Sound Transit Light-Rail Alternatives Evaluation

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
3
SAG and ELG meetings
SAG Meeting #8  Community engagement and collaboration
Sept. 5, 2018  Level 2 evaluation results
SAG Meeting #9  Community engagement and collaboration

Sept 26, 2018  Level 2 recommendations
ELG Meeting  Community engagement and collaboration

Oct. 5, 2018  Level 2 recommendations
4
Community Engagement
Update
5
External Engagement Report: Jun-Aug 2018
engaging more than
17 comments and questions 8 festivals 3,300 community
members
engaging more than

email
6 updates 4,000 subscribers 49 community briefings
4 Tweets engaging 82,000 users

more than 2 Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings
5 posts engaging
more than 30,000 users 1 Elected Leadership Group meeting
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
 Neighborcare Health Ballard (6/18) (6/29)
 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  Mercer Corridor Stakeholders Committee
Operators (7/18) (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
 Drink & Link in Delridge (8/8) Committee (8/29)
 Labor organizations (8/8)  United Indians of All Tribes Foundation
(8/29)
 Tugboat tour with Western Towboat (8/10)
 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 (Includes Denny, South Lake (Includes Smith Cove,
and Alaska Junction Union, Seattle Center, Midtown, Interbay and Ballard
stations) Westlake, Chinatown-International stations)
District, Stadium and SODO
stations)
Saturday, Sept. 8 Tuesday, Sept. 11 Monday, Sept. 17

9 – 11:30 a.m. 5:30 – 8 p.m. 5:30 – 8 p.m.
Seattle Lutheran High School Ruth Fisher Boardroom, Ballard Eagleson VFW
Gym (4100 SW Genesee St., Union Station (2812 NW Market St., Seattle)
Seattle) (401 S. Jackson St., Seattle)
12
Alternatives
development
overview
13
West Seattle project timeline
PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF

SERVICE
2017–2022 2022–2025 2025–2030
2016 2030
Alternatives development Final route design Conversations with
property owners
Board identifies preferred Final station designs
alternative Groundbreaking
Procure and commission
Draft Environmental station and public art Construction updates
Impact Statement and mitigation
Obtain land use and
Final Environmental construction permits Safety education
Impact Statement
Testing and pre-operations
Board selects project
to be built
Federal Record of
Decision
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
14
Ballard project timeline
PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF

SERVICE
2017–2022 2023–2026 2027–2035
2016 2035
Alternatives development Final route design Conversations with
property owners
Board identifies preferred Final station designs
alternative Groundbreaking
Procure and commission
Draft Environmental station and public art Construction updates
Impact Statement and mitigation
Obtain land use and
Final Environmental construction permits Safety education
Impact Statement
Testing and pre-operations
to be built
Federal Record of
Decision
15
PLANNING DESIG
2016
2017–2019 2019–2022
Alternatives Draft Environmental
development Impact Statement
Board identifies Final Environmental
preferred alternative Impact Statement
to be built
Federal Record of
Decision
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
16
Alternatives development process
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 PREFERRED

Alternatives development Alternatives development Alternatives development ALTERNATIVE*
Early-2018 Mid-2018 Late-2018 / Early-2019 Early-2019
Conduct early scoping Technical analysis Refine and screen

alternatives
Study ST3 representative Refine and screen
project and alternatives alternatives Conduct Environmental
Impact Statement
Screen alternatives (EIS) scoping
*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
• Transit capacity consistency
• Projected transit demand • Modal integration
• Regional centers served • Station area development opportunities
• ST Long-Range Plan consistency • Environmental effects
• ST3 consistency • Traffic operations
• Technical feasibility • Economic effects
20
Measures and methods
50+ quantitative and/or qualitative measures
Rating thresholds for High, Medium and Low
Key differentiators and findings
Lower Medium Higher

Performing Performing Performing
21
Cost assessment
Purpose: To inform comparison of Level 2 alternatives
Comparative costs by segment

Consistent methodology (2017$; construction, real estate, etc.)
Based on limited conceptual design (less than 5% design)
Final project budget established at 60% design (~ 2024)
Costs for end-to-end alternatives in Level 3
22
Financial constraints
ST3 Plan budget based on 2014 conceptual cost estimates
Significant recent escalation in construction and real estate

costs
Level 2 cost assessment provides basis for comparison of
alternatives within a segment
Level 3 end-to-end alternatives will facilitate comparison to
ST3 budget
Be mindful of financial realities when considering Level 2
recommendations
23
Level 2 alternatives
evaluation
24
West Seattle/
Duwamish
Interbay/Ballard
Downtown
SODO and
Chinatown/ID
Study segments 25
1 2
Map of alternatives Evaluation measures
3 4
Key differentiators Summary

