Traffic Lab Ignores Decade of Sound Transit Fraud.

The Seattle Times touts their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock and helps readers find the best ways to get around.”   However two recent Traffic Lab Sound Transit articles exemplify their inability to “dig into the thorny transportation issues” or “spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock”. 

The first was the Sept 8^th B1 page article concerning a judge dismissing a lawsuit over Sound Transit’s car tab taxes.  The previous post detailed how, prior to the ST3 vote, a Sound Transit website had lied about what car tabs would cost, dropped the website and later “lied about lying”.  The Times Traffic Lab repeated Sound Transit’s pre-vote car tab cost claims in a July 13 2016 article “Here’s what you’d pay to build a bigger Sound Transit network”.  Yet after the vote they allowed Sound Transit to “lie about lying” claiming they had never ”misled” voters.  The Sept 8^th article continues Traffic Lab’s failure to tell voters about Sound Transit’s car tab “deception”.  

A second Traffic Lab article on the same Sept. 8th B1 page, “Feds slot $100 million for Lynnwood light rail, but formal agreement pending,” exemplifies their failure to recognize Sound Transit’s 10 year failure to increase public transit capacity. It doesn’t take “much digging” to conclude Sound Transit’s decision to route Central Link through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) severely limited its capacity.  That Prop 1 extensions to Northgate and beyond do nothing to increase that capacity and East Link halves capacity to SeaTac.  Prop 1 passage marked the beginning of 10 years of Sound Transit spending billions on light rail extensions that do nothing to increase transit capacity and spend nothing for add parking or bus service that would. 

The Traffic Lab not only ignored Sound Transits failure to increase public transit, they played a major role in passing ST3, allowing billions more to be wasted on light rail extensions.  Not only, as mentioned above, did they allow Sound Transit to lie about what car tabs would cost, they allowed them to make absurd claims as to the number of commuters who would use it. 

Prior to the ST3 vote the Sound Transit Board promoted an interactive map, “Sound Transit 3” detailing projected ridership from “Prop 1 and beyond” extensions.   The extension from Lynnwood to Everett would add up to 45,000 daily riders, which combined with their previous estimate for 67,000 riders from Lynnwood extension adds up to 110,000 daily light rail riders into and out of Seattle from beyond Northgate.  The ST3 projected ridership for extensions beyond Angel Lake would add up to 95,000 daily riders.

Yet the billions Sound Transit plans to spend on “Prop 1 and beyond” do nothing to increase DSTT capacity into Seattle.  Again, it doesn’t take much “digging” to conclude Central Link’s inability to accommodate more than a fraction of the additional 110,000 riders from Everett or 95,000 riders from Tacoma.   The projected added riders from Tacoma extensions are particularly absurd since East Link halves DSTT capacity on the extension.  The reality is, whatever riders added will simply reduce Central Link’s capacity to accommodate current riders.

Yet the Sept 8^th Traffic Lab article heralds the apparent $200 million federal grant for Lynnwood extension and hopes for additional federal funds for Federal Way extension as a boon for area commuters.  They quoted Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s view, “The new allocation was a turning point in the Trump administration’s approach to transit funding”.  Rogoff, whose leadership of Sound Transit has been so inept, is probably wrong about additional funding. 

Meanwhile Traffic Lab needs to recognize, no matter how much federal funding is provided, the vast majority of "Prop 1 and Beyond" funds will come from local taxes.  Sound Transit should never be allowed to spend up to $3.2 billion on extensions to Lynnwood and $2.5 billion extending light rail to Federal Way.  Not only does the money spent do nothing to increase capacity, any extension ridership will reduce access for current riders and the longer routes will require a huge subsidy to cover the shortfall between fare-box revenue and increased operating costs.  

It's time the Seattle Times Traffic Lab recognized Sound Transit’s decade long fraudulent approach to public transit capacity is enough.

Car Tab Tax Issue Epitomizes Sound Transit Decade of Fraud

The Sept 8^th Seattle Times B1 page article, ”Sound Transit can keep collecting car tab taxes as judge tosses lawsuit” epitomizes a decade of Sound Transit fraud.  The car tab taxes are Sound Transit’s second-largest source of revenue from the 2016 ST3 ballot measure.  Prior to its passage, predicted car tab costs were included in a Sound Transit 7/08/2016 post entitled: “ST3 plan would cost typical adult $169 annually or $14 per month”.

