nl 350 richard maas - sound transit | ride the wave · pdf filenl 350 richard maas ... tunnel...
TRANSCRIPT
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 350 Richard Maas
NL 350-1 Property acquisition for North Link will be guided by Sound Transit’s adopted Real Estate Property
Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines, which is consistent with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act of 1970 and the provisions of the
Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code.
NL 350-2 Funding mechanisms for North Link are discussed in Chapter 5 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS. Federal
funding is only one of several financial resources.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 351 Roosevelt Neighborhood Association/Jim O’Halloran
NL 351-1 Sound Transit notes your satisfaction with the identification of the 12th Avenue route as the Preferred
Alternative. Sound Transit also notes your positive experience of working with Sound Transit staff.
NL 351-2 Your comment on the inconveniences of construction is noted.
NL 351-3 Sound Transit provided a discussion of station area planning activities and Transit Oriented Development
in Section 2.5 of the 2003 Draft SEIS, and updated the information in the Final SEIS, including in Section
4.2, Land Use and Economics. Your support for Transit Oriented Development is acknowledged.
850
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 352 Paul Wiesner
NL 352-1 Comment acknowledged. Sound Transit appreciates the compliment of our staff.
NL 352-2 Sound Transit provided a discussion of station area planning activities and Transit Oriented Development
in Section 2.5 of the 2003 Draft SEIS, and updated the information in the Final SEIS, including in Section
4.2, Land Use and Economics.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 353 Craig Thompson
NL 353-1 As described in the 2003 Draft SEIS (page 4-154) and the 2005 Draft SEIS (page 3-10), construction of
the Preferred Brooklyn Station would require closure of Brooklyn Avenue NE between NE 43rd Street
and NE 45th Street. NE 43rd Street could also require local access only restrictions.
851
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 354 R. Mike Bloom
NL 354-1 Failure of the monorail during the November 2005 election would not directly affect construction or
operation of North Link. The Sound Transit Long-Range Plan identifies a number of high-capacity transit
corridors that could be implemented in the future, although the corridor that was to be served by the
Green Line was not on the most recent plan update because it had at that time been assumed to be
underway.
NL 354-2 (PMX-Chen)The Initial Segment of the Central Link light rail system is scheduled to open in 2009. North Link
construction could begin in 2008 or 2009, with operations beginning in 2015 to 2016.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 355 Larry Sinnott
NL 355-1 If the Roosevelt station was an interim terminus, it would require a construction staging area and
crossover tracks north of the Brooklyn station. The Roosevelt station would provide the launch site for the
tunnel boring machines, and would serve as the tunnel spoils removal location. The most likely
construction scenarios would be to tunnel continuously through to the tunnel portal near Lake City Way.
852
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 356 John Stevens
NL 356-1 The Preferred Alternative includes the University of Washington Station, which is adjacent to Husky
Stadium. No stations are proposed in the Montlake neighborhood south of the Montlake cut.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 357 Rich Gustafson
NL 357-1 Sound Transit acknowledges your support for an extension of light rail north of Northgate. Sound Transit
is currently considering the next phase of regional transit investments as part of its long-range planning
process. Visit http://www.soundtransit.org/newsroom/phase2/ for updates to the Regional Transit Long-
Range Plan.
853
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 358 Will Knedlik
NL 358-1 Comment noted.
Ridership forecasts and travel time savings are discussed in Section 3 of the Final SEIS and in the Transit
Ridership Forecast Report.
NL 358-2 The Final SEIS Chapter 5 provides information on cost and financing.
NL 358-3 Comment noted. As discussed in Section 3.3. of the Final SEIS, regional congestion would be slightly
reduced. The Final SEIS provides in Section 3.3 the effects on congestion, but also includes discussion of
other benefits including transit travel time savings. Among other purposes, North Link is intended to
provide a practical alternative to travel on increasingly congested roadways.
NL 358-4 Sound Transit supports regional programs for energy conservation, however, a primary element of the
purpose and need for the project (as provided in Section 1 of the Final SEIS) is to improve transportation
conditions. The analysis in the SEIS indicates that long-term operation of the light rail system would
reduce energy consumption compared to the No-Build condition. Construction of the light rail project
would consume energy just as the construction of any transportation project, whether new or expanded
roadways, whether for single occupant vehicles, high occupancy vehicles, or bus rapid transit, consumes
energy. As you note, both the energy saved by transit riders and the energy used for construction are
disclosed in the SEIS.
NL 358-5 Comment noted. The basis for your calculations are unclear, but do not reflect Sound Transit’s financial
projections, which are discussed in Section 5 of the Final SEIS.
NL 358-6 Please see response to common comment PP-1.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 359 Bob Messina
NL 359-1 Your opposition to the NE 45th Street Station has been noted.
NL 359-2 Your opposition to the NE 45th Street Station based on vegetation removal and related aesthetic impacts
has been noted.
NL 359-3 Comment noted.
NL 359-4 Comment noted.
NL 359-5 Comment noted.
NL 359-6 The Sound Transit Board has made its decisions in open meetings, advertised in advance. The public has
the opportunity to make comments to the Board on the topics discussed at each meeting and may write to
the Board at any time.
NL 359-7 Your opposition to the NE 45th Street Station has been noted.
854
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 360 Maija Brissey
NL 360-1 Bicycle racks will be provided at all North Link Stations. Tables 3.3-5b and 3.3-8b of the 2003 Draft
SEIS provide summaries of the proposed bicycle facilities at stations. Section 3.3.2 of the 2003 Draft and
Final SEIS also generally describes Sound Transit’s non-motorized policies, which includes permitting
bicycles on North Link vehicles.
NL 360-2 As noted above, the Link stations would allow people to either store their bikes or bring their bikes on
board.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 361 Dwight Baker
NL 361-1 Comment noted.
NL 361-2 Comment noted. Agency correspondence from the University of Washington was provided in Appendix
A of the 2003 Draft SEIS, and comment letters from the University on the Draft SEIS documents are
provided as part of the Final SEIS.
NL 361-3 An analysis of an alignment shift eastward near the University of Washington campus was analyzed in the
2004 Modified Montlake Route Addendum, which is the same as the Preferred Alternative discussed in
the 2005 Draft SEIS. Information on serving on the Citizen Oversight Panel can be accessed on Sound
Transit’s website; no other citizen advisory group is currently in place for the North Link project.
NL 361-4 Potential conflicts and cumulative effects of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV project are
summarized in Section 4.18 of the Final SEIS.
NL 361-5 Comment noted.
855
1
2
3
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 362 Charles H. Comfort Jr.
NL 362-1 Your comments on the Northgate Station design layout are noted.
NL 362-2 Your suggestion has been noted.
NL 362-3 Comment noted. The monorail is not a Sound Transit project.
856
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 363 Dwight Baker
NL 363-1 Comment noted.
NL 363-2 Sound Transit notes your comment agreeing with the University of Washington’s concerns regarding
traffic challenges near the University of Washington Medical Center.
NL 363-3 Your alignment preference has been noted.
NL 363-4 Your willingness to serve on Sound Transit’s Citizen Oversight Panel has been noted. Information on the
panel and instructions on how to serve on the panel are provided on the Sound Transit website.
NL 363-5 Comment noted.
This page has been intentionally left blank
858
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 364 Michael Cooney
NL 364-1 There are no provisions for wi-fi on trains or stations at this time. Such a capability would require special
equipment to provide signals from inside the tunnel to the surface.
859
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 365 Bethany Franko
NL 365-1 Sections 4.4 and 4.7 of the 2003 Draft SEIS identify areas where tree removal would be required. These
sections also describe mitigation measures that could be implemented to minimize impacts, such as tree
replacement and ornamental vegetative plantings that could serve as visual barriers. Vegetation has a
marginal effect on noise reduction, but Sound Transit agrees that plants are an important element of a
livable urban environment.
