Thursday, November 16, 2000
Sound Transit tunnel put on hold



Search: Transit | Transportation News
Traffic Forum | Local Quiz | Home
ASSOCIATED PRESS & KIRO 7 EYEWITNESS NEWS
SEATTLE -- A 4.5-mile Sound Transit light rail tunnel has been put on hold after $25 million worth of planning work because of costs far exceeding budgeted estimates.



The latest estimate for building the tunnel is $782 million, which is about $225 million more than budgeted, the rail agency's board was told.



"We cannot support a project we can't afford," Mayor Paul Schell said after he and other board members came from a closed-door briefing Thursday and voted unanimously to suspend tunnel talks with the contractor. "The news we received today disappoints all of us."



The board also passed a motion ordering Sound Transit staff members to deliver by Dec. 14 an explanation for why their cost estimates for the Capitol Hill tunnel were so low, in addition to delivering a new estimate for completing and operating the entire light-rail system.



Sound Transit's proposed 24-mile light rail line from SeaTac to north Seattle is a $2.4 billion piece of a $4 billion 1996 initiative by King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to build a regional transportation system with express buses, commuter trains and light rail.



Trouble with the tunnel surfaced earlier this year, when the only two contractor bids were between $287 million and $318 million too much.



Winning bidder Modern Transit Constructors proposed Thursday to cut costs by using new technology to drill the nation's only single-hole transit tunnel. Single tunnels are more common in Europe.



The Sound Transit board could restart talks with the contractor after Dec. 14.



Board member and King County Executive Ron Sims introduced a motion instructing staff to work with the Federal Transit Administration to avoid losing a $500 million grant key to completing the light rail project.



Sound Transit officials said Thursday they were unsure how far they could change the proposed light rail route without jeopardizing the grant. 

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 17, 2000

Answers

Uh, just a slight difference between your title and your post. The tunnel happens to be on hold, NOT the entire project. In fact, if they decide against the tunnel and go for the I-5 above ground route that puts ST WAAAAAAY under budget.

One would think you'd want the tunnel to go forward. Otherwise you'd loose a big chunk of what you like to complain about.

-- Informed Citizen (ic@ic.com), November 17, 2000.

"The tunnel happens to be on hold, NOT the entire project. In fact, if they decide against the tunnel and go for the I-5 above ground route that puts ST WAAAAAAY under budget. "

You think so?

Over 4 years and $25 million into planning, and it's go back to square one, and you think that'll help Sound Transit?

What are you smoking?

And are we to go back to the feds and say, except for not having a route, not having a plan, not having an environmental impact statement, and not having a friggin' clue what we'll do next, we're ready and waitinfg for the $500 million that we are competing with 18 other cities for?

I suppose if you'd been on the Titanic as it was going under, the band playing "Nearer my God to thee," you'd have said, "Oh look, imagine the mixed drinks we can make with that big iceberg."

Are you
a)in denial
b) just stupid, or
the ever popular c) all of the above?


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 18, 2000.

Editorial
Beyond the tunnel





Faced with an inescapable money dilemma, Sound Transit has put the 
light-rail tunnel on hold. The action gives the region a window of 
time to reassess options. 

Sound Transit's board last Thursday suspended negotiations with its 
only potential contractor when costs for the tunnel ran far beyond 
what the agency had budgeted or could afford. 

The agency expected tunnel costs of $557 million, but faced a $728 
million price tag. Contingencies and other likely costs could have 
put it over $850 million, far more than the agency could afford in 
phase one or phase two. That emerging realization made it impossible 
to continue without significant changes to the light-rail program. It 
also validated the fundamental point made by agency critics who 
questioned the estimates made in 1996, when voters in King, Snohomish 
and Pierce counties approved a comprehensive $3.9 billion transit 
system including buses, commuter trains and light rail. 

And even the Seattle Times is starting to see the light!

Even diehard Sound Transit advocates are now saying the plan needs to be "reworked." But what does reworking mean. At a MINIMUM this puts a one year hold on the whole project. For those of you who haven't done project management, that's AT LEAST a 5-6% increase in real dollar costs, likely more in Seattle where property costs are going up even faster than that amount.

