Sound Transit’s “Last Chance”

Now that voters have approved ST3 Sound Transit has one last chance to atone for past failures to understand how to implement a public transit system that can reduce the area's congestion.    They need to recognize their light-rail-spine concept has two problems.  The first is that, as the PSRC concluded in 2004, the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limits light rail to one 4-car train every 4 minutes.   

One can reasonably argue as to whether they could “safely” run the trains more frequently or how many riders each 74-seat car can accommodate.    Whatever the “conclusion,” light rail through the DSTT will never have the capacity to accommodate the numbers of riders needed to reduce congestion or to justify the hundreds of millions required for each mile of extension to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond. 

The lack of capacity means Sound Transit’s light rail ridership projections are sheer fantasy.   The 2015 planning document claimed annual ridership would increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030.   Their ST3 claims the Everett extension would add 37,000-45,000 riders to the 63,000-74,000 riders they project for the Lynnwood extension.  Yet, the combined 100,000 to 120,000-ridership projections from Everett and Lynnwood will likely require nearly twice the DSTT light rail capacity during peak commutes.   Even with half that ridership those living nearer Seattle or on Capital Hill will frequently loose access to light rail because trains will be full before they ever get to their station.

The extensions to Tacoma and Redmond, having to share the DSTT capacity, will have even less effect on congestion.   East Link, which was promised to be the equivalent of 10 lanes of freeway will, according to the Sound Transit extension website video, be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  The fact it confiscates the I-90 bridge center roadway likely leading to frequent gridlock on bridge outer roadways makes it especially egregious.

Even more absurd, they only intend to add 8560 additional parking stalls between 2024 and 2041; not likely to provide the access needed to attract the 84 million riders by 2030.  ST3 only adds 532 stalls to the “chronically full” Lynnwood T/C to increase access for the 100,000 to 120,000 riders projected for the Lynnwood/Everett extension.   They apparently “assume” a huge increase in the number of commuters living within walking distance of light rail stations.  Their plans to use light rail to replace bus routes into Seattle will do nothing to increase the number of transit riders needed to reduce congestion.  

The second problem is once they’ve spent the billions on the light rail spine, they face a huge increase in operating costs.  Per 2016 budget, a light rail car costs $24.36 per mile to operate vs. $10.35 for buses.   Every mile Sound Transit extends light rail beyond the UW station adds about $200 to the round trip operating costs for a 4-car train.  Even accounting for the somewhat higher light rail car capacity (148 per PSRC vs. 119 sitting and standing in a 70-ft articulated bus) the billions spent extending light rail will essentially double transit operating costs. 

The obvious solution is not to spend ST3 funds on a 29-mile UW-to-Everett extension, spend it on the proposed 5.4-mile extension to Ballard and 4.7-mile extension to West Seattle.   The two combined would cost about $4B and add roughly 80,000 to 100,000 riders.   The numbers of residents within walking distance of light rail stations would likely provide the ridership without the need to spend hundreds of millions increasing parking.   The light-rail construction costs per rider are a fraction of those for the spine.  The relatively short light rail extension lengths minimize the higher operating costs.  

The bottom line is Seattleites surely deserve the extensions.  There would be no ST3 if they hadn’t voted 70% to approve it.  Rather than making them wait for 15 to 20 years Sound Transit should, over the next 5 years, spend half of the $2B funds they plan to spend each year adding the Ballard and West Seattle extensions.

Obviously, the money spent on the Ballard and West Seattle extensions will do little to relieve congestion on the area's major roadways.  That requires spending the remaining $1B each year  attracting more of those commuters to transit.  As other posts have opined,  by adding parking, implementing BRT routes, along restricted roadway lanes if necessary, to T/Cs along 4^th Ave and in Bellevue and Overtake.  Parking fees would replace fare-box revenue to cover operating costs so those able to walk to P&R could ride free.  The advantage of funding added parking and bus service is it could continue for as long as necessary to ease congestion, something light rail routed through the DSTT can’t.  And it could be done with a fraction of ST3's $54 billion and 25 years 

Sound Transit has a last chance to do so.