860
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 366 Nancy Bocek
NL 366-1 Your alignment and station preferences have been noted.
861
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 367 Nancy Bocek
NL 367-1 Your concerns related to truck haul routes, trips, and hours of hauling along NE 50th Street have been
noted. The haul routes shown in Appendix J are designed to avoid residential areas and reach primary
arterials and regional facilities as quickly as possible. Impacts related to spoils removal and truck hauling
are described in Section 4.17.2 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS. NE 50th Street is not identified as a
roadway that requires closure.
862
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 368 B.K. Tse
NL 368-1 Section 3.2.2 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS describes potential impacts and mitigation measures to
non-motorized travelers, and Tables 3.3-5b and 3.3-8b highlight bicycles facilities that are proposed to be
included in the light rail stations.
NL 368-2 Your preference for trolley service in the Capitol Hill, Madison, and Jackson Street areas has been noted,
but is not the subject of this SEIS.
NL 368-3 Light rail is electrically powered and will not generate exhaust emissions. Section 4.5 of the 2003 Draft
and Final SEIS addresses air quality impacts. It is unclear what your concerns are regarding vehicle
speed.
NL 368-4 The 2003 Draft and Final SEIS address transportation needs for each segment in Chapter 3, vent facilities
are described in Sections 2.3.1, 4.1.1, and 4.4.2, and economic activity and business impacts are discussed
in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.2.
NL 368-5 Residential areas within the affected environment are described in Section 4.2 of the 2003 Draft SEIS,
and of the Final SEIS.
NL 368-6 While motorized scooters are not specifically addressed, characteristics of the area’s multimodal (car,
transit, ferry, and non-motorized) system are described in Chapter 3 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS.
NL 368-7 The Transportation Technical Report provides a more in-depth transportation analysis. The SEIS was
made available at several public schools, and all reports are available upon request at Sound Transit’s
main office. A multiple disciplinary team from Sound Transit and the University of Washington are
coordinating on a variety of issues.
NL 368-8 Comment noted. The SEIS analyses included field work and visits.
NL 368-9 The issues of specific populations are discussed in the Environmental Justice report found in Appendix I
of the 2003 Draft SEIS. While elderly individuals are not specifically assessed in Environmental Justice
reviews, similar benefits would apply; the light rail system is also designed to comply with the Americans
863
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
With Disabilities Act, which requires that all public facilities, including light rail, remain accessible to
persons with disabilities.
This page has been intentionally left blank
864
1
2
3
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 369 Frederick Hart
NL 369-1 The NE 45th Street Station continues as a potential station alternative, and is addressed in the Final SEIS.
The 2005 Draft SEIS only provided information on changes that have occurred since the publication of
the 2003 Draft SEIS. Since no changes to the NE 45th Street Station have occurred, this station was not
specifically addressed and the analysis provided in the 2003 Draft SEIS remains valid.
NL 369-2 Your preference for the 12th Avenue alignment, which has been identified as the Preferred Alternative,
has been noted.
NL 369-3 Comment noted. Construction impacts and mitigation are described in Section 4.17 of the 2003 Draft and
Final SEIS and Chapters 2 and 3 in the 2005 Draft SEIS.
865
NL 370 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 370 CETA – John Niles
NL 370-1 Please see response to comment 322-3. Your supplemental documents, which include excerpts from the
SEIS documents and a discussion on the information provided, do not appear to raise specific questions to
Sound Transit regarding the SEIS.
869
1
2
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 371 Zipperman Zeman Associates, Inc. – Yen Vy Van
NL 371-1 Appendix G of the 2003 Draft SEIS provides a list of the principal contributors, and is updated in the
Final SEIS.
NL 371-2 The consultant team for final design of the North Link segment is expected to be advertised in 2006.
870
1
2
3
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 372 Dwight Baker
NL 372-1 Comment noted.
NL 372-2 Sound Transit is a co-lead agency on the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV project and continues to
coordinate with the WSDOT on potential project conflicts. Additional information on the potential
cumulative effects of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV project are discussed in Section 4.18 of
the Final SEIS.
NL 372-3 Comment noted.
871
1
2
3
4
5
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 373 Christ Episcopal Church – Reverend Steve Garratt, Rector
NL 373-1 (PMX-Chen)The proposed Brooklyn Station between NE 43rd and NE 45th is included in the Preferred Alternative.
However, the Brooklyn station options north of NE 45th Street continue to be potential station
alternatives. The Sound Transit Board will select the project to be built after publication of the Final
SEIS.
NL 373-2 Thank you for your comments regarding potential construction impacts at the church. The experiences of
the church during the construction of I-5 are noted, although considerable progress has been made in the
last 30 years to avoid or minimize the environmental effects of public projects. North Link will
incorporate community and business impact reduction measures similar to those already in place for the
current Initial Segment construction, and will work with individual property owners to minimize effects.
The construction effects of the Brooklyn station options, are discussed in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIS.
Issues most relevant to the church are provided in Section 4.17.3, Land Use, and 4.17.5, neighborhoods.
Measures to minimize effects from noise, parking loss, access, and typical construction nuisances are also
described.
NL 373-3 It is correct that parking areas on Brooklyn Avenue NE could be used for construction staging, although
access to your building would be maintained during construction.
NL 373-4 The construction effects of the Brooklyn station north of NE 45th Street, are discussed in Section 4.17,
and issues most relevant to the church are provided in Section 4.17.3, Land Use, and 4.17.5,
neighborhoods. The productive use of the church should not be impaired. Measures to reduce dust and
dirt are described in Section 4.17.10 of the Final SEIS. Potential vibration impacts are described in
Section 4.17.7, but are not projected to be at levels that could represent a risk of damage to buildings, and
vibration would be monitored during construction. Preventing damage to utilities and maintaining service
to customers is an important consideration for Sound Transit and the utility providers, and is discussed in
Section 4.17.13 of the Final SEIS.
NL 373-5 Sound Transit notes your preference for station sites other than those adjacent to the church.
872
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 374 Suzy Lantz
NL 374-1 Your support of the North Link alignments and stations outlined in the 2005 Draft SEIS has been
acknowledged.
873
3
cont.
4
5
6
7
8
NL 375 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 375 Roosevelt High School Site Council – Jeffrey Grose
NL 375-1 Comment noted.
NL 375-2 Section 4.17.13 of the 2003 Draft SEIS and Section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Draft SEIS provide an analysis of
the potential impacts to schools, and specifically Roosevelt High School. Section 4.17.7 of the 2003 Draft
SEIS also discusses construction noise and vibration impacts, as well as mitigation measures. This
information is included in the Final SEIS.
NL 375-3 Section 4.17.13 of the 2003 Draft SEIS and Section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Draft SEIS provide an analysis of
the potential impacts to schools, and specifically Roosevelt High School. Section 4.17.6 of the 2003 Draft
SEIS also discusses construction air quality impacts, as well as mitigation measures. Long-term air
quality impacts and mitigation measures are described in Section 4.5 of the 2003 Draft SEIS; however,
light rail will generate relatively low levels of traffic, and air quality conditions would be similar to No-
Action. This information is included in the Final SEIS.
NL 375-4 Please see response to comment NL 375-3.
NL 375-5 Section 3.3.2 of the 2003 Draft SEIS provides a discussion of potential parking impacts and mitigation
measures. Section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Draft SEIS includes an updated discussion on parking and
specifically identifies the concerns raised by the Roosevelt community as a whole. As described in these
sections, parking restrictions is one potential measure that would mitigate hide-and-ride activities,
however, parking restriction enforcement would not be the responsibility of Sound Transit.