A 5% increase in the cost of a $2.5 billion project is AN ADDITIONAL $125 Million.

Even tinkering with it around the edges is going to result in this delay. Any substantive changes are likely to result in a program growth of a half-billion or so.

For those of you who believe they are going to find some cheaper way to do it, If these guys missed the mark so badly over the last 4+ years, why do you think they'll do better given a do-over?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of any detailed study showing how much freeway that buys along the same route?

If $2.5 Billion doesn't work for the light rail solution, what would be the alternative?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 20, 2000.

>>Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of any detailed study showing how much freeway that buys along the same route? If $2.5 Billion doesn't work for the light rail solution, what would be the alternative?<<

I haven't read any study of what it would cost to widen I-5 through downtown Seattle. Keep in mind that the entire freeway from Boeing Field to about NE 85th is essentially a large bridge that does not meet current seismic standards. If any widening were to take place, it's likely that all this road would need to be torn down and rebuilt, rather than simply expanded.

The best comparison to Seattle is probably Boston. Big Dig in Boston has cost (to this point) $12.2 billion for a 7.5 mile stretch of freeway. That comes out to about $1.63 billion per mile. Costs continue to increase.

Considering the geographic problems in Seattle that come with any expansion of I-5, like knocking down high rises (Key Tower, Convention Center, KC Jail, etc.), replacing major bridges (Ship Canal), and on and on, it's likely that costs of expansion would near that of Big Dig. And there's no real answer of the question of where everybody would drive while this expansion is going on.

This is the problem with building more roads. Almost everybody wants them, but how much do we pay for them, and where do we put them? Nobody knows.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

"Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of any detailed study showing how much freeway that buys along the same route? If $2.5 Billion doesn't work for the light rail solution, what would be the alternative? "

To do what?

Even Sound Transit's most avid supporters have had to acknowledge that it would (note the conditional tense, getting more conditional with each passing minute, too) have a TRIVIAL affect on congestion, because it carries a trivial volume relative to the total volume, far less than the projected growth in volume that would occur (a future conditional) in the time it would take to build it.

So define your alternative.

If the question is what to do about congestion, light rail was always a stupid answer.

If you look back in the old threads, Craig Carson did a model where you copuld take the $2.5 billion and endow free buses running 24 hours a day every 300 feet along the route for the price of Link, with the salaries and cost of new buses paid for out of the endowment in perpetuity.


-- (mark 842@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.

>>To do what?<<

Wait, that's my question!

>>Even Sound Transit's most avid supporters have had to acknowledge that it would (note the conditional tense, getting more conditional with each passing minute, too) have a TRIVIAL affect on congestion, because it carries a trivial volume relative to the total volume, far less than the projected growth in volume that would occur (a future conditional) in the time it would take to build it.<<

What do you think is light rail's problem? Is it too 'light'? Should it be heavier?

>>So define your alternative.<<

Wait a minute, Mark, I'm asking you that question!!!

Has there been a detailed design study on other alternatives?

The monorail initiative is at least starting to work in that direction.

>>If the question is what to do about congestion, light rail was always a stupid answer.<<

For instance, is there a detailed cost benefit study for adding freeway capacity to the I-5 corridor? How about for Heavy Rail? Monorail on the same route?

>>If you look back in the old threads, Craig Carson did a model where you copuld take the $2.5 billion and endow free buses running 24 hours a day every 300 feet along the route for the price of Link, with the salaries and cost of new buses paid for out of the endowment in perpetuity. <<

You mean I missed that one? I probably was busy researching Craig's sources for what was really said.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 21, 2000.

"This is the problem with building more roads. Almost everybody wants them, but how much do we pay for them, and where do we put them? Nobody knows."

Precisely. We all have a good idea of what light rail is likely to cost, but where is all the information to be found for alternatives?

It's time those alternatives are studied. The Transportation lobby in this state have clouded the issues and muddied the waters, to the extent that practical alternatives were never even studied.

