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”” detailed “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 showing 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 “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 expense.  

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 their operating costs.  Failing any rational cost/benefit analysis for extension beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way, or the need for maintenance facilities in 2032 to service the trains. 

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)

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 Snohommish 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.