HomeMy WebLinkAboutEX_48_M_Resolution_R2021-05_240607_v1
STRIDE Bus Rapid Transit
South Renton Transit Center (SRTC) Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Master Site
Plan Review, and Lot Line Adjustment Application
Attachment 26
Resolution R2021 -05
June 2024
Prepared by the
Resolution No. R2021-05
A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority establishing a
flexible and accountable framework to implement ST2 and ST3 projects not yet in construction as close
as possible to the dates promised to the voters that (1) allows project work to proceed right away within
the confines of an affordable financial plan; (2) prioritizes maintaining project schedules through an
accountable and transparent process to update the agency’s revenue assumptions and financing
approach and address cost increases at the project and program level; and (3) positions the agency to
react quickly as new information becomes available, particularly on the revenue side, and provides
greater oversight for the Board and transparency to the public through oversight mechanisms, including
an annual Board program review of updated revenue and cost projections to allow the Board to revisit
the realigned capital plan assumptions based on shifts in projected financial capacity and opportunities
to expedite projects.
WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, commonly known as Sound
Transit, was formed under chapters 81.104 and 81.112 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for
the Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties region by action of their respective county councils pursuant
to RCW 81.112.030; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit is authorized to plan, construct, and permanently operate a high-
capacity system of transportation infrastructure and services to meet regional public transportation
needs in the Central Puget Sound region; and
WHEREAS, in general elections held within the Sound Transit district on November 5, 1996,
November 4, 2008, and November 8, 2016, voters approved local funding to implement a regional
high-capacity transportation system for the Central Puget Sound region; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the rationale and purpose of the voter-approved plans of
1996, 2008 (ST2) and 2016 (ST3) for mobility, sustainability, equity, and community development
have only grown in importance since the voters adopted them; and
WHEREAS, in 2016 voters of the Sound Transit service area in King, Pierce and Snohomish
counties approved a $53.8 billion system expansion, including 62 new miles of light rail with stations
serving 37 additional areas for a regional system of 116 miles, creation of a bus rapid transit system
on I-405/SR518 and SR522/NE145th, expanded capacity and service of the Sounder south rail line,
improved access to stations for bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers, and pick-up and drop-off services, and
expanded parking at some stations; and
WHEREAS, the need to decarbonize our transportation system in order to address climate
change has only accelerated since the adoption of the voter-approved plans and Sound Transit’s voter-
approved projects continue to be the most climate-friendly transportation investments in the state; and
WHEREAS, mobility is a key to the continued economic growth of the region; and
WHEREAS, the pandemic has underscored that public transit is an absolute necessity for
essential workers, who keep our economy and essential services operational; and
WHEREAS, the ST2 and ST3 Plan improvements are unaffordable due to growth in early cost
estimate increases totaling $12.9 billion that have resulted in an estimated net shortfall of $6.5 billion,
as of July 2021; and
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the ballot measure requires the Board to use legally available funds to implement
projects, or portions thereof, that best achieve the plan objectives after consideration of the ST2 and
ST3 Plans and financial policies when the Plan improvements, or some portion thereof are
unaffordable; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopted Motion No. M2020-36 and Motion No. M2020-37 in June 2020
to establish criteria and pursue new revenue options; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopted in December 2020 a five-year delay to every project not under
construction to fulfill the statutory responsibility for a financially constrained Transit Improvement Plan
(TIP) to act as a placeholder until the realignment could be studied, reviewed, and completed; and
WHEREAS, ongoing monitoring and reporting on project costs and agency revenues is an
essential element of delivering a successful program to the public; and
WHEREAS, since the first projections of revenue reductions due to the coronavirus pandemic,
the Board has engaged in over a year of Committee and Board briefings and two realignment
workshops; and
WHEREAS, the Board engaged in public and stakeholder engagement and received public
input through a variety of means, including from organizations representing communities most
affected by institutional and systemic racism; and
WHEREAS, the Board is committed to delivering all of the ST2 and ST3 mobility projects
contained as close as possible to the schedule promised in the full voter-approved program in order to
best achieve the Plan objectives, including ridership and passenger experience, as quickly as possible
in a manner that fulfills the intent of the voter-approved measures; and
WHEREAS, the Board is undertaking program realignment to ensure the continued
affordability of the program and provide direction on how to minimize the affordability gap to maintain
the Board’s commitment to the schedule promised in the ST3 ballot measure and how and when to
implement realignment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority that:
Section 1: The Board prioritizes delivering ST3 projects on the estimated timelines in the voter-approved
plan, and will work to create the financial capacity to do so by pursing expanded revenues, financial
capacity and cost savings options. The schedule goals for each project are based upon timely delivery,
without any delay due to funding.
Section 2: To ensure that funding remains available to complete all voter-approved projects, the Board
also establishes a program schedule that is affordable utilizing current financial projections and cost
estimates to serve as the general order in which projects will advance. The affordable schedule
establishes tiers of projects to prioritize, fund and manage program work overtime based upon the
Board’s review of project evaluations using the criteria established in the Ballot Measure (Resolution No.
R2016-17), Motion No. M2020-36, and the five core principles identified in both Motion No. M2020-36
and Motion No. M2020-37. The tiers and currently estimated completion date for each project are
depicted in Exhibit A (Affordable Schedule).
Section 3: The criteria set forth in Motion No. M2020-36 and Motion No. M2020-37 expanding regional
transit to the Central Puget Sound region are essential to address climate change, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and build a sustainable future for the Puget Sound region.
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 3 of 5
Section 4: A new annual program review is hereby established for the Board to review shifts in
projected financial capacity resulting from updated cost, revenue, and debt capacity projections and the
readiness of projects to benefit from such shifts. An Initial Target Schedule for each project is
established with Tier 1 and 2 projects programmed without funding delay and Tier 3 and 4 projects
programmed per the delayed Affordable Schedule. At the annual program review, staff will present
affordable budget estimates for each project in Tier 1 and Tier 2 if they are delivered on the Initial Target
Schedule and the Affordable Schedule. The budget estimates will be the same for any projects where
the Initial Target and Affordable Schedules are the same. The budget estimates will account for agency
financial capacity, subarea affordability, and required system facilities. The difference between these
budget estimates will be identified as each project’s affordability gap. The Initial Target project
schedules and funding gaps are presented in Exhibit B (Initial Target Schedule.) As the affordability
gaps are eliminated for Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, the gaps on Tier 3 projects will be assessed, and then
the gaps on Tier 4 projects while ensuring adequate agency financial capacity and subarea affordability.
Section 5. In order to improve projected financial capacity, reduce project affordability gaps and deliver
projects in a timely manner, the chief executive officer is directed to:
Pursue expanded financial capacity per Motion No. M2020-37 to enable timely delivery of voter-
approved plans including, but not limited to, state funds, additional federal funds, reduced
borrowing costs through federal and other sources, increased debt capacity, and other new
sources such as tax increment financing partnerships; and
Develop and implement a cost savings work plan, to be overseen by the System Expansion
Committee with regular quarterly reports, for projects and programs currently in development
which will identify a menu of options to address project level affordability gaps; and
Identify opportunities to reduce cost and planning delays, including creating an ad-hoc technical
advisory group of several outside experts to meet for several months with the mission of looking
for all possible ways to accelerate system expansion, highlight schedule risk including current
project delivery timelines, and identify opportunities to mitigate risk, streamline third party
negotiations, reduce permitting delays and expedite the delivery of said projects; and
Engage project stakeholders in intensive discussions to address the trade-offs between project
scope, schedule, and new financial resources to inform Board decision-making on project
schedules; and
Solicit the engagement of all Board members, as appropriate, to advance the processes cited in
this section.
As part of the annual program review, identify opportunities and make recommendations to
deliver flexible, innovative and affordable methods to get people to transit stations, if structured
parking facilities have to be delayed.
Section 6: Schedule assessments based on available agency projected financial capacity and subarea
affordability as well as project readiness will occur during project development to determine if projects
can continue to progress on the Initial Target Schedule or if the Affordable Schedule is needed. If the
affordability gap is partially reduced, staff will assess whether a completion date between the Initial
Target and Affordable Schedules is affordable and achievable.
These schedule assessments will occur before the following milestones:
the start of preliminary engineering (which for large projects occurs after the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and preferred alternative update); and
the project to be built decision (which occurs after environmental review is complete); and
project baselining (which occurs before construction)
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 4 of 5
The funding likely to be available will inform preliminary engineering design, including contract
packaging and phasing options. At the project to be built milestone, a full funding plan must be in place
to determine a timeline for final design, rights-of-way (ROW) acquisition, and planned construction that
will not impact the ability to deliver other system expansion projects on the Affordable Schedule. At
project baselining, all funding must be secured before a project enters full construction. The Board will
not authorize final design, ROW, or construction expenditures on any individual project which would
cause delay to the Affordable Schedule for other projects unless the project’s funding gap has been
offset.
Section 7: The chief executive officer is further directed to prepare a 2021 TIP and financial plan. The
new TIP will replace the five-year delay assumed in the 2020 TIP. Project development and
environmental reviews will be adequately funded so as to ensure the opportunity to deliver projects
based on the Initial Target Schedule without impacting the Affordable Schedule. The Schedule
assessments described in Section 6 will determine the schedules for final design, ROW acquisition, and
construction.
Section 8: To support continued Board oversight and accountability, the CEO is directed to:
Report biannually to the System Expansion Committee the status of current and anticipated cost
drivers; and
Expand the scope of the independent cost consultant contract to include development of
recommended project management practices to enhance scope, change, and cost control and to
review the potential cost saving options; and
Hire an independent consultant to report directly to and assist the Board in reviewing the cost
savings work plan and the structure of the new annual program review; and
Separate from the regular reporting cycle, notify the Board in a timely manner of any information
that may materially impact the cost or schedule of projects so that the System Expansion
Committee can review that information as part of the committee’s ongoing oversight of projects;
and
In concert with the chief financial officer, report to the Board before each baselining action on the
affordability of the project to be baselined and whether such baselining action influences the
affordability and delivery timeline for all other projects in the capital program; and
Routinely inform the Board of Directors on the agency’s adherence to schedule milestones
during the planning and design process for all projects, and identify where any delays in pre-
construction activities are likely to trigger a delay in the final delivery date of any project and
establish new milestones to monitor during the construction and testing phases for the same
monitoring and report any construction and testing delays that will trigger a delay in final project
delivery.
Section 9. The Board determines that the projects and priorities identified in Exhibit A and B best
achieve the ST2 and ST3 Plan objectives after consideration of the ST2 and ST3 Plan benefits included
in Exhibit D, schedule, and subarea resources, and after consideration of financial policies included in
Exhibit E.
Section 10. Subarea equity sources and uses of funds included in Exhibit C are hereby updated and
available funds are hereby allocated to build those projects identified in Exhibit A and B.
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 5 of 5
Section 11. The restrictions on project advancement and agreements outlined in a presentation to the
Board at the August 27, 2020 meeting and the staff document “The Path Forward”, and implemented by
Motion No. M2020-55 and Motion No. M2021-20 are hereby revoked and superseded by this action. The
CEO is directed to advance all projects in accordance with the schedule and conditions established by
this resolution.
ADOPTED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority at a special meeting
thereof held on August 5, 2021.
Kent Keel
Board Chair
Attest:
Kathryn Flores
Board Administrator
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit A
Affordable Schedule
To ensure that funding remains available to complete all voter approved projects, the Board also
establishes a program schedule that is affordable utilizing current financial projections and cost
estimates. The project tiers and currently estimated affordable completion date for each project are
depicted in Table 1.
