The previous post detailed Sound Transit’s revenue problem wasn’t non-fare-paying riders but the excessive cost of providing the rides. That reducing capital costs for light rail extensions and the costs for operating light rail trains on the extensions would dwarf any funding benefits from improving fare collection.
This post details how the Sound Transit System Expansion Committee has failed to recognize the need for additional access to transit, the limited capacity of 4-car light rail trains, and the high costs of operating those trains. The result being plans for funding Prop 1 extensions fail any rational cost/ridership benefit test.
It began a decade ago when Sound Transit failed to recognize the costs of implementing light rail service on I-90 Bridge center roadway far exceeded any benefit for cross-lake commuters. Those living along the Bel-Red corridor had better access to bus service than what they’ll get with East Link. The cost of implementing the service to Redmond, particularly during off peak commute, fails any rational cost/benefit assessment.
Those living along I-90 corridor also lost with Sound Transit decision to confiscate bridge center roadway for light rail. Sound Transit could have implemented two-way bus only BRT with 10 times light rail capacity 10 years sooner at 1/10th the cost. When operation begins Central Link commuters will lose half of their trains and I-90 corridor transit capacity will be limited by Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island.
That agreement forces transit riders to transfer to East Link on the island to commute into and out of Seattle. Island commuters who, not only lost their SOV access to bridge center roadway, will be forced to share access with the transferees and East Link’s limited capacity. It’s “unlikely” the result will attract additional transits riders. It’s only a question of when it debuts before the debacle begins.
The Northgate Link debut would have normally already exposed the lack of benefits from Sound Transit’s light rail spine. Nearly a decade ago a March 29, 2013, post on this blog urged Sound Transit use the University Station as a terminus for 520 BRT rather than extend light rail to Northgate. Thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake could benefit by using the station to connect 520 BRT with University Link light rail. (A 2nd Montlake Bridge had initially been included to facilitate the connection.)
Northgate commuters already had access to excellent transit service. Metro Route 41 buses departed Northgate every 4-5 minutes during peak morning commute, taking 18 minutes to reach University St Station. The afternoon return commute routes provided similar frequencies and commute times. The benefits from that service were reflected in Sound Transit's north end bus routes (ST510, ST511, and ST512) not even stopping at Northgate.
Both Metro and Sound Transit could have added transit capacity, reducing congestion on I-5 into and in downtown Seattle at a fraction of the Northgate Link's cost. The only limit to ridership was the number of commuters living near or with access to parking near stations. Both were already “fully in use”. Yet Sound Transit made no effort to add parking to increase the access. Choosing instead to provide riders when the Link debuted ending Metro Route 41 and terminating ST 511 and ST 512 at Northgate, reducing total transit capacity into Seattle.
Apparently neither Sound Transit nor Seattle Times recognized the light rail spine lacked both access and capacity. Prior to the Northgate Link debut, the Seattle Times September 26th Traffic Lab article described it as, "Light rail ready to open at Northgate, changing more than just commutes". It included the following regarding Northgate Link benefits.
Sound Transit has estimated the new Northgate, Rosevelt, and U-District stations that open Saturday will attract a combined 42,000 to 49,000 riders per day.
They apparently didn’t recognize that if 80% of those riders did so during the 3-hour morning and afternoon commutes University Link riders would lose access up to 2/3 of the link’s limited capacity. That clearly wasn’t the problem. It’s been nearly a year since the Oct 2nd, debut and Sound Transit has yet to provide any actual Northgate Link ridership. They stopped publishing their quarterly service provide performance reports that would have provided ridership added by each of the three Northgate Link stations.
The best indication of the Northgate Link ridership is a 2022 Link Statistic chart in Sound Transit’s 2022 Financial Plan and Proposed Budget. It presumably reflects Sound Transit’s ridership estimate with a full year of Northgate operation. Yet the chart reports predicted total Link ridership, 43,000, was 5600 less than the 48,600 they budgeted for 2021. (Despite the fact it also replaced Metro 41 into and out of Seattle.) Clearly someone at Sound Transit recognized Northgate Link 42,000 to 49,000 projections dwarfed actual ridership.
The bottom line is public transit should have two objectives. To provide transit for those that don’t have or don’t wish to drive vehicles into downtown Seattle and to reduce congestion on the roadways into Seattle for those that do. That both should attempt to do so at minimal cost. Central Link succeeded in Seattle because large numbers of commuters lived along the route into downtown.
They purposedly avoided adding parking to encourage more to do so. The routes were relatively short so even off-peak operation costs were limited. Sound Transit could have done more of the same by expediting rail links to West Seattle and Ballard. Instead, they proposed and managed to get approval of Prop 1 extensions along far longer routes with limited access, for 4-car light rail trains that lack the capacity to reduce multilane freeway peak hour and cost too much to operate during off peak commute.
The Northgate Link debut was the first demonstration that the costs of implementing Prop 1 extensions dwarfs any potential benefit. They do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle they only increase the costs, and nothing to reduce freeway congestion. Whatever riders they add also reduces access for current riders. Sound Transit should not be allowed to avoid exposing that failure in order to perpetrate further Prop 1 extensions that add to the cost/benefit shortfall.
No comments:
Post a Comment