The MPO boundary includes all of the other boundaries listed. As defined by 23 USC, WSDOT and FHWA federal-aid highway urbanized area boundaries (also called highway urban areas) include, at a minimum, the federal Bureau of the Census designated urbanized area (UZA) boundary for each UZA in an MPO region. The highway urban area also includes locations outside the census UZA to include nearby municipalities and other areas with urban characteristics. There are three UZAs in PSRC’s region – Bremerton, Marysville, and Seattle-Tacoma-Everett – and two highway urban areas. PSRC, in cooperation with WSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), designates the highway urban areas boundaries for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The results from the 2000 federal census were used to update the map.

The MPO/Governor-approved metropolitan planning area is defined by the Interlocal Agreement for regional planning of the central Puget Sound area, which was entered into, by, and between the counties, cities, towns, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations of the State of Washington, and federally recognized Indian tribes within the four-county region. This Agreement is made pursuant to provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 R.C.W. and has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction. Boundaries of the nonattainment/maintenance areas are determined by the local air agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Environmental Protection Agency based on monitoring data.

Urban growth area boundaries are collected annually from the county comprehensive plans. In the past, most updates to the boundary occur near the end of the calendar year. In turn, the boundary is updated at the beginning of the following year.

Yes, the MPO boundary fully encompasses the maintenance areas.

Yes, FHWA and FTA have been provided current maps of the boundary approved by the MPO and the State (see Attachment 4).

Public transit agencies for the urban areas within PSRC’s MPO boundary provide service outside the UZA boundary, and, under current eligibility requirements within Washington State, those agencies are not eligible for FTA 5311 (rural transit) funding. However, other agencies and governments such as social service agencies and Tribal Nations located in PSRC’s MPO boundary but outside the UZA boundary are eligible for FTA 5311 funding, but none currently receive such funding.

Yes, there are Tribal lands within the planning boundary. Two Tribal Nations, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Suquamish Tribe, are full MPO members; two other Tribal Nations, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the Tulalip Tribes, are associate members. Other tribes participate in other ways, including project submittals for PSRC’s federal funds, planning consultations, and public involvement.

Yes, there are Forest Service lands and other federal lands within the planning boundary.

There is a Memorandum of Understanding for Transportation Planning Coordination and Cooperation between the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Washington State Department of Transportation, dated December 3, 1996 (see Attachment 5). In addition there is a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding STIP Management between PSRC and WSDOT, dated October 15, 1998 (see Attachment 6).

Given the changes to the organizational structure of the state Transportation Commission and its impacts on WSDOT, as well as the general need to update the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), these three entities are in the process of drafting a new MOU. This Memorandum, when final, intends to supercede both earlier MOUs between PSRC and WSDOT. The most recent draft of this new MOU is enclosed as Attachment 7.

There is an agreement between PSRC and the transit operators specifying cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning. This MOU was last updated on June 30, 2003, and is enclosed as Attachment 8.

There is an MOU between the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and PSRC, last updated in May 2002, which defines the relationship between these entities for air quality planning (see Attachment 9).

There are no agreements specifically covering Federal lands, Indian Tribal lands, or military bases. However, membership does represent the lands; for example, Tribal Nations are members of PSRC and participate in its processes.

Please see the response to question 6, below.

The remaining intergovernmental agreements and the dates they were signed are as follows:

PSRC also maintains a current list of contracts entered into by the agency (see Attachment 17).

As mentioned above, the MOUs with WSDOT are in the process of being updated and consolidated. One significant change will be to recognize the recent changes in state law pertaining to the role of the Transportation Commission, and also to be more specific about how the different departments within WSDOT interact with PSRC. The most recent draft of this agreement is enclosed as Attachment 7.

PSRC has not set up any alternative procedures for agreements such as a single cooperative agreement. Instead, PSRC has chosen to include the roles, responsibilities, and cooperative actions in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP; see Appendix C of Attachment 18, PSRC’s Biennial Budget and Work Program, Fiscal Years 2006-2007).