26
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
Interbay/Ballard
Level 2 alternatives 28
Central Interbay/
ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/
Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/
Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th
14th
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
(1/2) 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3%
Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8%
(1) Within station walksheds
(2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Medium
Lower Performing Higher Performing
(3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Performing
Interbay/Ballard
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 29
Central Interbay/
14th
Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattlebridges
Movable to meet projected
have transit demand.
Network Integration Medium Medium
Movable bridges Medium have potentialMedium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium
potential
Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 service
serviceinterruptions
interruptions 17,800
19,000 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500
(1/2) 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3%
Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 30

Central Interbay/
14th
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 Long spans (over
19,000 17,800BNSF 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500
Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic
tracks), development
constrained plans and Sound Transit’s
tunnel At Long-Range
grade Plan.
sections
Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A location, deeper N/A tunnel N/A
At grade sectons
N/A N/A N/A
portal lessen complexity
lessen complexity
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium station add complexity
Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher
(1/2) 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3%
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 31

Central Interbay/
14th
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500
Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Lowest cost
HighestHighercost Higher Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Highertunnel alternative
Higher Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher alternative
Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher
Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Requires
Includes tunnel; Medium
Mediumtunnel; Medium
(activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% may
requires8% 3rd Party
require 3 rd 8% 9%
party funding
funding
(1/2) 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3%
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 32

Central Interbay/
14th
Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and
policies.
Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium
Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35
Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher
Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher
Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium
Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher
Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices.
Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3
Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9
Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5
Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12
Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher
Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher
Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher
Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower
Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium
Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher
Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher
Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium
Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher
Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium
(1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment
Medium
(2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing
Performing
Interbay/Ballard
Central Interbay/
14th
policies.
Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Farther from Highercenter Medium Higher
Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium
of Urban Village Lower Medium
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages 34

Central Interbay/
14th
policies.
Development Potential (1) Medium
Bridge columnsMedium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Bridge
BridgeMedium
columns
columns Medium Higher
in waterway in
in waterway
waterway
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Water Resource Effects 35

Central Interbay/
14th
policies.
Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Elevated guideway
Lower Lower LowerBallard terminus/
Lower water Lower Lower Lower Lower
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) (west side 15th) 1
0.2 0.9crossing location 0.9 affects 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9
Water Resource Effects (acres) affects
0.7 more parcels0.6 0 0
more residences 0.7 0 0.4 0
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potentially Affected Properties 36

Central Interbay/
14th
policies.
Potentially Affected Properties Medium LowerMore effect on traffic,
Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher
Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower
freight and navigation Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation and Access, Freight Movement 37

Central Interbay/
14th
policies.
Square Feet of Business Displacements MediumMore business,
Medium Medium Higher Medium Tunnels; Higher Medium Lower
commerce effects Less less
business,
business,
Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher commerce Highereffects Higher Higher
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business and Commerce Effects 38

Salmon Bay Crossing
Smith Cove-Interbay
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 Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave median)
20th/Fixed Bridge/17th
Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave)
Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity
20th/Tunnel/15th
Central Interbay/
Movable Bridge/14th
Armory Way/
Tunnel/14th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave)
Central Interbay/ At-grade sections (along BNSF tracks) lessen complexity
Fixed Bridge/14th
Central Interbay/
Tunnel/15th
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
ST3 Representative
Project
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
Longer tunnel, more constrained portal

