Sound Transit's press release on this document
Jump to where this document is posted in the Public Interest Transportation Forum
FOR
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S
(SOUND TRANSIT)
NORTH LINK SEGMENT OF THE
Central Link Light Rail Transit Project
King County, Washington
BACKGROUND
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), pursuant to 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 771.127 and by an environmental Record of Decision (ROD) dated January 5, 2000, found that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) had been satisfied for the construction of a light rail system known as the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project (Central Link) by the Central Puget Sound Transit Authority (Sound Transit). The locally preferred alternative (LPA) for this 23.4-mile light rail line project connected the Northgate Urban Center, the University District, Capitol Hill, downtown Seattle, southeast Seattle, and the cities of Tukwila and SeaTac in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. Pursuant to request by Sound Transit, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2001 that provided notice of Sound Transit’s evaluation of alternative alignments for that section of Central Link from downtown Seattle proceeding north. Further, by action taken on November 29, 2001, the Sound Transit Board preliminarily incorporated changes to the LPA for that portion of the LPA from downtown Seattle to S. 154th Street in the City of SeaTac. These changes included, but are not limited to, the selection of new north and south termini, joint bus-rail operations in the Downtown Seattle Bus Tunnel, extending the construction period approximately two years, the Beacon Hill station build-out, certain design refinements, and incorporation of an alignment known as the Tukwila Freeway Route. These changes effectively altered the LPA, for Federal record of decision-making purposes under NEPA, to a project and alignment what is now referred to as the “Initial Segment”. This Initial Segment, consisting of a 14-mile light rail line connecting downtown Seattle, southeast Seattle and the City of Tukwila, constitutes the Federal project for which FTA issued an Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) in May 2002 pursuant to 23 CFR Section 771.127, finding that the requirements of NEPA had been satisfied for the construction and operation of the Initial Segment by Sound Transit. The Amended ROD superseded the ROD of January 5, 2000, which, by the issuance of the Amended ROD, became NULL AND VOID.
The Initial Segment is currently under construction. In the Amended ROD, FTA recognized that Sound Transit considers its overall Central Link project alignment to continue to consist of that alignment from Northgate to S. 200th Street in the City of SeaTac and that Sound Transit may seek additional Federal funds for the continuation of Central Link to Northgate and to S. 200th Street.
Subsequent to the Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2001 that provided notice of Sound Transit’s evaluation of alternative alignments for that section of Central Link north of downtown Seattle (North Link), Sound Transit prepared the North Link Environmental Review Documents (see below). The locally preferred alternative selected by the Sound Transit Board for this 7.2 - mile light rail line project connects the Northgate Urban Center, the Roosevelt area, the University District, and Capitol Hill to the Initial Segment in downtown Seattle. By action taken on April 27, 2006, the Sound Transit Board selected the alignment and project to be constructed, hereinafter known as “North Link”.
DECISION
FTA, pursuant to 23 CFR Section 771.127, hereby issues this North Link ROD finding that the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied for the construction and operation of North Link by Sound Transit.
This North Link ROD is based on the close monitoring and independent evaluation of the process followed by Sound Transit in setting forth and considering the effects of the project and the available alternatives. This process included the preparation of a Draft and Final Central Link Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1998 and 1999, respectively, and the North Link Draft Supplemental EIS (November 2003), the Modified Montlake Addendum (February 2004), the North Link 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS (October 2005), and the North Link Final Supplemental EIS (April 2006), and the determinations made herein (all collectively referred to as the “Environmental Review Documents”).
This ROD describes the North Link project, background of the project’s development, alternatives considered, the public opportunity to comment, the public comments and responses thereto, and the basis for the decision and mitigation measures required. However, this summary does not supersede or negate any of the information, descriptions, or evaluations provided in the North Link Final Supplemental EIS. This document and the associated published Environmental Review Documents constitute the FTA environmental record for the project and are incorporated herein by reference. The summary descriptions are provided in this North Link ROD to provide a summary of the basis of the record of decision.
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Background
The Central Link Light Rail Project is a major element of the ten-year Regional Transit System Plan called Sound Move completed in 1993. This ten-year plan was the product of decades of mass transit planning in the Puget Sound region. In 1996, the voters in the Central Puget Sound area which includes King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, approved local financing for Sound Move including increases of 0.4 percent sales tax and 0.3 percent motor vehicle excise tax. In May 1997, the Major Investment Study for the Sound Move plan was completed and was approved by the metropolitan planning organization, Puget Sound Regional Council.
Electric light rail technology was chosen for the Central Link Light Rail Project because of its versatility to operate at-grade with mixed traffic or in an exclusive right-of-way on the surface, on elevated tracks, or in tunnels. Because of the varied geographic conditions along the proposed corridor, the North Link extension combines tunnel, elevated, and surface profiles in an exclusive right-of-way. Standard features of the stations include boarding platforms that would be approximately 400 feet long to accommodate four-car trains. The Capitol Hill, University of Washington, Brooklyn, and Roosevelt Stations are underground; the Northgate station is elevated; and all stations have escalator, elevator and stair access.
North Link
The project to which this North Link ROD applies is more particularly described in Section 2.1 of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS. The project is divided into two geographic segments. Segment A extends from Northgate to the University District, and Segment B extends from the University District to Downtown Seattle.
The project would begin at the end of the Pine Street Stub Tunnel at the north terminus of the Initial Segment and cross under I-5, proceeding in a tunnel east and then north to the Capitol Hill station beneath Nagle Place, south of East John Street. The route would continue via tunnel to a vent facility in the vicinity of East Roanoke Street and 22nd Avenue and then north under the Lake Washington Ship Canal to a station on the University of Washington campus near Husky Stadium. From the University of Washington Station, continuing north in tunnel, the route would reach the Brooklyn Station under Brooklyn Avenue NE south of NE 45th Street. Continuing north in a tunnel, the route would reach the Roosevelt Station just west of 12th Avenue NE between NE 65th Street and NE 67th Street. From the Roosevelt Station, the tunnel route would continue northwest to a portal location immediately north of the Lake City Way interchange with I-5, then continue on the surface, in tunnels, and elevated along the east side of I-5 to the elevated Northgate Station east of First Avenue NE, spanning NE 103rd Street adjacent to the Northgate Transit Center.
