Transportation Action Plan For Puget Sound
By: Cascadia Staff
Cascadia Center
November 15, 2007
Transportation Action Plan for Puget Sound
Cascadia Center For Regional Development
November 15, 2007
ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007, Puget Sound voters rejected Proposition One, a "roads and transit" ballot measure that many argued cost too much for too long and delivered too little. In the wake of what some view as a dramatic setback, however, we see the opposite: The failed ballot measure is an opportunity for the region to begin to confront and solve our transportation challenges once and for all. These challenges in recent years have been shaped not only by population and economic growth in Puget Sound, but also by climate change and growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. More than ever before, what we do here at home in Washington state to boost mobility while protecting the environment will be influenced by - and will necessarily influence - our nation and world. We must embrace this opportunity.
Central Puget Sound and the state of Washington must begin by squarely embracing innovation. Transportation finance, decision-making, technology and environmental protection must be viewed through the lens of the future that is already upon us - one in which relying primarily on big-ticket ballot measures (and public resources only) has become as dubious as the entire roads versus transit debate. As our region's population swells a projected 52 percent during the next 30 years, we will need to spend billions on both roads and transit. We must ensure projects really serve their highest and best uses: providing reliable mobility of people and goods, and helping to stimulate economic development.
We must repair and dramatically alter the way transportation is addressed in the region, especially in our urban areas. Two important oversight panels, appointed by two separate governors, concluded that our multiple, overlapping local and regional transportation agencies have hurt, not helped, accountability and effectiveness. The conclusions reached by the Regional Transportation Commission and the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation, appointed by Governors Gregoire and Locke, respectively, should be reexamined.
But the steps we take next are not just about our region. Smart choices we make on transportation fuels can help change the world around us. Today, the price of oil, which was $23 a barrel five years ago, is approaching $100 a barrel. Drivers in Washington state now pay 65 cents per gallon more than they did only one year ago. Our addiction to oil, which fuels 97 percent of our transportation needs, is not only bad for the environment, but is a clear national security risk. As James Woolsey, director of the CIA during President Clinton's administration, says, we are in effect financing both sides of the war on terror. Flexible fuel, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles would dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and cut our addiction to foreign oil. The Pacific Northwest, steeped in innovation, should be the first U.S. region to embrace this technology.
Each major part of a regional transportation strategy - finance, leadership, technology and environmental protection - must support the whole. The Western Washington and Central Puget Sound regions must take a comprehensive approach to designing our transportation future. Starting no later than January 2008, we recommend that our region's leaders begin engineering sweeping changes in transportation. To meet the bracing challenges ahead, political and business leaders must unify around a shared and truly progressive vision. Further discussions are needed, but we believe the key elements of the right plan are here, in our Transportation Action Plan for Puget Sound.
THE WAY FORWARD: TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR PUGET SOUND
SR 520, ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND I-5 REBUILD - USING TOLLING & PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION FUND PARTNERSHIPS
TOLLING
# Legislature authorizes a toll on the SR 520 Bridge in 2009 and (for our proposed) Alaskan Way Viaduct bypass tunnel. Small portion of tolls earmarked for high capacity transit on the 520 corridor and surface transit enhancements on Seattle's Waterfront.
# Expand tolling in 2010 to the express lanes only on Interstates 5 and 90 initially. Treat these as HOT (high occupancy-toll) "premium lanes."
# Reconfigure express lanes within existing I-5 footprint to three bi-directional express HOT lanes allowing two-way flows and eliminating major bottlenecks at Northgate and the I-5/I-90 interchange when directions are reversed.
# On I-90, tolling can pay for expanded Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service rather than light rail, and cross-subsidize the 520 corridor. New passenger ferry routes in the King County Ferry District Plan should also be factored in the cross-lake non-SOV strategy.
PENSION FUND PARTNERSHIPS
# Change state law to authorize "alliance contracting" and project cost-sharing between WSDOT and public employee and building trade union pension funds for SR 520, Alaska Way Viaduct bypass tunnel replacement and I-5 rebuild.
# We recommend, wherever possible, using union and public employee pension funds as primary partners for major public highway/transit projects - with foreign or private equity investors as partners only as necessary, and only under carefully-structured terms.
