IMPROVING THE LINK LIGHT RAIL A proposal prepared by: TEAM NITRO Leilani Battle Dennis Zhang Ryan McCarthy Stephan Favilla For: Kerrie Kephart HCDE 333 University of Washington February 10, 2011
TEAM NITRO University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 2/10/2011 Kerrie Kephart HCDE 333 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 Dear Ms. Kephart: Traffic in Seattle has become worse over the years, to the point where we rank in the top 10 U.S. cities with the worst traffic. This heavy traffic leads to air pollution, which degrades the quality of life in Seattle. If we can reduce the amount of traffic in Seattle, we will also be reducing pollution and improving the quality of life. The Link Light Rail has been in use since the middle of 2009, but the number of riders has been below the projections of Sound Transit, the company who operates the Link Light Rail. We propose researching the problems with the Link Light Rail, and why ridership is below the expected number, as well as what can be done to improve the situation. By using surveys, interviews, and further research, we will create and refine a solution to the problem. After submitting the proposal, we will research further into the problem of the Link Light Rail, and why people are not riding it, but instead driving their cars. We will conduct surveys of UW student and Seattle residents, and interviews with Sound Transit personnel. Based on our findings, we will develop and refine a solution to a problem that is hurting Link Light Rail ridership. Sincerely, TEAM NITRO Leilani Battle Dennis Zhang Ryan McCarthy Stephan Favilla i
CONTENTS Illustrations.1 Executive Summary...2 Introduction....3 Purpose 3 Description of the Problem..3 Background.3 Scope...4 Improving the Link Light Rail 5 Overview of the Proposal...5 Surveys and Interviews... 5 Solution to the Problem...6 Statement of Work...7 Project Timeline...7 Personnel Information..7 Cost Information..7 Summary and Conclusion.8 Appendix A: Proposed Link Light Rail Map....9 Appendix B: Ridership Numbers for 2010..10 References...11 ii
ILLUSTRATIONS TABLES Table 1: Gantt Chart..7 FIGURES Figure A.1: Proposed Link Light Rail Map...9 Figure B.1: Ridership Chart for 2010 10 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seattle has consistently ranked among the top 10 cities in the United States with the worst traffic. Along with this traffic comes air pollution. Heavy pollution has been proven to cause harmful effects on the human body. By reducing traffic, air pollution would also be reduced, improving the quality of life in Seattle. Seattle has a unique geographic setting, consisting of a narrow strip of hilly land, in between two bodies of water on the East and West sides. This presents many problems for building a mass transit system, such as the subways used in many cities such as Washington DC, and New York City. Subways are usually drilled underneath a city, but are difficult when the elevation changes drastically. Also, the water surrounding the city restricts passage to only a few select areas, which makes travel from distant communities crowded and slow. We propose a study on the current mass transit system, in particular, the Sound Transit Link Light Rail. The Link Light Rail is similar to a subway system, in that it runs on railroad tracks, and is powered by an overhead wire. The Link Light Rail shares the underground tunnels of downtown Seattle with King County Metro s buses. Currently, the Link Light Rail runs from downtown Seattle to SeaTac airport, with plans to run up to Lynnwood, 16 miles North of Seattle, by 2016. While this will definitely reduce traffic and congestion, Link Light Rail has reported boarding performance that is below the predicted forecast for travel between downtown Seattle and SeaTac airport. Our study will examine the reasons for this poor performance, and what is preventing drivers from using the Link Light Rail. The information will be gathered using surveys of students, along with interviews with Sound Transit employees and current and potential Link Light Rail users. Using the information gathered, we will decide on one issue that needs the most improvement. From there, an engineering based solution will be generated and evaluated. This solution will be verified by another set of interviews with Sound Transit employees to determine the cost, benefit, and feasibility. From the interviews, we will be able to refine the concept, and pitch it to Sound Transit as a viable option to improve the Link Light Rail. By improving the boarding numbers of the Link Light Rail, traffic in Seattle will be reduced, increasing the quality of life, and increasing the sustainability of our city. 2
INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of our proposal is to provide a way to reduce traffic pollution in Seattle by researching and recommending a targeted engineering-related solution to improving the Link Light Rail System. Description of the Problem Seattle has consistently been in the top 10 worst cities for traffic congestion from 2009 to 2010, as reported by King5 News and the Puget Sound Business Journal [1,2]. Traffic poses serious problems for the city of Seattle, because: it makes traveling in or through Seattle very difficult and time-consuming during high-traffic times; it causes excessive amounts of air pollution to be produced while vehicles are in heavy traffic, including greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, transportation alone caused 27 percent of all US greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2008, and is currently the fastest growing source for greenhouse gases [3]. In addition, transportation is the largest end-use source of carbon dioxide, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas [3]. Greenhouse gases are damaging to the environment because they contribute to harmful