Perhaps, Jim, your questions should have been asked elsewhere. Like in public hearings, in the vicinity of the famed "Blue Ribbon Commission."

It's obvious to me, and others as well, that individuals who were elected to represent our the citizens best interests failed regarding transportation issues.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 21, 2000.

Have you found any answers at these open houses, Marsha?

Actually, I have yet to see an open house for a road project of the magnitude of Sound Transit is doing.

Did they have them when I-5 or I-405 was built?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 21, 2000.

"Have you found any answers at these open houses, Marsha?"

For new road construction in my area? Yes, and they are available online at http://www.sr101belfair.org/q&a.htm. The project is also well covered by the local media. In addition, most of the candidates in our local elections ran campaigns as to pro/con. I voted accordingly.

"Did they have them when I-5 or I-405 was built?"

I have no idea. I did not live in WAshington back in those days.

I do not travel extensively in the state to attend hearings regarding road construction projects in other regions. That does not mean that I don't have a right to expect transportation studies to be conducted on how best to spend my tax dollars in those areas.

It's still the demographics! Sound Transit will not reduce congestion, unless elected officials force a change in the demographics.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 21, 2000.

>> For new road construction in my area? Yes, and they are available online at http://www.sr101belfair.org/q&a.htm. The project is also well covered by the local media. In addition, most of the candidates in our local elections ran campaigns as to pro/con. I voted accordingly. <<

Did your candidates win? Was this project voted on by citizens in Mason County? As long as my tax dollars don't go towards it, that's great!! If it's what voters want out there, wonderful. I have no problem with that.

>>"Did they have them when I-5 or I-405 was built?" I have no idea. I did not live in WAshington back in those days. << Me neither. We need input from some older people.

>>I do not travel extensively in the state to attend hearings regarding road construction projects in other regions. That does not mean that I don't have a right to expect transportation studies to be conducted on how best to spend my tax dollars in those areas. <<

That's a good point, the question would then be whose tax dollars are going where? Rural counties tend to be receiver counties when it comes to funding. Maybe that's what should happen, all transportation decisions should be locally voted on and funded, except when adjacent counties/cities/etc. want to build a project that spans both jurisdictions. Be careful what you wish for.

>>It's still the demographics! Sound Transit will not reduce congestion, unless elected officials force a change in the demographics. <<

Well, that's where we differ in our conclusions. My analysis is that the demographics of the Sound Transit region do support rail transit, except that what is needed is MORE, not less, that what Link is providing.

I wonder if transportation decisions would have been different if the Internet was around in the 60's?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 21, 2000.

"What do you think is light rail's problem? Is it too 'light'? Should it be heavier? "

"My analysis is that the demographics of the Sound Transit region do support rail transit, except that what is needed is MORE, not less, that what Link is providing"

A few simple questions, Jamie-boy:
1. If Link had been built as originally planned and gotten the ridership that the Sound Transit advocates claimed it would have gotten, what percentage of the total passenger trips on a weekday would have been Link trips?

2. What percentage of the total passenger miles would have been Link trips?

3. What would have been the capital cost per rider?

4. What would have been the capital cost per rider Not already using public transportation?

?

5. What would have been the subsidized operating cost per rider?

6. What would have been the subsidized operating cost per rider Not already using public transportation?

What would it have cost to carry those same passenger miles by bus, both in capital expense, and in operating expense?

You start from the assumption that Link is somehow good and you call it an analysis. If you have really analyzed it, lay out your figures, including the answers to the questions above. Pulling something out of your anal sphincter is not an analysis. An analysis is where you really do some research and come up with facts.

I awate the posting of your answers to these questions with 'bated breath.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

>>A few simple questions, Jamie-boy:<<

>>You start from the assumption that Link is somehow good and you call it an analysis. If you have really analyzed it, lay out your figures, including the answers to the questions above. Pulling something out of your anal sphincter is not an analysis. An analysis is where you really do some research and come up with facts. <<

Sir, With comments like these, what message are you trying to send to your government? I figured with some intelligent, respectful questions, and answers, I would get a like reply.

