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.