20th/Tunnel/15th
Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding
Central Interbay/ Potential service interruptions
Movable Bridge/14th Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects
Armory Way/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal
Tunnel/14th Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding
Central Interbay/ Fewer columns in water than movable bridge
Fixed Bridge/14th Maritime business effects
Central Interbay/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal
Tunnel/15th Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding
43
Ballard Terminus:
Key differentiators
• Ballard Station location
• Elevated or tunnel
Interbay/Ballard
Key differentiators – Ballard Terminus 44
Key differentiators Ballard Terminus
ST3 Representative
Project
Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more parcels
More residential displacements
Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences
Closer to center of Urban Village
Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences
20th/Tunnel/15th
Deeper tunnel station (~120’); adds complexity
Central Interbay/
Movable Bridge/14th
Affects fewer parcels (along 14th Ave NW)
Armory Way/
Farther from center of Urban Village
Tunnel/14th
Shallower tunnel station (~70’)
Central Interbay/
Fixed Bridge/14th
Central Interbay/ Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses
Tunnel/15th Shallower tunnel station (~80’)
45
Summary Interbay/Ballard
Cost Schedule
Alternative Key findings
comparison* Comparison**
ST3 Representative
Project
Central Interbay/ • Maritime business effects (but less than movable bridge) Higher
+ $100M
Fixed Bridge/14th • Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) Performing
• Potential service interruptions

Central Interbay/ Higher
• Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects + $200M
Movable Bridge/14th Performing
• Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW)
• Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) Higher

15th/Fixed Bridge/15th + $200M
• Elevated guideway (west side 15th Ave NW) affects more residences Performing
• Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects
Armory Way/ Higher
• Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14th Ave NW) + $300M
Tunnel/14th Performing
• Includes tunnel; requires 3rd Party funding
• Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects
Central Interbay/ Higher
• Tunnel station (east side 15th Ave NW) affects businesses + $500M
Tunnel/15th Performing
• Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity Higher
20th/Fixed Bridge/17th + $500M
• Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences Performing
• Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks), constrained tunnel portal location,
deeper tunnel station add complexity Higher
20th/Tunnel/15th + $700M
• Tunnel station (west side 15th Ave NW) affects residences Performing
*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 15th Ave NW 14th Ave NW
Elevated Elevated or Tunnel Elevated or Tunnel
• Good location to serve historic center of • Moving station out of ROW reduces • Location farthest from historic center of
Ballard and Swedish Medical Center freight conflicts Ballard, but still in the urban village
• Concern about potential construction • Concern about compatibility of elevated • Most compatible elevated option, with
effects on neighborhood station with neighborhood large available ROW and potential for
• Concern about compatibility of elevated • Close to an area with good reconstructing 14th as a more full-
station with neighborhood development potential service street
• Challenging for transit integration and • Excellent transit integration and • On the path of future growth, though
circulation (fire station operations) circulation much of station area is zoned industrial
• Good non-motorized access • Good non-motorized access • Good transit integration and circulation
• Some TOD potential • Considerable TOD potential (tunnel) • Good non-motorized access
• Blah • Some TOD potential (elevated) • Considerable TOD potential
*Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 47
Station Charrette Feedback *Interbay Station
20th Ave W 17th Ave W 16th Ave W 15th Ave W
At Grade or Elevated At Grade or Elevated Elevated Elevated
• Good location to serve • Best serves emerging • Not developed further in • Not developed further in
Magnolia Interbay Triangle charrette charrette
• Not much zoned neighborhood • Concerns about station • Concerns about potential
development capacity in the • Good transit integration compatibility with emerging effects to freight and
station area • Challenging for non- neighborhood fabric general mobility on 15th Ave
• Challenging for transit motorized access from east, • Challenging for transit W corridor during
integration, requiring long but opportunities for integration construction
deviations substantial enhancements • Challenging for non- • Good transit integration
• Good non-motorized access • Considerable TOD potential motorized access • Challenging for non-
to existing facilities • Some TOD potential motorized access
• Limited TOD potential • Limited TOD potential
Downtown
• 5th/Harrison
• 6th/Boren/Roy
• 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer
49
Downtown
Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer
Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher
Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9
Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium
Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 176,700
Regional Growth Centers Served 3 3 3 3
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium
Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher
Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Medium Lower
Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower
Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium
Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --- $200M increase Similar $200M increase
Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium
Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium
(activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% 24% 26%
Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% 28% / 30% 28% / 30%
Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% 34% / 36% 35% / 36%
Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4%
Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% 15% / 13% 14% / 13%
Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5%
Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12%
Downtown
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A
Avoids building
N/A
foundation N/A
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium
Engineering
Medium on 5th Ave but
tie-backsMedium Medium
challenges with more constrained Denny
tunneling under Key station on Boren
Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher
Arena Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher
Downtown = Key Differentiators
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints 52

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium
Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher
Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher
Higher cost alternatives Higher

