PSE's High Electric Power Bills

The Sunday Seattle Times headlines a Traffic Lab article “PSE customers hit with soaring electric bills”.   It claimed , “Washington’s residential electricity prices, while still below the rest of the national average”.  Yet the article includes  a graph showing Puget Sound Energy charging  $166 per month  vs  $144 national average.  The high cost the apparent result of PSE “building a wind farm in Montana and severing ties to the state’s coal power”.  That “Washington’s laws currently allow utilities to pass on the costs of complying with state’s climate goals on to customers.”

The Opinion section of the same paper headlined “Cities demonize data centers at their own peril” and Editorial opined, “State Lawmakers Should Regulate Data Center Development”.   The first suggests cities should welcome data centers requiring lots of power and water. The second saying the state should regulate how they do so.

The  increased electrical bills are presumably the result of PSE needing to comply with the 2019  Clean Energy Implementation Plan (CEIP) requiring they phase out coal power by 2025, be carbon neutral by 2030 and be carbon free by 2045.  Yet any climate benefit from carbon emission reduction from  Washtingtons CEIP  is limited to the state only emitting 1.2% of the country’s 11% of planets, or ~0.12% of the total emissions..  A benefit dwarfed by the jet stream from China’s 30% of the planet’s total emissions.  Another reason why only Washington and California are attempting this approach.

The bottom line is the “soaring electrical bills” will have very  little effect on Washington’s climate.
 

ST Ignores Extension Train Ridership and Operating Costs

Sound Transit recently released Ridership-Ridership 2026 boardings data for the 1 Line and 2 Line operation.  Boardings for the four stations on the two lines for Lynnwood to Northgate extensions totaled 13,456 in April, with many due to Community Transit terminating 400 series bus routes at the stations. Far less than the 24,400 to 35,000 they’d predicted. 

The 8.5-mile extension added 17 miles to the extension’s round trips, 68 vehicle miles for the 1 line four-car trains, 34 for 2 Line two-car trains.  Sound Transit's operating schedule results in 125 four-car 1 Line trains and 125 two-car 2 Line trains, 8500 and 4250 vehicle miles,12,750 total.  Assuming Sound Transit’s $30 typical vehicle mile costs results in the Northgate-to-Lynnwood adding $382,500 to weekday operating cost.   Thus, for April, adding $28.425 for each extension boarding on the two lines.

 Boardings for the 1 Line 7.8-mile Angle Lake-to-Federal Way extension’s three stations totaled 8499 in April, again, far less than Sound Transit predictions.  The extension adds 15.6 miles to a 1 Line round trip to Angle Lake. The 125 four-car trains each weekday add 7800 vehicle revenue miles, $234,000 daily with $30 per mile cost, $27.532 per boarding.

The combination of high operating costs and limited ridership for the two extensions should raise cost/benefit concerns for further extensions.  The 16-mile Everett extension adds nearly twice the miles to round trips to Lynnwood, adding more than $750,000 daily to train operating costs. The 8.5-mile Tacoma Dome Link “only” adds another $234,000 daily to operating cost.

 It's “unlikely” any rational ridership estimate for either link will justify the cost of maintaining the trains and their operation.  Especially, since the extensions not only do nothing to increase light rail capacity, whatever bus routes they replace will reduce transit capacity into Seattle.

The bottom line is Sound Transit’s Enterprise Initiative may reduce the costs of implementing the Everett and Tacoma Links.  They need to pay more attention to the costs of maintaining and operating the trains on the links and “likely” limited ridership.

What Terri Mestas Didn’t Do

The June 11^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article, “Sound Transit’s star project executive leaving amid turbulent time for agency” detailed her accomplishments during her two years here.  CEO Dow Constantine credited her with “The team she assembled will benefit Sound Transit for years to come”.  Presumably referring to her recommending the Board spend up to $1 billion and seven years with 22 companies on MATOC.

What Mestas didn’t do was recognize that improving Sound Transit, potentially saving billions, doesn’t change the fact the ST3 extensions she’s improving won’t reduce the area’s congestion.  That what benefits Sound Transit is funding projects that won’t benefit the area it serves.  

 

4-car light rail trains using the extensions don’t have the capacity to reduce peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate off peak. Using trains to replace bus routes into Seattle reduces transit capacity into the city, does nothing to reduce GP lane congestion and reduces access for current riders.  The more the extensions, the more the train operating cost, lost capacity and access. 

 

Mestas apparently didn’t recognize providing access to light rail trains doesn’t assure ridership. The 8948 Lynnwood and 7702 Federal Way February boardings were far less than the 35,000 and 25,000 predicted. The cost of implementing light rail extensions to Everett and Tacoma and operating trains on the extensions would fail any rational cost/benefit analysis. Yet still meets Sound Transit version of what was  "Affordable" 

 

Mestas planned to reduce costs for a second Duwamish Waterway bridge and station costs for West Seattle Link, limit Ballart extension from Sodo through a second tunnel to  Seattle Center rather than to Ballard. Yet apparently didn’t consider saving billions by not boring a second tunnel or constructing second bridge.

