Sound Transit Board
SOUND TRANSIT BOARD MEETING
Thursday July 26th, 2001[Notes by John Deeter]
Attending: Earling (chair), Enslow, Nickels, Crawford, Davis, Drewel, Gates, Hague, Hansen, McIver, MacDonald, Phelps, Schell, Sims (late), and Sullivan. [Ladenburg, McKenna, and White never spoke and apparently were absent.]
[Meeting started at 2:00 pm, but I didn't arrive until 2:30. Much of the public comment was apparently devoted to the proposal to reconfigure the I-90 floating bridge.]
Earl [executive director]: Paul Price is quitting as head of Sounder division. Earling, Enslow, Drewel, and Nickels thank Price for his work, followed by applause for Price. JE: staff is still working on finding a new Chief Administrative Officer.
COP semi-annual report
Shockey [COP chair]: report applauds effort to keep Link alive, but warns [that it is also important] to implement a viable system. Also warns that Sounder is over budget and behind schedule. [Board has made a lot of] progress in recovering from the crisis of late last year, but needs to tackle issues regarding Sounder. It's a popular program, and Board needs to take care that it doesn't [start to get strongly critized] like Link. [In COP's view Link should be a regional system], starting at Seattle CBD and expanding from it in phases -- Link is [just one] part of a comprehensive transportation system that includes roads, commuter rail, etc. COP believes that the 6/28 decision [at the last Board meeting] included a commitment to complete [the entire] Link light rail project. Ten years [of study] lead up to the selection of the LPA in 1999. That decision is defensible -- the chosen LPA was the best among [all] alternatives, [based on specified criteria]. The [upcoming] final decision [on the LPA] must adhere to the same criteria. If tunnels are [still determined to be] a necessary part of the system, their cost must be addressed [and justified]. The PRC has muddled some issues, and its mission should be clarified. There are ambiguities and confusion about [allociating] subarea contributions to the Regional Fund, and the Board should also clarify its own role in this matter.
Earling: [asks about COP's evaluation] of Sounder north corridor costs. Shockey: COP noted that Sounder costs have grown from $770 M to $943 M, and apparently will go well over $1 billion when additonal costs of mitigation and Mukliteo station are included. Some cost increase may be due to Sounder picking up costs the State was support to cover, [but it's unfortunate] that costs are ticking up on a popular program.
Earling: thanks COP, and believes that the process [oversight?] is working the way it should.
Goverence Task Force
Gates [GTF chair]: GTF proposes three resolutions to restructure the Board and its committees, and to clarify their roles. [Two adopted, third abolishes TOD committee and is referred to the Executive Committee for further review.] Gates: requests that the EC handle this matter "expediously".
Hiring consultant to audit Link cost estimates
[Staff proposes to augment an existing contract with Deloitte & Touche, for more extensive auditing of Link cost estimates. Staff has broken the additional work into four pieces: (1) assessment of reasonableness and accuracy of the 1999 LPA budget; (2) identification of reasons for cost growth between FFGA budget and current budget for LPA; (3) review development of current cost estimate for "revised" MOS-1; (4) review of ST estimating systems for the project.]
Crawford: why are all of these consultants from Philadelphia? [Staffperson]: that's where they work.
McIver: why wasn't public bidding done [for this work]? [Staffperson]: not enough time, not much interest [by anyone else] to do it.
Phelps: when will work be finished? [Staffperson]: ##1, 2, 4 by end of October, #3 [undetermined?]. Phelps: But #4 [#3?] won't be started until Ocober? [Staffperson]: Yes, but [ST staff] prefers to do them all at once.
Enslow: not comfortable with cost increase in [this] contract, would rather spend money on project. Considers Link cost overruns already over and done with.
Sullivan: did Board request this work? [Staffperson]: yes. Sullivan: shouldn't we be looking forward, not back? [Contract] way over budgeted, staff should do some of it. Will vote no.
Schell: Why not hire these guys and fire the old ones? Compounding consultants. Go ahead, and make sure finance committee controls [costs].
Davis: not sure [proposed work] is of value.
Nickels: in favor of proposal. In 1999 Board made a decision on the LPA based on the best [available] cost estimates, which were wrong by hundreds of millions of dollars. [ST] now trying to fix problems that were caused by bad estimates, needs confidence that the new estimates are on more solid ground. If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat [the same mistakes]. [Need to] make sure this doesn't happen again.
Earling: Could we do #3 and #4 [in time] to be useful for [Board] decision in September? [Staffperson]: yes.
Phelps: understands value of #3 and #4. If #1 and #2 have deliverables that help us [they could be worthwhile]. Need tangibles to be sure we don't make same mistakes. [It's] challenging to make good estimates.
Drewel: wasn't original budget for all four $100 K? [Staffperson]: too complex [project] for so little money. [These] consultants get up to $250 per hour -- very busy, highly competent.
