NL 180 (cont'd)

Transcription

1 NL 180 (cont'd)

2 NL 180 (cont'd) NL 180 (cont'd)

3 NL 180 Dan Quinlan NL (PMX-King) Your suggested route alignment and comments have been noted. Please refer to 2003 Draft SEIS Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, which states that the purpose of the project is to connect the region s major activity centers. A route along I-5 would require riders to transfer to a bus route to reach most major activity centers. The current proposed routes would bring riders directly to the activity centers, reducing the need for transfers. This page has been intentionally left blank NL (PMX-King) Light rail is proposed to enhance the transportation conditions of the Puget Sound region by adding to an integrated multi-modal public transit system that is both inter- and intra-city. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for the Initial Segment has been noted, although it does not relate to the proposals in the 2003 North Link Draft SEIS. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted, although it does not relate to the proposals in the 2003 North Link Draft SEIS. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 446

4 NL 181 Sharon Wehde 1 NL (PMX-Wendle) Effects to adjacent properties were considered in the assessment of impacts to land use, economics, and neighborhoods. Impacts were found by the analysts to be largely confined to the properties required for acquisition, and no major changes were expected for adjacent properties. Sound Transit requires a TPSS near the alignment, and sited the facility to minimize effects to the neighborhood by placing it adjacent to I-5. The 2003 Draft SEIS identified acquisitions that would occur with the TPSS facility at NE 85th Street with all Segment A alternatives (Draft SEIS Section 4.1.1). The commenter states that the 2003 Draft SEIS does not adequately address potential impacts to her properties at nd NE and 105 NE 8th Street. The 2005 Draft SEIS provided updated discussion of vent facilities, including near your properties, and also provided more detail on the nature of TPSS and other support facilities. This information is included in the Final SEIS. The comparatively small size of these facilities and the limited effects on adjacent properties and the environment supports the conclusion that impacts of the TPSS would be minor. NL (ST) Our community outreach staff has been in contact with you and continues to be available to you for information. As stated in Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS, all property owners affected by the Preferred Alternative will be contacted. 2 March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 447

5 NL182 (cont'd)

6 NL182 (cont'd) NL182 (cont'd)

7 NL182 (cont'd) NL182 (cont'd)

8 NL182 (cont'd) NL182 (cont'd)

9 NL 182 Nancy Anderson NL (PMX-King) Your opposition to remote vent facility Option B has been noted. A refined version of Option C was identified as the Preferred Alternative. Please see response to common comment BB-2. NL (PMX-King) Thank you for providing additional information about the Montlake neighborhood. The discussion in the Final SEIS has been updated to reflect letters such as yours stating important qualities of the neighborhood and concern regarding impacts. NL (PMX-King) Your general support of North Link and objection to the proposed remote vent facility locations in your neighborhood have been noted. NL (PMX-King) Your opposition to remote vent facility Option B based on potential neighborhood impacts has been acknowledged, although it continues to be evaluated in the Final SEIS. The 2003 Draft SEIS considered and disclosed the effects of siting the facility in each of the three alternative locations. Please see response to common comment BB-2. NL (PMX-King) Community impacts were analyzed in the 2003 Draft SEIS and Modified Montlake Route Addendum, with updated review in the 2005 Draft SEIS. Please see response to common comment BB-2. NL (Michael Minor) Please see response to common comment BB-2. NL (CH2M-Yansura) Please see response to common comment BB-2, which addresses air quality. NL (PMX-King) Your concern of lack of adequate staging area for remote vent facility Options A and B has been noted. Construction staging for the remote vent facility options was identified in Section 4.17 of the 2003 Draft SEIS (see Figure ), along with a discussion of typical construction staging requirements and activities. NL (PMX-King) Potential geological impacts were based on field survey, City of Seattle and King County Geologically Hazardous Areas Maps, and King County Soil Survey information. Please see Sections 4.10 and of the 2003 Draft and Final SEIS. Additional geotechnical analysis is also conducted during preliminary engineering. NL (CH2M-Pitzler, PMX-Wendle) Your concerns regarding potential adverse impacts to residential property values associated with the remote vent facility in the Montlake neighborhood are noted. The response to common comment BB-2 addresses this issue. The estimated cost of acquiring land for the remote vent facility is included in cost estimates presented in the DEIS. NL (PMX-King) Your relative preference for remote vent facility Option C is noted. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. Potential redevelopment options at the site are being considered as an element of design, after the remote vent facility design requirements have been met. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. Please see response to comment NL NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. Please see response to comment NL NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for locating the remote vent facility on the east edge of the Montlake Playfield has been noted. Please see response to common comment BB-1. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for locating the remote vent facility near the SR 520 Montlake off-ramp has been noted. Please see response to common comment BB-1. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for locating the remote vent facility on the NOAA property has been noted. Please see response to common comment BB-1. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for locating the remote vent facility near Interlaken Park has been noted. Please see response to common comment BB-1. NL (PMX-King) Please see Appendix B of the 2003 Draft SEIS, which highlights the numerous public outreach events Sound Transit has conducted to gain feedback from the public. Please see the responses to common comments BB-1 and BB-2. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 452

10 NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit has met with the Montlake community on several occasions; please see Appendix B of the 2003 Draft SEIS. Sound Transit will continue to work with the community during final design as discussed in Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS. This page has been intentionally left blank March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 453

