Open Letter from Jon Dubman
Rebuttal to a letter from the Strategic Planning Office,
in response to an earlier letter to Mayor Schell, dated June 5, 2001June 28, 2001
The claim that the segment of the system with the least controversy over alignments is CPS to Henderson may not be saying much. This segment includes the bus tunnel and the Rainier Valley at-grade alignment. Frankly, I am personally not a huge fan of at-grade alignment in Rainier Valley, considering community opposition, displacements, impacts on the street network and long-term capacity issues. Despite my initial skepticism when I first heard of it, I have become a big proponent of the Capitol Hill tunnel, which is in substantial jeopardy, since support of the Mayor and Executive Sims has withered in recent months. Personally, I think we ought to get started on Capitol Hill to Lander (ridership approx. 40,000, about 50% higher than CPS to Henderson) or possibly all the way to McClellan where we could build a bus intercept for the Rainier Valley.
The observation that CPS to Henderson ridership is higher than other new starts glosses over the poor relative performance of CPS to Henderson versus the other options. Capitol Hill to Henderson has more than twice that ridership of CPS to Henderson, and University Link has three times that ridership.
The Mayor may not be focused on how to assure the highest ridership on an initial segment, and perhaps rightly so. But he ought to be focused on how to ensure the highest possible ridership and effectiveness of the eventual system, and consistency with our well established growth planning goals. A system that does not connect the urban centers may be slightly cheaper and faster to build, but how much good does it do us when it's complete? And what damage does such an alignment do to those urban centers left in the lurch? Such an alignment would constitute a breach of faith for citizens who were promised transportation improvements to go with increases in density in the urban centers.
How are we eventually going to connect to high capacity transit on the Eastside if we follow an alignment closer to I-5? We'd lose the opportunity to stage construction of an east-west line with a transfer point in the vicinity of the south campus of UW.
The ongoing Intermediate Capacity Study assumes Link will connect the urban centers, and so they have chosen other corridors to optimize. With a potential monorail and/or whatever the Intermediate Capacity Study recommends, is it possible that we will build two different rail systems in this city, neither of which connects the urban centers of First Hill, Capitol Hill, and the University District?
I believe there are many knowledgeable officials who know that the Capitol Hill tunnel makes the most sense, but they are afraid of backlash from the voters. No matter what this project builds, many people will complain. Our elected officials have become tunnel-phobic. What's wrong with tunnels? Many other hilly cities have lots of them, such as the Bay Area, and they spent the extra money for a reason. The bus tunnel some light rail opponents feel so possessive about is a tunnel in a high-density area. Route 99 goes through a tunnel under Battery Street. The idea of a Beacon Hill tunnel does not seem to have seeped into the public consciousness, but it is very much a part of the Central Link plan, and we're not talking about dropping that. There's a freight and passenger train tunnel under downtown Seattle that's been there for a hundred years.
I'd rather have us go back to the drawing board than carry on with a plan to build something that is as screwed up as an alignment along I-5 north of downtown. It's hard for me to imagine where this could even go. Are we talking about a view-blocking elevated route on Eastlake that causes years of disruption and removes on-street parking for all the businesses there? Or an at-grade alignment on Eastlake with two 360 foot trains every 2-3 minutes that further divides a neighborhood already punished by I-5? Or are we talking about - gasp - a tunnel under much of it - with much of the expense, and little of the benefit, of the Capitol Hill tunnel? Are we talking about a view-blocking high-level bridge parallel to the Ship Canal Bridge that displaces traffic lanes and homes in Roanoke Park? Or a lower "mid level" with a drawspan, no less view-blocking, that will sometimes cause the system to break down? None of these would be cheap, none would be uncontroversial, and none of them would serve the urban centers. The neighboring communities are going to be up in arms, and after alienating all of them, we'll realize we wasted a more time and money and that we should have just gone with the tunnel like we decided before, after years of meticulous deliberation on a multitude of alternatives.
Jonathan Dubman
Letter from Jon Layzer (for Mayor Schell) to Jon Dubman
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your recent letter to Mayor Schell regarding the Sound Transit light rail plans. The Mayor asked me to respond directly to your letter on his behalf. Your letter reflects a solid grasp of many of the key issues facing Sound Transit as the Board decides how to move forward with the project.
In your letter, you suggest that Sound Transit consider very seriously the possibility of routing University Link under the Montlake Cut to save money, allow for shallower stations, and provide a better interface for future eastside connections. This suggestion points to some of the key sticking points for moving forward with any part of the University District to Downtown tunnel at this time. Determining whether this alternative would result in the added benefits and cost savings will take time and further analysis. If feasible, it would require roughly two years to complete an SEIS.
At the same time, the Mayor is urging that we re-look at an alternative alignment closer to I-5 which could result in even greater cost savings, and greater hope of building out the entire system as envisioned within a reasonable timeframe. The Mayor recognizes that any alignment that does not serve First Hill and Capitol Hill directly would require much better connections between these centers, downtown, and the regional "spine." Creating these connections without the tunnel is clearly a tall order, and could only be seriously studied in the timeframe of a SEIS.
The mayor has heard "loud and clear" from the citizens of Seattle that we need to move forward - both to maintain our partnership with the Federal government, and to keep faith with the voters. At the June board meetings, Sound Transit staff are presenting a proposal for how we can move forward, focusing first on the portion of the system where the least controversy exists over alignments - between Convention Place Station (CPS) and South Henderson Street. A key part of the proposed work plan between now and September would be to finalize the north and south limits of this initial construction segment. The Mayor is asking Sound Transit to include preliminary study of a northern alignment closer to I-5 in this timeframe to determine whether this alternative is an option worth studying further in a SEIS.
Your observations about ridership and cost per rider are accurate and fair. In fact, University Link has the highest ridership of any new light rail system initial segment in the country. Ridership projections for the CPS to Henderson segment [are comparable to those for the light rail system] planned in Minneapolis, and system extensions planned in Newark, Portland, San Diego, Denver and Dallas. The Mayor - in deciding which segment to recommend building first - is focused not so much on how to assure the highest ridership on an initial segment, but more on how to improve our chances of building the entire system within a reasonable timeframe.
As I mentioned your letter reflects a good grasp on many of the issues facing the Sound Transit Board. The points you raise have been discussed, at length, by City staff and the Mayor. I would be happy to talk with you further about these issues if you would like...
Jon Layzer, Strategic Advisor
Strategic Planning Office
City of Seattle