west seattle and ballard link extensions
play

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Level 2 Evaluation Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 30, 2023 •210 likes •1.34k views

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Level 2 Evaluation Results | September 2018 Agenda Introductions and purpose Community engagement update Alternatives development overview Level 2 alternatives evaluation Next steps 2 Community

  1. West Seattle/ Duwamish Interbay / Ballard Downtown SODO and Chinatown/ID Study segments 25

  2. 1 2 Map of alternatives Evaluation measures 3 4 Key differentiators Summary 26

  3. Level 2 alternatives Interbay/Ballard • ST3 Representative Project • 15th/Fixed Bridge/15th • 20th/Fixed Bridge/17th • 20th/Tunnel/15th • Armory Way/Tunnel/14th • Central Interbay/Movable Bridge/14th • Central Interbay/Fixed Bridge/14th • Central Interbay/Tunnel/15th 27

  4. Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives 28

  5. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Operational Constraints Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M increase $500M increase $700M increase $200M increase $300M increase $100M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% Minority Population (1/2) 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% Youth Population (1/2) 9% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 10% / 12% Elderly Population (1/2) 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 10% / 10% Limited English Proficiency Population 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% (1/2) Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 29

  6. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Movable bridges have Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Movable bridges have potential potential Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium service interruptions service interruptions Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Operational Constraints Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M increase $500M increase $700M increase $200M increase $300M increase $100M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% Minority Population (1/2) 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% Youth Population (1/2) 9% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 10% / 12% Elderly Population (1/2) 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 10% / 10% Limited English Proficiency Population 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% (1/2) Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 30

  7. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Long spans (over BNSF Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500 tracks), constrained tunnel At grade sections Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. At grade sectons N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A portal location, deeper tunnel lessen complexity lessen complexity Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 station add complexity Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Operational Constraints Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M increase $500M increase $700M increase $200M increase $300M increase $100M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% Minority Population (1/2) 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% Youth Population (1/2) 9% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 10% / 12% Elderly Population (1/2) 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 10% / 10% Limited English Proficiency Population 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% (1/2) Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 31

  8. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 5 to 6 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 17,200 16,700 19,000 17,800 15,400 16,400 15,400 16,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Lowest cost Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Highest cost Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher tunnel alternative alternative Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Operational Constraints Lower Higher Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Higher Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M increase $500M increase $700M increase $200M increase $300M increase $100M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Requires tunnel; Requires tunnel; Includes tunnel; Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium requires 3 rd Party (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) may require 3 rd 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% may require 3 rd 8% 8% 9% Low-Income Population (1/2) 19% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 20% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% 19% / 18% party funding party funding funding Minority Population (1/2) 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% 21% / 20% Youth Population (1/2) 9% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 11% / 12% 12% / 12% 10% / 12% Elderly Population (1/2) 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 10% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 9% / 10% 10% / 10% Limited English Proficiency Population 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 4% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% 3% / 3% (1/2) Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 9% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 8% / 8% 9% / 8% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 32

  9. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 33

  10. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Farther from center Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium of Urban Village Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages 34

  11. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Bridge columns Bridge columns Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bridge columns Bridge columns Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher in waterway in waterway in waterway in waterway Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Water Resource Effects 35

  12. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Elevated guideway Ballard terminus/ water Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower (west side 15 th ) crossing location affects 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) affects more parcels Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 more residences Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potentially Affected Properties 36

  13. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher More effect on traffic, Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower More effect on traffic, Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher freight and navigation freight and navigation Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation and Access, Freight Movement 37

  14. Central Interbay/ ST3 Representative 15th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Fixed Bridge/ 20th/Tunnel/ Armory Way/ Central Interbay/ Central Interbay/ Evaluation Measures Movable Bridge/ Project 15th 17th 15th Tunnel/14th Fixed Bridge/14th Tunnel/15th 14th Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Lower Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 26 32 36 33 24 23 24 35 Passenger Transfers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Lower Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Lower Medium Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resource Effects (acres) 0.7 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 11 11 0.5 0.5 1 11.4 1 0.5 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 11 15 11 11 16 12 16 12 Visual Effects Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Residential Unit Displacements Higher Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher More business, Square Feet of Business Displacements Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Lower Tunnels; less business, Less business, commerce effects Construction Impacts Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Higher Higher Medium commerce effects commerce effects Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Higher Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Effects on Freight Movement Lower Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Higher Business and Commerce Effects Lower Lower Medium Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium Lower Performing (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Higher Performing Performing Interbay/Ballard = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business and Commerce Effects 38

  15. Smith Cove-Interbay Salmon Bay Crossing Ballard Terminus Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – By sub-segment 39

  16. Smith Cove-Interbay: Key differentiators • Station location • Traffic • Engineering constraints Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – Smith Cove-Interbay 40

  17. Key differentiators Smith Cove-Interbay Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15 th Ave median) 15 th /Fixed Bridge/15 th 20 th /Fixed Bridge/17 th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15 th Ave) Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity 20 th /Tunnel/15 th Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14 th Armory Way/ Tunnel/14 th Lessens traffic/freight effects (avoids 15 th Ave) At-grade sections (along BNSF tracks) lessen complexity Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14 th Central Interbay/ Tunnel/15 th 41