# In any such partnerships, the public sector should retain control of transportation assets and toll rates to protect system users and ensure the tolls also benefit transit. (Union pension funds were used previously in construction of the Pacific Place garage.)
# British Columbia offers a remarkable example of how private equity capital was leveraged with public resources to finish major infrastructure projects like expansion of Sea to Sky Highway before the 2010 Olympic Games
HOT LANE/BUS RAPID TRANSIT/LIGHT RAIL NETWORK (KING/PIERCE/SNOHOMISH COUNTIES)
# Voters approved the "Rapid Ride" BRT enhancements in King County last year. Why not expand it to the three counties through partnerships with Sound Transit and its successful ST EXPRESS bus service? Funding could come through a portion of our proposed regional HOT lane tolls, as well as potential sales and MVET taxes levied at regional level.
# Amend I-405/SR 167 master plans to extend 167 to Port of Tacoma and construct one additional HOT lane (rather than two new general purpose lanes) from Renton to Bellevue on I-405. They would be twinned with existing HOV lane to provide two continuous HOT/HOV lanes adjacent to non-tolled, general-purpose lanes from Lynnwood to Tacoma. Operationally, they would fit well with the state's current billion dollar investments in I-405 and SR 167.
# By 2020, central Puget Sound would be ringed by a complete HOT/BRT system with expanded park and ride lots serving as major transportation gateways.
# Sound Transit should complete light rail to Northgate per the 1996 Sound Move plan. (Note: Portland's Tri-Met partnered with Bechtel to extend the rail line to Portland International Airport.)
SR 520/I-405: TRANSIT HUB, CORRIDOR AND GATEWAY
BRT AND UPGRADED PARK AND RIDES
# Bus Rapid Transit should get a new look on the East-West State Route 520 corridor. Examine potential funding partnerships with union/public employee pension funds, private developers and major employers.
# Link the Microsoft Connector, and other private and public transit choices to greatly expand Park and Ride lots such as South Kirkland. Include electrification for plug-in hybrid vehicle recharge, use development fees and provide concierge services.
I-405 CORRIDOR: SAVE EASTSIDE RAIL
# In the adjoining I-405 north-south corridor, regional leaders should ensure that lightweight, biofuel-burning, bike-toting Diesel Multiple Unit self-powered rail cars ply the BNSF eastside rail line - adjacent to a string of upgraded park and ride lots modeled after the South Kirkland facility. The enhanced park-and-rides and DMU rail service would complement the planned bike and walking trail paralleling the rail line.
# Given the electoral meltdown of Prop. 1 and its hallmark extension of light rail to the north, south and east, it seems unbelievable to us that public agencies would agree to the ripping up of 31 miles of useable north-south rail track from Renton to Snohomish for a recreational trail with a vague promise to reconsider multi-billion dollar "high capacity transit" in 20 years-plus. Once the rail is ripped out it will never return. This is the result of a signed Memorandum Of Understanding between the Port of Seattle and King County.
# Cascadia has hired respected BNSF retired operations executives to walk the entire 42-mile corridor (the 11-mile Woodinville-Snohomish section would remain in use for freight rail) to see how much it would cost to upgrade the track for Diesel Multiple Unit trains going 40 miles per hour. Private sector developers would contribute to station development.
# Sound Transit has ample current funding to contract for train and BRT service between East King and Snohomish counties. Commuters from Snohomish County and South King County could transfer at the Park and Ride from the north-south rail and trail corridor to the East-West 520 BRT corridor. But saving the Eastside rail corridor will require quick action.
FREIGHT RAIL INVESTMENT TO BOOST I-5 COMMUTER RAIL CAPACITY
# State-recommended investments in Stampede Pass would allow faster movement of freight between the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and the eastern U.S. This would also allow for expansion of Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail between Everett and Tacoma by freeing up north-south track capacity. The proposed Eastside DMU rail line along I-405 (see above) would connect via existing track to the more westerly and parallel Everett to Tacoma line.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTABILITY
# For five years, Cascadia and others have pushed for a consolidation of the myriad of transportation agencies in the region under a single unified board of directors, citing the successes in Vancouver, BC, Portland, San Diego and Denver in passing major regional transportation investment programs. We are always told by the establishment, "we don't have a leadership problem, we have a funding problem." Now, following Prop. 1's defeat, we have a political problem; elected leaders going in different directions.
