Posted Sat, Aug 21, 10:10 a.m. Inappropriate

The last couple months have had significantly higher ridership, showing a clear upward trend. You act like the 21,766 weekday figure is current. Ridership hs gone up about 10% since then, and presumably the per-rider cost is down significantly.

Why not be honest, at least? Lying doesn't help your credibility.

As for the cost, it's still way lower than the cost of driving. And, while I don't know the minutiae of ST's costs, it'll clearly be a lot cheaper per ride as the system continues to gain ridership. And new routes will further help existing routes gain ridership.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate

Mr. Ennis is a middling propagandist, practicing the art of combing documents for bits that can be made to support his point of view while ignoring everything contrary. I expect he was an avid student of Darrell Huff's classic, "How to Lie with Statistics."

The most important fact is that first year ridership, on a system designed to operate for 100 years, just doesn't matter. I expect that the first 14 miles of I-5, when it opened 45+ years ago, didn't carry a lot of traffic either, but I don't recall any critics standing around pointing with alarm.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 2:35 p.m. Inappropriate

The current OPERATING COST of Link light rail is around $1.00 per passenger mile. The current OPERATING COST of the average U.S. auto is around $0.11 per passenger mile. Thus, despite the unsubstantiated claim of mhays, the operating cost of moving people by Link light rail is about NINE TIMES the operating cost of moving people in an average car in the U.S.

From AAA "Your Driving Costs" 2010 Edition

http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving%20Costs%202010.pdf

page 7 "Operating Costs" The operating costs of an average U.S. sedan in 2009 was 16.7 cents per VEHICLE mile.

The average load of U.S. cars is 1.6 passengers/car. That means the average OPERATING cost of a medium U.S. sedan in 2009 was about 10.5 cents per PASSENGER mile -- about 1/9 the operating cost of Link light rail.

Link is now averaging around 24,000 boardings per weekday -- or about 12,000 people in each direction. EACH LANE of I-5 carries about 40,000 people per weekday. So each track of Link light rail is carrying less than one-third of what one lane of I-5 carries each weekday.

And Link cost about $160 million per mile to build. Typically, freeways in our area cost about $10 million to $25 million per lane-mile to build.

Link light rail is a financial disaster for our region. It carries very few people at an enormous capital cost, and very high operating cost.

What a terrible waste of money.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 3:49 p.m. Inappropriate

Mr. Lincoln, where in Seattle have you determined that additional freeway lanes could be built at a cost of only $10m-$25m per mile? Clearly the new Waterfront tunnel project is a huge waste of money since its costs are coming in at something like $240m per lane mile. I hope you alert WSDOT so they can recast the project and save taxpayers a huge amount of money.

And congratulations on your use of data (I use the term loosly...). Another fine student of Prof. Huff's classic tome.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 6:47 p.m. Inappropriate

R on Beacon: Like most light rail cheerleaders you add no facts whatsoever. Congratulations on your non-use of any data. (Would you care to find out just how many vehicles I-5 did carrry when it opened, or are you just going to revel in your ignorance?) Another fine student of the light rail lobby.

The waterfront tunnel project is, indeed a waste of money. They should rebuild the viaduct. However, I assume you are aware that the next segment of Link light rail, which is a tunnel to U.W. is costing about $600 million per mile. Congratulations on your non-use of apples-to-apples data (highway tunnel under downtown compared to light rail tunnel under the ship canal.)

The "I-405 Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects", in Kirkland, Bellevue and Renton are projected to cost about $12 million to $14 million per lane-mile.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge, including the new highway lanes at each end, cost $25 million per lane mile.

The "SR-509/I-5 Freight and Congestion Relief Project" is projected to cost about $25 million per lane mile.

The "I-5--Everett, SR 526 to US 2 HOV Lanes" cost about $14 million per lane mile.

Central Link light rail cost about $160 million per mile.

Do you work for Sound Transit?

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 6:50 p.m. Inappropriate

Lincoln isn't being clear either. He talks about "operating cost" of driving but forgets most of the cost the typical person pays. Based on a a hypothetical 20,000 passenger miles per year, his number equates to $183 per month to drive. Others include the cost of ownership, etc., and have higher numbers...I've heard $8,000 per year for the first car, and moderately lower figures for second cars.

Good point R about value in coming years. Adding capacity will cost very little. They can extend the length of the trains in 2015 when the stub tunnel is no longer needed for the expansion project. They can run trains more frequently when buses leave the Transit Tunnel, which I think is planned for 2016. The utility of the existing line will be all the higher when it links to more locations.

