Sound Transit’s Executive Committee will have an unusual second meeting this month to further debate the resolution to downscale ST3 to shrink its budget gap. The meeting is today at 1:30-4:00pm. The meeting page has links to the agenda, the resolution, two reports evaluating the Enterprise Initiative, and how to attend the meeting in person or virtually and to give public testimony. There will be no decision today. The vote will be next Thursday in two weeks at the the full monthly ST board meeting May 28, assuming the board doesn’t postpone it.

The first meeting last week has its own article and links. I don’t see a video of the meeting on ST’s YouTube page yet.

Some committee members called for the second meeting because there were more people wanting to testify at the first meeting than there was time for. Members may also continue offering their own opinions on the resolution.

This article is to collect comments about the meeting and its outcome. I’m not expecting much new today, but sometimes events like this generate unexpected news and over a hundred comments, so we’ll see.

Correction: Corrected the date of the full board meeting.

73 Replies to “ST3 Committee Meeting 2”

  1. I read somewhere that four amendments to the resolution have been drafted. They’re not mentioned in the meeting materials. I don’t know what they’d change or if they exist, or whether they’ll come up today.

    1. Somers said some amendments have been submitted but staff are still going through them and the submission period is still open, so it sounds like we won’t know what they are until those are done.

  2. Thanks for the post!!

    I’m always struck at the BS in Apoendix C (travel times):

    They say that West Seattle Link saves riders to Downtown 8 minutes but Ballard riders would save only 7. This doesn’t meet the laugh test.

    ST doesn’t report how long it takes today or how long it would take in the future if they build no more extensions. They only list the unaffordable baseline. This omission doesn’t inform anyone about the overall benefit of ST3.

    SeaTac, despite being the second or third busiest station recently is not listed on this appendix. Neither is UW. ST is not admitting how splitting 1 Line hurts existing riders.

    It’s not clear if station transfer times are included. Some of these pairs will involve numerous level changes and take several minutes. Riders go to destinations and not just travel between platforms.

    By not having an automated WS+B scenario, the benefits of higher frequency trains are not shown. That change alone would drop the average travel times from both West Seattle and Ballard by 3-4 minutes and the travel time between them as well as “uptown” would drop by more.

    Certainly documentation can’t include everything. But when I see such blatant misdirection posing as factual data I have to call it out.

    1. Where are you seeing those numbers? Based on the table in Appendix C of the Enterprise Institute Evaluation Report we have the following:

      Ballard-Downtown is 34m in the “Affordable Plan” (so stopping BLE at Seattle Center) vs. 16m in the full ST3 build out. So an 18m time savings.

      West Seattle – Downtown 30m in “Approach 2” (which doesn’t build WSLE) vs. 22m in the “Affordable Plan” (built without Avalon). So an 8m time savings.

      Actually makes the situation we are in, where WSLE is getting built instead of finishing the BLE, even more galling, since we are building a line which saves less time for fewer riders.

  3. The full board meeting is in two weeks, May 28. I corrected the date in the article.

  4. My only hope is that someone, Dan Strauss maybe, is working behind the scenes and persuading other board members that there is a way to get to Ballard now. Of course the best way to do that is the automated Ballard to WS that we’ve talked about for awhile, and that Kubly also wrote about.

    1. Have there been any reports from the Ballard Town Hall held on Monday? I presume that Strauss would have telegraphed his views/ideas there. He is not on their executive committee, and I am not optimistic based on the last ST Board meeting. At the least, I hope that when it comes time to vote, there are some dissenting voices in the room. I would like to think the lack of consensus would increase the chance for revisiting bad decisions in the future before they are truly locked in.

    2. Personally, I’ve already given up hope on Ballard Link. Constantine has engineered everything so that it is effectively dead. I’m not even sure he understands that he did this. He probably thinks ST can come up with more money somewhere, but most paths look closed to me.

      My consolation is that even Ballard is not very dense. There is a lot of talk about how much development there has been recently in Ballard, but while it looks different from 20 years ago, the difference is not huge. It would be very easy for West Seattle Junction to leapfrog Downtown Ballard.

