The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L04-084 - CITY OF TUKWILA - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND BACKGROUND MATERIALSCITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Update Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element L04 -084 HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONE DESIGNATION: N/A STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2005 Notice published in the Seattle Times, October 14, 2005 L04 -084 City of Tukwila Public Works Department Update Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and background materials Citywide DNS issued October 17, 2005 Rebecca Fox ' A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application B. Transportation Element (11/9/04) - C. Proposed Transportation Element (with staff notations - 8/31/05) D. Comprehensive Transportation Plan E. Appendix A F. Appendix B Rf Page I of4 Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \Staff Rept - -PC Transp Elem (1.04 -084) 10- 05.doc Steven M Mullet, Mayor 10 10:30 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 BACKGROUND FINDINGS In 1995, Tukwila adopted a Comprehensive Plan in keeping with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element established level of service standards, identified needed improvements, and presented a funding strategy. At various points since 1995, the Transportation Element has had minor updates to accommodate changes to the GMA. The Public Works Department has prepared several studies to update information on transportation conditions in Tukwila, including the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05), and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (10/05). These studies provide the background for updating Transportation Element policies, including planning for 2020 growth impacts, and for the transportation assumptions used in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Subarea Plan, to be adopted in early 2006. These background materials, as well as the updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, and the six -year Capital Improvement Plan are adopted by reference in the Tukwila Transportation Plan. The updated Transportation Element policies guide the City's transportation needs, and provide the framework, basic assumptions, and methodologies for a revised Concurrency Ordinance, and new Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council were briefed jointly on the background materials and new policies on June 9, September 8, and October 12, 2005. REVIEW CRITERIA Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendment based on a clear compliance with the criteria that follow. The Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The Transportation Element has been amended several times to address Sound Transit construction, and specific changes in GMA requirements, but it has not been thoroughly reviewed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995. Updated policies and background information are needed to reflect changed conditions over the past decade. Background information for the Transportation Element emphasizes the need to balance growth, along with traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards) and the resources needed to fund new capital facilities. The Transportation Plan identifies specific capital improvements needed to maintain desired LOS levels throughout Tukwila. It considers Transportation Improvement Fees (TIF) as one of many possible means to pay for them, and discusses methods to develop and implement such a funding source. Rf Page 2 of 4 10/20/05 10:30 AM Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \Staff Rept - -PC Transp Elem (L04 -084) 10- 05.doc New Transportation Element policies include the following: 1) Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses ; 2) Support of programs that promote water and regional air quality; 3) Use of adopted LOS standards that vary by differing levels of development patterns. to guide City improvement and development approval decisions; 4) Use of a regularly updated impact fee system with specific parameters; 5) Pursuit of LIDs and other funding sources for projects that are not fully funded by grants, impact fees and other local sources. 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? New background information and policies will address new directions set by the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan, and ensure that the citywide impacts of growth are assessed and mitigated in a timely, systematic manner through appropriate levels of service and funding sources, including traffic impact fees. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? The proposed changes enable Tukwila to set policies for transportation projects and programs based on current data and circumstances projected to 2020. The proposed changes will enable Tukwila to comply with statewide requirements as expressed in legislation amending the Growth Management Act (GMA) and to take into account the need to balance pressures for growth with a better ability to fund improvements. The proposed changes are considered to be the best means for meeting the identified public need. Other possible options are not considered to be viable, including: • Implement housekeeping/data changes only; • No action. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? New policies will result in a net benefit to the community by updating traffic conditions and expectations for future improvements, as well as ensuring that these improvements are included in financial and capital planning. These changes will promote effective public projects and a more efficient transportation system citywide. New policies will allow the City to link funding to project development and implementation more directly by using impact fees. Level of Service Standards will be applied more precisely, and will vary according to the development patterns, street character, and growth management objectives for individual areas in Tukwila. Rf Page 3 of 4 10/20/05 10:30 AM Q:\2005 Comp Plan amendments \Staff Rept - -PC Transp Elem (L04 -084) I0- 05.doc The policies provide the framework for revising the Concurrency Ordinance, and developing a Transportation/Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. This will benefit the community by ensuring that the traffic impacts from development will be mitigated, that they will be paid for in a timely way, and that the fees to be assessed are connected with the development and are proportional to the development's impacts. CONCLUSIONS The Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element and associated background materials (Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Transit Plan) have not been thoroughly updated since 1995. Adopting the proposed changes will ensure that Tukwila complies with statewide requirements, plans effectively for growth, addresses traffic congestion and provides funding options for necessary improvements. Alternatives for Action After holding its hearing, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal • Recommend denial The Planning Commission will forward its recommendations to the City Council for review in November, 2005, with public hearing and decision scheduled for early December, 2005. Rf Page 4 of 4 10/20/05 10:30 AM Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \Staff Rept - -PC Transp Elem (L04 -084) 10- 05.doc FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: Re lot C c,t_ FL, X File Number: L D (r _ p 8 y. Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us ATTACHMENT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: j karts p3✓ 1 vi c naew 4 Up6LoJ -e._ LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. b ( / 1 ; � V I ) r - 1 (65 i i vi e C r - Gt 1-t 1/K tN f 1 Address: 64 O S C P./t i-e—r i IJd TJ i< Lv 1 I PA. W/k 9 to ► t �C0� ) Phone: FAX: Signature: Date: It f 340 G VIPPHANILANDUSE APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: W " f i1A Proposed: A- B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: ,_)f f� Proposed: ( `1 C. LAND USE(S): Existing: 414 Proposed: ' A (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. J ,4- G: APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doe, 06/2E/00 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof to demonstrate that a change to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? 3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010) In addition to the above question, a response to each of the following circumstances is also necessary: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply!) 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. C. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. G: \APPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 Update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.050) Al. The Transportation Element needs to be updated to include current information per state law. Existing information in the current Comp Plan is from 1993. A2. Conditions have changed which warrant updating the Comp Plan. There is no other option. A3. The benefit to the community is that the City is planning for projected changes based on current information. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.010) B 1. The City is updating the Transportation Element using current information. This is also required to maintain compliance with the state GMA. B2. Impacts are simply that current information will be used to identify transportation needs, both existing and future. B3. The current Transportation Element was drafted using the best information available at that time. The update is designed so that current information continues to be used. B4. Updates to Comp Plan elements are a required part of GMA. B5. Updates to Comp Plan elements are required as part of Countywide Planning Policies. Coordination with surrounding jurisdictions, which are all using current information, is also required. B6. No changes will be made to any other City functional plans. B7. No capital improvements will be made as part of the update to the Transportation Element. Specific capital improvements will be identified as necessary to accommodate growth within the document. B8. The City's Concurrency Ordinance will need to be updated to reflect changes, if any, in concurrency standards and transportation impact fees that result from the update to the Comp Plan. Zoning Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.84.030) No changes to zoning will be proposed with the update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. EXECUTED at CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanAci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents a • are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other r • resentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to co plete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to pers . or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the resu of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application witho refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" wi in ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety 90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. ss (city), (state), on (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) On this day personally appeared be . re me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument d acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN 0 BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS: The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of development applications. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Two (2) sets of mailing labels listing the property owners of record and businesses within 500 feet of the project property lines (not the property center). • One copy of an Assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of e subject property and the 500 foot public notice area. • Property owner names and addresses c be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of e King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile th information required: • Obtain the Assessor's map(s) whic contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (see example diagram). Y u may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Dep rtment of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purc : sed maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the Assessor maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment On this form, provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the Assessor' map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. Applicants can request the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. To obtain occupants /resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development, consult the Tukwila Business License data base and do a field survey as directed. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant ", with the proper mailing address, if the specific names are unknown. G \APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.do,. 06/28/00 Decision Type I Type 3, 4, or 5 decision 111—> GAAPPHAN\LANDUSE. APP\COMPAPP.doe. 06/28/00 On -Site Posting Periods Duration of Posting Period Type 2 decision fa—) For any project requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Perrrrt For projects triggering SEPA review, posting shall take place - Obi 14 days after notice of the pint' comment period. Single Farr" Ilings are exempted. For projects triggering SEPA review, posting shall take place within 4 days after notice of completeness until the later of (1)14 days after the issuance of a decision or (2) the date of any administrative appeal hearing. For all type 3, 4, and 5 decisions, posting shall take place within 14 days alter notice of completeness until the date of the public hearing The Public Notice Board shall be posted fora minimum of 30 days Notice of Hearing At least 14 days prior to any public hearing on Type 3, 4, and 5 decisions open record appeal hearings on Type 2 decisions and closed record appeal hearings on type 4 decisions the Project Planner shall post the Notice of Hearing on any posted notice board(s) e' Removal of Posting Board Applicant is responsible for removing the posting board in a timely manner in accordance with the time lint described in the "Duration of Posting Period" section. FIGURE 1 699 tni =1111._1111 nh = i `1111 -'sill -'lilt 1111=_ lit 1111 =1111 1111.= 1111 74: 1 !iii 1i14 1111_1111 -Ill 1111 1M E1111 = 1111 =_ Ini =nn =wl= lilt =!;n NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION 10? 'type of Ac Project Name: Site Address: Applicant: Site Map 14 "x21" Laminated G :MPPHAMLANDUSE.APPiCOMPAPP.doc, 06/25100 Notice of Application 8.5 "x14" Laminated To Submit comments or obtain additional Information Please contact the Department of Community Development at (206)431.3670 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Public Notice 8.5 "x14" Laminated To See Figure 4 for a copy of the City Seal • r_ ns — lilt — nn nn . tilt 1111 — art = a i Jlil_1111 °1111Tlilt Ihl ='I!fI Ill!° : iltl = lilt 1111 1111 Iltl =1111, illy s I ;:1111 MIZ- 1111_INI_1111 1111_1111 I= 1111 =1111 -1111= IIII = 1111 =1111 =1111;= L...s ° Int =uu =call =lm uu =lnl = lul = 1 MINIM Top of Notice Sign shall be T to 9' above grade Sign Materials Use 4'x4'x12' Post Use 4'x4' Plyvaod Use 1/2 "x 3"Galv. Lag Bolts w/washers Sign Lettering Use Helvetica Lettering Black Lettering on White Background for all but the Board -itie Red Lettering on White Background Li for the Board Title "Notice of Land Use Action" Logo 8 inch diameter igure 3 for lettering sizes and placement 7to9 feet 0 Posts should be placed no less than 2'$" below grade Notice Sign shall be located at the Sera nder Bvd midpoint of the site sheet frontage Public Notice Board Sign Location Example FIGURE 2 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT The applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance and removal of the notification sign(s) and the associated cost. The sign(s) shall be erected no later than fourteen (14) days after the Department of Community Development issues the Notice of Completeness and will remain erected until the date specified by the Department. The applicant shall sign an affidavit, stating that the sign(s) were installed and posted in accordance with all City codes and ordinances. The affidavit of posting shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development by the applicant within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. j If the sign is made illegible, removed or otherwise destroyed prior to �th dat of the final Public Hearing or final action by the City of Tukwila, the applican; sr�ponsible for the immediate replacement of the sign. Failure to maintain the Notice Bo d in good condition is cause for the discontinuance of the review of the application until theygotice Board is replaced and remains in place for a specified time period. G. APPHAMLANDUSE APP\COMPAPP.doc. 06/28/00 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Department shall provide the applicant with all information necessary for the installation of the Public Notification Board. These materials include a copy of the City logo, size and materials requirements, and illustrated examp s of a Posting Board. The Department will also determine the type of decision being rendered f this application and specify to the applicant the duration of the posted period. The Department shall post t - Notice of Hearing on any posted Notice Board(s) erected pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 at least 1 days prior to any Public Hearings on Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, Open Record Appeal Hearings ' n type 2 decision and Closed Appeal Hearings on Type 4 decisions. REQUIRED CLEAR VISION AREA NO SIGNAGE ALLOWED --- -* * 10' 4a ♦! RDperty Line FIGURE 3 4' 1.5" (Lettering) TYPE OF ACTION: PROJECT NAME: SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: 1.5" (Lettering) TO SUBMI , COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ' LEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 1.0" (LETTERING) FIGURE 4 G: AAPPHAN\LANDUSE.APPCOMPAPP.doc, 06/26/00 FIGURE 5 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I certify that on CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanna,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) I (PRINT NAME) undgfstand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no late than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. the lic Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guid Ines were posted on the property located at so as tO a clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file numper I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila sign at the property owner's expense, if Notice letter. its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the t removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeare before me to me known to be the individual who exec ed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and ed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND S ORN to before me this day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS: Public Information Signs are intended to make the public aware of land use and development actions which are being considered by the City, to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. SIGN INSTALLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS Sign Size and Placement The sign(s) shall be 4'x4' in size, placed no closer than five (5) feet from ► - right -of -way at the mid -point of the more heavily traveled public street fronting the prop y (see Figure 1). A minimum of one sign is required on each project site. Additional signs ► ay be required for larger sites or for properties with several street frontages. The sign(s) c. of be located within the required clear vision area depicted in Figure 2. The sign shall b prepared using the official templates provided in this packet or attachable letters. Hand le red signs are not acceptable. Signs meeting the established criteria may be obtained from any ' rofessional sign company. Signs Now in Tukwila (206) 271 -5465 and Fast Signs in Seattle (206 68 -7331 are two sign companies providing this service. You may consult the yellow page to obtain quotes from other sign companies. Sign Content • The title "Notice of Land Use Action." • Type of land use or development action which is propos - d. • Name of the proposed project. • Address of project site. • Name of the Applicant. • City of Tukwila logo (copy attached). • A graphic or written description of the site boundaries, and space for the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing. • Additional information as the hector of Community Development may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the publi of the pending land use application. G. WPPHANV.ANDUSE.APPNCOMPAPP.doc, 06/28 /00 2 PURPOSE 3 The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation 4 goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for 5 transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates (including the six - 6 year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement 7 Plan, and the annual budget), development review and approval, land use 8 and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. It 9 establishes a basis for decision making that is consistent with 10 Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures 11 concurrence with other agencies. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TRANSPORTATION 21 ISSUES LEVEL OF SERVICE -LAS A - LOS -B -LAS -G - LOS -D L ASF Intersection Average-Delay X7.5 seconds 7.5 15 seconds 15.1 25 seconds 25.1 40 seconds >60- seconds Volume/ Capacity} -Ratio 0.6 0.7 04-04 0.8 0.9 Greater tan 1.0 22 Tukwila's transportation system includes freeways, arterial streets, access 23 streets, transit service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In 24 addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of 25 primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides 26 water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight 27 transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Adopted — November 9, 2004 ATTACHMENT B TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 28 Streets and Highways 29 There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, 30 collector arterials, and access streets. These four classes of street were 31 developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to 32 properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street 33 widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar 34 design and operation features. (Figures 38 and 39) 35 FUNCTIONAL STREET SYSTEM STANDARDS 36 (Standards below are typical; see current City codes for actual standards) 37 38 Figure 39 — Functional Street System Standards 39 Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS 40 problems to the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too 41 much traffic too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access 42 would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes 43 and speed. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 The City maintains a current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying 52 current system deficiencies and plans for improvements to address those 53 deficiencies. That CIP is adopted by reference as part of this Plan. 54 Additional data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service 55 is included in the Transportation Element and the Traffic Efficiencies 56 Study. Adopted — November 9, 2004 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Connect to Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Connect to Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Connect to Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph 28 Streets and Highways 29 There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, 30 collector arterials, and access streets. These four classes of street were 31 developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to 32 properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street 33 widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar 34 design and operation features. (Figures 38 and 39) 35 FUNCTIONAL STREET SYSTEM STANDARDS 36 (Standards below are typical; see current City codes for actual standards) 37 38 Figure 39 — Functional Street System Standards 39 Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS 40 problems to the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too 41 much traffic too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access 42 would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes 43 and speed. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 The City maintains a current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying 52 current system deficiencies and plans for improvements to address those 53 deficiencies. That CIP is adopted by reference as part of this Plan. 54 Additional data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service 55 is included in the Transportation Element and the Traffic Efficiencies 56 Study. Adopted — November 9, 2004 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 57 58 Figure 40 — Tukwila Street System TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted — November 9, 2004 3 59 The City plans to provide the necessary funding capacity to provide all 60 necessary improvements to service the development anticipated in this 61 Plan. In the event of a funding shortfall, the City will re- evaluate planned 62 land uses to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system 63 improvements, and the funding alternatives. 64 Transit 65 Six Metro transit routes serve Tukwila, providing service that is 66 predominantly north- south. Recommended transit improvements center 67 around providing additional east -west service, a commuter rail connection, 68 regional rapid rail service, a charter bus or rail alignment in the Interstate 69 405 corridor, expanded ridesharing, and expansion of Dial -a -Ride service 70 into the Tukwila area. A Personal Rapid Transit system of separate, fixed - 71 guideway vehicles carrying up to three persons has also been considered, 72 and a multimodal center serving virtually all transportation and transit 73 modes is being contemplated for the Interstate 405 -West Valley 74 interchange. 75 An inventory of present transit routes is contained in the Transportation 76 Element Background Report. Changes to routes are controlled by King 77 County - Metro. 78 79 Nonmotorized Transportation 80 A nonmotorized transportation plan is included in this element, which has 81 been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It 82 differentiates two categories of nonmotorized trips: Category I trips are 83 "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle - 84 friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for Adopted — November 9, 2004 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 85 example between homes and schools or between home and playfield, park, 86 or market. 87 Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King 88 County Green River trails, which will provide access to the 89 Green/Duwamish high - employment corridor for bicycle, combined 90 bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for 91 recreation and exercise. 92 Other Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, 93 and other nonmotorized transportation elements in other transportation 94 improvement designs. 95 Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and 96 the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for 97 nonmotorized travel. 98 Both Category I and II improvements involve the coordination of Metro, 99 the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, 100 neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of 101 Transportation. 102 103 104 105 106 GOALS AND POLICIES 107 Goal 13.1 Overall 108 Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, 109 and through Tukwila. 110 Policies 111 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and 112 continuous monitoring program. 113 13.1.2 Focus on transportation efficiency as the second priority 114 and the subject of an ongoing and continuous monitoring 115 program to maintain adopted LOS standards and provide 116 the highest possible efficiency. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted—November 9, 2004 5 117 Goal 13.2 Transportation System 118 Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of 119 street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic 120 movement, and adjacent property. 121 Policies 122 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing 123 system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - 124 residential areas, and provides functional separation of 125 traffic through new streets on new alignments, 126 conversion of private streets into public, and minimization 127 of cul -de -sacs. 128 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development 129 improvements to be in accordance with the Functional 130 Street System Standards and require an engineering 131 study of specific conditions. 132 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property 133 developments and property improvements to provide 134 . sidewalks. Property developments and improvements in 135 commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access 136 from sidewalks to buildings. Residential short plats or 137 smaller single- family projects are exempt from this 138 requirement. 139 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 140 + Sidewalk ordinance 141 ♦ Subdivision ordinance 142 Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service 143 Residential, commercial, Tukwila Urban Center, arterial, and 144 access street levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient traffic 145 movement and incorporate evolving traffic patterns. 146 Policies 147 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City 148 improvement and development approval decisions: 149 150 to oxcood E. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted—November 9, 2004 6 151 152 159 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 153 154 155 156 .I 157 158 160 . 173 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, 174 development, and improvement decisions. 175 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction 176 measures so that the average LOS is not exceeded. 177 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, use an 178 expanded LOS to determine SEPA mitigations that will 179 provide capacity or traffic generation control. 180 13.3.5 Include as a priority increased transit use and rideshare 181 measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation 182 measures and then consider signal improvements, other 183 street capacity improvements, and street widenings as a 184 last resort. 185 13.3.6 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate 186 with utility improvements. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted — November 9, 2004 7 187 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate 188 the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 189 13.3.8 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, 190 bicycle, and evolving technological transportation 191 improvements. 192 13.3.9 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on 193 residential access streets. 194 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare, 195 and Per ren R Tran 196 Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle 197 trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation 198 for Tukwila residents who depend on it. 199 Policies 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 facility. 210 13.4.4 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 211 connecting a Tukwila multimodal center, located at 212 Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and 213 serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue 214 Transit Center. 215 13.4.5 Recommend and pursue a multimodal center for transit, 216 carpooling, park 'n' ride, bus, bicycle, commuter rail, and 217 future regional /rapid rail. 218 13.4.6 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program 219 service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance 220 to Metro, Washington State Department of 221 Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in Adopted — November 9, 2004 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 222 increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and 223 reducing trips. 224 13.4.7 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the 225 development and implementation of regional/rapid rail 226 with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other 227 emerging efficient- capacity technologies that will serve 228 people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 229 13.4.8 Support transportation system management programs 230 and measures developed by Washington State 231 Department of Transportation, Metropolitan King County, 232 Tukwila, and others; including the private sector, to 233 reduce congestion and serve travel needs. 234 13.4.9 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King 235 County, Southcenter Mall, and surrounding businesses to 236 pursue a transit center for regionaUrapid rail, pedestrians, 237 and buses, located adjacent to the Mall, with safe and 238 reasonable access, providing transfer connections, and 239 serving as a destination for shopping. 240 13.4.10 Research and pursue a shopping circulator shuttle 241 service that would connect Southcenter Mall and 242 surrounding businesses with frequent service, to 243 encourage reduction of single - occupant vehicle trips and 244 bring more customers to all businesses. 245 13.4.11 Encourage and support public transportation services 246 including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed -route van 247 service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership 248 warranting a bus route, transportation system 249 management (TSM) program, the development of 250 commuter and light rail particularly with service to the 251 Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and 252 support Commute Trip Reduction service. 253 13.4.12 Support, encourage, and implement transportation 254 programs and improvements that promote water quality 255 and regional air quality. 256 13.4.13 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment 257 centers which will vary according to development 258 densities, access to transportation service and levels of 259 congestion. 260 13.4.14 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system 261 shall meet the following objectives: TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted—November 9, 2004 9 262 – Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, 263 Seattle, South King County and /or Sea -Tac Airport 264 should be located in a manner which promotes the 265 coordinated short -term and long -term use of 266 alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, 267 buses, commuter rail, and light rail. 268 – Such systems shall be located so as to allow for 269 future extensions to commuter and/or light rail 270 service to East King County and Southeast King 271 County. 272 – Such systems shall be located in a manner that 273 serves the Tukwila Urban Center, so as to encourage 274 the development of that Center in the manner 275 contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide 276 Planning Policies. 277 13.4.15 Encourage transit- oriented uses and development 278 patterns in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. 279 13.4.16 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction 280 with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to 281 prevent spillover parking onto private property. 282 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 283 ♦ Commute Trip Reduction Program 284 Goal 13.5 Nonmotorized Transportation 285 Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local 286 Category II trips. 287 Policies 288 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe 289 bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and 290 local (Category !l) trips. 291 292 295 296 categories. 293 13.5.3 Continue the access street improvement program that 294 provides sidewalks on access streets. program. Adopted — November 9, 2004 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 10 297 13.5.5 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement 298 projects on designated bicycle- friendly streets. 299 13.5.6 Continue to pursue grants 300 payment for new developments affecting pedestrian 301 safety. 302 13.5.7 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the 303 development of regional nonmotorized transportation 304 improvements. 305 13.5.8 Provide additional foot trails as opportunities and 306 development occur. 307 13.5.9 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to 308 pedestrian and bicycle trails. 309 13.5.10 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. 310 Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air 311 Transportation 312 Geometric capacity for commercial freight 313 transportation located in and serving Tukwila. 314 Policies 315 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in 316 principal and minor arterial improvements as 317 well as in commercial areas. 18 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. 3 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and 322 minor arterials as well as on commercial area local 323 access streets. Use load limit restrictions on residential 324 collector arterials and residential local access streets, 325 following a traffic study and meetings with residents and 326 businesses. 327 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in 328 updating their airport master plan, to ensure that airport 329 operations and development: 330 — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted — November 9, 2004 11 331 — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations 332 — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. 333 Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment 334 System 335 Funding through grants, mitigations, and general funds for safety 336 and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. 337 Policies 338 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 339 13.7.2 Use an environmental mitigation system that identifies: 340 — Safety and capacity improvements based on 2020 341 LOS deficiencies 342 — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate increased 343 traffic reflected in the annual Capital Improvement 344 Plan update 345 — Fair -share costs, determined from the capacity 346 improvement cost and the 20 year increase in traffic 347 348 349 350 — Mitigation assessments, determined by the number 351 of development trips and the capacity or safety 352 improvement fair -share cost 353 354 355 — Additional mitigation when development affects 356 locations operating in expanded LOS range. 357 13.7.3 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding 358 new projects and deleting completed projects. 359 13.7.4 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including 360 Interstate 5 (1 -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 361 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency 362 requirements. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Adopted — November 9, 2004 12 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision - making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. LEVEL OF SERVICE The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). Table 1 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 1 MINOR LANGUAGE- CHANGES (SEE LINES 3 -11) MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES IN FIRST SENTENCE (SEE LINES 3 -11) NEW LANGUAGE IN LAST 2 SENTENCES LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 22 -27) NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE ATTACHMENT C TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation LOS „ Delay per:Vehicle: Si gnalized Intersections Delay pet Vehicle U nsignalized_ Intersection sr A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds LOS Headway (min) Vehicle/ hour Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 -20 3 -4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F 0 -3 Very limited or no service Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. Table 2 - Service Freauencv LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 " Ed., 2003 Table 3 - Hours of Service LOS Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 " Ed., 2003 Non - motorized Level of Service A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 2 NEW LANGUAGE NEW CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Streets and Highways Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct traffic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss- crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govern. Table 3 — Functional Street System Standards *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 3 NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 29 -34) EXCEPT LAST SENTENCE WHICH IS NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE NEW LANGUAGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Classification Functional Purpose Typical Adjacent Land Use TRANSIT WAY Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service and interregional transit trips. Major private and public developments of regional significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity service, connections between major activity centers, and some interregional trips Major private and public developments of regional or local significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high - density residential land uses. TRANSIT MINOR CORRIDOR Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium - density residential areas as well as commercial areas. TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET Provides connections between neighborhoods and area attractions.. Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Depends on location. Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Transit King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Southcenter Mall. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. Table 4: Transit Corridor Classifications Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 4 NO CHANGE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 51 -56) TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation UPDATED INFORMATION INCORPORATED INTO NEW LANGUAGE (SEE LINES 65 -74) NEW CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE NEW CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE NEW CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE NEW CONCEPT Map Legend • — Freeway — — — Principal .......... Minor Collector City Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 (lotto Seale Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 5 NO CHANGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation N 7Yanslt Priority Corridor Classification Transit Way �— Transit Principal Corridor Transit Minor Corridor — * Transit Local Access - Potential Transit Roadway Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications NEW CONCEPT Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 6 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Non - motorized Transportation A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportation Plan and has been coordinated with the King. County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category I trips are 'through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle - friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green /Duwamish high - employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non - motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS RELOCATED, EXPANDED AND UPDATED Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be financed. Traffic Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 7 NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE CONCEPT WAS PARTIALLY COVERED IN EXISTING ELEMENT ON LINES 59 -63 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 13.1' Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 13.1.2 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use.. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 8 NEW SECTION NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 113 -116) RELOCATION FROM 13.4.12 (SEE LINES 253 -255) NO CHANGE NO CHANGE • NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE EXCEPT LAST SENTENCE WHICH IS NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 132 -138) RELOCATION FROM 13.3.6 (SEE LINES 185 -186) TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. 