Table 1: Currently estimated completion dates for projects by tier Tier 1
≤ 2 years delay
Tier 2
≤ 6 years delay
Tier 3
≤ 9 years delay
Tier 4
10+ years delay
System Bus Base North
(2025)
OMF South (2029)
OMF North (2034)
2nd Downtown Seattle
Transit Tunnel (2037)
Sounder
Maintenance Base
(2034)
ST2 Bus Base (2045)
Bus-on-Shoulder
(with South King
portion eliminated)
(2045)
North Lynnwood –
Southwest Everett
Link NP (2037)
Southwest Everett -
Everett NP (2041)
Edmonds & Mukilteo
(2034)
Everett Link Parking
(2046)
East I-405 Stride South
NP (2026)
SR-522/145th Stride
NP (2026)
NE 85th Street
Interchange and
Inline BRT Station
portion of I-405 Stride
North (2026)
I-405 Stride North NP
(2027)
S Kirkland-Issaquah
(2044)
I-405 Stride Parking
(2034) Kingsgate
Parking (2035)
SR-522/145th Stride
Parking (2034) Lake
Forest Park Parking
(2044)
N Sammamish P&R
(2045)
Central Alaska Jct-SODO
Link (2032)
NE 130th Infill (2025)
Graham St. Infill
(2031)
SODO-Smith Cove
(2037)
Smith Cove-Ballard
(2039)
RapidRide C/D
(2045)
South Kent, Auburn &
Sumner (2025)
Tacoma Dome Link
NP* (2032)
Lakewood, S Tacoma
(2032)
Sounder platforms &
access (2036) South
King access
improvements (2041)
Sounder added trips
(2046)
SR-162 Bus
Investments (2045)
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A
TCC Tacoma Link
(2041)
Boeing Access Rd.
Infill (2031)
DuPont Sounder
(2045)
Tacoma Dome Link
Parking (2038)
NP = no parking *includes Tacoma Dome Parking & Access project
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit B
Initial Target Schedule
The Initial Target Schedule programs Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects without funding delay and Tier 3 and 4
Projects per the delayed Affordable Schedule in Exhibit A. The project level funding gaps are the
currently estimated offsets in cost savings and/or new financial resources needed to achieve these
schedules. Project level funding gap amounts are rounded.
Table 1: Tier 1 & 2 Projects without funding delay and Tier 3 & 4 Projects with funding delay per the
Affordable Schedule from Exhibit A. Projects in Tier 1 without funding delay
(current funding gap to
achieve delivery year,
$2019M)
Projects in Tier 2 without funding delay
(current funding gap to
achieve delivery year,
$2019M)
Project in Tier 3 with funding delay
(Delayed delivery year with
no funding gap)
Project in Tier 4 with funding delay
(Delayed delivery year with
no funding gap)
System Bus Base North
(2025) / ($0)
OMF South (2029) /
($0)
OMF North (2034) /
($0)
2nd Downtown Seattle
Transit Tunnel (2037)
($0)
Sounder
Maintenance Base
(2034)
ST2 Bus Base (2045)
Bus-on-Shoulder
(with South King
portion eliminated)
(2045)
North Lynnwood – SW
Everett Link NP
(2037) / ($0)
SW Everett - Everett
NP (2037) / ($600)
Edmonds & Mukilteo
(2034)
Everett Link Parking
(2046)
East I-405 Stride South
NP (2026) / ($0)
SR-522/145th Stride
NP (2026) / ($0)
NE 85th Street
Interchange and
Inline BRT Station
portion of I-405 Stride
North (2026) / ($0)
I-405 Stride North NP
(2027) / ($0)
S Kirkland-Issaquah
(2041) / ($90)
I-405 Stride N
Parking (2034)
Kingsgate Parking
(2035)
I-405 Stride S
Parking (2034)
SR-522/145th Stride
Parking (2034) Lake
Forest Park Parking
(2044)
N Sammamish P&R
(2045)
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit B
Projects in Tier 1 without funding delay
(current funding gap to
achieve delivery year,
$2019M)
Projects in Tier 2 without funding delay
(current funding gap to
achieve delivery year,
$2019M)
Project in Tier 3 with funding delay
(Delayed delivery year with
no funding gap)
Project in Tier 4 with funding delay
(Delayed delivery year with
no funding gap)
Central Alaska Jct-SODO
Link (2032) / ($0)
NE 130th Infill (2025) /
($0)
Graham St. Infill
(2031) / ($0)
SODO-Smith Cove
(2037) / ($0)
Smith Cove-Ballard
(2037) / ($1,800)
RapidRide C/D
(2045)
South Kent, Auburn &
Sumner (2025) / ($0)
Tacoma Dome Link
NP* (2032) / ($0)
Lakewood, S Tacoma
(2030) / ($0)
TCC Tacoma Link
(2039) / ($20)
Boeing Access Rd.
Infill (2031) / ($0)
Sounder platforms &
access (2036) South
King access
improvements (2041)
Sounder added trips
(2046)
DuPont Sounder
(2045)
Tacoma Dome Link
Parking (2038)
SR-162 Bus
Investments (2045)
NP = no parking *includes Tacoma Dome Parking & Access project
Notes: All projects will be reviewed for cost savings, regardless of funding gap. Agency capacity, subarea
affordability, and system requirements need to be assessed in conjunction with the offsets for individual
projects. This scenario assumes all projects are simultaneously offset.
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit C
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit C
Sources and Uses
Financial Plan - Sources & Uses Summary
2021 Final Realigned Plan, August 2021
2017 through 2046; YOE Dollars in Millions
Snohomish North
King
South
King
East
King Pierce System-wide Total
Sources of Funds
Tax Revenues
Sales and Use 8,870 21,282 9,731 17,033 12,344 - 69,261
MVET 1,668 2,240 1,458 2,871 2,491 - 10,728
Property Tax 658 2,191 670 1,835 811 - 6,165
Rental Car Tax 3 7 50 5 4 - 69
Total Tax Revenues 11,199 25,721 11,909 21,744 15,650 - 86,223
Other Revenue
Grant Revenue 2,190 3,194 2,323 2,030 1,555 980 12,273
Fare Revenue 619 5,066 1,149 1,351 788 - 8,973
Other Revenue 17 134 40 101 28 67 387
Interest Earnings - - - - - 836 836
Total Other Revenue 2,826 8,395 3,512 3,482 2,372 1,883 22,469
Bond Proceeds (with DSRF)[5,714 11,227 2,275 181 - - 19,397
TIFIA Proceeds 471 1,088 926 836 - - 3,320
Changes in Cash (addtl funding to offset deficits)1,272 284 248 (120) (1,597) 0 87
Total Sources 21,481 46,715 18,870 26,123 16,424 1,883 131,496
Uses of Funds
Capital Expenditures (Including Service Delivery)
Light Rail Transit 11,307 18,655 5,698 12,340 3,323 6,278 57,601
Tacoma Link - - - - 1,689 - 1,689
Commuter Rail 155 - 1,460 - 2,873 - 4,488
Regional Express Bus 187 66 54 336 361 - 1,004
Bus Rapid Transit 87 404 330 1,450 131 - 2,402
System-wide 38 142 40 43 32 1,165 1,461
Service Delivery 20 17 33 38 37 1 146
Total Capital Expenditures 11,794 19,284 7,616 14,207 8,445 7,445 68,791
O&M Expenditures
Light Rail Transit 1,682 9,656 3,003 2,610 606 - 17,557
Tacoma Link - - - - 925 - 925
Commuter Rail 438 - 1,332 - 1,548 - 3,318
Regional Express Bus 729 - 513 2,262 1,488 - 4,993
Bus Rapid Transit 196 363 257 1,018 - - 1,833
System-wide*340 506 221 414 244 2,234 3,959
Total O&M Expenditures 3,386 10,526 5,327 6,304 4,811 2,234 32,587
SOGR 514 2,599 1,579 1,767 1,201 1,289 8,950
System-Wide Activities 1,174 2,722 1,262 2,293 1,634 (9,085) -
Reserve Contributions (O&M, R&R, DSRF)447 905 216 75 50 0 1,694
Debt Service (Excludes TIFIA)3,702 9,521.61 2,064 729 283 - 16,299
TIFIA Debt Service 466 1,157 806 747 - - 3,176
Total Uses 21,481 46,715 18,870 26,123 16,424 1,883 131,496
*Includes Other O&M and Emergency Reserve
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit D
ST2 & ST3 Project Benefits
Exhibit D1: ST3 Plan Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability
and Performance Characteristics
Exhibit D2: 2021 Project Evaluation using Board-adopted criteria
June 2016
Benefits, Costs, Revenues,
Capacity, Reliability and
Performance Characteristics
APPENDIX C
The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound
Adopted by Sound Transit Board, 06/23/2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................C-1
Background .......................................................................................................................................................................................C-1
Benefits of ST3 Investments in the Regional Transit System ..........................................................................................................C-2
System Reliability ........................................................................................................................................................................C-2
Highway Reliability ......................................................................................................................................................................C-2
Transit Reliability .........................................................................................................................................................................C-3
Comparing the Capacity of Rail Systems and Highways ................................................................................................................C-3
Highway Capacity........................................................................................................................................................................C-4
Link Light Rail Capacity ................................................................................................................................................................C-4
ST3 Performance Highlights .............................................................................................................................................................C-5
Transit Passenger Trips .................................................................................................................................................................C-5
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................................C-5
Transit Ridership on Sound Transit by Service Type.......................................................................................................................C-6
Travel Time Savings .....................................................................................................................................................................C-6
Travel Times and Transfers Between Selected Centers ..................................................................................................................C-7
Transit Trips to Selected Centers ...................................................................................................................................................C-8
Forecast Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................C-9
Other ST3 Benefits ..........................................................................................................................................................................C-10
Cost Savings for Transit Riders ...................................................................................................................................................C-10
Operating Revenue/Operating Expense Ratio .............................................................................................................................C-10
Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Annual Ridership and Operations Costs ...........................................................................C-11
Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................................................C-12
Combined Regional Rail Access .................................................................................................................................................C-12
Performance Characteristics by Mode ...........................................................................................................................................C-14
Tables
Table 1: Existing regional highway travel time reliability ..............................................................................................................C-2
Table 2: Percentage shares of passenger miles in mixed traffic vs. exclusive right-of-way .............................................................C-3
Table 3: Link light rail system capacity (passengers per hour) .......................................................................................................C-4
Table 4: Regional transit ridership and transfer rate (Sound Transit & other regional transit partners) ...........................................C-5
Table 5: Summary of Sound Transit ridership by mode (boardings) ..............................................................................................C-6
Table 6: Projected regional vehicle miles traveled reduction due to ST3 .......................................................................................C-6
Table 7: Projected travel time savings for transit riders ................................................................................................................C-6
Table 8: Projected transit travel times and transfers between selected centers .............................................................................C-7
Table 9: Projected activity center mode splits ...............................................................................................................................C-8
Table 10: Sound Transit’s total forecasted operating revenue / operating expense ratio in 2041 ................................................C-10
Table 11: Annual projected cost per ST3 system rider and new rider (2014$) .............................................................................C-12
Cover Photo: Scott Areman
SOUNDTRANSIT3.ORG
More information at:
Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Sound Transit plans, builds and operates
regional transit systems and services to
improve mobility for central Puget Sound.
Back to Table of ContentsC-1 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
ReplacinJ overcroZded and sloZinJ bus routes Zith
conJestionfree liJht rail and siJnificantly faster and more
freTuent Bus Rapid 7ransit services Zill Jreatly improve
travel for thousands of riders, particularly durinJ peaN
hour commutes. With the ST3 Plan, Sound Transit weekday
ridership will roughly quadruple from what it is today, increasing
from approximately 145,000 boardings each weekday to between
561,000 and 695,000 daily boardings. With ST3, weekday boardings
will nearly double from the 350,000 weekday boardings that are
forecasted to follow the completion of the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) plan.
With ST3, the share of all transit travel in the region on Sound
Transit rail lines will grow from 17 percent today to 69 percent in
2041. This means more than four times as much transit travel will
occur on vehicles that don’t get stuck in traffic, regardless of time
of day, day of the week, weather conditions or other factors.
Most importantly, these transit trips will be concentrated in the
region’s most congested corridors on bus routes and rail lines
serving the region’s densest downtowns and urban centers,
adding critical capacity where it is most needed to support the
region’s economy and preserve its quality of life.
This report documents the conservatively projected travel
benefits of ST3, while also discussing the plan’s broader
and far-reaching implications for the region’s growth
patterns, quality of life and economic well-being.
