Sound Transit Board Compensation

The previous post opined that some of the sates tax Sound Transit was using to fund the light rail spine should be used to fund needed road improvements. That far more of those paying the taxes would be using the roads than riding light rail. This post details how some of those revenues are used to pay the board.

It turns out they are paid very well. Yearly pay for board members ranges from $150,000 to $231,000, presumably based on responsibilities, seniority, and service on different committees.  Thus, when King County Executive Dow Constantine decided to appoint himself to Chair the Board, he presumably added the upper end of that range to his income. 

That Snohomish and Pierce County executives, King County and City Council Members, Mayors, and WSDOT Secretary all receive substantial financial benefit from their appointment.  Using the quoted $185,000 median salary for the 18 board members gives a $3.33 million total board salaries.

Thus, the Sound Transit Board compensation is comparable to that of other corporation directors.  However, those directors  normally serve at the will of the owners (stockholders).  They’re appointed because of some demonstration of competence regarding the company’s operation and subject to eviction if the performance doesn’t meet expectations.     

The Sound Transit Board is composed to members chosen by County Executive Constantine. They serve at his pleasure rather than that of those in the service area that funds Sound Transit (owners?). Their “direction” mostly consists of sitting in front of their computers at home or an office for three or four hours, two or three times a month.  They listen, sometimes comment, and nearly always approve what Sound Transit asks for. 

The result has been a decade of board members made up of elected officials who don’t know what constitutes effective public transit.  They attempt to get guidance from Transit Advisory Group (TAG) and outside consultants.  However, that advice is limited to how to better implement the boards plan for light rail extensions.  Not questioning plans to spend billions on a light rail spine for 4-car trains to replace bus routes into the Seattle. 

Apparently ignoring that 4-car trains don’t have the capacity to accommodate the riders needed to reduce peak hour freeway congestion and cost too much to operate off peak.  That replacing bus routes reduces transit capacity into Seattle, does nothing to reduce GP congestion, and former bus riders reduce access for current riders.

The results have been a March 29th Traffic Lab article charitably calling the current 18 directors “nonspecilist” and announcing a Megaproject hire.  Someone “capable of steering the nation’s biggest transit expansion that’s already running years late”.

However, the Sound Transit Board’s problem goes beyond “running years late”. At this point the best that can be done is to replace the current board with those who can mitigate the damage from current extensions and recognize the folly of the future light rail spine extensions and boring a second tunnel.   

Directors who could justify current Sound Transit Board’s compensation.

What this Governor Candidate Recommends for Funding Transportation

The 6/16/24 Seattle Times Opinion “Road work ahead: Gubernatorial candidates diverge on transportation” didn’t mention my candidacy or the multiple posts I’ve emailed them regarding transportation.  The posts have  questioned how Sound Transit was funding the “country’s largest transit system expansion”. Funds that could be better used to address the concern, “The State’s Transportation Department also estimates that highways, bridges, and ferries around the state are billions of dollars behind in maintenance”. 

Multiple posts have detailed attempts to expose the folly of Sound Transit’s light rail spine.  They began a decade ago with a post and email to A.G Fergusons Office (now the presumptive Democratic candidate for Governor) detailing Sound Transit’s light rail violated RCW 81.104.00 requiring high-capacity transportation system options include a do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities. 

Clearly adding BRT routes along an existing limited access HOV lane could have added transit capacity at far less cost.   For example, two-way, bus-only lanes on I-90 Bridge center roadway could have added 10 times light rail capacity 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  Especially for light rail trains limited to 4 cars every 8 minutes by Sound Transits decision to route it through DSTT.

A.G. Ferguson’s office response was they didn’t have the authority to respond to my request, instead suggesting I contact Sound Transit Board. The response was the following concerning I-90 Bridge center roadway:

Your assertion that Sound Transit’s failure to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) use of the center roadway failed to meet the statutory requirement outlined in 81.104.100(2](b) is misplaced. As noted above, the cited statute does not apply to project level reviews. 