>I awate the posting of your answers to these questions with 'bated breath. <

I guess you will.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 21, 2000.

Now there you go, getting your feelings hurt, when I'm merely pointing out reality.

If you have an analysis, please, by all means, present it.

But if, on the other hand, all you have is an opinion, call it an opinion. You are entitled to have an opinion, it's just that having an opinion is NOT the same thing as an analysis.

Start out with the definition: What's the (alleged) mission of light rail (or the other modes you desire to compare it against)?

If the mission is to decrease congestion, you ought to be able to do a little research and answer the above questions. You can then compare the values for light rail with the values for other potential outlays of the public treasury, and see what's most efficient.

If the mission isn't to decrease congestion, what is it?

But don't say you have an analysis if all you have is an opinion. An analysis requires a little research and logical thought. Opinions are like ......, that is to say, everyone has one, but it's not the same as an analysis.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is a critical distinction, because we got 4+ years into a process with an unexecutable (within budget) plan because the people in charge used their friggin opinions rather than any formal analysis.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

There are citizens with your opinions, with whom I regularly discuss these very same issues. They present their point of view in a very professional, respectful manner, since they know that they must convince the rest of the group of the validity of their viewpoint.

It's how they are successful at getting their point of view heard, understood, and sometimes even convincing a few of their fellow citizens.

In some cases, they even get their government officials to do their analysis for them.

Don't worry, you didn't hurt my feelings, Mark. It was quite enlightening, actually.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 21, 2000.

So Jim-

RESPECTFULLY returning to the point, do you have an analysis, or merely an opinion.

Cloaking yourself in victimhood that someone (waa-waa) hurt your feelings, may feed your need for martyrdom, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR LINK, OR FOR ANY OF YOUR OTHER OPINIONS

So do you want to get back on the ISSUE and attempt to prove your assertions, or do you just wnat to wallow in righteous indignation and self- pity.

As I said, Link got in the trouble it did because people used feel-good emotions rather than facts, and they wasted 4+ years and a hell of a lot of money doing it.

So spare me your pathetic whining over your hurt feelings, and give me some facts, or admit that you are just pulling opinions out of ......the air>

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

Stall warning on Jim. Next stall warning will be loss of one point.


zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

Zowie:

I haven't been here in a long while, but I do have a short story to tell.

I remembered this article in the Times concerning a good turkey recipe. I searched the archives using turkey as the key word.

Now I kid you not. Three of the first ten articles retrived dealt with light rail.

Do you wish to comment on the meaning of this?

Just wondered.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 21, 2000.

>>It's time those alternatives are studied. The Transportation lobby in this state have clouded the issues and muddied the waters, to the extent that practical alternatives were never even studied.<<

I assume by "alternatives," you mean roads. Often it's not the "Transporation lobby" that keeps roads from being studied -- it's the people who live where these new roads might go. Every major road expansion in this region has been met with massive opposition from one group or another, usually residents of the places that will be torn up and replaced by new lanes. Look at 520 for just one example.

Until recently, and probably even now, every time there is any *talk* of a study, not even a study mind you, residents of areas surrounding 520 (i.e. Montlake and The Points) go ballistic and demand that funding for any study not be granted. Quite frankly I'm shocked that currently there's an ongoing study to try and figure out what to do with that corridor, because for decades the aforementioned people would block the state or anybody else from doing any sort of study.

The same pattern repeats itself in areas all over the state, and especially in King County. It's not necessarily the people you think that are blocking expansion of roads.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 22, 2000.

"I assume by "alternatives," you mean roads."

I meant exactly what I said. Practical alternatives. That would include roads. It would also include other alternatives.

You should know by now,not to assume anything where I am concerned. I suggested an alternative quite some time ago. Not all in this forum agreed with me at that time, but it has the ability to change the demographics, and cost considerably less than light rail.

Demand response bus service. If the scale of economies are applied, I think you would find it could be a practical alternative. To my knowledge, it has not been studied as an alternative, even though existing evidence suggests it could overcome the demographics. Many Transit Agencies have an excellent track record with this type of service. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't be successful on a larger scale. We have the technology available. There is no excuse not to give it serious consideration IMO.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 22, 2000.

