Year End 1999 COP Performance Report

Citizens' Year-End 1999 Performance Report on Sound Transit

Letter from the Chair

Executive Summary

Introduction

• The Citizen Oversight Panel Mission
• The Process Used to Evaluate Sound Transit

Additional Accomplishments

• Board Leadership
• Staff and Agency Efforts
• Union Station
• Link Light Rail
• Regional Express
• Sounder Commuter Rail

Additional areas of concern

• Board Appointments
• Essential Agreements
• Financial Issues
• Communication, Outreach and Community Relations

Attachment:Members of the Citizen Oversight Panel

March 16, 2000

Sound Transit Finance Committee
Honorable Greg Nickels, Chair
Union Station
401 S. Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Chair Nickels and Committee Members:

The Citizen Oversight Panel is pleased to submit to the Finance Committee our year-end 1999 performance report. The main message of this report is that considerable progress is being made. COP found that, at year-end 1999, Sound Transit has a number of real and significant accomplishments to its credit. The progress is now real and visible. As progress is made, however, new challenges present themselves. These must be addressed if this very public project is to be viewed over the long term as a regional success story. We believe that with continued vigilance by the Board in policy making and oversight, with an attentive staff and with community interest and understanding, this can be done.

Three successes stood out in 1999:

• The roll-out of nine new ST Express Bus routes serving communities in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties.

• The Board's unanimous decision on a preferred Central Link alignment, station locations and system financial elements on November 18, 1999.

• The FEIS on the Sounder Everett-to-Seattle segment, with designs allowing for minimal incursion into sensitive shoreline and wetland areas.

The Panel noted that a regional sense of community prevailed in decisions reached this past year and that Sound Transit Board members played a leadership role in helping the agency reach key regional agreements. In our last report, we cautioned that regional thinking must prevail over parochialism. We are pleased to report that this was a hallmark of decision-making on several key issues.

Our principal concerns in this report center on the implementation schedule for Sounder, outreach to those directly affected by Sound Move decisions and, of course, funding. Each presented challenges over the past six months and requires continued attention by the agency and Board.

In preparing this year-end performance report on Sound Transit, we have sought the views of the public, of stakeholder groups and of local agencies. We have brought the various perspectives of our members to our deliberations and have reached consensus on the findings and themes in this report.

Details of Sound Transit's accomplishments as well as areas of concern are outlined in the attached report. We welcome all citizen and agency comments that are addressed to us.

Sincerely,

Reid H. Shockey
Chair

cc: Honorable Dave Earling, Sound Transit Board Chair

Executive Summary

Introduction

In November 1996 Sound Transit (legally known as the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) went before the voters of the region seeking approval of a ten-year plan for investments in public transportation called Sound Move. In that plan, the Board and agency promised to appoint a Citizen Oversight Panel (Panel or COP) to monitor performance and report regularly on potential areas for improvement. COP, a group of fifteen independent citizen volunteers from throughout the Sound Transit district, has now been meeting for three years. This is our sixth report to the Sound Transit Board and covers the second half of 1999.

The Panel's charter calls upon it to monitor Sound Transit's delivery on its public commitments, on the involvement of citizens in the process, and on the adherence to the financial policies and finance plans as outlined in Sound Move. The Citizen Oversight Panel focuses its evaluations on three key questions: Is the agency on mission? Is it on budget? Is it on schedule? We provide comment on past progress and carefully avoid advising the Board on specific future decisions. Our hope is that by monitoring past performance, we can provide insight to the Board and staff as they strive to meet the mandate to the voters.

The complete evaluation process, conducted twice each year, involves staff briefings, review of agency materials, and personal contacts with a variety of constituencies. Also included is a group evaluation in which Panel members evaluate Sound Transit's performance against its action plans and commitments. At year-end 1999, the Panel focused its attention on a number of key accomplishments and issue areas. The body of this report discusses the findings, conclusions and recommendations in each issue area evaluated for this period.

Summary of Sound Transit Performance

The Citizen Oversight Panel found that, at year-end 1999, Sound Transit has a number of real and significant accomplishments. Three years have passed since the November 1996 vote in which voters agreed on a vision of an integrated transportation system and reached into their pockets to make it a reality. Citizens of the region have been watching the growth and evolution of a new institution. COP finds that the agency is still learning, but the progress is now real and visible.

Three significant successes stand out:

• The Regional Express department of Sound Transit rolled out bus service on nine new routes serving communities in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. It did so a year earlier than scheduled.

• Link Light Rail achieved unanimous agreement on a preferred alignment, station locations and system financial elements among eighteen Board members. It did so exactly on schedule, on November 18, 1999.

• On the Sounder Everett-to-Seattle segment, the final environmental impact statement was issued, with designs agreed to by the resource agencies allowing for minimal incursion into sensitive shoreline and wetland areas.

The Panel noted that a regional sense of community prevailed in decisions reached this past year. Sound Transit's Board exerted leadership to reassure citizens that it is committed to seeing the effort succeed. Sound Transit's staff executed program tasks with attention to timeliness and quality.

While Sound Transit is on mission, budget increases and schedule delays are evident in a number of areas.

• Rising costs. Various elements of Sound Transit's program are over their original 1995 estimated budgets. The total increase over Sound Move is $476 million, or 12%. Of this total, $223 million is for direct program costs for Sounder, Link and Regional Express, while $253 million is for higher overhead and financing costs. The direct program increases are due to scope changes, program enhancements and mitigation requested by communities throughout the region as well as higher than projected real estate costs. The overhead cost increases are due to additional administrative costs to manage a complex program and the purchase of Union Station. Higher financing costs are driven by a combination of program increases and several changing variables such as the timing of program starts and the timing of revenues from federal funds, taxes and operations.