It included the following:

Here’s how much a typical adult would pay if ST3 is approved:

MVET

An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed. The updated calculation reflects an annual median value $5,333 of vehicles in the Sound Transit District. MVET taxes are determined by a state of Washington depreciation schedule for a specific vehicle’s model and production year. The previous calculation relied on a less representative average vehicle value of $10,135 for the more expansive tri-county area, for a significantly higher annual cost of $78 per adult. 

Sound Transit’s decision to use a $5,333 as the median motor vehicle value to tell voters what car tabs would cost played a major role in ST3 passage.  A Joel Connelly June 8^th 2017 Seattle PI article reported “ST3 would get only 37% support were voters given a do-over”.

Sound Transit dropped the ST3tax.com website they used to estimate, “How much tax per year will you pay for Sound Transit if ST3 passes”. (They must have done so very soon after the 7/08/2016 post since a one-year offer to sell the website for $1385 ended on 7/20/2017 with apparently no takers.) 

Rather than conceding they had misled voters Sound Transit responded to voter complaints in an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett”

During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes. We all knew that our car tabs would increase a lot in 2017 to help fund Sound Transit. So when the first invoices arrived, the vast majority of people just paid their tabs. But a vocal minority, with big tabs from expensive cars, took their displeasure to Olympia, hoping that the Legislature would listen to their stories and disregard the will of the people.

Sound Transit apparently blames the legislature since the Sept 8^th article claims “Sound Transit uses an outdated formula, inherited from the Legislature, to estimate a car’s value for the purposes of collecting taxes. The formula inflates newer cars values relative to Kelley Blue Book values, resulting in higher car-tab fees”.  

The reality is the Sound Transit decision to lie about what car tabs would cost played a major role in passing ST3.  To later lie about lying, exemplifies a decade of going way beyond mere malfeasance or incompetence since Prop 1 passed.

        

A Decade of Sound Transit Fraud is Enough

  

   (This  “Special to the Times” will undoubtedly be ignored)

In two short months the area will “celebrate” the 10^th anniversary of what will inevitably be considered one of the biggest public works fraud in history, Sound Transits passage of the Prop 1 light rail extensions.   

Prior to Prop 1, Sound Transit’s light rail was limited to a Central Link route between the UW and SeaTac. They routed it through the existing Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) to avoid congestion on Seattle’s streets.  However the DSTT limited Central Link’s capacity. 

A 2004 Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment concluded station lengths in the tunnel limited light rail trains to four cars, that safe operation required 4 minutes between trains, and that each 74-seat can reasonably accommodate 148 riders.   Thus total light rail capacity in Seattle was limited to a total of 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction.

Part of Sound Transit’s Central Link projections for more than 100,000 daily riders was based on a T/C near the UW Stadium.  It provided an interface between SR 520 BRT and light rail, benefiting commuters from both sides of the lake.  A second bridge across the Montlake Cut was planned to facilitate access to UW T/C.

Without Prop 1, Central Link’s 8880 rph could have provided Seattleites with added transit capacity into city center, UW, and access to potential SR 520 BRT routes to Microsoft and Bellevue.   East side commuters could have used return SR 520 BRT routes to T/C at UW with Central Link connections into Seattle.   Part of the tunnel capacity could have eventually been used for a Central Link route to West Seattle.

Prop 1 changed all that. Sound Transit dropped plans for the 2^nd bridge and UW T/C, promising voters light rail extensions to Mill Creek, Federal Way, and across I-90 Bridge to Redmond: all routed through the DSTT.  Prop 1, which was heralded by Sound Transit as “A gift to our Grandchildren” did nothing to increase light rail transit capacity into the city.  Instead diverting half the DSTT capacity across I-90 reduced Central Link capacity to SeaTac.  Clearly, Prop 1 failed any rational cost/benefit capacity analysis.

Sound Transit’s planning for Prop 1 also violated the Revised Code of Washington. RCW 81.104.100 stipulated any HCT planning consider a “do nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system”.  Yet there is no indication Sound Transit ever considered additional bus routes along a limited access HOV lane on I-5 or 2-way bus only lanes on I-90 Bridge center roadway.

Even a cursory planning study would have concluded Sound Transit could have increased transit capacity on all the major roadways into Seattle with the added bus service without spending a dime on Prop I extensions. Sound Transit disdain for increased bus public transit once Prop 1 passed is exemplified by quarterly ridership reports showing revenue vehicle miles operated in 2008 prior to Prop 1, 10,450,000, were budgeted to increase to only 12,118,429 in 2018. 