  18. Salmon Bay Crossing: Key differentiators • Crossing location • Crossing type • Bridge (fixed or movable) • Tunnel • Freight movement • Business/commerce effects Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – Salmon Bay Crossing 42

  19. Key differentiators Salmon Bay Crossing Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Fewer columns in water than movable bridge 15 th /Fixed Bridge/15 th Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) 20 th /Fixed Bridge/17 th Long-span fixed bridge avoids columns in water Longer tunnel, more constrained portal 20 th /Tunnel/15 th Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding Central Interbay/ Potential service interruptions Movable Bridge/14 th Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects Armory Way/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding Tunnel/14 th Central Interbay/ Fewer columns in water than movable bridge Fixed Bridge/14 th Maritime business effects Central Interbay/ Shorter tunnel, less constrained portal Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding Tunnel/15 th 43

  20. Ballard Terminus: Key differentiators • Ballard Station location • Elevated or tunnel Interbay/Ballard Key differentiators – Ballard Terminus 44

  21. Key differentiators Ballard Terminus Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Elevated guideway (west side 15 th Ave NW) affects more parcels 15 th /Fixed Bridge/15 th More residential displacements Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences 20 th /Fixed Bridge/17 th Closer to center of Urban Village Tunnel station (west side 15 th Ave NW) affects residences 20 th /Tunnel/15 th Deeper tunnel station (~120’); adds complexity Central Interbay/ Movable Bridge/14 th Affects fewer parcels (along 14 th Ave NW) Armory Way/ Farther from center of Urban Village Tunnel/14 th Shallower tunnel station (~70’) Central Interbay/ Fixed Bridge/14 th Tunnel station (east side 15 th Ave NW) affects businesses Central Interbay/ Shallower tunnel station (~80’) Tunnel/15 th 45

  22. Summary Interbay/Ballard Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* Comparison** ST3 Representative Project • Central Interbay/ Maritime business effects (but less than movable bridge) Higher + $100M Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14 th Ave NW) • Fixed Bridge/14 th Performing • Potential service interruptions Central Interbay/ Higher • Maritime business and potential vessel navigation effects + $200M Movable Bridge/14 th Performing Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14 th Ave NW) • • Maritime business effects (Fishermen’s Terminal) Higher 15 th /Fixed Bridge/15 th + $200M Elevated guideway (west side 15 th Ave NW) affects more residences • Performing • Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Armory Way/ Higher Affects fewer parcels in Ballard (along 14 th Ave NW) • + $300M Tunnel/14 th Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding • • Less environmental, maritime business/navigation effects Central Interbay/ Higher Tunnel station (east side 15 th Ave NW) affects businesses • + $500M Tunnel/15 th Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding • • Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks) adds complexity Higher 20 th /Fixed Bridge/17 th + $500M • Ballard terminus/crossing location affects more residences Performing • Long span bridge (over BNSF tracks), constrained tunnel portal location, deeper tunnel station add complexity Higher 20 th /Tunnel/15 th + $700M Tunnel station (west side 15 th Ave NW) affects residences • Performing Includes tunnel; requires 3 rd Party funding • *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 46

  23. * Station Charrette Feedback Ballard Station 17 th Ave NW 15 th Ave NW 14 th Ave NW Elevated Elevated or Tunnel Elevated or Tunnel • • • Good location to serve historic center of Moving station out of ROW reduces Location farthest from historic center of Ballard and Swedish Medical Center freight conflicts Ballard, but still in the urban village • • • Concern about potential construction Concern about compatibility of elevated Most compatible elevated option, with effects on neighborhood station with neighborhood large available ROW and potential for reconstructing 14 th as a more full- • • Concern about compatibility of elevated Close to an area with good station with neighborhood development potential service street • • • Challenging for transit integration and Excellent transit integration and On the path of future growth, though circulation (fire station operations) circulation much of station area is zoned industrial • • • Good non-motorized access Good non-motorized access Good transit integration and circulation • • • Some TOD potential Considerable TOD potential (tunnel) Good non-motorized access • • • Blah Some TOD potential (elevated) Considerable TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 47

  24. * Station Charrette Feedback Interbay Station 20 th Ave W 17 th Ave W 16 th Ave W 15 th Ave W At Grade or Elevated At Grade or Elevated Elevated Elevated • • • • Good location to serve Best serves emerging Not developed further in Not developed further in Magnolia Interbay Triangle charrette charrette • • • Not much zoned neighborhood Concerns about station Concerns about potential • development capacity in the Good transit integration compatibility with emerging effects to freight and general mobility on 15 th Ave • station area Challenging for non- neighborhood fabric • • Challenging for transit motorized access from east, Challenging for transit W corridor during integration, requiring long but opportunities for integration construction • • deviations substantial enhancements Challenging for non- Good transit integration • • • Good non-motorized access Considerable TOD potential motorized access Challenging for non- • to existing facilities Some TOD potential motorized access • • Limited TOD potential Limited TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 48