Sims: will reviewing history improve current estimates? [Staffperson]: staff has already reviewed [the history]. Sims: doesn't see what tools come out of this audit. Doesn't like #1 and #2, skeptical about #3 and #4. [Why] review our [previous] consultants? We know what we did wrong. [Earl?]: [Link up to] $80 M in design right now, so review is slightly over 1/2 percent. Sims: and then [will we do] another review of cost estimates? Can't support [this proposal].
Crawford: moves to subsitute just #3 and #4, and have [them ready] in time for Sept. decision.
Enslow: should we be this suspicious of our consultants? Earling: this [proposal] was due to a prior Board request, by a vote of 8-3. Earl: issue is Board and public confidence. Reviews history of Link [cost overruns] last year. Board needs confidence [in project] to move forward.
Gates: supports [doing] #3 and $4, [needs a] check that new cost estimates are [valid].
Nickels: wants [to do] all four, but supports a motion for [just] #3 and #4. [ST has other problems, such as] more recent incomplete cost estimate for north Sounder. [Link is a bigger] undertaking, a $3.6 B project.
MacDonald: what will consultant's report look like? [Consultant]: will evaluate both method and costs, and give a "positive" statement [regarding] observations. We're only consultants, not management. [Previously] evaluated Boston "Big Dig", which had elements of [both] prospective and retrospective analysis. MacD: is this [just] a "tire kick"? [Consultant]: much more, will "look under the hood" and give a full report. MacD: #3 is most important, [should] make sure system is the best possible. It's a two-stage process.
Nickels: suggests #4 should be done before #3. [Someone (MacDonald?) moves to do only #4.]
Earling: how fast to do #4? [Consultant]: in Sept. time frame. [Crawford accepts doing just #4 as a friendly amendment.] [Consultant]: [accepts a] cap of $100 K on #4, is comfortable with $25 K for indirect costs. MacDonald [making sure of amounts]: that's $75 K [for direct costs], plus $25 K for indirect.
[Amendment is adopted unaminously, and so is the main motion.]
I-90 two-way transit operations
[Earl?]: question is [whether to do] an evironmental assessment, an EIS, or defer [decision].
Nickels: EIS is necessary to look at [full] range of alternatives.
Enslow: agrees, and need partner [to help pay costs of reconfiguring] I-90.
Sims: [questions] FHA involvement. McDonald: has same question.
Sullivan: moves to do EIS. [Board adopts this proposal.]
Central Link
[Earl gives a progress report.]
[Link staffperson]: on 8/9 Board [is scheduled to make at least three decisions]: north and south termini, and whether to include currently deferred Royal Brougham station. Three possible south termini: 200th St., 154th St., Henderson St. Board [indicated] preference for 200th at 6/28 meeting -- has highest ridership, good bus transfers, doesn't need further EIS. But funding may not be available, and need to coordinate Airport station with [Port of Seattle]. 154th -- location depends on Tukwila alignment, SEIS still underway [for I-5 alternative]. But, [154th] never looked at as a terminus, need to add turn-back facility, may require additional property [acquisitions]. [Already] includes a park-and-ride lot, bus connections are possible. [200th and 154th] tap into south King funding. [But] need to [develop] high level of confidence in cost estimates to take to FTA. Henderson -- previously looked at as terminus, already has turn-back facility [designed in]. High confidence in cost estimate, [but] ridership is smaller than other two options. Relies entirely on north King funds.
Lewis [ST staff]: C-Link task force will look at Airport issues at next meeting.
Nickels: when could we start "breaking ground"? [Staffperson]: could start in Spring 2002. Critical paths include Beacon Hill tunnel, maintenance base, E-3 busway.
Earl: possible north termini are Royal Brougham station and CPS. [Staffperson]: different operations [for the two options]. [Could do] bus intercepts at CPS [IDS?], Royal Brougham, and Lander, as discussed in report. Extending Link northward [involves two investigations]: alternatives to Capitol Hill alignment, and alternatives to crossing ship canal. Question for Board: should South Lake Union alternative be included in 18-24 month study? Task force has decided [that this alternative] should be grade separated [to handle] 4 car trains at less than 5 minute headways. [Staff] will try to estimate cost and ridership by Sept. [with the warning that they will be based on] less than 5 percent design level. [Will be only able to give] lump sum estimate for mitigation[?].
Endlich [Link staff]: [Two routes.] Boren route, with stations at Denny and Mercer, but no CPS station. [Major] impacts on Boren [due to elevated structure]. Eastlake [tunnel] route, with CPS and Harrison stations. Very confined, [may need to] reconstruct I-5 ramps, complications in being close to I-5. [Staff should] have cost and ridership estimates in 2 weeks.
McIver: Board should go and look at there routes. Please. [Staffperson]: prepared to give individual briefings and tours.
Earling: thanks staff.
Crawford: What ship canal crossings [are being considered]? [Staffperson]: Portage Bay, high level bridge, [Montlake]. [Currently about to start] Montlake borings, should have information by Sept. to say whether shallower tunnel is possible. [But] need UW and community buy-off.
Schell: [will staff] also look at shallow tunnel near University Bridge? [Staffperson]: Yes, [but no new borings, evaluation will be based on just historical information].
[Board goes into executive session.]
# # #