Here's a very low cost improvement that can help BRT be better: prohibit parking on Aurora Avenue in Seattle to prepare the way for RapidRide's E-Line (coming in 2013). Seattle already has a third bus lane, but because it allows parking in those third lanes in north Seattle for most of the day, the buses are slowed down weaving in and out of traffic, and that of course slows the rest of the traffic. The City of Shoreline has fought the battle for a designated BAT-lane (Business Access & Transit lane) with no parking at any time, but not Seattle. I personally experience this problem in the evening when Aurora is reduced to two southbound lanes due to parked vehicles in the third lane. I guess someone at some time decided that traffic coming into Seattle in the evening was sufficiently light; anyone who has tried to drive or ride south on either Aurora or I-5 would be quick to challenge that conclusion.

Shame.

Low entry buses are used throughout the world for BTA and as street-car substitutes— the most well known are probably those in use in Brazil. High frequency use within Seattle hardly calls for the antiquated monster shown in the picture. How serious is a) ignoring that a very close low-entry substitute for a tracked car is manufactured and in use, b) equating the funding of the half a Link finally up and running with the local funding of local bus systems, c) forgetting to even mention ST Express, and d) skipping over the nature of Sound Transit's "funding problems"?

No wonder advisory committees stacked with advocates and the interests come up with opinions and splits not shared by voters who despite constant bombardment with visions of sugar plums remain smart enough to know that first things—the roadways and walkways used by all forms of surface transportation, walking included—come first.

Can you then please explain to me how what used to be a 15-20 minute express bus trip from downtown to Sea-Tac was slower than the 45-50 minute ride that central link now offers? The buses ran from the terminal every 15 minutes, Central Link every 10ish, but after a 5-10 minute walk from the terminal to the station, meaning at best Sea-Tac terminal to Westlake costs an hour, as opposed to what used to be 20 minutes.

But rail is still faster?

paddystclair--Link is slow to SeaTac; that's because the more direct transit route to the airport, the monorail (or the same west side route with some other grade-separated transit), was killed by strangulation of its funding. Link is more convenient than the bus (except for that 1/4 mile walk at the airport), but it is lots slower.

Also, it looks like you're not referring to the old Metro 194 (RIP) which was a couple bucks (and 30 minutes), but rather to the $15 airporter. Why should people have to spend $15? And, they leave from the downtown hotels, not convenient for those of us using Metro. And have 30 minute headways, not 15. http://www.shuttleexpress.com/hotels

There'a city in Brazil where the buses have priority. They are fitted with transponders that change traffic lights as they approach, so they don't have to stop. Somehow, I have the feeling that in this country the concept of giving any sort of mass transit priority on city streets over automobiles is a non-starter, but its the kind og approach that is needed.

When the new Broadway streetcar opens, sharing its lane with cars and delivery trucks, people are going to wonder why we spent the money putting in the streetcar when a bus could just as easily sit in the same lane.

BRT isn't light rail, but it is just as effective at moving people as a streetcar is when it has it's own lane.

Before the horse drawn carriage, Italian gondolas, and the dreaded velocipedes, drag this 20th century discussing into the 19th century I will just go ahead and say "telecommuting".

This will sound shocking, if not stunning, but much of the citizenry willingly pays for substandard data transmission rates at exorbitant prices.

Moving as slowly down the road as possible seems to be deep in the Seattle DNA. God forbid someone should get where they are going quickly in a train without being subjected to the driver in front of them slowing for all manner of shiny object or four-way stop standoffs.

The author might have provided some context. Mr. Van Dyk’s Crosscut article commented on a Facebook post by Keith Kyle, a business analyst at Sound Transit and a Ballard resident, who thinks there should be a “Ballard Spur” from the Link LRT station in the U District to downtown Ballard. About half of his rail line (between the U District and Fremont) would be underground. Mr. Kyle would like to see it brought up for a vote next year.

Mr. Kyle seems to be living in a world where money is no object. Perhaps that reflects the Sound Transit work environment, but it doesn’t comport with fiscal realities. He thinks that the feds will send us $500 million to pay for it. These are the same feds that need to cut the nation’s deficit and debt by trillions.