13.3.5 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.6 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 9 RELOCATION FROM 13.3.9 NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NEW LANGUAGE LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 143 -145) NO CHANGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE WAS 13.3.2 (SEE LINES 173 -174) WAS 13.3.3 (SEE LINES 175 -176) WAS 13.3.4 LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 177 -179) WAS 13.3.5 MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 180 -184) NO CHANGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.3.8 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (I -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.9 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigafed. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service -Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila • Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Southcenter Mall to the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient - capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support transportation system management programs and measures developed by Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Metropolitan King County and others, including the private sector, to reduce congestion and serve travel needs. 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Southcenter Mall, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 10 RELOCATION FROM 13.7.4 NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE TITLE CHANGE NO CHANGE WAS 13.4.4 WAS 13.4.5 LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 215 -217) NEW LANGUAGE WAS 13.4.6 WAS 13.3.8 MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 229 -233) WAS 13.4.7 WAS 13.4.8 WAS 13.4.9 LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 234 -239) TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed- route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: 13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high- capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 - Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and /or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. - Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and /or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. - Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 11 WAS 13.4.10 LANGUAGE CHANGES (SEE LINES 240 -244) WAS 13.4.11 WAS 13.4.13 WAS 13.4.14 WAS 13.4.15 WAS 13.4.16 NO CHANGE NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE WAS 13.5.3 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle - friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non - motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 12 WAS 13.5.5 WAS 13.5.6 LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 299 -301) WAS 13.5.7 WAS 13.5.8 MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 305 -306) WAS 13.5.9 WAS 13.5.10 NEW LANGUAGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as on commercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. — Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 13 MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 321 -326) MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 327 -329) NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE LANGUAGE CHANGE (SEE LINES 339 -356) NEW LANGUAGE WAS 13.7.3 NEW LANGUAGE NEW LANGUAGE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation J Prepared by Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer Mirai Transportation and Fgineering Perteet, Inc EONorthwest City of Tukwila Transportation Plan Staff Recommendation October 2005 Attachment D Attachment D City of Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan Steve M. Mullet, Mayor City Council Planning Commission Joe Duffie Margaret Bratcher, Chair Joan Hernandez George Malina Pam Carter Alan Ekberg Jim Haggerton Bill Arthur Pam Linder, President Lynn Peterson Dave Fenton Vern Meryhew Dennis Robertson Henry Marvin October 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 4 Roadway Level of Service Methodology 5 Transit Level of Service Methodology 6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 6 Street Functional Classifications 7 III. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 9 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) 9 Outside the Tukwila Urban Center 9 Tukwila Urban Center 9 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 14 FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION 14 Train Volumes 14 Truck Transportation 14 NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 16 IV. 2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS 19 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS 19 BASELINE NETWORK 20 Outside the Urban Center Analysis 20 Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis 21 Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network 21 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 26 Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network 26 Urban Center Recommended Network 28 V. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 33 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 33 TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE 35 VI. FISCAL ANALYSIS 36 FUNDING SOURCES 36 Federal funding sources 36 State funding sources 37 Local funding sources 38 HISTORICAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA 38 Federal Grants 38 State Grants 39 Local Funding 39 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 40 Available funding 40 Unmet needs 40 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 41 Zone system 42 Page 2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To Be Written Page 3 II. BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT The state's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes. Level of service standards establish the desired performance of the transportation system and are the measures against which the system's performance is judged. The GMA (specifically in RCW 36.70A.070) further requires that a city's transportation element include specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard. It also requires that system expansion needs be identified for at least ten years, based on traffic forecasts for the adopted land use plan and level of service standards. In 1995, Tukwila adopted its first Comprehensive Land Use Plan in accordance with the GMA. Within that document was the Transportation Element which established level of service standards, identified needed improvements, and presented a funding strategy. In 2004, a minor update was made to the Transportation Element to include new requirements on regionally significant state highways. This document represents a full update to the Transportation Element, including planning for 2020 growth impacts. Under the GMA, if probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the jurisdiction is given two options: to raise additional funding, and /or to reassess the land use assumptions that drive the transportation forecasts. It is also possible to lower the LOS standard to accept more traffic congestion. " Concurrency" is the term used to describe the relationship between the LOS standards; the funding needed to accommodate increased travel, and the land use assumptions. The concept of concurrency is illustrated in Figure I1 -1 as a three - legged stool. The three legs are: growth; traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards); and resources needed to fund new capital facilities. Figure II -1: Three - Legged Concurrency Stool Concurrency is achieved when growth is matched with needed facilities. If one or more of the legs is uneven, the stool is unbalanced and one of the following three actions must be taken: • Reduce growth by denying or delaying land use permit applications • Increase funding for new facilities • Change the level of service standard Page 4 I LOS Average Signalized Intersection Delay Per Vehicle (sec) - Average'Unsignali ed Intersection Delay Per Vehicle (sec) Descriptions of Level of Service Operations A >10 >10 Highest driver comfort. Little delay. Free flow. B >10 and >20 >10 and >15 High degree of driver comfort. Little delay. C >20 and >35 >15 and >25 Some delays. Acceptable level of driver comfort. Efficient traffic operation. D >35 and >55 >25 and >35 Long cycle length. Some driver frustration. Efficient traffic operation. E >55 and >80 >35 and >50 Approaching capacity. Notable delays. High level of driver frustration. F >80 >50 Flow breaks down. Excessive delays. Roadway Level of Service Methodology The state GMA does not select a LOS methodology to be used statewide, but it does require each local jurisdiction to choose a level of service (LOS) methodology and establish standards. Level of service is a qualitative measure used to denote intersection - operating conditions. It generally describes levels of traffic congestion at signalized and unsignalized intersections in an urban area. In the City of Tukwila's 1995 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the volume -to- capacity ratio methodology was used to calculate levels of service. This technique is based on the "Critical Movement Summation" concept developed by traffic engineers in the 1970s to calculate intersection capacity. In essence, LOS with this method compares a calculated critical intersection volume against a benchmark intersection capacity that is stratified by level of service. During the past 20 years, transportation researchers have found that the critical volume -to- capacity ratio is only one of several factors that affect the level of service. The quality of signal progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, the roadway grade, pedestrian crossings, availability of on street parking and the lane width will also influence the level of service. At this time, it is commonly believed among the transportation experts that the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method produces the most useful information by which to effectively understand levels of traffic congestion in an urban street network. The HCM 2000 methodology can calculate level of service for each approach leg of an intersection, whereas the V/C method cannot. For these reasons, this study used the HCM 2000 delay method to calculate intersection levels of service for signalized intersections within the City of Tukwila. As shown in Table II - level of service is based on the average delay time per vehicle entering the intersection as defined in the HCM 2000. Level of service is represented on a scale ranging from "A" at the highest level, to "F" at the lowest level. The HCM also provides qualitative descriptions of each level of service rating. Intersection delay is the travel time in seconds experienced by a driver traveling through the intersection, compared with a free flow condition. Table II -1: Level of Service Definition urce: 2000 Highway C apacity Manual LOS A and B represent minimal delays, and LOS C represents a generally acceptable delay. LOS D represents an increasing amount of delay and an increasing number of vehicles stopped Page 5 LOS Headway lmin) Vehiclelho ur Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10-14 5-6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15-20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 - 24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14-16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service/limited midday service F 0 Very limited or no service at the intersection. An intersection with LOS E is approaching capacity and is processing the maximum number of vehicles possible through the intersection. LOS F means that the intersection is operating with excessive delays, meaning that it has a high level of traffic congestion. Vehicles approaching an intersection with LOS F may have to wait for more than one signal cycle to get through the intersection. Transit Level of Service Methodology Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. Table I -2 - Service Frequency LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Ed., 2003 Table 11-3 - Hours of Service LOS Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 2003 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The purpose of a transportation system is to provide safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Tukwila's transporation system includes limited access freeways, state highways, arterial streets, access streets, transit service, trails, neighborhood foot paths, and sidewalks. Additionally, King County International Airport (formerly Boeing Field) provides air transportation, the Duwamish /Green River provides water access, and significant freight movement is provided by trucking and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads. Freeways serve regional travel. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for freeways and state highways. Responsibilities include funding, design, maintenance and operation of Interstate 5, Interstate 405, State Route 599, State Route 518, State Route 181 (West Valley Highway) and State Route 900 (Martin Luther King Jr. Way S). Boeing Access Road and E Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road are designated on the Page 6 'Classification.; ` Right of Way ' ,.Street Widt Limit; Local Access 50 to 60 ft. 28 - 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 - 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 - 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 - 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Classification , Percent of Network Principal 5-10% Minor 10-20% Collector 5-10% Local Access 60-80% National Highway System. Tukwila is responsible for all publicly -owned arterials and access streets that are not state highways. Most of Tukwila's arterial travel occurs in the Urban Center and on principal arterials. The Urban Center and principal arterials are where most of the congestion occurs today and is forecasted to increase. Level of Service is not projected to decrease on access streets or most arterials in residential areas. Demand for bicycle and walking facilities is increasing for commuting, shopping, recreation and exercise purposes. Transit services have increased since 1995 but demand is still increasing for bus service and park- and -ride lot parking. Ridership on Sounder, the commuter rail service, is increasing and the Sounder Station will become a significant factor in the future transportation system. Truck traffic is significant on many of Tukwila's street, especially along Interurban Avenue S, E Marginal Way, West Valley Highway, and many of the streets in the Urban Center. The Urban Center area continues evolving from warehousing, assembly and manufacturing to a mix of retail, offices, services, warehousing and light industrial. Future changes are likely to include a significant increase in residential uses. Peak hours are not the traditional morning and evening weekday commutes; the Urban Center has a noon peak equivalent to the evening peak and weekend peaks are higher yet. Street Functional Classifications There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets. These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility and are hierarchical in nature. Freeways serve through traffic with no adjacent land access while access streets provide access to adjoining residential and commercial properties. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. Table 11-5: Typical Functional Classification Distribution Tukwila streets have been assigned functional classifications in accordance with standard practice. The classifications are shown on Figure 11 Page 7 Table 11-4: Functional Street System Standards (typical — see codes for actual standard) Street functional classifications are used to recognize the differences in street uses. Classifications are assigned based on differences in street purpose, street width, traffic volumes, access control, speed limit, traffic control, linkage and other design and operational characteristics. The functional classifications used in this plan defines three arterial classifications: collectors, minors and principals. Freeways and local access streets are also classified. A typical street classification distribution is shown on Table 11 -5. Figure 11 -2: Functional Classification Map (larger version pending) Map Legend •—•— Freeway - - - Principal ---- -- Minor Collector City Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 !lotto Seale Data August 7, 2002 Page 8 III. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Conditions of the transportation network were studied to benchmark how the transportation system functioned in 2002. Roadway Level of Service (LOS) was calculated, an inventory of public transportation options showed options available, pedestrian and other non - motorized uses were studied, and freight movement documented. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) Roadway level of service was calculated at key intersections throughout the city. In total, 41 intersections were analyzed. In most cases, the weekday afternoon peak, generally one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. was the peak of the day. In the Urban Center, a few locations peaked in the noon period but were generally comparable to the afternoon peak. The Urban Center also has a weekend peak due to the dominate nature of the retail core. The peak for the weekend traffic fell between 2 to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Outside the Tukwila Urban Center Figure III -1 shows the afternoon peak hour LOS and delays for the northern section of Tukwila. The corresponding information for the southern section of Tukwila is shown in Figure III -2 . Under 2002 conditions, one intersection in the study area operates at LOS E, and six intersections operate at LOS D. The intersection of 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way is the only intersection currently operating at LOS E. However, it should be noted that this intersection is under City of Seattle jurisdiction. Tukwila Urban Center The LOS for the afternoon peak hour is shown for the weekday and for the midday peak hour on Saturday in Figures III -3 through III-4. During the p.m. peak hour, nearly 80 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. Two intersections on the border of the Urban Center operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour - Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South. Two intersections with South 180th Street, at Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The intersections at Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue South and at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East also operate at LOS D. Nearly 80 percent of the intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center operate at LOS C or better during the midday Saturday peak hour (the busiest hour on Saturday between 2 and 4 PM). Page 9 Figure III -1: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — North Page 10 Figure III-2: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South Page 11 Figure 111-3: 2002 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center North 0 Signalized Intersection Delay (Seconds) Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway ------- Railroad River emel■mmm Freeway _ Ramp E Park Note: not to scale Page 12 Figure III-4: 2002 Saturday Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway — - -. — Railroad samessicsins River Freeway Ramp --" Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection LOS Delay (Seconds) 181 Page 13 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure III-5 shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The Southcenter Mall is the focal point of transit service within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this location. Of those, Routes 128 and 155 terminate at the Mall and Route 126 terminates at Tukwila Station. The remaining two routes, Route 140 and Route 150, represent the major east -west and north -south routes through Tukwila. More details on existing public transportation can be found in the Transit Plan. FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION Train Volumes Mainline tracks for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) railroads border the west side of the Urban Center. International and local cargo travels over these two rail networks to inland U.S. markets, including the Midwest, South, and East. BNSF operates approximately 30 trains per day through Tukwila, and UPRR operates approximately 20. In addition, Amtrak operates 8 passenger trains per day through the city, and Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail runs 4 passenger trains per day. Increased Sounder frequency is planned in the near future. Overall, rail traffic is expected to increase significantly in the future. Industrial spurs that are operated and controlled by the railroad companies and private property owners are scattered throughout the Urban Center. Many lines have been closed down, or abandoned, but others are still in use. Some lines still being used are very infrequent, but the decision to deactivate them is made by either the railroads or the property owners. Truck Transportation The City of Tukwila's commercial and warehouse businesses generate a substantial amount of truck traffic throughout the city and particularly in the Urban Center. Heavy vehicles (trucks, buses and recreational vehicles) commonly comprise about two percent of general traffic, but at intersections within the Urban Center, AM peak period heavy traffic volumes average eight percent of general traffic. This figure drops to three percent during the noon and PM peak periods. Additional findings are noted below: • The West Valley Highway carries significant heavy vehicle volumes and high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during AM, noon and PM peak periods • S 180 Street between Andover Park West and the West Valley Highway also shows sustained high volumes of heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day Page 14 Figure Iii -5: Existing Tukwila Routes Page 15 r, .. ANN' 4 -� l swung __Za ilinalli Oral 111%S meth Route 110 meth Route 110 Partial than 4120 •..Route 128 Moth Route 140 them Route 140 Partial OM. Route 150 ••aRoW 154 Roth mow 155 moth Route 100 N Route 153 • Rode 170 aaaaaf Route 174 • The roadways bordering Southcenter Mall (Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West) experience moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East carries moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Minkler Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West and Andover Park West between Tukwila Parkway and S 180 Street carry a high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic relative to volumes of traffic. NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Similar to the roadway functional classification system, the non - motorized transportation system is classified into two categories: Category I: Bicycle and other types of trips that are regional in the sense of traveling through, to, from Tukwila or significant distances within Tukwila. These trips can be for commuting, shopping, business, connecting with transit, recreation, or exercise purposes. Category II: Local walking and short bike trips within neighborhoods such as walking to schools, church, libraries, or neighborhood parks. They also include making short trips to the store or to visit, walking between transit stops and work, business or shopping destination, or for recreation or exercise purposes. Figures 111-6 andlll -7 show the Category I and II facilities in Tukwila. A more detailed non - motorized plan is scheduled to be developed in 2006. Page 16 Figure III-6: Category I Non - Motorized Facilities Page 17 Map Date: October 2005 Data Data: November 1993 Map Legend — BkelPedestrien Trail --- Bike Friendly Street' — — To Be Constructed Street .tertody rz3 Oty Limits •Sidewalk, Ped Path, Widened outside lane City of Tukwila Non - Motorized Transportation Plan Category I NOT 10 SCALE Figure III -7: Category II Non - Motorized Facilities Page 18 Map Date: October 2005 Data Date: November 1903 Map Legend Street E:3 Waterbody rzi City Limits - Existing Sidewalk Existing Ped Path Proposed City Rec Pah o'w... sea w City of Tukwila Non- Motorized Transportation Plan Category 2 NOT TO SCALE GIS Tut I,., IV. 2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS In order to understand the impacts of projected land use, different scenarios were studied. All alternatives are consistent with the adopted land use plan or with the pending Urban Center Subarea Plan. 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS To forecast the 2020 traffic volumes and understand their implication to traffic flow within the City, a 2020 Tukwila travel demand forecast model was developed. The model covered the entire region, but focused on the Urban Center. This model is based upon Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) four - county regional transportation model, and it is refined and customized to represent the City. A Baseline Growth alternative forms the foundation of the modeling analysis. This growth assumption is based on the PSRC regional model and detailed growth potential explicit to Tukwila. In essence, the 2020 Baseline Growth land use scenario assumes that the current land use regulations will continue to 2020 and the past market trends will also continue to the future. This is not to be confused with no new growth occurring in Tukwila but rather that growth will occur along historical patterns. With the exception of the Urban Center area, this is the level of growth being planned for as part of this effort. Land use changes associated with the Urban Center Subarea Plan will change land use patterns from this alternative and are discussed in a later section. The Urban Center area was analyzed for multiple growth alternatives as part of the Urban Center Subarea Plan, to be updated in 2006. Initially, two "catalyst" project alternatives were analyzed: Mall to Pond and Mall to Station. The Mall to Station alternative was selected as the preferred growth alternative. In 2004, a potential large -scale mixed use development, known as Tukwila South, came forward. This potential development of just under 500 acres and up to 14 million square feet, immediately south of the Urban Center, would be highly influential on travel patterns and overall growth in the area. Because of the potential impact to the street system it was subsequently added to the Tukwila Transportation Model. An aggressive development schedule (80 percent of the maximum build -out) was assumed in order to fully understand the magnitude of the impacts possible with the combined growth associated with the Mall to Station alternative and Tukwila South. Demographic data sets, including household and employment forecasts associated with a system of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), form the basis for travel demand forecasting. The Tukwila travel forecasting model used the 2002 households and employment data and the 2020 forecasts for the Baseline Growth, Mall -to -Pond, Mall -to- Station, and Maximum Growth land use scenarios shown in Table IV -1. Table IV -1: 2002 and 2020 Household and Employment Forecasts �� Household �� . PY. Em m ent to Citywide 2002 Existing 6,866 49,800 2020 Baseline Growth 10,066 65,950 Urban Center Growth Alternatives 2020 Mall - to-Pond 1,730 29,540 2020 Mall - to-Station 1,573 35,022 2020 Tukwila South 1,510 14,613 IV. 2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS In order to understand the impacts of projected land use, different scenarios were studied. All alternatives are consistent with the adopted land use plan or with the pending Urban Center Subarea Plan. 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS To forecast the 2020 traffic volumes and understand their implication to traffic flow within the City, a 2020 Tukwila travel demand forecast model was developed. The model covered the entire region, but focused on the Urban Center. This model is based upon Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) four - county regional transportation model, and it is refined and customized to represent the City. A Baseline Growth alternative forms the foundation of the modeling analysis. This growth assumption is based on the PSRC regional model and detailed growth potential explicit to Tukwila. In essence, the 2020 Baseline Growth land use scenario assumes that the current land use regulations will continue to 2020 and the past market trends will also continue to the future. This is not to be confused with no new growth occurring in Tukwila but rather that growth will occur along historical patterns. With the exception of the Urban Center area, this is the level of growth being planned for as part of this effort. Land use changes associated with the Urban Center Subarea Plan will change land use patterns from this alternative and are discussed in a later section. The Urban Center area was analyzed for multiple growth alternatives as part of the Urban Center Subarea Plan, to be updated in 2006. Initially, two "catalyst" project alternatives were analyzed: Mall to Pond and Mall to Station. The Mall to Station alternative was selected as the preferred growth alternative. In 2004, a potential large -scale mixed use development, known as Tukwila South, came forward. This potential development of just under 500 acres and up to 14 million square feet, immediately south of the Urban Center, would be highly influential on travel patterns and overall growth in the area. Because of the potential impact to the street system it was subsequently added to the Tukwila Transportation Model. An aggressive development schedule (80 percent of the maximum build -out) was assumed in order to fully understand the magnitude of the impacts possible with the combined growth associated with the Mall to Station alternative and Tukwila South. Demographic data sets, including household and employment forecasts associated with a system of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), form the basis for travel demand forecasting. The Tukwila travel forecasting model used the 2002 households and employment data and the 2020 forecasts for the Baseline Growth, Mall -to -Pond, Mall -to- Station, and Maximum Growth land use scenarios shown in Table IV -1. Table IV -1: 2002 and 2020 Household and Employment Forecasts Details on the multiple growth alternatives are included in the appendix to this plan and are also included, excluding the Tukwila South development, in the Urban Center Subarea Plan. BASELINE NETWORK To determine roadway capacity improvements necessary to accommodate growth, an analysis of growth options on the baseline street network is required. Some projects will be constructed before 2020, based on the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally, some additional improvements were assumed to be in place by 2020. The 2020 baseline network assumes the following improvements would occur by 2020: • 1-405 will be widened by 1 lane in each direction through Tukwila • The 61st Avenue S /66th Avenue S bridges will be reconstructed with the widening of 1-405 • Tukwila Parkway will be extended to the West Valley Highway • Strander Boulevard will be extended to Oakesdale Avenue • Northbound 1-405 slip -ramp on Tukwila Parkway relocated • New 168th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park E • Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street will be widened to 5 lanes Outside the Urban Center Analysis The 2020 LOS show that 28 percent of the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed (11 out of 39) will degrade to LOS F on the baseline network. The intersections with LOS F under the 2020 conditions are listed below. Unsignalized Intersections The following unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F for one or more approaches under the 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • 42 Avenue S and S 160 Street • 51S Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 53 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Andover Park West will be widened to 5 lanes between Strander Blvd. and Tukwila Parkway • Andover Park E at Minkler Blvd. will have left turn pockets on all legs • West Valley Highway at S 156 Street will have an HOV northbound left turn lane • Minkler Boulevard will be widened to 3 lanes • Andover Park E at Industry Drive will be signalized • S 180 Street at Andover Park W will have left turn pockets on all legs • West Valley Highway will be 7 lanes wide between 1-405 and Strander Blvd • Macadam Road. S and S 144th Street • 42n Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road S and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road S and S 133` Street (SeaTac) Signalized Intersections The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS F under 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • International Blvd and S 160 Street • International Blvd and S 154 Street (SeaTac) (SeaTac) Figures IV -1 and IV -2 show the LOS and delays for the areas outside of the Urban Center. Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Baseline Growth alternative are shown in Figure IV -3. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F on the baseline network: • Southcenter Blvd and 61s Avenue S • Strander Blvd and Andover Park W • Southcenter Blvd and West Valley • Strander Blvd and Andover Park E Highway • Strander Blvd and West Valley Highway • Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park E • S 180 Street and Southcenter Parkway • Northbound 1 -5 off -ramp and • S 180 Street and West Valley Highway Southcenter Parkway Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Maximum Growth scenario on the baseline network are shown in Figure IV-4. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F with the maximum growth scenario in addition to those listed above: • Southcenter Parkway and Strander Blvd • Minkler Blvd and Andover Park W • Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom • S 180 Street and Andover Park W Entrance (1 -5 NB Off Ramp) • Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park W • Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive • Klickitat Drive and 1 -5 Southbound on- ramp There are 35 intersections in the TUC where levels of service were calculated. Of those, 16 intersections, or about one -half of them would operate at LOS F in 2020 under the Baseline network conditions. Page 21 Figure IV -1: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — North Page 22 Page 23 Figure IV -2: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South Figure IV-3: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Baseline Network Legend: onimmt Freeway Ramp ozweessee River ......... Trail Railroad Note: not to scale Unsignalized Intersection Level of Sery Delay -J Page 24 r IC 8- CO e L a) V 0 „ w i 0 4:5 2 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 Several options were analyzed to develop the recommended transportation network. The goal was to balance the needs of growth with the funding available to construct necessary capacity improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service. The details of the multiple analyses are included in the Appendix to this plan. At the same time, a level of service standard was established which sets the maximum amount of congestion acceptable to Tukwila, and a detailed financial analysis was made to best project future funding availability. This process is required under the GMA and is generally referred to as "Concurrency." More details on the processes taken are discussed in future sections of the plan. Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action network conditions for the areas outside the Urban Center, a list of needed improvement projects to meet LOS E was developed. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is planned are shown in Figure IV -5. Several intersections are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction but the results are presented regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. With these projects, all intersection would operate at LOS E or better. Recommended improvements include: • Retime the existing signal at International Boulevard and S 160 Street. (SeaTac) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. • Add turn lanes at the following intersections: • 42n Avenue S and S 160 Street: provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. • Macadam Road S and S 144 Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay Planning level costs estimates for the recommended Page 26 • Signalize the following intersections: • 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • Macadam Road S /51 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road and S 133 Street (SeaTac) • Southcenter Boulevard: widen to a 3 lane arterial between 1 -5 and International Boulevard. improvements are shown in Table IV -2. Table IV -2: Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements Improvements Construction Right - of-way Engineering Total Costs Macadam Rd/51st & S 144th Street $361,698 $15,220 $105,495 $483,000 Macadam Rd & S 144th St $252,300 $77,340 $73,588 $404,000 S 124th St & 42nd Ave S $343,824 $22,480 $100,282 $467,000 S 160th St & 42nd Ave S $423,246 $19,600 $123,447 $567,000 East Marginal Way & S 130th St $390,054 $25,960 $113,766 $530,000 Total Costs • $2,451,000 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 Several options were analyzed to develop the recommended transportation network. The goal was to balance the needs of growth with the funding available to construct necessary capacity improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service. The details of the multiple analyses are included in the Appendix to this plan. At the same time, a level of service standard was established which sets the maximum amount of congestion acceptable to Tukwila, and a detailed financial analysis was made to best project future funding availability. This process is required under the GMA and is generally referred to as "Concurrency." More details on the processes taken are discussed in future sections of the plan. Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action network conditions for the areas outside the Urban Center, a list of needed improvement projects to meet LOS E was developed. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is planned are shown in Figure IV -5. Several intersections are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction but the results are presented regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. With these projects, all intersection would operate at LOS E or better. Recommended improvements include: • Retime the existing signal at International Boulevard and S 160 Street. (SeaTac) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. • Add turn lanes at the following intersections: • 42n Avenue S and S 160 Street: provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. • Macadam Road S and S 144 Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay Planning level costs estimates for the recommended Page 26 • Signalize the following intersections: • 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • Macadam Road S /51 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road and S 133 Street (SeaTac) • Southcenter Boulevard: widen to a 3 lane arterial between 1 -5 and International Boulevard. improvements are shown in Table IV -2. Table IV -2: Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements Improvements Figure IV -5: 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Recommended Network age 27 Urban Center Recommended Network All intersections projected to operate at LOS F in 2020 were evaluated and potential improvements were identified. An initial list of projects was developed that would maintain an LOS E at all intersections with the Mall to Station growth alternative but not including the Tukwila South development. The Tukwila South proposal came after the initial list of potential projects was developed. Additional options were explored in conjunction with the Urban Center Subarea Plan including pursuing a finer network of streets as property redeveloped and narrowing Andover Park E between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard to enhance the subarea's goal of a pedestrian friendly, urban development. The desired finer network of streets to be built as development occurs is shown on Figure IV-6. Resultant levels of service were analyzed with each potential street network and weighed against probable funding availability. The recommended network is the result of that process. Additional projects worthy of consideration are identified but projections on funding limits meant they had to be removed from the recommended network. Should growth patterns or the funding opportunities change, these projects should be reconsidered for inclusion, along with any other projects that would maintain the minimum level of service standard. The recommended network for the Urban Center includes the following projects: Southcenter Urban Access Improvement • Construct a grade- separated structure at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway intersection and associated improvements • This project began design in 2005. Southcenter Parkway Extension • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes from S 180 Street to south City limits. • This project began design in 2004. Southcenter Boulevard • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the 1 -5 ramps and 61 Avenue by one lane in each direction. The eastbound lane is a higher priority improvement than the westbound lane. Southcenter Boulevard /61 Avenue Overpass Improvements • Re- construct the 61s Avenue South overpass with seven lanes, when WSDOT increases the number of lanes on 1-405 below the 61s Avenue overpass. • Add a southbound one -way inbound entrance to Westfield Southcenter Mall at the 61s Avenue South/Tukwila Parkway intersection. Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Tukwila Parkway from a point 200 to 250 feet west of Andover Park West to Andover Park East. • Re- construct the 66 Avenue South overpass with 6 lanes when WSDOT widens 1-405. • Add a northbound right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway. Page 28 s 0+ fo - �raisNa 42 MVO . ...................... -- fir...~- �.:..:............ 'r=. 72ad Awe F T () -iu - g ;Ho o) u. 3 _ 1 1 1 111 1 J Project - 1 Construction with Contingency Right-of-Way ht -of:Wa 9 Y Engineering 9 9 l Tota Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project at Klickitat $15,620,000 $1,760,000 $4,620,000 $22,000,000 Southcenter Boulevard: Eastbound lane west of 61st Avenue S $5,282,340 0 $1,586,000 $6,868,340 Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements $1,741,680 $885,000 $524,000 $3,150,680 Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway $3,209,880 $540,000 $963,000 $4,712,880 S 168th Street $6,440,280 $5,300,000 $1,934,000 $13,674,280 (Additional improvement for Tukwila South) $ $ $ $ Total $32,294,180 $8,485,000 $9,624,000 $50,406,180 S 168 Street • Construct a new 3 -lane arterial from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Signal Operational Improvements • Adjust signal operations for the following intersections: South 180 Street/Southcenter Parkway, and South 180 Street/West Valley Highway. Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Extend the existing northbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway when 1-405 is widened. (Additional Improvements identified to mitigation Tukwila South still to be listed) • Table IV -3 shows planning level cost estimates for the recommended network. Table IV -3: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Recommended Network (2005 Dollars) The PM peak hour 2020 levels of service within the Tukwila Urban Center were calculated with the recommended network. Figure IV -7 shows the 2020 PM peak hour levels of service and delays with the recommended improvement projects within the Urban Center. Page 30 The following intersections would operate at LOS F under the recommended network and the Maximum Growth land use scenario: • West Valley Corridor — at Southcenter Boulevard, at Strander Boulevard, and at S 180 Street • Andover Park East — at Tukwila Parkway, and at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park West — at Tukwila Parkway and at Strander Boulevard • Southcenter Parkway — at Nordstrom Entrance • Strander Boulevard — at 61 Place S, Andover Park W, Andover Park E, and Strander Boulevard. Certain projects identified through this process were eliminated from the recommended network due to funding constraints. The following projects are still recommended for future consideration should growth or funding opportunities change from the assumptions made in this plan. Southcenter Boulevard • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the 1 -5 ramps and 61 Avenue by one lane the westbound direction. Strander Boulevard Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Strander Boulevard from a point 250 feet west of Andover Park East to West Valley Highway. • Add one southbound through lane at the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection Minkler Boulevard Extension Improvements • Extend Minkler Boulevard from Industry Drive to West Valley Highway. • Improve the intersection of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park East. Table IV-4 shows planning level cost estimates for the additional network projects Table IV-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Additional Network Projects (2005 Dollars) Construction with Right -of -Way Engineering Contingency Southcenter Blvd: add one westbound lane west of 61st Avenue S Strander Boulevard Improvements Minkler Boulevard Extension Total $2,502,360 $5,992,320 $15,000,000 $23,494,680 0 $1,140,000 $1,500,000 $2,640,000 $752,000 $1,799,000 $3,750,000 $6,301,000 $3,254,360 $8,931,320 $20,250,000 $32,435,680 Page 31 Figure IV -7: 2020 Weekday PM Peak hour Levels of Service for the Urban Center Recommended Network Legend: miiiiimmilim- Freeway Ramp River Trail - -- ---- Railroad Page 32 V. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS According to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Tukwila must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge the performance of the transportation network. State owned facilities, particularly the limited access freeways and highways of state -wide or regional significance, a level of service standard is adopted by the state and reflected in local agency plans. The GMA does not establish a minimum LOS standard but does require that each jurisdiction set a standard and coordinate their standard with adjacent agencies. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. Previously, Tukwila's LOS standard was set at LOS E for all arterial intersections. In some specifically identified corridors, the LOS standard was LOS E for the corridor average. This plan does not recommend changing the standard significantly but creates new corridors specific to the Urban Center. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the Urban Center, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard. Figure V -1 shows the level of service corridors for the Urban Center. Elsewhere in Tukwila, the level of service is calculated by individual arterial intersections. Specific level of service standards are: • The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park W corridor. • The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of less than 120 seconds. The Andover Park W, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of less than 120 seconds • All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. • The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. • West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC • SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC Page 33 / ME TANI NM ittel alli w 11 r i tl � 1 war ilk �r7 e�� 1 PiitJ ` ,fir /./ .r . -.2 i 0 _ gl 9 L I The Urban Center area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. This Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. Further details are provided in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Page 35 VI. FISCAL ANALYSIS A thorough fiscal analysis was conducted as part of this Plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires an analysis of funding capabilities be done to balance the needs against probably funding resources. The GMA further requires a multi -year financing plan to accommodate the growth and maintain a minimum level of service standard. Tukwila's annually update Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program provides the specifics for the multi -year finance plan. FUNDING SOURCES Local government administrators and elected officials have a practical principle regarding funding: current residents pay last. That principle leads them to seek funding, in order, from the following sources: • Federal agencies. • State agencies. • Regional agencies. • Local sources that include others besides existing voters, including: • People passing through (e.g., room taxes, gas taxes), and • Future voters (e.g., by charging developers fees that future households and businesses will pay in upon purchasing property). • Current households and businesses. Federal funding sources Federal funding for transportation systems comes via legislation passed every six years, the most recent being the Transportation Equity Act for the 21S Century (TEA -21). The primary funding source for federal transportation funding is federal fuel taxes. Federal grant sources available to Tukwila include: Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP funds can be used on any Federal - aid highway, public road larger than a local or rural minor collector, bridge projects on any public road, or transit capital projects. Safety (STPS). 10% of STP funds are set aside for safety improvements. The objective of this program is to identify, implement and evaluate cost- effective safety construction projects. These funds are made available to all state and local agencies and tribal nations within Washington and can be applied to all public roadways. Transportation Enhancement Program (STPE). 10% of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancement projects. Eligible transportation enhancement projects must be directly related to the surface transportation system. Regional STP (STPUL, STPUS, STPR). These funds are allocated by formula to the MPO regional transportation planning organization (RTPO), or county lead agency are based on population and road mileage. The PSRC is the MPO /RTPO for Tukwila and selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Page 36 STP Competitive (STPC). This portion of STP funds can be used in any area of the State. The purpose of the program is to offer multimodal choices to the public. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds are distributed to non - attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non - attainment. Some funds for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement are also available to maintenance areas of the State Bridge (BR). The Bridge Replacement/Bridge Rehabilitation Program provides assistance for eligible bridges on public roads. High Priority Proiects. The High Priority Projects program provides designated funding for specific projects ('demonstration' or Demo' projects) identified by Congress. Nationwide, TEA - 21 includes 1,850 of these projects, each with a specified amount of funding over the 6 years of TEA -21. The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. State funding sources The State of Washington depends on federal funding for much of its transportation system. The largest source of state funds is the motor - vehicle fuel tax, which provides state and local governments with $700 to $800 million per year. Arterial Improvement Program (AIP). This Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)- administered program provides funding for arterial street improvements for cities and portions of counties within urban areas. Motor - Vehicle Fuel Tax. Fuel tax revenues are collected by State of Washington authority. Counties have an option to add an additional 2.3 cents per gallon tax which is collected by the State but then shared with the county who then distributes to local cities based on population. These revenues are often exhausted by maintenance and preservation budgets alone Vehicle License Fees. In the past the state collected a fee in King County of $15 per vehicle license, which was shared with local cities in the same manner as the fuel tax. The vehicle license fee was repealed and Tukwila has not received any revenue from this source since 2003. Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP). This program provides funds to projects that promote pedestrian mobility and safety as a viable transportation choice; e.g. provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities. (TIB administered program.) Transportation Partnerships Program (TPP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for transportation projects in urban counties /cities with populations over 5,000 or in Transportation Benefit Districts that encourage economic development and public/private partnerships. Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). This is a loan program developed by the State Department of Community Development to provide low interest loans to local governments to complete needed infrastructure improvements. Page 37 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). Provides state funds to be combined with partnership funding from freight mobility and freight mitigation projects along strategic freight corridors. Local funding sources Local transportation funding sources are primarily from the property tax for highway projects and the sales tax for transit projects. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The State of Washington levies a 1.28% tax on the full selling price of real estate, including transfers of controlling interests of property. Cities and counties may levy up to 2 %, but statutory limitations dictate that most charge between 0.25 and 0.5 %. Statutes also limit uses for some of the revenues from real estate excise taxes. If a city with population of 5,000 or more that is planning under the GMA imposes the first 0.25 %, often called REET 1, it must use the revenues exclusively for capital projects specified in its capital facilities plan. The second 0.25 %, or REET 2, can only be used for transportation and utility projects. Parkins Tax. Cities may charge a commercial parking tax. This has not been a major revenue source for Tukwila, as most parking is provided for free on street or on -site by businesses. Local Improvement District (LID). LIDs are formed for the purpose of assessing local property owners an amount sufficient to pay for a project deemed to be of local benefit. LIDs are a specific type of special assessment district, which more broadly includes any district that is formed within an existing taxing district to assess specific property owners for some service that is not available throughout the larger district. Impact Fees. If new development within a community triggers public costs, impact fees can allocate those costs to the development rather than to the existing residents of the city. In simplest terms, this is sometimes described as "growth pays for growth." HISTORICAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA Federal Grants Table VI - shows actual federal funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted federal funding for 2005. Table VI -1. Federal Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects Federal Sources 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,001 The budgeted amount for federal funding for transportation in Tukwila is $2.0 million for 2005, but has varied from a low of $766,000 to a high of $9.4 million. Because federal funding is typically project - specific, it can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. The City has received federal funding averaging $4 million annually, but in 2004 and 2005, federal funding dropped to about $1.6 million annually. The consequence of this scarcity and Page 38 fluctuation is that the City cannot rely on federal funds for the bulk of transportation improvement projects and must secure local funding sources while pursuing federal (and state) grants. State Grants Like federal funding, much of state funding for transportation is project - specific and fluctuates significantly from one year to the next. Table VI -2 shows actual state funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted state funding for 2005. Table VI - 2. State Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects State Motor Vehicle Local Vehicle License Fee Local Funding Local Sales Parking REET 2 G.O. Bond Impact Fees Miscellaneou Total Local Page 39 2000 2001 Actual Actual $590,000 $1,449,000 Fuel 105,000 115,000 2002 Actual $3,027,000 116,000 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Budget $2,047,000 $490,000 $5,916,001 115,000 113,000 110,00( 136,000 151,000 156,000 4,000 0 0 Total State $695,000 $1,564,000 $3,143,000 $2,162,000 $603,000 $6,026,00 The budgeted amount for state funding for transportation in Tukwila is $5.9 million for 2005. This is significantly more than for any other year shown here. State funding, however, has not fluctuated as significantly as federal funding. The State's contribution to transportation improvements revenues has averaged $2.4 million annually. The average includes the fuel tax, which has been steady at around $110,000 per year. Table VI -3 shows actual local funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted local funding for 2005. Table VI Local Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects 2000 Actual $2,946,000 89,000 464,000 0 747,000 328,000 $4,574,000 2001 Actual $2,570,000 86,000 319,000 0 669,000 397,000 $4,041,000 2002 Actual $2,635,000 82,000 339,000 0 (28,000) 535,000 $3,563,000 2003 Actual $0 138,000 597,000 6,343,000 0 399,000 $7,477,000 2004 Actual $0 192,000 813,000 0 0 147,000 $1,152,000 2005 Budget $3,000,000 175,000 350,000 0 525,000 75,000 $4,125,000 Tukwila uses varying local sources from year to year to fund transportation improvement projects. This is in part because transportation improvement needs are project based. In addition, these funding source tables do not show carryover in funds from previous years, but rather only show new revenues. During the five -year period for which actuals are shown, the City received an average of $277,000 in impact fees annually, but the City did not receive any impact fee revenue for two years and had negative revenue in another. When revenues from the current impact fee and general obligation bond proceeds are not included, Tukwila generates an average of $2.5 million in revenue from local sources annually. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Table VI-4 shows federal, state and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2005. Table V1-4. Summary Of Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects Federal Sources State Sources Other Intergovernmental Revenue Local Sources Total Available funding Unmet needs Page 40 2000 Actual $2,096,000 695,000 2001 2002 Actual Actual $766,000 $9,198,000 1,564,000 3,143,000 28,000 360,000 1,445,000 4,574,000 4,041,000 3,563,000 $7,393,000 $6,731,000 $17,349,000 2003 Actual $9,443,000 2,162,000 0 7,477,000 $19,082,000 2004 2005 Actual Budget $1,200,000 $2,046,000 603,000 6,026,000 664,000 0 1,152,000 4,125,000 $3,619,000 $12,197,000 Available funding from outside sources is found mostly at the state level, which administers both state programs through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and federally funded TEA - 21 programs. Many of the programs at the state and federal level are oriented towards providing below - market interest rates on loan or partial grants with the remainder left to the City. While these low -cost loans reduce the total funded cost to the City, they still require the City to provide an ultimate source of payment. Therefore local sources are critical as they are usually the ultimate source of repayment. In addition to impact fee revenues, the City can use property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and other existing or potential City taxes or fees to pay for the improvements. The City can consider the use of a Local Improvement District (LID) structure to repay any loans required to support the improvements. There are many variables to consider in making projections for future funding availability, including issues as diverse as federal and state transportation legislation, state and local policy changes, population growth in Tukwila and Washington State, inflation, and the price for gasoline. The City has local revenues of about $2.5 million annually. State and federal funding have averaged a combined annual contribution of $6.4 million to transportation improvements revenues. If the City continues to receive state and federal funding at similar levels, the combined federal, state and local funding would be an estimated $8.9 million annually. The City has identified $102.5 million in transportation needs, in 2005 dollars, through 2020. Over a 15 -year period, this project list would result in about $9.9 million in costs. An estimate $1.0 million annually is projected to be needed to fully fund the necessary improvements. New sources must be found to fund the projects, assuming no lessening of growth or Level of Service Standards occurs. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is assessed on new development to pay for improvements to the transportation systems that the traffic from such development is estimated to require if some standard for level of service (LOS) is to be maintained. The fee is paid by new development at the time of an application for a building permit. The amount of the fee is based on the impact of the proposed development on transportation systems. The steps for developing a transportation impact fee varies by jurisdiction, but in broad terms they are: Page 41 • Forecast the demand for transportation capacity (future trips). • Prepare a plan showing what improvements will be built to meet that demand, their cost, and which are eligible for TIF funding • Determine what percentage of the improvements are required to accommodate new development (as opposed to solving problems of existing development or accommodating future through traffic). Use that percentage to estimate the total amount of revenue that TIF must generate from new development over some forecast period. • Divide the total revenue requirement by some measure of the trips the new development will generate. The result is the cost per estimated trip generated. • Apply that cost per trip to each new development project using an estimate of trips to be generated based on the nature of the development. While Washington state law outlines the intent and requirements for establishing impact fees, cities do have choices to make in how to implement the TIF. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that infrastructure be in place within six years from "the time of development" to accommodate the impacts of new development. In accordance with the GMA, a TIF may only be imposed on transportation improvements that are identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan or related reports and updates to the comprehensive plan and the six - year transportation capital improvement plan (CIP). In addition impact fees collected must be used within six years of collection. The basic premise of a TIF is that new developments pay for expansion of the transportation system, but there are constraints on how much a Tukwila can charge developers. Developments can be charged for expansions in the system, but not for existing deficiencies. Further, Tukwila must demonstrate a geographic and temporal nexus between the impact fee payers, the payment, and the related investments. To plan for future transportation funding and set fee levels, it is necessary to make forecasts for funding availability from federal, state, and local sources. Forecasting how much and which funding sources may be available at some later date is not certain. It involves approximating values and making predictions on behaviors of funding agencies. Grant funding is scarce and competition is intense. Despite the uncertainties involved in forecasting, some assumptions can be made regarding future funding availability in order to calculate an impact fee. While there are several options for approximating future funding, for the purposes of this analysis, the average funding in the past serves as the forecast of future funding. Of the project costs identified above, $95.8 million are eligible for the TIF. The other $6.7 million are safety- related and cannot be paid for with the TIF. Zone system In order to best address the geographic nexus of the impact fee, the City has been divided into four zones, Figure VI -1. The zones were identified based on similar land uses and travel patterns. The overall service area used for the TIF is the legal boundaries of the City of Tukwila but there are provisions for future annexations. Under such a zone system, the location of the development would determine the level of the TIF imposed. Developments would be charged a TIF calculated using the costs for traffic projects in specific zones, rather than total costs for TIF - eligible projects throughout the City. Because the system is divided into zones, it can be assumed that improvements within a zone will benefit all users of the zone and not just those who use the specific facilities. For example, if a major thoroughfare is improved and can accommodate more trips, other streets in the zone may experience less delays as traffic moves from those local side streets onto the main thoroughfare. The four zones are: • Zone 1: South/TUC. From 1 -5 to the south City limits to the east City limits to north of Southcenter Boulevard. (Zone 1 would include the Tukwila South project upon annexation into the City of Tukwila.) • Zone 2: East/Interurban. From 1 -5 to north of Southcenter Boulevard to the east City limits to the Duwamish River to the West boundary. • Zone 3: West/TIB. From the west City limits to the south City limits to 1 -5 to SR 599 to the Duwamish River to the east City limits to the north boundary. • Zone 4: North/MIC. The MIC area plus Ryan Hill. There is also one project (a Signal Interconnect system) that will interconnect all signals throughout the City. Because this is a city -wide project, the costs are shared across the four zones. To develop a zonal fee structure, the total number of net new trips are identified per zone. Factors are made to account for zone - to-zone travel, as well as travel through or outside the City limits. Background growth, or trips not beginning or ending in Tukwila, are excluded as the City has no inter -local agreements with surrounding agencies to collect impact fees for growth in other areas. The next step is to identify project costs by zone. Since impact fees can only be imposed on the project costs not funded by grants, other mitigation, or other funds, only the amount remaining after subtracting existing and projected funding can be considered. The cost per trip fee is then calculated using the un- funded amount divided by the new growth. Necessary projects and project costs will be updated on an annual basis in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Plan and Financial Planning Model. Page 42 Figure VI -1: Impact Fee Zones Page 43 ft ( 3 0 iro - o 1908 September 2005 ATTACHMENT E Appendix A to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Submitted for City of Tukwila DRAFT • Prepared by: Mirai Associates 11410 NE 122 Way Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 Tranaporcacion Planning 6. Enpin®arinp Tranaporcaclon Planning 6. Envinawring CHAPTER 1. THE INTRODUCTION TUKWILA URBAN CENTER TUKWILA AREA OUTSIDE THE URBAN CENTER The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations I 1 2 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER 1 STUDY AREA 1 STREET CLASSIFICATION 1 NORTH/SOUTH ROADWAYS: 1 EAST/WEST ROADWAYS 4 I -5 ACCESS 4 I- 405 /SR 518 ACCESS 4 HOV LANES 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 TRIPS TO THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER 5 HIGHWAY ACCESS TO THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER 13 WEEKDAY AND SATURDAY VOLUMES 14 CORRIDOR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) 24 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 27 SAFETY 33 INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS 33 MID -BLOCK ACCIDENTS 33 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCIDENTS 35 FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION 36 TRAIN VOLUMES 36 EXISTING RAILROAD RIGHTS OF WAY 36 TRUCK TRANSPORTATION 37 NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 42 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 42 PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES - - 42 BICYCLE TRAVEL 44 Transportation Piannin0 Enpinaarinp Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations CHAPTER 1. THE INTRODUCTION In March 2002, the City of Tukwila undertook a study to define a set of facility improvements needed by 2020 to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments. The recommendations are built upon land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, and include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. The study analyzed traffic within the Tukwila City limits and then took a deeper look at traffic in the urban center. A set of recommendations were developed for the greater Tukwila area and for the sub -area referred to as the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). Several interim reports were prepared during this three -year project. The key points of those reports are included in this document. The reports include: • Draft Tukwila Urban Center Existing Conditions Report (September 2002) • Draft Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project - Final Summary Report (June 2003) • Memorandum - Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I -405 /Southcenter Blvd /Tukwila Parkway Area (June 2003) • Tukwila Urban Center 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations • Recommended Roadway and Intersection Improvements in 2020 for the City of Tukwila (December, 2004) • Existing and 2020 LOS Analysis Outside of the Tukwila Urban Center (February 2005) • Traffic Analysis for 2020 with TUC Mall-to- Station Alternative with Added Internal Streets and Combine Tukwila South Valley Development (April 2005) • City Actions to Improve the Roadway Network (memo May 2005) This document presents the findings and recommendations for the City of Tukwila in two separate, but parallel, sections: one for the Tukwila Urban Center and another for the area outside the Tukwila Urban Center area. TUKWILA URBAN CENTER The findings and recommendations for the Tukwila Urban Center are presented in Chapters 2 and 3. This planning study brought together the City of Tukwila, Tukwila business groups planning to redevelop properties in the area, WSDOT, and other transportation stakeholders. These stakeholders provided a broader perspective on September 2005 Page 1 -1 appropriate transportation solutions for the intersections with Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard and vicinities. Chapter 2 describes the existing traffic conditions in the Tukwila Urban Center in 2002. This includes street classifications and functions, traffic signals, traffic volumes and patterns, intersection level of service, and traffic safety. The existing conditions for all other modes, including non - motorized and transit, were included in the Draft Existing Conditions Report (2002). Chapter 3 presents the 2020 traffic conditions under several land use options for the Tukwila Urban Center. This chapter describes the improvements that the City can take to improve the roadway network over the next 15 years. The major arterials north, south and west of Westfield Southcenter were the focus of two more detailed analyses conducted by the consultant team. The existing and future' conditions, along with the options evaluated, and the improvements recommended for the Southcenter Parkway/Klickitat / Strander Blvd area are included in Appendix A. Similarly, Appendix B describes the conditions, the options evaluated, and the recommendations made for the arterial corridors along I -405 including Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Boulevard based on the assumptions that WSDOT would undertake the I-405 improvements according to the Implementation Plan. TUKWILA AREA OUTSIDE THE URBAN CENTER Chapter 4 presents the existing conditions, future conditions, and the facility improvements initially proposed for the rest of the City. The 2020 No Action conditions and the improvements recommended to meet LOS requirements for the area outside the urban center needed are included. Tranaportatlon Ptanning 6. Enginaaring Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -2 Mirai TrenePorceclon Pienning & Engineering CHAPTER 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER Chapter 2 documents what is happening in the Tukwila Urban Center today. It describes the existing transportation system in the study area, along with information about traffic volumes, accidents, travel demand, and traffic operating conditions. STUDY AREA Figure 2 -1 shows the freeway and arterial network in the vicinity and within the Tukwila Urban Center. STREET CLASSIFICATION Tukwila's urban center is served by a network of arterial, collector and access streets that provide local access and circulation within the City. These include ten entry and exit points to the Tukwila Urban Center: 61st Avenue South at I -405 Andover Park West at South 180th Street I -405 on -ramp ' Tukwila Parkway Southcenter Parkway at S 180th Street 68th Avenue South at I -405 South 178th Street at Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard at Green River I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway South 180th Street at Green River Klickitat Drive at I -5 North /South Roadways In Figure 1, the street classification for the roadway network is shown. The following streets are classified as north/south arterials: • West Valley Highway (SR 181): South 180th to I -405 (principal arterial) • Southcenter Parkway: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway (minor arterial) • Andover Park East: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway - (minor arterial) • Andover Park West: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway (minor arterial) • 61st Avenue S (bridge): Southcenter Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway Local access (non - arterial) north/south streets include Christensen Road (west of the Green River), Industry Drive (a continuation of Treck), and Jackson Street (east of the Green River). Chapter 2 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 2 -1 Transportation Planning . Engineering Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -2 Transportation Planning 6 Enlinaaring Figure 2 -1: Tukwila Urban Center Street Classification The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations E Legend: Study Area J Park Freeway Ramp ...nmmewi+ Principal Arterial) Minor Arterial Collector Arteria Non Arterial Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad ■ River North 0 Not to Scale Source: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, 1995. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -3 1 . 1 I Transportation Plwnninp 6. Engineering M.� The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations East/West Roadways The Tukwila Urban Center includes the following east /west classified arterials (starting at the south boundary of Tukwila Urban Center): • South 180th Street: Southcenter Parkway to Tukwila/Renton city limits (minor arterial) • Minider Boulevard: Andover Park West to Andover Park East (collector arterial) • Strander Boulevard: Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Highway (minor arterial) • Baker Boulevard: Andover Park West to Andover Park East (collector arterial) • Tukwila Parkway: Southcenter Parkway to 68th Avenue South (minor arterial) • Klickitat Drive: Interstate 5 to Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial) Local access (non - arterial) east /west streets include Treck Drive (becomes Industry Drive), and a series of dead -end streets running west from Andover Park West that include Triland Drive, Midland Drive and Upland Drive. In addition, Costco Drive links Andover Park East and 70th Avenue South. 1 -5 Access Chapter 1 Existing Conditions I -5 access to the Tukwila Urban Center is provided at South 154th Street /Southcenter Boulevard for trips destined to or from north I -5, and at Klickitat Drive / Southcenter Parkway for trips destined to or from south I -5. Additional access from south of the Tukwila Urban Center is provided at the South 188th Street Interchange, following Military Road and South 178th Street. I- 405 /SR 518 Access From the west, SR 518 becomes I -405, just east of the I -5 interchange, connecting Burien and SeaTac Airport with Tukwila. Eastbound drivers on I- 405 /SR 518 can enter the Tukwila Urban Center at the Interurban Avenue/West Valley Highway interchange. Drivers leaving the Tukwila Urban Center to travel eastbound on I -405 can use an on- ramp from the Tukwila Parkway. Westbound drivers on I -405 can access the Tukwila Urban Center from the Interurban Avenue/West Valley Highway interchange; as well as from an off -ramp at Southcenter Boulevard. HOV Lanes I-405 HOV lanes extend from I -5 in Tukwila, north to the I -5 interchange in Lynnwood. I -5 HOV lanes extend north from Tukwila to the express lanes in downtown Seattle and south from Tukwila to the Federal Way area. September 2005 Page 1-4 T•anapartatlon Planning & Enpinearing TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Traffic signals control the majority of intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center. Those intersections not signalized are controlled with stop signs. Figure 2 -2 shows the location of the stop signs and signalized intersections. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trips to the Tukwila Urban Center At present (2002), approximately 113,000 persons arrive daily in the Tukwila Urban Center for various activities during a 24 -hour period. Nearly all of those coming to the Tukwila Urban Center use private vehicles (99.3 percent). Transit in the Tukwila Urban Center by contrast is a very minor share (0.7 percent). While commuters comprise about 18 percent of the total person trips to the Tukwila Urban Center, more than 80 percent of the trips to the Tukwila Urban Center are shopping, recreational, commercial and business trips. Figure 2 -3 shows an imaginary cordon around the Tukwila Urban Center and the access points used as the threshold for measuring trips in and out of the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 2 -4 shows the growth trend of inbound Tukwila Urban Center traffic from 1990 through 2000. Inbound traffic to Tukwila's Urban Center increased by 16.8 percent during this period, from 72,806 in 1990 to 85,033 in 2000. Additional findings are noted below: • The total traffic volume approaching the Tukwila Urban Center stayed at a constant level (about 70,000 vehicles per day) between 1988 and 1993. _ • Since 1994, the total Tukwila Urban Center bound traffic volume increased by 15,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 21 percent over the 7- year period. • The average rate of the traffic growth for the last 7 -year period is 3 percent per year. Table 2 -1 shows traffic counts for 1990 and 2000 at each of the nine inbound access points into the Tukwila Urban Center, and Figure 2 -5 displays this information on the map. The Tukwila Urban Center entry /access points are: • 61st Avenue South at I -405 • 68th Avenue South at I -405 • Strander Boulevard at Green River • South 180th Street at Green River • Andover Park West at South 180th Street • Southcenter Parkway at South 180th Street • South 178th Street at Southcenter Parkway • I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -5 Tranaportation P18nnina 6 Enginaaring • Klickitat Drive at I -5 Figure 2 -2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations r North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad EllaNigistiessolse River imr•r Freeway Ramp Park n Signalized Intersections Intersections with Stop Signs Source: Mirai Associates, 2002 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -6 I Miral I Tear-Importation Planning Engineering Figure 2 -3: Cordon Lines at the Edge of the Tukwila Urban Center t`i Juuui iSireamung Iliiutlluauv Source: Mirai Associates, 2002. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -7 1 Tranapor^tation Planning & Engineering Figure 2-4: Growth Trend of Inbound Tukwila Urban Center Traffic Volume 90,000 85,000 80.000 75,000 j 70,000 85,000 60,000 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 - 1993 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations emr* Teed of COD Tr.We Volume (Inbound) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Iy ■TUCSoAY UPON! THANKSGIVING September 2005 Page 1 -8 L ocation 4 . 3 , „ =19 90 h ' :2000 .:: . ,r,A 1990200Q bo=> I nund Volumes` Percent - ;ofTotal ° Inbound Volumes :: Percent„ O'fil,2 § :Volume hange,,, Percent ; Change _ 61 Avenue S at 1-405 16,117 22.1% 19,302 22.7% 3,185 19.8% 68 Avenue S at 1-405 4,951 6.8% 8,155 9.6% 3,204 64.7% Strander Blvd at Green River 9,081 12.5% 9,219 10.8% 138 1.5% S 180 St at Green River 15,108 20.8% 18,352 21.6% 3,244 21.5% Andover Park W south of 180 Street 2,279 3.1% 1,964 2.3% -315 -13.8% Southcenter Pkwy south of 180th Street 2,547 3.5% 1,536 1.8% -1,011 - 39.7% S 178 Street west of Southcenter Parkway 5,955 8.2% 6,506 7.7% 551 9.3% 1 -5 Off -Ramp to Southcenter Parkway 8,595 11.8% 10,304 12.1% 1,709 19.9% Klickitat Drive at 1 -5 Overpass 8,173 11.2% - 9,695 11.4% 1,522 18.6% Totals 72,806 100.0% 85,033 100.0% 12,227 16.8% I 1 Transportation Planning 6 Enginsaring Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -1: Daily Inbound Traffic Volumes at the Tukwila Urban Center Cordon Line for 1990 and 2000 September 2005 Page 1 -9 Transportation Planning 6 En9inaaring Figure 2 -5: Tukwila Urban Center Daily Volume and Percent Changes from 1990 to 2000 Changes in Traffic Volume (1990 -2000) Increase Decrease Source: Mirai Associates, 2002. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -10 -N4 r a i Transportation Planning & Enflinasrinp The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -6 illustrates the changes in volumes from 1990 to 2000 as a series of trend lines for each approach or access point. In 2000, two approaches, South 180th Street at Green River and the 61st Avenue South Bridge, carried the most daily traffic, 19,302 and 18,352 vehicles, respectively. Additional findings are noted below: Since 1992, approach volumes on South 180th Street grew at a rapid steady pace reaching 18,352 in 2000. The traffic volumes on the northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway declined substantially in 1995 (due to construction), but by 1997 exceeded 1993 levels. Similar numbers of vehicles approach the Tukwila Urban Center from the west and east (approximately 3,300); twice as many approach from the north (6,400). In 2000, traffic volumes approaching from south of 180th Street declined on Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway to 1,964 ( -13.8 percent) and 1,536 ( -39.7 percent), respectively. The 68th Avenue South Bridge to Andover Park East carried fewer than 6,000 inbound vehicles per day until 1994. Since that time, traffic volumes have increased to over 8,000 per day, a 65 percent increase since 1990. This may reflect higher levels of traffic congestion on the 61st Avenue South Bridge. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -11 Mrs n TronaportBtion Planning 6 Engineering Figure 2-6: Inbound Traffic Volume Trends on the Major Approaches to the Urban Center 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 • 16,000 G 14,000 • m 12,000 m 10,000 -- 8,000 6,000 4,000 • 2,000 1988 • 1989 1990 1991 ▪ 1992 ▪ 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ▪ 1999 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations -t -61st AVENUE SOUTH BRIDGE - f- STRANDER BLVD Q GREEN RIVER -CIE- ANDOVER PARK WEST s/o 180th ST. — I — SOUTH 178TH ST. (HILL) - - °KLICKITAT DRIVE ©1 -5 OVERPASS -41-68th AVENUE SOUTH BRIDGE -- -S. 180TH ST. © GREEN RIVER -f- SOUTHCENTER PKWY /57TH s/o 180TH ST. - •lir-I -5 OFF -RAMP TO SOUTHCTR PKWY Year September 2005 Page 1 -12 2000 M_iJ'r a ;i • Trsn.partstion Transportation Analysis and Recommendations PlonnInp EnglnmmNmo Highway Access to the Tukwila Urban Center Two interstate freeways, I -5 and I- 405, directly serve the Tukwila Urban Center. There are three entry points from the interstates and only one exit, one to I -405 eastbound. Both freeways are heavily congested throughout most of the day in the Tukwila Urban Center area, and this congestion is expected to only worsen as traffic volumes continue to increase. Highlights from the daily traffic growth trends shown in Figure 2 -7 include: • The section of I -5 south of I -405 carries about 195,000 vehicles per day. • Traffic volumes on I -5 have grown steadily. Since 1984, the I -5 traffic volume has increased by 75,000 daily vehicles, an increase of more than 60 percent. increase of 41 percent. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Figure 2 -7: 1 -5 and 1-405 Daily Traffic Growth Trend: 220.003 200,000 160,000 140.000 120.000 100,033 60.000 60.000 40.000 20,000 compared to 85,000 vehicles per day in 1982. _ The City of Tukwila 1962 1964 1986 1968 1990 1982 1994 1996 1998 2000 • I -5 is heavily congested throughout most of day in the Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Tukwila Urban Center area. The congested period will be extended as volumes increase in the future. Daily traffic volumes on 1-405, west of I -5, (SR 518) have consistently increased with some variations, probably caused by construction in the area. • I-405 in the Tukwila Urban Center area carries about 120,000 vehicles per day, • In the past 18 years, daily traffic on I -405 has grown by 35,000 daily vehides, an September 2005 Page 1 -13 1111- (—f -1-405 (north) of 1b —41"1-5 salh d 1-405 M_iJ'r a ;i • Trsn.partstion Transportation Analysis and Recommendations PlonnInp EnglnmmNmo Highway Access to the Tukwila Urban Center Two interstate freeways, I -5 and I- 405, directly serve the Tukwila Urban Center. There are three entry points from the interstates and only one exit, one to I -405 eastbound. Both freeways are heavily congested throughout most of the day in the Tukwila Urban Center area, and this congestion is expected to only worsen as traffic volumes continue to increase. Highlights from the daily traffic growth trends shown in Figure 2 -7 include: • The section of I -5 south of I -405 carries about 195,000 vehicles per day. • Traffic volumes on I -5 have grown steadily. Since 1984, the I -5 traffic volume has increased by 75,000 daily vehicles, an increase of more than 60 percent. increase of 41 percent. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Figure 2 -7: 1 -5 and 1-405 Daily Traffic Growth Trend: 220.003 200,000 160,000 140.000 120.000 100,033 60.000 60.000 40.000 20,000 compared to 85,000 vehicles per day in 1982. _ The City of Tukwila 1962 1964 1986 1968 1990 1982 1994 1996 1998 2000 • I -5 is heavily congested throughout most of day in the Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Tukwila Urban Center area. The congested period will be extended as volumes increase in the future. Daily traffic volumes on 1-405, west of I -5, (SR 518) have consistently increased with some variations, probably caused by construction in the area. • I-405 in the Tukwila Urban Center area carries about 120,000 vehicles per day, • In the past 18 years, daily traffic on I -405 has grown by 35,000 daily vehides, an September 2005 Page 1 -13 Trenaportation Plenninp 6 Enpinearinp Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Traffic Volumes within the Tukwila Urban Center - Figure 2 -8 arrays the busiest roadways within the Tukwila Urban Center. More detailed information for the area is shown on the map in Figure 2 -9. Four roadways carry average weekday traffic volumes of approximately 30,000 or more per day: • 61st Avenue South at I -405, • Southcenter Parkway, between Minlder and Strander Boulevards, • South 180th Street, west of Andover Park East, and, • West Valley Highway between South 180th Street and South Longacres Way In Figures 2 -10, 2 -11 and 2 -12, the AM, noon and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown for the major intersections in the Tukwila Urban Center. Traffic volume comparison during the peak periods are shown for the major roadways in Appendix A. In general, the afternoon peak hour volumes are higher than or equal to the noontime hour or morning peak hour volumes throughout the Tukwila Urban Center. However, at several locations in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall, the noon peak hour volumes are slightly higher than the PM peak hour volumes. Noon peak hour volumes exceed PM peak hour volumes at the following locations: Northbound on Southcenter Parkway, and, Both northbound and southbound at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway/Minkler Boulevard. Noon and PM peak hour volumes are very close, and both exceed the AM peak hour volumes at the following intersections: Southbound Southcenter Parkway, North- and southbound Andover Park West, North- and southbound Andover Park East, and East - and westbound S 180th Street. PM peak hour traffic volumes exceed AM and noon peak hour volumes on the West Valley Highway and Tukwila Parkway. Weekday and Saturday Volumes - Figures 2 -13 through 2 -20 compare the hourly traffic volumes for an average weekday with those for a Saturday for those locations bordering the Tukwila Urban Center. With the exception of the West Valley Highway, the Saturday peak volumes significantly exceed average weekday peak volumes. September 2005 Page 1 -14 ;.M i r a Trans po,-tetlon Planning 6 EnOlnaering Figure 2 -8: 2002 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways West Valley Highway: S. 180th to S. Longacres Way South 180th Street at Sperry Drive Southcenter Parkway: Minkler Blvd to Strander Blvd 61st Avenue South at 1-405 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West Klickitat Drive at Southcenter Parkway Strander Blvd: 5800 Block Andover Park West: Strander Blvd - Baker Blvd 68th Avenue South at 1-405 Andover Park East: Minkler Blvd - • Treck Drive Chapter 1 Existing Conditions 0 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works 5,000 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 September 2005 Page 1 -15 40,000 Transportation Planning & Engineering Figure 2 -9: 2002 Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations North 0 - Not to scale 21 860 37 860 TUKWILA PA A WESTFIELD '.. $NOPPINGTOWN SOUTNCENTER TRANDER BLVD 21 500 21 600 20 400 23 400 EVANS BLACK D BAKER BLVD 16 400 14,400 33 870 29 750 15 980 12,140 CORPORATE DR S MINKLER BLVD • TRILANO DR 21,200 3,110 2,780 15.700 FIRE ST TRECK D 31 480 3 Vehicles per Day Legend: Study Area I Trail, Walkway - - - - -- Railroad micznitano River Freeway Ramp Park O 2 " 2001 counts "" Estimated based on peak hour counts Source: Tukwila Public Works Department - April 2002 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -16 Transportation Ptanninp Enpinaaring Figure 2 -10: 2002 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -• Railroad gizamOleste River ammor or Freeway Ramp Park Intersection Approach Volumes (Vehides per Hour) Source: Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -17 Trwaneportatian Planning s Enainaarina Figure 2 -11: 2002 Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations North 0 Not to scale 1 Legend: Study Area ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l. „11. Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad mammas River — wr. Freeway Ramp Park 1X)(XI Intersection —0- Approach Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) L Source: Tukwila Public Works Department ' i I VPd wgt 16th ST September 2005 Page 1 -18 Trans POreaelon Planning S Engineering Figure 2 -12: 2002 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -• Railroad immemeem River ....`mmoi Freeway Ramp Park L - 4 7 Intersection Approach Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) Source: Tukwila Public Works Department September 2005 Page 1 -19 Figure 2 -13: Northbound Hourly Volumes on 61s Avenue South Bridge (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1.400 1.200 1.000 3 800 Trenaportation Planning S. Enpinaarinp 600 400 200 0 am 1:00- 203- 3:00- 4:00- 5:00- 8:00• 7:00. 8:00- 9:00- 1000 11:00 - pm 1:00- 2:00- 3:00 4:00 5:00 8:00 7:00 8:00 9.00. 10:00 - 11:00- 12:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 1200 12:00 200 3:00 4:00 5:00 8:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:00 Figure 2 -14: Southbound Hourly Volumes on 61st Avenue South Bridge (Weekday and Saturday) 2.000 1,800 1,500 1,400 1,200 X 1,000 wo 600 400 200 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Hours I .......WeekdaYAverage ....m4/6/02 (Sat) 0 am 1:00• 200- 3:00. *CO. 5:00. 900- 7:00. 900 906 1000. 11:00- pro 1:00- 200. 3:00- 4:00- 5:00- 6:00• 7.00. 900. 900. 10.00• 11:00 1200• 900 3:00 4:60 5:00 900 7:00 900 900 10.00 11:60 1260 1200. 2:60 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00. 7:00 900 0.00 16.00 11:00 1200 1:00 1:60 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Haas I ■•••■•••Weakaay Ammo (Sag September 2005 Page 1 -20 ,uuu ,800 600 400 1200 000 600 600 400 200 0 M.ira Tr rn esnapottion Piano-Ong & Eng(nasr(np The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -15: Eastbound Hourly Volumes on S 180th Street west of West Valley Highway (Weekday and Saturday) 0 O. V 2,000 1.800 1.600 1,400 1,200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions AM 1:00. zoo 200 700 201 e00 9..31 1200 too- 1001 11:01 PIA 1:00 zoo- 201 4:00 100- Goa 9..130 201 701 10.00 11:01 1200. 203 203 400 103 5:00 700 Goo too 1000 11:00 1200 1201 200 100 4:00 100 2.00 9..00 2:00 900 1000 11:00 1203 1:00 1:03 (Weekday and Saturday) - WeekdayAverage 44.11■4 /6102(Sat) Figure 2 -16: Westbound Hourly Volumes on S 180 Street west of West Valley Highway AM 1:00 200 201 400. 600 601 T.01 600 toil 1001 11:01 PM 1:01 201 200 400 600 Goa 7.01 600. 000. 1001 11:00. 1201 200 203 *CO 603 200 Too 1100 too 1000 1100 1200 120. 200• 100 400 1103 100 700 600 too 1000 11:00 1200 1:03 1:00 I•bvs - ekdayAverage •■••■4/6/02(Sat) September 2005 Page 1 - 21 M.ira Tr rn esnapottion Piano-Ong & Eng(nasr(np The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -15: Eastbound Hourly Volumes on S 180th Street west of West Valley Highway (Weekday and Saturday) 0 O. V 2,000 1.800 1.600 1,400 1,200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions AM 1:00. zoo 200 700 201 e00 9..31 1200 too- 1001 11:01 PIA 1:00 zoo- 201 4:00 100- Goa 9..130 201 701 10.00 11:01 1200. 203 203 400 103 5:00 700 Goo too 1000 11:00 1200 1201 200 100 4:00 100 2.00 9..00 2:00 900 1000 11:00 1203 1:00 1:03 (Weekday and Saturday) - WeekdayAverage 44.11■4 /6102(Sat) Figure 2 -16: Westbound Hourly Volumes on S 180 Street west of West Valley Highway AM 1:00 200 201 400. 600 601 T.01 600 toil 1001 11:01 PM 1:01 201 200 400 600 Goa 7.01 600. 000. 1001 11:00. 1201 200 203 *CO 603 200 Too 1100 too 1000 1100 1200 120. 200• 100 400 1103 100 700 600 too 1000 11:00 1200 1:03 1:00 I•bvs - ekdayAverage •■••■4/6/02(Sat) September 2005 Page 1 - 21 Transportation Platen & Enainaaring Figure 2 -17: Northbound Hourly Volumes on West Valley Highway south of 1-405 (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1.400 'p 1,200 1.000 7 800 Figure 2 -18: Southbound Hourly Volumes on West Valley Highway south of 1-405 (Weekday and Saturday) 600 400 200 2,000 1,800 1.600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations 0 AM1200100 2o0.10 403200 200700 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions 1:00 200400 100011:00 PM1203.1:00 200500 I-bits -.4—.Weekday Average —6- 416/02 (Sat) 4:oo2a3 - 21207.0o 20342C0 140111:00 200 400 *CO. 20. Toe 200 400 1000 AM 1:00 200 300 400 *CO. 200 Toe. 200 400 120. 11:00 PM 1:00 200 1200 200 200 4:00 503 500 7:00 5W 400 1000 11:00 1200 1200 200 500 4:00 400 200 7.00 t00 200 1200 11:00 1:00 Hours —4—Weekday - Weekday Average --t- 4/6/02 (Sat) September 2005 Page 1 -22 M.i , r _a`i Transportation PISnninp 6 Enp inearinp Figure 2 -19: Eastbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Drive west of Southcenter Parkway (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1.800 1,600 1,400 G 1,200 a 3 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,400 1200 1 1,000 > 800 600 400 200 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations A412:00. 2:00-3:00 4:00.5:00 8:00 -7:00 8:00- 9:00 10:00 -11:00 PM12:00• 2:00-3:00 4:00 -5:00 6:00 -7:00 8:00 -9:00 10:00 -11:00 1:00 0 AM 1200- 100 200.100 400-500 600-7:00 t00 Hours -s — Weekday Average —t- 4/6/02 (Sat) t Figure 2 -20: Westbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Drive west of Southcenter Parkway (Weekday and Saturday) 600-600 1600-1100 PM 1204 1:00 HOUR 200-700 ........Weekday Average "".404/6/02 (Sat) 400.100 6007:00 000 -0-00 1000-1100 September 2005 Page 1 -23 Transportation Pianninp 6 Er The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 - 21 arrays four years of monthly traffic volumes crossing the imaginary cordon around the Tukwila Urban Center, normalized with a factor of 1.0 as the annual average for the years 1998-2001. The four trend lines generally follow a similar pattern. • Summer months (June, July and August) are higher than the average. • December is five to ten percent higher than the average. • Winter (after December) months are five to ten percent lower than the average. • April and May are average months. • September and October do not show a consistent pattern. Figure 2 -21: Monthly Distributions of Tukwila Urban Center Average Cordon Volumes 1.00 v co u.. 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions 1 2001 AVG -4 -2000 AVG - *-1999 AVG - *-1998 AVG JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL Month AUG SEP OCT NOV CORRIDOR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Levels of service for urban streets are based on average through- vehicle travel speed for the length of the street under consideration. Each street is assigned an "Urban Street Class ", based upon free -flow traffic speeds during off -peak hours. Each street classification then carries with it a particular rating system, which links a "level of service grade" (A through F) with incremental ranges of travel speeds (see Table 2 - 2). September 2005 Page 1 -24 DEC C orridor (Free Flow LOS for Class Ill :S •eedis 3ito 30 Oil mph - C orridor (Free FL LOS _L-OS for Class I =' 'is35 to -mph) " mph LOS A >30 A >25 B 24 >30 B >19 -25 C 18 >24 C >13 -19 D 14 >18 D >9 -13 E 10 >14 E >7 -9 F <10 F <7 Mira' Transportation Piannin0 & Enpinaarinp Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -2: Corridor Levels of Service for Urban Street Classifications The average speed for a corridor is calculated from the actual travel time and the - "control delay" encountered at signalized intersections. The "control delay" is defined as the portion of the total travel time during which a vehicle approaches and proceeds through a signalized intersection. Control delay includes the delays of initial deceleration, move -up time in the queue, stops, and re- acceleration. The first step taken to calculate corridor levels of service (LOS) for the Tukwila Urban Center was to assign an Urban Street Class (III or IV) for each major roadway in the study area. This assignment was based on the free -flow speed measured during light traffic conditions; in this instance, a Sunday evening between 10 and 11 PM. All arterials were classified as Class III, except Minkler Boulevard which was classified as Class IV. The second step in the calculation determined travel times at specific time periods. This study measured travel times during weekday traffic between the hours of 12 and 1 PM, and between the hours of 4 and 6 PM. Multiple travel times were collected and an average travel time was calculated for each street during each desired time interval. The final step in the calculation determined the level of service at the different peak periods based upon the average peak period travel times. These are shown in Table 2 -2. Table 2 -3 arrays the results of this analysis, with the highlights noted below. Details by corridor are included in Appendix A. Both directions of Tukwila Parkway, from I -405 to.Southcenter Parkway, and eastbound Strander Boulevard, from Southcenter Parkway to the West Valley Highway sustained the lowest levels of service at the noon and PM peak periods, LOS D and E, respectively. Westbound Strander Boulevard moves at LOS E during the noon peak period, but traffic sustains a much better LOS C during the PM peak period. Similarly, southbound Southcenter Parkway and southbound Andover Park West, between Tukwila Parkway and South 180th Street, are congested at LOS D during the noon peak period, but maintain LOS C during the PM peak period. September 2005 Page 1 -25 e Str eet � ` i ., �M D irection of ., *� � T ravel w � x f Ffow ng w d Sp eed U rban £ r Street a Cfss ass verage Trave * Speed a Corridor L OS x� pMy x � 4 121 4 6 Southcenter Parkway: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB 31.17 III • 17.75 18.49 D C NB 35.00 III 19.56 25.85 C B Andover Park West: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB 26.20 III 16.59 19.32 D C NB 34.62 III 19.77 18.56 C C Andover Park East: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB , 30.40 III 20.72 19.16 C C NB 34.15 III 18.91 20.28 C C West Valley Highway: S. 180th Street to 1-405 SB 34.86 III 19.34 20.39 C - C NB 36.18 III 24.51 30.50 C B Tukwila Parkway: 1-405 to Southcenter Parkway EB 27.30 III 11.40 13.06 E E WB 23.55 III 12.89 14.59 E D Strander Boulevard: Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Hwy EB 29.32 III 12.11 17.32 E D WB 31.96 III 12.59 19.80 E C Minkler Boulevard: Southcenter Pkwy to Industry Drive EB 27.06 IV 24.41 19.49 B B WB 28.49 IV 19.37 14.14 B C South 180th Street: _Southcenter Pkwy to West Valley Hwy - EB 28.55 III 21.83 23.12 C C WB 31.27 III 27.41 30.09 B A M i Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Westbound South 180th Street from Southcenter Parkway to the West Valley Highway shows the best LOS , with a noon peak period LOS B and a PM peak period LOS A. For all corridors, the noon peak period LOS matches or is worse than the PM peak period LOS, with one exception. Westbound Minkler Boulevard, from Southcenter Parkway to Industry Drive, moves at LOS B in the noon peak period and LOS C during the PM peak period. All other corridors are rated at LOS B or C during the noon and PM peak periods. Table 2-3: Noon and PM Peak Period Average Travel Speed and LOS by Corridor * SB - southbound; NB - northbound; WB - westbound; EB - eastbound Source: Mirai Associates, 2002 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -26 LOS D elay p ehlcle r } . .ate , _ ek .... .. [ nalized'Inter ections _.., Delay cle - per nterse Unsignalized, A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds Mira! Transportation Planning 6 Enginoaring Table 2-4: Definition of Level of Service The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS at an intersection is measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in seconds and is rated with letters A through F, where "F" indicates the most congestion. The length of delay describes the traffic conditions at a given intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) defines intersection LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections and is shown in Table 2 - 4. Note that the rating definition is more stringent for unsignalized intersections. The LOS rating for a signalized intersection carries a lengthier delay than its equivalent for an unsignalized intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. In Figures 2 -22 through 2 -25 the LOS for the morning, midday and afternoon peak hours is shown for the weekday and for the midday peak hour on Saturday. For this study, the peak hour is defined by the highest traffic volumes for one hour during a given peak period as follows: For weekdays — 7 to 9 AM for the morning; 11 AM to 1 PM for midday; 4 to 6 PM for the afternoon peak period and for the weekend - 2 to 4 PM on Saturday. Highlights are noted below: In the AM peak period, 90 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS A or LOS B. One intersection just outside the Tukwila Urban Center proper, at Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue, operates at LOS F in the AM peak period. The intersection at West Valley Highway and South 180th Street currently operates at LOS D during the weekday AM, midday and PM periods, which may be due to ongoing construction. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -27 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila • Transportation Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Planning S. Engineering During the midday peak hour, over 85 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. The intersections operating at LOS D within the Tukwila Urban Center at the midday peak hour are Minider Boulevard and Andover Park West; Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East; and West Valley Highway and S 180th Street. Just outside the Center, the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South operates at LOS E at the midday peak hour. During the PM peak hour, nearly 80 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. The unsignalized intersection at 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour (and at LOS C during the AM peak hour). Two intersections on the border of the Urban Center operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour - Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South. Two intersections with South 180th Street, at Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The intersections at Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue South and at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East also operate at LOS D. Nearly 80 percent of the intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center operate at LOS C or better during the midday Saturday peak hour (the busiest hour on Saturday between 2 and 4 PM). The weekend midday peak hour LOS is worse during the week at the Tukwila Parkway /61st Avenue South intersection and along Southcenter Parkway and north of Strander Boulevard. September 2005 Page 1 -28 a r: a Transportation Planning 6 Enginaaring Figure 2 -22: AM Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) r North 0 Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad goomm® River onnowimmor Freeway '— W Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection Q Delay ds 1 Delay (Seconds) Unsignalized, 2 Way Stop Controlled ® LOS Delay (Seconds) for the Worst Minor Approach Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -29 Transportation Planning 6. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -23: Midday Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) r North 0 Legend: Study Area Trail; Walkway — • - - - -- Railroad sonsosisoim River moiwwwoomi Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection LOS Delay (Seconds) Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -30 Transportation Planning 6. Enpinsarinp The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -24: PM Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -31 r:a TranaportatIon Planning 6 Encjineemring Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2-25: Saturday Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) Legend: StudyArea Trail, Walkway ------- Railroad sissaassiment River gratamrsomm Freeway Ramp ?T71 181 Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection LOS . f . y Delay (Seconds) September 2005 Page 1-32 r:: -a Tranaportatlon Planning 6 Enginaariny SAFETY For the period 1997 through 2001, the Tukwila Urban Center had 1,013 accidents reported to the Tukwila police department. There were 2,149 vehicles involved in these accidents, resulting in four fatalities, 291 injuries, and 505 property - damage only accidents. Tables 2 -5 and 2 -6 show the number of accidents occurring at each intersection and mid -block by location and year. Of these, 86 percent of the total accidents and 87 percent of the total injuries occurred at intersections. The most common type of accident was a rear -end accident; the rarest involved a pedestrian or a bicyclist. According to the 1996 Washington State Accident report, the average accident rate for a principal arterial, a minor arterial, and a collector in an urban area was 2.97, 3.44, and 4.27 accidents per million miles of travel. The Tukwila Urban Center has 5 -year average accident rates that are less than the state average for every corridor and intersection. Two fatalities occurred at the intersection of the West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard over the past five years. One fatality occurred when a vehicle was backing up; the other involved a car entering the roadway from a commercial driveway and colliding with a vehicle in the left lane. Intersection Accidents One out of every three intersection accidents in the Tukwila Urban Center was a rear -end accident, followed by either a right -angle or a sideswipe accident, each of which occurred at the rate of one out of every five accidents. Infrequent accidents included backing incidents, accidents with a parked vehicle or fixed structure, head -on accidents, and accidents involving a pedestrian or a cyclist. Table 2 -5 shows the number of intersection accidents during the last five years and the 5 -year average accident rate. Mid -block Accidents Nearly half of the accidents occurring at mid -block locations were either an approach turn accident or a right -angle accident —both types of turning accidents. In addition, 25 percent of the accidents were rear -end accidents. Finally, 21 percent of the accidents at mid -block were sideswipes. The three highest accident mid -block locations were all on Southcenter Parkway, with 5 -year accident rates ranging from 0.46 to 0.56. Table 2 -6 shows the number of mid -block accidents during the last five years and 5 -year average accident rate. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -33 - � � > Lo cation t R Accidents pereYea .= ti A ccident . ta t { Mid -Block 97 98 99 00 01 5 -Yr Avg. Southcenter Parkway: 17500 Block to Minkler Boulevard 3 4 5 2 1 0.56 Southcenter Parkway: South 168th to Strander Boulevard 3 13 9 3 3 0.52 Southcenter Parkway: South 168th to Minkler Boulevard 3 3 2 6 10 0.46 Southcenter Parkway: 17500 Block to South 180 Street 1 1 2 4 2 0.37 West Valley Highway south of Strander Boulevard ** 5 3 5 3 1 0.27 West Valley Highway north of South 180th Street 1 4 5 3 - 2 0.24 Southcenter Parkway: Klickitat Drive to Strander Boulevard 4 0 • 0 1 2 0.10 South 180th -72nd to Southcenter Parkway 0 1 1 1 2 0.09 Southcenter Parkway: Nordstrom to Klickitat Drive 0 0 2 2 0 0.09 W Valley Hwy: S Long acres Way to Strander Boulevard 0 1 2 0 1 0.06 Tukwila Pkwy: Andover Park West to Andover Park East* 0 0 1 0 0 0.04 Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Boulevard to Andover Park E 0 0 . 0 0 1 0.04 Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Mall Entrance to Andover Park W 0 0 1 0 0 0.03 Tukwila Parkway: 61 Ave South to Southcenter Mall Entrance 0 0 1 0 0 0.02 West Valley Hwy:1 -405 NB Ramp to Southcenter Boulevard 0 1 0 0 0 0.02 South 180th Street: Andover Park East to Andover Park W 1 0 0 0 0 0.02 South 180th Street Sperry to West Valley Hwy _ 0 A nna 1 %Ale 0 etato 0 Arririant 0 Ppnnrt 0.02 pY4 r - V• Opel?, x A ccidents, per Year ccident: ;R a te* Intersection 97 98 99 00 01 5 -Yr Avg. Minkler Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway 15 18 19 17 26 2.28 Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 21 25 46 28 37 1.91 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park East 7 9 17 13 10 1.42 South 180th St at Southcenter Parkway 15 15 6 14 10 1.33 Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive 18 9 13 18 13 1.20 West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard ** 23 10 23 16 15 1.06 West Valley Highway at South 180th Street 12 25 22 19 27 0.99 Tukwila Parkway at 61st Ave South 8 13 12 11 10 0.80 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West 12 3 3 7 8 0.74 South 180th St at Andover Park West 8 10 7 5 11 0.72 Andover Park East at South 180th St 6 9 4 8 5 0.45 Southcenter Parkway at Tukwila Parkway 0 2 10 2 2 0.34 South 180th Street at Sperry Drive 2 7 5 4 5 0.32 Tukwila Parkway at 66th Ave South 0 0 0 2 0 0.05 The City of Tukwila Transportation Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Plmnnfnp 6 _ Enafnmmrinc • Intersection Accidents by Year and 5 -Year Accident Rates, 1997 -2001 Table 2-6• Mid -Block Accidents per Year and 5 Year Accident Rates, 1997 -2001 * Accident Rate = ( #Accidents x 1 Million V e h ic l es ) / (AADT x 3 65 Days) ** Fatality Locations Source: City of Tukwila Police Department and Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -34 M i Transportation Planning 6 Enpinaarinp Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents Figure 2 -26 shows the relative frequency of each type of accident. Only 0.5 percent of the reported accidents include pedestrian or cyclists. Of the four pedestrian or bicycle accidents reported between 1997 and 2001 and shown in Table 2 -7, two occurred in the evening. A bicyclist was only involved in one accident —a night accident involving a bicycle with no lights. No fatalities or major injuries resulted from any of these accidents. Figure 2 -26: Accidents by Type 1997 to 2001 Sideswipe Approach Turn 19.4% 19.7% Right Angle 20.1% Source. Tukwila Police Department Rear End 31.5% Backing 1.0% Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 4.5% Head -on 1.4% Other 1.8% Ped/Cyclist Involved 0.5% -r September 2005 Page 1 -35 } {'; T '" Y^ .j. In 'ry4A r+Ky'{'Ki" -1 ' I ritersecttons � ,.�x�2 �:. ,� ,�.,,�.� •w F'% ..� ... .. �'F Yea rw; rt..,.� �- ��a.�., � . .S�, a 1 ..c.ri hf Acce nts I -x(199 0 1 � �x r e^`^ h.. _ fFCUy. �6fi:�,. -"' Acci ent Type A ;.x•�,.�x �,�a�- .�._.: Minkler Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway 1997 1 Pedestrian Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 1997 1 Bicycle West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard 1997 1 Pedestrian S. 180th Street at Southcenter Parkway 2000 1 Pedestrian Transportation Planning A Enginaaring Source: City of Tukwila Police Departmen The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2- FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION Train Volumes _ Tracks for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Southern Pacific (UPSP) railroads border the west side of the Tukwila Urban Center. International and local cargo travels over these two rail networks to inland U.S. markets, including the Midwest, South, and East. BNSF operates approximately 30 trains per day throt-gh Tukwila, and Union Pacific operates approximately 20. In addition, Amtrak operates 8 passenger trains per day through the city, and Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail runs 4 passenger trains per day. In 1995, the WSDOT Office of Urban Mobility and the Puget Sound Regional Council, with active participation by affected cities and counties, the ports, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific /Southern Pacific railroads initiated the FAST Corridor Project (Freight Action Strategy for Seattle - Tacoma — Everett). Fast Phase I specified 15 projects designed to improve the movement of goods throughout greater Puget Sound, including a $15.5 million railroad bridge overpass at S 180th Street in Tukwila, scheduled for completion in Fall 2002'. The project includes a four -lane arterial which crosses the Burlington Northern /Santa Fe and Union Pacific /Southern Pacific rail lines (at grade) in Tukwila. Current rail traffic is expected to increase significantly. - Existing Railroad Rights of Way Railroad ownership generally falls into one of two categories: 1. Mainlines that are operated and controlled by the railroad company, the State Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -36 Traneportatlon Planning Co. Engineering 2. Industrial Spurs that are operated and controlled by the railroad company and private property owners Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad both operate on mainline tracks on the eastern periphery of the Tukwila Urban Center. A number of industrial spur lines traverse the Tukwila Urban Center, including two north /south lines east of Andover Park East and Andover Park West and three shorter north/south lines in the blocks between Minider Boulevard and Triland Drive and Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. The east /west spurs connect the mainline to the vicinity of the Tukwila Pond Park, south of Strander Boulevard, and also parallel Minkler Boulevard and South 180th Streets between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. The railroad or the private property owner can approach each other to remove tracks and equipment from an inactive or unprofitable industrial spur route, but the railroad company has exclusive authority to assess the route's continued viability. If the railroad company wants to close down ( "abandon ") part of the mainline system, it must provide a year's notice and obtain permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The question as to whom the property reverts in the event of the closure of an industrial spur depends upon easement conditions and who owns the land and is best determined through a title search. In December 1993, the City of Tukwila commissioned a report on the feasibility of converting certain railroad corridors within the Tukwila Urban Center to a multi- purpose pedestrian/bicycle trail system. That study (prepared by MacLeod Reckford) reported that ownership of rights of way along the railroad spur lines must be determined through a title search in order to be fully accurate. Additional information - is available through the King County Assessor's Office, which sometimes includes references to rights of way or easements on specific tax parcels. Truck Transportation Tables 2 -8, 2 - 9, and 2 - 10 show heavy vehicle volumes at intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center for AM, noon and PM peak periods. 'Intersections with heavy vehicles as higher percentages of traffic volumes are listed first on each table. The City of Tukwila's commercial and warehouse businesses generate a substantial amount of truck traffic through the Tukwila Urban Center. Heavy vehicles (trucks, _ buses and recreational vehicles) commonly comprise about two percent of general traffic, but at intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center, AM peak period heavy traffic volumes average eight percent of general traffic. This figure drops to three percent during the noon and PM peak periods. Additional findings are noted below: • The West Valley Highway carries significant heavy vehicle volumes and high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during AM, noon and PM peak periods Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -37 Treneporeetlon Planning 6 EnglnaerIng • S 180th Street between Andover Park West and the_West Valley Highway also shows sustained high volumes of heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day • The roadways bordering Southcenter Mall (Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West) experience moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East carries moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Minkler Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West and Andover Park West between Tukwila Parkway and S 180th Street carry a high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic relative to volumes of traffic. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -38 f " ' r Intersectio ak�P nad`Heavy AM Pei e " V ehicle 1(olume ` (T to 9 A MM' H a "v ' h cl s e y Ve a _as 4 Peercento f Traffic ; `'- Volume ...... . Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 94 17% Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 95 14% Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard 80 13% Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street 65 12% S 180th Street and Sperry Drive 167 11% West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 281 11% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 111 10% S 180th Street and Andover Park West 120 10% S 180th Street and West Valley Highway 297 10% S 180th Street and Andover Park East 117 9% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 52 8% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 80 . 8% Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue 105 8% Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard 116 8% Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue 356 8% Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard - 41 7% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 85 7% Southcenter Parkway and 17500 Block 35 - 6% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 42 6% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 46 6% Andover Park East and Tukwila Parkway 57 6% Southcenter Boulevard and 61st Avenue 110 6% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 36 5% S 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway 34 4% Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue 22 2% Tukwila Parkway and 1-405 NB Access Ramp 22 2% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 9 1% ><: r. a i Tranaportatlon Planning 6 Engineering ble 2 -7: Existin AM Peak Period Heavy Vehicle Volumes in the Tukwila Urban Center Source: City of Tukwila Public Works - Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1 -39 M Traneportetion Planning s Engineering T Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1-40 Noon Peak Peri Heavy V ehicle Volum AM: to '1 P x(11_ M .t _- HeavyV ehtcles as .P ercent.of :'Traffic Int ersection ". r ��u West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 336 10% South 180th Street and West Valley Highway 265 7% South 180th Street and Andover Park East 121 6% Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue 268 5% Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 74 5% South 180th Street and Sperry Drive 134 5% South 180th Street and Andover Park West _ 102 5% Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 67 4% Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard 46 4% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 56 4% Andover Park East and Tukwila Parkway 69 4% Southcenter Boulevard and 61st Avenue 123 4% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 87 3% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 57 3% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 78 3% Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue 87 3% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 88 3% South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway 56 3% Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard 68 0% Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street 44 2% Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard 81 2% Southcenter Parkway and 17500 Block 40 2% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 51 2% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 32 1% Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue 21 1% Tukwila Parkway and 1-405 NB Access Ramp 19 1% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 21 1% M Traneportetion Planning s Engineering T Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1-40 Table 2 -10: Existing PM Peak Period Heavy Vehicle volumes in me i uxwiia urnan F r - . -7 y .:.. r .✓Y .- _a. r~ .. r` �,� ,,; r . , iitirSe.Ctid n . PM Peak •Period Heavy � art- Ve ic le l(olume F. (4 _ . M) _ , H eavy . Vehicles: as i:. , �r�., '�- P.ercentwof raff icy r me w Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 118 8% West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 177 5% South 180th Street and Andover Park West 103 5% South 180th Street and West Valley Highway 229 5% Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 59 4% South 180th Street and Sperry Drive 89 4% South 180th Street and Andover Park East 85 4% Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue 176 4% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 83 4% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 71 3% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 44 3% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 36 3% Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue 99 3% Tukwila Parkway and 1-405 NB Access Ramp 93 3% Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue 69 2% Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard 52 z % Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard 22 2% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 60 2% Andover Park East and Tukwila Parkway 29 2% Southcenter Boulevard and 61st Avenue 90 2% South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway 39 2% Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard 29 1% Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street 35 1% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 40 1% Southcenter Parkway.and 17500 Block 36 1% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 26 1% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 25 1% Trsn.port.tIon Planning & Enoinaarino Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations • September 2005 Page 1 -41 Center Transportation Planning Enginsaring NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Pedestrian Facilities Two regional multi-use trails /paths pass through the Tukwila Urban Center. The Christensen Greenbelt Trail, better known as the Green River Trail, follows the west bank of the Green River. This trail passes through a very pleasant park -like environment and is oriented toward recreational use, with a meandering alignment. Further east is the Interurban Trail, which follows the west side of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. The Interurban Trail is generally 12 feet wide and allows for higher user speeds with its straight alignment and a greater width than the Green River Trail. Most of the major Tukwila Urban Center streets have sidewalks on both sides of the street. However, most of these sidewalks are constructed as an extension of the curb, with no traffic buffer. There are only three significant spans of sidewalks that are buffered from traffic: • Andover Park West from Baker Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway (both sides) • Andover Park East from Baker Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway (east side only) • Strander Boulevard from the west mall entrance to Andover Park West (on both sides). Other than the West Valley Highway, the streets without any sidewalks are currently all low - volume access streets that extend into the superblocks (often dead -end streets). These could be key areas for pedestrian activity when redeveloped. Most of the sidewalks appear to have been recently constructed and are in good condition. Pedestrian Volumes The overall level of non - motorized transportation activity in the Tukwila Urban Center is relatively low at present. The existing pedestrian activity in the area follows two primary patterns: 1) walking to employment and shopping destinations after alighting from transit, and 2) mid -shift trips (break times and lunch times) from work places in the Tukwila Urban Center. Much of the employment in the area is in retail, and break times vary. Local and express bus routes connecting to-areas across the region serve bus stops along Andover Park West. - • Sounder commuter rail service has recently been initiated with a station on Longacres Boulevard east of the Tukwila Urban Center. There has not been -a great deal of pedestrian access to the station but this could be increased through improved connections to the Tukwila Urban Center resulting from redevelopment in the area. The pattern of mid -shift trips probably exists between Tukwila Urban Center work places and shopping and restaurants uniformly across the area. Parks are also a destination for mid -shift trips, and park expansions and enhancements could increase these pedestrian trips. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1-42 Tranaportstlon Planning ES. Enginasring Pedestrian volumes at each intersection in the Tukwila Urban Center for a single day were assembled. Table 2 -11 shows pedestrian volumes during the PM peak periods. Note that the peak hour for pedestrian traffic may be different from the peak hour for vehicular traffic. The majority of the Tukwila Urban Center corridors provide sidewalks for pedestrian travel as well as crosswalks at the signalized intersections and several unsignali7ed intersections. The following five intersections experience sizeable pedestrian crossings: • Andover Park West at Baker Boulevard • Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park East at Strander Boulevard • Strander Boulevard at Mall/Target Access Road • Andover Park West at Minkler Boulevard Residential uses are typically a key to the pedestrian activity in an area, and the present lack of residential uses is probably a factor in the low pedestrian levels. Also, people living in the residential areas adjacent to the Tukwila Urban Center face significant traffic and topographic barriers to accessing the Tukwila Urban Center. Again, development proposals to increase residential uses within the Tukwila Urban Center could also result in greater pedestrian activity levels. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 1-43 TO TAL PE AK AM y MIDD INTERSECTION � . , _ _ x . ,; �.PE VOLU Andover Park West at Baker Boulevard 213 69 69 75 Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard 200 6 83 111 Andover Park East at Strander Boulevard 92 18 35 39 Strander Boulevard at Mall/Target Access Road 81 7 45 29 Andover Park West at Minkler Boulevard 42 19 14 9 South 180th Street at Sperry Drive 35 17 12 6 Andover Park East at Minkler Boulevard 33 6 25 2 Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue 32 8 8 16 Tukwila Parkway at 61st Avenue 29 3 13 13 Andover Park East at Baker Boulevard 22 5 6 11 Southcenter Parkway at Minkler Boulevard 22 3 10 9 Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 17 0 8 9 South 180th Street at 72nd Avenue South 16 4 4 8 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West 16 0 9 7 Andover Park East at Saxon Drive 16 0 16 0 Strander Boulevard at West Valley Highway 13 3 2 8 South 180th Street at Andover Park West 13 6 2 5 Southcenter Parkway at South 168th Street 12 4 5 3 Andover Park East at Tukwila Parkway 11 0 1 10 Southcenter Parkway at 17500 Block 11 4 4 3 Tukwila Parkway at 1-405 NB On -Ramp 7 1 3 3 Southcenter Boulevard at 66th Avenue 6 2 4 0 Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive 3 1 1 1 South 180th Street at Andover Park East 3 2 1 0 South 180th Street at Southcenter Parkway 1 0 0 1 West Valley Highway at South 180th Street 0 0 0 0 Southcenter Parkway at Nordstrom Entrance 0 0 0 0 Treneportetion Planning 6 Englnearing The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -11. Existing Peak Period Pedestrian Traffic Volumes (2002) Source. City of Tukwila Bicycle Travel There have not been significant bicycling levels observed in the area, but the recent expansion of the Green River (Christiansen Greenbelt) and Interurban Trails have the potential to increase, the number of bicyclists. These trails can bring cyclists and walkers to the Tukwila Urban Center from a considerable distance: The Green River Trail extends north to Seattle and south to Auburn. The Interurban Trail extends from the Tukwila Urban Center south to Auburn. While there has not been any collection of demographic data for Tukwila Urban Center -area trail users, it is likely that such data would resemble that from the surveys of Burke -Gilman trail users. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-44 II Mirai� Transportation ' Planning s Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation CHAPTER 3. 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR TUKWILA URBAN CENTER This chapter describes the set of facility improvements recommended to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments in the Tukwila Urban Center. The recommendations are built upon land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, and include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. Additionally, a sensitivity test was conducted to assess the traffic impacts of the Tukwila South development in 2020. 2020 BASELINE ARTERIAL NETWORK WITH NO ACTION LAND USE The 2020 baseline network used for the Tukwila Urban Center traffic forecast analysis (shown in Figure 3-1) assumed the following improvements would occur by 2020: • I-405 will be widened by 1 lane in each direction through Tukwila • The 61st Avenue S/ 66th Avenue S overpasses over I-405 will be reconstructed due to the widening of I-405 • Tukwila Parkway will be extended to the West Valley Highway • Northbound I-405 on -ramp near the intersection of Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West will be moved to the area near West Valley Highway • Strander Boulevard will be extended to Oaksdale Avenue • New 168th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East will be constructed with 3 lanes. • Southcenter Parkway south of South 180th Street will be widened. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -1 IMirai al Transportation Planning & Engineering Figure 3 -1: Network Improvements assumed in the 2020 Baseline Network legend.; Freeway Ramp i River I . r.....,.... Trail I Raped 1 floc labs** �. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3- 2 Mirai Transportation Planning . Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOUR) WITH BASE LINE NETWORK AND NO ACTION LAND USE Tukwila Urban Center In order to calculate intersection levels of service for the future planning year, the forecast volumes from the Tukwila model were "post-processed." This means that the model volumes were adjusted with the existing traffic counts and checked for consistency through the traffic corridors within the study area. Post - processing is done manually using electronic spreadsheets. After completing the post - processing work, the 2020 PM peak hour traffic volumes were input to Synchro software used to calculate the levels of service. The 2020 volumes were post - processed for three different scenarios: the No Action, the Mall- to-Station, and the Mall- to-Pond. The traffic network was essentially the same for all the three scenarios. They only differed from each other in the land use. Figure 3-2 shows the 2002 PM peak hour traffic approach volumes and 2020 No Action land use volumes with the baseline network for the major arterials in the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 3-3 shows the 2020 PM peak hour traffic approach volumes for the No Action, Mall- to-Pond, and Mall- to-Station land use scenarios. There are no significant traffic volume differences between the Mall - to-Pond and Mall- to-Station 2020 land use scenarios. Note the forecast volumes were obtained with the baseline network assumptions. September 2005 Page 3- 3 Tren®portation PI®nning s Engineering i Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -1: 2002 Existing and 2020 No Action Land Use Intersection Approach Volumes North Tir Legend: Freeway Ramp River - Railroad Note: not to scale September 2005 Page 3- 4 MiraII T•eneportstion Pienninp 15.. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -2: 2020 Intersection Approach Volumes for the No Action, Mall -to -Pond and Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenarios North t — — Volumes — 1 2020 No Jk6on , � 2020 Mal to Paid ' EMI 2020141a0 b Star= I I Legend: # .r�rr...rr.. Freeway I Ramp ., River I 1 Trail 1 .... _.—.._ Railroad I Note: act is scale 181 : 1640 {rnl 1270 , ] 1260 1260 a 1800 11.1 1510 is 990 1141 2290 © '' tl 8 2190 s{ � 2100 Or Cerpireg Or* j �t}Ililr / x 9 ZiGGO 1930E © ,530 �� 900 pun un 17 50 tz� teoo � © � 1690 220 550 Ion 230 Ma 7 MD 1350 1400 1200 1530 1710 1410 Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 5 I M IMiraii 51 Treneportation Planning 6 Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR NO ACTION LAND USE WITH BASELINE NETWORK The 2020 traffic volume for each intersection approach was read by Synchro software to calculate future levels of service. Figure 3-3 shows the result for each intersection in terms of LOS and average intersection delay for the 2020 No Action land use scenario with the Baseline transportation network. Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the results from the LOS calculations, with delay at each intersection for the Mall-to -Pond and Mall-to- Station land use scenarios with the Baseline network, respectively. A total of nine intersections for the Mall-to -Pond scenario, and seven intersections for the Mall-to- Station scenario would operate at LOS F, a highly congestion condition. Figure 3-6 shows the congested intersections along with the projected delay per vehicle. The LOS F intersections are identified as follows: • Tukwila Boulevard/ West Valley Highway • Tukwila Boulevard /61St Avenue South • Southcenter Parkway /Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 NB off -ramp) • Andover Park West /Tukwila Parkway • Northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway (unsignalized intersection) • Klickitat Drive at I -5 Southbound on -ramp (unsignalized intersection) • Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West • Strander Boulevard /Andover Park East • Strander Boulevard/ West Valley Highway • South 180th Street /Southcenter Parkway • South 180th Street /West Valley Highway Note that the unsignalized intersection at the Northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway would have a large delay. While figures show the delay to be more than 600 seconds at this intersection that may not be reliable. However, any delay of more than 300 seconds should not be viewed as a reasonable delay. Regardless of the actual delay at this intersection, the section of Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard would have serious traffic congestion problems under the existing street conditions in 2020. Mirai Associates analyzed the level of service for each movement and conducted a sensitivity analyses to bring the intersection to a level of service LOS E. These analyses and evaluations were repeated for all LOS intersections. Traffic improvements to meet the LOS E standard are recommended in the next section of this chapter. September 2005 Page 3- 6 Mirai Transportation Planning 6 Englnaaring Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -3: 2020 Levels of Service for the No Action Land Use Scenario (Baseline network) North Legend: •womowimm Freeway Ramp ca=".-- River — Railroad Note: not b scale r I s Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service I Delay September 2005 Page 3- 7 IMi r;a i Treneportetion Planning 6 Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3-4: 2020 Levels of Service for the Mall -to -Pond Land Use Scenario (Baseline Network) September 2005 Page 3- 8 Mirai Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -5: 2020 Levels of Service for the Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenario (Baseline Network) Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 9 Figure 3-6: 2020 Delays at the Congested Intersections (LOS F) under the Mall-to-Pond and Mall-to-Station Land Use Scenarios (Baseline Network) Legend: Freeway Ramp River Trail Railroad Note: not to scale 673 64 sec Delay in Seconds for Mall to Pond Delay in Seconds for Mall to Station 154 sec , 122 sec Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3 -10 Mirai Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Mirai Associates evaluated potential improvements for all intersections projected to have LOS F in 2020. The goal was to find an improvement that would have the intersection meet LOS E as a starting point of the analysis within the Tukwila Urban Center. The arterial improvements proposed in this study are shown in Figure 3-7. The improvements are needed in part because of the I-405 corridor projects assumed in the baseline network. But also, the traffic volumes will grow and the levels of service will be degraded, in large part, because of the projected land use growth under No Action land use, including the pending Westfield Southcenter Mall expansion. Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard Improvements • Construct a grade- separated structure at the Klickitat Drive / Southcenter Parkway intersection. • Restrict the traffic movements for vehicles exiting the northbound I -5 off -ramp south of Klickitat Drive. All exiting vehicles should be restricted to the movement that puts them onto southbound Southcenter Parkway and through the intersection with Strander Boulevard. Those vehicles should not be allowed to make southbound left turns at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection. • Convert the existing northbound right turn lane on Southcenter Parkway, south of Strander Boulevard, to a through -lane and add a short northbound right turn lane. • Install a signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive at I -5 southbound on -ramp. Southcenter Boulevard /61` Avenue Overpass Improvements • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the I -5 ramps and 61st Avenue by one lane in each direction. (The eastbound lane is a higher priority improvement than the westbound lane.) • Re- construct the 61st Avenue South overpass with seven lanes, when WSDOT increases the number of lanes on I-405 below the 61st Avenue overpass. • Add a southbound one -way inbound entrance to Westfield Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue South/Tukwila Parkway intersection. Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Tukwila Parkway from a point 200 to 250 feet west of Andover Park West to Andover Park East. • Re- construct the 66th Avenue South overpass with 6 lanes when WSDOT widens I-405. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -11 Mirai Tranapartation Planning 6 En®Inaaring i Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation • Add a northbound right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway. Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway Improvements • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Extend the existing northbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway when I- 405 is widened. Strander Boulevard Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Strander Boulevard from a point 250 feet west of Andover Park East to West Valley Highway. • Add one southbound through lane at the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection South 168 Street Improvements • Construct a new 3-lane arterial on South 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Minkler Boulevard Extension Improvements • Extend Minkler Boulevard from Industry Drive to West Valley Highway. • Improve the intersection of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park East. Signal Operational Improvements • Adjust signal operations for the following intersections: South 180th Street /Southcenter Parkway, and South 180th Street/ West Valley Highway. Additional Improvements for the "Mall -to- Pond" scenario The following two improvements are also needed in addition to the recommended projects listed above. • Add a westbound right turn lane at the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection. • Add an additional northbound left turn lane at the Strander Boulevard /West Valley Highway intersection. September 2005 Page 3 -12 Mirai Transportation Planning & Englnaaring Figure 3 -7: Proposed Improvements for 2020 in the Tukwila Urban Center Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3 -13 Mira' Tran ra on spotti Planning G. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The 2020 levels of service with the proposed improvements are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3 -9. Figure 3-10 highlights the improvements to the delays at the congested intersections. The proposed improvements will bring all congested intersections to operate at LOS E or better in 2020 under the No Action and Mall- to-Station land use growth scenario. September 2005 Page 3 -14 Mirai Trnn- portetion Plonning s Engineering Figure 3 -8: 2020 Levels of Service'with Proposed Network Improvements for the Mall -to -Pond Land Use Scenario Legend: Neweemims Freeway Ramp -= River - -- -- -- Railroad Nate: net b scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3 -15 M i r a ! Transportation Planning 6 Engineering Figure 3 -9: 2020 Levels of Service with Proposed Network Improvements for the Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenario North Legend: i.rwwrlwwom Freeway Ramp l River Tratl Railroad Note: not to scale 1 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation st\Nok Level of Service Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -16 Mirai II Treneportetion Planning 6 Engineering i The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -10: 2020 Intersection Delays with Proposed Improvements at Congested Intersections North !L Little Delay ittle De Legend: Freeway Ramp irr,tmaano River Trail Railroad Note: not b scale 89 sec Delay in Seconds for Mall to Pond 84 'sec. Delay in Seconds for Mall to Station 79sec 72 sec '; <�I Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 - 17 Mirai Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation COST OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Table 3-1 is a summary of the project worksheets in 2005 dollars. The cost estimates in Table 3 -3 are for the proposed improvements for the Mall- to-Station land use scenario and No Action land use. Table 3.1: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Proposed Improvements (2005 Dollars) ummaary forge Potential Ti koiii.Oiproptt Center, New Klickitat flyover, signal at SB 1-5 on- ramp/Klickitat, NB lane south of Strander on Southcenter Pkwy Addition of one EB lane west of 61st S on Southcenter Blvd Addition of one WB lane west of 61st S on Southcenter Blvd Addition of one EB lane from west of Andover Park W to Andover Park E on Tukwila Pkwy and NB right turn lane on Andover Park E south of Tukwila Pkwy Widening of E -W approaches at Southcenter Blvd. and West Valley Hwy and extend! NB left pocket on West Valley Hwy Addition of one EB lane from west of Andover Park E to West Valley Hwy on Strander Blvd and one SB lane on West Valley north of Strander Blvd 168th Street from Southcenter Pkwy to Andover Park E Minkler Boulevard Extension Total Construction with Contingency $5,282,340 $2,502,360 $1,741,680 $5,992,320 $15,000,000 $55,788,860 Right -of -Way $1,760 000 0 $885,000 $540,000 $1,140,000 $1,500,000 $11,125,000 Engineering and Construction Management $1,586,000 $524,000 $1,799,000 $3,750,000 $15,928,000 Total $22,000,000 $6,868,340 $3,254,360 $3,150,680 $4,712,880 $8,931,320 $13,674,280 $20,250,000 $82,831,860 t,osts are oases on estimatea two aouars. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -18 II M i ra i Trenaportetion Planning 6 Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation HIGH PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Mirai Associates identified a set of the improvements that should be implemented as high priority items in the next 10 years. The recommendations are based on the existing levels of traffic congestion, the anticipated near -term developments in the Urban Center area, and the current understanding of the I Corridor Program implementation schedule. The recommended high priority improvements are shown in Figure 3-11. September 2005 Page 3 -19 i Mirai Traneportetion Planning & Engineering Figure 3 -11: High Priority Improvements =MS Dr Legend: f .r.., .,... Freeway I Ramp River - Trail I Railroad toscale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3- 20 II Mirai Treneporaetion Planning & Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation ADDITIONAL 2020 LEVEL OF SERVIEC ANALYSIS A 2020 traffic city -wide forecast model was developed that included the land use growth forecasts for the No-Action and Mall- to-Station land use growth scenarios, along with a proposed development called Tukwila Valley South (called the "combined land use scenario "). The 2020 traffic conditions for the streets and intersections within the TUC area are described in the following section. The model volumes were post - processed to attain the turning movement volumes for the TUC intersections, which were then processed through the Synchro model to calculate intersection level of service. After completing this task, the City asked Mirai to carry out additional modeling and traffic forecasting work. Several changes to the 2020 network within the TUC were modeled and the traffic conditions were analyzed for the combined scenario. This memo summarizes the results of these traffic analyses. Land Use Assumptions related to Tukwila Valley South As a part of the TUC traffic analysis, Mirai developed forecasts for the year 2020 with the Mall- to-Station scenario land use. The model volumes were post - processed to calculate the levels of service at the TUC intersections. Table 3-2 shows the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) with the Mall- to-Station land use scenario for the year 2020 in the Tukwila Valley South area (TAZ 26, 27,103 and 104). This table also shows the TUC model land use assumptions for Renton s South Lake Washington area (TAZ 426) and Kent Freight Center (TAZ 107). The Tukwila Valley South DEIS provided the land use growth assumptions for the year 2030. Table 3-3 shows the 2030 land use used in the Tukwila Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Figure 3-12 shows the Traffic Analysis Zones. September 2005 Page 3- 21 Mirai Transportation Pisnning & Enpinaarinp The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Table 3 -2: 2020 Tukwila Model Land Use Assumptions for the Mall-To-Station Scenario in the Tukwila Valley South, Renton and Kent Boeing Areas 020 Land Use:(Mall -to- Station Scenario) 26 27 103 104 107 426 4 12 0 0 2,155 0 0 0 5 98 101 0 0 0 91 1,221 0 0 0 0 0 217 Warehouse Transportation I Jtilities 445 1,000 0 0 3 285 523 63 0 0 5,030 11,274 Inployment 1,069 1,063 0 0 Sub - Total 17 0 101 1,445 586 2,132 5,129 13,095 Table 3-4: 2030 Buildout Land Use Assumptions in the Tukwila Valley South DEIS ;2030 Land, Use (Tukwila South DEIS) 26 27 103 104 107 426 775 25 450 650 0 3538 3,078 578 417 0 5 1,297 2,977 670 11,831 3,636 91 14,322 0 0 781 1,389 0 217 W Transportation. Utilities ; :__ 0 0 2,343 4,167 3 285 0 0 0 0 10,222 0 0 0 0 0 Sub - Total 1,900 4,073 19,115 2,170 6,509 0 31,867 10,321 16,121 To develop a new Tukwila model, with the Mall - to-Station scenario and Tukwila Valley South for 2020, a land use table was prepared for the year 2020 as shown in Table 3-5. Using the full build - out land use for 2030 (the full build -out DEIS) 80 percent of the Tukwila Valley South build -out development was assumed to be completed by 2020. This translates into a yearly commercial /residential growth of approximately 928,000 sq. ft. (assuming construction starts by 2008). To be consistent with the DEIS, the zone with Kent Space Center (TAZ 107) was assumed to add an additional 5,192 manufacturing jobs and 2,596 office jobs. For the Renton South Lake Washington area re- development (TAZ 426), the Mall-to- Station scenario assumes that this area will continue to be manufacturing, while the Tukwila Valley South DEIS assumes a service oriented land use scenario. For this modeling, Mirai assumed that this area would have a mix of manufacturing and service jobs. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 22 Mirai Transportation Plann Imp Engineering 1 Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3-12: Tukwila Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) • • Mb 1 • • „,,,,44e.,••04•••• • • ,•,11 September 2005 Page 3- 23 Facility Description Strander Boulevard Extend from SR -181 to Oaksdale Ave SW in Renton 1-405 Assumes "1-405 Implementation Scenario" with modifications at SR -181 ramps and Tukwila Parkway extension to SR -181 Southcenter Parkway Widen to 4/5 lanes from S 180 to S. 200 Klickitat Flyover NB to WB flyover from Southcenter Parkway S.168 Street East -west arterial between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East SR -509 Extend from S. 188 Way to 1 -5 Sound Transit Light Rail Transit: Northgate to SeaTac Airport Mir ai Trenaportetion Planning & Engineering 1 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Table 3 -5: 2020 Combined Mall-To-Station and Tukwila Valley South Land Use Assumptions 2020 Combined Mal -to- Station and Tukwila South Land Use 26 27 103 104 107 426 Household 620 20 360 520 0 2,847 Retail 2,463 463 333 0 5 625 2,382 526 9,464 2,909 91 6,967 Government 0 0 625 1,111 0 195 Warehouse .._......_.... ........_. ........ ............_.......... Transp. Utilities 0 0 1,874 3,333 3 255 Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 7,626 5,653 Total Employment 4,844 999 12,296 7,354 Sub - Total 1,520 3,259 15,292 1,736 5,207 0 25,494 7,725 13,095 Baseline Network (2020) In order to understand the growth of traffic with the combined Mall to land use scenario and the Tukwila Valley South development, 2020 traffic forecasts with the baseline network were made with the model. The baseline network assumes that some committed improvements would occur by 2020. Table 3-6 list the improvements assumed under the No Action network. Other regional facilities have been assumed to be consistent with regional plans, but they would have a minimal effect on the Tukwila urban area and are therefore not listed in the table. Table 3-6: Improvements to the Model Network Under the Baseline Network 2020 Traffic Forecasts with the Baseline Network With the baseline network assumptions incorporated into the Tukwila travel demand forecasting model, the 2020 PM Peak hour model volumes for the combined Mall-to- Station and Tukwila Valley South growth scenarios were developed. The resulting volumes were post - processed based on the existing intersection turning movement volumes and existing demand model volumes to arrive at the 2020 PM Peak hour turning movement volumes. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 24 Mirai Transportation Planning s Enginaaring Figure 3-13 shows the intersection approach volumes for the 2020 Mall- to-Station only and the 2020 combined Mall- to-Station and Tukwila South conditions. The combined land use scenario adds significant volumes on the TUC arterials including Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila Parkway, Andover Park West, and West Valley Highway. In some links, the traffic volume increases are 40 to 50 percent over the Mall- to-Station scenario. Synchro (Version 5) traffic software was used to analyze the traffic operational performance of selected intersections in the TUC area. The performance results are presented in the form of intersection levels of service (LOS) and average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3- 25 I Mirai l Transportation Planning Enpinaaring Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -13: Intersection Approach Volumes (2020) For Mall -To- Station And Combined Mall -To- Station And Tukwila Valley South Scenarios September 2005 Page 3- 26 Mirai Tranaportatlon Planning & Englnaaring i Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 Levels of Service with the Combined Land Use and Baseline Network The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the combined Mall- to-Station and Tukwila South scenario are shown in Figure 3-14. The levels of service at the following intersections would be lowered to LOS F with the combined scenario. These intersections would drop from LOS E or better with the Mall- to-Station scenario under the Baseline network condition, to LOS F: 1. Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Blvd (avg. delay: 91 second per vehicle) 2. Southcenter Parkway/ Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 NB Off Ramp) (avg. delay: 142 second per vehicle) 3. Southcenter Parkway / Klickitat Drive (avg. delay: 91 second per vehicle) 4. Minkler Blvd / Andover Park West (avg. delay: 93 second per vehicle) 5. South 180th Street / Andover Park West (avg. delay: 134 second per vehicle) 6. South 180th Street/ West Valley Highway (avg. delay: 118 second per vehicle) There are 35 intersections in the TUC where levels of service were calculated. Of those, 16 intersections, or about one -half of them would operate at LOS F in 2020 under the Baseline network conditions. Figure 3-15 shows the levels of service with the proposed improvements. September 2005 Page 3- 27 Mira Transportation Planning Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -14: 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS and Delay for Combined Mall -To- Station and Tukwila Valley South Scenario with Baseline Network North I Legend: I I .. Freeway Ramp l l Trail I Railroad 1 b scale Unsigaal Intersection Level of Service I Delay September 2005 Page 3- 28 Mirai Transportation Planning & Enginaaring Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -15. 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay for Combined Mali - To- Station and Tukwila Valley South Scenario with Proposed Improvements Nora, Legend: ardrarr Freeway Ramp wrztursn River .....,.. �.- .., >...., Tray — ° - Railroad Nate: not to acate t 1 1 t i!t Unsignalized � knterseection Level of Service I Delay September 2005 Page 3- 29 iMirai� Transportation Planning EngInaaring Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Sensitivity Analyses The City asked Mirai to model a revised network in the TUC and ran it with the combined Mall - to-Station and Tukwila Valley South land use scenario. The network changes that were applied to this model run are described below. The network changes in the TUC, modeled for this sensitivity analysis, are shown in Figure 3-16. The network changes include: 1. Conversion of Andover Park West to a 3 -lane road (two through lanes with a two-way center left turn lane) from a 4/5 -lane road from Tukwila Parkway to S 168th Street. 2. Conversion of Andover Park East to a 3-lane road (two through lanes with a two- way center left turn lane) from a 4 -lane road from Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd. 3. Extension of 2 -lane Evans Black Drive to Andover Park West and Christensen Road. 4. Extension of Treck Drive as a two-lane road to Andover Park West. 5. Extension of Saxon Drive as a two-lane road to S 180th Street. 6. Addition of a new 2 -lane road from Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West at a mid point between S 168th Street and Minkler Boulevard. 7. Addition of a new 2 -lane road from S 168th Street to Minkler Boulevard (between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West). 8. Addition of a new 2 -lane road between Andover Park West and Andover Park East as an extension of Midland Drive. Figure 3-17 shows the changes to PM peak hour traffic volume changes due to the network changes. When the Mall- to-Station land use scenario is combined with the Tukwila Valley South, with the network changes and proposed improvements, many intersections in the TUC would operate at LOS F. The reduction of capacity on Andover Park West and Andover Park East would result in lower levels of service near the Southcenter Mall area. As can be seen in Figure 3 -18, the following intersections would operate at LOS F under this network and land use scenario: • West Valley Corridor - at Southcenter Boulevard, at Strander Boulevard, and at S 180th Street • Andover Park East - at Tukwila Parkway, and at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park West - at Tukwila Parkway, at Strander Boulevard, Minkler Boulevard, and at S 180th Street • Southcenter Parkway - at Nordstrom Entrance, at Strander Boulevard, and S 180th Street September 2005 Page 3- 30 II M i ra i Transportation Planning 6 Enginearing Figure 3 -16: A Test Network for a Sensitivity Analysis New Street Street Extension Conversion to 2 lane road with twt_n.• • .1t o Way tettAsnlmQ Note: not b scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3- 31 7 1 TranBPortation Planning 6 Enginaaring Mi Figure 3 -17: 2020 PM Peak Hour Link Volume Changes Due to the Revised Network Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 3- 32 Miraii Transportation Planning & Engineering Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -18: 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service for Combined Development with the Revised Network North { Legend: Freeway Ramp I sLtIr River I ° Railroad { Note: not b seek r I ` { { Level of Service I Unsignalized Intersection Delay vk September 2005 Page 3- 33 Transportation Planning G. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Chapter 4. Traffic Analysis for the Areas Outside the Tukwila Urban Center Chapter 4 documents the traffic conditions for the areas of the City outside the Urban Center for the 2002 existing and the future 2020 conditions and presents improvements recommended for the area. INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies a set of facility improvements that will be needed to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments outside of the Tukwila Urban Center. Based upon the land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, a preferred set of improvements are recommended. The land use forecasts include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. This chapter includes a description of the PM peak hour conditions for the 2002 existing roadway network, the 2020 No Action network, and the 2020 roadway conditions with the recommended improvements. The existing conditions show the volumes (counts) at selected intersections for the year 2002. The term "2020 No Action Network" applies to the traffic volumes under the 2020 land use conditions with the existing roadway facility assumptions. The term "2020 conditions with the recommended improvements" refers to the traffic volumes under the 2020 land use and includes the recommended improvements needed to achieve LOS E, which was use as an initial level of service standard. This Chapter has been used to identify the transportation improvements the City for the Transportation Element Update of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Study Area Figures 4 and B) show the entire.Tukwila study area. For illustrative purposes only, the study area has been divided into two sections, a north and south section. The northern section covers the area between the City limits on the north and South 154th Street. The southern section extends from South 154th Street to the City limits on the south. South 154th Street is included as part of the southern section. In total, forty -one intersections were analyzed. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4 1 • Transportation Planning A Engineering Figure 4 -1A: Tukwila Study Area — North The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 2 Transportation Planning 6 EnpinaarInp Figure 4 -1 B: Tukwila Study Area — South 3162n 2 9,66291 31723 St Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 4- 3 Transportation Planning Engineering LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES The study evaluated the 2020 conditions using the Tukwila Model developed by Mirai Associates with EMME /2 software. Synchro 5.0 was used to determine the level of service (LOS) for the study area under the existing (2002) and 2020 conditions. However, the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard was analyzed using Synchro 6.0. This was done because Synchro 5.0 cannot model two -way left -turn lanes and, consequently, does not accurately portray performance of the intersection. The following sections of this chapter use the same LOS methodologies applied to the 2020 analysis for the Tukwila Urban Center EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) Mirai calculated the existing PM peak hour LOS for all arterial intersections, including selected state facilities (those intersections with freeway ramps) and unsignalized intersections. Figure 4-2 shows the LOS and delays for the northern section of the study area. The corresponding PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4-3. The corresponding information for the southern section of the study area is shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5. Under 2002 conditions, one intersection in the study area operates at LOS E, and six intersections operate at LOS D. The following unsignalized intersection operates at LOS E for at least one approach: • 51th Ave South and Ryan Way - eastbound approach It should be noted that this intersection is part of the City of Seattle. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 4- 4 1 1 Tranaoortatlon Planning S. Enginaaring Figure 4 -2: Tukwila North Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Page 4- 5 •� 16 1/1 j w i f. W .; 14.3 I xaa j4+ .61 77 J 21 ..4. t& ... 2 Ai Hi 1r ') M 414 It 0 7 2-- 1,1 40 212 1 13 + tN 1 )L � Int I1 tai 74 4 1r t 12 p111 i u V4if''m /173413 2 *1 11 ,.� l tri 1 t o 03 t lI +lt `1M ' 16 .44 u7w 3 •4 l 4; R. 1 11 4 ' R.. 1 + �4 : t.— -*NI j 'a 4 *4 \ + 1'. k R y U ,j 44 11 l '61 23 17 12, t" t r' 2 32 22 + +4 �1 i ,� , • is* a�( s' � N fni A S S O C I A T E S Figure 4 -3: Tukwila North Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 4- 6 4 1 Iii 774 N ) t „ .11•■•• 20 r" *It r• 1112714 t r' :11,413 t r ► 0 1+174* :11 .4. . Y 7 t . �- IS. r u • 14.0 a 11 nW II 142 4 1 Jr i*l 1k ,' 2 --y 22 1 2 24 11 A S S O C I A T E S Figure 4-4: Tukwila South Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 4- 7 Mi Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4-5: Tukwila South Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes - 5 - 7 1117t1.1. no.. LT rn _14 I 0 '4 • "••" • - 3 .. ;4 4 r.waco• rJorto.A Pc■•••• 1 LLL INA ... N .-.- --- • . ••0042110 -EL 99 1 -. IL lor......t.e , a - 1 -.414T , r Legend: Clv Park River F•ardaa Riarcatt a 1. ...S. 4 1 'L • 1111411•01 t t 34 2 ' Pjf Eft 133 121 — • 21,f Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 8 Transportation Punning A Enpineerinp 2020 NO ACTION LEVEL OF SERVICE The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Traffic volumes in the City are projected to increase due to the employment and housing growth projected within the City and in the areas surrounding the City. The No Action includes all projects planned for completion by the year 2020. It should be noted that the improvements at the intersection of South 154th Street and International Boulevard, included as part of the Link Light Rail Project, are accounted for in the proposed projects. The 2020 LOS were calculated using the Tukwila Model. The results show that by 2020, 28 percent of the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed (11 out of 39) will degrade to LOS F. The intersections with LOS F under the 2020 conditions are listed below. Unsig nalized Intersections The following unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F for one or more approaches under the 2020 No Action conditions: • 42nd Avenue South and South 160th Street - westbound approach • 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way - northbound approach (City of Seattle Intersection) • East Marginal Way and South 112th Street - eastbound approach • 42nd Avenue South and South 124th Street - westbound approach - • East Marginal Way and South 130th Street - southbound approach • 53rd Avenue South and South 144th Street - northbound approach • Macadam Road South and South 144th Street - westbound approach • 42nd Avenue South and South 144th Street - westbound approach • Military Road South and South 144th Street - westbound approach (City of SeaTac Intersection, but approaches are in Tukwila) • Military Road South and South 133rd Street - eastbound approach (City of SeaTac Intersection) Signalized Intersections The signalized intersections with LOS F and LOS E under the 2020 No Action conditions were identified. Approaches with significantly worse LOS have been noted in parenthesizes. - The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS F under 2020 No Action conditions: • International Boulevard and South 160th Street (northbound and southbound) (City of SeaTac Intersection) • International Boulevard and South 154th Street (southbound and westbound) (City of SeaTac Intersection) Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 9 1 Tranaporcaeion Planning s Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS E under the 2020 No Action conditions: • Martin Luther King Jr Way and South Ryan Way (northbound) • East Marginal Way and Boeing Access Road (northbound and westbound) • Tukwila International Boulevard and South 112th Street (southbound and westbound) Figures 4-6 through 4-9 show the specific delays and turning volumes at intersections within the study area. Figure 4-6 shows the LOS and delays for the northern half of the study area. The corresponding PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4-7. This information for the southern half of the study area is shown in Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4-10 Trmnmportmtton Pimnn:no 6 Eno:nmmrino Figure 4 -6: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) No Action Network LOS and Delays (Tukwila North Half) Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 4-11 Via 2 *Ub»9t to oe# -%40 4_ y 34MN 1 s • 1 re 4 jt.a to II LU- {,urou 200 ....4. 1 4 i u i» •—i 1 ( 10 s ro*a- us ... - »» Via t 14irN :,iM. - .1.81 WO p w, w \ 4'' 0 a N st 41,S • T --- -- - rtation P 6 E Ina The City of T ukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -7: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes (Tukwila North Half) A- u0 4— 4 r» d � » 14 me - op -s too —4 11 1-. - • t - - - 1Q � 1- r l• a 11• • t t at 310 14 Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4 -12 Figure 4 -8: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) No Action Network LOS and Delays (Tukwila South Half) _ Treneportation Planning & EnQinearinp Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation September 2005 Page 4- 13 Transportation Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -9: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes (Tukwila South Half) t. tens t ' am yews ! `mow . Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 14 1 Tranaporcacion Planning & Enginaaring Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH INITIALLY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action conditions, Mirai developed a list of improvement projects needed to meet LOS E as the initial standard. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is proposed are shown in Figures 4 Initially Proposed Improvements • Retime the existing signal at the intersection of International Boulevard and South 160th Street. Result: LOS E (City of SeaTac Intersection) • East Marginal Way and South 112th Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. Result: LOS E. Vehicles will be rerouted along Tukwila International Boulevard. • Add turn lanes, as specified, for the following intersections in order to improve LOS: • 42nd Avenue South and South 160th Street: provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. Result: LOS E. • Macadam Road South/53rd Avenue South and South 144th Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay In order to reduce significant delays in 2020, the following intersections were analyzed with traffic signals: • 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way - Result: LOS B (City of Seattle) • East Marginal Way and South 130th Street - Result: LOS B • 42 Avenue South and South 124th Street - Result: LOS B • Macadam Road South/51st Avenue South and South 144th Street - Result: B • Military Road and South 144th Street - Result: LOS C (City of SeaTac) • Military Road and South 133rd Street - Result: LOS C (City of SeaTac) Jurisdictional issues may impede installation of signals at the intersections of 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way as well as Military Road and South 144th Street. The intersection of 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way is in the City of Seattle. Military Road at South 144th Street is owned by the City of SeaTac. September 2005 Page 4- 15 Transportation Punning EnpinaarInp The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -10: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays with Initially Proposed Improvements Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4-16 Treneportetion Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR INITIALLY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Planning level costs estimates developed by the consultant KPG for the proposed improvements are shown in Table 4-1. Project costs range from $404,000 to $567,000 with a total cost for all improvements of $2,451,000. • Cost Estimates for Initially Proposed Improvements INTERSECTIONS TO BE MONITORED One intersection of concern is Military Road and South 144th Street. Military Road and this intersection are under the jurisdiction of the City of SeaTac. Count volumes were comparable to the field observations; however the intersection operates better than the models indicate. Platoons of five to eight vehicles arrive at the westbound approach and the resulting queue clears well, within 30 seconds. Additional turn lanes would - improve the level of service at this intersection but would eliminate shoulder and pedestrian facilities., Signalization of the intersection would improve the level of service to LOS C. The disadvantage to signalization is that it may attract additional traffic to this mainly residential area. Installation of a signal at this intersection may be difficult as noted before Military Road as the intersection is part of the City of SeaTac. The intersection should be periodically reviewed in the future. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4 Construction Right -of -way Engineering and Management Total Costs Macadam Rd /51st & S 144th Street (Signalization Improvement) $361,698 $15,220 $105,495 $483,000 Macadam Rd /53rd Ave S & S 144th St (Widening Improvement) $252,300 $77,340 $73,588 $404,000 S 124th St & 42nd Ave S (Signalization Improvement) $343,824 $22,480 $100,282 $467,000 S 160th St & 42nd Ave S (Widening Improvement) $423,246 $19,600 $123,447 $567,000 East Marginal Wy & S 130th St (Signalization Improvement) $390,054 $25,960 $113,766 $530,000 Total Costs - $2,451,000 Treneportetion Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR INITIALLY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Planning level costs estimates developed by the consultant KPG for the proposed improvements are shown in Table 4-1. Project costs range from $404,000 to $567,000 with a total cost for all improvements of $2,451,000. • Cost Estimates for Initially Proposed Improvements INTERSECTIONS TO BE MONITORED One intersection of concern is Military Road and South 144th Street. Military Road and this intersection are under the jurisdiction of the City of SeaTac. Count volumes were comparable to the field observations; however the intersection operates better than the models indicate. Platoons of five to eight vehicles arrive at the westbound approach and the resulting queue clears well, within 30 seconds. Additional turn lanes would - improve the level of service at this intersection but would eliminate shoulder and pedestrian facilities., Signalization of the intersection would improve the level of service to LOS C. The disadvantage to signalization is that it may attract additional traffic to this mainly residential area. Installation of a signal at this intersection may be difficult as noted before Military Road as the intersection is part of the City of SeaTac. The intersection should be periodically reviewed in the future. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4 Appendix A Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Final Summary Report Evaluation of Options Prepared for the City of Tukwila Prepared by Mirai Associates, with KPG iMirai 1 Traneportation Planning 6 Engineering June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Draft Summary Report: Evaluation of Options Prepared by Mirai Associates with KPG A•• C C 1 A T E• This report summarizes the evaluation of potential options that would improve traffic conditions at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway with Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard and their vicinities. This is an interim report focusing on this specific area. The conclusions of this report will be integrated into the Tukwila Urban Center Study. First Workshop The City invited community stakeholders, including city staff and consultant team members working on the Urban Center Study, and business representatives who are planning to redevelop properties in the area, to a workshop on March 10, 2003. Mirai Associates presented the existing and 2020 traffic conditions followed by a discussion about the existing and potential traffic problems. The workshop participants brainstormed possible solutions. The meeting notes of the March 10th workshop are included with this report in Attachment A. 2020 Traffic Forecast Mirai Associates developed a traffic- forecasting model for the City of Tukwila. The basis of the citywide model is the zone system and network, based on the Puget Sound Regional Council model, tailored for the use by the City of Tukwila. Using the forecasted 2020 traffic volumes, Mirai Associates used the traffic simulation models, Synchro and SimTraffic to understand the future conditions. To develop 2020 traffic forecasts, Mirai Associates used the City's land use growth projections for areas within the City of Tukwila. The land use growth forecast includes the proposed expansion of the Southcenter Mall and the redevelopment of the J.C. Penny warehouse site for retail. The forecasts are viewed as the best projections at this time, but there will be some changes in the growth forecasts as the Urban Center Study progresses. For areas outside the City, the Puget Sound Regional Council's most recent land use projections for 2020 were used. To develop the 2020 traffic forecasts, the following regional facility improvements were included as the baseline network: Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —ANAL DRAFT Page 2 June 13, 2003 im i r a i I A s 5 0 0 1 A T C$ • I-405: the addition of one GP lane in each direction from I -5 to West Valley Highway, two GP lanes in each direction from West Valley Highway to SR 522 and one GP lane in each direction from SR 522 to I -5 in Lynnwood. • Tukwila Parkway: the extension to West Valley Highway with new ramps. • Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street: the extension to 200th Street and widen to 5 lanes. • Addition of a new east -west street between Strander Boulevard and Minkler Boulevard (on the south side of Tukwila Pond): the construction of a three lane road from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Figure 1 shows the existing (2002) and 2020 PM peak hour volumes at the intersections in the focus area. Please note that the existing volumes shown in Figure 1 are not taken directly from the 2002 counts. For existing volumes, Mirai Associates adjusted the volume counts taken in April 2002 (by 25 percent) to reflect the seasonal fluctuations of the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Southcenter Mall and to produce levels of traffic congestion that are occurring throughout the year (but excluding December conditions). The same 2020 traffic volumes shown in Figure 1 are used to evaluate all the options except for one, the Klickitat Extension Option - Option 5. For Option 5 the model was re -run to estimate the traffic demand on the new Klickitat extension roadway. It is possible that the future traffic volumes could change with additional improvements, which may be recommended in the Tukwila Urban Center study. Southoenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 3 June 13, 2003 Figure 1 Existing and 2020 PM Peak Hour Volumes* (M i r a i I A •• O C I A T I E S WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER * 2002 Volumes are increased by 25 percent from the actual counts of April 2002 to accommodate seasonal fluctuations. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 4 June 13, 2003 1 Mirai AS B O C I A T I C B Screening Criteria The participants at the March 10th workshop reviewed the screening criteria presented by Mirai Associates. After adding a few more criteria to the list, the following criteria, grouped into four categories, were used to screen the options. Category Criteria Engineering Feasibility Acceptable roadway grade Acceptable horizontal curves Traffic Management Intersection level of service Intersection queue storage Accident potential Driver expectancy Capacity Environmental Impact Impact on businesses Permits approvals (Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, etc.) Land use compatibility Multi modal impacts Implementation Feasibility Cost WSDOT approval Phasing opportunities Business community approval Improvement Options Considered At the March 10th workshop many potential options to improve traffic flows on Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard were identified. The participants assisted the city and consultant team in screening the options down to a manageable number.. The set of final options to be carried forward for further evaluation were not selected at the workshop, but the group instructed City staff and the consultant to apply the criteria and decide on a final set of options. Following the workshop, the consultant team and city staff refined the potential improvement options. Through this process, a total of 17 improvement options for the area were identified. The March 10th workshop summary notes describe the 17 improvement options and present comments made by the workshop participants. (Attachment A) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 5 June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT IMira A B S 0 0 1 A T C i The following list includes all the improvement options identified at the workshop, and throughout the evaluation process, along with comments about the results of the screenings for each option. Option 1: Addition of one lane on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would not be added to the list for further evaluation because it would not provide enough capacity. Option 2: Addition of two lanes on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would be added to the list for further evaluation. Two sub - options regarding the side of the widening were identified and evaluated. • Option 2A: Widening to the east side of Southcenter Parkway. • Option 2B: Widening to the west side of Southcenter Parkway. Option 3: Widening of Southcenter Parkway to the east side and bringing the northbound left turn traffic from the right side of Southcenter Parkway to form a four - legged intersection at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. • Screening result: this option would not be added to the list for further evaluation because of cost concerns and few benefits. After reviewing this option, a variation of this option emerged, which is labeled as Option 3B. Option 3B: Northbound to westbound fly over, elevated road connecting Southcenter Parkway with Klickitat Drive. This option eliminates the northbound to westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. • Screening result: this option would be added to the list for further evaluation. Page 6 June 13, 2003 Im i r a i t A S S O C I A T E S Option 4: Grade- separated intersection at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. Screening result: this option was dropped for further evaluation, as it would be too costly with few benefits. Option 5: Extension of Klickitat Drive to the east of Southcenter Parkway. Two sub - options were identified as follows: • Option 5A: The connection of a new road, Klickitat Extension, to Strander Boulevard through the parking area of the Mall. The road would have access to the Mall parking area. • Screening result: this option would be evaluated for traffic benefit. If a large traffic benefit were found, the engineering feasibility assessment would be carried out. • Option 5B: Extension of Klickitat Drive to a parking structure of the Southcenter Mall. • Screening result: this option should be evaluated as one of the Southcenter Mall expansion EIS alternatives. No further evaluation on this effort would be carried out Option 6: Collector - distributor lanes on I -5 with new northbound ramps from Southcenter Parkway. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list as it is a long - range option and has significant impacts. Option 7: New S 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. • Screening result: this option was added to the baseline, no action condition. Option 8: New connector roadway from the I -5 /S 188th Street interchange to S 180th Street. • Screening results: as this option would not be feasible, it would be substituted with the expansion of Southcenter Parkway between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. This improvement will be included in the baseline, no action condition. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 7 June 13, 2003 1 Mirai A 5 0 0 C I A T C 5 Option 9: Extension of 61st Avenue into the Southcenter Mall north parking area. • Screening result: this options should be evaluated as one of the alternatives in the Mall expansion EIS. Option 10: Roundabouts at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive, and Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would not be included as the traffic volumes in the problem area are too high for roundabouts. (The feasibility of roundabouts was briefly evaluated after the workshop. The results of the evaluation are described in the following section.) Option 11: Re- alignment of Klickitat Drive with Strander Boulevard, with a direct connection between them. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list, as there would not be enough space along I -5 and Southcenter Parkway. (The meeting summary describes the concept of this option and why this option would be difficult to be implemented.) Option 12: Re- configuration of the Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard intersection to make the traffic movement of Strander Boulevard to Southcenter Parkway the dominant traffic movement. • Screening result: this option would be included in the list for further evaluation. Option 13: Extension of Andover Park West to Southcenter Boulevard over I405. • Screening result: this option should be evaluated as a part of the overall Tukwila Urban Center study. Option 14: Restriction of traffic movement for vehicles on NB I -5 off ramp at north of Strander Boulevard. • Screening Result: this option should be evaluated for its effectiveness but should not be included in the evaluation list. (This option was evaluated with other options combined.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options -FINAL DRAFT Page 8 June 13, 2003 M A S S O C I A T E S Option 15: Reconstruction of NB I -5 off ramp with a direct connection to the Klickitat Overpass. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list for further evaluation, as it would be difficult to be implemented. Option 16: Connection of the NB I -5 off ramp directly to the Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard intersection. • Screening result: this option would not be included in the evaluation list, as it would not be easily accomplished due to the steep grade of the off ramp. Option 17: Extension of the NB I -5 off ramp to the Southcenter Mall parking area through a tunnel under Southcenter Parkway. • Screening result: if this option were to have large traffic benefit, it would be included. Otherwise, it would not be included for further evaluation. (The evaluation showed that construction cost of this option is high and the benefit is low. It was determined that this option should not be further evaluated.) 2020 No Action Condition The no action condition makes no improvements whatsoever to the existing corridor —not even proposed improvements within the region. The same traffic volumes for this scenario will be used under the other conditions. 2020 Baseline Condition The baseline condition is basically the no action alternative that assumes no improvements in the problem area will be done. The performances of the improvement options identified above were compared to the baseline. Note that the baseline condition includes a small number of low cost transportation improvements in the vicinity of the study area that should be implemented regardless of the improvement option selected in this study. The following street improvements are assumed in the 2020 baseline condition. • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. • Construct a new east -west street on the south edge of Tukwila Pond between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 9 June 13, 2003 I M i ra AB B 0 C 1 AT L 6 • Install a new signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and southbound I -5 on -ramp to improve level of service for left turn vehicles on eastbound Klickitat Drive. • Widen the internal access road on the Southcenter Mall at the Nordstrom entrance between Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom to add a westbound left turn lane at the signal. (An additional eastbound lane may be needed. This study did not analyze the issue related to internal vehicle circulation inside the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter.) • Modify the signal phasing of the westbound approach to the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard: Allow left and right turn from the center lane of the westbound approach. • Restrict vehicles exiting at the northbound I -5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard from making left turns at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. The exiting vehicles at this off -ramp will be allowed to travel southbound Southcenter Parkway only through the intersection. This results in approximately 200 vehicle choosing to used the off ramp to the north and then travel south on Southcenter Parkway and turn left onto Strander Boulevard. The 2020 traffic volumes from the Tukwila model were manually "post - processed" and fed to a traffic simulation model called SimTraffic. Northbound 1 -5 Off -Ramp During the March 10th workshop, a question was raised about the percentage of vehicles exiting the northbound I -5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard, and making a left turn at the Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard intersection. Mirai Associates conducted a field survey in April 2003, and found the following: During the weekday PM peak hour (from 4 to 5 PM) • Total number of vehicles: 360 vehicles • Percent of the vehicles on the NB off ramp existing at the ramp south of Klickitat Drive making a southbound left turn at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection: 50 percent • Percent of the vehicles on the NB off ramp existing at the ramp south of Klickitat Drive moving southbound straight through the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection: 50 percent Mirai adjusted the computer simulation models to reflect these findings. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 10 June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT IMi rail A S S O C I A T E S Evaluation of Roundabouts During the evaluation phase, a question was raised by the City staff as to whether roundabouts at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard should be included for further evaluation in this study. To respond to this question, the capacity of two lane roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard and Klickitat Drive was calculated using the projected 2020 volumes. The option to construct one single roundabout for these two intersections is not feasible since the diameter required to accommodate the projected traffic volumes would be much larger than the available right -of -way. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Roundabout Guide was used to calculate the capacity and queues Shown in Tables 1 and 2, The analysis clearly indicates that the entering volumes are too large for a standard double -lane roundabout to accommodate them. The volume -to- capacity ratios will exceed 1.0 at the approaches on Southcenter Parkway. (When the traffic flow on an approach exceeds 85% of capacity, delays and queue lengths vary significantly about their mean.) Based on the capacity analysis, a more detailed feasibility analysis of the roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway was not recommended for this study. Table 1 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Page 11 June 13, 2003 Intersection Approach SB Southcenter EB Klickitat NB Southcenter V/C Ratio 1.13 0.61 0.93 Delay (Second) 60+ 5 18 Avg. Queue Length (Vehicles) 28+ 1.43 10.25 95 Percentile Queue (Vehicles) 100+ 5 100+ Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT IMi rail A S S O C I A T E S Evaluation of Roundabouts During the evaluation phase, a question was raised by the City staff as to whether roundabouts at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard should be included for further evaluation in this study. To respond to this question, the capacity of two lane roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard and Klickitat Drive was calculated using the projected 2020 volumes. The option to construct one single roundabout for these two intersections is not feasible since the diameter required to accommodate the projected traffic volumes would be much larger than the available right -of -way. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Roundabout Guide was used to calculate the capacity and queues Shown in Tables 1 and 2, The analysis clearly indicates that the entering volumes are too large for a standard double -lane roundabout to accommodate them. The volume -to- capacity ratios will exceed 1.0 at the approaches on Southcenter Parkway. (When the traffic flow on an approach exceeds 85% of capacity, delays and queue lengths vary significantly about their mean.) Based on the capacity analysis, a more detailed feasibility analysis of the roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway was not recommended for this study. Table 1 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Page 11 June 13, 2003 !Mira i ) A 6 f 0 C 1 A T[ 5 Table 2 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Note: The above two tables describe the level of service in the year 2020 for double -lane roundabouts. The V/C ratios were calculated using the approach volume of each leg of the intersection divided by the capacity as calculated from Exhibit 4-4 of Roundabouts: An Information Guide, published by the US Department of Transportation. The delays were calculated from Exhibit 4 -9 of the Information Guide, and the queue lengths were calculated from equation 4 -8 and Exhibit 4 -10 of the Information Guide. Initial Improvement Options For each improvement option selected for further evaluation, the concept was drawn on an aerial photograph using a scale that would provide enough detail to assess the engineering feasibility and the magnitude of impacts to the adjacent properties. The following section describes the "initial' set of the options developed based on comments made at the March 10th workshop and refinements made by City staff and the study consultants. Table 3 summarizes the options that will be further evaluated, the options that have become part of the baseline option, and options that have been rejected or assumed to be a part of another study. Attachment B provides illustrations for each option as noted. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 12 June 13, 2003 Intersection Approach SB Southcenter WB Strander NB Southcenter V/C Ratio 1.08 0.92 1.07 Delay (Second) 50 20 50 Avg. Queue Length (Vehicles) 30 7.78 29.72 95 Percentile Queue (Vehicles) 100+ 25 100+ !Mira i ) A 6 f 0 C 1 A T[ 5 Table 2 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Note: The above two tables describe the level of service in the year 2020 for double -lane roundabouts. The V/C ratios were calculated using the approach volume of each leg of the intersection divided by the capacity as calculated from Exhibit 4-4 of Roundabouts: An Information Guide, published by the US Department of Transportation. The delays were calculated from Exhibit 4 -9 of the Information Guide, and the queue lengths were calculated from equation 4 -8 and Exhibit 4 -10 of the Information Guide. Initial Improvement Options For each improvement option selected for further evaluation, the concept was drawn on an aerial photograph using a scale that would provide enough detail to assess the engineering feasibility and the magnitude of impacts to the adjacent properties. The following section describes the "initial' set of the options developed based on comments made at the March 10th workshop and refinements made by City staff and the study consultants. Table 3 summarizes the options that will be further evaluated, the options that have become part of the baseline option, and options that have been rejected or assumed to be a part of another study. Attachment B provides illustrations for each option as noted. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 12 June 13, 2003 Option Eliminated Baseline Initiative Further Review Other 1 x 2A x 2B x 3A x 3B x 4 x 5A x 5B Mall EIS 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 Mall EEIS 10 x 11 x 12 x 13 TUC Study 14 x 15 x 16 x 17 x Table 3 Summary of Option Evaluation SouthcentedTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT I M 1 r a 1 A S S O C I A T E S Option 2A: Option 2A is a two -lane widening on the east side of Southcenter Parkway. This option assumes that the widening will occur on the east side of Southcenter Parkway, which requires a retaining wall on the slope at the western edge of the Southcenter parking area. The northbound and southbound two -lane left turn lanes on Southcenter Parkway approaching Strander Boulevard and Klickitat Drive will be extended to the full length of the roadway between those two intersections. Option 2B: Option 2B is a two -lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. This option is basically the same as Option 2A except that the widening will occur on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. The northbound I- 5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard would have to be closed. Option 3B: Option 3B is a northbound flyover roadway. This concept is to move the northbound vehicles making left turns to a new flyover roadway located on Page 13 June 13, 2003 I M i ra 11 A i 6 0 C I A T C 8 the east side of Southcenter Parkway connecting with Klickitat Drive at the southbound I -5 mainline bridge area. The structure is designed to have an 8 percent grade with 25 mph curve. Option 5: Option 5 assumes that Klickitat Drive would be extended to the east of Southcenter Parkway on a structure toward the surface with a steep grade. The roadway would bend and connect with Strander Boulevard. It appears that the proposed parking structure would be located on the Klickitat Drive extension alignment. No drawing of Option 5 was included in this report. Option 12: Option 12 is a re- configuration of the Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard intersection. This option attempts to ease the movements on Southcenter Parkway. The northbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway will have to make left turns to go north while the westbound vehicles on Strander Boulevard would appear to go straight through to northbound Southcenter Parkway. Option 3B -12: Option 3B -12 is a combination of Option 3B and Option 12. This combination option was drawn to illustrate a concept that would maximize easing the east -west traffic movements between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. Evaluation of the Options All the options described above were evaluated using the same evaluation criteria identified in the earlier screening process. Each criterion was rated using a rating scheme of 1 through 5. A rating of 3 was assigned when an improvement option is expected to make no noticeable improvement in addressing the problems (i.e. will be the same as the no action or neutral). A slight worsening of the conditions was rated with a 2 and a rating of 1 was given when the condition would get much worse than the no action. A rating of 5 was given where significant improvement would be achieved, and; for a slight improvement in conditions, a rating of 4 was given. Table 4 shows the evaluation ratings for each preliminary option. A summary of the evaluation for each preliminary option follows. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 14 June 13, 2003 Table 4 Evaluation Rating Summary 1 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Acceptable Roadway Grade Acceptable Horizontal Curves Intersection Level of Service Intersection Queue Storage Accident Potential Driver Expectancy Capacity (2020 and beyond) Impact on Businesses Permits Approvals Land Use Compatibility Multi -modal Impacts Cost Phasing Opportunities Business Community Approval 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 Medium ($8.8 M) low 3 3 2 (NB Off ramp eliminated) 3 4 2 (More traffic to Nordstrom I!S) 3 3 1 (Two businesses taken) 1 (WSDOT will not approve) 3 2 Medium ($8.5 M) low 2 B. NB Flyover to Klic itat 2 (8 %) 2 4 4 2 (merging before SB on ramp is problem) 3 3 3 3 Medium ($13 M) low 3 A. .Extension' toStrander with access to SC. Parking arage 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 (Not Estimated) low 1 2 Conversion • of East West trees for: Major l oveinents ; 3 3 3 2 (NB on Pkwy not good) 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 Medium ($10.8 M) low 2 2 (8 %) 2 (less than ideal curve) 4 3 (NB on Pkwy not good) 2 (merging before SB on ramp is problem) 4 2 3 3 High ($15.4 M) high 2 5= Significantly improved, 4= Moderately improved, 3= Neutral, acceptable or no change from No Action, 2= Slightly worse than existing, 1= not acceptable Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 15 June 13, 2003 (M1 ASSOCIATCS Option 2A - Two -lane widening on the east side of Southcenter Parkway The overall performance of this option is good. The most notable improvements are reduced chances for the north -south through vehicles to be blocked by left turn vehicles spilling from the turn lanes between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. For this option, the level of service improvements are relatively minor. The impacts to businesses are minimum. There will be significant traffic queue and level of service problems at the three intersections: Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway, Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 Northbound Off -ramp) and Klickitat Drive and I -5 Southbound On- ramp. Option 2B - Two -lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway The traffic performance of this option is basically identical to Option 2A. However, this option will have two major negative impacts: two businesses located on the west side of Southcenter Parkway will have to be purchased, and the northbound I -5 off -ramp south of Klickitat Drive will have to be closed. The closure of the off -ramp will result in more northbound exiting traffic from I -5 at the Nordstrom Entrance intersection, which may increase traffic accidents and lower the level of service at this intersection. The most serious impact will be that WSDOT is unlikely to approve this option. Option 3B - Northbound flyover from Southcenter Parkway near Strander Boulevard to Klickitat Drive While this option will be designed to have a slightly steeper climbing grade, the level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive will significantly improve. This option will eliminate the vehicle queue storage problem on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. This option does not address the traffic problems for the southbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway north of the Nordstrom Entrance and the northbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard. The overall performance of this option is good but additional improvements will be needed. Option 5A - Klickitat Drive extension to Strander Boulevard through the Southcenter Mall parking lot This option assumes that the new street (Klickitat Drive Extension) will be constructed with a structure from the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 16 June 13, 2003 ilViirail A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive to the ground level of the Southcenter Mall parking lot. The new street extension will be connected with Strander Boulevard. The 2020 model was used to estimate the traffic volume on this new road. It showed that the demand for this road is relatively small. (The westbound lane during the PM peak hour will carry about 310 vehicles.) Because the intersection of Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway will operate with the four legs, the level of service will be slightly lowered. The lack of the adequate queuing spaces at the several intersections will not be solved by this option. The new road appears to interfere with the proposed parking structure in the Southcenter Mall. The overall performance of this option is relatively poor while it is estimated that it will be very expensive. (The cost estimate for this option was not made due to the poor performance and the low rating of the implementation feasibility.) Option 12 - Conversion of east -west streets for major movements This option will provide much improved levels of service for the vehicles from Strander Boulevard heading to Klickitat Drive. However the overall intersection levels of service improvements in the study area will be modest while this option requires a significant amount of additional land for street right -of -way. The traffic simulation model runs show that there will be significant level of service problems with long vehicle queue for northbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway. Option 3B -12 - Combination of Options 3B and 12 This option was developed with the understanding that Option 3B (a flyover concept) would significantly improve level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive and the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard with Option 12 (the conversion to the east -west dominant move). This option may be implemented with two phases: Option 12 as the first phase and Option 3B as the second phase. While this combination option will improve average levels of service and vehicle queues at all intersections in the study area, there will be a problem on the northbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway approaching Strander Boulevard. During the peak period, many vehicles will need two or three signal cycles to clear the intersection and the average queue length will be more than 500 feet from the intersection. The vehicle queue will extend to 800 -900 feet occasionally. Cost Estimates Table 5 shows a summary of cost estimates for each option. Detail for each option is shown in Appendix C. The cost estimate for Option 5A - Klickitat Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 17 June 13, 2003 Category Option 2A Two -Lane Widening on East Side Option 2B Two -Lane Widening on West Side Option 3B NB Flyover to Klickitat Option 12 Conversion of East-West Streets for Major Movements Option 3B -12 Combination of Option 3Band 12 Construction $6.0 M $4.0 M $9.1 M $7.3 M $ 10.6 M Right of Way $1.0 M $3.4 M $0.9 M $1.3 M $1.5 M Engineering and Management $1.8 M $1.2 M $2.7 M $2.2 M $3.2 M Total $8.8 M $8.5 M $12. 7 M $10.8 M $15.3 M IMirail A S S O C I A T E S Extension was not prepared because it will not provide adequate traffic benefits and significantly interfere with the redevelopment proposal of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. Option 3B -12 is the most expansive among the six options with cost over 15 million dollars. The 2 -lane widening options (Option 2A and Option 2B) are about the same with about $8.5 - $8.8 million. The flyover option (Option 3B) is estimated to cost about $12.7 million while the Southcenter /Strander conversion to east /west movements (Option 12) will be about 10.8 million dollars. Table 5 Preliminary Summary of Costs Screening Through the evaluation of the six Options described above, a clear "winner" did not emerge. The consultants could not find an option that they could strongly recommend. However, it became clearer that the following three options should be dropped from further evaluation, because two of them would not perform well in terms of providing traffic benefits, and the other would have a significant implementation problem. • Option 2B - Two -lane widening on west side (WSDOT would not approve this option.) • Option 5A - Klickitat Extension (This option has a high cost, an impact on the future expansion plans of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter and low traffic benefit.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 18 June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT IIVI i r a i l A s s o c 1 A T E s • Option 12 - Conversion of east -west streets (Strander and Klickitat) for major movements (This option will not provide enough level of service improvements at the intersections.) The consultant recommends that these three options be dropped from the further evaluation due to the estimated inferior levels of service and extended queuing, and that the remaining three options (Option 2A, Option 3B and Option 3B -12) be further refined and evaluated. Improving the Remaining Options In order to solve a majority of the anticipated 2020 traffic problems found in the study area, the remaining three options needed to be refined more in order to improve all intersections levels of service and to reduce vehicle queues. The consultant ran the SimTraffic traffic simulation model for each option many times with various ideas to improve the 2020 traffic conditions. Based on the extensive traffic simulation analyses, the following additional improvements are needed for each preliminary option. Modified Option 2A- Two Lane Widening on East Side: In addition to the improvements listed under the baseline condition and widening Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard by two lanes, Option 2A should include the following improvements: • Widen southbound Southcenter Parkway between the intersection at the Nordstrom Entrance and the intersection at Klickitat Drive by one lane and assign the lane as the additional southbound right turn lane to Klickitat Drive. (Without providing additional capacity for the southbound right turn vehicles, there will be significant LOS and vehicle queue problems on the southbound Southcenter Parkway approaching the Nordstrom Entrance intersection.) • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane between the intersection at Strander Boulevard and a point approximately 1,000 feet south of Strander Boulevard. Page 19 June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT 1 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Modified Option 3B- Northbound Flyover to Klickitat: In addition to the flyover structure to eliminate the northbound left turn lanes, reconfigure the eastbound approach on Klickitat Drive to Southcenter Parkway with an additional lane, and add the improvements in the baseline conditions. Option 3B should include the following improvements: • Allow the southbound Southcenter Parkway right turn lane north of Klickitat Drive to run as "free" turns with the exception of yielding to pedestrians at the Klickitat Drive intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane for about 500 feet south of the intersection with Strander Boulevard intersection. (This improvement may be accomplished by converting the existing center two -way left turn lane to a through lane.) Option 3B -12 - Combination of Option 3B and 12 As this option was refined several times at the initial option definition stage, no additional improvement to this option appear to be feasible. Level of Service, Delay and Vehicle Queuing Analysis The refined two options and Option 3B -12 were evaluated for level of service, delay and vehicle queue length in detail using the SimTraffic simulation model. These three options were also compared with the baseline (no action) condition. Table 6 shows the 2020 average level of service conditions and delays. It was necessary to run the simulation model at least five times for each option to obtain the average conditions. The bottom of Table 6 shows total values of the network delay for each option. The total network delay under the baseline condition is 351 seconds per vehicle. Modified Option 2A will reduce the delay to 107 seconds, a 70 percent improvement over the baseline condition. The total network delays for Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12 are about the same: 62 and 68 seconds, respectively, which is a reduction of approximately 80 percent from the baseline condition. Page 20 June 13, 2003 Intersection Options No Action Baseline Modified Option 2A Modified Option 3B Option 3B -12B No Build Two -Lane Widening Percent Improvement over Baseline NB Flyover Percent Improvement over Baseline Combination of Options 38 and 12 Percent Improvement over Baseline Strander Blvd./ Southcenter Pkwy 172 (LOS F) 267 (LOS F) 53 (LOS D) 80.3% 31 (LOS C) 88.3% 47 (LOS D) 82.5% Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off Ramp South of Klickitat 14 (LOS B) 24 (LOS C) 15 (LOS B) 36.7% 6 (LOS A) 75.0% 5 (LOS A) 80.8% Southcenter Pkwy /Nordstrom Entrance /I -5 Off Ramp 146 (LOS F) 144 (LOS F) 35 (LOS C) 75.7% 32 (LOS C) 77 8% 30 (LOS C) 79.4% Klickitat Dr. /Southcenter Pkwy 36 (LOS D) 41 (LOS D) 36 (LOS D) 11.4% 12 (LOS B) 70.7% 13 (LOS B) 68.5% 1 -5 SB On -Ramp/ Klickitat Dr. 10 (LOS B) 33 (LOS C) 11 (LOS B) 66.9% 12 (LOS B) 63.6% 11 (LOS B) 67.5% Total Network Performance 380 351 105 70.1% 62 82.3% 68 80.7% Table 6 2020 Average Level of Service and Delays (Seconds) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT M1 A S S O C I A T E S The average vehicle queue length for each of the five intersection approaches was obtained from SimTraffic with several simulation runs. Table 7 shows the results of the queuing analysis. Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12 perform very similarly in terms of intersection approach queue lengths. The queue lengths are much shorter than the baseline -no action conditions except for the westbound approach on Klickitat Drive at the intersection with the southbound on -ramp. This is because these two options will send significantly more traffic towards that direction efficiently without delay at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. Modified Option 2A performs better than the baseline condition. However, there will be longer queues at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway than Modified Option 3B or Option 3B -12. Page 21 June 13, 2003 Intersection Approach Options No Action Baseline Modified Option 2A (Two -Lane Widening) Modified Option 3B (NB Flyover) Option 38-12 (Combination of Options 3B and 12) Strander Blvd./ Southcenter Pkwy Northbound 1300 430 364 500 572 Southbound 200 362 226 200 162 Westbound 600 598 456 210 106 Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off Ramp South of Klickitat Eastbound 450 160 168 80 100 Southcenter Pkwy /Nordstrom Entrance /1 -5 Off Ramp Northbound 160 98 172 130 150 Southbound 170 576 288 340 224 Eastbound 240 216 156 156 152 Westbound 260 258 250 240 234 Klickitat Dr./Southcenter Pkwy Northbound 480 530 302 102 110 Southbound 370 462 350 140 186 Eastbound 320 528 284 110 150 1 -5 SB On -Ramp/ Klickitat Dr. Westbound 60 74 120 310 274 Eastbound 170 300 146 170 134 Table 7 Average Vehicle Queue Lengths (Feet) 1 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S 1 Modified Option 2A performs better for the northbound approach on Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard than the other options. Modified Option 3B -the flyover concept will result in longer queues for the approach than the other options because the northbound lane feeding to the flyover has a strong demand causing unbalanced distribution of traffic among the northbound lanes on Southcenter Parkway. Conclusions Based on the extensive analysis of the options in terms of environmental impacts, traffic benefits and cost, described in this report, the following conclusions can be made: • The improvements, which are defined as the 2020 baseline condition, are needed to improve the projected traffic problems, but they will not be enough to solve them in the study area. The levels of service at the two intersection: Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard will operate LOS F with more than 140 seconds of delay under the baseline condition. This situation will significantly impact operation of the near -by intersections. • Option 2B -two lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway, Option 5A- Klickitat extension to Strander Boulevard, and Option 12- Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 22 June 13, 2003 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT (M t r a i l A 8 8 0 C 1 A T 6 8 conversion of east -west streets for major movements, did not perform well enough to be considered for a recommendation. • Three options (Option 2A, Option 3B and Option 3B -12) evaluated as the "remaining options ", are modified options from the initial options, performed well in terms of providing traffic benefits to solve the 2020 problems. The amounts of the traffic performance improvement among the three options are found to be about same. All three options will reduce the delay by 70 to 80 percent in 2020, compared with the baseline condition. • Among these three options, two options (Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12) will perform slightly better than Modified Option 2A. • All of the "remaining options" will be expensive: o Modified Option 2A: $10 -11 million o Modified Option 3B: $13 -14 million o Option 3B -12: $15 -16 million (These costs are higher than those shown in Table 5 because the cost of the baseline improvements and additional improvements are added to them.) • While the overall traffic benefits of Modified Option 3B and Option 3B- 12 are the same, the level of service at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway will be better under Modified Option 3B than Option 3B -12 (36 second of delay vs. 47 second of delay). • While all of the three options will need additional right -of -way, Option 3B -12 will require slightly more right -of -way than the other options. • WSDOT may not approve the widening required in Modified Option 2A. Under this option, the west side of Southcenter Parkway between the intersection at northbound I -5 off ramp /Nordstrom Entrance and Klickitat Drive is needed to be widened so that the two southbound lanes on Southcenter Parkway will be assigned to right turns at Klickitat Drive. WSDOT may have a problem of approving this improvement because the off -ramp turning radius at the approach to the Southcenter Parkway /Nordstrom Entrance intersection would be shortened. • The City of Tukwila can choose one the three options. Any one of them will provide significant improvement to traffic circulation over the baseline condition. • Modified Option 3B - widening of Southcenter Parkway with a northbound flyover - appears to be slightly better than the others because it provides better intersection level of service and the cost is less than Option 3B -12 - a combined option with Option 3B and Option Page 23 June 13, 2003 12. This option will better accommodate the long -term traffic growth beyond 2020 than the other options. • Recommendations Based on these conclusions, the consultant recommends that the City choose Modified Option 3B - "Widening of Southcenter Parkway with a northbound flyover ". Specifically, the City should implement the following improvements to improve access in the area of Southcenter Parkway in the vicinity of Klickitat Drive. and Strander Boulevard: • Construct a northbound -to- westbound flyover ramp allowing vehicles to exit on the right side of Southcenter Parkway north of Strander Boulevard in the northbound direction to access westbound Klickitat Drive. This ramp will bypass the signal control at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive for the vehicles making northbound left turns at this intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway north of the Nordstrom Entrance intersection to add an additional southbound through lane between the "north Mall driveway" and the Nordstrom Entrance intersection. • Allow the southbound Southcenter Parkway right turn lane north of Klickitat Drive to run as "free" turns with the exception of yielding to pedestrians at the Klickitat Drive intersection. (This free "right" turn movement is possible because no conflict will exist for that movement.) • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane for about 500 feet south of the intersection with Strander Boulevard intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. • Construct a new east -west street on the south edge of Tukwila Pond between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East. • Install a new signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and southbound 1-5 on -ramp to improve level of service for left turn vehicles eastbound on Klickitat Drive. • Widen the internal access road at the Nordstrom entrance between Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom on the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter site to add a westbound left turn lane at the signal. • Modify the signal phasing of the westbound approach to the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard by allowing left and right turn from the center lane of the westbound approach. (The westbound approach should operate with a right turn lane, a right and left turn lane and a left turn lane.