Sound Transit's Planned Options if Prop 1 Fails

Images in this attachment,not displayed. For original with images see
http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/ST2%20HCT%20Compliance_Planning_DRAFT_2007-03.pdf

Page 1
Prepared for:
Sound Transit
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff
DRAFT
March 2007
Sound Transit 2
Compliance with HCT System Planning Requirements
Technical Memorandum
Options Assessment and Analysis Methods
Page 2
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
1.1
Historical Overview.................................................................................... 1
1.2
Purpose and Intent of Technical Memorandum ......................................... 2
2.
Setting the Stage for HCT: Legislative Mandates and Initial Plan
Development....................................................................................................................3
2.1
Legal Overview and Timeline..................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Goals and Context.....................................................................................3
2.2
ESHB 2871, 2006 Washington Legislative Session................................... 3
2.3
Vision 2020/Metropolitan Transportation Plan ........................................... 5
2.3.1 Overview: A Regional Framework for Growth and
Transportation ...........................................................................................5
2.3.2 Providing for a Multi-Modal Transportation System: Elements
Contained in Plan ......................................................................................5
2.4
Joint Regional Policy Committee/Regional Transit Authority ..................... 5
2.4.1 Joint Regional Policy Committee Legislative Mandate..............................5
2.4.2 Overview of JRPC Activities .....................................................................6
2.5
1993 Environmental Impact Statement...................................................... 6
2.5.1 EIS Purpose and Need..............................................................................6
2.5.2 1993 EIS Summary and Scope .................................................................6
2.5.3 Alternatives Analysis..................................................................................6
2.5.4 Transition of Implementing Agency for the EIS: JRPC to RTA
and Sound Transit .....................................................................................7
2.5.5 Development of Sound Move: 1995-1996 .................................................7
2.6
1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision ................................................ 8
2.6.1 Description ................................................................................................8
2.6.2 Elements Contained in the Long-Range Vision ........................................8
2.7
Sound Move............................................................................................. 11
2.7.1 Description...............................................................................................11
2.7.2 Elements Contained in Sound Move .......................................................11
2.7.3 Expert Review Panel Review of Sound Move Plan
Methodologies .........................................................................................12
3.
Updating the Regional Transit Long-Range Plan.......................................................14
3.1
2005 SEIS and Alternatives Evaluation ................................................... 14
3.1.1 Elements Contained in SEIS ...................................................................14
3.2
Long-Range Plan Issue Papers............................................................... 15
3.2.1 Description...............................................................................................15
3.2.2 Alternatives Analysis................................................................................15
3.3
2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan................................................. 16
3.3.1 Description ..............................................................................................16
4.
ST2 Planning Process ..................................................................................................19
4.1
Description............................................................................................... 19
4.2
Candidate Project Identification ............................................................... 19
4.3
Narrowing of Candidate Projects ............................................................. 19
4.4
Remaining Candidate Projects ................................................................ 20
4.5
Development of Sample Investment Scenarios ....................................... 21
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
i
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 3
4.6
Do-Nothing and Low Capital Options Set Aside; 3 Sample
Investment Options Issued for Public and Agency Review...................... 27
4.7
ST2 Draft Package .................................................................................. 31
5.
Capital Cost Methodology............................................................................................34
5.1
Levels of Costing ..................................................................................... 34
5.2
General Approach to Estimating Capital Costs........................................ 35
6.
Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodology.......................................................36
6.1
ST Express .............................................................................................. 36
6.2
Central Link Light Rail.............................................................................. 36
6.3
Tacoma and Everett Light Rail................................................................. 37
6.4
Rail Convertible Bus Rapid Transit.......................................................... 38
6.5
Sounder Commuter Rail .......................................................................... 38
7.
Transit Ridership Forecasting Methodology..............................................................39
7.1
History of Transit Forecasting at Sound Transit....................................... 39
7.2
Sound Transit Incremental Planning Model ............................................. 39
7.3
Summary Comparisons of the ST and PSRC Models ............................. 40
7.4
Important Considerations......................................................................... 40
8.
Financial Plan................................................................................................................40
9.
Candidate Project and System Evaluation .................................................................41
9.1
Summary of Overall Evaluation and Screening Process.......................... 41
9.2
Goals and Objectives for Long-Range Plan and Resulting ST2
Projects.................................................................................................... 41
9.3
Phased Process of Candidate Project and System Evaluation................ 42
10.
Conclusions...................................................................................................................43
Appendices
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
ii
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 4
List of Tables
Table 1: High Capacity Transit in the Central Puget Sound Region—Development Chronology.4
Table 2: Summary of System Alternatives Characteristics...........................................................7
Table 3: ST2 Candidate Projects Set Aside on January 12, 2006..............................................19
Table 4: ST2 Draft Package Projects by Corridor.......................................................................33
List of Figures
Figure 1: 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision..................................................................10
Figure 2: 1996 Sound Move Plan Approved by Voters...............................................................13
Figure 3: 2005 Long-Range Plan Update ...................................................................................18
Figure 4: Do-Nothing Sample Investment Scenario....................................................................22
Figure 5: Bus/Sounder Emphasis (Low) Sample Investment Scenario ......................................23
Figure 6: Bus/Rail Emphasis (Medium) Sample Investment Scenario........................................24
Figure 7: Fixed Guideway Emphasis (Medium-High) Sample Investment Scenario...................25
Figure 8: Fixed Guideway Emphasis (High) Sample Investment Scenario (as amended) .........26
Figure 9: Bus/Rail Extension (Medium) Sample Investment Option...........................................28
Figure 10: Medium Rail Extension (Medium-High) Sample Investment Option..........................29
Figure 11: Maximized Rail Extension (High) Sample Investment Option....................................30
Figure 12: ST2 Draft Package ....................................................................................................32
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
iii
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 5
1. Introduction
1.1 Historical Overview
The development of high capacity transportation (HCT) systems within the central Puget Sound region
has been guided over the years by federal and state legislation, as well as by state, regional and local plans
and policies. The purpose of these overarching directives is to build an integrated HCT system that
increases the people-carrying capacity of the region’s most congested travel corridors, supports the
region’s growth management policies, ensures a vital economy and protects the region’s environment.
Beginning in 1990, the Washington State Legislature began adopting legislation pertinent to the
development of high capacity transportation systems to be deployed in the state’s major urban areas. The
primary references can be found under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 81.104, also known
as the High Capacity Transportation Systems Act. Under RCW 81.104.010, the purpose of the HCT
legislation is defined as follows:
Increasing congestion on Washington's roadways calls for identification and
implementation of high capacity transportation system alternatives. The legislature
believes that local jurisdictions should coordinate and be responsible for high capacity
transportation policy development, program planning, and implementation.
The Legislature defined a HCT system in RCW 81.104.015 (1) as:
“a system of public transportation services within an urbanized region operating
principally on exclusive rights of way, and the supporting services and facilities
necessary to implement such a system, including interim express services and high
occupancy vehicle lanes, which taken as a whole, provides a substantially higher level of
passenger capacity, speed, and service frequency than traditional public transportation
systems operating principally in general purpose roadways.”
With the encouragement and authorization to designated local agencies to prepare plans for the
development of high capacity transit systems, the Legislature also prescribed specific components of the
planning process and requirements for how that planning process was to occur (RCW 81.104.100).
The intended result of the HCT planning process closely detailed in RCW 81.104.100 (2) in urbanized
areas was to be a system plan to be submitted to the voters under RCW 81.104.100 (2) (d) and RCW
81.104.140. After a successful vote, a process for project planning was described in RCW 81.104.100 (3).
The Legislature did not provide precise direction in Chapter 81.104 RCW on how the planning process
was to proceed after a voter-approved system plan transitioned into project development, and then into
future system phases or plan updates to address new transportation challenges and opportunities. Thus, in
implementing Sound Transit’s obligations under Chapter 81.104 RCW, examination must include the
agency’s own enabling legislation in Chapter 81.112 RCW, which speaks both briefly and broadly to its
powers in amending its system plan and to system phasing.
RCW 81.112.040 (2) requires a two-thirds board vote for “major decisions” including “system plan
adoption and amendment” and “system phasing decisions.” RCW 81.112.080 (1) grants Sound Transit
additional powers to “carry out the planning process set forth in RCW 81.104.100.” This constitutes a
broad delegation of authority by the Legislature (enacted in 1992, two years after the HCT Act) to Sound
Transit to devise appropriate plan amendment processes and subsequent system plan phases.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 6
In applying this legislation, Sound Transit has concluded that the conservative approach is to generally
prepare the same technical analysis for the second phase capital program - - Sound Transit 2 (ST2) - - as
was prepared for Sound Move and to ensure that the ST2 plan complies with the system planning
references in Chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW as explained below.
1.2 Purpose and Intent of Technical Memorandum
This technical memorandum addresses state reporting requirements for the Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority, or Sound Transit. This memorandum addresses specifically how Sound Transit meets
the requirements in RCW 81.104.100 (2), which reads in part as follows:
High capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range of high
capacity system options, including: Do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital
facilities.
The RCW citation (2) (b & c) further goes on to state that:
Development of Options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an
appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A do-nothing
option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system shall be developed.
Several higher capital options that consider a range of capital expenditures for several
candidate technologies shall be developed.
Analysis Methods. The local transit agency shall develop reports describing the analysis
and assumptions for the estimation of capital costs, operating and maintenance costs,
methods for travel forecasting, a financial plan and an evaluation methodology.
This technical memorandum describes how Sound Transit met these legislative requirements when the
first long-range plan and the implementation of Phase I (Sound Move) were adopted in 1996. It also
describes how the current system planning process leading up to the development of the ST2 plan,
anticipated to go before voters in November 2007, will meet these requirements, as it has also included
evaluation of do-nothing, low-cost and high-cost options continually throughout the planning process.
Detailed information on the analysis methods is documented in individual methodology reports prepared
for each of the following:
• Capital Cost Estimates: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 – Methodology Development and
Documentation, Subtask 2.3 – Capital Cost Estimating Methodology Report, Final, March 2007;
• Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimates: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 –
Methodology Development and Documentation, Subtask 2.6 – Operating and Maintenance Cost
Methodologies, Final, February 2007;
• Transit Ridership Forecasting: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 – Methodology
Development and Documentation, Subtask 2.4 – Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report,
Final, February 2006;
• Financial Plan: [under development]; and
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
2
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 7
• Project and System Evaluation: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 – Methodology
Development and Documentation, Subtask 2.1 – System and Project Evaluation Methodology,
Final, February 2006.
