7a Presentation ST3
Item No. 7a_supp Update on ST3 Date of Meeting September 25, 2018 West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Level 2 Screening Results September 25, 2018 1 Primary Port of Seattle Objectives for ST3 Projects 1. Improve regional transportation for personal mobility, while protecting maritime and industrial land uses and freight mobility; 2. Strengthen access to POS/NWSA facilities, both existing and future developments; and 3. Enhance service to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for passengers and employees, from a web of cities throughout the region. 2 System expansion Sound Transit's system expansion means every few years new light rail, bus rapid transit and commuter rail stations open throughout the region, providing fast, reliable alternatives to congested roads. soundtransit.org/system ST3 Representative project Identifies mode, corridor, number of stations, general station locations Informs cost, schedule, operating needs 4 West Seattle Link Extension Opening 2030 Four elevated stations at SODO, Delridge, Avalon and Alaska Junction; one at-grade station at Stadium New rail-only fixed span crossing of the Duwamish River Length: 4.7 miles Ballard Link Extension Opening 2035 Three elevated stations: Ballard, Interbay, Smith Cove Six tunnel stations: Seattle Center, South Lake Union, Denny, Westlake, Midtown, International District/Chinatown New rail-only movable bridge over Salmon Bay Length: 7.1 miles West Seattle project timeline PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF 20172022 20222025 20252030 SERVICE 2016 2030 Alternatives development Final route design Conversations with property owners Board identifies preferred Final station designs alternative Groundbreaking Procure and commission Draft Environmental station and public art Construction updates Impact Statement and mitigation Obtain land use and Final Environmental construction permits Safety education Impact Statement Testing and pre-operations Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Ballard project timeline PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF 20172022 20232026 20272035 SERVICE 2016 2035 Alternatives development Final route design Conversations with property owners Board identifies preferred Final station designs alternative Groundbreaking Procure and commission Draft Environmental station and public art Construction updates Impact Statement and mitigation Obtain land use and Final Environmental construction permits Safety education Impact Statement Testing and pre-operations Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLANNING DESIGN 2016 20172019 20192022 Alternatives Draft Environmental development Impact Statement Board identifies Final Environmental preferred alternative Impact Statement Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Alternatives development process LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 PREFERRED Alternatives development Alternatives development Alternatives development ALTERNATIVE* Early-2018 Mid-2018 Late-2018 / Early-2019 Early-2019 Conduct early scoping Technical analysis Refine and screen alternatives Study ST3 representative Refine and screen project and alternatives alternatives Conduct Environmental Impact Statement Screen alternatives (EIS) scoping PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT *The Sound Transit Board identifies preferred alternatives and other alternatives to study. Screening process Broad range of initial alternatives Refine remaining alternatives Further evaluation Preferred Alternative and other EIS alternatives 11 Community Engagement and Collaboration 12 Community engagement and collaboration 13 Overview Early scoping: Feb. 2 March 5 Notification via postcards, advertisements, project website, email updates, press releases, social media, agency invitation letters, etc. 3 public meetings in Feb. Online open house 1 agency meeting Other methods to comment 14 Neighborhood forums 4/21: Chinatown / Int'l District 4/23: Denny / SLU / Seattle Center 5/2: Midtown / Westlake 5/5: Delridge / Avalon / Alaska Junction 5/9: SODO / Stadium 5/12: Ballard / Interbay / Smith Cove 15 External Engagement Report: Jun-Aug 2018 engaging more than 17 comments and questions 8 festivals 3,300 community members email engaging more than 6 updates 4,000 subscribers 49 community briefings 4 Tweets engaging 82,000 users more than 2 Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings 5 posts 1 engaging 30,000 users Elected Leadership Group meeting more than 16 Station Charrettes Collaborative design sessions with agencies, key community stakeholders 6/28: Ballard / Interbay 7/12: Seattle Center 7/20: Delridge 7/24: Alaska Junction / Avalon 7/30: Chinatown International District 8/2: Denny / SLU 8/28 SODO/Stadium 17 Level 2 alternatives evaluation 18 Purpose and need Purpose Statement Symbol Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak LRT service to communities in the project corridors as defined in ST3. Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet the projected transit demand. Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit's Regional Transit Long-Range Plan. Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Expand mobility for the corridor and region's residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority populations. Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. 19 Evaluation criteria 17 criteria consistent in all levels of evaluation Reliable service Financial sustainability Travel times Historically underserved populations Regional connectivity Station area local land use plan Transit capacity consistency Projected transit demand Modal integration Regional centers served Station area development opportunities ST Long-Range Plan consistency Environmental effects ST3 consistency Traffic operations Technical feasibility Economic effects 20 Measures and methods 50+ quantitative and/or qualitative measures Rating thresholds for High, Medium and Low Key differentiators and findings Lower Medium Higher Performing Performing Performing 21 Cost assessment Purpose: To inform comparison of Level 2 alternatives Comparative costs by segment Consistent methodology (2017$; construction, real estate, etc.) Based on limited conceptual design (less than 5% design) Final project budget established at 60% design (~ 2024) Costs for end-to-end alternatives in Level 3 22 Financial constraints ST3 Plan budget based on 2014 conceptual cost estimates Significant recent escalation in construction and real estate costs Level 2 cost assessment provides basis for comparison of alternatives within a segment Level 3 end-to-end alternatives will facilitate comparison to ST3 budget Be mindful of financial realities when considering Level 2 recommendations 23 West Seattle/ Duwamish Interbay/Ballard Downtown SODO and Chinatown/ID Study segments 24 1 2 Map of alternatives Evaluation measures 3 4 Key differentiators Summary 25 Level 2 alternatives Interbay/Ballard ST3 Representative Project 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th 20th/Tunnel/15th Armory Way/Tunnel/14th Central Interbay/Movable Bridge/14th Central Interbay/Fixed Bridge/14th Central Interbay/Tunnel/15th 26 Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives 27 Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit's Long-Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Operational Constraints Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M increase $500M increase $700M increase $200M increase $300M increase $100M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region's residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority populations. