Sound Transit Board
SOUND TRANSIT BOARD MEETING
Thursday, February 14th, 2002[Notes by John Deeter]
Attending: Sims (chair), Earling, Ladenberg, Crawford, Drewel, Enslow, Gates, Hague, Hansen, McIver, MacDonald, Mosher, Nickels, Patterson, Phelps, Sullivan, Thomas. [Pelz was absent.]
Public Comment
John Deeter: reminds the Board that the UW has written a letter opposing the inclusion of the I-5 "bypass" option in the upcoming SEIS, and endorses the UW's position.
Route Alternatives to be Studied in the SEIS
Ron Enlich (staff): preliminary results from borings near the University Bridge are promising [and indicate that a shallow crossing nearby is possible]. [Staff has been looking at new] "West of Campus" routes, including two Brooklyn options -- one station (at 45th), and two stations (at 40th and 45th). [Staff suggests that these routes plus the Roanoke crossing route be combined into a single generic "West of Campus" option for study purposes, with exact route and stations to be determined after further study.] Goes over preliminary evaluation [of all routes crossing the ship canal and transversing the U District]. [See the briefing book for details.]
Nickels: what would [adoption of a generic] "West of Campus" option entail? Endlich: [staff would] do more evaluation, looking for an option with the best features of all three. Nickels: likes this approach.
Sims: [endorses] replacing three options with a single "West of Campus".
Enslow: in the Montlake option, why not move the 45th St. station from 15th Ave. to Brooklyn? Endlich: "mix and match" between options is possible.
Gates: one reason for "West of Campus" [alignment] is to avoid critical UW facilities that cannot be moved, but perhaps some impacted facilities could be moved.
Sullivan: how many routes should be included in the SEIS? Endlich: [staff has] budgeted for three new options plus the LPA. Sullivan: would LPA, Montlake and "West of Campus" be enough. [Endlich waffles.] Sullivan: what is your profession judgment? Endlich: that would be enough, but there is [also] interest in keeping a non-tunnel option. Sullivan: for cost-saving considerations should keep number down to the minimum and not look at more [than necessary]. Joni Earl: those three are sufficient, if one runs into trouble [we could] go back and include other options.
Hansen: curious about ridership, would like a presentation about assumptions [used in modeling ridership].
McIver: can Board come to the conclusion [right now] that the I-5 bypass option is fatally flawed? Ahmad Fazel (staff): could drop alternatives early in the process up to conceptual engineering without adding too much to the cost. Sullivan: [do you have] an order of magnitude estimate for conceptual engineering? Fazel: could provide an estimate within a week.
Gates: wants to evaluate I-5 alignment for public's sake. Nickels: we already know that it is cheap, but [also] that nobody will use it. Sims [joking]: [people can just] bike to the University [from I-5].
Sullivan: we will have to rethink the entire system [if we are ultimately forced to adopt] the I-5 option.
Earling: we lose about half of the [U District] ridership in the I-5 option. Endlich: if you add a grade separated people-mover, almost equal cost [as tunnel options]. Earling: didn't we review this question about four years ago? Endlich: we have reviewed this decision [at least twice], and the conclusion was always the same. Earling: is against looking at this option [again].
Gates: we should show our work -- some people were not privy to earlier decisions. [Our] decisions should be transparent.
Nickels: [moves] to replace B.F.1, B.F.2, and B.C with [a single] "West of Campus" option. MacDonald: thinks this is a great idea. Sullivan: does this [motion] affect other options? Nickels: [no,] I'm only addressing the first three. Sullivan: what about the West Seattle tunnel? [Laughter.]
Nickels' motion passes on a unanimous voice vote, 17-0 (one excused absence.)
McIver: moves to include B.E [(the I-5 bypass option) in the SEIS].
Sullivan: there are other ways to get away from the sensitive parts of the University -- [on second thought,] there aren't any non-sensitive parts.
Ladenberg: we should look at I-5 option.
Nickels: I think it's a bad idea. It's been studied at least twice, [and] doesn't make any sense. Crawford: amen. UW doesn't support it, ridership doesn't support it, I don't support it.
Drewel: what information [about this option] do we have to provide to new Board members? Fazel: [actually,] this specific alignment has not been looked at.
[Phelps?]: we can't afford the LPA -- if tunnel options don't pan out, then we don't have any options. We need a non-tunnel option.
Sims: if we look at [I-5 bypass again], what new do we learn? Endlich: we need to talk with WSDOT about impacts on I-5, need a better understanding of ridership. Could delay this, [if] tunnel options don't pan out.
Enslow: reluctant to take it off the table, but [also] reluctant to spend any money on it. Are these positions consistent?
Sullivan: is staff going to [do whatever it wants and] ignore the Board's input? Earl: [no, but] there are a couple of [different] approaches -- [for instance,] staff could keep [the I-5 option] on the back burner. Sims: could always come back and include this option. Fazel: it would cost only $300 thousand to take it through conceptual engineering.
MacDonald: what about a "low-heat" approach [and spend only $150 thousand]. [Staff could generate] some addtional data, pro and con, even though [this option] will probably fail. [Would like to] get more information on a couple of specific points. Personally, probably wouldn't favor it. Fazel: Board could make that recommendation.
Nickels: only spend half as much [and still] reject it? Is that a good idea?
MacDonald: should consider bypass, [keeping it] as a last resort. And keep it as a card in the back pocket in negotiations with the UW.
Mosher: we can come back if tunnel is not feasible -- not worth $300 thousand at this point.
Sims: doesn't like spending money on something we're not going to do. [Using bypass as] a negotiating tool with the UW is not a good reason. [Concerned about] how public will perceive [unnecessary] expenditure.
McIver's motion is defeated on an 8-8 tie vote, with Crawford, Earling, Mosher, Nickels, Sims, Sullivan, and two others voting "nay".
[No one moves to include Campus Parkway option, so main motion is on whether to include the "West of Campus" hybrid in the SEIS. The main motion passes, 15-1, with Ladenberg voting no.]
[There followed a lengthy discussion on cost overruns on a park-and-ride project in Redmond, but I didn't take notes on this part of the meeting.]
# # #