Efficiency:

• Use what we have wisely
• Move more people and goods on existing roadways

Preservation:

• Keep what we have safe and usable
• Implement improvements that reduce roadway collisions, injuries and property damage
• Repair connections that are at risk of sudden failure
• Preserve and improve ability to travel to, through, and between major activity centers

Expansion:

• Grow capacity so more people and goods can move
• Give priority to moving more people and goods over moving more vehicles

Smart Growth:

• Improve access in urban areas where density and development are greatest
• Focus investments for the economy, environment and communities

Financing:

• Establish a higher level of predictable and user-based funding for transportation investments
• Implement user-based fees

The KCDOT team worked to develop criteria to be applied across the board in assessing and prioritizing potential RTID-funded projects. The intent is to establish a matrix allowing people to determine which projects can deliver the most benefit. In evaluating projects, KCDOT staff used the criteria and indicators shown in the accompanying matrix.

Further work could apply the full RTID Criteria from E2SSB 6140 to each project. These criteria are:

• Reduce congestion and improve safety
• Improve travel time
• Improve air quality
• Increase daily and peak-period person and vehicle trip capacity
• Reduce person and vehicle delay
• Improve freight mobility
• Be a cost-effective investment

(33K Rich Text File .rtf)

The first level screening of projects provides a basis for comparison of individual projects against all other projects. To move to a selection of a package of projects for RTID funding, the following should be considered:

1. A smaller overall package is needed
   
   • High-end, mega-projects are too expensive.
   • We should choose projects that can be constructed in a smaller scope or in logical segments resulting in benefits, and also retain the ability to add other project elements later, to complete the full project scope.
2. Ensure that facilities subject to catastrophic failure have been addressed
   
   • The Alaskan Way Viaduct and the SR 520 Bridge are structures of critical importance to the region; we cannot allow their loss to occur.
3. Readiness
   
   • Identify opportunities to maximize the investments of other funding sources in combination with RTID investments.
   • Ensure that individual projects are far enough along from a project identification, design, and environmental-process standpoint.

During the first week of September, KCDOT discussed its draft approach with other transportation professionals from cities in the region, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Washington State Department of Transportation, consulting firms, and University of Washington faculty. Below is an explanation of the initial thinking.

Screening criteria
The department proposed, as two key criteria, a project’s effect on travel time and on the movement of people and goods in the afternoon peak hour, which is the most congested period of the workday.

What we heard
There was overwhelming support for resolving the current impasse over transportation priorities and moving forward to a regional vote in 2004. As for specific criteria:

• Movement of people and goods in the PM peak - No one disagreed with the importance of this criterion, but some raised technical questions about using the morning rather than evening peak, and about how to accurately measure freight movement without much reliable data.

• Travel time - More questions were raised about the use of travel time, particularly as an aggregate measure. Those commenting thought the aggregate time-saving statistics would be difficult for the public to understand, and suggested that examples of point-to-point timesaving benefits would be more useful. People were also concerned about combining auto, freight, and transit travel times into a single statistic, since each of these travel markets has unique time sensitivities.
• Smart growth - There was broad support for linking transportation investments more tightly to the region’s land-use growth strategy. The PSRC was particularly glad we added this non-transportation criterion. While no one disagreed that we should focus on urban and manufacturing centers, more than one person suggested we also look at other pinch points that might constrict growth.

• Other comments
  • Environmental factors - Several people suggested we add a criterion, such as Air Quality, that assessed a project’s environmental factors.
  • Other funding - City representatives suggested we give priority to projects that have already secured funding from other sources.
  • Achievability - Some suggested we give priority to projects that were further along in the design/implementation process, were less controversial, or were less complex, thus having a greater chance of being implemented.
  • Phasing - WSDOT staff suggested we give priority to projects that were useful, initial phases of larger efforts.
  • Demand management incentives - Two people suggested we create incentives for transportation demand management in order to sustain the value of new capacity over time.
  • Comprehensive cost/benefit analysis - Several people suggested we look comprehensively at benefits, quantify those benefits, and array them against costs to ensure that we get the best buy for the dollar invested.
  • Facility useful life and catastrophic failure – Some suggested that the prospect of replacement or repair of critical facilities nearing the end of their useful life should be considered as important as the improvement or expansion of capacity.

Updated: Sept. 16, 2003