An additional technical memorandum has been prepared to summarize the public involvement and
outreach process conducted for ST2.
2. Setting the Stage for HCT: Legislative Mandates and
Initial Plan Development
2.1 Legal Overview and Timeline
2.1.1
Goals and Context
In order to manage increased congestion on Washington’s roadways, the state legislature mandated a
planning process that regional planning and transit agencies must follow to develop high capacity transit
system alternatives (RCW 81.104.010).
In recognition of the 1990 Growth Management Act, state law required that regional planning agencies
“address the relationship between urban growth and an effective high capacity transportation system plan,
and provide for cooperation between local jurisdictions and transit agencies” (RCW 81.104.080). The law
also required that high capacity transit system analyses be included in regional transportation plan
reviews. The investigation and implementation of such systems must then follow a process that includes a
“detailed evaluation of a range of high capacity transportation system options” (RCW 81.104.100 (2) (b).
Such an appraisal must ensure that a range of technologies and service policies are assessed according to
the following scenarios:
• Do-Nothing option;
• Low Capital option that maximizes the current system; and
• Ranges of Higher Capital options that consider a range of expenditures for several candidate
technologies.
2.2 ESHB 2871, 2006 Washington Legislative Session
The 2006 Washington State Legislature amended state law to delay a public vote on Sound Transit
expansion until the 2007 general election. ESHB 2871 directs Sound Transit and the Regional
Transportation Investment District (RTID) to jointly approach voters in Snohomish, King and Pierce
counties in 2007 with their system expansion and financing plans to expand transit and highways,
respectively. In addition, the legislation specifies that neither proposal shall be considered approved
unless both are approved by voters.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
3
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 8
Table 1: High Capacity Transit in the Central Puget Sound Region—Development Chronology
1990
The Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and High Capacity Transit (HCT) Act
(Chapter 81.104 RCW) are approved, enabling the creation of a regional rapid transit system for the central Puget
Sound region. The HCT Act calls for transit agencies to plan, build and operate an HCT system within the region's
most heavily used travel corridors.
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) adopted VISION 2020, the region’s growth and transportation strategy.
Transportation policy recommendations include references to the development of an HCT system.
1991
The Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) formed as a mandate of the HCT Act.
1992
The State Legislature enabled the formation of a Regional Transit Authority with the approval of RCW Chapter
81.112, which provided the legal basis for the Puget Sound region to create one local agency for planning and
implementing an HCT system.
1993
The JRPC’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed. The EIS evaluated options for improving
regional mobility needs through 2020, including enhanced transportation system management (TSM) and
transportation demand management (TDM), busways and rail alternatives. The Rail/TSM alternative in the EIS became
the preferred alternative.
The JRPC recommended that a Regional Transit Authority should serve King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties.
The JRPC prepared and adopted a regional HCT system plan and transmitted that plan to the King, Pierce, and
Snohomish county councils to consider whether to form a regional transit authority (RTA) to implement the plan.
King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties formed the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA).
1995
Voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties rejected the RTA’s $6.7 billion plan (1995 dollars) to create a tri-
county transportation system made up of commuter rail, light rail, express buses and bus facilities.
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) adopted the 1995 Update to VISION 2020 and the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) in compliance with the requirements of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the state Growth Management Act. HCT remains
a major component of the MTP.
1996
The revised Sound Move plan was approved by King, Snohomish and Pierce County voters with a price tag of
$3.9 billion (1995 dollars). This comprehensive regional transit plan contained nearly 100 separate but interrelated
capital and service projects that included: high-occupancy vehicle system improvements, ST Express bus routes,
Sounder commuter rail and Link light rail. Sound Move was the first implementation phase of a larger, long-range
system.
Concurrent with the adoption of Sound Move, the Sound Transit Board adopted the Regional Transit Long-
Range Vision to keep the whole regional system in the public's eye. The Vision provided a general blueprint for
reaching the region's long-term high capacity transit goals. The Vision addressed the opportunity for additional HCT
investments, including rail extensions in future phases, and it identified possible additional HCT corridors and potential
rail lines.
2001
The PSRC adopted Destination 2030 as the functional transportation element of VISION 2020, to serve as the
region’s MTP. Sound Transit’s Long-Range Vision and the Sound Move plan are key components of the PSRC’s MTP.
2004
A draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for an updated Long-Range Vision (now Plan)
was released to update the 1993 EIS. The SEIS analyzed the environmental impacts of potential action alternatives in
the context of new information and existing environmental conditions and provided plan-level environmental analysis
to inform regional transit project decisions. This Draft SEIS analyzed a No Action alternative and the Long-Range Plan
alternative (with options).
2005
Sound Transit released the Final SEIS and unanimously adopted the updated Regional Transit Long-Range
Plan. The 1996 Vision was updated to reflect extensive analysis of the region’s future growth, and it details how a
regional transit system might best accommodate that growth.
Sound Transit engages in the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) system planning process.
2007
ST2 is anticipated to be sent to voters for approval in November 2007.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
4
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 9
2.3 Vision 2020/Metropolitan Transportation Plan
2.3.1
Overview: A Regional Framework for Growth and Transportation
1
In 1990, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted VISION 2020, the region’s first “integrated long-
range growth and transportation strategy.” VISION 2020 provided detailed planning and investment
decisions that laid the groundwork for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which contained
more explicit transportation components of VISION 2020 as required by the federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
VISION 2020 and the MTP promoted a multimodal, high capacity transportation system that shifted the
emphasis from moving vehicles to supporting the movement of people and goods. The plan encouraged
the creation of compact communities with employment and housing growth focused in urban centers.
HCT was identified as an important component of economic and land use development needed to connect
housing and jobs and to serve major activity centers.
2.3.2
Providing for a Multi-Modal Transportation System: Elements
Contained in Plan
VISION 2020 and the MTP made HCT planning integral to regional transportation planning efforts.
Specific policy recommendations for HCT systems included increasing highway and HOV capacity and
building transit centers and HCT services to connect regionwide urban areas as well as urban centers
within the region’s congested corridors.
2
Establishing high capacity transit through these measures advanced the stated regional growth objectives
to create greater mobility options by “optimizing and managing the use of transportation facilities and
services, managing travel demand by addressing traffic congestion and environmental objectives,
focusing transportation investments to support transit and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns, and
expanding transportation capacity.”
3
More specifically, the HCT policy recommendations also suggested maximizing use of alternative transit
modes; creating short transit trips to access regional transit stations; supporting concentrated urban
corridors; and providing direct, frequent and convenient regional transit service between urban centers
and access to urban areas that does not induce rural development.
4
2.4 Joint Regional Policy Committee/Regional Transit
Authority
2.4.1
Joint Regional Policy Committee Legislative Mandate
In 1990, the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) was formed as contemplated by the HCT Act.
RCW 81.104.040 required transit agencies in counties containing one million or more residents (and
bordering counties with 200,000 residents or more) to:
• Develop a joint regional policy committee to provide high capacity transportation planning and
operating services through interlocal agreements;
• Create an implementation program that includes system, project and financing plans, and is in
conformance with the regional transportation planning organization’s regional transportation
plan; and
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
5
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 10
• Present this plan to the boards of directors of the transit agencies within the service area or to the
regional transit authority.
2.4.2
Overview of JRPC Activities
5
In 1993, the JRPC prepared and issued an EIS and a regional HCT system plan and transmitted these
documents to the King, Pierce, and Snohomish county councils. The JRPC also recommended the
formation of a regional transit authority (RTA) to implement the plan as provided under Chapter 81.112
RCW.
2.5 1993 Environmental Impact Statement
2.5.1
EIS Purpose and Need
Washington State’s High Capacity Transit funding and planning legislation (RCW 81.104.100) mandated
a planning process that included an evaluation of options for improving regional mobility needs through
2020, including enhanced transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand
management (TDM), busways and rail alternatives. The legislation also required the evaluation to include
an investigation of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the system location, as well as an
analysis of the relationship between the high capacity transportation system plan and adopted land use
plans (RCW 81.104.100 (2) (d) (viii & vii).
2.5.2
1993 EIS Summary and Scope
The HCT plan put forth by the JRPC developed three "build" alternatives and a no-build baseline. In
accordance with the HCT legislation, these scenarios included a Do-Nothing option (No-Build
baseline), a Low Capital option (TSM Alternative) and two High Capital options (Transitway/TSM
and Rail/TSM Alternatives). As mentioned above, a programmatic State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) EIS was prepared to evaluate each of the alternatives to the baseline scenario in terms of varying
technology, route alignments, and areas served.
2.5.3
Alternatives Analysis
The No-build baseline (Do-Nothing option) limited the capital investments to budgeted programs or
those necessary to maintain existing transit service levels. This scenario did not include the construction
of new transit or operations facilities, but it included construction of new maintenance or operations
facilities already budgeted. This scenario represented the least capital intensive alternative. Capital costs
(all costs discussed in this section are in 1991 dollars) were estimated at $1.2 billion and operating and
maintenance costs were estimated at $274 million per year.
All of the alternatives discussed below implemented either the concept of Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) or low capital cost options to increase regional or community transit service to and
between urban centers identified in VISION 2020.
• TSM Alternative (Low Capital option): An all-bus TSM Alternative emphasized lower-cost
capital improvements to expand transit service and improve efficiency by completing the regional
HOV lane system and making significant investments in park-and-ride lots, transit centers, and
expanded bus service. This alternative cost $3.5 billion more than the No-Build Alternative.
• Transitway/TSM (High Capital option): This plan augmented and included the TSM investments
with physically separated exclusive busways and transitways in the region's core. This plan
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
6
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 11
allowed buses to travel to off-line stations, through local neighborhoods, minimize transfers
between feeder and regional service, skip intermediate stops and share HOV facilities with
general purpose vehicles. This alternative was intermediate in cost between the TSM and
Rail/TSM Alternatives because of the smaller extent of the transitway and use of existing rights-
of-way. This alternative cost $4.3 billion more than the No-Build Alternative.
• Rail/TSM Alternative (High Capital option): This proposal augmented and included the TSM
investments with an extensive regional rail system. The plan created an extensive rapid transit
system and commuter rail line on top of most of the regional and local TSM improvements,
including HOV projects. In contrast to the above-mentioned scenarios, this plan also proposed a
significant expansion in park-and-ride facilities. This was the most capital intensive of all the
alternatives with a cost $10.3 billion above the No-Build Alternative budget.