>>Demand response bus service. If the scale of economies are applied, I think you would find it could be a practical alternative. To my knowledge, it has not been studied as an alternative, even though existing evidence suggests it could overcome the demographics. Many Transit Agencies have an excellent track record with this type of service. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't be successful on a larger scale. We have the technology available. There is no excuse not to give it serious consideration IMO. <<

Marsha, do you know of any agency in the area that has tried anything like this, even on an experimental basis? What was the result? Why do you think they aren't doing anything with this? Weren't you employed as a bus driver? What was management's excuse? I thought your idea was a good one.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 22, 2000.

>>I meant exactly what I said. Practical alternatives. That would include roads. It would also include other alternatives. <<

This has also been my point also. Unfortunately, the practice has been for years that if the traffic counts indicated a trend, then it was automatic, the road project was started. Then, like BB said, the neighborhood groups marshalled their forces and went to 'City Hall' and petitioned them to not do it. With roads, that seems to have been the pattern everywhere.

I've asked those I know, instead of following this approach, to consolidate all these minor road projects into a larger plan. Then this larger plan can analyzed in the same way the Sound Move plan was by the voters. Once fleshed out, then the voters could be given the opportunity to accept or reject it.

That's what my 'alternative' question was about. What are the benefits/costs for the parallel solution.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 22, 2000.

Jim,

Actually, yes it has been tried on a limited basis. There were successes and failures, depending on which type of demand response was offered, and what criteria you use.

Kitsap Transit has tried two different approaches. In one approach, they offered a demand response service from a bus stop directly to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. That program had a high passenger count per hour. It was basically the same as ordinary routed service except that it allowed scheduling of pickups. I believe it was done so that the service could be performed by ACCESS drivers, (driving smaller busses,) who operate under a different contract at a lower wage. The reason I would consider it a success is mainly due to the use of equipment size, being a better use of resources. When I drove such a route, I never had more than 10 passengers per trip, in a 15 passenger vehicle. Why would you want to send a 40 foot bus for 10 passengers?

The other approach was to allow the general public in outlying areas to use ACCESS demand response, with the intent to convert it to routed service if the ridership was high enough. This had limited success, or failure, depending on what criteria is used. I don’t believe it ever led to a conversion to routed service. With the exception of one, which was performed by an ACCESS Operator instead of a Routed Operator, and it was combined with Demand Response service for elderly/handicapped. This was in a rural area where there were high density developments that were widely scattered, with most passengers being transported to the Kingston Ferry Terminal.

This topic can get pretty involved, so I will try to keep my main points brief.

The data for 1998 gives us the following:

Metro Demand Response had an operating expense of $19.84 per unlinked passenger trip, carrying 2.9 passengers per hour. This was where Craig Carson made his case against such service. Comparing the data to large bus service, the operating expense was $3.38 per unlinked trip, carrying 27.60 passengers per hour.

Kitsap Transit Demand Response had an expense of $14.03 per unlinked trip, achieving 4.28 passengers per hour. Routed service was $2.62 per unlinked trip and 30.24 passengers per hour. I believe those figures include worker/driver busses inflating the data somewhat. I do want to add that Kitsap Transit has been nationally recognized as having one of the best Demand Response programs in years past.

In Yakima, Demand Response had an expense of $9.50 per unlinked trip and 4.26 passengers per hour. Routed service had an expense of $3.58 per unlinked trip and 20.85 passengers per hour.

Those figures don’t tell the whole story however. When you look at the cost of operating, per vehicle revenue hour, you find that it costs half as much to operate the Demand Response vehicle.

It would be possible, using computer aided scheduling and GPS technology, to increase the passenger per hour count to 8-10. The computer identifies clusters of passengers in one area who have like destinations in another, in the same time frame of a ½ hour window. This would reduce the expense per unlinked trip by an enormous amount. It could be offered door to door, or as a feeder service to large bus service. I firmly believe that in the suburbs, you could get the cost per unlinked trip down to $3.50-$4.00 per unlinked trip.