How Sound Transit “Should” Use ST3 Funds,

ST3 approval means Sound Transit will have access to an additional billion a year for at least the next 25 years to deal with the area’s congestion problems.   Unfortunately, their current plans for spending the vast majority of those funds on “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions are “unlikely” to significantly reduce congestion.  Their decision to route light rail through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel will preclude the light rail spine from ever having the capacity to attract the number of transit riders needed to significantly reduce congestion on I-5 or I-90 corridors. 

The best way to use the ST3 funding is to proceed immediately with both the West Seattle and Ballard light rail extensions.  The 70% of Seattleites who approved ST3 should not have to wait until 2030 or 2035 for light rail.  Rather than spending $2B on a tunnel to Northgate (and billions more beyond) they should spend it on a tunnel to Ballard.  Rather than spending countless billions on East Link and light rail extensions beyond SeaTac they should spend it on light rail to West Seattle.  Routing it through a tunnel would allow it to supplement the West Seattle Bridge rather than replace it.  

Both Seattle light rail routes will have the ridership needed to justify the cost of implementing service without the need for expensive added parking.   The relatively short route lengths would have far lower operating costs minimizing the subsidies required to cover fare box revenue shortfall.

Those who use I-90 or I-5 corridors to commute could ride bus rapid transit (BRT) for free.  Fare box revenue would be replaced by charging a monthly or annual fee for a designated parking stall at a P&R.  Their ST3 funds should be used to add thousands of parking stalls to existing and new P&R lots throughout the area.  Each P&R could have express bus routes to destinations in Seattle or east side with total capacity dwarfing light rail.     

Sound Transit could set the parking fees for each P&R to cover a “to-be-determined” share of the operating costs of the bus routes.  (Central Link fare box revenue covers 28.5 % of operating costs in 2016 budget and bus operating costs are about half those of light rail with similar capacity.)  Those who purchased a stall would always have access to it and could share both the cost and access with others.   Whatever the parking costs, it’s likely to be less than what they (or someone else) would have to pay near their destination.

Avoiding the need to pay either on entry or exit would reduce station times.  Restricting a traffic lane to buses (or buses and +3HOV) during peak commute would minimize transit times.   Seattle egress and access would be facilitated by converting 4^th Ave into an elongated two-way T/C with designated drop-off and pickup locations for each route.   Eastside destinations could be reached via bus routes to Bellevue and/or Overlake T/Cs.

Again Seattle residents should get their added light rail service in 5 years not 15 or 20.   East side residents could avoid the disruption and increased cross-lake congestion from East Link construction and operation.  Added parking and bus service could begin reducing I-5 and I-90 congestion in 2 years at a fraction of the cost of the light rail spine.   Free transit would likely be a magnet for increased density near P&Rs or near a existing or new development willing to pay a fee for the bus service.    

Sound Transit could set parking fees to cover a  higher percentage of bus operating costs than they could ever get from fare box revenue with the “Prop 1 and Beyond” light rail extensions.   The end result will be those who rarely use transit will have to pay far less for those who do.  It's also the only way to attract the numbers of transit riders required to reduce the area's congestion.  Everyone would benefit!

ST3 "No's" Should Demand Audit

I wrote the following post since recent articles in the Times showed a "lack of interest" in an audit

ST3 “No’s” Should Demand Audit,

Many of those who read the Seattle Times, Nov 12^th B1 page article headline, “Planned light-rail areas backed ST3” would assume ST3 was approved because voters were eager to have light rail extended to their area.  Those who did would be wrong!  ST3 was approved because nearly 70% of Seattle residents voted for it.   Seattleites who did so must be very “patient” (or not very bright) since residents there will have to wait until 2030 for light rail service to West Seattle and 2035 for the Ballard link. 