The following table from the 1993 EIS summarizes the capital and operations and maintenance costs of
the four scenarios.
12
Table 1: Summary of System Alternatives Characteristics
2.5.4 Transition of Implementing Agency for the EIS: JRPC to RTA and
Sound Transit
The JRPC reviewed the 1993 EIS and adopted the Regional Transit Project System Plan. The Plan's
central element was the Rail/TSM option that provided a rail system to connect the region's population
and employment centers, including Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Bellevue, in addition to creating a
Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail system. The JRPC also proposed significant funds for local bus service.
In 1993, the JRPC forwarded its Regional Transit System Plan to the Snohomish, King, and Pierce county
councils for their consideration, and they recommended the formation of a regional transit authority. Later
that year, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority was formed and this RTA supplanted the
role of the JRPC, pursuant to Chapter 81.112 RCW. The JRPC’s plan was then transmitted to this newly
formed regional agency and the original committee (JRPC) ceased to exist. Several years after forming
the RTA, the agency was renamed Sound Transit.
13
2.5.5 Development of Sound Move: 1995-1996
In 1995, Sound Transit developed a plan to implement the first phase of a new regional rail and express
bus network with an estimated cost of $6.7 billion (in 1995 dollars). The Sound Transit Board conducted
extensive outreach to assist in developing a plan to bring to the voters. The proposal included the
following:
• All-day commuter rail between Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle-Everett (and intermediate stops);
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
7
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 12
• A rail system stretching south from Lynnwood to Tacoma via Northgate, the University District,
downtown Seattle, Rainier Valley, and SeaTac, plus an east-west line across I-90 to Mercer
Island, Bellevue and Redmond/-Overlake;
• Following additional study, some form of HCT service would be implemented between Tukwila,
Renton, Bellevue, and Kirkland; and
• Major investments in all-day, frequent ST Express Bus service linking employment centers along
with supporting capital facilities.
This plan was placed on the ballot for voter approval in March 1995 and defeated by voters in King,
Snohomish and Pierce counties. Following this defeat, the Sound Transit Board conducted another
significant outreach effort to develop a new transit plan. The final product was the development of Sound
Move, which represented a substantially downsized version of the original 1995 proposal.
2.6 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision
2.6.1
Description
8
The Sound Transit Board adopted the Regional Transit Long-Range Vision in 1996 as the conceptual
blueprint for reaching the central Puget Sound region’s long-term HCT goals. The Long-Range Vision
was adopted in conjunction with Sound Move in order to keep the whole regional system in the public's
eye. The plan:
• Provided an overview of the HCT component of any state or regional long-range transportation
plan;
• Detailed long-range goals, policies, and strategies to guide the long-term development of the
regional transit system at each phase of implementation; and
• Looked at opportunities for making additional HCT investments, including rail extensions, in
future phases.
The plan concentrated on a combination of light rail, commuter rail and express bus service as the means
to provide HCT services to the service area.
2.6.2
Elements Contained in the Long-Range Vision
9
The 1996 Long-Range Vision concluded that combining commuter rail and light rail with an express bus
system (the Rail/TSM concept) would create an HCT system that best reflected the region's growth
patterns, policies, and travel needs by 2020. These modal investments would serve the purpose of the
region’s MTP by:
• Increasing the people-carrying capacity of the region's most congested travel corridors;
• Supporting the region's growth management policies;
• Contributing to a vital economy; and
• Protecting the region's environment.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
8
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 13
Consistent with the Rail/TSM concept, which was chosen as the preferred alternative, the 1996 Long-
Range Vision included both high and low-cost elements to meet the region’s transportation needs.
Possible additional HCT corridors were identified to be served by potential express bus services or rail
lines, and included the following:
• University District to downtown Everett;
• Sea-Tac (S. 200th) to Fort Lewis/DuPont;
• I-405 between 164th S.W. (Swamp Creek) and Sea-Tac Airport;
• I-90 between downtown Seattle and Issaquah;
• Downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue and downtown Redmond; and
• Downtown Seattle to Ballard to the University District.
Figure 1 displays a map of the 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
9
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 14
Figure 1: 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
10
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 15
2.7 Sound Move
2.7.1
Description
The Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move, the first implementation phase of the Long-Range Vision,
in May 1996. Financing for the Sound Move plan was approved by King, Snohomish and Pierce county
voters in the fall of 1996.
10
2.7.2
Elements Contained in Sound Move
As the range of services described below indicate, the final plan relied on nearly 100 separate but
interrelated capital and service projects that encompassed a range of high and low cost elements. The
centerpiece of the plan combined rail and regional express bus networks. Those networks comprised a
mix of light rail, commuter rail, and regional express bus services, supported by transit centers, access
ramps, and park-and-ride lots.
11
The Sound Move plan’s main elements, which are currently in various stages of construction, include the
following:
• ST Express Bus: ST Express was allotted more than $800 million for 20 new express bus routes,
along with HOV access improvements and community connections projects. Community
connections include bus stops, park-and-ride lots, transit centers, and multi-modal stations.
12
• Sounder Commuter Rail: Sounder is being launched in three segments—Tacoma to Seattle,
Everett to Seattle and Tacoma to Lakewood. The first two segments are operational, while the
Tacoma to Lakewood portion is in the construction stage. Trains currently run a total of 82 miles
through three counties. When the system is fully operational, trains will run every half-hour
during peak commute hours – for a total of up to 18 one-way trips daily in the south corridor and
eight one-way trips daily in the north corridor.
13
• LINK Light Rail: Construction is under way on a 14-mile Central Link light rail line from
downtown Seattle to Tukwila, with a subsequent 1.7 mile extension to Sea-Tac Airport. The
trains will begin carrying passengers in 2009, stopping at 12 stations and running 4.4 miles on
elevated tracks, 2.5 miles in tunnels and 7 miles at grade. Currently, work is also progressing on
the development of the North Link project, which extends the Central Link light rail line from
downtown Seattle north to Capitol Hill and the University District (also called University Link)
and beyond to Northgate. Sound Transit and the Federal Transit Administration issued a Final
SEIS for the North Link project on April 7, 2006. Also in April 2006, Sound Transit adopted a
final North Link route, and the agency is now entering the final design phase for the University
Link project between downtown Seattle and the University District. Tacoma Link went into
operation in August 2003 and is a 1.6-mile line that runs from the Tacoma Dome Station at
Freighthouse Square to the city’s historic Theater District seven days a week.
14
The Sound Move plan is shown in Figure 2.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
11
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 16
2.7.3
Expert Review Panel Review of Sound Move Plan Methodologies
In 1989 an Expert Review Panel was appointed by the Governor, the Legislative Transportation
Committee, and the Secretary of Transportation to provide technical oversight on HCT planning in the
Puget Sound Region, pursuant to statute RCW 81.104.110. As defined by state legislation, the panel’s
role was as follows:
“To assure the appropriate system plan assumptions and to provide for review of system
plan results, an expert review panel shall be appointed to provide independent technical
review for development of any system plan which is to be funded in whole or in part by
the imposition of any voter-approved local option funding sources enumerated in RCW
81.104.140.”
By the fall of 1996, the committee had held more than 25 one- and two-day meetings over a period of
six-and-a-half years in which it reviewed the technical work prepared first by Metro, then by the JRPC
and then the RTA (Sound Transit). It also reviewed supporting materials provided by the Puget Sound
Regional Council and citizen-generated proposals.
The panels’ 1995 final comments concluded that overall, the “RTA System Plan meets the requirements
of state law.”
15
In addressing the selection of alternatives, the panel found that “a reasonable range of
alternatives was selected for study, and the adopted plan conforms to the state’s definition of a high
capacity system.”
16
The last published letter by the panel in 1996 further supported this conclusion with its finding that the
lower capital cost alternatives, including those evaluated by the project and others submitted by citizen
groups, were not “credible stand-alone alternatives to a high capacity transit investment.”
17
The Expert Review Panel’s final 1996 letter is included in Appendix A.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
12
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 17
Figure 2: 1996 Sound Move Plan Approved by Voters
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
13
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 18
3. Updating the Regional Transit Long-Range Plan
3.1 2005 SEIS and Alternatives Evaluation
3.1.1
Elements Contained in SEIS
The 2005 SEIS was prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the update to the 1996
Long-Range Vision. This document supplemented the original Regional Transit System Plan Final EIS,
completed in 1993. The purpose and intent of the 2005 SEIS was not different from that of the 1993 EIS
but simply considered planning efforts that had become regional in scope. Sound Transit updated its 1996
Long-Range Vision to align its planning efforts with updated local and regional plans. As with the earlier
plan, the updated plan (the 2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan) identified projects and established
priorities for the agency’s future efforts to provide additional HCT service and transit facilities within
Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties.
Sound Transit evaluated two primary alternatives for the SEIS that include the probable range of actions
that could be taken for the update to the 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Vision:
18
• No Action Alternative, which involves no change from current management direction and
assumes completion of Sound Move; and
• Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Alternative (Plan Alternative). This alternative is based
primarily on the 1996 Long-Range Vision. The SEIS also evaluated a set of technology and
corridor options that could be included individually or in various combinations to provide
additions or modifications to the Plan Alternative, as detailed in the updated 2005 Long-Range
Plan. The process used to develop and select the Plan Alternative for the SEIS built on the
Rail/TSM Alternative analyzed in the original 1993 Final EIS, selected in the 1996 Long-Range
Vision, and used to define Sound Move.
The SEIS alternatives focused on potential future system elements that reflected the 1993 Final EIS
preferred alternative and the subsequent HCT system selection decision in 1996 of Sound Move and the
Long-Range Plan. With the exception of a few options identified for the Plan Alternative, the SEIS does
not repeat the 1993 Final EIS’s analysis of the HCT system alternatives (i.e., TSM only and
TSM/Transitway) that were not selected in 1996.
19
The Final SEIS incorporated the comments of agencies and the public. Sound Transit invited federal,
regional, state and local agencies and jurisdictions to submit scoping comments on preparation of the
Final SEIS. Public scoping meetings were held on May 12, 13, 18, and 19, 2004, to solicit comments on
the scope of the SEIS. An agency scoping meeting was also held in Seattle on May 19, and scoping was
collected from a number of municipalities and transit agencies.
