Will Seattle Times Continue Enabling ST Incompetence?

 

Again, my campaign is over, but this blog continues detailing a decade of Seattle Times allowing Sound Transit to perpetrate one of the biggest public works boondoggles in history.  They did so by refusing to urge legislature require a performance audit of Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions. 

Any competent performance audit would have confirmed a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, that light rail trains were limited to 4 cars and that safe operation required a minimum of 4 minutes between trains.  That Sound Transit had concluded the 74-seat light rail cars could accommodate 148 riders, limiting capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction. 

Light rail extensions do nothing to increase that capacity. Thus, light rail extensions and 4-car light rail trains won’t have the capacity needed to reduce peak hour congestion on multilane freeways.  Yet the Times has enabled Sound Transit to ignore the PSRC light rail capacity limits. 

Since 2018 they’ve published yearly Financial Plan & Adopted Budget Long Range Plans with “Ridership by Mode 2017-2041” charts.  They show Sound Transit claims the extensions will increase ridership from 48 million in 2022 to 162 million in 2041.  The budgets also reported the $54B the voters approved in 2016 for from 2017 to 2041 has increased in 2022 to $142B from 2017 to 2046 to fund the extensions.

A competent transit performance audit would also have reported Sound Transit needed to increase access to light rail with parking near stations or near bus routes to stations.  A Seattle Times November 2016 article reported the 51 existing park and ride facilities next to express bus or train stations in Snohomish, King, and Pierce County were already 95% full of 19,948cars.

Yet the Times has enabled Sound Transit to “manage access” by “maximizing efficient use of available transit parking resources”.  Planning to spend nearly $300 million on an 85^th St NE transit station along I-405 and a 130th St Infill Station on I-5.  The “infill’ station’s costs have increased this year from $34 million to $270 million and neither has parking for access. 

Rather than add access Sound Transit is attempting to force those currently using parking for bus routes to transfer to the Northgate Link for the commute into and out of Seattle. It doesn’t take an audit to recognize replacing bus routes with trains does nothing to increase public transit ridership or decrease congestion into the city.

Again, a competent performance audit would also have exposed the folly of extending light rail beyond UW station. That light rail extended beyond UW to Northgate won’t have the capacity needed to reduce I-5 congestion into Seattle. The original Central Link plan was to terminate light rail at the UW stadium, using the T/C as an interface between 520 BRT and light rail into the city.  The original plan had included a second Montlake Cut Bridge to facilitate access for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.

The lack of the audit allowed Sound Transit to use the Northgate website to predict the Link would add 41,000 to 49,000 riders by 2022.  The Seattle Times concurred heralding the debut as “Transit Transformed” with the 3 Northgate Stations adding 42,000 to 49,000 riders.  Last year’s October 2^nd Northgate Link debut was the first actual demonstration of the benefits from Sound Transit Prop 1 extensions.  

Yet, since the debut, Sound Transit has refused to release a quarterly “Service Delivery Performance Report”.  It would have detailed how many commuters were added by the Links three stations, what it cost to add the riders, and how many chose to ride bus routes into Seattle rather than transfer to light rail.  The Seattle Times Traffic Lab project that “digs into” transportation issues continues to abide Sound Transit “opacity”. 

The problems with Northgate Link “opacity” will be dwarfed by those with the East Link debut.  Again, a competent audit would have concluded 4-car light rail trains didn’t have the capacity to justify confiscating the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  That it also precluded two-way BRT with 10 times the capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  

As with the Northgate Link, Sound Transit decision to use East Link to replace I-90 Bridge buses does nothing to increase the transit ridership needed to reduce congestion.  Those living within walking distance or parking near East Link stations will be a fraction of what's needed for Sound Transit's claim for 50,000 daily riders.

Sound Transit’s August 5^th release of their June Agency Progress Report included the following regarding East Link debut:

 ST is currently working to determine a new target Revenue Date

Whenever it happens the question remains whether the Seattle Times Traffic Lab will “dig into” the results or continue enabling Sound Transit incompetence.