    3. With only North King boardmembers having that position, they’ll be outvoted by a supermajority. Snohomish and Pierce can team up to keep both ends of the Spine, but who’s siding for full Ballard now besides Strauss and Wilson?

      Boardmembers generally want to keep what those in other subareas want, to avoid pressure on them to cut their things. But in this case Ballard gets lumped with the ultra-expensive DSTT2, so a vote for Ballard threatens to put other subareas’ projects at risk. Somers is especially sensitive to this for Everett, afraid that Ballard+DSTT2 would get caught in unknown future cost increases and delays that would delay Everett or make it unaffordable.

      1. The Kubly/Reed proposal is a net benefit for the other sub-areas, it eliminates the cost share for the tunnel and frees up a lot of additional funds

    4. What path would the “automated Ballard to WS” follow? Is it assuming DSTT2 reverted to the elevated trackway above the busway that was originally planned for ST3?

      Where is this supposed document?

        1. Thanks, Mike. So they’re essentially just replicating the 2016 proposal but with SkyTrain technology (or something close)? That’s not ideal because it still would still have “deep DSTT2” and Wasteful WSLE, but it’s certainly better than sticking with LR technology.

          Thanks.

        2. It has the CID/N station, which is Midtown station moved south to James Street, which the board did in 2023.

          If the automated trains run every 2 minutes, that would save 4 minutes of waiting. That would help to mitigate the 10-minute transfer walk, so it wouldn’t be 10 minutes of walking plus 6 minutes of waiting.

        3. Yes, higher frequency would improve the transfers. However, I doubt ST would drop frequency from six to two minutes, except perhaps at peaks. It still costs electricity and maintenance to run the trains, even in shorter trains. If the trains have half the capacity, the sensible thing is to run them twice as often.

          Thanks for the reply.

  5. Two testimonies against West Seattle Link, one arguing to choose the No-Build alternative, the other asking ST to explain the benefit of West Seattle Link given its high cost.

    1. Renton Park and Ride refers to what will be built next to South Renton Park and Ride, right?
      Didn’t they just break ground recently? So what might be deferred, the park garage?

        1. This garage was not in the final design since summer of 2024. I thought they have moved on from the chapter.

        2. Good point. It is a side issue.

          Although it’s at a much cheaper scale, Stride project development also seems to be based on factors other than growing ridership cost effectively.

          And if those Renton parking advocates commute into Seattle, their commutes will get worse if ST gets to close the SODO busway for West Seattle Link. .

        3. @HZ

          My understanding is that the garage was still planned to be built in the 2030s. I don’t think a final decision was made though

      2. There is something about that site that the group may not realize: there are high voltage lines just east of it. It’s literally an island between Grady, Rainier and the wires. It’s also on the approach to Renton Airport which limits how tall anything can be.

        I don’t see Stride adding much parking demand there. Most users likely will still be headed to Seattle.

        1. According to this article from the blog, they didn’t plan to put anything there regardless. The need for bus bay and layover facility takes a lot of surface already. Whatever TOD in the proximity is probably not gonna be taller than the office building south of Grady Way, so the height limit for airport isn’t concerning. It is not like they are gonna build a Bellevue Downtown there.

          https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/06/stride-s1-line-updates/

        2. yes, this. Sounder has demand for parking; it serves downtown Seattle. Does Stride1 serve markets with paid parking: Bellevue, Burien? Will Stride1 attract much ridership? It is difficult to get intending riders to/from the middle of I-405.

        3. Stride 1 will be better than the existing 560: much more frequent, faster, finally provides a fast way to get to TIB. That will get the would-be riders who won’t put up with the 360’s limitations. It may lose some going to central/north Renton, or to the airport. But it provides a 405 spine that the 560 and 535 really haven’t been. They’ve just been coverage-level service.

  7. 1 testimony that Everett Link connects Snohomish County to its county seat.