In 2016 they can triple the capacity of the current line by doubling the length of each train to four cars (they can do three-car trains in 2015 when the northern tunneling project is to a certain point), and running trains more frequently.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 7:45 p.m. Inappropriate

More nonsense from mhays. The $1 per passenger mile OPERATING cost for Link light rail does not include any of the $2.6 BILLION CAPITAL cost of building Link light rail, including the cost of the light rail cars themselves.

I compared operating costs of autos to operating costs of Link light rail. Link light rail's operating cost is about NINE TIMES the operating cost of the average U.S. sedan.

If you want to include the capital cost of building Link, the cost per passenger mile is several times higher.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 8:45 p.m. Inappropriate

Lincoln, you've missed the point entirely, while also mixing points in a way designed to obfuscate.

Once a rail line built, capacity can expand massively on the existing line. In few years, our system will be able to run an 800-person train every few minutes each way...no new lanes required.

You always ignore another essential point: This region is growing, and we need transportation capacity in major corridors, and there isn't adequate room to cost-effectively provide traffic lanes to handle increased capacity. Your per-mile numbers make sense for turning exiting highway margins into usable lanes, but the cost of expanding I-5 for example would be many, many times the numbers you quote.

Posted Sat, Aug 21, 10:13 p.m. Inappropriate

Michael Ennis is a serial LIAR.

http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/blogwatch-alert-more-lies-from-the-washington-policy-center/

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 5:19 a.m. Inappropriate

I didn't find the "cost" statistics used in this piece helpful. The author says light rail here costs $7 per trip. How does that compare to the costs of the peer train services providers? That would be a meaningful comparison. If, as the author seems to suggest, ST is not performing well in comparison to its peers, why might that be?

If that $7 figure includes a pro-rata share of capital expenses, then the comparison made to Metro's per-trip cost doesn't prove anything (a rail system has much higher capital costs than a bus system). Comparing Metro's per-trip bus cost to ST's per-trip bus cost would have been interesting . . ..

Somebody above wrote this:

"The most important fact is that first year ridership, on a system designed to operate for 100 years, just doesn't matter."

Maybe whoever wrote that could comment on the following. The term sheet WSDOT and ST signed for the I-90 East Link lease is for 40 years only:

[i] Sound Transit and the state Department of Transportation reached a deal today for light-rail trains to operate in what are now the center express lanes of Interstate 90. . . . Today, the DOT agreed to let trains occupy the express lanes, in exchange for $153 million that Sound Transit is spending to add carpool lanes and ramps to the main east- and westbound freeway sections. . . . . Sound Transit would lease the express-lane space for 40 years, with an option to renew for 35 more years. Transit leaders were eager to take the offer because the state says it's out of money to help build the carpool lanes, said Jim Edwards, capital projects director. By taking on nearly all the construction burden, instead of waiting for the state to put up tens of millions of dollars, Sound Transit protects itself from delays. . . . . Sound Transit argues that documents dating back more than three decades show that federal, state and local governments have agreed I-90 would accommodate high-capacity transit. The new agreement, signed today by Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl and state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, is subject to approval by the full transit board in the next few weeks. [/i]

-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010857020_webbridge22m.html
-

How could it be in the public's interest for ST to only have a 40 year lease in the I-90 corridor? If the state doesn't allow a renewal, the entire system would be (in large part) useless when that 40 year period expires. In other words, why design a "100-year" system that could terminate in 40 years?

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 8:40 a.m. Inappropriate

the I90 bridge will eventually wear out. I think it is in the range of 2060 or so, which would be 70 years from when it opened. At that time, the bridge will require very expensive work. Maybe that's a reason for the time limit. We could well be facing a costly bill for that bridge within a decade of when the original system is paid off (30 year bonds issued in the 2020 time frame).

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 9:27 a.m. Inappropriate

I sure could use a bus in North Seattle that travels to Everett. Metro dumping the one express that ran to south Everett early in the morning forced me to buy a commuter car.

Ok, back to your fighting.

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 10:01 a.m. Inappropriate

mhays, you have no idea what you are writing about. ST's own ridership projections show only 47,000 boardings per day on Central Link by 2030. This is nowhere near what I-5 is carrying today, which is 400,000 people per day where I-5 parallels Central Link. Again, that is 40,000 people per lane per day on I-5, compared to a prediction of 47,000 boardings per day on Central Link by 2030. That would be aabout 23,500 boardings per track on Central Link in 2030, compared to 40,000 people per day on each lane of I-5.

So, even with ST's own projections, by 2030 Central Link will be carrying only around half as many people per track as I-5 carries today in each lane.