 

The result has been Sound Transit allowed to spend billions on East Link and light rail spine  for 4-car light trains that won’t have the capacity to reduce peak hour freeway congestion and cost too much to operate off peak.   Money that could be used to add parking for access to expanded BRT has instead been used to replace existing bus routes with light rail trains. Ending bus routes reduces transit system capacity into Seattle, nothing to reduce GP lane congestion, and reduces access to current riders.  

The bottom line is Sound Transit been allowed to use ST3 approval in 2016 to spend $54B between 2016 and 2041 to build out their ST3 map to spend $145B between 2016 and 2046 and leave a $28.4B debt in 2047 well after ST3 taxes ended in 2041.  Any rational attempts to comply with RCW 81.104.100 would have aborted the light rail spine.

At this point the best that can be done is force Sound Transit to allow some of the $1,850 million in sales tax revenue in 2024 ($93,728 million by 2046) be used to help fund roads, bridges, and ferries.  Especially since far more of those paying the taxes use the roads than ride light rail.

That’s what this candidate for governor recommends.

Traffic Lab Abides WSDOT I-405 HOT Debacle

A previous post opined that the Seattle Times Traffic Lab’s “exploring how billions of dollars in public money are spent” has abetted Sound Transit’ spending $12.5B implementing a Ballard to Sodo light rail extension. A transit project whose construction will disrupt downtown Seattle boring a 2^nd tunnel and closing vital roadways in South Lake Union. All for a light rail transit system that will have far less access than current bus routes to far more convenient destinations. 

This post details the Traffic Lab is also abiding a more immediate I-405 debacle. The WSDOT raised HOT fees and is spending hundreds of millions adding lanes between Bellevue and Renton as part of their plan to impose increased HOT fees on two I-405 HOV lanes between Lynnwood and Burien.    

WSDOT recently increased the HOT maximum fares to $15.00, purportedly to reduce HOV lane clogging.   However, the 2023 Fiscal Year Report for “I-405 Express Toll Lanes vs General Purpose Lane Speeds FY 2023” concluded the HOT lanes achieved 50 mph or greater during the peak period. That prior to the fare increase southbound and northbound Bothell-to-Bellevue HOT lanes were 9 mph and 23 mph faster than the GP lanes. 

By comparison recent WSDOT Travel Times on June 11^th 7:50 indicated the $15 HOT fees had increases HOV lane velocity to 64.5 mph.   However, the higher fees reduced the number of GP lane drivers willing to pay.  The added vehicles increased traffic and travel time to where average velocity was 32.3 mph or 30.2 mph slower than on HOV lanes. The HOV 5:05 pm return route velocity with increased fee was 56.5 mph, the average GP velocity, 20.2 mph, 36.3 mph slower.  

Clearly the WSDOT’s increasing the fares did more to penalize those not paying the fares than benefit those that did.  Yet the Traffic Lab continues to abide the WSDOT I-405 imposing HOT fees that are more about increasing revenue than reducing travel time.  Especially when having two HOT lanes wastes capacity that could be used to reduce travel time on GP lanes.

Even more blatant, they continue to abide WSDOT plans to impose HOT fees on both the existing HOV lane and the new lane between Bellevue and Renton. The recent 7:50 am northbound route averaged 16.8 mph on the two GP lanes and 27.3 mph on HOV lane.  The 5:05 pm southbound route average was 19.6 mph on two GP lanes and 30.3 mph on HOV lane.  Clearly both need improvement from additional lane.

Yet the WSDOT plans to impose HOT on HOV lane will force carpoolers not willing to pay the HOT fees to use one of the two GP lanes. That the resulting increased GP lane traffic and slower speeds will increase the incentive to pay the HOT fees and more funds for WSDOT.  Having a second HOT lane will allow those paying the fees will result in speeds limited by 60 mph limits rather than traffic.  However the loss of the GP lane will exacerbate the penalty for those not paying the fees.