The Interlocal Agreement (see Attachment 3), which is signed by all members and established PSRC, its structure, and authority, explicitly provides provisions regarding technical capabilities, including regional database development and other technical functions. The UPWP then allocates funding for technical studies through the work program.

The process initially begins in the fall with a meeting of the Executive Committee, which includes the Executive Board officers, to discuss and provide direction for the Operations Committee. The budget review process begins with an Operations Committee meeting to review and refine the budget and work program. The process also includes review by the GMPB, TPB, Regional Staff Committee, and other PSRC staff committees, and analysis and input from the countywide planning organizations, member jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies, to help assure that the budget and work program contains items important and helpful to member jurisdictions. The Operations Committee presents the regular or supplemental budget and work program to the Executive Board, and ultimately to the General Assembly for action.

As discussed above, the program is developed through a series of briefings and input received from members and other stakeholders, in compliance with state and federal requirements. Ultimately, the General Assembly has final say on the document and responsibilities.

Yes.

The process outlined above helps determine the priorities through outreach with our member jurisdictions, other stakeholders, and federal and state partners. For example, on page 14 of the budget and work program (see Attachment 18) is a table that identifies the major planning efforts for the next 10-year period. PSRC developed this in conjunction with its members and federal and state partners, and it helps to determine the priorities for the next few years.

Yes.

As discussed above, the inclusive process provides an opportunity to allow input and feedback from a variety of different sources, including all members and transit agencies, the state Legislature, FHWA, FTA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other local agencies.

The UPWP supports a variety of freight planning activities. It supports staffing for a public/private Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable (established in 1994 and on-going), which is nationally recognized for its achievements as a sustained and respected "communication hub." Participants include all private freight modes (rail, highway, marine, air cargo, and intermodal) and all levels of government, including federal agency representatives. Participating federal entities are the FHWA, the Federal Railroad Association, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), FTA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense. In the last fiscal year, one of the presenters was the vice-chair of the Surface Transportation Board.

The UPWP also supports staff coordination for the regional freight interagency team (the Freight Action Strategy Corridor Agency Staff Team – FAST CAST). This work has been jointly sponsored with WSDOT since 1998, but beginning in July 2005, with the agreement of WSDOT, it has been reassigned to PSRC, which will act as the lead for this work. This team screens, recommends, and collaborates to build key freight projects within our region. The team uses the Roundtable as a sounding board and operates under an MOU signed by the policy leadership of the respective city, county, and port participants. State agencies and private railroads are also involved.

Lastly, the UPWP supports development and updating of the region’s regional freight element of the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), Destination 2030. This includes consultation with the above noted Roundtable and agency officials on the FAST CAST. The 2007 update of Destination 2030 will update and supplement the freight components of the 2001 Destination 2030 plan.

Yes, the planning factors are covered in the UPWP (see Attachment 18), initially in the discussion of the agency mandates and also in discussions throughout the document. For example, see pages 9 and 10 of Appendix C.

There are a number of ways that transit operators get feedback into the UPWP. First, they are participants in the Transit Operators Committee and TPB, where the document is discussed and molded. Second, through their elected leadership on the Executive Board and General Assembly, they have an additional review. Finally, the agency staff has individual discussions with each transit agency as part of the development process. For example, see the sections on Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail in Appendix C of Attachment 18.

The draft UPWP is included on all agendas for meetings of the Policy Boards, the Executive Board, and the General Assembly, all of which are open, public meetings. Time is provided at each of these meetings for public comments. The agency has received citizen comments on the document in the past.

Yes. A list of planning projects programmed with FTA 5307 funds in this region is identified in Appendix C of PSRC’s Biennial Budget and Work Program, FY 2006-2007 (see Attachment 18). A copy is also available on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/pubs/budget/fy2006-2007budget.pdf .

No.

The UPWP has specific elements/tasks on Title VI compliance and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal development activities for PSRC. Both Title VI and DBE issues are discussed later in this document.

No. There is no FTA New Start Planning being conducted in PSRC’s region. Sound Transit confirms the only FTA 5309 New Start funds in PSRC’s region are in Sound Transit project-level projects. For more information on this subject, please contact Lisa Wolterink, Sound Transit Grants Coordinator, at 206-689-3359 or wolterinkl@soundtransit.org.