 

 

ST Can’t Hide Link Line 2 Operating Cost Debacle

                                    

My “campaign” for U.S. Senator ended August 2^nd. As with all my previous candidacies, it’d never been for votes but to use the Voters’ Pamphlet Statement to inform residents.  Those in the Sound Transit service area who read the statement are aware of my concerns that the Sound Transit Board and CEO don’t understand the basics of what constitutes effective public transit.  

That reducing congestion on I-5 and I-90 requires attracting more riders to public transit.  Yet Sound Transit has spent billions on light rail extensions for 4-car trains that don’t have the capacity to attract the number of transit riders needed to reduce peak hour multilane freeway congestion and cost too much to operate during off peak commute.  

Attracting riders requires offering commuters access by living near stations, parking near stations, or have access to routes to the transit stations.  A November 2016 Seattle Times article reported the 51 existing park and ride facilities next to express bus or train stations in Snohomish, King and Pierce County were already 95% full with 19,948 cars.  

Yet Sound Transit plans for increasing access are to “manage parking demand” by maximizing efficient use of available transit parking resources”. Choosing instead to spend nearly $300 million on an 85^th NE transit stations along I-405 and a 130^th St Infill Station on I-5, whose costs have increased this year from $34 million to $270 million; both with no parking for access.  

The Northgate Link debut demonstrated the results of Sound Transit decade long failure to add parking for access. Yet they refuse to release the Service Delivered Performance Report 2022 Q1.  That doing so allows them to hide how many of their predicted 41,000 to 49,000 commuters were added by the Link.

Also, how many chose to ride ST510 into and out of Seattle rather than on routes that terminated at light rail station.  That knowing the number of riders along with the additional $110,000 daily operating costs for the 108, 4.2-mile extension, 4-car round trips could be used to establish how much each added rider cost.

Sound Transit will have a far greater problem “hiding” the results when 10-station. 14-mile East Link debuts.  It’s unclear when that will occur. The August 5^th release of the June, Agency Progress Report included the following:

ST is currently working to determine a new target Revenue Date

Whenever it does, Sound Transit won’t be able to hide the results.  First, is the problem of lack of access.  Sound Transit recognized the 9 east side East Link stations didn’t provide the access needed to justify the cost of the 14-mile light rail extension and operating costs. 

 That led to a January 21, 2014, presentation to Mercer Island city council claiming 40,000 of the 50,000 East Link riders would come from terminating I-90 corridor bus routes at South Bellevue and Mercer Island parking.  Sound Transit will use the Link to replace ST550 route from the 1500-stall South Bellevue and 474-stall Mercer Island P&R.

However, the parking at the P&Rs along I-90 corridor east of 1-405 is limited to 1614 at Eastgate, 874 at Issaquah, and 1000 at Issaquah Highlands. Thus, riders added by terminating the I-90 corridor bus routes and those added at South Bellevue and Mercer Island will be a fraction of Sound Transit 40,000 prediction.

The Link’s 14-mile extension adds 112 vehicle revenue miles for the 4-car light rail train round trip from Redmond Technology Center into and out of Seattle.  Sound Transit budgets light rail car costs as ~$30.00 per revenue mile, so that portion of the trip adds $3360.  Assuming the Link's schedule matches the current Northgate Link schedule, 10 minutes between trains for 16 hours and 20 minutes for 4 hours.  The operating costs for the resultant 108 round trips to Redmond Technology Center and back is $360,000 daily.   

However, as part of 2 Line the 4-car East Link trains continue through DSTT eventually to Mariner P&R near Everett.  That portion of the 18.5-mile trip from International District/Chinatown through the DSTT to Northgate and in 2024 to Lynnwood and back adds 37 miles and 148 revenue vehicle miles for 4-car trains. The $4440 per trip and $475,200 daily for the 108, Link 2-Line trips will do little to add riders since those with access to transit were already riding Link Line 1. (ST's decision to delay Lynnwood Link "hides" that result for two years.)

The bottom line is Sound Transit doesn’t provide the access needed to justify routing Link Line 2 4-car trains from the Redmond Town Center to Lynnwood (and beyond to Mariner P&R) and back.  They could save $475,000 daily by terminating East Link at the International District/Chinatown station.  

