EXTENDED MEETING PSRC

Transcription

1 Transportation Policy Board Thursday, July 13, :30 AM 12:00 PM EXTENDED MEETING PSRC Board Room 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA The meeting will be streamed live over the internet at 1. Call to Order (9:30) - Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair 2. Report of the Chair 3. Communications and Public Comment 4. Director's Report 5. Consent Agenda (9:50) a. Approve Minutes of Transportation Policy Board Meeting held June 8, 2017 b. Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) c. Recommend Approval of Hopelink Request to Carry Forward a Portion of Funding from the Biennium Mobility Management King County Project for Use in the Biennium d. Recommend Full Certification of the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County 6. Action Item (9:55) a. Transportation 2040 Update - Financial Strategy -- Ben Bakkenta, PSRC 7. Discussion Item (10:55) a. Transportation 2040 Update -- State Facilities Action Plan -- Robin Mayhew, PSRC, and Patty Rubstello, WSDOT 8. Next Meeting: September 14, 2017, 9:30-11:30 a.m., PSRC Board Room NO MEETING IN AUGUST Major Topic for September: -- Transportation 2040 Update - Draft System Analysis Report 9. Adjourn (12:00) PLEASE NOTE! Seattle Public Utilities is restoring parts of Western Avenue that were impacted by the emergency water main replacement project last year. Due to construction activities, there may be occasional minor traffic delays around PSRC. Access to the parking garage will remain open, but the garage fills up quickly. Please allow for extra time to travel to PSRC and to find parking. Board members please submit proposed amendments and materials prior to the meeting for distribution. Organizations/individuals may submit information for distribution. Send to Cheryl Saltys, csaltys@psrc.org; fax ; or mail. Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) or TTY Relay 711. 中文 Chinese, 한국 Korean, Русский Russian, Español Spanish, Tagalog, Tiếng việt Vietnamese Call

2

3 5.a MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD June 8, 2017 [To watch a video of the meeting and hear the full discussion, please go to: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:36 a.m. by Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair. REPORT OF THE CHAIR Chair Johnson welcomed board members and remote participants to the meeting. COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The following people addressed the board: Alex Tsimerman, StandUP-America Marguerite Richard Bryce Yadon, Futurewise A.J. Honoré Board member Blake Trask, Cascade Bicycle Club, submitted comments via regarding the proposed Transportation 2040 Regional Outcomes. DIRECTOR S REPORT Charlie Howard, Director of Planning: Informed the board that staff will be conducting a competition this summer to award approximately $14 million of Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds. Reported that with assistance from project sponsors, the region has successfully met the new requirement to balance our Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds awarded to projects by year. Going forward, there will be procedures in place that allow flexibility to continue to deliver funds through a fair and balanced program. Presented information and a video about the Video Analytics Towards Vision Zero crowdsourcing initiative launched by the region on June 1 that is seeking the public's help in a cutting-edge effort to help prevent deaths and serious injuries from traffic crashes. The project will tap new Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 3

4 5.a technologies to analyze traffic camera video footage available in many cities, and use nearmiss collisions to predict where future crashes are likely to occur. [For more information, visit VIDEO ANALYTICS towards Vision Zero.] Announced that he will be retiring on September 8 and that today s Transportation Policy Board meeting will be his last. He expressed his appreciation for the interaction that he s had with the board and thanked board members for all their work. Board members thanked Mr. Howard for his outstanding service and his many contributions to transportation and growth management planning in the region and state, and wished him well in his retirement. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes of Transportation Policy Board Meeting held May 11, 2017 b. Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) c. Recommend Certification of Comprehensive Plan for Stanwood ACTION: The motion was made by Councilmember Terry Ryan and seconded by Mayor Becky Erickson to adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS TO RECEIVE PSRC S 2017 RURAL TOWN CENTERS AND CORRIDORS PROGRAM AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) REGIONAL COMPETITION FUNDS At its May 11 meeting, the Transportation Policy Board authorized the release of projects being recommended to receive funding through PSRC s 2017 Rural Town Centers and Corridors Program and FTA Regional competitions for public review and comment. The public comment period will continue until June 22, when the funding recommendation will be presented to the Executive Board for final approval. Jeff Storrar, PSRC Principal Planner, drew attention to three public comments received to date which were included in the agenda packet. He then reviewed with the board the recommendation to award four projects a total of $3 million of Rural Town Centers and Corridors funds for road improvements in North Bend, Orting, Snohomish and Stanwood. He presented highlights of each project. Next, Sarah Gutschow, PSRC Senior Planner, presented the eight projects being recommended to receive approximately $32 million of FTA Regional Competition funds for transit and ferry improvements in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. ACTION: The motion was made by Councilmember Paul Roberts and seconded by Councilmember Joe McDermott to recommend Executive Board approval of the projects recommended for PSRC s federal funds as identified in Attachments A and B, including prioritized contingency lists of projects should additional funds become available prior to the next project selection process. The motion passed. REGIONAL TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT TARGETS Gil Cerise, PSRC Principal Planner, explained that Transit Asset Management is the process by which transit agencies use the condition of capital assets (rolling stock, infrastructure, facilities and equipment) to guide prioritization of funding to keep the agency s transit network in a State of Good Repair. Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 4

5 5.a Under the federal Transit Asset Management rule that took effect on October 1, 2016, public transit agencies were required to set agency-specific performance targets for their assets by January 1, The federal rule further requires that the region establish regional targets by July 1, PSRC gathered information from the region s public transportation operators on their initial performance targets and collaborated with the agencies to develop 2017 regional Transit Asset Management performance targets. After PSRC establishes the targets, they will be forwarded to the Washington State Department of Transportation as required by the Federal Transit Administration. Establishing the 2017 targets is the first step in the region s role in implementing regional Transit Asset Management performance-based planning. PSRC will continue working with the transit agencies and ferry operators to share information on how PSRC incorporates this topic into the Transportation 2040 Plan update, and on agency-specific Transit Asset Management Plans that are expected to be adopted by agencies between late 2017 and October 1, Information from agency plans and further state and federal guidance will allow PSRC to assess progress towards achieving the regionwide transit State of Good Repair performance. ACTION: The motion was made by Councilmember Bek Ashby and seconded by Mayor Fred Butler to recommend that the Executive Board act to establish the 2017 regional Transit Asset Management performance targets identified in Table 1. The motion passed. TRANSPORTATION 2040 UPDATE REGIONAL OUTCOMES Robin Mayhew, PSRC Long-Range Transportation Planning Program Manager, noted that at the April Transportation Policy Board meeting, the board requested an opportunity to reaffirm the approach that will be used to analyze and report on how Transportation 2040 is performing. She provided an overview of the proposed Regional Outcome Framework, which is based on the nine Prioritization Measure categories from the 2014 plan update and has been expanded to include 11 Regional Outcomes: 1. Maintain Air Quality and Reduce Climate Change Emissions 2. Support existing and new populations in Centers 3. Improve Freight Mobility 4. Improve Health by providing physical activity options 5. Improve Access to Jobs 6. Maintain and Preserve the Transportation System 7. Provide Multimodal Choices 8. Preserve Puget Sound Land and Water 9. Provide a Safe and Secure Transportation System 10. Improve Access to Opportunity for populations in need 11. Deliver efficient and reliable Travel for people and goods Two overarching themes that staff heard from the board helped guide the development of the Regional Outcome Framework: keep it simple and establish key indicators for how the regional plan is performing. Ms. Mayhew presented examples of performance measures and key indicators to show how results can be communicated for each of the Regional Outcomes. The board gave staff the go-ahead to use the proposed Regional Outcome approach. With direction from the board in July to proceed with system-level analysis, staff will bring back performance results for the board s discussion in September. Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 5

6 5.a BOARD ENGAGEMENT SESSION: TRANSPORTATION 2040 UPDATE FINANCIAL STRATEGY Ben Bakkenta, PSRC Integrated Planning Program Manager, gave a high-level overview of progress the Finance Working Group has made on updating the Transportation 2040 financial strategy that will serve as a blueprint for how the region should fund current and future transportation investments. Board members then broke into an engagement session to provide feedback and guidance. At the conclusion of the engagement session, Vice Chair Erickson invited board members to continue the discussion in the Finance Working Group meeting this afternoon. A summary of board members feedback from the engagement session is as follows: The plan must address projected declines in fuel tax revenues. Both tolling and a vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT) charge can help the region to manage and fund the transportation system. Strive for a balance between tolling and a VMT charge. Look at opportunities where technology could assist (e.g., tracking vehicle miles travelled). We have a critical funding shortfall for cities, counties, and local transit. What does the nearterm gap of $11 billion mean at the local level? What kind of legislative fixes are needed? Educating and communicating with the public about transportation needs and revenue options will be critical. Clearly identify early and ongoing implementation steps and timelines as part of the update. Consider public-private partnerships as a part of the financial strategy. In July, the board will be asked to authorize PSRC staff to proceed with updated financial assumptions based on a set of recommendations from the Finance Working Group. This will allow staff to conduct modeling and plan analysis over the summer for the board to review in fall After reviewing this preliminary analysis, the board will have an opportunity to review plan performance and request any necessary changes to the financial strategy prior to release of the draft transportation plan for public comment at the end of the year. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:54 a.m. Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 6

7 5.a TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD June 8, 2017 TPB MEMBERS & ALTERNATES PRESENT Councilmember Bek Ashby, Other Cities & Towns in Kitsap County Russ Blount, Regional Project Evaluation Committee (Alt.) Mayor Fred Butler, Sound Transit Councilmember Dino Davis, Metropolitan Center Bremerton (via remote) Doug DeForest, Thurston Regional Planning Council Mayor Becky Erickson, Kitsap Transit, Vice Chair Anne Eskridge, University of Washington Ricardo Gotla, Transportation Choices Coalition (Alt.) Jesse Hamashima, Regional Staff Committee (Alt.) Commissioner Don Johnson, Ports Councilmember Rob Johnson, City of Seattle, Chair Craig Kenworthy, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Alt.) Councilmember Kathy Lambert, King County Councilmember Joe McDermott, Local Transit King County Councilmember Ryan Mello, Local Transit Pierce County (via remote) Secretary Roger Millar, WSDOT Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson, Other Cities & Towns in Snohomish County (via remote) Councilmember Mike O Brien, City of Seattle Trinity Parker, Transportation Operators Committee Mayor Joe Pestinger, Other Cities & Towns in Pierce County (Alt.) (via remote) Dave Ramsay, WA State Transportation Improvement Board Councilmember Doug Richardson, Pierce County (via remote) Councilmember Paul Roberts, Metropolitan Center Everett/Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Councilmember Jennifer Robertson, Metropolitan Center Bellevue (Alt.) Councilmember Terry Ryan, Community Transit Commissioner Hester Serebrin, Washington State Transportation Commission Councilmember Mike Todd, Community Transit (Alt.) Councilmember Rich Wagner, Other Cities & Towns in King County Councilmember Stephanie Wright, Snohomish County (via remote) TPB MEMBERS ABSENT (*alternate present) Councilmember Claudia Balducci, King County Rob Berman, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Don Cairns, Regional Project Evaluation Committee John Daniels, Jr., Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Ann Dasch, League of Women Voters of Washington Senator Joe Fain, Senate Transportation Committee Commissioner Robert Gelder, Kitsap County Representative Mia Gregerson, House Transportation Committee Senator Steve Hobbs, Senate Transportation Committee * Mayor Ron Lucas, Other Cities & Towns in Pierce County Dan McKisson, ILWU Local 19 Dr. Ngozi Oleru, Public Health-Seattle & King County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson, Island County Councilmember Dana Ralph, Other Cities & Towns in King County * Shefali Ranganathan, Transportation Choices Coalition Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 7

8 5.a TPB MEMBERS ABSENT (*alternate present) cont d Janet Ray, AAA Washington Andrew Strobel, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Councilmember Robert Thoms, Metropolitan Center Tacoma * Chip Vincent, Regional Staff Committee Mayor Amy Walen, Other Cities & Towns in King County * Councilmember Kevin Wallace, Metropolitan Center Bellevue GUESTS and PSRC STAFF PRESENT (As determined by signatures on the Attendance Sheet and documentation by staff) Ben Bakkenta, PSRC Casey Bloom, Office of King County Councilmember Joe McDermott Benjamin Brackett, PSRC Gil Cerise, PSRC June DeVoll, Community Transit Rob Fellows, WSDOT Rebecca Frohning, PSRC Ingrid Gaub, City of Auburn Mayor Don Gerend, City of Sammamish Sarah Gutschow, PSRC Peter Heffernan, King County DOT A.J. Honoré Charlie Howard, PSRC Christine Jensen, King County Council Kathryn Johnson, PSRC Alex Krieg, PSRC Kate March, City of Bellevue Andi Markley, PSRC Evette Mason, Port of Tacoma Robin Mayhew, PSRC Austin Miller, City of Seattle Joel Pfundt, City of Kirkland Marguerite Richard Cheryl Saltys, PSRC Amy Shumann, Public Health - Seattle & King County Jeff Storrar, PSRC Alex Tsimerman, StandUP-America Lacey Jane Wolfe, City of Kent Jude Willcher, Seattle DOT Bryce Yadon, Futurewise Doc ID 2023 Packet Pg. 8