And it’s not clear that he’s aware of the city’s proposed Transit Master Plan that would upgrade the current direct bus route from Ballard to the U for far less money - $15 million.

Ideas that citizens propose shouldn’t be rejected out of hand. But they need an early reality check. Otherwise, I’d really like to see a LRT spur that takes off from the Ballard Spur and runs up Fremont Ave to Greenwood. It would be very convenient for me. And perhaps we should open the suggestion box to other transit enthusiasts who will collectively envision a network of LRT spurs serving all the city’s neighborhoods.

@ Dick Nelson –

When light rail projects are designed and financed properly there is plenty of federal money available. That’s always been the case and it’s not likely to change. For example, two days ago the FTA awarded $900 million in grant money to Houston for the light rail project it is building out:

http://tinyurl.com/7nnbahl

TriMet always gets fed grant money for light rail, as do all the peers. But it’s a different story when it comes to Sound Transit. The FEIS for East Link issued last July showed that for that $4-$5 billion megaproject Sound Transit had not lined up a single dime of federal grant money, despite the fact that ST2 passed three years ago.

It’s not clear Sound Transit even has applied for ANY federal money for East Link. Why? Because of its lousy management and the fact that it is completely unaccountable to people. The more it delays, the more tax it gets to confiscate. The less federal grants it gets, the more fees bond counsel law firms get to haul in.

Did you know about the perverse, abusive financing plan Sound Transit uses, Dick? It seems like you are flat-out ignorant about that.

crossrip: You really need to check the facts about federal financing. What you are decribing is old money and old projects already in the pipeline, like Houston. The federal gas tax revenue that funds highways and transit is shrinking just as state gas tax revenue is, a result of the recession and more efficient vehicles. To expect $500 million from the feds after Sound Transit goes after money for the rest of Link is a pipe dream.

The problem with rail, particularly in our area, is the cost. Duke barely mentions this.

Here is a quick comparison between the cost of Link light rail and the improved bus service that Metro is calling RapidRide, which has some BRT features.

Central Link light rail cost about %2.6 BILLION for one route with about 35 light rail cars.

Six RapidRide routes combined, with a total of 113 buses, will cost about $215 million.

The 113 RapidRide buses have about twice the capacity as the 35 Link light rail cars.

The six RapidRide routes combined will likely carry more people than the 25,000 per day that Link light rail currently averages.

Operating cost of SWIFT bus in Everett is about $5 million per year. Operating cost of Central Link light rail is about $50 million per year. If each RapidRide route costs about the same as the SWIFT route, that would mean the 6 RapidRide bus routes combined will cost around $30 million per year to operate, compared to $50 million per year for Central Link.

So, the combined 6 RapidRide bus routes will carry more passengers than central Link for a lower operating cost, and only ONE-TWELTH the capital cost of Central Link!

This is the scale of the cost difference we are talking about here, between improved bus service and Link light rail: Link light rail cost 12 times as much for one route as 6 RapidRide routes combined! That is about $2.3 BILLION more for one light rail route than for 6 RapidRide routes.

It will cost about $2 billion to rebuild I-5 between Northgate and the southern city limit of Seattle. Had we built 3 or 4 RapidRide or SWIFT-style bus routes between downtown and SeaTac, instead of Central Link, we would have saved enough money to completely rebuild I-5 between Northgate and the southern city limit of Seattle, plus pay for the 6 currently- planned RapidRide routes.

Over 1 million people per day use I-5 inside the Seattle city limits. Just think how many more people would have benefitted from that $2.6 billion spent on Central Link had it been used to rebuild I-5 plus build a dozen RapidRide routes, instead of building just one light rail line that carries only about 25,000 people per day.

Link light rail is just stupidly expensive. It is wasting billions of tax dollars that would benefit a lot more people if they were spent more wisely.