  9. One testimony praising dropping Avalon station to keep West Seattle Link on time.

  10. End of public testimony. Presentations follow. There will not be a vote to recommend anything to the full board yet, given the number of amendments in the air. The report slide deck does not appear to be in the links on the project page, unusual in my experience of past meetings.

    1. Sounds like there are ~2 dozen initial amendments or “concepts of amendments” submitted to date, which are being refined so they can be voted on at the next Board meeting. Sounds like it will be a long, consequential meeting.

  11. Two dozen amendments or concepts of amendments have been submitted so far.

  12. The rush to decide this now is partly because the board directed staff to pursue a Q2 timeline (by the end of May), and partly because the funding gap is large enough that it prevents ST from making expensive commitments. ST wants to start West Seattle Link construction now, but it can’t legally do so until it brings ST3’s scope (or North King’s scope) closer to available revenue.

    One view is that West Seattle doesn’t have enough benefit to rush this through or keep West Seattle in the plan or first. The other view is that West Seattle is essential, and ST shouldn’t delay it because that would just add inflation costs.

  13. Wilson mentioned there should be discussion about interim support for Ballard transit if Link is delayed. She doesn’t seem to know that’s already in ST3: it includes an early deliverable for interim RapidRide C/D upgrades until light rail could reach Ballard and West Seattle. The 2022 realignment postponed that project until the end. The current proposed resolution seems to have forgotten that project; it’s not in any of the three columns (funded, partly funded, or deferred). It’s the only project we see that’s not listed. So maybe the entire board and agency has forgotten about it.

    Anyone talking with Wilson should make sure she’s aware of this, and if she is, to clarify her position on it.

    1. Yeah the fact that project has been memory holed is bizarre. It’s a standalone ST3 project, I don’t understand how it not at the front of any BLE delay mitigation.

    2. Yes it could be something to appease the opposition and it may provide something more relevant to those impacted. At this point, I actually want that more than light rail. Among those who walked on street to show their support to Ballard Link, I bet very few of them would still live in Ballard by the time Ballard Link is open (if it was not delayed), so I think it is not a total loss to them if Ballard got those quick-fix projects. Now that the budget challenge is very real, it would be smart to trade building Ballard Link on time for ST board’s commitment to much cheaper interim support.

      If Ballard is the one to sacrifice, at least it should get some solid interim support. The demand is there to justify light rail today.

  15. I’ve said it before about the timeline, but ST has no business making long-term decisions in the abstract. They need more objective data, and that includes actual ridership riding Link today. To decide anything without seeing a thorough analysis of Link post-crosslake opening is wildly amateurish and irresponsible.

    At the very least, ST should provide April Link ridership data. They should back that up with survey questions like how people get to and from Link before and after their trip. Things like time of day, crowding, on-time performance and other things would be potentially useful too. Finally, ST needs to be presenting projected operating and capital costs per boarding for each future year as well as farebox recovery rates. A half-built system that gets no riders is worse than postponing an opening date for several years.

    Data is the great “fairness” creator. Without it, decisions are based on personal opinions and private lobbying. That’s not only setting up unfairness, it’s setting the stage for potential corruption in a variety of ways.

  16. Was there any discussion of the general crappiness of the current dstt2 plan, such as it is?

    1. I heard two. One saying DSTT2 is worse for passengers than not having it, and how Eastside-airport trips will have a 10-minute transfer walk, and Rainier-north passengers will be similarly impacted. The other saying CID/N and CID/S stations are too far from pedestrians in the CID, and saying that changes should be evaluated for ADA and equity.

      1. I don’t understand why people from both the Snohomish, and Pierce have not been pushing for same direction transfers across a center island at SODO.

        if all you have to do is walk across a platform to get to anywhere (except for Bellevue), then why wouldn’t you do this!

        1. I’ve been loudly saying this for the past decade. Over and over again! At first, other posters said it wasn’t necessary because the CID and Westlake transfers were assumed to be better as they interfaced with 2 Line. With the CID change in 2022 and as people look at underground transfer diagrams at Westlake and CID, more are beginning to understand — but still only a few seem to care. Its value still remains ignored even in STB comments.