# A Regional Transportation Commission was appointed by the legislature and Gov. Gregoire, and chaired by John Stanton and Norm Rice. Its strong and well-reasoned recommendation for a unified regional transportation board of directors in Puget Sound passed the state senate in 2007 but was blocked in the House. The Stanton-Rice report should be the basis for reforming central Puget Sound transportation leadership. We need a unified, single board of directors with powers to plan, fund and prioritize projects and consolidate agencies (similar to Vancouver and Portland).
# A regional transportation board of directors should:
1) Consolidate current regional transportation agencies;
2) Consist of elected and appointed members;
3) Include an advisory council;
4) Propose transportation projects and funding voters will approve
5) Maintain oversight and accountability on current projects, while continuing to plan for the future.
# County borders are increasingly irrelevant. Alter MPO/RTPO statutes to establish regional transportation decision-making bodies for Central Puget Sound (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston), North Puget Sound (Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island, San Juan), and Southwest Washington - for the purpose of multi-county transportation project planning and funding. Snohomish could be part of two different regional groups, if it so chooses.
# The three regional transportation decision-making bodies would be tasked to coordinate and pool resources with WSDOT for these programs: I-5 enhancements (including cross-Columbia River bridge), freight and passenger rail improvements (coordinated with British Columbia and Oregon), multi-county and special needs transit, and corridor-based technology improvements (i.e. truck parking, diesel emission reduction and alternative fuel/plug-in stations at I-5 highway rest areas.
FLEX FUEL, PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES
# Cascadia Center serves on the Governor's Climate Action Team, and recommends that state and local government fleet purchases of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles should be encouraged and expanded. Either through legislative action or executive order, Washington's state government should commit to purchasing plug-ins when they become available.
# We recommend that funding be made available for state and local governments to convert standard hybrids to plug-ins. These vehicles should work with the grid, and funding would be necessary to assure they are compliant.
# Another objective should be to establish an alternative fuels infrastructure at park and ride lots, interstate truck stops, and passenger vehicle rest areas.
PASSENGER FERRIES
# The legislature should enable a Sound-wide passenger-only ferry inter-local agreement among ports, transit districts, local governments, private operators, and the state ferries to pool resources for passenger-only ferries and coordinate regional routes. The PSRC study in progress will further articulate how a regional passenger-only ferry system can best be facilitated.
# King County has formed a passenger-only ferry district and Pierce, Skagit and Whatcom also operate ferries. All would benefit from coordination at the Sound level while allowing local communities to custom design their passenger-only ferry service and encourage public-private partnerships.
# In addition to providing direct non-SOV connections between growing cities in Puget Sound (Return of the Mosquito Fleet), new technology passenger ferries could provide more boat building jobs to our urban and maritime industries and - as in the Bay Area - an emergency transportation network in case of an earthquake.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION
# More than 400 transportation projects have been funded by the 2003 and 2005 state gas tax increases, but some are clearly recognized to be proving not feasible due to a range of factors. The legislature should identify those projects and redirect the money to regional traffic signal synchronization projects, which will help reduce traffic congestion in the sort term. The Puget Sound Regional Council's new Traffic Operations Committee has an excellent framework for action, including test results from recent corridor coordination efforts.
Direct comments to Bruce Agnew (bagnew@discovery.org), Steve Marshall (smarshall@discovery.org), Mike Wussow (mikew@discovery.org), and Matt Rosenberg (mattr@discovery.org).
Transportation
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Cascadia plan for the Puget Sound after the failure of Prop 1
Tacoma Coalition sets outs local priorities for Roads
Monday, January 7th, 2008
A “go it alone” stance on new highway construction is favored in a legislative priority list Pierce County officials will consider Wednesday.
The final draft document, released today, calls for creating a new transportation benefit district – perhaps along with another county – to pay for big projects like extending SR 167 and building the Cross Base Highway.
