Skip Top Navigation

2015 Unfunded Priority List

The 2015 Update to the Unfunded Priority List (pdf 100 kb) reflects the departments proposed investments for consideration during legislative new revenue discussions.  This version is an update from what was used during the 2013 Senate Transportation Forums (listening sessions) across the state. Significant changes have been made to the layout and presentation of the report.

Key assumptions

  • A majority of the projects reflect estimates and scopes of work based on minimal scoping efforts. As indicated in the 2010 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee report, “WSDOT’s Scoping and Estimating for Highway Projects,” significant clarity to scope and budget on projects is achieved through a project’s design.
  • This list builds on the assumptions reflected in the Governor’s 2015-17 budget request.
  • The list is not financially constrained and does not tie to any revenue scenario or financial plan.
  • Estimated toll revenues are provided for informational purposes and do not reduce the expenditures incurred to deliver a project.
  • Only significant stand-alone mobility and economic initiative projects are specifically identified as line item projects. Maintenance, operations, safety, fish barrier removal and preservation are shown programmatically.

Projects divided using “Tier” groupings

  • Governor’s priorities – reflect those specific projects called out in the Governor’s budget proposal, plus additional projects of interest which were not specifically identified in the material supporting the Governor’s proposal.   Those additional projects are shown with an “*” at the end of the investment name.
  • High priorities – reflect those specific investments that are important to WSDOT during new revenue discussions.
  • Medium priorities - reflect good projects that would add value to the system and address current or looming needs, but don’t have the same priority statewide as projects in the first two tiers.
  • Low priorities – reflect projects that are lower priority and could generally wait to be addressed or could use additional planning refinements.

Additional items to note

  • The identified deficiency or problem being solved is added to provide context on why the investment is being proposed and what it is expected to achieve.
  • Updated recommendations are shown as a range of costs rather than a single number. In general, the range has the current year cost as the low end of the range and the 10-year inflated amount as the upper end of the range. There are specific case-by-case exceptions. This is intended to prevent assumptions being made that we can deliver a project 10 years from now with current year dollars – with no consideration for inflationary impacts.
  • Future maintenance and operating costs associated with capital improvements are now shown for each project, rather than by tier.
  • Indicators are added to identify where either additional scoping/pre-design or planning could help provide clarity to the investment. Explanations and/or additional commentary are provided in the last new column.