phenomena like global warming. Also, studies have also shown that air pollution can be seriously harmful to human health, especially for infants, children and pregnant women [5,6]. Months to years of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution may trigger asthma and other respiratory-related diseases in children [7], as well as exacerbate existing heart and lung problems of adults [7]. It is our responsibility as residents of the Seattle area to find ways to reduce traffic-related pollution. One way to do this is to utilize mass transit like the Link Light Rail instead of driving. Background The Central Light Link Rail started running on July 18 th, 2009. It was expected that the rail would help clear the congestion during rush hour on the weekdays and help travelers get to Sea- Tac airport from Seattle and vice versa. With such a convenient mode of transportation, who wouldn t want to take it? It turns out much of the city chose not to ride the rail because, according to ridership reports (see Appendix B), the Central Link Light Rail has not met the expectations of Sound Transit. The first and currently only phase of the Central Light Link Rail runs from downtown Seattle to Sea-Tac Airport. According to the metro site, the Link Light Rail takes 33 minutes to get to Sea- Tac from Seattle. While the rail is convenient for people coming for business or on vacation, the rail is inconvenient for local residents. Residents traveling for business will need to either transfer to downtown stops or use Seattle's expensive overnight parking. They would save more 3
money by using airport parking that is next to Sea-Tac airport or taking a taxi to and from the airport. Both of these options reduce the number of Link Light Rail riders. The Central Link Light Rail is also inconvenient for residents going to Seattle. There is only one park and ride along the Central Link Light Rail, located at Sea-Tac Airport. This means that the Link Light Rail may miss riders that live between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac. These riders would need other forms of public transportation to reach a Light Link Rail stop. As a result, it is more convenient to find a bus that takes them directly to downtown Seattle instead. Perhaps spreading out the parking spaces along the rail stops would help increase use of the Central Link Light Rail. The projected Central Link Light Rail would travel from Star Lake to Lynwood, with a side rail that travels from Seattle to Bellevue (See Appendix A). The first addition to the Central Link Light Rail is currently under construction. The addition is an extension of the Link Light Rail to the University of Washington. The 3.1 mile extension was approved in 2008, but is projected to open in 2016. The city has already spent 1.7 billion on the unfinished University Link. Sound Transit predicts that it will cost 1.9 billion dollars in total to build the two station link. The projected amount of riders from these two stations alone is 70,000 per day. Unfortunately, the projections have been overestimated thus far [8]. The Link Light Rail's consistently poor performance could force the Sound Transit to delay and even scrap the future extensions. If the current Central Link Light Rail does not meet expectations, the rail could end up costing more to run than the revenue generated by its use. We plan to research ways to not only improve the current situation, but also supplement future additions to the Link Light Rail. Getting more people to ride the Central Light Link Rail is a must if the city of Seattle wants to reduce traffic congestion in and near Seattle. Scope The proposal focuses primarily on improving the currently running routes of the Link Light Rail system. However, our secondary goal is to propose a long-term solution that will also be relevant to any additions made to the Link Light Rail system in the future (such as the planned additional routes and stops in Capitol Hill, the University District and Northgate). The rest of this document is dedicated to describing the proposed project in detail: a description of the tasks and processes necessary to completing the project; the estimated schedule for completing the assigned work for the project; descriptions of the personnel working on the proposal and project; the costs associated with completing the project. 4
Overview of the Proposal IMPROVING THE LINK LIGHT RAIL This proposal offers a research based solution to a problem with the Link Light Rail. While we would like to solve all of the problems with the system, this is outside of our scope. With limited time, we propose to research the Link Light Rail, and why people are not using it. We will then develop a solution to the problem which we believe is the main cause for the ridership issues, and pitch this idea to Sound Transit (the operators of the Link Light Rail). Surveys and Interviews In order to find out why people are not riding the Link Light Rail transit system, we will conduct a survey and hold a series of interviews. Our survey will be four questions long, with three multiple choice questions and one short comment section. Questions that we may include are: how often do you ride the Link Light Rail, do you use the Link Light Rail when going to the airport, and do you use the Link Light Rail for sporting events downtown? Other questions include asking students about where they live, how often they go to or come from the airport, and about their use of public transportation in general. Our short answer questions will also attempt to incorporate the students overall thoughts on the Link Light Rail or their thoughts on why more people don t ride it. The goal of the survey is to be long enough to gain useful information while being concise enough for individuals to finish the survey in the amount of time it takes to cross UW red square. In order to