20
Appendix I of the 2005 SEIS provided a list of 500 to 600 possible HCT projects that were associated
with the corridors identified in the SEIS for modeling and impact analysis.
21
The projects in the 2005 SEIS appendix covered a range of low capital cost options (ST Express Bus and
Streetcar projects) and high capital cost options (LINK Light Rail and Commuter Rail) options in each
corridor. The range of options included in the 2005 SEIS is shown in Appendix B of this memorandum
and is briefly described below:
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
14
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 19
• Systemwide elements: plans for King, Pierce and Snohomish counties included buses, core
funded freeway HOV, downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, maintenance bases, right-of-way
preservation, TSM (including computer system enhancements, transit flow and safety, passenger
shelters, miscellaneous projects, ADA shuttles, vehicles (commuter rail cabs, coaches and
locomotives).
• Corridor elements: plans for the north, south and east corridors in King, Pierce and Snohomish
counties include a wide range of projects by mode. Sounder commuter rail elements include rail
stations and platforms and rail enhancements. LINK light rail elements include rail guideway and
station and platforms. ST Express bus services had the widest range of elements from access and
HOV improvements to transitway and arterial HOV projects. Additionally, these projects also
include the construction of park-and-ride facilities, passenger and operating facilities and route
deletion and service expansions.
The 2005 Long-Range Plan states that HCT services may be provided using a different array of transit
modes for different locations to fit each corridor’s unique needs. According to the text of the plan, “the
final decisions about the best mix of technologies in future phases will be made based on performance of
Sound Move investments, projected land use and transportation conditions, changing development trends,
evolving technologies, functional requirements, environmental analysis, population and employment
growth, and public input on future transportation priorities of the Sound Transit district’s subareas.”
22
3.2 Long-Range Plan Issue Papers
3.2.1
Description
The Long-Range Plan Issue Papers were drafted at the request of the Sound Transit Board and the public
to provide further analysis to inform the Long-Range Plan update and ST2 decisions. The analyses will
also potentially be used to help narrow the range of alternatives considered in subsequent project-level
environmental documents.
The papers explored the range of options, from low-cost to high-cost, for extending service into the north,
south and east corridors. The evaluation included in-depth technical analyses of light rail, regional express
bus/BRT, and monorail technologies, focusing on comparative differences in system development,
performance, and cost in selected corridors.
23
3.2.2
Alternatives Analysis
The following is a description of the options that were investigated as part of the alternatives analysis:
• North Corridor: No Action, LRT, HOV/BRT, Streetcar (within the city of Seattle), Monorail,
Arterial BRT (BAT lanes), Express Bus;
• East Corridor: No Action, HOV/BRT, Busway/BRT, LRT, Monorail, Rail Convertible BRT, and
Arterial BRT (BAT Lanes), Express Bus; and
• South Corridor: No Action, LRT, HOV/BRT, Commuter Rail and Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU),
Express Bus.
The options investigated in theses studies reflect a variety of capital cost options ranging from high to
low:
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
15
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 20
• High-capital cost options: LRT, Monorail, Rail-Convertible BRT, Commuter Rail, DMU; and
• Low-capital cost options: No Action, HOV/BRT, Streetcar, Express Bus.
3.3 2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan
3.3.1
Description
24
Sound Transit’s 2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan (shown in Figure 3) provided a revised
framework for the future development of the regional transit system. The Long-Range Plan identified
proposed transit service technologies in major corridors throughout the region to guide future phases of
voter-approved transit projects. Sound Transit then used the updated long-range plan as a blueprint for
developing the next phase of investments – ST2.
The 2005 plan updates the original 1996 document to reflect new information about regional
demographics and to show how the regional transit system might best accommodate projected growth.
The 1996 Long-Range Vision was adopted when the Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move – the
first phase Regional Transit System Plan.
The 2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan notes that the long term goals of Sound Transit should
include the following:
25
• Provide a public transportation system that helps ensure long-term mobility, connectivity, and
convenience for the citizens of the Puget Sound region for generations to come;
• Preserve communities and open space;
• Contribute to the region’s economic vitality;
• Preserve our environment; and
• Strengthen communities’ use of the regional transit network.
The objectives of the plan are as follows:
• Keep the region moving;
• Offer cost-effective and efficient transportation solutions;
• Create a regional transit system that provides community, social, economic and environmental
benefits;
• Develop equitable transportation solutions;
• Create a financially feasible system;
• Offer regional services that work well with other transportation services; and
• Work with local public transportation providers and the state Department of Transportation to
coordinate services and develop a single-fare card.
26
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
16
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 21
Consistent with the 1996 Long-Range Vision, the 2005 Long-Range Plan recommends a mixture of rail
and bus services reflecting continuation of the Rail/TSM Alternative examined in the 1993 EIS, 1996
Long-Range Vision and Sound Move plan. In addition to the expansion of Sounder commuter rail and
Link light rail, ST Express bus and bus capital projects, Sound Transit is investigating further HCT
expansion with rail-convertible bus rapid transit (BRT), and HOV/BRT technologies. Sound Transit will
also develop gateways to local communities, at which pedestrian, bicycle and local bus access to the
regional system is provided. Community connections include bus stops, park-and-ride lots, transit
centers, and rail stations.
27
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
17
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 22
Figure 3: 2005 Long-Range Plan Update
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
18
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 23
4. ST2 Planning Process
4.1 Description
Sound Transit 2 (ST2) is being developed as the next stage of high capacity transit implementation for the
central Puget Sound region. The plan will expand on Sound Transit’s system of regional express buses,
commuter rail, and light rail facilities and services in the tri-county area.
4.2 Candidate Project Identification
From an initial list of more than 500 ideas that were identified in the 2005 Final SEIS, local jurisdictions
in the ST district prioritized 80+ candidate projects. These projects were presented to the ST Board at its
December 8, 2005, meeting. At that meeting, the Board outlined the process and priorities to be used for
the initial screening of ST2 projects.
The 80+ candidate projects were a mixture of high-capital LRT, rail-convertible BRT, and commuter rail
options, and low-capital bus projects. Consistent with the Rail/TSM concept and pursuant to RCW
81.104, the 80+ projects included the following:
• High-capital options: light rail extensions in north and south corridors; fixed guideway
connections (light rail or rail-convertible BRT) in East King County; and Sounder improvements
(north and south corridors); and
• Low-capital options: ST Express bus (all subareas) – these projects include creation of arterial
HOV lanes, direct access ramps, park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, transit signal priority
projects, new/expanded bus routes and pedestrian bridges.
Refer to Appendix C for the list of candidate projects presented to the Board on December 8, 2005.
4.3 Narrowing of Candidate Projects
At its January 12, 2006, meeting, the Board approved Motion M2006-03, which identified eighteen (18)
ST2 candidate projects that did not perform well under the Board’s initial screening criteria and were
therefore set aside from further consideration. These projects are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: ST2 Candidate Projects Set Aside on January 12, 2006
PROJ.
ID
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
N4
Link LRT – Lynnwood Park-&-Ride to Alderwood Mall along I-5 (Lynnwood)
N9
Express Bus – HOV Access Ramps and Flyer Stops on I-5 at NE 185
th
Street
(Shoreline)
N18
Express Bus – Parking Garage at Lake Forest Park Town Center (Lake Forest Park)
NORT
H
COR
RID
OR
N24
Sounder – New Station near Point Wells (Shoreline)
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
19
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 24
N25
Sounder – New Station in Ballard (Seattle)
N27
Express Bus – New Route to Provide Feeder Service to New Sounder Station at
Broad Street (Seattle)
E10
Enhanced Transit – ST funding of Metro Route 269 (East King County)
E11
Enhanced Transit – ST funding of Metro Route 240 (East King County)
E14
Express Bus – Direct Access Ramps on I-90 at SR 900 (Issaquah)
E16
Express Bus – Flyer Stop and Pedestrian Bridge on I-405 (Bothell)
E17
Express Bus – Flyer Stop on I-405 at NE 85
th
Street (Kirkland)
E18
Express Bus – BAT Lanes on SR 522 between I-405 and SR 527 (Bothell)
E19
Express Bus – BAT Lanes on SR 522 (East King County)
E21
Express Bus – Parking Garage and Transit Loading at Bothell Park and Ride
(Bothell)
EAST CORRIDOR
E27
Express Bus – New Route between Bothell and Renton on I-405 (East King County)
S4
Link LRT – New Station on Tacoma Link at Commerce Street (Tacoma)
S8
Express Bus – Bus-only Access Ramps on I-5 at South Industrial Way and Airport
Way/5
th
Avenue South (Seattle)
SOUT
H
COR
RID
OR
S14
Express Bus – Extension of Route 565 to Tacoma Dome Station during Peak Periods
with Limited Stops
4.4 Remaining Candidate Projects
With the above listed projects set aside, the remaining 60+ candidate ST2 projects were a mixture of
high-capital LRT, rail-convertible BRT, and commuter rail options, and low-capital bus projects.
Consistent with the Rail/TSM concept and pursuant to RCW 81.104.100, the 60+ projects included the
following:
• High-capital options: light rail extensions in north and south corridors; fixed guideway
connections (light rail or rail-convertible BRT) in East King County; and Sounder improvements
(north and south corridors); and
• Low-capital options: ST Express bus (all subareas) – these projects include creation of arterial
business access/transit (BAT) lanes, direct access ramps and flyer stops, park-and-ride facilities,
transit centers, transit signal priority projects, new/expanded bus routes, and pedestrian bridges.
The remaining 60+ candidate projects were eligible for inclusion in the draft sample investment scenarios,
as discussed in the next section.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
20
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 25
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
21
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
4.5 Development of Sample Investment Scenarios
As part of the process of developing a plan to submit to the voters, the Board requested that Sound Transit
develop a range of sample scenarios to illustrate potential sets of projects that could be funded under
various investment levels. The investment levels used for these sample investment scenarios reflect the
amount of revenue generated by a zero to one-half of one percent incremental increase in the local sales
tax rate within the Sound Transit district. Sound Transit currently collects a 0.4 percent (%) sales tax. The
following sample scenarios were presented to the Board on June 8, 2006:
• The Do Nothing scenario assumed no increase in the sales tax rate for Sound Transit. This
scenario represented the “Do-Nothing” option required by state law;
• The Bus/Sounder Emphasis (Low) scenario assumed a 0.1% incremental increase in the sales tax
rate for Sound Transit. This scenario represented the “Low Capital” option (required by state law)
that maximizes the current system;
• The Bus/Rail Emphasis (Medium) scenario assumed a 0.3% incremental increase in the sales tax
rate for Sound Transit and included a mixture of high capital and low capital projects;
• The Fixed Guideway Emphasis (Medium-high) scenario assumed a 0.4% incremental increase in
the sales tax rate for Sound Transit and included a mixture of high capital and low capital
projects; and
• The Fixed Guideway Emphasis (High) scenario assumed a 0.5% incremental increase in the sales
tax rate for Sound Transit (the maximum allowed under existing law) and included a mixture of
high capital and low capital projects.