The construction figures for highways in our area, which I quoted, include a brand new highway, "SR-509/I-5 Freight and Congestion Relief Project", and a brand new bridge, the Tacoma Narrows bridge, both at around $25 million per lane mile. These costs are certainly not for turning shoulders into traffic lanes. You are utterly wrong about that. Central Link cost about $160 million per mile.

And Central Link in downtown Seattle used an existing bus tunnel! ST did not have to dig a new tunnel under downtown for their light rail. ST also just took over some of the existing SODO bus lanes for its light rail. So, in downtown Seattle, ST light rail did not create new capacity -- they just took capacity away from buses. If Central Link had actually created new capacity in downtown and SODO, it would have cost a lot more than $160 million per mile. Where ST is actually creating new capacity in downtown -- between Westlake Center and UW -- it is costing $600 million per mile.

Likewise with East Link. On the I-90 floating bridge, ST would not be creating new capacity -- they would be taking lanes away from motor vehicles, including buses, to convert them to light rail, with much LESS capacity than those lanes would have with buses and car pools. How much would East Link cost if ST were actually building a new floating bridge for light rail, instead of just taking lanes away from buses and other motor vehicles?

As usual, the light rail cheerleaders insist on putting out misinformation.

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 11:28 a.m. Inappropriate

sjenner - could you explain your thinking about this?

You are correct about a couple of things. The I-90 floating bridge will need to be replaced by about 2060 (whether or not it is modified so trains can use it). You also are correct about how it will be an expensive project.

You seem to be suggesting WSDOT now is insisting on a 40-year lease so it will have maximum leverage over ST when those two governments would have to negotiate how much each will pay to replace the bridge. WSDOT could say "pay 95% of the bridge replacement costs, or we won't renew the lease and your train system will become largely useless."

I can't see how a 40-year lease would serves the interests Sound Transit (or its taxpayers).

Is that what you think - WSDOT won't agree now to sell the portion of that highway infrastructure ST would need outright to ST because WSDOT wants leverage to force ST to pay for a huge amount of the bridge replacement costs forty years from now?

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 3:02 p.m. Inappropriate

Hi, I did not have any particular thoughts of 'why' WSDOT would want to structure a contract one way or another. It does seem though if they committed to a lease for longer than when the bridge would be operational, they could be in breach of contract quite easily. So I guess maybe WSDOT is trying to be prudent.

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 5:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Sorry about my earlier slip of tongue. My views often lead me to an angered uncivil tone, an understatement I admit to, but try to learn from. Seattle is in danger and I am warning you as best I can. Don't Build The DBT. Some of you know I've already proven my case sufficiently. Now your guys are trying to ruin the I-5 Crossing project. There is NOT a viable consensus among the people here of ports, cities and dots. Mike is right. Don't Just do it!

Posted Sun, Aug 22, 8:19 p.m. Inappropriate

Crossrip, from your own post above: "Sound Transit would lease the express-lane space for 40 years, with an option to renew for 35 more years." That sure looks to me like a 75-year lease; why do you keep calling it a 40-year lease.

ST has the option to keep the lease in place for 75 years, for a price certain. Very likely the lease will outlive this particular bridge. If not, ST and WSDOT can negotiate a new lease to live out the remaining life of the system.

If you don't think Link can last 100 years, when do you believe it will fail and have to be removed or replaced?

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 6:16 a.m. Inappropriate

“ST has the option to keep the lease in place for 75 years, for a price certain."

You are making assumptions that can not be supported by any laws or agreements between those two governments.

At this point there is no lease. ST’s board hasn’t even been shown a draft of any lease that may be the subject of negotiations. The board of ST would have to approve any lease. A cursory, non-binding term sheet was signed by ST’s CEO and the WSDOT Secretary last January. That term sheet does not specify what conditions WSDOT or ST would need to satisfy in order for the proposed lease to continue beyond 40 years. Let me know if you disagree with any of those assertions.

Contrary to what you’ve posted, any lease renewal period could be conditioned on ST paying WSDOT for the bridge replacement costs WSDOT will need to begin incurring around 2060. That was the point sjenner raised – the proposed 40-year term appears tied to when the bridge will need to be replaced.

A 40-year lease leaves WSDOT holding all the cards. It puts ST and its taxpayers in an exceedingly vulnerable position.

No way should Sound Transit agree to a lease. It should buy the rights to use the space in that corridor it needs outright. ST obtains permanent rights to use the rest of its rail system – this key stretch shouldn’t be any different. Taking a huge stretch out of the middle of a rail corridor several decades down the road would ruin it, for ST or any successor to ST’s assets.

