Sound Transit Board

Notes of June 28, 2001 meeting

Agenda

Public comment
Project Review Committee
Citizen Oversight Panel
Board Decision Matrix for Central Link work plan

1. Adopt CPS to Henderson for inclusion in new MOS
2. Continue to study joint ops in DSTT
3. Interim northern terminus
4. Study South Lake Union route
5. Finish SEIS for Northgate segment
6. Study Southcenter alignment
7. Interim southern terminus
8. Borings at Montlake cut

Motion M2001-68 to implement the 3-month workplan

Attending: Earling (chair), Crawford, Davis, Enslow, Gates, Ladenburg, McIver, McKenna, MacDonald, Nickels, Phelps, Schell, Sims, Sullivan, White.

Absent (never spoke): Drewel, Hague, Hansen.

Public comment

John Deeter: supports the LPA - it's designed to serve regional destinations. Eastlake has been studied at least 3 times in the past and every time rejected in favor of the Capitol Hill tunnel on the basis of low ridership and not serving urban centers. Must move forward and include Capitol Hill.

Mark Dublin: surface route on Eastlake not feasible. Region has spent a lot of money on stadia [points out the window] - public will also financially support transportation improvements. Cost of Link is actually quite small compared to road projects, such as SR-520, Alaska Way viaduct, etc.

Art Llewellyn: Link must go to the airport. Tunnels and tunnel stations would be a mistake. Need a transfer terminus at Royal Brougham, should not mix trains and buses in DSTT. Stress transfers to increase ridership. Prefers trains alone in DSTT.

David Ward: true believer in light rail - strong supporter of Link project despite high costs, low ridership, no effect on congestion, etc. [Very sarcastic.]

George Curtis: at-grade alignment in Rainier Valley as first phase does not serve regional needs. 95 percent of light rail accidents occur in shared ROW under 35 mph - just like proposed RV segment. RV was originally promised tunnel, then el, and now getting surface running. Proposed system is light rail only in RV, but heavy rail in the north. Being built for developers, not transit users.

Richard Harkness: wants an all-bus system, and another public vote. Hasn't [heretofore] been an honest comparison between modes. 1993 EIS compared *heavy* rail with two bus alternatives - [considerably] different in length and mode to Link.

Rich Borkowski: voted in 1996 to build a regional transit system. Let Joni Earl and ST engineers do their job. [Others are now suggesting] a hodge-podge of ideas; Eastlake/South Lake Union route has [already] been discarded. Capitol Hill with Montlake looks promising. [Capitol Hill] tunnel still a good deal; cost/rider better than Eastlake. 30 percent overrun not huge [for major project]. Stay on track with light rail.

Harvey Parker (Bellevue): tunnel engineer, worked on Mt. Baker tunnel, DSTT. Heavily involved in [pro-bono] work. Wants to minimize [counter] bad rap north tunnel is getting. Tunnels are not expensive if quality-of-life is included, and can [easily] be made user-friendly. Life-cycle cost must be considered. Tunnels are investment in environment:

• last longer than surface counterparts, more than 100-year lifetime.
• maintenance costs are lower
• double value of land, leave land available for other uses. (Example: IDS was once a mud-hole.)
• out-of-sight, out-of-mind, no blocked views
• will survive earthquakes, as in San Francisco

[Link will] provide speedy access to hospitals.

Anne Donovan (Capitol Hill): president of CHCC, on transit committee since 1997. Capitol Hill has highest density [in region], voted [strongly] for RTA in 1996, heavy transit use. Capitol Hill supports transit, would be irresponsible to by-pass Capitol Hill. [But CH has concerns about impacts and mitigation] - wants a better plan, and quick implementation.

Barry [??]: represents Broadway BIA. Not anti-transit, but weary of ST's [past] plans to do Link without mitigation. Concerned that Link might destroy park or Broadway businesses, or destroy very good bus service on Capitol Hill.

Jeff [??]: represents SCCC. Waiting for Link, SCCC believes joint development is possible. ST Board must take leadership, make hard choices. [Problems on] CH can be mitigated. SCCC is important transit user.

Ruth Borkowski (Rainier Valley): long trains at grade not acceptable, elevated line a blight, tunnel not possible everywhere. Earlier assumption was federal support would be available for Link, now fed money is doubtful and local money will be [quickly] used up.