  25. Level 2 alternatives Downtown • ST3 Representative Project • 5th/Harrison • 6th/Boren/Roy • 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer 49

  26. Downtown Level 2 alternatives 50

  27. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 176,700 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served 3 3 3 3 N/A (3) Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A N/A N/A Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --- $200M increase Similar $200M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% 24% 26% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% 28% / 30% 28% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% 34% / 36% 35% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% 15% / 13% 14% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Downtown Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 51

  28. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 176,700 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served 3 3 3 3 Avoids building foundation N/A (3) Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A N/A N/A Engineering tie-backs on 5 th Ave but Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium challenges with more constrained Denny Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. tunneling under Key station on Boren Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Arena Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --- $200M increase Similar $200M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% 24% 26% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% 28% / 30% 28% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% 34% / 36% 35% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% 15% / 13% 14% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Downtown = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints 52

  29. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 167,800 163,300 176,700 176,700 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. Regional Growth Centers Served 3 3 3 3 N/A (3) Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served N/A N/A N/A Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher cost alternatives Higher Higher Higher cost alternatives Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison --- $200M increase Similar $200M increase Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 27% 29% 24% 26% Low-Income Population (1/2) 28% / 30% 29% / 30% 28% / 30% 28% / 30% Minority Population (1/2) 36% / 36% 36% / 36% 34% / 36% 35% / 36% Youth Population (1/2) 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% 4% / 4% Elderly Population (1/2) 14% / 13% 14% / 13% 15% / 13% 14% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% 5% / 5% Disabled Population (1/2) 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% 12% / 12% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment Downtown = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 53

  30. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 0 1.1 0 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing Downtown Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 54

  31. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use Lower bus/rail integration plans and policies. Better bus/rail integration Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Higher Higher opportunity at Seattle Higher Higher opportunity at SLU Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Center station on Roy station on Harrison Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 0 1.1 0 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing Downtown = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration 55

  32. Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project 5th/Harrison 6th/Boren/Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 171 171 169 168 Passenger Transfers Lower Medium Medium Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Lower Medium Lower Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Higher Medium Medium Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 31 35 23 34 Potential for Effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower 0 0 1.1 0 Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) Water Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 1.1 0 Property effects due to tunnel Hazardous Material Sites (2) 18 12 23 18 portal location on Harrison Visual Effects Higher Higher Medium Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Higher Medium Medium Higher Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Higher Lower Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Higher Construction Impacts Medium Lower Medium Higher Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Effects to Existing Transportation Facilities Medium Lower Higher Medium Effects to Freight Movement Higher Higher Higher Higher Business and Commerce Effects Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing Downtown = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements, Construction Impacts 56

  33. Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU Seattle Center Downtown Key differentiators – By sub-segment 57

  34. Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU: Key differentiators • Station location • Bus-rail integration • Engineering constraints Downtown Key differentiators – Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU 58

  35. Key differentiators Midtown-Westlake-Denny-SLU Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project 5 th /Harrison Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison Avoids building foundation tie-backs on 5 th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer 6th/Boren/Roy More constrained Denny station on Boren 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer 59

  36. Seattle Center: Key differentiators • Station location • Property effects • Bus-rail integration • Portal location Downtown Key differentiators – Seattle Center 60

  37. Key differentiators Seattle Center Alternative Key differentiators ST3 Representative Project Tunnel station on Harrison, west of soon-to-be-renovated Key Arena 5 th /Harrison Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena Property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison Tunnel station on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena 6th/Boren/Roy Lower bus/rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center station on Roy 5th/Terry/Roy/Mercer Tunnel station on Mercer, one block from Key Arena 61

  38. Summary Downtown Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project • Avoids building tie-backs on 5 th Ave, SR 99 portal and sewer • More constrained Denny station location on Boren Higher 6th/Boren/Roy Similar • Seattle Center station location on Roy, two blocks from Key Arena Performing • Lower bus/rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center station on Roy • Better bus/rail integration opportunity at SLU station on Harrison • Higher property effects due to tunnel portal location on Harrison Higher 5 th /Harrison + $200M west of Seattle Center Performing • Engineering challenges with tunneling under Key Arena • 5 th /Terry/Roy/ Avoids SR 99 portal and sewer Higher + $200M • Mercer Seattle Center station location on Mercer, one block from Key Arena Performing *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 62

  39. * Station Charrette Feedback Seattle Center Station Harrison St Republican St Mercer St Roy St Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel • • • • Good location to serve Key Location serves Seattle Location serves Uptown Location serves Uptown, Arena, but concern about Center, Key Arena, and well, but concern about but concern about legibility connection to broader Uptown legibility of connection to of connection to Seattle • Seattle Center Good opportunities for Seattle Center Center • Farthest from “Heart of • • station entries integrated Good opportunities for Some opportunities for Uptown,” but serves core of into existing buildings station entries integrated station entries integrated • up-zoned neighborhood Good transit integration and into buildings on Mercer into buildings • • • Good transit integration non-motorized access Excellent transit integration Challenging for transit • • • Good non-motorized access High urban design potential Good non-motorized access integration and non- • • Good TOD potential Good TOD potential motorized access *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 63

