Let UW Determine Need for 2nd ST Tunnel

The March 24^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Board favors superstation in Pioneer Square” includes the proviso

The vote Thursday is not a final decision

 

One of the reasons, an estimated $800 million more for the,” Fourth Ave Shallow” station.  Apparently, a new impediment since the March 6^th presentation to System Expansion Committee only included the following benefit for Pioneer Square:

 

 Construction duration of 6-7 years is less than 10-12 years and avoids disruption of major traffic spine 4^th Ave

 

The board rejected suggestions to continue to run the regional spine through the existing tunnel and later route Ballard and West Seattle Links though 2^nd tunnel. No one suggested continuing the “spine” from SeaTac to Everett and terminating the Ballard Link at the existing Westlake station and  West Seattle Link at existing Chinatown station. That combination along with terminating East Link at Chinatown could end the need for a second tunnel.

 

Doing so would not only save billions and years of disruption, it would also allow all three links to match their operation to local needs, rather than what's needed for Federal Way and Everett: savings millions in future operating costs.  Terminating East Link at the existing Chinatown station would also facilitate eastside-to-south and reverse commutes as well as connections for those riding Sounder trains.  

 

The question remains whether the existing tunnel can accommodate those wanting to go beyond Westlake and Chinatown.  Avoiding the need to integrate the East Link return routes minimizes the needed intervals between trains, increases tunnel capacity.  

 

Current ridership into Westlake and Chinatown is limited by the number of stations within walking distance or parking near light rail stations.  (A  November 1st 2016 Seattle Times article reported the 19,488 existing parking stalls with access to transit in the three-county area were already "at least 95% full".)    

 

The October 2021 Northgate Link debut demonstrated the lack-of-access problem”.  Rather than add parking Sound Transit chose to force bus riders using existing parking to transfer to light rail for the commute into and out of Seattle; reducing transit capacity into the city and nothing to reduce I-5 congestion.  Yet they still refuse to release the quarterly Service Provided Performance Reports that would have told us how many of the 41,000- 49,000 predicted riders used the three stations.  

 

The East Link's need to redo track attachments has delayed demonstrating similar problems with Sound Transit’s 50,000 ridership prediction from June 2023 to Q1 2025.  Thus, the 2024 Lynnwood link debut will be the next to demonstrate the validity of their prediction for 37,000 to 57,000 riders.  Sound Transit’s past estimates for ridership into Seattle have been beyond optimistic to delusional.  

They've never acknowledged the need for additional parking for access or that extending light rail does nothing to increase a light rail train's capacity.  For example, since 2019, Sound Transit's staff and the Board have approved yearly Financial Plan and Proposed Budgets with Long Range Plans.  The latest, Sound Transit's 2023 budget's Long Range Plan, predicts annual Link ridership would increase from approximately 20 million in 2022 to 150 million in 2046.  Thus any Sound Transit estimate for Link ridership into Seattle is of "dubious" value.                              (The increase in cost from the $54B approved in 2016 for "voter approved" extensions $149.1B in 2023 budget also raises questions about financial acumen.)

 

The question remains as to how many will choose to continue beyond Westlake and Chinatown stations. The best indication is to assume commuters use the same route for return as arrival. The Westlake and Chinatown Stations had the biggest number of boardings reducing the need for capacity through tunnel. 

 

The bottom line is terminating West Seattle and East Seattle Links at existing Chinatown Station will save billions and years, invigorating the area rather than devastating it.  Terminating Ballard Link will similarly benefit Westlake area.  The three links will be able to set operation as needed to meet local demand.  Someone other than Sound Transit  needs to determine the viability of doing so.  

They should include those in UW Transportation Planning as well as other "outside" consultants. The first step, force Sound Transit release how many riders were added at the  three Northgate Link stations compared the 41,000-49,000 riders they predicted. (Something the Seattle Times Traffic Lab refuses to "dig into").

Any resultant delay is time well spent.

 

More on Avoiding 2nd Tunnel

The previous post opined Sound Transit needed to consider not implementing a second transit tunnel under Seattle.  It was submitted as a Comment to the Sound Transit Board for their March 23^rd meeting in response to the following item on the meeting’s agenda “For recommendation to the board”

 

Motion No. M2023-18: Confirming or modifying the preferred alternative light rail route and station locations for the Ballard Link Extension for additional environmental review, including preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Materials 
Forthcoming”

 

It’s the same motion Board’s System Expansion Committee approved during the March 6^th meeting.  Sound Transit’s rationale for the preferred alternative” the “North of CID” adjacent to Pioneer Square and South of CID” included the following:

 

 Construction duration of 6-7 years is less than 10-12 years and avoids disruption of major traffic spine 4^th Ave

 

The committee’s response after the presentation suggested they weren’t prepared to make a final recommendation.  That the next two weeks should be used to provide additional information to the Sound Transit 23^rd board meeting.   The post opined the “additional information” should include the results of a “no second tunnel” option.