My understanding of Federal New Starts grant requirements -- where the big bucks for Sound Transit light rail come from -- leads me to believe that East Link light rail across Lake Washington between Seattle and Bellevue wouldn't qualify under the stringent Federal rules. It costs too much for the number of passengers in the forecasts.

When the bus service across the new SR 520 bridge gets going on a managed HOV right-of-way, light rail on I-90 is going to be judged as an obsolete idea from the 1970s.

I'm hopeful that the many challenges remaining before light rail construction is authorized on I-90 will stop it from ever happening. Track design, for example; new issues were reported today by Sound Transit to its Citizen Oversight Panel.

Getting the new SR 520 bridge built quickly will help get cross-Lake public transit right.

Let's recap what's in this thread so far about the financing for East Link. East Link is the Sound Transit light rail megaproject crossing Lake Washington that's been in the works since around 2002 (that's when the EIS materials referencing it were submitted -- they resulted in the 2004 RoD approving the R8A alternative).

-- My post notes the less federal grant money Sound Transit gets for it, the more fees bond counsel law firms get to haul in. The FEIS for East Link says Sound Transit uses federal grant money for its projects.

-- Dick says Sound Transit will be going after federal money for East Link.

-- John says he believes East Link would not qualify for federal grants.

Sound Transit's management and PR teams want the public in the dark about that taxing district's abusive financing plans and practices. This thread evidences that imperative.

Mr. Duke does a good job of ignoring the actual performance of Light Rail (ala Sound Transit), in favor of George Jetsen's Transport World. I've heard all the excuses (it's a new system, just wait and see, Univ Link will change all that), but we've invested nearly $3 Bil and 20 years into a transit line that a) has a worse on-time record than the Metro 194 bus it replaced, b) takes 23% longer to get there, c) cost 2-3 times per rider, and d) only carries half the riders promised to sell this 'Turkey'. All the bureaucrats, contractors, consultants, bankers, lawyers, bond sellers and politicians are getting everything they dreamed of. The taxpayers? . . . Not so much!
Ideas posted above make a lot of sense (parking on Aurora, dedicated bus lanes where needed, signal pre-emption) and can be implemented for pennies on the dollar and in years, not decades compared to what Seattle area taxpayers are stuck with, but that's not what Martin has in mind for us. No, his world takes a $3 dollar bus ride and turns it into a $10 joy ride - all at my expense.
I'll invest in TVD's ideas, but not another penny for the Duke crowd.

For anyone who is optimistic about large sums of federal money for local rail projects, I refer you to the following:

The Highway Trust Fund and Paying for Highways

Statement of Joseph Kile, CBO Assistant Director for Microeconomic Studies before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, May 17, 2011

Excerpt from page 8:

The situation for the Highway Trust Fund’s mass transit account is similar. Under CBO’s baseline projections and including transfers from the highway account, the obligation limitation for mass transit would grow from $9.3 billion in 2010 to $9.4 billion in 2012. Outlays would exceed revenues and interest credited to the mass transit account by about $2.5 billion in 2011 and by about $3.2 billion in 2012.
The mass transit account would be able to meet obligations in a timely manner through 2012 but would be unable to meet some such obligations during 2013. Subsequently, projected spending from the transit account would exceed receipts by $4 billion to $5 billion a year, CBO projects.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12173/05-17-HighwayFunding.pdf

Nelson is correct; the federal highway trust fund is on fumes; there is too much tax aversion to increase the federal gas tax.

ST has applied for FTA grants on its lines that are cost-effective and competitive for FTA funds. That may not be the case with East Link.

The BRT and LRT debate must consider budget and right of way. Exclusive ROW is scarce; if it cannot be acquired from an abandoned freight line, it is quite costly.

re Niles: if the translake highways are tolled dynamically, the flow of buses will improve.

The fact that Mr. Duke is "glad" about light rail in the Rainier Valley may suffice on the STB, but I call on the Crosscut editors to find more analytic, persuasive voices.

Well now we've got "eddie" saying the same thing John did (essentially that they think Sound Transit won't apply for federal grants for East Link). I have no idea who "eddie" is, but I don't remember him posting anything about Sound Transit before, so the fact that he cites to nothing for his assertion really raises questions about his credibility.