During those same ten years Sound Transit refused to add any significant parking with access to bus routes despite the fact that many of the major P&R lots have been full for years.  Again, they recently typified disdain for added transit capacity with plans to reserve stalls at existing parking for “late arriving commuters” rather than adding bus routes and parking. 

Prop 1 passage has been especially onerous for east side residents. Their failure to comply with RCW allowed them to avoid the conclusion they could've implemented 2-way BRT on the bridge center roadway 10 years sooner than light rail, with 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost.  Cross lake BRT rather than light rail would have eliminated the need to devastate the route into Bellevue. 

Much of the 2008 DEIS promoting East Link was sheer fantasy, claiming capacity for up to 24,000 rph despite the fact it was limited to half of what the PSRC concluded for DSTT, or 4440 rph in each direction.   Even worse, they intend to use East Link’s limited capacity to replace I-90 Bridge bus routes, apparently unaware reducing the number of buses on the bridge HOV lanes does nothing to reduce bridge GP lane congestion.  They could have not only added the 4440 capacity with 50 buses, they could have continued to add capacity with additional buses to meet future growth.  East Link will always be limited to 4440 rph. 

The DEIS also claimed “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link".  Sound Transit ignored a September 2004 FHA, Record of Decision, "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations Project".  It concluded, even with added lanes on I-90 Bridge outer roadways for HOV, the center roadway was still needed for vehicles.  

Sound Transit’s Prop 1 has failed to increase bus capacity has already forced commuters throughout the area to endure years of needless congestion.  It’s East Link extension halves Central Link capacity fro SeaTac, has devastated the route into Bellevue, done nothing to ease congestion on I-90 corridor, and will inevitably lead to gridlock on I-90 Bridge outer roadway.  

Clearly, East Link epitomizes the fact that Prop 1 passage was the beginning of 10 years of actions that go way beyond “malfeasant” or “incompetent”.  Sound Transit has already spent billions extending Central Link to Northgate and Angel Lake. They’re currently spending millions on Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions as part of their light rail spine to Everett and Tacoma.

None of the extensions will increase transit capacity, so any riders added will simply reduce access for current Central Link commuters.  They longer routes will increase operating costs requiring an increase in tolls or a large subsidy to cover fare box revenue shortfall. 

While nothing can be done about East Link, Northgate, or Angel Lake extensions, much of the $54 billion ST3 funds remain to be spent.  They should be spent expediting light rail to West Seattle and Ballard. Sound Transit’s decade of fraud since Prop 1 passed is enough!

Class Action Complaint Against Sound Transit Reserved Parking

(This post is another attempt to use a class action complaint to prevent Sound Transit from adversely impacting large numbers of commuters. Unfortunately, the previous post attempt to garner legal support for filing a class action complaint against Sound Transit for failure to comply with RCW 81.104.100 has been ignored by several local “class action” attorneys   Meanwhile ClassAction.org, who thanked me for inquiring, has gone way beyond the 48 hrs they promised for a response.   Any suggestions?)

Anyone who uses one of the major P&R lots to access Sound Transit express bus routes should be concerned with Sound Transit plan to provide frequent solo drivers with reliable transit parking.  Up to fifty percent of spaces at their highest-demand lots will be reserved for train and bus riders who use parking permits.  They justified the  “new parking management strategy” with the following:

At the most popular transit facilities, people are arriving earlier and earlier to secure a space – which can increase crowding on early buses and trains while seats remain empty on later transit trips.

The latest WSDOT “Park and Ride Inventory” for Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, Oct-Dec 2016, shows all the major parking facilities were essentially fully “in use” nearly two years ago. It’s not clear how they will choose the “most popular transit facilities” to implement the “parking management strategy”.

What is clear is wherever 50% of the stalls are reserved, 50% of those currently using the P&R will no longer be able to do so.  Those loosing access to public transit will likely be forced to endure the stress and costs of driving into Seattle and paying for parking. 

Sound Transit’s reserved parking plan harms a large number of people in the same way, a clear cause for a class action complaint.  Sound Transit could have resolved the parking management problem years ago by adding parking and bus routes.  In this case, any parking facility slated for reserved parking, could be cause for a class action complaint by those currently using the parking to prevent implementation. 

Law firms may welcome the resultant favorable publicity.  Also the sooner the better since Sound Transit plans to begin implementing the plan in October. 

48th District Class Action Complaint

(I’m back and looking for a Class Action Lawyer,  anyone interested?)

