The Area’s Transportation Debacle Continues

The most recent information on the Seattle area’s congestion ranking is a February 5, 2018 INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard ranking Seattle as 9th worst in the country in 2017.  They had Seattle as 10^th in 2016.  The area’s ranking will surely worsen if Sound Transit and WSDOT are allowed to proceed with current plans for dealing with the congestion.

The problem is the Sound Transit Board is far more interested in spending billions constructing a light rail spine than in reducing congestion.  They compound that problem by choosing to route the Prop 1 extensions through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT).  Their ST3 extensions spend more billions on fatally flawed extensions.

Meanwhile the WSDOT is more interested in increasing revenue, forcing commuters to pay tolls, rather than in reducing congestion.  Their approach to imposing HOT fees on two I-405 HOV lanes between Lynnwood and Bellevue has increased GP lane congestion between the two cities and failed to meet the 45 mph “requirement” during peak commute on HOT lanes.  Their plans for HOT lanes between Bellevue and Renton will further increase GP congestion and again fail to achieve the “required” 45 mph for much of the peak commute.  

Reducing traffic congestion requires either increasing the number of commuting lanes or increasing the capacity of existing lanes.  Sound Transit has refused to increase the capacity of existing lanes by increasing  parking with access to bus routes into the city.  Instead their light rail spine adds commuting lanes along the I-5 corridor.   However, a 2004 PSRC report concluded their decision to route it through the DSTT limited capacity to 8880 riders per hour (rph) in each direction. The billions spent on Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions do nothing to increase that capacity. 

Roadway capacity studies have shown that limiting a highway lane to 2000 vehicles per hour (vpr) will allow it to average 45 mph.   Thus, the light rail spine’s 8880 rph “could” add ~ 4.5 highway lanes of “single occupancy vehicles (SOV) capacity at 45 mph.  However, there are several problems with using the spine along I-5.

First, the 8880-rph capacity is a fraction of what’s required to accommodate the number of riders needed to reduce congestion.  Second, using that capacity to reduce congestion along I-5 from Everett will eliminate access to those currently using University Link and projected to use the Northgate extension.   Third, Sound Transit neglects to add the parking needed for light rail access, planning instead to use it to replace current bus routes, apparently not recognizing reducing the number of buses on I-5 HOV lanes does nothing to reduce GP lane congestion.

The light rail extensions south of Seattle and across I-90 Bridge are even more “problematic”.   Each, having only half the DSTT capacity, will do little to reduce congestion.  Again, commuters added by the extensions beyond SeaTac will displace current riders.  The East Link extension across I-90 Bridge, rather than adding  “traffic lanes,” replaces the two center roadway lanes.  They were allowed to do so by convincing a federal judge the center roadway lanes weren’t needed for vehicles, ignoring a FHWA Record of Decisions stipulating they were still required.  The inevitable result will be future gridlock for cross-lake vehicles.  Again, Sound Transit fails to add the parking needed for light rail access, planning to use East Link capacity to replace cross-lake buses with little effect on congestion.

Clearly, the billions Sound Transit plans to spend on the light rail spine fails to reduce I-5 congestion and increases I-90 bridge congestion.  Even more “problematic”, the spine operating costs will either necessitate “substantial” fare increases or a large increase in subsidies to cover the fare box shortfall.   

Sound Transit budgets light rail cars cost ~$25 per mile to operate or ~$100 per mile for 4-car trains.  Their extensions to Everett add 33.6 miles to the 4.3 mile University Link or 67 miles to the round trip.   Thus each round trip to Everett adds ~ $6700 to Sound Transits operating costs.   Assuming 180 round trips a day (4 minute headways between trains for 8 hours and 8 minutes for 8 hours) the Everett round trips will add $1.2 million to weekday operating costs.  Assuming half those frequencies on weekends, the Everett extension adds $375 million to Sound Transits annual operating costs.  The extensions to Tacoma and Redmond while shorter will likely add $150-200 million.  Clearly light rail spine operating costs will dwarf fare-box revenue.

