l? West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Level 2 Evaluation Results September 2018 Agenda Introductions and purpose Community engagement update Alternatives development overview Level 2 alternatives evaluation Next steps 2 Community engagement and collaboration LEVEL 1 Alternatives Screening JAN FEB Early Scoping Period MAR APR Community Updates Neighborhood Forums Stakeholder Advisory Group Elected Leadership Group - Sound Transit Board Meeting dates subject to change. LEVEL 2 Alternatives Screening 2018 MAY JUN JUL AUG Level 1 Briefing SEP OCT Level 2 Briefing LEVEL 3 Alternatives Screening NOV DEC JAN FEB Identification of Preferred Alternative and other alternatives to studyr in the EIS SAG and ELG meetings SAG Meeting #8 Sept. 5, 2018   Community engagement and collaboration Level 2 evaluation results SAG Meeting #9 Sept 26, 2018   Community engagement and collaboration Level 2 recommendations ELG Meeting Oct. 5, 2018   Community engagement and collaboration Level 2 recommendations 4 Community Engagement Update External Engagement Report: Jun-Aug 2018 17 comments and questions 6 email updates engaging more than 4,000 subscribers 8 festivals engaging more than 3,300 community members 49 community briefings 4 Tweets engaging 82,000 users 2 Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings 5 posts 1 Elected Leadership Group meeting more than engaging more than 30,000 users 6 June briefings snapshot  Chinatown-International District BIA (6/7)  UW Medicine (6/25)  Seattle Design Commission (6/7)  NSIA (6/26)  Pigeon Point Neighborhood Council (6/11)  Ethiopian Community in Seattle (6/26)  South downtown stakeholders (6/12)  West Seattle Food Bank (6/28)  Seattle Planning Commission (6/14)  Southwest Youth & Family Services (6/29)  Neighborcare Health Ballard (6/18)  SODO BIA Transportation Committee (6/19)  Ballard Food Bank (6/20)  Sound Transit Citizen Oversight Panel (6/21)  CID Framework Capital Projects Coordination Workgroup (6/22) 7 July briefings snapshot  WSB Station Access Discussion (7/6)  CID Forum (7/25)  Mary’s Place (7/10)  Neighborhood House at High Point (7/26)  Central Ballard Residents Association (7/12)  Seattle Maritime Academy (7/26)  South downtown stakeholders (7/12)  West Seattle JuNO (7/26)  SODO BIA Transportation Committee (7/13)  Downtown Residents Council / DSA (7/27)  Ballard Mill Marina (7/16)  Chinese Information & Service Center (7/30)  Western Towboat & American Waterway Operators (7/18)  Mercer Corridor Stakeholders Committee (7/31)  Ferguson Terminal (7/18)  Fremont Tugboat (7/19)  Transit Access Coalition (7/25)  Plymouth Housing Group (7/25)  Coastal Transportation (7/25) 8 August briefings snapshot  Seniors in Action Foundation (8/1)  Housing Development Consortium (8/23)  NW Marine Trade Association (8/3)  Downtown Emergency Service Center (8/28)  Seattle Yacht Club (8/3)  St. Luke’s Episcopal Church (8/29)  Bowman Refrigeration (8/7)  SLU Community Council, Transportation Committee (8/29)  Drink & Link in Delridge (8/8)  Labor organizations (8/8)  Tugboat tour with Western Towboat (8/10)  United Indians of All Tribes Foundation (8/29)  The Salvation Army (8/20)  Wing Luke Museum (8/21)  Seahawks/Public Stadium Authority (8/22) 9 2018 Festivals  Morgan Junction Festival (6/16)  Festival Sundiata (6/16-6/17)  West Seattle Summer Fest (7/13-7/15)  Ballard Seafood Fest (7/13-7/15)  Dragon Fest (7/14-7/15)  South Lake Union Block Party (8/10)  Delridge Day (8/11)  Celebrate Little Saigon (8/26) • Chinatown-ID Night Market (9/8) • Fishermen’s Fall Festival (9/15) • Sustainable Ballard Festival (9/22) • Magnolia Farmers Market (10/6) • Dia de Muertos (10/27-10/28) 10 Station Charrettes Collaborative design sessions with agencies and 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 11 Neighborhood Forums / Open Houses West Seattle Downtown Seattle Ballard (Includes Delridge, Avalon and Alaska Junction stations) (Includes Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Midtown, Westlake, Chinatown-International District, Stadium and SODO stations) (Includes Smith Cove, Interbay and Ballard stations) Saturday, Sept. 8 Tuesday, Sept. 11 Monday, Sept. 17 9 – 11:30 a.m. Seattle Lutheran High School Gym (4100 SW Genesee St., Seattle) 5:30 – 8 p.m. Ruth Fisher Boardroom, Union Station (401 S. Jackson St., Seattle) 5:30 – 8 p.m. Ballard Eagleson VFW (2812 NW Market St., Seattle) 12 Alternatives development overview West Seattle project timeline PLANNING 2017–2022 2016 DESIGN 2022–2025 Alternatives development Final route design Board identifies preferred alternative Final station designs Draft Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Statement CONSTRUCTION Procure and commission station and public art Obtain land use and construction permits 2025–2030 Conversations with property owners START OF SERVICE 2030 Groundbreaking Construction updates and mitigation Safety education Testing and pre-operations Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 14 Ballard project timeline PLANNING 2017–2022 2016 DESIGN 2023–2026 Alternatives development Final route design Board identifies preferred alternative Final station designs Draft Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Statement CONSTRUCTION Procure and commission station and public art Obtain land use and construction permits 2027–2035 Conversations with property owners START OF SERVICE 2035 Groundbreaking Construction updates and mitigation Safety education Testing and pre-operations Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 15 PLANNING 2016 2017–2019 2019–2022 Alternatives development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Board identifies preferred alternative Final Environmental Impact Statement DESIG Board selects project to be built Federal Record of Decision PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 16 Alternatives development process LEVEL 1 Alternatives development Early-2018 LEVEL 2 Alternatives development Mid-2018 Conduct early scoping Technical analysis Study ST3 representative project and alternatives Refine and screen alternatives Screen alternatives PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL 3 Alternatives development Late-2018 / Early-2019 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE* Early-2019 Refine and screen alternatives Conduct Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT *The Sound Transit Board identifies preferred alternatives and other alternatives to study. 17 Screening process Broad range of initial alternatives Refine remaining alternatives Further evaluation Preferred Alternative and other EIS alternatives 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 consistency • Transit capacity • Projected transit demand • Regional centers served • ST Long-Range Plan consistency • ST3 consistency • Technical feasibility • Modal integration • Station area development opportunities • Environmental effects • Traffic operations • Economic effects 20 Measures and methods 50+ quantitative and/or qualitative measures Rating thresholds for High, Medium and Low Key differentiators and findings Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher 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 Level 2 alternatives evaluation 5 .. a 48th Ave California Ave SW west seatt I e/ SS .