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% Minority Population (1/2) 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% Youth Population (1/2) 9% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 10% / 12% Elderly Population (1/2) 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 10% / 10% Limited English Proficiency Population 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% (1/2) Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Medium Lower Performing Higher Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Performing Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 1 of 2 28 Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 2 of 2 29 Salmon Bay Crossing Smith Cove-Interbay Ballard Terminus Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators By sub-segment 30 Smith Cove-Interbay: Key differentiators Station location Traffic Engineering constraints Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators Smith Cove-Interbay 31 Key differentiators Smith Cove-Interbay Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave median) 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave) Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity 20th/Tunnel/15th Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th Armory Way/ Tunnel/14th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave) Central Interbay/ At-grade sections (along BNSF tracks) lessen complexity Fixed Bridge/14th Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15th 32 Salmon Bay Crossing: Key differentiators Crossing location Crossing type Bridge (fixed or movable) Tunnel Freight movement Business/commerce effects Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators Salmon Bay Crossing 33 Key differentiators Salmon Bay Crossing Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Fewer columns in water than movable bridge 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th Maritime business effects (Fishermen's Terminal) 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Long-span fixed bridge avoids columns in water Longer tunnel, more constrained portal 20th/Tunnel/15th Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Central Interbay/ Potential service interruptions Movable Bridge/14th Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects Armory Way/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Tunnel/14th Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Central Interbay/ Fewer columns in water than movable bridge Fixed Bridge/14th Maritime business effects Central Interbay/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Tunnel/15th Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding 34 Ballard Terminus: Key differentiators Ballard Station location Elevated or tunnel Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators Ballard Terminus 35 Key differentiators Ballard Terminus Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more parcels 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th More residential displacements Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Closer to center of Urban Village Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences 20th/Tunnel/15th Deeper tunnel station (~120'); adds complexity Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th Affects fewer parcels (along 14th Ave NW) Armory Way/ Farther from center of Urban Village Tunnel/14th Shallower tunnel station (~70') Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14th Central Interbay/ Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses Tunnel/15th Shallower tunnel station (~80') 36 Summary Interbay/Ballard Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* Comparison** ST3 Representative Project Central Interbay/ Maritime business effects (but less than movable bridge) Higher + $100M Fixed Bridge/14th Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) Performing Potential service interruptions Central Interbay/ Higher Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects + $200M Movable Bridge/14th Performing Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) Maritime business effects (Fishermen's Terminal) Higher 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th + $200M Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more residences Performing Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Armory Way/ Higher Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) + $300M Tunnel/14th Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Central Interbay/ Higher Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses + $500M Tunnel/15th Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity Higher 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th + $500M Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences Performing Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks), constrained tunnel portal location, deeper tunnel station add complexity Higher 20th/Tunnel/15th + $700M Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 37 Level 2 alternatives West Seattle/Duwamish ST3 Representative Project Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Tunnel Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/Elevated Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/Tunnel (new) Golf Course/Alaska Junction/Tunnel (modified) 38 West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives 39 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit's Long-Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region's residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority populations. