Sound Transit’s Modern Wonder?

The August 30th Seattle Times heralded Sound Transit’s modern wonder: “How light rail floats on the lake.” It typified the paper’s Traffic Lab detailing how it “works” rather than what it “does”.  Another example of the paper’s project “that explores the region’s policies that determine how we get around and how billions of dollars in public money are spent”. 

 

The article “suggests” the Traffic Lab project receives substantial support from Sound Transit. (It's the only Seattle Times "project that doesn't mention its outside financial support.) For example, the article details how “light rail  ridership systemwide has reached 175,000, a boost of almost 50,000 boardings”. Yet neglects  to mention that Sound Transit’s 2 Line ridership reported only boarded 1375 in July. 

Multiple posts on this blog have detailed that the lack of light rail ST3 extension sustainability if it’s based on the assumption that their cost wouldn’t exceed “derived benefit”or burden our grandchildren.

 

Another example of light rail problems was the August 24th Jake and Spike, Kiro FM radio show, ‘Sound Transit is a disease’.   The two spar over whether the region’s massive transit investment is worth it.  It included the Washington Policy Center Director analysis “Transit ridership across the Puget Sound region is down 10.5% since 2015, even as the population has grown by 14% and transit funding has nearly doubled from $2.6 billion to $4.7 billion”

 

The TPC director analysis found that total boardings across Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, and Everett Transit dropped from 176.3 million in 2015 to 157.7 million in 2025. Even Sound Transit, which opened major light rail extensions during that period, reported a 9% decrease in passenger miles. Transit mode share now sits below 3% of all regional trips, with light rail carrying less than 1%,

 

The bottom line is the TPC report is just another example of those detailing the failure of Sound Transit’s Modern Wonder.

Sounder Sustainability”

The previous blog detailed how Sound Transit “Sustainability” should result in a transportation system whose operating costs can reasonably be expected to not be a perpetual drain on the area’s finances.  That  any system of internal accounting controls in which the cost of the system being implemented should not exceed the benefits derived. 

The 2025 Sound Transit Report published in July included a Sounder staff of 28.2 full-time equivalent positions, a cost of more than $600 million for completion and a $45.90 cost per boarding for 2025. The August release of the 62-page System Expansion Monthly Status Report included 30 pages dealing with Sounder.  Clearly considering it a priority despite the fact their Ridership for June was only 7172 average weekday Sounder boarding

Clearly Sound Transit has chosen to spend far more on Sounder than what would be reasonably considered sustainable if doing so required the cost not exceed the benefits derived.  Sound Transit service area residents deserve far better for the taxes they pay than for what they will get from Sounder

 

Sound Transit Board’s Sustainability?

The video of the sound Transit Executive Committee Aug 6^th meeting exemplifies their failure to recognize problems with their version of Sustainability.  The meeting included a presentation, “Update Sustainability Plan (2026-2030) and how Sound Transit was expanding regional environmental benefits, that in 2025, 86% of the 14 targets had been completed and environmental goals for 2026 and beyond. 

The meeting was then suspended for what was said to be a 20-minute Executive Session to discuss the performance of a “public employee and litigation, or potential litigation to which the agency is likely to, become a party". Whatever the reason the 20-minute session took nearly an hour and the Executive Committee meeting afterwards ended with no further discussion.

“Sustainability” should also result in a transportation system whose operating costs can reasonably be expected to not be a perpetual drain on the area’s finances.  The  2025 Annual Report included the following statement concerning the following  “Statement of management’s responsibility”

Limitations exist in any system of internal accounting controls in which the cost of the system being implemented should not exceed the benefits derived.

Yet, any rational review of the cost of Sustaining maintenance and operation of light rail trains on ST3 extensions beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way will dwarf any benefits derived. The fact that the limited number of potential boarders and their fare revenue will leave the area’s grandchildren’s grandchildren to pay should not be considered “Sustainable”.  A similar analysis of the funds needed for boring a second tunnel under the city or a second Duwamish waterway bridge is also not “Sustainable”.   

Both service areas already have far better access to transit from near where they live to where they want to go, negating any potential “benefits derived”.  Sound Transit service area residents surely deserve this version of Sustainability and the resultant less costs. 

The bottom line is Sustainability is a question as to how long the Seattle Times Traffic Lab continues to ignore the fact that benefits derived from Sound Transit having a board of 18, a staff of 1400, and budget of more than $1.4B are dwarfed by the costs of providing those services.

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.