45 buses per hour that currently cross I-90 bridge, the Mercer Island Transit Interchange will result in “a 50% reduction in bus volumes relative to existing condition”. 

The bottom line is Sound Transit was so desperate to use bus transit riders to fill East Link trains they’ve agreed to slash current bus routes to appease Mercer Island City Council.  The council allowed Sound Transit to terminate cross-lake buses on the island despite objections from residents.  

There would be no East Link if the Mercer Island City Council (and Bellevue and Redmond councils) had not approved the permits Sound Transit needed.  The I-90 Bridge center roadway would have never been closed, avoiding the inevitable gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadways.  However, the Mercer Island City Council could have sued Sound Transit to at least prevent them from inundating the island with thousands of bus transferees each morning and afternoon.  Instead the Mercer Island Transit Interchange agreement limits I-90 Bridge transit capacity to East Link's share of DSTT capacity, the equivalent of about 50 high capacity buses an hour.  Thus, the current agreement with Sound Transit to halve I-90 bus routes simply hastens that reality. 

The entire east side will pay a heavy price for their "connivance".

Seattle Times Abets ST CEO Rogoff's Delusions?

Previous posts have detailed Seattle Times decade of failing to inform readers about the inability of Sound Transit Board and WSDOT to reduce area’s congestion.  Thus the Seattle Times March 24^th editorial, “Sound Transit performance audit is welcome” suggested they finally recognized the problem.   It included the following excerpts:

State Auditor Pat McCarthy is conducting a performance audit of Sound Transit.

Performance audits are done to ensure that tax dollars are spent as cost-effectively as possible.

They are especially needed for an agency that missed cost estimates by nearly $1 billion over the last two years.

The public eagerly awaits what should be the most thorough and expansive performance audit of Sound Transit to date.

The fact the Times was finally heralding an audit could have been “welcome news”.   Prior to the ST3 vote in 2016 they’d conceded in a Nov 4^th article ST3 would not reduce congestion.  Even that recognition wasn’t sufficient for the Times to include auditing Sound Transit as one of the top ten 2017 legislative priorities. Again, the March 24^th Times editorial “welcoming an audit” could have been good news for the entire area.

However the Times proposed the audit be used to answer the following:

Is Sound Transit effectively planning, designing and managing Link Light Rail to minimize all costs associated with the project, minimize unnecessary change orders and delays that increase costs, and ensure the project most closely resembles the project approved by voters?

Unfortunately those questions “suggest” they still don’t recognize the fundamental problem with Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions.  It’s not that they cost too much, it’s that they should have never been approved in 2008. 

Sound Transit Prop 1 clearly violated RCW 81.104.00 (2) (b) by ignoring the requirement to consider the lower cost HCT option of added bus service.  That capacity limits on Prop 1 light rail extensions will inevitably result in their being regarded as one of the biggest boondoggles in history. 

The “boondoggle” began when the Sound Transit Board simply ignored conclusions of a PSRC study they had funded in 2004.  The PSRC compared the ability of seven different HCT modes to meet the area’s public transit needs.   Four Sound Transit staff members participated in the study.  The results were published in an August 2004, PSRC 168-page Technical Workbook, “High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment”.

It concluded the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour per direction (rphpd).   That capacity allowed Central Link routed through the DSTT to increase transit ridership into downtown Seattle from UW and from SeaTac. The UW station could have provided an interface between 520 BRT and light rail benefitting commuters from both sides of the lake.  

Central Link could have been extended to benefit West Seattle commuters.  Instead Sound Transit wasted billions and years extending Central Link beyond UW and SeaTac.  Sound Transit intends to boost light rail ridership by using the extensions to replace current bus routes.  They will do nothing to increase I-5 transit capacity into Seattle and any riders added will reduce access for existing Central Link riders.

The billions spent on East Link are even more egregious as it halves transit capacity from SeaTac further reducing efficacy of extensions to Angel Lake and beyond.  Again Sound Transit boosts East Link ridership by using it to replace I-90 bus routes.  Its confiscation of the I-90 Bridge center roadway will inevitably lead to gridlock on bridge outer roadways.

A competent auditor would also “likely” conclude Sound Transit’s decade-long refusal to increase bus ridership has played a major role in the area’s increasing congestion.  Since Prop 1 passed, annual ST express bus revenue miles haven’t increased and they have failed to add any parking with access to I-5 or I-90 bus routes despite the fact existing P&R lots have been full for years. 

However, the past decade of Sound Transit incompetence pales in comparison to what Sound Transit CEO Rogoff is proposing for the next twenty-two years. His 2019 Budget details Sound Transits plans to spend $96 billion over those years implementing additional ST3 light rail extensions and nothing to increase bus ridership.

Any competent auditor would “likely” conclude Rogoff’s 2019 budget claims for light rail ridership in 2041 were delusional and his failure to increase bus transit ridership totally incompetent.  Clearly any audit needs to go way beyond “missed cost estimates”. 

The Times assumes McCarthy, a former chair of Sound Transit, harbors no loyalty and her insight into the agency’s organization and culture could make the audit even stronger.  Yet it’s “highly unlikely” she will recognize that Sound Transit’s real problem is exemplified by a CEO she presumably helped hire.

The Seattle Times heralding a McCarthy audit “suggests” they continue to abet Rogoff proceeding with his "delusions" and incompetence.