Sound Transit is preparing to announce a new opening date for its long-overdue Cross-Lake Line this coming Friday, providing hope after years of delays, cost overruns, and ongoing debates about the agency’s financial strategies. Originally slated to open over five years ago, the Cross-Lake Line, which is a key component of the East Link project, has faced significant setbacks. During recent public meetings, officials disclosed that the project is now over schedule by more than half a decade and has exceeded its budget by tens of millions of dollars, stirring renewed scrutiny over how Sound Transit plans to fund its expansive transportation initiatives. As the agency navigates these challenges, stakeholders and critics are questioning both the timeline and the financial management of the organization, especially in the context of its broader regional expansion plans.
The Delays and Budget Overruns of the Cross-Lake Line
Timing and Financial Setbacks
The Cross-Lake Line, integral to the East Link expansion, was originally planned for completion many years ago but has been plagued by persistent delays that have pushed its opening well beyond initial projections. As of early 2026, the project is now over five years behind schedule. Public records and agency discussions reveal that costs have skyrocketed, with recent estimates indicating the project is “tens of millions of dollars” over the allocated budget. These financial overruns are not unique to this project but tap into larger concerns about Sound Transit’s ability to stay on budget and deliver projects efficiently.
During a sparse yet notable Sound Transit board meeting, officials discussed the possibility of redirecting approximately $60 million from other parts of the agency’s budget to cover the remaining costs for the Cross-Lake Line. While this figure is modest in comparison to the overall project budget, board member Claudia Balducci described it as “couch cushion money,” emphasizing that it could still prove vital to paying contractors and third-party consultants involved in the work. She reiterated that though the sum seems small relative to the entire project, its infusion is still necessary to keep the project moving forward amid ongoing financial pressure.
Political and Public Response to Project Challenges
More Read
Criticism from Policy Experts and Former Officials
Many critics see the delays and rising costs as evidence that Sound Transit has not fulfilled voter expectations. Charles Prestrud, a former transportation planner with the Washington Policy Center, sharply criticized the agency, asserting that the project’s overruns are indicative of poor management. “It’s now more than hundreds of millions of dollars beyond the original budget,” Prestrud noted, emphasizing that such overruns undermine the credibility of the transit agency’s commitments.
Adding to the scrutiny, Prestrud testified earlier this week at an Olympia hearing where he sat alongside Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine. Constantine endorsed Senate Bill 6148, a proposed legislation allowing the agency to issue bonds with a maturity of up to 75 years. Sound Transit advocates argue that such long-term bonds could help alleviate the financial strain imposed by the $35 billion shortfall projected through the Sound Transit 3 (ST3) expansion plan.
The Debate Over Bond Financing and Long-term Funding Strategies
Arguments For and Against Long-term Bonds
The proposed 75-year bonds have sparked significant debate. Supporters, including Constantine, believe that these bonds could provide the agency with the financial flexibility needed to manage its debt and complete crucial infrastructure projects. However, critics express concern that extending the bonds’ maturity beyond typical durations could lead to higher overall costs, ultimately placing more financial burden on taxpayers.
Prestrud, for instance, cautioned that just as a longer mortgage means more interest payments over its lifespan, long-term bonds could result in significantly higher interest expenses. “What happens with 75-year bonds is that, just like if you have a 30-year mortgage instead of a 15-year mortgage, you end up paying much more in interest and debt service over the life of the bond,” he explained. He warned that this could create a “big budget band-aid” that shifts the problem from immediate funding issues to long-term debt management, with future resources potentially being diverted from system expansion or maintenance.
Financial Policy Experts’ Concerns
Other financial experts and former officials have voiced similar reservations. Scott Kubly, a former Seattle Department of Transportation director, told KOMO News that issuing bonds with such extended timetables should be viewed as a last resort. He pointed out that this strategy would likely result in paying 2.5 to 3 times more in interest, leading to a “very expensive debt” for the region.
These critiques underscore the importance of thorough financial planning before embracing long-term borrowing options. Prestrud and others argue that Sound Transit should focus on completing its internal review of existing plans before moving forward with new debt issuance. The agency’s internal assessment, known as the Enterprise Initiative, is expected to propose possible cuts or changes to the original ST3 plan in the second quarter of 2026. Stakeholders believe that finalizing this review and identifying potential reductions or phased approaches should take precedence, rather than rushing into long-term borrowing that could saddle the region with future financial burdens.
Focus on the Upcoming Cross-Lake Line Opening
Amidst the financial and political debates, the immediate priority for commuters and regional leaders remains the long-awaited opening of the Cross-Lake Line. Originally promised to be operational by the end of May 2021, the project missed its deadline by over five years, contributing to frustration among residents and stakeholders eager for expanded transit options.
Sound Transit initially indicated that the line would open last year, but delays continued to push that date further back. Recently, the agency announced that a new, definitive opening date would be unveiled on the upcoming Friday, bringing hope that the project might soon deliver on its promise and offer a much-needed transit expansion for the region.
The delay has compounded concerns about the overall management of the transportation initiative. While some critics argue that managing such large-scale infrastructure inherently involves unexpected setbacks, many still call for greater accountability and tighter oversight to prevent similar issues in future projects. As the region prepares for the line’s launch, officials and residents alike are keen to see whether this latest delay will mark the end of a challenging chapter, or if further complications might still emerge as the project reaches completion.
