**University Link LRT Extension**

**Seattle, Washington**

###### (November 2005)

The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, commonly known as
Sound Transit, is proposing to implement an extension of the Central
Link light rail transit (LRT) Initial Segment currently under
construction from the Segment's northern terminus at Westlake Station in
downtown Seattle to the University of Washington, 3.1 miles to the
northeast. The all-tunnel alignment also includes a station at Capitol
Hill. 30 vehicles would be procured as part of the project scope, which
would permit 5-minute peak period operations throughout the entire
Central Link line (which by 2030 is proposed to extend south to SeaTac
International Airport). University Link itself is the first phase of
Sound Transit's planned North Link LRT extension to the Northgate
Transit Center in North Seattle.

The University Link corridor is the most densely developed residential
and employment area in the Central Puget Sound region and the state of
Washington. The three largest urban centers in the state -- downtown
Seattle, Capitol Hill/First Hill, and the University District -- are
located along the alignment. However, travel by private vehicle and bus
between these areas is extremely congested due to high traffic volumes
and the corridor's unique physical geography. First Hill and Capitol
Hill rise sharply northeast of downtown Seattle, and Interstate 5 (I-5)
-- the region's primary north-south freeway corridor -- runs along the
base of these hills, separating them from downtown. The steep grades and
limited crossing points of I-5 exacerbate congestion between downtown
and the First Hill/Capitol Hill urban center. Farther to the north, the
University District is separated from Capitol Hill and downtown Seattle
by Portage Bay and the Lake Washington Ship Canal; only three river
crossings (two of them drawbridges) connect the University with the
southern portion of the corridor.

Furthermore, while I-5 north of downtown features reversible express
lanes to accommodate AM inbound and PM outbound travel, the significant
and growing reverse-commute market between downtown (and points south)
and Capitol Hill/First Hill and the University District enjoys no such
advantage, resulting in a substantial disparity between northbound and
southbound transit travel times during peak periods. The University Link
LRT Extension is intended to provide more reliable and faster
bi-directional transit service to and between these urban centers, while
supporting local land use goals and contributing to the maintenance of
1990 traffic levels at the University of Washington, which, by prior
agreement, is necessary for the City of Seattle to approve any new
campus development.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Summary Description**            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Proposed Project:**              | Light Rail Transit              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 3.1 Miles                       |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | 2 Stations                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Total Capital Cost (\$YOE):**    | \$1,720.0 Million (includes     |
|                                    | \$220.0 million in finance      |
|                                    | costs)                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Section 5309 New Starts Share    | \$700 Million (40.7%)           |
| (\$YOE):**                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Annual Forecast Year Operating   | \$28.9 Million                  |
| Cost:**                            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Ridership Forecast (2030):**     | 40,200 Average Weekday          |
|                                    | Boardings                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 17,400 Daily New Riders         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Opening Year Ridership Forecast  | Not Available                   |
| (2016):**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Finance Rating:**        | # Medium-High                   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Project Justification    | **Medium-High**                 |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Overall Project          | **High**                        |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

**Project Development History and Current Status**

The University Link LRT Extension is part of the Central Link LRT system
that has been in planning for more than two decades. In 1999, Sound
Transit published an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Central
Link alignment which extended from South 200^th^ Street in the City of
Seatac to North 103^rd^ Street in the City of Seattle. Due to financial
constraints, Sound Transit identified three operable segments for
implementation, the first of which extended from just south of downtown
Seattle to the University of Washington. FTA awarded a Full Funding
Grant Agreement (FFGA) for this project in January 2001.

Due to cost increases, the FFGA was suspended later that year. Sound
Transit subsequently redefined the Central Link project. An "Initial
Segment" of the project runs from the Westlake Station of the existing
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel south to Tukwila; this project alignment
is currently being constructed under an FFGA executed by FTA in October
2003. The North Link segment would connect the Initial Segment's
northern terminus with the Northgate Transit Center. Sound Transit
completed a Draft Supplemental EIS for North Link in December 2003. The
Sound Transit Board selected the locally preferred alternative for North
Link in July 2005, and the following month selected the 3.1-mile
University Link Extension as the first phase of the implementation of
North Link. FTA issued a limited-scope Draft Supplemental EIS in October
2005 to address changes in the preferred alternative, including an
alternative route through the University of Washington. FTA notified
Congress of its intent to approve preliminary engineering (PE) for the
project in November 2005; PE approval is assumed in December 2005. Sound
Transit is currently completing the Final EIS for North Link, including
the University Link project, with a Record of Decision anticipated in
Spring 2006.