9 5.b CONSENT AGENDA June 29, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Charlie Howard, Director of Planning Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) IN BRIEF Three agencies submitted seven projects this month for routine amendment into the Regional TIP. These projects are summarized in Exhibit A. The projects were awarded local, state and federal funding through various processes, such as the Connecting Washington funds managed by Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC staff reviewed the projects for compliance with federal and state requirements, and consistency with VISION 2040 and Transportation RECOMMENDED ACTION The Transportation Policy Board should recommend Executive Board adoption of an amendment to the Regional TIP to include the projects as shown in Exhibit A. DISCUSSION Under the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, PSRC has project selection authority for all projects programming regional funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307), State of Good Repair (5337), Bus and Bus Facilities Formula (5339), and Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310). While PSRC does not have project selection authority for other types of federal, state, or local funds, the Executive Board does have responsibility for adding these projects to the Regional TIP. Each project must comply with requirements regarding plan consistency, air quality, and financial constraint. The recommended action would approve the TIP amendment request based on a finding of consistency with VISION 2040, Transportation 2040, and the air quality conformity determination Doc ID 2027 Packet Pg. 9

10 5.b of the Regional TIP. Approval is also based on a determination that funding is reasonably expected to be available to carry out the project. Information describing plan consistency, air quality conformity, and the funding basis for approving the request is described further below. Consistency with VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040 The projects recommended for action were reviewed by PSRC staff and have been determined to be consistent with the multicounty policies in VISION 2040 and Transportation Air Quality Conformity The projects in Exhibit A were reviewed and it has been determined that a new air quality analysis and conformity determination is not required because each project falls into one or more of the following categories: It is exempt from air quality conformity requirements. It is an existing project already included in the current air quality modeling. It is a non-exempt project not able to be included in the regional model. Funding Reasonably Expected to be Available For the projects in Exhibit A, PSRC confirmed that the funds are reasonably expected to be available. PSRC Funding and Project Tracking Policies King County seeks to allocate $42.8 million of FTA 5337 HIFG funds to five projects: Seattle Central Waterfront Regional Passenger Only Ferry Terminal; 500K Substation Breaker Replacement; Atlantic Base Maintenance Building HVAC Replacement; Atlantic Base Pavement Replacement; and Broad Street Substation Transformer Replacement. These funds were held over from the distribution of PSRC s FTA earned share funds that were allocated to agencies as part of the 2016 project selection process, approved by PSRC s Executive Board on July 28, Since four of the five projects are new, per adopted policy these projects will be released for public comment through the Executive Board meeting on July 27, Federal Fund Source Descriptions The following is a list of federal funding sources that are referenced in Exhibit A HIFG State of Good Repair High Intensity Fixed Guideway FBP Ferry Boat Program For more information, please contact Chris Peak at (206) or cpeak@psrc.org. Attachments: Exhibit A Doc ID 2027 Packet Pg. 10

11 Month: July Year: 2017 Project(s) Proposed for Routine Amendment to TIP 5.b.a Exhibit A Sponsor Project Title and Work Description Funding Project Tracking PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase OtherAmend 1. King County Department of Transportation (Marine) Seattle Central Waterfront Regional Passenger-Only Ferry Terminal This project is adding construction funds for an improved regional passenger-only ferry terminal on the central downtown Seattle waterfront. Project work includes vessel boarding slips, ticket vending facilities, sheltered passenger waiting and queuing areas, and other rider amenities. $9,500,000 Federal 5337 HIFG $298,210 Federal FBP $2,449,553 Local $12,247,763 Total 2. Kenmore Juanita Drive Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements New project with preliminary engineering funds to construct ADA accessible sidewalks and buffered bike lanes on Juanita Drive between NE 143rd Street and NE 170th Street. 3. King County Department of Transportation (Transit) 500K Substation Breaker Replacement New project with funds to replace the obsolete Direct Current breakers at Metro Transit trolley sub-stations that have reached the end of their useful life. $1,106,800 Local $525,600 State $1,632,400 Total $3,000,000 Federal 5337 HIFG $750,000 Local $3,750,000 Total Attachment: Exhibit A (2027 : TIP Amendment- July 2017) 4. King County Department of Transportation (Transit) Atlantic Base Maintenance Building HVAC Replacement New project with funds to replace the HVAC system at KC Metro's Atlantic Base, which will provide oppurtunites for Metro's trolley bus system to use new mechanical/electrical technologies, be more energy efficient and reduce opperating costs. $9,897,746 Federal 5337 HIFG $2,474,437 Local $12,372,183 Total Packet Pg. 11

12 Sponsor Project Title and Work Description Funding Project Tracking 5.b.a PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase OtherAmend 5. King County Department of Transportation (Transit) Atlantic Base Pavement Replacement New project with funds to replace pavement at Metro's Atlantic Base, which supports the trolley bus system operations. Work includes the removal and replacement of concrete bus parking areas, sanitary/storm water drainage systems and the existing perimeter chain link fense. $19,238,607 Federal 5337 HIFG $4,809,652 Local $24,048,259 Total 6. King County Department of Transportation (Road Services) 7. WSDOT Northwest Region Broad Street Substation Transformer Replacement New project adding funds to replace the DC power main switchgear/distribution unit, the AC step down transformer, and the back-up power battery system, among others. SR 526 Corridor Improvements New project with preliminary engineering and right of way funds to construct access ramps on SR 526 to improve traffic flow. $1,200,000 Federal 5337 HIFG $300,000 Local $1,500,000 Total $8,000,000 Connecting Washington $8,000,000 Total Attachment: Exhibit A (2027 : TIP Amendment- July 2017) Packet Pg. 12

13 5.c CONSENT AGENDA July 6, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Charlie Howard, Director of Planning Recommend Approval of Hopelink Request to Carry Forward a Portion of Funding from the Biennium Mobility Management King County Project for Use in the Biennium IN BRIEF Hopelink, a private nonprofit organization that was awarded FTA Section 5310 funding for the biennium, is requesting to carry $26,471 of the funds awarded to them forward to the Biennium. Hopelink will use these funds for a comprehensive transportation needs assessment for people with disabilities and older adults in the Snoqualmie Valley. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Transportation Policy Board should recommend that the Executive Board approve Hopelink s request to carry forward $26,471 in FTA Section 5310 funds awarded for the Biennium to the Biennium. DISCUSSION PSRC awarded Hopelink $540,200 for the Mobility Management, King County project as part of the Coordinated Grant funding awards in January Funding awarded to Hopelink and other private nonprofit transportation providers through the Coordinated Grant are to be used during the next state biennium, in this case the biennium, which ended June 30, Funds not used during the biennium are then returned to be awarded to special needs transportation projects on the contingency list that the Board adopted for the biennium as part of the Coordinated Grant competition on January 26, On June 16, 2017, Hopelink submitted a request to carry forward $26,417 of the funds awarded from the biennium into the biennium. Instead of being awarded to projects on the contingency list, the funds in question would be used in support of a national grant from Easterseals Project Action to conduct a transportation needs assessment for people with disabilities and older adults in the Snoqualmie Valley. Doc ID 2028 Packet Pg. 13

14 5.c Hopelink had planned to use these funds earlier in calendar year However, delays in contracting with Easterseals Project Action caused a delay in implementing the needs assessment using the $26,471 in question. Without the extension of these funds into the biennium, Hopelink would not be able to conduct the transportation needs assessment. At its meeting on June 21, the Special Needs Transportation Committee reviewed Hopelink s request and unanimously recommended it to the Transportation Operators Committee. On June 28, the Transportation Operators Committee unanimously recommended approval of Hopelink s request to the Transportation Policy Board. For further information, please contact Gil Cerise at gcerise@psrc.org or (206) Doc ID 2028 Packet Pg. 14

15 5.d CONSENT AGENDA July 6, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Charlie Howard, Director of Planning Recommend Full Certification of the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County IN BRIEF Pierce County has submitted a report to PSRC to request full certification following its initial implementation of planning strategies. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board should recommend that the Executive Board certify that the transportation-related provisions of the Pierce County comprehensive plan update, as clarified by the county s report dated June 26, 2017, conform to the Growth Management Act and are consistent with the multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan. DISCUSSION Pierce County adopted its updated comprehensive plan on September 1, 2015, consistent with the Growth Management Act and VISION The plan was conditionally certified by PSRC contingent on additional work to address strategies related to growth in the unincorporated urban area and annexation or incorporation. The certification report included three specific requirements for further action to address consistency between the planning of the unincorporated urban area and VISION 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy: Report on progress made employing strategies identified in Pierce County Ordinance No s to address management of growth in the unincorporated urban area. Continue to work to affiliate areas of the unincorporated urban area with adjacent cities and support annexation or incorporation. Pass a resolution stating the county s intent and deadlines to work with surrounding cities regarding annexation and incorporation. Doc ID 2026 Packet Pg. 15

16 5.d The county adopted a resolution and work plan in June The attached report from Pierce County describes the county s implementation of several planning strategies that make progress on planning for the unincorporated urban area consistent with VISION 2040 and the county s work supporting annexation. Central to the conditional certification is planning for the large unincorporated urban area in central Pierce County. The board recognized at the time that neither VISION 2040 anticipates nor would it be practical for the area to be fully affiliated with adjacent cities or be incorporated within the conditional review period. Annexation and incorporation are efforts that can take years to complete, require joint planning with cities, and often require a public vote for action. Therefore, the certification report sought confirmation of the county s continued progress of both appropriately planning for the unincorporated area and progressively working towards annexation or incorporation. Growth Management Strategies At the time of certification, the amount and rate of growth of the urban unincorporated area raised concerns regarding consistency with VISION 2040, which sees a larger portion of the unincorporated urban growth occurring within areas affiliated with cities. The county initially identified and evaluated a range of growth management strategies and subsequently initiated multiple planning efforts, including: Community plan updates (currently in process) that provide a combined land use and transportation strategy that redirects growth to a limited number of mixed use centers that increase walkability and transit access. Decreasing the urban growth area in locations that are not encumbered with existing urban density, infrastructure improvements, or vested projects. Review of the county s vesting policy and consideration of termination of the application extension program. Review of the county s sewer exception program. Each of these initiatives has the potential to continue planning efforts in a manner consistent with VISION 2040 by supporting development where urban infrastructure is already in place and reducing the incentive to develop other portions of the urban UGA. Annexation Following the initial plan certification, the county has advanced efforts to support annexations and worked cooperatively with several cities on specific annexation opportunities. These efforts include: Development of Potential Annexation Areas profiles that identifies specific areas and their attributes to focus on future annexation opportunities. Prepared updates for consideration in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle that clarify policy related to areas of potential incorporation, identify Potential Incorporation Areas, and identify Potential Annexation Areas (Bonney Lake). Community plan updates (as noted above) that further individual community discussions, including about potential annexation or incorporation. Enhanced outreach and partnership with Pierce County cities, including: o Bonney Lake Annexation Agreement o Fircrest Annexation Agreement o Discussions with Gig Harbor, Fife, Bonney Lake, and Puyallup Doc ID 2026 Packet Pg. 16

17 5.d Efforts to encourage the state Legislature to address annexation in the 2017 legislative process, including a request to re-enact the state sales tax rebate that was used successfully for multiple annexations in King County. Pierce County presented at PSRC s Peer Networking event on May 18 a presentation about developing annexation agreements with cities, which highlights some of their recent work. As part of the conditional approval, Pierce County was to report to the Growth Management Policy Board regarding the county s progress working towards consistency with VISION 2040 and its planning for the urban unincorporated area. Staff review of the attached report by the county finds it addresses the requirements set out by PSRC to enable the plan to be fully certified. At the July 6 meeting, the Growth Management Policy Board will be asked to take action on a recommendation to certify the plan. For more information, please contact Paul Inghram at (206) or pinghram@psrc.org. Attachments: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions Doc ID 2026 Packet Pg. 17

18 5.d.a Overview Report to the PSRC on the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Certification Requirements June 2017 On April 28, 2016, the PSRC Executive Board issued a Conditional Certification of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. The PSRC issued a Conditional Certification to bring the County s planning into greater alignment with VISION 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy. The specific issues related to: The amount of growth planned within unincorporated urban Pierce County (i.e. adopted growth targets); and, Planning for the transformation of local government from the County to a city through annexation or incorporation. The April 2016 PSRC Plan Review Report identified three (3) steps the County must accomplish to receive Full Certification. Pierce County has completed these steps and has satisfied the requirements to receive a Full Certification. This report summarizes the actions taken by Pierce County to meet these requirements. Conditional Certification Requirements 1) Actions and measures to bring growth in unincorporated urban Pierce County into greater alignment with VISION 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy. It is anticipated that this will include reporting on progress made employing strategies identified in Ordinance No s. Pierce County Response/Actions: In 2009, the PSRC Executive Board recognized that in some regional geographies, growth trends prior to 2008 had been at significant odds with VISION 2040 s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). As it was unlikely 2040 goals could be met, the Executive Board asked jurisdictions (through VISION 2040 s Appendix II-B) to try their best to set targets as close to the RGS as reasonably possible. Jurisdictions facing this circumstance are asked to explain what steps they are taking to align with the RGS. Certification is to be based on those steps rather than an assessment of the targets alone. The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan assumes growth in the unincorporated urban area that is consistent with the County s adopted 2030 growth targets; however, it represents a larger share of the county s growth than called for in VISION 2040 s RGS. In pursuit of greater consistency with the RGS, the County has made significant progress in achieving the following strategies as identified in Pierce County Ordinance No s: Attachment: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions (2026 : Pierce County Full Certification) Packet Pg. 18

