Attn: James Irish, Link Environmental Manager
Sound Transit
401 S. Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98104Fax: 206-398-5217 Comments on Scoping for the SEIS to examine alternative Link routes from downtown Seattle to Northgate
1. This is billed as a Supplemental EIS, not a completely new look at the north alignment. It must be kept in mind that an Locally Preferred Alternative (to NE 45th St.) has already been selected, and any modification to this selection must be shown to represent a definite improvement to it. The "Eastlake" alternative routes suggested in the Scoping announcement fail to meet this criterion and should be quickly eliminated during the initial screening for viable options.
2. There remain compelling reasons to follow the LPA in serving the dense urban centers (First Hill, Capitol Hill, and the University District). In particular, options omitting First Hill and Capitol Hill in preference to the Cascade and Eastlake neighborhoods have been examined at least three times already. The conclusion every time has been that it is cost-effective to serve First Hill and Capitol Hill; this alignment picks up at least 25 thousand daily riders for a additional cost of less than $200 million, compared to the best alternative that omits these highly urbanized areas. Furthermore, the plan approved by the 1996 election included an understanding that these areas would be served unless it became technically infeasible to do so, and to omit them now would renege on that promise.
3. The SEIS for the segment from 45th St. to Northgate has been folded into this expanded SEIS. This portion of the SEIS is essentially compete, except to accomodate possible changes in the alignment through the University District, and this work should not be redone. One point brought out in this earlier work, however, is that there is no acceptable location for removing spoils in the Roosevelt District, and more thought should be given to doing this at the southern campus station.
4. The major reason for conducting this SEIS is to find a better crossing of the Ship Canal than that provided by the deep Portage Bay tunnel specified in the current LPA. The bridge crossings are clearly problematic, as was demonstrated by the (somewhat cursory) examination of a high-level bridge in the original EIS. A tunnel crossing either to the west of Portage Bay (near the University Bridge) or to the east (near Montlake Bridge) is very likely to be much shallower than the Portage Bay tunnel, and therefore allow shallower and less expensive stations in the University District. The Montlake alignment is particularly intriguing, since a Rainier Vista station (if feasible) whould provide better service to the UW than the Pacific St. location in the current LPA.
5. Financing for the northern extension is going to be difficult, and the immediate target for the northern interim terminus should be kept at 45th St. to assure a doable project. Moreover, it is important that Sound Transit now aggressively pursue a large federal contribution to the northern extension, in order to move ahead quickly with this essential project. This almost certainly will be the most significant transit project competing for federal funds in the next funding cycle (FY 2004-09), and Sound Transit must immediately begin lobbying Congress to put it at the very top of the list. Considering that the initial MOS is going forward with an extemely modest 24 percent federal share, it is not unreasonable to ask for a 67 percent share for the northern extension -- a contribution admittedly close to one billion dollars. But, adjusted for inflation, this is still less than the largest federal transit grants previously awarded. Los Angeles in particular got three consecutive grants each in excess of $600 million (the final one was more than $1 billion) for the very expensive, all-tunnel Red Line.
John Deeter
5017 15th Ave. NE, Apt. 103
Seattle, WA 98105206-527-4534 -- bj556@scn.org
November 8, 2001