The Sound Transit Board selected the University Link project for FTA New Starts funding and as the initial phase for implementation for North Link. University Link would complete the first 3.1 miles of the North Link project from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington with a station at Capitol Hill and an interim terminus station at the University of Washington at Husky Stadium. Funding for future phases has not been secured.
Light rail alternative routes and stations for the North Link Project are described in Chapter 2 and plans of the alternatives provided in Appendix J of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS and Appendix H of the Central Link Final EIS, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Segment alternatives were evaluated, under the project’s stated purpose and need, first to ensure that route and station locations proposed would fit within the whole system and any future expansions and second to compare advantages and disadvantages of route alternatives. These criteria included community compatibility, cost, environmental impacts, political and community acceptance, ridership, and transportation impacts. On May 14, 1998, the Sound Transit Board approved the route and station location alternatives for study in the Central Link Draft EIS. Four route alternatives for Segment A were evaluated, each of which included two stations, and four route alternatives were considered for Segment B, which included four to six stations. After issuance of the Draft EIS and consideration of extensive public and agency comment, the Sound Transit Board identified a preliminary locally preferred alternative (LPA) on February 25, 1999 in Segments B through F. This preliminary LPA was evaluated in the Final EIS.
After the identification of the Initial Segment for Central Link, Sound Transit began evaluating additional alternatives to extend north that would reduce costs and construction risks compared to the original Segment B route selected by the Sound Transit Board in 1999. On February 14, 2002, the Sound Transit Board approved the route and station location alternatives for study in the North Link Draft SEIS and subsequently modified the set of alternatives on May 23, 2002. The Draft Supplemental EIS evaluated three route alternatives, each with two stations, in Segment A and seven route alternatives, with two to four stations, in Segment B. On December 11, 2003, the Board authorized additional study of a Modified Montlake route, which resulted in the Modified Montlake Addendum (February 2004). After issuance of the Draft Supplemental EIS and consideration of extensive public and agency comment, the Sound Transit Board identified a preliminary LPA on May 20, 2004. This preliminary LPA was modified on January 27, 2005 and again on July 28, 2005. The LPA identified on July 28, 2005 was evaluated in the 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS, October 2005, and the Final Supplemental EIS, April 2006.
Attachment B to this ROD provides a summary of the alternatives evaluated for Segments A and B.
The North Link Final Supplemental EIS evaluated the No-build Alternative and different system length alternatives for the proposed light rail line extension.
The No-build Alternative:
The No-build Alternative represents the transportation system and the environment as they would exist without the proposed North Link light rail project. The No-Build Alternative includes the Initial Segment and Airport Link portions of the Central Link light rail system and other regional transit improvements in Sound Move. The 2015 No-Build Alternative refers to the existing transportation system, plus funded projects in the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) adopted Transportation Improvement Program, with extension of the Link Initial Segment from S. 154th Street to S. 200th Street in SeaTac. The 2030 No-Build Alternative includes all the transportation projects and programs included in PSRC’s adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Destination 2030.
System Length Alternatives:
Because North Link could be constructed and operated in one phase, moving from south to north, or in two or more phases within the two segments depending on the availability of funding, the potential environmental impacts of the interim termini are evaluated in the Final SEIS as if each station could be constructed and operated as a terminus station. Stations that could serve as an interim terminus for the Preferred Alternative until or unless the system is extended further north are the Roosevelt Station, Brooklyn Station, University of Washington Station, and the Capitol Hill Station. The Sound Transit Board identified “University Link” in the Final SEIS as the preferred initial phase of implementation. This University Link phase would add on to the Initial Segment with the segment from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington with a station at Capitol Hill and an interim terminus station at the University of Washington near Husky Stadium.
Public participation in the development and implementation of Sound Move and Central Link started with the Forward Thrust Plan in the 1960s. This public participation included the use of an advisory panel of civic leaders to provide overall guidance; review and input from subregional groups of elected officials; subarea forums; community and business meetings; and roundtable sessions to gather local input and help develop the plan.
Central Link EIS Scoping Process
From November 1997 to February 1998, Sound Transit distributed a Scoping Information Report to approximately 4,500 households along the proposed corridor, held seven public meetings, and collected over 400 written comments on the environmental analysis and alternatives proposed. In March 1998, comments were described in a Scoping Summary Report.
Between February and June 1998, Sound Transit solicited input from citizens, organizations, and agencies to help define the route alternatives to be included in the Central Link Draft EIS. Sound Transit distributed material describing the route options to approximately 8,000 households along the corridor. To allow community leaders to experience rapid transit systems, Sound Transit sponsored ten field trips to Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Eleven community workshops and several walking tours of the proposed routes were sponsored by Sound Transit to engage citizens in exploring the route options and evaluation criteria. The City of SeaTac, Port of Seattle, City of Tukwila, City of Seattle, and King County Metro were involved through special briefing sessions, council presentations, and ongoing coordination meetings. Two formal public hearings served as the final events in the process.
The Draft EIS was circulated to affected local jurisdictions; regional, state, and federal agencies; community organizations; environmental and other interest groups; and interested individuals. The Draft EIS was publicly available on December 4, 1998 and notification of its issuance was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1998. Over 1,500 Draft EISs were distributed. A 60-day comment period was provided to the public, agencies, and jurisdictions to allow the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS to Sound Transit and the FTA. Five public hearings were held during the comment period at various locations along the project corridor to take oral testimony. Sound Transit received more than 900 comment letters or public hearing testimonies. These comments, and responses, are included in the Final EIS, Volumes 3, 4, and 5. Other outreach efforts during the EIS process are described in the Final EIS.
North Link Supplemental EIS Process
The North Link Supplemental EIS process began with an agency scoping meeting in October 24, 2001. Public scoping meetings were held on October 24th and 25th, 2001. Between scoping and publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, Sound Transit participated in approximately 80 community group meetings and briefings throughout the area, including hosting meetings such as two station design workshops and community open houses. With publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS in November 2003, Sound Transit distributed approximately 175 copies to the North Link distribution list. Approximately 90,000 notice of availability postcards were mailed to interested parties in Sound Transit databases and to carrier routes in the project area. Sound Transit held two public hearings on January 7th and 8th, 2004. A 70-day comment period was provided to allow the public, agencies, and jurisdictions the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental EIS to Sound Transit and the FTA. The Modified Montlake Addendum was published in February 2004. A 30-day public comment period was provided, and Sound Transit held a public hearing on February 25, 2004. The 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS was published in October 2005 with a 45-day public comment period. Two public hearings were held on November 9th and 10th, 2005. Sound Transit received approximately 330 comment letters and 63 people spoke at the public hearings on the Draft Supplemental SEIS, the Modified Montlake Addendum, and the 2005 Draft Supplemental SEIS. A summary of the comments and responses can be found in Chapter 7 of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS, and all the comment letters, hearing testimony comments and responses to the comments are included in Appendix N of the Final Supplemental EIS.
