Sound Transit’s Executive Session

The video of the July 23, 2026 Sound Transit Board Meeting included the following agenda item:

 10, Executive Session to discuss a proposed course of action when public discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency as authorized under RCW 42.30.110 (1)(i)(iii).

 

The result was a Sound Transit attorney, at about 1:10 into the meeting, authorized the Executive Session that was scheduled to last 15 minutes. (it’s not clear whether the attorney was present during  the session as required by the RCW). The session ending up taking 45 minutes after which the meeting ending with no further discussion. 

 

The RCW requires final action, votes, or decisions occur in an open meeting. However, the public may never know what Sound Transit considered would likely cause “adverse legal or financial consequence for the agency”. 

 

The problem being Sound Transit continues to use project “affordability” as a criteria for continued funding rather than a project’s ability to efffectively deal with the area’s transportation problem.  Plenty of targets for improvements.

 

 

Sound Transit’s 2025 Annual Report

A google search of Financial documents resulted in a July 24th release of the 2025 Sound Transit Report 2025 Annual Report including a Crowe Independent Auditors Report.  It included a Sound Transit “ Statement of management’s responsibility” with the following:

Limitations exist in any system of internal accounting controls in which the cost of the system being implemented should not exceed the benefits derived. Sound Transit believes that the agency’s system does provide reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations and is adequate to accomplish the stated objectives.

 

The “ Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Financial statements" in the report included the following:

 

The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error,  We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

 

Basically saying they can only report what they're told.  Yet, any analysis of the cost of light rail extensions beyond UW Stadium, across I-90 Bridge, or beyond SeaTac Airport, as well as the operating costs of light rail trains on the extensions will result in very little “derived benefit” from added riders. None of the extensions increase the capacity they only increase the operating cost. 

For example the Sound Transit June 2026 boardings for the four Lynnwood Link stations was 12,848 boardings, the three Federal Way Link stations 8582 boardings, both fractions of Sound Transit predictions. A clear warning extensions to Everett and Tacoma wiil double the cost but add few boarders.  To the extent the light rail trains replace bus routes, transit capacity into Seattle will be reduced and transferring boarders will reduce access to transit for those nearer the city. 

 

Yet Sound Transit continues to include light rail extensions beyond Lynnwood to Everett and beyond Federal Way to Tacoma as well as maintenance facilities for trains on both extensions, not because of a “derived benefit”, but because they consider them to be “affordable”. The second tunnel and Duwamish waterway bridge, North and South Maintenance Facilities, light rail to Tacoma and Everett are affordable. The West Seattle link lost a station and the link to Ballard was shortened but were also considered affordable.  

 

The bottom line is Sound Transit has gone from limiting projects to those whose cost 

should not exceed “derived benefits”in their 2025 annual report to what they consider to be “affordable”.  It’s a major reason the total budget in 2024 was  $3,728,273,000, yet increased to $5,721,086,000 in 2025.

 

 

What Constitutional Crisis?

The July 23^rd Seattle Times editorial “Seattle U.S. Attorney’s Office is in a Constitutional Crisis” is another example of what can only charitably be considered, “journalistic advocacy”.  The Constitution gives the president the right to nominate the U.S Attorney for the Western District of Washington. “Acting” Attorney General Todd Blanche was presumably nominated and approved by “the advice and consent of the Senate”, so it’s not clear why a District Court would nominate Roger Rogoff for the office.  

Yet the editorial proclaims Murray, one of the Senators, is on the “right side of history and the law” though her referring to Attorney General Blanche as a “sock puppet” was hardly conducive to “good relations”.   Murray’s claim the DOJ is not the President’s personal law firm to enforce his mob-style politics continued her diatribe though she failed to include an example.

The bottom line is the Senator Murray obviously has her objections, however the office is not a balance of power between the president and the Senate.  The president gets to nominate, and the Senate gets to either confirm or reject his candidates not to nominate and confirm their choice.  The next President may have different choices, however allowing the process to continue until then is hardly a “Constitutional Crisis”.

 

 

Taking charge of the grid.,

The July 12 Seattle Times Opinion “Taking charge of the grid” raised concerns “Washington’s clean energy transition will fail unless battery storage becomes a more prevalent part of the electricity equation”.  The result of Democrats in the legislature ratcheting down fossil-fueled electricity sources with their passing 2019 Clean Energy Act.  That it’s imperative to make the grid more reliable for periods of high demand with battery storage at dozens of sites if Washingtonians insist on a future free of hydrocarbon-based power sources. 

The Opinion included data the Snoqualmie facility could discharge up to 130 megawatts for 4 hours but failed to mention its cost or schedule, or the cost and schedule for the “dozens of facilities” needed on the west side.  (The global average price for a lithium-ion battery pack recently hit a record low of $108 per kWh).  Also, no mention was made of the need for grid-scale batteries needing from 28 to 67 liters of water per kWh for mining and end-of-life recycling of the lithium.   