Figures 4 through 8 show the capital projects included in each sample investment scenario. As indicated
on the accompanying project lists, each sample scenario (other than the Do Nothing scenario) also
includes allocations for planning and engineering studies, various programmatic or system-wide
activities, and funding for existing facilities and services.
Page 26
Figure 4: Do-Nothing Sample Investment Scenario
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
22
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 27
Figure 5: Bus/Sounder Emphasis (Low) Sample Investment Scenario
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
23
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 28
Figure 6: Bus/Rail Emphasis (Medium) Sample Investment Scenario
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
24
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 29
Figure 7: Fixed Guideway Emphasis (Medium-High) Sample Investment Scenario
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
25
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 30
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
26
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Figure 8: Fixed Guideway Emphasis (High) Sample Investment Scenario (as amended)
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 31
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
27
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
4.6 Do-Nothing and Low Capital Options Set Aside; 3 Sample
Investment Options Issued for Public and Agency Review
With approval of Resolution R2006-15 on July, 13, 2006, the Sound Transit Board issued three sample
investment options for public and agency review and comment. As part of that resolution, the Board also
set aside two options from further consideration: the Do-Nothing option and the Bus/Sounder Emphasis
(Low) option. The resolution also identified light rail as the preferred technology for the Seattle-Bellevue-
Redmond via I-90 and Mercer Island corridor. In addition, the resolution directed that the 60+ ST2
candidate projects, which were retained as candidate projects as part of Motion No. M2006-03, remain
eligible for further consideration.
At the Board’s request, the Fixed Guideway Emphasis (High) option presented to the Board in June 2006
was replaced with a new option: Maximized Rail Extension (High). Instead of an extension of the
Tacoma Link system west to Tacoma Community College that was included in the previous High option,
the new High option provided for an extension of the Central/Airport Link system south to the Port of
Tacoma area in Pierce County.
The three sample investment options issued by the Board for public and agency review were:
• The Bus/Rail Extension (Medium) option assumed a 0.3% incremental increase in the sales tax
rate for Sound Transit and included a mixture of high capital and low capital projects;
• The Medium Rail Extension (Medium-high) option assumed a 0.4% incremental increase in the
sales tax rate for Sound Transit and included a mixture of high capital and low capital projects;
and
• The Maximized Rail Extension (High) option assumed a 0.5% incremental increase in the sales
tax rate for Sound Transit (the maximum allowed under existing law) and included a mixture of
high capital and low capital projects.
Figures 9 through 11 show the capital projects included in each sample investment option. As indicated
on the accompanying project lists, each option also includes allocations for planning and engineering
studies, various programmatic or system-wide activities, and funding for existing facilities and services.
Page 32
Figure 9: Bus/Rail Extension (Medium) Sample Investment Option
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
28
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 33
Figure 10: Medium Rail Extension (Medium-High) Sample Investment Option
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
29
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 34
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
30
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Figure 11: Maximized Rail Extension (High) Sample Investment Option
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 35
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
31
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
4.7 ST2 Draft Package
With approval of Resolution R2007-1 on January 11, 2007, the Sound Transit Board set aside from
further consideration the “Bus/Rail Extension (Medium)” and “Medium Rail Extension (Medium-High)”
investment scenarios. With this resolution, the Board also modified and renamed the “Maximized Rail
Extension (High)” to provide light rail service to the Eastside, extend light rail in the north and south
corridors and implement other core projects, and directed staff to further refine and evaluate this “Sound
Transit 2 Draft Package” and distribute it for public and agency review.
Figure 12 shows the capital projects included in the ST2 Draft Package. As indicated on the project list
(shown in Table 3), the draft package also includes allocations for planning and engineering studies,
various programmatic or system-wide activities, and funding for existing facilities and services.
Page 36
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
32
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Figure 12: ST2 Draft Package
Page 37
Table 4: ST2 Draft Package Projects by Corridor
PROJECT
ID
MODE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
N2
Link
Planning Study, Lynnwood Transit Center – Everett Station
N6
Link
University of Washington Station – Northgate (Seattle)
N7a
Streetcar
Downtown Seattle – Capitol Hill via First Hill
N22
Sounder
Joint Development of a Parking Garage at Mukilteo Station
N23a
Sounder
New Permanent Station at Edmonds Crossing
N28
Link
Northgate – Jackson Park
N29
Link
Jackson Park – Shoreline
N30
Link
Shoreline – Mountlake Terrace
N31T2
Link
Mountlake Terrace – Lynnwood Transit Center (Terminal)
NO
RTH CO
R
R
IDO
R
N37
Link
Env. Review, PE, ROW Preservation: Lynnwood – Everett
E1
Link
Seattle – Downtown Bellevue
E2
Link
Downtown Bellevue – Overlake Transit Center
E9
HCT
Planning Study on SR 520 in East King County
E20
Express Bus Transit Center and Parking Garage in Bothell
E25b
Express Bus N. 8
th
Street Parking Garage in Renton
E28
Link
PE and ROW Preservation: Overlake Transit Center – Redmond
EAST CO
R
R
I
DOR
E30
HCT
Planning Study on I-90: South Bellevue – Issaquah
S15b
Express Bus Shared Funding for Parking Garage at Burien Transit Center
S17
Sounder
Permanent Station at Tukwila
S18b
Sounder
Parking Garage at Auburn Station (Alternative)
S20
Sounder
Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge at Sumner Station
S21
Sounder
Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge at Puyallup Station
S25
Sounder
Track and Structure Upgrade: Tacoma Dome Station –
Reservation Junction
S27
Link
SeaTac Airport – S. 200
th
Street
S28
Link
S. 200
th
Street – Kent-Des Moines Road via SR 99
S29a
Link
Kent-Des Moines Road – S 272
nd
Street via SR 99
S30
Link
S 272
nd
Street – Federal Way Transit Center via SR 99
S40
Link
Federal Way Transit Center – S. 348
th
Street via I-5
S41T5
Link
S. 348
th
Street – Port of Tacoma via I-5 (Terminal)
SOUT
H CO
R
R
IDO
R
S44
Link
PE and ROW Preservation: Port of Tacoma Station – Tacoma
Dome Station
SYS-BUS Express Bus ST Express Maintenance and Operations Facilities and Fleet
Expansion
SYSTEM-
WIDE
SYS-LRT Link
Maintenance Bases, Vehicles, and Operations for ST2 Expansion
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
33
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 38
5. Capital Cost Methodology
This section summarizes the methodology used for developing capital cost estimates, which is
documented in detail in the report: Sound Transit 2: Task 2.0 – Methodology Development and
Documentation, Subtask 2.3 – Capital Cost Estimating Methodology Report, Final, March 2007.
The purpose of the cost estimation phase of ST2 is to identify the likely capital and operations and
maintenance costs of selected projects. This enables Sound Transit (ST) to develop an adequate funding
scenario for the project/program implementation. This summary documents the approach to capital cost
estimation. The capital costing methodology presented in this document acknowledges the varying
degrees of design that will be available for ST2 projects and takes advantages of ST’s experience building
similar facilities. The ST2 planning and cost estimating processes both focus the most resources and
analyses on the largest projects with the greatest potential to impact the overall cost of the ST2 Plan and,
therefore, the greatest risk to successful delivery of the ST program.
The primary goal of the ST2 capital cost estimating process is to generate realistic cost estimates for
which ST can deliver the projects, as defined, during the ST2 implementation period.
The general approach for the ST2 capital cost estimating methodology consists of five steps:
• Define the project scopes;
• Identify unit costs;
• Estimate quantities;
• Calculate the costs; and
• Validate the cost estimates against ST’s actual cost experience during Sound Move.
5.1 Levels of Costing
While there are a variety of project types (park-and ride lots, light rail lines, commuter rail extensions,
etc.) for the purposes of costing, the projects are grouped by the level of planning and engineering
available at the time of the cost estimates.
Level 1 – Projects with Completed Preliminary (30%) Engineering
As part of Sound Move, Sound Transit has completed preliminary engineering on the North Link
segments as far north as Northgate. The cost estimate prepared by ST as part of the preliminary
engineering efforts was reviewed to ensure assumptions and features included in the design were still
consistent with the desired project definition. Costs were inflated to be consistent with the base year for
all other ST2 projects.
Level 2 – Major Fixed Guideway HCT Projects (stand-alone segments or extensions to the current
Sound Move Plan)
Project definitions for large-scale (typically light rail or rail-convertible bus rapid transit) corridor projects
were prepared as part of the Long-Range Plan update. The definition of these projects has been refined
based on additional planning and conceptual engineering. Plans, critical profiles and typical sections
were prepared for a representative alignment and key facilities. An engineering report documenting
design assumptions and facility features was prepared. Cost estimates were developed based on standard
FTA cost categories.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
34
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 39
Level 3 – Smaller Scale Discrete Projects
All of the smaller scale projects (e.g., park-and-ride lots, Sounder service extensions, ST Express route
enhancements) have undergone planning investigations resulting in project definitions sufficient for
developing cost estimates. Cost estimates were based on unit costs from detailed bid data derived from
Sound Move projects and other local experience. Updated right-of-way cost estimates for each Core
project were based on a parcel-by-parcel estimate of real estate acquisition, relocation and administration
costs.
5.2 General Approach to Estimating Capital Costs
This section documents the general capital cost estimating approach that was applied to Level 2 and 3
projects, as described above.
1. Define Projects
• Define and document features and assumptions for each project;
• Standardize project definitions for like project types to avoid omission of standard or
recurring costs;
• Review project definition with ST Corridor Teams, Technical Advisory Committees,
jurisdictions, and ST2 Work Teams; and
• Exert version control on project definition and update cost estimates when project
definitions change.