PSRC has a joint MOU with all seven of the region’s transit agencies (revised June 2003 to add Seattle Monorail – see Attachment 8). PSRC also has an MOU with WSDOT (see Attachment 5). These MOUs identify respective organizational roles and relationships for policy planning, project planning and programming, and broader planning coordination responsibilities. The MOUs include specific reference to mutual involvement in major corridor studies, the UPWP, the MTP, and the TIP. On an ongoing basis, coordination activities are addressed in a variety of technical and policy venues. The Transportation Operators Committee (TOC) includes representatives from each of the public transit agencies as well as WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Division, WSDOT Ferries, and City of Seattle (for the older existing monorail system). Transit agencies and WSDOT are also represented on other PSRC technical committees and on the TPB and Executive Board. Many elected officials on PSRC’s GMPB are also members of local and regional transit agency boards.

Representatives of the region’s major ports, state and regional freight mobility interests, and non-motorized interests are well represented on PSRC’s technical advisory committees, such as the Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Bike-Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Prosperity Partnership, and PSRC’s policy boards, where the MTP and TIP are approved.

PSRC continues to employ broad technical, policy, and public input for its on-going plan review, refinement, and update processes. The 2001 Destination 2030 plan and its refinement, 2004 Review and Progress Report, provide complete annotations of the public involvement and decision processes used to comply with both state and federal plan development and update processes (see Attachments 19 and 20). See Attachment 2c for a diagram of PSRC’s committee structure.

PSRC approves the TIP after a public comment period, a recommendation from the TPB, and approval from the Executive Board. The TIP and any amendments are submitted to WSDOT, which prepares the recommendation to the Governor. Upon state approval, the TIP becomes part of the draft STIP, pending federal approval.

At the beginning of any annual, biennial, or triennial process for development, refinement, and/or updating of the MTP and the regional TIP, PSRC conducts periodic consultation meetings with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, and EPA to assess and obtain the most current assumptions, data, and modeling procedures to assure coordination and compliance with SIP activity and federal air quality conformity requirements.

An air quality analysis is conducted on the long-range transportation plan, ensuring conformity with the adopted motor vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP. All transportation control measures identified in the SIP have been implemented and remain in place.

In addition to the consultation processes noted above, PSRC conducts regional air quality conformity testing using the latest EPA-approved air quality models to determine conformity of all transportation system projects being proposed for inclusion in the regional plan (MTP) or TIP. PSRC procedures require a formal public finding of air quality conformity, presented to PSRC policy boards, before any approval actions can be taken to allow TIP project selection and funding, or to allow projects to be included in the adopted MTP.

As previously noted in questions 1-3 above in this section, WSDOT is involved in all aspects of MTP development, refinement, and updates. The state’s participation is carried out as described in the formal MOU noted in question 1 (see Attachment 5), as well as through highly cooperative participation with many of PSRC’s technical and policy committees and boards. Additionally, WSDOT routinely involves PSRC, along with all affected local jurisdictions, transit agencies, or ports in its major corridor studies, which examine needs, options, and opportunities for multi-modal improvements to the region’s major transportation corridors. Much of the regional transportation and land-use modeling conducted by PSRC is used by the state for its major corridor studies. PSRC has also participated actively in WSDOT’s companion update to the Washington Transportation Plan (WTP).

All of the above categories – federal lands, tribes, and military – are included within the central Puget Sound region and these have been consulted and invited to comment and participate in development of the MTP and the regional TIP. Federal land interests (National Parks and Forests) regarding state highways are further coordinated through WSDOT. Several Tribal Nations have become members of PSRC and further outreach is specifically designed to receive input from Tribal Nations. Military representatives also participate in the region’s freight and logistical planning activities through regular representation on the region’s Freight Mobility Roundtable.