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
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
(2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Medium
Performing
Downtown
plans and policies. Better bus/rail integration Lower bus/rail integration
Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Higher Higher Higher
opportunity at Seattle Higher
opportunity at SLU
Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher
Center station on Roy Higher
Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 station on171Harrison 169 168
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0
Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration 55

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
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 Property 0 due to tunnel
effects 1.1 0
Visual Effects Higher
portal location
Higher
on Harrison Medium Higher
(1)
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers Higher Medium Medium Higher
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements, Construction Impacts 56

Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU
Seattle Center
Downtown
Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU:
Key differentiators
• Bus-rail integration
Downtown
Key differentiators – Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU 58
Key differentiators Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU
ST3 Representative
Project
5th/Harrison Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison
Avoids building foundation tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer

6th/Boren/Roy
More constrained Denny station on Boren
5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer
59
Seattle Center:
Key differentiators
• Property effects
• Bus-rail integration
• Portal location
Downtown
Key differentiators – Seattle Center 60
Key differentiators Seattle Center
ST3 Representative
Project
Tunnel station on Harrison, west of soon-to-be-renovated Key Arena

5th/Harrison Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena
Property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison
Tunnel station on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena

6th/Boren/Roy
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 Downtown
Cost Schedule
comparison* comparison*
ST3 Representative
Project
• Avoids building tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer

• More constrained Denny station location on Boren Higher
6th/Boren/Roy Similar
• Seattle Center station location on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena Performing
• Lower bus/rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center station on Roy
• Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison

• Higher property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison Higher
5th/Harrison + $200M
west of Seattle Center Performing
• Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena
5th/Terry/Roy/ • Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer Higher

+ $200M
Mercer • Seattle Center station location on Mercer, one block from Key Arena Performing
*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 Republican St Mercer St Roy St
Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
• Good location to serve Key • Location serves Seattle • Location serves Uptown • Location serves Uptown,
Arena, but concern about Center, Key Arena, and well, but concern about but concern about legibility
connection to broader Uptown legibility of connection to of connection to Seattle
Seattle Center • Good opportunities for Seattle Center Center
• Farthest from “Heart of station entries integrated • Good opportunities for • Some opportunities for
Uptown,” but serves core of into existing buildings station entries integrated station entries integrated
up-zoned neighborhood • Good transit integration and into buildings on Mercer into buildings
• Good transit integration non-motorized access • Excellent transit integration • Challenging for transit
• Good non-motorized access • High urban design potential • Good non-motorized access integration and non-
• Good TOD potential • Good TOD potential motorized access
Station Charrette Feedback *South Lake Union Station
Harrison St Republican St Roy St
Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
• Good location to serve South Lake • Challenging location due to SR 99 • Challenging location due to SR 99
Union, Gates Foundation, east entrance adjacency • Serves north end of SLU, but provides
of Seattle Center • Serves SLU but not Gates Foundation good connection to Lake Union as well
• Good opportunities for station entries or Seattle Center as Queen Anne
integrated into new or existing buildings • Limited opportunities for station entries • Good opportunities for station entries
• Excellent transit integration for buses integrated into new or existing buildings integrated into new buildings
traveling on SR 99 • Poor transit integration for buses • Challenging for transit integration;
• Good non-motorized access through traveling on SR 99 would require reconfiguration of SR 99
existing and planned facilities • Poor non-motorized access due to bus lanes
• Blah truncated walkshed • Challenging for non-motorized access
Station Charrette Feedback *Denny Station
Westlake Ave Terry Ave N Boren Ave N
Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
• Good location to serve Amazon HQ and • Good location to serve Cascade • Not further developed in charrette
new Denny Triangle development neighborhood • Farthest from densest part of Denny
• Good opportunities for station entries • Good opportunities for station entries Triangle
integrated into public space and/or integrated into new and/or existing • Constrained by brand-new
buildings buildings development, but some opportunity to
• Excellent transit integration • Challenging for transit integration locate station entries in triangular
• Excellent non-motorized access • Good non-motorized access, with parcels
• Concerns about construction impacts opportunity to negotiate grade on • Challenging for transit integration
on traffic and streetcar operations Denny through hill climbs or escalators • Challenging for non-motorized access;
• Blah in station at top of steep grade on Denny
SODO/Chinatown-ID
• 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

Occidental Avenue

ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and-
Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue
Project Portal Cover C-ID
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
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
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
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
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%