I’ve decided to file a class action complaint detailing how Sound Transit’s wrongful actions have injured 48^th District residents both financially and physically.  That Sound Transit has misled 48^th District residents with claims of both costs and benefits from their Prop 1 and ST3 light rail extensions across I-90 Bridge.  That as a result they have needlessly endured years of increased congestion, forced to pay and continue to be forced to pay thousands of dollars to fund a light rail extension that will do nothing to ease the area’s congestion and will increase the congestion they encounter on the I-90 Bridge.

The primary basis for the class action is Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).  RCW 81.104.100 details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning.  The relevant excerpted portions of the RCW are as follows:

To assure development of an effective high capacity transportation system, local authorities shall follow the following planning process only if their system plan includes a rail fixed guide-way system component or a bus rapid transit component that is planned by a regional transit authority:

 (2) High capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range of high capacity transportation system options, including: Do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities.  High capacity transportation system planning shall proceed as follows:

 (b) Development of options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system shall be developed. 

When I raised the issue with A.G. Ferguson’s Consumer Protection Division I received the following response

Dear William James Hirt,

Thank you for contacting the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office. Your complaint has been reviewed and it was determined that the issues presented are under the regulatory authority of another agency. Your complaint has been closed accordingly.

We referred your complaint to the following agency. Please contact the identified agency directly with questions about the status of your complaint.  

Sound Transit Board of Directors

c/o Board Administrator

401 Jackson S

Seattle, WA 98104

While his office apparently admitted I had a “legitimate concern” they delegated the response as to whether Sound Transit had violated the RCW to Sound Transit.  The below excerpts from Sound Transit’s response gives a whole new meaning to attempting to “exculpate” their approach.

As you noted in your complaint, Chapter 81.104 RCW requires development of a high capacity transportation system plan, and RCW 81.104.100 specifically sets forth the requirements that must be included in that system-wide plan. Sound Transit developed draft and final system plans that complied with these requirements and included extensive public outreach from 2005 to 2008.

Yet there is no indication Sound Transit ever considered BRT on limited access lanes as a low cost alternative for any of the Prop 1 light rail extensions.  The below Sound Transit response concerning East Link was even more "problematic".

Project level reviews are not subject to the requirements in RCW 81.104.100. As noted in your complaint, the project level review of the East Link project did include a no-build option. Your presumption that this was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project level reviews.

Sound Transit simply “decided” East Link wasn’t required to comply with RCW.   When I contacted Ferguson’s office attempting to hold Sound Transit “accountable” for their refusal to comply the response included the following:

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the office of the Attorney General regarding Sound Transit RCW compliance.

Regarding Sound Transit, our office does not advise or represent regional transit authorities, nor does our office have the role of supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities. 

Clearly 48^th District residents deserve better that what they’ve been getting from Sound Transit and the state Attorney's General.   Even a cursory attempt to comply with RCW would have concluded Sound Transit could have added 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways for non-transit HOV and implemented two-way bus only service on the bridge center roadways.  

They could have done so 10 years ago, providing 10 times light rail capacity, at 1/10^th the cost and avoided the need to devastate the route into Bellevue.  48th District residents have been forced to pay increased taxes and endure years of congestion as a result. Instead Sound Transit has been allowed to locate their Operation Maintenance Facility (OMF) in the 48^th District meaning Sound Transit light rail trains will be trundling through the area for servicing between 12:00 am to 5:00 am beginning in 2020.

Sound Transit’s failure to comply with the RCW regarding East Link is surely reason for 48^th District resident class action.  Even more important, the vast majority of their future taxes will be spent, not on East Link, but on light rail extensions to Everett and Tacoma.  48^th District class action regarding Sound Transit’s failure to comply with RCW for those extensions is even more imperative. 

Again, there is no indication Sound Transit ever considered implementing added bus service along limited access HOV lanes as a "low cost" alternative.  Something they could have done years earlier.  Their refusal to add bus service is demonstrated by the fact their annual  “Revenue Vehicle Miles Operated” in 2005, 10,254,710, only increased to 11,991,374 in 2017. 

Sound Transit compounded the problem with their failure to comply with RCW with added bus service by routing their light rail spine through a Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel that severely limits its capacity.   That neither 48^th District funds nor the entire area's ST3 funding of the light rail extensions will do anything to increase transit capacity into the city.  If allowed to continue the operating costs for the extensions added route lengths will create a financial black hole for the entire areas transportation funds. 