  40. * Station Charrette Feedback South Lake Union Station Harrison St Republican St Roy St Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel • • • Good location to serve South Lake Challenging location due to SR 99 Challenging location due to SR 99 • Union, Gates Foundation, east entrance adjacency Serves north end of SLU, but provides • of Seattle Center Serves SLU but not Gates Foundation good connection to Lake Union as well • Good opportunities for station entries or Seattle Center as Queen Anne • • integrated into new or existing buildings Limited opportunities for station entries Good opportunities for station entries • Excellent transit integration for buses integrated into new or existing buildings integrated into new buildings • • traveling on SR 99 Poor transit integration for buses Challenging for transit integration; • Good non-motorized access through traveling on SR 99 would require reconfiguration of SR 99 • existing and planned facilities Poor non-motorized access due to bus lanes • • Blah truncated walkshed Challenging for non-motorized access *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 64

  41. * Station Charrette Feedback Denny Station Westlake Ave Terry Ave N Boren Ave N Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel • • • Good location to serve Amazon HQ and Good location to serve Cascade Not further developed in charrette • new Denny Triangle development neighborhood Farthest from densest part of Denny • • Good opportunities for station entries Good opportunities for station entries Triangle • integrated into public space and/or integrated into new and/or existing Constrained by brand-new buildings buildings development, but some opportunity to • • Excellent transit integration Challenging for transit integration locate station entries in triangular • • Excellent non-motorized access Good non-motorized access, with parcels • • Concerns about construction impacts opportunity to negotiate grade on Challenging for transit integration • on traffic and streetcar operations Denny through hill climbs or escalators Challenging for non-motorized access; • Blah in station at top of steep grade on Denny *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 65

  42. Level 2 alternatives SODO/Chinatown-ID • ST3 Representative Project • Massachusetts Tunnel Portal • Surface E-3 • 4th Avenue Cut-and-Cover C-ID • 4th Avenue Mined C-ID • 5th Avenue Mined C-ID • Occidental Avenue 66

  43. ST3 Representative Project Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Surface E-3 SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives – 1 of 3 67

  44. 4 th Avenue Cut-and-Cover C-ID 4 th Avenue Mined C-ID 5 th Avenue Mined C-ID SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives – 2 of 3 68

  45. Occidental Avenue SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives – 3 of 3 69

  46. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 70

  47. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium New grade-separated roadway Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium crossings (Lander, Holgate) Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 improve existing rail/traffic/ freight Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) operations Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential Service Interruptions 71

  48. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Requires 3 rd party funding for Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 rebuild of 4 th Ave viaduct; 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. engineering/constructability N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A issues and potential schedule Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium delay Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects 72

  49. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 Major engineering/constructability Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. constraints (4 th Ave viaduct N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Requires long- rebuild, adjacent to active BNSF Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 span structures Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium railway, proximity/disruption to over BNSF tracks Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. existing transit tunnel, etc.) Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints, Constructability Issues 73

  50. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID 5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Lower Medium Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Travel Times (minutes) 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 35,900 35,900 35,900 35,300 35,300 35,900 37,100 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Medium Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Medium Higher Highest cost Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Medium Medium Higher Higher Lower Medium Higher Highest cost Chinatown- SODO alternative Engineering Constraints Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower ID alternatives Constructability Issues Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Lower Operational Constraints Medium Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Medium Similar Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $200M decrease $400M decrease $600M increase $500M increase Similar (+ $200M in SODO) Operating Cost Impacts Medium Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 80% 80% 80% 75% 75% 80% 73% Low-Income Population (1/2) 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 59% / 49% 57% / 49% 57% / 49% 59% / 49% 58% / 49% Minority Population (1/2) 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 54% 63% / 54% 63% / 54% 65% / 54% 65% / 53% Youth Population (1/2) 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 7% 6% / 7% 6% / 7% 7% / 7% 7% / 8% Elderly Population (1/2) 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% 20% / 19% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 19% 28% / 19% 28% / 19% 30% / 19% 30% / 18% Disabled Population (1/2) 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% 25% / 19% 25% / 19% 24% / 19% 24% / 19% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 74

  51. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 75

  52. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium ~200’ deep mined stations Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. provide relatively poor rider Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 access and ease of transfers Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower (also results in ~250’ deep Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Midtown Station) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Passenger Transfers 76

  53. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Property effects Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower along Occidental, Property effects Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 along 4 th Ave Property effects BNSF crossings Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property effects (tunnel portal in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 and maintenance 0 (incl. King County (tunnel portal in Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 SODO) facility connection Admin Building) Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher SODO) Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Business Displacements 77