Daniel Morton: represents SANE. Some in group not opposed to light rail. ST should continue to do things it is doing well but pause is needed [for Link system] to redevelop plan and put back before votes. ST should admit it made a mistake - go back and try again.

Dick Burkhart (Rainier Valley): has studied [Link] plan, compared it to others. [Link is] a supurb plan, only long-established systems have more ridership. Portland has only 70K riders/day. [Link is] designed correctly, serves dense urban centers. ST should stay the course. Eastlake alignment won't solve problem, will lose ridership, only supported by Seattle Times and Paul Allen. Build it.

Randy Johnson (Redmond): agrees with HP about tunnel return-on-investment. Highway lobby wants to kill Link. Eastlake is bad route. Stop at McClelland, serve Capitol Hill and U District. Agrees with DB, don't let business interests decide [alignment].

Peter Sherwin: ex-officio Board doesn't work, need to review form of government and institute a [directly] elected Board. House doesn't work, tear it down. Not a monorail advocate.

Hans Aschenbach (RNA): observes that it's easy to get "cold feet". [First] RNA statement in 1990 urged connecting urban centers with tunnel, same position today. This type of system works in any urban area, whether hilly or flat. Seattle supports [Capitol Hill tunnel]. Requests roll call on Link items later in agenda.

Dave Earling (Board Chair) gave a brief report on the public forum held on 6/20. About 200 people attended.

Project Review Committee

Charles Royer (PRC chair) summarized PRC's report, accompanyied by two other members of the committee.

Royer: committee has been working for 3 months, aided by excellent people from ST staff. Believes project is in good hands. Presents letter that gives consensus recommendations from the PRC.

Principles used to develop prelimiary recommendations: Stay focused on implementing Sound Move plan. Try to integrate ST investments with future transportation improvements. Build what's affordable. Keep feds as active funding partner. Ensure compatibility of rail and bus systems. Build on recent success. Remember that we're building in phases. Maximize capacity of existing transportation system.

Recommendations regarding the Link 3-month work program:

1. Continue to plan for construction of Link in phases.
2. Consider doing south segment first. Initial northern terminus at south edge of downtown, southern terminus at Airport. Develop plan for north alignment
3. Stop work on Capitol Hill tunnel alignment
4. Focus north analysis on South Lake Union/Eastlake
5. Revise ST financial plan, assuming no joint use in DSTT
6. Expedite selection of Link operator
7. Try to integrate Link with other major regional transportation projects
8. Complete Sounder to Snohomish County
9. Maximize use of DSTT now
10. Pursue completion of HOV access and express bus service

Schell: What kind of Eastlake alignment? at grade or shallow tunnel? CR: not specified, would take at least 3-month study. [2nd committee member]: would need engineers to determine what's possible.

Schell: need surface connectors into areas like Capitol Hill. CR: integrate it into past, present, future sytems. Need to tie together system that is not already tied together.

Schell: look at feeder systems. CR: use DSTT to connect bus lines now stalled in traffic downtown. 2nd CM: non-tunnel northern terminus doesn't imply abandonment of rail in tunnel eventually - wait until replacement of buses with rail will [actually] reduce congestion. CR: Jim Ellis feels that DSTT should be used more [effectively], don't let transit service for "good riders" deteriorate. 3rd CM: should eveluate whether more people use transit with or without joint use.

Enslow: were there a lot of different opinions [among PRC members]? CR: more consensus than I expected, [particularly on issues like] expediting selection of Link operator, [integration of] transportation systems. 2nd CM: broad consensus on a wide number of issues.

McIver: [do you recommend] going south without excluding anything north? CR: Yes. McI: won't costs increase if we wait? CR: need to make real [cost] comparisons, both Eastlake and Montlake. Have to look at alternatives [to Capitol Hill tunnel?].

McIver: still look at Montlake? CR: not right away. 3rd CM: [garbled. $500 M to convert (replace?) DSTT].

MacDonald: letter seems to imply that PRC endorses light rail as important component in future plans. Wants to hear this [stated explicitly]. CR: that may very well be true [for most members], but at least one doesn't share this view.

MacDonald: [what about consensus on] joint use of DSTT, how to optimize its use, etc. CR: before DSTT was built already [strong] support for eventual conversion to rail. [Some people] now fixated on conversion. [Better question is] how to maximize use of DSTT. 2nd CM: it's underutilized now.

Gates: [thanks Royer and PRC.] Many [most?] Board members agree with PRC's recommendations. Will study some of them in next three months. CR: staff supplied by ST tried to be independent.

