Seattle Times Still Doesn’t “Get It”

The 27^th Seattle Times Editorial “Sound Transit Board Can’t Let Delays, Higher Costs Derail System Plan” concludes “the board must find new ways to pay for promised extensions” and “avoid asking taxpayers to pay for something they’ve already paid for”.   Yet Sound Transit tried and failed to get additional money with 75-year maturity bonds and taxpayers are already forced to pay for current bonds until 2061. Operating costs for trains on the extensions will be a perpetual burden for taxpayers.

Sound Transit has a staff of more than 1600 and a $1.1 billion budget whose primary goal is to manage expanding light rail.  (They contract with others to manage nearly all their current transit system operations.)  The board has spent a decade and hundreds of millions on outside consultants trying to reduce the extension costs. (They recently decided to request assistance from UW.)

Thus, it wasn’t a surprise when a May 29^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article announced the board decided to proceed with their version of what was affordable.  That a second tunnel and Duwamish waterway bridge, North and South Maintenance Facilities, light rail to Tacoma Community College, and the Everett Link were all affordable.  The link to Ballard was shortened and the West Seattle link lost a station. That “Partially funding projects through planning and design” was also affordable.   Some projects weren’t currently affordable, and others were classified as "Deferred". 

Again, it was Sound Transit’s attempt to “use available resources to fund the most necessary projects and services that best achieve the ST3 objectives".  Their criteria apparently being which projects were further along   The problem is neither Sound Transit Board nor Seattle Times editors apparently recognize the ST3 light rail extensions won’t reduce congestion.  Thus, whatever the extensions in the Sound Transit affordable capital program, they won’t reduce the congestion in their service area.  

 

One problem is 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to reduce peak hour congestion on roads into Seattle and cost too much to operate off peak. The Sound Transit Board compounds that problem by choosing to use light rail trains to replace bus routes into Seattle, reducing transit capacity into the city.  The ST3 extensions just add to the lost capacity with riders added doing nothing to reduce GP lane congestion and reducing access for current riders. 

 

A second problem is providing access to light rail doesn’t assure ridership. February ridership data indicated the Lynnwood extension added 8948 boarders and Federal  Way 7702, far less than the 35,000 and 25,000 predicted.  Potential riders in both areas already had better access to bus routes for transit into the city with more convenient drop off locations in the city and pickup locations for their return.  (The benefit of the cost of a bus stop being a small fraction of that of a light rail station.) 

 

The bottom line is the Seattle Times doesn’t recognize the Sound Transit Board  continues to approve changes proposed by a Staff  attempt to lower cost on ST3 light rail extensions rather than recognize they don’t need the extensions. That "affordability" should be based in some sort of cost/benefit analysis. Our grandchildren will have to pay off the bonds funding the extensions and that paying for the resultant train operation will continue for as long they continue to run. 

Sound Transit’s UW Support?

 The May 28^th Sound Transit Board Meeting “Consent Agenda” included the following:

Motion No. M2026-19: Authorizing the chief executive officer to execute a Master Research Agreement with the University of Washington on behalf of its Mobility Innovation Center to perform research across a wide variety of areas and topics to support Sound Transit’s planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. – Recommended by the Rider Experience

and Operations Committee

 

Although the statement did not address cost or timeline, it demonstrated that Sound Transit had acknowledged the necessity of collaborating with the university to address public transit issues in the area.  It’s something they should have done 10 years ago when Prop 1 funding was approved. 

It's not clear what Sound Transit is expecting since the recommendation came from their Rider Experience and Operations Committee rather than their System Expansion Committee.  Especially since the Board meeting agenda also listed the following as "Business Item," 

Resolution No. R2026-11: Updating the Sound Transit 3 System Plan to be affordable within available and projected financial capacity.– Requires a supermajority vote

The resolution detailed plans for the foreseeable future as to what Sound Transit deemed was “Affordable with existing resources,” “Construction not currently affordable within existing resources”, and projects to be “Deferred”.  Are they asking the UW how to better implement Sound Transit’s updated plan or to propose their own alternatives.