The East Link FEIS indicates East Link will be paid for in part by federal grants -- this is on page 49 of chapter two:

“Sound Transit's regional transit programs are typically funded through a combination of voter-approved tax initiatives, FTA grants, issuing bonds, and fare box revenue.”

Moreover, the ST2 resolution Sound Transit's board approved to put on the ballot says some federal grants will be used for East Link capital costs (that's on p. A-16 of Res. 2008-10).

So "eddie" and John, you two have piqued my interest about this. What is it about East Link that would make it not suited for federal grants?

Every other light rail system is built with large amounts of federal grants -- is Sound Transit's East Link really expected to perform that much worse than the peers' systems?

Here's the press release about East Link:

http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/East-Link-FEIS-Issued.xml

It says 50,000 riders daily will be using East Link by 2030. Is that below a threshold for federal grants?

What makes you two think you are right about East Link not qualifying for FTA grants? Central Link only gets about 24,000 daily riders, and something like 40% of its initial segment was paid for by federal grant money.

What is this supposed to mean:

ST has applied for FTA grants on its lines that are cost-effective and competitive for FTA funds. That may not be the case with East Link.?

The board's resolution 2008-10 directs staff to try to obtain a large FTA grant for East Link. Why is staff not following that policy directive? It has not changed during the past three years, indeed, the need for federal money has increased as tax revenues have been far below what was projected when res. 2008-10 was adopted.

Hey John, would you mind responding to my previous posting? Also, as the initial segment got a $500 million FTA grant and it has been in operation for over two years the follow-up report showing "projections vs. reality" should have been submitted by Sound Transit. Do you have that posted anywhere? Here's the regulation mandating that report:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_4119.html

The "before and after study" described there says: "The third milestone occurs two years after the project has opened to revenue service. At that milestone, the Grantee will assemble information on the outcomes for all five project characteristics."

Darlings, rail, light or heavy, is too expensive for inner city transport.

Crossrip:

I just pulled up Sound Transit Resolution 2008-10 and don't see any reference to Federal grants, nor do I have any memory of Board direction to ST staff to obtain "a large FTA grant for East Link." Help me out. There is an appendix you say?

Here's my understanding: The East Link project is further along than North Link (Northgate to Lynnwood) but the only ST budget reference to Federal "New Starts" grants -- the type where the really big bucks come from -- is for North Link, where as I recall $600 million is the planned ST ask of FTA within a few years. (As Dick Nelson points out in a comment above, that kind of money may be wishful thinking in the present Federal fiscal environment.)

I've never seen any mention in ST budget materials of a New Starts grant request for East Link. On the other hand, there may be some future and much smaller grant programs like new stimulus/recovery funding that could work for East Link, that is, tens of millions, not hundreds of millions.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, a sketch analysis would recall that Initial Segment (Westlake to Tukwila) qualified marginally for New Starts based on cost effectiveness with a forecast of 42,500 weekday riders and a cost of $2.4 billion. (It's currently drawing about 24,000 per day, as you pointed out.)

East Link, on the other hand forecasts 50,000 riders if opened to downtown Redmond, and is priced in Exhibit 2-63 of the Final EIS for the preferred alternative with a Bellevue tunnel at $3.1 to $3.7 billion. While the Federal math of cost-effectiveness is not simply cost divided by ridership, you can see how a minimum of $600 million more in cost for 7,500 more riders could tip the cost per rider in the wrong direction.

Furthermore what counts in the calculation is incremental increases in transit ridership brought about by the train. People who are forecast to simply switch from the Route ST 550 Regional Express bus to East Link don't count in cost-effectiveness under Federal rules. The EIS states that East Link will attract about 10,000 new daily transit riders. The Environmental study for Initial Segment back in 2002 estimated the new rider forecast at 16,000 per day.

East Link compared to Initial Segment: Costs more, does less.

