Sound Transit Board
SOUND TRANSIT BOARD MEETING
Thursday August 23rd, 2001[Notes by John Deeter]
Public Comment
Carol Sitzoff (Seattle LRRP): MLK [becoming less of a green street]; fewer trees, more above-ground clutter than earlier design specified.
Michael Richmond (RVTAC): Beacon Hill station should be included [in initial MOS]. Supports undergrounding utilities on MLK.
Mark Dublin: Joint operations in DSTT need to be well planned. Will be labor intensive, and need better buses - Bredas are inadequate.
Ruth Korkowsky: Airport Link [is a waste of money] - has a poor federal rating (incremental cost per new rider).
Phil Grega: asks whether fiber optic cables will be included in Link construction.
Translake DEIS & I-405
Barbara Gilliland: Four alternatives [are now being considered] for I-405 expansion: (1) HCT/TDM; (2) Transit; (3) Mixed mode with 2 general purpose lanes each direction; (4) Maximize roadway capacity. (3) is the preliminary preferred alternative, including a BRT/HOV system. I-405 [plans] recognize relationship to SR-520 project.
Enslow: are there plans to preserve BN railroad ROW? BG: no one has identified a funding source - not clear that BN would be willing to sell. Enslow: notes that ROW is 70 to 100 feet wide.
Gilliland: 8 options for Translake: "no action", "safety and preservation", plus mix and match [of transit and vehicular options]. Both fixed guideway and BRT/HOV transit are under consideration. A new transit connection somewhere between I-90 and SR-520 has been eliminated.
Enslow: who is the lead agency [for Translake]? BG: Both WSDOT and Sound Transit. Question: when will [Translake] be built? BG: hope to start in 2004, but depends on financing. Question: is this project part of [voter] approved ST program? BG: No, but ST need to participate in these studies. Earling: Board previously made a decision to participate. McKenna: this is a Phase 2 issue - ST needs to plan for a second vote.
Gilliland: SR-520 fixed guideway would require second connection to downtown Seattle. Capital costs for I-405 expansion are $6-11 billion, for Translake $4-8.7 billion. Funding for both is uncertain.
Bus Rapid Transit
Scott Rutherford (UW): there are a range of definitions for BRT - "you'll know it when you see it". Explains key attributes of BRT. Cites examples from Vancouver BC and Brisbane Australia. Ideally, should have dedicated ROW. Both optical or mechanical guidance has been explored. [Element of "mystique":] BRT is generally given an identity and image to distiguish it from ordinary buses. Packages buses in a different way. Level boarding [is almost a necessity]. Often lookes more like a light rail [than an ordinary bus] system. Often uses Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) to control bus spacing, achieve high service levels.
Nickels: this region has no pre-existing ROWs, except for Aurora and I-90. Is BRT reliable? Are there problems with breakdowns? Rutherford: some data available [indicates breakdowns] cause some probles.
Sims: [what is maximum] capacity? Is signal sychronization [a component]? Rutherford: carrying capacity [similar to light rail] - 10 k per hour has been achieved in Ottawa.
McKenna: Seattle [area] is already an example of BRT, with its extensive HOV system and the DSTT. BRT is a possible phase II investment.
Phelps: are on-board amenities like those on commuter rail possible? Rutherford: relining seats are possible.
Sims: Metro is looking at BRT on Aurora, and [also] an Eastside route. Rutherford: locally [emphasis] has been on electronic [control], less on guideway development.
Earling: not everyone is convinced that BRT is applicable to the I-5 corridor.
Executive Director's Report
Joni Earl: gives report on ridership.
Auburn Commuter Rail Station
[Staffperson]: Garage enhancements paid by city of Auburn. Restrooms [already] included, but just for tenants.
Central Link Light Rail
Earl: staff still looking at Sea-Tac Airport [as the southern terminus], but is recommending S. 154th St.