I intend to try to use a class action complaint to mitigate impact of Sound Transit debacle for 48^th District. 

My Blog Lives On

Once again my candidacy has ended in the primary.  While I earlier thought Tom’s decision to file as a Democrat would cost him votes, his support from Seattle Times and extensive campaign will keep him on the ballot.  He has my full support.  While Patty Kuderer seems very pleasant personally, she’s advocated some really screwy ideas; single payer health insurance, a state bank, capital gains taxes, and climate change as the most serious problem facing the state.  Tom will hopefully do much better in the general election.

Meanwhile my blog will take a weeklong hiatus for a round trip cruise to Alaska, part of my “Travel is the spice of life” philosophy.  However I do intend to resume using this blog to explain why the entire area deserves more than what it’s getting from those responsible for the areas transportation.   A recent survey of Bellevue residents reported their biggest problem, three times that of any other, was the congestion they faced on the area’s roadways.   My guess is surveys of residents in the other Seattle suburbs would show the same concern.  

Their concerns are well founded.  Commuters throughout the area have seen dramatic increases in commute times.  Yet Sound Transit, since 2005, has refused to add any significant parking or bus “revenue vehicle miles” needed to attract more commuters to public transit.  Instead they plan to implement a “New Parking Management Strategy” where “50% of the stalls at the most popular transit facilities” are reserved for those arriving later.  It’s their way to “reduce crowding on early buses” and fill seats that currently “remain empty on later transit trips”.   It typifies Sound Transit’s refusal to increase public transit capacity. 

Sound Transit’s refusal to add parking and bus service is compounded by their failure to recognize their decision to route the light rail spine through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel severely limits its capacity.   The billions spent on extending light rail beyond UW or SeaTac along I-5 or across I-90 Bridge do nothing to increase the capacity.  Any riders they do attract will simply displace existing Central Link commuters.  The longer routes operating costs will create a financial black hole for the area’s transportation funds.  Their plans to use two DSTT stations for thousands of commuters to exit and access light rail is a sure recipe for havoc..

 Meanwhile, the WSDOT plan for implementing 2 HOT lanes on I-405 between Lynnwood and Renton demonstrates a similar level of incompetence.  The standard rationale for implementing HOT is the number of two-person carpoolers exceeds the number of vehicles an HOV lane can accommodate and still achieve the desired velocity, e.g. 2000 vehicles per hour for 45 mph.   HOT lane fees can be set to limit the number of drivers willing to pay the fees to what’s required to achieve the desired speed.   

However, the WSDOT rationale is their claim HOT lanes “Can accommodate 35% more than regular lanes because fees can be raised to prevent clogging”.   They use that absurdity to justify not one but two HOT lanes along I-405 between Bothell and Bellevue and plan to so along the rest of the route.  They ignore the fact the two HOT lanes have increased GP congestion and failed to maintain the 45 mph average velocities for 90% of the commute. 

The problem is limiting GP use to the remaining three lanes increases congestion to where more commuters are willing to pay the WSDOT HOT tolls than the lanes can accommodate and still achieve the 45 mph.  The WSDOT plans to limit GP to only 2 of 4 lanes on the rest of I-405 will surely exacerbate the problem.

The DOT could solve both problems be implementing HOT on one lane and setting fees to limit the number of vehicles needed to achieve 45 mph, and using the second lane to reduce congestion for GP commuters.  Instead their plan for 2 HOT lanes along the rest of the route is clear indication the DOT is more interested in increasing revenue than reducing congestion.   The single HOT lane would provide reliable BRT routes if Sound Transit could be persuaded to add transit capacity beyond their totally inadequate ST3 plans.

The Sound Transit and WSDOT incompetence is matched by the Seattle Times Traffic Lab’s failure to dig into the region’s thorny transportation issues and spotlight promising approaches to easing gridlock”.  It doesn't take much "digging" to recognize Sound Transit's failure to increase transit capacity with added parking or bus revenue vehicle hours.  Even they recognize the ST3 extensions won’t reduce congestion but fail to advocate an audit to prevent Sound Transit from proceeding.  Rather than objecting to WSDOT 2 HOT lanes on I-405 they advocate for tolls on all the main roadways as a way to reduce congestion.

My blog will continue to raise these concerns.

A Decade of Public Transit Incompetence Continues

The below paragraph from Sound Transit’s July Platform heralding  “Permit parking program expanding” is just the latest example of more than 10 years of incompetence in dealing with the area’s public transit needs.