King County, however, only approved ST3 by 58% to 42% indicating ST3 was far less popular outside Seattle.  (The Times "neglected" to even mention the Mercer Island vote.)  Pierce and Snohomish Counties combined, where the vast majority of the extension money will be spent, rejected ST3 with 53% voting against approval.  Apparently large numbers of voters had very real concerns.   One way to reconcile those concerns would be to have an independent audit.  The results of the last state Sound Transit audit were reported in an Oct 25, 2012 Seattle Times article,  “Sound Transit gets mixed reviews in state audit”.   A more recent audit is certainly needed. 

Yet, all of the subsequent audits appear to be “internal” potentially reflecting Sound Transit’s “optimism” for future light rail operation.  Thus, Sammamish, Newcastle, Renton and others opposed to ST3 should be able to require Sound Transit have an independent review of whether the billions spent on  “Prop 1 and beyond” light rail extensions will significantly reduce congestion and what anticipated subsidies will be required to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs for the longer routes.  (Presumably even those who approved ST3 would like to be “reassured”.)

While both Pierce and Snohomish cities should advocate for the audit, ST3, at least over the short term, will have minimal impact on their residents.  East Link, however, beginning in January will change the lives of eastside residents and commuters forever.   They first close the south Bellevue P&R lot and begin construction along Bellevue Way.   Later in the year they intend to close the Overlake T/C and the I-90 Bridge center roadway.   Sound Transit’s attempts to mitigate the impact can only charitably be called “lacking”.  

Common sense demands Sound Transit delay those actions until the audit has been completed.  Not only should the audit deal with the capacity and operating deficit, it should also consider the following issues of particular interest to east side residents.

1)       Has Sound Transit completed an I-90 Bridge design that satisfies floating bridge/light rail compatibility concerns?

2)       Will the 4^th lanes added to the I-90 Bridge outer roadway enable it to accommodate all cross-lake vehicles?

3)       Will East Link have the capacity to accommodate current and future I-90 cross-lake transit demands?  

4)       How valid is Sound Transit’s claim East Link noise will have de minimis impact on the Mercer Slough Park as required by federal environmental law?

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) would seem to have both the expertise and the background for dealing with the issues in the most expeditious manner.  It’s highly unlikely that any delays for the audit will significantly affect the 2023 debut.

Seattle Times Should Recommend PSRC Audit Sound Transit

The voters’ approval of ST3 exemplifies what happens when a well-funded campaign is allowed to promote Sound Transit's "solutions" to the area's transportation problems unfettered by any need for veracity.  Sound Transit claims “the tally reflects frustration with bus and car commutes that routinely take an hour from Federal Way to Seattle, or 80 minutes from Everett to either Seattle or Bellevue”.  

Yet the Seattle Times in a front-page Nov 4^th article concluded ST3 would not reduce congestion. The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”. 

The only way to reduce congestion is to dramatically increase the 10% of commuters who already use transit on the area’s major roadways.  ST3 doesn’t include the billions needed to add tens of thousands of parking spaces required for access to transit, and light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) doesn’t have the capacity for the ridership needed to significantly reduce congestion.

It was the Seattle Times who urged the legislature to pass the $15 billion, 15-year transportation package Sound Transit expanded to $25 billon and 25 years (and longer?).  Their Nov 4^th article “suggests” they have “reservations” as to whether it will alleviate the “frustration with bus and car commutes”.  (Though not mentioned in article, I-90 commuters will likely be "frustrated" when Sound Transit closes center roadway without demonstrating outer roadways can accommodate cross-lake vehicle traffic.)  

Thus, the Times surely has an obligation to recommend Sound Transit be audited.  The Puget Sound Regional Council’s transportation planning organization includes 20 staffers, several of whom are presumably familiar with Sound Transit's light rail proposals.   Have them audit Sound Transit’s current plans for all their light rail extensions.   Will they attract the increased transit ridership needed to significantly reduce GP lane congestion?  

