Sept. 17, 2003

The Honorable Ron Sims
King County Executive
516 Third Avenue, Room 400
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Executive Sims:

Early this summer, you directed the King County Department of Transportation to embark upon a broad effort to assess the state of our transportation system here in King County. Since my department is one of the only transportation agencies in the nation that delivers a unique combination of road, transit and aviation services, I am pleased to offer this alternative approach as the region makes key decisions about when and where to make critical transportation investments for our future.

Given my department’s mission to improve our quality of life and environment by developing better ways to move people and goods, we understand how every transportation decision made in the region will impact our economy and the citizens we serve. We also have a responsibility to be a good partner and provide added value to the transportation debate currently underway.

Our most urgent task was to perform a technical review of King County’s portion of the $14 billion-plus list of projects being considered by the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID). The RTID board, comprised of council members from Pierce, King and Snohomish counties has, for many months, been attempting to craft a proposed package of regional improvements that builds on statewide investments made possible by the state’s nickel gas tax. While the board’s efforts have contributed greatly to the debate over the types of investments that should be made, it has become clear in recent months that we have reached a stalemate — rather than consensus — on a viable package that provides realistic solutions to our transportation problems.

Discussion has reached an impasse on several fronts. Road and transit advocates have not been able to achieve consensus on a balanced package of improvements that maximizes the movement of people and freight in addition to automobiles. And, there is the mounting view that the RTID investment currently being discussed is too expensive, given the state of our economy and projected cost to the average household in King County. There is also frustration over the pace of improvements. There are those expressing the need to move ahead by building what we can now, and phase in additional improvements over time.

It is within this context that I present you with my agency’s review of specific transportation projects and investments that can be viewed as an initial down payment toward a longer-range regional solution. This recommended list of projects was arrived at through a technical review process that compared the current list of proposed RTID projects against a rational set of principles and criteria. More importantly, these principles and criteria were shaped by the growing realization that the true key to improving the future of travel in King County will lie with a fundamental change in the way we measure the effectiveness of our transportation system.

Rather than continuing the traditional practice of measuring the performance of our roads simply by the number of cars they can carry, this review has revealed the need for a shift in thinking to one that assesses the ability of projects to improve the movement of people and freight. The difference between the two will be quite significant as road capacity continues to shrink. This report points out the benefits of moving toward a different measurement — one that will examine improvements based on their ability to move more people and goods on better functioning general-purpose lanes, freeway interchanges, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, buses, rail, or on freight corridors designed especially for trucks. In addition, projects were assessed according to the amount of access provided to and from our designated urban and manufacturing centers by individual roadway segments. The designated centers are where the region’s policies dictate that population and employment growth — and the infrastructure to support future growth — are targeted. Finally, the department evaluated the projects as to whether repair or replacement of a facility or replacement of a transit fleet at the end of its useful life would preserve existing system capacity the region might otherwise lose.

Based on the principles, criteria, current economic conditions and the region’s ability to generate additional revenues in the near-term, this report makes the case for a smaller $6.5 billion RTID package in King County. It calls for the construction of projects and programs that carry more vehicles, people and freight more effectively and reliably over the next ten years. The report also stresses the need to address remaining transportation needs in the context of an immediate second phase of improvements. This assessment will shortly be followed up with a similar departmental review of the various funding opportunities currently before us.

We look forward to discussing the findings of this report with the many transportation partner agencies and stakeholders who have played a major role in attempting to address our transportation challenges. In the coming weeks, I look forward to their help in finalizing a package of improvements and investments capable of moving the region closer to meaningful transportation solutions.

Sincerely,

Harold S. Taniguchi
Director, King County Department of Transportation

Updated: Sept. 17, 2003