McKenna: what happens next with PRC? What are we asking them to do? CR: we want to be helpful [sic!]. Willing to talk about this.

Earling: [ST Board will] redefine goals of PRC ...

Citizen Oversight Panel

Reid Shockey (COP chair) read the COP monthly report.

[Summary of COP report]: Commitments to be on-budget and on-schedule with Link have already been broken. Key questions now whether to utilize DSTT for first-phase operations and whether northern extension will serve Capitol Hill or SLU/Eastlake. COP believes it may still be possible to build MOS-1 as proposed, perhaps under some new set of assumptions. ST Board should weigh this option against other proposals and against the risks of starting from stratch with another segment with its own challenges. In 1999 Capitol Hill tunnel was adopted as the LPA based on evaluation criteria outlined in the EIS. Those criteria should still be applied in the evaluation of any alternative. Other criteria should also be introduced: maximize fed partnership, assessment of risks, sunk costs of time and effort already invested. It is already known that Eastlake alignment will have lower ridership than Capitol Hill, and may not meet the same cost/rider levels. Requires additional time to produce EIS, faces community opposition. Alternative finally adopted should match the goals and criteria of Sound Move, and be superior to the LPA. Compliments the ST Board for becoming more engaged in overseeing the Link project.

Nickels: [thanks Shockey and COP.]

Schell: shallow tunnel under Eastlake has not been studied. RS: there was a lot of study on the best alignment for the LPA. Must compare SLU/Eastlake to LPA. COP is concerned about spending a lot of time and effort [restudying Eastlake], generate controversy, just delaying the project. [Northern segment is the] critical part of the system.

Schell: if we go south first, we can study north alignment for 6 years [?]. RS: is killing Capitol Hill alignment consistent with Sound Move?

Earling: we've heard a lot of diverse opinions today, from Royer's group and COP.

[At this point the Board handled several routine matters.]

Board Decision Matrix for Central Link work plan

Earling: believes the Board is committed to building the entire 21 miles of the [initial] Link system.

Joni Earl (ST Executive Director): reviews the seven items in the "decision matrix", to guide staff in what to concentrate on the 3-month workplan leading to an indentification of the new MOS for C-Link in Sept.

McIver: does this supercede all previous workplans? JE: presumes the question to be rhetorical.

1. Adopt CPS to Henderson (common segment) for inclusion in the new MOS

Tuck Wilson (ST consultant): [starts from the middle], the segment common to 3 of 4 alternatives presently being considered. One roadblock is the Rainier Valley injunction, but that is scheduled to be resolved in July. Need to determine if Beacon Hill station would be completed.

McKenna: common segment will be included in MOS? but not MOS? Earling: Yes, it's not necessarily [all of] MOS.

MacDonald: need to take light rail all the way south to Airport, not just 8-mile [common segment]. Schell: [agrees,] don't end at Henderson, go all the way to Airport.

Nickels: ultimately need to get north to Northgate, but today we're looking at how to build an affordable part of the system with available funds.

Enslow: don't build only the common segment.

Question: what about community development fund? Ron Lewis (ST staff): it's going forward. Enslow: is funding in place? Schell: Yes.

Ladenburg: wants CPS to Airport, 200th St.

McIver: does workplan for community development fund include an MOA with City? RL: trying to finalize this by September.

Item #1 was adopted unanimously.

2. Continue to study joint ops in DSTT

Wilson: staff has determined that joint rail-bus use in DSTT is technically feasible.

McKenna: aren't there still life-fire safety concerns [that might prevent joint use]? TW: these concerns limit number of buses that can be operated, [not joint use per se]. McK: if we decide against joint use, will there be intercept terminals? TW: Yes, we're providing for this [possibility]. Schell: there are serious questions [about safety] that need to be addressed. TW: we're looking at alternatives if joint use is not possible.

McIver: third option - buses only? TW: yes, terminating at Royal Brougham is a possibility.

McKenna: look at impacts [of joint use] on transit ridership. TW: staff will attempt to do this.

Item #2 was adopted by consensus.

3. Interim northern terminus

Wilson: three alternatives: Royal Brougham transfer terminus. CPS, which preserves all [possible northward] options. Capitol Hill, which has highest ridership but needs full $500 M from feds and resolution of station location. [Still some questions about] affordability of Capitol Hill alignment.