§ Joint Operations in DSTT
Mike Williams (ST staff): Joint operations [might be feasible even] with extension to Northgate (2015 and beyond). Optimized operating plans yield 10 trains and 60 buses per hour, [with] a new plan for separating buses and trains. Looking at hybrid diesel-electric buses, and plan to test in tunnel next year. Conversion will require a 24-month retrofit, with $13.5 million [allocated] for surface mitigation. Surface bus volumes will return to today's level in joint operations. Rail alone capacity is 16.44 thousand per hour, bus alone 5.7 thousand, joint operations 8.24 thousand. Expect 50 thousand light rail boardings per day [for CPS to Sea-Tac], but only 21 thousand with Royal Brogham terminus.
Crawford: Will 3rd Avenue be restricted to bus-only in peak hour during conversion? MW: Yes, it will be [a lot] like BRT.
Schell: would like a report on the ST briefing to the downtown Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Earling: good meeting, not a lot of adverse reaction. Earl: Mike Vaska said [report on DSTT joint operations] was received very well, and was glad to hear that Metro and ST [now] agree on ridership estimates.
McKenna: [are you still claiming] 16 thousand [per hour] rail ridership? Williams: [actually,] 15 thousand in peak direction at full build-out. McKenna: what is the [additional] cost of operating buses longer in tunnel? [Metro staffperson]: less cost [to Metro] because of cost sharing with ST. McKenna: don't you lose half of [rail] ridership if a transfer is required [at 154th St.]? Jim Parsons[?]: explains ridership model which does penalize transfers, but generally predicts higher ridership with rail because of improved travel speed. McKenna: How many suttle buses [are required for the Royal Brougham terminus]? Williams: 24 buses per hour. McKenna: still doesn't understand why ridership drops from 50 thousand [per day for CPS terminus] to 21 thousand [for Royal Brougham]. [Does model assume] 80 percent load for buses but 185 percent for trains? Williams: Yes. McKenna: wants to make sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison. Is [minimum] train headway now 6 minutes instead of 5? Williams: yes, 6 minutes at the beginning.
Schell: Why is there a 50 percent drop with the transfer at Royal Brougham? Parsons: [that's what the model shows]. Schell: earlier suggested having transfers at both ends [of the DSTT], since the two-year conversion time will be a burden on Downtown.
Sims: is the [21 thousand] forecast for Airport or Henderson terminus? Parsons: from the Airport, with a two transfers for south county riders - first to rail and then back to buses at Royal Brougham. Sims: has problems with this double transfer from south county. [??]: some would have the option not to transfer.
Enslow: rail line should go from some place to somewhere, prefers CPS to Airport. Earling: [please] hold this comment [until after northern terminus presentation].
§ Interim Northern Terminus
Earl: staff recommends CPS.
Ahmad Fazel [Link Director]: both Royal Brougham and CPS are feasible [for the northern terminus]. Advantages of CPS: efficient use of DSTT (but adds additional cost of $60 to $125 million, including $43 million for ...), direct service from south, easy transfer to east and north, 50 thousand riders per day from [southern terminus at] 200th in 2020 (not including Royal Brougham and Beacon Hill stations). McKenna: how many new riders? Fazel: doesn't have the number [but will supply it]. Earling: what is the Beacon Hill ridership? Fazel: highest value among south stations.
Schell: why not transfer at IDS [intstead of RB]? Fazel: technical problems [preclude this]. Schell: would like information on cost of IDS option.
Enslow: what is the cost of [conversion to] joint operations - $60 million? Fazel: that's the cost of using CPS as the interim terminus. Earl: cost of transfer of DSTT to ST would be deferred, but will need to negotiate with Metro about rental cost.
Schell: should look at requiring transfers at both IDS and CPS, extending north to Northgate, and run bus-only in DSTT.
Fazel: specifics of Royal Brougham terminus: bus shuttle is feasible, but adds $35 million to LPA costs. $8 million per year to operate shuttle buses (24 per hour). 21 thousand [riders per day] to South 200th St., with no Beacon Hill station.