The draft clearly rejects the idea of creating a regional Transportation Board to rule all transit and highway planning in the Puget Sound metro region. (See my Sunday column on a regional governance plan state lawmakers will consider this session.)
A coalition of county business and government leaders called RAMP will consider the proposed legislative priorities Wednesday. But first they will hear a pitch from top advocates of regional governance. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. at the Fabulich Center (formerly the World Trade Center) at 3600 Port of Tacoma Road.
Here's what the draft says about creating a new taxing district:
RAMP believes that a Transportation Benefit District is the most viable vehicle for advancing towards the next voter-approved funding package, whether Pierce County moves forward unilaterally or in cooperation with other counties; consequently, RAMP asks the Legislature to grant TBDs authority allotted to the Regional Transportation Investment District, as well as removing the ten-year limitation on voter-approved tax collections
Click below to see the full document.
Priorities
o RAMP believes that a Transportation Benefit District is the most viable vehicle for advancing towards the next voter-approved funding package, whether Pierce County moves forward unilaterally or in cooperation with other counties; consequently, RAMP asks the Legislature to grant TBDs authority allotted to the Regional Transportation Investment District, as well as removing the ten-year limitation on voter-approved tax collections
o RAMP maintains that transportation governance revisions are secondary to the provision of adequate financial resources for transportation (both roads and transit); to that end, RAMP will support Legislative goals and recommendations that make adequate financing their top priority
o RAMP believes that subarea equity is important for any regional transportation investment plan and will seek to maintain Pierce County's fair share of funding while working collaboratively with the rest of the region
o RAMP will work to ensure that projects funded within Pierce County via the 2003 Nickel package and the 2005 Transportation Partnership package are completed without delayProjects
RAMP will work to develop regional, state and federal funding for the following priority transportation projects:
o SR-167 - RAMP seeks to secure full funding for this critical link from Puyallup to SR-509, including right-of-way acquisition for the full-width corridor, and supports high capacity vehicle lanes being added to the portion north of Sumnero SR-704 - RAMP is an advocate for the construction of the “Cross-Base Highway” and believes that this transportation corridor should be renamed the “Armed Services Highway” to reflect the importance of the military and their families
o SR-162 - RAMP supports allocation of State funding to the SR-162 corridor between the City of Orting and SR-410 in such a manner and amount as to leverage the use of private funding being identified by the Plateau Transportation Partnership for transportation improvements
o Sound Transit - RAMP supports the following additions to regional transit services:
1. Connecting light rail from Tacoma Dome Station to SeaTac Airport
2. Contingency fund for ridership growth (e.g., additional parking, shuttle service, new stations, pedestrian facilities, signalization)
3. Extending Sounder service to DuPont
4. Expanding Sounder service to all-day or expanding express bus service to all-day
5. Linking downtown Tacoma to TCC via light rail
o Pierce Transit - RAMP supports completion of the Peninsula Park & Ride facility
o Rail Improvements - RAMP supports construction of grade separations that will serve Sounder, Tacoma Rail and Port of Tacoma infrastructure needs
o Regional Mobility Grant (WSDOT's Office of Transit Mobility) - RAMP supports funding for proposed Pierce County projectsPolicies
In addition, RAMP supports transportation policies essential to our region's economic development, which include the following:o RAMP supports the recommendations of the Washington Transportation Commission in its 2006 Comprehensive Tolling Study and believes that the state should use tolling to encourage effective use of the transportation system through congestion management as well as to provide a supplementary source of transportation funding; moreover, tolling represents the most direct way to charge system users for the cost of the highway system without singling out one specific class of user; however, RAMP believes transit should not be tolled or be subject to congestion pricing and that this should be reflected in the Transportation Commission's tolling policy.
o RAMP opposes cargo taxes that would hamper the state's competitiveness, driving economic activity from Washington to neighboring states and countries, and harming Washington ports, manufacturers, growers, and exporters: RAMP supports mechanisms for funding freight infrastructure that rely either on user fees or on general purpose taxes through which the broader community invests in freight mobility.
o RAMP supports financial incentives, such as tax credits, for new construction and infrastructure improvements on the state's rail lines
o RAMP supports allocation of all multimodal funds to public transportation and opposes any efforts to allocate federal transit funds to highway purposes.
o RAMP seeks full funding for the recommendations of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) to improve freight mobility and the state's competitiveness
o RAMP supports keeping the state accountable for efficiencies in the construction of transportation projects by producing verifiable and quantifiable results through cost savings, project prioritization, benchmarks, planning and project streamlining
Congestion relief must be top priority for transportation policy
Five Principles of Responsible Transportation Policy By Michael Ennis Washington Policy Center encourages five principles of responsible transportation policy to help guide policymakers in returning to a system that provides people's freedom of movement.