Network Integration Medium Medium Higher NewMedium
grade-separated Medium roadway Medium Medium
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900
crossings
35,300
(Lander, Holgate)
35,300 35,900 37,100
Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development improve existing
plans and rail/traffic/
Sound Transit’s freight
Long-Range Plan.
Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A operations N/A N/A N/A
Similar
(+ $200M in SODO)
SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 71

Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium
Requires 3 rd partyMedium
funding for Medium Medium Medium
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 th 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100
rebuild of 4 Ave viaduct;
Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A engineering/constructability
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 issues
1 and potential schedule
1 1 1 1
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium delay Medium Medium Medium Medium
Similar
(+ $200M in SODO)
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects 72

Major engineering/constructability
constraints th
Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A (4 Ave viaduct N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 rebuild, adjacent
1 to active BNSF1 1 1 Requires long- 1
Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium
railway, proximity/disruption Mediumto Medium Medium span structures
Medium
existing transit tunnel, etc.) over BNSF
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, tracks
and maintain.
Similar
(+ $200M in SODO)
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 73

Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium
Highest Higher
cost
Highest cost Chinatown-
Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium SODO alternative Lower
Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium ID alternatives Lower
Lower Medium Lower
Similar
(+ $200M in SODO)

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
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
Performing

policies.
Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium ~200’ deep Lower
mined stations Medium Higher
Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 provide relatively
2 poor rider 3 3
Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower access and ease
Lower of transfersLower Lower
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 (also results0 in ~250’ deep 0 0
Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Midtown 0 Station) 0 0
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Passenger Transfers 76

policies.
Property effects
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 Property effects
0 0 0 along Occidental,
0
Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 along 4th0 Ave Property
0 effects 0 BNSF crossings 0
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 Property effects
0 0 (incl. King 0County (tunnel
0 portal in 0 and 0
maintenance
Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 (tunnel portal
9 in 4 5 9 SODO) 9 6
facility connection
Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher
Admin Building)
Higher Higher Higher Higher
SODO)
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements 77

policies.
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 th 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Resource Effects (acres) Cut-and-cover0 tunnel on 5 0 0Cut-and-cover tunnel 0 on 4th 0 0 0
th
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres)Ave, periodic closures
0 (8,500 0 0 Ave, periodic closures
0 0 Mined station on04 Ave, full 0
Hazardous Materials Sites (1) vehicles/day),
4 greater 9 4(33,000 vehicles/day),5 less 9closure (33,000 vehicles/day),
9 6
Visual Effects Higher
noise/vibration/visual effects Higher Higher Higher effects
noise/vibration/visual Higherless noise/vibration/visual
Higher Higher
Potentially Affected Properties to Chinatown/ID
Medium Medium Medium to Chinatown/ID Medium Medium
effects to Chinatown/ID
Medium Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Construction Impacts 78

policies.
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 Displacement 0 of social services
0 Traffic
0 detour effects 0 0
Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0
at Jefferson portal site; traffic0 from 0 full 4th Ave lane 0 0
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0
detour effects from partial 4 0 th 0
closures during 0 0
Visual Effects Higher Higher Ave lane
Higherclosures during full
Higher
partial
Higher
viaduct Higher Higher
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium viaduct
Medium replacement Medium replacement Medium
Medium Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Burden on Low-Income/Minority 79

policies.
Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Mdium Lower Lower Medium
Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 Construction
2 3 3
Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower effects,Lower
including Lower Lower
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0
New0 grade- 0
Construction 0
0
displacement
0
of
0 0
Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 separated 0 roadway 0effects, including0 Ryerson Bus 0 Base 0 0
Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 crossings 9 (Lander, 4 4th Ave lane 5 and lane closures
9 9 6
Visual Effects Higher Higherimprove
Holgate) Higherclosures during Higher on 4 Higher
th Ave due to Higher Higher
Construction effects on Less
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumconstructionMedium effects,
WSDOT ramp structures existing full replacement partial replacement
Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
lane closures on Medium 5th Ave
Residential Unit Displacementsand foundations Medium rail/traffic/freight
Medium Medium of viaduct Medium of viaduct structure
Medium Medium Medium
with mined station
Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher operations
Lower Higher structure Lower Higher Lower Lower
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation, Existing Facilities, Freight 80

SODO Chinatown-ID

SODO:
Key differentiators
• New SODO Station location
• Transfer with existing station
• Engineering/ constructability issues
• Bus operations
• Rail, traffic & freight operations