19 5.d.a Establishing a land use and transportation strategy that redirects growth to a limited number of mixed use centers in each of the community plan areas. Pierce County started the update process of four (4) community plans in early These community plan areas represent the core of the unincorporated urban county. A significant change being considered through this process is the implementation of a Centers/Corridors strategy. Through this strategy, future growth would be encouraged along one of four (4) major transportation corridors. An objective of this redirection of growth is to establish land use patterns and densities that make public transit and other forms of active transportation more viable. The county completed its initial public outreach effort for these updates in June Staff is in the process of reviewing and developing alternatives and minor modifications to respond to received comments. While there may be modifications, the Centers/Corridors strategy remains a concept reflected in the plan updates. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the county Council in late December Decreasing the urban growth area in locations that are not encumbered with existing urban density, infrastructure improvements, or vested projects. Pierce County has embarked on an analysis of the designated Urban Growth Area (UGA). The initial analysis shall be completed by fall Outreach to potentially affected landowners and other stakeholders will start in October Potential adjustments to the UGA shall be incorporated into the County s 2018/2019 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. It is anticipated that applications submitted through this amendment cycle would be considered for approval by county Council in June Modifying the County s policy on time extensions for vested projects. Pierce County adopted Ordinance s on April 26, This Ordinance deleted provisions ( and.085) addressing Extension of Approval and Reactivation of Expired Approvals. Eliminating policies and code provisions that allow for exceptions such as building without sewer or limiting bonus densities. Pierce County adopted Ordinance s on April 26, Provisions adopted through this ordinance put additional parameters on development as related to meeting minimum density requirements for property that is more than 300 feet from a sewer hook-up. If a lot is more than 300 feet from a sewer hook-up, the minimum density requirement shall not apply, provided that only one lot of the proposed residential plat exceeds 7,260 square feet and associated improvements don t preclude future access or other improvements needed to achieve minimum density for any future land division. Attachment: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions (2026 : Pierce County Full Certification) Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 19

20 5.d.a 2) Continued work to affiliate areas of the unincorporated urban area and support annexation or incorporation. PSRC is committed to supporting affiliation efforts and it is recognized that progress in this area will rely on affected cities and unincorporated communities. Pierce County Response/Actions: VISION 2040 contains a goal to have all unincorporated urban areas either annexed into an existing city or incorporated as a new city. The supporting policies direct the County to affiliate all of its unincorporated areas with a city or identify areas that may be feasible for incorporation. A policy further supports joint planning between the appropriate cities and the County to plan for an orderly transition. Through its 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, the County incorporated policy that supports annexation and the identification of areas that may be appropriate for incorporation. The County adopted Resolution No. R s to express its commitment in addressing annexation and incorporation. As committed to in R s, the following items have further advanced the discussion of annexation and incorporation: Profiles of Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). Pierce County collected information for each of the PAAs related to demographics, housing, land use, local special district, and zoning. The purpose of the published document is to assist in understanding the unique characteristics of each of the PAAs. A better understanding of an area may lead to a more productive discussion about future annexation opportunities. Adoption of additional Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Potential Incorporation Areas (PIAs). Through its 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, the county adopted additional policies that clarify PIAs can be established for an area based upon logical geographic boundaries, size, population, potential tax base, and a variety of uses for a city. Designation of its first Potential Incorporation Area (PIA). Through its 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, the county designated the Employment Based Planned Community of Tehaleh as a PIA. This designation was supported by the developer and existing community residents. Affiliation of two additional Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) in unincorporated urban Pierce County with a city. Through its 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, the county designated two additional Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) affiliated with the City of Bonney Lake. These two PAAs encompass 725 parcels totaling roughly 280 acres. Joint planning shall be passed over as the county and city agree to cooperate in the annexation of these areas via an Annexation Agreement. Attachment: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions (2026 : Pierce County Full Certification) Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 20

21 5.d.a The inclusion of an Annexation and Incorporation discussion through the update of four (4) community plans. Pierce County started the update process of four (4) community plans in early Early in the process, county staff began discussions about annexation and incorporation with the associated four Land Use Advisory Commissions. It is anticipated that some extent of these conversations will be incorporated into the community plans, with possible support to identify additional area(s) as a Potential Incorporation Area (PIA). Legislative efforts at the State level. The County worked with legislators and succeeded in having SB 5215 and HB 1681 proposed in the 2017 legislative session to address urban annexation issues. The bills: o Extend the deadline to January 1, 2022 for certain cities to commence the annexation of certain unincorporated territories in order to be able to assess a sales and use annexation tax; o Expand, for certain counties and annexed areas, the population requirements for a city to be able to assess a sales and use annexation tax of 0.1 percent; o Eliminate a timing requirement for certain unincorporated territories to be eligible for annexation as an unincorporated island of territory; and, o Modify the notice and publication requirement for annexations being undertaken by an interlocal agreement between a city and county to include the option of publishing a summary of the agreement in a newspaper of general circulation within the area to be annexed for two (2) weeks prior to the hearing, along with concurrently posting the full agreement on the legislative body's official website. The Senate held a hearing on SB 5215 during 2017 regular session, but it was not forwarded out of committee despite interest and support by Kitsap County, Snohomish County, and a number of cities. Legislators cited the cost to the state from the proposed sales and use tax credit as the reason it did not move forward. Pierce County worked with Kitsap County later in the session to amend SB 5652 and incorporate items from SB 5215 other than the sales and use tax credit section. However, while SB 5652 did move to the House Rules Committee, it did not move to the floor for consideration due to opposition by the Association of Washington Cities. Pierce County s current intent is to include SB 5215 and HB 1681 (or their content if a different bill becomes the vehicle) on the county s 2018 legislative agenda. Outreach/partnerships with cities to promote/facilitate annexation. Pierce County has actively promoted both annexation and the establishment of joint planning agreements. Further progress has been made with annexation in comparison to joint planning. The focus of annexation is on unincorporated islands utilizing an interlocal agreement as permitted through RCW 35A The county entered into its first annexation agreement on April 17, 2017 with the City of Bonney Lake. The county is in the final stages of completing an annexation agreement with City of Fircrest. Page 4 of 5 Attachment: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions (2026 : Pierce County Full Certification) Packet Pg. 21

22 5.d.a County staff has made various presentations before the Gig Harbor City Council discussing joint planning, annexation, and potential reduction of its designated Urban Growth Area. It is anticipated work will begin on an annexation agreement with Gig Harbor before the end of the year. The county has had productive discussions about annexation with staff from the cities of Fife and Puyallup. As mentioned above, the county will enter into two additional annexation agreements with Bonney Lake as a result of the designation of areas as Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) through the County s 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The county has had on-again/off-again joint planning discussions with the cities of Puyallup and Gig Harbor. These joint planning discussions served as a catalyst to the annexation discussions. Joint planning efforts have currently been set aside to advance annexation opportunities. 3) The Pierce County Council will, no later than June 2016, pass a resolution stating their intent and deadlines to work with surrounding cities regarding annexation and incorporation. Pierce County Response/Actions: The Pierce County Council adopted Resolution R s on June 28, Exhibit A of this Resolution provides a work program and schedule as required by PSRC to receive full certification. The work program includes those items listed under 2) above. Background The Pierce County Council adopted an update to its Comprehensive Plan on September 1, This adopted document incorporated changes as suggested through an initial June 5, 2015 PSRC comment letter. Pierce County submitted its adopted plan with a completed Plan Review Checklist to PSRC on October 12, 2015 for certification purposes. PSRC staff had recommended the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan receive full certification. The PSRC Growth Management Policy Board discussed the County s certification at its March and April meetings. In response to comments from some Board members, the Pierce County Plan was recommended to the Executive Board with a Conditional Certification. The PSRC Executive Board approved a Conditional Certification for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan on April 28, As the PSRC staff was drafting its initial recommendation, the Pierce County Council adopted Resolution R on March 15, This Resolution reiterated the County s policy to encourage affiliation of unincorporated urban lands with adjacent cities and towns and encourage annexation of these affiliated lands, and to identify future incorporation areas within the unincorporated urban area. This Resolution also asked for technical assistance from PSRC to encourage affiliation and promote annexation. On June 28, 2016, after the PSRC Executive Board approved a Conditional Certification, the Pierce County Council adopted R s. This Resolution states it is Pierce County s intent to encourage affiliation of unincorporated urban areas to existing cities, and support annexation and incorporation where appropriate and consistent with the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies and the policies of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit A of this Resolution provided a work program and schedule as required by PSRC to receive full certification. Attachment: Pierce County Comprehensive Plan - Report on Conditions (2026 : Pierce County Full Certification) Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 22

23 6.a ACTION ITEM July 6, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Charlie Howard, Director of Planning Transportation 2040 Update - Financial Strategy IN BRIEF To meet federal requirements, Transportation 2040 must have a fiscally constrained financial strategy that balances costs and revenues. The Transportation Policy Board will be asked to take preliminary action on recommendations the Finance Working Group has developed for updating the Transportation 2040 financial strategy. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Transportation Policy Board should direct staff to proceed with identified investments and financial assumptions for modeling and analysis. Staff will return to the board in fall 2017 with a preliminary system performance report for review. Pending the results of the analysis, the recommendations will become the basis for balancing the Financial Strategy for the draft updated 2018 Transportation 2040 Plan, scheduled for release in December 2017 for public review and comment. DISCUSSION Transportation 2040 was adopted in May 2010, and last updated in June Federal and state mandates require the plan be updated every four years. The 2018 Transportation 2040 update is underway to meet state and federal mandates and to reflect changes that have occurred in the region since The update is being done within the framework of the current adopted plan and existing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Transportation 2040 continues to support the adopted VISION 2040 regional growth strategy and economic objectives through an integrated mobility, environmental, and financial strategy. The financial strategy is an important element of the Transportation 2040 Plan update, serving as a blueprint for how the region should pursue funding for planned transportation investments. Since November 2016, a Finance Working Group made up of Transportation Policy Board and other PSRC board and committee members has met monthly to consider current assumptions and develop recommendations for a revised financial strategy. Doc ID 2029 Packet Pg. 23

24 6.a The Financial Strategy is not an adopted budget, but rather a game plan for the types of revenues that might be pursued to finance projects identified in the plan. Any new revenue sources are subject to approval by either local governments or the state Legislature. The Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy will account for projections of existing revenue sources through the life of the plan, and identify anticipated new revenue sources based on both federal and state policy, and evolved thinking since the 2014 update. A special emphasis during this update cycle has been to identify revenue-generating opportunities for local transportation needs, including resources for city streets, county roads, and local transit. The Finance Working Group has reviewed economic forecasts, current law revenue forecasts, updated estimates of project costs, and financial assumptions in the adopted Transportation 2040 plan. At their June 8 meeting, the Transportation Policy Board was briefed on progress in developing an updated Financial Strategy, and discussed key questions developed by the Finance Working Group to guide completion of their recommendations. After the engagement session, Transportation Policy Board Vice Chair Erickson summarized board member feedback: The region s financial plan must address projected declines in fuel tax revenues in the future. Both tolling and a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) charge can help the region to manage and fund the transportation system. Both have challenges in implementation and public acceptance. In the financial strategy, strive for a balance between tolling and a VMT charge. Look for opportunities where technology could assist in the design of a revenue tool. The region has a critical funding shortfall for cities, counties, and local transit. What does the near-term gap of $11 billion mean at the local level? What kind of legislative fixes are needed? Educating and communicating about transportation needs and revenue options with the public will be critical. Clearly identify early and ongoing implementation steps and timelines as part of the updated financial strategy. Consider how to represent the potential for public-private partnerships as a part of the financial strategy. With this input, the Finance Working Group met on June 8 and June 16 to continue their work to review and modify existing financial strategy assumptions for six transportation program areas: Cities, Counties, Local Transit, Regional Transit, State Highways, and State Ferries. The Finance Working Group came to consensus to recommend that the Transportation Policy Board: Reaffirm the existing, adopted strategy of maintaining and increasing currently available revenue sources, while transitioning to new user-based fees over the longer-term. Better address the needs of cities, counties, and local transit in the near term, using both current and new revenue tools. Develop a solution to replacing the gas tax. The Finance Working Group recommends pursuing Road Usage Charges rather than a regional system of Limited Access Highway System tolls. Use funding tools that address desired regional performance outcomes including reduction of congestion and greenhouse gases. Strive for equity in implementation, benefits, and impacts of existing and new revenue sources particularly for underrepresented users. Doc ID 2029 Packet Pg. 24

25 6.a In support of their work, the Finance Working Group reviewed projections of current law revenue and potential new revenue sources sufficient to fund the maintenance and preservation, operations, and capacity improvements identified for the plan s six program areas. The following table summarizes the region s financial strategy in a single table, with investment needs, current law revenues, and new revenues identified for each of the major program areas. FINANCIAL SUMMARY (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) INVESTMENTS DRAFT Maintenance & Preservation System Improvements Total Current Law REVENUES New Revenue Counties $ 11,600 $ 2,600 $ 14,200 $ 9,900 $ 7,800 $ 17,600 Cities $ 22,400 $ 16,000 $ 38,400 $ 20,700 $ 19,600 $ 40,200 Local Transit $ 26,000 $ 17,400 $ 43,400 $ 35,000 $ 9,900 $ 44,900 Sound Transit $ 20,800 $ 40,800 $ 61,600 $ 61,600 $ - $ 61,600 State Ferries $ 7,300 $ 300 $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 7,500 State Highways $ 18,600 $ 14,200 $ 32,800 $ 24,300 $ 24,400 $ 48,700 Other Regional $ - $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ - $ 400 TOTAL $ 106,600 $ 91,700 $ 198,300 $ 156,800 $ 64,200 $ 221,000 It is important to note that user fees, such as Road Usage Charges modeled for the draft Financial Strategy, are a very productive revenue tool, to the extent that there may be substantial surpluses over the life of the plan. If these surpluses are realized, there is the potential to reduce or eliminate other existing or new revenue sources, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes or fees. The Finance Working Group anticipates a discussion of these potential surpluses in fall 2017, after initial modeling and analysis of transportation system performance and financial assumptions is complete. Attachment A provides more detailed documentation and a discussion of the issues that the Finance Working Group considered, as well as recommendations for specific revenue tools by program area. The Transportation Policy Board is scheduled to authorize PSRC staff to proceed with updated financial assumptions at its July 2017 meeting. This will allow staff to conduct modeling and plan analysis over the summer for review in fall After review of this preliminary analysis, the Transportation Policy Board will have an opportunity to review plan performance, and request any necessary changes to the financial strategy prior to release of the draft plan for public comment at the end of the year. For more information, please contact: Pavithra Parthasarathi, pparthasarathi@psrc.org, Benjamin Brackett, bbrackett@psrc.org, Ben Bakkenta, bbakkenta@psrc.org, Attachments: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update Total Doc ID 2029 Packet Pg. 25