Meanwhile, the WSDOT demonstrates their quest for increased revenue with plans to implement 2 HOT lanes along I-405 from Lynnwood to Renton.   They refuse to recognize the $484 million 2-year “pilot program” between Lynnwood and Bellevue increased GP lane congestion and failed to provide the 45 mph on the HOT lanes during 90% of the peak commute.  (Despite the fact they defined peak commute as beginning at 5:00 A.M).

The problem is the WSDOT decision to restrict GP use to 3 of the 5 lanes between Bothell and Bellevue increases congestion to where the number of commuters willing to pay the maximum allowable $10 tolls exceeds the 2000 vph needed to maintain the 45 mph. They clearly don’t acknowledge the problem since they’re planning to spend $1.2 billion implementing 2 HOT lanes between Lynnwood and Bothell, and Bellevue and Renton, restricting GP use to 2 of the 4 lanes.

Limiting GP use to only 2 lanes will “likely” force even more commuters to use HOT lanes, further reducing their velocities.  Between Bothell and Bellevue, the WSDOT is already considering raising fees on the two HOT lanes to meet the 45 mph for 90% of the peak commute. They’ll surely need to do so with GP traffic reduced to 2 lanes.

A far better way would be to raise the fees on one of the HOT lanes between Lynnwood and Renton to whatever it takes to maintain 45 mph for 100% of the commute and allow GP use of 2^nd HOT lane.  HOT users would be assured of 45 mph and GP congestion would be reduced with the added lane.    (Unlimited-fee HOT could also be implemented on an I-5 HOV lane assuring 45 mph for those willing to pay for that route into the city.) 

Equally important, single HOT lanes on both I-5 and I-405 could assure 45 mph for bus routes, making public transit more attractive for both routes.   Unfortunately, Sound Transit has shown no interest in adding the parking or bus routes needed to take advantage of the unlimited fee HOT lane reliability.

The bottom line is Sound Transit is planning to spend billions on Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions that will do nothing to reduce I-5 congestion, will increase I-90 congestion and require a huge subsidy to operate.  The WSDOT plans for implementing 2 HOT lanes on I-405 will either end up with a failure to achieve the 45 mph during the peak commute or a huge increase in fees to limit HOT use.  Both will increase GP lane congestion.

The Seattle area’s ranking will only get worse as the debacle continues.

Microsoft Vans Would Reduce Congestion

The June 17^th Seattle Times, B1 page Traffic Lab article Bellevue envisions fleet of driverless vans to relieve congestion” exemplifies an inept approach to a possible way to reduce the  “cars that clog Eastside highways each work day.” 

The article is unclear as to what the Bellevue driverless van concept would entail.   One approach is, “A 1- to 2-mile loop in downtown Bellevue that would move people between the downtown transit center and nearby workplaces and restaurants”.   Another, “Hundreds of vans where you could book a ride through an app, (presumably from home) switching times on days when you have to work late, or leave early”.

Transit vans reduce roadway congestion by attracting up to 12 commuters willing to share a ride to a common destination.   Each route requires up 12 commuters living within reasonable distance of each other who need to reach destinations within reasonable proximity to each other at about the same time.

The article claims, “The city wants major employers to chip in; that a fully realized program could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build out”.  It’s not clear what they need to “build out” since a 12-passenger van with a driver reduces congestion the same as a driverless van. 

One of the major employers that should be asked to “chip in” is Microsoft.  They recently announced plans to expand their Redmond campus to accommodate 8,000 more employees to the 47,000 currently working there.  The added workforce is surely going to exacerbate the current “clogging” on all the major roadways east of I-405 for much of the day from those already working there.  

 Microsoft needs to be “persuaded” to dramatically increase their “Connector” transit capacity with hundreds of additional 12-passenger van routes.  (Or forced by permitting process to limit the number of “on-campus” parking stalls.)  The large numbers of employees provides the numbers of riders living within reasonable distance of each other, all going to the campus, to effectively use vans on hundreds of routes.  Microsoft could arrange for their work schedules to be compatible and allow vans to schedule multiple routes throughout the day. 

Again, they don’t need to be driverless to reduce congestion so they could begin operation within 6 months not 6 years.  Microsoft could eventually decide to supplement the van routes by also providing off-campus P&R lots with increased Connector bus routes.  Both vans and buses could be even more effective by providing them with Wi-Fi access.