This is the one area that the demographic trends show a huge increase in demand. There is no reason to expect that trend would not continue with the general population. The reason most people use cars is because of convenience. Demand Response is almost as good as driving yourself. I think you could convince the population to pay a higher proportion of the cost.

Transit Unions have worked hard to get the high wages for large Routed Operators. They continually fight to prevent vehicles being downsized, even when it makes more economic sense to do so.

Managements excuse? They are stuck in 1960 for one thing. Transit Agencies receive very little extra funding to provide Demand Response, and won’t consider implementing such a service for the general population unless the funding and support of the state government and voters were behind them. Money talks. If Sound Transit had been given the $$$$ to implement Demand Response for the general population, instead of Light Rail, you would be far more successful at reducing congestion. I do know that some agencies send representatives to the most successful Demand Response agencies trying to gain insight.

Big busses do not belong in residential neighborhoods. The roads are too narrow, and pavement too thin.

Trains are inflexible. They have a chosen path of travel that can never change. Fixed Route Service has more flexibility, but cannot accommodate a broader area. Demand Response vehicles, whether they are small busses, or large vans, can go anywhere. We have smart growth and dumb transportation.

Aren’t you sorry you asked?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 22, 2000.

No, I'm not sorry I asked.

Thanks for your input.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 22, 2000.

I forgot to mention duplication of service. It is more common than most people realize. Routed bus goes through a neighborhood an intervals while Demand Reponse also covering the same area. In addtion, you may have another agency handling state contract work for DSHS. Absurd.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 22, 2000.

BB, The next day in my local paper, sure enough, there was a letter to the editor from a local citizens group, talking about a 'proposed' overpass that would connect an arterial with the road in their neighborhood. I've looked through my information about this part of the larger project (it's on paper, not a URL), and I can't find it designated as a real project yet. As far as I know, it's just one of those "Hmmm, this looks like it would make sense to connect this road over the freeway" preliminary plans, yet it generated a large response at a city council meetings. And yes, city councils do listen to this. And yes, it does tend to screw up the bigger plans.

Maybe we approach these transportation things wrong. What we should do is collect a general "Transportation Tax" and just put it in a fund, keeping track of it like the UNITED WAY. Then what neighborhoods can do is bid for those funds for whatever mode they want. You shouldn't get someone buying crappy land with the expectation of making big bucks, otherwise whatever project that a group of adjacent neighborhoods want couldn't underbid another group. Also you couldn't vote for a project that sacrifices someone elses neighborhood. Instead of government dreaming up all these schemes and having them shot down every time, the neighborhoods could come together and compete for them.

A neighborhood would then be required to sacrifice their real estate if they truly want the convenience of a larger arterial. Same for any other mode.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 26, 2000.

>>I meant exactly what I said. Practical alternatives. That would include roads. It would also include other alternatives<<

A while ago, it was brought up on this board that the statement by rail proponents that " A rail line (light rail, presumably) is equivalent to 12 freeway lanes" was not true.

In response the road proponents came back with the statement that 2 freeway lanes move over 50,000 vehicles(people) per day, which no transit service could come close to moving. This statement is born out by the more famous example of SR520. SR520 is said to move approximately 120,000 vehicles per day.

The Rail statement is really just incomplete in it's description. What it should say is "A rail system [which has 4 car trains, packed to the gills with 200 people per car, running at 2 minute headways] has the ability to carry as many people during one hour of rush hour, as a 12 lane freeway full of Single Occupancy Vehicles during that same hour.

Okay, Now I understand that 'sales pitch'.

So, I looked at the other example, the Evergreen Point Bridge. Now, a freeway lane moves about 2100 vph if you want to stay above the 'congestion' point of 45 mph. You could pass 2500 vph at that speed if we all drive like New Yorkers or Californians. However, we are too polite, and when we stuff 2500 vph on a freeway lane, we end up doing about 35 mph. The planners are using 2100 vph.