Key differentiators – SODO 82
Summary SODO
Cost Schedule
ST3 Representative
Project
• New at-grade SODO Station on E-3 transitway at Lander Higher

Surface E-3 - $100M
• Transfer at existing SODO Station Performing
• Bus operations on E-3 transitway displaced
• New grade-separated roadway crossings (Lander, Holgate) improve
existing rail/traffic/freight operations
Massachusetts • Property effects at tunnel portal site (for Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Higher
alternative only) **
Tunnel Portal Performing
• Massachusetts Tunnel Portal alternative avoids impacts to Ryerson Base
• New elevated SODO Station on Occidental Ave at Lander

• Transfer at existing Stadium Station
• Long span bridges over BNSF tracks and longer track connection to maintenance
Higher
Occidental Ave. facility + $200M
Performing
• Bus operations on E-3 transitway partially displaced
• Property effects along Occidental, BNSF crossings and maintenance
facility connection
*Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this SODO sub-segment only. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension.
**Cost comparison reflected in Chinatown/ID summary table.
83
Chinatown-International District:
Key differentiators
• Ease of station access/passenger transfers
• Construction, traffic effects
• Viaduct re-build project issues

Key differentiators – Chinatown-International District 84
Summary Chinatown-ID
Cost Schedule
ST3 Representative
Project
E-3 Surface
• Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher
(shorter 5th Ave Cut-and- - $300M**
• Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area Performing
Cover Tunnel)
Massachusetts Tunnel Portal • Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher
- $200M
(5th Ave Bored Tunnel) • Construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave in station area Performing
• Deep mined station (~200’) under 5th Ave; poor rider access/transfers
• Less construction effects, lane closures on 5th Ave with mined station Medium
5th Ave Mined C-ID Similar
• Some property effects (for mined station access shaft) Performing
• Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250’)
• Deep mined station (~200’) under 4th Ave, poor rider access/transfers
• Major engineering/constructability constraints (4th Ave viaduct
demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) Lower
4th Ave Mined C-ID + $500M
• Large property effects (Ryerson Base for tunnel portal site) Performing
• Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-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
Lower
4th Ave Cut-and-Cover C-ID demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) + $600M
Performing
• Large property effects (King County Admin Building)
• Requires 3rd party funding of 4th Ave Viaduct re-buildcosts
*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 5th Ave S Tunnel 4th Ave S Tunnel 4th Ave S Tunnel
Cut and Cover Mined Cut and Cover Mined
• Greatest concern about • Less concern about • Concern about construction • Concern about construction
construction effects to C-ID construction effects effects to traffic with 4th Ave effects to traffic with 4th Ave
neighborhood and • Less opportunity to connect S viaduct rebuild S viaduct rebuild
displacement of businesses to King Street Station • Opportunity to connect to • Opportunity to connect to
• Less opportunity to connect • Could activate Union King Street Station services King Street Station services
to King Street Station Station and plaza • Could activate Union via station mezzanine
• Could activate Union • Could span Jackson Street Station • Could activate Union
Station and plaza • Some TOD potential • Limited TOD potential Station
• Some TOD potential • Limited TOD potential
West Seattle/Duwamish
• Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle

Tunnel
• Oregon Street/Alaska
Junction/Elevated
• Oregon Street/Alaska
Junction/Tunnel (new)
• Golf Course/Alaska
Junction/Tunnel (modified)
87
Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/
Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project
Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel
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
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
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
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
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%
Medium
(2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing
Performing
(3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment
Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium future
Complicates Medium Complicates
Medium future Best Medium
accommodates Medium
Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200
LRT extension 12,500 12,000
LRT extension 10,700 12,500
future LRT extension
Medium
Performing
West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Accommodates Future LRT Extension 90

Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) N/A Tunnel optionsN/A could N/A N/A
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1
affect schedule 1 1
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects 91

Network Integration Medium Most engineering constraints
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium (tunnel through unstable Medium slopes, Medium Medium Fewer Medium
engineering
widest water crossing, wide constraints (avoids Pigeon
Regional Growth Centers Served N/A (3) Union Pacific ArgoN/A railyard N/A N/A Point steep slope)
N/A
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 crossing, high voltage 1 lines, etc.) 1 1 1
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints 92

Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher cost
Higher
Higher cost alternatives
alternatives;
Lower Lower
Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher requires 3rd Party funding
Higher Higher Higher
Medium
Performing

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
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
Medium
Performing
plans and policies.
(1)
Development Potential Medium Most Medium
effects to Medium Higher Medium
Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Duwamish Lower Greenbelt Medium Medium Higher
(1)
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects 95

plans and policies.
(1)
Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium
High guideway HighHigher
guideway
Historic Properties/Landmarks (2)
1 1 along Genesee;
1 1 along Genesee;
2
Low guideway Low guideway
Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower elevated
Lower along Lower elevatedLowerAvalon
along Genesee along Genesee
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 Oregon 1.5and 44th 2.8 0.6
Station
(1)
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Visual Effects 96

plans and policies.
(1)
Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impactsguideway
Elevated on the natural,
andbuilt and social environments through sustainable practices.
station Tunnel station at Fauntleroy
Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower
at 44th increases
Lower
residential Lower Lower
lessens residential Lower and
Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 and business
3.5 effects 1.5 2.8 business effects 0.6
(1)
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Residential and Business Displacements 97

plans and policies.
(1)
(1)
Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Elevated guideway onHigher
Lower north side of West Seattle Lowerbridge;
Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium affects freight, port terminal
Lower Higher facilities during construction
Medium
Medium
Performing
Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Effects on Freight Movement 98

Avalon-Genesee- Duwamish Crossing
Delridge
Alaska Junction
Alaska Junction:
Key differentiators
• Residential/business effects
• Ease of future extension
• Guideway height in Delridge
Key differentiators – Alaska Junction 100
Key differentiators Alaska Junction
ST3 Representative Project
Tunnel station at 42nd Ave SW

Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel Facilitates low guideway in Delridge (along Genesee)
Elevated station at 44th Ave SW

Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Increases residential and business effects
Complicates future extension south
Tunnel station at Fauntleroy Way SW

Lessens residential and business effects
Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel
Facilitates low guideway in Delridge (along Genesee)
Tunnel station at 44th Ave SW; tunnel portal in 37th Ave SW vicinity
Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel
101
Avalon-Genesee-Delridge:
Key differentiators
• Residential/business effects
• Guideway height
Key differentiators – Avalon-Genesee-Delridge 102
Key differentiators Avalon-Genesee-Delridge
Furthest south Delridge station location

Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel Lessens residential and business effects in Delridge
Low guideway along Genesee; tunnel Avalon station
Delridge station south of SW Andover Street

Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated
High guideway along Genesee; elevated Avalon station
Off-street Delridge station west of Delridge Way SW

Low guideway along Genesee; tunnel Avalon station
Delridge station south of SW Andover Street

High guideway along Genesee; elevated Avalon station
103
Duwamish Crossing:
Key differentiators
• Crossing location
• Fish and wildlife effects
• Freight movement
Key differentiators – Duwamish Crossing 104
Key differentiators Duwamish Crossing
Bridge crossing near Idaho Street; south of Harbor Island

Most engineering constraints (tunnel through unstable slopes, widest water
Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel
crossing, wide Union Pacific Argo railyard crossing, high voltage lines etc.)
Most effects to Duwamish Greenbelt
Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated

Bridge crossing on south side of West Seattle bridge
Some engineering constraints (Pigeon Point steep slope)
Some effects to Duwamish Greenbelt (Pigeon Point)
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
Cost Schedule
• 3 elevated stations
• Increases residential/business effects at Junction Higher
Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Elevated Similar
• Complicates future extension south Performing
• High guideway along Genesee
• 1 tunnel station; 2 elevated stations

• High guideway along Genesee
Lower
Oregon Street / Alaska Junction / Tunnel • Fewer engineering constraints + $500M
Performing
• Affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction
• 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station
• Lessens residential/business effects at Junction Lower
Golf Course / Alaska Junction / Tunnel + $700M
• Low guideway along Genesee Performing
• 2 tunnels; 2 tunnel stations; 1 elevated station