NL 375-6 Section 3.3.2 of the 2003 Draft SEIS describes impacts and mitigation measures to bicyclists and
pedestrians, and Section 4.13.2 of the 2003 Draft SEIS includes a specific discussion on Roosevelt High
School students. This information was updated for the Final SEIS in Sections 3.3.2 (Transportation/non-
motorized) and 4.13.2 (Public Services), although a summary of the findings was also provided in the
2005 Draft SEIS with the discussion of the Roosevelt station.
NL 375-7 The development of a station in an activity center such as found in the Roosevelt neighborhood would not
represent a substantial change from existing conditions in the area, which already features a major bus
transit corridor and relatively high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. There is no information to
support the claim that transit stations increase crime (see the Final SEIS Section 4.13) or reduce public
safety. Responsibility for maintaining safety and security for students, faculty and visitors, and for
preventing unauthorized activity on school grounds would remain with the school, with or without the
light rail project.
875
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 375-8See response to comment 375-7.
This page has been intentionally left blank
876
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 376 Vagrant Records – Erik Forrey
NL 376-1 Your alignment and station preferences, which reflect the Preferred Alternative, have been noted. Sound
Transit also acknowledges your comment that stated that the SEIS provides a good description of the
advantages of these alignments and stations with respect to the community and the environment.
NL 376-2 Comment noted. Although the Brooklyn Station and 12th Avenue route are the Preferred Alternative, the
Sound Transit Board will not make a final decision on the project to be built until after publication of the
Final SEIS.
NL 376-3 Comment noted.
NL 376-4 Comment noted. None of the routes proposed by Sound Transit are projected to result in noise or
vibration impacts to your property, although it is correct that the potential for impacts decreases with
distance.
This page has been intentionally left blank
878
1
2
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 377 Puget Sound Regional Council – Norman A. Abbott
NL 377-1 The memorandum referenced by the commenter outlines Sound Transit staff recommendations regarding
the First Hill Station and technical issues related to its construction. The memorandum discusses the
background of the station design development, lessons learned from the Beacon Hill Station construction
in the Initial Segment, cost estimates and risk assessment. The risk assessment conducted during
preliminary engineering found that construction of the mined First Hill Station has substantial risk that
would add considerable schedule and cost uncertainty to the scope of any North Link project. The
memorandum ultimately recommends that the construction of the First Hill Station be removed from the
Preferred Alternative because of these schedule and cost risks. The Final SEIS summarizes this
information in Chapter 6. The Sound Transit Board will consider this information in the memorandum,
information in the Final SEIS, and other relevant information when making a final determination on the
project to be built.
NL 377-2 Sound Transit will submit a revised project description reflecting the project selected by the Sound
Transit Board for the next update of Destination 2030.
879
3
cont.
4
5
NL 378 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 378 Sandra Cohen
NL 378-1 Comment noted. The Sound Transit Board will make the final decision regarding the project to be built in
early 2006 after publication of the Final SEIS.
NL 378-2 The vent structure attached to the south entrance building of the Roosevelt Station is separated from the
adjacent property to the west by a 15 foot wide service drive. In addition to this separation, the west wall
of the vent structure is approximately 50 feet tall with no openings facing to the west or north towards the
residential development. The ventilation louvers are on the east and south walls, oriented away from the
neighboring development.
This vent, during normal operations, is a passive vent. It allows the tunnel station to "breathe" in and out
without mechanical assistance. Fan units would turn on in emergency situations to force ventilation into
and out of the tunnel. These fans will be operated by maintenance crews on a routine basis once or twice a
month to ensure proper operation for an emergency situation.
No adverse affects from noise of air quality are anticipated from the vent.
NL 378-3 Section 3.2 of the 2005 Draft SEIS notes that the Roosevelt commercial area is an active mixed-use area.
The presence of the station may support increased development in the area, but this is consistent with
local land use plans, and such development may encourage use of transit. The 2003 Draft SEIS and the
2005 Draft SEIS discuss impacts of the station alternatives.
There are a number of considerations that come into play when dealing with the disposal of surplus real
property owned by Sound Transit. In most instances, Sound Transit has acquired property with federal
participation from the Federal Transit Administration. Federal regulations govern the disposal of
properties and the disposition of funds received as a result of disposal of real property acquired with
federal funds. An underlying principle of the federal disposal requirements as well as Sound Transit’s
Disposition Policy, Procedures and Guidelines is that Sound Transit receives Fair Market Value for its
surplus real property. Sound Transit’s Disposition Policy further states that “Sound Transit shall follow
sales procedures that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible
return or at least payment of appraised Fair Market Value.”
By Resolution R99-35, the Sound Transit Board adopted the “Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority Real Property Disposition Policy, Procedures and Guidelines”. The “Policies and Goals”
section expresses Sound Transit’s intentions with regard to disposal of its surplus real property and
include complying with Sound Transit adopted policies, state law and federal grant requirements;
implementing the Sound Move plan on time and at minimum expense; encouraging Transit-Oriented
Development, joint development, and public and private projects at and around Sound Transit facilities to
build transit ridership, enhance communities and aid economic development; supporting the retention of
existing businesses; mitigating impacts arising from project implementation; and encouraging realization
of other objectives, as appropriate, such as economic development, appropriate land uses; parks, trails and
open space preservation; and environmental protection and enhancement.
In order for a park to be constructed on land available after construction, the City of Seattle or other entity
would need to purchase that property from Sound Transit.
881
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
Private development on adjacent parcels would have their own environmental review process and are not
part of the light rail project.
NL 378-4 Tunnel boring machine staging requires more space than is available at the north portal due to the size of
the tunnel boring machine and volume of spoils that must be removed and the area required to support the
tunneling activity. As noted on page 3-15 of the 2005 Draft SEIS, the construction-related impacts of
station construction and measures to minimize impacts were discussed in the 2003 Draft SEIS and are
included in the Final SEIS.
NL 378-5 As stated on page 3-35 of the Final SEIS, all intersections near a Roosevelt Station interim terminus
would operate at LOS C or better with all alternatives in the year 2015 and 2030. These results are also
shown in Tables 5.3-5a and 5.3-5b in the Transportation Technical Report. Your opposition to the
Roosevelt interim terminus option has been noted.
This page has been intentionally left blank
882
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 379 Donna Wehde and Sharon Wehde
NL 379-1 Comment noted. The 2005 Draft SEIS provided updated information on the North Link project elements
that have substantially changed since the publication of the 2003 Draft SEIS, but did not reiterate the
analyses and conclusions that were consistent with the 2003 evaluation. The nature of the 2005 Draft
SEIS was described in Section 2.8. Each of these issues are addressed in the Final SEIS.
883
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 380 Virginia Paulsen
NL 380-1 Comment noted.
NL 380-2 See discussion of technology alternatives in Section 2.2.2 of the 1999 Final EIS.
NL 380-3 Please see response to common comment PP-1.
NL 380-4 (PMX-Chen)Funding mechanisms for North Link are discussed in Chapter 5 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS.
Increasing population and fuel prices would support light rail ridership.
NL 380-5 Comments on regional transportation decision making and financing is beyond the scope of the project
that is the topic of this SEIS.
NL 380-6 Sound Transit has and continues to coordinate with transit service providers to increase service areas and
frequency, and to ensure that light rail and other transit modes will complement each other in a
multimodal transportation network. Additional discussion is provided in Section 3.2 of the Final SEIS.
NL 380-7 Please refer to Sections 4.8 and 4.17.9 of the Final SEIS, for analyses and discussion on potential impacts
and mitigation measures to water resources.
NL 380-8 (PMX-Chen)Comment noted.
This page has been intentionally left blank
885
NL 381 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 381 U.S. EPA, Region 10 – Christine B. Reichgott, Manager – NEPA Review Unit
NL 381-1 Sound Transit acknowledges EPA’s review of the 2005 Draft SEIS and its rating of the document of LO-
1 (Lack of Objection – Adequate).