They could also reduce the $360,000 East Link operating costs by limiting trains to size and frequency to meet demand on route to Redmond Town Center and use bus routes into Seattle for I-90 corridor commuters. 

If not, they won’t be able to hide the Link Line 2 operating cost debacle.

 

 

No Climate Change Emergency

The July 25^th Seattle Times Editorial “No Time to Dither on Climate Emergency” opened with the following:

“Climate change is an imminent threat to humanity and the planet, and we are running out of time. This is as settled as science can be, yet Congress continues to hem and haw and fail to meet to take meaningful actions.”  

 

It concludes with the following:

 

The danger of climate change demands that whole government approach. Biden says he understands the urgency---that means hurry up and do something

 

The seminal “science” behind global warming is a 2007 Scientific American article “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”.  That computer models using the authors’ “Radiative Forcing” didn’t match with “observed climate change” unless they "assumed" the increase in carbon dioxide had ten times the effect on temperatures as increases in warming from the Sun. More recent studies have increased the effect of a CO2 increase to up to 30 times that of an increase from the Sun

 

Yet, a National Academy of Science, Nov 10^th 2015 paper entitled, "Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO2" concluded 

 

Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR)

 

That CO2 effects on global warming were also included in NASA, Dec 9^th 2019 paper “Solar Cycle 25 Prediction 2019 – Bing”.  It included charts concluding the following:

 

CO2 warming effect decreases with concentration. CO2 has less and less effect with increased concentration.   CO2 can go to 1,000 to 2000 or to 5,000 and it won’t warm the earth.  

 

Clearly the “science” behind claim CO2 driven “Climate change is an imminent threat” is hardly “settled”.  

 

That climate change demands a “whole government approach” ignores the fact the "whole country" only emits 15% of the planet’s CO2. China and India emit nearly 45% and have plans to continue adding coal fired power plants at least through 2030. Thus, it’s unlikely a whole US government approach would significantly change atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

As far as actual data, ice core studies have been used to compare CO2 levels and global temperatures during the last 800,000 years. That during the Eemian period, some 130,000 years ago, temperatures were 4 deg C higher than current levels with 290 ppm CO2 levels.  Thus, CO2 levels alone aren’t determinative. More important, the ice core data showed a lag between global temperature and CO2 during periods they’re both increasing and decreasing.

 

That indicates increasing global temperatures, driven by the Sun, increases CO2 out gassing from ocean, raising CO2 on the way up.  The lag is even greater when global temperatures go down, again, driven by the Sun, increases CO2 dissolution into the ocean, lowering atmospheric levels on the way down.  The ice core data indicate atmospheric CO2 level is the result of global warming not the cause.  Any additional CO2 emissions from fossil fueled power plants will increase atmospheric levels but not global temperatures or constitute a climate emergency.   

 

The bottom line is the “science” is far from “settled”.  That the whole country only emits 15% of the planet's CO2 emissions.  That ice core data indicate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is the result of global warming not the cause.  Thus, there is no need to use solar and wind power to replace fossil fueled generators.  (In 2021, they only provided 12% of the electric energy consumed.) That until there are ways to store renewable energy, fossil fueled generators are the only way to avoid the blackouts that will inevitably arise when the Sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow.

Avoiding the East Link Debacle

 

Previous posts have detailed the June 9^th Sound Transit System Expansion Committee meeting had included a chart showing the Lynnwood Link debut “Target Date” had been delayed for at least two years.  That the Seattle Times Traffic Lab, who were asked to “dig into” why, had instead chosen to ignore it.  That, as a result, Sound Transit could delay another demonstration of the Northgate Link problems; the inability of 4-car light rail trains to reduce multi-lane freeway congestion during peak congestion and costing too much during off peak.  

Sound Transit still refuses to release their quarterly Service Delivered Performance Report 2021-Q4 and Quarterly Financial Performance Report 2022-Q1.  They would have provided how many of Sound Transit’s projected 41,000 to 49,000 riders actually used the 3 stations, how much did each boarding cost, and the farebox recovery of operating costs with the longer routes.

