Sound Transit 3 will be on the ballot this fall. It will spend $50 billion over the next 25 years and attract approximately 300,000 new riders. The question is, is this worth it.

ST3 has many projects, some of which are great value, such as a light rail line from Ballard to Downtown. The Ballard line would cost $4 billion and attract 135,000 daily riders. That makes for a 30 year subsidy of $2.77 per ride. But ST3 also has projects with very poor value, such as light rail from Lynnwood to Everett. The Everett line would also cost $4 billion, but it would only attract 39,000 riders. It would have a per rider subsidy of $12.92, about six times the fare. When you aggregate all the good, bad, and mediocre projects together, the per rider subsidy over 30 years is a decent $6.75.

If asked on a whole, I personally think ST3 is a good investment. The question, should we say no, is really asking, can we get better value. If we vote no, will we get something better? That is a hard question to answer.

There are two main reasons why there are poor projects in ST3. One is that people often don’t understand transit projects well, and make critical assumptions, such as, since this freeway is congested, there should be light rail parallel to the freeway so we can get out of congestion. But in reality, freeway running light rail often performs poorly. Sound Transit wants ST3 to pass, so they include projects which are popular even if they aren’t great value.

Another reason ST3 has poor projects is taxing districts and subarea equity. Sound Transit has a large tax district which includes Snohomish, King, and Kitsap counties. Early on, Sound Transit realized voters from different areas didn’t like the idea that they are being taxed to provide transit in someone else’s area. To fix this, Sound Transit drew some subareas and promised funds from a subarea would stay in a subarea. This is called subarea equity. The problem, is some subareas are much more walkable and much denser than other subareas. Transit is more effective in the dense walkable subareas. But because of subarea equity, Sound Transit has no choice but to spend billions in areas which aren’t really well suited to large scale transit.

ST3 is a highly votable set of projects. It may not be the most efficient use of funds, but a better ST3 is difficult to envision. If ST3 doesn’t pass, Seattle would have a hard time funding the good projects from Seattle. The same goes for Tacoma. Some of the decent projects truly are regional, so no area is likely to fund them. ST3 is basically an all or nothing deal, and overall it is not bad.

To answer the question, is ST3 worth it, I don’t know. ST3 is far from the most efficient use of voter funds. That being said, there are some very useful projects in ST3 which likely won’t be funded in the near future if ST3 doesn’t pass. Hopefully I’ll have made up my mind by the time the ballot arrives.

 

Sound Transit Three, or ST3, is transit plan for the Puget Sound regions (PSR). It plans to spend 50 billion dollars over 25 years. This would be spent on light rail, buses, commuter rail and a little street car. There are way too many parts to talk about in a short post, so I’ll highlight the general cost effectiveness of ST3 rather than address all the pluses and minuses of every project project.

One of the quirks of ST3 is called subarea equity. Sound transit has split the region into 5 subareas and let it be known that it will spend everything made in a subarea in that subarea. This was important because many voters won’t vote for something they perceive to be taking their money and giving it to someone else.There are downsides to this approach. Some areas have more transit demand than others, but they all spend the same, so some subareas get better value for their investment.

One way to think about how effective a project is is 30 year rider subsidy. After 30 years of use, how much will taxpayers have paid divided by how many riders total have rode the system. This metric can give an approximation of value. If taxpayers are only subsidizing a little per rider, it is probably a decent value. If we are subsidizing a lot per rider, maybe we could find cheaper or more effective options.

The best project in ST3 for subsidy/rider is the Ballard to Downtown Seattle line. It is an expensive and complex project, costing $4,450—$4,762 to build. But this high cost is made up by an estimated 114,000—145,000 daily riders. This makes for a 30 year subsidy of $2.77. This subsidy is only slightly larger than the fare itself. This project not only looks good from a revenue perspective, but it also provides a second line through downtown, giving redundancy to what is currently a system close to capacity.

The worst subsidy/rider is on the Sounder commuter extension to DuPont. Even though this is a relatively cheap project, only costing $304 million, it attracts only 1250 daily riders. This makes for a 30 year subsidy of $30.85. That is about six times the fares paid to ride Sounder. That level of subsidy brings up the question of is this actually a good investment. The answer still may be yes, but it needs to be asked.