26 6.a.a Attachment A Transportation 2040 Plan Update Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update Introduction & Financial Strategy Overview The Transportation 2040 Plan update includes a draft financial strategy that recognizes the dynamic environment in which transportation investments are made, and lays out a general scenario for funding programs and projects in the plan. The draft strategy relies heavily on traditional sources of transportation financing, such as gas tax, retail sales tax, county and local levies in the first phase of the plan. With the assumption that traditional funding sources will not be sufficient to meet long-term needs, the financial strategy recommends a gradual transition over the longer term to a user-based financing model. The integration of user fees with traditional tax financing begins in the first phase ( ) of the draft financial strategy by implementing toll-financed state highway projects and transitioning to a network of express toll lanes on the region s limited-access highway facilities by the mid-2020s. In the final years of the draft plan ( ), the intent is to transition to a mileage based user fee model to maintain and finance the transportation system 1. Express toll lanes would continue to be operated in the long-term to help manage congestion on the limited access highway system. Figure 1: Transportation 2040 Financial Plan (revenues by source in billions of 2018 dollars) HOT lanes, Facility Tolls, User Fees (19%) New Fuel Taxes, State Fees (0.5%) New Transit/Ferry Specific Sources (3%) New Local Sources (7%) Current Law Revenues (71%) $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Figure 1 illustrates the key components of the draft Transportation 2040 financial strategy. Revenues above and beyond those generated through current law sources are those that are assumed to be implemented through new taxes or user fees and are necessary to implement programs and projects included in the draft plan. Of those new revenues, approximately 64% are generated through new user fees. The remainder comes from extensions of traditional revenue mechanisms such as sales taxes, motor vehicle excise tax, and the county road levy. The draft financial strategy currently shows a surplus in the 1 The transition to a user-based financing model in the first iteration of Transportation 2040 (originally adopted in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2014) assumed implementation of system tolling on the limited access highway network. This current financial strategy update calls for a shift from system tolling to mileage based user fee model, or road usage charges. 1 P a g e Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy) Packet Pg. 26

27 6.a.a second phase ( ) when comparing the revenues generated from current and new sources to future transportation investment needs. The Finance Working Group will discuss this policy issue in fall 2017 once the modeling and system analysis of the draft financial strategy is completed and revenue estimates are finalized. What s Changed in Transportation Funding since 2014 Significant changes have taken place in the transportation funding environment since the 2014 adoption of Transportation At the federal level, the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) act was signed into law in 2015, providing funding certainty for federal surface transportation planning and investment through In 2015, the Washington State Legislature passed the Connecting Washington funding package, a $16 billion statewide investment to maintain critical investments and enhance the transportation system. Another significant outcome was the voter approval of $54 billion Sound Transit 3 (ST3) ballot measure in November 2016, providing for major expansion of public transportation in the central Puget Sound region. Local jurisdictions have also stepped up efforts to shore up short-term central Puget Sound funding needs, implementing some of the early actions called for in the adopted financial strategy. Examples of local initiatives that have been approved since 2014 include Move Seattle, Tacoma s Transportation Benefit District Proposition A, Community Transit s Proposition 1 supporting SWIFT BRT expansion, Kitsap Transit s Proposition 1 Fast Ferry project, and other city property tax initiatives. These approved ballot measures allow local jurisdictions to raise revenue for specific transportation investments. These measures are estimated to generate an additional $3 billion in revenue over the life of the draft plan. Finally, the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC) recently secured a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to conduct a large-scale, public pilot project to test the design, implementation, and acceptance of road usage charges (mileage fees). This pilot program is scheduled to kick off in fall 2017 and would allow the public to test drive the proposed per-mile charge system. This year-long test will simulate how the proposed system might work and provides an opportunity to evaluate the region s assumptions about the transition to a user based financing model. Transportation Futures Task Force The Transportation Futures Task Force was an independent committee comprised of civic, business and government leaders in the central Puget Sound region. The group was convened in February 2015 for the purpose of studying the myriad of transportation funding issues and recommending broad actions and policies to help shape a sustainable approach to funding the region s transportation investments into future. Over a series of 10 meetings in , the Task Force conducted a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of a host of factors, such as, where the region was headed demographically and financially; current and future travel trends; new technologies and their potential impacts on travel; financial, equity and environmental considerations; potential funding scenarios and associated principles to evaluate the new revenues. The Task Force finalized their recommendations in April 2016, which are documented in their final report. One of the early actions called out by the Task Force was to coordinate with the state of Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 2 P a g e Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

28 6.a.a Washington on a voluntary pay-per-mile pilot program in the central Puget Sound region, which includes time of day and facility-specific pricing consistent with their recommendations. The Task Force also recognized the critical needs faced by cities, counties, and local transit, and that these needs are more acute in the central Puget Sound region than the rest of the state. The Task Force recommended establishment of a regional transportation authority to plan, raise revenues, set priorities, and allocate funds for regional transportation investments that improve the performance of the system. Finance Working Group PSRC convened a Finance Working Group composed of Transportation Policy Board members, other PSRC board members, and technical experts to provide input and feedback on the financial strategy as part of the 2018 Transportation 2040 update. See Table 1 below for details on FWG membership. Since their kick-off meeting in November 2016, the group conducted a thorough assessment of the technical inputs and key assumptions that go into developing the draft financial strategy; federal, state and local policies that might influence the long-term revenue assumptions; existing revenue sources and critical funding issues facing each program area (Cities, Counties, Local Transit, Regional Transit, State Highways, Washington State Ferries); the menu of potential new revenue options; and considerations for new revenue sources in terms of feasibility, stability, sufficiency, equity, etc. In addition, the group also reviewed evaluation criteria to assess the performance of the various revenue sources not just in terms of revenue generation potential but also how these source help support our regional vision and outcomes (e.g. system performance, greenhouse gases, equity). These considerations will be incorporated into the System Performance Report, which will be presented to the Transportation Policy Board in fall Name Table 1: Finance Working Group Roster & Representation Representing Deputy Mayor Jay Arnold Councilmember Bek Ashby Stephanie Ball Kim Becklund Rob Berman Mayor Becky Erickson - CHAIR Rob Fellows Commissioner Rob Gelder Mayor Don Gerend Jesse Hamashima Peter Heffernan Councilmember Rob Johnson Councilmember Kathy Lambert Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson Charles Prestrud Commissioner Hester Serebrin Jude Willcher Councilmember Derek Young Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Other Cities & Towns in King County (City of Kirkland) Other Cities & Towns in Kitsap County (City of Port Orchard) Sound Transit King County Metro / TOC Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (Business/Labor) Other Cities & Towns in Kitsap County (City of Poulsbo) WSDOT Toll Division Kitsap County Other Cities & Towns in King County (City of Sammamish) Regional Staff Committee King County DOT City of Seattle King County Other Cities & Towns in Snohomish County (City of Arlington) WSDOT Northwest Region WA State Transportation Commission Seattle DOT Pierce County 3 P a g e Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

29 6.a.a Revenues Current Law Revenues Transportation funding in the central Puget Sound region draws mainly from five primary tax bases including: motor fuel and retail sales, motor vehicle market value, assessed property valuation, and vehicle registrations and licenses. In addition to funds generated from these tax bases, transportation revenues are drawn from a combination of other sources, such as operating income and sources allocated to city and county general funds, user fares, and other fees. This section discusses the primary tax bases on which transportation revenues are generated for each program area, and describes the key issues facing these revenue sources. State Highways The motor fuel tax is the primary source of transportation revenue in Washington State, in addition to Licenses and Permit fees, user fees and federal contributions. The state fuel tax rate is currently 49.4 cents per gallon while the federal tax rate has remained unchanged since 1993 at 18.4 cents per gallon. Fuel tax increases associated with state funding packages (2003 Nickel funding package, 2005 Transportation Partnership Program, and 2015 Connecting Washington) refer to increases to the state fuel tax rate. Beyond the dedicated 2003 Nickel funding package and 2005 Transportation Partnership Program accounts, base motor fuel tax receipts are fully committed to cities and counties, retiring debt from previous investments, and safely maintaining and operating the state s highway infrastructure, including transfers to the Washington State Ferry System. The 2015 Connecting Washington package is funded primarily through fuel taxes and license, permits, and fee increases, which are largely dedicated to funding a specific list of capital projects. Changes in vehicle technology (such as greater fuel economy and electric vehicles), increasing capital costs, changing travel behavior, and inflation continue to compromise the purchasing power of fuel tax proceeds. Since fuel taxes represent a substantial component of state highway funds, declining fuel tax revenues has important implications on the current law revenue forecasts for each of the abovementioned program areas, and highlights the need to transition away from the fuel tax as a primary source of transportation funding. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 4 P a g e Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

30 6.a.a Local Transit Local transit authorities primary source of operating funding is the retail sales and use tax. Other sources of funding include fare revenues, state grants, and federal contributions. With the loss of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues nearly two decades ago, local transit operators have become increasingly dependent upon the sales tax, which is a less stable source of revenue, rising and falling with other economic conditions. For example, during the recession that began late 2007, local and regional transit agencies experienced significant reductions in sales tax revenues, causing many agencies to seek new sources of funding for operations, and to undergo service cuts and reorganizations to align costs with reduced revenues. The volatility of the sales tax as a primary source of operating revenues is an important issue and points to the need to diversify funding sources for local transit operators. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 5 P a g e Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

31 6.a.a Washington State Ferries Like local transit operators, Washington State Ferries significantly affected by the loss of MVET. This, combined with the declining purchasing power of the fuel taxes has resulted in an increasing state budget allocations for capital preservation and system improvements. In 2009, the state developed a long-range plan identifying several stopgap measures to bridge revenue shortfalls, which included fare increases and fuel surcharges. The plan also identified a $1 billion shortfall in the capital program between 2009 and 2025, with no permanent solution identified. The impacts of this shortfall will be significant fleet replacement deferrals and the delay of important capital projects that will hinder the ability of Washington State Ferries to maintain existing levels of service. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 6 P a g e Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

32 6.a.a Cities & Counties In addition to state distributions of fuel tax revenue, cities and counties support transportation investments from a variety of funding sources, such as property tax levies, development impact fees, local option taxes, state grants, federal contributions and general fund transfers. The critical issue with funding sources for cities and counties has been that even with the State Legislature authorizing local option taxes, not all jurisdictions have implemented them due to a variety of reasons, ranging from expending political capital for little revenue potential to voter pushback. Furthermore, local jurisdictions must manage competing needs for general fund revenues, which makes increasing contributions from general funds for transportation purposes unlikely. To reflect the unsustainable nature of increasing general fund transfers as dedicated transportation revenues decrease, the percentage of these transfers has been held at current levels through Beyond these issues with dedicated local transportation revenue options, recent increases in the state fuel tax have been disproportionately allocated to state investment needs. This has meant that cities and counties have been receiving a declining share of statewide receipts over time. These issues highlight the need for immediate action to identify stable new revenue sources for cities and counties. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 7 P a g e Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

33 6.a.a Summary Table 2 summarizes the estimated current law revenues for the various program areas. Note that current law revenues for Sound Transit are provided as part of their financial plan and are incorporated directly in the Transportation 2040 financial strategy. Table 2: T2040 Current Law Revenues, (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) DRAFT Program Area Current Law Revenue Counties $ 9,900 Cities $ 20,700 Local Transit $ 35,000 Sound Transit $ 61,600 State Ferries $ 5,000 State Highways $ 24,300 Other Regional $ 400 TOTAL $ 156,800 Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 8 P a g e Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