In order to provide frequent transit riders with reliable parking, the Sound Transit Board today voted to offer reserved permit parking options to solo drivers. Permits will give their holders access to priority parking areas on weekdays during the morning rush hours. Up to fifty-percent of spaces at our highest-demand lots will be reserved for train and bus riders who use parking permits.

Interested?

The July announcement was a follow-up to a Feb 14th Sound Transit news release “Sound Transit, King County Metro seek public feedback on reserved solo-driver permit parking at transit facilities”.  It justified their  “new parking management strategy” with the following:

At the most popular transit facilities, people are arriving earlier and earlier to secure a space – which can increase crowding on early buses and trains while seats remain empty on later transit trips.

Note that neither of the announcements included adding more parking as a way of ensuring commuters have access to transit.  Sound Transit hasn’t added any significant parking for at least ten years.  Thus the only result of the reserved parking will be up to 50% of the stalls commuters currently use will be reserved for later arrivals.  The only way to be assured of parking is to be one of those able to reserve a stall.   It will be particularly disruptive to I-90 corridor commuters who have already had two P&Rs shut down for East Link

Presumably filling "empty seats on later transit trips" requires they give preference to those riding later trains, ending access to many current riders.  The Sound Transit Board apparently doesn't recognize forcing more commuters to drive into Seattle during peak commute is not the way to reduce congestion.

Sound Transit could have eased “crowding on early buses” by simply adding more bus routes. Sound Transit's refusal to do so is demonstrated by the fact their annual  “Revenue Vehicle Miles Operated” in 2005, 10,254,710, only increased to 11,991,374 in 2017.  More recently Sound Transit’s quarterly bus trips only increased from 115,163 in 2012 4^th quarter to 120,400 in the 2017 4^th quarter.  That comparable total average express-bus-weekday boarding only increased from 54,345 to 61,526 during the five years; hardly a “dramatic increase”.

Clearly very little of the billions Sound Transit has spent over the last decade on “System Expansion” was for added parking or bus service.   Their Central Link route from the UW stadium through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) to SeaTac increased transit capacity within the city.  A T/C at the UW could have provided an interface between 520 BRT and light rail enhancing commuting for those on both sides of the lake. 

Rather than adding the UW T/C or a light rail extension to West Seattle, Sound Transit convinced voters to approve Prop 1 light rail extensions to Mill Creek, Redmond, and Federal Way.  They simply ignored the fact the money spent on Prop 1 extensions did nothing to increase the capacity through the DSTT.  Instead they managed to convince 70% of Seattle voters to provide the support needed to pass ST3.  The billions spent on the “light rail spine” will do nothing to reduce congestion and their operating costs will create a financial black hole for the areas transportation funds.

All of this could have been avoided if the Seattle Times Traffic Lab had demonstrated a modicum of competence.  It's totally failed in its mission to “dig into the region’s thorny transportation issues, and spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock”.  It doesn't take much "digging" to recognize Sound Transit's failure to increase transit capacity with added parking or bus revenue vehicle hours.  They apparently don't recognize the incoherence of Sound Transit's "Parking management strategy".  Even they recognized the DSTT capacity problem with a Seattle Times 6/19/17 edition front-page Traffic Lab article “Here’s why I-5 is such a mess!” concluded the best they could say about ST3 was:

 Sound Transit 3’s light-rail system, as it expands over the next 25 years, will do little to ease I-5 traffic, but it will give some commuters an escape hatch to avoid it”.

Again, one would think, a newspaper would question the efficacy of Sound Transit spending $54 billion on a transportation system that won’t reduce congestion, something they could easily have done by urging they be audited.

Instead their 6/19/17 Times article, ”Can’t state ease I-5 traffic? Fixes exist, but most of them are pricey”, typifies their approach.

The most obvious way to reduce traffic on I-5 is to reduce the number of cars on the road.  The most obvious way to do that is to make it more expensive for them to be there.

Rather than increasing public transit capacity, their solution, a 6/26/17 edition headline “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock”, urges tolls on all the major roadways.  They fail to recognize that unless commuters have an alternative way of commuting, tolls only increase the cost.  They refuse to acknowledge Sound Transit’s failure to add thousands of parking stalls and hundreds of bus routes is the reason public transit ridership is still less than 10% of total. 

Until Sound Transit and Seattle Times recognize that reality the area's decade of increasing congestion is only going to continue.