gain a large sample base, we plan to survey students as they walk to or from class through red square, as well as in locations where students tend to sit and converse with each other (By George, Suzzallo Cafe, etc.). This will allow us to obtain an unbiased student base. We will then contact and interview workers of Sound Transit. Our goal is to interview current planners and developers of the Link Light Rail system to see if they have any insight on the problem of low ridership. They have the most experience and expertise in this subject. We will also ask if Sound Transit has already begun their future planning to increase ridership as they open up new Link Light Rail lines. If possible, we will also talk to the original planners of the initial stages of the Link Light Rail to learn how they estimated their original numbers and why they believe ridership is low. Solution to the Problem After the research has been conducted, we will decide what issue is causing the most problems for Link Light Rail, and why ridership was underperforming. This issue will be decided on by using comparative analysis between each problem, and checking to see the cost versus benefit of solving each of the problems. By using this approach, we will assure the client that the maximum benefit versus cost will be achieved. 5
The problem chosen will be researched further, and several solutions to the problem will be generated from the research and team brainstorming sessions. These solutions will be refined, and then compared to each other through the use of a Pugh chart. The Pugh chart rates the different solutions according to multiple different criteria. Each of the criteria is chosen specifically for the problem and the areas that improvement is needed. The number of criteria depends on the issues that need to be addressed by the solution. From there, a datum solution is chosen, and the other solutions are rated against the datum in each of the criteria, by marking them with a plus, minus, or equal sign. The ratings are tallied at the bottom of the chart, to determine the solution with the maximum benefit. This solution is then set as the datum, and the Pugh chart is evaluated again to ensure that the solution is the correct choice. Repeating the process also opens it up to reinterpretation, which may alter the results [9]. The solution that was chosen through the use of the Pugh chart will be further refined. Another set of interviews will be set up with Sound Transit personnel who are involved with the planning process of the Link Light Rail. We will propose the idea to Sound Transit, and gather feedback on the cost of the solution, along with the benefit. Finally, we will ask for improvements on our solution, and how we can reduce cost while increasing the benefit. When the solution is fully refined, we will pitch the concept to Sound Transit, in hopes that it will become a reality. Statement of Work We plan to survey Seattle residents and commuters downtown, as well as students and staff at the University of Washington, about their use and opinions of the Link Light Rail. We will also interview three to four Sound Transit employees that worked on the development of the Link Light Rail to gain the expert's perspective on improving the system, as well as discuss alternatives to our project. We may also interview one to two students or faculty from UW's Urban Planning department. We will compile our survey results, and choose one problem that seemed most important to both Seattle area residents and the Sound Transit employees. Each team member will develop and research one solution to this problem, and as a team we will perform a cost and benefit analysis of each solution. The team will vote for the best solution of the 4, and perform in-depth research to refine this solution. We will then perform a second round of interviews with Sound Transit employees to help us assess our chosen solution and evaluate costs and requirements for the solution. Lastly, we will develop a poster containing: our project problem; results from the surveys and interviews; our proposed solutions research; and our final recommendation with cost and benefit analysis, an outlined approach, and timeline for completion. Project Timeline The proposed project timeline for the project is shown below, in Table 1, as a Gantt chart. Also shown in the chart are the team members participating in each task of the project, and when the tasks are to be completed. 6
Table 1: Gantt chart showing the proposed project timeline for this quarter. Phase Task Team Member Start Date Duration Calendar (Days) Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Proposal/Presentation Gantt Chart Team 02/08/11 1 Sustainability Research Leilani 01/28/11 7 Light Rail Performance Research Dennis 01/28/11 7 Cost Research Stephan 01/28/11 7 Presentation Slides Team 01/28/11 12 Proposal Technical Details Research Ryan, Stephan 01/28/11 10 Chalk Board Talks/Memo Plan/Execute Rider Surveys Leilani, Ryan,Dennis 02/08/11 14 Plan/Execute Interviews Stephan,Dennis 02/08/11 14 Survey Results Analysis Team 02/15/11 7 Chalk Board Talk Details Team 02/11/11 6 Memo Writeup Team 02/11/11 10 Alternatives Research Stephan 02/15/11 5 Solutions Brain Storm Develop Solutions List Team 02/15/11 14 Solutions Feasibility Research Team 02/15/11 14 Solutions Cost-Benefit Evaluations Team 02/22/11 7 Final Solution Refining/Analysis Team 02/22/11 7 Second Round Interviews Stephan,Dennis 02/23/11 7 Poster Solutions Feasibility/Cost-Benefits Writeup Stephan 02/22/11 9 Solutions Approach/Technical Details Writeup Ryan 02/22/11 9 Expert Opinion Writeup Dennis 02/23/11 8 Intro/Problem Description Team 03/01/11 1 Survey/Results Writeup Leilani 02/23/11 8 Projected Solutions Timeline Stephan 02/22/11 9 Graphics/Printing Team 02/22/11 9 Final Touches/Compilation Team 03/01/11 6 Personnel Information Leilani