Concurrent with the preparation of the North Link Draft Supplemental EIS, Modified Montlake Addendum, 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS, and the Final Supplemental EIS, Sound Transit continued to provide briefings to community groups and host open houses and workshops inviting community involvement in the project. Public notice and involvement efforts are detailed in Appendix B of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS.
BASIS FOR DECISION
PURPOSE AND NEED
The Federal Transit Administration in consultation with Sound Transit (the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) has determined that the North Link extension as put forth in the Final Supplemental EIS and as described herein meets the purpose and need for the project and the goals established for the project as described and evaluated in each of the Environmental Review Documents. The North Link alternatives would directly serve the densest parts of Seattle and provide reliable service compared to bus transit on increasingly congested roadways. The alternative selected for the extension is preferred because it was determined that it best optimized the goals and objectives of the project. It maximizes ridership by providing a competitive alternative to the automobile for people traveling in the highest-density existing residential and employment areas. It offers reduced costs and construction risk as compared to the original Segment B route. It minimizes potential adverse impacts to the natural and built environment, achieves financial feasibility, and maximizes community support. The segment alternatives selected for the LPA are preferred for the following summarized reasons:
· Segment A. The LPA (12th Avenue NE Tunnel) is in a tunnel through the Roosevelt area, which will have fewer long-term environmental impacts, have construction impacts more focused in a smaller area, and locate the Roosevelt Station more centrally in the Roosevelt business district. The LPA avoids historic and park resources impacted by other alternatives. Public comments also indicate most in the local community support this route.
· Segment B. The LPA (Capitol Hill to University of Washington and University District) is in the high to middle-range of ridership of the alternatives and is considered one of the most cost-effective because it has lower costs and relatively high ridership. The LPA is considered less risky in terms of construction because it crosses the Montlake Cut instead of Portage Bay and does not include a First Hill Station. The Brooklyn Station serves the University District commercial area and urban center. The University of Washington Station and tunnel route across the University campus minimize impacts to the University and directly serves the campus, the University Medical complex and Husky Stadium. The preferred remote vent option minimizes impacts to the Montlake residential neighborhood. The Capitol Hill Station at Nagle Place serves the densely populated Capitol Hill/First Hill urban center. Construction of this station option would avoid a park and have reduced business impacts.
The evaluation of the alternatives is presented in Chapter 6 of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS.
COMMENTS TO NORTH LINK Final Supplemental EIS and Responses
Comments submitted to the PSRC Transportation Policy Board and the Department of Transportation regarding North Link are attached to the ROD in Appendix D as comments on the North Link Final Supplemental EIS. Responses to these comments are also included in Appendix D.
MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Attachment C, which is incorporated herein by reference, establishes the mitigation measures that are required of Sound Transit under this North Link ROD. The mitigation commitments were identified in the North Link Final Supplemental EIS.
Implementation of the mitigation measures in Attachment C are material conditions of this North Link ROD and will be incorporated in any grant agreement that the FTA may award Sound Transit for the construction of North Link.
The Federal Transit Administration finds that with the accomplishment of these mitigation commitments Sound Transit will have taken all reasonable, prudent and feasible means to avoid or minimize impacts from the preferred alternative.
On a quarterly basis, Sound Transit will submit a Link Environmental Mitigation Program Status Report describing the status of the mitigation-monitoring program to the FTA. Implementation of identified mitigation measures during final design and construction will be the responsibility of Link’s Environmental Manager.
DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS
Environmental Findings
The environmental record for the North Link segment of the Central Link Light Rail Project includes the previously referenced North Link Draft Supplemental EIS (November 2003), Modified Montlake Addendum (February 2004), 2005 North Link Draft Supplemental EIS (October 2005) and Final Supplemental EIS (April 2006), as well as the Central Link Draft and Final EIS (December 1998 and November 1999). These documents, all incorporated herein by reference, represent the detailed statements required by NEPA and by 49 U.S.C. Section 5324(b) on:
The environmental impacts of the proposed project;
The adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposed project be implemented;
Alternatives to the proposed project; and
Irreversible and irretrievable impacts on the environment which may be involved in the project should it be implemented.
Having carefully considered the environmental record noted above, the mitigation measures as required in Appendix C herein, and the written and oral comments offered by other agencies and the public on this record, the FTA has determined that adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with a significant economic, social, or environmental interest, and consideration has been given to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and to the interest of the community in which the project is located; and all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed project and, where adverse environmental effects remain, there exists no feasible and prudent alternative to avoid or further mitigate such effects.
The ESA of 1973, as amended, provides a means to conserve the ecosystems that threatened and endangered species depend on and a program to conserve such species. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in direct mortality or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of listed species. This requirement is fulfilled by consultation and review of the proposed actions and mitigation with the appropriate agency responsible for the conservation of the affected species.
The ESA consultation requirements were implemented for the Central Link and North Link light rail project by the FTA in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In December 1999, the FTA submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to NOAA Fisheries for ESA consultation for the entire Central Link Light Rail Project. NOAA Fisheries indicated that the project’s effects on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a threatened species, should be evaluated in a Biological Assessment (BA). Also present in the project area is coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), a candidate species which does not require analysis. However, Sound Transit and the FTA chose to evaluate impacts to coho in case this species becomes listed in the future. NOAA Fisheries identified three species of listed marine mammals potentially occurring in Puget Sound: the endangered humpback whale (Magaptera novaeangliae), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the threatened Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). While these three listed marine mammals are not expected to use or occur in the light rail project area, they are discussed in the BA that was prepared for Chinook and coho salmon.
USFWS identified the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as a listed threatened species, the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) as listed endangered species, and the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as proposed threatened species. Bull trout were subsequently listed as threatened species and peregrine falcons were de-listed. A BA for these three species was prepared and submitted to the USFWS.
During the preparation of the both of the BAs, regular informal consultations occurred between NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, FTA, Sound Transit, and biologists working on the BAs, including briefing sessions, telephone updates, and periodic review drafts. Both of the BA’s were submitted by the FTA to the NOAA Fisheries and to the USFWS on December 2, 1999.