The worst project from a total waste perspective is Link from Lynnwood to Everett. This would cost 4.183 billion dollars, but only attract 39k riders. The per rider subsidy would be $12.92. Since Link fare is lower than Sounder fare, the Lynnwood to Everett subsidy is about six times the fare. Light rail is likely the wrong technology to be serving a 15 mile line through very spread out development.

ST3 also has some projects which seem OK. The 145th and SR 522 BRT would cost $387 million and attract 8500 riders. The 30 year per rider subsidy is a mediocre $7.59. This gives a 32% farebox recovery which is comparable to King County Metro’s average farebox recovery of 31%. This is not a clear slam dunk, but it isn’t clearly a bad project.

There are many more projects in ST3. Some of these projects are clearly great deals, like Ballard to Downtown. Other projects are decent, like the 145th and SR 522 BRT. But there are also those projects of questionable worth, like Lynnwood to Everett and DuPont. Bad projects can’t just be excluded because it would mess up subarea equity. Next post I’ll discuss whether ST3 as a whole is worth it and what possible alternatives would look like.

It is possible to have a deep understanding of what better mobility means. It is possible to understand the intricacies of the technical tools and strategies for improving mobility. It is also guaranteed this understanding will not be enough for the Puget Sound region (PSR) to make cost effective investments in improving mobility. Any investment in transportation will require politics.

Understanding the complex layers of politics in the PSR is no small feat. Working with it to improve outcomes is even trickier. Lets start by introducing the characters.

On the highest level, we have the feds. The US Department of Transportation (US DoT) is involved in every major aspect of transportation. Highway investments often need funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Large transit projects can sometimes get additional funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). High speed rail hasn’t seen investment like it has in Europe, partially because of strict Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules. Sometimes the feds have more indirect effects on mobility. I know of two buildings which would have been built taller if the FAA didn’t limit heights in Seattle. As discussed in the first article, mobility and density are inextricably intertwined. The feds have also encouraged less density through tax deductions on housing purchases and through organizations like Freddie Mac. From securing funds to the regulatory environment, improving mobility involves the feds.

The next level down is the state. the Washington Department of Transportation, WSDOT (pronounced wash dot), is often the largest contributor on the largest highway projects. An example of an important project which didn’t make it because of WSDOT not funding is the new I5 Colombia River crossing. The existing crossing is a drawbridge with two lanes per direction. The structure is nearing end of life, and the limited capacity has long been a major constraint on Vancouver Portland mobility. Oregon, Washington, and the feds all agreed to fund a replacement. The replacement was designed to have street car tracks to connect the street car systems on both sides. Businesses which send tall barges down the Colombia realized the new bridge would prevent this use. These businesses talked to their representatives in Washington. Changing the design to be taller would make the approaches too steep for streetcar. It became a partisan issue. Washington Republicans with the help of one democrat who crossed lines voted to not fund it. The project died. Suffice to say, state government is a very important player in transportation.

One a smaller scale is county and city government. These players tend to be less important for major projects, but very important for the bulk of transportation. Outside of cities, most roads are maintained by the county. In Seattle, most buses are run by King County Metro. In Everette, the most buses are run by the city. There are many many organizations at the city and county level, and they all need to work together. Without an effective bus network, city traffic can overwhelm roads. Without good roads, including features like bus lanes and signal priority, buses can be very slow. When roads are run by one organization, and buses are run by another, which is almost always the case, both organizations can be more effective through cooperation.

Finally we have Sound Transit, larger than a county but smaller than a state. One of the problems which can arise for regional transportation is cooperation between cities and counties. If a bus should go from one city or county to another, which transit organization should pay for it. In the PSR, most intercity and interstate roads and highways are paid for by state and federal government. Transit funding on the state and federal level is a little more scarce. To address this lack, Sound Transit was formed. Sound transit includes much of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Sound transit is tasked with providing transit on a regional level, allowing local transit agencies to focus on local needs. The board of sound transit is composed of elected officials sent from the local areas. For example, the city council member from my district in Seattle, Rob Johnson, is on the Sound Transit board.

Any improvement to mobility will need to be through this complex and layered political structure. Coordination is hard. Getting voter consensus is hard. Getting politicians to support anything which doesn’t directly benefit their particular district is hard. No part of going from the general goal of improved mobility to actual implementation for a reasonable cost is easy. The next article I’ll discuss Sound Transit 3, an attempt at improving the transit side of mobility.