The best indication is the lack of parking with access to light rail stations or access to parking near bus routes to stations limited Link ridership to only 8000.  The Lynnwood Link exacerbates both problems by not adding capacity or parking for access during peak commute operation, and doubles operating costs, slashing fare box recovery,.  Again, delaying Lynnwood Link delays exposing Prop 1 light rail spine problems to Everett

However, the Lynnwood Link delay does nothing to delay the far bigger problems with the East Link debut in 2023. The July 7^th release of the May Agency Progress Report included a debut delayed from a June 30,2023 to Oct 20, 2023.  Whatever the date, the East Link debut will finally demonstrate that Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate I-90 Bridge center roadway for light rail. That Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link DEIS claims for benefits were sheer fantasy.  

The Link’s confiscation of bridge center roadway precluded 2-way BRT routes with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at 1/10^th the cost.  Sound Transit violated Revised Code of Washington RCW 81.104.100 (2 )by failing to consider that far less expensive BRT option.

 

Sound Transit also essentially ignored Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation's environmental policy. It “Precluded approval of a transportation project that adversely affects waterfowl and wildlife refuges unless the impact is de minimis”.  Sound Transit spent millions shielding homes across Bellevue Way but nothing to protect the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park. The route into Bellevue needlessly destroyed the city’s persona as “the city in the park”.

The East Link debut will confirm the debacle.  Rather than add transit capacity Sound Transit chose to use the $3.6B spent on East Link to replace all the I-90 Bridge bus routes.  They refuse to acknowledge the only way to reduce I-90 corridor congestion is to attract more commuters to public transit.  That attracting more riders requires providing commuters with local bus routes to transit stations with BRT routes into Seattle and Bellevue.

Instead, Sound Transit’s “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island terminates I-90 corridor bus routes on the island.  The agreement limits the number of corridor buses and requires those commuters to endure the hassle of being forced to transfer to light rail for the commute into Seattle.  The return trip will require they wait on the island for a bus back to their P&R.  Both a sure recipe for far fewer transit commuters when East Link debuts.  Avoiding that debacle requires most I-90 corridor buses bypass Mercer Island and route instead into Seattle.

Another East Link debut problem is Sound Transit plans to make the Link part of Line 2 and share tracks with Line 1 from Angel Lake through DSTT to Northgate and eventually to Mariner P&R near Everett.  Line 1 currently operates with 10-minute headways for 16 hours and 20-minute headways for 4 hours; 108 round trips daily.  Prior to East Link the 108, 8.4-mile round trips from UW to Northgate and back will add 3628.8 vehicle revenue miles for the 4-car trains. Sound Transit’s 2021 budget $30.17 cost per vehicle mile, so the link will add $109,481 daily.

  

When East Link debuts, maintaining the Line 1 schedule from Angel Lake and for Line 2 will double the number of routes through DSTT to Northgate, doubling the daily operating cost to $218,962.  When the Lynnwood Link does debut routing Line 2 the additional 8.5-mile extension will increase costs per trip from UW to Lynnwood and back to $3077 per trip, or $664,705 per day for the 216 trips. (It "may be" why Sound Transit has made the decision to delay if for two years)

  

The bottom line is Sound Transit's "bus intercept" plan will do nothing to increase the transit capacity needed to reduce I-90 corridor congestion.  That extending East Link though DSTT to Northgate and beyond will increase transit capacity and costs but nothing to increase access for riders.  Thus, costs for the extensions will dwarf any rational estimate for farebox revenue.  

The way to avoid the costs is to terminate Line 2 at the International District/Chinatown station.  Doing so allows Sound Transit to schedule Line 2 to meet transit capacity needs on the route through Bellevue to Redmond.  I-90 corridor BRT routes into Seattle could grow to meet the public transit demand needed to reduce congestion. If not, the East Link debut will force even the Seattle Times to concede the "likely"results of their decade long abetting Sound Transit's "voter approved" extensions.

Ballard Deserves Better

The July 13 Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “City Council goes public with light-rail line plans” indicates well-founded disagreements with Sound Transit plans with the “$13 billion West Seattle-to-Ballard” line.  Ballard residents deserve better than having construction that “will likely last until nearly 2040.” 