As mentioned above in response to question 1, PSRC has a joint MOU with the seven transit agencies in the region (see Attachment 8; see question 7 in the section titled "Study Area Organizational Structure" for more detail on the types of services that each of the transit operators provide). The MOU includes specific procedures identifying how transit agencies are involved in PSRC planning activities. Specifically, transit agencies help to identify long-term transit needs, review travel demand forecasts, develop transit scenarios evaluated in the EIS, and determine future financial needs. Primarily, transit agencies participate in the planning process through the Transportation Operators Committee. However, transit agencies are also represented on other technical committees, including the Regional TDM Roundtable, Regional HOV Policy Advisory Committee, Regional ITS Advisory Panel, Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Regional Staff Committee, and the Regional Technical Forum. At the policy level, PSRC includes formal transit agency participation on the TPB, and the agency’s by-laws call for one-half of PSRC’s Executive Board’s local elected officials to also be members of local or regional transit agency boards.

PSRC staff reviews and participates in regular updates of short-term, local Transit Development Plans (TDPs) and longer-term plans that are prepared by transit agencies on a regular basis. PSRC participates in monthly planning meetings with agencies such as Sound Transit, which helps in the coordination of the plan updates. These plans form a foundation for transit input to the MPO planning process. PSRC periodically conducts a formal review of the local and regional transit plans, including the Sound Transit System Plan and local TDPs. This formal review procedure provides an assessment of the consistency between the transit agency plans and PSRC plans – Destination 2030 and VISION 2020. The TPB reviews and approves these assessments of consistency.

PSRC considers the current CMS a process, rather than a tool. CMS is integrated into PSRC’s regional planning and programming processes and is integral to corridor-level programs. In addition to PSRC, the agencies involved in CMS activities include cities, counties, transit agencies, WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, and Tribal Nations. The cities and counties, WSDOT, and transit agencies all have roles in data collection for, and in determining improvements to, those parts of the CMS network that are under their operating authority. These responsibilities include the identification and use of performance measures against which potential strategies can be evaluated. PSRC has a growing role in data collection, performance monitoring, evaluating the effectiveness of implemented strategies, and implementation of the CMS.

The MOUs between PSRC and WSDOT (see Attachment 5), and between PSRC and the transit agencies (see Attachment 8) affirm that all parties will cooperate and coordinate in development and implementation of the CMS. Because so many agencies and organizations are involved in congestion management in our region, our CMS consists of a layered approach of local, regional, and state planning activities that meet CMS requirements under a regional framework or umbrella concept. Many of these CMS-related activities are led by WSDOT, local governments, and transit agencies, and typically do not use the CMS label explicitly. These efforts typically focus on developing and implementing multimodal alternatives that evaluate and prioritize congested locations.

The update to the MTP will include an update and enhancement to the CMS. The MTP will be updated in two phases. Phase One (2006-2007) will include consideration of the following:

Phase Two (2007-2008) will complete plan update and environmental processes to support decisions in the VISION 2020 update.

The update process will utilize the nine issue areas, consistent with those used in the WTP Update, as the organizing framework. As with the WTP Update, four of the issue areas will address congestion. The issue area that will focus most on system delay is the Congestion and Mobility analysis.

The Congestion and Mobility analysis will integrate the CMS into the transportation decision process by combining two critical issues. The first issue will establish a list of the critical transportation issues that the region will face in the coming decades. The list will include regional program-level decisions on such issues as tolling, regional transit strategies, construction mitigation, CTR revisions, and rural center connectivity. A second analysis will identify the locations with the highest vehicle delay currently and in the near future.

Combining the critical transportation issue areas and those with the highest levels of congestion and delay areas will result in a prioritized list of areas to evaluate. This list will likely include areas in all four counties and at least one or two rural locations. The analysis of the selected locations will use a.m. peak period data, and will look at origins and destinations of travel in the peak period. It will identify the travel types (modes) and will evaluate:

The alternatives analysis portion of the Congestion and Mobility section of the update will develop programmatic solutions sets that can be applied to each of the analysis areas. The solutions sets must include at least transit, freight strategies, roadway expansion, operational and safety measures, tolling, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The solution sets will be evaluated to determine the relative cost and benefits of each alternative, and how it relates to long-term system level strategies.