Earling: [appropriate] time for Enslow's comment (some place to some place). Sims: agrees with Enslow. Crawford: thanks staff, and wants to follow staff's advice. Phelps: [my] decision hinges on what is affordable. Needs to know financing plan first. Earling: staff is asking us for an iterim decision.
McIver: would prefer Capitol Hill [as the northern terminus] - should build something for somebody. CPS [terminus] is essential, and so is Beacon Hill station.
Phelps: why cut down options today? Earl: staff wants to know maximum possible route - [Board] can delete parts later if necessary. MacDonald: likes somewhere to somewhere. Enslow: should try to get in Beacon Hill station. Schell: should keep both [northern terminus options]. Still likes two segments, wants to know better what options are. McKenna: should [continue to] look at IDS. Real decision is the MOS - maybe Royal Brougham (or IDS) to 154th St. Nickels: any light rail system has to go into Downtown. 50 percent decrease [in ridership for RB is unacceptable]. Only downside in that two-year disruption happens sooner than later. Should get it done now.
Earling: who supports CPS [as the northern terminus]? [Most do, except Schell strongly indicates "no".]
§ Extending Link North
[ST staffperson]: three segments: (1) Capitol Hill or Eastlake, (2) ship canal crossing [and U District stations], (3) U District to Northgate. Two year EIS study. [Board will be asked on] 9/27 to authorize the study plan.
MacDonald: why a two-year process, why not quicker? Sims: can you devise plan to move faster? Thinks there are too many layers. Fazel: 18-24 months includes looking at all options. Could reduce time if Board narrows the scope. Some elements require [this much] time. [Staffperson]: Staff would like to limit choices. Some routes are already [well] known, others (Eastlake and Montlake) require more study. SEIS may require as little as one year [laughter]. [Time requried] depends on how wide of net. MacDonald: need more focused public involvement.
§ Rainier Valley Alignment
Ron Lewis [staff]: ROW acquisition will begin when Board adopts MOS. Issues: (1) Save-Our-Valley lawsuit, [now] being dismissed. (2) McClellan station, changes [to accomodate] buses. (3) Utilities, [new] cost estimate for undergrounding from City Light, looking for funding. $3.3 million for moving poles, plus [another] $10 million possible. Looking for cost sharing with City Light. City [says it] can't contribute. Current design does not [include] undergrounding. (4) Urban design, some [issues] directly related to undergrounding. Staff is meeting with LRRP, hopes to reach agreement.
Crawford: how would people react to a trade-off, Beacon Hill station versus undergrounding? Lewis: community still expects that undergrounding will occur. McIver: why even [have to] make a choice? Should do both. Crawford: [can you] help Board make the choice? Lewis: no comment.
Nickels: when can we break ground? [Wants to do so by] July 1.
Sims: [regarding] relocation of businesses, there will be a reception with Vietnamese businesses at 5 p.m.
§ Community Development Fund
Nora Loo: steering committee - good attendance important to community. [Need to] preserve identity, [which includes] many small family-owned businesses. Rainier Valley heavily impacted by light rail, [and some] are surprised that construction might start on July 1. Reads mission statement. Earling: hopes to bring this topic back at next {Board] meeting.
Phelps: what are the local matching funds for this project? Hugh [??] (ST staff): tax revenues that ST collects. Phelps: can't we use federal funds? Earl: [no,] can't even consider [CDF] as part of [local] match. McIver: previous MOAs with Seattle committed money to CDF. Phelps: concerned that only ST money will be used. Earl: need to work out details before MOS goes to congress. McIver: City has already committed money, but this might disappear. Phelps: what is worst-case scenario? McIver: this [fund] is a necessary part of going through the Rainier Valley on the surface. Have to provide [mitigation]. Phelps: will it be ST money or City money? Enslow need a commitment to pay CDF.