**[Project Justification Rating: Medium-High]{.underline}**

The *Medium-High* rating for project justification is based on a
*Medium* rating for cost effectiveness and a *Medium-High* rating for
transit-supportive land use.

####### *Cost Effectiveness Rating: Medium* 

The *Medium* rating is based on the level of travel-time benefits
(14,000 average weekday hours) relative to the project's annualized
costs.

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Cost Effectiveness**                   |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Cost per Hour of Transportation System   | **[New Start vs.          |
| User Benefit                             | Baseline]{.underline}**   |
|                                          |                           |
| Incremental Cost per Incremental Trip    | \$19.93\*                 |
|                                          |                           |
|                                          | \$16.84                   |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

####### \* Indicates that measure is a component of Cost Effectiveness rating.

The University Link LRT Extension is intended to provide improved
bi-directional transit access and faster travel times between Capitol
Hill, the University District, downtown Seattle, and points south.
Nearly two-thirds of project travel-time benefits accrue to travelers
destined for the University District or Capitol Hill, while 25 percent
of benefits are for trips originating in these station areas destined
for other parts of the region. Over 20 percent of project benefits
accrue to trips internal to the project corridor. Approximately 10
percent of project benefits are the result of improved LRT frequencies
throughout the entire Central Link line necessitated by the higher
passenger loads caused by the extension.

The project's level of design is relatively advanced for a project just
approved into preliminary engineering, owing to the amount of
engineering and design already completed for the 2001 Central Link
alignment. FTA's review of the project cost estimate further indicates
that it was prepared in accordance with good industry practice.
Consequently, there is an increased level of confidence in the
University Link LRT Extension's current budget and schedule relative to
the defined scope. The total project contingency appears sufficient but
unallocated contingencies and assumed cost inflation rates may be low
and should be re-examined by Sound Transit.

####### *Transit-Supportive Land Use Rating: Medium-High*

The *Medium-High* land use rating is based upon the *High* rating
assigned to transit supportive policies and the *Medium-High* ratings
assigned to existing land use and the performance of policies.

**Existing Land Use: Medium-High**

-   The University Link connects the densely developed Seattle CBD to
    the Capitol Hill neighborhood and the University of Washington
    campus. Employment in the Seattle CBD was a relatively high 183,200
    in 2000. Capitol Hill, a mixed-use urban neighborhood with the most
    dense residential development in the Puget Sound Region, is also
    home to two colleges and four large medical facilities. The
    University of Washington is home to 35,000 students and 20,000
    faculty and staff. The two project station areas have a combined
    population of nearly 21,000 and 23,700 jobs, with an average
    population density of 16,400 persons per square mile.

-   Parking in the CBD is relatively expensive, up to \$26 daily. Total
    parking provided for the UW campus is capped at a restrictive 12,300
    which is roughly one space for every five students, faculty, and
    staff. In the Capitol Hill neighborhood, most parking is on-street
    or in small off-street lots, and is highly utilized.

**Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: High**

-   Growth management policies are strong at all levels of government.
    The state's Growth Management Act requires establishment of an urban
    growth boundary, reflected in local comprehensive plans. King
    County's planning policies established this boundary and designated
    urban centers, including downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill, and the
    University District. Seattle's comprehensive plan identifies both
    the Capitol Hill and University of Washington station areas as urban
    centers or villages, in which new growth will be concentrated. The
    region's Vision 2020 land use plan identifies policies used to guide
    development and control urban sprawl.

-   Seattle's Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans for the Capitol
    Hill and University District call for the concentration of growth in
    compact walkable neighborhoods known as urban villages. Station area
    planning processes have been completed and resulted in
    recommendations including changes to zoning, parking policies,
    development opportunities, and other actions. Many of these
    recommendations have been implemented. For example, station area
    overlay districts and rezones have been accomplished to prohibit
    auto-oriented uses, increase densities, and reduce parking
    requirements in the Capitol Hill station area. The UW Campus Master
    Plan defines opportunities for building expansion, provides design
    guidelines, and recommends pedestrian improvements.