Based on the alternatives analysis, policy and programmatic changes will be recommended for Destination 2030, which will be the basis for project level criteria that will be used to:

As part of the Congestion and Mobility section of the Destination 2030 update, a CMS committee will be established. The committee will be responsible for developing this section of the update and for review of the annual CMS report.

In May 2001, a major review of the region’s MTP, Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19), was completed, the document was adopted as a full plan update, and it was submitted to FTA and FHWA. Subsequently, in April 2004, to meet the then three-year MTP update cycle, PSRC conducted a thorough review and refinement of all implementation actions, and system and financial changes, since 2001 with the formal development, documentation, approval, and submittal of Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report (see Attachment 20) to FTA and FHWA. A minor amendment was also made to the MTP in March 2005.

The region’s MTP went beyond the 20-year requirement, using a 30-year plan horizon of 2030. The 2001 MTP and corresponding 2004 Progress Report addressed and incorporated planning for the entire metropolitan area and beyond, by including all urban and rural areas within the four-county central Puget Sound region.

Due to requirements of Washington State’s 1991 Growth Management Act (GMA), PSRC is in a unique national position as an MPO empowered with both regional transportation and growth management planning responsibilities. PSRC is required to prepare and utilize an integrated long-range growth, transportation, and economic plan and strategy as a guide to development and assessment of the consistency of all local city and county comprehensive plans. The region’s MTP, meeting requirements of both state and federal planning statutes, is the regional plan against which PSRC must certify consistency for all local transportation elements of comprehensive plans. This requirement to have compatible and consistent local and regional plans has significantly heightened the predictability and confidence of implementation of the region’s MTP in accordance with its adopted policies and investment strategies. Attachment 21 is a schedule for PSRC’s major transportation and growth programs.

Yes. Again, benefiting from Washington State’s GMA requirements that local plans be periodically updated to be consistent with the MTP, PSRC receives timely updates to local land use plans. Additionally, PSRC monitors patterns and rates of development throughout the region to track and report on the consistency of regional growth in comparison to planned regional growth.

Noting the nature of the above discussion in questions 3 and 4 about consistency and integration of transportation and land-use planning in the PSRC region, the MTP and local land use plans have a highly coordinated and iterative relationship to assure they each reflect and project the most current realities possible.

As previously described in the responses to questions 1 and 8 of the "Transportation Planning Process" section of this document, PSRC has formalized state participation in the MTP and has benefited from state participation in local transportation and regional corridor planning. As noted in the response to question 12 of the section, PSRC has been fully involved in development of the WTP Update anticipated for completion by WSDOT in late 2005.

Yes. Balancing and updating financial projections of current and future total transportation system costs and revenues for all system modes for maintenance, preservation, and expansion was a major focus of the 2001 MTP (Destination 2030) and the corresponding 2004 Progress Report. Please see Chapter 6 "Finance" of Destination 2030 (Attachment 19) for a thorough description of specific projections of costs, revenues, and assumptions, including reasonably anticipated new revenues sources, that went into the adopted MTP. Also see the 2004 Progress Report (Attachment 20), particularly Chapter IV "Implementing Programs" and Chapter V "Staying the Course," for last year’s update of progress in major project implementation activity and securing new modal transportation revenues since MTP adoption in 2001.

Regarding the seven planning factors, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) February 6, 2003, Certification Review Finding Report provided positive and constructive finding comments with no recommendations for corrective actions following the U.S. DOT’s 2002 federal visit and certification review. Therefore, the following set of comments summarize, by planning factor, how PSRC has addressed the seven TEA-21 planning factors through its existing MTP documents: in Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19) and, with an emphasis on more current planning, as reported in the updated MTP companion document entitled Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report (see Attachment 20), submitted to the U.S. DOT and WSDOT in 2004.