11 NL183 (cont'd) 1 cont

12 NL183 (cont'd) NL183 (cont'd) 5 cont

13 NL183 (cont'd) NL183 (cont'd)

14 NL183 (cont'd) NL183 (cont'd) 29 cont

15 NL183 (cont'd) NL183 (cont'd) cont

16 NL183 (cont'd) NL 183 King County Executive Office/David Hopkins NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit agrees with King County that the listed project objectives are important considerations when making final decisions regarding alignments and stations. These will be considered along with environmental, community, cost, engineering, and other factors. NL (PMX-King) Comments noted. The underground 12th Avenue NE/NE 65th Street Station would provide a station central to the commercial and residential core of the Roosevelt neighborhood, and this station may promote better pedestrian access than the station options for the 8th Avenue alternatives. A 12th Avenue NE/NE 65th Street Station would become a destination serving the neighborhood core for the local bus network. NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. Although the facility could be used by light rail patrons, some of whom would be bus riders in a No-Build scenario, the park-and-ride is already at capacity and is expected to remain fully utilized by bus riders under No-Build or by a combination of bus riders and light rail patrons with the light rail project. The Preferred Alternative would have less potential for park-and-ride use by light rail patrons. Although there could be the potential for new destinations to be served by the park-and-ride, existing patterns would also be likely to continue, and the lot would be filled on a first come, first-served basis, as it is today. NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. Sound Transit will continue to work with King County Metro, the City of Seattle, and the property owner during the Northgate Station design process to identify and develop a design that provides good pedestrian connections between the Northgate Mall, light rail station, and bus transit center; improves bus and rail connections for transit patrons; and minimizes the potential for traffic impacts. Sound Transit s Preferred Alternative was developed in coordination with King County Metro s current plan concepts that relocate the bus transit center to 1st Avenue and provide for Transit Oriented Development. Although not preferred, a station option over 1st Avenue NE (Option C) is also evaluated in the Final SEIS. NL (PMX-King) A route alignment with stations at First Hill, Capitol Hill, south University of Washington campus, and north University of Washington campus would address regional land use and transportation objectives that have been established for light rail. The Preferred Alternative includes stations serving these areas, but does not directly serve First Hill. One of the project s primary goals is to improve the transit network and help effectively integrate public modes of transportation along the corridor, and thus increase public transit use. NL (PMX-King) The Preferred Alternative does not include a station at First Hill. Sound Transit would investigate other transit options to better serve this area if a First Hill Station is not included in the selected project. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 459

17 NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit agrees with King County that a Capitol Hill Station would be beneficial by providing increased regional accessibility to this high-density residential neighborhood. NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit agrees with King County that Alternative B1.D would have many benefits and these need to be considered with its potential impacts. The Modified Montlake Route has been identified as part of the Preferred Alternative. NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. A station access point on University Way has not been included in any of the alternatives. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. NL (PMX-Wendle) The 2003 Draft SEIS (page 3-14) and Final SEIS explains that terminating North Link at a southern University District Station could reduce the number of routes that could be truncated in the University District, limiting the number of service hours available for redeployment, and restricting access to Link. NL (ST) As stated in Section 3.2.2, timing of conversion will be dictated by factors including light rail ridership and train frequencies required. NL (PMX-Wendle) Comment noted. The Final SEIS has been revised to note paratransit services. Paratransit commitments are noted in Section ** NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. If the Harrison Station is identified as part of the alternative to be built, the pedestrian bridge over I-5 to Capitol Hill would be designed to meet ADA accessibility requirements. NL (PMX-Fann) Section discusses changes to transit services such as restructuring to provide access to North Link and serve areas not served by North Link and notes that King County will lead the service implementation planning efforts. Sound Transit will coordinate with King County to provide paratransit services for North Link. NL (PMX-Fann) Sound Transit agrees that North Link light rail will provide improvements in off-peak travel and reverse commute directions. NL (PMX-Fann) Comment noted. The Final SEIS has been revised. ** NL (PMX-Wendle) Comment noted. [** NL (PMX-Wendle) Thank you for the additional information on procedures for traffic lane closures affecting electric trolley buses. Discussion of construction impacts to bus routes is in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIS. *** NL (CH2M-Pitzler, PMX-Wendle) Please see response to comment NL NL (CH2M-Pitzler, PMX-Wendle) Your comment regarding probable improvements in traffic during peak hour periods associated with increased separation between the parking lot access points is noted. NL (CH2M-Pitzler, PMX-Wendle) Sound Transit has and will continue to work with the Seattle Department of Transportation, King County, and the State Department of Transportation in coordinating preparation of the Coordinated Transportation Investment Plan (CTIP) for the Northgate Urban Center in order to effectively integrate planned transportation infrastructure improvements and clarify financial contributions. NL (CH2M-Pitzler, PMX-Wendle) Your comment stating that implementation of the County's TOD project at Northgate is contingent on the successful acquisition of parcels within the park-and-ride lot located between 1st Avenue NE, the existing bus transit center, and parcels for the light rail alignment is noted. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. Section (page 4-157) of the 2003 Draft SEIS discusses impacts to the Convention Place Station during construction and closure of the station. NL (PMX-King) Your comment regarding the need of transfer for property rights or access and use easements for the Convention Place Station is acknowledged. If these alignments are implemented, Sound Transit will work with King County to obtain the necessary property rights and access. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 460