34 6.a.a Improving Expenditure Estimates As with every update to the regional transportation plan, PSRC has undertaken a significant effort to present an accurate estimate of future transportation investment needs. Perhaps the most significant in terms of financial impact is the effort to incorporate increasingly sophisticated methods to estimate future maintenance, preservation, and system operation needs. New to the 2018 update are the results of a year-long effort to better capture local system improvement needs by documenting all transportation investments included in local jurisdictions comprehensive plans. Further, PSRC has placed a special emphasis on refining the regional capacity project list and costs submitted by project sponsors. This section discusses progress on incorporating these new elements and an assessment of their impact on the draft financial strategy. State Investments For the 2018 Transportation 2040 Update, PSRC worked directly with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Ferries to incorporate the most recent cost estimates of future state investments. WSDOT refreshed maintenance and preservation estimates and provided them to PSRC by program area, a much more granular level of detail than has been included in previous versions of the plan. WSF updated all costs associated with maintaining current levels of ferry service and capital preservation, including vessels and terminals. WSDOT provided updated system improvement estimates that are reflected as a programmatic line items or as capital improvement projects listed on the regional capacity improvement project list. Maintenance and Preservation Costs Updates During the adoption of Transportation 2040 in 2010, PSRC was directed to explore new methods for quantifying future investment necessary to maintain the transportation system in a state of good repair. During the 2014 T2040 update, PSRC convened the Maintenance & Preservation Working Group, a multi-disciplinary inter-agency subcommittee of the Regional Project Evaluation Committee. The Working Group s charge was to explore key issues and develop new approaches to estimating the cost of maintenance and preservation of existing transportation assets. During the 2014 update the Committee focused primarily on pavement preservation, stormwater and local traffic operations, which resulted in a much more accurate understanding of future financial need in these three key areas. For the 2018 update, PSRC re-convened the Maintenance & Preservation Working Group to further explore maintenance and preservation issues facing cities and counties as well as to expand the scope of new approaches to quantifying future needs. In addition to reviewing and implementing the current methodologies for capturing future needs in the three program areas, the committee developed a new approach to estimating future bridge preservation and culvert replacement outlays that generally replicates analyses facilitated by a bridge management system, which the region does not currently employ. Like pavement, stormwater, and traffic operations, this new approach to estimating future bridge preservation and culvert needs reflects an enhanced focus on maintaining current infrastructure to agreed-upon standards. For the 2018 update, updated approaches to estimating future maintenance and preservation needs reflect strengthened stormwater requirements facing cities and counties, an outcome-based approach to estimating future pavement preservation needs, detailed thinking about Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 9 P a g e Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

35 6.a.a the costs necessary to operate local signals and preserve traffic management devices, and ensure that no bridge is listed as structurally deficient. Through this updated methodology, the Maintenance and Preservation working group estimates that approximately $34 billion will be required to maintain, preserve, and operate existing city and county infrastructure through the life of the plan. Local Transit Operation Cost Updates For the 2018 Transportation 2040 update, PSRC revised its approach to estimating future transit operations and capital costs. The development of local transit long-range plans made this change possible. To quantify costs necessary to maintain current levels of service, PSRC combined historic levels of service with locally-provided assumptions of annual cost increases. In effect, answering the question what will it cost in the future to maintain current levels of service? This is an improvement over the previous method, which was based on more generalized assumptions, because it relies on locally adopted assumptions, thereby better connecting regional planning to local policy rather than extrapolating historic trends. Vehicle replacement and other capital expenditures to maintain current services are also reflected in these estimates. These improvements resulted in a total estimate to maintain and operate existing local transportation services of $26 billion. The second improvement to estimating future local transit costs focuses on new increments of service planned to be delivered over time. In another effort to better connect Transportation 2040 to local planning, PSRC used the service characteristics supplied by each local provider to calculate future costs. These characteristics include future routes, service hours, costs per service hour of various types of service (local, express, BRT, etc.), and other factors impacting future service costs. Closely related to future service provision is the associated capital investment necessary to support the service envisioned by each local transit provider. Capital investment was also captured using local transit provider longrange plans and includes vehicle purchases, maintenance bases, and technology and roadside improvements that support local service speed and reliability. Additionally, PSRC integrated passengeronly ferry plans from both the King County Water Taxi and Kitsap Transit into these estimates. In total, it is estimated that $17.4 billion will be required to expand transit and passenger-only ferry service through Regional Transit PSRC worked directly with Sound Transit finance and planning staff to update costs for regional transit. This was particularly important considering the $54 billion ST3 vote in November 2016, which added substantial investments in light rail regional transit service to the plan. The draft Transportation 2040 financial strategy directly incorporates the most current Sound Transit financial plan. Updated Local Transportation System Investment Expenses Accurately estimating city and county transportation infrastructure improvements has long been an area where PSRC has struggled given the lack of available data. Historically, PSRC has extrapolated historic levels of local transportation investment into the future. While relatively straightforward, this approach assumes consistent levels of investment in system expansion as the transportation network is built-out, an inherent drawback for changing local conditions. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 10 P a g e Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

36 6.a.a For the 2018 T2040 update, the region was fortunate to have a newly adopted set of local comprehensive plans that identified transportation infrastructure improvements for each city and county. Between 2016 and 2017 PSRC staff reviewed and documented these plans, resulting in a new database containing over 4,200 projects and programs on which to base a regional estimate of future local system improvement needs. These projects and programs capture the variety of local transportation-related infrastructure improvements ranging from enhanced stormwater efforts to complete streets and other multimodal investments. This new approach to estimating local transportation projects and programs reflects one of PSRC s primary goals for the 2018 T2040 update, which is to better connect local and regional planning and financial estimates. It is estimated that nearly $13 billion will be required to make local system improvements through the life of the plan, not including those identified on the regional capacity project list or expanded transportation demand management (TDM) and intelligent transportation system (ITS) investments. Updated Regional Capacity Project Costs The Transportation 2040 Regional Capacity Project List includes all transportation capacity investments of regional significance. The project list is comprised of voter-approved projects (e.g. Sound Transit), regional investments identified by local jurisdictions, local transit agencies, and investments in state highways or ferry systems. As with every update to the regional transportation plan, PSRC released a call for projects in winter 2017 to incorporate the latest thinking on these investments. The call for projects resulted in 312 projects, totaling $44 billion of investments. Table 3 summarizes the total requested cost of projects in the constrained plan between More information about these projects can be found at Table 3: Regional Capacity Project List (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) Program Area Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Project Cost Counties $ 1,066 Cities $ 4,236 Local Transit $ 1,848 Sound Transit $ 22,527 State Highways and Ferries $ 14,047 Other Regional $ 402 TOTAL $ 44, P a g e Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

37 6.a.a The Transportation 2040 update process has identified $198.3 billion in estimated needs to maintain, preserve, and operate the existing transportation system, and to make necessary capacity improvements. As shown in the preceding section, forecasts for revenues available from current law sources estimate the availability of $156.8 billion to meet that need, leaving a gap of $41.5 billion. New Revenue Scenario Table 4: Financial Summary (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) INVESTMENTS DRAFT Maintenance & Preservation To meet federal requirements, Transportation 2040 must have a fiscally constrained financial strategy that balances costs of investments contained in the plan and revenues expected to be available to support them. For the purposes of developing a general scenario for a draft financial strategy, projected current law revenues are supplemented with new revenue sources sufficient to cover the anticipated costs of the projects and programs identified in the metropolitan transportation plan, along with the operation and maintenance of the existing system. To fully implement projects and programs identified in the financially-constrained transportation plan, a new revenue scenario identifies potential future revenues from sources that have yet to be enacted, yet are reasonably expected to be available based on voter trends and political momentum. These new revenues address the estimated $41.5 billion gap between projected current law revenues and the needs identified by PSRC s membership. The Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group met monthly from November 2016 through June 2017 to review and modify existing financial strategy assumptions for six transportation program areas: Cities, Counties, Local Transit, Regional Transit, State Highways, and State Ferries. In that work, the FWG thoroughly evaluated a wide array of potential new revenue sources. The Finance Working Group came to consensus to recommend that the updated financial strategy be built around the following principles: Reaffirm the existing, adopted strategy of maintaining and increasing currently available revenue sources, while transitioning to new user-based fees over the longer-term. Better address the needs of cities, counties, and local transit in the near-term, using both current and new revenue tools. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation System Improvements Total Counties $ 11,600 $ 2,600 $ 14,200 Cities $ 22,400 $ 16,000 $ 38,400 Local Transit $ 26,000 $ 17,400 $ 43,400 Sound Transit $ 20,800 $ 40,800 $ 61,600 State Ferries $ 7,300 $ 300 $ 7,500 State Highways $ 18,600 $ 14,200 $ 32,800 Other Regional $ - $ 400 $ 400 TOTAL $ 106,600 $ 91,700 $ 198, P a g e Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

38 6.a.a Develop a solution to replacing the failing gas tax. The Finance Working Group recommends pursuing Road Usage Charges rather than a regional system of Limited Access Highway System tolls. Use funding tools that address desired regional performance outcomes including reduction of congestion and greenhouse gases. Strive for equity in implementation, benefits, and impacts of existing and new revenue sources particularly for underrepresented users. Responding to these principles, the Finance Working Group identified projections of current law revenue and potential new revenue sources sufficient to fund the maintenance and preservation, operations, and capacity improvements identified for the plan s six program areas. The backbone of this strategy is the phasing-in of user fees that are directly tied to the use of the system. While the exact timing of this transition is unclear, the Finance Working Group anticipates the transition to begin around 2025 with revenues from the user fees able to support a broad range of transportation investments in the second phase of the plan. This assumption of timing is supported by recent momentum in Washington to develop and implement a statewide road usage charge as a replacement for declining fuel tax revenues. In the near-term the Finance Working Group is assuming a range of traditional taxes and fee extensions designed to provide stable and reliable funding for local and regional transportation infrastructure. This scenario is based on historical trends that demonstrate the willingness of lawmakers and voters to raise transportation revenues necessary to implement projects with clear benefits to the region and state. It is important to note that user fees, such as Road Usage Charges modeled for the draft Financial Strategy, have the potential to be a very productive revenue tool, to the extent that there is the potential for substantial surpluses over the life of the plan. If these surpluses are realized, there is the potential to reduce or eliminate other revenue sources, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and other license or permit fees. The Finance Working Group anticipates a discussion of these potential surpluses in fall 2017, after initial modeling and analysis of the system and financial assumptions is complete. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 13 P a g e Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

39 6.a.a Table 5: Summary of New Revenue Scenario (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) DRAFT New Revenue Summary Table New Local Sources $ 5,450 $ 10,887 $ 16,338 Index Existing Fuel Tax $ 257 $ 1,870 $ 2,127 Carbon Tax on Fuel $ 1,681 $ 3,495 $ 5,175 Paid-Parking Surcharge $ 473 $ 1,999 $ 2,471 Vehicle License Fees $ 327 $ - $ 327 Transportation Impact Fees $ 626 $ 1,844 $ 2,470 County Road Levy Lift $ 164 $ 1,031 $ 1,194 Street Utility Tax $ 229 $ 649 $ 878 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (local share) $ 1,694 $ - $ 1,694 New Transit/Ferry Specific Sources $ 2,287 $ 3,860 $ 6,147 Employee Tax (per employee per month) $ 132 $ 372 $ 504 Local Transit Sales Tax Increase $ 606 $ - $ 606 Transit Fare Increase $ 168 $ 964 $ 1,131 Ferry Fare Increases $ 63 $ 316 $ 380 License Service Fee Increase $ 188 $ - $ 188 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (transit share) $ 1,129 $ 2,208 $ 3,337 New Fuel Taxes, State Fees $ 1,182 $ - $ 1,182 License & Registration Fee Increase $ 565 $ - $ 565 Weight Fee Increase $ 616 $ - $ 616 HOT lanes, Facility Tolls, User Fees $ 3,964 $ 36,589 $ 40,554 HOT Lane Revenue $ 2,272 $ 1,250 $ 3,522 Facility Tolls $ 213 $ 192 $ 405 User Fees $ 1,479 $ 35,148 $ 36,627 TOTAL NEW REVENUE $ 12,883 $ 51,336 $ 64,220 New Revenues for Cities & Counties The primary issue currently facing cities and counties is the availability of revenue tools that are adequate to address pressing maintenance, preservation, and local system improvement needs that support economic growth. Currently available tools do not generate sufficient revenues to have a meaningful impact on this large and growing problem. The Finance Working Group is recommending that local jurisdictions maximize existing authority and implement an array of new tools in the near-term to generate additional revenues that will help local jurisdictions meet these challenges. Even with the new revenue tools that have been identified, in the early years of the plan ( ), cities and counties will be challenged to secure revenues sufficient to fund all anticipated projects. It is estimated that approximately $3.7 billion in local maintenance and preservation and system improvement projects may need to be deferred until more productive revenue sources are available. Longer-term ( ), the implementation of user fees, such as a Road Usage Charge, will Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 14 P a g e Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

40 6.a.a supplement these additional fees to provide stable funding to support maintenance, preservation, operations, and system improvement investments. Table 6: Summary of New Revenues Sources for Cities & Counties (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) Estimated Revenue Gap (over current law) * May not sum due to rounding City & County New Revenue Sources Assumed Rate Revenue Potential 2018 Transportation 2040 Update Draft New Revenue Scenario - July 13, 2017 Index Existing Fuel Tax Carbon Tax on Fuel Paid-Parking Surcharge Vehicle License Fees Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (city & county share) Transportation Impact Fees (Residential & Non-Residential) County Road Levy Lift Street Utility Tax User Fees * May not sum due to rounding TOTAL* Indexed to Inflation $20/Ton Indexed to Inflation * $ (9,600) $ (12,500) $ (22,100) Revenue Potential New Revenues for Local Transit Providers Transit agencies were particularly hard hit by the great recession due to their reliance upon sales tax as the primary source of operating revenue. While retail sales tax can be a robust revenue source in a healthy economy, the underlying tax base can fluctuate significantly in times of economic uncertainty or distress. For local transit, the Finance Working Group s primary objective was to recommend a set of new revenue sources designed to diversify and stabilize local transit operating revenue in the future. In the near-term the Group has recommended an array of fees and taxes on vehicle ownership and employers that benefit from an efficient and reliable transit network. In the longterm, user fees, such as a share of Road Usage Charges, are expected to be available to support not only transportation infrastructure investment, but also the provision of expanded transit service across the region. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Total Revenue Potential* Notes Requires state Legislative action $ 300 $ 1,900 $ 2,100 All proceeds from indexed fuel tax $ 1,700 $ 3,500 $ 5,200 5% $ 500 $ 2,000 $ 2,500 $40 Indexed to Inflation Requires state Legislative action & direction to program towards local needs New $20/ton rate tied to inflation Resistence to priced parking; Longterm impacts of vehicle automation to parking revenues None $ 300 $ - $ 300 Long-term roll back of new increment 2% $ 1,700 $ - $ 1,700 $2900/unit & $2.50/sq ft Indexed Requires state & local Legislative action & direction to program towards local needs Increased rate to 2% and reallocated to apply more funding to cities/counties Long-term roll back of new increment $ 600 $ 1,800 $ 2,500 Local implementation may vary Lift Lid (3%) $ 200 $ 1,000 $ 1,200 Requires state & local Legislative action $2 Indexed to Inflation Legal issues $ 200 $ 600 $ 900 Reduced long-term rate to $2 to balance $ 400 $ 10,500 $ 11,000 $ 5,900 $ 21,400 $ 27,300 DRAFT Requires state Legislative action & direction to program towards local needs; 30% of highway system toll revenue & RUC 15 P a g e Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