For instance, will Sound Transit be receptive to UW recommending not extending light rail beyond Lynnwood, Federal Way, and from Issaquah to Kirkland.  That the cost of extending tracks, buying additional light rail cars and operating them in trains over longer routes will outweigh any benefits. Especially since the riders added will reduce access for current riders.  That money spent on maintenance facilities to service those trains could be better spent adding parking rather than being deferred by Sound Transit.

The bottom line is the UW could provide Sound Transit with valuable advice.  The question is whether they will and whether Soud Transit will use it. 

Where Sound Transit Should Go

A recent Seattle Times included a front page Traffic Lab article asking, “Where does light rail go from here?’.  Residents who have waited decades for their promised light rail stops and paid Sound Transit taxes since 1997 are beside themselves.  The paper reported Sound Transit was “weighing postponing and cutting stations to reduce cost,” as well as “chasing money to close $35B gap”. 

The article typifies the  Traffic Lab failure to recognize Sound Transit’s ST3 extensions won’t reduce the area’s congestion.  4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to reduce peak hour congestion on routes into Seattle and cost too much to operate off peak. Light rail extensions beyond UW stadium, across I-90 Bridge or beyond SeaTac airport don’t increase that capacity, they only increase  train operating costs. Yet Sound Transit is spending hundreds of millions extending the tracks, millions more attempting to reduce their cost, buying light rail cars to run on the tracks, and adding maintenance facilities to service the train cars that do.

Even more absurd, Sound Transit is using those  trains to replace bus routes into Seattle, reducing transit capacity into the city and nothing to reduce GP lane congestion. The more the extensions, the more the lost capacity, and more transferring riders reducing access for current riders 

Sound Transit should  recognize that providing access to light rail at stations doesn’t assure riders.  Boardings on light rail trains from Lynnwood,  Federal Way and Redmond were far less than predicted, yet Sound Transit continues to insist on light rail beyond Lynnwood, Federal Way, and light rail from Kirkland to Issaquah.  

They don’t acknowledge potential future Ballard and West Seattle-to-SODO riders already have better access to bus routes into downtown Seattle with more convenient options for egress into and access out of the city.  The benefits of bus stops costing a tiny fraction of a light rail station and ending the need for boring a second tunnel under Seattle or constructing a second Duwamish Bridge.

The bottom line is light rail could go to a far better place if Sound Transit would recognize the folly of ST3 extensions.

Money Strapped Sound Transit??

The May 8^th Seattle Times front page Traffic Lab article, “Don’t axe future light rail stations, residents urge money-strapped Sound Transit” details concerns about Sound Transit’s approach to an “unaffordable” $23 billion budget.  The result of Sound Transit’s using voter 2016 approval to spend $54 billion on ST3 between 2017-2041 to increase to $195 billion with debt requiring bond payments currently scheduled to end in 2061. Sound Transit’s funding had increased to where the 2026 budget had a staff with 1635 positions with a $1,138,903,000 budget and an 18-member board, each director receiving more than $200,000 in compensation. Thus, Sound Transit gives a whole new meaning to being “money strapped”. 

However, the concern prompted a May 14^th Executive Committee Special Meeting with the following “Recommendation to the Board”

A.   Resolution No. R2026-11: Updating the Sound Transit 3 System Plan to be affordable within available and projected financial capacity 

 

The goal being.to use the available resources to fund the most necessary projects and services that best achieve the objectives of ST3.  The resolution included what the Sound Transit staff thought were projects that were affordable within existing resources, those fully funded and those partially funded, those they considered were not currently affordable, and those that should be deferred. 

Sound Transit’s Quarterly Financial Performance Report Q1 2026 details the latest result.  That Year to Date (YTD) Link ridership, 10,270,000 had paid $12,927,000 in fares for service that cost Sound Transit $122,282,000 to provide.  Subtracting the fares and some additional funding from the cost resulted in light rail already costing $108,679,000 to provide for three months. 