The Evergreen Point Bridge then has the capacity to flow 4 (lanes) x 2100 (vph) x 24 (hrs) = 201,600 vehicles per day. It currently is at approx 120,000 per day, or essentially 60%.

What relief does providing another lane give? In one hour, it has the ability to move 2100 vehicles off the adjacent lanes. It only has to move 400 per lane (2500 vph max capacity - 2100 vph @45mph) However, the overall capacity of the freeway goes up.

Let's say that we magically swap in a new bridge tomorrow. 6 lanes. Then, ignoring all the commuters who are now using I-90 that would move back, we would have a bridge with a capacity to move 302,400 vehicles per day. It would be free flowing during the rush hours but would be running at only 40% of capacity. This appears to be the roadway version of the 'empty bus'. There is this narrow window of usage (were we complaining when the percent was 50%?) that it appears the road solution seems to exist in, since once those 2 lanes exceed the 2100 vph, they become congested and if 6 hrs of congestion is reached again, it is unacceptable, we need build another lane. How many hours of congestion is acceptable?

All we need to do is remove 400 vph per lane to reduce congestion during the rush hour. If the current freeway is at 4 lanes, then 2 extra lanes should be plenty. 4200 (2 x 2100) - 1600 (400 x 4) = 2600. Wouldn't that work for up to 10 lanes of freeway?

Maybe I could live with that. One new lane on all the freeways in the area.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 26, 2000.

Jim, you sound like General Motors Management. When Ross Perot was working for Gm, he described their decision making techniques, compared to his own company, Electronic Data Services.

He put it this way: If EDS found a snake in its backyard, they would immediately send someone out to kill it; If Gm found a snake in its backyard, the management would assemble a team of snake experts, and discuss the snake problem for a year.

Crunching numbers aint gonna solve the problem. In the years to come, congestion is only going to get worse in the Puget Sound. Expotentially worse, I fear. We have to start building a lot of roads now,or that area will become a nightmare for commuters.

The situation in Seattle could be alot worse; I could live in the puget sound area.... You can have the congestion and the rain, but discussing the problems for years, is not going to solve the commuting problem.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 26, 2000.

Rolex, Actually all I'm asking is one simple thing. Show me the COMPLETE road plan for the solution, how much it costs, give me a chance to vote on it, and have some way to put the brakes on it if there are excessive cost overruns. In 1993 I got a packet from WSDOT discussing the road needs in the state. It was fairly high level, and under the heading of 'Reduce Congestion' the cost was $12 Billion. It didn't specify where the congestion was in the state. The next closest thing to a plan that I've seen is Kemperer Freeman's "Reduce Congestion Now". This was presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission. That analysis is at a macro level, so the issue is what will the cost be. If you use DOT estimates, it's over $12 Billion (or more), the study itself says that if you use cost per lane mile averages of the rest of the country, it should be around $6 billion.

The devil is in the details.

With roads, it has simply been, tax me every where I drive, when the traffic counts go up, widen the road. Use property tax money if you have to. No vote, no public process, unless the affected neighborhood catches wind of it.

I'd like the opportunity to compare both.

Which sounds like a reasonable request to me.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 26, 2000.

Blue Ribbon Commission- I think they all used to be in General Motors Management.

As for wanting to vote on roads or their cost, I think you should take your own advice and let the nice people on your city council decide what is best for you. After all, Jim, they have your best interest at heart and will do their best for you.

According to you, there is no need to vote on these issues of roads, which us common people know little or nothing about. The nice people from the government have worked out all the numbers and have rolled it into one simple painless tax hike.

You can go to the meetings and voice your opinion. I am sure they will listen to you...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 26, 2000.

>>You can go to the meetings and voice your opinion. I am sure they will listen to you... <<

As long as my squeaky little voice is as loud as the other guys.

I suppose all these public works projects would be done correctly if we let the private sector take over. I'd go for that. Especially when it comes to roads.

Heck we could have EDS come and set things up. Have you ever had to work on EDS written software?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 28, 2000.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch......................

LINK is still in deep doo-doo!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 28, 2000.