I’d like your thoughts on the following, “R on Beacon Hill”. From the perspective of ST and its taxpayers an outright purchase of the needed I-90 corridor right-of-way and infrastructure would be VASTLY superior to the kind of lease described in the term sheet. WSDOT alone now is on the hook for maintaining and repairing the highway infrastructure in that corridor (it is part of the Interstate Highway System), and that includes replacing the I-90 bridge over Lake Washington. It is in ST’s interests that those financial responsibilities remain with WSDOT. An outright sale of the right-of-way ST seeks would ensure that WSDOT will remain on the hook for replacing that bridge when necessary.

Further, “R on Beacon Hill”, it’d be great if you could list reasons why a 40-year lease (even with a 35 renewal period, whatever conditions may apply to the lessee’s right to renew) might be superior to an outright sale of the right-of-way and infrastructure to ST. I can’t think of any.

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 11:53 a.m. Inappropriate

All of this is interesting but rather academic. It’s basically water over the dam. What the Link performance numbers could help tell us is how to improve the efficacy and cost-efficiency of future regional transportation investments, whether roadway or transit alternatives, and the best choice among them for various routes. They could be used to model travel behavior, especially if aided by better land use projections and consumer (rider and driver) survey data. But this will require that local elected officials start to use objective information more than they have in the past when major transportation investment decisions were made on the basis of feel-good criteria. Given the (likely) long-term economic upheaval and vehicle technology changes, this would seem to be a good time to “reset” the whole decision-making process for transportation in the region.

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate

There are many things Ennis' report fails to take into account. He spends lots of time talking about what voters were promised in 1996 and projections given during the Sound Move campaign. It's no secret that the first 5-7 years of ST's existence was a failure.

With that in mind, ridership estimates for light rail are going to be skewed compared to the original plan because a) the 1996 plan assumed by 2010 the line would have been open for 5 years, b) the line would already extend to Capitol Hill and the U-District-two major transit hubs, and c) that the world would not be recovering from a major economic downturn and persistent unemployment.

The only thing Ennis is correct about is that the 1996 Sound Move plan was poorly crafted, terribly mismanaged and that there is a really steep learning curve associated with establishing a new mass transit agency. Aside from that, I consider this rhetoric not research.

Good luck with your vanpools.

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 8:02 p.m. Inappropriate

Vanpools can serve certain types of commuters and that's about it. The general public who has unpredictable hours or wants to travel outside of their daily norm is out in the cold. Some vanpool supporters want to grab onto different subsets, generally awkwardly, but the end result is always that it works for some but not as a general transit system.

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 11:35 p.m. Inappropriate

Sorry if I erred on the lease issue, Crossrip. I took the text copy-and-paste right out of your earlier post, about the lease being 40+35 years. My mistake, assuming you knew what you were posting about. That said, this is still a non-issue because even in 40 years, the public would never accept the loss of that rail service. (Yes, with a few exceptions we all know by name, or handle)

As to Mr. Ennis continuing to lament the problems of the original Sound Move ballot measure 14 years ago(!), let me note that all those problems had little impact on the regions' voters who approved the 2008 ballot measure by some 57 percent. Those voters ratified Sound Transit's performance to that date, whiners notwithstanding.

Posted Tue, Aug 31, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate

Opposing adequate transit on the basis of per-mile costs is like opposing electricity on the basis of transmission costs.

Note that electricity is regarded as a vital public utility everywhere on the planet, but that transit – though considered vital everywhere else – is still debated in the United States as if it were nothing more than welfare.

In either case -- transit or welfare -- once costs exceed some predetermined level, capitalists predictably demand the savaging of all lower-income people, whether our poverty results from age, disability or the permanent unemployment of Jobless "Recovery."

Thus we see that the obstructions imposed by the denial of transit (as in the Puget Sound region) are in fact another form of the euphemistic Final Solution of death by abandonment and neglect inflicted (as on post-Katrina New Orleans) by denial of socioeconomic services.

Recognition of the common elements in these manifestations of class-struggle reveals the core issue in the bipartisan U.S. savagery toward lower income people (the Bush/Obama war on Social Security; Obama's $500 billion reduction in Medicare; Sen. Patty Murray's $11.9 billion hatchet-job on food stamps), and in the Puget Sound area's uniquely anti-public-transport bigotry (the defeat of seven of nine transit measures in 42 years).

Just as the nation's bipartisan hatefulness toward lower-income people prove the American Dream was never more than a Big Lie, so does this region's hostility to adequate transit demonstrate the breathtaking hypocrisy of its self-righteous claims to environmental enlightenment.

In either case the resultant atrocities express capitalism's true malevolence: infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue; unlimited selfishness redefined as ultimate good; Absolute Evil cunningly popularized as its antithesis.