FTA received letters of concurrence for the Central Link project from both the USFWS dated April 24, 2000 and NOAA Fisheries dated May 24, 2000.
A Biological Evaluation (BE) was submitted to NOAA Fisheries on January 3, 2006 requesting NOAA Fisheries concurrence with the determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon for the North Link project. The BE identified proposed design changes to the 1999 BA. FTA stated that the NOAA Fisheries concurrence letter remains accurate for PS Chinook and would remain unchanged and, therefore, that reinitiation is not required for PS Chinook. NOAA Fisheries concurred with the determination that the proposed changes will not alter the prior effect determination for PS Chinook and the FTA finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” critical habitat of PS Chinook in a letter dated February 2, 2006.
On January 3, 2006, FTA forwarded to USFWS a letter and the Biological Evaluation from Sound Transit stating that proposed design changes to the North Link Light Rail Project do not require or warrant reinitiating ESA consultation for peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and bull trout. In addition, reinitiation for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola), or golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) is also not warranted due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of presence in project area, lack of potential impacts, and lack of changes in status. Potential impacts to aquatic habitat would likely be reduced by the proposed design changes and would likely not adversely affect bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) critical habitat. Sound Transit also requested reinitiation of informal consultation for Puget Sound Bull trout critical habitat, because critical habitat for the species was designated after the original 1999 BA and 2000 concurrence letter. In a letter dated May 10, 2006, USFWS concluded that the effects to the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for bull trout that may be found within the proposed action area would be insignificant and concurred with the determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for bull trout critical habitat.
The project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as designated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The proposed project area includes habitat that has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Pacific salmon. NOAA Fisheries determined that the habitat requirements for the MSA-managed species in the project area are similar to that of the ESA-listed species. The conservation measures developed to address ESA concerns are adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH. Conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA (§305(b)(4)(a)) are not necessary.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that federal agencies identify and assess the effects of federally assisted undertakings on historic resources, archaeological sites, and traditional cultural properties, and to consult with interested parties to find acceptable ways to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.
To comply with Section 106 regulations, FTA has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to determine the project’s adverse effects. Consultations were also conducted with interested parties, including the Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Duwamish Tribes and the City of Seattle.
No resources eligible for listing on the National Register are adversely affected by the North Link LPA. SHPO concurred with this determination in a letter dated December 7, 2005. In a letter dated April 12, 2006, SHPO stated that they had no additional comments on the North Link Final Supplemental EIS. An Archaeological Resources Treatment and Monitoring Plan will be prepared to stipulate that, if potentially significant archaeological resources are discovered during North Link’s construction, additional work would be required to evaluate their significance and to determine if mitigation measures would be required. Based on the cultural resources analysis and coordination with the Tribes, SHPO, and City, FTA finds that the project will have no effect on any identified or likely cultural or historic resources, and that the Section 106 consultation requirement for this project has been fulfilled.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303(c) requires that use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site, be approved and constructed only if: 1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and 2) The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must be prepared that describes the affected resources, discusses the direct impacts and the proximity impacts that would substantially impair the use of these resources, and identifies and evaluates alternatives that avoid such impacts and measures to minimize or mitigate for unavoidable adverse effects. FTA included Section 4(f) evaluations in Appendix H of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS. These evaluations have been provided to the Department of the Interior which has found that appropriate consultation with state and local agencies has occurred. The Department of the Interior stated in its letter dated February 15, 2006 that it concurs with the determination that the LPA uses no land protected by Section 4(f) if an entrance or access point for the University of Washington Station is located north of the Burke-Gilman Trail and a grade separated crossing of the Burke Gilman Trail is implemented. As provided in Appendix C: Summary of Mitigation Measures, Sound Transit and FTA are committed to include the entrance or access point north of the trail and a grade separated crossing of the Burke Gilman Trail in the project. The Department of Interior further agreed that other effects of the Preferred Alternative do not result in Section 4(f) use.
With the mitigation commitments, no impacts on Section 4(f) resources are identified for North Link. Based on the previously noted Section 4(f) evaluations, the consultation with the Department of the Interior, and the Section 106 consultation, FTA finds that the North Link project described herein will not use and will not substantially impair any park or recreational resource, any historic site, or any wildlife and waterfowl refuge protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966.
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, 1994), provides that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.” The Department of Transportation Order (No. 5680.1) to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations requires agencies to 1) explicitly consider human health and environmental effects related to transit projects that may have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations; and 2) implement procedures to provide “meaningful opportunities for public involvement” by members of these populations during project planning and development. Specifically, the DOT Order states, in part:
8.b. In making determinations regarding disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations, mitigation and enhancements measures that will be taken and all offsetting benefits to the affected minority and low-income populations may be taken into account, as well as the design and comparative impacts and the relevant number of similar existing system elements in non-minority and non-low-income areas.
8.c. The Operating Administrators and other responsible DOT officials will ensure that any of their respective programs, policies or activities that will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is “practicable,” the social, economic (including costs) and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account.
As part of the public project planning process through completion of the Central Link Final EIS and the North Link Final Supplemental EIS, Sound Transit and FTA implemented meaningful outreach efforts to minority and low-income communities to assure their active participation. The outreach efforts are described in the Environmental Justice analyses included in these environmental documents.
FTA’s analysis finds that the project would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on the minority or low-income populations of the Sound Transit District, as provided under the DOT Order on Environmental Justice, particularly in light of the offsetting benefits to minority and low-income populations. The North Link project would provide improved access to transit, reduced travel time, and improved accessibility to employment and services. Appendix I of the North Link Final Supplemental discusses these determinations.
The North Link project is subject to conformity requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires that transportation projects conform to the purposes of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) or Maintenance Plan (SIP/MP). Conformity to a SIP/MP means that the transportation project will not produce new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
The EPA conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93) establishes criteria that a transportation project must meet in order to be found by FTA to conform to the SIP/MP. The conformity criteria are that the project be included in a conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and that the project not cause or contribute to any localized exceedances of the NAAQS, known as “hot spots.” The North Link project is included in the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Destination 2030, and in the 2005-2007 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, both of which have been found by FTA, FHWA, and the Puget Sound Council of Governments to conform, in accordance with the aforementioned EPA regulation.