Thus, Washington’s Democratic legislature 2019 passage of the Clean Energy Transformation Act will require spending unknown hundreds of millions of dollars and gallons of water to provide power to the grid when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, renewables that make up about 10% of the state’s electricity.    While someone near Snoqualmie facility may not notice it once its built, someone will have to pay the cost.

It’s also unlikely Washingtonians will ever see a future free of hydrogen-based power sources.  The five refineries in the state currently process 650,000 barrels of crude oil a day, with consumption the 15^thhighest in the nation.  Since 2019, the electrical power sector has been the state’s largest natural gas consumer.  The latest attempt to reduce emissions, the $4.3B carbon allowance fees and future fees will deter less than half the states CO2 emissions. (The major non-taxed CO2 emitter, the  42.5 million metric tons used for transportation.)  

Any claim the batteries are necessity in the fight against climate change is belied by the fact batteries only back up for Washington’s wind and solar electrical power grid, again, currently only 10% of the total.  That any climate change benefit from increasing their power and reducing Washington’s CO2 emissions is limited by the fact the state only emits 1.2% of the country’s 11% of planet’s CO2, or ~0.12% of the planet’s  total emissions.  A benefit dwarfed by the jet stream over Washington, from China’s 30% of the  total CO2 emissions.  

The bottom line is “Taking charge of the grid” with battery storage facilities is a very expensive way to make up for the failure of Democrats in legislature to recognize the state’s CO2 emission don’t cause global warming.

  

Sound Transit's Winning Streak?

The July 10th, Seattle Times front page Traffic Lab article heralded "A glitch interrupts light rail winning streak".  The result of Sound Transit improving reliability by having trains slowed or stopped "only 8 hours" a month.  CEO Dow Constantine called the incident, "something that can be prevented from ever happening again".

The paper's July 11th, Traffic Lab article questioned "Did record light rail crowds pay their way."  Between 58% and 74% participated on June 19th when U.S. Soccer Team and Mariners hosted games, comparable to 61% in 2025 and earlier this year.  The article included Constantine's statement, "These new ridership records are a resounding endorsement of the value light rail adds to our and its quality of life".

Neither the Traffic Lab's claim for light rail winning streak nor Constantine's using "new ridership records for game days" recognize the costs of providing that service. Fares paid nearly 40% of light rail trains when the route was from UW to SeaTac airport.  Light rail extensions did nothing to increase light rail train capacity they only increased the operating costs.

For example, the 8.5-mile Lynnwood Link extension added 17 miles to the extension's round trip, 68 vehicle vehicle miles for the 1 Line route four-car trains, 34 for the 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.  The 16-mile Everett extension would add nearly twice the miles for round trips to Lynnwood, adding more than $750,000 daily to train operating costs.

Sound Transit's Ridership reported the four Lynnwood stations had 11,848 total boardings in June. (A fraction of the up to 35,000 projected.) If all the boarders payed the $3.00 fares the $35,544 would still leave Sound Transit with a $346,956 cost. The fares paid by the likely number of riders added by the 16-mile extension to Everett would do little to avoid doubling that operating cost. (A similar analysis of the Federal Way extension boardings and likely boardings for the extension to Tacoma would result in similar added costs.)

The bottom line is Sound Transit's winning streak consists of  a year of light rail extension ridership far below predictions with high operating costs.  To the extent the trains replaced far less expensive bus routes, the result was less transit capacity into Seattle.

What Sound Transit Should Audit

 The July 9^th Sound Transit Finance and Audit Committee Meeting agenda includes the Q2 2026 Update to the Internal Audit Report.  The latest version of the 2025 Year-End Internal Audit Report in the committee’s March 13^th meeting.  The May 5/14/26 meeting video included charts showing 2025 Financial Audit results on April 9th with the auditor's comments concerning,“Significant difficulties encountered during the audit” and “Disagreements with Management”.

The 2026 “Audit Dashboard” chart showed 39 total audits with 6 completed, 4 in progress, 26 not started and 3 postponed.  Again, the July 9^th agenda included a Q2 2026 Update to the financial audit.  What’s missing is any audit of Sound Transit light rail train’s ability to reduce the area’s roadway congestion.  

For example, how many riders did extensions beyond Northgate, SeaTac, or Redmond Technology Center attract?  How many riders did light rail trains on recent extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way attract vs. those on bus routes available throughout service area?

What is the likely ridership for light rail trains beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way?  Does the predicted ridership justify spending hundreds of millions on light rail extensions or maintenance facilities for the trains?  How many commuters will light rail extensions to Ballard and Alaska Junction in West Seattle  add?  Again, with both service areas having better access to bus routes that avoid the need for boring a second tunnel under Seattle and second bridge over Duwamish waterway.

How many riders will benefit from routing 2 Line trains through DSTT to Lynnwood and beyond vs. terminating the route at CID, reducing the need for second tunnel and allowing service to meet eastside demand?

The bottom line is Sound Transit needs to audit their light-rail-train's ability to attract riders needed to reduce roadway congestion and the cost of providing that service.