The “Program Schedule of Baseline Projects” for Light Rail Program in Sound Transit’s latest Agency Progress Report, the June 9^th release for May show light rail construction from Lynnwood to Federal Way and beyond Bellevue to Redmond are essentially complete by the end of 2024.  Ballard residents should not have to wait another 16 years for their link. 

 It’s also “unlikely” many Ballard residents will need to use the second tunnel under downtown Seattle to reach SeaTac.  Sound Transit could expedite a tunnel from 15^th and Market to near Seattle Pacific University, under North Queen Ann to near Seattle Center Parking Garage, to South Lake Union and terminate at Westlake light rail station.  It could include shuttle bus routes or a short tunnel for trains from Freemont area to Seattle Pacific. 

The total distance is something like the 4.4-mile Northgate Link tunnel whose estimated final cost is $1.9B. There is no need for a 2^nd tunnel as those wishing to go beyond Westlake can transfer to Central Link.  There would be no disruptions for Chinatown and Ballard residents could have light rail access 10 years sooner, at a fraction of the $13 billion.

 

Traffic Lab Ignores 2-year Lynnwood Delay

The previous post opined the Seattle Times Traffic Lab should “dig into” Sound Transit Machinations regarding Lynnwood Link.  Instead, the July 14^th edition article “Sound Transit bets on isolated North Seattle station” epitomizes a decade of abiding if not abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  The paper continues to ignore the fact the $54 billion approved in 2016 for “voter approved” extensions has grown to $142 billion.  

In this case abiding Sound Transit's decision to “budget $240 million to accelerate a North Seattle station surrounded  by minimal housing and jobs".  It’s similar to the Sound Transit Board’s January 27^th decision to authorize spending “an amount not to exceed $287,260,000" for a NE 85^th St Stride Bus Rapid Transit station along I-405 into Bellevue, also without parking for access.

 

 

 

The July 14^th article justifies the 130^th station on the basis of a Sound Transit Board member’s claim “is a matter of social equity for the north side’s influx of people of color and lower-income families.”  It’s unclear how many will choose to live withing walking distance. Sound Transit is planning to spend $15 million improving 85^th St in Kirkland to facilitate bus routes for access from downtown Kirkland.

The article claims the “station estimates rose from $80 million to $144 million in 2020 and to $223 million this spring. The authors were apparently unaware it wasn’t until a June 9^th System Expansion Committee meeting the cost increase was approved with the following: 

 Resolution No. R2022-17: Adopting the NE 130^th Street Infill Station project baseline schedule and budget by (a) increasing authorized project allocation by $203,738,000 from $36,417,000 to $240,155,000, (b) increasing the annual project budget by $9,883,027 from $6,584,030 to $16,417,057, and (c) establish an open for service date of Q2 2026.

Also, Sound Transit’s June 7^th release of the April Agency Progress Report, and several earlier reports, had included an Estimated Final Cost (EFC) of $36.4 million.  One would think an article about the station would include information  about what prompted the $204 million increase and how the $10 million annual increase will fund the $204 million cost.   

Even more “interesting” is the fact the Traffic Lab article continues to describe the Lynnwood Link as “Open for Service: 2024”.  They chose to ignore rather than “dig into” why the June 9^th Sound Transit announcement delaying Lynnwood Link debut for at least 2 years.

One reason could be Sound Transit has recognized that the Traffic Lab ridership claims in the article are overly “optimistic”.  They're quoted as being based on a “Lynnwood Link Final Environment Statement, April 2015”.  They reflect the same “optimism” the Traffic Lab had when they heralded the Northgate Link debut as “Transit Transformed" with 42,000 to 49,000 riders added by the Link’s three stations.

Yet they abide Sound Transit not releasing the quarterly “Service Provided Performance Report 2021-Q4 that would have provided the data.  The best estimate is the change in total ridership with the debut was 8000 daily, a fraction of Sound Transit's 41,000 to 49,000 prediction.  The reason, the lack of access with parking near stations or near bus routes to stations. 

Since the Lynnwood Link adds little access, its debut will do little to add riders.  What riders it adds will reduce access for University Link riders and the longer route operating costs will further reduce farebox revenue recovery.   Portending even more debacles with all the light rail spine extensions.  The later that happens the better for Sound Transit.