-   A range of tools exist to implement policies that are not otherwise
    mandated by law. These include tax increment financing, multi-family
    tax abatement and exemption programs, a location efficient mortgage
    program, and funding provided through the Washington State Commute
    Trip Reduction Act. Regional, county, and city agencies have all
    implemented outreach activities, technical assistance, and financial
    incentives to promote transit-oriented development.

**Performance and Impacts of Policies: Medium-High**

-   Regional monitoring of growth targets in 2002 by the Puget Sound
    Regional Council indicates that growth is in fact occurring in
    targeted areas, with King County the most aggressive in targeting
    this growth in its urban centers. Some instances exist of
    coordination of development with the LRT Initial Segment planning
    and construction.

-   There is not a significant amount of land available for development
    in either of the two University Link station areas. However,
    redevelopment and infill development is expected to be supportive of
    transit, based on policies and zoning adopted in each area.

####### Other Project Justification Criteria 

+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Mobility Improvements Rating:          |              |            |
| Medium-High**                            |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Within ½-mile radius of boarding      | 23,700       |            |
| areas]{.underline}:**                    |              |            |
|                                          | 35,000       |            |
| Existing Employment                      |              |            |
|                                          | 1,990 (15%)  |            |
| Projected Employment (2030)              |              |            |
|                                          | 11,830\*     |            |
| Low Income Households (% of total HH)    |              |            |
|                                          | 1,000\*      |            |
| **[Average Per Station]{.underline}:**   |              |            |
|                                          | **[New Start |            |
| Employment                               | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| Low Income Households                    | underline}** |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **Transportation System User Benefit Per | 2.82\*       |            |
| Project Passenger Mile (Minutes)**       |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Environmental Benefits Rating:         |              |            |
| Medium**                                 |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Criteria Pollutant (Reduction in      | **[New Start |            |
| tons)]{.underline}**                     | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| > Carbon Monoxide (CO)                   | underline}** |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Nitrogen Oxide (NO~x~)                 | 602          |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)       | 52           |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Particulate Matter (PM~10~)            | 46           |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~)                 | 1            |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **[Criteria Pollutant                    | 11,816       |            |
| Status]{.underline}**                    |              |            |
|                                          | **[EPA       |            |
| > Carbon Monoxide (CO)                   | De           |            |
| >                                        | signation]{. |            |
| > Particulate Matter (PM~10~)            | underline}** |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **Annual Energy Savings (million British | Maintenance  |            |
| Thermal Units)**                         | Area         |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | Maintenance  |            |
|                                          | Area         |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | 151,198      |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Operating Efficiencies Rating:         |              |            |
| Medium**                                 |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **System Operating Cost per**            | > **         | **[New     |
|                                          | [Baseline]{. | Start]{.un |
| **Passenger Mile (current year           | underline}** | derline}** |
| dollars)**                               | >            |            |
|                                          | > \$0.392\*  | \$0.372\*  |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+

\* Indicates that measure is a component of rating for each criterion.

N/A indicates information was not available for this entry.

# [Local Financial Commitment Rating: Medium-High]{.underline}

The *Medium-High* local financial commitment rating is based on the
*Medium-High* ratings assigned to the New Starts share of project costs
and both the capital and operating finance plans.

####### *Section 5309 New Starts Share of Total Project Costs: 41%* 

####### *Rating: Medium-High*

Sound Transit is requesting a less than 41 percent New Starts share of
total project costs, which equates to a *Medium-High* rating for this
measure.

+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+
| **Locally Proposed       |                       |                  |
| Financial Plan**         |                       |                  |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+
| **[Source of             | **[Total Funds        | **[Percent of    |
| Funds]{.underline}**     | (\$mi                 | Tota             |
|                          | llion)]{.underline}** | l]{.underline}** |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+
| **Federal:**             | \$700.0               | 40.7%            |
|                          |                       |                  |
| Section 5309 New Starts  |                       |                  |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+
| **Local:**               | \$230.0               | 13.4%            |
|                          |                       |                  |
| Local Option Taxes       | \$490.0               | 28.5%            |
|                          |                       |                  |
| Bonds                    | \$300.0               | 17.4%            |
|                          |                       |                  |
| Additional Revenues      |                       |                  |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+
| **Total:**               | **\$1,720.0**         | 100.0%           |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+------------------+

**NOTE**: The financial plan reflected in this table has been developed
by the project sponsor and does not reflect a commitment by DOT or FTA.
The sum of the figures may differ from the total as listed due to
rounding.