On your question about the "before and after study" of Light Rail Initial Segment, the "before" survey was done by a contractor in October 2008 and the "after" was just done by a different contractor in October 2011. Based on what I've seen with other light rail systems, it will be more than a year before the analysis comparing the two surveys is completed by Sound Transit and submitted to the Feds.

A likely source of delay will be Sound Transit staff figuring out how to make the comparison look like good news instead of the ridership failure that Initial Segment is turning out to be in comparison to the ridership forecast that justified the Federal grant funding.

1 of 2

I just pulled up Sound Transit Resolution 2008-10 and don't see any reference to Federal grants, nor do I have any memory of Board direction to ST staff to obtain "a large FTA grant for East Link." Help me out.

It’s on page A-16 of “Appendix A: Detailed Description of Facilities and Estimated Costs”, and it says the sources of the funds for east link would include $215 million of federal grant money.

The costs of East Link, especially the public tax costs it would entail, are staggeringly huge. Why is staff not following that policy directive to seek federal grant money? That directive has not changed during the past three years. Indeed, the need for federal money has increased as tax revenues have been far below what was projected when res. 2008-10 was adopted.

I get that you don’t know the answer to that. The problem is NOBODY outside the silo can get any answers about Sound Transit’s financing plans, tax confiscation estimates, or even spending estimates for capital projects it already is throwing money at.

You speculate that staff is not even applying for federal money for East Link based on some kind of ratio (capital cost to new riders obtained?) would not be as good as on the initial segment. That’s not a good enough reason for staff to fail to follow the board’s policy directive regarding seeking federal grant money. Moreover, that kind of ratio is not any kind of absolute threshold for seeking FTA grants:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_4119.html

East Link, on the other hand forecasts 50,000 riders if opened to downtown Redmond, and is priced in Exhibit 2-63 of the Final EIS for the preferred alternative with a Bellevue tunnel at $3.1 to $3.7 billion.

But John, that ~$3.5 billion cost figure shown in the FEIS for East Link is only in 2007-dollars. The same 2008 resolution referenced in this posting estimates the YOE capital spending on East Link would be $4.5 billion, but that number probably is much higher now because Sound Transit just announced East Link service won’t start until maybe 2023 (instead of 2020). That delay will push up capital costs.

2 of 2

On your question about the "before and after study" of Light Rail Initial Segment, the "before" survey was done by a contractor in October 2008 and the "after" was just done by a different contractor in October 2011.

The “before” data points for that required study would be from 2001, when the federal grant requests by Sound Transit for the 15.3 mile line were submitted. Whatever study you are thinking about from “October, 2008” would not be relevant to the before/after report the fed funding regulations require. The "before" data points are the estimates used to obtain the $500 million grant for the initial segment, and they were submitted in 2000 and 2001.

Here is what that “before and after” study is to encompass, and it relates to much more than ridership figurs:

_______________
ATTACHMENT 8: NEW STARTS "BEFORE AND AFTER" STUDY. Attachment 8 to the FFGA, New Starts "Before and After" Study, documents the Grantee’s commitment to carry out the requirement of the Major Capital Investments rule, 49 C.F.R. § 611.7(d)(7), that a Grantee conduct a "before and after" study to gauge the benefits of the Project and the accuracy of forecasts prepared during the Project’s development. Specifically, Attachment 8 requires a Grantee to assemble and analyze information on five characteristics of the Project - its physical scope, service levels, capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and ridership patterns.

Data assembly must be undertaken to reflect three key milestones. The first milestone pertains to the collection of predicted values of the five characteristics listed above. These values must be documented (1) during alternatives analysis, (2) during preliminary engineering, and (3) during the initial stages of final design leading to execution of an FFGA.

The second milestone occurs immediately before any major change in transit or highway conditions caused by implementation of the Project – by either its construction or, absent any substantial disruptions caused by construction, its opening to revenue service. At that milestone, the Grantee will assemble information on existing transit service levels, operating and maintenance costs, and transit ridership and revenues.

The third milestone occurs two years after the project has opened to revenue service. At that milestone, the Grantee will assemble information on the outcomes for all five project characteristics.