Both direct and quantifiable benefits, such as those
from increasing the numbers of riders taking transit
and reductions to travel times and costs, and broader
qualitative benefits such as quality of life, are important
to understanding the impact of ST3. All benefits will
continue to grow over time, especially given transit’s
contributions in the coming decades to achieving the
region’s land use vision including dense, mixed-use
development in walkable regional centers.
Data and methodologies used to analyze direct benefits of the
transportation improvements in ST3 have been prepared in
accordance with nationally accepted standards and procedures
and have been subject to review by an independent Expert Review
Panel appointed by, and accountable to, the state of Washington.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the year Sound Transit’s Sound Move plan was
approved by the voters, about 75 million individual trips were
made on transit in the Sound Transit service area. When the
region’s voters approved ST2 in 2008, that number had already
grown to 98 million annual trips by 2006 on Sound Transit
services as well as those provided by partner transit organizations.
By 2014, 117 million transit trips were being made annually.
Since it was founded, Sound Transit has been increasing its
market share of the region’s transit system.
By 2040, as a result of completed projects in Sound Move and
ST2, along with continued population growth, public transit in the
Sound Transit District across all partner agencies will carry about
200 million trips a year, about 70 percent more than in 2014.
INTRODUCTION
This report details the benefits the central Puget Sound region can expect from the
fully implemented Sound Transit 3 (ST3) Plan.
Transportation improvements strongly shape the growth, development, quality of life and economic
vitality of a region. ST3 proposes improvements that add major new capacity in the region’s most
congested corridors to help serve the transportation demands of people and businesses here today
as well as the more than 800,000 new residents anticipated in the next 25 years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
6.4 7.8 11 13.8
25.1
30.4 33 34.9
Central Linkopens in 2009
Sound TransitRidership
1999
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
*
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016
PR
O
J
E
C
T
E
D
18.8
U Link & Angle Lake/S. 200th open in 2016
42.2
*Annual boardings in millions
Back to Table of ContentsC-2 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
System Reliability
Reliability means arrivinJ at the same time every time,
regardless of gridlock on the roads or snow on the ground.
Reliability is a critical factor in hoZ people plan their travel
and budget their time.
Transportation system reliability has continued to decline in the
Puget Sound region for several decades, both for car drivers and
for transit riders whose travel times also suffer from worsening
congestion in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. This is primarily
related to increases in the severity of traffic congestion and the
greater likelihood of congestion occurring at any time of day or on
any day of the week.
When people need to arrive somewhere by a specific time, whether
to be on time for work, to catch a plane or to make a child’s daycare
pick-up, they know that if the trip involves one of the region’s most
congested corridors at peak hours they should allow a great deal of
extra time to get there.
The road network is reaching saturation, where even small increases
in traffic result in large degradation in travel time.
Highway Reliability
Reliability on streets and highways is affected by many
factors includinJ collisions, stalled vehicles and Zeather
conditions, but the most important factor in the central
PuJet 6ound reJion is the volume of traffic and delays
caused by congestion.
Hours of delay on central Puget Sound's freeways nearly doubled
between 2010 and 2015, increasing by 95 percent. Delay increased
by 18 percent between 2014 and 2015 alone.
The following table shows Washington State Department of
Transportation’s (WSDOT) estimates of how much time a driver needs
to allow for travel between certain points in the regional system due
to the unpredictability of highway travel times in the region during
the afternoon commute.
$s detailed in 7able , WSDOT tracks reliability on the freeways
for major commutes between pairs of cities and calculates 95 percent
reliable travel times — that is, the amount of time a driver needs to
plan for to be sure of arriving on time 19 times out of 20.
WSDOT data, compiled annually in major corridors, shows reliability
on the region’s highways to be steadily declining.
BENEFITS OF ST3 INVESTMENTS IN THE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
HIGHLIGHT: If the region’s existing daily transit trips were all made by single-occupancy cars,
the line of cars would extend about 1,100 miles. With ST3 the 2040 daily ridership would be
the equivalent of a line of single-occupancy cars over 2,000 miles long.
TABLE 1: Existing Regional Highway Travel Time Reliability
Route Description Time at Posted Speeds Average (Median) Peak Travel Time Time to Ensure 95% On-Time Arrival Additional Time for On-Time Arrival % Additional Time for On-Time Arrival
(verett to 6eattle 24 min 52 min 76 min 24 min 46%
6eattle to (verett 23 min 44 min 63 min 19 min 43%
Bellevue to (verett 23 min 47 min 62 min 15 min 32%
2verlaNe to 6eattle 13 min 30 min 60 min 30 min 100%
South Lake Union to Ballard 10 min 19 min 27 min 8 min 42%
Bellevue to 2verlaNe 5 min 7 min 12 min 5 min 71%
Bellevue to ,ssaTuah 9 min 18 min 22 min 4 min 22%
Seattle to Federal Way 22 min 33 min 52 min 19 min 58%
Tacoma to Federal Way 12 min 14 min 16 min 2 min 14%
Tacoma to Lakewood 5 min 6 min 16 min 10 min 167%
NOTE Highway times shown are from WSDOT 2015 Corridor Capacity Report, except for Ballard, which is from City of Seattle data.
Back to Table of ContentsC-3 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Transit Reliability
Sound Transit’s Link light rail operates almost entirely on
e[clusive riJht of Zay Most right of way is grade separated,
with no interference from traffic. Even where there is no grade
separation, Link light rail operates in its own right of way with
specially programmed traffic signals that very seldom require trains
to stop at intersections. This allows the service to maintain a
very high level of reliability at all times of day.
By contrast, Sound Transit’s express buses rely heavily on
regional HOV lanes that are performing worse each year.
Between 2012 and 2014 alone, WSDOT reported major
deterioration of HOV lane travel times:
§I-5 Everett to Seattle: weekday morning average HOV
travel time increased 22 percent to 45 minutes. Reliable*
HOV travel time increased 17 percent to 74 minutes.
§I-5 Federal Way to Seattle: weekday morning
average HOV lane travel time increased 18
percent to 39 minutes. Reliable* HOV travel
time increased 20 percent to 55 minutes.
§I-405 Lynnwood to Bellevue: weekday morning
average HOV lane travel time increased 23
percent to 27 minutes. Reliable* HOV lane travel
time increased 30 percent to 39 minutes.
§I-405 Tukwila to Bellevue: weekday morning
average HOV lane travel time increased 38
percent to 22 minutes. Reliable* HOV lane travel
time increased 65 percent to 33 minutes.
*Defined as the time allowance required to arrive
on time 19 out of 20 times.
In 2014, about 83 percent of the region’s transit travel occurred
on buses operating in mixed traffic. With the completion of ST2
investments, 53 percent of the region’s transit travel will occur on
high-reliability rail lines. Shortly thereafter, the two Bus Rapid Transit
lines included in ST3 will come into service, providing passengers
with a higher level of reliability than existing buses due to bus
priority and managed lanes and other features. These investments
will provide access to high-capacity transit in the near term as the
region builds rail over the next 25 years.
With ST3 rail will carry 69 percent of the region’s transit passenger
miles, as shown in Table 2 below. Transit reliability is related to
the portion of the trip that occurs in exclusive right-of-way. As the
percentage of rail trips increases, transit reliability will also increase.
This table illustrates the growing percentage of transit miles that
will be traveled on reliable rail transit.
COMPARING THE CAPACITY OF RAIL SYSTEMS AND HIGHWAYS
As the region’s population continues to grow rapidly, high-capacity transit is the best and
sometimes the only way to dramatically expand the region’s transportation system to move
significantly more people in highly congested corridors and to move those people more reliably.
That is why so many regions of comparable size rely extensively on rail transit. A two-direction
light rail system occupies roughly the same amount of space as two highway lanes.
TABLE 2: Percentage shares of passenger miles in mixed traffic
vs. exclusive right-of-way
Existing 2040 without ST3 2040 with ST3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%*Includes 2% of total transit passenger miles on Sound Transit Bus Rapid Transit
17%
BUS
RAIL
83%
53%
BUS
RAIL
47%69%
BUS*
RAIL
31%
Back to Table of ContentsC-4 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
or
Highway Capacity
7he capacity of a sinJle hiJhZay lane is defined as the
hiJhest number of vehicles that can pass a sinJle point in an
hour in a lane e[periencinJ a stable ÁoZ of traffic
Transportation planners calculate that maximum freeway capacity
— up to 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane, with an average vehicle
carrying 1.1 occupants during commute hours — is achieved at
speeds of about 40-50 mph. When the speed falls to 30 mph,
capacity can be reduced to as few as 700 vehicles per lane per hour.
Other factors affecting capacity include roadway design, collisions,
disabled vehicles, spills, poor weather conditions and other events that
impede normal traffic flow.
WSDOT tracks peak-period highway performance in central Puget Sound
for 40 different city-to-city commutes. Between 2012 and 2014, travel
times worsened for 28 of these 40 commutes while only five improved.
Again, as travel speeds decrease due to congestion, the capacity of the
freeway lanes decreases — even as demand increases. According to
WSDOT annual system performance reports, particularly bad locations
for congestion already affecting capacity today before the addition of
800,000 more people include:
§On I-5 at I-90, congestion reduces capacity in both directions
by 10 to 20 percent for about 14 hours a day;
§On I-5 near Northgate, congestion reduces southbound
capacity by 10 to 30 percent for about nine hours a day;
§On I-405 at SR 169 in Renton, congestion reduces northbound
capacity by 20 to 60 percent for about six hours a day; and
§On I-5 at SR 18 in Federal Way, congestion reduces
southbound capacity by 10 to 30 percent for about
four hours a day.
Link Light Rail Capacity
The capacity of rail transit is determined by a combination
of the si]e of the vehicles, the number of vehicles on each
train and how frequently the trains run.
As with highway capacity, when speaking of rail capacity the
important measure is the number of passengers that can be carried
during the peak period, when the service is most in demand. This is
usually referred to as peak passengers per hour in the peak direction.
The passenger-moving capacity of the ST3 light rail system is quite
large, especially in comparison to a roadway of similar width with
mixed traffic. 7able shoZs the capacity of the liJht rail system
This table presents the hourly passenger capacity of the ST3 light rail
system with varying frequencies of train service, at three different
loading standards: Seated Capacity; Comfortable Capacity including
some standing passengers; and a Standard Peak Capacity that might
only occur during peak times for short segments. Planned peak-hour
headways are between three and six minutes in each direction.
HIGHLIGHT: According to WSDOT, peak-period transit ridership on the I-5 corridor in
central Puget Sound was equal to nearly five extra lanes of capacity in 2014 (when compared
to the peak efficiency of the roadway, a conservative approach to this measurement).
TABLE 3: Link Light Rail System Capacity (passengers per hour)
Peak Frequency (minutes)
4-car Trains per hour (1 direction)
Seated Capacity: 74 per car (1 direction)
Comfortable Capacity: 150 per car (1 direction)
Standard Peak Capacity: 200 per car (1 direction)
Standard Peak Capacity (2 directions)
Standard Peak Capacity (2 directions, 2 tunnels)*
3 20 5,920 12,000 16,000 32,000 64,000
4 15 4,440 9,000 12,000 24,000 48,000
6 10 2,960 6,000 8,000 16,000 32,000
*Assumes construction and operation of new downtown tunnel
Back to Table of ContentsC-5 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Transit Passenger Trips
:ith the 67 Plan, transit ridership in the reJion includinJ
all aJencies and transit services is proMected to JroZ by
percent over
Transit agencies seek to develop high-capacity transit in corridors
that already have high bus ridership because these areas are where
population is most dense, congestion highest and transit alternatives
most critical. That means that most new rail riders are people who
are shifting from buses. Riders graduate from crowded buses that are
reaching their destinations more slowly as congestion worsens each
year, even when operating in HOV lanes. Rail extensions provide
the opportunity for vehicles and operating expenses for bus services
that previously ran in those corridors to serve more people in other
corridors making the entire system more productive.
As the Sound Transit light rail system continues to grow, many
riders are projected to shift from bus to rail, where they will benefit
from the speed and reliability provided by grade separation. This
continues the trend established through Sound Move and ST2,
which were designed to serve the densest areas of the region. As
the system expands regionally to serve urban centers farther from the
central core, the numbers of new riders does not grow at as steep a
pace, though the distance traveled by the average rider increases.