2. Generate Unit Costs
• Compile unit cost information based on ST experience with similar facilities;
• Use other local unit cost data for facilities for which ST has no prior experience (e.g., bus
rapid transit); and
• Cross-check unit costs against other projects throughout the U.S.
3. Estimate Quantities
• Use typical drawings, where practical; and
• Calculate areas from site plans.
4. Calculate Costs
• Develop cost estimates based on project definitions and unit costs.
5. Validate Cost Estimates
• Review project definition and costs through ST Work Team review; and
• Compare against like projects that have been constructed or for which engineer’s
estimates have been prepared.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
35
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 40
6. Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodology
This section summarizes the methodology used to estimate operations and maintenance costs for the ST2
projects. Several types of sensitivity and reasonableness tests were conducted on the O&M cost model.
The models, assumptions, results, and other information are documented in the report: Sound Transit 2:
Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodologies, Final, February 2007.
6.1 ST Express
The O&M cost model for Sound Transit’s ST Express bus system was calibrated using Sound Transit’s
2005 budget for ST Express bus service. Using these calibration assumptions as a baseline, the model
was used to estimate the annual O&M cost for future service scenarios for ST Express.
Sound Transit currently contracts with three local transit agencies for operation of the ST Express service:
King County Metro (KCM), Community Transit (CT), and Pierce Transit (PT). While these
arrangements are expected to continue in the near term, contracting some service to private companies
could be an option in future years. Each of the current contracts is based on a negotiated unit cost per
service hour. The cost of this “purchased transportation” constitutes the vast majority of the budget.
Additional costs are incurred directly by Sound Transit for a variety of support functions.
Since the service contracts are based on service hours, the key variables for the ST Express O&M model
are the service hours for each provider:
• Service Hours – KCM: The annual service hours operated by King County Metro;
• Service Hours – CT: The annual service hours operated by Community Transit;
• Service Hours – PT: The annual service hours operated by Pierce Transit; and
• Service Hours – Other: The annual service hours that may be operated by private contractors in
future scenarios.
In each case, the estimated hours include hours that are reserved for additional bus service (schedule
maintenance) during the course of the year.
6.2 Central Link Light Rail
The O&M cost model for Sound Transit’s Central Link light rail system approved in Sound Move was
used to estimate costs for extensions to the initial system. Those extensions are being studied as part of
the ST2 planning process.
The model has been calibrated for the initial segment of the Central Link system. The 14-mile line will
run from Westlake Station in downtown Seattle to the Tukwila International Boulevard Station, and it
includes 12 stations. The initial operating plan calls for two-car trains running every six minutes during
peak periods and every 10 minutes offpeak. The initial fleet will have 31 cars, including five spares.
Sound Transit intends to contract with KCM for operation of the Central Link system. The calibration
process used the budget proposed by King County Metro in 2005 for the initial system. Additional cost
items are based on information provided by Sound Transit staff. Using these calibration assumptions as a
baseline, the model can be used to estimate the annual O&M cost of any future light rail alternative. As
the budget for initial operations is refined by KCM and Sound Transit, the model can be updated and
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
36
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 41
recalibrated to reflect the latest cost estimates for the initial segment. The Central Link O&M model
requires the following input statistics:
• Peak Cars: The maximum number of light-rail vehicles operating simultaneously in scheduled
service;
• Annual Revenue Car-Miles: Total miles operated by all rail cars in scheduled service, excluding
deadhead mileage;
• Annual Revenue Train-Hours: Total hours operated by all trains in revenue service, excluding
report and deadhead time;
• Subway, Elevated, At-Grade Stations: The number of each type of passenger station in the light
rail system;
• Directional Route Miles: The miles of revenue track, excluding yard and tail track (e.g., one mile
of double track equals two directional route miles);
• Maintenance Facilities: The number of light rail maintenance and storage yards; and
• Joint Operation in DSTT (Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel): Yes or no.
6.3 Tacoma and Everett Light Rail
The O&M cost model for the downtown Tacoma light rail system is calibrated with Sound Transit’s 2005
budget and operating statistics. The model was used to estimate costs for system extensions being studied
as part of the ST2 planning process.
The Tacoma Link cost model was modified to estimate costs for light rail system alternatives under study
for downtown Everett. The Everett system would be similar in scale to Tacoma Link, so the cost
experience for Everett should be closer to Tacoma Link than to Central Link.
The Tacoma Link O&M model requires the following input statistics:
• Peak Cars: The maximum number of light rail vehicles operating simultaneously in scheduled
service;
• Annual Revenue Car-Miles: Total miles operated by all rail cars in scheduled service, excluding
deadhead mileage;
• Annual Revenue Train-Hours: Total hours operated by all trains in revenue service, excluding
report and deadhead time;
• Stations: The number of passenger stations in the light rail system;
• Directional Route Miles: The miles of revenue track, excluding yard and tail track (e.g., one mile
of double track equals two directional route miles); and
• Maintenance Facilities: The number of light rail maintenance and storage yards.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
37
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 42
6.4 Rail Convertible Bus Rapid Transit
This section describes the O&M cost model for proposed rail-convertible bus rapid transit (BRT) systems
that were considered as part of the ST2 planning process.
One of the alternatives that was studied for the East Corridor is a BRT system that could be converted to
light rail in the future. The line and stations would be built in a manner that would facilitate future
conversion to light rail. In addition, the BRT operation would be patterned after rail service, with BRT
buses operating only on the proposed busway. In the initial system that was proposed, the busway would
run from a terminal station in Redmond to a terminal station near the Central Link International District
Station in downtown Seattle.
Sound Transit currently contracts with KCM for operation of the ST Express service in the East Corridor.
Sound Transit also intends to contract with KCM for operation and maintenance of the Central Link light
rail system.
If BRT (including a rail convertible form) were to be implemented in the East Corridor, it is assumed that
KCM would operate the BRT service, which would replace some current ST Express routes. It is also
assumed that Sound Transit would contract with KCM for maintenance of the BRT facilities.
The O&M cost model for rail-convertible BRT has been developed by combining elements from two
other cost models that have been developed as part of the ST2 project, ST Express and Central Link,
described previously.
The key variables for the BRT cost model are as follows:
• BRT Service Hours: The annual platform bus hours operated by KCM;
• Subway, Elevated, At-Grade Stations: The number of each type of passenger station in the BRT
system;
• Route Miles: The miles of two-lane busway; and
• Yard: The number of maintenance bases devoted to BRT vehicles.
6.5 Sounder Commuter Rail
This section describes the O&M cost model for Sounder commuter rail extensions that were considered as
part of the ST2 planning process.
Service levels on Sounder commuter rail that are planned and funded through Sound Move are for 18
daily trains in the South Corridor between Lakewood and Seattle and 8 daily trains in the North Corridor
between Everett and Seattle. Extension of the South Corridor line from Tacoma Dome Station to
Lakewood is currently under construction.
The Sound Transit budget details expected Sounder operating costs for full service in 2012, the first year
of full service to Lakewood. The operations cost per vehicle hour, as defined in the agency’s budget, was
used for the potential ST2 extension of Sounder south to DuPont.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
38
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 43
7. Transit Ridership Forecasting Methodology
This section summarizes the methodology used for transit ridership forecasting for ST2. The
methodology is documented in detail in the report: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 – Methodology
Development and Documentation, Subtask 2.4 – Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report, Final,
February 2006.
7.1 History of Transit Forecasting at Sound Transit
The history of transit forecasting analysis at Sound Transit began at Seattle Metro (now King County
Metro) in 1986. Work by Brand and Benham, of Charles River Associates, led to Metro’s consideration
of “a quick-responsive incremental travel demand forecasting method”
28
based on the concept of staged
forecasting analysis. Subsequently, in 1986, Metro installed "the logit mode-choice equations for pivot-
point analysis"
29
(as described by Ben-Akiva and Atherton
30
; Koppelman
31
; Nickesen, Meyburg and
Turrnquist
32
; and many others) on EMME/2 software. In 1988, Metro staff highlighted the relationship
between Metro’s transit forecasting methods and the Puget Sound Council of Governments’ (PSCOG)
regional model.
33
Sound Transit and the Regional Transit Project (RTP) then further developed the forecasting analysis
procedures in the early 1990s, prior to the November 1996 voter approval of Sound Move: The Ten-Year
Regional Transit Plan. An Expert Review Panel (ERP), formed in 1990 under the auspices of the
Legislative Transportation Committee, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Governor, oversaw
development of the first generation of the Sound Transit incremental model. This model is described in
the November 1993 Travel Forecasting Methodology Report, published by the Regional Transit Project.
The Sound Transit model was updated in the late 1990s in support of the Central Link Light Rail Transit
Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluation as well as the North Link Light Rail Transit
Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The underlying Sound Transit model
procedures used to perform transit ridership forecasting analysis in support of the North Link Light Rail
Projects were documented in the Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report, issued in November
2003 by Sound Transit.
7.2 Sound Transit Incremental Planning Model
The Sound Transit incremental model has been updated to a new base year (2004). Development of the
base year transit trip tables involved a rigorous analysis of actual ridership volumes along each transit
route, as well as a realistic simulation of observed transit service characteristics for both peak and off-
peak periods. External changes in demographics, highway travel time, and costs are distinctly
incorporated into the process in phases prior to estimating the impacts of incremental changes in transit
service. The Sound Transit model relies on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) regional model
for data on external changes.
In the first stage of ridership forecasting analysis, only changes in PSRC model trip distribution results or
demographics are considered. In the second stage, other external changes such as highway travel time
(congestion), costs (including parking costs), transit fares, and household income are taken into
consideration.
The first two stages of ridership forecasting analysis result in a forecast of zone-to-zone transit trips
within the RTA district boundaries absent any changes in the transit system. In the third and final stage,
incremental changes in the transit level-of-service (i.e., access, wait, and ride travel times) are considered.
Finally, transit trips are assigned to the future year transit network.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
39
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 44
Like all travel forecasting models, the Sound Transit model has some limitations. Because it uses average
daily ridership, it is unable to assess the effects of special events such as sports games or major festivals.
Furthermore, the ST model is not well-suited for analyzing structural changes in regional land use beyond
those already included in PSRC demographic forecasts, or to forecasting in outlying areas of the three-
county region where there is minimal existing transit service. Finally, the model does not explicitly take
into account differences in safety, comfort or user-friendliness of bus versus rail transit service.