  54. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cut-and-cover tunnel on 5 th Cut-and-cover tunnel on 4 th Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mined station on 4 th Ave, full Ave, periodic closures (8,500 Ave, periodic closures Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) vehicles/day), greater (33,000 vehicles/day), less closure (33,000 vehicles/day), 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher noise/vibration/visual effects noise/vibration/visual effects less noise/vibration/visual Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium to Chinatown/ID to Chinatown/ID effects to Chinatown/ID Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Construction Impacts 78

  55. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Traffic detour effects Displacement of social services Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 from full 4 th Ave lane at Jefferson portal site; traffic Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 closures during detour effects from partial 4 th Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 partial viaduct Ave lane closures during full Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher replacement viaduct replacement Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Burden on Low-Income/Minority 79

  56. ST3 Representative Massachusetts Tunnel 4th Avenue Cut-and- Evaluation Measures Surface E-3 4th Avenue Mined C-ID5th Avenue Mined C-ID Occidental Avenue Project Portal Cover C-ID Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Station Land Use Plan Consistency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Activity Nodes Served (1) 57 57 57 54 54 57 56 Passenger Transfers Higher Medium Medium Mdium Lower Lower Medium Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bicycle Accessibility (1) 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Development Potential (1) 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Medium Lower Medium Lower Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) Construction 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower effects, including Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New grade- Construction displacement of Water Resource Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 separated roadway effects, including Ryerson Bus Base Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 th Ave lane crossings (Lander, Hazardous Materials Sites (1) and lane closures 4 9 4 5 9 9 6 on 4 th Ave due to Visual Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Holgate) improve closures during Construction effects on Less construction effects, Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium existing full replacement partial replacement WSDOT ramp structures lane closures on 5 th Ave Potentially Affected Properties Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium rail/traffic/freight of viaduct of viaduct structure and foundations Residential Unit Displacements Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium with mined station operations structure Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Construction Impacts Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Medium Higher Medium Lower Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Medium Effects on Freight Movement Medium Higher Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Higher Lower (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing SODO and Chinatown-ID = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Traffic Circulation, Existing Facilities, Freight 80

  57. SODO Chinatown-ID SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators – By sub-segment 81

  58. SODO: Key differentiators • New SODO Station location • Transfer with existing station • Engineering/ constructability issues • Bus operations • Property effects • Rail, traffic & freight operations SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators – SODO 82

  59. Summary SODO Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project • New at-grade SODO Station on E-3 transitway at Lander Higher Surface E-3 - $100M • Transfer at existing SODO Station Performing • Bus operations on E-3 transitway displaced • New grade-separated roadway crossings (Lander, Holgate) improve existing rail/traffic/freight operations • Property effects at tunnel portal site (for Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Massachusetts Higher ** alternativeonly) Tunnel Portal Performing • Massachusetts Tunnel Portal alternative avoids impacts to Ryerson Base • New elevated SODO Station on Occidental Ave at Lander • Transfer at existing Stadium Station • Long span bridges over BNSF tracks and longer track connection to maintenance Higher Occidental Ave. facility + $200M Performing • Bus operations on E-3 transitway partially displaced • Property effects along Occidental, BNSF crossings and maintenance facility connection *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this SODO sub-segment only. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. **Cost comparison reflected in Chinatown/ID summary table. 83

  60. Chinatown-International District: Key differentiators • Station location • Ease of station access/passenger transfers • Construction, traffic effects • Property effects • Viaduct re-build project issues SODO and Chinatown-ID Key differentiators – Chinatown-International District 84

  61. Summary Chinatown-ID Cost Schedule Alternative Key findings comparison* comparison* ST3 Representative Project E-3 Surface • Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5 th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher (shorter 5 th Ave Cut-and- - $300M** • Construction effects, lane closures on 5 th Ave in station area Performing Cover Tunnel) • Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Shallow cut-and-cover station under 5 th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Higher - $200M • (5 th Ave Bored Tunnel) Construction effects, lane closures on 5 th Ave in stationarea Performing • Deep mined station (~200’) under 5 th Ave; poor rider access/transfers Less construction effects, lane closures on 5 th Ave with mined station • Medium 5 th Ave Mined C-ID Similar • Some property effects (for mined station access shaft) Performing • Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250’) • Deep mined station (~200’) under 4 th Ave, poor rider access/transfers Major engineering/constructability constraints (4 th Ave viaduct • demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) Lower 4 th Ave Mined C-ID + $500M • Large property effects (Ryerson Base for tunnel portal site) Performing • Requires 3 rd party funding of 4 th Ave Viaduct re-buildcosts • Results in very deep Midtown Station (~250’) • Shallow cut-and-cover station under 4 th Ave; easy rider access/transfers Major engineering/constructability constraints (4 th Ave viaduct • Lower 4 th Ave Cut-and-Cover C-ID demolition/rebuild, active BNSF railway, existing transit tunnel, etc.) + $600M Performing • Large property effects (King County Admin Building) • Requires 3 rd party funding of 4 th Ave Viaduct re-buildcosts *Cost compared to cost of ST3 Representative Project for this segment. Schedule compared to overall ST3 schedule for this extension. 85 **Cost comparison for Chinatown/ID sub-segment only; total SODO/C-ID segment cost difference is - $400M compared to ST3 Representative Project.