18 NL (CH2M-Pitzler) Your comment regarding the potential benefits of a Link light rail station beneath the Convention Place Center that is integrated with King County Metro and TOD is noted. NL (Herrera-Johnson) Sound Transit agrees that light rail and associated transit improvements will likely increase mobility for persons with disabilities. [** NL (Herrera-Johnson) Comment noted. [*** NL (PMX-King) Thank you for providing information on the Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), which details new requirements for maintaining accessibility during construction projects. NL (PMX-King) The term accessible refers to general public access. NL (PMX- King) The term accessible refers to general public access. [text revision required in the FSEIS] NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 4-5 of the Transportation Technical Report has been revised to note that two transit centers are located in the project area and to include many of the transfer points listed. The following major transfer points were left out of the Transportation Technical Report, since they are not located in the immediate vicinity of the project alignments: [ Lake City Way NE at NE 125th Street 15th Avenue NE and NE 125th Street Madison Street and Broadway 9th Avenue and Jefferson Street Denny Way and Dexter Avenue North Sound Transit notes that, depending upon the frequency and nature of feeder bus service, some of these transfer locations may require that additional curb space be reserved for bus zones and passenger facilities, which could impact some curbside parking and loading space. NL (PMX-Fann) Transfer locations have been updated to include the locations listed in comment NL Service levels between Seattle urban centers and other regional centers, is discussed in sections following 4.1.3, under Regional Transit. NL (PMX-Fann) A description of existing Washington State Ferry service is included in Section on page 4-5 of the Transportation Technical Report, under Regional Transit. No impact to ferry service is expected for North Link. NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 4-6 of the Transportation Technical Report has been revised to reflect that the Six-Year Transit Plan continues to build upon the multi-centered system that was introduced in the Six-Year Transit Development Plan. [** NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 406 of the Transportation Technical Report has been revised to include the number of parkand-ride lots and parking spaces in King County provided by King County Metro and WSDOT as of fall ** NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 4-7 of the Transportation Technical Report has been revised to note that most Sound Transit Regional Express bus routes operate seven days a week. [** NL (PMX-Fann) Table on pages 4-8 through 4-14 of the Transportation Technical Report has been updated to reflect transit network changes that have occurred since the year ** NL (PMX-Fann) Text has been added to page 4-24 of the Transportation Technical Report to point out both the positive and potentially negative implications of improved passenger load level of service. ** NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 4-30 of the Transportation Technical Report has been revised to reflect that the Bikes on Buses program transported approximately 10,800 bicycles per week between August 5 and September 15, ** NL (PMX-Fann) Text on page 4-43 of the Transportation Technical Report has been added to clarify that the designated park-and-ride spaces at Northgate are intended for use by both bus and light rail patrons. NL (PMX-Fann) Page 5-38 of the Transportation Technical Report acknowledged that without added restrictions on the existing on-street parking supply, some hide-and-ride parking impacts from Link patrons would be expected within an approximate 0.5-mile radius of the Roosevelt Station alternatives, since on-street unrestricted parking is currently approximately 58 percent utilized during midday hours. On August 25, 2003, a letter of concurrence was signed by both Sound Transit and the City of Seattle, describing both parties commitment to pursue appropriate on-street parking measures to discourage hide-and-ride parking activity in neighborhoods around Sound Transit Link light rail stations. Text has been added to March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 461

19 page 5-40 of the Transportation Technical Report to describe the mitigation plan, which would implement parking controls around each station with the start of light rail operations. *** NL (PMX-Fann) Text has been added to explain that the 296-space and 141-space park-and-ride lots were fully utilized prior to June 2002, when a 500-space park-and-ride lot was opened east of the Northgate Transit Center. The park-and-ride lot located at NE 112th Street and 5th Avenue NE was not included in the parking surveys, since this lot is not likely to be affected by North Link. [** This page has been intentionally left blank NL (PMX-Fann) Please see response to comment NL NL (PMX-Fann) As described under Section on page 5-16 of the Transportation Technical Report, Ridership differences of less than 2,000 daily boardings are not considered to be different, due to the margin of error inherent in the ridership forecasting. Therefore, decrease in 500 boardings at the University Station, which would occur with the First Hill Station, as shown in Tables 5.2-8a and 5.2-8b, is negligible. While it is likely that the number of riders traveling between First Hill and the Montlake Station would increase with Alternative B1.D, this increase would be offset by a slight overall decrease at stations system-wide, as existing bus transit trips shift to light rail. Sound Transit identified a Preferred Alternative that did not include a First Hill Station. Ridership comparisons of the First Hill routes to the Capitol Hill routes are best made at the system-wide level. Without the First Hill Station, the Montlake route carries 7,000 fewer daily trips in At the Montlake Station, the model weighs the accessibility between First Hill and Montlake against travel between Montlake and markets south of First Hill. In this case, the model found a slight advantage to the faster travel times to downtown. However, this does not offset the overall conclusion that the First Hill Station adds system-wide ridership. NL (PMX-Fann) No change has been made to the Transit Mitigation text on page 5-21 of the Transportation Technical Report. Bus routing and facility impacts and mitigation measures for the construction period are described in Section (pages 5-75 through 5-88) of the Transportation Technical Report. Section (pages 5-13 through 5-15) of the Transportation Technical Report also describes how bus service will be restructured with light rail implementation. Sound Transit will continue to work with King County Metro to relocate existing transit facilities to accommodate bus/link transfers. NL (PMX-Fann) Park-and-ride demand was evaluated for the Northgate Station. As updated for the Final SEIS, Sound Transit will be replacing park-and-ride spaces displaced by the station. Since no substantial increase in park-and-ride facilities would be constructed, no new park-and-ride traffic would be expected, which is also consistent with City of Seattle policies. The North Link traffic analysis does assume that some marginal increase in traffic would be expected at the Northgate Station. NL (PMX-Fann) Thank you for your comments; corrections have been made to the Final SEIS Appendices as appropriate. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 462