          ST staff still ignores the idea. Their engineers don’t want to be bothered rethinking their earlier plans. They get defensive about changing anything for rider benefit. Of course, it’s a low-cost enhancement compared to the billions that ST is spending.

          And Board members from other subareas don’t seem to care about anything but getting Link station for a ribbon-cutting photo op. They don’t seem to realize that riders with luggage going to SeaTac are significantly more inconvenienced by all the unnecessary escalators, elevators or stairs being designed into the line.

          Even simply putting walkway connections underneath the tracks at SODO don’t get consideration. Instead, every design requires vaulting over the tracks at a greater vertical distance.

          Even people that walk on a flat path to SODO station today would be curved to scale the planned overpass and descend back down to track level (or vice versa) under the current plan. Each level change appears to be at least 50 stair steps.

        2. Al, you STILL are unwilling to take on ST’s ridiculous assumption that WSLE needs its own set of tracks. Even if Line 1 is elevated along King Way — a huge assumption — Line 1 won’t run more often than once every five minutes. WSLE will never, ever in a Blue Moon run more often than once every ten minutes. The Junction is NOT going to become another U-District.

          So that is eighteen trains per hour, maximum. Maybe not “forever” but certainly for long enough to pile up a BUNCH of savings by forgoing the second pair of tracks.

          Lander is going to overpass the trackway and busway. Just add an overpass at Holgate and no train will interrupt and no bus on the busway will ever stop for cross-traffic on either street.

          Even if ST plows ahead with Line 1 in a new tunnel, there is plenty of room at the north end of the trackway to extend the “pocket” south of Stadium into a ramp down into the south portal of DSTT2. I’ve written over and over that it’s easy enough to build a reinforced “shelf” under the existing “wings” of the structure to support an elevated diversion to WSLE at the curve to Forest Street. And if the ST engineers get the heebie-jeebies, then take the northbound lane of the busway from Forest to a bit north of Lander and have the diversion to West Seattle at Lander. The busway can still run with a single-lane stretch for that one block with computer controlled lights at each end. The track from West Seattle just takes the almost never-used bikeway between Forest and Lander.

          Just share the damn tracks!”

        3. “Al, you STILL are unwilling to take on ST’s ridiculous assumption that WSLE needs its own set of tracks.”

          I’ve agreed with you many times that your suggestion is a viable solution among several to consider.

          The basic issue is that ST never has studied it and still won’t study it! They won’t consider multiple track configurations to assess the pros and cons of what they need. They won’t determine where crossovers should go for same direction trains or how long tail tracks need to be. They won’t study how trains work in various disruption scenarios — and disruptions often happen on Link. They present only three waiting platform scenarios for the four tracks entering and leaving the station that make every single transferring rider go up and over and back down again — even those that walk on a level path to and from the station today.

          So we have no idea of the cost savings, the operational impacts or the added hassle among different station circulation and related track configurations. ST flatly refuses to delve into the situation with an open mind.

          In the FEIS, ST forecasts 9,000 transferring riders just to the other rail line every day (table 3-12 in the Transportation Technical report here: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/16a-WSLE-FinalEIS-AppendixN1-transportationtechreport-main-body.pdf)

          That’s on top of about 2,600 transferring bus riders and another about 2,900 riders that are pedestrians, bicyclists or dropped off.

          Considering that transfer volumes alone will be much higher than the majority of the total boarding volumes at many other existing and planned Link stations, for ST to not examine this is just wrong. I think we both agree that ST hasn’t bothered to look at this more critically. It’s in stark contrast to their obsessiveness with studying other station layouts that serve much fewer train boardings.

        4. Well, thank you, Al. I apologize for my strong wording.

          The sheer damn obstinance of the “consultants” and “staff” who won’t see a billion dollar savings that enhances transit for everyone, even South King County bus riders, is galling. It’s titanic malpractice.

        5. I’m sorry, but I don’t see Betty Lau as caring much at all about transit riders’ experience, though her neighborhood is full of them.