  62. * Station Charrette Feedback Chinatown-ID 4 th Ave S Tunnel 4 th Ave S Tunnel 5th Ave S Tunnel 5th Ave S Tunnel Cut and Cover Mined Cut and Cover Mined • • • • Greatest concern about Less concern about Concern about construction Concern about construction effects to traffic with 4 th Ave effects to traffic with 4 th Ave construction effects to C-ID construction effects • neighborhood and Less opportunity to connect S viaduct rebuild S viaduct rebuild • • displacement of businesses to King Street Station Opportunity to connect to Opportunity to connect to • • Less opportunity to connect Could activate Union King Street Station services King Street Station services • to King Street Station Station and plaza Could activate Union via station mezzanine • • • Could activate Union Could span Jackson Street Station Could activate Union • • Station and plaza Some TOD potential Limited TOD potential Station • • Some TOD potential Limited TOD potential *Summary of feedback from agency and community stakeholders. Images are illustrative only. 86

  63. Level 2 alternatives West Seattle/Duwamish • ST3 Representative Project • Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Tunnel • Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/Elevated • Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/Tunnel (new) • Golf Course/Alaska Junction/Tunnel (modified) 87

  64. West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives 88

  65. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 1 of 2 89

  66. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Complicates future Passenger Carrying Capacity Complicates future Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Best accommodates Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 LRT extension LRT extension future LRT extension Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Accommodates Future LRT Extension 90

  67. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. Tunnel options could Tunnel options could N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 affect schedule 1 1 1 affect schedule Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Potential ST3 Schedule Effects 91

  68. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Most engineering constraints Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Fewer engineering Medium (tunnel through unstable slopes, Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 constraints (avoids Pigeon widest water crossing, wide Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. Point steep slope) Union Pacific Argo railyard N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A crossing, high voltage lines, etc.) Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Engineering Constraints 92

  69. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Provide high quality rapid, reliable, and efficient peak and off-peak light rail transit service to communities in the project corridors defined in ST3. Potential Service Interruptions Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Travel Times (minutes) 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 7 to 8 Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity through downtown Seattle to meet projected transit demand. Network Integration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Passenger Carrying Capacity Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Ridership Potential (2040 pop/emp) (1) 11,200 12,500 12,000 10,700 12,500 Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit’s Long -Range Plan. N/A (3) Regional Growth Centers Served N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Served 1 1 1 1 1 Accommodates Future LRT Extension Lower Medium Lower Higher Medium Implement a system that is consistent with the ST3 Plan that established transit mode, corridor, and station locations and that is technically feasible and financially sustainable to build, operate, and maintain. Mode, Route and Stations per ST3 Higher Higher Higher Medium Higher Higher cost alternatives; Higher cost alternatives Potential ST3 Schedule Effects Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower requires 3 rd Party funding Potential ST3 Operating Plan Effects Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Engineering Constraints Medium Lower Medium Medium Higher Constructability Issues Lower Lower Lower Lower Medium Operational Constraints Medium Higher Medium Medium Medium Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison - $1,200M increase Similar $700M increase $500M increase Operating Cost Impacts Higher Medium Higher Medium Medium Expand mobility for the corridor and region’s residents, which include transit dependent, low income, and minority population s. Opportunities for Low-Income/Minority Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium (activity nodes/subsidized rental units) (1) 15% 13% 14% 15% 13% Low-Income Population (1/2) 25% / 21% 24% / 21% 23% / 21% 26% / 21% 23% / 21% Minority Population (1/2) 22% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% 23% / 26% 21% / 26% Youth Population (1/2) 13% / 17% 14% / 17% 14% / 17% 13% / 17% 14% / 17% Elderly Population (1/2) 16% / 13% 15% / 13% 15% / 13% 16% / 13% 15% / 13% Limited English Proficiency Population (1/2) 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% 3% / 4% Disabled Population (1/2) 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% 9% / 9% (1) Within station walksheds Medium (2) Within 15 minute ride on connecting high frequency transit Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing (3) NA = Measure not applicable to this segment West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Conceptual Capital Cost Comparison 93

  70. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Part 2 of 2 94

  71. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Most effects to Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Duwamish Greenbelt Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects 95

  72. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher High guideway High guideway Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. along Genesee; along Genesee; Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 Low guideway Low guideway elevated along elevated Avalon Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower along Genesee along Genesee Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 Oregon and 44th 1.5 2.8 Station 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Visual Effects 96

  73. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Elevated guideway and station Tunnel station at Fauntleroy Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 at 44 th increases residential lessens residential and Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower and business effects business effects Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Residential and Business Displacements 97