20 NL184 (cont'd)

21 NL184 (cont'd) NL184 (cont'd)

22 NL184 (cont'd) NL184 (cont'd) 26 cont

23 NL184 (cont'd) NL 184 University District Community Council/Matthew Fox NL Comment noted. (PMX-King) 35 NL (PMX-King) Alternative B3.D, connecting the Montlake (Rainier Vista) station to the station located at NE 45th Street and 15th Avenue NE was considered in the 2003 Draft SEIS. The Modified Montlake Route evaluated in the Addendum did not include that specific combination, but it remained within the range of alternative combinations available to the Sound Transit Board, as indicated on page 3-1 of the Addendum, which states that the feasibility of other northern University stations are being investigated. The Board identified the Brooklyn Station as the Preferred Alternative. A similar level of detail was provided in the Modified Montlake Route Addendum as in the 2003 Draft SEIS, but was focused only on the areas where alternatives changed. The comment period for the 2003 Draft SEIS was 70 days, which is 25 days longer than NEPA requirements. The Modified Montlake Route Addendum received its own 30-day comment period, which provided the additional opportunity for the public to comment on the modified route as well as other University routes. As discussed in the Addendum, impacts to University of Washington research led to development of the Montlake route. In May 1996 the Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move, the ten-year regional transit system plan which envisioned a starter regional system. In November 1996 voters within the Sound Move District authorized local taxes to implement Central Link from S. 200th Street to downtown Seattle and that part of the North Link project between downtown Seattle and the University District. Sound Move did not include funding for the segment of North Link from the University District to Northgate, and, therefore, this segment can be constructed only if additional funds above those identified in Sound Move become available. This information is provided in Chapter 5, Financial Analysis, of the SEIS, which also describes areas of potential resources for extending light rail from downtown Seattle to Northgate. As explained in the Preface of the 2003 Draft SEIS, the Central Link light rail project, which includes North Link, is an element of the Sound Move Regional Transit Plan adopted by the Sound Transit Board in May Voters in the district authorized financing to implement the plan in November Please also see Section S.4 of SEIS. NL (PMX-King) Your appreciation of the removal of the mid- and high-level ship canal crossing options is acknowledged. NL (PMX-King Your opposition to the 8th Avenue alternatives has been noted. NL (PMX-King) Your opposition to the Eastlake route has been noted. The route is included in the SEIS for its potential to avoid some costs and construction risks related to the original project, and because it provides connections between major centers while serving an emerging growth area. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 466