- 2 ALASKA 24th Ave NW A wamrsh g" aun eroy 5W Cruise Terminal 2 3 63? owwe 20th Ave NW 35th Ave 5w seam "??bay INTERBAY ?Shem? q, 8? We? Seam 2 Golf Center Terminal BALLARD mh Ave NW Stadium AVALON we?? 1~5th-Ave~W . a 514/4 9? 0? 14m Ave Ballard Bridge 15th Ave nw . vs West Seattle Way Harbor Ave SW SMITH 14th Ave NW Golf Course Ave 98 5 ?2 3* 10th Ave 5 5? ?9 26th Ave sw I _d a 4 Mt Pleasant Play?e 3 DE LRIDGE Cemetery at?? ?th Ave NW v, V06 51h Ave Seam 2 2151 Ave sw 9) Pacific 2 3 3rd AVE University 3rd Ave NW Puget Park $9 Olympic EAT Sculpture ueen ne ve malg?? 2 Park 5 Key Arena g? 2nd Ave 15x? Seattle .. VI in 8" a; Center 060$ 5th Ave Raf l' I Pike Place I 0 Aurora Ave Market 5 Marginal Way ?22 LAKE UNION Westlake-AVE . 5 151 Ave 3 5 La. Safeco WESTLAKE Fairview Ave N2 A Union a Field Convention . 4m Ave 5 3 Field Center 3 e4. Arh Aves . MIDTOWN i a, a 6th Ave Link Operation STADIUM INTERNAT 6% KEY MAP Maintenance 9" - - a DISTRI 2 J59 - 0 West Seattle extensron/Station area To Everett . . we? Broadway - L4 Ballard extension/Station area Existing Link/Station area SODO and Chinatown/ID .3 2 Dearborn St Study segments Map of alternatives Key differen tiators Evaluation measures Cost comparison? Schedule comparison' Key mi epresentative Prejeci - Key ?nding Key ?nding Key finding Medium Alternative 1 - Performing Key ?nding Key ?nding Key finding Alternative 2 Summary 26 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 27 3) ?x Bayview 24th Ave QV239. e, Playground 3 ($65 24th AVE NW a 9* a Ballard 9 V. .. Commons 0 3 Park Smith Cove ?a 22nd Ave NW Crurse lerminal or: 2?51 Ave let Ave oussn 20m AM Mr 7 wW?-?wm?m??Inn go 2 . ANNE Mt. BNSF 20th Ave NW . 4 . ., 2 INVERBAV -. . - 7'50,? ,1 g" Interbay Athletic . . ,7 Fisherman?s Seattle Armory . Interbav *9 I KL . (?my Gimp!? m\ a, Temma 17m Ave DOWNYOWN Bay 1 . . . Park 14m Ave mm 15th Ave imsnmuom rm.? 5 00$ 13th A 2 orsma ve 6? - 14th Ave NW Mxoh?l . 11th Ave 3 3 <9 z> i .. ?mhAvew 8? 11th Ave P'Grlman m. ayground SEAHLE - g: 3 9th Ave NW ??nial ,"933Seattle Pa?llc "we? 7 2 2 - (.7 West Seattle extensron/Station area [a Kerry ave 3rd Ave \2 02 a Ballard extension/Station area Q9 '56 3 E: 5: Park Queen Anne Rodgers Queen Anne 3rd Ave NW a; 52? Play?eld Park Bowl Playlield LEGEN To Tacoma Dome ST3 representative project - Ballard extension - 15th/fixed bridge/15th Nth/fixed bridge/17th - 20th/tunnel/151h Central Interbay/movable bridge/14th In terbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives - Armory Way/tunnel/Mth Approximate portal location - Central lnterbay/?xed bridge/14th Surface 53 Surface station - Central lnterbay/tunnel/lSth . . . .V Elevated guideway Elevated station Tunnel Tunnel station Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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) Evaluation Measures Disabled Population (1/2) ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment 20th/Tunnel/ 15th 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% Lower Performing 8% / 8% Medium Performing 9% / 8% Higher Performing Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 29 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Seattlebridges to meet projected Movable have transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Movable bridges have potential potential Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium service serviceinterruptions interruptions 17,800 Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 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) Evaluation Measures Disabled Population (1/2) ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 9% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard 9% / 8% 20th/Tunnel/ 15th 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 8% / 8% Medium Performing 9% / 8% Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 30 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Long spans (over BNSF 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. tracks), constrained tunnel At grade sections At grade sectons Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A location, deeper N/A tunnel N/A N/A N/A N/A portal lessen complexity complexity lessen Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 station add complexity 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) Evaluation Measures Disabled Population (1/2) ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 9% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard 9% / 8% 20th/Tunnel/ 15th 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% Lower Performing 8% / 8% Medium Performing 9% / 8% Higher Performing = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 31 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Lowest cost Higher Higher Higher HighestHigher cost Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Highertunnel alternative Higher Higher Higher alternative 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. Requires tunnel; Medium Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Mediumtunnel; Medium Includes rd (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 3rd Party 8% 9% may require 3 requires Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% party funding funding 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) Evaluation Measures Disabled Population (1/2) ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 9% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard 9% / 8% 20th/Tunnel/ 15th 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 8% / 8% Medium Performing 9% / 8% Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 32 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 20th/Tunnel/ 15th Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing 33 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Farther from Highercenter Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium of Urban Village 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard 20th/Tunnel/ 15th Lower Performing Medium Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 34 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bridge columnsMedium Bridge BridgeMedium columns columns Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher in waterway in in waterway waterway 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 20th/Tunnel/ 15th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Water Resource Effects Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 35 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 Elevated guideway Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower LowerBallard terminus/ Lower water Lower Lower Lower Lower (west side 15th) 1 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0.2 0.9crossing location 0.9 affects 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 affects more parcels Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 more residences 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 20th/Tunnel/ 15th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potentially Affected Properties Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 36 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 More effect on traffic, Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher freight and navigation 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard 20th/Tunnel/ 15th Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation and Access, Freight Movement 37 Central Interbay/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/ 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 More business, Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Tunnels; Higher Medium Lower Less less business, business, commerce effects Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium commerce Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Highereffects 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ Project 15th 17th (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Interbay/Ballard 20th/Tunnel/ 15th Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business and Commerce Effects Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 38 Smith Cove-Interbay Salmon Bay Crossing Ballard Terminus Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – By sub-segment 39 Smith Cove-Interbay: Key differentiators • Station location • Traffic • Engineering constraints Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – Smith Cove-Interbay 40 Key differentiators Smith Cove-Interbay Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th 20th/Tunnel/15th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave median) Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave) Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th Armory Way/ Tunnel/14th Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave) At-grade sections (along BNSF tracks) lessen complexity Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15th 41 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 42 Key differentiators Salmon Bay Crossing Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th Fewer columns in water than movable bridge Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Long-span fixed bridge avoids columns in water 20th/Tunnel/15th Longer tunnel, more constrained portal Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th Potential service interruptions Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects Armory Way/ Tunnel/14th Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14th Fewer columns in water than movable bridge Maritime business effects Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15th Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding 43 Ballard Terminus: Key differentiators • Ballard Station location • Elevated or tunnel Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – Ballard Terminus 44 Key differentiators Ballard Terminus Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more parcels More residential displacements 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences Closer to center of Urban Village 20th/Tunnel/15th Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences Deeper tunnel station (~120’); adds complexity Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th Armory Way/ Tunnel/14th Affects fewer parcels (along 14th Ave NW) Farther from center of Urban Village Shallower tunnel station (~70’) Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14th Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15th Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses Shallower tunnel station (~80’) 45 Summary Alternative Interbay/Ballard Key findings Cost comparison* Schedule Comparison** ST3 Representative Project Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14th • • Maritime business effects (but less than movable bridge) Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) + $100M Higher Performing Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14th • • • Potential service interruptions Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) + $200M Higher Performing 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th • • Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more residences + $200M Higher Performing • • • • • • Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding + $300M Higher Performing + $500M Higher Performing • • Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences + $500M Higher Performing • Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks), constrained tunnel portal location, deeper tunnel station add complexity Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding + $700M Higher Performing Armory Way/ Tunnel/14th Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15th 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th 20th/Tunnel/15th • • *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 46 Station Charrette Feedback *Ballard Station 17th Ave NW Elevated • Good location to serve historic center of Ballard and Swedish Medical Center • Concern about potential construction effects on neighborhood • Concern about compatibility of elevated station with neighborhood • Challenging for transit integration and circulation (fire station operations) • Good non-motorized access • Some TOD potential • Blah 15th Ave NW Elevated or Tunnel • Moving station out of ROW reduces freight conflicts • Concern about compatibility of elevated station with neighborhood • Close to an area with good development potential • Excellent transit integration and circulation • Good non-motorized access • Considerable TOD potential (tunnel) • Some TOD potential (elevated) *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 14th Ave NW Elevated or Tunnel • Location farthest from historic center of Ballard, but still in the urban village • Most compatible elevated option, with large available ROW and potential for reconstructing 14th as a more fullservice street • On the path of future growth, though much of station area is zoned industrial • Good transit integration and circulation • Good non-motorized access • Considerable TOD potential 47 Station Charrette Feedback *Interbay Station 20th Ave W At Grade or Elevated • Good location to serve Magnolia • Not much zoned development capacity in the station area • Challenging for transit integration, requiring long deviations • Good non-motorized access to existing facilities • Limited TOD potential 17th Ave W At Grade or Elevated • Best serves emerging Interbay Triangle neighborhood • Good transit integration • Challenging for nonmotorized access from east, but opportunities for substantial enhancements • Considerable TOD potential 16th Ave W Elevated • Not developed further in charrette • Concerns about station compatibility with emerging neighborhood fabric • Challenging for transit integration • Challenging for nonmotorized access • Some TOD potential 15th Ave W Elevated • Not developed further in charrette • Concerns about potential effects to freight and general mobility on 15th Ave W corridor during construction • Good transit integration • Challenging for nonmotorized access • Limited TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 48 Level 2 alternatives Downtown • ST3 Representative Project • 5th/Harrison • 6th/Boren/Roy • 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 49 Cemenniall??ik To Ballard -4 ?mum? Ed rk . ?1 Jamiwars a Ellio?AVew Q, - ?6&le OlWDic ?5 i Sculpture Park we? . 406I?tll z" 411: . . QUEEN . . . 5- f/ Mann-n1 ANNE an? . . I k?e K9 Imam A i Arena soumLAu 51 hilt-t 'U?mmt?) Ist Ave . Zn; Seattle 13?4? a. To Warneme - 1 e: (We, 3 0099 V?conia Dome . is" i i I ?7 6? oowurmvu 540,; v3rd'Ave-w-mm 5? x: 4V 5'4 ?gmwj? SOUTH e" 9/70 9" "9 ink ?vUJIUN .. .3 gt 5? 