• Most engineering constraints
• Most effects to Duwamish Greenbelt Lower
Pigeon Ridge / West Seattle Tunnel + $1,200M
• Low guideway along Genesee Performing
• Lessens residential and business effects in Delridge
• Includes two tunnels; requires 3rd Party funding
*Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 106
Station Charrette Feedback *Delridge Station
Center Delridge W Side Delridge 25th Avenue S Genesee
Elevated Elevated Elevated Elevated
• Not further developed in • Concerns about station • Lower guideway and station • Lower guideway and station
charrette height and bulk, could be more compatible more compatible with
• Farthest from community compatibility with with neighborhood neighborhood
center and amenities neighborhood • Close to community center • Directly serves community
• Challenging for transit • Good transit integration, but and amenities center and amenities, but
integration would require access • Good transit integration, but affects skate park
• Challenging non-motorized enhancements to east would require wayfinding • Excellent transit integration
access and wayfinding • Good non-motorized access and access enhancements and non-motorized access
• Limited TOD potential • Some TOD potential • Considerable potential for • Limited TOD potential
TOD in partnership
Station Charrette Feedback *Avalon Station
South Side Genesee Fauntleroy Span
Elevated Elevated and Cut and Cover
• Concern about station height and bulk, • Concern about elevated station height
compatibility with neighborhood and bulk, compatibility with
• Concerns about potential traffic queuing neighborhood, but potential for gateway
lengths and intersection safety expression
• Challenging transit integration • Concerns about potential traffic queuing
• Limited non-motorized access; lengths and intersection safety
concerns about pedestrian and cyclist • Challenging transit integration
safety • Good non-motorized access by siting
• Limited TOD potential entries on both sides of Fauntleroy
• Blah • Some TOD potential
Station Charrette Feedback *Alaska Junction Station
SW Alaska St 44th Ave SW 42nd/41st Ave SW Fauntleroy Way SW
Elevated Elevated or Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
• Not explored further in • Concern about effects to • Most compatible with • More distant from heart of
charrette neighborhood character if neighborhood character business district, but closer
• Concern about station elevated • Great urban design to new development areas
height and bulk, • Permanent effects to potential and amenities
compatibility with business parking likely • Opportunities for enhanced • Somewhat challenging for
neighborhood • Excellent transit integration public realm transit integration
• Good transit integration and • Good non-motorized access • Excellent transit integration • Good non-motorized access
non-motorized access • Limited TOD potential and non-motorized access • Some TOD potential
• Some TOD potential • Considerable TOD potential
Next steps
110
Community engagement and collaboration
111
Next steps
SAG Meeting #8 Sep 5 Level 2 evaluation results
Neighborhood Forum/Open House

Sep 8 Level 2 evaluation results
West Seattle

Downtown

Ballard
SAG Meeting #9 Sep 26 Level 2 recommendations
ELG Meeting #4 Oct 5 Level 2 recommendations
112
soundtransit.org/wsblink

Sound Transit Light-Rail Alternatives Evaluation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sound Transit Light-Rail Alternatives Evaluation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

West Seattle and Ballard

SAG Meeting #9  Community engagement and collaboration

ELG Meeting  Community engagement and collaboration

engaging more than

4 Tweets engaging 82,000 users

Saturday, Sept. 8 Tuesday, Sept. 11 Monday, Sept. 17

PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 PREFERRED

Early-2018 Mid-2018 Late-2018 / Early-2019 Early-2019

Conduct early scoping Technical analysis Refine and screen

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Preferred Alternative and

Lower Medium Higher

Comparative costs by segment

Costs for end-to-end alternatives in Level 3

Significant recent escalation in construction and real estate

Map of alternatives Evaluation measures

Key differentiators Summary

• ST3 Representative Project

• Central Interbay/Movable Bridge/14th

• Central Interbay/Fixed Bridge/14th

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 30

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 31

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 32

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages 34

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Water Resource Effects 35

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potentially Affected Properties 36

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation and Access, Freight Movement 37

Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business and Commerce Effects 38

15th/Fixed Bridge/15th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15th Ave median)

20th/Fixed Bridge/17th Long-span fixed bridge avoids columns in water

Longer tunnel, more constrained portal

• Potential service interruptions

• Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) Higher

• ST3 Representative Project

Downtown = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints 52

Downtown = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 53

Downtown = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration 55

Downtown = Key Differentiators

Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements, Construction Impacts 56

5th/Harrison Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison

Avoids building foundation tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer

5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer

Tunnel station on Harrison, west of soon-to-be-renovated Key Arena

Tunnel station on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena

5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Tunnel station on Mercer, one block from Key Arena

• Avoids building tie-backs on 5th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer

• Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison

5th/Terry/Roy/ • Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer Higher