Further, for carbon monoxide (CO), analyses at specific intersections described in Chapter 4.5 of the North Link Final Supplemental EIS, show that the project would not create a new localized violation of the NAAQS for CO and would not worsen an existing violation. For the project, these intersections represent the “worst case” conditions, and no violations of air quality standards are predicted. FTA therefore finds that the North Link project conforms with the SIP/MP in accordance with the EPA regulations governing such determinations.
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management issued May 24, 1977 floodplains were assessed within the 100-year floodplains and floodways defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as well as for locations with reported flooding problems or within locally managed floodplains. North Link does not encroach into the floodplains. The North Link LPA does not create new pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS). New non-pollution generating impervious surface (approximately 267,600 square feet) would be created for the alignment, road improvements, station areas, and vent shafts. Approximately 30,000 square feet of replacement of existing PGIS would occur in providing replacement parking for the University of Washington. Sound Transit will incorporate water quality best management practices as required to meet applicable city, state, and federal stormwater standards and detention will be provided as needed to prevent downstream drainage capacity problems in coordination with the City of Seattle. FTA finds that no adverse impacts to any 100-year floodplains or floodways would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Three major federal laws apply to wetland resources: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. NEPA establishes the process for evaluating the environmental impacts of projects such as North Link. This ROD concludes the NEPA process, which included the publication of Central Link Draft and Final EISs, the North Link Draft Supplemental EIS, the Modified Montlake Addendum, the North Link 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS, and the North Link Final Supplemental EIS by FTA. The Clean Water Act, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), includes two sections applicable to the Link light rail project: Section 404 regulates placement of dredge or fill material into the waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Section 401 ensures that federally permitted projects are consistent with state water quality standards, certification for which is administered by the Washington Department of Ecology. The Rivers and Harbors Act’s Section 10 applies to activities in, over, and affecting navigable waters to preserve the navigability of U.S waters. The Corps of Engineers administers the permit process.
FTA prepared a wetland report for the Central Link light rail project consistent with U.S Army Corps of Engineers guidance for conducting wetland determinations and delineations, as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, referred to as the 1987 manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). A Wetland Delineation Report (May 2005) has also been prepared. Segment A would impact approximately 13.5 square feet of class IV wetland, 24.6 square feet of class III wetland, and 170 square feet of wetland buffer as a result of support column placement for elevated track partially within the wetland boundaries. FTA shall require Sound Transit to mitigate impacts to these wetlands in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The final mitigation package will be developed during final design and through the appropriate permitting processes in compliance with the requirements of and in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, Washington Department of Ecology, and local jurisdictions as may be required. There are no wetland impacts in Segment B, although a Section 404 individual permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification will likely be required for the tunnel crossing under the Montlake Cut.
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) certification is required for all federally licensed development including Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10 and Section 404 permits, and U.S. Coast Guard Bridge permits. In Washington State, the project proponents prepare the Coast Zone Certification and submit it to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) to review. WDOE reviews the information based on state environmental and shoreline requirements. Before WDOE issues CZM certification, they require approved water quality certification (which is done by WDOE) and shoreline permits from the local jurisdictions. Consistency with CZM will be demonstrated no later than ninety days before the start of the proposed project construction in the coastal zone. Sound Transit is required to comply with all CZM requirements.
|
The preferred alternative, and other alternatives in the North Link segments (see Figures B-1 and B-2), would serve downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill/First Hill, the University District, Roosevelt, and Northgate. The North Link segment extends from the northern terminus of the Initial Segment at Westlake Station in the Downtown Transit Tunnel north to Northgate. The alternatives for North Link are evaluated in Section 6 of the Central Link Final EIS and the North Link Final Supplemental EIS.
Segment A includes three alternative routes between Northgate and University District, and each includes Northgate and Roosevelt Stations. As shown in Figure 2-2, the Segment A alternatives begin at the south end of Northgate Mall, adjacent to the existing bus transit center, and end just north of NE 45th Street in the University District. Any Segment A route could connect with any of the Segment B routes. The stations are described in more detail following the route descriptions.
The Segment A Preferred Alternative would have elevated, at-grade, and tunnel sections, with two stations:
Northgate (elevated)
Roosevelt (underground)
From the Northgate Station, the route would travel south on an elevated guideway and then in retained cut-and-fill, cut-and-cover and tunnel sections on the east side of I-5, within the freeway right-of-way or slightly east. Near NE 75th Street, the route would enter a tunnel portal and cross under the I-5/Lake City Way off-ramps and continue underground to a Roosevelt Station at 12th Avenue NE north of NE 65th Street. The route would continue south in a tunnel to NE 45th Street to connect to the Segment B Preferred alternatives. (The tunnel route at the south end of this alternative would vary slightly if it connected to other segment routes and stations, but there would be no difference in the above ground facilities of the alternative regardless of the Segment B choice.)
Vent facilities needed for the tunnel section would be provided at the Roosevelt Station. Three traction-powered substations (TPSS) would be required: one at the Roosevelt Station, one located above a cut-and-cover tunnel section adjacent to I-5 near NE 85th Street, and one at the Northgate Station. Three 400-foot tail tracks would be adjacent to 1st Avenue NE, extending north of the Northgate Station in the Northgate Mall parking lot. The tail tracks would be used for short-term light rail vehicle storage and layovers between scheduled runs.
Other route and station options for Alternative A1.1 are also considered, but have not been included as part of the Preferred Alternative. These include route options associated with Northgate Station Options C2 and C3, located at 1st Avenue NE and NE 103rd Street. Northgate Option C4, above 1st Ave NE, has also been developed. Roosevelt Station Option A, an underground station located west of 12th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street, with a diagonal alignment to the streets, also continues to be considered.
Alternative A2.1b includes a different route and profile, different configuration for train storage and layover facilities, and different station options, including:
Northgate (Option E1)
Roosevelt (Option B)
Alternative A2.1b would include a single 400-foot tail track north of the Northgate Station. It would also feature an 800-foot pocket track between NE 90th and NE 95th Streets, adjacent to I-5, for short-term light rail vehicle storage. The route differs from the Preferred Alternative near NE 76th Street, where it would extend under the Lake City Way ramps in a retained cut and continue south on the east side of I-5 in a retained cut and then in a short cut-and-cover segment. The location of the guideway requires shifting 8th Avenue NE to the east between NE 66th and NE 68th Streets. The alignment transitions to an elevated Roosevelt Station just south of NE 65th Street, adjacent to I-5. South of the Roosevelt Station, the route would continue elevated parallel to I-5 and 8th Avenue NE, crossing Ravenna Boulevard with a single 30-foot-wide guideway. Column supports would be placed in the median of Ravenna Boulevard and aligned with the existing piers supporting I-5 nearby. The route would enter a tunnel between the Ravenna Boulevard off-ramp and I-5 (the west portal). This would require relocating the I-5/Ravenna off-ramp slightly to the east. The light rail route would then continue southeast in a tunnel to NE 45th Street in the University District. There are variations in the tunnel route in the south end of this alternative to match with any Segment B route.