4, ?Emma.? 35. mimem ,vi5t?hrAyiea- 9" Ag 3W4 A A ?64/ ?1 '?uemngf 994? sum?it" 37, slaw :4 a a, o, 9 .mx047 ?19 nAVe '3 El 5'46 a 3 - 1? 3 ?In/l ?199?6 ?e4, 5 >130?Wesrlake Ave ~4~Io Ederen} 9 ?e 94/ LakeUnlon KEY MAP I n. 1" 4' - 0 West Seattle extensionfStation area - Ballard urea Q9 LEGEND - ST3 representative project - Ballard extension Existing Link light rail 5th/Harrison I-l Approximate portal location - 5thTerry/Roy/Mercer Surface "mm- Tunnel . - 6th/Boren/Roy .m-ur Elevated Tunnel station Downtown Level 2 alternatives Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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 Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 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 3 3 3 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Higher 8 to 9 Medium Medium 176,700 3 N/A 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 Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Constructability Issues Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --$200M increase Operating Cost Impacts 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 (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Higher Higher Higher Medium Lower Higher Similar Medium Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium $200M increase Medium Medium 24% 28% / 30% 34% / 36% 4% / 4% 15% / 13% 5% / 5% 12% / 12% Medium 26% 28% / 30% 35% / 36% 4% / 4% 14% / 13% 5% / 5% 12% / 12% Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing Downtown Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 51 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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 Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 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 3 3 3 Avoids building foundation Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A Engineering tie-backsMedium on 5th Ave but Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium challenges with tunneling under Key Higher Arena more constrained Denny station on Boren Higher 8 to 9 Medium Medium 176,700 3 N/A 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 Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Constructability Issues Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --$200M increase Operating Cost Impacts 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 (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Downtown Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints Higher Higher Higher Medium Lower Higher Similar Medium Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium $200M increase Medium Medium 24% 28% / 30% 34% / 36% 4% / 4% 15% / 13% 5% / 5% 12% / 12% Medium 26% 28% / 30% 35% / 36% 4% / 4% 14% / 13% 5% / 5% 12% / 12% Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 52 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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 Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 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 3 3 3 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Higher 8 to 9 Medium Medium 176,700 3 N/A 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 Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher cost alternatives Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Medium Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --$200M increase Similar Operating Cost Impacts 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 (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% 24% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% 28% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% 34% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Downtown Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium $200M increase Medium Medium 26% 28% / 30% 35% / 36% 4% / 4% 14% / 13% 5% / 5% 12% / 12% Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 53 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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) Higher Higher Higher Higher Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium 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) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing Downtown Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 54 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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 Lower bus/rail integration plans and policies. Better bus/rail integration Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher opportunity at Seattle opportunity at SLU Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Center station on Roy station on171 Harrison Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium 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) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Downtown Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 55 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 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) Higher Higher Higher Higher Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium 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) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 due to tunnel 1.1 0 Property effects Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 portal location on Harrison Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Downtown Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements, Construction Impacts 56 BALLARD j: I :7 G) 9 Edwards Olympic I Sculpture wes?e ?3 I fiLA .J ouesv hm'. ANNE -uu p13? Pike Place Are '1 scum LAM. .a . A Midtown-elilkestlake-Denny-SLU M. - . V9 - . Seattle - 7 TD West name . .. 21:: DOWNTOWN .. . .. ..- . grim? Don?t: 16" "l - rd A raw"4mEnventloni . ?ifBoren Ave .509West Seattle extensionfStation area Ballard area Q9 LEGEND ST3 representative project - Ballard extension Existing Link light rail 5th/Harrison I-l Approximate portal location - 5thTerry/Roy/Mercer Surface mum Tunnel - 6th/Boren/Roy 7 . Elevated Tunnel station Downtown Key differentiators By sub-segment Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU: Key differentiators • Station location • Bus-rail integration • Engineering constraints Downtown Key differentiators – Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU 58 Key differentiators Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy Avoids building foundation tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer More constrained Denny station on Boren 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer 59 Seattle Center: Key differentiators • Station location • Property effects • Bus-rail integration • Portal location Downtown Key differentiators – Seattle Center 60 Key differentiators Seattle Center Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison Tunnel station on Harrison, west of soon-to-be-renovated Key Arena Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena Property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy Tunnel station on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena Lower bus/rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center station on Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Tunnel station on Mercer, one block from Key Arena 61 Summary Alternative Downtown Key findings Cost comparison* Schedule comparison* Similar Higher Performing ST3 Representative Project 6th/Boren/Roy • • • • 5th/Harrison • Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison • Higher property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison west of Seattle Center • Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena + $200M Higher Performing 5th/Terry/Roy/ Mercer • Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer • Seattle Center station location on Mercer, one block from Key Arena + $200M Higher Performing Avoids building tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer More constrained Denny station location on Boren Seattle Center station location on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena Lower bus/rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center station on Roy *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 62 Station Charrette Feedback *Seattle Center Station Harrison St Tunnel • Good location to serve Key Arena, but concern about connection to broader Seattle Center • Farthest from “Heart of Uptown,” but serves core of up-zoned neighborhood • Good transit integration • Good non-motorized access • Good TOD potential Republican St Tunnel • Location serves Seattle Center, Key Arena, and Uptown • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into existing buildings • Good transit integration and non-motorized access • High urban design potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. Mercer St Tunnel • Location serves Uptown well, but concern about legibility of connection to Seattle Center • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into buildings on Mercer • Excellent transit integration • Good non-motorized access • Good TOD potential Roy St Tunnel • Location serves Uptown, but concern about legibility of connection to Seattle Center • Some opportunities for station entries integrated into buildings • Challenging for transit integration and nonmotorized access 63 Station Charrette Feedback *South Lake Union Station Harrison St Tunnel • Good location to serve South Lake Union, Gates Foundation, east entrance of Seattle Center • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into new or existing buildings • Excellent transit integration for buses traveling on SR 99 • Good non-motorized access through existing and planned facilities • Blah Republican St Tunnel • Challenging location due to SR 99 adjacency • Serves SLU but not Gates Foundation or Seattle Center • Limited opportunities for station entries integrated into new or existing buildings • Poor transit integration for buses traveling on SR 99 • Poor non-motorized access due to truncated walkshed *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. Roy St Tunnel • Challenging location due to SR 99 • Serves north end of SLU, but provides good connection to Lake Union as well as Queen Anne • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into new buildings • Challenging for transit integration; would require reconfiguration of SR 99 bus lanes • Challenging for non-motorized access 64 Station Charrette Feedback *Denny Station Westlake Ave Tunnel • Good location to serve Amazon HQ and new Denny Triangle development • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into public space and/or buildings • Excellent transit integration • Excellent non-motorized access • Concerns about construction impacts on traffic and streetcar operations • Blah Terry Ave N Tunnel • Good location to serve Cascade neighborhood • Good opportunities for station entries integrated into new and/or existing buildings • Challenging for transit integration • Good non-motorized access, with opportunity to negotiate grade on Denny through hill climbs or escalators in station *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. Boren Ave N Tunnel • Not further developed in charrette • Farthest from densest part of Denny Triangle • Constrained by brand-new development, but some opportunity to locate station entries in triangular parcels • Challenging for transit integration • Challenging for non-motorized access; at top of steep grade on Denny 65 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 66 ST3 Representative Project Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Surface E-3 SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives – 1 of 3 67 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 68 1? To West Seattle (olovado Ave Ist Ave SODO ausr I Occudental Avenue 4th Ave - SODO Buswhy (E3SounTiTrniit If. - Malm?gzn-gmty Ouidemal Ave Landev 2 Tacoma Dome Holgate St I .I I. Md; . King County Metro 5 Ryerson Base STADIUM I 6thAveS King County Metro Central/Atlamlc Base i Massachus ?90?st SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives 3 of 3 49> Maynard I . Unlo; T_o Everett?J To 1 . INTERNATIONAL 1stAveS I . O?cidemal I Square i I I 2ndAveS 1 m. . ?its as. i L. t~ _1_lin95(eef? '1 KEV MAP llan?l LEGEND I. I I. - '1 JESHIINATOIQIN i 24;" pram . Mnuthuwm Ewe a g) ?3 1 . S?Almel 3 4m Mom ml am! Mmur med mm I Jackson 5 any All-me mm: qu'el'?mv sum". I?lumuulhwm 5mm; 1 by! ml you Iouulm \en mad-my 5 ]le ?mm: gnu-u, ?lnr (lummwnon - In? - mix: ?Inc! ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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% Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 70 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 NewMedium grade-separated Medium roadway Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium crossings (Lander, Holgate) Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 improve existing rail/traffic/ freight 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 operations 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% Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 71 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 rd partyMedium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Requires 3 funding for Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 th rebuild of 4 Ave viaduct; Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long-Range Plan. engineering/constructability 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 issues and potential schedule Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium delay 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% Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 72 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Major engineering/constructability Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long-Range Plan. th constraints Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A (4 Ave viaduct N/A N/A N/A N/A Requires longManufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rebuild, adjacent to active BNSF span structures Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium railway, proximity/disruption to 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. over BNSF tracks existing transit tunnel, etc.) 