          She seems to care more about keeping The International District frozen in Amber.

          Maybe I don’t understand her full motivation, but that’s how it appears to me.

        6. I’m sorry, but I don’t see Betty Lau as caring much at all about transit riders’ experience

          She seemed generally concerned when I talked to her. She was well aware of the fact that the CID Station would no longer serve existing riders headed to Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley or SeaTac. Her opinion on the situation isn’t much different than a lot of us. We see the second tunnel as a big degradation for a lot of riders, including those in the CID.

          Just out of curiosity Tom, how much have you communicated with her?

        7. Not at all. I drew that conclusion based on her public testimony. Since you have spoken with her at some length, I am glad to revise my skepticism based on your advice.

      2. I believe that was Jack Whisner and Betty Lau, sometime commenters on this blog. Unfortunately, I think that message may have gotten buried in the avalanche of commenters pleading for their pet projects not to be deferred. I hope that someone has the ear of a Sound Transit Board member who is willing to propose an amendment to instead defer the DSTT2 part of BLE rather the 3 stations currently being targeted. I do note that they presented a slide estimating that between 47,900 (50% of 95,400 total) and 39,000 (63% of 62,200 total) boardings would occur between Westlake and South CID stations under the full BLE and “affordable” BLE, respectively. This suggests elimination of DSTT2 would have a significant impact on BLE boardings, but it doesn’t really address the impact this would have on overall system ridership, since many riders would presumably transfer at Westlake (assuming you could build from Ballard to Westlake).

        1. Because ST has not examined automation and a standalone line between Ballard and Westlake, there is no analysis of the ridership or travel time impact.

        2. Yes, I knew who they were but I didn’t want to name them myself. They had the best testimony out of all the speakers.

      3. We only had one minute. DSTT2 is a millstone or albatross around the neck of ST3; it may kill it. The ST3 authors had hubris to suggest it. With a decade of planning, it has grown worse: deeper (more minutes to access), a station was dropped (where is the G Line?), the central hub was lost due to the split CID stations, the transfers between the east and south lines become unacceptably long. It is broken.

        I prefer the option that authors and commenters on STB advanced: the improved Ballard stub line between Westlake and NW Market Street, automated with shorter headway and waits, shorter trains, shorter stations, with lower operating costs and lower capital cost, even with an Interbay base. The TransLink technology is close by. The Kubly concept still has a costly DSTT2 to build. ST is short $34 billion.

        Will a ST boardmember submit the necessary amendment to the balanced financial plan?

      4. I think Eastside Airport cheap would always be faster by Stride transferring Link at TIBS. If SeaTac built the second terminal and proposed busway between Rental Car Center and terminals, riding S1 to airport might even be better.

        2. I once agreed to meet a friend at the rental car center by walking from TIBS. I was shocked about what a fortress that rental car center building is. To walk to TIBS from there isn’t easy even though it looks like a short stroll.

        3. The issue with Stride 1 is that it only stops at 4 other places besides TIBS — Burien, the South Renton stroad-surrounded island, 44th in the freeway space and Downtown Bellevue. That hampers its usefulness. Any transit route with just five total stops is going to struggle attracting riders because there are very few direct trips that it can serve. Single-transfer tripmaking (one destination within easy walking distance) is really only useful for Downtown Bellevue (which has mostly offices within 2 blocks of the stop). Otherwise, users would need to make two transfers if not three to use it and riders dislike making that many transfers.

          Then there’s the transfer trek itself. Why would someone with luggage already on Link get off in Downtown Bellevue, drag luggage to a stop across the street (and up an escalator or elevator) to board Stride 1 just to do it all over again at TIBS but in a median of a trench (with two elevators involved)? At CID, there are no streets to cross. It’s a quick, single up and down there rather than do it twice. It may take an extra 10-15 minutes on paper but the treks at the stations along with the additional time waiting for the next vehicle can wipe away that time advantage.

          That’s why I’m expecting Stride 1 to get low ridership when it opens. It’s going to work as a commuter express but that’s about it.