The bottom line is imposing HOT on a second lane does little to reduce HOV travel time. However, the loss of a lane and former carpoolers adds traffic to GP lanes that exacerbates the penalty for those not willing to pay.  That imposing HOT on one HOV lane can benefit, not only those paying the fees, those not paying can benefit because HOT fees allow more than just carpoolers to use HOV lane, reducing GP lane congestion and travel time.  

The Seattle Times Traffic Lab needs to recognize the benefits of single HOT lane rather than abiding WSDOT I-405 two lanes.

 

ST CEO’s Dubious Starter Line Ridership Claims

A previous post detailed my “doubts” about Sound Transit’s April 27^th debut ridership had prompted several stops at Belred P&R. That an 8:30 am stop there noted the 300 stall P&R had approximately 30 cars.  That the 2-car Starter Line train into Bellevue that stopped there seemed to have very few riders and no one got on or off.  That a subsequent drive to the South Bellevue T/C found no cars on top floor for access to the light rail stop, no riders were seen exiting train though 2 riders did get on for the return.

The apparent lack of riders prompted interest in the livestream video of the May 9^th Sound Transit Executive Council meeting.  Yet Sound Transit CEO Goran Sparmann’s comments during the meeting regarding the first 10 days of Starter Line operation were limited to praise for a successful April 27^th debut.  

That changed with the livestream video of the June 4^th Executive Council meeting. It began with the CEO announcing May ridership was 121,000, averaging nearly 3900 weekdays. One would have thought the early results would have merited some comment regarding ridership in the earlier meeting. 

Meanwhile, my Belred stops during May reaffirmed the earlier limited parking. Other than parking at RTC access at the other stops was limited to those willing to walk to the station. While I may have erred in the number riding Starter Line trains, I’m dubious nearly 2000 commuters would choose to walk to and from station each weekday.  Also, that on the return trip from Seattle, nearly 2000 commuters would get off ST550 at South Bellevue T/C to ride Starter Line back to that station.

Even more “dubious” was the CEO’s claim that completing Line 2 route across I-90 Bridge would attract 10 times the nearly 3900 riders.  Sound Transit’s decision to route Line 2 though DSTT limits trains to one every 8 minutes. Each four 74-seat car train can accommodate 600 riders so 7.5 train s per hour can accommodate 4500 riders. It will take 8.5 hours to accommodate 39,000 riders with Line 2. I’m dubious 2000 commuters would choose to do so during off-peak hours.

The bottom line is the lack of cars parking in Belred limits Starter Line riders to those willing to walk to and from stations along route to South Bellevue T/C to join those riding ST550 for the commute into Seattle.  That the return trip requires they transfer from ST550 at South Bellevue to ride Line 2 back to that station.

I’m dubious 2000 commuters would choose that option. 

Traffic Lab Abets ST’s Biggest Blunder.

The Seattle Times Traffic Lab which began as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues” has devolved into one that “explores the region’s policies that determine how we get around and how billions of dollars in public money are spent”.  It shouldn’t take much exploring about “how billions of dollars in public money are spent” to question Sound Transit’s ability to spend money wisely.  For example, they’ve abided Sound Transit using ST3 approval in 2016 to spend $54B between 2016 and 2041 to build out their ST3 map to spend $145B between 2016 and 2046 and leave a $28.4B debt in 2047 well after ST3 taxes ended in 2041.

The Traffic Lab “explored” the $2.7B Northgate Link prior its October 2021 debut. Predicting it would be “Transit Transformed” with 42,000 to 49,000 daily riders added by extension’s three stations. Yet they continue to abet Sound Transit no longer releasing a Quarterly Service Delivery Performance Report which would have revealed ridership was a fraction of predictions.. 

Any “exploring” would have concluded the limited ridership was due to lack of access to light rail stations for route into Seattle.  Prior to Northgate, ST510-513 routes had multiple stops on Stewart St and 5^th Ave on the route in on 4^th Ave and Olive way on the return.  King Country Metro routed KCM41 from Northgate to multiple stops on 3^rd Ave for egress and access.  

The Northgate debut ended routes ST511-513 and KCM41 into Seattle.  Since the Northgate extension did nothing to increase light rail capacity, the $2 billion spent extending light rail reduced transit capacity into the city.  Something surely worthy of Traffic Lab ”exploring".