24 NL (PMX-King) A similar level of detail was provided in the Modified Montlake Route Addendum as in the 2003 Draft SEIS, but the Addendum was focused only on the areas where alternatives changed. The comment period for the 2003 Draft SEIS was 70 days, which is 25 days longer than NEPA requirements. The Modified Montlake Route Addendum received its own 30-day comment period, which provided the additional opportunity for the public to comment on the modified route as well as other University routes. As discussed in the Addendum, impacts to University of Washington research led to development of the Montlake route. NL (ST) The Sound Transit Board has identified Alternative A1.1. as the Segment A Preferred Alternative, although Alternatives A2.1b and A2.1c continue to be included in this Final SEIS. The freeway on and off ramps are impacted during construction but would remain the same or be improved as part of the alternatives. Only Alternative A2.1b displaces the farmers market, and that need is dependent on construction phasing decisions regarding whether it is built as a stand-alone project or at the same time as the segment to the south through Brooklyn Station. The 8th Avenue alternatives do not require an additional remote vent facility. The shaft at University Heights would only be for construction purposes, and the tunnel portal may require ventilation fans regardless of which route is ultimately identified. NL (PMX-King) Please see response to common comment AA-3. Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS states that residential displacement is one of five criteria used to analyze Changes in Neighborhood Quality, and the level of acquisition is similar between alternatives. The light rail project also does not involve rezoning, which is a decision to be made by the City of Seattle. NL (PMX-King) The difference in system-wide boardings between Alternatives A1 and A2 of less than 2,000 is not considered to be substantial, because it represents less than two percent of the year 2030 total system ridership range of 129,000 to 170,000. The statement quoted in this comment on page 3-16 of the 2003 Draft SEIS is not directly related to the cost-effectiveness calculations shown in Table S-9. NL (PMX-King) Table S-4 and Figure S-4 of the 2003 Draft SEIS do not conflict. Table S-4, which shows equal ridership ranges for all three Segment A alternatives, is not inconsistent with Figure S-4, which shows a difference in 7,500 system-wide boardings between Alternatives B1.D and B1.G. Alternatives B1.D and B1.G serve two different areas. Footnote 1 of Table S-4 states: Range in Segment A and North Link boarding dependent upon the Segment B Alternatives to which Segment A is connected. NL (PMX-Fann) The transfer experience from bus to rail is not expected to be substantially different among the underground Roosevelt Station Option A and the elevated Roosevelt Station Options B and C. All of these station options would require light rail passengers transferring from street-level bus stops to use stairs, elevators, or escalators to reach station platforms. Therefore, Sound Transit does not believe that an elevated freeway station (Roosevelt Station Options B and C) would reduce light rail ridership for these options. Because of this, the cost-effectiveness information presented in Table S-9 (2003 Draft SEIS page ES-25) is unchanged. NL (PMX-Fann) The difference in system-wide boardings between Alternatives A1 and A2 of less than 2,000 is not considered to be substantial, because it represents less than two percent of the year 2030 total system ridership range of 129,000 to 170,000. The statement quoted in this comment on page 3-16 of the 2003 Draft SEIS is not directly related to the cost-effectiveness calculations shown in Table S-9. NL (PMX-Fann) While it is possible that occasional backups are experienced at several of the stopped approaches at the Ravenna Boulevard/8th Avenue NE intersection, existing traffic volumes and future forecasted volumes suggest that these locations are operating well below capacity and at acceptable levels of service. The locations evaluated as part of the North Link 2003 Draft SEIS were agreed upon with the City of Seattle prior to analysis as potential locations that would be affected by North Link traffic. Based on this methodology and the relatively low number of new vehicle trips generated by North Link, the I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp/Eastbound Ravenna Boulevard intersection was not selected as an analysis location for the 2003 Draft SEIS. However, this location was modeled in the traffic network for the Roosevelt Station area and was shown to operate at LOS C or better with all alternatives in the year The Transportation Technical Report provides background information on intersection performance in the area. These results will not be directly reported in the North Link SEIS since no traffic impacts are expected to result from new trips to and from the Roosevelt Station. NL (PMX-King, CH2M-Pitzler) Future land use and development, including the population, number of housing units, and employment parameters, were taken into account when the light rail ridership forecasts were estimated. Please see Sound Transit s Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report for the methodology and parameters used. In addition, please see the response to comment NL NL (PMX-King) In May 1996 the Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move, the ten-year regional transit system plan which envisioned a starter regional system. In November 1996 voters within the Sound Move District authorized local taxes to implement Central Link from S. 200th Street to downtown Seattle and that part of the North Link project between downtown Seattle and the University District. Sound Move did not include funding for the segment of North Link from the University District to Northgate, and, therefore, this segment can be constructed only if additional funds above that identified in Sound Move become available. This information is provided in Chapter 5, Financial Analysis, of the North Link SEIS, which also describes seven areas of potential resources for extending light rail from downtown Seattle to Northgate. NL (PMX-King) The First Hill Station continues to remain an option; however, it is not included in the Preferred Alternative. Your support for Alternative B1.D is noted. NL (PMX-King) Deferral of the station for construction at a future time after initial construction is not practical at this location. The Preferred Alternative does not include a station at First Hill. In the event a First Hill Station is not included in the selected project, Sound Transit would investigate other transit options to serve this area. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 467