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% Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 73 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Highest Higher cost Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Highest cost ChinatownEngineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium SODO alternative Lower ID alternatives Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium 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% Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 74 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 75 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 ~200’ deep Lower Higher mined stations Medium Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. provide relatively poor rider 3 Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 access and ease of transfersLower Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 (also results0 in ~250’ deep 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 Station) 0 0 Midtown 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Passenger Transfers Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 76 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Property effects Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower along Occidental, Property effects Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property effects BNSF crossings along 4th0 Ave Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property effects Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0County 0 0 0 (tunnel portal in and maintenance (incl. King Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 in 4 5 9 SODO) 9 6 (tunnel portal facility connection Admin Building) Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher SODO) 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 77 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 th on 4th Water Resource Effects (acres) Cut-and-cover0 tunnel on 5 0 0Cut-and-cover tunnel 0 0 0 0 th Ave, periodic closures (8,500 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 Ave, periodic closures 0 0 Mined station on04 Ave, full 0 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 greater 9 4(33,000 vehicles/day), 5 9closure (33,000 vehicles/day), 9 6 vehicles/day), less Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher effects Higherless noise/vibration/visual Higher Higher noise/vibration/visual effects noise/vibration/visual Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium effects to Chinatown/ID to Chinatown/ID Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium to Chinatown/ID 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Construction Impacts Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 78 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Traffic Displacement of social services Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 detour effects 0 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 full 4th Ave lane 0 0 from at Jefferson portal site; traffic Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 th closures during detour effects from partial 4 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 partial viaduct Ave lane full Visual Effects Higher Higher Higherclosures during Higher Higher Higher Higher replacement Medium viaduct Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium replacement 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 79 ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-andSurface 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 Mdium 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 Construction Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower effects,Lower including Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 New0 gradedisplacement of Construction 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 separated Ryerson Bus Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 roadway 0effects, including0 0 Base 0 0 crossings Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 (Lander, 4 4th Ave lane 5 9 9 6 and lane closures th Ave Visual Effects Higher Higherimprove Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Holgate) on 4 due to closures during Construction effects on Less effects, Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumconstructionMedium existing partial replacement full replacement WSDOT ramp structures Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium lane closures on Medium 5th Ave rail/traffic/freight of viaduct structure Residential Unit Displacementsand foundations Medium Medium Medium of viaduct Medium Medium Medium Medium with mined station operations Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher structure 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 Evaluation Measures (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint SODO and Chinatown-ID Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation, Existing Facilities, Freight 80 0 -ve .3, To West SODO-BuswaydBSound Transit l' 3 0pm!? 8. a - Maimenanuhllily to Tacoma Do I ve To West Sound Operation 8. 5? I Malmmlity 0 -ve I :3 To West . 5 - 3 3 vs Operation. MaimeMIity to Tacoma Dome Holgale 5 Holgate 1: Ma?sachusms Kin CountyM - yersonB .. .. "1 .. .. lemya STADIU INTERNATIONAL QISTRI Kin (mm (meal/Aug?: . i I Massachusetts?King County Ryerson Ba KW .. ..5T King County 1' Central/Atlantic - . . . -1 .5 . King (oumy Ryerson ma INTERNATIONAL DJS vI .5 a 5" STADIU. 5 M. (husens'St SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators By sub-segment SODO: Key differentiators • New SODO Station location • Transfer with existing station • Engineering/ constructability issues • Bus operations • Property effects • Rail, traffic & freight operations SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators – SODO 82 Summary Alternative SODO Key findings Cost comparison* Schedule comparison* - $100M Higher Performing ** Higher Performing + $200M Higher Performing ST3 Representative Project Surface E-3 Massachusetts Tunnel Portal • • • • • • • • • Occidental Ave. • • New at-grade SODO Station on E-3 transitway at Lander Transfer at existing SODO Station Bus operations on E-3 transitway displaced New grade-separated roadway crossings (Lander, Holgate) improve existing rail/traffic/freight operations Property effects at tunnel portal site (for Massachusetts Tunnel Portal alternative only) 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 facility 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. 83 Chinatown-International District: Key differentiators • Station location • Ease of station access/passenger transfers • Construction, traffic effects • Property effects • Viaduct re-build project issues SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators – Chinatown-International District 84 Summary Alternative Chinatown-ID Key findings Cost comparison* Schedule comparison* ST3 Representative Project E-3 Surface (shorter 5th Ave Cut-andCover Tunnel) • • Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area - $300M** Higher Performing Massachusetts Tunnel Portal (5th Ave Bored Tunnel) • • Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area - $200M Higher Performing 5th Ave Mined C-ID • • • • Deep mined station (~200’) under 5th Ave; poor rider access/transfers Less construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave with mined station Some property effects (for mined station access shaft) Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250’) Similar Medium Performing • • 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.) Large property effects (Ryerson Base for tunnel portal site) Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-buildcosts 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 demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) Large property effects (King County Admin Building) Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-buildcosts + $500M Lower Performing + $600M Lower Performing 4th Ave Mined C-ID • • • • • 4th Ave Cut-and-Cover C-ID • • *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. 