 

This post provides more details as to why there’s no need for a second tunnel or new stations needed for access.  The Sound Transit Link problem is ridership is limited by the high cost of implementing light rail stations in an urban area.  That not enough commuters live within walking distance of proposed stations to justify the cost of a second tunnel for routing light rail beyond Westlake or Chinatown station.  (Sound Transit refuses to release quarterly Service Delivery Performance Reports showing lack of access to three added Northgate Link stations limited ridership to a fraction of the 41,000 to 49,000 predicted)

 

For example, terminating the Ballard Link at existing Westlake station would allow its operation in number of cars in each train and headways between trains to meet demand from those able to use limited number of stations.  Those needing to go beyond Westlake could easily transfer to Link 1 Link. Sound Transit plans for a second tunnel would require its operation be sized by demand from Federal Way and beyond.  

 

Terminating the Link at the existing station avoids the high cost and delay of the second tunnel and the high operating costs of 4-car light rail trains from Federal Way to Ballard, especially during off peak operation.  The Federal Way trains would be routed through existing tunnel to Everett.

 

Terminating West Seattle Link at either the existing Chinatown or SODO stations provides the same benefits to its operation.  No costly delays for a second tunnel, its operation matched to West Seattle demand not Everett, and far lower operating costs.

 

Terminating East Link at Chinatown mitigates Sound Transit’s biggest debacle, the decision to divert half the trains through the existing tunnel across I-90 Bridge.  There was never any justification to halve Central Link routes to allow routing East Link trains beyond Chinatown station to Northgate and beyond.  (I spent more than a decade riding I-90 buses to Chinatown to transfer on 2^nd Ave to bus routes to near Boeing Field.)  

 

The need to redo the East Link track attachments has delayed demonstrating the debacle from June 2023 to 1Q 2025.  However, Sound Transit plans for a Starter Line Link operation next year will demonstrate that lack of access between Redmond Technology Center and South Bellevue P&R severely limits ridership.  That 4-car light rail train operating costs will dwarf farebox recovery. Terminating East Link at existing Chinatown station allows Sound Transit to schedule operation that meets the demand.  Next year’s Starter Link operation will allow time to do so.

 

The bottom line is the limited number of stations limits access to light rail into Seattle.  That the existing tunnel can accommodate those who need to go beyond Westlake or Chinatown stations.  Avoiding the need for a second tunnel saves billions and years in providing that access.

ST Needs to Study No 2nd Tunnel Option

The March 9^th Sound Transit System Expansion Committee meeting typified the committee's approach to the second tunnel and CID station locations.  As with the previous 6 months of meetings, most of the “public comment” period was filled with those concerned with the disruptions associated with implementing stations with access to the second tunnel. 

The “public comment” was followed by Business Items, “For committee final action” detailing the need “For recommendation to the board”. The first being the following:

Motion No. M2023-18: Confirming or modifying the preferred alternative light rail route and station locations for the Ballard Link Extension for additional environmental review, including preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The presentation began with charts showing “cost and schedule” risks and that a project budget, $12.2 billion, was established during realignment.  That the “Construction Phase” for some of the options “required additional time”.  That the March 9^th meeting was to make a recommendation for the “preferred alternative” to the Board for approval during their March 23rd meeting.

 

The presentation response to the Public Comment concerns was a “Community feedback themes’’ chart that included the following:

 

Strong interest in supporting economic health of small businesses and maintaining cultural hub, avoiding displacement of businesses and residents

 

Only Sound Transit would call the months of objections as “Strong Interest”. Yet the presentation didn’t include any response to the “strong interest”, choosing instead to propose, ”Activation of Union Station and surrounding plazas”.  That activation involving “engagement with community to clarify scope and schedule of such improvements as well as funding and partnership opportunities” could proceed “Regardless of station location”

 

Sound Transit’s presentation regarding M2023-18 included a chart, “CID transfer comparison” of four alternative station locations.  Sound Transit’s preferred alternative was a “North of CID” adjacent to Pioneer Square and South of CID.  It was detailed in a chart, “North of CID station PX opportunities,” with escalators providing access to streets and a 400-foot walk to the  existing Pioneer Station.