Battle, Senior, Computer Engineering: Leilani will be performing the sustainability research, along with rider surveys. She will be completing the survey results write-up, and helping with team tasks. Dennis Zhang, Senior, Electrical Engineering: Dennis completed the Light Rail performance research, and will performing rider surveys, along with interviews. Dennis will also be helping with the second round of interviews, and all team tasks. Ryan McCarthy, Senior, Electrical Engineering: Ryan performed the technical details for this proposal, and will be helping with the rider surveys. He will also be involved with the write-up of technical details for the poster, and other team tasks. Stephan Favilla, Senior, Mechanical Engineering: Stephan performed the initial cost research, and will be helping with the first and second round interviews. He will complete the feasibility and cost write-up after the interviews, and will helping with other team tasks. Cost Information The cost of this project will be primarily based on personnel cost for the time and effort spent by the members of the team. Other costs will include the printing cost for the survey pamphlets, and cost for phone calls to conduct the interviews. The result of these costs will be a refined, well defined solution to the problem. While the solution will most likely cost more than the proposed work, the benefit will be substantial. Based on preliminary projections, each team member will be spending about eight hours a week on the project. Over the next four weeks, this will amount to 128 hours for all four team 7
members. At a rate of $12 per hour, a fair rate for students in college doing research work, the total is $1536. An updated cost report will be included in the poster presentation. This cost report will cover the cost of the proposed solution that will be generated after this proposal, and will largely depend on the complexity and scale of the solution. The figures used will come from Sound Transit and possible model cities that have implemented the solution. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The main goal of this proposal is to get more people to ride the Link Light Rail. By improving the ridership of the Link Light Rail, we will be improving Seattle by taking cars off the road, and reducing the pollution in the air. The Link Light Rail has consistently posted ridership numbers that are below what was originally projected. If this trend continues, ridership numbers will also fall behind projections when the University Link opens in 2016, and when the links up to Lynnwood open further down the road. By improving ridership now, we will be able to keep ahead of projections well into the future. Over the next three weeks, our team will conduct the surveys and interviews that are crucial to gathering the information from the potential users and the experts in the field. Using this information, we will decide on an issue that needs to most attention, through a vote of the team, at the beginning of week 7. This problem will be solved by a solution, which will be refined through a selection process known as a Pugh chart and interviews with experts in the field. Our final solution will be pitched back to Sound Transit to check the feasibility, cost, and benefit. By the end of this quarter, we will have produced a poster, outlining the details of our project, including our proposed solution to the problem that we chose, and the cost and benefit associated with implementing the solution. Throughout the whole process, we will be taking advice and information from Sound Transit to assure that the solution will be beneficial and cost effective. The input from the users will also ensure that those using the Link Light Rail will also be benefitting from the solution, and that it will be a cost effective use of tax-payer money. 8
APPENDIX A This appendix contains a map of projected Sound Transit system, shown below in figure A.1. Figure A.1: A map of the proposed Link Light Rail system. 9
APPENDIX B This appendix contains ridership numbers throughout the first three quarters of 2010, and a chart showing the deficit, in figure B.1. The 4 th quarter data will not be available until March 2011. Quarter 1 (Jan-March): 1,498,042 total projected, 1,389,287 actual Quarter 2 (March-June): 3,348,268 total projected, 3,195,454 actual Quarter 3 (June-Sept): 5,531,137 total projected, 5,237,792 actual 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Amout of riderhsips to date 3,000,000 2,000,000 Actual Ridership Projected ridership 1,000,000 0 1 2 3 Quarter Reports for 2010 Figure B.1: Ridership Chart for 2010. 10
REFERENCES 1. Seattle Ranks 9 th on Most Congested Cities List, King 5 News, 2010. http://www.king5.com/home/seattle-ranks-9th-on-most-congested-cities-list- 85075317.html 2. Seattle Rush Hour Traffic: Nation s 4 th Worst, Puget Sound Business Journal, 2010. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2010/11/23/seattle-rush-hour-trafficnations.html 3. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, US EPA, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/basicinfo.htm 4. Emission Facts, US EPA, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm 5. B. Ritz, M Wilhelm, Air Pollution Impacts on Infants and Children, UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, 2008. http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article.asp?parentid=1700 6. M. Brauer, C. Lencar, et al. A Cohort Study of Traffic-Related Air Pollution Impacts on Birth Outcomes, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2367679/ 7. Road Traffic and Air Pollution, Health Canada, 2004. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyhvsv/environ/traf-eng.php#th 8. Sound Transit, www.soundtransit.com 9. G.E. Dieter, L.C. Schmidt, Engineering Design, 4 th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Pg.277-280. 11