Those advocating for “driverless” vans need to recognize eliminating the driver does nothing to increase van capacity and only delays their implementation.

Dear Senator Fortunato

(The June 6 B1 Page Article “Sound Transit facing lawsuit over car-tab fees" prompted the following letter.)

Dear Senator Fortunato,

Your decision to sue Sound Transit regarding Sound Transit’s car tab taxes is welcome news to the entire area.  Sound Transit’s approach to car tab taxes epitomizes their mendacity regarding their ST3 “Prop 1 and Beyond” extensions. It’s “unfortunate” the Seattle Times, 7/13/16 Traffic Lab article, “Here’s what you’d pay to build a bigger Sound Transit network,” essentially parroted Sound Transit’s car tab tax mendacity likely contributed to its passage.

The below 7/13/17 post from my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com was in response to the Seattle Times July12th, 2017 article concerning an Eyman initiative to reduce car tab taxes. It details how Sound Transit lied about what car tabs would cost and then “lied about lying”.  However, there are far more reason to sue Sound Transit than their mendacity regarding what car tabs will cost.

Sound Transit also lied about what residents would get from their ST3 taxes. The vast majority of the funds will be spent creating a light rail spine routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel  (DSTT).  The PSRC concluded in 2004 the tunnel limited light rail capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.  The billions spent on the ST3 spine will do nothing to increase capacity and public transit ridership needed to reduce roadway congestion. 

Yet, prior to the ST3 vote, Sound Transit ignored the DSTT limits, claiming the extension to Everett would add up to 110,000 daily riders and up to 90,000 from the Tacoma extension. (The Tacoma numbers are particularly absurd since it will be limited to half the DSTT capacity.)  At least during peak commute, the spine’s limited capacity means whatever riders the extensions attract will simply reduce access for current riders.  Sound Transit plans to spend billions on light rail extensions that do nothing to increase public transit capacity into the city should be grounds for some sore of legal action.

Not only will residents pay more than they should for light rail extensions that won’t reduce congestion, they’ll likely be forced to pay even more to cover the shortfall between fare-box revenue and operating costs with the extensions.  They quadruple the route lengths but add very few riders.  Either those attracted by the extensions will have to pay far higher tolls or residents will have to pay to cover shortfall.  Sound Transit will likely use their ability to extend the ST3 taxes as they see fit means residents can expect to pay for far into the future,  It’s something your legal action should consider.

Sincerely,

Bill Hirt

Sound Transit Car Tab Tax Mendacity

The July 12th Seattle Times B1 page “Traffic Lab” article, “Eyman initiative would toss Sound Transit car tab tax” should be welcome news for the entire area.   A Joel Connelly June 8^th Seattle PI article included the following:

        A survey by Moore Information, the venerable Portland-based polling firm with Republican and business clients, shows that ST3 would get only 37 percent support were voters given a do-over.

The survey results “suggest” large numbers of voters would respond favorably to the initiative.  Eyman is certainly correct to raise the question,

“Now that you know how much these car tabs are going to cost, do you think this is fair?”

Those opposed to the car tab costs surely have a reason to do so. Presumably many were likely persuaded to approve ST3 by a Sound Transit 7/8/2016 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. 

Thus it was Sound Transit who provided the MVET tax for ST3 that “misled” voters.  Yet Sound Transit's responce to voter complaints, an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett”, included the following:

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.

A May 12^th KOMONews.com article “State senators claim Sound Transit misled public about ST3 project impact and cost” also raised the issue:

Now, State Senators Steve O'Ban and Dino Rossi are calling for a special investigation into Sound Transit saying in a statement: "We are concerned about whether sound transit is engaged in a systematic effort to confuse and misrepresent the impact and cost of the Sound Transit authorization to legislators and the public."

It generated the following response from the Sound Transit Director of Media Relations and Public Information Communications & External Affairs, Geoff Patrick:

Sound Transit's interactions with the legislature and all of the extensive public materials related to the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure included clear and accurate information.   That the legislative language allowing regional voters to consider the Sound Transit 3 measure was extensively debated and covered by news media.