Attachment 8 requires the Grantee to collect and analyze the before and after data to discern the effects of the Project on the Grantee’s costs, overall transit services, and ridership. Attachment 8, in addition, requires the grantee to assess the consistency between the predicted Project characteristics and performance and its actual characteristics and performance (as measured two years after the Project has opened for revenue service), and to identify the reasons for any disparity, should disparity exist, between predicted and actual outcomes.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_4119.html
____________________________

It'll be interesting to see how Sound Transit tries to "back out" all the additional ridership the subsequent "Airport Link" segment added to the initial segment's ridership. Airport Link riders are part of the 24,000 average daily riders now, but they were not part of the estimate submitted with the 2001 grant application.

Moreover, additions to the capital costs of the initial segment that would need to be disclosed in the study include all the costs to retrofit the downtown transit tunnel (those weren't in the 2001 grant application materials), as well as the $370 million that was spent in excess of the $2.07 billion estimated in 2001.

Crossrip --

Over the next decade of East Link development and construction, if the project is not stopped by lingering I-90 issues (there are several), ST staff may very well seek $215 million in Federal Grants per the description you have found. Maybe that much will be available. Have patience.

But that's not the big banana of New Starts funding I was describing with its complicated calculations and large awards, like the $500 million for Initial Segment, the awarded $813 million for University Link, and the soon-sought $600 million for North Link. For that grant program, East Link would fail to qualify, based on my note above.

Furthermore, it's the North Seattle subarea that really needs the big Federal money. We're building a tunneled subway after all, the most expensive "light" rail in world history. Sound Transit is forecasting fabulous ridership, on the order of what NYC gets with many of its subway segments and stations. Time will tell. I have my doubts.

On the before and after study of the now-operating light rail segment (thanks for the review of the legal requirement), I hold a document copy of the "before" study on my hard disk. It was done in Autumn 2008 by the contractor Opinion Research Corporation, and briefly posted on the web when ST was tendering earlier this year for the October 2011 "after" survey, which was awarded to long-time ST contractor EMC Research.

FYI, some time ago, FTA folded the Airport Station light rail extension into the Initial Segment project, so the complete before and after study will consider the effect of the entire Initial Segment (to Tukwila) plus Airport Extension.

You make a good point on the downtown transit tunnel. I'm not sure that ST and its partner FTA are going to get into the full impact of light rail on our bus tunnel, which was hosed up for bus use by the requirements of light rail. When University Link to Husky Stadium opens, buses will be kicked out of the tunnel. An interesting question is how many commuters the tunnel will serve with just trains as opposed to the present combination of buses and trains.

Until the State Legislature intervenes, Sound Transit light rail is a long running farce in multiple acts, scheduled to play out forever, because the funding source is forever, locked down by the requirement to pay off bonds. The bond holders around the world don't care if the trains actually do any good.

I have to admit, light rail (and Sounder for that matter) is a fun ride, as long as it's not too crowded, which is most of the time. But tax money and resulting ridership matter in the serious business of moving lots of people to work every day.

Here's the record to date for all three Sound Transit lines of business, which includes lots of bus service contracted to the county bus agencies: Now carrying 86,000 daily riders, per the Friday CEO message. Since the ST region sees about 12,000,000 trips per day, the Sound Transit market share is now 0.86 divided by 120 or 7/10 of one percent. $4,960,878,000 have been collected in local taxes so far according to the 2011 Financial Plan.

The voters re-authorized this deal after hearing the 2008 campaign slogan, "Mass Transit Now: Sound Transit can carry one million riders every day." Oh, I know, just wait 50 to 100 years and it will work out much better than the Seattle Street Railroad and the electric interurbans did.

Following up on the borrowing: The schedule of bonds already issued and planned by Sound Transit are detailed in the agency's 2011 Financial Plan, posted online on its Financial Documents page. Look at pages 31 and 32 for "bond proceeds. $1.6 billion borrowed so far, 1999 through 2011. $5.5 billion more 2012 through 2022. Total $7.1 billion borrowed. Repayment of principal and interest goes through 2052.