Crawford: supports CPS [as interim terminus], but should continue to look at Montlake alignment.

Ladenburg: designate CPS, it leaves [open] all options for going north.

Nickels: most Board members see CPS as [preferred] terminus, but should also look at Capitol Hill and alternatives to Portage Bay tunnel. Capitol Hill and First Hill serve schools, hospitals and provide superior ridership. Capitol Hill alignment should be included in 3-month workplan.

McKenna: should wait to decide how to go north. Look at transfer option at Royal Brougham or IDS for three months. [Keep tunnel for buses only], 85 percent of buses come from outside Seattle. A lot less work [not having to convert tunnel].

Sullivan: [we're only specifying a likely] interim northern terminus, not designating the final MOS? Earl: [yes, staff] needs to know what to study. TW: [such as,] from Capitol Hill how far south can we go? CS: wants to keep CPS and Capitol Hill [in workplan].

Phelps: wants to study Royal Brougham as a transfer termus, CPS as well.

Schell: seconds Phelps, but maybe Capitol Hill should be kept on the table [for later study]. Keep looking at bus-[only] option.

Earling: is that a motion to restrict [northern termini] to CPS and Royal Brougham? [PS: Yes.]

Enslow: likes Capitol Hill and [possible] Montlake alignment. Don't study north of CPS if that's not going forward, need to concentrate on segment we will build. Should do Montlake borings.

Gates: Royal Brougham food for thought, but would require two transfers from Federal Way - [to train at 200th, back to bus at RB]. Need information about Montlake cut.

Sims: comfortable with CPS, why restrict [options about going north]? What work is avoided if Capitol Hill is off? JE: [won't have to address several questions;] Can Capitol Hill station [serve as] interim terminus? Can we keep full $500 M [from feds]? Total cost [of Capitol Hill alignment]? Nagle vs. Broadway station location? How to go north - Portage Bay or Montlake? TW: [Partly covered by item #4,] studying possible Eastlake alignment.

Nickels: can't support [Phelps-Schell motion]. [Transfer terminus at] Royal Brougham lacks vision, trip to nowhere. Downtown has to be included [in MOS]. Wants information on Capitol Hill [terminus], there are issues with [changing] the FFGA, very high ridership segment. Keep all three options on the table.

McIver: agrees with Nickels and Sullivan, Capitol Hill must be studied. South Seattle people want to go somewhere [such as CH]. Fall in ridership [if line stops at CPS]. Joint ops in DSTT serves Seattle riders. Is First Hill a possible terminus [although this would be very short tunnel]?

Schell: don't need to serve Capitol Hill [directly], Eastlake is cheaper, faster to build.

McIver: two concerns - need to study Montlake and need to get to UW. If we can end tunnel at 45th St., why not at Capitol Hill?

Davis: Capitol Hill to 200th St. not [financially] doable, supports CPS.

Earling: need to keep Capitol Hill in play for [next] 3 months. Interested in less deep tunnel via Montlake. Ridership issue is key, [to ignore it is to] walk away from key bond with voters.

McKenna: motion needs amendment to tell how far south to go. Can't [even] get to Henderson with funds in hand. Staff nees to tell [us] where to stop.

Earling: this information will come back. [No second for McKenna's amemdment.]

Ladenburg: public will accept CPS to Airport. Not prepared [yet] to say how to go north. Need to get into South King and use their funds.

Schell: not a vote against Capitol Hill [sic!].

McIver: does proposal include complete build out of Beacon Hill station? JE: we'll look at this, perhaps $30 M extra. McI: will vote no at this time.

Sullivan: [moves amendment to] add Capitol Hill as interim terminus. [Seconded.]

Sullivan amendment failed, five yeas: Sullivan, Nickels, McIver, Earling, Crawford. [Hans Aschenbach says that Enslow and possibly Sims also voted yea, so vote was 6-8 or possibly 7-7, assuming MacDonald abstained.]

Phelps-Schell proposal passed, same five voting nay. [HA says that his count on #4 (typo for #3?) Yes was "Enslow, Davis (I think), Gates, Ladenburg, McKenna, Phelps, Schell, Sims and White", so vote was 9-5, with MacDonald abstaining.]

4. Study South Lake Union route

Wilson: staff will develop a conceptual SLU route.

