Long-Range Plan Final Supplemental Environmental
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Section 7.0: Individual Comments and Responses – Section 7.1: Individuals last name A-F (and no last name) comments and responses – Section 7.2: Individuals last name G-M comments and responses – Section 7.3: Individuals last name N-T comments and responses – Section 7.4: Individuals last name U-Z comments and responses Appendix L Responses to Comments | Divider Appendix L - Responses to Comments 236-1 Please see the response to common comment 15 - Use updated population and Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update - RECORD #236 DETAIL employment projections in section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Submission Date : 7/16/2014 First Name : Matt Last Name : Gangemi 236-1 Submission Content : Please. Please. Please. Be very careful with projection numbers. Today's post on Seattle Transit Blog shows you're probably strongly under-predicting ridership numbers. If you're using PSRC data it's even worse, as Ballard is currently at 340% of their 2024 PSRC "target", which doesn't mean much except the PSRC isn't great at predicting the future. But predicting the future is critically important for funding a rail line. At least make sure whatever model you use takes into account current growth trends and permit-based estimates. Thank you, -Matt Gangemi Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Page L-7.2-1 Appendix L - Responses to Comments 296-1 Please see the response to common comment 4 - "Ballard Spur" ("A4" alignment) in Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update - RECORD #296 DETAIL Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Submission Date : 6/23/2014 First Name : Matt 296-2 Last Name : Gangemi Submission Content : Hi, As you point out in your comment, station spacing is influenced by a number of factors, 296-1 I just wanted to register my support for option A4 of the Ballard to University including cost, population/employment density, community acceptance, and impact on study. A4 wasn't actually listed, but Seattle Transit Blog posted a Seattle Subway article today about the best way to modify option A3. (article: travel times. The alignments and potential station locations developed in the HCT corridor http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/23/lets-build-the-ballard-spur) studies were representative, and would be studied in more detail if and when the corridor 296-2 My largest criticism of Link to date are that it's not grade separated in the RV and SODO (though I understand the budget/political reasons for this), and moves into future phases of project development. that the stop spacing is so large*. That is somewhat understandable, since Link is a light rail running very long distances for this technology (when it's already 45 minutes from the airport, adding more stops reduces ridership, 296-3 and out at Tukwila you can just add parking and feeder service anyway). However, the area of the Ballard Spur is a fairly dense area with potential to increase density significantly. It's appropriate for continuous service Please see the response to common comment 24 - Not related to SEIS in Section 5.3.6 of throughout the corridor. In addition, the overall distance is short, so adding a Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. few stops will not leave us with unreasonable travel times - we're still talking about ~10 min end to end. 296-3 I understand that ST tries to be budget sensitive, but this isn't the right time to cut stations, before anything is really planned. Remember, unlike surface routes we only will get one chance to get this right. What do you want service in this area to look like 100 years from now? How about 500 years? It's likely the choices we make now will have a very, very long shadow. Thank you, -Matt Gangemi * I'm sure you've seen this great comparison: http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/02/27/link-station-spacing/ Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Page L-7.2-2 Appendix L - Responses to Comments 403-1 Please see the response to common comment 15 - Use updated population and Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update - RECORD #403 DETAIL employment projections in section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Submission Date : 7/28/2014 First Name : Andrew 403-2 Last Name : Garbutt Submission Content : I would really love to see item 5, a grade separated route into and out of west Please see the response to common comment 9 - Sand Point Crossing in Section 5.3.2 of seattle that reaches far enough south to get people interested. The current routing of buses seems challenged, slow, and generally not a better option Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. that driving my own car. Kindly, 403-3 Andrew Please see the response to common comment 4 - "Ballard Spur" ("A4" alignment) in Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. 403-1 1. Review and update the population model being used in the studies. The PSRC numbers are clearly inaccurate in their 2035 projections in Seattle. 403-4 403-2 2. Study the Sand Point Crossing — it’s a better routing and the Trans-Lake Washington crossing study does not exclude this area form being studied. Option SP1. Please see the response to common comment 5 - Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah ("C4" 403-3 3. Study the highest quality option for Ballard to UW: The Ballard Spur. alignment) in Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Option A4. 403-4 4. Study a better Eastside corridor. Option C4. 403-5 403-5 5. Present an option to the board for West Seattle that is easier to include in Please see the response to common comment 7 - Downtown to West Seattle ("A6" ST3. Option A6. alignment) in Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. 403-6 6. Study alternative rail options such as sky train and heavy rail and study driverless rail technology. 403-6 Please see the response to common comment 20 - Driverless technology in section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Please see the response to common comment 21 - Alternative technologies - General in Section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Page L-7.2-3 Appendix L - Responses to Comments 285-1 Please see the response to common comment 9 - Sand Point Crossing in Section 5.3.2 of Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update - RECORD #285 DETAIL Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Submission Date : 7/8/2014 First Name : Bill Last Name : Gaylord 285-1 Submission Content : As an architect, design professional and citizen of Seattle I urge you to study and ultimately include the Sand Point Crossing. Thank you. Bill Gaylord FAIA 206-790-1073 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Page L-7.2-4 Appendix L - Responses to Comments 556-1 Please see the response to common comment 21 - Alternative technologies - General in Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update - RECORD #556 DETAIL Section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. Submission Date : 7/24/2014 First Name : Jerry 556-2 Last Name : Gieseke 556-1 Submission Content : · The justification for avoiding study of alternative technologies such as Please see the response to common comment 20 - Driverless technology in section 5.3.4 Heavy Rail and Sky Train needs to be revisited considering the current needs of Seattle, the region, and of an infrastructure investment that will be used by of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. generations to come. 556-2 · Driverless technology for new rail routes must be studied as part of Sound Transit’s efforts to improve their financial sustainability in operations. 556-3 556-3 · Update the ridership and population projections in the corridor studies to Please see the response to common comment 15 - Use updated population and more accurately represent growth in Seattle and the region, the PSRC numbers for Seattle are clearly off. employment projections in section 5.3.4 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. 556-4 · Study the Sand Point Crossing – it will provide a better rail connection than SR 520 and the Trans Lake Study does not exclude it from consideration 556-4 as Sound Transit first thought. o ST needs to complete the analysis on a floating rail bridge, floating tunnel, Please see the response to common comment 9 - Sand Point Crossing in Section 5.3.2 of and suspension bridge from Sand Point to Kirkland to complete the analysis of the UW to Kirkland to Redmond study.? Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. o Building the best line possible is the most important consideration in this corridor.? 556-5 556-5 · Study a better option for Ballard to UW. I want The Ballard Spur “A4!” – Please see the response to common comment 4 - "Ballard Spur" ("A4" alignment) in A3 is the best option presented, but ST needs to add stations at East Ballard and Aurora and move the Wallingford station east. Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of this Final SEIS. o ST needs to study a fully grade separated version of Level 2 Alternative C1 in case it is not possible to build Corridor D from the Ballard to Downtown Study. 556-6 o Building the best line possible is the most important consideration in this Please see the response to common comment 2 - East/West extension of Ballard to UW in corridor as it is the highest value transit corridor that does not already have rail planned in Washington State.