85 Station Charrette Feedback *Chinatown-ID 5th Ave S Tunnel Cut and Cover • Greatest concern about construction effects to C-ID neighborhood and displacement of businesses • Less opportunity to connect to King Street Station • Could activate Union Station and plaza • Some TOD potential 5th Ave S Tunnel Mined • Less concern about construction effects • Less opportunity to connect to King Street Station • Could activate Union Station and plaza • Could span Jackson Street • Some TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 4th Ave S Tunnel Cut and Cover • Concern about construction effects to traffic with 4th Ave S viaduct rebuild • Opportunity to connect to King Street Station services • Could activate Union Station • Limited TOD potential 4th Ave S Tunnel Mined • Concern about construction effects to traffic with 4th Ave S viaduct rebuild • Opportunity to connect to King Street Station services via station mezzanine • Could activate Union Station • Limited TOD potential 86 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) 87 EALLARD x-wrwv To Ballard ?r Forest St I?m, West Seattle High School I 5 To Tacoma SW Hantord St Dome turn?: I Harbor . Hanford St AG 0? 7.3 I 2,9 Island Operation 76 3 Maintenance 1 QUEEN 5? Facrlity I k? mat.? a, ANNE SW Hinds St 0% 0/ :5 g, 9- 17?s soum LAKE 5w Spokane St ?43 :1 UNION \e ?a - a I Sumner: >l ?699 . mm?, . \3 SW Charlestonm St a i 95! Seattle Bridge DOWNTOWN . WmAndover Andover 51 (mint-Wm: swomusr DELRIDGE in 5000 ?l a .7 r- AVALON wast 35?? x. 0 1 5w- um "um, a: mummy a? ??vummum ,aav sw Avalon Way 7 ?urn-swam ,v i. a Westssanle mm 5:52:13; 33 i 65 Stadium Golf Course I 13"? 2 ALAS CTIO a i 5w Alaska 51 Pu at Park KEY MAP . . Edmunds sx 3? 3 <2 - 0 West Seattle extensmn/Station area . 5 j; 3) LEG EN Ballard extension/Station area 5T3 representatrve protect - West Seattle extension son Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle tunnel a, NI a Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/elevated 3 2 . 25. SW Dawson St Golf Course/Alaska Junction/tunnel .0: 3 I 5 . - Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/tunnel SW Bran on St rk Approximate portal location 2:1: Elevated Elevated station Tunnel Tunnel station Q1) West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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% Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 89 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 future Medium Medium future Medium Medium Complicates Complicates Best accommodates Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 LRT extension LRT extension future LRT extension 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% Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Medium Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Accommodates Future LRT Extension Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 90 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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. Tunnel options could Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 affect schedule 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% Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 91 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 Most engineering Medium Medium Medium Medium constraints Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium (tunnel through unstable Medium slopes, Medium Medium Medium Fewer engineering Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 constraints (avoids Pigeon widest water crossing, wide Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long-Range Plan. (3) Point steep slope) Union Pacific Argo railyard Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 crossing, high voltage 1 lines, etc.) 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% Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 92 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 Higher cost cost alternatives alternatives; Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Higher requires 3rd Party funding 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% Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 93 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 (1) Development Potential 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 (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 94 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 (1) Development Potential Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Most effects to Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Duwamish Greenbelt 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 (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 95 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 (1) Development Potential Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium High guideway HighHigher guideway Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. (2) along Genesee; along Genesee; Historic Properties/Landmarks 1 1 1 1 2 Low guideway Low guideway elevated elevated Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower along Lower LowerAvalon along Genesee along Genesee Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5and 44th 2.8 0.6 Oregon Station 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 (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Visual Effects Lower Performing Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 96 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 (1) Development Potential Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impactsguideway on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Elevated and station Tunnel station at Fauntleroy Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 at 44th increases residential lessens residential Lower and Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower and business effects business effects 0.6 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 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 (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Medium Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Residential and Business Displacements Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 97 Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ 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 (1) Development Potential 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 (1) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Elevated guideway onHigher north side of West Seattle bridge; Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher facilities during construction Medium affects freight, port terminal 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 Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint West Seattle/Duwamish Lower Performing Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Effects on Freight Movement Medium Performing Higher Performing = Key Differentiators 98 Avalon-GeneseeDelridge Duwamish Crossing Alaska Junction West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – By sub-segment 99 Alaska Junction: Key differentiators • Station location • Residential/business effects • Ease of future extension • Guideway height in Delridge