  74. Pigeon Ridge/West Seattle Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Golf Course/Alaska Junction/ Oregon Street/Alaska Junction/ Evaluation Measures ST3 Representative Project Tunnel Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Encourage equitable and sustainable urban growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development, station access, and modal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies. Compatibility with Urban Centers/Villages (1) Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Station Land Use Plan Consistency Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Activity Nodes Served (1) 40 41 42 38 42 Passenger Transfers Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bus/Rail and Rail/Rail Integration (1) Medium Higher Medium Medium Higher Bicycle Accessibility (1) Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Pedestrian/Limited Mobility Accessibility (1) Medium Higher Higher Higher Higher Development Potential (1) Medium Medium Medium Higher Medium Equitable Development Opportunities Lower Lower Medium Medium Higher Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built and social environments through sustainable practices. Historic Properties/Landmarks (2) 1 1 1 1 2 Potential for effects to Archaeological Resources (1) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Parks and Recreational Resources Effects (acres) 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 Water Resource Effects (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Effects (acres) 3.7 5.3 3.7 3.7 1.9 Hazardous Materials Sites (1) 11 7 8 14 14 Visual Effects Lower Medium Lower Medium Medium Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receivers (1) Lower Lower Lower Medium Lower Potentially Affected Properties Higher Higher Lower Higher Lower Elevated guideway on north side of West Seattle bridge; Residential Unit Displacements Medium Lower Lower Higher Lower affects freight, port terminal facilities during construction Square Feet of Business Displacements Higher Medium Lower Higher Medium Construction Impacts Lower Higher Lower Medium Medium Burden on Low-Income/Minority Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic Circulation and Access Effects Lower Higher Medium Higher Medium Effects on Existing Transportation Facilities Lower Higher Medium Medium Higher Effects on Freight Movement Medium Medium Medium Medium Lower Business and Commerce Effects Medium Higher Lower Medium Medium (1) Within station walksheds and/or defined buffer of alignment Medium (2) On properties that overlap with the project footprint Lower Performing Higher Performing Performing West Seattle/Duwamish = Key Differentiators Level 2 alternatives evaluation – Effects on Freight Movement 98

  75. Avalon-Genesee- Duwamish Crossing Delridge Alaska Junction West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – By sub-segment 99

  76. Alaska Junction: Key differentiators • Station location • Residential/business effects • Ease of future extension • Guideway height in Delridge West Seattle/Duwamish Key differentiators – Alaska Junction 100

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Board meeting | May 23, 2019 West Seattle &amp; Ballard

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Board meeting | May 23, 2019 West Seattle &amp; Ballard

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Board meeting | May 23, 2019 West Seattle &amp; Ballard Link Extensions Motion No. M2019-51 Identifying Alternatives for DEIS 23 May 2019 2 New approach to project development ST2 process

449 views • 41 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions System Expansion Committee | May 9, 2019 West Seattle

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions System Expansion Committee | May 9, 2019 West Seattle

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions System Expansion Committee | May 9, 2019 West Seattle &amp; Ballard Link Extensions Motion No. M2019-51 Identifying Alternatives for DEIS 9 May 2019 2 Agenda Alternatives development process Level 3

1.34k views • 85 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | May 17, 2018 1 1

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | May 17, 2018 1 1

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | May 17, 2018 1 1 Agenda Community engagement and collaboration Alternatives, results, feedback &amp; SAG recommendations West Seattle SODO, Stadium, Chinatown/ID

466 views • 45 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18 Chinatown-ID Evaluation Results C-ID alignment and station alternatives Additional feedback SODO and Chinatown-ID Consider 4th Avenue location for

766 views • 43 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 21, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 21, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 21, 2019 Agenda Welcome and Introductions Community engagement and collaboration Level 3 alternatives, station planning overview and discussions Next Steps and

306 views • 26 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 14, 2018 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 14, 2018 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | March 14, 2018 Agenda Introductions What we heard during early scoping Alternatives evaluation framework Neighborhood Forums Next steps &amp; Next Meeting 2 What we

965 views • 52 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18 SODO

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18 SODO

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions DRAFT Stakeholder Advisory Group | 7.16.18 SODO Evaluation Results Level 2 alternatives SODO and Chinatown-ID ST3 Representative Project Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Surface E-3 3 SODO and

1.01k views • 42 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Early Scoping Open Houses | February 2018 Welcome and

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Early Scoping Open Houses | February 2018 Welcome and

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Early Scoping Open Houses | February 2018 Welcome and agenda Meet the project team Presentation Open house format Submit your comments Next steps and exit survey System expansion Sound Transit

495 views • 30 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda Community engagement, equity and inclusion Level 3 alternatives, results, mix-and-match EIS Scoping feedback Level 3 recommendations Next steps 2

859 views • 75 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | April 17, 2019 Agenda Community engagement, equity and inclusion Level 3 alternatives, results, mix-and-match EIS Scoping feedback Level 3 recommendations Next steps 2