25 NL (PMX-King) Your preference and justifications for a Montlake route have been noted. The Modified Montlake Route, which was slightly revised to accommodate the University s concerns, was identified as part of the Preferred Alternative. The Board will select the project to be built after publication of the Final SEIS. NL (ST) Alternative B3.D, connecting the Montlake (Rainier Vista) Station to the station located at NE 45th Street and 15th Avenue NE was considered in the 2003 Draft SEIS. The Modified Montlake Route evaluated in the Addendum did not include that specific combination, but it remained within the range of alternative combinations available to the Sound Transit Board, as indicated on page 3-1 of the Addendum, which states that the feasibility of other northern University Stations are being investigated. The Board identified the Brooklyn Station as the Preferred Alternative. NL (PMX-King) Some construction activities may require work that would produce audible noise after 10:00 p.m. The sentence the NEDC quoted from 2003 Draft SEIS page 4-167: The levels in these criteria could result in noise impacts after 10:00 p.m. at distances of up to 2,500 feet from the staging sites and station locations omitted the last portion of the sentence which stated (assuming 88 dba at 100 feet with a direct view of the site). Nighttime noise levels would not likely reach 88 dba at 100 feet, and this noise level would be reduced at 2,500 feet, though still audible. Additional discussion of construction noise and vibration issues is provided in the Final SEIS and Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Additional mitigation measures and details on impacts for equipment is provided in the Final SEIS in Section NL (PMX-Wendle) Construction impacts for each of the North Link alternatives are discussed in Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS and Sections through of the Transportation Technical Report. These sections describe the range of truck trips per day and per hour, construction duration, and expected haul routes at various locations in the system. Since the number of truck trips associated with North Link construction during the peak hour range from 0 to 25 trips, the duration of this activity is limited, and truck traffic would be distributed on several arterial streets and intersections in each construction area, substantial impacts to intersection levels of service are not expected. text revision required in FSEIS NL (PMX-Wendle) Sound Transit remains committed to helping businesses minimize potential impacts during construction. The listing of potential mitigation measures is described in the Final SEIS, and Sound Transit expects to apply a range of approaches. The discussion provided in Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS regarding land use identifies noise and construction impacts. The term "multifamily residential uses" along with "Madison commercial district" describes the area, and the anticipated impacts are disclosed. Sound Transit will work with individual businesses not identified for displacement prior to construction to minimize impacts. As noted in the 2003 Draft SEIS, property owners that have their property acquired would receive fair value for their property; businesses that are displaced would receive relocation assistance to help them get established elsewhere, as described in Sections and Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS discusses impacts to businesses as a result of construction and states smaller businesses may be severely impacted especially if there are months or years of nuisance impacts and in some cases, if impacts are highly adverse, may fail or relocate. In instances where private property access cannot be maintained or if new access cannot be developed, Sound Transit would acquire the property. Sound Transit will make every effort to relocate displaced businesses in their community. To minimize impacts to businesses during construction, Sound Transit would work with affected businesses to ensure that necessary access and parking are maintained or temporarily replaced and that other temporary impacts are minimized as discussed in Section 4.17 of the 2003 Draft SEIS. The light rail project has the potential to affect the value of properties close to station areas and light rail facilities through direct and/or indirect changes in local characteristics that affect property value (see Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS, Local Indirect Economic Impacts). In general, the light rail system has the potential to exert two opposing forces on property values: improved transit access and business activity can increase property values, and increased nuisance effects (e.g. noise, visual, privacy, reduced vehicle access or parking) can reduce property values. Potential negative property value impacts to adjacent properties will be minimized through appropriate siting of station areas and remote vent facilities and implementation of specific mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing nuisance impacts. NL (PMX-Fann) While additional information is provided in Chapter 3 the Final SEIS, potential traffic, hide-and-ride parking, and business impacts and mitigation discussed for the Brooklyn Station options in the 2003 Draft SEIS (Section 3.3.2) remain applicable to the station as a terminus. As stated on page 3-25 of the 2003 Draft SEIS, the area of greatest potential parking impact occurs within approximately a 1/4-mile radius of the station; therefore, areas north of NE 52nd Street were excluded during the northern University Station parking analysis. However, in areas where existing parking utilization exceeded a 90 percent threshold, the area of analysis was expanded to encompass a 2,000-foot radius from the proposed station. Measures to mitigate the potential impact of hide-and-ride parking, including measures to detect the occurrence of hide-and-ride parking, are provided in the Final SEIS in Section 3.3. See response to NL NL (PMX-Fann) Level of service on Brooklyn Avenue NE at NE 47th Street, NE 45th Street, and NE Campus Parkway is shown for the year 2015 in Table 3.3-7a (page 3-36) and for the year 2030 in Table 3.3-7b (page 3-38) of the 2003 Draft SEIS. This information supports the statement that Brooklyn Avenue NE sustains comparatively moderate levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic; however, the statement is not intended to minimize the importance of this street for neighborhood circulation. The difference in level of service between the No-Build and Build Alternatives at intersections along Brooklyn Avenue NE is not expected to result in traffic shifts to other north/south streets. These streets would generally continue to experience higher congestion levels compared to Brooklyn Avenue NE with any of the North Link Build Alternatives, making traffic shifts unlikely to occur. NL (PMX-Fann) With a University District interim terminus, ridership at the northern University District Station is expected to be six percent higher in the year 2015 and 14 percent higher in the year 2030 (2003 Draft SEIS page 3-35). A level of service analysis at intersections in the vicinity of the northern University District Station alternatives was conducted and is shown in Table of the Transportation Technical Report. The additional ridership generated by terminating the light rail line at the NE 45th or Brooklyn Stations would result in very minor impacts to intersection LOS and vehicle delays. Any additional bus trips that would occur at this interim terminus location were also considered in the analysis. LOS at March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 468