The MTP incorporated freight considerations through a variety of freight planning activities. PSRC engaged the previously noted public-private Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. Participants in this on-going activity include all private freight modes (rail, highway, marine, air cargo, and intermodal) and all levels of government, including federal agency representatives. Participating federal entities are FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S Maritime Administration (MARAD), FTA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense (DOD). Such planning input and coordination for the MTP and its progress report refinement also included coordination with the regional freight interagency team (FAST CAST, the Freight Action Strategy Corridor Agency Staff Team). This work has been jointly sponsored with WSDOT since 1998, but beginning in July 2005, with agreement of WSDOT, it is being reassigned to have PSRC lead this effort. For freight input to the MTP, this team screened and recommended key collaborative freight projects within the region, using the Roundtable as a sounding board.

Yes. All such facilities are described for air quality conformity testing in Appendix 3 of the MTP (see Attachment 19). Appendix 9 further enumerates the costs for all regionally significant projects proposed for improvement and investment as part of the MTS.

Yes. While environmental documents are not federally required for system plans, Washington State laws do require formal environmental documents and processes for all such system plans. PSRC prepared formal draft and final EIS documents, including documentation and responses to all comments received during scoping and development of the MTP and its draft EIS. The draft EIS on the draft MTP was released for public comment on August 31, 2000. The final EIS was prepared in two volumes and released on May 10, 2001. Volume 1 contains the environmental analysis of the final preferred MTP (Destination 2030) and Volume 2 contains full documentation of all public comments received, along with responses to such comments. The two volumes of the final EIS exceeded 1,000 pages and were also prepared in a CD format, which is available upon request from PSRC’s Information Center.

No. The region has complied with and completed all previous SIP Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and no conditions currently exist to suggest the need for new or additional measures.

Destination 2030 was developed using an inclusive process. The majority of PSRC staff worked on plan development in some capacity, providing expertise in diverse areas including growth management strategies, plan review, urban design, legal research, regulatory reform, economics, demographics, forecasting, pricing, finance, congestion and travel demand management, and needs assessments for the various modes of transportation, including roads, transit, ferries, and nonmotorized facilities. Staff provided the analysis, modeling, writing, and graphic design. PSRC hired and managed consulting firms to perform analysis for an EIS and to prepare public involvement materials. PSRC also hired a professional facilitator to ensure all viewpoints were heard at important public meetings.

PSRC made an effort to widely distribute information about the plan in a variety of mediums, including the Internet, television commercials through a partnership with KING TV, a promotional video, a CD-ROM, newsletters, focus groups, and presentations to community groups.

The public process relating to plan development began with the issuance of a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement in fall of 1999 (for a copy of this document, please contact PSRC’s Information Center at infoctr@psrc.org or 206-464-7532). The scope of the environmental review was guided by public comments in response to this document. PSRC also conducted a series of focus group meetings with planning and public works staff representing jurisdictions throughout the region. The environmental analysis involved multiple phases over a 16-month period, including the testing of four scenarios and a full benefit cost analysis.

Public collaboration was early, continuous, and broad. It included a partnership with KING TV reaching millions to raise general awareness and link people via www.king5.com . A monthly newsletter was distributed to approximately 10,000 people. Direct mail and follow-up phone calls were placed to 8,000 homes in targeted communities. General awareness was enhanced by blanket newspaper advertising and aggressive news media outreach. A random sample statistical survey was conducted with 6,000 households. Updated information was available at all times on PSRC's website, www.psrc.org . Key meetings were videotaped and replayed on dozens of public television stations. The plan was featured at over 300 public meetings.

Destination 2030 was developed with careful consideration of issues related to environmental justice. From the outset, the process sought to ensure that the burdens and benefits of implementing a regional transportation strategy were not inequitably distributed across groups based on race, income, age or disability. Public outreach efforts provided valuable input regarding the analysis of infrastructure investments, accessibility, modal choices, traffic safety, community development, growth management, congestion, noise, and air quality.

Please see responses above in this section to questions 3, 4, and 5.

The region’s largest trip destination center is the Seattle Central Business District (CBD), which receives 200,000 auto person trips (in 165,000 vehicles) and 80,000 transit person trips each weekday. Combined with the adjacent Denny Regrade and First Hill centers, this metropolitan center attracts 520,000 auto person trips (in 315,000 vehicles) and 100,000 transit person trips each weekday. The next largest center is east of Lake Washington, where the combination of the Bellevue CBD, Overlake, and Redmond attract 460,000 auto person trips (in 255,000 vehicles) and 10,000 transit person trips each weekday. The region has 19 additional designated Regional Growth Centers and nine Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.

