The consequences of either south-oriented scenario (i.e., scenario 2 or 3) would be devastating to the hope of building any decent-sized portion of the Link system in the near future. The major reason for considering a south-oriented scenario is to avoid making a decision right now on going ahead with the Capitol Hill tunnel. But the question then becomes, if we're not willing to start now on the Capitol Hill tunnel when it is relatively easy to do so, why should we want to do so any time in the future when it could become quite a bit more difficult? We are then faced with the obvious alternative: a Fairview-Eastlake alignment that serves Cascade, South Lake Union and Eastlake instead of First Hill and Capitol Hill.
Something close to this alignment was studied in the Link EIS, but it took a long detour all the way west to Seattle Center and was therefore a good deal longer that the more natural Fairview-Eastlake corridor. Furthermore, it appears that Sound Transit staff treated it almost as a joke, since it cost nearly as much as the Capitol Hill route while suffering a severe loss in ridership (about 25K riders per day). In any event, an SEIS for the segment from CPS to the University District is almost certainly required if this alignment is going to be seriously considered.
An SEIS is going to take from 18 to 24 months to complete.
This rules out applying the TEA-21 federal money in hand to this alternative -- there just isn't enough time (28 months) left in the current funding cycle to go through all the federal hoops to make this happen. I think everybody realizes this.
And what is the likely outcome of an SEIS for a Fairview-Eastlake alignment? First off, it has to ultimately be compared to the Capitol Hill tunnel since the latter although expensive still remains a feasible option. And there's no way it's going to win this comparison since the Capitol Hill tunnel generates a much higher ridership. Moreover, in January 2000, the FTA issued a formal Record of Decision accepting the EIS and the associated LPA. The situation is made even stickier because Sound Transit signed an FFGA (in January 2001) that included the Capitol Hill tunnel, although this agreement was subsequently annulled by Mr. Mineta, the new Secretary of Transportation. I think Sound Transit would find it very difficult to work around strenuous objections from the FTA (and ultimately from the OIG of USDOT as well) if it now tried to abandon the Capitol Hill tunnel in favor of a considerably inferior alignment in view of prior (and still existing!) assurances that it was willing to undertake this project.
Abandonding the Capitol Hill tunnel will also have profound consequences on City, County and Regional growth-management plans that have consistently endorsed service to high-density urban centers (including Capitol Hill and First Hill) and re-affirmed on numerous occasions that the LPA is the logical alignment to achieve this goal. (See specifically the 2030 regional plan adopted in late May 2001.)
It will take three years minimum to develope the Fairview-Eastlake alternative, then go to FTA and try to convince it that this makes sense. If they agree, it will be 2006 or so before we could possibly start construction. All this effort to save $200 million and then lose 25K daily riders. It really isn't worth it.
I'm becoming very concerned that "going south" is going to wind up a total disaster. There's even more opposition in the south to a reasonable alignment than there is in the north -- the Rainier Valley lawsuit may drag on for years, Tukwila hasn't bought into the (new) I-5 alignment, Sea-Tac won't allow a station adjacent to SR-99 (which is why it's been moved into NEAT), nobody can give firm dates for NEAT construction. Furthermore, the plan to "go south" accepts the extremely pessimistic view that no federal money from the next funding cycle will be made available, forcing the North King subarea to burn up almost all of its funds to finance it. And there's no plan to go north until a new source of local money becomes available.
I don't see how the Link project goes forward without a better plan for leveraging federal funding. Sound Transit has to start building Link northward at least a short distance in order to get any federal money out of the next funding cycle (starting in FY04). The easiest way to do this is to apply the presently available $500 million to a "short" MOS, leaving a sizeable portion of North King money as the local match for a second FFGA/MOS signed early in the next funding cycle. I think this is a much lower-risk proposition than "going south", where getting any more federal money without a new public vote is problematic.
Moreover, the level of federal funding could very well be higher than many local people are assuming, provided the high-ridership segment is undertaken right away. Link is the only large project currently entering the pipeline -- the only other comparable project is Orange County CA light rail. This project is completely dead in the water because OC cities (Anaheim, Santa Ana, etc.) won't buy into the alignment that OCTA (the transit agency) has developed. While caps of "$500 M per FFGA", and "$100 M per year" might well apply other, dinky new starts and incremental extensions, they should not be applied to major new starts such as Link and OC light rail. There is a misapprehension here that has to be corrected.
People -- both inside and outside Sound Transit -- need to develop a more balanced plan that concentrates first on the highest ridership segments. This consideration strongly suggests concentrating on the segment from 45th St. to McClellan (MOS-A in the Link EIS). It's doable with $1 billion in federal money plus most of North King funds. It generates 110 thousand rides per day compared to 51 thousand for the "south" option, and costs just a measely $300 million more!
Another possibility is to kill the entire project, and put everything back on the table -- including monorail, which a lot of semi-informed people seem to really love, and an all-bus system, which was studied in the JRPC phase and rejected in favor of fixed-guideway. This would be really expensive -- we would give up the $200 million local funds already spent on the project and the $500 million federal contribution already in hand.
In summary: It makes no sense to kill the Link project just on the verge of construction or even to try to make any major changes in it such as abandoning the Capitol Hill tunnel. At this late date, these alternative courses have become exceedingly expensive, and it is now much more reasonable to forge ahead. The construction risks are actually pretty modest, and financial risks are also very small if the right phasing of the project is pursued.
Some more questions that the "south-oriented" scenario raises:
- What are the consequences if the "Locally Preferred Alternative" (LPA) north of downtown is partially or entirely abandoned in favor of an Eastlake alignment?
- What City, County and Regional plans would such a decision affect?
- How far back in the planning process would we have to cycle in order to create a new LPA?
- Would we have to restart the whole process entirely, putting all alternatives (including monorail) back on the table?
- How long would this take and how much would it cost?
- Wouldn't such a retrenching completely demoralize planning staff and participating citizens?
- Is either Scenario (2) or (3) even remotely realistic?
- Doesn't the EIS strongly supports the LPA north of Downtown, and hasn't the Federal Transit Administration recognized this conclusion in its "Record of Decision" issued in January 2000?
- Would the FTA allow Sound Transit to abandon the most productive part of the LPA (U. District, Capitol Hill, First Hill) without rewriting the entire EIS?
- Wouldn't a second EIS very likely still support the Capitol Hill alignment over an Eastlake alignment?
- Hasn't the current specification of the LPA been endorsed by City ordinance and hence must be regarded as established City policy?
John Deeter, 6/24/01. revised 7/4/01
Send e-mail to:
John Deeter <bj556@scn.org>
This is a link to John Deeter's home page.