McKenna: what is a "conceptual route"? TW: staff received suggestion [from Board members] that SLU route would be less expensive with competative ridership, but without specifying a precise route. A task force [would select the most promising route]. McK: How much work does this involve? Is it valuable? TW: some information is included in EIS, but [new route will eventually need] an SEIS. McK: would work be completed in 3 months? TW: [might get] consensus on alternative, but SEIS would take 18 to 24 months, would need new local funds, and [possibly] new vote. C-Link [would effectively be divided into] two parts: CPS to Airport, CPS northward. [Latter would require a completely] new FFGA.

Nickels: also questions the value of [only] three months' work. Why [need to] look at SLU so quickly? Not even a concept. Stay focused on south, then look at all options for going north.

Schell: Earl can give us a conceptual cost estimate. Look at connections to Capitol Hill as well. Need a shallow tunnel, but also look at Montlake borings. Don't take Capitol Hill off the table.

Phelps: need information we can rely on, solid numbers. Don't put staff time into SLU, [not enough time to] make informed decision.

McIver: confused about taking Capitol Hill off, but keeping Montlake on.

Sullivan: [we were told] Airport station not available before 2014. TW: [new estimate] not open before 2009. JE: Airport plans to begin construction in 2004, but can't give reliable date. [Airport wants] ST to be ready when it is. Port of Seattle says 2006-07.

Nickels: return to SLU question in 90 days. Focus [now] on south, later talk about Capitol Hill and SLU in a more deliberate fashion.

Phelps: could have the PRC look at SLU, while staff looks at going south.

[Someone]: slow down on Capitol Hill but move forward on SLU.

Earling: [these decisions are] sending mixed signals to north Seattle residents.

Sims: important to have information [on SLU] in 90 days.

Nickels: will take 18 to 20 months [to do SEIS] for SLU.

Sullivan: level of detail for SLU alignment not even close to that for Capitol Hill. Things always look wonderful until details [are considered]. Part of SLU alignment is in water. Risk going part-way down the path, abandon Capitol Hill, and then discover we made horrendous mistake. [Board] is making a "Kingdome" decision. We've been planning for 20 years, each planning decision has come to same conclusion: north segment is essential, because of [high] ridership, service to dense areas. Don't do this with a kiddie-kar in a dense area. Need [alignment] in tunnel. Will regret decision to go south. We can affort to build what we promised the voters. It may be a little risky, but [more] risky to build system that nobody rides. Ridiculous. It's got to go where people want to go - Capitol Hill, U District, Northgate. Main fascination with SLU is it's cheap - only justification, no other reason ...

Schell: I'll give you one ... CS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor ... PS: ... development. CS: ... I don't need your comments.

Ladenberg: CPS to Airport makes sense to [many] people in the region, even though it takes out of play high ridership areas [sic!]. [But] gets over arguments of where to build it.

Item #4 was adopted, 8-6.

5. Finish SEIS for Northgate segment

Nickels: feels we need to get to Northgate, but need [for now] to focus on going south. Should stop work on Northgate SEIS.

McKenna: agrees, but can't leave property owners in limbo. Try to solve this situation in next three months.

Item #5 was rejected unanimously.

6. Study Southcenter alignment

Sims: No money [available for Southcenter alignment], not realistic, not worth looking at.

McKenna: but continue to look at I-5. TW: staff intends to finish I-5 SEIS, [probably will become] LPA. McK: does Tukwila [now] only support Southcenter? Concerned about Tukwila's [position].

Enslow: Tukwila doen't support I-5 alignment? After [we agreed to spend an extra] $60 M?

Item #6 was rejected unanimously.

7. Interim southern terminus

Gates: supports 200th St. Logical terminus, good bus-rail connections.

McKenna: not one of the four scenarios [in last version of May/June Workbook]. What are the capital costs? Does $2 B included "soft costs"? JE: Yes. McK: how much will be available after capital costs? [Answer missing.] TW: [would try] to do CPS to 200th if it could be opened by 2009. [One of] several questions to be answered by September. McK: [still thinks there] isn't enough money to get to 200th.

Enslow: isn't alternative #3 CPS to 154th? McK: it was changed back to 200th.

Item #7 was adopted unanimously.

8. Borings at Montlake cut

Wilson: Kara Palmer (ST staff) suggests Board vote on doing Montlake borings.

Item #8 was adopted unanimously.

Motion M2001-68 to implement the 3-month workplan

Adopted, with Sullivan voting nay.

[The Board went into executive session.]

Notes by John Deeter, 6/30/01

# # #