With ST3, between 657,000 and 797,000 transit trips will be taken
daily in the region, approximately twice the number of transit trips
taken today. 7able compares regional transit ridership today with
ridership projections for 2040, with and without ST3 investments.
ST3 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
TABLE 4: Regional Transit Ridership and Transfer Rate (Sound Transit and other Regional Transit Partners)
Existing in 2014 2040 without ST3*2040 with ST3*
DAILY
Transit Trips 390,600 601,000: 725,000 657,000: 797,000
Transit Boardings 563,000 975,000–1,169,000 1,100,00–1,332,000
ANNUAL
Transit Trips 117 million 183–221 million 202–245 million
Transit Boardings 169 million 297–356 million 338–409 million
Percent using Sound Transit
(of passenger-miles)39%63%75%
Percent of Passenger Miles by Mode Rail: 17%Bus: 83%Rail: 53%Bus: 47%Rail: 69%Bus: 31%
TRANSFER RATE 1.67
*Includes ST2 investments
}Definitions
Transit passenger trips are counted with regard to
boardings, trips, transfers and passenger miles.
These terms are defined here.
BoardinJs A transit boarding occurs any time a passenger steps
into any transit vehicle.
7ransit trips or passenJer trips A trip is a completed journey
made by a person from an origin to a destination (such as home to work).
Because people may transfer from one route to another to complete such
a journey, a trip can consist of more than one transit boarding.
7ransfer A transfer is when a passenger changes from one transit
vehicle to another (bus-to-bus, or bus-to-train for example) to complete
a trip. Transfers explain why the average transit trip consists of more than
one boarding, and they are a good measure of the effective integration
of the individual routes that make up the overall transit system.
7ransfer rate Transfer rates are an indication of how the individual
elements of a transit system complement each other, that is how
complete the transit coverage is, and the range of trips that can be
made on the transit network. Nationwide and worldwide, higher transfer
rates are strongly and positively correlated with higher transit ridership.
PassenJer miles Passenger miles are a measure of service that a
transit line, route or system is providing to its riders. For example,
100 passengers traveling ten miles each, results in 1,000 passenger
miles of travel.
Back to Table of ContentsC-6 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Transit Ridership on Sound Transit by Service Type
7able summari]es the annual boardinJs and passenJer miles proMected for /inN liJht rail,
6ounder commuter rail, Bus Rapid 7ransit, and 67 ([press bus in Zith the 67 Plan
TABLE 5: Summary of Sound Transit Ridership by Mode (boardings)
2014 Annual Riders 2040 Annual Riders with ST3 2040 Annual Passenger Miles with ST3
MODE
Link light rail 11.9 million 152 – 188 million 1,380 – 1,735 million
Sounder commuter rail 3.4 million 8 – 11 million 190 – 255 million
ST Bus Rapid Transit n/a 7 – 9 million 51 – 58 million
ST Express bus 17.7 million 9 – 10 million 79 – 91 million
Total million ² million , ² , million
Travel Time Savings
/ooNinJ ahead to , after 67 investments are completed,
the reJion·s transit riders are proMected to save an additional
to million hours a year beyond travel time savinJs
already achieved by 6ound 0ove and 67
The following tables illustrate reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) as well as the travel time savings for the region’s transit riders,
achieved by the investments included in the ST3 plan.
This analysis is based on two scenarios in 2040: one with ST3
projects and one without ST3 projects. Accordingly, the numbers are
estimates based on best practices. In the simplest terms, every car not
driven because the driver chooses to travel by transit either reduces
congestion or leaves space for another vehicle.
HIGHLIGHT: In 2040, with the ST3 Plan, the region’s
residents and visitors will travel between 1.7 and 2.1
billion miles a year on Link light rail, Sounder commuter
rail, Bus Rapid Transit and ST Express buses.
TABLE 6: Projected regional VMT reduction due to ST3
Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction in 2040 due to ST3
Reduction in annual vehicle miles
traveled sZitched to transit 314 – 411 million
Reduction in annual trips in auto
(switched to transit)19 – 24 million
127( These two measures use the methods required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for estimating environmental and congestion relief benefits for FTA New Starts funding applications. They are described in detail in the Final Interim Policy Guidance - FTA Capital Investment Program (August 2015).
TABLE 7: Projected travel time savings for transit riders
Transit Riders Time Savings
in 2040 due to ST3
'aily +ours 6aved 51,000 – 67,000
7otal $nnual +ours 6aved 16 – 22 million
127( These annual time savings include savings for both existing transit riders
and new transit riders.
Back to Table of ContentsC-7 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
TABLE 8: Projected transit travel times and transfers between selected centers
Existing Transit Time Expected 2040 Transit Time without ST31 Expected 2040 Transit Time due to ST31 Time Savings due to ST3
8niversity of :ashinJton to (verett 73 min*60 min*53 min 7 min
Seattle to Mariner Park-and-Ride 55 min 52 min*41 min 11 min
Bellevue to Ballard 70 min*58 min*36 min*22 min
8niversity of :ashinJton to :est 6eattle 30 min*37 min*23 min 14 min
Bellevue to ,ssaTuah 25 min 28 min 18 min 10 min
Federal Way to Stadium 61 min*56 min*44 min*12 min
Tacoma to Sea-Tac Airport 44 min 50 min 33 min 17 min
1 Includes ST2 investments *Requires 1 bus-to-bus, rail-to-bus or bus-to-rail transfer (transfer times not included, assume about 5 additional minutes)NOTE Bus travel times can vary greatly. The times shown for 2040 are expected averages, after accounting for speed degradation from PSRC 2040 traffic model.
7he folloZinJ table compares e[istinJ transit travel times to future transit travel times after implementation of 67
Existing times represent the afternoon weekday commute. Scheduled times cannot be relied on from hour to hour and day to day
because of traffic congestion on the roads.
Travel Times and Transfers
Between Selected Centers
Looking at specific trips between the region’s centers is one way to
understand how ST3 will benefit riders who are taking the bus today,
as well as future riders who will be attracted to transit because of the
improved speed and reliability they will experience on ST3 services.
Traffic congestion is slowing bus speeds. Within the Sound Transit
District, bus travel times have gotten continuously slower every
year due to more congestion on highways and urban roads that are
serving more cars, pedestrians and bicyclists in constrained areas.
Without improvements in transit, existing bus travel times would be
expected to worsen in the future.
For example, the Bellevue-to-Ballard existing bus travel time is
70 minutes. The future transit travel time would be expected to be
58 minutes using the ST2 East Link investment for part of the trip, but
without the ST3 light rail expansion to Ballard. With completion of
the ST3 Link light rail extension the same trip is expected to take 36
minutes, with a rail-to-rail transfer in downtown Seattle — a savings
of 22 minutes (40 percent) over the same trip in 2040 without ST3.
Rail investments also greatly reduce rider delays from factors
such as traffic and weather that significantly reduce the reliability
of bus services.
While most of our region’s buses must travel in general purpose
traffic, ST3 makes improvements to provide separation where
possible. These include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors on I-405/
SR 518 and SR 522 and NE 145th that will connect riders to the light
rail system, as well as Early Deliverables that will improve bus travel
times on existing bus routes as Sound Transit continues to extend the
light rail system.
In certain locations, capital improvements in the ST3 program
will allow buses to bypass traffic in queue jump lanes or on
highway shoulders. These improvements will be identified with
further evaluation and input from WSDOT, transit partners and
local jurisdictions. Travel time improvements that will result from
these improvements are not reflected in Sound Transit’s modeling
assumptions, so any increased ridership resulting from the
improvements has not been incorporated in the estimates.
HIGHLIGHT: By 2040, the annual travel time savings provided by ST3 for
all transit riders will be between approximately 16 and 22 million hours.
Back to Table of ContentsC-8 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
ST3 makes improvements
to provide separation
from general traffic
where possible.
Light Rail in Exclusive Right-of-Way
Changes in length of wait times are not reflected in travel time
estimates. Typical light rail frequencies on all lines in 2040 will be
at least every 10 minutes, with service more often during peak
commute times. Shorter wait times and transfer times also reduce
total trip times for riders.
Reliability problems that bus riders experience in traffic today may
contribute to the preference for rail. Since one poor experience on a
bus commute may affect perceptions of that transportation service,
a preference for rail and BRT may contribute positively to ridership in
ways that are not reflected in forecasted estimates.
Transit Trips to Selected Centers
Table 9 presents the percentage of commute trips made
by transit riders to a selected set of regional centers.
The existing transit share data is from 2007-2014 Puget Sound
Commute Trip Reduction surveys and the 2006-2010 American
Community Surveys. Percentages include ridership on fixed-route,
fixed-schedule transit service. Excluded are paratransit, dial-a-ride,
carpools and vanpools. The largest transit shares correspond to the
places with highest travel volumes and employment density.
TABLE 9: Projected activity center mode splits
Activity Center
(Destination)
Existing Transit Share
of Commute Trips
2040 Transit Share of
Commute Trips with ST3
Percent Change from
Existing to ST3 in 2040
Everett CBD 8%12%50%
Lynnwood East 4%7%75%
Bellevue CBD 14%20%43%
Redmond CBD 3%4%33%
Seattle CBD 45%52%16%
University District 34%51%50%
Issaquah Area 4%7%75%
Des Moines area 2%4%100%
Downtown Tacoma 4%8%100%
Systemwide 14%20%43%
NOTE: Transit shares of commute trips to these Activity Centers are estimated shares of all commute trips in vehicles (excluding bicycle-only and walk-only trips).
Back to Table of ContentsC-9 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Sound Transit wants to ensure that its forecasts do not
overstate system benefits Accordingly, ridership has been
presented in ranges to account for some uncertainty about how
changes in the region over the next 25 years will affect travel
patterns. Sound Transit’s forecasts also do not consider other factors
that have been shown to increase rail and overall transit ridership but
which are not easily quantified. These include:
Rail bias The demonstrated preference of people to make urban
transit trips on trains they would not make on equally fast buses.
Researchers have documented this preference, and link it to
passengers’ perceptions of rail’s speed and reliability, as well as
a confidence factor related to the ease of understanding routes.
Passengers know trains can take them only where the tracks are
laid and that if they make a mistake and go in the wrong direction
backtracking is easy. Sound Transit’s modeling does not take rail bias
into account, assuming that buses and trains with the same service
characteristics would have the same ridership.
/and use chanJes resultinJ from transit investments
Sound Transit’s modeling also does not assume that land use will
change because of improvements in high capacity transit. However,
rail investments across the nation and world have catalyzed positive
land use transformations. These result from their ability to bring large
numbers of people into dense urban centers without taking up the
space required for freeways, streets and parking lots, and because
developers have confidence in rail’s permanence and are willing to
build projects around rail stations.
As two local examples, Weyerhaeuser stated its 2016 relocation to a
new headquarters under construction in Seattle’s Pioneer Square was
based in significant part on access to light rail and other transit, and
REI’s anticipated move of its corporate headquarters to the Spring
District in Bellevue is based in large measure on East Link service
coming to that area.
Sound Transit’s planning assumptions align closely with
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) plans. It is important to
mention that the following assumptions require political
consensus on difficult policy choices:
§Calculations assume transportation agencies will initiate
a new per-mile driving fee on all miles driven across the
region. Fees would apply to all trips. This assumption
achieves policy consistency with PSRC as one of the funding
alternatives being considered by the Transportation Futures
Task Force in preparation for the update to the Transportation
2040 plan.
§In the future bus travel times on HOV lanes are assumed
not to deteriorate. To assure no future reduction in bus
travel times, future policymakers would need to impose
steps, including new, more stringent HOV limitations to
three- or four-passenger vehicles or converting the HOV
lanes to bus-only lanes.
The 2040 transit ridership forecast (which includes ST3) includes
the effects of population and employment growth, and the
transportation and transit projects included in the PSRC’s
Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
Forecast Methods
The ST3 Plan relies on ridership forecasts prepared for the year 2040. The forecasts are
based on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s published population and employment forecasts;
and a well-documented modeling/forecasting methodology reviewed by local and national
experts and approved by the Federal Transit Administration specifically designed to avoid
over-forecasts of transit ridership.