NL 381-2 The proposal to consider optional transportation facilities near the University of Washington Station as
part of the SR 520 project has recently been made and the project sponsor (WSDOT) has not indicated
whether these options would be part of the SR 520 project Preferred Alternative or project to be built. No
environmental documentation of the SR 520 project have been publicly released. However, Sound Transit
is coordinating with WSDOT and has provided additional information on the relationship of the two
projects and considering the potential cumulative effects in Section 4.18 of the Final SEIS.
NL 381-3 Sound Transit understands the complex issues for transportation in the University of Washington station
area, and the light rail project should make a substantial contribution to improving mobility in the area.
Although the 2003 Draft SEIS provided a summary of changes and updated information developed for
transportation, the Final SEIS Chapter 3 and Section 4.17.2 all provide substantially more detail,
including updated discussion of the results of ongoing planning with the University of Washington, the
City of Seattle, and King County Metro. Sound Transit also prepared a background technical report for
transportation, which has been updated for the Final SEIS. Additional detail related to the SR 520 project
has been developed in Section 3.18 of the Final SEIS.
NL 381-4 Sound Transit and the University of Washington have worked closely during preparation of the SEIS to
determine appropriate mitigation measures for potential vibration impacts to University research.
Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been identified as described in Section 4.6 of the Final
SEIS. Sound Transit and the University anticipate executing an agreement describing the approach to
vibration mitigation in 2006 after the publication of the Final SEIS.
887
18
cont.
19
20
NL 382 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 382 Seattle Department of Transportation – Grace Crunican
NL 382-1 Comment noted.
NL 382-2 The Sound Transit Board will make a final decision on whether to include a First Hill Station in the
project after publication of the Final SEIS. The Board has directed staff to work with King County Metro
and the City of Seattle to find ways to improve transit service and connections with North Link to the
First Hill area if a First Hill Station is not included in the project. Sound Transit Phase II is separate from
North Link and this SEIS. The Sound Transit Board is expected to identify projects to include in Sound
Transit Phase II this year.
NL 382-3 As mitigation for pedestrian impacts to the Burke-Gilman Trail, Sound Transit will provide an access
point or entrance north of the trail for the University of Washington Station, which would provide an
underground or overhead crossing of NE Pacific Place and the trail. Sound Transit recognizes the City’s
ongoing concern regarding this station and will continue to work with the City and other affected parties
throughout the course of the project.
NL 382-4 The City’s comments are noted. Please see response to comment NL 382-3.
NL 382-5 Please see response to comment NL 382-3. Additional analysis of this issue is provided in Section 3.3.2
of the Final SEIS.
NL 382-6 See response to comment NL 382-3. The grade-separated crossing of NE Pacific Place would
significantly reduce the number of pedestrians crossing NE Pacific Place and the Burke-Gilman Trail.
NL 382-7 Please see response to comment NL 382-3.
NL 382-8 The current station design could accommodate a future pedestrian connection from the south on the upper
mezzanine level. The structure necessary for construction and support of the station box may preclude
creating "break-out panels" in anticipation of a potential future pedestrian connection.
NL 382-9 Sound Transit notes your request to include the third entrance at the Capitol Hill Station in the baseline
design. However, the optional 3rd entrance is not at Broadway and John for which the City cites the
890
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
pedestrian count, it is south of Denny. In addition, it should be noted that the International Station with
which a comparison is made in the comment does not have a grade-separated crossing of the surrounding
arterials.
NL 382-10 As occurred with the Initial Segment, Sound Transit will continue to work closely with the City to
develop final designs for station facilities and other components of the light rail system.
NL 382-11 Sound Transit acknowledges your concern regarding the sufficiency of bicycle facilities at the light rail
stations. Since publication of the 2003 Draft SEIS, Sound Transit has prepared bicycle-parking demand
estimates based on the methodology developed by PSRC. Based on the results of the analysis, the
provision of 24 bicycle spaces plus expansion areas at most stations, as recommended in the North Link
SEIS, was determined to be reasonable for accommodating the projected bicycle demand at most North
Link stations. With regard to pedestrian traffic, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) methodologies were used to evaluate the adequacy of
existing sidewalks for accommodating existing and future pedestrian volumes. In addition, the signalized
and unsignalized intersection level of service (LOS) analysis conducted using the Synchro 5.0 software
program takes into account pedestrian volumes at crosswalks when evaluating intersection operations. To
evaluate typical weekday conditions, school walk routes and other key pedestrian destinations were taken
into account in this analysis to the extent that pedestrian volumes from these generators are captured in
peak hour counts used for the LOS analysis.
NL 382-12 For all alternatives, Sound Transit will, as practical, consider future redevelopment in station designs. By
Resolution R99-35, the Sound Transit Board adopted the “Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority Real Property Disposition Policy, Procedures and Guidelines”. The “Policies and Goals”
section expresses Sound Transit’s intentions with regard to disposal of its surplus real property and
include complying with Sound Transit adopted policies, state law and federal grant requirements;
implementing the Sound Move plan on time and at minimum expense; encouraging Transit-Oriented
Development, joint development, and public and private projects at and around Sound Transit facilities to
build transit ridership, enhance communities and aid economic development; supporting the retention of
existing businesses; mitigating impacts arising from project implementation; and encouraging realization
of other objectives, as appropriate, such as economic development, appropriate land uses; parks, trails and
open space preservation; and environmental protection and enhancement.
NL 382-13 TOD potential is evaluated as part of the land use and economic analysis reported in Section 4.2 of the
Final SEIS. Sound Transit will develop the project consistent with the guidance and direction of the
Sound Transit Board, including through the implementation of the TOD policy discussed in Section 2.5.2
and in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIS.
NL 382-14 Sound Transit would repair any public right-of-way at Sound Transit work sites that are damaged during
construction to substantially the same condition.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 382-15 Sound Transit will continue to work with the City throughout the design and permitting process to detail
the appropriate mitigation for the impacts of light rail construction on City-owned utilities, infrastructure
and facilities.
NL 382-16 Settlement impacts were evaluated in Sections 4.10 and 4.17.11 of the 2003 Draft SEIS and updated
information has been provided in this Final SEIS. Sound Transit will continue to work with the City
regarding a settlement monitoring and response program. Impacts due to stray current were evaluated in
the 2003 Draft SEIS in Section 4.12.2 and the Final SEIS also identifies the potential for impacts as well
as potential avoidance or mitigation measures.
NL 382-17 These issues are reviewed as part of the Final SEIS discussion of impacts to utilities, provided in Section
4.14 of the Final SEIS. As you note, specific improvements may be needed for the light rail system and
Sound Transit will work with the City during final design to determine project details.
NL 382-18 Sound Transit also recognizes the importance of an effective construction mitigation plan to allow
contractors to minimize environmental. The Final SEIS outlines mitigations in all areas of the
environment, and looks forward to working with the City during final design and construction mitigation
planning.
NL 382-19 Comment acknowledged that the City appreciates the efforts made to eliminate direct construction
impacts to Cal Anderson Park. Please see response to comment NL 382-18.
NL 382-20 Station area planning for stations included in University Link was previously completed and further work
is not anticipated. First Hill is not included in the Preferred Alternative but if it is included in the project,
it is in the same location as in the original project. Capitol Hill Station is in substantially the same
location as it was during previous station area planning efforts, and the University of Washington Station
is entirely on University of Washington property. The funding and timing of final design or other
activities for the remainder of North Link, north of the University of Washington station, is not certain at
this time. Sound Transit and the City could revisit station area planning at the north University District
station if its location is substantially different from the location identified in the Preferred Alternative.
891
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 383 CETA – John Niles
NL 383-1 Sound Transit strives to maintain a state-of-the-art transit ridership forecasting model by continually
updating the model. Sound Transit has developed an updated version of its ridership model, which uses
2004 as a base year, for use in preparing ridership forecasts for its Phase II projects. This version of the
model is currently under review by an expert review panel, and Phase II ridership forecasts are still being
refined. Ridership forecasts for the North Link EIS were prepared using the then-current ridership model,
which uses 1999 as a base year. Sound Transit has compared forecasts for the North Link Preferred
Alternative using both the 1999-base and 2004-base versions of the ridership model and found the results
from the two versions to be very similar and any differences do not substantially change the analysis of
impacts in the SEIS.
