State’s Carbon Market Benefits

The Seattle Times September 28 Editorial “Proceed With Caution, Care, as Carbon Market in State Grows” heralded the news California will extend their own cap and trade system through 2045. That “making Washingtons’ auction market the best hope in reducing planet-warming emissions.”  That lawmakers’ goal should be a “policy that successfully reduces carbon emissions and helps mitigate the impacts of climate change”.

Yet there’s very little evidence Washington’s carbon market will do either. A 2022 Energy Information Agency (EIA) detailed the sources for the state’s 74.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 emissions: 42.5 MMT from transportation, 11.5 MMT from industrial use, 9.5 MMT for electric power, 6.2 MMT residential, and 5.0 MMT commercial. 

The carbon market will result in drivers paying more for the fuel they burn but nothing for the emissions emitted by burning the fuel. Those using electric power will pay more to warm their homes, cook their food, or charge their EV batteries. 

 However, those burning natural gas to heat their homes or commercial areas where they work, won’t.  Thus, Washington’s carbon market won’t affect more than half the state’s carbon emissions. 

Whatever benefits the state’s carbon-market-emission reductions have on climate change is limited by the fact” they make up only 1.56% of the countrie’’s. That the entire country only emits 11.2 % of the planets.  

The bottom line is the Seattle Times Editorial Board needs to recognize the state’s carbon market only affects 0.17% of the planet’s emission. That forcing state residents to pay the highest price for the fuel they use and for all those using electric power will do little to mitigate the impact of carbon emissions on climate change”.

Problems with 2 Line's "Engineering Success"

 A recent Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, “Seattle light rail makes history with test run across I-90 bridge” detailed Sound Transit running an electric powered railcar across the bridge at up to 55 mph. The results validated the Sound Transit project manager’s confidence the trains can go full speed. The testing will continue until 2026 spring to confirm:

Four car trains, labeled as the 2 Line will travel all the way from Redmond to Lynnwood, sharing track in North Seattle with the older 1 Line

Yet there’s little evidence this "engineering success" will reduce congestion. The problem is 4-car light rail trains lack the capacity to attract the riders needed to reduce peak hour congestion on multi-lane roadways and cost too much to operate during off-peak.   

Sound Transit should have never been allowed to use the I-90 center roadway for light rail.  Doing so precluded two-way BRT with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost. The Washington Department of Ecology has raised concerns the stormwater from the tracks could pollute Lake Washington.

Sound Transit compounded the capacity problem by using light rail to replace bus routes across the bridge and routing the trains through DSTT to UW and beyond. They initially estimated 50,000 riders would use light rail.  The article’s claim for 10,000 Starter Line passengers presumably reflects the 9442 boardings in the July ridership report.  However, since each passenger presumably boarded to and from their destination only 4721 passengers used the Starter Line. 

It’s unclear how many Starter Line riders will be added by the extension and the 2 Line stops on Mercer Island and Judkins Park in Seattle. Sound Transit intends to add riders by using it to replace ST550 from downtown Bellevue into and out of Seattle.   The route’s June 4820 boardings presumably reflect 2410 passengers riding into and out of Seattle. Terminating ST550 limits Bellevue commuter’s access to transit to those within walking distance of T/C and East Main station. 

The need for I-90 corridor bus riders to transfer to and from light rail on Mercer Island for the commute will likely dissuade many commuters from using transit.  Again, it’s unlikely 2 Line operation will reduce I-90 corridor peak hour congestion.

However, its operation will add to the problems identified in the following from August 27th Sound Transit Board meeting:

Cost pressures related to improved service delivery could require approximately $5B more in year-of expenditure dollars

Routing 2 Line trains from Downtown Redmond Station (DRS) to and from the International District Station(IDS) will add 36 miles of revenue service.  At `$30 per mile  a 4-car train will cost $4320 per trip.  Sound Transit’s projected 2 Line schedule requires 122 trips, costing $527,040 daily.  

The Sound Transit decision to route the 2 Line through DSTT to Lynnwood also creates an operation problem.  It halves the number of 1 Line routes to SeaTac and beyond and complicates safely merging those routes when they return with 2 Line trains into IDS.  

Routing 4-car trains through Bellevue to Redmond will double the noise from Starter Line 2-car trains.  Sound Transit will presumably have to reduce 4-car train velocity along the route to avoid violating Bellevue noise limits.

The bottom line is the ability to route 4-car trains from Redmond to Lynnwood may be an “engineering success” but a transit system debacle. Sound Transit could mitigate the problem by terminating 2 Line trains at IDS. Let east side need define east side service,  Avoid the need to halve the number of 1 Line trains to Federal Way and set 1 Line service to meet Lynnwood need.

 

System Expansion Committee Still Doesn’t “Get It”

A chart in the August 27th Sound Transit Board meeting summarized the cost problem with implementing ST3.