The “inconsistency” between what Sound Transit told voters before the vote and what they claimed they told them after the vote should be no surprise to blog viewers.   They sold East Link to voters with their DEIS claim it could double I-90 bridge transit capacity.  After Prop 1 was approved they conceded in their East Link extension website it was limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes with about half current peak transit capacity.

What’s unique about their car tab tax mendacity is the Sound Transit 3 Tax Calculator used in the 7/8/16 post no longer exists.  Those looking for their ST3tax.com website for “How much tax per year will you pay for Sound Transit if ST3 passes” will instead find its available to buy. 

The website was valued at $1385, however their have been no offers or bids.   Anyone “interested” will have to act pretty quickly since the 1-year auction ends 7/20/17 at 12:17 PM (PDT).   Apparently Sound Transit decided they wanted to close the website very soon after their 7/8/16 post about the “reduced” car tab tax.  Their "likely" objective being after lying about what car tabs would cost, they wanted to be able to "lie about lying".

What’s “unfortunate” is the Seattle Times apparent inability to recognize Sound Transit mendacity.  The July 13 2016 edition “Traffic Lab” article “Here’s what you’d pay to build a bigger Sound Transit network” essentially parroted Sound Transit July 8^th post.

Sound Transit itself made an important discovery while revising its estimates last week. After it initially projected an average car value of $10,135 in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, further research found the median value was only $5,333. In other words, a minority of people own new or luxury cars that drive up the average, while the masses own older wheels.

They surely were either aware of, or should have been aware of, the "insistency" between Sound Transit tab cost estimates before the ST3 vote and what they had said afterwards.  Yet their July 12^tharticle concerning the Eyman initiative makes no mention of their mendacity concerning car tab taxes.  Their  “neglecting” to do so exemplifies their "Traffic Lab" failure to alert the area about the debacle awaiting the area from Sound Transit Prop 1 and beyond light rail extensions.

A.G. Ferguson Enabled Sound Transit Debacle

Like presumably many in the area I recently received a “Ferguson File” email detailing the latest efforts by Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s recent efforts to “Continue standing up for Washingtonians”.  It included the following introduction:

This May, my office filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that will protect the environment and save consumers money. We also asked a court to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for promoting their products while knowing the harmful effects they have on the environment.

The suit to “maintain fuel efficiency standards” is not about “maintaining current fuel efficiency standards” but to prevent the EPA from requiring vehicles average 50 mpg by 2025, approximately double the current average.  Achieving 50 mph average would require most cars be battery powered, not an attractive option for many.  Also of very little effect on environment since most of the country’s car batteries would be powered by fossil fueled generators.

Ferguson decides to hold fossil fuel companies “accountable” but fails to hold Sound Transit and the WSDOT accountable.  There would be no East Link if Ferguson had held WSDOT lawyers “accountable” in the 2013 Freeman litigation. Instead he praised the WSDOT attorneys for getting a federal judge to reject concerns from Sound Transit confiscation of I-90 Bridge center roadway.

The Department of Transportation and Sound Transit developed an effective and fair partnership to upgrade and address traffic issues on the I-90 floating bridge.  This agreement respects the law and the Constitution while addressing a critical need.

The “agreement” was the result of WSDOT lawyers  “misleading” the federal judge, claiming the center roadway could be used for light rail because their addition of a 4^th lane (Alternative R-8A) on the outer roadway would make the center roadway unneeded for vehicles.  Yet the document they cited stipulated the center lanes were still needed for vehicles.  That “agreement” allowed Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway for a light rail extension that only a fraction of those who pay taxes for it will ever be able to use, will devastate the route into Bellevue and increase not decrease cross-lake congestion. 

Ferguson’s office ignored concerns Sound Transit made a mockery of federal environmental laws.  Telling the FHA and FTA East Link would not impact noise levels in the Mercer Slough Park at the same time planning to spend millions shielding homes hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway from this “non-existent" noise.  Ending forever the quiet solitude of the park.

However, the most egregious example of Attorney General Ferguson connivance was his failure to hold Sound Transit “accountable” for not complying with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the permanent laws now in force.   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 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 absurd.