NL 383-2 The PSRC updates its regional transportation forecasting model to keep it current with regional changes.
The PSRC is currently refining a new version of its model that uses updated time and cost coefficients,
which are slightly different than the coefficients used in the 1999-base version of the Sound Transit
ridership forecasting model. Sound Transit has adopted the updated PSRC coefficients for the 2004-base
version of its model; however, this change has not resulted in major changes in the transit ridership
forecast for North Link (see response to comment NL-383-1).
NL 383-3 Sound Transit developed the Baseline and Build transit service networks for North Link ridership
forecasting in cooperation with King County Metro (KCM), because KCM operates the vast majority of
bus transit service that serves the North Link corridor. The Baseline network is designed to maximize the
benefits of bus transit within expected financial constraints, and therefore does not assume any major
capital investments in new technologies, roadways, etc.
For North Link Build ridership forecasting, the light rail capital investment is added to the transit service
network, and bus transit service that is replaced by light rail is removed from the network. The bus service
capacity that is freed up by elimination of some bus routes is reassigned in the network, generally as bus
feeder service for light rail.
NL 383-4 As described in Section 2.4.4 of this Final SEIS, Link light rail from Northgate to S. 200th Street, which
includes the Southeast Seattle segment, would operate with 6 minute train headways in 2015 and 5 minute
train headways in 2030. The operating plan analyzed in the 1999 FEIS for Southeast Seattle was 5 minute
headways in the 2020 forecast year. Up to 4-car trains are considered for North Link and were considered
in the 1999 FEIS for Central Link.
NL 383-5 Sound Transit’s specifications to the vehicle manufacturer include braking rate performance requirements
of 3 miles per hour per second. A four-car train would be less affected by slides than a shorter train.
Traffic safety in southeast Seattle is not part of North Link and was analyzed in the 1999 Central Link
EIS in Section 3.3.2.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 383-6 The design for the Preferred Alternative includes an approach to construction of the Capitol Hill tunnel if
this alternative is selected as the project to be built. This approach would launch the tunnel boring
machines (TBMs) from the University of Washington Station south to the Capitol Hill Station. Support
(spoils removal, supply of materials etc.) for the TBMs would be at the University of Washington Station
staging area. The first TBM would launch about 17 months after the start of construction. The second
TBM would launch about 2 to 3 months after the first TBM. The total duration of tunnel boring between
the University of Washington Station and Capitol Hill Station is estimated to be 14 to 17 months. After
the TBMs reach the Capitol Hill Station the support activities would move to the Capitol Hill staging area
as the TBMs proceed to connect with the Initial Segment at Pine Street.
NL 383-7 There are no plans to use the Beacon Hill tunnel boring machine (TBM) for North Link tunnel
construction. The machine used at Beacon Hill is owned by the contractor, not Sound Transit. Therefore,
it is not Sound Transit’s decision to reuse the machine. Transporting a TBM from the manufacturer to a
jobsite is the responsibility of the contractor who will be required to follow all applicable regulations. The
SEIS evaluates construction truck traffic in Section 4.17.
NL 383-8 The estimates of tunnel spoils provided by the in 2003 Draft SEIS remain accurate, but have been updated
for the Final SEIS. Some spoils removal could occur at the Pine Street site, as discussed in the Final SEIS
in Section 4.17. The current plan for direction of the boring is described in response to comment NL
383-6.
NL 383-9 A payback analysis of energy consumed is not required as part of the SEIS. As your comments note, the
energy calculations for construction have been disclosed in the Final SEIS, and the energy savings (and
lack of regional energy impacts) for the region with the project have also been provided.
NL 383-10 According to independent risk analysis workshops, there is a low probably for moderate risk associated
with the undercrossing of I-5. This risk was accounted for in the risk model for the project. WSDOT has
reviewed and approved the approach.
NL 383-11 As stated in Section 2.5 of the 2005 Draft SEIS, the 2003 Draft SEIS provides more detail on hauling of
spoils. Section 4.17.11 of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS explains that many factors will determine the
methods of disposal. The disposal locations will be determined by the contractor, who will be required to
use a facility permitted for such spoils disposal.
NL 383-12 The LOS for each intersection is shown in the tables in Chapter 3 of the SEIS and a graphic presentation
of the same information is not necessary.
897
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 383-13 The impacts of the terminus at the University of Washington station are discussed in the Final SEIS in
Section 3.3, Transportation. See the North Link Final SEIS Transportation Technical Report for
additional detail.
NL 383-14 Construction impacts for North Link are discussed in Section 4.17.2 of the Final SEIS. Analysis of
construction traffic impacts is qualitative, but is based on reviews of traffic conditions at intersections and
calculations of delay that would be caused by construction traffic. With haul trips mainly in the off-peak,
delays would typically be less than one minute.
NL 383-15 A transportation technical report was developed for the 2003 Draft SEIS, and has been updated for the
Final SEIS. However, the information provided in 1999 remains similar to the effects predicted today.
NL 383-16 The North Link SEIS and its supporting documents provide current and accurate information about the
effects of the North Link alternatives as appropriate.
NL 383-17 The 2003 Draft SEIS included a financial analysis in Chapter 5. This analysis has been updated in
Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS.
NL 383-18 See response to common comment PP-5.
NL 383-19 It is unclear what scheduling and construction details from the New Starts application to which the
commenter refers. The New Starts application provides a schedule for construction that shows
construction beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008 and ending with the completion of testing in the third
quarter of 2015. This information is consistent with Section 2.5 of the 2005 Draft SEIS. Additional
construction and scheduling detail is not included in the New Starts application.
NL 383-20 Sound Transit and the University of Washington plan to enter into an agreement that would address all
major issues for construction and operation of the light rail system on the University campus. It is
expected that major issues would be resolved by the time this Final SEIS is issued and that an interim
terminus station south of 45th Street would be allowed on campus.
NL 383-21 Because the technical reports have a limited audience, they are not generally provided on CD. The
documents are available from Sound Transit as hard copies at the cost of printing. The North Link
Transportation Technical Report incorporates and updates where necessary the Transportation Technical
Report prepared for the Central Link EIS.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 383-22 Hard copies of these documents are available at the Sound Transit library or can be obtained for the cost
of printing from Sound Transit.
NL 383-23 Comment noted. Please see responses to letter NL 207.
898
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 384 Roosevelt Neighborhood Association – Jim O’Halloran
NL 384-1 Comment noted. Appendix P4.2 of the 2003 North Link Draft SEIS, which the 2005 Draft SEIS updates,
includes a discussion of the project’s consistency with local land use plans, including Tomorrow’s Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan. Please see responses to comments NL 384-2 through NL 384-12.
NL 384-2 Comment noted. The Sound Transit Board will formally select the project to be built after publication of
the Final SEIS.
NL 384-3 Your concerns that Sound Transit’s stations be consistent with the Roosevelt neighborhood’s plan,
“Tomorrow’s Roosevelt” are noted. Please see the discussion regarding the Roosevelt Station in Section
3.2 in the 2005 Draft SEIS. Sound Transit’s station design for the Roosevelt Station should not preclude
the future creation of a “Town Square.” However, Sound Transit does not propose such a facility as part
of the project. By Resolution R99-35, the Sound Transit Board adopted the “Central Puget Sound
Regional Transit Authority Real Property Disposition Policy, Procedures and Guidelines”. The “Policies
and Goals” section expresses Sound Transit’s intentions with regard to disposal of its surplus real
property and include complying with Sound Transit adopted policies, state law and federal grant
requirements; implementing the Sound Move plan on time and at minimum expense; encouraging Transit-
Oriented Development, joint development, and public and private projects at and around Sound Transit
facilities to build transit ridership, enhance communities and aid economic development; supporting the
retention of existing businesses; mitigating impacts arising from project implementation; and encouraging
realization of other objectives, as appropriate, such as economic development, appropriate land uses;
parks, trails and open space preservation; and environmental protection and enhancement. Properties
required for construction would be available for redevelopment after construction. Stations would be
designed to minimize impacts to with the surrounding neighborhood.