The station options considered with this alternative are Northgate Station Option E1, an elevated station at 1st Avenue NE between NE 100th and NE 103rd Streets, and Roosevelt Station Option B, an elevated, side-platform station at 8th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street. As with the Preferred Alternative, a separate structure for a TPSS would be located near NE 85th Street.
Alternative A2.1c features the following station options:
Northgate (Option C2 or C3)
Roosevelt (Option C)
This alternative is similar to Alternative A2.1b, although there have been refinements in the design since the 2003 Draft SEIS. A modified alignment has been developed for the section of the route north of Lake City Way. To preserve areas within WSDOT’s I-5 right-of-way, construction of a cut-and-cover tunnel section has been shifted east, beneath a city street and a corner of Rainbow Point Park, near Banner Way. Alternative A2.1c would have three tail-tracks north of NE 103rd Street. It features Northgate Station options C2 or C3.
The Roosevelt Station Option C is in approximately the same location as the station described in Alternative A2.1b, but involves a center-platform configuration. The section approaching the station, and the station itself, would require reconstructing 8th Avenue NE to the east, from NE 64th to NE 68th Street. This station option requires two separate guideways, each about 15 feet wide and separated by a 10- to 28-foot gap. Column supports would be located within the Ravenna Boulevard median and would align with the existing piers of the nearby 1-5 bridge. The station would also require minor modification to Ravenna Boulevard, west of I-5, to accommodate bus turns to serve the station. To the south of the station, after crossing above Ravenna Boulevard, the route would transition to a tunnel, with an alignment east of A2.1b, to a tunnel portal/ventilation site between NE 58th and NE 60th Streets, east of the I-5 off-ramp. All other system design features are as described in Alternative A2.1b, including the location of a separate TPSS structure near NE 85th Street.
All three route alternatives include a station at Northgate and a station at Roosevelt. While the Northgate Station options could be matched with any of the three alternatives, this Final SEIS combines specific station options with specific route alternatives, as described above, for purposes of analysis. Only the Preferred Alternative (A.1.1) would have a subway station at Roosevelt. Roosevelt Station Options B and C could be paired with A2.1b or A2.1c. The stations are briefly described below, with more detail on station features and facilities such as entrances, pedestrian plazas, bus access and circulation, and bicycle facilities, shown in Appendix J.
The Northgate Station Preferred Alternative is similar to Option C2. The station would be elevated on the east side of 1st Avenue NE, straddling NE 103rd Street south of the Northgate Mall. Pedestrian plazas and station entries would be at the north and south ends of the station. Elevated tracks needed for storage and operations would extend approximately 400 feet north beyond the station into the mall parking area. Park-and-ride spaces displaced by the station would be replaced, either within Metro’s development or in a separate structure for a total of about 410 spaces. The option for developing additional parking would be located south of the station, and would include a garage up to five stories.
The Preferred Alternative for the Roosevelt Station is a revised option developed to avoid a 76-unit residential development that is currently being constructed. This has required realigning the station with 12th Avenue NE, affecting a different set of properties than the previous station design, but remaining within the same area. The Preferred Station would be located between NE 65th and NE 67th Streets and parallel to the west side of 12th Avenue NE. This underground station would have platforms about 80 feet below ground, with entrances on the northwest corner of the NE 65th Street and 12th Avenue NE intersection and near the southwest corner of the NE 67th Street and Roosevelt Way NE intersection. A pedestrian plaza is planned at the southern entrance. The station would be constructed using cut-and-cover methods.
All the Northgate Station options described below are summarized in Table 2-2. All station options are elevated and located south of Northgate Mall, but they differ in station siting, parking facilities, and train storage and turn-back facilities. For all station options, any existing general purpose and park-and-ride spaces displaced by the parking structures would be replaced within the structures. More information on parking is provided in Chapter 3. All stations include bike storage/shelter areas, paratransit, and accessible parking.
Table
B-1
Key Characteristics of Segment A Station Options
|
Station |
Options |
Key Characteristics |
Applicable Alternatives |
|
Northgate |
Preferred Station |
Elevated center platform station on east side of 1st Avenue NE, crossing above NE 103rd Street. Provides replacement for displaced park-and-ride spaces, either in a structure with King County Metro development, or a separate garage (up to 5 stories) south of the station with about 410 spaces. Three tail tracks extend north. |
Preferred Alternative |
|
|
Option C2 |
Elevated station on east side of 1st Avenue NE straddling 103rd Street. The 6-story and 4-story parking structures provide replacement for displaced parking for a total of 1,400 parking spaces in the structure. Three 400-foot tail tracks to the north. |
A1.1, A2.1c |
|
|
Option C3 |
Same as Option C2 except parking structures are different. The 3-and-a-half story structure and 6-story structure provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces for displaced parking spaces. |
A1.1, A2.1c |
|
|
Option C4 |
An elevated center platform station above 1st Avenue NE, and crossing above NE 103rd Street. Same replacement parking option as Preferred Alternative. |
A1.1 |
|
|
Option E1 |
Elevated station on east side of 1st Avenue NE between NE 100th Street and NE 103rd Street. A 5-story parking structure with 1,000 spaces provides replacement for displaced parking. A single 400-foot trail track to the north. |
A2.1b |
|
Roosevelt |
Preferred Alternative |
A cut-and-cover tunnel station located at 12th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street . Features a center platform, and entrances at NE 65th and NE 67th Streets, on 12th Avenue NE. |
Preferred Alternative |
|
|
Option A |
Cut-and-cover tunnel station located at 12th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street, crossing diagonally to Roosevelt Way NE. |
A1.1 |
|
|
Option B |
Elevated station with side platforms located at 8th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street |
A2.1b, A2.1c (refined) |
|
|
Option C |
Elevated station with center platform located at 8th Avenue NE and NE 65th Street. |
A2.1c |
Option C2 would have the same location and configuration as the Preferred Alternative, but the associated parking facilities differ. Two parking structures would be included for a total of approximately 1,400 spaces. A six-story structure with about 560 park-and-ride spaces would be located north of NE 100th Street, west of the existing transit facility and south of the light rail station. Entrances to this parking structure would be from NE 100th Street and 1st Avenue NE. The second parking structure would be between NE 103rd Street and the Northgate Mall. This structure would be four stories with 400 general purpose spaces and 450 park-and-ride spaces.