Will 4^th lanes added to I-90 Bridge outer roadway provide capacity needed for vehicles when center roadway is closed?  Do they concur with Sound Transit estimates that fare box revenue will cover 40% of light rail operating costs and that light rail ridership will increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030?  Especially since failure to do either will likely result in a huge subsidy required to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs.

The PSRC calls itself “the regional transportation, economic development and growth management planning organization for central Puget Sound”.  The Seattle Times needs to recommend they audit Sound Transit.  My guess is they will conclude the following:
1)    The billions Sound Transit is planning to spend on their light rail "spine" will not significantly increase the 10% of commuters who currently use transit on I-5 and I-90 corridors.
2)     Sound Transit plans to use the light rail spine's limited capacity for former I-5 corridor bus riders will severely restrict light rail access at UW and Capital Hill stations.
3)     The Sound Transit East Link extension will do nothing to ease the I-90 corridor congestion.  It will increase I-90 Bridge congestion by closing the center roadway for light rail with half the current bus capacity and forcing all cross-lake vehicles onto the outer roadways without ever demonstrating adequate capacity.

It's not clear how Sound Transit would respond to the audit.  What is clear is the audit will eliminate any "surprise" awaiting the the area's commuters.

Seattle Times Concedes “ST3 Won’t Reduce Congestion”

The Seattle Times seems to be of two minds when it comes to Sound Transit’s light rail program.  For example, the Oct 28th editorial “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority” recommended rejection because “Prop 1 would give Sound Transit permanent tax authority”.    The editorial opined “If voters reject ST3, Sound Transit should return with a measure specifying which taxes would be terminated and when”. 

The Times Nov 1 edition headline, “Parking finds its place in Sound Transit vote” heralded the Sound Transit decision to add 8560 park and ride stalls between 2024 and 2041.   All the other approximately 20,000 park and ride stalls with access to either I-5 or I-90 are essentially already “in use”.  It’s “doubtful” spending $698 million on 8560 stalls between 2024 and 2040 will provide the access needed for many of the 700,000 daily riders Sound Transit is "anticipating" in 2040.   

The Times Nov 3^rd edition headline, “Primed for major growth: Lynnwood and light rail” explained how Lynnwood “will play a very large role in the success of expanded light rail".   It quotes city officials who “count on four-fifths of train riders to take a bus, walk or bike to the station”.  Another quote “Community Transit will quit driving express buses into Seattle and focus on bus-to-train service in Snohomish County.

No one seems to recognize the way to reduce congestion is to increase the number of transit riders, not move those currently riding buses to trains.   They only attempt to attract more riders by increasing the “chronically full” Lynnwood T/C from 1,368 spaces to 1,900 spaces”.   Not much considering the billions spent extending light rail to the area.   

Thus, it’s “doubtful” the Lynnwood extension “will play a very large roll in the success of expanded light rail”.  (At least in terms of reducing congestion.) Spending an additional $5.8 billion extending light rail to Everett with no plans to add the thousands of parking spaces needed to attract additional transit riders does nothing to change that result.

After essentially promoting the light rail extensions, the Times Nov 4^th edition front-page article asks “Would transit plan ease traffic?”   The answer to the more specific question “Would ST3 reduce congestion?” was “It would not”.  The best they could say was the plan “offers an escape from traffic misery for people who can reach the stations on foot, on a feeder bus, or via park-and-ride”. 

Even “leading proponents don’t promise that traffic will improve”.   More quotes “We’re building additional capacity to give people options to get out of traffic” and “The yearning to escape gridlock might push demand higher, and light rail capacity seems up to the task”.  

First of all those wanting an “escape from traffic misery” need access to parking either at stations or a P&R facilities with bus connections to stations.  Yet all the P&R’s are already essentially “in use” and Sound Transit plans to add 8560 by 2040 are a tiny fraction of what’s needed.   

Even if they did add the needed parking, light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will never have the capacity needed to give enough "people the option to get out of traffic” to reduce congestion for those unable to do so.  While “the yearning to escape gridlock might push demand higher”, light rail routed through the DSTT will never be “up to the task”

In conclusion, the Times recent assessment ST3 will not reduce congestion “suggests” they recognize the futility of spending $54 billion and 25 years attempting to do so.  However, stopping ST3 is not enough. 