41 6.a.a Table 7: Summary of New Revenues Sources for Local Transit (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) Estimated Revenue Gap (over current law) * May not sum due to rounding Local Transit New Revenue Sources Revenue Potential 2018 Transportation 2040 Update Draft New Revenue Scenario - July 13, 2017 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (transit share) Local Transit Sales Tax Increase Employee Tax (per employee per month) Fare Increase (Indexed) User Fees * May not sum due to rounding TOTAL* * $ (2,400) $ (6,000) $ (8,400) Revenue Potential New Revenues for WSDOT and Washington State Ferries The 2015 Connecting Washington transportation revenue package represented a significant step forward in funding major transportation capacity investments in the central Puget Sound region. Longstanding priorities to complete missing links in the highway network and finish current projects were the primary focus of the investments included in the revenue package. While these critical infrastructure improvements were necessary, they did not reflect an exhaustive list of transportation investment need. The central Puget Sound region also has extensive needs in key corridors that support much of the state s economy. For example, I-5 requires significant investments in repaving and seismic retrofits that were not fully funded in Connecting Washington. Preserving and expanding US 2, a key east-west link in Snohomish County, was not included. Neither was fully funding Washington State Ferries growing list of vessel and terminal preservation needs. For these reasons, the Finance Working Group is recommending increased rates on current WSDOT licensing and weight fees in conjunction with developing a network of express toll lanes on the interstate highway system to fund operations, preservation, and improvement investments in the near-term. Express toll lanes are also a critical tool to manage congestion on the limited access highway system. Even with the new revenue tools that have been identified, in the early years of the plan ( ), the state will also be challenged to secure revenues sufficient to fund all anticipated projects. It is estimated that approximately $1.2 billion in state maintenance and preservation and system improvement projects may need to be deferred until more productive revenue sources are available. Longer-term ( ), the implementation of user fees, such as a Road Usage Charge, will supplement these additional fees to provide stable funding to support maintenance, preservation, operations, and system improvement investments. In the long-term, the transition to a system of user Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Total Revenue Potential* Notes Requires state & local Legislative action 2% $ 1,100 $ 2,200 $ 3,300 Increased rate to 2% and reallocated to apply more funding to cities/counties Requires state & local Legislative action 0.1% $ 600 $ - $ 600.1% in near-term; rolled-back in long-term $1 Indexed to Inflation 10% in % in 2030 $ 100 $ 400 $ 500 Local resistence $ 200 $ 1,000 $ 1,100 Price elasticity of demand Requires state Legislative action $ 300 $ 4,000 $ 4,300 10% of highway system toll revenue 20% of RUC revenue $ 2,300 $ 7,600 $ 9,900 DRAFT 16 P a g e Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

42 6.a.a fees is intended to support much of future state highway and state ferry investments as the new increments of license and weight fees are rolled-back. Table 8: Summary of New Revenues Sources for State Highways & Washington State Ferries (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) * Estimated Revenue Gap (over current law) * May not sum due to rounding New WSF & State Highway Revenue Sources Assumed Rate Revenue Potential 2018 Transportation 2040 Update Draft New Revenue Scenario - July 13, 2017 License & Registration Fee Increase License Service Fee Increase (RCW dedicated to WSF capital replacement fund) Weight Fee Increase Ferry Fare Increases (2.5% Annual Increase) HOT Lane Revenue Facility Tolls User Fees * May not sum due to rounding TOTAL* $30 (100%) Indexed to Inflation $10 (150%) Indexed to Inflation 50% Indexed to Inflation 10% in % in 2030 $ (5,900) $ (5,200) $ (11,000) Revenue Potential Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Total Revenue Potential* Notes Requires state Legislative action $ 600 $ - $ 600 Refunded in the second decade Requires state Legislative action $ 200 $ - $ 200 Refunded in the second decade Requires state Legislative action $ 600 $ - $ 600 Refunded in the second decade $ 100 $ 300 $ 400 State Legislative direction various $ 2,300 $ 1,200 $ 3,500 State Legislative authorization various $ 200 $ 200 $ 400 State Legislative authorization DRAFT $ 700 $ 12,200 $ 21,300 State Legislative authorization 60% of highway system toll revenue 50% of RUC revenue $ 4,700 $ 22,300 $ 27, P a g e Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

43 6.a.a Summary The current law revenue estimates and new revenue scenario described above should be considered a draft for the purposes of analyzing system performance through summer After modeling and analysis is complete, PSRC will reconvene the Finance Working Group to review system performance and user fee revenue potential, and to balance revenues and expenditures in advance of developing a fiscally constrained financial strategy supporting the draft transportation plan. Historically, this has been an iterative process that will involve a wide variety of stakeholders and their input. The review will also consider the issue of developing guidance to address potential revenue surpluses if they materialize. Transportation 2040 provides the following guidance to be used as the region moves into a new approach for financing transportation: Secure funding to maintain and operate current transportation assets and services as the region s highest priority. This priority includes securing near-term revenue to maintain local transit operations, a growing backlog of local maintenance and preservation needs, and capital preservation needs of the state ferry and highway assets. Traditional tax financing (gas tax, etc.) will still play a central role in transportation finance, especially in the early years of the plan There should be a nexus between new taxes, fees, tolls, or charges and the uses to which the revenues are put. The revenue instruments should relate in some manner to the benefits the users receive and/or the costs that these users impose on the system and other users. There should be an increased reliance on road usage charges that are phased in as new investments in capacity and alternatives are implemented, and as technology and user acceptance evolves over time. To support this evolution, fees and charges should be set in a manner that strives to improve travel benefits to all users (freight and people) of the transportation system. The plan s financial element should be based on a general scenario that allows flexibility in implementation. Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation 18 P a g e Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy) Packet Pg. 43

44 6.a.a The following table summarizes the region s financial strategy in a single table, with investment needs, current law revenues, and new revenues identified for each of the major program areas. Table 9: Financial Summary (millions of year $2018 constant dollars) INVESTMENTS DRAFT Maintenance & Preservation System Improvements Any new revenues identified in the financial strategy general scenario will require legislative action across a broad range of governments, including cities, counties, the state, and the federal government. As the regional planning body for the central Puget Sound region, PSRC will work collectively with its partners to advance appropriate legislative actions. The general funding scenario has three primary elements: (1) early revenue actions that support state, local, and regional investments, (2) a phasing in of new revenue sources that are based on the use of the transportation system, and (3) guidance on the use of road usage charge and tolling revenues. For additional information related to the Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy please contact: Pavithra Parthasarathi at pparthasarathi@psrc.org or at (206) Benjamin Brackett at bbrackett@psrc.org or at (206) Ben Bakkenta at bbakkenta@psrc.org or at (206) Total Puget Sound Regional Council DRAFT Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Documentation Current Law REVENUES New Revenue Counties $ 11,600 $ 2,600 $ 14,200 $ 9,900 $ 7,800 $ 17,600 Cities $ 22,400 $ 16,000 $ 38,400 $ 20,700 $ 19,600 $ 40,200 Local Transit $ 26,000 $ 17,400 $ 43,400 $ 35,000 $ 9,900 $ 44,900 Sound Transit $ 20,800 $ 40,800 $ 61,600 $ 61,600 $ - $ 61,600 State Ferries $ 7,300 $ 300 $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 7,500 State Highways $ 18,600 $ 14,200 $ 32,800 $ 24,300 $ 24,400 $ 48,700 Other Regional $ - $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ - $ 400 TOTAL $ 106,600 $ 91,700 $ 198,300 $ 156,800 $ 64,200 $ 221,000 Total 19 P a g e Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: A - Approach and Status of Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy Update [Revision 1] (2029 : T2040 Financial Strategy)

45 7.a DISCUSSION ITEM July 6, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Charlie Howard, Director of Planning Transportation 2040 Update -- State Facilities Action Plan IN BRIEF As part of the Transportation 2040 Update, PSRC is requesting updated information from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on several strategic issues facing state facilities in the central Puget Sound region. DISCUSSION As part of the Transportation 2040 Update Work Program, the Transportation Policy Board directed staff to request that WSDOT develop, in cooperation with PSRC and others, an action plan identifying (1) low cost operational improvements to address I-5 and other congested corridors in the near term; (2) an updated I-5 rehabilitation plan and cost estimate, (3) a plan for improving flow on HOV lanes; and (4) updated cost estimates and accelerated schedule for seismic retrofits. PSRC will support WSDOT through modeling, data, and other planning support as needed. Additionally, PSRC will request WSDOT develop a strategy for projects beyond Connecting Washington including local priority state routes. In response, WSDOT has developed five briefing papers on these topics (attached). The briefing papers provide background context, current and emerging issues, as well as future needs. At the July Transportation Policy Board meeting, WSDOT staff will present a summary of these topics for the board s consideration and input. For more information, please contact: Robin Mayhew, PSRC, rmayhew@psrc.org, ; or Patty Rubstello, WSDOT, RubsteP@wsdot.wa.gov; Attachments: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers Doc ID 2025 Packet Pg. 45

46 7.a.a WSDOT STATE FACILITIES ACTION PLAN BRIEFING PAPERS I-5 Preservation I-5 Operational Improvements HOV Policy and Managed Lanes Seismic Preparedness Local Priority State Highways Transportation Policy Board July 13, 2017 Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 46

47 7.a.a DRAFT State Facilities Action Plan: I-5 Preservation Briefing Paper for the PSRC Transportation Policy Board, July 13, 2017 Interstate 5 through the Puget Sound region is the busiest route in the state, with its busiest sections carrying over 200,000 vehicles per day between Kent and Shoreline, including a peak of over 250,000 at downtown Seattle. This corridor is the most important north-south freight corridor in the Puget Sound region, which moves the most freight regionally in the state. The preservation of this vital route is critical. I-5 through the Puget Sound region was built in the 1960s as a result of Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (National Interstate and Defense Highways Act). On the mainline, there is over 800 lane miles of roadway and 147 bridges, from the southern Pierce county border near milepost 115 to the northern Snohomish county border near milepost Additionally, there are multiple interchanges adding an over 200 lane miles and 178 bridge structures. Much of this infrastructure is nearing the end of its service life. Additionally, the rapid growth in the region is adding additional demand on the transportation system in the region. These factors combined mean that planning to preserve the infrastructure must also occur in conjunction with regional planning to improve overall system performance. A balanced delivery that avoids excessive delays for its users, also called construction fatigue, is essential. The I-5 Preservation section of the State Facilities Action Plan will discuss the current condition and age of I-5 through the Puget Sound region, the identified strategies to preserve it, and the risks and challenges to implementing these strategies. What is the current age and condition of I-5 through the Puget Sound region? The majority of the pavement was constructed with Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. When originally constructed in the 1960s, engineers estimated its service life to be 20 years before needing rehabilitation or replacement. This pavement has performed much better than anticipated, and the vast majority of the pavement built in the 1960s through this corridor is still in service today. However, this pavement is nearing the end of its service life. As of 2015, 9% was rated in poor or worse condition, which indicates a rough and cracked structure. This amount would have been worse if not for proactive preservation. WSDOT has been actively preserving this pavement through dowel bar retrofit, select panel replacement, and diamond grinding, correcting rough road and cracked panels since the late 1990s. The majority of bridge structures in this corridor were also constructed in the 1960s. However, there are bridge structures that were constructed before then, especially structures part of the interchanges and cross-over routes. The figure below (next page) shows the age profile of Puget Sound bridges along the I-5 corridor in Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 47

48 Number of Bridges 7.a.a DRAFT Age Profile of Bridges in I-5 Puget Sound In 2016, 1.4% of bridges were rated in poor condition. Bridges in poor condition have advanced deficiencies such as section loss, deterioration, scour or seriously affected structural components. However, bridges in poor condition are still safe for travel. Safety for travel is a separate assessment 1. What are the identified strategies and estimate for maintaining a state of good repair at lowest life-cycle cost? WSDOT uses similar strategies for preserving assets across its network. It does this by properly timed, cost-effective activities. Pavement Assets For pavements, WSDOT will continue to use select panel replacement and diamond grinding to preserve concrete pavement, allowing much of it to reach a service life of 55 to 70 years. Once sections reach the end of their life and need replacement, WSDOT compares replacement alternatives using Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). This methodology accounts for the initial construction costs and user delay costs, along the same costs over a 50-year design life. Resulting strategies include remove and replace with asphalt, remove and replace with concrete, or crack, seat and overlay (CSOL) with asphalt. For sections of asphalt pavement throughout the corridor, WSDOT will use properly timed resurfacing, usually occurring between 15 and 18 years. This is where the top two inches of asphalt are removed and replaced, preserving the whole asphalt structure, usually eight or more inches, for many decades. This is the lowest life-cycle methodology for preserving this type of pavement. Using these strategies, an estimated $1.2 billion is needed to preserve pavements through > 100 Age (Years) of Bridge Structures in 2040 Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) 1 See Gray Notebook ( #62 pg for more information on statewide bridge assessment Packet Pg. 48

