Greetings  Sound Transit Board,

I’m curious about what makes it a good idea to:

• build a two mile long, 150 foot-high trestle over an earthquake fault in a state that has lost more bridges in peace time than any other state?
• spend nearly a billion taxpayer dollars per mile — the most expensive light rail cost in history — to deliver the same ridership between West Seattle & Downtown in 20 years as buses deliver now?
• negatively impact nearly 100 businesses, lose up to 1000 jobs, and reduce city and county tax revenues for the next decade?
• deforest and do irreparable damage to ecosystems and habitats, while generating a carbon footprint that will take 200 years to mitigate?

These are key questions that Sound Transit's WSBLE Draft EIS raises.  They tell us that the proposal is poorly conceived and planned, and that it qualifies under Section 2 of the ST3 package as unbuildable, unaffordable and infeasible.  By serving only three mid-West Seattle stations, it will not improve transit for the Downtown-West Seattle corridor.  The proposal does not serve the best interests of the 2016 ST3 voters, or of your 90,000 constituents who live in the West Seattle-South Park-International District areas.

Therefore, the real property acquisition proposal in Resolution R2024-07 is pointless and premature at this time, and the Board should reject it.  

Several considerations must be addressed in the WSBLE proposal before it is moved to a final EIS.  Thus, this process must remain in the Draft stage now.  As structured, this proposal does not satisfy equity, environmental, sustainability, economic and residential goals and criteria that Sound Transit is obligated to meet.

The ST3 package approved by voters in 2016 called first for deployment of Sound Transit funds to enhance existing Rapid Ride and Express bus services, between Downtown and West Seattle, and on the Peninsula.  This approach is more environmentally and economically sustainable, creates more social equity, and is well within Sound Transit's existing authority to implement.

In addition, before the final EIS is settled, ST must address the following:

• Conduct Town Halls to discuss clear details and less damaging options for public transit,
• Review of ridership forecasts in light of shifting employment centers and increased numbers of people working from home
• Develop better mitigation plans if a version of the proposal does move forward.   A significant portion of our region’s tree canopy grows in West Seattle.  Eliminating acres of it, as WSBLE proposes, will create negative environmental and health impacts that will disproportionately affect poorer neighborhoods
• Conduct an independent study of the federally mandated No Build Option.  Sound Transit has failed to do this transparently and honestly on its own, and should not be tasked with the study.

All the best,

Martin Westerman, West Seattle