7.3 Summary Comparisons of the ST and PSRC Models
The ST and PSRC modeling procedures are closely inter-related and highly complementary. The ST
model uses measures of regional change in travel demand and highway congestion derived from the
PSRC model. Summary comparisons of the PSRC and ST modeling procedures are highlighted below:
• The PSRC model is a four-county synthetic modeling system comprising land-use, trip
generation, trip distribution, modal split, and assignment models. It also includes several feedback
loops based on intra-regional accessibility;
• The ST model is a three-county, three-stage, fully incremental system purposely designed for
detailed corridor-level transit planning and transit patronage forecasting;
• The PSRC’s regional population and employment forecasts are used to predict travel demand
growth;
• ST uses the PSRC’s time and cost coefficients for its mode choice model; and
• ST uses PSRC information for all non-transit input to the incremental transit ridership model.
7.4 Important Considerations
This section identifies five important areas of consideration in travel forecasting methods. Most of these
considerations and constraints were taken from the FTA guidelines on transit project planning
34
. The
considerations described below simply reemphasize the use of best professional practice:
• Careful standards for validation;
• Consistent application of policy assumptions across alternatives;
• Use of identical land use plans and overall travel demand patterns across alternatives;
• Generic attributes of modes; and
• Analysis of service levels and travel forecasts for reasonableness.
All of these considerations were taken into account in ST’s travel forecasting methods.
8. Financial Plan
[under development]
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
40
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 45
9. Candidate Project and System Evaluation
This section summarizes the candidate project and system evaluation methodology for ST2. This
methodology is documented in the report: Sound Transit HCT Planning: Task 2.0 – Methodology
Development and Documentation, Subtask 2.1 – System and Project Evaluation Methodology, Final,
February 2006.
9.1 Summary of Overall Evaluation and Screening Process
The grouping and evaluation of projects to be included in ST2 has occurred within the context of Sound
Transit’s overall Long-Range Plan. During the development and adoption of the agency’s Long-Range
Plan (including the 2005 update), Sound Transit made a number of strategic decisions regarding topics
such as the addition of new corridors, technology choices for critical corridors, and the role of supporting
facilities and projects. These decisions shape the number and types of projects that were carried forward
into the ST2 evaluation process. During ST2, this initial list of projects was narrowed down to a set of
new and enhanced existing facilities and services that meet the overall principles, goals and objectives of
the agency.
The ST2 evaluation methodology serves the following purposes:
• Provides structure to the overall evaluation process;
• Establishes the method for evaluating projects and comparing different groups of projects;
• Develops a systematic process for organizing information regarding potential benefits, impacts
and costs;
• Provides decision makers with a procedure for identifying key differences among alternative
packages; and
• Ensures consistency in the evaluation of alternative packages.
9.2 Goals and Objectives for Long-Range Plan and
Resulting ST2 Projects
The goals and objectives for both the Long-Range Plan and ST2 projects are listed below. These goals
and objectives provide a policy basis for the project and system evaluation. The Plan and ST2 planning
process must:
• Provide citizens with strongly supported, improved and expanded alternatives to automobile and
traffic congestion;
• Enhance system developed in Sound Move;
• Continue complementary investment in Sound Move;
• Link the region’s designated urban centers;
• Operate service principally in exclusive rights-of-way;
• Implement HCT in high density corridors;
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
41
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 46
• Focus investment within the RTA district;
• Encourage and support future development inside urban growth boundaries;
• Balance regional, corridor and subarea needs;
• Respect subarea equity policies;
• Return benefits in balance with subarea population, employment and needs;
• Provide regional (not local) facilities and services;
• Protect and enhance the natural environment in the central Puget Sound region;
• Preserve transit right-of-way;
• Influence future land use toward Transit Oriented Development (TOD);
• Avoid competitive, duplicative services;
• Involve the public and key stakeholders in decision making; and
• Favor cities and counties with supportive land use plans.
9.3 Phased Process of Candidate Project and System
Evaluation
Following the update of the Long-Range Plan in July 2005, ST began working with local jurisdictions to
identify specific projects and services to evaluate for ST2. In October 2005, the ST Board identified a list
of 81 candidate projects for further study. As ST began developing the projects’ scopes and other
information required for the evaluation process, it also began detailing a two-part evaluation framework,
described below.
Round 1: Sound Transit evaluated 81 candidate projects as part of the ST2 development process between
December 2005 and January 2006. Project evaluation was completed using the following nine criteria,
although the ST Board focused its evaluation efforts on those criteria shown in bold type:
1. Average Weekday Ridership;
2. Capital Cost;
3. Annual Operating Cost;
4. Travel Time and Reliability;
5. Connectivity, Mobility and System Integration;
6. Land Use and Development;
7. Customer Experience;
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
42
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 47
8. Risk Avoidance; and
9. Public and Agency Support.
The results of Round 1 project evaluation are documented in the report: Sound Transit HCT Planning:
Summary of ST2 Round 1 Project Evaluation, Final, January 2006. Following its evaluation, the Board
set aside 18 projects from further consideration in January 2006, leaving 63 candidate projects for
continued ST2 planning.
Round 2: This phase of analysis focused on completing system-level ridership forecasting, the creation of
several alternative ST2 systems (at varying levels of cost), and analysis of the resulting financial
scenarios. Analysis of the system-level performance was focused on the following nine criteria:
1. Average Weekday Ridership;
2. Capital Cost;
3. Annual Operating Cost;
4. Travel Time and Reliability;
5. Connectivity, Mobility and System Integration;
6. Land Use and Development;
7. Customer Experience;
8. Risk Avoidance; and
9. Environmental Benefits.
The results of Round 2 project evaluation are documented in the report: Sound Transit HCT Planning:
Summary of ST2 Preliminary System-Level Evaluation: Round 2, Draft, July 2006. In July 2006, the
Board identified three sample investment options and released them for public comment.
10. Conclusions
As this document has illustrated, Sound Transit has explicitly considered and evaluated Do-Nothing, Low
Capital and High Capital options in the development of its regional high capacity transit plan. This
document has also described the analysis methods, assumptions and reports for the estimation of capital
costs, operating and maintenance costs, methods for travel forecasting, a financial plan and an evaluation
methodology. Sound Transit therefore meets the provisions as detailed in RCW 81.104.100 and its plan
amendment requirement in RCW 81.112.030, .040 & .080 (1).
Based on the 1993 EIS, 1996 regional transit long-range vision, and the Sound Move plan, Sound Transit
identified an integrated high capacity transit system that features light rail transit, commuter rail, HOV
facilities and regional express bus capital facilities. Sound Transit has now largely completed project
planning for, and has built or is building most of, the first phase projects identified in Sound Move.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
43
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 48
The Sound Move services provide travelers in the central Puget Sound region with an integrated network
of transit options for regional trips. The 2004 Draft and Final SEIS and the 2005 update to the regional
transit long-range vision and adoption of the Regional Transit Long-Range Plan continue this policy of
planning and development of a mix of high capacity transportation options to help the region meet future
growth and demand.
The ST2 plan offers the next step for planning and implementing a balanced and integrated HCT system
that supports the region’s adopted growth and transportation goals and objectives.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
44
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 49
Appendices
Appendix A: Expert Review Panel – Documentation of 1996 Long-
Range Vision and Sound Move Plan Review
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 50
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-2
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 51
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-3
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 52
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-4
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 53
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-5
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 54
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-6
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 55
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-7
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 56
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-8
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 57
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-9
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 58
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-10
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 59
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-11
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 60
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-12
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 61
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-13
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 62
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-14
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 63
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-15
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 64
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-16
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 65
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
A-17
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 66
Appendix B: Range of Options Listed in 2005 SEIS
8.3.1
System Plans
King County
o Buses
o Buses
o Core Funded Freeway HOV
o Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel
o Maintenance Bases (Redmonod, Kent/Des Moines, King County).
o Right of Way Preservation
o Systemwide Elements (TSM; Computer System Enhancements; Transit Flow and Safety;
Passenger Shelters; Miscellaneous Projects; ADA Shuttles; Vehicles, commuter Rail cabs,
coaches, and locomotives).
Pierce County
o Systemwide Elements (TSM; Passenger Shelters; Transit Flow and Safety; Computer System
Enhancements; ADA Shuttle Vehicles; Bus Fleet; Vehicles; Commuter Rail Cabs, Coaches
and Locomotives; Sounder Service 2-way, All day; Vehicles, Diesel Multiple Unit Trains).
o Maintenance Bases
Snohomish County
o Systemwide Elements (TSM; Miscellaneous Projects; Passenger Shelters, Transit Flow and
Safety; computer Systems/Enhancements; ADA Shuttle Vehicles; Vehicles, Commuter Rail
cabs, coaches and locomotives).