 

The Seattle Times had responded to this option with a Traffic Lab Feb 20 headline, “Will a new light-rail station land in Pioneer Square?” with the following:

 

Leaders promised a second International District/Chinatown station near the existing light-rail stop, creating a giant hub where 60,000 people a day come or go. But the transit board is suddenly entertaining suggestions to shift the hub north to Pioneer Square.

 

The Sound Transit rationale for the Pioneer Station over the CID 4^th Ave was an “Example modified preferred alternative” chart including the following:  

 

 Construction duration of 6-7 years is less than 10-12 years and avoids disruption of major traffic spine 4^th Ave

 

The committee’s response after the presentation suggested they weren’t prepared to make a final recommendation.  That the next two weeks should be used to provide additional information to the Sound Transit 23^rd board meeting. Still the committee unanimously approved M2023-18 without “Confirming or modifying the preferred alternative light rail route”.

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit intends to decide on March 23^rd whether to spend most of the $12.2 billion over the next 6-7 years on a tunnel without a new CID station or 10-12 years disrupting 4^th Ave for a tunnel with the new CID station.  

 

They need to consider a 3^rd option, terminate East Link at existing CID station, terminate Ballard Link at existing Westlake station, and avoid the need for a 2^nd tunnel.  Doing so would mitigate those concerned about implementing new stations, avoid spending billions and years of disruption, and avoid problems with east side to south Seattle connections.  

 

Terminating East Link at CID and Ballard extension at Westlake would allow both routes to adjust number of cars in each train and train headways to meet local demand, not what the extensions to Lynnwood and SeaTac require.  (Sound Transit might consider terminating West Seattle link at Sodo) 

 

The Northgate Link debut has demonstrated light rail train ridership is severely limited by lack of access.  The limited number of East Link, Ballard, West Seattle, Lynnwood, and Federal Way extension stations don’t have the access needed to require a 2^nd tunnel for transit between CID and Westlake.

 

That’s the information Sound Transit should provide to the board on the 23^rd.

 

 

 

 

East Link Starter Line “Benefits"

This blog began as an attempt to prevent Sound Transit from routing light rail trains across I-90 bridge to Bellevue.  Confiscating the bridge center roadway precluded implementing 2-way bus-only routes with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  Sound Transit exacerbated the problem by routing the trains through DSTT to UW and beyond, halving the number of trains to SeaTac, and using the trains to replace bus routes into Seattle.

It has always considered Sound Transit’s projected 43,000 to 52,000 ridership by 2026 was beyond optimistic to delusional.  (Sound Transit has yet to release quarterly service delivery performance reports showing riders added by the Northgate Link’s 3 stations were a fraction of their 41,000-49,000 projected.)  The East Link debut in June 2023 was eagerly awaited for vindication.

Thus, an April 28, 2022 Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Sound Transit light rail to the Eastside is running late” was a “disappointment.” The problem being, “remediation was needed for non-conforming direct track fixation plinths,” Sound Transit's version of the need to redo track attachments. 

 

A December 8^th post by Sound Transit CEO Julie Timms, “An update on Link projects in construction” detailed the need to redo the track attachments delayed East Link until Spring 2025.  That the delay prompted the option of an East Link Starter Line from Redmond Technology Center to South Bellevue P&R.  The update stipulated "No bus service changes assumed" so ST550 from South Bellevue P&R into Bellevue T/C would continue.  Headways were 10 minutes during peak and off-peak operation and 15 minutes early/late.

 

Apparently Sound Transit recognized returning Bellevue commuters were “unlikely” to transfer from ST550 to the Starter Line for the commute into Bellevue so ST550 was terminated at South Bellevue. The result was the January 26^th Sound Board approval of the following:

Resolution No. R2023-06: Authorizing the expenditure of up to $6 million from the East Link project budget, to be funded by the East King subarea, to complete the work necessary to further develop the option to open a portion of East Link Extension from South Bellevue Station to Redmond Technology Station (East Link Starter Line) in Spring 2024. This work will inform a final action to be considered by the Board in Fall 2023 on whether to open the East Link Starter Line for revenue 

It's not clear what work is included in the $6 million expenditure Starter Line needed to “inform a final action”.  This post details there are some Starter Line “benefits”, though not what Sound Transit is expecting.  