Again, the Traffic Lab needs to “dig-into” the delay, not ignore it.

 

 

 

Traffic Lab Should “Dig Into” Sound Transit Machinations

The Seattle Times promotes their Traffic Lab as a “project that digs into the region’s thorny transportation issues, spotlights promising approaches to easing gridlock, and helps readers find the best ways to get around.”    Yet they continue their failure to “dig into” a decade of Sound Transit Board and CEO public transit system incompetence. 

They’ve allowed Sound Transit to spend billions on light rail extensions for 4-car light rail trains that don’t have the capacity to reduce multi-lane freeway peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate during off-peak commute.  They’ve allowed Sound Transit to use delusional ridership claims for “voter approved” extensions yet ignored the extensions' need for “motorized access”.

The paper’s Traffic Lab heralded the Northgate Link debut as “Transit Transformed” with the three Link stations adding 42,000 to 49,000 riders.  Yet they’ve “neglected” to “dig into” how many riders the three stations actually added.  Instead, abetting Sound Transit’s refusal to release the 2021 Q4 Service Delivery Performance report. It would have provided the riders added by each of the three stations and the cost per boarding for the Link.   (Sound Transit stopped publishing the reports with the July 12^th, 2021, Q1 edition) 

They’ve also abetted Sound Transit’s delay in publishing a Quarterly Financial Performance Report for Q1 2022.  The report would have shown the Year-to-Date (YTD) Link Boardings, Fare Revenue, Budget Performance, and Cost Per Boarding for Q1 2021 and predicted and actual for Q1 2022. The year-to-year comparison would have included the effect of the Northgate Link operation. Again, it's something the Traffic Lab should “dig into” but hasn’t.

A September 9^th, 2018, Traffic Lab article, “New bus station in Kirkland will be a $300 million gamble” detailed concern it funded an NE 85^th St Stride Bus Rapid Transit station along I-405 that lacked parking for access.  Yet, they’ve ignored a June 9^th, 2022, Sound Transit System Expansion Committee plan to spend “an amount not to exceed $287,260,000" on a NE 130^th St Infill Station that also lacks parking.  That funding is an increase from the $34.6 million in Sound Transit’s June 7^th April Agency Progress Report.  The Traffic Lab should “dig into” why the $204 million increased cost, especially for a station without parking for access.  

An April 28th Traffic Lab article announced, “Sound Transit’s light rail project to the Eastside is running late”.  The April Agency Progress Report details the Link’s Revenue Service Window had been extended from July to October 2024.  Yet they’ve ignored a June 9^th Transit System Expansion Committee meeting disclosure that the Lynnwood service date had been delayed for at least two years.  That a chart in the meeting showing the schedule for the 130^th station included a “star” indicating the July 2024 “target date” for Lynnwood Service Date was “subject to change” that extended beyond Q2 2026.  

Yet the June 7^th April Agency Progress Report’s Lynnwood Project Schedule showed LLE Master Schedule “Finish” 30-Feb-24, Revenue Service Preparation Finish, 17-Jul-24 and Revenue Service-FFGA 17-July 24.   The two-year difference surely merits Traffic Lab “digging”.

The bottom line is Sound Transit refuses to release quarterly Service Delivery Performance and Financial Performance Reports showing the results of the Northgate Link debut.  The best information available indicates the ridership was only ~8000, a fraction of the Link website predictions of 41,000 to 49,000 by 2022.  The “likely” reason the lack of parking for access.  The resulting loss in fare box revenue along with the increased costs for longer routes raised cost per boarding and reduced farebox recovery well below targets.  

Even more important, like all the light rail spine extensions, the Northgate Link did nothing to increase light rail capacity into Seattle.  That riders added by the Link reduced access for University Link riders.  Using the Link to replace buses reduced total transit capacity into Seattle and nothing to reduce GP lane congestion. 

The Lynnwood Link exacerbates all the Northgate Link problems. It adds little parking for access, doubles the operating costs, and any riders added further reduce University Link access, a precursor to similar problems with all the light rail spine extensions.  The Seattle Times Traffic Lab needs to “dig into” whether the two-year delay is an attempt to delay exposing the debacle.