Back to Table of ContentsC-10 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
TABLE 10: Sound Transit’s total forecasted operating revenue / operating expense ratio in 2041
2041 O&M
Cost by Mode (millions of 2014$)
Total 2041
Fare Revenue by Mode (millions of 2014$)Operating Revenue/ Operating Expense Ratio
MODE
Commuter Rail 77.03 19.34 25%
Light Rail 441.91 170.04 38%
Regional Express 101.42 19.23 19%
Bus Rapid Transit 48.99 13.50 28%
Total
The most expensive cost of driving is the cost of owning and insuring a
vehicle. A family that can own one fewer car because of better transit
service can save thousands of dollars each year on transportation.
Even a family that owns the same number of cars but drives less saves
on vehicle operating costs — gas, oil, parking, tires and maintenance.
For those commuting by transit to places with high parking costs, the
savings in parking alone are substantial. For example, a monthly
Puget Pass good for unlimited $3.25 rides (the two-zone peak hour
fare on King County Metro) costs $117. According to the PSRC, the
average cost of parking in the region’s downtowns in 2013 was
$161 a month. For a transit commuter to downtown Seattle, where
the average monthly parking cost is $215, savings in parking alone
would be approximately $1,200 a year, on top of the savings on
gas and other vehicle operating costs.
OTHER ST3 BENEFITS
Cost Savings for Transit Riders
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014 the average family spent more
of its disposable income on transportation than any other expenditure except
housing. The average household had 2.54 people, owned 1.8 cars and spent
$9,073 a year on transportation.
Operating Revenue / Operating Expense Ratio
7able shoZs the forecast ratio of operatinJ revenue to operatinJ e[pense by service in
This ratio is the operating revenue (primarily fares) divided by the costs of operating Sound Transit’s services.
Back to Table of ContentsC-11 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A
"A"A"A"A
"A "A"A "A"A"A
"A
"A
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C%C
%C %C%C %C
%C
%C%C%C
%C
%C
%C %C
%C%C%C%C
%C%C%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C %C%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
%C
5m
24m
1.5m
11m
22m
15m
33m
10m
2.5m
2.5m
9m
8m
14m
20m
1.5m
0.8m
1m
Everett
BellevueSeattle
Tacoma
Mukilteo
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Shoreline
Northgate
UW
Kirkland
Redmond
Kent
Auburn
Issaquah
RentonBurien
Federal Way
StarLake
SumnerPuyallupLakewood
Dupont
Ballard
West Seattle
SeaTac
Tukwila
TotemLake
Bothell
Lake ForestPark
Mercer Island
Overlake
Ballard toDowntownSeattle: $18 M
Kent Des Moinesto Federal WayTC: $11 M
Lynnwood toEverett:$40 M
Redmond Tech. Centerto SE Redmond toDowntown Redmond(East Link): $9 M
West Seattleto DowntownSeattle: $15 M
S Kirkland toCentral Issaquahvia Bellevue: $28 M
Tacoma Link Extensionto Tacoma CommunityCollege: $12 M
I-405BRT:$26 M
Federal WayTC to TacomaDome: $22 M
145th and
SR-522BRT: $15M
DowntownSeattleTunnel: $19 M
Light rail and BRT system
annual ridership volumes
(2040 middle of range)
Up to 5m
5 to 10m
10 to 20m
20 to 30m
30 to 50m
Legend
5 Mi.
Light Rail and BRT Annual Ridership and Operations Costs (2014$)
7his map illustrates the annual transit ridership volumes in on each of the seven liJht rail e[tensions and the
tZo BR7 lines proposed in 67 Annual system operating costs allocated to each of these ST3 extensions are also shown.
Back to Table of ContentsC-12 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
With ST3 in 2040, approximately 84 percent of district
residents and 93 percent of district employees would have
convenient access to high-reliability transit.
Cost Effectiveness
Operations and maintenance cost of the ST3 plan per rider and per
new transit rider over the cost of the ST2 plan are shown in this table.
TABLE 11: Projected cost per ST3 system rider and new rider (2014$)
2040 (high ridership)2040 (low ridership)
Cost per ST3 System Rider
ST3 transit operations $3.50 $4.34
ST3 capital $10.02 $12.42
Cost per New Transit Rider
ST3 transit operations $13.56 $17.13
ST3 capital $38.83 $49.05
Total Annual Cost and Ridership
ST3 transit operations cost (millions)$326 $326
ST3 capital cost (millions)*$932 $932
ST3 riders (millions)93 75
New transit riders (millions)24 19
*Annualized ST3 capital cost is the total capital cost, $21.5 billion (2014$), discounted at 3 percent over 40 years.
Combined Regional Rail Access
The reach of the regional transit investments made in
Sound Transit 3 will be much greater than just the
immediate vicinity of rail stations and transit centers.
The combined regional rail and BRT access map on the following
page (C-13) shows the access to the regional light rail and commuter
rail systems when all ST3 improvements are in service. It depicts the
geographic coverage of ¾-mile walk access and 2½-mile park-and-
ride access to the rail stations, and the reach of existing local bus
services (including average ¼-mile walk distance to the bus) that
would allow access to the rail system with one transfer.
Approximately 84 percent of Sound Transit District residents and
93 percent of district employees would have convenient access to
the region’s high-reliability transit system in 2040.
Back to Table of ContentsC-13 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
Everett
BellevueSeattle
Tacoma
Mukilteo
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Shoreline
Northgate
UW
Kirkland
Redmond
Kent
Auburn
Issaquah
RentonBurien
FederalWay
StarLake
SumnerPuyallupLakewood
Dupont
Ballard
WestSeattle
SeaTac
Tukwila
Totem
Lake
Bothell
LakeForest Park
Mercer Island
Overlake
%Link station/alignment
$Sounder station/alignment
"Bus Rapid Transit
Rail and BRT station access (2.5 miles*)
Bus route access (.25 miles)
Legend
5 Mi.
*0.75 miles (15 minute
walking distance) for stations
without parking.
Combined Regional Rail and BRT Access
Back to Table of ContentsC-14 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
$s defined by 6ound 7ransit·s enablinJ leJislation,
hiJhcapacity transit means service operatinJ
principally on e[clusive riJhtsofZay and providinJ a
substantially hiJher level of passenJer capacity, speed
and service freTuency than public transit operatinJ
on hiJhZays and city streets in mi[ed traffic
This role is further defined by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s
land use plans, VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040, which
together define goals to establish a region-wide transit system that
connects regional growth centers, provide seamless connections with
local transit and ferries and supports concentrated development at
and around stations.
Within this framework, the ST3 Plan will improve and expand the
regional mass transit system by connecting nearly all the major cities
in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties with light rail, Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT), express bus and commuter rail. Consistent with the
major expansion in rail services, some existing express bus routes
will be replaced with rail. Service characteristics for Sound Transit’s
modes are consistent with the mandate to operate high-capacity
transit with frequent, fast service.
ST Express Buses
ST Express operates frequent, all-day bus service on major corridors
between centers, with half-hour headways or better, from about
6 a.m. or earlier until about 10 p.m. ST Express buses operate on
freeway HOV facilities where they are available, including a series
of freeway direct access ramps built as part of Sound Move, which
improve speed and help ensure reliability.
ST Express buses serve major urban centers as well as outlying park-
and-ride lots and transit centers, and they connect to Sounder and
existing and future Link light rail stations. All buses carry bicycles;
some serve mixed-use transit centers with commercial and residential
development integrated into the center.
Sounder Commuter Rail
Sounder commuter rail currently operates between Everett and
Lakewood. In the 2008 ST2 ballot measure, voters approved four
additional Sounder round trips on the south line. The first of these
began operating in 2013. A mid-day train will start in September
2016 and two peak-service trains will begin operating in 2017.
Sound Transit 3 includes funding to extend Sounder commuter rail
service during peak hours from Lakewood to new stations at Tillicum
and DuPont, increasing access near Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
Parking will be provided at both of these stations.
The Sounder south line capital improvement program will help meet
growing demand for service by increasing system capacity and
enhancing service. This program will include additional parking and
accessibility elements and expanded platforms to accommodate
trains up to 10 cars in length, allowing Sound Transit to run longer
trains and carry more riders. In addition, track and signal upgrades
and other related infrastructure will provide additional capacity.
Sound Transit 3 also includes funding for additional parking and
accessibility elements for the Sounder north line.
Link Light Rail
Tacoma Link currently operates electrically-powered single-car
trains between the Tacoma Dome Station and downtown Tacoma,
and a funded expansion will extend service along Martin Luther
King, Jr. Boulevard.
Link light rail is a 19-mile electric light rail line with 15 stations
operating predominantly on exclusive right-of-way between Sea-
Tac Airport and the University of Washington. Angle Lake Station
will extend the line farther south in SeaTac later in 2016, and ST2
investments will build about 33 miles of light rail service in the
region. Trains run about every six minutes during peak hours and
every 10 to 15 minutes off-peak and at night.
With ST3, the light rail system will more than double again to
116 miles with over 80 stations. Currently two-car and three-
car trains serve customers based on capacity needs, but station
platforms will accommodate up to four-car trains for future service
expansion as demand grows.
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS BY MODE
System and Service Philosophy and Impacts
Sound Transit’s role is to provide the central Puget Sound with a regional network
of high-capacity transit services.
Back to Table of ContentsC-15 Appendix C: Benefits, Costs, Revenues, Capacity, Reliability and Performance Characteristics
FAST
RELIABLE
45–60 mph
BRT
FREQUENT
10–15 min.
FAST
RELIABLE
45–60 mph
BRT
FREQUENT
10–15 min.
FAST
RELIABLE
45–60 mph
BRT
FREQUENT
10–15 min.
Link Light Rail (cont'd)
$s part of 67, /inN Zill e[tend north to (verett via the 6outhZest
(verett ,ndustrial Center, south to 7acoma, and east to doZntoZn
Redmond $dditional e[tensions Zill serve Ballard and :est 6eattle,
connectinJ to doZntoZn 6eattle and south .irNland to ,ssaTuah via
Bellevue 7he technoloJy used for these e[pansions Zill be the same as
the liJht rail currently in operation from the 8niversity of :ashinJton to
6ea7ac Zith e[clusive and larJely Jradeseparated riJhts of Zay
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Bus Rapid 7ransit BR7 describes bus services that use features such as
separated lanes, level boardinJ, offboard payment, hiJher freTuency
and additional vehicle doors that combine to provide hiJher speeds,
reliability and capacity than traditional bus service 6ound 7ransit
Zill invest in BR7 in tZo corridors on , and 6R , connectinJ
from /ynnZood to Burien and on 6R and 1ortheast th
6treet betZeen Bothell and 6horeline Zith service to :oodinville ,
connectinJ Zith /inN liJht rail at 1ortheast th 6treet
6ound 7ransit BR7 investments Zill serve customers appro[imately
every minutes in the peaN period and every minutes off peaN
2n , and 6R , BR7 Zill operate on limitedaccess hiJhZays
primarily in lanes that are manaJed via tolls andor limited to hiJh
occupancy vehicles 2n 6R and 1( th 6treet, business
access and transit B$7 lanes and features such as Tueue Mumps
Zill similarly alloZ buses to maintain a level of speed and reliability
that represents a substantial improvement over buses in Jeneral
purpose traffic
Chair
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Vice Chairs
Paul Roberts
Everett Councilmember
Marilyn Strickland
Tacoma Mayor
2016 Sound Transit Board
Peter Rogoff
Chief Executive Officer
Sound Transit
Boardmembers
Nancy Backus
Auburn Mayor
Claudia Balducci
King County Councilmember
Fred Butler
Issaquah Mayor
Dave Earling
Edmonds Mayor
Dave Enslow
Sumner Mayor
Rob Johnson
Seattle Councilmember
John Marchione
Redmond Mayor
Pat McCarthy
Pierce County Executive
Joe McDermott
King County Council Chair
Roger Millar
WSDOT Secretary
Mary Moss
Lakewood Councilmember
Ed Murray
Seattle Mayor
Dave Somers
Snohomish County Executive
Dave Upthegrove
King County Councilmember
Peter von Reichbauer
King County Councilmember
For information in alternative formats call 1-800-201-4900 /
TTY Relay: 711 or email accessibility@soundtransit.org.