49 7.a.a DRAFT Bridge Assets WSDOT estimates an 80-year service life for bridges. Once a bridge is approaching 80 years in age, it is necessary to plan for its replacement. As many of the bridges in this corridor were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a number of them will be nearing the time of replacement in the 2040 timeframe. However, even many more bridges will be nearing replacement age between 2040 and Additionally, the 80-year life assumes properly timed activities including expansion joint replacement, bridge deck overlays, and steel bridge painting. Expansion joint replacement is necessary as failed joints can cause vehicle damage and emergency work, leading to long traffic delays. Bridge deck overlays are necessary to keep the driving surface in adequate condition and to protect the sub-structure from further damage. Steel-bridge painting extends the steel truss life by preventing corrosion and preserving its structural integrity. Using these strategies, an estimated $675 million is need to preserve bridges through In the decade after 2040, over 75% of the I-5 bridges will turn 80 years old, creating a much higher need than within the 2040 timeframe. Other Highway Assets In addition to pavements and bridges, several other types of asset make this highway function properly. Three major types are major drainage, major electrical, and barriers. Major drainage includes culverts and storm water systems. There are approximately 600 culverts identified through this corridor and 94 fish passage structures. There are over $100 million identified needs of fish barriers to correct along this corridor. WSDOT is working to develop life cycle management plans for the culvert and storm water systems assets through this corridor as part of its asset management implementation in Major electrical includes illumination, signals, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Often, these types of structures are monitored until they need to be replaced. There are over 1,700 different inventoried assets as part of these systems in the corridor, with an estimated $468 million preservation need through Barriers include guardrail, cable median barriers, concrete barriers and impact attenuators. Similar to major drainage assets, WSDOT is working to develop life cycle management plans for these barrier assets. Total Preservation Need When accounting for all the assets within the corridor, an estimated $2.5 billion is needed through Compare this with approximately $14 billion of estimated statewide preservation need through 2040, and I-5 in the Puget Sound corridor is 18%, or almost one fifth of the total statewide preservation needs. It is important to note that these needs do not include estimated costs seismic retrofit, mobility or other improvements. The table below summarizes the breakdown of need by asset type. Estimated need is based on current dollars and is not inflated to year of expenditure, because year of expenditure is unknown at this time. The final State Facilities Action Plan will address what portion of these needs are likely to be funded under current revenue assumptions. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 49

50 7.a.a I-5 Puget Sound Preservation Needs through 2040 DRAFT Asset Type Estimated Preservation Need through 2040 (millions of dollars) Pavements $ 1,200 Bridges $ 675 Major Drainage Including Fish Barriers $ 100+ Major Electrical $ 468 Barriers Total TBD Approximately $ 2.5 Billion What are the risks or challenges associated with implementing these preservation strategies? There are several risks and challenges facing us to preserve the Puget Sound I-5 corridor. The three greatest risks are lack of funding, balanced delivery, and regional transportation system demand. The primary way to mitigate these risks is through a Practical Solutions approach built on robust asset management practices, and proactive public communications. As shown in the table above, there are substantial needs for preservation through this corridor. A lack of funding jeopardizes opportunities to minimize life cycle costs because the proper timing for treatments may be missed. Asset management through Practical Solutions will help to mitigate this risk by identifying lowest life cycle costs and communicate this information in a timely manner that allows for better financial planning. These preservation needs must be delivered in a balanced manner that considers regional transportation system demand. First, needs across years must be planned for so that excessive needs are not all coming due at the same time. Second, needs across assets must be balanced so that cross-asset considerations lower overall preservation costs. Third, needs across the region must be planned for and balanced so that construction fatigue is minimized. Construction along the I-5 corridor must not just balance the delivery along I-5, but also consider projects planned on adjacent routes. Practical Solutions and asset management will ensure a balanced delivery for these considerations. Needs across years will be balanced by life cycle planning and forecasting. For example, the WSDOT Pavement Office is already developing a 30-year concrete plan to manage the state s aging concrete pavements 2. Needs across asset types will be made more visible by robust inventories necessary for asset management, allowing WSDOT more time to plan to deliver several preservation activities simultaneously, increasing construction cost efficiency and reducing construction fatigue. Finally, the Corridor Sketch Initiative will give planners early information to develop strategies along corridors. Having this information available will allow WSDOT to quickly compare the identified strategies of adjacent corridors and plan a more balanced delivery. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) 2 See Gray Notebook ( #64 pg. 18 for an explanation of Practical Solutions and the concrete preservation plan Packet Pg. 50

51 DRAFT 7.a.a I-5 Operational Improvements Briefing Paper for the PSRC Transportation Policy Board, July 13, 2017 The I-5 Operational and Demand Management Improvements section of the State Facilities Action Plan will describe near-term actions that could improve operations on I-5, and a work program to address longer-term operational challenges on I-5. This paper provides an overview of operational issues on I-5 in the Puget Sound region, and work proposed and currently underway to address them. (Note that this paper does not address operational issues in HOV lanes, which are addressed in a separate briefing paper on HOV Policy and Managed Lanes. Also not addressed are the construction and long-term operational effects of projects planned or underway in the corridor, such as the Gateway project and the I-5 HOV project in Tacoma). What is an operational challenge or improvement? Operational improvements generally refer to changes to use available highway capacity most efficiently, and to remove factors that reduce effective capacity such as weather, incidents or events. They are most effective when the daily volume of traffic is not far greater than theoretical capacity, in which case congestion is assured unless new capacity is added or demand management such as pricing is implemented. Examples of operational improvements include: Ramp meters to reduce delay and collisions due to merging traffic Active traffic management to help manage traffic flow coming into congested areas or around blocked lanes Incident response to clear blockages to reduce duration of congestion Integrated corridor management to coordinate traffic controls on parallel roadways to help manage diversion around incidents Traveler Information to advise drivers to use less congested routes Changes in geometrics or striping to limit weaving or improve safety Shoulder running or auxiliary lanes to provide added capacity in spot locations to remove bottlenecks, prioritize transit, or improve safety Peak Period managed lanes to provide improved speed, reliability and person throughput by limiting demand to within available capacity How are central Puget Sound freeways performing operationally? During the recession from 2007 to 2011, traffic volumes decreased throughout the Puget Sound region, but traffic has increased rapidly as the economy recovered. Traffic and associated delay grew rapidly in the region, and the greatest share of congestions was on I-5. In 2015, I-5 experienced an average of 16,810 vehicle hours of delay each weekday, or 56.6% of all delay on the major urban freeways in the region. The graph below shows the significant increases in regional freeway vehicle miles traveled and delay from 2011 to Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 51

52 DRAFT 7.a.a Average daily weekday delay on freeway corridors (Interstate 5, I-405, I-90, State Route 520 and SR 167) in King and Snohomish counties grew roughly 35.7% from 21,855 daily vehicle hours of delay in 2013 to 29,656 hours in This growth can be partially attributed to growing employment during this period. Pierce County corridor conditions King and Snohomish counties corridor conditions From 2013 to 2015, the Tacoma Dome and Fife areas experienced increases in delay of about 375% and 140%, respectively. Construction on I-5 in this area led to higher than normal traffic friction in 2015, which contributed to the delay increases. Despite these growth challenges to the north, the Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) area saw an approximate 16% decrease in congestion compared to This can partially be attributed to the implementation of 18 new ramp meters through the JBLM corridor in May The majority of the Fife area congestion is in the southbound direction, which is likely due to the relocation of a bottleneck, along with the end of HOV lane restrictions. In 2015, I-5 between Federal Way and Everett experienced vehicle delay northbound around the I-90 interchange and between Northgate and downtown Seattle. Southbound delays occurred at SeaTac and the SR 520 interchange. Vehicle delay along the I-5 corridor was consistently equal to or higher in 2015 than in Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 52

53 DRAFT 7.a.a The amount of delay significantly increased between 2013 and 2015 at specific locations on the I-5 corridor including: southbound at SeaTac (up 105%), northbound at the I-90 interchange (up 33%), and in both directions near Northgate (up 25%). Delay would have been worse without transit. Data shows that even with conservative assumptions, transit ridership along the I-5 corridor translates to a capacity savings equivalent to more than four additional lanes of traffic during peak commute periods. Improvements at key congestion areas, such as the transit access ramps from I-90 to downtown Seattle that bypass the I-5 interchange, provide significant benefits in capacity and reducing travel delay. What assessment work is underway in support of operational improvements for Transportation 2040? WSDOT is moving forward with development of an I-5 near term work plan. As a first step, a team was assembled and assigned the near term task of compiling the status of strategies associated with previous work that is focused on Corson to the King/Snohomish County Line. In addition, the team was also tasked with developing preliminary scopes of work describing next step actions related to seeking out any new strategies, as well as work activities necessary to develop a near term work plan. To accomplish this, the team subdivided the assignment into the following parts. Part A: Identify what needs to be accomplished relative to each previously identified strategy in order to assume a design and/or construction ready list of investments. Part B: Develop a scope of work to convene a group of key service providers to brainstorm other potential near term operational and demand management improvement opportunities. Part C: Utilizing the products of Parts A & B, identify the scope of work to validate strategies, that provides the ability to combine and prioritize investments, and identifies key next steps and work efforts to move forward. What strategies can we advance as projects for the Transportation 2040 update? Most operational and demand management improvements require more time for analysis than is possible prior to the Transportation 2040 update. However, there are potential improvements that WSDOT has examined in the past, and there may be common sense changes that could be considered in the near term with only preliminary analysis. This assessment will be done over the summer. A representative list of strategies that will be considered are provided below: 1. NB/SB I-5 - Mercer Street Ramp Meters 2. SB I-5 HOV Lane Dynamic Control - Mercer to Corson 3. SB I-5 Seattle Ramp Meter Upgrades 4. NB I-5 Seattle Ramp Meter Upgrades 5. NB I-5 Spokane Street Ramp Meter 6. South Seattle/SODO - Integrated Corridor Management 7. SB I-5 Peak Use Shoulder Lane - SR 528 to Everett 8. NB I-5 Marysville Ramp Meters 9. SB I-5 Marysville Ramp Meters 10. NB I-5 Express Lanes Connection - Modify 11. NB/SB Peak Use Shoulder Lane - Lake City Way vic. to Northgate vicinity. 12. NB I-5 Operational Enhancement - Seneca to Olive Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 53

54 DRAFT 7.a.a What additional work will be needed to identify future operational improvements? WSDOT is developing its capacity to conduct operational demand management assessments to consider a broader range of operational improvements that could merit further study. Prepare Baseline Models: Identify appropriate model coverage for travel sheds surrounding I-5 in the Central Puget Sound Region, Tacoma to Seattle, and Seattle to Marysville corridors. Prepare and calibrate mesoscopic models at a level of detail appropriate for assessing I-5 transit and highway operations and effects on other roadways. Develop a 2025 model that also incorporates planned and programmed improvements. Partner Agency Workshops: Conduct brainstorming workshops with small groups of WSDOT and partner agency staff to identify near-term operational and demand management actions or improvements that have not previously been identified by WSDOT. Scenario Development: Identify proposed improvements that are complementary, and group into modeling scenarios. Identify improvements that are mutually exclusive and develop briefing papers to clarify tradeoffs between them, especially for planned and programmed projects. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 54

55 DRAFT 7.a.a State Facilities Action Plan: HOV Policy and Managed Lanes Briefing Paper for the PSRC Transportation Policy Board, July 13, 2017 The HOV Policy/Managed Lanes Strategy section of the State Facilities Action Plan will propose a work plan to address declining speed and reliability in HOV and general-purpose lanes in the Puget Sound area. WSDOT envisions a regional dialogue that recognizes the limits of the HOV strategy and changing uses of HOV lanes; and which considers a range of alternative policies and strategies responses. Recognizing that more work is needed to develop agreement on HOV and managed lanes operation, WSDOT is recommending that Transportation 2040 be modeled to assume HOV lanes will be managed appropriately to achieve desired performance, coupled with a commitment to work together with regional partners on the best implementation approach. Background WSDOT implemented high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the 1980 s decade to give Blue Streak park-and-ride express bus service faster service on the new I-5 express lanes and to avoid congestion approaching the SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. In the 1990 s WSDOT planned for a Core HOV program to add HOV lanes to primary limited access highways throughout the Puget Sound region. Express buses on HOV lanes has provided fast and reliable transit service to regional centers, and HOV lanes have supported carpooling and vanpooling program resulting in the highest vanpool use in the United States. While general-purpose freeway lane volumes have been constrained by capacity, growth in HOV volumes has continued to the point when they are also near capacity. During the great recession traffic subsided, but more recent economic recovery and travel growth have brought new levels of congestion to both general purpose and HOV facilities. At the same time, the region has voted to replace some express bus routes with rail transit. What are HOV speed and reliability standards, and are they reasonable? Originally, HOV lanes on I-5 and SR 520 were opened with a three-ormore (3+) person carpool definition, while I-90 and I-405 opened with a two-person (2+) carpool definition. In 1991, the Legislature added a proviso to the transportation budget directing WSDOT to reduce the carpool definition to 2+ on all facilities 1. WSDOT argued at the time that a 3+ definition would be needed in the future, and that assumption was reflected in regional environmental documents, policies and plans. WSDOT worked with agency partners to develop an HOV lane speed and reliability standard to gauge when a switch to 3+ carpools should be considered. WSDOT adopted HOV policies in 1992 that included an HOV speed and reliability standard requiring HOV lanes to operate at 45 mph during 90 percent of peak hours measured over a sixmonth period. Subsequently this same standard was adopted in federal law to define the conditions when HOV lanes are considered degraded. When HOV lanes allow access to singleoccupant users, in either low-emission vehicles or high occupancy toll lanes, federal law requires certification that this standard is met, or an action plan to remedy degraded operation. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) 1 Governor Gardner vetoed this proviso, but directed WSDOT to implement the intent of the Legislature wherever feasible. WSDOT lowered the carpool definition on I-5 to 2+, but left the SR 520 standard at Packet Pg. 55