o Maintenance Bases
o Buses
North Corridor
ST Express Bus
o Access Improvements
o Arterial HOV
o Core Freeway HOV
o HOV Access
o Operating Facility
o Park-and-Ride
o Passenger Facility
o Priority Treatment
o Route Deletion or Service Expansion
o Service
o Transitway-HOV
o Vision 2020 Freeway HOV
Link Light Rail
o Rail, Guideway
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
Sounder Commuter Rail
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
o Rail, Enhancement
o Rail, Expansion
New Line of Business
o Streetcar, Guideway
o Streetcar, Stations and Platforms
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
B-1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 67
East Corridor
ST Express Bus
o Access Improvements
o Bus Route Improvements
o Arterial HOV
o Core Freeway HOV
o HOV Access
o Operating Facility
o Park-and-Ride
o Passenger Facility
o Route Deletion or Service Expansion
o Service
o Transit Center
o Transitway HOV
Link Light Rail
o Rail, Guideway
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
Sounder Commuter Rail
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
o Rail, Enhancement
South Corridor
ST Express Bus
o Access Improvements
o Arterial HOV
o Park-and-Ride
o Passenger Facility
o Service Improvements
o Vision 2020 Freeway
Link Light Rail
o Rail, Guideway
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
Sounder Commuter Rail
o Rail, Stations and Platforms
o Rail, Guideway
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
B-2
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 68
Appendix C: ST2 Candidate Project List, 12/8/2005
North Corridor
N1
Link LRT: Everett Station to Everett Community College
N2
Link LRT: Planning Study from Ash Way to Everett Station (Snohomish County)
N3
Link LRT: Preliminary Engineering from King/Snohomish County Line to Ash Way
(Snohomish County)
N4
Link LRT: Lynnwood Park&Ride to Alderwood Mall along I-5 (Lynnwood)
N5
Link LRT: Preliminary Engineering from Northgate to King/Snohomish County Line (N. King
County)
N6
Link LRT: Extension from University of Washington Station to Northgate (Seattle)
N7
Enhanced Transit: Connection between Downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill Station via First
Hill (Seattle)
N8
Express Bus: HOV Access Ramps at Mariner Park-&-Ride (Snohomish County)
N9
Express Bus: HOV Access Ramps and Flyer Stops on I-5 at NE 185th Street (Shoreline)
N10
Express Bus: BAT Lanes on SR 522 (Lake Forest Park)
N11
Express Bus: BAT Lanes on SR 99 and Evergreen Way (Snohomish County)
N12
Express Bus: BAT Lanes on SR 99 (N. King County)
N13
Express Bus: Transit Signal Priority on SR 99 and Evergreen Way (Snohomish County)
N14
Express Bus: New Route between Everett and Bellevue via SR 527
N15
Express Bus: Parking Garage, Transit Center and Bus Layover Facility at Mariner Park-&-
Ride (Snohomish County)
N16
Express Bus: Parking Garage at Ash Way Park-&-Ride (Snohomish County)
N17
Express Bus: Parking Garage at Lynnwood Transit Center
N18
Express Bus: Parking Garage at Lake Forest Park Town Center (Lake Forest Park)
N19
Express Bus: Parking Garage at Canyon Park Park-&-Ride (Bothell)
N20
Express Bus: Surface Park-&-Ride along SR 527 (Mill Creek)
N21
Sounder: Parking Garage and Bus Layover Facility at Everett Station
N22
Sounder: Joint Development of a Parking Garage at Mukilteo Station
N23
Sounder: New Permanent Station at Edmonds Crossing (Edmonds)
N24
Sounder: New Station near Point Wells (Shoreline)
N25
Sounder: New Station in Ballard (Seattle)
N26
Sounder: New Station at Broad Street (Seattle)
N27
Express Bus: New Route to Provide Feeder Service to New Sounder Station at Broad Street
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
C-1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 69
East Corridor
E1
HCT-LRT: Seattle to Downtown Bellevue
E2
HCT-LRT: Downtown Bellevue to Overlake Transit Center
E3
HCT-LRT: Overlake Transit Center to Redmond
E4
HCT-LRT: Maintenance Facility and Vehicles
E5
HCT-RCBRT: Seattle to Downtown Bellevue
E6
HCT-RCBRT: Downtown Bellevue to Overlake Transit Center
E7
HCT-RCBRT: Overlake Transit Center to Redmond
E8
HCT-RCBRT: Maintenance Facility and Vehicles
E9
HCT: Planning Study on SR 520 (E. King County)
E10
Enhanced Transit: ST Funding of Metro Route 269 (E. King County)
E11
Enhanced Transit: ST Funding of Metro Route 240 (E. King County)
E12
Express Bus: Direct Access Ramps and Parking Garage at Brickyard Park-&-Ride (E. King
County)
E13
Express Bus: Direct Access Ramps on SR 520 at 108th Ave. NE (E. King County)
E14
Express Bus: Direct Access Ramps on I-90 at SR 900 (Issaquah)
E15
Express Bus: Direct Access Ramps on I-405 at N 8th Street (Renton)
E16
Express Bus: Flyer Stop and Pedestrian Bridge on I-405 (Bothell)
E17
Express Bus: Flyer Stop on I-405 at NE 85th Street (Kirkland)
E18
Express Bus: BAT Lanes on SR 522 between I-405 and SR 527 (Bothell)
E19
Express Bus: BAT Lanes on SR 522 (E. King County)
E20
Express Bus: Transit Center and Parking Garage (Bothell)
E21
Express Bus: Parking Garage and Transit Loading at Bothell Park-&-Ride (Bothell)
E22
Express Bus: Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge over SR 522 at Kenmore Park-&-Ride
(Kenmore)
E23
Express Bus: Expansion of Kingsgate Park-&-Ride (Kirkland)
E24
Express Bus: Parking Garage at South Kirkland Park-&-Ride (Kirkland)
E25
Express Bus: Parking Garage and Extension of N. 8th Street (Renton)
E26
Express Bus: Pedestrian Bridge at Overlake Transit Center (Redmond)
E27
Express Bus: New Route between Bothell and Renton on I-405 (E. King County)
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
C-2
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 70
South Corridor
S1
Link LRT: Extension from South 200th Street to Kent-Des Moines Road (S. King County)
S2
Link-LRT: Kent-Des Moines Road to Tacoma Dome Station
S3
Link LRT: Planning Study of Potential Future Corridors (S. King County)
S4
Link LRT: New Station on Tacoma Link on Commerce Street (Tacoma)
S5
Link LRT: Conversion of Tacoma Link to Central Link Technology
S6
Link LRT: Extension of Tacoma Link to Tacoma Community College with Central Link
Technology
S7
Link LRT: Extension of Tacoma Link to Tacoma Community College with Tacoma Link
Technology
S8
Express Bus: Bus-Only Access Ramps on I-5 at South Industrial Way and Airport Way/5th
Avenue South (Seattle)
S9
Express Bus: HOV Access Ramps on SR 167 at Smith Street (Kent)
S10
Express Bus: BAT Lanes and Transit Signal Priority on SR 161, New Meridian/South Hill
Park-&-Ride and New Bus Route Serving the Sounder South Corridor
S11
Express Bus: New Bus Route Serving all Sounder Stations between Tacoma Dome and King
Street during Off-Peak Periods
S12
Express Bus: Transit Signal Priority on SR 516 (Kent)
S13
Express Bus: Transit Signal Priority, Left Turn Lane and Route 560 Modification to Improve
Access to Sounder Tukwila Station
S14
Express Bus: Extension of Route 565 to Tacoma Dome Station during Peak Periods with
Limited Stops
S15
Express Bus: Parking Garage at Burien Transit Center
S16
Express Bus: Surface Parking Expansion at Tacoma Dome Station
S17
Sounder: Permanent Station at Tukwila
S18
Sounder: Parking Garage at Auburn Station
S19
Sounder: New Station in North Sumner
S20
Sounder: Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge at Sumner Station
S21
Sounder Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge at Puyallup Station
S22
Sounder: Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge at South Tacoma Station
S23
Sounder: Parking Garage at Lakewood Station
S24
Sounder : Expanded Service Levels during Peak, Off-Peak and Weekend Periods, and
Related Track & Signal Improvements between Lakewood and Seattle
S25
Sounder: Track and Structure Upgrades between Tacoma Dome Station to Reservation
Junction
S26
Sounder: Extension of Service to DuPont, Upgrade of Track & Signals between Lakewood
and Dupont and a New Station at Dupont
S27
Link LRT: Extension from SeaTac Airport to South 200th Street
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
C-3
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 71
Appendix D: Final ST2 Project List
[under development; will be included upon ST Board adoption of final ST2 Project List]
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
D-1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 72
Endnotes
1
Puget Sound Regional Council, 1995. Vision 2020, 1995 Update: overview of Vision 2020.
2
Puget Sound Regional Council, 1995. Vision 2020, 1995 Update: Policies – Transportation.
3
Ibid.
4
Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2020, 1995 Update: Policies – Transportation.
5
Sound Transit. Long-Range Planning: Previous Years, http://www.soundtransit.org/x2403.xml, accessed
December 2005.
6
JRPC, 1993. 1993 Regional Transit System Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.
7
Sound Transit. Long-Range Planning: Previous Years, http://www.soundtransit.org/x2403.xml, accessed
December 2005.
8
Sound Transit. Long-Range Planning: The 1996 Long Range Plan, http://www.soundtransit.org/x2401.xml,
accessed December 2005.
9
Ibid.
10
Sound Transit, 1996. Sound Move.
11
Sound Transit, 1996. Sound Transit History: Sound Move.
12
Sound Transit, 1996. Sound Move.
13
Sound Transit, 2005. Sounder Fact Sheet.
14
Sound Transit, 2005. Link Light Rail Fact Sheet.
15
Expert Review Panel, February, 1995. Final Comments of the Puget Sound Expert Review Panel on the Regional
Transit Authority’s (RTA’s) System Plan and supporting Technical Appendix. Pp. 1.
16
Ibid., pp 2.
17
Expert Review Panel, 1996. 10
th
Formal Letter of the Expert Review Panel: Summary of Findings. Pp. 66.
18
Sound Transit, 2005. Final Supplemental EIS. Chapter 3 pp. 11-12.
19
Ibid.
20
Sound Transit, 2005. Final Supplemental EIS. Appendix D. Agency Coordination.
21
Sound Transit, 2005. Final Supplemental EIS. Appendix I: No Action Alternative & Plan Alternative.
22
Sound Transit, 2005. Regional Transit Long-Range Plan. pp. 12.
23
Sound Transit, 2005. Long-Range Issue Papers. For a full list of Issue Papers visit:
http://www.soundtransit.org/projects/longrange/issuepapers.asp
24
Sound Transit, 2005. Regional Transit Long-Range Plan. pp. 2.
25
Ibid., pp. 2.
26
Ibid., pp. 3 & 4.
27
Sound Transit, 2005. Regional Transit Long-Range Plan. pp. 12.
28
Brand, D., and J.L. Benham, 1982, “Elasticity-Based Method for Forecasting Travel on Current Urban
Transportation Alternatives,” Transportation Research Record No. 895.
29
Harvey, R., May 1986. "Pivot-Point Analysis of Transit Demand Using EMME/2," an Internal Paper,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07
Page 73
30
Ben-Akiva, M. and T. Atherton, 1977. "Methodology for Short-Range Travel Demand Predictions,"
Transportation Economics and Policy, v.7.
31
Koppelman, F., 1983. "Predicting Transit Ridership in Response to Transit Service Changes," ASCE 109.
32
Nickesen A., A. Meyburg and M. Turnquist, 1983. "Ridership Estimation for Short-Range Transit Planning,"
Transportation Research B, v.17B.
33
Harvey, R. , March 7, 1988 "Comparison of Metro and PSCOG Modeling" a Memorandum to File.
34
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), “Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning,”
http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2396.html, accessed February 14, 2007.
Sound Transit 2: HCT Compliance Report
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Planning Process Technical Memorandum
DRAFT 3/07