For information about Sound Transit projects or services
visit us online at soundtransit.org or call 1-800-201-4900 /
TTY Relay: 711. To receive email updates for Sound Transit’s
bus or rail service, projects, or other information, subscribe
online at soundtransit.org.
SOUNDTRANSIT 3 .ORG
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit D2
2021 Project Evaluation using Board-adopted criteria
1 PROJECT EVALUATION
1.1 Adopted criteria
This section describes the performance of each system expansion project subject to realignment
against the evaluation criteria adopted by the Board in Motion M2020-36. The table below defines
the methods and indicators for each criterion, and the tables that follow present measures for each
project. An appendix provides supplemental information for a subset of the criteria.
Criterion Methodology Performance Indicator
Ridership Potential
How many daily riders is the
project projected to serve?
The measure uses outputs from
ridership forecasts based on the
Sound Transit ridership model to
assess the number of projected
daily riders.
More than 45,000 daily
riders
Between 5,000 and
45,000 daily riders
Less than 5,000 daily
riders
Socio-Economic Equity
How well does the project
expand mobility for
transitdependent, low-income,
and/or diverse populations?
The measure identifies how well
each project serves key
populations based on a
demographic analysis within a one-
mile radius of station areas. Key
populations include: 1) Black and
Indigenous populations; 2) non-
Black, non-Indigenous populations
of color; 3) limited English
proficiency populations; 4) low
income populations; 5) very low
income seniors; 6) populations with
a disability.
High
Medium-high
Medium-low
Low
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 2 of 23
Exhibit D2
Criterion Methodology Performance Indicator
Connecting Centers
Does the project connect
designated regional centers?
The measure identifies the number
of Puget Sound Regional
Councildesignated regional growth
and manufacturing/industrial
centers served by the project.
More than One
One
None
Project Tenure
How long have voters been
waiting for the project?
The measure identifies which
voter-approved capital program the
project was originally a part of.
Sound Move
ST2
ST3
Outside Funding
Are other funding sources
available or secured?
The measure identifies if Sound
Transit plans to pursue outside
funding for the project and if the
project is expected to be
competitive for a significant portion
of outside funding.
Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
No, and not planned to
pursue
Completing the HCT Spine
Does the project advance
development of the regional
HCT spine?
The measure identifies whether the
project contributes to the
completion of the regional HCT
spine.
Yes
No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine
Is the project a “logical next
step” beyond the spine and
within financial capacity?
The measure identifies whether the
project advances logically beyond
the spine. Because all projects
were included in a voterapproved
system plan, all projects that don’t
complete the spine are assumed to
advance logically beyond the
spine.
Yes
N/A
Phasing Compatibility
Can the project be constructed
and opened for service in
increments?
The measure identifies whether a
project can be constructed and
opened for service in increments.
Yes
No
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 3 of 23
Exhibit D2
1.2 North Corridor Projects subject to realignment
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 4 of 23
Exhibit D2
Evaluation Criteria Everett Link
Extension
NE 145th Street and
SR 522 BRT
Edmonds &
Mukilteo Sounder
Stations Parking &
Access
Improvements
NE 130th Street
Infill Station
Ridership Potential 37,000-45,000 daily
riders
8,300-9,900 daily
riders <500 daily riders 3,300-3,700 daily
riders
Socio-Economic Equity Medium-high Medium-low Low Medium-low
Connecting Centers 3 0 0 0
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3
Outside Funding Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine Yes No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine N/A Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes Yes No Yes
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 5 of 23
Exhibit D2
1.3 Central Corridor Projects subject to realignment
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 6 of 23
Exhibit D2
Evaluation Criteria West Seattle Link
Extension
Downtown Seattle
Light Rail Tunnel
Ballard Link
Extension
Ridership Potential 25,000-27,000 daily
riders
113,000-150,000
daily riders
65,000-81,000 daily
riders
Socio-Economic
Equity Medium-low Medium-low Low
Connecting Centers 1 2 3
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 ST3
Outside Funding Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes No Yes
Evaluation Criteria
RapidRide C&D
Capital
Improvements
Graham Street Infill
Station
Boeing Access
Road Infill Station
Ridership Potential N/A 1,500-2,500 daily
riders
1,500-2,000 daily
riders
Socio-Economic Equity Medium-low High High
Connecting Centers 4 0 1
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 Sound Move
Outside Funding No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes No No
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 7 of 23
Exhibit D2
1.4 East Corridor Projects subject to realignment
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 8 of 23
Exhibit D2
Evaluation Criteria South Kirkland –
Issaquah Extension
North Sammamish
Park and Ride I-405 BRT: North I-405 BRT: South
Ridership Potential 12,000-15,000 daily
riders <500 daily riders 10,800-15,000 daily
riders
8,600-11,400 daily
riders
Socio-Economic Equity Low Low Low Medium-high
Connecting Centers 2 0 4 3
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3
Outside Funding Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes No Yes Yes
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 9 of 23
Exhibit D2
1.5 South Corridor Projects subject to realignment
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 10 of 23
Exhibit D2
Evaluation Criteria
Kent Station
Parking & Access
Improvements
Auburn Station
Parking & Access
Improvements
Sumner Station
Parking & Access
Improvements
Ridership Potential <1,000 daily riders <1,000 daily riders <1,000 daily riders
Socio-Economic
Equity High Medium-high Low
Connecting Centers 1 1 0
Project Tenure ST2 ST2 ST2
Outside Funding No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
No, not planning to
pursue
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility No No No
Evaluation Criteria
Tacoma Dome
Station Parking &
Access
Improvements
South Tacoma
Station Parking &
Access
Improvements
Lakewood Station
Parking & Access
Improvements
Ridership Potential <1,000 daily riders <1,000 daily riders <1,000 daily riders
Socio-Economic
Equity High Medium-high High
Connecting Centers 1 0 1
Project Tenure ST2 ST2 ST2
Outside Funding No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes Yes Yes
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 11 of 23
Exhibit D2
Evaluation Criteria
Sounder South
Platform
Extensions
Sounder South
Expanded Service
Sounder South
Access
Improvement
Program
DuPont Sounder
South Extension
Ridership Potential 22,900 - 31,100 daily riders 1,000-1,500 daily
riders
Socio-Economic
Equity High High N/A Medium-low
Connecting Centers 6 6 N/A 1
Project Tenure ST3 ST3
Outside Funding Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
No, and not planned
to pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Completing the HCT
Spine No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes Yes
Phasing
Compatibility Yes Yes
Evaluation Criteria Tacoma Dome Link
Extension
Tacoma Link
Extension to
Tacoma
Community College
SR-162 Bus Speed
& Reliability Capital
Improvements
Ridership Potential 24,300-36,000 daily
riders
13,000-18,000 daily
riders <1,000 daily riders
Socio-Economic Equity Medium-high Medium-high Low
Connecting Centers 3 1 0
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 ST3
Outside Funding Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
Yes, competitive for
>25% of project cost
No, not planning to
pursue
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 12 of 23
Exhibit D2
Completing the HCT
Spine Yes No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine N/A Yes Yes
Phasing Compatibility Yes Yes No
1.6 System-wide projects subject to realignment
Evaluation Criteria Bus on Shoulder
Program
System Access
Program
Innovation &
Technology
Program
Ridership Potential N/A N/A N/A
Socio-Economic
Equity N/A N/A N/A
Connecting Centers N/A N/A N/A
Project Tenure ST3 ST2 ST3
Outside Funding No, not planning to
pursue
Yes, competitive for
<25% of project cost
No, not planning to
pursue
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine Yes N/A N/A
Phasing Compatibility Yes Yes Yes
Evaluation Criteria ST4 System
Planning
High Capacity
Transit Planning
Studies
High Capacity
Transit
Environmental
Study
Ridership Potential N/A N/A N/A
Socio-Economic
Equity N/A N/A N/A
Connecting Centers N/A N/A N/A
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 13 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project Tenure ST3 ST3 ST3
Outside Funding No, not planning to
pursue
No, not planning to
pursue
No, not planning to
pursue
Completing the HCT
Spine No No No
Advancing Logically
Beyond the Spine N/A N/A N/A
Phasing Compatibility No No No
Appendix A: Supplemental project evaluation
The following tables provide additional information regarding the evaluation of the following criteria:
Ridership Potential, Connecting Centers, Outside Funding, and Phasing Compatibility.