 

A major reason for the high cost is the daily cost of providing service from Lynnwood to Northgate $218,000, from Federal Way to Angle Lake $238,240 and $38,400 from Downtown Redmond to Redmond Technology Station. February boardings for the three, 8948 on Lynnwood Link, 7702 on Federal Way link, and 1023 on Downtown Redmond Link, all far less than Sound Transit predictions.

Yet “Money Strapped” Sound Transit has no problem with approving Resolution No. R2026-11 funding link extensions, boring a second tunnel for light rail to Seattle Center, building a second Duwamish waterway bridge over the Duwamish or the hundreds of millions on maintenance facilities for the light rail train cars that will use them. The Everett Link gets phase 1 and phase 2 funding, whatever that means. They partially fund projects through planning and final design. What gets deferred is parking with access to links.

The bottom line is Sound Transit should have never extended light rail beyond UW Stadium, across I-90 bridge, or beyond SeaTac airport. A fraction of the money spent extending tracks could have been used to add parking for access to transit. 4-car trains don’t have the capacity needed for peak hour commutes and cost too much to operate off peak. 

Buses could have provided transit service to those areas with schedules adjusted to meet peak hour and off peak demand. Instead Sound Transit compounds the problem with plans to use the 4-car trains to replace bus routes into Seattle, reducing capacity into the city. However, they wait to do so until August 29th, after the World Cup, clearly concerned about light rail train capacity. 

Again, the light rail boardings should be a clear warning that ST3 extensions won’t attract the riders needed to justify their cost. That Sound Transit Staff and Board and the Enterprise Initiative spending millions to reduce their cost doesn’t change that fact, it only continues their futile attempt to avoid being  “money strapped.’

What’s Left if Sound Transit Terminated?

The previous post concluded the state’s legislators should either fund a light rail train vs bus transit system comparison or require Sound Transit to fund the comparison.  The “likely” result raises questions like the May 4^th Seattle Times front page article “What’s next if homelessness agency is wound down?”.  What would terminating Sound Transit do to the area’s transportation system?   

Sound Transit’s 2026 Adopted Budget & Financial Plan details both the operating and project budgets. The operating budget provides $912.8 million to fund contracts with King County Metro getting 61% of the budget to operate the Link Light Rail. King County Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce transit share 22% of the operating budget for ST Express Bus, and BNSF Railway 14% for Sounder Community Rail.  The T Line link between the Tacoma Dome through the city to Tacoma Community College, the only light rail system operated directly by Sound Transit was 3% of its 2026 budget.

It's not clear how many commuters would be affected if Sound Transit was terminated as they have still failed to provide any boarding data in 2026 despite having the ability to monitor boarders on all the transit modes.  King County Metro could continue operating the existing 1 Line and 2 Line routes. The three county transit systems could continue their current ST Express bus routes as needed to meet demand. It’s “unlikely” the BNSF Railway will continue to provide transit for the ~2000 annual Sounder riders whose fares for 2025 totaled $7000. The city of Tacoma could fund the T Line if deemed worthy of costs. 

What would end if Sound Transit were terminated was the need for a $2.1 billion Projects Budget with $1,855 million on System expansion and $205 million on Service Delivery.  There would be no Sound Transit staff with 1914 positions, a budget of $1,138.9 million, and an 18-member board, each compensated more than $200,000 annually to service as directors.

Light rail extensions beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way would be terminated as well as planned maintenance facilities.  There would be no second tunnel, light rail to Bothell, or second bridge across Duwamish waterway to West Seattle.  King County Metro would likely terminate the 2 Line at existing CID station and use Eastside demand to schedule operation.Terminate all those contracts spending hundreds of millions annually attempting to better implement ST3 extensions that will do nothing to reduce the area's congestion.  Funds saved could be used to pay off existing debt and Sound Transit terminated.

The bottom line is what’s left if Sound Transit were terminated seems far better than what will be left if it’s not.