The problem with congestion in our area is only 10% of commuters on the area's major roadways use transit.  The only way to significantly increase that number is to spend billions adding parking spaces throughout the area and provide those who park there with sufficient transit capacity to take them where they want to go.  None of the extensions beyond the UW stadium station, the Tukwila T/C, or across I-90 Bridge include sufficient added parking or have the capacity to accommodate more than a fraction of the commuters needed to do so.

Again, "Stopping ST3 is not enough!"

ST3 Parking “Too Little and Too Late”

The November 1^st Seattle Times front page article “Parking finds its place in Sound Transit vote” exemplifies why the area’s highways will likely remain congested for far into the future.  First you have Sound Transit promising ST3 will add 8,560 parking spaces between 2024 and 2041.  The article also reported, "19,488 cars occupied park-and-ride facilities each weekday in Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties” with “51 facilities next to express bus or train stations that were at least 95% full”.  

With the existing parking full of those already using transit, mostly on express bus routes, it’s “unclear” how Sound Transit intends to provide additional commuters with access to the light rail stations.   Routing the existing bus routes to the light rail stations rather than into Seattle will provide “access” for existing commuters.  However, it will do very little to reduce roadway congestion.  

That requires increasing the number of transit riders.  Even a light rail system whose capacity is limited by the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) requires Sound Transit add tens of thousands of parking spaces to increase transit ridership.   Instead they wait until 2024 to begin spending $698 million on a measly 8560 parking spaces to provide access to a light rail system they plan to spend $54 billion on light rail extensions over the next 25 years.

Talk about “too little too late”!  They ignore the reality the only way to reduce congestion is to convince more people to “ride rather than drive”.   The only way to do so is spend existing Prop 1 funds, not on light rail extensions, spend it adding parking spaces near where people live with express BRT routes to near where they want to go.   They can do so with a fraction of ST3 money and time dramatically reducing I-5 and I-90 corridor congestion.

Instead you have the “green and urbanist thinkers” who claim “the plan (parking) wastes money and land to subsidize car storage”.  That it could be used “on more frequent service, affordable housing, or better walk, bike and bus access to stations”.   Where do they “think” those who do not care to bike, live within walking distance of stations or bus routes to stations should “store” their car while they "work".   The same question could be asked of the Sierra club who “supports ST3 but expects to raise questions about the parking after the election”.  

Add to that the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute consultant’s claim, “Of all the ways to help people get from home to work, providing a fully subsidized park-and-ride lot is one of the most inefficient”.  He didn’t deign to propose an alternative.

It’s this “advice” along with Sound Transit plans for “Prop 1 and Beyond” that makes any transportation improvements “problematic”.   The area has already endured years of needless congestion and wasted funding because of Sound Transit’s failure to recognize the benefits of added parking and BRT.   Their parking plan is just another example of “too little, too late!”

Seattle Times Still Doesn’t “Get ST3 Problem”

The October 28^th Seattle Times editorial “No on ST3 and Permanent Tax Authority” exemplifies the fact they still don’t understand the real problem with ST3.  The ST3 problem is not that it will allow Sound Transit to extend taxes some 25 or 30 years from now.  The problem with ST3 is it allows Sound Transit to spend billions beginning next January over the next 15 years extending light rail tracks for a light system that is routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  

In 2004 the PSRC concluded the DSTT limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour (RPH).  They apparently based that capacity on the assumption that the tunnel station lengths limited each train to 4 cars, that safe operating procedures required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains, and that each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders. 