Ridership Potential
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
Central Corridor
West Seattle Link Extension 25,000-27,000
daily riders Source: WSBLE Phase 2 Analysis
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel 113,000-150,000
daily riders
Source: WSBLE Phase 2 Analysis
Ballard Link Extension 65,000-81,000
daily riders
RapidRide C&D Capital
Improvements N/A Not modeled; daily ridership based
on assumed improvements
Graham Street Infill Station 1,500-2,500 daily
riders Source: ST3 System Plan
Boeing Access Road Infill Station 1,500-2,000 daily
riders Source: ST3 System Plan
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 14 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
North Corridor
NE 145th Street / SR 522 Bus Rapid
Transit
8,300-9,900 daily
riders
Source: NE 145th Street / SR 522
BRT Phase 1 analysis
Edmonds & Mukilteo Stations
Parking & Access Improvements <500 daily riders Not modeled; daily ridership based
on assumed improvements
NE 130th Street Infill Station 3,300-3,700 daily
riders Source: Project-specific analysis
Everett Link Extension 37,000-45,000
daily riders Source: ST3 System Plan
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
East Corridor
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: North 10,800-15,000
daily riders Source: I-405 BRT Phase 2
Analysis
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: South 8,600-11,400
daily riders
South Kirkland – Issaquah
Extension
12,000-15,000
daily riders Source: ST3 System Plan
North Sammamish Park & Ride <500 daily riders Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
South Corridor
Kent Station Parking & Access
Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Auburn Station Parking & Access
Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Sumner Station Parking & Access
Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 15 of 23
Exhibit D2
Tacoma Dome Station Parking &
Access Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
South Tacoma Station Parking &
Access Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Lakewood Station Parking &
Access Improvements
<1,000
daily riders
Not modeled; daily ridership
based on assumed improvements
Sounder South Platform Extensions
22,900-31,100
daily riders
Source: Sounder South SDIP
(number shown is new daily
riders) Sounder South Expanded Service
Sounder South Access
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
South Corridor
Improvement Program
DuPont Sounder South Extension 1,000-1,500
daily riders Source: ST3 System Plan
Tacoma Dome Link Extension 24,300-36,000
daily riders Source: TDLE Phase 2
Tacoma Link Extension to Tacoma
Community College
13,000-18,000
daily riders Source: ST3 System Plan
SR 162 Bus Speed & Reliability
Capital Improvements
<1,000 daily
riders Source: ST3 System Plan
Project or Program Ridership
Potential Additional Information
System-wide – Programs/Plans
Bus on Shoulder Program N/A
System Access Program N/A
Innovation & Technology Program N/A
ST4 System Planning N/A
HCT – Planning Studies N/A
HCT – Environmental Study N/A
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 16 of 23
Exhibit D2
Connecting Centers
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
Central Corridor
West Seattle Link Extension 1 Connects Duwamish MIC
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel 2
Connects Seattle Downtown RGC
and Seattle South Lake Union
RGC
Ballard Link Extension 3
Connects Seattle South Lake
Union RGC, Seattle Uptown RGC,
and Ballard-Interbay MIC
RapidRide C&D Capital
Improvements 4
Connects Seattle Downtown RGC,
Seattle South Lake Union RGC,
Seattle Uptown RGC, and
BallardInterbay MIC
Graham Street Infill Station 0
Boeing Access Road Infill Station 1 Connects North Tukwila MIC
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
North Corridor
NE 145th Street / SR 522 Bus
Rapid Transit 0
Edmonds & Mukilteo Stations
Parking & Access Improvements 0
NE 130th Street Infill Station 0
Everett Link Extension 3
Connects Lynnwood RGC, Paine
Field/Boeing Everett MIC, and
Everett RGC
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 17 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
East Corridor
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: North 4
Connects Lynnwood RGC, Bothell
Canyon Park RGC, Kirkland
Totem Lake RGC, Bellevue
Downtown RGC
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: South 3 Bellevue Downtown RGC, Renton
RGC, and Burien RGC
South Kirkland – Issaquah
Extension 2 Connects Issaquah RGC and
Bellevue Downtown RGC
North Sammamish Park & Ride 0
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
South Corridor
Kent Station Parking & Access
Improvements 1 Connects Kent RGC
Auburn Station Parking & Access
Improvements 1 Connects Auburn RGC
Sumner Station Parking & Access
Improvements 0
Tacoma Dome Station Parking &
Access Improvements 1 Connects Tacoma Downtown
RGC
South Tacoma Station Parking &
Access Improvements 0
Lakewood Station Parking &
Access Improvements 1 Connects Lakewood RGC
Sounder South Platform Extensions
6
Connects Lakewood RGC,
Tacoma Downtown RGC,
Puyallup Downtown RGC, Auburn
RGC, Kent RGC, and Seattle
Downtown RGC
Sounder South Expanded Service
Sounder South Access
Improvement Program
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 18 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
South Corridor
DuPont Sounder South Extension 1 Connects Lakewood RGC
Tacoma Dome Link Extension 3
Connects Federal Way RGC, Port
of Tacoma MIC, and Tacoma
Downtown RGC
Tacoma Link Extension to Tacoma
Community College 1 Connects University Place RGC
SR 162 Bus Speed & Reliability
Capital Improvements 0
Project or Program Connecting
Centers Additional Information
System-wide – Programs/Plans
Bus on Shoulder Program N/A
System Access Program N/A
Innovation & Technology Program N/A
ST4 System Planning N/A
HCT –
Planning Studies N/A
HCT – Environmental Study N/A
Outside Funding
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
Central Corridor
West Seattle Link Extension Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost FFGA and TIFIA planned
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
FFGA (Core Capacity)
and TIFIA planned
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 19 of 23
Exhibit D2
Ballard Link Extension Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost FFGA and TIFIA planned
RapidRide C&D Capital
Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
Graham Street Infill Station Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost Potential for local match
Boeing Access Road Infill Station Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
Potential for infill stations
to be combined into Core
Capacity FFGA
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
North Corridor
NE 145th Street / SR 522 Bus
Rapid Transit
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
BRT buses funded with
$11.1M of FTA 5307
funding with additional on
contingency list
Edmonds & Mukilteo Stations
Parking & Access Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
NE 130th Street Infill Station Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
On contingency list for
$7.3M in FTA 5307
funding
Everett Link Extension Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost FFGA and TIFIA planned
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
East Corridor
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: North
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
$26.7M secured of
CMAQ and FTA 5307
funds for BRT buses and
construction of S Renton
Transit Center
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: South
South Kirkland – Issaquah
Extension
Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
Potential FFGA and
TIFIA
North Sammamish Park & Ride No, and not planned to
pursue
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 20 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
South Corridor
Kent Station Parking & Access
Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
Auburn Station Parking & Access
Improvements
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
$3M in FHWA CMAQ
funding
Sumner Station Parking & Access
Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
Tacoma Dome Station Parking &
Access Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
South Tacoma Station Parking &
Access Improvements
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost $5M on contingency list
in FTA 5307 funding Lakewood Station Parking & Access
Improvements
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
Sounder South Platform Extensions Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
$14.5M secured of
CMAQ and FTA 5307 for
platforms and vehicles for
longer trains; FFGA
(Core Capacity) planned
& RRIF loan
Sounder South Expanded Service No, and not planned to
pursue
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
South Corridor
Sounder South Access
Improvement Program
Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
Sounder South Extension to DuPont Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
Potential for FFGA and
RRIF loan
Tacoma Dome Link Extension Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost FFGA and TIFIA planned
Tacoma Link Extension to Tacoma
Community College
Yes, and competitive for
>25% of project cost
Potential for FFGA and
TIFIA
SR 162 Bus Speed & Reliability
Capital Improvements
No, and not planned to
pursue
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 21 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Outside Funding Additional Information
System-wide – Programs/Plans
Bus on Shoulder Program No, and not planned to
pursue
System Access Program Yes, and competitive for
<25% of project cost
Anticipates leverage of
local funding
Innovation & Technology Program No, and not planned to
pursue
ST4 System Planning No, and not planned to
pursue
HCT – Planning Studies No, and not planned to
pursue
HCT – Environmental Study No, and not planned to
pursue
Phasing Compatibility
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
Central Corridor
West Seattle Link Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel No Project cannot be built in
segments
Ballard Link Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
RapidRide C&D Capital
Improvements Yes Can be scaled based on available
funding
Graham Street Infill Station No Infill stations along active
alignment cannot be phased Boeing Access Road Infill Station No
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 22 of 23
Exhibit D2
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
North Corridor
NE 145th Street / SR 522 Bus
Rapid Transit Yes Service levels could begin before
all capital components complete
Edmonds & Mukilteo Stations
Parking & Access Improvements No Small overall project size does not
allow for phasing
NE 130th Street Infill Station Yes Board currently in process of
“advancing progressively”
Everett Link Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
East Corridor
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: North Yes Service levels could begin before
all capital components complete
I-405 Bus Rapid Transit: South Yes Service levels could begin before
all capital components complete
South Kirkland – Issaquah
Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
North Sammamish Park & Ride No Small overall project size does not
allow for phasing
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
South Corridor
Kent Station Parking & Access
Improvements No
Size of investments could be
scaled to budget but garage
unlikely to be delivered in pieces
Auburn Station Parking & Access
Improvements No
Sumner Station Parking & Access
Improvements No
Tacoma Dome Station Parking &
Access Improvements Yes
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 23 of 23
Exhibit D2
South Tacoma Station Parking &
Access Improvements Yes
Early enough in project
development to allow for phased
implementation
Lakewood Station Parking & Access
Improvements Yes
Sounder South Platform Extensions
Yes Potential investments can be
implemented over time
Sounder South Expanded Service
Sounder South Access
Improvement Program
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
South Corridor
DuPont Sounder South Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
Tacoma Dome Link Extension Yes Potential to build in segments
Tacoma Link Extension to Tacoma
Community College Yes Potential to build in segments
SR 162 Bus Speed & Reliability
Capital Improvements No Small overall project size does not
allow for phasing
Project or Program Phasing
Compatibility Additional Information
System-wide – Programs/Plans
Bus on Shoulder Program Yes Potential to implement over time
System Access Program Yes Potential to implement over time
Innovation & Technology Program Yes Potential to implement over time
ST4 System Planning No
HCT – Planning Studies No
HCT – Environmental Study No
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit E
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit E
Financial Policies
Exhibit E1: ST3 Plan Appendix B: Financial Policies
Exhibit E2: Grant Benefit Allocation Policy
June 2016
Financial Policies
APPENDIX B
The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound
Adopted by Sound Transit Board, 06/23/2016
Sound Transit plans, builds and operates
regional transit systems and services to
improve mobility for central Puget Sound.
SOUNDTRANSIT3.ORG
More information at:
B-1 Appendix B: Financial Policies
Purpose
The Sound Transit Board (the Board) adopted an initial framework for
the financing of Sound Move and Sound Transit 2 (ST2), by setting
local tax rates, focusing on minimizing the cost of capital, requiring
conservative projections for federal and state funding, defining equity
and adopting the subarea equity principle to guide how projects
are funded in the five subareas. These Financial Policies reflect the
Board’s policy intent for implementing the financial framework
for completing Sound Move, ST2, Sound Transit 3 (ST3), and
subsequent system plans, and for providing the tools to the Board
to appropriately manage toward and respond to future conditions.
Legal Responsibilities
In adopting these Financial Policies, the Board recognizes certain
legal responsibilities. Existing state law grants all legislative and
policy authority to the Board and does not allow the Board to
abrogate, transfer or delegate such authority to other agencies or
to the five subareas within the Sound Transit District. Consequently,
all funds collected by or provided to Sound Transit, including local
tax revenues, federal and other government grants, bond and
loan proceeds, fare box revenues, interest earnings, and private
development revenues, may be disbursed only with approval of the
Board. Priorities for disbursements will be determined within Sound
Transit’s annual budgetary process, which by law requires two-thirds
affirmative vote of the Board.
Similarly, the Board recognizes that bonds issued and loans
incurred by Sound Transit will be secured by a pledge of repayment
through revenues including local taxes. When bonds are issued or
loans secured, Sound Transit will enter a binding contract with its
bondholders and lenders that requires first lien claim against pledged
revenues for repayment and for maintenance and operation of the
transit facilities and services funded by the bonds. Stated differently,
bondholders and lenders will have a legal priority to Sound Transit’s
local tax revenues to repay the bonds and operate and maintain
the transit system, notwithstanding any commitment or policy
that no subarea will pay another subarea’s debt. These Financial
Policies reflect Sound Transit’s commitment to subarea equity while
maintaining the flexibility necessary to manage the financing of the
System Plan on a consolidated basis and within legal constraints.
Equity
}Definition of equity
Equity will be defined as utilizing local tax revenues for projects
and services that provide transportation benefits to the residents
and businesses in each of the subareas generally in proportion to
the level of revenues each subarea generates. Subareas may fund
projects or services located outside of the geographic subarea when
the project substantially benefits the residents and businesses of
the funding subarea. The Financial Plan for Sound Transit activities
addresses this equity principle by providing a financial plan for each
of the five Sound Transit subareas, comprised of the subarea’s share
of local taxes, debt capacity, farebox proceeds and an assumption for
federal funding. The five subareas are defined as Snohomish County,
North King County/Seattle, East King County, South King County and
Pierce County. While the Financing Plan will be managed by the
Board on a consolidated basis, the Board will report annually
on individual subarea performance.
The Board agrees, therefore, that the facilities, projects and services
identified in all voter-approved system plans represent a reasonable
definition of equity.
Implementation Policy
}Subarea reporting
1 | The Financial Plan will provide projections for each of the five
subareas, comprised of the subarea’s projected share of local
taxes, use of debt, farebox proceeds, other revenue and an
assumption for federal funding and related expenditures.
2 | Local taxes will be allocated for subarea reporting based on
actual tax receipts collected by subarea and within the Sound
Transit District. The annual Financial Plan will incorporate
updated forecasts based on these actual receipts. A portion of
local taxes from each subarea will be allocated to fund system-
wide costs as identified by the Board.
3 | For subarea reporting purposes, government funding that is
received for a specific project or service will be allocated to
subarea(s) on a basis consistent with the allocation of costs for
the project or service, unless the Board takes action to allocate
the funds to other subareas as it deems in the best interest
of Sound Transit after consideration of the funding needs to
complete, enhance or extend the system plan.
SOUND TRANSIT FINANCIAL POLICIES
The Sound Transit Board may amend these Financial Policies from time to time;
the most current version of the Financial Policies is available at soundtransit.org
B-2 Appendix B: Financial Policies
For subarea reporting purposes, government funding that
is agency-wide or general in scope will be allocated by the
Board as it deems in the best interest of Sound Transit after
consideration of the funding needs to complete, enhance or
extend the system plan.
4 | Miscellaneous revenues, such as those generated through
private-public partnerships, advertising and terminal concessions
will be allocated for subarea reporting based on subarea
investment in the facility and/or service from which the
revenue is generated.
5 | Debt will be allocated for subarea reporting based on a
subarea’s share of total long-term bonding requirements or as
otherwise directed by the Board as deemed in the best interest
of Sound Transit.
6 | Subarea expenditures will be allocated for subarea reporting
based on facilities and services to be provided, their projected
costs and project contingencies, associated operating costs, debt
service, reserves for debt service, operations and maintenance
and capital replacement. The allocation of expenditures for
reporting purposes for facilities and services that cross subarea
boundaries will be made by the Board to ensure safe and
efficient maintenance and operation of the system-wide
facilities and services after due consideration to subarea
benefits and priorities.