In total this represents a 20%-25% increase above the current Fall 2024 Long Range Financial Plan before any cost savings opportunities are applied

 

Cost growth on the capital program is approximately $14B-$20B more in 2025 dollars, or $22B-$30B more in year of expenditure dollars

 

Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine's response was “everything is on the table,” and “he hopes a fresh look will improve future transit”. Board member Claudia Balducci suggested Sound Transit avoid building a second, multibillion-dollar downtown rail tunnel proposed in the ST3 plan.

The Sept 1st post on this  blog suggested,“What Should be on ST’s cost cutting table.” The July 8462 Lynnwood Link riders, a fraction of the 24,400-35,000 predicted, indicated extending light rail beyond Lynnwood should “be on the table”.  That  delaying extensions beyond Federal Way to Tacoma, should ”be on the table” until the extension’s December debut   That the December debut ridership should also put not spending more the $500 million on OMFS "on the table".

The  September 11th ST System Expansion Committee agenda indicated the committee’s  version of “what’s on the table” with the following items in the Monthly Status Report Update in “Business Items for final action” and “For recommendation to the Board:

Motion No. M2025-45 authorized nine contracts for up to 7 years and $27 million to provide Sound Transit “with appraisal services”.

Motion No. M2025-46 authorized 18 individual Multiple Award Task Order Contracts for up to 7 years and $1,000 million to provide Sound Transit “with design and engineering services”

Motion No. M2025-48 authorized spending up to $173.5  million for additional Everett Link Extension and Operations and Maintenance Facility North (OMFN) Phase 2 “for project development  services”

The Everett Link and OMFN also benefited from Resolution No. R2025-27 that increased to $317.2 million for “additional project development services”  and  increased 2025 budget to $52.1 million  

Those agenda items were followed  by the following Reports to the Committee:

West Seattle and Everett Link Extensions cost savings update

2025 Budget Amendment to Alight with Agency Reorganization

The September 11th video showed the discussion and subsequent approval of the motions, the resolution and committee’s satisfaction with cost savings update and 2025 Budget Amendment. Claudia Balducci, the normal chair  of the System Expansion Committee, wasn’t there and there was no discussion about her suggestion Sound Transit avoid building a second, multibillion-dollar downtown rail tunnel.. 

The entire discussion dealt with the need to spend more not less going forward. M2025-45 spending $27 million for outside appraisers to advise how much to offer for a property was due the 300 properties appraised in 2025 would  increase to more than 600 in 2027 and 2028,  and 2200 from 2026-2030.  

Why did Sound Transit need to authorize spending up to  7 years and $1 billion for outside design and engineering services.  They already had a nearly1500-position staff with a yearly budget of nearly $ 1 billion.  Millions more have been spent on Transit Advisory Groups and other consultants.  The  Enterprise Initiative recently concluded the board had “already made successful generation investments” so why the need for outside help?

 

Spending nearly $500 million more for Everett Link and Operations and Maintenance Facility North (OMFN) is especially dubious. The lack of Lynnwood Link rider should end plans for the extension. The OMFN was never included in the Prop 1 2016 ST3.    

 

The West Seattle and Everett Extension cost savings update detailed their current  cost drivers and potential ways to cut costs.  They neglected to include potential savings to Ballard Link and not funding 2nd tunnel.  The costs were in 2025 dollars with “Point of Expenditure” substantially more.

 

Even more critical the Sound Transit Board ignored the “cost of operation” identified earlier;  

 

Cost pressures related to improved service delivery could require approximately $5B more in year-of expenditure dollars

The bottom line is the ST System Expansion Committee continues to ignore the failure of light rail spine extensions to reduce congestion on I-5 into Seattle and that the Ballard and West Seattle extensions to Sodo won't justify the cost of creating those extensions.  That terminating the extensions wound end the need to appraise properties and fund the extensions and the cost of providing that service, a perpetual "black hole" for the area's transportation dollars.

Mayor Harrell Doesn't "Get It"

The Seattle Times Sept 2 Traffic Lab article "Major Harrell: Don’t backtrack on Ballard, West Seattle light rail” exemplifies his failure to understand the limits of light rail train's ability to attract riders.  That routing light rail trains through the “densest communities” doesn’t assure ridership.  Ridership requires providing commuters with access near where they live to routes to where they want to go. 

Sound Transit’s preferred Ballard Link option provides commuters access to Westlake in Seattle with stations at Ballard, Interbay, Smith Cove, Seattle Center, and Denny.  However, King County Metro already provides commuters access to  to multiple stops along 3rd Ave in Seattle with RapidRide service. 

 

RapidRide D Line serves the Ballard area with multiple stops along 15th Ave from Crown Hill Area to Elliot Ave to QueenAnne Ave, and Denny Way.  RapidRide E Line provides commuters access with multiple stops along Aurora  Ave from Aurora Village Transit Center past Green Lake to downtown.   RapidRide C serves the Lake Union area with routes along Westlake Ave.  All three provide 24-hour service with routes every 7 to 10 minutes during most of the day with headways extending to 60 minutes during early morning.  

