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. 

 

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.’