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. 

Apparently A.G. Ferguson, who has filed countless lawsuits attempting to hold other agencies “accountable”, fails to see the need to "Stand up for Washingtonians" when it comes to dealing with Sound Transit and WSDOT.  His failure to hold them accountable has played a major role in allowing the Sound Transit’s light rail debacle.

Seattle Times Abets Link Lynnwood Debacle.

The Seattle Times May 25^th B2 page Traffic Lab article, “Cost estimate up again for Link Lynnwood extension” typifies their approach to the extension.   The Lynnwood extension was originally approved and supposedly funded by voters in 2008 as part of Prop 1, extending Central Link all the way to Mill Creek.  At the time, Sound Transit officials hailed it as “A gift to our grandchildren”.   Sound Transit initially used the “slow economy” to justify no longer going to Mill Creek.  Now they're using the area’s “hot economy” to question whether they can even get to Lynnwood. 

The Sound Transit Board’s unanimous approval of the $3.2 billion budge means even if they manage to get $1.1 billion in federal money local tax payers will still be on the hook for $2.1 billion.  The question is “what will they get for their money?”  The Transit Lab article cites Sound Transit claims Link Lynnwood “would add 68,500 daily passengers to the light-rail network”. 

Yet less than a year ago, a 6/19/17 Times Traffic Lab, front-page article, “Here’s why I-5 is such a mess” was far less “optimistic”. It not only identified the problem,  “increased daily vehicle volume”, it concluded the following regarding the benefits of Link Lynnwood;

 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”.

Thus in less than a year the Times Traffic Lab has gone from Link Lynnwood  “doing little to ease I-5 traffic” to giving credence to Sound Transit’s claim it would “add 68,500 daily passengers to the light-rail network”.   They apparently “forgot” Link Lynnwood was routed through a Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) concluded in 2004 limited total ridership to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.

Accommodating 68,500 daily riders through the DSTT would take nearly 4 hours every morning and afternoon, eliminating access to those currently using Central Link’s University extension as well as the additional 15,000 daily riders Sound Transit “expects” for Northgate extension.   (The additional 37,000 daily riders Sound Transit promised voters to justify spending ST3 funds extending light rail to Everett further reduces access.)

However, it’s “unlikely” the Lynnwood and Everett extensions will ever have more than a fraction of the promised ridership.   Sound Transit recently reported the combined express bus routes from Everett and Lynnwood (510-513) averaged 8461 daily riders during 2018 1^st Quarter.   While 2040 is a long ways away, some 50,000 commuters are going to have to decide to live within walking distance of the light rail stations since Sound Transit makes very little provision for parking needed for access.  (And when they do those currently riding will no longer have access for much of the day.)                                                     

In the meantime, the 8-mile extension will significantly increase light rail operating costs.   Sound Transit budgets light-rail-operating cost at about $25 per mile.   Thus the 8-mile extension will add ~$1600 to a round trip.  Assuming 180 round trips a day (4 minute headways for 8 hours with 8 minute headways for 8) the Link Lynnwood will $288,000 to daily operating costs, approximately $90 million annually,  dwarfing potential fare box revenue for years.

Rather than spending $2.1 (or $3.2 billion) on the Link Lynnwood extension over the next 6 years Sound Transit could spend $350 million over the next 3-4 years creating five 1000-stall parking lots between Lynnwood and Everett with access to I-5 bus service to Seattle.  Commuters could pay a monthly or yearly parking fee to assure access to a stall and bus route to cover operating costs, allowing others to ride free. The 12/03/17 post detailed how the parking fees would provide capacity for 20,000 more commuters each day. 

If 20,000 commuters, who previously drove cars during the 2-hour morning and afternoon peak commutes, rode buses, the five Pay-to-Park lots could reduce traffic volume by up to 10,000 vehicles per hour; equivalent to adding 5 lanes of freeway.  With Link Lynnwood the likely result would be those currently riding buses will be transferred to trains, doing nothing to reduce congestion.  

A debacle the Seattle Times abets.