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 1 of 2 40 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 2 of 2 41 Avalon-Genesee- Duwamish Crossing Delridge Alaska Junction West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators By sub-segment 42 Duwamish Crossing: Key differentiators Crossing location Engineering constraints Fish and wildlife effects Freight movement West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators Duwamish Crossing 43 Key differentiators Duwamish Crossing Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Bridge crossing near Idaho Street; south of Harbor Island Most engineering constraints (tunnel through unstable slopes, widest water Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel crossing, wide Union Pacific Argo railyard crossing, high voltage lines etc.) Most effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Bridge crossing on south side of West Seattle bridge Some engineering constraints (Pigeon Point steep slope) Some effects to Duwamish Greenbelt (Pigeon Point) Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Bridge crossing on north side of West Seattle bridge Fewer engineering constraints (avoids Pigeon Point steep slope) Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Avoids effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction 44 Summary West Seattle / Duwamish Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project 3 elevated stations Increases residential/business effects at Junction Higher Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Similar Complicates future extension south Performing High guideway along Genesee 1 tunnel station; 2 elevated stations High guideway along Genesee Lower Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Fewer engineering constraints + $500M Performing Affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station Lessens residential/business effects at Junction Lower Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel + $700M Low guideway along Genesee Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding 2 tunnels; 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station Most engineering constraints Most effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Lower Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel + $1,200M Low guideway along Genesee Performing Lessens residential and business effects in Delridge Includes two tunnels; requires 3rd Party funding *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 45 Level 2 alternatives SODO/Chinatown-ID ST3 Representative Project Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Surface E-3 4th Avenue Cut-and-Cover C-ID 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue 46 ST3 Representative Project Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Surface E-3 SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives 1 of 3 47 4th Avenue Cut-and-Cover C-ID 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives 2 of 3 48 Occidental Avenue SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives 3 of 3 49 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit's Long-Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region's residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority populations. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Medium Lower Performing Higher Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 1 of 2 50 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources(1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Medium Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation Part 2 of 2 51 SODO Chinatown-ID SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators By sub-segment 52 Summary SODO Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project New at-grade SODO Station on E-3 transitway at Lander Higher Surface E-3 - $100M Transfer at existing SODO Station Performing Bus operations on E-3 transitway displaced New grade-separated roadway crossings (Lander, Holgate) improve existing rail/traffic/freight operations Massachusetts Property effects at tunnel portal site (for Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Higher ** Tunnel Portal alternative only) Performing Massachusetts Tunnel Portal alternative avoids impacts to Ryerson Base New elevated SODO Station on Occidental Ave at Lander Transfer at existing Stadium Station Long span bridges over BNSF tracks and longer track connection to maintenance Higher Occidental Ave. facility + $200M Performing Bus operations on E-3 transitway partially displaced Property effects along Occidental, BNSF crossings and maintenance facility connection *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this SODO sub-segment only. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. **Cost comparison reflected in Chinatown/ID summary table. 53 Summary Chinatown-ID Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project E-3 Surface Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher (shorter 5th Ave Cut-and- - $300M** Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area Performing Cover Tunnel) Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher - $200M (5th Ave Bored Tunnel) Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area Performing Deep mined station (~200') under 5th Ave; poor rider access/transfers Less construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave with mined station Medium 5th Ave Mined C-ID Similar Some property effects (for mined station access shaft) Performing Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250') Deep mined station (~200') under 4th Ave, poor rider access/transfers Major engineering/constructability constraints (4th Ave viaduct demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) Lower 4th Ave Mined C-ID + $500M Large property effects (Ryerson Base for tunnel portal site) Performing Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-build costs Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250') Shallow cut-and-cover station under 4th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Major engineering/constructability constraints (4th Ave viaduct Lower 4th Ave Cut-and-Cover C-ID demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) + $600M Performing Large property effects (King County Admin Building) Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-build costs *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. **Cost comparison for Chinatown/ID sub-segment only; total SODO/C-ID segment cost difference is - $400M compared to ST3 Representative Project. 54 Key POS, NWSA Evaluation Criteria and Measures Economic Effects Transportation Operations Freight movement and access on Traffic circulation and access land and water Transportation facilities Business and commerce effects Environmental Effects Regional Mobility Water resources Transit connectivity Property acquisitions and displacements Ridership demand Construction impacts Possible impacts to operations and facilities 55 Homeport to the Alaska fishing fleet & a vibrant commercial destination 6,419 Local jobs and $449 million in business revenue Terminal 91 Blends fishing and cruise operations throughout the year Cruise ship homeport generates $2.7 million and provides over 4,000 jobs International Container Trade Marine cargo operations provides $379 million in state and local taxes Nearly $4.3 billion in economic activity and more than 48,000 jobs 58 Key Dates Stakeholder Advisory Group Level 2 recommendations September 26 Elected Leadership Group (ELG) Level 2 recommendations October 5 EIS scoping period February 2019 SEPA process expected 2019 - 2022 ELG preferred alternative recommendation March 22, 2019 ST Board identification of preferred alternative April 2019 59
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.