26 intersections located west of Brooklyn Avenue NE or on Brooklyn Avenue NE south of NE 45th was not evaluated because any traffic increases from bus and passenger drop-off trips at these stations would generally not be oriented in these directions. As a result, any traffic and intersection delay increases resulting from the project in these areas are expected to be minor. NL (PMX-Fann) The average vehicle delay increase at the NE 45th Street/Brooklyn Avenue NE intersection is higher with NE 45th Street Station because traffic is added to the high volume through movements on NE 45th Street as opposed to the lower volume Brooklyn Avenue NE approaches with Brooklyn Station Options A, B, or C. Consequently, the impact on LOS and average vehicle delay is higher for the NE 45th Street Station Option. NL (Michael Minor) It is correct that special properties include concert halls, recording studios, TV stations, some hospitals, research facilities and semi-conductor manufacturers, and other properties that are sensitive to noise, vibration or ground-borne noise. Project alternatives were examined and only one noise sensitive property, Vagrant Records, located at 5512 Roosevelt Way NE was identified. For the Preferred Alternative, the tunnel depth at this location is approximately 140 feet deep and 280 feet west of this location. Vibration levels are projected to be below 50 Vdb, and ground-borne noise levels are projected to be below 15 dba. There is no impact of any type projected at this location for the Preferred Alternative, and other alternatives are the same distance or further from the property. NL (PMX-Wendle) Sound Transit has conducted additional geologic analysis, which includes potential dewatering and settlement impacts, and is reflected in Sections 4.10 and of this Final SEIS. However, the conclusions of the 2003 Draft SEIS remain unchanged, with impacts identified only at locations with very shallow tunnel depths. Section provides additional discussion of how geologic issues during construction are addressed through design measures. NL (Michael Minor) Sound Transit is working with the University of Washington to address their concerns. Because the tunnel depth is generally greater than 90 to 100 feet, there are limited noise or vibration impacts projected north of the University of Washington campus or south of the tunnel's north portals, and these impacts can be mitigated. Tunnel depths are determined by a number of factors, including ground conditions, topography, and station location. Decreasing tunnel depth would generally increase vibration levels at the surface. NL (PMX-King) Earlier planning and coordination with the University did not identify the level of concerns for research that emerged in the North Link 2003 Draft SEIS. Concerns from researchers led to further investigation, which revealed potential vibration and EMF issues. NL (PMX-Fann) The discussion of person moving capacity, in combination with the discussion on congestion and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios on pages 3-2 and 3-3 indicates that existing roadways along the North Link corridor are operating near or at capacity. While it is likely that North Link would not cause a reduction in traffic volume compared to the No-Build Alternative, it would create person-moving capacity (as described on page 3-3 and shown in Table 3.1-5) beyond what is already provided via roadways and bus transit. This increased capacity will be an important part of the region s strategy for accommodating population and employment growth. Ridership forecasts shown in the Final SEIS indicate that North Link would attract between 92,000 and 119,000 riders per day in the year 2015 and 129,000 and 170,000 riders per day in the year 2030, which represents a substantial number of person trips beyond those served by existing roadways. NL (PMX-King) As Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS stated, approximately 30 major comprehensive land use and development plans and implementing regulations shaped the land use policy framework for the North Link alternatives. Included in this list were the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan and the University Community Urban Center Plan. Updates for recently adopted plans, including the most recent Seattle Comprehensive Plan amendment, have been provided for the Final SEIS. NL (PMX-Fann) The 2003 Draft SEIS Section discusses likely changes in transit service characteristics in the Service Coverage and Structure subsection beginning on page As noted, implementation of North Link will increase the region s overall level of public transportations services. The last paragraph of page 3-14 and first paragraph on page 3-15 of the 2003 Draft SEIS state that existing express bus routes to the University District from downtown Seattle would be truncated and consolidated to provide improved feeder bus service to/from North Link stations. Service frequency would be increased on these routes to meet future demand and improve transfer rates and travel time. King County Metro plans to reroute or truncate few if any of the existing routes serving the Capitol Hill, First Hill, or South Lake Union neighborhoods. Service frequency in these neighborhoods may increase to meet future demand. Most radial routes from downtown Seattle to the neighborhoods to the east would remain largely unchanged. In general, transit service to Seattle neighborhoods along the North Link project corridor, including the Portage Bay/Roanoke Park Community, is expected to increase, not decrease with North Link implementation. More detailed service implementation planning will begin 1 to 2 years prior to North Link implementation and will involve a public process led by King County Metro. NL (ST) Chapter 5 of the SEIS describes the funding available to the project and that funding for University District to Northgate has not been identified. NL (PMX-Fann) The North Link project is expected to reduce reliance on personal automobile travel by providing fast and reliable transit service connecting many dense urban areas within the City of Seattle. This information is located in Chapter 3. Please see the response to comment NL March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 469

27 NL 185 Jack Whiteside NL (PMX-King) Your preference for the 12th Avenue alignment and opposition to the 8th Avenue alternatives are noted. 1 March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 470

28 NL 186 Darlene and Paul McTaggart NL (PMX-King) Your opposition to remote vent facility Options A and B has been noted. A refined version of Option C, the Hop-In Market site, was identified as part of the Preferred Alternative. The eastern Segment B routes were not hastily developed economic shortcuts. Throughout the 2003 Draft SEIS, these alternatives were given the same level of analysis as all other routes. Please see Section 6.2 of the 2003 Draft SEIS. NL (PMX-King) Your concerns of neighborhood impacts and property values associated with remote vent facility Options A and B are noted. Please see response to common comment BB-2. NL (PMX-King) Please see response to common comment BB-1. NL (PMX-King) The North Link project, including this 2003 Draft SEIS, has been developed and conducted in an open public process. Seattle homeowners and citizens were given the same level of consideration and opportunities to comment as the University of Washington when developing alternatives. Your preference for a non-residential site is noted. Please refer to Appendix B regarding Public Involvement. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 471

29 NL 187 Amy Reller NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit acknowledges your opposition to all three remote vent facility locations in the Montlake area, especially Options A and B, which would require residential acquisition. A refined version of Option C was identified as part of the Preferred Alternative, which no longer requires displacement of the market. Please see response to common comment BB-3. NL (PMX-King) Your suggestions for locating a remote vent facility on public land have been noted. Please see response to common comment BB March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 472

30 NL 188 Richard Paille NL (PMX-King) Your opposition to the 8th Avenue Option is noted. 1 NL (PMX-King) Your preference for the 12th Avenue alignment, even if it delays the project in the Roosevelt area, is noted. 2 March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 473

31 NL 189 Mary Wills 1 NL (PMX-King) Your preference for the 12th Avenue alignment is noted. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 474