West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – Alaska Junction 100 Key differentiators Alaska Junction Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel Tunnel station at 42nd Ave SW Facilitates low guideway in Delridge (along Genesee) Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Elevated station at 44th Ave SW Increases residential and business effects Complicates future extension south Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Tunnel station at Fauntleroy Way SW Lessens residential and business effects Facilitates low guideway in Delridge (along Genesee) Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Tunnel station at 44th Ave SW; tunnel portal in 37th Ave SW vicinity Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding 101 Avalon-Genesee-Delridge: Key differentiators • Station location • Residential/business effects • Guideway height West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – Avalon-Genesee-Delridge 102 Key differentiators Avalon-Genesee-Delridge Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel Furthest south Delridge station location Lessens residential and business effects in Delridge Low guideway along Genesee; tunnel Avalon station Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Delridge station south of SW Andover Street High guideway along Genesee; elevated Avalon station Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Off-street Delridge station west of Delridge Way SW Low guideway along Genesee; tunnel Avalon station Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Delridge station south of SW Andover Street High guideway along Genesee; elevated Avalon station 103 Duwamish Crossing: Key differentiators • Crossing location • Engineering constraints • Fish and wildlife effects • Freight movement West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – Duwamish Crossing 104 Key differentiators Duwamish Crossing Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel Bridge crossing near Idaho Street; south of Harbor Island Most engineering constraints (tunnel through unstable slopes, widest water 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 Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel Bridge crossing on north side of West Seattle bridge Fewer engineering constraints (avoids Pigeon Point steep slope) Avoids effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction 105 Summary West Seattle / Duwamish Alternative Key findings Cost comparison* Schedule comparison* Similar Higher Performing ST3 Representative Project Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated • • • • 3 elevated stations Increases residential/business effects at Junction Complicates future extension south High guideway along Genesee Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel • • • • • 1 tunnel station; 2 elevated stations High guideway along Genesee Fewer engineering constraints Affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding + $500M Lower Performing Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel • • • • 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station Lessens residential/business effects at Junction Low guideway along Genesee Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding + $700M Lower Performing Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel • • • • • • 2 tunnels; 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station Most engineering constraints Most effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Low guideway along Genesee Lessens residential and business effects in Delridge Includes two tunnels; requires 3rd Party funding + $1,200M Lower Performing *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 106 Station Charrette Feedback *Delridge Station Center Delridge Elevated • Not further developed in charrette • Farthest from community center and amenities • Challenging for transit integration • Challenging non-motorized access and wayfinding • Limited TOD potential W Side Delridge Elevated 25th Avenue S Elevated • Concerns about station height and bulk, compatibility with neighborhood • Good transit integration, but would require access enhancements to east • Good non-motorized access • Some TOD potential • Lower guideway and station could be more compatible with neighborhood • Close to community center and amenities • Good transit integration, but would require wayfinding and access enhancements • Considerable potential for TOD in partnership *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. Genesee Elevated • Lower guideway and station more compatible with neighborhood • Directly serves community center and amenities, but affects skate park • Excellent transit integration and non-motorized access • Limited TOD potential 107 Station Charrette Feedback *Avalon Station South Side Genesee Elevated • Concern about station height and bulk, compatibility with neighborhood • Concerns about potential traffic queuing lengths and intersection safety • Challenging transit integration • Limited non-motorized access; concerns about pedestrian and cyclist safety • Limited TOD potential • Blah Fauntleroy Span Elevated and Cut and Cover • Concern about elevated station height and bulk, compatibility with neighborhood, but potential for gateway expression • Concerns about potential traffic queuing lengths and intersection safety • Challenging transit integration • Good non-motorized access by siting entries on both sides of Fauntleroy • Some TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 108 Station Charrette Feedback *Alaska Junction Station SW Alaska St Elevated • Not explored further in charrette • Concern about station height and bulk, compatibility with neighborhood • Good transit integration and non-motorized access • Some TOD potential 44th Ave SW Elevated or Tunnel • Concern about effects to neighborhood character if elevated • Permanent effects to business parking likely • Excellent transit integration • Good non-motorized access • Limited TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 42nd/41st Ave SW Tunnel • Most compatible with neighborhood character • Great urban design potential • Opportunities for enhanced public realm • Excellent transit integration and non-motorized access • Considerable TOD potential Fauntleroy Way SW Tunnel • More distant from heart of business district, but closer to new development areas and amenities • Somewhat challenging for transit integration • Good non-motorized access • Some TOD potential 109 Community engagement and collaboration LEVEL 1 Alternatives Screening JAN FEB Early Scoping Period MAR APR Community Updates Neighborhood Forums Stakeholder Advisory Group Elected Leadership Group - Sound Transit Board Meeting dates subject to change. LEVEL 2 Alternatives Screening 2018 MAY JUN JUL AUG Level 1 Briefing SEP OCT Level 2 Briefing LEVEL 3 Alternatives Screening NOV DEC JAN FEB Identification of Preferred Alternative and other alternatives to studyr in the EIS 111 Next steps SAG Meeting #8 Sep 5 Level 2 evaluation results Neighborhood Forum/Open House West Seattle Sep 8 Level 2 evaluation results Neighborhood Forum/Open House Downtown Sep 11 Level 2 evaluation results Neighborhood Forum/Open House Ballard Sep 17 Level 2 evaluation results SAG Meeting #9 Sep 26 Level 2 recommendations ELG Meeting #4 Oct 5 Level 2 recommendations 112 SOUNDTRANSIT