Metro Seattle 2000-11-29 Citizens panel thrashes Sound Transit By Brier Dudley Seattle Union Record A citizens panel overseeing Sound Transit lambasted the agency Tuesday for underestimating costs and failing to promptly disclose the soaring price of its tunnel from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington. "Were you in complete denial or what?'' Al Stipe, a member of the Citizen Oversight Panel, asked Sound Transit Executive Director Bob White. The panel joined a growing chorus criticizing the agency for the way it handled bidding for the tunnel contract. Panelists met Tuesday for the first time since Nov. 16, when the agency suspended negotiations with contractors to reassess its position. Bids for the 4.5-mile-long tunnel beneath Capitol Hill and Portage Bay were at least $728 million, $171 million more than the $557 budgeted for the work. Sound Transit has since released a chronology showing that it knew July 28 that tunnel bids were far above its estimate. It also released documents showing that even if it agreed to pay $728 million, terms of the contract could cost the agency another $54 million. The contract shifted the responsibility to pay for workersÕ compensation insurance and some tunnel overruns to the agency. According to the chronology, initial bids submitted in July were $796 million and $844 million. Through negotiations and design changes, the price was lowered to $728 million. The complex and costly tunnel is the centerpiece of a $3.9 billion regional transit system of buses, commuter trains and a light-rail system that voterd th King, Pierce and Snohomish counties approved in 1996. Rumors about the tunnel's soaring costs empowered a group of critics who say the tunnel will jeopardize the entire system. But Sound Transit officials say it's still affordable if they slow down the schedule, consider changing its design and possibly take a different bidding approach. "We're up against the wall, we've got to make this work,'' said King County Executive Ron Sims, a member of Sound Transit's governing board. White said the agency is retracing its steps to see where mistakes were made and preparing a new estimate of the tunnel's cost. On Dec. 14 potential changes to the route will be suggested to the agency's governing board, but a detailed proposal and a final decision on changes isn't likely until January. "I don't think we were in denial,'' White replied to Stipe. "I think frankly some errors were made over the last year in terms of what our cost estimates were.'' In hindsight, White said, Sound Transit erred by choosing the design-build contracting process in which a single contractor is hired to design and construct the project. That process can result in a project being done faster, and Sound Transit was under a tight deadline to finish its work by 2006, but it can drive up costs. Now the agency has conceded that Seattle light-rail service won't begin until at least 2007, and it's leaning toward designing the tunnel itself and hiring contractors only for construction. White also announced that he hired Lyndon "Tuck'' Wilson Jr., former project manager on the Westside expansion of Portland's light-rail system, as interim light-rail director. Wilson succeeds Paul Bay, who resigned from the post Nov. 17. Wilson will be paid up to $98,505 for a 60-day contract that may be extended until a permanent director is hired. His contract includes an hourly fee of $180 plus expenses such as travel and accommodations. The project Wilson oversaw in Portland from 1990 to 1998 included a three-mile tunnel similar to the one planned in Seattle. Citizens panel member Art Carter Jr., a retired vice president of facilities and capital investments for Boeing, said the higher tunnel price isn't surprising. He is more concerned that officials, including Bay, had been telling the panel that Sound Transit was 95 percent confident of its cost estimates. "That's disturbing because I don't know how you avoid this happening again,'' he said. "Do we just go along holding hands and walk off a cliff?'' White said the communication issue will be addressed. "That's a review that needs to happen,'' he said, "and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.'' Governing board members were also frustrated that they weren't more informed about the tunnel bids until Nov. 16. Sims said he understands why officials wanted to negotiate with contractors privately, but the board should have been notified last summer when it became clear the price would be far more than expected. Board member Rob McKenna, a Metropolitan King County councilman and longtime light-rail critic, said the agency lost some credibility. "By handling the matter the way they did, they created the appearance of trying to hide bad news until they had developed a strategy for coping with it,'' he said. "So when they got the bids back, they panicked and tried to shut down the information and, of course, they failed.'' When Brier Dudley is not on strike, he is a reporter for The Seattle Times.

and the doo-doo continues to deepen.......

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 29, 2000.