NL 384-4 For all alternatives, Sound Transit will, as practical, include transit-oriented development considerations
in the design.
NL 384-5 See response to comment 384-3. Additional opportunities will be provided to the public during final
design to review the station design.
NL 384-6 Your comments and recommendations for advancing TOD goals are noted. As the project progresses into
final design, additional opportunity for public input, including detailed recommendations and comments
on the designs, will be provided.
NL 384-7 See response to comment 384-3.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 384-8 Your preference for the north entrance of the Roosevelt Station to be located on the northwest corner of
the NE 67th Street/12th Avenue NE intersection has been noted.
NL 384-9 Your interest in underground pedestrian passageways connected to the Roosevelt Station has been noted,
although Sound Transit’s analysis of traffic conditions in the area do not find that the station would
represent an impact to safety or circulation. Additional underground crossings and station entrances
would add substantial cost to the project.
NL 384-10 Tunnel boring machine staging and support activities require more space than is available at the north
portal. As noted on page 3-15 of the 2005 Draft SEIS, the construction-related impacts of station
construction and measures to minimize impacts were discussed in the 2003 Draft SEIS and are included
in the Final SEIS.
NL 384-11 Your invitation for Sound Transit to participate in station area planning is noted. Sound Transit will
continue to work with the community as station design progresses.
NL 384-12 Your comment that the Board of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association is satisfied and excited about
the selection of the 12th Avenue alignment for the Roosevelt Station is acknowledged.
903
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 385 Montlake Community Club – Robert Mahon, President
NL 385-1 Sound Transit appreciates your support and on-going involvement in the project.
NL 385-2 The First Hill Station was removed from the Preferred Alternative for a number of reasons, including
geologic conditions of the area. Sound Transit is exploring other ways to connect the First Hill area to the
light rail system in the event the First Hill Station is not included in the project to be built.
NL 385-3 Sound Transit is pleased to have found a site plan and conceptual design for the Montlake vent that the
Montlake Community Club can support. Sound Transit also looks forward to identifying opportunities to
minimize or mitigate construction impacts as project plans are carried forward.
NL 385-4 Sound Transit notes your concern regarding construction impacts, including truck traffic along Montlake
Boulevard between the University of Washington Station and SR 520. The SEIS identifies a number of
mitigation measures to minimize construction impacts, which were outlined in Section 4.17.2 of the 2003
Draft SEIS, and are included in the Final SEIS. Truck traffic would be concentrated during daytime, off-
peak periods to minimize impacts.
NL 385-5 Construction vibration impacts were identified for all alternatives in Section 4.17 of the 2003 Draft SEIS.
These impacts are updated in the Final SEIS, along with a discussion of construction vibration impacts for
the Preferred Alternative.
NL 385-6 A discussion of the potential interaction of the North Link University of Washington Station with the 6-
Lane with Pacific Street Interchange option from the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV project was
not included in the 2005 Draft SEIS because this document was intended to describe the differences and
changes in impacts between the alternatives as described in the 2003 Draft SEIS and major refinements
that have occurred since that time with the selection of the Preferred Alternative. The options for the SR
520 project’s Pacific Interchange, as well as environmental documentation of its effects, remained under
development at the time the 2003 North Link Draft SEIS was released. Both Sound Transit and WSDOT
have on-going coordination regarding design issues and construction phasing and staging considerations.
The relationship of these projects has been discussed in the Cumulative Effects Section (4.18) of the
North Link Final SEIS.
NL 385-7 Sound Transit is working with WSDOT to review the potential issues associated with the SR 520
project’s 6-Lane with Pacific Street Interchange option as a part of the SR 520 project. Currently, the
station design and the interchange design appear to conflict physically, and Sound Transit is working with
WSDOT to seek design modifications that could avoid the conflict.
This page has been intentionally left blank
910
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 386 Emory Bundy
NL 386-1 Financial and cost-effectiveness information for the project was provided in the Financial and Evaluation
of Alternatives chapters, respectively, of the 2003 North Link Draft SEIS and has been updated in the
Final SEIS.
NL 386-2 In Sound Move, Sound Transit estimated Sounder ridership at 3.2 million to 4.4 million annually for full
system build out. This estimate is still valid; however, Sounder implementation has been delayed by a
number of factors, and full build out of the system may not be complete until 2012. Therefore, the number
of Sounder boardings in 2003 is not comparable to the estimated number of boardings at full build out.
NL 386-3 The methodology used to estimate ridership is documented in the North Link Ridership Forecasting
Technical Report.
NL 386-4 This SEIS only addresses ridership forecasts for the North Link Project and not other segments of Central
Link, Sounder or Regional Express.
NL 386-5 The October 1999 Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report and the November 2003 Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement North Link Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report describe in detail the models used to prepare transit ridership forecasts for the 1999 EIS and 2003
Draft SEIS respectively. The November 2003 report has also been updated as part of the Final SEIS to
include modeling results for the North Link Preferred Alternative.
NL 386-6 The Sound Transit and PSRC forecasting models differ in several respects, including the fact that the
PSRC model covers the four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish) of the Central Puget Sound
region, while the Sound Transit model covers only the Regional Transit Authority service district (parts
of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). Although transit ridership estimates from the Sound Transit
and PSRC models are not directly comparable, they are generally consistent.
NL 386-7 Travel time savings and other transit benefits are described in Chapter 3 of the Final SEIS.
NL 386-8 See response to comment NL 386-7. Sounder and Regional Express are not part of the North Link project;
however, according to current schedules, Sounder service from Everett Station to King Street Station is
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
approximately 10 minutes faster than Regional Express Bus service. Additionally, Sounder’s exclusive
right-of-way ensures greater schedule reliability than bus service.
NL 386-9 Comment noted.
NL 386-10 The North Link SEIS is supplemental to the 1999 Central Link Final EIS. Travel time savings for North
Link in this Final SEIS have been updated consistent with the current ridership forecasting model.
NL 386-11 Comparisons of light rail travel times to bus travel times are based on station-to-station light rail travel
times and bus travel times for routes that run as closely as possible between the same light rail stations.
For example, the light rail travel time between the University of Washington and Capitol Hill Stations
will be approximately 3 minutes, while the currently scheduled travel time for King County Metro Route
43 between the intersection of NE Pacific Street and NE Pacific Place in the University District and the
intersection of Broadway Avenue and E John Street on Capitol Hill is 19 minutes. Because transit riders
make trips between widely varied origins and destinations, the North Link SEIS includes an analysis of
average door-to-door PM peak transit travel time savings with light rail for each North Link station
cluster in Table 3.2-9.
NL 386-12 Comments noted. Although some costs have exceeded projections made in 1996, Sound Transit has since
made substantial progress in implementing the elements of Sound Move, including the Initial Segment of
Central Link, Airport Link, Tacoma Link, and Regional Express.
NL 386-13 The Porter and Associates 1996 report is not part of the North Link SEIS.
NL 386-14 Sound Transit’s background statement for the North Link project (Section 1 of the North Link SEIS)
identify cost as a primary reason for reconsidering the North Link routes connecting from the Initial
Segment to downtown. Benefits of the project were initially evaluated in Section 6, Evaluation of
Alternatives of the 2003 Draft SEIS, and the section has been updated for the Final SEIS.
NL 386-15 Sound Transit’s most current financial projections for the North Link project are provided in Chapter 5 of
the Final SEIS.