####### *Capital Finance Plan Rating: Medium-High*

The capital finance plan is rated *Medium-High*, based upon the average
of ratings assigned to each of the subfactors listed below. The
commitment of capital funds subfactor was rated *High*. Capital
condition and completeness of the capital plan were rated *Medium-High*.
The capital cost estimates and planning assumptions subfactor was rated
*Medium*. Capital funding capacity was rated *Medium-Low*.

**Agency Capital Condition: Medium-High**

-   The average age of Sound Transit's bus fleet is 5.1 years, which is
    significantly younger than the industry average. The age of the
    agency's light rail and commuter rail fleet is also very young at
    two and five years respectively.

-   Sound Transit's good bond ratings, which were issued in March 2005,
    are as follows: Moody's Investors Service Aa3 and Standard and
    Poor's Corporation AA-.

### 

#### Completeness of Capital Plan: Medium-High 

-   The capital plan is complete and includes a 20-year cash flow, key
    assumptions, moderate detail, a fleet management plan, a sensitivity
    analysis and more than five years of historical data.

Commitment of Capital Funds: High

-   Over 70 percent of non-New Starts funding is committed. The
    non-Section 5309 capital funds are comprised of Sound Transit cash
    provided by local option sales and use taxes, existing or new bond
    proceeds, and additional local resources.

Capital Funding Capacity: Medium-Low

-   The project's financial plan shows projected cash balances, reserve
    accounts, and/or access to credit that would allow Sound Transit to
    cover cost increases or funding shortfalls equal to approximately 13
    percent of project costs. Sound Transit has ample debt capacity as
    an agency. However, Sound Transit's financial policies impose
    local/internal constraints that limit the amount of funds available
    for this project.

### Capital Cost Estimate and Planning Assumptions: Medium

### Sound Transit capital planning assumptions are conservative compared to historical experience.

-   The cost estimate is considered current and reliable, although
    unallocated contingencies and cost escalation assumptions may be
    low.

####### *Operating Finance Plan Rating: Medium-High*

The operating finance plan is rated *Medium-High*, based upon the
average of the ratings of the five subfactors listed below. Completeness
of the operating plan was rated *Medium;* the operating cost estimates
and planning assumptions subfactor was rated *Medium-Low;* and the
remaining subfactors were rated *High*.

**Agency Operating Condition: High**

-   Sound Transit is in very good condition. Sound Transit has not
    experienced any recent service cutbacks. On the contrary, Sounder
    commuter rail service continues to ramp up as additional round-trips
    are added, while Regional Express bus service increases gradually.

-   Sound Transit's current ratio of assets to liabilities as reported
    in its most recent audited financial statement is 6.2.

#### Completeness of Operating Plan: Medium 

-   The submission was complete. It included a 20-year cash flow
    statement, a limited sensitivity analysis, and a moderate level of
    detail. While key assumptions regarding the operating plan were
    stated and eight years of historical data were provided, the data
    was provided at only a highly summarized level.

### 

Commitment of Operating Funds: High

-   All operating funding is committed. Sound Transit's operating
    expenses are entirely funded by dedicated local option (sales and
    use/motor vehicle excise (MVET)/car rental) taxes, fares and other
    system-generated revenue, especially investment income and
    advertising.

#### Operating Funding Capacity: High

-   The project's financial plan shows cash balances, reserve accounts
    and/or access to credit exceeding 100 percent of annual operating
    expenses.

#### Operating Cost Estimates and Planning Assumptions: Medium-Low 

### Light rail fare revenue assumptions are much higher than national experience. 

### It is difficult to compare the growth in operating and maintenance expenses to historical trends because Sound Transit is a relatively new and emerging transit agency, with no experience operating light rail. Sound Transit's estimates of light rail operating costs place its future system near the middle of costs experienced by other light rail operations in the United States. 

Map

#### 

###