1. Regional Transportation Investment District Overview Presentation to the Discovery Institute, Cascadia Project, Transportation Working Group Kjristine Lund Contract Executive Director RTID October 6, 2004

2. Transportation is voters’ top priority Repeated polls confirm public’s opinion WSDOT focus groups – August 2003 Moore survey – Nov. 2003 Hibbitts survey – May 2004 WSDOT survey – May 2004

3. Prioritized $18B of $30B unmet needs Recommended $12.8B in regional financing Developed state of the art financial model (WSDOT) Applied outside cost estimate review Strengthened coordination with WSDOT, Sound Transit, counties, and PSRC RTID First Steps

4. Project Overview Major improvements would be made to highways of regional significance, including I-5, I-405, SR 167, SR 9, SR 509, US 2, and SR 522. HOV lanes would be completed on I-5, SR 167, and SR 509. Transit-related improvements would be made throughout the region: bus purchases, bus access ramps, park and ride facilities, and transit oriented development. These projects would connect to other improvements in region’s transportation network already underway, including projects funded by state gas tax, Sound Transit, and county bus systems.

5. Project Priorities 78 projects in three counties (See WSDOT Handout) Completing 1.5-mi. light rail link to airport Replacing Alaskan Way Viaduct Completing I-5 HOV lanes on I-5 Expanding I-405 Replacing, expanding SR 520 bridge

6. Documented Benefits Performance criteria show: Projects will improve safety, reduce delay, and improve air quality Expand highways of statewide significance Add, extend HOV lanes Enhance transit facilities

7. Documented Benefits Overall benefits to freight Most proposed improvements are on major freight routes Reduction in truck delays – estimated at 6,400 hours/day Savings of about $93 million/year

8. Documented Benefits Overall safety improvements: 29% of “high accident” locations will be addressed 24% of “high accident” road miles will be addressed More than 20 lane-miles of earthquake-vulnerable structures will be upgraded or replaced

9. Outside Cost Review US Cost review – 90% of RTID dollars (86% of projects) likely to hit estimates – 66% of RTID dollars (34% of projects) rated good – 25% of RTID dollars (52% of projects) rated fair – 1% of RTID dollars (7% of projects) rated low – 8% of RTID dollars (7% of projects) not enough information

10. Outside Cost Review Summary of Findings The cost estimating procedures used were found to reflect “best practices” of the industry The CEVP process is thorough and systematic, it fosters better communication & risk management CEVP tends to focus on risk - WSDOT should strengthen the cost validation part of the process Need more consistent documentation of base cost estimates and schedules

11. Outside Cost Review Summary of Findings The 66% “good confidence” by dollars / 34% by number of projects finding means there is more confidence in the larger projects, which generally get more attention and use CEVP. “Fair” or “low” confidence projects, in general, had one or more of the following: incomplete scope, poor schedule definition, incomplete or missing risk identification.

12. Outside Cost Review Short term recommendations Confirm project definitions (scope)—”Basis of Estimate” document Develop improved construction schedules Perform CRA workshops Establish standards Perform an overall program risk assessment Reconcile estimates for consistency

13. Funding package Recommended 0.2% sales tax 0.1% RTA sales tax 0.3% MVET $75 license fee 2.8¢ local option gas tax Tolls on SR 520 Allowed but not used 0.3% sales tax HOV employer tax Parking tax $25 license fee

14. Voter approval? Right tax package Useful Projects

15. Revenue sources faced election challenges Oil industry opposed regional gas tax Multiple interests had sales tax concerns –Education –Transit –Perceived 10% limit

16. Public Concern about Economy Uncertainty about economic growth Supporters said could not afford to pay

17. RTID ballot title: Too Long, Too Complicated Draft ballot title: The Snohomish, King and Pierce County Councils adopted Resolution Nos. ____, ____ and ____ concerning a regional transportation system plan and improvements in those counties. This proposition would: (1) form a Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID); (2) approve the RTID Plan certified to the voters by the three county councils in those resolutions to fund regional transit, road, highway and light rail transportation projects; and (3) authorize imposition of a 0.35% sales and use tax, a 0.3% motor vehicle tax, a $75 vehicle license fee, and SR 520 floating bridge tolls, all as described in the RTID Plan. Should the RTID’s formation, RTID Plan approval and these taxes and fees be approved? Hibbitts poll: 58% NO32% YES

18. Accountability: Inform public of progress. Hibbitts poll: Little confidence in ability to deliver on time and on budget Publicize nickel project’s progress Showcase new accountability programs

19. Getting to Yes Yes votes must top 50% by wide margin in key areas to off-set no’s elsewhere Yes voters are younger and see return on investment Green shading indicates highest level of voter support for Ref. 51

20. Next steps with Legislature, WSDOT, and regional leadership Market project benefits Examine district boundaries Refine and narrow priorities Support statewide gas tax increase Simplify ballot title Update project descriptions and cost estimates Highlight project management Evaluate election timing with regional leadership

21. Regional transportation is pioneering effort – national trend – statewide equity State and federal funds cannot pay for it all – would need 60-cent gas tax – 30 cents for three counties, alone – federal projects of national significance + $9B for USA Washington Constitution leverages regional funding Overview