 

A similar review of the service already available to potential West Seattle extension riders would conclude they already have access to  KCM routes with multiple stops along 3rd Ave in Seattle.  Even more egregious, riders the extension attracts to Sodo station will reduce capacity for riders from SeaTac.  (See 10/27/24 post for details)

The mayor proposed a special team of about 50 planners, engineers and inspectors, costing $10 million per year funded by Sound Transit, to begin the effort this fall.  Apparently not accepting the results from Sound Transit's 1500-position, billion dollar staff, the millions spent on Transit Advisory Groups and outside consultants, and more recently the Megaproject hire, Terri Mestas and  her Enterprise Initiative

The article  proposes the 50 planners will reduce costs with regulatory reform, reduce time for issuing permits, and review underground utilities for construction of light rail stations.   Yet, none of the reforms to reduce costs won’t change the fact that the cost of light rail stations dwarfs the cost of bus stops for both access to transit into Seattle and egress in Seattle. It’s also unlikely the 50 planners will be able to significantly reduce the costs of constructing light rail tracks and the years of disruption needed.  That the cost of providing light rail service dwarfs that of buses, especially during off peak hours.

The bottom line is Mayor Harrell doesn’t understand most potential Ballard and West Seattle Extension riders already have better access to transit into and out of Seattle.  That the costs of providing that transit service with buses are far less than what’s needed for light rail operation.  Thus, paying $ 10 million annually attempting to reduce the extension cost doesn’t change the fact that their cost and years of  disruption wasn’t needed.

What Should be on ST’s “Cost Cutting Table”

 The August 28th Seattle Times Traffic Lab front page article, “Sound Transit’s expansion plans balloon by up to $35 billion” raised concern  the 30-year financial plan could grow by $22 billion to $30 billion, from about $150.5 billion to up to $180 billion. That debt payments would continue into the 2060's  and beyond.  Yet, what voters approved in 2016 with Prop 1 was $54B for ST3 for 2017 to 2041 when ST3 taxes would presumably end. 

 The article includes Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine's response that “everything is on the table,” and he hopes a fresh look will improve future transit. These new numbers only add to the pressure.  A chart in the August 27th Sound Transit Board meeting summarized the problem:

In total this represents a 20%-25% increase above the current Fall 2024 Long Range Financial Plan before any cost savings opportunities are applied

 

Cost growth on the capital program is approximately $14B-$20B more in 2025 dollars, or $22B-$30B more in year of expenditure dollars

 

Board member Claudia Balducci suggested Sound Transit avoid building a second, multibillion-dollar downtown rail tunnel proposed in the ST3 plan. However the board continued to insist on completing the light rail spine from Everett to Tacoma and light rail from Ballard and West Seattle to Sodo in ST3.

This post proposes other changes to ST3 that should be "on the table".  The ST3 extension from Northgate to Lynnwood demonstrated that access to light rail doesn’t assure ridership. The 80,000 residents living within a mile of Lynnwood stations resulted in 8462 riders in July, a fraction of the 24,400-35,000 predicted.  Thus, not extending light rail beyond Lynnwood should “be on the table”.

The Federal Way extension debut this December will demonstrate how many of those with access to the station there, and at the Kent/Des Moines and Star Lake stations will choose light rail rather than existing bus routes into Seattle.  Thus, delaying extensions beyond Federal Way to Tacoma, should ”be on the table” until that debut justifies ridership.

That debut should also put plans to spend more than $500 million on an Operation and Maintenance Facility South (OMFS) “on the table”.   Its 2031 completion date means trains in service in 2025 can be maintained elsewhere.  Thus, not building OMFS should be "on the table".

The board approved Mayor Bruce Harold's concern the agency should connect Ballard and West Seattle because that route will “deliver the greatest ridership and serve the densest communities.”   Yet that “ridership” already has  better access to bus routes into Seattle with more convenient stops in the city for egress and access for return.  The limited access from those living within walking distance of light rail stations or willing to transfer to trains into Westlake or Sodo should put aborting both extensions  “on the table”. 

Again, the proposed changes to what’s "on the table" would end the need for more funding for the Long Range Plan for Capital program in both 2025 dollars and "Year of Expenditure dollars". The proposed changes would also alleviate another Sound Transit cost in the Cost Pressures Chart.  

Cost pressures related to improved service delivery could require approximately $5B more in year-of expenditure dollars

All of Sound Transit’s light rail extensions require funding to cover operating costs.  It’s not clear where they'll get that money when ST3 ends.  Not routing light rail beyond Lynnwood or Federal Way, or from Alaska Junction and Ballard to Sodo would mitigate that problem.

The bottom line is Sound Transit needs to recognize their current version of “what’s on the table” will cost too much to implement and operate. It won’t have the ridership needed to reduce congestion and will leave the area with a transportation system perpetually in debt.