The Final SEIS outlines a number of options for the Sound Transit Board to finance the extension of light
rail north of downtown Seattle. In November 2005, Sound Transit staff presented a “Proposed University
Link Finance Plan” to the Board to finance the extension of light rail from downtown Seattle to the
University of Washington Station (University Link).
913
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
The inclusion of a “wrap” feature for bonds issued in the University Link Finance plan does not extend
the term of the debt – which remains at 30 years. However, it does defer repayment of principal during
that period vis-à-vis a level amortization structure.
NL 386-16 Sound Transit’s most current financial projections, including capital and operating cost estimates for the
North Link project, are provided in Section 5 of the Final SEIS.
NL 386-17 The contribution to capital replacement reserves in the finance plan is a function of (a) replacement cost
of the asset; and (b) useful life of the asset. The asset replacement schedule is not impacted by farebox
revenue. If final capital costs were to be higher than those included in the Proposed University Link
finance plan, capital replacement contributions would have to rise proportionally. The ability of Sound
Transit to make contributions to the capital reserve replacement consistent with the financial plan
assumptions will be impacted primarily by the long-term growth of its local revenue sources and the
growth of operations and maintenance costs. If these revenues and costs grow consistent with the
forecasts within the financial plan, Sound Transit should be able to meet its required contributions for
capital replacement.
This page has been intentionally left blank
914
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 387 CETA – John Niles
NL 387-1 Your comment is noted.
915
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 388 John Bruns
NL 388-1 Your comments are noted. Sound Transit is aware of CETA’s position on the North Link project.
Responses to comments in the letter attached to your letter are provided as NL 383.
This page has been intentionally left blank
917
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 389 Triad Development – Jill Kurfirst
NL 389-1 Sound Transit appreciates your support for the project.
NL 389-2 No long term noise or vibration impacts are expected at the Roosevelt Station based on FTA criteria. This
information was covered in Section 4.6 of the Draft SEIS, and is updated in the Final SEIS.
NL 389-3 Please see the North Link Final SEIS, Section 4.6 for an updated discussion of the characteristics and
potential impacts of ventilation facilities.
NL 389-4 The Washington State and City of Seattle Noise Control Ordinances are applicable to project construction
activities, and will be adhered to.
NL 389-5 Please see response to comment NL 389-4 above. Construction impacts and mitigation for the Preferred
and all other alternatives has been updated in the Final SEIS.
This page has been intentionally left blank
919
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 390 New Seattle Massage, Inc. – Barbara Hersey
NL 390-1 Sound Transit appreciates your support for the project. The Preferred Alternative includes a Brooklyn
Station located on Brooklyn south of NE 45th Street between NE 45th and NE 43rd Streets. The Sound
Transit Board will select the project to be built after publication of the Final SEIS and could either
confirm the Preferred Brooklyn Station or select the other Brooklyn options or NE 45th Street option.
NL 390-2 With the Preferred Alternative’s Brooklyn Station located to the south of NE 45th Street, all of the
construction activity would take place to the south, but it is correct that staging for other Brooklyn options
would occur north of NE 45th Street. Sound Transit would develop noise walls and implement noise
mitigation measures as described in Section 4.17.7 of the Final SEIS. There is the potential that noise
from construction would be audible for area businesses, although Seattle ordinance allows higher noise
levels during daytime hours.
NL 390-3 The removal of area off-street parking was identified in the 2003 Draft SEIS (Section 4.1, Acquisitions,
and Section 3.3, Transportation) and parking loss was identified in Section 4.17.3 as a construction
impact to businesses because, as you note, it could discourage patrons. However, Sound Transit also
reviewed the availability of parking in the University District; paid lots are not fully utilized in the
district, and parking would remain available although patrons may have to walk further than currently.
Other measures to offset construction effects on businesses are also provided in Section 4.17.2 of the
Final SEIS.
NL 390-4 Sound Transit regrets the potential displacement of a service provider that your business uses; laundry
services would still be available from other providers.
NL 390-5 Sound Transit appreciates your support for the project and notes your concern regarding construction
effects. The Preferred Alternative has been identified as the Brooklyn Station, to be sited south of NE 45th
Street. The effects of other alternatives were discussed in the 2003 Draft SEIS, and updated information
and analysis of construction effects and mitigation are provided in the Final SEIS.
This page has been intentionally left blank
921
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 391 University of Washington – Richard Chapman
NL 391-1 Updated analysis of construction impacts and mitigation are included in the Final SEIS. The 2005 Draft
SEIS was intended to describe the differences and changes in impacts between the alternatives as
described in the 2003 Draft SEIS and Modified Montlake Addendum, and any refinements that have
occurred since that time.
As you are aware, review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) should be conducted at the
earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process when the principle features of a
proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified (see WAC 197-11-055). SEPA
review for the North Link light rail project has been conducted consistent with this requirement and the
project construction impacts are reasonably covered in the Final SEIS and appropriate mitigation
identified. We anticipate additional specificity on mitigation measures will be developed in accordance
with the MOA with the University and any subsequent amendments or implementing agreements.
Compliance with SEPA for Sound Transit’s North Link light rail project will be completed with Sound
Transit’s publication of this Final SEIS. Sound Transit has concluded that the Final SEIS and supporting
documentation provides the appropriate substantive and procedural compliance pursuant to SEPA for the
project. We believe the University can use these documents unchanged (per WAC 197-11-600) in support
of any actions related to the project by the University.
NL 391-2 The summary information provided in the 2005 Draft SEIS reflected the available information at the time
of publication review, and was primarily based on the earlier 2003 Draft SEIS and the Montlake
Addendum. The Final SEIS reflects updated analysis that is also informing the development of the Master
Implementation Agreement.
NL 391-3 In Table S-2, the “Other Segment B Alternatives” refer to those alternatives included in the 2003 Draft
SEIS (Alternatives B1.A, B1.D, B1.Ga, B3.D, B3.Ga, B4.D, and B4.Ga,b).
NL 391-4 This is correct. See response to comment NL 391-2.
NL 391-5 Sound Transit has proposed as mitigation an entrance or access point for the University of Washington
Station that provides a grade-separated crossing north of NE Pacific Place and the Burke-Gilman Trail.
The Sound Transit Board is expected to decide on this issue following the release of the Final SEIS.
Sound Transit recognizes the University’s ongoing concern regarding this station and will continue to
work the City and other affected parties throughout the course of the project.
This page has been intentionally left blank
923
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 392 Vera Galbreath
NL 392-1 Sound Transit appreciates your support of the Roosevelt Station and the Preferred Alternative.
924
10
11
12
13
14
NL 393 (cont'd)
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 393 WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Division – Judith Giniger
NL 393-1 Sound Transit appreciates your acknowledgement of the ongoing coordination with WSDOT in regards to
the Segment A alignment and the statement of support for the identification of the 12th Avenue alignment
as a part of the Preferred Alternative.
NL 393-2 The intent of the 2005 Draft SEIS was to describe the differences and changes in impacts between the
alternatives as described in the 2003 Draft SEIS and any refinements that have occurred since that time.
Additional information, including a more in-depth description of the mitigation techniques to address
noise and vibration impacts, has been included in the Final SEIS. The Final SEIS analysis will also be
supported by a Noise and Vibration technical report.
NL 393-3 Sound Transit will continue to coordinate with WSDOT regarding the construction of a retrofit noise
barrier along 1st and 2nd Avenues south of 92nd Street. Additional information has been provided in
Sections 4.6 and 4.17.7 of the Final EIS.
NL 393-4 The intent of the 2005 Draft SEIS was to describe the differences and changes in impacts between the
alternatives as described in the 2003 Draft SEIS and any refinements that have occurred since that time. If
impacts did not change, they were not addressed in the 2005 Draft SEIS. The Final SEIS will include an
updated discussion of stormwater runoff quality and quantity impacts as well as stormwater management
approaches.