          And it’s too bad! Had the line added stops at Factoria with I-90 bus intercepting, and South
          Center with I-5 and West Valley Highway bus intercepting, I think it could have gotten lots more use..

        4. Al, at least for exiting the rental car center to TIBS, there’s a secret stairwell and exit on the NE side near the vehicle exit spiral that dumps you on international blvd with a ~6 mins walk to TIBS . However, it doesn’t help for getting into the rental car center since there’s a one way gate at the bottom. I’ve walked from TIBS to the rental car center—it’s terrible—I just take the shuttle from SEA.

  17. Just kill the second tunnel and the whole project. Figure out how to get an automated line from Westlake to Ballard.

    Let West Seattle be the suburban island it wants to be.

    1. It’s never a complete lost cause until a construction contract is approved. Look at how far along the Culture Connector got! It was supposed to open years ago and even had an FTA grant.

      I think the West Seattle track and stations are much less likely to be killed. But even then, the apparent FTA go-ahead depends on reworked plan numbers as the system assumptions in the FEIS are tens of billions short of reality.

      And a new tunnel under Downtown with station vaults has all sorts of risks too.

      After West Seattle, the next big question is probably resolving the County building area. My fear is that this will end up being the northern terminus of 1 Line — complete with its terribly circuitous and inconvenient transfers. So stopping DSTT2 (or a decade+ delay) may still happen but not the southern segment through the CID.

      One unspoken objective seems to be to kick SE Seattle and South King riders out of the DSTT so wealthier and whiter western West Seattle residents get their direct Downtown trains. The fact that it screws easier SeaTac connections made today for everyone north and east of Downtown is collateral damage.

      1. I think with Harrel out and Constantine acting at the direction of the Board, it’s plausible that the whole King County Civic Campus idea, which I think was leveraged on assuming ST would foot the bill for demolishing the shuttered KC Admin Building with all of its asbestos and lead-based paint. But, ST is short on money, now, so if there’s a cheaper alternative (e.g. 5th Ave Diagonal) that’s politically viable, they’ll be motivated to switch to that. But they’ve already picked N/S CID as the preferred alternative and stated preliminary engineering, so it’s also plausible that ST will consider that alternative “locked in” or something.

    2. None of the boardmembers or local politicians have advocated for it, and most are actively against it. Balducci raised it as an option worth studying and keeping open, but every other boardmember said no, and Somers booted her off a committee after it. (I’m not sure if it was the Executive Committee or the System Expansion Committee. The Executive Committee is the one that did this meeting.) Specifically, Balducci raised the fact that DSTT1 will need significant upgrades anyway to maintain 1/2 Line service reliably (e.g., signals), so why not do the other upgrades at the same time so that it can support 1.5 minute service (3-4 lines), and then you wouldn’t need DSTT2, and the transfers would be much better — which impacts her Eastside constituents going to the airport.

  19. KOMO News ran a poll related to this meeting. They asked if ST is being fiscally responsible. The exact question is “Do you think Sound Transit is a well-run agency/steward of tax dollars?”

    The tally now is running 90 percent “no” of almost 1800 votes. Even for a notoriously right-wing broadcaster with biased viewers, it’s quite the overwhelming damnation of the ST Board. Keep in mind how much good press ST has had these past few years with multiple openings. Since the survey accompanies the Entreprise Initiative article it’s partly if not mostly reacting to this effort.

    https://komonews.com/newsletter-daily/sound-transit-weighs-scaling-back-st3-light-rail-expansion-amid-34b-shortfall-public-comment-ballard-everett-issaquah

    1. I wouldn’t trust a poll like that with an obvious bias of pollster and how loaded the framing of the question is.

      1. It’s an online poll on a website run by actual fascists. It’d be like putting a poll on Seattle transit blog asking “is transit good?”

        1. KOMO is a right wing cess pool, but there are many left leaning viewers too. 90% is still an overwhelming number. I’ve seen other left vs. right polls there that didn’t see that kind of unanimous agreement.