Today’s Seattle Times Doesn’t Get It

The Sunday Seattle Times front page article “How to buy a home in the Seattle area” exemplifies their inept response to Seattle’s high cost for homes.   The bar chart on the front page shows how the price of homes varies inversely with commute times.  One would think “maybe” the way to make homes more affordable would be to reduce demand by making the surrounding communities more attractive by reducing commute times into Seattle.   Instead the article provides “A Homebuying Survival Guide” to a “successful” purchase.   

One way to reduce commute times is to reduce congestion by attracting more riders to public transit.  The Times clearly understands the importance of public transit in Seattle, lamenting in an April 26^th Traffic Lab front-page article, ”Bus Agency can’t keep up with Seattle’s burgeoning ridership”; “Drivers can’t be hired, trained fast enough; no space for new buses”.   

More than two years ago a 4/03/16 editorial “Questions on Transit Need Clear Answers” opined “Sound Transit options should include bus rapid transit (BRT) in combination with added P&R capacity as a way of dramatically increasing transit capacity into the city without spending billions on light rail.”  Yet 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”.

Yet the Times continued to support Sound Transit despite a 11/04/16 article’s answer to the question “Would ST3 reduce congestion?” was “It would not”.  Even “leading proponents don’t promise that traffic will improve”.   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”. 

Later, their 6/19/17 edition front-page article “Here’s why I-5 is such a messl” identifies the problem; the increased “daily vehicle volume”.  Again, the best they could say 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 of urging Sound Transit be audited their 6/19/17 Times article, ”Can’t state ease I-5 traffic? Fixes exist, but most of them are pricey”, concludes:

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.

They follow their 6/19/17 I-5 “solution” with a 6/26/17 edition headline “Time to pay?  Tolling doesn’t get much love, but it eases gridlock”, presumably urging tolls on all the major roadways.  

Today’s Times apparently simply doesn’t recognize the “way to reduce the number of cars on the road” is not to "make it more expensive” but to offer them an alternative; access to public transit.  Without an alternative the only thing tolls do is increase the cost of commuting, a sure way of increasing demand for, and costs of, Seattle homes. 

The bottom line is they’ve abandoned their more than two-year old demand “Sound Transit consider bus rapid transit (BRT) in combination with added P&R capacity as a way of dramatically increasing transit capacity into the city without spending billions on light rail.” 

The entire are will pay a very heavy price if they continue to do so.

Voters' Pamphlet Submission

I submitted the following “Candidate’s Statement” and “Experience” to the Secretary of State’s Office for the Primary Election Voters’ Pamphlet for the 48^th District Senate.   However, they decided the 100 words I submitted for the Biography as “Experience” describing why my  own experiences as commuter "deserved more" wasn’t suitable for the pamphlet.

Candidate’s Statement

I’ve decided to once again file as a candidate to use the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract readers to my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  I do so with no desire to win and will not ask for nor accept any financial support.   Rather than asking for votes I urge residents “view” some of the 400+ posts on my blog concerning the failure of their legislators and city councils (and media) to respond to Sound Transit and WSDOT incompetence.

Bellevue and Redmond city councils, who could have disallowed permits Sound Transit needed for East Link, instead promoted a light rail extension that will devastate the route into Bellevue and increase, not decrease, I-90 cross-lake and corridor congestion.

That access for 48^th District commuters will be limited to two stations, far from where most live.  That all but a tiny fraction of their huge increase in ST3 taxes will be spent extending Central Link to Everett and Tacoma.

That legislation is needed to limit the WSDOT I-405 HOT to a single lane where fees are raised to what’s required to maintain 45 mph with everyone allowed access to 2^nd lane. 

48^th District residents should demand “more” from those responsible.      

Experience

I’m a retired Boeing engineer who, with my wife of 53 years, has lived in our current home since 1967, where we raised two daughters.   A lot’s changed since then with very little of it good.  I can no longer catch a bus near my home and the Eastgate T/C is full well before I’d like to ride into Seattle.   Longer lines to get on I-90 are followed by increasing congestion on I-90 and I-405.  Meanwhile local roads are congested for much of the day because Microsoft is not required to provide off-campus parking for employees.  We deserve better.