The Traffic Lab “exploring” the East Link Starter Line resulted in an  April 21^st Seattle Times front page claim the East Link Starter Line debut would “change how Eastsiders think about getting around”.  Subsequent articles detailed how to pay the fares to ride and predicted how each of the 8 Starter Line stations would attract riders.  

Yet they haven’t “explored” why the $42 million Sound Transit spent expediting a transit system that costs $76,000 daily to operate attracted  less than the 4000-5700 riders predicted since its April 27^th debut.  That the likely reason was commuters had better access to KCM Rapid Ride B from Redmond to Bellevue and ST550 from Bellevue to South Bellevue.  That limited access along the entire corridor outweighed Sound Transit’s expectation “if we build it riders will come”.

The Traffic Lab continues abetting Sound Transit claims for increased ridership when Line 2 trains begin service across I-90 Bridge.  Yet, they plan to end ST550 when service begins, limiting access to transit in Bellevue to those within walking distance of Bellevue T/C and East Main station. They also terminate all I-90 corridor bus routes on Mercer Island, ending egress and access at multiple stops on 5^th and 4^th Ave in Seattle with light rail to and from stations in DSTT.  A disincentive to even use public transit.

Sound Transit exacerbates that loss by choosing to route Line 2 through DSTT to Northgate and beyond.  Again, spending billions on a project that limits both Line 1 and Line 2 links to trains every 8 minutes until 2039 when 2^nd tunnel debuts should merit “exploring”.

The most blatant example of Traffic Lab failure is there abetting Sound Transit spending $12.5 B on the Ballard to Sodo Link.  Competent "exploring" would conclude they could end the need of a second tunnel northward terminating Line 2 and West Seattle extension at the existing CID station. Those needing to go beyond CID could ride Line 1 through DSTT.  Line 2 and West Seattle extensions could be scheduled to meet local demand. Line 1 wouldn't loose half the DSTT trains to Line 2 and West Seattle riders would no longer reduce Line 1 capacity.

Competent "exploring" would also conclude there was no need for a southbound Ballard to Sodo tunnel.   KCM Rapid Ride C, D, and E and Routes 2-5 and 40 already provide the area with better access to transit. The bus stops cost a fraction of light rail stations and funding the routes operation a fraction of light rail train, especially during off-peak operation.  

The KCM buses are all routed to multiple stops on 3^rd Ave for egress inbound and access outbound. Construction will end KCM40 from Northgate and Rapid Ride C and Streetcar service from South Lake Union along Westlake Ave.  When the Ballard to Sodo light rail begins most commuters from Ballard and beyond to Crown Hill will continue to use the far better access to Rapid Ride D for the ride to 3^rd Ave than  Ballard-to-Westlake light rail 

The need for riders presumable influenced Sound Transit’s decision to select “Denny Shifted North + SLU 7^th/Harrison as the Preferred Alternative.  That King County Metro will terminate Rapid Ride E there forcing riders to use escalators to reach trains to and from a far less convenient Westlake station.  Ending  Ballard-to-Westlake light rail would allow those riders to continue into Seattle and avoid the years of disruption from Denny and Westlake closures.  Those needing to go from South Lake Union to Westlake and beyond can do so via existing DSTT.  

 The bottom line is Sound Transit is currently planning to spend $12.5 billion on a Ballard to Sodo extension that debuts in 2039.  Previous posts have detailed how terminating East Link and West Seattle at existing CID would end the need for a 2^nd tunnel northbound.  This post opines the Ballard to Sodo 2^nd tunnel south isn’t needed because KCM routes already provide better service along entire route.  

That Sound Transit blundered when it approved plans to spend $12.5B and more than ten years disrupting downtown Seattle boring a tunnel and South Lake Union with light rail construction. All on a transit system that not only doesn't increase capacity it ends  Rapid Ride E commuters’ better access in Seattle.

The Traffic Lab needs to stop abetting Sound Transit’s blunder.