All projects were evaluated against all other projects and then segmented by cost. This approach provided the opportunity to initially compare the relative overall benefit of each project, while subsequently comparing the relative benefit of projects with similar cost.

The initial assessment involved the comparison of projects in all criterion areas. Based upon that comparison, projects were assigned zero to four check marks, representing the degree to which they met the criterion. For “Existing Use” criteria, the evaluation team used current data representing the number of person trips taken on transit and in non-transit modes, as well as the amount of freight carried on the roadway or facility being assessed. Similarly, the “Smart Growth” criterion was assessed using current data on the number of trips on the facility coming from or going to designated urban or manufacturing centers throughout King County.

“Project benefits — efficiencies”, and “Project benefits-capacity” criteria were assessed by a cross-functional team of roads and transit experts within KCDOT. In these criteria areas, efficiencies and capacity judged to benefit all modes were first determined. Additional benefit, represented by assignment of zero to four check marks in each criterion, was ascribed to projects that include unique aspects specifically benefiting HOV, transit or freight movement, reliability, or that preserve existing or add new capacity for one of those modes.

The initial assessment’s use of “Existing Use” criteria tends to weight the evaluation in favor of larger projects on roadways and facilities with higher use. This was intentional, from the perspective that the region must prioritize those projects that impact the most people. However, many smaller projects also provide a high degree of benefit to many people relative to their cost. For this reason, following the initial assessment the projects were sorted by cost so that relative benefits within three investment levels could be compared. The projects were sorted by the following cost categories:

• Mega-project investments - cost equal to or greater than $1 billion
  Projects that cost greater than $1 billion represent the most significant major investments under consideration by the region.
• Major-project investments - cost between $300 million and $999 million
  Projects that cost between $300 million and $999 million represent mid-level investments on major freeways and regional highway corridors that provide key efficiencies or capacity on these corridors at locations where they most benefit the movement of people and goods.
• Moderate-project investments - cost under $300 million
  Projects that cost under $300 million represent more discrete or incremental improvements that apply system-wide or that target actions to locations where HOV, transit, freight or general-purpose travel conditions could be improved.

King County RTID Project Initial Ratings

• Project Cost Greater than $1 Billion (64K Adobe Acrobat .pdf)
• Project Cost Between $300 Million and $1 Billion (65K Adobe Acrobat .pdf)
• Project Cost Less than $300 Million (64K Adobe Acrobat .pdf)
• King County RTID Project Descriptions (52K Adobe Acrobat .pdf)

Updated: Sept. 19, 2003