56 DRAFT 7.a.a There have been serious challenges using this policy to trigger policy change: There are places where 45 mph cannot be achieved. Bus drivers are instructed not to operate more than 15 mph faster than adjacent traffic, so 45 mph is infeasible for buses if general traffic is below 30 mph. Buses also cannot maintain 45 mph up steep hills. Once HOV lanes are congested, the impact of changing to 3+ has been considered unacceptable. Changing to 3+ would move ¾ of HOV traffic into congested generalpurpose lanes, and leave the HOV lane seeming underutilized. How are HOV lanes performing? HOV lanes continue to provide a speed and reliability advantage to transit and carpools compared with using general-purpose lanes. The Capacity Report shows that in individual corridors HOV lanes are less congested than adjacent general-purpose lanes, and the duration of congestion is shorter. HOV lanes continue to carry more people than adjacent generalpurpose lanes on most facilities due to higher occupancy of each vehicle. However, achievement of WSDOT HOV speed and reliability standards has fallen significantly especially on I-5 and I-405 due to renewed economic and traffic growth as shown in the 2016 Corridor Capacity Report 2 : Non-compliance within the HOV system is of growing concern, and is also a factor in reduced speed and reliability performance. High occupancy vehicle lane speed and reliability performance on major central Puget Sound corridors 2011 through 2015; Goal is to maintain 45 mph for 90% of peak hour; Percent of peak hour goal was met Commute routes Commute routes Morning commutes Evening commutes I-5, Everett to Seattle SB 64% 54% 42% 28% 26% I-5, Everett to Seattle NB 76% 68% 66% 46% 36% I-5, Federal Way to Seattle NB 72% 51% 43% 30% 18% I-5, Seattle to Federal Way SB 82% 63% 53% 40% 32% I-405, Tukwila to Bellevue NB 98% 93% 65% 35% 26% I-405, Bellevue to Tukwila SB 60% 43% 41% 26% 21% I-90, Issaquah to Seattle WB 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% I-90, Seattle to Issaquah EB 99% 100% 99% 100% 99% SR 520, Redmond to Bellevue WB 97% 51% 50% 44% 63% SR 520, Redmond to Bellevue WB 70% 54% 52% 52% 73% SR 167, Auburn to Renton NB* 99% 96% 94% 86% 66% SR 167, Renton to Auburn SB* 99% 98% 98% 98% 95% Data source: Washington State Transportation Center. Notes: The above HOV reliability performance standards are based on the peak hour, when average travel time is slowest. To meet the standard, an average speed of 45 mph must be maintained for 90% of five-minute periods during the peak hour on weekdays. Numbers represent the percentage of these periods when speeds are 45 mph or faster. The Washington State Transportation Center analyzes performance data for all complete segments of HOV lanes that have a loop detector. In some cases, like southbound SR 167, data cannot be analyzed for the very beginning and ends of the lanes because there are no detectors at these locations. I-405 commutes between Lynnwood and Bellevue are no longer listed above, as they now have different legislatively mandated speed and reliability performance measures per RCW For performance information, see *High occupancy toll lanes replaced regular HOV lanes May 3, What strategies has WSDOT implemented to improve HOV speed and reliability? HOV lanes are one form of a broader category of highway facilities called managed lanes, which manage volumes into a roadway by (1) controlling where vehicles can access the roadway, (2) which vehicles can use the roadway, and/or (3) what price is required to enter. HOV s are managed solely through limiting access to vehicles with a specified occupancy, and a rule of thumb is that there is about a one-to-four ratio between two and three-person carpools during peak periods in most places. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) 2 For full report, see Detailed performance information for specific HOV facilities can be found in the Appendix at Packet Pg. 56

57 DRAFT 7.a.a Managing by occupancy alone does not allow for fine-tuning; either there are too many vehicles in the HOV lane (at 2+) or far too few (at 3+). HOV lanes are only over-utilized when adjacent traffic is congested, so shifting traffic from the HOV lane to general-purpose lanes makes this congestion worse while leaving HOV lanes seeming empty. Because of this dynamic, no known example exists of a transportation agency changing from 2+ to 3+ HOV. Like other transportation agencies across the country, WSDOT has proposed to evolve HOV lanes to manage volumes, speeds and throughput more effectively using all the management tools available, including access control and pricing as well as occupancy. WSDOT introduced HOT lanes in a pilot project in 2008 and express toll lanes opened on the north end of I-405 in WSDOT believes that transit and HOV benefits on highways rely on being able to manage traffic effectively in managed lanes. How well are I-405 express toll lanes meeting HOV speed and reliability standards? A pernicious attribute of congestion is that when traffic breaks down, the effective roadway capacity is reduced and accidents increase so fewer vehicles get through. Reduced capacity worsens congestion further and extends the rush hour. This dynamic is shown in the figure on the left below, which shows actual volumes and speeds on I-405 in all lanes in afternoons over two years prior to implementing express toll lanes. When traffic is badly congested, lane throughput can be as little as half or less of theoretical capacity. The figure below on the right shows the same volume and speed data for the express toll lanes (in blue) and for the HOV lane in the previous year (in brown) in the express toll lane segment with two lanes in each direction. The prior HOV lane speeds and volumes show that only 1300 cars per hour could be accommodated before the HOV lane started breaking down and slowing, and slowing occurred regularly. The blue speed/throughput measurements show that the far left lane is achieving theoretical lane capacity of 2000 vehicles/hour most of the time, and the lane adjacent to general-purpose traffic is achieving around In the dual-lane segment, express toll lanes are achieving the 45 mph, 90 percent standard. In the single lane segment, express toll lanes are dropping below this standard. The project added a new lane south of SR 522 but not to the north, bringing higher traffic volumes and congestion in the segment that was not expanded. Express toll lane speeds and reliability are better than the previous HOV lane, but it is not clear the single lane section can meet the current standard without a second lane, a higher toll rate, or increased separation from general-purpose traffic. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 57

58 DRAFT 7.a.a What strategies has WSDOT implemented to improve general-purpose lane performance? WSDOT has used ramp metering, active traffic management strategies such as variable speed systems on I-5, I-90 and SR 520, and peak-use shoulder lanes such as on I-405. What policy options and investment strategies should be considered? WSDOT proposes to work with PSRC to evaluate alternative approaches to operating the state s highway network in the Puget Sound, with a goal to provide a reliable speed advantage to HOV s in managed lanes, and maximize efficiency of capacity-constrained limited access highways. A variety of options should be considered to be sure stakeholders understand the tradeoffs and opportunities afforded by each alternative policies and strategies. Options to consider individually or in combination should include, at minimum: 1. Continuing the current 2+ HOV lane policy, which still out-performs regular lanes, perhaps with a revised performance standard 2. Adopting a 3+ policy system-wide 3. Converting HOV lanes to express toll lanes with a variety of operating policies 4. Adding a second lane or part time shoulder to selected HOV or express toll lane segments 5. Using a combination of express toll lanes and congestion pricing in select locations 6. Converting general-purpose lane segments on a peak-only or all-day basis to managed lanes to provide continuity over entire corridors, e.g. on I-5 to match reversible capacity in the Express Lanes 7. Regulating the number of upstream general purpose lanes feeding into bottleneck locations 8. Enhancing policies or enforcement to improve HOV compliance This effort is anticipated to assist in identifying near term actions that will improve or sustain HOV facilities performance, and lead to additional work to develop an integrated transition plan for regional corridors ultimately to implement the overall system plan. What performance factors should be considered beyond HOV speed and reliability? The following should be addressed at minimum for both managed and regular lanes: Person and vehicle throughput and effective capacity High reliability standard for transit Person and freight delay Equity and public perception Cost and feasibility of credible enforcement Costs and revenues Cost-effectiveness to achieve performance improvement Sustainable solution over time as demand increases Potential impacts of vehicle technology change Potential changes in transit service needs Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 58

59 DRAFT 7.a.a State Facilities Action Plan: Seismic Preparedness Briefing Paper for the PSRC Transportation Policy Board, July 13, 2017 Washington State is susceptible to and has experienced earthquakes for millennia, and is considered one of the five states facing the greatest seismic hazards in the United States. Of the ten active faults in western Washington State, seven of the faults are most likely to impact the main roadways that run through heavily populated urban areas. While earthquakes and tsunamis cannot be prevented, we can be better prepared to respond and recover quickly when these natural disasters occur. Washington and WSDOT is and has been actively engaged in making sure the state is resilient when these seismic events occur. The Seismic Preparedness section of the State Facilities Action Plan will discuss what has been accomplished, what activities are currently underway, and potential areas WSDOT could focus on to further its resilience to these events. What has WSDOT done to date in regards to seismic preparedness? WSDOT has engaged in seismic preparedness in three primary ways; bridge seismic retrofit 1, Washington State Ferries (WSF) seismic retrofit, and active participation in several emergency management and resilience programs. In general, WSDOT is not creating a distinction between the Puget Sound region and the statewide resilience effort. Therefore, numbers presented in this briefing paper are statewide, except where noted. However, due to the geographic features and population concentration in the Puget Sound region, the nature most of the seismic preparedness work is focused on the Puget Sound region. Bridge Seismic Retrofit and the Seismic Lifeline Routes The first step in seismic retrofit is to perform an engineering analysis to determine if an existing bridge can resist a design level earthquake. Computer models are used to apply a force to each bridge pier. This is also call a Push-Over analysis. The capacity of the bridge pier is then compared to the demand of the design level earthquake forces. WSDOT uses the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adopted 1,000 year return period (7% probability of exceeding in 75 years) to determine the forces (stress) the bridge must resist. Structures in the Puget Sound and coastal region are expected to experience the most stress, based on peak ground motion analysis during such an event. See the Seismic Lifeline Routes folio 1 for a map that shows the peak ground motion based on 1,000 year return period analysis for Washington. WSDOT has addressed bridge seismic retrofit needs for the past two decades, including identifying and retrofitting all or part of more than 400 bridges 2. The agency has invested more than $195 million to strengthen our bridges in order better to withstand major earthquakes. 1 More information is found at the Seismic Lifeline Routes folio and the Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program at Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) 2 A little less than one third of WSDOT s over 3,100 vehicular bridge structures have been or are in need of seismic retrofit Packet Pg. 59

60 DRAFT 7.a.a Accomplishments to date (March 2017) include: 316 bridges have been seismically retrofit with one currently under contract Another 119 have been partially retrofit, but require more work to meet current standards Invested more than $195 million on projects to strengthen bridges Construction of all new bridges to 1,000-year seismic standards Constructed the following bridges to incorporate 2,500-year seismic standards: the new SR 99 Tunnel, SR 520 floating bridge, and the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge These accomplishments followed a three-phase plan seismic retrofit plan. Phase 1: Secure the superstructures to piers/columns to withstand horizontal movement Phase 2: Address single column bridges since there is no redundant support for the structure, primarily with steel jacketing Phase 3: Address multi-column bridge piers by jacketing the column with steel Phases 1 and 2 have primarily been completed, while there is still substantial work to complete Phase 3. An initial estimate for retrofitting all 594 bridges in need of seismic retrofit is $1.5 billion, with $1.1 billion of this work focused in the Puget Sound region. To manage this large need and provide a resilience goal of providing or restoring essential services within 3-7 days and be fully operational within 3 months, WSDOT identified a network of mainline routes that can provide the critical corridors needed. This network is called the Seismic Lifeline routes. The routes initially were identified in 2012 with priority travel from JBLM to Everett, with a main focus of ground transportation routes between airfields: McChord Field, Paine Field, SeaTac and Moses Lake. These airfields are essential in providing emergency services and supply relieve in the event of a major earthquake in the Puget Sound region. Within this defined Seismic Lifeline, 49 bridges are identified as critically important and 22 of them have been retrofitted at a cost of $39 million. The cost estimate to address the remaining bridges identified in the current Seismic Lifeline is $161 million. The map on the following page shows the current status of the Seismic Lifeline. This includes: The portion of the lifeline that is mostly complete today (brown sections). - From the south, I-5 from JBLM to the junction of I-5 and I-405. The Puyallup River bridges will be completed soon, and other key overcrossings are planned for retrofit. - From the north, SR 529 from the Port Everett to the northern junction of I-5 and I-405. The portion of the lifeline that is planned to be complete by 2027 (orange sections). - Retrofitting two remaining structures on SR 518 for SeaTac airport. - Retrofitting SR 526, to complete the segment between Paine Field and I-5. - Retrofit I-405,in conjunction with the other construction in the I-405 corridor. - Retrofit I-90 from the junction with I-405 east to Snoqualmie Pass. The I-5 High Cost Corridor (black sections). At this time, this corridor is not funded for retrofit because of the high cost, estimated at over $550 M, to do so. Potential Lifeline additions (pink sections). This includes an SR 99 alternate to the High Cost Corridor and I-90 from its beginning to the junction with I-405. More analysis is required to properly assess the strategy and estimate the cost of adding these to the seismic lifeline. Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 60

61 DRAFT 7.a.a Attachment: WSDOT State Facilities Action Plan Briefing Papers [Revision 1] (2025 : State Facilities Action Plan) Packet Pg. 61