}Monitoring function
1 | Sound Transit will establish a system that on an annual basis
reports subarea revenues and expenditures. This monitoring
and reporting function will be incorporated into Sound Transit’s
financial cycle. The Board may at its discretion conduct an
independent assessment of the consistency of subarea reporting
with Board policy guidance.
2 | Sound Transit will appoint an advisory Citizen Oversight Panel
to monitor Sound Transit performance under these policies
(see Public Accountability below).
}Adjustments to subarea projects & services
1 | Subarea capital projects and transit services will be evaluated
and adjusted annually as a part of the Board’s consideration
and adoption of an annual budget, which requires a two-thirds
affirmative vote of the Board. Adjustments to subarea capital
projects and services can include additional priority projects and/
or services within that subarea should funding be available.
This adjustment process recognizes that some fluctuation in
revenues and expenditures against forecasts will occur.
2 | For those cases in which a subarea’s actual and projected
expenditures exceed its actual and projected revenues and
funding sources by five percent or greater, and/or where
unforeseen circumstances occur that would result in an inability
to substantially complete projects within such subarea’s plan,
the Board must take one or more of the following actions:
§Correct the shortfall through use of such subarea’s
uncommitted funds and/or bond capacity available to
the subarea; and/or
§Scale back the subarea plan or projects within the
plan to match a revised budget; and/or
§Extend the time period of completion of the
subarea plan; and/or
§Seek legislative authorization and voter approval
for additional resources.
3 | For those cases in which a subarea’s actual and projected
revenue to be collected until the system plan is completed will
exceed its actual and projected expenditures by five percent
or greater, and/or where unforeseen circumstances occur that
would result in the subarea’s ability to fund additional projects
and services not identified in the system plan, then Sound
Transit may use such surplus funds to complete, extend or
enhance the system plan to provide transportation benefits
for the subarea’s residents or businesses as determined by the
Board. Contributions from other parties, including the state,
local governments and private sector can be programmed by
the Board to complete, extend or enhance the System Plan,
consistent with agreements with the other party.
System-wide Expenditures
The Board will fund such system-wide expenditures as necessary to
maintain and plan for an integrated regional transit system consistent
with voter-approved system plans. Such system-wide expenditures
will include fare administration, technology and innovation programs,
system access, transit-oriented development, future phase planning
and agency administration, system-wide transit assets and other
such expenditures as determined by the Board to be appropriate.
Properties authorized for purchase by the Board to preserve required
right-of-way will be funded as a system-wide cost until such time as
the right-of-way is utilized by a subarea(s), at which time the cost
B-3 Appendix B: Financial Policies
will be allocated to the subarea(s) consistent with Board approved
allocation. System-wide expenditures, not funded by dedicated
system-wide agency interest earnings, revenues or other specific
funding sources, will be funded by subareas proportional to the
subarea’s share of total local tax revenues, population, benefits
received, or on another basis as deemed appropriate by the Board.
Debt Management
}Legal definition of Sound Transit
debt financing capacity
Sound Transit’s enabling legislation defines Sound Transit’s capacity
for issuing general obligation debt at one and one-half percent of
the value of the taxable property within the boundaries of the Sound
Transit District (and with approval of three-fifths of voters voting
within the Sound Transit District, up to five percent of the value of
the taxable property within the district’s boundaries). There is no
dollar limit for revenue indebtedness.
}Debt service coverage requirements
The Board recognizes that its bondholders and lenders will hold first
claim against revenues pledged as repayment for outstanding bonds
and loans based on the flow of funds. However, Sound Transit’s debt
financing capacity will be calculated on a more conservative basis, by
evaluating all revenues and deducting total operating expenses for
net revenues available for debt service.
For long-term planning purposes, Sound Transit agency debt service
coverage ratio policy will be set at an average coverage ratio of
2.0x for net revenues over annual debt service costs, not to fall
below 1.5x in any single year. However, as voter-approved plans are
implemented, prudent changes to coverage ratios may be made by
the Board as appropriate. Before issuing bonds, Sound Transit will
establish the appropriate debt service coverage ratio to incorporate
into the bond covenants for the specific bond issuance.
}Uses of debt financing
1 | The ST3 Plan will be financed through a variety of mechanisms,
including without limitation: direct expenditure of tax revenues;
operating revenues and other receipts; state, federal and local
government grants; private donations; tax backed and non-tax
backed debt issuance by Sound Transit or associated or subsidiary
entities; by cooperating public or private entities; leases; public
private partnerships or other contractual arrangement.
2 | Debt financing for capital projects covers two distinct types
of borrowing, the first related to long-term debt financing,
and the second related to short-term debt financing.
3 | Short-term debt financing (with terms of 10 years or less)
is expected to be used primarily to bridge the gap between
the necessary timing of expenditures and the anticipated
receipt of revenues.
4 | The use of long-term financing (with terms of more than
10 years) is expected to be limited to capital and related costs
for portions of the program that have a useful life in excess of
the term of the debt. Long-term financing should be preserved
for those aspects of the program for which other sources of
funds are not likely to be available.
}Allocation of Sound Transit debt
1 | For reporting purposes, the amount of long-term debt financing
used to benefit each of the subareas will be based on each
subarea’s ability to repay debt after covering operating costs.
For internal reporting purposes, the Board may determine
appropriate internal debt service limits by subarea.
2 | While the above policy prescribes the use of debt financing
for subarea reporting, the Board will manage the agency’s
debt capacity on a consolidated basis to maximize resources
between subareas.
Priorities For Expenditures
The Board will adopt expense budgets for transit operations
and agency administration and maintain a multi-year capital
improvement plan. A two-thirds affirmative vote of the Board is
required for budget adoption. Sound Transit will establish
guidelines for its budgeting process and criteria to establish
priorities for expenditures.
Financial Management & Procurement
Sound Transit will maintain polices for debt and investment
management, asset management, fares and operating expenses and
grants management to effectively manage voter-approved revenues
and efficiently operate the regional public transit system.
Sound Transit will evaluate alternative procurement methods for
capital projects. Such methods will be implemented when they are
calculated to result in schedule or cost savings, favorable risk transfer,
or more effective project management and are consistent with best
practices in procurement and strong control systems.
B-4
B-4
Asset Management
Sound Transit will invest in, maintain, and manage its physical assets
and infrastructure to ensure safe, cost effective and sustainable
ongoing provision of regional high-capacity transit services to the
citizens of the Puget Sound region. The agency will operate and
maintain its assets in a state of good repair that meets or exceeds all
federal and other regulatory requirements. The Board will maintain
capital replacement and maintenance reserves and annual budgetary
amounts sufficient to fully fund the system in a state of good repair.
Sufficient funds will be set aside within the agency’s long-term
financial plan to meet these obligations, and their funding will have
precedence over other agency expenditures.
Public Accountability
To ensure that the voter-approved program development and
implementation occurs within the framework and intent of these
policies, Sound Transit will:
1 | Conduct an annual independent audit of its financial statements
in compliance with state and federal requirements;
2 | Implement a performance audit program; and
3 | Appoint and maintain an advisory Citizen Oversight Panel
to conduct annual reviews of Sound Transit’s performance
and financial plan, and submit a report and
recommendations to the Board.
Future Phases
}Voter approval requirement
The Board recognizes that the voter-approved taxes are intended to
be used to implement the System Plan and to provide permanent
funding for future operations, maintenance, capital replacement and
debt service (“permanent operations”) for voter-approved programs
and services. The Board has the authority to fund these future costs
through a continuation of the local taxes authorized by the voters.
However, as a part of its commitment to public accountability, the
Board pledges that the local taxes will be rolled back to the level
required for permanent operations and debt service after the voter-
approved ST3, Sound Transit 2 and Sound Move plans are completed
and implemented. The rollback procedure is contained in the Tax
Rate Rollback section. The Board further pledges that, after the voter-
approved ST3, Sound Transit 2, and Sound Move plans are completed
and implemented, any additional capital programs that would
continue local taxes at tax rates higher than necessary for permanent
operations will require approval by a vote of those citizens within the
Sound Transit district.
}Tax rate rollback
When the voter-approved capital projects in ST3, ST2 and Sound
Move are completed and implemented, the Board will initiate two
steps to roll back the rate of one or more of the taxes collected by
Sound Transit.
1 | First, Sound Transit will initiate an accelerated pay-off schedule
for any outstanding bonds whose retirement will not otherwise
impair the ability to collect tax revenue and complete ST3, ST2
or Sound Move, or impair contractual obligations and bond
covenants. Sound Transit will implement a tax rollback to a level
necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on
outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare
administration, capital replacement and ongoing system-wide
costs and reserves.
2 | After all debt is retired, Sound Transit will implement a tax
rollback to a level necessary to pay for permanent operations,
including, system operations and maintenance, fare
administration, capital replacement and ongoing system-
wide costs and reserves.
}Financial policies review
These Financial Policies may be amended from time to time as the
Board deems necessary to implement and complete the System Plan.
These policies, as they may be amended, will apply to future capital
programs. The Financial Policies will be reviewed before submittal of
a future capital program to the Sound Transit district voters.
}Financial policy content
The policies in this document together with Appendix A
(Sources and Uses of Funds) to the ST3 Regional Transit System Plan
constitute the financial plan for the ST3 Regional Transit System Plan,
Sound Move and ST2.* The documents are available online at
soundtransit.org, at Sound Transit’s offices at 401 S. Jackson St.,
Seattle, Washington 98104 or by mail on request.
As adopted May 31, 1996 (Resolution No. 72)
As amended April 13, 2006 (Resolution No. 72-1)
As amended May 24, 2007 (Resolution No. R2007-05)
As amended July 24, 2008 (Resolution No. R2008-10)
As amended June 23, 2016 (Resolution No. R2016-16)†
†Resolution No. R2016-16 provides that these amended Financial Policies take effect upon the earlier of either the approval of local funding by the voters at an election, or upon Board adoption of these amended Financial Policies by separate resolution.
*
Chair
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Vice Chairs
Paul Roberts
Everett Councilmember
Marilyn Strickland
Tacoma Mayor
2016 Sound Transit Board
Peter Rogoff
Chief Executive Officer
Sound Transit
Boardmembers
Nancy Backus
Auburn Mayor
Claudia Balducci
King County Councilmember
Fred Butler
Issaquah Mayor
Dave Earling
Edmonds Mayor
Dave Enslow
Sumner Mayor
Rob Johnson
Seattle Councilmember
John Marchione
Redmond Mayor
Pat McCarthy
Pierce County Executive
Joe McDermott
King County Council Chair
Roger Millar
WSDOT Secretary
Mary Moss
Lakewood Councilmember
Ed Murray
Seattle Mayor
Dave Somers
Snohomish County Executive
Dave Upthegrove
King County Councilmember
Peter von Reichbauer
King County Councilmember
For information in alternative formats call 1-800-201-4900 /
TTY Relay: 711 or email accessibility@soundtransit.org.
For information about Sound Transit projects or services
visit us online at soundtransit.org or call 1-800-201-4900 /
TTY Relay: 711. To receive email updates for Sound Transit’s
bus or rail service, projects, or other information, subscribe
online at soundtransit.org.
SOUNDTRANSIT 3 .ORG
Resolution No. R2021-05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit E2: Grant Benefit Allocation Policy
Resolution No. R2021-05
Exhibit E2
Grant Benefit Allocation Policy
Section 1h of Resolution No. R2018-44, Adopted December 20, 2018
Section 1h—Grant Benefit Allocation. In the event both (1) the actual and projected funds legally
available to a subarea are sufficient to complete all future voter-approved subarea projects, and (2)
the voter-approved program remains affordable for the entire agency, reimbursements from FTA’s
Capital Investment Grant program and FTA Formula funding grants not necessary for recipient
projects to remain affordable based on the baseline cost budget established by the Board, may, for
subarea accounting purposes, be designated systemwide grant funds so long as the designation
does not violate the grant requirements. The chief financial officer may then, if financially necessary
to complete the ST2 or ST3 system plans, allocate designated systemwide grant funds to complete
projects in another subarea. This Section 1h authorization continues in effect as adopted policy
after December 31, 2019.