• Schedule delay. Sounder Commuter Rail is behind schedule in its commitment to start service on the Tacoma-to-Seattle segment in December 1999. It is now projected that limited service on this segment will begin in September 2000, with full service start-up to follow in 2002. Service on the entire line is not expected until 2003. The delays are attributable to a number of reasons:
  • the complex negotiations on track and signal improvements with multiple partners;
  • ongoing negotiations with the Port of Seattle and the City of Tacoma;
  • changing station design and real estate acquisition processes; and
  • the uncertainty created by Initiative 695 and the subsequent re-negotiation of parts of previously reached agreements.

Accomplishments

• Overall Performance. The emergence of Board leadership during this critical time was noted by COP members and the public. Board members became actively engaged in helping to broker agreements with various groups, including the City of Tukwila and Duwamish-area businesses. Board attendance improved, both at full Board meetings and at the committee level. Staff were credited with improved working relationships with a number of partner agencies. Despite criticisms of its marketing efforts, Sound Transit earned compliments on the quality of its public information materials.

• Link Light Rail. The light rail department is on schedule with necessary engineering efforts and is on the critical path to begin right-of-way acquisition and construction. In Tacoma, final design is underway and light rail vehicle procurement was completed on schedule. On the Central Link segment, in addition to the Board's timely adoption on November 18 of the preferred alignment, preliminary engineering (30% design) was completed, and the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and the federal government's Record of Decision (ROD) were approved on schedule.

• Regional Express. Service start-up on nine new routes was preceded by extensive coordination and development of joint regional customer services such as the PugetPass, coordinated regional fares, common schedule and fare information, and a coordinated lost and found service. Other system integration activities were carried out, such as development of a program of proposed technology enhancement projects to be funded by the Research & Technology Fund. With the close collaboration of Community Transit, the first capital project, Ash Way Park and Ride, opened for service in July 1999. Final design was begun on Overlake Transit Center in Redmond, Pacific Avenue Overpass in Everett and the Bellevue Transportation Center. Preliminary engineering and environmental reviews were underway on 19 additional projects.

• Sounder Commuter Rail. Despite the delays in completing agreements with BNSF for track and signal improvements, progress is being made in preparation for service start-up in 2000. The first rail cars and locomotives have been received and were demonstrated for guests and the press in a train ride from Tacoma to Seattle in December. Construction on five of the seven commuter rail stations was initiated. Prototype fare vending machines have been received and tested.

Areas of Concern

COP identified a number of areas of concern that must be addressed if progress is to continue. They include getting Sounder service initiated, completing negotiations with key partners, ensuring open processes to appoint Board members, monitoring budgets and financial plans, and continuing to work on public involvement and communications.

• Sounder schedule. COP members are concerned that further delays in beginning commuter rail service will jeopardize Sound Transit's credibility and its ability to begin discussions with the public of Phase II system expansion. Meeting the first round of commitments is a prerequisite for any future program development. We recognize that Sound Transit shares this concern and is making every effort to expedite negotiations with BNSF and other implementation efforts.

• Completing essential agreements. Negotiations with major partner entities must be concluded if Sounder and Central Link are to stay on schedule. Key agreements include

• the Burlington Northern-Sante Fe Railroad agreement on track and signal improvements and,

• the King County agreement on the downtown tunnel and related bus facility improvements,
• the University of Washington agreement on property needs and mitigation, and
• the City of Tukwila agreement on an alignment that is workable from both a regional and local point of view.

• Board appointments and re-appointments. The Panel noted a concern with the process of selecting appointees to the Sound Transit Board. According to state law, Board members are nominated by the County Executive and approved by the County Council. The law requires that "appointments shall be made following consultation with city and town jurisdictions." Local officials in King County felt that consultation did not fulfill the spirit of an open process. Also COP members felt there appeared to be a failure to develop and agree upon criteria and qualifications for candidates, both those up for re-appointment and new ones.

In its previous reports, COP highlighted concerns about financial risks and communication with stakeholders and communities. Both of these concerns continue.

• Budgets and financial plans. Budgets are tight in every aspect of the program and in many elements have already exceeded original Sound Move estimates. Communities and partner agencies throughout the region have concluded that their interests require higher cost solutions than previously projected. Federal funding continues to represent a major uncertainty in the financial plan.

• Communications, outreach and community relations. A number of partners report improved working relationships with Sound Transit, however, communication with its stakeholders continues to be a challenge. Issues previously noted by the Panel were raised again by community groups and others who have dealings with the agency. Staff have been faulted in some cases for their lack of awareness of sensitive local concerns and cultural issues and their limited knowledge of relevant local history. Some stakeholders perceive that staff appeared to have made up their minds when coming to a situation, to look down on ideas from the outside and often to respond to community input as a last resort only after pressure and intervention by third parties. Despite management changes and considerable attention to such feedback, the critical comments continue. Communication issues remain a troublesome aspect of the agency's program. COP urges the agency to exercise care in selecting representatives to negotiate with communities who have local knowledge and the authority to follow through on commitments.

Additional details on both accomplishments and areas of concern are provided in the full report.

Who is the Citizen Oversight Panel?