 

Both areas already have bus service that provides far greater access to transit into downtown Seattle with far more convenient stops for exit in the city as well as better access for return trips.  (King County Executive Zahilay’s plans in an accompany article for expanding KCM service in the area could include additional access as needed)

 

The bottom line is when Terri Mestas leaves there will be a MATOC contract with 22 companies for up to a billion, a staff that has grown from 1,635 in 2025 to 1,914 in 2026,  a budget increase from $960,549,000 to $1,138,903,000, and plans to spend untold billions on a second tunnel and bridge.

So far, not much for someone who was hired to “potentially save billions”.  

 

Traffic Lab’s Dubious Light Rail Ridership Jump

The June 7^th Seattle Times, Traffic Lab, front page article, “Sound Transit’s daily light rail ridership jumps to No. 1 in U.S". heralded the “light rail connection over Lake Washington has unleashed a tsunami of new passengers between Bellevue and Seattle, boosting the regional total to 155,000 daily boardings”.  The article assuming the boarding increase from 3.11 million in March to 4.59 million, ~ 50,000 daily, was primarily the result of Sound Transit routing the 2 Line’s two-car trains from South Bellevue P&R across I-90 Bridge to Seattle. 

The article acknowledged Sound Transit hadn’t released data on light rail station boarding after February. However, even when available, Sound Transit’s decision for a flat $3.00 fee on entry and nothing on exit makes it impossible to determine how many of the Downtown Redmond-to-South Bellevue P&R Station boardings were cross Lake Washington commuters. While any increase could be assumed to reflect cross-lake access effect, the best indication would be 2 Line boardings from Westlake stations southbound in Seattle prior to bridge.    

However, Sound Transit’s schedule of 2-car trains every 8 minutes limits light rail capacity.  Assuming each 74-seat car can accommodate 148 sitting and standing riders, limits cross Lake Washington capacity to 2220 riders per hour.  Thus it’s “unlikely” 50,000 boarders used the 2 Line for their commute into and out of Seattle.

The bottom line is assessing the benefits of 2 Line-cross-Lake Washington access awaits Sound Transit releasing April and May station boarding data. The Traffic Lab should update their Ridership Jump assessment then.

Sound Transit's Affordability Concerns

 The previous post detailed the Seattle Times concern with the Sound Transit approach to “affordably” implement the ST3 light rail extensions.  Sound Transit’s website, “The Platform,” listed “Eight things to know about the updated ST3 System Plan” detailing “how Sound Transit will keep advancing voter approved transit projects”. The Number 1 “Thing” being “Sound Transit is committed to delivering the objectives of ST3”  

 ST3 passed because 70% of King County voters approved Prop 1, Pierce County voters didn’t approve it, and Snohomish County did so with a very small margin. Thus, ST3 approval, as well as Sound Transit’s approach to its objectives, is, at best, a “mixed bag”. They base their affordability objectives on concerns with costs for funding long term debt.  

This post suggests there are better ways to provide affordable transit.  A "Debt capacity" chart in the 2026 budget showed the Fall 2024 and Fall 2025 debt needed (i.e. with latest “affordable cost” estimates) didn’t exceed the debt capacity until 2035.  The May 28^th Board Meeting chart “Measuring program affordability” showed the debt needed costs reflecting Sound Transit’s Affordability plans. The chart in the presentation also added five years to the 2046 date in the 2026 budget and the 2041 date voters approved as the end date for Prop 1 funding ST3 in 2016. 

The delay in needed additional funding until 2035 should allow ample time to deal with the “affordability issues”.  Sound Transit does so based on the Board’s attempt to deliver ST3 objectives with projects furthest along.   A conventional transit approach would use cost/benefit analysis to determine which option attracts the most riders for the cost..  

For example the more than $6 billion spent on Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions added less than 1700 boarders and burdened tax payers to perpetually cover nearly all the costs of trains operating on the extensions.  Any rational cost/benefit analysis would fail the cost of extending tracks to Everett and Tacoma, the operating cost for the trains, and the need for maintenance facilities in 2032 to service them. (Yet all were affordable to Sound Transit)

How many additional commuters will use the West Seattle link's second Duwamish waterway bridge or second tunnel for Seattle Center to Sodo for their commutes into and out of Seattle?  Both service areas already have better access to transit into Seattle and options for egress and access there  to transit for the return.  (The benefit of a bus stop costing a small fraction of a train station's)

The board’s affordability concern could’ve resulted in reductions in the Sound Transit staff of more than 1900 and a $1.1 billion budget and 1900 positions. (They approved MATOC contracts in 2025 with 19 firms in 2025 for up to 7 years and $1 billion, presumably to provide outside expertise.) Yet, Sound Transit’ 2016 Budgets Appendix C detailed a staff with 594 positions responsible for service delivery, with the rest filled with positions with job descriptions of dubious value for  transit system expansion.

The bottom line is Sound Transit’s affordability decisions reflected the concerns of the Snohomish and Pierce County Board members. However, there’s ample time for a cost/benefit assessment before deciding to proceed with implementing ST3 extensions and the cost of operating trains on them.