While others may disagree with some of the assumptions any rational analysis would conclude light rail through the DSTT will never have the capacity to accommodate the number of riders needed to significantly reduce congestion on either I-5 or I-90.  Thus it makes no sense for Sound Transit to spend the hundreds of millions per mile on light rail extensions beyond the UW stadium light rail station, across the I-90 Bridge to Overlake, and beyond SeaTac to Federal Way.    (It presumably costs the same to extend light rail tracks for 4-car trains as for 10-car trains (ala BART)).

The SeaTac and East Link extensions, having to share the DSTT capacity, are particularly nonsensical in terms of cost/capacity.  East Link, which confiscates the I-90 Bridge center roadway, will have about half the current cross-lake transit capacity.  Even worse, a 2004 FHWA ROD concluded adding the 4^th lanes to the outer roadways for HOV (R-8A) did not make up for the loss of the two center roadway lanes.  Yet, Sound Transit has no plans to temporarily close center roadway and demonstrate outer roadways have needed capacity.  The Times apparently is either unaware of the potential congestion problem or unconcerned.

They’re also apparently no longer concerned Sound Transit has failed to provide “Costs and benefits of rail versus buses is one of several topics that must be clarified”, something they requested in a 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers”.  Any rational review of BRT would conclude it had far more capacity, at far less cost, far sooner than light rail. 

The Times also doesn't recognize part of Sound Transit’s “Prop 1 and Beyond” ST3 problem is it fails to provide access to even its limited capacity.  Those living within, or able to find parking within, walking distance of likely light rail stations are only a fraction of the numbers required to reduce current I-5 or I-90 corridor congestion.  (Most of those are already riding buses.) The fact that “future growth” could provide more riders doesn’t change the fact that current commuters need better access.  

Thus if Sound Transit wants to use the proposed light rail extension capacity to increase rather than simply replace transit capacity they will have to route buses to light rail stations from P&R lots.    However all the existing P&R lots with reasonable access to I-5 and I-90 are essentially already full.  Yet ST3 makes no provisions for adding the hundreds of millions required to provide the $40-50,000 per-space P&R lots.   If they did manage to add the parking the limited light rail capacity would still preclude any significant congestion reduction over what could be achieved by routing the buses directly to Seattle.

The Times also seems unconcerned about the costs associated with operating light rail trains on ST3 light rail extensions.  Sound Transit’s 2016 budget anticipated fare box revenue would provide 28.5% of light rail operating costs.  They estimated average trip lengths would be ~ 17 miles.  Presumably operating costs would increase directly with trip lengths. 

Part II of Sound Transits July 13, 2015 Expert Review Panel (ERP) provides the ST3 Financial Plan detailing their sources of revenue and use of funds up to the year 2060.  One assumption on the revenue side was fare box revenue would provide 40% of operating costs.  Its not clear what the average trip lengths would be with ST3, but the added 100 miles of track would surely increase them “substantially”. 

Increasing fare box recovery to 40% of the “substantially” increased operating costs would seem to require a “substantial” increase in tolls.  Not only are they apparently anticipating increasing tolls, their June 2015 financial plan predicts thousands more will be willing to pay predicting ridership will increase from 24 million in 2020 to 84.1 million in 2030.  Again, the Times is either unaware of, or unconcerned with, this “optimism”.  The "likely" result will be a huge subsidy (ST3 taxes?) will be required to cover the shortfall between fare box revenue and operating costs for far into the future.   Sound Transit may need to make use of one of the more interesting provisions in the ERP presentation: “Sound Transit determines the optimal debt-to-equity ratio”.   

The Times suggests if ST3 is rejected “Sound Transit should return with a measure specifying which taxes would be terminated and when”.  They apparently don’t understand the impact of Sound Transits plans for East Link beginning in January.  They include a closure of the south Bellevue P&R that will result in all the other eastside P&R lots being full well before many “transit hopefuls“ arrive.  Beginning construction that will require closures creating a nightmare for those living or commuting along Bellevue Way.  Closing the I-90 Bridge center roadway without demonstrating the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways (R-8A) can accommodate all cross-lake vehicles. 

Its unlikely those affected will be more likely to support ST3 because they know which taxes will be terminated and when.