Director, Center for Transportation
January 2008
Tie spending to congestion relief
Respect people's freedom of mobility
Invest resources based on market demand
Improve freight mobility
Use Public/Private Partnerships
1. Tie spending to congestion relief
Congestion relief is the most basic tenet in transportation policy, yet most people are surprised to learn it is no longer a priority in Washington state.
In 2000, Washington's Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation identified several benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the state's transportation system. These performance measures were very specific and some of them were adopted into law. They include:
Traffic congestion on urban state highways shall be significantly reduced and be no worse than the national mean.
Delay per driver shall be significantly reduced and no worse than the national mean.
However, during the 2007 Legislative Session, the legislature passed Senate Bill 5412, which repealed these precise benchmarks. Instead, the legislature substituted five broader policy goals: Preservation, Safety, Mobility, Environment and Stewardship.[1]
Likewise, the spending strategy for transportation taxes is defined in the Washington Transportation Plan 2007-2026.[2] This document, created by the Washington State Transportation Commission (WTC) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), identifies five "Investment Guidelines" to help prioritize spending tax dollars in transportation.
The five priorities are nearly identical to the five goals passed in Senate Bill 5412: (1) Preservation (2) Safety (3) Economic Vitality (4) Mobility and (5) Environmental Quality and Health.
In both cases, Mobility should mean congestion relief, but instead state officials define it as a strategy to move people, rather than improving vehicle flows. This means spending shifts from actually fixing congestion to providing alternatives to congestion.
In other words, according to the Washington Transportation Plan, relieving traffic congestion is not an "Investment Guideline" in determining how transportation money is spent. Instead, the plan says policymakers should spend money on other forms of transportation, like buses or light rail.
Ironically, this strategy will always lead to greater traffic congestion.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, private passenger vehicles account for about 85% of all forms of transportation in the Seattle region.[3] This means all other modes like mass transit (6.2%), bicycles (0.6%), walking (3.2%), and other (5.3%) serve only about 15% of travelers.
Adopting a policy that disproportionately spends public money on only 15% of the market will always lead to greater congestion, because the system that supports the remaining 85% is left to languish.
The Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO) recently concluded that, "The Washington State Legislature should choose/identify projects based on congestion reduction rather than other agendas."[4]Strengthening the tie between spending and traffic relief does not sacrifice safety or preservation. These are not competing priorities. Traffic relief and safety/preservation can happen simultaneously, as long as regional leaders stop spending money in areas that do not relieve congestion. Washington policymakers should return to these specific performance measures and create a stronger link between spending and traffic relief.
2. Respect people's freedom of mobility
Government serves society, not the other way around. Policies that force citizens to behave differently than they normally would disregard the natural marketplace of society and ultimately threaten to take away political freedom from its citizens.
Likewise, government policies in transportation should be responsive to the market and improve the freedom of citizens to live and work where they choose.
Manipulating transportation policies to force a particular behavior coerces people to abandon their individual liberties in favor of a socialistic benefit where supposedly, a greater collective good is created.
These measures always fail because of what Milton Friedman called, "one of the strongest and most creative forces known to man," rational self interest; or people's desire to do what they believe is best for their own lives.
Instead, proponents of social change should work in the marketplace of ideas to persuade others to share their vision and work towards it. They should not use the power of government to force through their own ideas, but should seek to change policy, if that is needed, once reform is broadly supported by the public.
3. Deploy resources based on market demand
Transportation resources should be distributed based on natural market demand rather than the current system of building infrastructure that is somehow meant to attract demand.