NL 393-5 The 2005 North Link Draft SEIS focused on changes in environmental impacts due to design refinements,
related project modifications, and other new information not previously discussed in the North Link Draft
SEIS published in 2003. As stated at the beginning of Chapter 3, environmental effects not discussed can
be assumed to be the same as previously evaluated in the 2003 Draft SEIS.
Specifics regarding stormwater criteria to be used will be determined during final design and will meet
local, state, and federal standards. For the Initial Segment, Sound Transit has used the State Department
of Ecology requirements and would anticipate continuing to use these criteria for North Link.
NL 393-6 The reference to the 2003 Draft SEIS in the table on page S-9 refers to the first Draft SEIS prepared for
the North Link project published in November 2003.
926
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 393-7 The 2003 Draft SEIS included a statement regarding the treatment of groundwater, where it may be
encountered, both as part of construction (4.17) as well as in Section 4.7, Water Resources. This
information remains in the Final SEIS.
NL 393-8 Construction impacts are discussed in the Final SEIS, but reflect the analysis and findings originally
stated in the 2003 Draft SEIS in Section 4.17 and subsequent documents. The intent of the 2005 Draft
SEIS was to describe the differences and changes in impacts between the alternatives as described in the
2003 Draft SEIS/2004 Modified Montlake Addendum and any refinements that have occurred since that
time. If impacts did not change, then they were not addressed in the 2005 Draft SEIS.
NL 393-9 As you know, Sound Transit is a co-lead agency with WSDOT on the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and
HOV Project, and there has been on-going coordination between the two agencies and other affected
parties regarding construction phasing and staging. This coordination will continue in order to avoid
and/or minimize construction impacts. Conceptual construction phasing and staging plans for North Link
are included in the Final SEIS, Appendix J. The Final SEIS Section 4.18 provides additional discussion of
cumulative effects of construction related to the SR 520 project.
NL 393-10 Permanent facilities are shown on the figures in Section 2 of the 2005 Draft SEIS. Appendix A provided
conceptual engineering information, including for Interim Termini (page A-30). This information is
provided for all alternatives in the Final SEIS, Appendix J. The Final SEIS Section 4.18 provides
additional discussion to cumulative effects of construction related to the SR 520 project.
NL 393-11 The proposal to add the interchange options as part of the SR 520 project alternatives was made while the
North Link Draft SEIS was being developed. The option has not yet been identified by WSDOT as a
Preferred Alternative, no environmental documentation of its effects have been publicly released, and
limited informed public comment has been made on the proposal. However, Sound Transit is continuing
to coordinate with WSDOT and has provided additional information on the relationship of the two
projects and considering the potential cumulative effects in Section 4.18 of the Final SEIS.
NL 393-12 As stated in the 2003 SEIS and updated for the Final, the midblock crossing of NE Pacific Place would
operate at LOS B in years 2015 and LOS F in 2030; effects on traffic operations at adjacent intersections
would not unacceptably affect LOS and would add only minimal delay. It is also likely that queuing on
NE Pacific Place would be less with a signal than with a stop sign. Therefore, signalizing this crossing
has been identified as mitigation. As a result of this analysis and feedback from a working group that
evaluated the University of Washington Station, Sound Transit is considering a third station entrance on
the University of Washington campus, which would include a pedestrian passageway under or over NE
Pacific Place and the Burke Gilman Trail. Sound Transit analysis shows that an unsignalized midblock
crossing would operate at LOS B upon opening but would degrade to LOS F by 2030. Potential
mitigation is identified in the 2005 Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS.
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 393-13 Pedestrian volumes and associated signal phasings/timings were included in the traffic analysis for the
Modified Montlake Route Addendum and no adverse impacts were identified. Ridership and pedestrian
volumes would be the same with the University of Washington station as described for Northlake Station
Option B in the Addendum. Nonetheless, as a result of continuing work with WSDOT and other affected
parties regarding pedestrian flows and safety in this area, the 2005 Draft SEIS provided additional detail
and identified improvements for this crossing, which include widening the crosswalk and improving its
visibility.
NL 393-14 As stated in the 2005 Draft SEIS, Sound Transit analysis showed that the existing pedestrian refuge area
is sufficient through the year 2015 but would be exceeded by the year 2030 and appropriate mitigation
measures are described. If or when the pedestrian refuge area becomes insufficient, Sound Transit could
either enlarge or relocate it and the details of the mitigation design would be determined at that time.
927
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 394 King County – David Hopkins
NL 394-1 Sound Transit is pleased to hear that you find the information well presented.
NL 394-2 Thank you for the correction. First Hill is listed in a similar system-level figure for the Final SEIS.
NL 394-3 Sound Transit provides an updated discussion of parking demand at the Northgate station in the Final
SEIS, Section 3, Transportation, and also clarifies the displaced parking replacement totals associated
with the different Northgate option alternatives.
NL 394-4 Sound Transit notes your support for the optional entrance for the Capitol Hill/Nagle Station. The Sound
Transit Board will decide on this option upon completion of the Final SEIS.
NL 394-5 A station entrance or access point has been added as mitigation north of the Burke-Gilman Trail with a
grade-separated crossing over or under the trail and NE Pacific Place. We look forward to learning the
results of the King County Metro study regarding the depression of NE Pacific Place.
NL 394-6 Comment noted. Sound Transit has added discussion of the potential impacts in Section 3.3 of the Final
SEIS and will coordinate with the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Schools, neighborhood members, and
King County Metro to determine appropriate treatments.
NL 394-7 See response to comment 394-3 above. However, the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS Section 3.3 included a
discussion of the potential for spill-over parking that could occur at the station if demand exceeded
supply, and mitigation approaches for hide-and-ride impacts is identified.
NL 394-8 The Preferred Northgate Station is estimated to permanently displace 166 stalls on the existing transit
center park-and-ride. Sound Transit would either pay King County the cost to replace the 166 spaces as
part of King County’s TOD project or construct a parking garage to replace the 166 stalls on the park-
and-ride site.
NL 394-9 Sound Transit has discussed the First Avenue NE transit center with King County and the conceptual
design of the Northgate light rail station Preferred Alternative would accommodate the First Avenue NE
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
transit center layout and design. Continued coordination is required between Sound Transit and King
County as the plans and design of the light rail station, King County TOD and transit center advance.
NL 394-10 Comment noted. Drawing KP-04 has been included in the Final SEIS.
NL 394-11 It is Sound Transit’s understanding that King County’s proposed First Avenue NE Transit Center
Alternative is one option under study for development of the TOD at this site, has not gone through
environmental review, and if it is selected as the option to be built, has not been funded and has no
timetable for implementation. It is, therefore not considered to be an existing condition. The First Avenue
NE Transit Center Alternative is also not part of the light rail project. For these reasons, the First Avenue
NE Transit Center Alternative is not shown on the light rail project conceptual drawings and the light rail
project could be built whether the transit center alternative and TOD move forward or not. Potential
cumulative impacts of the light rail project, TOD and transit center alternative project are discussed in
Section 4.18, Cumulative Effects.
928
1
March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments
NL 395 Jack Whisner
NL 395-1 North Link station locations were considered at length during the scoping, alternatives analysis,
preliminary engineering and Draft SEIS phases of the North Link project. Walk distance and ridership
benefits were evaluated carefully against construction and operating impacts (especially vibration and
electromagnetic field impacts to the University of Washington) during Preliminary Engineering. The
Montlake/Rainier Vista station alternative in the SEIS illustrates many of the challenges and advantages
of having a station built in the heart of central campus and with entrances directly on Stevens Way. The
University of Washington opposed that alternative and has consistently sought lower impact options. A
third station in the University District is not being planned for in the design of the project alternatives and
would not be a cost effective addition to the project.
930