1.18k views • 68 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | February 1, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | February 1, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | February 1, 2019 Agenda Community engagement and collaboration Level 3 screening process Level 3 alternatives Level 3 evaluation results Potential mix-and-match opportunities

1.49k views • 95 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | January 30, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | January 30, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Stakeholder Advisory Group | January 30, 2019 Agenda Community engagement and collaboration Level 3 screening process Level 3 alternatives Level 3 evaluation results Potential mix-and-match

1.15k views • 103 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | April 26, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | April 26, 2019 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group Meeting | April 26, 2019 Agenda Welcome Public Comment Community engagement, equity and inclusion Level 3 alternatives, results, mix-and-match EIS Scoping feedback Level 3

958 views • 91 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Initial assessment results System Expansion Committee

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Initial assessment results System Expansion Committee

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Initial assessment results System Expansion Committee | 09/12/2019 Why we are here Review initial assessment of potential additional alternatives suggested during the EIS scoping period.

856 views • 32 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Pigeon Point Neighborhood Council Briefing | 6.11.18

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Pigeon Point Neighborhood Council Briefing | 6.11.18

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Pigeon Point Neighborhood Council Briefing | 6.11.18 System expansion Sound Transits system expansion means every few years new light rail, bus rapid transit and commuter rail stations open

640 views • 43 slides
West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | October 5, 2018 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | October 5, 2018 Agenda

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Elected Leadership Group | October 5, 2018 Agenda Welcome Public comment Community engagement, equity and inclusion Level 2 recommendation discussions Review recommendations 2 Community Engagement,

821 views • 61 slides
Welcome to Using the Internet to Market your Business W l t U i th I t t t M k t B i Jim

Welcome to Using the Internet to Market your Business W l t U i th I t t t M k t B i Jim

Welcome to Using the Internet to Market your Business W l t U i th I t t t M k t B i Jim Dodez Jim Dodez SVP Marketing &amp; Strategic Planning KVH Industries, Inc. San Diego September 25 &amp; 26, 2013 Introduction Jim Dodez

960 views • 82 slides
Overview ew Overview of Corporate Philanthropy Overview of Florida Blue Corporate and Foundation

Overview ew Overview of Corporate Philanthropy Overview of Florida Blue Corporate and Foundation

L ESSONS L EARNED FROM A C ORPORATE D ONOR Susan B. Towler Florida Blue October 21, 2015 Orange Park, FL Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Foundation is an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Overview ew

422 views • 16 slides
Presented by: Sonya Riley &amp; Alice Broadhurst Account Managers,

Presented by: Sonya Riley &amp; Alice Broadhurst Account Managers,

Presented by: Sonya Riley &amp; Alice Broadhurst Account Managers, Strategy and Architecture Adrian Hollister Head of Strategy &amp; Architecture Client

357 views • 17 slides
M onroe Street Project M arch 10, 2015 Where did this idea come from? Prior Public Involvement

M onroe Street Project M arch 10, 2015 Where did this idea come from? Prior Public Involvement

2017 M onroe Street Project M arch 10, 2015 Where did this idea come from? Prior Public Involvement Workshop #1 - 10/ 10/ 13 Workshop #2 11/ 14/ 13 Business Outreach Event 4/ 17/ 14 Final Plan presentation - 6/ 12/ 14

349 views • 19 slides
ERISA PLAN CONTROVERSY: RISING STAKES FOR THOSE UNPREPARED January 31, 2019 mwe.com WHATS

ERISA PLAN CONTROVERSY: RISING STAKES FOR THOSE UNPREPARED January 31, 2019 mwe.com WHATS

ERISA PLAN CONTROVERSY: RISING STAKES FOR THOSE UNPREPARED January 31, 2019 mwe.com WHATS THE EXPOSURE? Settlements up to $140 million Last year alone, settlements of $17 million, $22 million, $24 million, among others

385 views • 16 slides
Company Presentation March 201 7 Confidential SAFE HARBOR This presentation contains historical

Company Presentation March 201 7 Confidential SAFE HARBOR This presentation contains historical

Company Presentation March 201 7 Confidential SAFE HARBOR This presentation contains historical information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the business,

795 views • 31 slides
S U C C E S S W I T H D I G I T A L D I G I T A L F I T N E S S Cardiff Business School

S U C C E S S W I T H D I G I T A L D I G I T A L F I T N E S S Cardiff Business School

S U P P O R T I N G B U S I N E S S S U C C E S S W I T H D I G I T A L D I G I T A L F I T N E S S Cardiff Business School reveals broadband-enabled services could improve turnover for 111,000 Welsh SMEs It estimates the total sales

255 views • 11 slides
Small Business Development Center Mission: Provide high impact, quality counseling services and

Small Business Development Center Mission: Provide high impact, quality counseling services and

Yavapai College Small Business Development Center Mission: Provide high impact, quality counseling services and training to help small business owners achieve their goals, strengthening the Arizona economy. Americas Small Business

174 views • 14 slides

More recommend