32 NL190 (cont'd) 5 cont

33 NL 190 Valerie Shubert 2003 Draft SEIS was available at numerous public libraries, Seattle community centers, and neighborhood service centers (listed at the front of the 2003 Draft SEIS). NL (PMX-King) As described in public notices and in the Fact Sheet of the 2003 Draft SEIS and the Executive Summary, the 2003 Draft SEIS was available as a CD-ROM, online at the Sound Transit website, and hard copies were provided for review at Sound Transit, at numerous public libraries, Seattle community centers, and neighborhood service centers, all at no cost. For a nominal cost, hard copies were also available for individuals. NL (PMX-King) The comment period for the 2003 Draft SEIS was 70 days, which is 25 days longer than NEPA requirements. NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit does not agree that the geological section is inadequate, although your comment lacks specific concerns. The geologic information provided in Section 4.10 of the 2003 Draft SEIS addresses the many items of concern you have sited and also outlines the ongoing measures available to Sound Transit to address potential impacts. Geologic and soils conditions are important elements of advanced engineering and final design. For the Preferred Alternative, additional field review, including deep soil borings, have been conducted, and the resulting information has been used to update the Final SEIS. NL (PMX-Hafs) The visual simulations are not meant to portray specific planting concepts but to facilitate evaluation and understanding of the visual impacts of typical structures. Section of the 2003 Draft SEIS outlines measures that Sound Transit will take to replace street trees and vegetation in greenbelts. Section also discusses screening sensitive visual resources with appropriate plantings. NL (PMX-King) Hours of service and service frequency are the current assumptions of the system Sound Transit proposes to operate and are consistent with the commitments of voter-approved Sound Move. As demand dictates, Sound Transit would consider revisions to the operations plan. However, based on the existing operations plan, the Sound Transit ridership forecasting model was used to develop the light rail system ridership estimates associated with each of the North Link route alternatives. The methodology used is described in Sound Transit s Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report. Please see Chapter 3 of the SEIS. NL (PMX-Hafs) 2003 Draft SEIS Section 4.4.2, Impacts, outlines measures that Sound Transit will take to limit potential light and glare impacts from proposed development. NL (PMX-King) Appendix B of the 2003 Draft SEIS lists over 250 public events, hearings, and community meetings that were held to receive public comment and answer questions. Public mailers, such as the two you received in the mail, notified residents of the events hosted by Sound Transit. Public hearing dates, times, and locations were also listed at the front of the 2003 Draft SEIS and online at Sound Transit s website. The March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 476

34 NL 191 S.A. Stradling 1 NL (PMX-King) A monorail route is not proposed along 8th Avenue. If the commenter is referring to the proposed elevated Link light rail alignments along 8th Avenue, the comment opposing the routes has been noted. Section 4.4 Visual, and 4.3 Neighborhoods address the impacts of an elevated line, with reference to related sections, including Noise (Section 4.6) and Traffic (Section 3.3). March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 477

35 NL 192 Mark Gosselin 1 NL (PMX-King) Your preference for remote vent facility Option C, which was added during 2003 Draft SEIS development, has been noted. A modified version of Option C was identified as the Preferred Alternative, and the design for the remote vent facility on that site has been refined for the Final SEIS so as not to require displacement of the market. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 478

36 NL193 (cont'd) 3 cont

37 NL 193 Tim Gould NL (PMX-King) Your preference for the 15th Avenue route (B1.A) based on cost has been noted. However, as Figure S-6 demonstrates, both Alternatives B1.D and B4.D have lower cost per rider than B1.A. While the Modified Montlake Route, a slight variation of B1.D, was identified as part of the Preferred Alternative and has one of the lowest costs per rider, cost-effectiveness was only one of several factors considered when selecting the Preferred Alternative. This page has been intentionally left blank NL (PMX-King) Your suggestion for route alignment in Segment B has been noted. NL (PMX-King) Comment noted. Sound Transit is continuing to work with the University of Washington to address vibration and EMF issues. NL (PMX-King) Sound Transit has not yet determined the final names for the stations to be built, and acknowledges your comments on potential names. NL (PMX-King) Your preference for A2.1c based on pedestrian access and aesthetics has been noted. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 480

38 NL 194 (cont'd) 1 cont

39 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 1 cont. 3 cont

40 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 4 4 cont. 483

41 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 4 cont

42 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 6 cont

43 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 486

44 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 487

45 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 488

46 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 489

47 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 490

48 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 491

49 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 492 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd)

50 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 493

51 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 494

52 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 495

53 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 496

54 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 497

55 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 498

56 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 499

57 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 500

58 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 501

59 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 502

60 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 503

61 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 (cont'd) 504

62 NL 194 (cont'd) NL 194 Northwest Alliance Inc./Don Shaffer NL (ST) The extended comment lacks specific details or questions about the North Link project, which is the subject of the 2003 Draft SEIS and the opportunity for public comment. NL (PMX-Wendle) Sound Transit is committed to satisfying all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and to apply reasonable mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts. NL (PMX-Wendle) The commenter is not appropriately characterizing the 2003 Draft SEIS discussion, which is designed to identify and discuss the probability of encountering chemicals with the potential of harming human health and the environment. Section 4.11 of the 2003 Draft SEIS notes that the North Link alternatives are in an urban area that has experienced extensive development, including prior industrial uses. In addition to the environmental review for the 2003 Draft SEIS, Sound Transit will be conducting appropriate environmental investigations along the right-of-way of the alignment identified to be built to determine localized conditions, including geology and soils, hazardous materials, and others. However, the 2003 Draft SEIS also notes an array of known and potential release sites, based on regulatory databases, historic land use information, and field reviews. Please see Sections and of the 2003 Draft SEIS. NL (PMX-Wendle) Comment noted. NL (Herrera-Campbell) Comment noted. NL (PMX-Wendle) Comment noted. However, this comment is not pertinent to the North Link project, which is the subject of the 2003 Draft SEIS and this public comment opportunity. NL The environmental justice analysis provided in Appendix I was prepared pursuant to EO 12898, the DOT Order, and to meet NEPA requirements. The environmental justice analysis determined that North Link would not result in direct and disproportionate impacts to minority groups. March 2006 North Link Final SEIS Responses to Comments 505

63 NL 195 (cont'd)