Option C3 is similar to station Option C2 but with different configurations and sizes for the three parking structures, with a total of about 1,300 parking spaces. Two three-and-a-half-story parking structures would be located north of the light rail station on the east side of 1st Avenue NE, and the structures would span the existing mall entrance. To replace displaced parking, the structures would provide 300 general purpose spaces and 445 park-and-ride spaces for a total of 745 spaces. The six-story second parking structure would be located north of NE 100th Street and southeast of the station, with 560 park-and-ride spaces for displaced surface park-and-ride spaces. An entrance roadway would provide access to the structures and adjacent mall parking lots.
Option E1 would be located on the east side of 1st Avenue NE between NE 100th and NE 103rd Streets. A five-story parking structure with approximately 1,000 park-and-ride spaces would be located between the station and the existing transit facility, providing replacement for displaced spaces. Access to the parking structure would be from NE 100th and NE 103rd Streets.
Option C4 (1st Avenue Option) would be located between NE 100th and NE 103rd Streets and straddle 1st Avenue NE. This elevated station would have entrances at the north and south ends of the station. The station would have a center platform with northbound and southbound tracks on the sides, and a tail track extending to the north. The facility retains travel lanes on 1st Avenue NE and would have a 400 foot long tail track extending north of the station and NE 103rd Street. The station platform and the light rail guideways would be located directly over 1st Avenue NE to reduce the areas needed within Northgate Transit Center property owned by King County Metro, as well as private Northgate Mall property. This option would have the same impacts and replacement as the Preferred Alternative.
Option A would generally be similar to the Preferred Alternative, Option A1, described above, however this option would be sited diagonally between NE 65th and NE 67th Streets. Station entrance would be on the north side of NE 65th Street, near 12th Avenue NE, and at the southeast corner of Roosevelt Way and NE 67th Street. The station includes elevators, escalators, bike storage, and paratransit stops.
Options B and C are elevated options located on the west side of 8th Avenue NE between NE 65th Street and NE Ravenna Boulevard. Option B would have side platforms, which have northbound and southbound tracks in the middle and platforms on the sides. Option C features a center platform with tracks on each side. Alternative A2.1b features Option B, and A2.1c features Option C; as noted above, this also affects the configuration of the elevated facilities to and from the station, but all other characteristics of Options B and C are similar. Station Options B and C could be paired with either Alternative A2.1b or A2.1c.
As shown in Figure 2-4, there are eight Segment B route alternatives connecting the University District to downtown Seattle, and all are entirely tunnel routes. Any of the Segment B alternative routes could connect with any of the Segment A alternative routes, and all end with a connection to the Initial Segment in the DSTT. The details of the eight route alternatives overlap considerably, with some alternatives differing only at the north or south ends of the segment or in the station locations and related facilities. The station options for each alternative are listed below and described in more detail in Section 2.3.7.
The Segment B Preferred Alternative would serve the University District and Capitol Hill, and it would include the following three stations:
Brooklyn (Option B – Refined)
University of Washington
Capitol Hill
From the North, the Preferred Alternative would have a station serving the northern University District area with a station at Brooklyn, and extend southeast under the campus to a University of Washington Station at the Montlake Triangle and Husky Stadium. The Preferred Alternative then crosses under the Lake Washington Ship Canal approximately 200 to 300 feet east of the Montlake Bridge and travels southwest and south under 10th Avenue E to the Capitol Hill Station. The route then makes its way westward to a connection with the Initial Segment under Pine Street, east of the DSTT.
Vent facilities would be provided in the vicinity of stations and in a separate structure located at the southwest corner of SR 520/Montlake Interchange, north of E Roanoke Street. The 2003 Draft SEIS identified a previous option (Option C) to house a vent facility and TPSS at this site. However, further design has relocated the TPSS and communication room to the University of Washington Station, and the Preferred vent facility is smaller than Option C.
This alternative is similar to the original project route selected by Sound Transit in 1999 and examined in the FEIS. It would serve the University District area, Capitol Hill, and First Hill. This alternative includes the following four stations:
NE 45th (Option A)
Pacific
Capitol Hill (either Broadway or Nagle options)
First Hill
The route would begin at the NE 45th Station at 15th Avenue NE and extend south under 15th Avenue NE to the Pacific Station. From the Pacific Station, the route would extend beneath Portage Bay and continue under the Portage Bay/Roanoke neighborhoods to 10th Avenue E Depending on which Capitol Hill Station is used, between E Galer and E Republican Streets the route would shift to Broadway (if the Broadway Station is selected) or remain under 10th Avenue E (if the Nagle Station is selected). From the Capitol Hill Station the route would continue southwest to reach the First Hill Station. From the First Hill Station the route would connect to the Initial Segment under Pine Street east of the DSTT.
Vents would be provided in the vicinity of all stations and in a structure south of State Route (SR) 520 between 10th Avenue E and Federal Avenue E TPSSs would be placed within the Pacific Station, within the vent structure south of SR 520, and within the Capitol Hill Station or its adjacent crossover tracks.
This alternative would serve the University District, Montlake, Capitol Hill, and First Hill, with the following four stations:
Brooklyn (Option C) or NE 45th (Option B)
Montlake
Capitol Hill (either Broadway or Nagle options)
First Hill
The route would generally begin at NE 45th Street at either a Brooklyn Station or a NE 45th Station and extend southeast under the University of Washington campus to a Montlake Station. Slightly different routes are required to reach the Montlake Station depending on whether a Brooklyn Station or NE 45th Station is used. From the Montlake Station, the route would extend beneath the Lake Washington Canal about 200 to 300 feet east of the Montlake Bridge and continue southwest under the Montlake and Capitol Hill neighborhoods to a station at Capitol Hill (either the Broadway or Nagle options). South of the Capitol Hill Station the route would be the same as described for Alternative B1.A.
