Charles Prestrud says light rail is not the answer

Charles Prestrud
Washington Policy Center

See Grok’s analysis of this story

On December 6th Sound Transit will celebrate the opening of three light rail stations in South King County. This is sure to be a festive occasion with a ribbon cutting ceremony and fine-sounding pronouncements by elected officials (never mind the construction delays and hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns).

The true test of whether the $2.5 billion project can be considered a success won’t be known until we see if it actually increases transit ridership. It should add some light rail riders (a few anyway) but many riders will simply switch from the Metro Rapid Ride service running parallel to Link that serves the same locations, or former customers on Metro’s 177 express route from Federal Way to downtown Seattle. By the way, the 177 bus takes about 40-minutes to go from the Federal Way Transit Center to 4^th and Jackson in downtown Seattle. That’s about ten minutes quicker than Link for the same trip.  

It has been politically expedient for Sound Transit to assume that extending light rail lines will increase ridership and accommodate a meaningful share of travel demand in the region. However, ridership trends cast doubt about the effectiveness of rail projects to increase transit mode share.

For example, in 2021 Sound Transit completed a 4.3-mile light rail extension to Northgate that added three stations along one of the highest demand corridors in the region. As can be seen in the table below, by 2024 light rail ridership had increased by a little over five million boardings per year, though total Sound Transit ridership actually fell by more than six million boardings. Rail boosters would probably point out the downturn was due to COVID. No doubt that did have a big impact, but it isn’t obvious that light rail has succeeded in bringing back the riders who left or growing the transit market.   

We also need to keep in mind that light rail is only part of the regional transit picture. In anticipation of light rail extensions King County Metro extensively revised their bus routes to serve the rail stations, so it is no surprise that most of the ridership on Link consists of existing bus riders who switched because their routes were truncated or discontinued. To get a clearer picture of how the region’s multi-billion dollar investment is performing we need to look at the net change in transit ridership, and that isn’t a pretty picture.

As shown in the table above, in 2024 Metro carried thirty-seven million fewer riders than they did in 2019. Yes, COVID had a lot to do with the steep decrease, but it is also true that Metro lost about six bus riders for every light rail rider Sound Transit gained. Not only is total transit ridership in the region lower today than it was in 2019, it’s also lower than it was fifteen years ago! This suggests that building costly light rail extensions is not an effective way to increase ridership or improve overall regional mobility. The destinations served are too few, the rail lines duplicate existing bus service, most light rail trips are indirect and require transfers, and the public cost is very high, so high that last August Sound Transit was forced to admit the ST3 plan wasn’t affordable.  

Faced with cost increases estimated at over $30 billion, the Sound Transit board is beginning an “enterprise initiative” to find ways of making their plan fit within the budget. Statements by Sound Transit board members indicate they are focusing on financial aspects of the plan, but their assessment should also be informed by ridership trends. It is apparent the most productive parts of the system have been completed (or scheduled to begin service within the next year). By comparison, the proposed ST3 extensions are forecast to have much lower ridership, and if history is any guide, those forecasts are on the high side. If the purpose of Sound Transit is to increase regional mobility and total transit ridership, then rather than trying to build light rail extensions that serve limited locations and can’t pass a benefit/cost test, the board should take this opportunity to consider the technologies and flexible services that would be more cost-effective and competitive across the agency’s 1,000 square mile taxing district.

Sound Transit has offered various reasons for sticking with their light rail plan. They would like us to believe the three new stations will reduce traffic on I-5, but the ridership numbers make that very doubtful. The region has spent the last twenty-five years building light rail. On which freeways has that reduced congestion? Answer, none. Light rail has succeeded in taking more riders out of Metro and CT buses than commuters it has taken out of automobiles. The number of cars actually removed from rush hour freeway traffic is very small, not enough to make a significant difference.  

It may sound impressive when Sound Transit touts the thousands of riders they hope will use the new stations, but to put that in context it helps to look at transit mode share and how much it will change. In the Puget Sound region residents make a total of about fourteen million trips per day. That’s trips to and from work, school, shopping, etc. Of that total, light rail accounts for less than one percent. After the three new stations are open the percentage will be…still less than one percent. The PSRC 2050 plan forecast that by 2050 light rail’s mode share might rise to all of 2.6%, and that is based on very optimistic assumptions including build-out of the plan Sound Transit now says they can’t afford. Even if light rail mode share does rise to 2.6% it would still be an extremely poor return on the massive $150 billion public investment.

Instead of sticking with such a dismal outcome the Sound Transit board and other policy makers should be looking for a plan that accommodates the other 97% of trips that residents of the region need to make every day. Light rail isn’t the answer.

Charles Prestrud is the director of the Coles Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion piece, Charles Prestrud from the Washington Policy Center argues that the opening of three new Sound Transit light rail stations in South King County offers no real cause for celebration, citing potential ridership shifts from buses, declining overall transit use despite expansions, and high costs that raise questions about light rail’s effectiveness for regional mobility.

What Grok notices

• Provides clear ridership data comparing 2019 and 2024, giving readers context on how light rail extensions relate to broader transit use.
• Includes practical comparisons between light rail and bus travel times to help readers understand day‑to‑day impacts for commuters.
• Reflects a policy‑analysis perspective focused on cost‑effectiveness and alternatives, emphasizing questions about return on investment.
• Mentions post‑COVID conditions but does not explore pandemic‑related or economic factors in depth; readers may wish to review broader ridership trends.
• Highlights cost overruns and changing forecasts while noting uncertainty about long‑term demand and budgeting assumptions.

Questions worth asking

• What factors beyond COVID‑19 may be contributing to declining bus ridership in the Puget Sound region?
• How do the costs and travel times of light rail expansions compare with bus rapid transit or other flexible transit options in similar metro areas?
• What role could emerging technologies, such as on‑demand transit or autonomous shuttles, play in improving regional mobility?
• How might population growth and land‑use patterns in South King County affect future demand for light rail service?
• What incentives or policy changes could encourage more commuters to shift from personal vehicles to public transit?

Research this topic more

• Sound Transit – official ridership statistics, project costs, and planning documents
• Puget Sound Regional Council – regional transportation plans and mode‑share forecasts
• Federal Transit Administration – national transit trends and funding guidelines
• Washington State Department of Transportation – state mobility reports and infrastructure data