          Also, it’s not wrong that ST is poorly managing our tax money. Pretty much everyone on here agrees based on the numerous complaints all day about the execution of ST2 and ST3. There is little doubt that Dow is a corrupt career politician who has no clue how transit works and just wants to get his pet projects done (West Seattle, “New Energy Livery”, bus electrification, zero emissions) for the press rather than actually expanding our transit network effectively.

          The ST3 cuts are absolutely unacceptable for pretty much everyone except Snohomish and West Seattle. Everyone else loses big time. Where is all our money going? I’m sure they’ve burned a good chunk of the ST3 funds on finishing ST2 and their useless bureaucracy with employees who do nothing for transit but instead worry about social media posts, designs, social justice advocacy, and “studies” that have little bearing on the quality, safety, and delivery of actual transit.

        2. If ST was privatized and we passed Forward Thrust, the state of transit could’ve been so amazing here. It’s just painful to think of how bad we have it

          Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars down the train for a paltry system. Some of you don’t care about how much money is being spent because you actually get service. Think about the rest of us spending thousands a year for a service we don’t even use… And being forced to buy an extra car on top of that even if we don’t want to and would prefer to use transit if it was actually available, didn’t take 3 hours to travel 10 miles, or even if a reliable infrequent route exists doesn’t run 30+ mins late randomly every day.

        3. I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy if you were funding the roads and strip malls of the suburbs. So we should equally feel unhappy when we’re asked to pay for something that we have no stake in.

        4. The only difference between private companies and public agencies is private companies aren’t subject to public records requests, and they can cease operating whenever they want, leaving their customers stranded without warning.

          On the other hand, if privatization was so effective, why not call to privatize all freeways? Privatize all roads? Privatize all infrastructure? “Burbclaves” for everyone!

        5. “If ST was privatized…”

          I think that a significant factor with ST credibility is not that they contract out too little. It’s that they contract out too much!! Privatization doesn’t change that dynamic.

          Certainly privatization can encourage internal efficiency and possibly save some money operating a service on paper. However, there still would be a Board and management functioning as a “negotiator” rather than a “boss”. Say if additional service is needed, Sound Transit would still have to negotiate for an outsider to do it rather than direct an internal subordinate to do it.

          The place where the indirectness is most impacted is with capital expansion — something which is pretty much fully privatized today. It has clearly to major accountability issues when it comes to ST3 project costs, lack of project oversight leading to a long 2 Line delay, and repeated unanticipated disruptions that continue to be needed to correct last minute things.

          As a case study, look at the current vehicle shortage that has resulted in some two-car trains on the 2 Line. An outsider years ago estimated vehicle needs based on what other private-sector outsiders said about travel times for different segments. No internal strategist fully worked through the realities of needing cushions for disruptions and misestimated travel times along with driver breaks and vehicle reversal efforts and train car assemblies that need to vary throughout the day. Who’s to blame? Who would have been a smarter hire with a targeted job task to address the issue and prevented this problem? Who would have had experience on how to avoid this problem? Who would have been a seasoned enough manager with enough legitimacy to speak up and say “there won’t be enough train cars and so I as the boss will direct how to allocate train cars better to ease crowding at the busiest times after we’ve analyzed the anticipated passenger loads of each train based on where it is at a given point during the day”?

          Sometimes hiring more and more outside entities to run things (whether a different agency or a private company) just adds another layer negotiating which adds additional cost and effort and time to complete any task. Outsiders are great for niche specialities that require hiring national experts because the local skill base isn’t strong enough — but there are routine tasks that are instead best assigned and completed internally.

  20. Attending the Dan Strauss’ Ballard town hall on Monday, it occurred to me that he invited lots of reps from Olympia to hear that Ballard needs rail.
    To me it sounds like Dow is cutting Ballard to rightsize the ST3 budget so that he can get WSLE started asap. The cuts in Ballard will get Olympia fired up to push for 75 year bond capacity so that they can viewed as the saviors of Ballard a few months later.

Comments are closed.