Vent facilities would be provided in the vicinity of stations and in a separate structure with two options in the vicinity of 19th Avenue E between E Lynn and E Boyer Streets, and one option south of the SR 520/ Montlake Boulevard interchange. TPSSs would be needed at the Montlake Station, within the Montlake area vent shaft structure, and within the Capitol Hill Station or crossover.
This alternative would serve the University District, Capitol Hill, and First Hill and would have three to four stations, listed below:
Brooklyn (Options A, B, or C)
Southwest Campus (optional station paired with Brooklyn Options A or B)
Capitol Hill (either Broadway or Nagle options)
First Hill
The route would begin near NE 45th Street at the Brooklyn Station. There are two West Tunnel Station Options. B1.Ga does not include a Southwest Campus Station and B1.Gb does. If the Southwest Campus Station is not included (B1.Ga), the route would extend under Brooklyn Avenue NE to about NE 42nd Street, and then southwest to cross under Portage Bay 200 to 300 feet east of the University Bridge, continuing to 10th Avenue E north of SR 520. With the option for a Southwest Campus Station (B1.Gb), the route would be under Brooklyn Avenue NE. From the Southwest Campus Station, the route would extend under Portage Bay about 700 feet east of the University Bridge and continue to 10th Avenue E north of SR 520. The remainder of the route would be the same as described for Alternative B1.A (First Hill to 15th Avenue NE).
Vent facilities would be provided in the vicinity of stations and in a structure just south of SR 520 between 10th Avenue E and Federal Avenue E TPSSs would be needed within the Southwest Campus Station (for a route with four stations). If the Southwest Campus Station was not constructed under this alternative, the TPSS would be located within the Brooklyn Station. TPSSs would also be needed within the vent structure just south of SR 520, and also within the Capitol Hill Station or crossover.
This alternative would connect the University District, Montlake, Eastlake, and downtown Seattle via the South Lake Union area to the west of I-5. This alternative includes the following three to four stations:
Brooklyn (Option C or NE 45th Option B)
Montlake
Harrison
Convention Place (optional station)
The route and stations from a NE 45th or Brooklyn Station to the Montlake Station would be the same as Alternative B1.D (First Hill to Montlake). From the Montlake Station, the route would extend south beneath the Lake Washington Ship Canal about 200 to 300 feet east of Montlake Bridge and continue southwest under the Montlake and Capitol Hill neighborhoods to pass under I-5 at Republican and Mercer Streets. The route would extend under Eastlake Avenue E to the Harrison Station. From the Harrison Station, the route would continue under Eastlake Avenue E and Howell Street, with an option to connect to a new Convention Place Station for light rail beneath a rebuilt Convention Place Station bus station. The route would then connect with the Initial Segment of Link in the DSTT.
Vent facilities would be provided in station areas with two options located near 19th Avenue E between E Boyer Avenue and E Lynn Street and one option by Montlake Boulevard/SR 520. TPSSs would be needed within the Montlake Station, within the Montlake area vent shaft structure, and within the Harrison Station.
This alternative would connect the University District to downtown Seattle via the South Lake Union area to the west of I-5. This alternative would have the following two to four stations:
Brooklyn (Options A, B, or C)
Southwest Campus (optional station paired with Brooklyn Option A or B)
Harrison
Convention Place (optional station)
In the north section, from the Brooklyn Station to the SR 520 vent shaft, the alternative is similar to Alternative B1.G (First Hill to West Tunnel) both with and without a Southwest Campus station. After crossing under SR 520, the route would turn to the southwest at about E Highland Drive and would pass under I-5. From there the route would be the same as described for Alternative B3.D (Eastlake to Montlake), with a route under Eastlake Avenue E to the Harrison Station and then to Howell Street to either an optional Convention Place light rail station or a direct connection to the Initial Segment.
Vent facilities would be provided in the vicinity of stations, and just south of SR 520, between 10th Avenue E and Federal Avenue E. TPSSs would be needed within the Southwest Campus Station (for a four-station route). If the Southwest Campus Station was not constructed under this alternative, the TPSS would be located within the Brooklyn Station. TPSSs would also be needed within the vent shaft structure just south of SR 520 and within the Harrison Station.
This alternative would connect the University District, Montlake, Capitol Hill, and downtown Seattle. This alternative includes the following three stations:
Brooklyn (Option C) or NE 45th (Option B)
Montlake
Capitol Hill (either Broadway or Nagle options)
This alternative would have much the same route and station options as Alternative B1.D (First Hill to Montlake), except that it does not include a First Hill Station and the related First Hill route section. Due to the shorter route length, the alternative also does not require crossover tracks at the Capitol Hill Station options at Broadway or Nagle. From the Capitol Hill Station, the route would extend south and then west to pass under I-5 at Boren Avenue to connect to the Initial Segment in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. All other physical features of this alternative are the same as Alternative B1.D (First Hill to Montlake).
This alternative would connect the University District, Capitol Hill, and downtown Seattle and would have the following two to three stations:
Brooklyn (Options A or C)
SW Campus
Capitol Hill (either Broadway or Nagle options)
The route is similar to Alternative B1.G (First Hill to West Tunnel) except that it does not include a First Hill Station and the related First Hill route section. This route also includes the West Tunnel options, either with the Southwest Campus Station (B1.Gb) or without (B1.Ga). From the Capitol Hill Station, the route would extend south and then west to pass under I-5 at Boren Avenue to connect to the Initial Segment under Pine Street in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. All other features are the same as Alternative B1.G.
All Segment B stations are underground. However, the depth of the station and its location in the corridor are factors in the construction technique anticipated, which would be either mining or cut-and-cover excavation. Table 2-3 briefly summarizes the options, construction techniques anticipated, and applicable alternatives.
Table B-2
Key Characteristics of Segment B Station Options
|
Station |
Options |
Key Characteristics |
Applicable Alternatives |
|
NE 45th |
Option A |
Deep mined station at NE 45th and 15th Avenue NE |
B1.A (First Hill to 15th Avenue NE) |
|
|
Option B |
Cut-and-cover station at NE 45th and 15th Avenue NE |
Montlake routes: B1.D, B3.D, B4.D |
|
Brooklyn |
Option A |
Cut-and-cover station north of NE 45th at Brooklyn Avenue NE |
West tunnel routes with or without Southwest Campus station: B1.Gb, B3.Gb, B4.Gb |