In economics, supply is a function of demand. This means a willingness to use a service must exist before a supply of that service is created. Boeing executives do not make 300 airplanes knowing they will only sell 100. Likewise, governments should not spend a disproportionate amount of taxes in low demand sectors, where the public's willingness to use the service does not justify the investment.
European and U.S. transit systems provide good contrasting examples of how these economic concepts apply.
European countries are often believed to have highly successful public transportation networks and one of the more familiar systems is Switzerland Switzerland lies in the center of Europe and is an important transportation hub for both freight and passenger traffic throughout the continent. The Swiss system is primarily successful, not because of the amount of service or infrastructure, but because they have certain demographic and economic characteristics that induce demand.
In other words, there is an existing market with a natural customer base and Swiss policymakers responded with proportional infrastructure investments. As a result, mode share, ridership and fare box recovery are high.
In the United States, transit resources are distributed in just the opposite way.
Under the "build it, and they will come" theory, many policymakers think that increasing the supply of transit will somehow create more public demand. This speculative model fails because most U.S. cities do not posses the economic or demographic characteristics that create enough voluntary consumers for public transit.
Using the economic principles of supply and demand shows that building excess transit capacity before there is an equal amount of willingness to use it leads to an underperforming system. As a result, mode share, ridership and fare box recovery are low.
In any market, increasing the supply of a service or product before demand is available creates a large space between costs and benefits.
In the private sector, where benefits are measured by consumer choices, this type of behavior is unsustainable. A business will simply cease to exist once costs exceed benefits to consumers.
But in the public sector economic laws are not as strict. There is a higher tolerance for fiscal inefficiency because benefits are not always measured by consumer choices. There is also an element of public value.
In transportation policy, public value should be measured by freedom of mobility and traffic relief for the public. Therefore, policymakers can keep the space between costs and benefits small by separating projects that provide these values from projects that do not.
When prioritizing transportation projects, policymakers should use consumer demand to drive investments, not the other way around. Applying these time-tested economic principles in transportation policy will improve people's mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
4. Improve freight mobility
Freight mobility possesses a significant economic role in transportation policy but ironically, the state's investment strategy is an obstacle for improving the efficiency of moving goods.
The freight industry pays about 25% of the revenues the state receives from fuel taxes and vehicle registration and weight fees in Washington.[5]
washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PN_i90lightrail.html
5. Utilize Public/Private Partnerships Using the Public/Private Partnership (PPP) concept, policymakers can find effective ways to fund new projects, and to maintain the current transportation infrastructure. But relative to the rest of the United States , Washington has been slow to fully embrace the PPP strategy. These partnerships can take many forms and, according to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, there are generally about a dozen types. They can range between mostly private to mostly public and several types incorporate a balance of both characteristics. There are many benefits associated with a PPP. They include leveraging private dollars for public use, shifting risk from taxpayers to the private sector, and lowering overall project costs. Other factors like public oversight, asset ownership, long-term maintenance, liability and labor, will dictate which PPP is a better fit. In Washington , these issues have been treated as obstacles and prevented partnerships from forming. Yet, these questions have been addressed by other states by adapting the various types of partnerships. Undoubtedly, these concerns are important but they should not deter the benefits of a Public/Private Partnership.
Using the PPP concept, a group of businesses in Pierce County have joined forces to pool financial and construction related resources from their membership to build and finance projects. Without the support of the partnership, it is unlikely there would be enough public money to build the projects. For more information, see the WPC publication The Case for Public/Private Partnerships in Transportation Planning. Partnering with the private sector is one way to increase financial resources and get roads built. Otherwise, funding problems become insurmountable, roads are not built and our system continues to deteriorate. Public/Private Partnerships have a proven track record across the United States and should be embraced by public officials in Washington.
Notes
[1]http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202007/5412-S.SL.pdf [2]http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/083D185B-7B1F-49F5-B865-C0A21D0DCE32/0/FinalWTP111406_nomaps.pdf [3] Based on 2000 data. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm
[4] http://www.sao.wa.gov/reports/auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1000006.pdf
[5] Transportation Revenue Forecast Council, June 2007 Transportation Revenue Forecast
[6]http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D30E991-6159-4F2A-A84B-284622643B79/0/I90CenterRoadwayStudy.pdf [7] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PN_i90lightrail.html