The responses previously provided under question 12 of the section titled "Transportation Planning Process" note the region’s utilization of the CMS process to identify priority corridors. Additionally, the general public and elected officials of the region have the benefit of real-time input from local media and computer-based major freeway and HOV performance monitoring, as well as video camera traffic surveillance, to gain a highly repetitive pattern of regional corridor transportation problems. This is supplemented by periodic local, regional, and state systems management assessments (of pavement, bridge, ITS, and transit) of modal system reliability and structural integrity/adequacy for major components of corridor travel facilities. Regional and state policy makers have a broad consensus regarding priority attention to safety and preservation in establishing regional system investment priorities.

Yes. This is accomplished in a variety of ways. PSRC utilizes state-of-the-art travel demand models, highly rigorous and on-going (over ten years) longitudinal household travel surveys, input from specific transit system on-board surveys, and, as needed, results from special corridor travel surveys that may be conducted to fine tune specific data/information desired for a given corridor.

The last Household Activity Survey was in 1999. The next survey is planned for 2006.

Yes. PSRC’s current adopted TIP is for 2005-2007 (see Attachment 22). PSRC’s 2006 project selection process will lead to a newly adopted TIP in October 2006. NOTE: This requirement has now changed to a four-year TIP.

As discussed in previous answers, PSRC has an MOU with WSDOT and with the transit operators (see Attachments 5 and 8) that identifies each agency’s responsibilities. WSDOT and each of the transit operators are members of PSRC’s technical and policy committees that collaborate on the TIP, which includes recommending projects and adopting the TIP.

Yes, the TIP shows discretionary FTA 5309 funds, both 5309 Bus Allocation and 5309 New Start funds. The 5309 Bus Allocation funds are primarily programmed in the TIP’s first year. For 5309 Bus Allocation funds to be shown in the TIP’s second or third year, they must be in an approved federal appropriation. The 5309 New Start funds are in all three TIP years. For the New Start funds to be shown in the TIP’s second and third years, they must be in an approved FTA "Full Funding Agreement."

Yes. Each project is reviewed to determine if it is identified in Destination 2030, or if it is consistent with adopted policies in Destination 2030. Project sponsors are required to provide this information in TIP applications for any new or existing projects proposed for inclusion in the TIP. This information is then reviewed by PSRC staff to verify consistency. In addition, the TIP contains a discrete data field that identifies the project in the MTP (MTP#, see Appendix A of Attachment 22).

Yes for FTA funds, and no for FHWA funds.

FTA formula funds (Section 5307 and Section 5309 Fixed Guideway) are constrained by year, to match the apportionments. The amounts for the TIP’s second and third years are programmed based on formula fund estimates, and adjusted annually as those year’s FTA apportionments become available. As noted above, the 5309 Bus Allocation funds are primarily programmed in the TIP’s first year. For 5309 Bus Allocation funds to be shown in the TIP’s second or third year, they must be in an approved federal appropriation. The 5309 New Start funds are in all three TIP years. For the New Start funds to be shown in the TIP’s second and third years, they must be in an approved FTA "Full Funding Agreement."

FHWA funds in the TIP are given multi-year project selection approval in Washington State, in recognition of the "obligation authority" feature that limits all FHWA funds each year to a specific obligation amount for each state. WSDOT manages the state’s FHWA obligation authority.

No, however PSRC did approve contingency lists of projects in July 2004 to receive PSRC’s federal funds if they became available prior to the 2006 project selection process. Some additional funds were made available to the region, the lists were scrutinized for project currency, and contingency list projects were recommended for funding in 2005.

The following is from the most current project selection process, taken from the Executive Summary of the approved 2005-07 TIP:

Due to public comments made during the review period of the draft 2005-2007 Regional TIP, the TPB placed a condition on one of the projects in the TIP.