 

One "benefit" will be the Starter Line debut will demonstrate East Link’s failure to provide the access to attract the number of commuters needed to justify Sound Transit plans for Line 2 Link to Redmond.   That, except for parking at Redmond T/C and Bel-Red/130^thstation, access is limited to those within walking distance of 5 stations along route. A fraction of the number of stations along Rabid Route B into Bellevue and on ST550 in Bellevue and along route to South Bellevue. Many of those with access to Starter Line will be dissuaded by the need to transfer to and from buses at South Bellevue.

 

The Starter Line debut will also demonstrate the effect of $30 per-mile, light-rail-car operating cost.  The 7-mile line, 14-mile trip costs $420 per car or $1680 for 4-car trains.  The schedule for 10-minute headways for peak and off-peak requires 96 trips a day, costs over $160,000 daily, and dwarfs any potential fare box revenue.  A precursor to double that cost when the 14-mile Line 2 Link from Redmond to Chinatown when East Link begins. 

The Starter Line will demonstrate those costs could be reduced by limiting trains to 2 cars and still meet demand along route. Two-car trains would reduce the noise levels and could allow higher speeds along route.  Two car trains would also reduce loads on I-90 Bridge, potentially ending the need to redo track attachments. I-90 corridor transit bus riders would no longer be forced to transfer to light rail for the commute into and out of Seattle.

 

The bottom line is the Starter Line debut could “benefit” the entire area by demonstrating the need to “decouple” East Link from Line 2 Link by terminating it at Chinatown Station. Doing so will allow Sound Transit to change the number of cars in each East Link train, schedule operation to meet Bellevue demand, and  double trains to Angel Lake.  The Spring 2024 Start Line debut "benefits" by allowing time to do so.

 

 

 

Sound Transit’s Real Problem is the Product not the Process.

The Seattle Times March 3rd front page Traffic Lab article “Be bolder, tough to get light rail done, panel advises Sound Transit” fawns over a March 2^nd Transit Analysis Group” (TAG) presentation to the Sound Transit Executive Council. 

The article included the “expert panel suggested 6 reforms” needed to improve Sound Transit’s ability to implement plans to increase spending from $4B in 2022 to $8B in 2024.  Neither the TAG nor Traffic Lab apparently recognized Sound Transit’s real problem is not with the process but with the “product” that results.  Voter approved light rail spine extensions that won’t reduce peak hour freeway congestion and cost too much to operate during off peak.

 

Reducing freeway congestion requires reducing the number of vehicles on roadway: the “gold-standard” being limiting traffic to 2000 vehicles per hour assures 45mph.  Yet none of the “reforms” recognize that 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity needed to accommodate the number of commuters needed.  That the only way to achieve the needed capacity is with BRT routes along restricted access HOV lanes.

 

None of the recommendations recognize Sound Transit’s decade-long failure to provide commuters with access to public transit. (A 2016 Seattle Times article reported the 19,486 existing parking stalls with access to transit in the three-county area were already 95% in use.) 

 

Instead, Sound Transit exacerbated the lack of capacity problem with the Northgate Link by requiring riders transfer to the link for "access" to the commute into and out of Seattle. Replacing bus routes reduces transit capacity into the city and nothing to reduce roadway congestion. They refuse to release “Service Provided Performance Reports” showing the lack of access still limited ridership to a fraction of the 41,000 to 49,000 predicted.  

 

The “product” of the January 26^th Sound Transit Board plans for operating the Lynnwood extension exacerbates the Northgate Link failure.  The voter approved, $2.7B, 8.5-mile extension lacks the access needed for even a fraction of the 37,000 to 57,000 riders predicted. Instead includes spending $270M on a 130th St infill station a mile from any parking.  Plans to provide riders by replacing additional bus routes further reduces transit capacity into Seattle and access for current riders.  The combination of high light rail car operating cost, added Lynnwood trip length and schedule will add $500,000 daily to costs.  

  

The bottom line is the “voter approved” extensions don’t have the capacity to attract the number of riders needed to reduce multilane freeway peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate during off peak.  That Sound Transit’s operating plans to use the extensions to replace bus routes reduces transit capacity into Seattle, doesn’t reduce freeway congestion, and the riders transferred reduce access for current riders.  

 

That recommendations to improve the process for implementing the extensions does nothing to improve the product.  The Seattle Times Traffic Lab should recognize that doing so with "increased boldness and toughness" doesn't change that result.