NL 350 Richard Maas - Sound Transit | Ride the Wave · PDF fileNL 350 Richard Maas ... tunnel boring machines, ... As you note, both the energy saved by transit riders and the energy

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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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 359-6 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


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.


NL 361 Dwight Baker


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.


855

1

2

3


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

1

2

2

cont.

3

4

5

NL 363 (cont'd)

857


NL 363 Dwight Baker


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.


This page has been intentionally left blank

858

1


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


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


NL 366 Nancy Bocek

NL 366-1 Your alignment and station preferences have been noted.

861

1


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


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


With Disabilities Act, which requires that all public facilities, including light rail, remain accessible to

persons with disabilities.


864

1

2

3


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

1

NL 370 (cont'd)

866

NL 370 (cont'd) NL 370 (cont'd)

867


868

NL 370 (cont'd)


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


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


NL 372 Dwight Baker


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.


871

1

2

3

4

5


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


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

1

2

3

NL 375 (cont'd)

874

3

cont.

4

5

6

7

8

NL 375 (cont'd)


NL 375 Roosevelt High School Site Council – Jeffrey Grose


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


NL 375-8See response to comment 375-7.


876

1

2

3

4

4

cont.

NL 376 (cont'd)

877


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 376-4 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.


878

1

2


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

1

2

3

NL 378 (cont'd)

880

3

cont.

4

5

NL 378 (cont'd)


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


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.


882

1


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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

cont.

8

NL 380 (cont'd)

884


NL 380 Virginia Paulsen


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.


885

1

2

2

cont.

3

4

NL 381 (cont'd)

886

NL 381 (cont'd)


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

1

2

3

3

cont.

4

5

6

7

8

NL 382 (cont'd)

888

9

10

11

12

NL 382 (cont'd)

12

cont.

13

14

15

16

17

18

NL 382 (cont'd)

889

18

cont.

19

20

NL 382 (cont'd)


NL 382 Seattle Department of Transportation – Grace Crunican


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


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.


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

Email attachment to NL 383

John Niles

1

2

3

4

892

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

NL 383 (cont'd)

11

cont.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL 383 (cont'd)

893

20

cont.

21

22

23


894


895


896



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.


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


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.


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

Email attachment to NL 384

1

899

1

cont.

2

3

NL 384 (cont'd)

3

cont.

4

5

NL 384 (cont'd)

900

5

cont.

6

NL 384 (cont'd)

6

cont.

7

9

8

NL 384 (cont'd)

901

9

cont.

10

NL 384 (cont'd)

10

cont.

11

12

NL 384 (cont'd)

902


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.


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

Attachment to NL 385

1

2

3

4

904

4

cont.

5

6

7

NL 385 (cont'd)

7

cont.

NL 385 (cont'd)

905

NL 385 (cont'd)


906


907


908


NL 385 (cont'd)

909


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.


910

1

2

2

cont.

3

4

5

6

7

8

NL 386 (cont'd)

911

8

cont.

9

10

11

12

NL 386 (cont'd) 12

cont.

13

14

15

16

17

NL 386 (cont'd)

912


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


approximately 10 minutes faster than Regional Express Bus service. Additionally, Sounder’s exclusive

right-of-way ensures greater schedule reliability than bus service.


NL 386-10 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


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.


914

1



NL 387-1 Your comment is noted.

915

1

NL 388 (cont'd)

916


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.


917

1

2

3

4

5

NL 389 (cont'd)

918


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.


919

1

2

3

4

4

cont.

5

NL 390 (cont'd)

920


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.


921

1

2

2

cont.

3

4

5

NL 391 (cont'd)

922


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.


923

1


NL 392 Vera Galbreath

NL 392-1 Sound Transit appreciates your support of the Roosevelt Station and the Preferred Alternative.

924

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

NL 393 (cont'd)

925

10

11

12

13

14

NL 393 (cont'd)


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


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.


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


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


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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

NL 394 (cont'd)

929

1


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

Documents

NL 350 Richard Maas - Sound Transit | Ride the Wave · PDF fileNL 350 Richard Maas ... tunnel boring machines, ... As you note, both the energy saved by transit riders and the energy