CITIZEN OVERSIGHT PANEL	CHAIR Reid Shockey VICE CHAIR Arlington (Art) Carter, Jr. Allan Darr Bertha Eades Claudia Ellsworth Steve Goldblatt Ray Gould Virginia Gunby Fred Hart Tom Luthy David Osaki Larry Shannon Al Stipe Stephen C. Wamback
June 28, 2001 Mr. David Earling, Chair Board of Directors Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle,WA 98104-2826 Dear Mr. Earling:

As you meet today to discuss the future direction of Link light rail, the Citizen Oversight Panel has several observations. First, we ask that the Board intensify its focus on a number of the key commintments mad to the public in Sound Move; and that you make clear to the public the basic assumptions and criteria applied to arrive at the preferred MOS.

Today's decision will have significant effect on Sound Move. It will convey a message to the region about how the Board and agency intend to get a workable initial segment of the Link system built. Furthermore, it will either increase or decrease the concerns of skeptics who question whether a first phase will accommodate future phases to the north and south. A light rail system is an integral part of Sound Move and implementing our regional and local growth management plans; and according to recent polling, continues to have broad public support.

Sound Move made commitments to the public in key areas that the Citizen Oversight Panel was charged with monitoring: on-budget and on-schedule objectives, scope, process, and financial policies. The commitments made on budget and schedule, unfortunately, have already been broken. The plan's scope and the level of federal financial support are now in question. The key questions before you today are whether a first-phase Link segment will utilize the downtown transit tunnel and ultimately whether a northerly extension of Link will serve Capitol Hill or South Lake Union/Eastlake.

The alternatives being discussed are in response to your concern that the Inspector General's report and subsequent FTA actions have made it imposssible to build MOS1 as originally proposed. In the opinion of COP, this is not necessarily the case. While financial uncertainties have increased, the Board should analyze the financial assumptions underlying the adopted MOS1 to determine if it can occur under some new set of assumptions. The Board should weigh this analysis against the other proposals being considered and against the risk of starting from scratch with another segment with its whole new set of technical, environmental, legal and community challenges.

Reviewing a bit of history, Sound Move called for the agency to analyze a northern route based on performance criteria such as ridership, cost, cost-effectiveness, compatibility with local community plans, direct service to the University District, speed and capacity. In 1997, the alternative northern route was duly evaluated and in 1999 the First Hill/Capitol Hill alignment was confirmed and adopted as the Locally Preferred Alternative based on evaluation criteria as outlined in the EIS. What is important about this decision, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, is that is was firmly rooted in an evaluation of alternatives base[d] on discrete criteria. We believe that those citeria are still reliable tools in the evaluation of any alternatives. Other criteria could and should be applied, including the potential for maximizing the federal partnership, the assessment of environmental, legal and financial risks, and, today, the sunk costs of time and effort already invested.

The Board appears now to be considering an alternative alignment through the South Lake Union ara and north along Eastlake Avenue. While avoiding the expense of a tunnel, this alternative will not produce the ridership levels of a Capitol Hill route and it may not meet the cost-per-rider levels. Additional time will be necessary to update environmental documents. There may be opposition from neighborhood groups along the South Lake Union/Eastlake route who argue that Link is not compatible with local community plans.

Our key message to you, as you determine a direction for the agency to pursue in assessing alternatives, is to remain mindful of the decisions of the past and how those related to the criteria established in Sound Move. If alternative routes are studied, determine to your satisfaction that the criteria have been met. When your final decision is made, show very clearly to the public how the alternative approved matches the goals and criteria of Sound Move and why it is superior to the adopted LPA.

In the last several months, COP has been impressed by the high level of engaged dialog taking place among Board members. You will recall that in our December letter to you, we took the Board to task for not staying abreast of issues that ultimately led to a crisis in Link. We now compliment you on the seriousness with which you are taking your responsibilities and urge you to continue your analysis and debate to its fullest and most thorough extent.

The Panel is in the process of conducting our mid-year 2001 evaluation of Sound Transit's performance. We intend to submit a full report on the agency to you in July.

CITIZEN OVERSIGHT PANEL

Reid H. Shockey
Chair

cc:	Sound Transit Board Joni Earl, Executive Director

SOUND TRANSIT
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
Union Station
401 S. Jackson St.
Seattle,WA 98104-2826
Facsimile 206.398.5223
www.soundtransit.org

For information, call 206.398.5021