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT 1 Mirai A•! C C 1 A T[■ Page 24 June 13, 2003 SouthcenterlTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT IM i r a i1 A S S O C I A T I C E • Restrict vehicle movements for those exiting at the I -5 northbound off - ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard from making left turns at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. The exiting vehicles at this off -ramp will be allowed turns only for southbound Southcenter Parkway through the intersection with Strander Boulevard. Page 25 June 13, 2003 SouthcenterlTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Attachment A March 10th Charette Meeting Notes Page 26 June 13, 2003 Traffic volumes on the adjacent 1 -5 and 1-405 have been steadily increasing; the 2000 daily volumes are about 50 percent higher than those in 1982. The CBD traffic volumes (inbound) have increased; some access points experienced traffic volumes increases of 20 to 65 percent in the last 10 years. Saturday peak hour traffic volumes in the Urban Cenfer are generally higher than weekdays PM peak hour and the peak times occur 1 -2 hours later. In some areas of the Urban Center, the weekday noon peak volumes are greater than the AM or PM peak hours. The traffic volumes spike in December; volumes are higher in the summer months than during the winter months; and April is the most "average" month. The intersections examined on Southcenter Pkwy (with Strander Blvd and Klickitat Dr) currently operate at LOS D. The four legs of the intersection may operate at LOS D; but one approach could be considerably less than LOS F; as is the case at the intersections examined on Southcenter Pkwy. One of the major problems is that traffic in the right lane of Strander gets onto Southcenter Pkwy, and then queues on Southcenter Pkwy to turn left to Klickitat Drive (to 1 -5 SB). Left turn storage spaces are not adequate. The traffic from the NB 1 -5 off ramp onto Strander Blvd causes another problem because the distance between the off ramp and Strander Blvd is too short. The left turn lanes on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat and Strander are also short, creating an intense weaving pattern for traffic, mixed with SB and NB through traffic. The majority of accidents during the past five years have occurred at the Southcenter Pkwy intersections with Strander Blvd and Klickitat Drive. Tukwila Charette March 10th, 2003 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Meeting Summary (updated 5/02/03) M iea ` i 1 A! 3 O C I A , T E 9 The meeting convened with a rooftop viewing of two Southcenter Pkwy intersections; one with Klickitat Drive, the other with Strander Blvd. Tukwila Traffic Engineer Cyndy Knighton made the introductions and explained that the study was being done at this point in time to provide detailed input for the on -going Tukwila Urban Center Study. Existing Traffic Conditions Tom Noguchi from Mirai Associates presented background information about traffic growth trends in the study area including Tukwila Urban Center approach volumes and percentage changes over the past decade; hourly volumes on the 61st Street Bridge, Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Pkwy, Strander Blvd; 2002 weekday PM peak hour volumes for the study area and intersection LOS; and accident counts (1997 — 2001) for intersections in the area. The background information follows as Attachment 1. Highlights of existing traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Existing Traffic Conditions Highlights Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 27 June 13, 2003 2020 Growth Projections A S S O C I A T E S Tukwila planner, Lynn Miranda noted that very preliminary scenarios are showing more multi - family housing in the CBD in 2020, up to 450 units (there are none in 2002). Employment is expected to increase by 9000 jobs; with the proportion of retail to warehouse /distribution shifting to a scenario of more predominantly retail employment. These estimates include the redevelopment of the Mall and Penny's property. 2020 Traffic Conditions Tom Noguchi presented the forecasted 2020 weekday PM peak hour volumes along with intersection LOS in the study area. Conditions on arterials in the area become very congested and intersection performance degrades to LOS F. The delays increase 300 percent at the Klickitat/Southcenter and I- 5NB/Nordstroms /Southcenter intersections. The Strander /Southcenter intersection was modeled with two right turn lanes from Strander, but the intersection delay continues. Traffic Problems The participants identified fourteen problems in the study area, shown in Table 2. Evaluation Criteria The group established evaluation criteria for potential solutions to the traffic problems in the study area. The criteria shown in Table 3 are grouped in four major categories: • Engineering Feasibility •. Traffic Management • Environmental Impact • Implementation Feasibility Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 28 June 13, 2003 It is very difficult to make left turns from the two -way left turn lanes of Southcenter Parkway. The distance from Klickitat Bridge to Strander Blvd is very short, thus drivers from Klickitat have to make quick weaving movements to make left turns to Strander Blvd. Traffic on Strander Blvd right lanes often cannot move because of the congestion on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat and Strander. The northbound left tum pocket is often full, so that it is difficult to make left turns from Southcenter Pkwy to Klickitat. The same problem can be applied to the southbound direction. The 61 Bridge has no direct access to the Mall. From the north, there are no reasonable altemative ways to get onto Andover Park West, Andover Park East and the area south of Strander Blvd, except to travel on Southcenter Parkway and Strander. Klickitat and Strander Blvd are too closely spaced. Too many T- intersections are in the Urban Center area. The existing street network (with the mega blocks) within the Urban Center can't handle the high volumes of traffic. Drivers are confused on ways to access the Southcenter Mall; better signage is needed. Drivers are confused on where on /off ramps to 1 -5 and 1-405 are located because on -ramps and off -ramps are not located at the same places. NB 1 -5 off ramp queues back, as drivers queue on Southcenter Blvd making left turns to Strander Blvd. The area lacks facilities that will support alternative modes of transportation such as bicycles and pedestrians. Traffic circulation within the Mall parking lot is not clearly signed or marked. Traffic exiting from and entering to the Southcenter Mall is not well distributed. Table 2. Traffic Problems Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT 1 M i.r .i A S S O C I A T E S Page 29 June 13, 2003 Category Criteria _ Phase 1 Evaluation (Yes, Maybe Yes, Maybe No or No) Engineering Feasibility Acceptable Roadway Grade Will the grades of new or modified roadways be less than 10 percent? Acceptable Horizontal Curves Will the new or modified roadways meet or be better than the horizontal curve standard? Traffic Management Intersection Level of Service Will intersection levels of service be significantly improved? Intersection Queue Storage Will new or modified roadways provide adequate intersection queue storage spaces? Accident Potential Will the potential for accidents decrease? - Driver Expectancy Will the access and circulation patterns be understood by the drivers? Capacity Will the option support the through traffic generated from land use changes adjacent to the study area? Environmental Impact Impact on Businesses Can the existing businesses affected by the roadway changes continue to do business? Permits Approvals Can the environmental permits be easily obtained from State and Federal agencies? Land Use Compatibility -Does the option support the existing and future land use? Multi -modal Impacts Does the option provide multi-modal access to /from the area? Implementation Feasibility Cost Is the option likely to be fundable with the available Federal, State and local sources? WSDOT Approval Is WSDOT likely to support the option? Phasing Opportunities Is the option able to be phased in? Business Community Approval Is the business community likely to support the option? Table 3. Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options -FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S Page 30 June 13, 2003 Ideas to Solve Traffic Problems Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S The workshop participants spent several hours discussing ideas that might address the traffic problems on Southcenter Pkwy, Klickitat Drive, and Strander Blvd. Sixteen ideas were presented and pros /cons were discussed with vigor. The ideas were centered on five main concepts: • Increasing capacity • Managing demand • Improving high accident locations (HALs) • Providing alternate access points • Connecting Strander Blvd to I -5 • Alternative modes of transport A discussion of the sixteen ideas generated that day and one additional option from the workshop follow. Each option has a brief summary of their pros and cons discussed at the Charette on March le and the comments from the staff/consultant meeting on March 21 to refine and clarify the options. At the Charette, the participants had agreed for the staff and consultant team to meet and decide on the final options to be carried forward for further analysis. At that consultants /staff meeting they agreed that Options 2a, 2b, 3b, 5a, 5b, 12 and a combination of 3b and 12 would be the focus of further investigation as viable options to improve the traffic flow in the area. Several options are assumed to occur no matter what option is chosen and should be incorporated into each option considered. The original options presented at the charette are included in Attachment 2; there are no diagrams for the options added at the charette. Option 1. Add capacity by adding one lane on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd; extend one of the left turn lanes in each direction to the entire length of segment. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on Strander Blvd. • Adds some left turn storage capacity. • Reduces blocking of the through traffic by left turn vehicles. • May have to widen approaches to Southcenter Pkwy above and below this segment. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option is not aggressive enough, and does not add enough capacity; do not consider. Consultant/Staff see this option as a short -term solution that would not have an impact on the traffic situation in twenty years — removed from consideration. Page 31 June 13, 2003 A 8 9 0 C i A T E 9 Option 2. Add capacity by adding two lanes on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd; create side -by -side left turn lanes. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on Strander Blvd. - • All widening may need to occur on the east side of Southcenter Parkway or the northbound I -5 off ramp may have to be closed. • Widening this segment may lead to increased weaving at locations on Southcenter Pkwy. • Updated Design Standards Impacts o If widening occurred on both sides of the street, the NB I -5 off -ramp would have too tight of a turning radius and would need to be closed. o The NB I -5 off ramp is a couplet of off - ramps; if a ramp is closed, the other off r -amp and intersection may need to be enlarged to meet the increased traffic needs that would be shifted to that exit — the off ramp improvement needs to meet current WSDOT design codes. • If the second NB off -ramp at Nordstrom's was closed, Nordstrom could get out of their lease. Westfield would not pursue Mall addition. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option may work - all widening may need to occur on the east side of the roidway or updated design standards for the 1-5 off ramps may not be met. Consultant/Staff will evaluate this option as two options: Option 2a: Possibly widen Southcenter Pkwy only on the east side to avoid any alterations to the 1 -5 ramp SB to Southcenter Pkwy. Option 2b: It could be a viable option to eliminate the 1-5 ramp to SB Southcenter Pkwy because it would eliminate all accidents associated with that ramp. Exiting traffic would be forced to the Nordstrom exit. Option 3. Widen Southcenter Pkwy by moving the northbound lanes to the right side of the roadway. It will create a signalized four - legged intersection at Klickitat Dr and Strander Blvd intersection. Assign the center SB lane on Southcenter Pkwy before Klickitat to a left turn lane onto Strander Blvd. Assign the curb lane on WB Strander Blvd to Klickitat only. • Counterintuitive to drivers to move right to make a left turn • Would require fill for the expansion. • Appears to be very expensive for the gains in movement Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Do not consider, as this option appears very expensive for the gains in capacity. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 32 June 13, 2003 • Mall owners may oppose a through road on the property. SouthcenterlTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S Staff /Consultant will evaluate option 3b. Option 3b: In lieu of a four - legged intersection, evaluate traffic performance of an elevated one -way, flyover road on the east side of Southcenter Pkwy from Strander Blvd to WB Klickitat Dr. It will merge with Klickitat at the SB 1-5 Bridge overpass; would enable storage lanes from SB Southcenter Pkwy to EB Strander to be extended; structure would enable NB Southcenter Pkwy to EB Klickitat to bypass the signal (two -lane structure). Option 4. Grade - separate the NB and SB through lanes on Southcenter Parkway from the turning lanes. Tunnels would be constructed for the NB and SB through lanes under the intersection of Klickitat Dr and Southcenter Pkwy and connecting ramps would be provided for turning vehicles. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on Strander Blvd. Bring I -5 NB ramp to exit onto Klickitat Drive. • Takes advantage of grade differences by using tunnels. • Multiple problems. • Too expensive for gains. • Counterintuitive /confusing for drivers. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered further. Staff /Consultant: Evaluate this option for traffic benefits before discarding it. Mirai will perform a Synchro analysis of option. - Option 5. Extend Klickitat Drive to the east and connect it with Strander Blvd east of the current intersection; signalize the intersection. Provide access to Southcenter Mall parking /or parking garage from this segment of roadway. The I -5 NB off ramp would tunnel under Southcenter Parkway and connect to the Klickitat extension. • Moves Klickitat traffic directly to Strander Blvd. • Other versions of this option would consider taking NB I -5 off ramp (a) directly to Klickitat Drive (no tunnel); or (b) directly to Strander Blvd _ from I -5. , • Urban planners like the idea of creating a parking garage directly from the Klickitat extension.- However, the Mall owner did not want this option with the adjacent parking garage; they want to locate a parking garage next to the Mall entrances. Page 33 June 13, 2003 Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Evaluate this option further although the Southcenter Mall owner may not support this option as described. Staff /consultant agree to pursue the follow options: Option 5a: A direct connection from Klickitat to Strander would be constructed. Explore creative ides and solutions to make this option workable. Option 5b: A connection from Klickitat to a proposed Mall parking garage. Under this option, the new road would not connect with Strander Blvd. Option 6. Create direct on /off access to northbound I -5 with collector - distributor lanes on I -5. Construct a tunnel for I -5 NB exit and on ramps under Southcenter Pkwy to connect directly to Strander Blvd. Close the I -5 northbound off ramp at the Nordstrom entrance. • Drivers expect the exit and entrance to a major freeway to be located at the same location. This does not do that. • Variation would bring NB I -5 exit directly into Strander; Southcenter Parkway would not continue to have a T- intersection with Strander, if we do this. • May not be acceptable because of closed exit to the Nordstrom entrance; Mall owner would oppose. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option is a possibility, but Mall owners would not supportt if the Nordstrom exit were closed. Consultant _ Recommendation: This is a long -range option tied to 1 -5 improvements, thus it should _ not be advanced to Phase II. Staff/Consultant agree zvith recommendation. Option 7. Construct a new road: S. 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. • Internal circulation option, should be considered as part of Tukwila Urban Center Study. SouthcenterlTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S • How much traffic would shift from Strander Blvd to the new road? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option may not be a part of the — Klickitat issues but it should be evaluated as one of the overall Urban Center options. This may _not solve the Klickitat /Strander problem; we don't know why people do that weave. The Consultant Team: the effectiveness of this option should be tested. Staff/Consultant agree that this is a baseline option. Assume an east -west connector road from Andover Park East to Southcenter Pkwy between Minkler and Strander will occur in all options. Page34 June 13, 2003 Option 8. .Construct a new connector road from the I -5 /S 188th Street interchange to South 180th Street along I -5. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT M ra A S 9 0 C 1 A T C 9 • Consider as a Phase 3 improvement. • Provides good access for the southern part of Tukwila. • Provides access from future SR 167 cross - valley extensions. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered but it should be included with Tukwila Urban Center Study. Staff /Consultant: The City of Tukwila has alternate plans for this corridor. Southcenter Parkway will be widened between S 180th and S 200th. It will connect to Orilla Rd and then to S 188th St, which connects to 1 -5. Consider being a baseline and including in all options. Option 9. Construct a direct connection into the Mall from 61st Avenue Bridge over I-405. • Would provide direct access to the Mall reducing traffic on Southcenter Pkwy. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered, and it should be evaluated with the Tukwila Urban Center Study. Staff /Consultant agree that the extension of 61st Avenue S to the Mall does not have a direct benefit to the area in question: This option should be considered when the Mall conducts its EIS. Option 10. Construct roundabouts on Southcenter Pkwy at Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd. • Speed limited to 20 mph. • Diameter of roundabout may exceed space available. • Large number of trucks (warehouses) and buses through these intersections. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered because the spaces required for roundabouts are too large. Staff /Consultant agreed. Option 11. Align Klickitat Dr with Strander Blvd. Replace the Klickitat Bridge with a new bridge over NB I -5 that would directly connect to the Strander Blvd Page 35 June 13, 2003 intersection with Southcenter Pkwy, May have to close I -5 NB exit between Klickitat and Strander; redirect all exiting traffic to the Nordstrom exit. Eliminate the Klickitat Dr and Southcenter Pkwy intersection. • Would probably require the reconfiguration of the intersection with Strander / Southcenter Pkwy. • Would change the movement on Strander Blvd. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered because it would not have adequate space for the new roadway connection. Staff /Consultant agree realignment is not an option. Option 12. Reconfigure the Southcenter Pkwy /Strander Intersection to make the Southcenter Pkwy to Strander Blvd the through traffic route. The SB lanes on Southcenter Pkwy south of the intersection would move without signalization. The NB lanes on Southcenter Pkwy would stop at the intersection. A left turn would be allowed from Strander Blvd to Southcenter Pkwy. • Would redirect traffic more directly to areas south of the Mall. • Would create a more direct connection to the West Valley Highway and other points east. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Evaluate this option in Phase II. Staff /Consultant will evaluate this option as follows. Mirai will model this option in Synchro to evaluate the impact traffic realignment would have on the traffic flows. Some concern was raised given that if traffic flow preference is given to the movement from Klickitat Dr to Strander Blvd, will the queues on Southcenter Pkwy be worse off. Option 13. Extend Andover Park W. northward to Southcenter Blvd by constructing a new bridge over I-405. • Would direct traffic directly onto Andover Park W to travel, east of the Mall to the south. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. • Operational questions. - Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should be evaluated as a part of Tukwila Urban Center Study. - Staff /Consultant agreed to evaluate this option as a part of the TUC study. Have asked WSDOT to evaluate the overpass and HOY access as a part of the 1-405 Corridor Program. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S Page 36 June 13, 2003 Option 14. Restrict I -5 NB off -ramp vehicles to right turn only on Southcenter Pkwy without allowing them to access to Strander Blvd. • Operational - where would cars turn? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option can be a part of other options but should not be considered independently. Staff /Consultant agreed that Mirai would obtain the proportion of vehicles attempting to turn left onto Strander from the 1 -5 ramp to SB Southcenter Pkwy, and then model the option scenario. Not considered part of baseline as of yet. If enacted, would be a short - term solution. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S Page 37 June 13, 2003 Option 15. Reconstruct I -5 NB ramp to Southcenter Pkwy to exit at the Klickitat Bridge. • Adds too much traffic to already high volume intersection. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Do not consider. Staff /Consultant agreed and removed it as a viable option. Option 16. Connect NB I -5 off ramp directly to the Strander Blvd/ Southcenter Pkwy Intersection. Keep the Nordstrom exit from NB I -5. • The I -5 exit ramp to Nordstrom must be maintained; and meet design standards. • Can the Strander exit ramp meet design standards for curves? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Consider only if the Nordstrom exit can be continued. Staff /Consultant: This is not feasible given the elevation changes between 1 -5 NB and the intersection of Strander and Southcenter Pkwy. Option 17. This option was presented as a part of Option 5. This option would change the configuration of the NB I -5 ramp by connecting it directly to the Mall parking lot via a tunnel beneath Southcenter Pkwy. Exiting traffic would be allowed to turn off at the Mall or continue directly to Strander Blvd. It is undecided whether the connection should be made at 61 Ave S or at a location between 61 Ave S and Southcenter Pkwy. The consultant will evaluate this option using modeling tools. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT A S S O C I A T E S Page 38 June 13, 2003 Attachment 1. Background Transportation Information presented at the Cha rette - The Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd Area Existing and 2020 Conditions Workshop #1 March 10, 2003 Prepared by Mirai Associates A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 39 220000 200000 180000 160000 140000 0 120000 CD 100000 CD 80000 60000 40000 20000 1 -5/1 -405 Daily Traffic Growth Trends Year —4-1 -405 west(north) of 1 -5 - -111—I -5 south of 1-405 A S S O C I A T E S 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 40 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 0 50,000 45,000 m m 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 —.— TUESDAY B8ORETHANKSGNC'IG Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 1 A S S O C I A T E S Growth Trend of CBD Traffic Volume (Inbound) • • 1 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ye ar page 41 Strander Blvd N( Klickitat Dr +1,500 (19 %) S 178 St +550 ( %) 2000 TUC Approach Volume and Percent Changes Over 1990 +1,700 (20 %) O o N cv � + O Southcenter Blvd c 1 . 0 r Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 +140 ( %) J +3,200 (22 %) AS 9 0 C 1 A T E B Changes in Traffic Volume (2000 -1990) Increase Decrease page 42 ,4uu gliab f 200 "1 Northbound Ho rly vaurnes an 61st Bridge d 6 6 o� o � 6 • cF 6 o .� 6 6 oc oc !S 6 6 6 6 6 . Y Y 6 6 6 . 0 6 . 1 1 0° .on cr� cr � 41% P o° oo h o .0 P 0 � 9 ^o o ^ � � ( v . ,�9 �9 �. a . y . 6 . o. o o ^ o o K. 41. €1 a• 43- 6 �• �• �cP mo o 2.000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 — Weekday Average — I - 4/6/02 (Sat) Southbound Hourly Volumes on 61st Bridge oc cP oo cP cP ' o o c oo cP oa cf �— .o cP cP o cP cP c P cP cP cP o� of g K. � a ° �cpf°�g A• (6. csy ^ o° or ^ ° , , ,� `' gi p b o w cP� gi- 09 , ^ ° o • aF Q Hours •••• —Weekday Average "+4/6/02 (Sat) Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 A S S O C I A T E S page 43 Vehicles per hour Vehicles per Hour 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Westbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Dr west of Southcenter Pkwy o O o° . °° o° o° c� •o° cP O° o° A° . ° o° o° o° O° O° o° o° o° eP o° K. CF . oc o � y � 0 VP' .�° ° cr o ° cr ° ° cr ry o� a Its" o" o 0° c4r� 0� g g ,^ p erry cs . mo t. K. r r p. �j. r a. .V. 0 . Q � � � �r�. �• rl. y 0 �i K 0 q . Q Hours —4—Weekday Average - 4 /6/02 (Sat) Eastbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Or west of Southcenter Pkwy Ai? O° o° O° o° o° °° o° o° O° O o .O o cP o° nx o� o o • • . o� o .o o� 0 C:( 0' 0 cr 0 C3' .0 ti o � o ° � � o� o . yZ 0 ••• ti 5 b• y Co. 1 • 0 06• O ,� '�' � s 1 ` Hours —+— Weekday Average --a- 4/6/02 (Sat) Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project - Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 A S S O C I A T E S AP AP AP AP .cP A° _e° cs. o o� page 44 Northbound Southcenter Parkway (2002 Approach Vehicles) Southbound Southcenter Parkway (2002 Approach Vehicles) 1600 1600 1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 1000 800` 800 600 _ \ 600 . 200 400 0 i Nordstrom Klickitat Entrance Drive r Strander Blvd S 168th Street -Minkler Blvd 1 17500 S 180th St Block --6—AM Peak Hour —0- -Noon Peak Hour Peak Hour ♦� 200 0 Nordstrom Entrance Klickitat Drive 1 Strander Blvd S 168th Street Minkler Blvd 17500 Block S 180th St -AM Hour —. —Noon Peak Hour --e—PM Peak Hour -O Peak Northbound Southcenter Parkway (2002 Approach Vehicles) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800` -41\ 600 _ \ 400 . 200 0 i Nordstrom Klickitat Entrance Drive r Strander Blvd S 168th Street -Minkler Blvd 1 17500 S 180th St Block --6—AM Peak Hour —0- -Noon Peak Hour Peak Hour — sir —PM A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 45 Eastbound Strander Boulevard (2002 Approach Volumes) 1600 1400 1200 1000 1000 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 Southcenter Pkwy T Access to Andover Park Andover Park E West ; Target/Mall W Highway Access Target/Mall to Andover Park W Andover Park E West Valley Highway Peak Hour Peak Hour - --PM Peak Hour -O -AM -G -Noon Westbound Strander Boulevard (2002 Approach Volumes) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 • 200 0 Southcenter Pkwy T Access to Andover Park Andover Park E West ; Target/Mall W Highway Valley Peak Hour Peak Hour -PM Peak Hour -. -AM -u. -Noon -* Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 A S S O C I A T E S page 46 140% J 2 120% 110% m 100% R c m 90% 80% 140% m - m E 130% o 120% w 2 0 110% jio 90% 80% Southcenter Parkway @ Bon Whs Store (24 HR ADT) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Month 9 10 11 12 Southcenter Parkway @ Bon Whs Store (PM Peak) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 1 —4 -1991 —E -1992 1993 x 1994 — 1995 — 4-1996 — +-1997 1998 - 1999 —4-1991 — a-1992 -1993 —x-- 1994 x - 1995 — . - 1996 —+ -1997 1998 1999 A T E page 47 • Majority of accidents occurred at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard/Klickitat Interchange • 0 Fatalities, 32 Injuries, and 1 Pedestrian/Cyclists Accident (Recorded by City of Tukwila Police Department) • 28 % Rear -end Accidents, 24% Approach Turn Accidents, 21 % Right Angle Accidents, and 20% Sideswipe Accidents A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 48 Reported Accidents per Year Location Mid -block or Intersection 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Southcenter Pkwy Strander Blvd Intersection 21 25 46 28 37 Southcenter Pkwy @ Klickitat Dr Intersection 18 9 13 18 13 Southcenter Pkwy south of Strander Mid -block 3 13 9 3 3 Southcenter Pkwy north of Strander Mid -block 4 1 2 Southcenter Pkwy north of Klickitat Mid -block 2 2 Southcenter Pkwy @ Tukwila Pkwy Intersection 2 10 2 2 Klickitat Dr. @ 53rd Ave Intersection 5 5 1 1 6 1 -5 NB Ramp to SB Southcenter Pkwy (P1) Intersection 5 4 5 7 8 1 -5 N13 Ramp to Nordstrom (P2) Intersection 6 6 7 3 5 1-5 SB Ramp from Klickitat Dr. Intersection 1 0 3 1 1 • Majority of accidents occurred at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard/Klickitat Interchange • 0 Fatalities, 32 Injuries, and 1 Pedestrian/Cyclists Accident (Recorded by City of Tukwila Police Department) • 28 % Rear -end Accidents, 24% Approach Turn Accidents, 21 % Right Angle Accidents, and 20% Sideswipe Accidents A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 48 North 0 Not to Scale Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad m° River gor1■ Freeway Ramp Park Bus Transit Riders At Selected Locations (Fall 2001) WESTRELD SHOPPNGTO SMI NCENT T1I TUKWIUPAPo(W 1 11111 .1' . ;1 --, c tnrtth ST Number of Riders Q 4 v. �y v, �. 405 fN ., Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 Mira! A S S O C I A T E S page 49 Attachment 2. Diagrams of Existing and Proposed Options as presented at the Charette. Workshop #1 March 10, 2003 . Prepared by Mirai Associates A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 50 A S S O C I A T E S ' Klickitat Drive 3/6/2003 n cc E m O m ft z o. E a ft O m z io T e1 a m c L 7 O N I L. l 1 l 1I Existing Lane Configuration Problem: the left tom lanes are too short, and the intersections are located too dose to each other • Nordstrom Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 51 Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 n/I t :r.- a i l A S S O C I A T E S 31612003 Widen this section by one lane ' I Klickitat Drive Option 1 Nordstrom Extend the southbound left tum lane -- Extend the northbound left tum lane Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway Corridor page. 52 Klickitat Drive Widen this section by two lanes 3/6/2003 l l: Option 2 1 • Extend the southbound left tum lanes Nordstrom Extend the northbound left tum lanes Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 jN?iir A 9 9 0 C 1 A T C 9 page 53 A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive Extend left tum lanes 3!6/2003 Assign this lane to left tum to Strander Blvd only Widen the road/ intersection Assign this lane to Klickitat Drive only Klickitat Drive Only Strander Boulevard Nordstrom Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 54 Bring) -5 ramp to Klickitat Drive 3/6/2003 i 1 Option 4 Strander Blvd only Ramp from Klickitat Drive Construct a tunnel for through lanes Widen intersection /road Klickitat Drive only Klickitat Drive only • Nordstrom • Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 IMi r a`iI A S S O C 1 A T_ E S page 55 1 1Y Klickitat Drive Extend 1-5 Off Ramp to the Malt Under Southcenter Parkway 3/6/2003 11 : Option 5 1 Nordstrom Extend Klickitat Dr: to the East and Connect it with Strander Blvd. Provide Access to Southcenter Mall Parking Area Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project - Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 M T C = a 1 A S S O C I A T E S page 56 1 -5 Northbound Collector - Distributor Road Provide Access to 1-405 and SR 518 Klickitat Drive 3 /6/2003 11 1 II } Option 6 i • Nordstrom Construct a Tunnel and Add I- 5 NB On Ramp Strander Boulevard Signalize This New Intersection Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 A S S O C I A T E S page 57 Klickitat Drive 316/2003 Option 7 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 Strander Boulevard A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter Parkway Corridor page 58 Appendix B Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I- 405/Southcenter Boulevard/Tukwila Parkway Area Based on the 1 -405 Implementation Plan Improvement Assumptions A S S O C I A T E S ' Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 1 Memorandum A S S O C I A T E S To: City of Tukwila From: Tom Noguchi and Brian Dearing, Mirai Associates Subject: Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I- 405 /Southcenter Boulevard/Tukwila Parkway Area Date: June 27, 2003 The purpose of this memo is to outline the transportation facility needs to accommodate the 2020 traffic demand focusing on the area along I -405. The study area is generally bounded by I -5 ramps on the west and West Valley Highway/Interurban Avenue on the east, Southcenter Boulevard in the north and Tukwila Parkway in the south. The same forecast model used for the Strander Boulevard, Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway area was used to develop the 2020 traffic forecasts in this study area. After the 2020 traffic volumes were post - processed, the 2020 traffic conditions were simulated with SimTraffic and levels of service were obtained with Synchro. The I -405 Program is proposed to make changes to the network in the study area but the specific roadway configurations with lane assignments have not been decided. Where no roadway exists today, a baseline network with specific assumptions on the number of lanes were established as a starting point of our analysis. To operate the roadways and intersections in the study area at a reasonable level of service (LOS E or better), a set of improvements over the baseline assumption were identified. The memo lists those recommended improvements in the study area. 2020 Baseline Network Assumptions The following lists a set of the network assumptions we used as a starting point of the traffic analysis on the roadways where they -do not exist today are shown in the set of figures, Figures 1 to 10, and summarized below: • Tukwila Parkway will be a 5 -lane road between Andover Park East and West Valley Highway. • The intersection of the northbound I -40-5 on ramp Tukwila Parkway will be a - signalized intersection with one left -turn and two through -lanes in the eastbound direction and one right lane and two through -lanes in the westbound direction. - • The new Strander Boulevard connection to East Valley Highway will be a 5 -lane road. At the intersection of Strander Boulevard and the West Valley Highway, one eastbound left turning lane will be provided with storage equal to that of today. Westbound Strander Boulevard will be constructed with turning bays for both left and right turns and two through lanes. No changes will be made to the intersection lane configuration in the northbound and southbound approaches. Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 2 • The intersection of Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East/66 Avenue South will be designed to become a four - legged intersection. The signal phasing at this intersection will be configured in a split mode, which only allows traffic movements on a single approach at any given time. Each approach will have identical designs, with one left -turn lane, one through -lane, and one shared through - right turn lane. Recommended 2020 Roadway /Intersection Improvements Based on the currently available 2020 land use forecasts for the Tukwila Urban Center, the following section outlines the traffic improvements recommended by Mirai Associates. Table 1 compares the level of service, average intersection delay, and the average queue length in feet of the longest movement at a specific intersection between the baseline condition and the recommended improvements. In every situation, the intersection with the recommended improvements shows a substantial increase in operation efficiency. Table 2 displays the current year volumes, as they would operate on the new network as well as the forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. On average, traffic volumes will increase by over 36 percent, which relates to a yearly growth of 1.75 percent. Generally, the recommended roadway improvements for the study area are summarized into the following five roadway segments. All of the intersections in these segments are displayed in Figures 11 to 20 and they will accommodate the future traffic flows as shown in Figure 21: ROADWAY SEGMENT • Southcenter Boulevard west of 61 Avenue South - widen to seven lanes. o Add an additional lane in the eastbound direction to accommodate three right turn lanes and add one additional lane in the westbound direction to accommodate a triple left at the intersection with 60 Avenue South. o Widen the east leg of the intersection to accommodate one additional left turn lane in the westbound direction. The additional lane allows a greater amount of left turns to occur during a single cycle than would a single left turn lane. In addition, a greater percentage of the green time can be allotted to the movements with larger volumes. This also helps to reduce the formation of traffic queues in the westbound direction. • Tukwila Parkway from Westfield Southcenter entrance to the new I - 405 northbound on - ramp - widen to six to eight lanes (six lanes between the Westfield Shopping Mall entrance and the west leg of the Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East intersection, and eight lanes at the east leg of the Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East intersection) o Add a one through lane and one right turn lane in the eastbound direction at Andover Park West to accommodate the increased through movements Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 3 A S S O C I A T E S and to allow right turns to be removed from the through lanes (currently the configuration allows for only a shared right- through lane). o Add one through lanes in the eastbound direction between Andover Park West and Andover Park East to accommodate the increased through movements. Reconfigure the westbound lanes at Andover Park East to change one through lane to a shared left - through lane. This will help reduce the queue length in the left turn lane. o Extend the storage areas of the two left turn lanes to the upstream intersection in the eastbound direction at the northbound I -405 on -ramp. This will increase the storage capacity of the left turn lanes and help prevent blockage of traffic at the upstream intersection. o The northbound traffic on Andover Park East should be accommodated by providing a right turn lane with storage that extends to Baker Street. The right turning traffic will be removed from the through lanes once the traffic passes through the Baker intersection allowing for more efficient through and turning movements. In addition, a single left tum lane should be provided as well as two through lanes to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. o One right turn lane should be added for the westbound traffic east of Andover Park East that nearly extends to the I -405 northbound on -ramp. This addition will remove the right turning traffic from the through lanes allowing for more efficient movements. • 61 Avenue Bridge —widen to seven lanes o Add one northbound left turn lane and one right turn lane at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard that extends across the bridge. The right turning traffic will be removed from the heavy left turning movement and allow for more efficient turning movements. o One additional lane is required in the southbound direction to accommodate the eastbound triple right turn at the intersection with Southcenter Boulevard. • 66 Avenue Bridge — widen to six lanes o The southbound direction will not alter from its current form across the bridge (two through lanes), but will widen into four lanes south of the bridge to accommodate a larger mix of turning movements (through, left and right). o The northbound direction will have two through lanes and two left turn lanes across the bridge. The additional lanes are needed across the bridge due to the short distance between Southcenter Boulevard and I -405, which does not allow for sufficient storage. • West Valley Highway from Grady Way to Strander Boulevard —widen to six to seven lanes Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 4 A S S O C I A T E S o Add one additional lane in the northbound direction north of the I -405 northbound off-ramp to accommodate the increase in traffic through and right turn movements at the intersection of Grady Way /Southcenter Boulevard. o Add one through lane in the northbound direction north of the Tukwila Parkway extension and one right turn lane in the southbound direction at the Tukwila Parkway extension. o Add one additional through lane in the northbound direction from Strander Boulevard to the Tukwila Parkway extension. This movement will increase in demand due to the increase in growth over time as well as the diverted traffic from Andover Park East. Recommended Intersection Configuration The following lists improvements needed to accommodate the 2020 traffic volumes for each intersection. The attached graphics from SimTraffic show the lane configurations recommended below: SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD /GRADY WAY AND INTERURBAN/WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY INTERSECTION o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays), two through lanes, and ane right turn lane (one storage bay) o Westbound — two left turn lanes (two storage bays), two through lanes, and two right turn lanes (two storage bays) o Northbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lanes (one storage bay) - o Southbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AND 1-405 EXIT RAMP o Eastbound —one left turn lane, one shared left - through lane (one storage bay), and two right lanes (two storage bays) o Westbound —no changes except for the elimination of the through movement o Northbound —two through lanes and one shared through -right turn lane o . Southbound —two through lanes and one left turn lane (one storage bay) LONGACRES WAY/TUKWILA PARKWAY AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bay), one through lane, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 5 through -right turn lane A 9 5 0 C 1 A'T E 5 o -Westbound—no changes o Northbound —two left tum lanes (two storage bays), one through lane, and one shared through -right turn lane o Southbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and two right turn lanes (one storage bay) STRANDER BOULEVARD AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY INTERSECTION o Eastbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Westbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Northbound —no changes o Southbound —two left tum lanes (two storage bays), one through lane, and one shared -right turn lane TUKWILA PARKWAY AND NORTHBOUND 1-405 ON RAMP o Eastbound —two left turn lanes and two through lanes o Westbound —two through lanes and two right turn lanes (two storage bays) TUKWILA PARKWAY /ANDOVER PARK EAST /66TH AVENUE INTERSECTION o Eastbound —one left turn lanes (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one o Westbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) - o Northbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lanes (one storage bay) o Southbound —one left tum lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND 66TH AVENUE o Eastbound —two through lanes and one right turn lane (one storage o Westbound —no changes o Northbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays) and two right tum lanes TUKWILA PARKWAY AND ANDOVER PARK WEST INTERSECTION o Eastbound —three through lanes and one right tum lane (one storage bay) Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 6 o Westbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bay) and one through lane o Northbound —two left turn lanes and one right turn lane (one storage bay) TUKWILA PARKWAY AND SOUTHCENTER SHOPPING ENTRANCE INTERSECTION o Eastbound —no changes o Westbound —no changes o Northbound —no changes TUKWILA PARKWAY AND 61ST AVENUE o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bays) and one through lane o Westbound —no changes o Southbound —one left turn lane, one shared left - through lane, one through lane and one right turn lane (one storage bay) SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND 61ST AVENUE o Eastbound —one through lane, one shared right- through lane, and two right turn lanes (two storage lanes) o Westbound —one left tum lanes (one storage bays) and two through lanes o Northbound —three left turn lanes and one right turn lane Remaining Issues The recommended improvements will substantially improve the levels of service of the intersections located along the I -405 corridor. There is a need to further investigate the operating conditions at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. It is possible that an additional bridge over the Green River, connecting the Tukwila Urban Center with the West Valley Highway, between Strander Boulevard and South 180 Street will be needed. In addition, the intersection operation of West Valley Highway/Interurban Avenue and Grady Way /Southcenter Boulevard needs to be investigated further. The bridge over the Green River to the north and the bridge on Grady Way to the east restrict the expansion of the intersection approaches, which may —be required to accommodate the future traffic demands. l/i r1 A S S O C I A T E S Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 7 Intersection Baseline th Improvements LOS • Delay Avg. Queue Delay Avg. Queue Southcenter Boulevard 61st Street E 67.0 1269 27.8 521 Tukwila Parkway , 61st Street D 53.2 797 31.4 436 Tukwila Parkway Shopping Center Entrace A 8.0 109 6.9 101 Tukwila Parkway Andover Park West F 104.4 896 20.1 389 Tukwila Parkway Andover Park East F 147.3 650 W 70.9 559 Tukwila Parkway NB 1-405 On -Ramp F 190.9 1583 71.7 615 Southcenter Boulevard 66th Street B 16.7 270 17.5 304 Southcenter Boulevard West Valley Highway F 148.8 1132 90.6 733 NB 1-405 Off-Ramp West Valley Highway F 140.1 1392 18.9 356 Tukwila Parkway West Valley Highway E 61.7 909 61.7 1193 Strander Boulevard West Valley Highway F 211.6 1647 130.7 739 Table 1. Comparison: 2020 Baseline vs. 2020 with Recommended Improvements A S S O C I A T E S S 'Average Queue Length (feet) represents the 50% percentile queue length of the longest movement of any one intersection. Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 8 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northoubnd Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right In Out In Out In Out In Out 210 770 660 290 930 150 190 840 220 490 890 700 1640 1660 1370 1640 1250 1790 2080 1250 0 1260 10 60 1580 0 360 10 440 10 10 20 1270 1640 1640 2030 810 80 40 10 750 1050 40 70 1450 510 160 20. 120 40 0 60 1840 1270 2030 1610 300 130 100 1260 0 0 0 0 I0 0 1040 .300 0 0 250 920 0 1960 0 0 1340 300 1170 250 l 430 0 460 0 0 0 0 1030 420 290 430 0 890 0 0 710 1450 1490 720 860 .12t0_ 340 ` • 310. 120 • 250, t ' 3'00 •'400 1 ^ .:510 _•`.� 130 '• 4i 10'0: •4120 • 860 660i: 71({• ,.480 670 ' q.480, 900 1340 1250 370 1250 • 700 1090 290 0 570 0 0 0 0 680 220 'd .%0� 450 • 800 0 860 0 0 1130 0 90 0 0 0 0 880 1540 280 850 0 1220 0 0 1820 2420 970 1130 1980 0 0 0 1040 0 780 530 500 0 0 220 690 0 1220 1820 0 1030 1540 910 1000 310 1400 10 40 1260 310 420 40 500 20 20 10 1720 1830 1610 1780 960 90 50 640 120 0 240 0 0 0 0 1200 340 60 800 0 360 0 0 400 1540 • 1440 860 920 Northbound Southbound Eastbot:..d Westbound Northoubnd Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right In Out In Out In Out In Out 120 1300 1010 170 1310 220 520 630 260 500 920 1470 2430 3290 1700 2070 1410 1810 2890 1260 0 1790 10 60 2010 0 620 10 1360 30 0 10 1800 2420 2070 3400 1990 80 40 0 590 1250 40 70 1890 1440 590 20 110' 40 10 60 1880 1900 3400 2040 720 130 110 2040 0 0 0 0 0 0 1430 820 0 0 450 .1590 0 3020 0 0 2050 620 2040 450 260 0 800 0 0 0 0 1130 400 610 340 0 1060 0 0 1010 1530 1930 950 600 370 780 720 220 230 440 690 1100 140 130 140 180 1870 1650 890 500 1930 . 2040 450 950 510 0 1140 0 0 0 0 270 420 470 590 0 1650 0 0 890 690 1410 1060 1100 1480 0 160 0 0 0 0 530 2180 330 770 0 1640 0 0 2490 2690 690 1100 2250 0 0 0 1540 0 950 1130 370 0 0 230 510 0 1640 2490 0 1500 1910 740 1180 330 850 20 1320 410 310 370 1570 520 30 1130 660 1200 1880 2040 960 2460 2910 1820 1770 140 0 224 1 0 0 0 0 1310 600 70 600 0 360 0 0 670 1910 1530 670 740 Table 2. Volumes for New Network (2000 Actual and 2000 Model) 2000 Actual Volumes ( +15 %) (adjusted for new network) Interurban/Southcenter Blvd W. Valley Hwy /1 -405 Off -Ramp W. Valley Hwy / Longacres Tukwila Pkwy /I-405 On -Ramp Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park W. Tuil :PkwyiAndovef Park 66th/Southcenter Blvd 61st/Southcenter Blvd 61st/Tukwila Pkw Strander Blvd/W. Valley Hw Tukwila Pkwy /Mall Entranc 2020 PP Volumes (Balanced) Interurban /Southcenter Blvd W. Valley Hwy /I -405 Off-Ramp W. Valley Hwy /Longacres Tukwila Pkwy /I -405 On -Ramp Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park W. Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park E. 66th/Southcenter Blvd 61 st/Southcenter Blvd 61st/Tukwila Pkw Strander Blvd/W. Valley Hw Tukwila Pkwy /Malt Entranc A S S O C I A T E S Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 9 October 2005 ATTACHMENT E DRAFT ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE •PLANNING Appendix B to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Tukwila Fiscal Analysis and Recommendations Submitted for City of Tukwila Prepared by: ECONorthwest 99 W 10 Avenue Suite 400 Eugene, OR 9740t Phone • (541) 687 -0051 FAX • (541) 344-0562 info@eugene.econw.com ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Suite 400 99 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 -3001 4 October 2005 TO: Cyndy Knighton FROM: Sarah Graham, Terry Moore, and Bryan Kean SUBJECT: DRAFT FUNDING AND FEES MEMORANDUM This memorandum summarizes ECONorthwest's analysis for Tukwila's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). It describes: • Typical methods of funding for local transportation projects • How a city would typically evaluate such funding sources • State and federal funding sources that may be available to pay for the projects • A TIF program to cover the funding shortfall. The analysis presented in this memorandum contributes to both (1) the comprehensive transportatior. plan for the City of Tukwila„ and (2) a recommended fee schedule for Tukwila. The fee schedule will not be included in the comprehensive transportation plan, but rather in the implementing ordinance for the fee. The rest of this memorandum is organized as follows: • Section 1: Overview provides background on the TIF and this project. • Section 2: Evaluation Framework describes a framework for how to think about transportation funding, the criteria used to evaluate existing, and potential new funding sources. • Section 3: Transportation Improvement Project Funding Sources summarizes funding sources, including how the sources generally work, revenue generated in recent years, and potential for revenue expansion. • Section 4: Tukwila Transportation Impact Fee describes the legal requirements and constraints of TIFs and how a TIF would work in Tukwila. • Section 5: Conclusions. • Appendix A: Preliminary TIF Model provides a spreadsheet for calculating the TIF. • Appendix B: Transportation Improvements to be Funded in Part by the TIF presents the recommended transportation improvements subject to a TIF as developed by Mirai Associates and the City of Tukwila. This memo does not cover operating, maintenance, and preservation funding sources. Other Offices Portland • (503) 222 -6060 Seattle • (206) 622 -2403 DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 2 1. OVERVIEW BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila is revising its TIF in conjunction with revising its Concurrency Ordinance and implementing a new Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Through the revision the City intends to develop an ordinance that is clear, simple to apply, and able to withstand legal challenges. A TIF is used commonly by local governments around the country to finance part of their road improvements. A TIF is supposed to assess a fee on new development that is proportional to that development's contribution to the need for major highway improvements. "Major highway improvements" usually mean arterials and. (sometimes) collectors. They do not include on -site street improvements, which are typically built and paid for directly by the developer of a property (and the standards for those streets are typically specified by municipalities in zoning or subdivision ordinances, or transportation plans). The list of projects to be included in the City's TIF is being updated to reflect current project costs, the elimination of completed projects no longer requiring development contribution, and new project costs required to maintain the City's established Level of Service standards. Mirai Associates is the prime consultant to the City on the TIF revision, and was hired to define the likely transportation network to accommodate growth, estimate the costs of the additions to that network, and estimate the percentage of costs that are attributable to new development. The City hired ECONorthwest for additional assistance with the economic, financial, and policy aspects of the TIF. The TIF analysis in this memorandum is based on the recommended transportation improvements prepared by Mirai Associates and provided to ECO at the end of September 2005 (see Appendix B). METHODS ECO based its analysis on the following sources of information: • City data. City staff provided us with copies of the revenue and expenditure reports for 2000 -2004 (including TIF revenue), relevant sheets from the 2005 budget, and applicable sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code. • Mirai Associates data. Mirai provided us with estimates for the amount and type of future development, including projects, costs, and number of PM peak -hour trips. • Literature review. We reviewed literature -from the Internet on forecasts of state -based revenue sources and the use of various funding sources in other jurisdictions. • Interviews. We interviewed City staff and spoke to staff from the State of Washington to gain an understanding of availability of funding sources. • Our previous work on transportation funding. We have worked recently on transportation funding for counties and cities in Oregon and Washington and have gained familiarity with the County MSTIP and TIF programs as well as transportation funding issues in general. In addition, ECO has been doing work on state and local transportation economics and financing for the last 10 years. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 3 2. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK This section describes the typical local strategy for funding transportation projects and the criteria we use to evaluate existing and potential new funding sources. TYPICAL LOCAL STRATEGY -FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Most textbooks on public finance contain some variation of the following basic principle of fairness and efficiency: people should pay in proportion to benefits received or costs imposed (unless they are members of classes deemed to merit special treatment: e.g., low income, elderly). But local government administrators and elected officials have a more practical principle regarding funding: current residents pay last. That principle leads them to seek funding, in order, from the following sources: • Federal agencies. • State agencies. _ • Regional agencies. • Local sources that include others besides existing voters, including: • People passing through (e.g., room taxes, gas taxes), and • Future voters (e.g., by charging developers fees that future households and businesses will pay in upon purchasing property). • Current households and businesses. Figure 1 shows this typical funding strategy graphically. We will use this funding strategy as the basis for our recommendations on funding sources. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 4 Figure 1. Transportation funding strategy. Get federal and state funds where you can. Most federal funds for transportation projects get to counties via the state STIP process. Little way to influence State Highway Fund allocation, which is used primarily for maintenance. CONCLUSION: local funds will be necessary to fund improvements. Transportation Users❑ (Direct beneficiaries) Tolls Source: ECONorthwest Car owners or drivers Z LOCALS ONLY❑ - Registration fee❑ Transportation utility district❑ 0 NONLOCAL ALSO[ Gas tax❑ Parking fees - FEDERAL FUNDS More Payment tied to benefits received Boxes show the real source of funds, not the financing. Sources that are collected by a general property tax could be financed with GO bonds. Sources that raise new, predictable revenues could be financed with revenue bonds. ' TEA -21 STATE HWY FUNDS Property users and owners TEA -21 Property tax❑ Special assessment/LIDI SDC/TIFO 2 A fundamental principle of public finance: ❑ People should pay based either on the costs they impose or the benefits they receive, unless they belong to some group that deserves special treatment. ❑ ❑ - • Thus, other things equal, revenue sources t6 the left of the diagram are preferable to those on the right. EXISTING STATE FUNDS Other classes Sales tax❑ Business license fee❑ Franchise fee❑ Payroll tax❑ Real estate transfer tax❑ Less Things to consider in evaluating the financing options:0 ❑ when the facility will be built❑ ❑ distribution of costs and- benefits J DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 5 APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE TO SELECTING FUNDING SOURCES Based on the principle of funding for public infrastructure described above, we expect Tukwila to pursue funding sources for transportation improvements using the following general logic: • Use federal or state funds first. Try to get more project funds from WSDOT or tie what might otherwise be local projects (e.g., sidewalks and bike paths) to federal or state highway projects. • Where possible and appropriate, try to identify projects that benefit specific users, and charge them directly. Benefiting property owners can be charged through local improvement districts or special assessments; new development can be charged through land use requirements and impact fees (a TIE is a charge for developing the transportation system); and benefiting vehicle owners and users can be charged through gas taxes, vehicle registration lees, and tolls. Estimating the share of cost that should be paid through these funding mechanisms is not an exact science; and it is sometimes appropriate to allocate some costs to general public. Consider the funding of transit, which benefits not only transit riders, but auto users (by reducing congestion), and also benefits groups that society has decided merit public assistance (e.g., lower- income households, people with disabilities). The funding is consistent with this mix of beneficiaries: it comes partially from direct users (fares), partially from auto users (gas taxes), and partially from other general sources (e.g., employer taxes). • Choose funding sources with sufficient magnitude, stability, and predictability. • All else being equal, choose sources that allow flexibility to meet changing needs but that do not allow the funds to be diverted too easily to projects unreated to the original purpose of the funding source. • All else being equal, pay for projects by expanding exisiing revenue sources rather than developing new sources (which are less politically acceptable and increase the costs for administration). • When considering new sources, use the following criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of the funding source: • Legal authority. Most of the local funding sources we consider are currently used in Washington and are therefore legal; we note any exceptions. • Financial capacity. Can the source pay for the improvements? Is the funding source adequate, stable, and predictable? • Flexibility of use. Can the source be used for all transportation projects, or just, for example, capital projects, bicycle /pedestrian projects, or projects on arterial roads? • Fairness (equity). Who -pays for the improvements? A basic principle of public finance is that the people should pay based on either the costs they impose or the benefits they receive, unless they belong to some group that deserves special 2 Federal and state sources flow through WSDOT and are often allocated at the regional level before passing through to the counties and cities. Because these funds have the appearance of coming from outside of the region, they are very attractive politically and require little evaluation: get them if you can. We instead focus our evaluation on potential local funding sources, which are undoubtedly needed to supplement available federal and state funds. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 6 treatment. Actually implementing that principle, however, requires attention to at least two critical points. • The ability of technicians and policymakers to know and measure these benefits and assign them to specific users may be limited. Charging people who benefit from a transportation improvement may be not feasible because of the difficulty in identifying the exact distribution of benefits across potential users. An example of this might be sidewalks: do they only benefit the property owners who abut them, the pedestrians from some other part of town who use them to get somewhere else, or the auto drivers who have less potential liability for accidents with pedestrians? In these cases, funding sources that spread the cost out among a larger number of people may be acceptable because of the low cost to individual users compared to the cost and difficulty of assigning benefits to each user. • A point related the "user- pays" principle is a normative one: that people should pay in proportion to the benefits they receive or the costs they impose. In some cases, however, improvements could be considered public goods that should be paid for by all residents of the area, even if they are not used in equal shares by all residents. • Administrative ease. Collection and distribution of funds has a cost of its own. In addition to being more politically acceptable, the use of existing funding sources can cut down on administrative costs. • Political acceptability. Is the source politically acceptable to the citizens of the local jurisdiction? In theory, if a source is legal, raises required revenues, is fair, and is administratively efficient, one would hope that it would be politically acceptable; in practice, it does not always work that way. Who pays is a critical issue for political acceptability. Also, new taxes or fees are sometimes met with more resistance than the expansion of current funding mechanisms, regardless of other issues. It is important to point out that we are evaluating this factor from the perspective of local decisionmakers; while state and federal sources are politically attractive to local decision makers, allocation of funds from these sources -to local projects may not make sense from a state or federal perspective. • If raising additional revenue is not politically acceptable, scale back or eliminate the proposed improvements. While these points are correct as a framework for choosing among funding options, the issues for this evaluation are simpler because the City has already made the decision to use TIP as a method to cover some transportation project costs. 3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES There is an important difference between funding (who, ultimately, will pay for the transportation project—someone has to) and financing (how the payments might get spread out over time). A bond issuance, for example, is a financing mechanism. But the bond requires payments to be made —the payments are made from a funding source. Some financing sources include a funding element. For example, Public Works Trust Fund Loans from the State of Washington are made at below - market rates of interest. The result is an DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 7 implicit grant in the form of an interest rate reduction. Where such a benefit exists in the financing source, the program will be noted in this sununary. The bulk of funding for maintenance and improvement of the transportation system is from federal and state gas -tax revenues that are passed on by the State to regions and local jurisdictions through established programs and funding formulas. Federal and State grants and loans vary from year -to -year and tend to be project - specific. Tukwila is part of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which conducts a biennial project selection process for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a list of current transportation projects within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties that are funded with federal, state, or local funds, including federal grants awarded through the PSRC. The regional plan is required under federal and state legislation and must be updated at least every two years. Some federal grants are administered through WSDOT as an arm of Federal Highway Administration. FEDERAL FUNDING Federal funding for transportation systems comes via legislation passed every six years, the most recent being the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA -21). The 2005 federal budget has provided for $34.4 billion in highway funding including $5.9 billion for surface street programs as well as $7.6 billion in transit funding programs. Washington State Department of Transportation expects to receive about $500 million annually under TEA - TEA -21 required each designated municipal planning organization (MPO) to develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the state to develop a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects. TEA -21 is implemented via transfer to State level decision making authorities. The primary funding source for federal transportation funding is federal fuel taxes. Federal sources Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP funds can be used on any Federal -aid highway, public road larger than a local or rural minor collector, bridge projects on any public road, or transit capital projects: STP funds are allocated to the State on a basis and suballocated to cities and counties on a competitive basis. There are several set asides under STP funding, including for safety and enhancement programming, as discussed below. Safety (STPS). 10% of STP funds are set aside for safety improvements. The objective of this program is to identify, implement and evaluate costeffective safety construction projects. This program is further broken down into the Hazard Elimination Safety Program (STPH) and the Railway/Highway Crossing Program (STPX). These funds are made available to all state and local agencies and tribal nations within Washington and can be applied to all public roadways. The state prioritizes and selects projects for funding. Environmentally neutral and non- Regionally Significant safety projects are located in a statewide safety grouping in the STIP. 3 Based on appropriations for 2003. 4 http:// www. wsdot. wa .gov/TA/ProgMGt/STIP /STIPHP.htm Downloaded May 30, 2005. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest - October 2005 Page 8 Transportation Enhancement Program (STPE). 10% of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancement projects. Eligible transportation enhancement projects must be directly related to the surface transportation system. This program funds a wide range of enhancements including pedestrian and bicycle facilities; preservation of abandoned railway corridors; landscaping and other scenic beautification; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; scenic or historic highway programs; reducing vehicle- caused wildlife mortality; and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Regional STP ( STPUL, STPUS, STPR). These funds are allocated by formula to the MPO regional transportation planning organization (RTPO), or county lead agency are based on population and road mileage. The PSRC is the MPO/RTPO for Tukwila and selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila was selected to receive $349,559 in STP funds in 2004, $615,692 in 2003, and $220,296 in 2002. STP Competitive (STPC). This portion of STP funds can be used in any area of the State. The purpose of the program is to offer multimodal choices to the public. Projects, once selected by the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), are programmed in the STIP, either in a grouping or listed individually. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) funds are distributed to non - attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non - attainment. Some funds for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement are also available to maintenance areas of the State. The MPO selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila has not been selected for CMAQ funds in the last five years. Not true. We have $180k from CMAQ for our signal interconnect project, which was combined under a larger King County grant Bridge (BR). The Bridge Replacement/Bridge Rehabilitation Program provides assistance for eligible bridges on public roads. _ High Priority Projects. The High Priority Projects program provides designated funding for specific projects ('demonstration' or `Demo' projects) identified by Congress. Nationwide, TEA -- 21 includes 1,850 of these projects, each with a specified amount of funding over the 6 years of TEA -21. The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. Currently, there are about forty High Priority or `Demo' projects in Washington State. There are two High Priority Project in Tukwila, with a total of $2 million in funding. Federal funding in Tukwila Table 4 -1 shows actual federal funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted federal funding for 2005. Table 4 -1. Federal funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual _ Actual Budget Federal Sources $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 9 The budgeted amount for federal funding for transportation in Tukwila is $2.0 million for 2005. This is significantly less than the $9.4 million in federal support in 2003, but more than in 2004. Because federal funding is typically project- specific, it can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. To plan for future transportation funding and set fee levels, it is necessary to make forecasts for funding availability from federal, state, and local sources. But federal funding is scarce and competition is intense for grants. Forecasting how much and which funding sources may be available at some later date is not certain. It involves approximating values and making predictions on behaviors of funding agencies. There are several options for approximating future funding: • Average the amount of funding received in the past. This method is uncertain because past funding has been inconsistent ranging from a low of about $766,000 to a high of $9.4 million over the last five years. • Apply probability to recommended projects. A more detailed and potentially more accurate analysis would be to add information to the project list. The analysis would include calculating the probability of receiving outside funding for each of the recommended projects based on past grants. But we don't have that type of detail and obtaining it would require analysis by Tukwila staff on each project. Also, many of the recommended projects will not be completed for 10 or more years and it would be difficult to predict what funding would be available that far in the future. • Ignore outside funding that is.not certain. Collect the T1F as though no state or federal dollars are collected and pay rebates to developers should federal/state funds be used for the project(s). This method assumes that the amount of TIF revenues collected will most likely be less than the actual amount eligible to be funded by a TIF. If the TIF is undercollected then it would not be necessary to subtract out other sources of funding or refund developers. The risk with this method is if the amount of TIF revenue collected is too high, the City would be required to refund developers for the excess collected. Such a risk would necessitate very careful standards to ensure that the revenue collected is not used incorrectly. • Assume a percentage of projects will receive some outside funding. This method would assume that some percentage of the recommended projects would receive at least some funding from other sources. But what percentage of projects would receive funding and at what level? As with other methods, it would be very difficult to predict funding behaviors 10 or more years into the future. - Despite the uncertainties involved in forecasting, cities must make some assumptions regarding available funding in order to calculate a TIF level. So, for the purposes of this discussion we calculated the average of previous years funding because that is the data available. The City has received federal funding averaging $4 million annually, but in 2004 and 2005, federal funding dropped to about $1.6 million annually. The consequence of the unpredictability, scarcity, and fluctuation is that the City cannot rely on federal funds for all transportation improvement projects and must secure local funding sources while pursuing federal (and state) grants. If more information on future funding is available at DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 10 the time of preparing the TIF, some estimate of available funding should be subtracted from the recommended project costs in order to account for such funding from other sources. STATE FUNDING The State of Washington depends on federal funding for much of its transportation system. The largest source of state funds is the motor - vehicle fuel tax, which provides state and local governments with $700 to $800 million per year. The State receives a share of the motor - vehicle fuel tax money, and distributes the rest to local jurisdictions by formula. The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) distributes grant funding from the revenue generated by three cents of the fuel tax to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. State sources Arterial Improvement Program (AIP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for arterial street improvements for cities and portions of counties within urban areas. The most recent awards to Tukwila under AIP were for $150,000 in 2000 and $1.0 million in 2003. Motor - Vehicle Fuel Tax. Fuel tax revenues are collected by State of Washington authority. Counties have an option to add an additional 2.3 cents per gallon tax which is collected by the State but then shared with the county who then distributes to local cities based on population. These revenues are often exhausted by maintenance and preservation budgets alone. In Tukwila, fuel tax revenues total about $350,000 per year. A portion of fuel tax revenues goes to maintenance projects, with about $110,000 going to improvement projects. Vehicle License Fees. In the past the state collected a fee in King County of $15 per vehicle license, which was shared with local cities in the same manner as the fuel tax. The vehicle license fee was repealed and Tukwila has not received any revenue from this source since 2003. Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP). This program provides funds to projects that promote pedestrian mobility and safety as a viable transportation choice; e.g. provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities. (TIB administered program.) Transportation Partnerships Program (TPP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for transportation projects in urban counties /cities with populations over 5,000 or in Transportation Benefit Districts that encourage economic development and public /private partnerships. Tukwila was awarded $869,000 in 2000, $660,000 in 2001, and $4.2 million in 2004 under TPP. Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). This is a loan program developed by the State Department of Community Development to provide low interest loans to local governments to complete needed infrastructure improvements. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). Provides state funds to be combined with partnership funding from freight mobility and freight mitigation projects along strategic freight corridors. Tukwila received $5 5 million from the FMSIB for a project completed in 2003. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees State funding in Tukwila Like federal funding, much of state funding for transportation is project- specific and fluctuates significantly from one year to the next. Table 4 -2 shows actual state funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted state funding for 2005. Table 4 -2. State funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget State Grants $590,000 $1,449,000 $3,027,000 $2,047,000 $490,000 $5,916,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 105,000 115,000 116,000 115,000 113,000 110,000 Local Vehicle License Fee* 136,000 151,000 156,000 4,000 0 0 Total State Sources $695,000 $1,564,000 $3,143,000 $2,162,000 $603,000 $6,026,000 *Note: The local vehide license fee was discontinued in 2003. Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. The budgeted amount for state funding for transportation in Tukwila is $5.9 million for 2005. This is significantly more than for any other year shown here. State funding, however, has not fluctuated as significantly as federal funding. For the same reasons described in the previous section on federal funding, we calculated the average of previous years funding to use as a forecast of state funding to be available in the future. The State's contribution to transportation improvements revenr 3s has averaged $2.4 million annually. The average includes the fuel tax, which has been steady at around $110,000 per year. Some amount between zero and that average of $2.4 million should then be subtracted from the project amounts in order to account for potential future funding. LOCAL FUNDING Local transportation funding sources are primarily from the property tax for highway projects and the sales tax for transit projects. Property taxes, as part of a City's General Fund, can be allocated to pay for capital projects of the transportation system as well but because property tax increases are capped, the additional capital cost requirements, in the form of annual or semi- annual loan repayments, require that the City forego other uses of property taxes. Other sources of revenue for transportation improvement projects include moneys from street use permits, impact fees, and Local Improvement Districts. ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 11 Local sources - Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The State of Washington levies a 1.28% tax on the full selling price of real estate, including transfers of controlling interests of property. Cities and counties may levy up to 2 %, but statutory limitations dictate that most charge between 0.25 and 0.5 %. Statutes also limit uses for some of the revenues from real estate excise taxes. If a city with population of 5,000 or more that is planning under the GMA imposes the first 0.25 %, often called REET 1, it must use the revenues exclusively for capital projects specified in its capital facilities plan. The second 0.25 %, or REET 2, can only be used for transportation and utility DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees projects. Tukwila had actual revenues from REET 2 of $0.6 million in 2003 and $0.8 million in 2004 and has budgeted $0.4 million for 2005. Parking Tax. Cities may charge a commercial parking tax. This has not been a major revenue source for Tukwila, as most parking is provided for free on street or on -site by businesses. Tukwila had actual revenues from the parking tax of $138,000 in 2003 and $184,000 in 2004 and has budgeted $175,000 for 2005. Local Improvement District (LID). LIDS are formed for the purpose of assessing local property owners an amount sufficient to pay for a project deemed to be of local benefit. LIDs are a specific type of special assessment district, which more broadly includes any district that is formed within an existing taxing district to assess specific property owners for some service that is not available throughout the larger district. LIDS are typically not used for transportation facilities that serve a large region, because the benefits from these facilities are spread across a large area. However, some improvements can have positive benefits for specific areas. Under a LID the improvements must increase the value of the taxed properties by more than the properties are taxed. For some transportation improvement projects, this may be difficult to show. This approach can be challenged by property owners. The City does not have an applicable LID at this time. Impact Fees. If new development within a community triggers public costs, impact fees can allocate those costs to the development rather than to the existing residents of the city. In simplest terms, this is sometimes described as "growth pays for growth." The City of Tukwila's current TIF is structured on project basis and requires that a trip generation and distribution study be conducted for new development. The City is collecting about $277,000 annually in TIF revenue. Local funding in Tukwila . Table 4 -3 shows actual local funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004, and budgeted local funding for 2005. ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 12 5 Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, "A Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns," August 1999, pp.16 -18. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 13 Table 4 -3. Local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Local Sales Tax $2,946,000 $2,570,000 $2,635,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 Parking Tax 89,000 86,000 82,000 138,000 192,000 175,000 REET 2 Tax 464,000 319,000 339,000 597,000 813,000 350,000 G.O. Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 6,343,000 0 0 Impact Fees 747,000 669,000 (28,000) 0 . 0 525,000 Miscellaneous 328,000 397,000 535,000 399,000 147,000 75,000 Total Local Sources $4,574,000 $4,041,000 $3,563,000 $7,477,000 $1,152,000 $4,125,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. Tukwila uses varying local sources from year to year to fund transportation improvement projects. This is in part because transportation improvement needs are project based. In addition, these funding source tables do not show carryover in funds from previous years, but rather only show new revenues. Cities carry over unspent fund balances from year to year for financing purposes, including providing for available funding at the beginning of the year (before new revenues have been received) and if a project has not been completed. During the five -year period for which actuals are shown, the City received an average of $277,000 in impact fees annually, but the City did not receive any revenue from the TIF for two years and had negative revenue in another. (The negative revenue likely results from the City refunding a developer for previously paid impact fees.) Because impact fees result from growth that is dependent on private developers' decisions, impact fee revenues are unpredictable. When revenues from the current TIF and general obligation bond proceeds are not included, Tukwila generates an average of $2.5 million in revenue from local sources. annually. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN TUKWILA Table 4- 4•shows federal, state and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2005. Table 4-4. Federal, State and local funding sources for. Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,000 1,564,000 3,143,000 2,162,000 603,000 6,026,000 Federal Sources $2,096,000 State Sources — 695,000 Other Intergovernmental Revenue Local Sources Total 28,000 360,000 1,445,000 0 4,574,000 4,041,000 3,563,000 7,477,000 $7,393,000 $6,731,000 $17,349,000 $19,082,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and City of Tukwila 2004 Budget. 664;000 0 1,152,000 4,125,000 $3,619,000 $12,197,000 DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 14 Available funding The revenue available from many existing sources depends on growth that occurs in Tukwila. Some sources are tied to population growth and miles driven (e.g., the fuel tax); some sources are tied to property value growth (e.g., local improvement districts and special assessment districts); and some sources are tied to the amount of new development (e.g., the TIF). Available funding from outside sources is found mostly at the state level, which administers both state programs through the TIB, and federally funded TEA -21 programs. Many of the programs at the state and federal level are oriented towards providing below - market interest rates on loan or partial grants with the remainder left to the City. While these low -cost loans reduce the total funded cost to the City, they still require the City to provide an ultimate source of payment. Therefore local sources are critical as they are usually the ultimate source of repayment. In addition to impact fee revenues, the City can use property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and other existing or potential City taxes or fees to pay for the improvements. The City can consider the use of a LID structure to repay any loans required to support the improvements. There are many variables to consider in making projections for future funding availability, including issues as diverse as federal and state transportation legislation, state and local policy changes, population growth in Tukwila and Washington State, inflation, and the price for gasoline. The City has local revenues of about $2.5 million annually. State and federal funding have averaged a combined annual contribution of $6.4 million to transportation improvements revenues. If the City of Tukwila continues to receive state and federal funding at similar levels, the combined federal, state and local funding would be an estimated $8.9 million annually. Unmet needs Since new development almost always accounts for less than 100% of the new traffic volume that is creating demand for a new transportation facility, impact fees cannot cover the total costs of the new transportation improvements. The City needs to fund the remaining portion of the development costs that are not paid for by impact fees. To the extent growth creates a burden on the City, an impact fee can be collected. If outside grants are received; then the City is not burdened and therefore there is no basis for seeking repayment from new development. It is necessary to subtract available sources of funds to calculate an equitable level for the revenue requirements from the TIF. It is not necessary (or equitable) to subtract 100 % of all sources of funds because some funds would be required for purposes other than TIF- eligible projects. The City of Tukwila has identified $102.5 million in project costs (2005 dollars). Over a 15 -year period, this project list would result in about $9.9 million in costs annually at an annual interest rate of 5 %. Of those project costs $95.8 million are eligible for the TIF. The other $6.7 million are safety - related and cannot be paid for with the TIF. The City's local funding for transportation improvements of $2.5 million can be subtracted from that amount. This leaves an estimated $7.4 million annually to be funded by other sources, including federal and state grants and the TIF. As DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 15 discussed above, the uncertainties in predicting future funding make it difficult to forecast how much funding would be available from federal and state sources through 2020. But as the City prepares its shorter term plans it should have a more clear idea of how much funding could be available. 4. TUKWILA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is assessed on new development to pay for improvements to the transportation systems that the traffic from such development is estimated to require if some standard for level of service (LOS) is to be maintained. The fee is paid by new development at the time of an application for a building permit. The amount of the fee is based on the impact of the proposed development on transportation systems. The steps for estimating a transportation impact fee can vary by jurisdiction, but in broad terms they are: • Forecast the demand for transportation capacity (future trips) on a collection of arterials and collectors (primarily existing, but potential yet- to -be- built) defined by policy to be that part of a jurisdiction's to which transportation concurrency policy and TIF calculations will apply. • Prepare a plan showing what improvements will be built to meet that demand, their cost, and which are eligible for TIF funding • Determine what percentage of the improvements is required to accommodate new development in the jurisdiction (as opposed to solving problems of existing development, or accommodating future through traffic). Use that percentage to estimate the total amount of revenue that TIF must generate from new development over some forecast period. • Divide the total revenue requirement by some measure of the trips the new development will generate. The result is the cost per estimated trip generated. • Apply that cost per trip to each new development project using an estimate of trips to be generated based on the nature of the development. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF TIFS The basic premise of a TIF is that new developments pay for expansion of the transportation system, but there are constraints on how much a jurisdiction can charge developers. Developments can be charged for expansions in the system, but not for existing deficiencies. _ In the State of Washington, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that infrastructure be in place within six years, from "the time of development" to accommodate the impacts of new development. There must be a temporal connection between when one pays and when one receives the benefit. , 6 This section is based on a review of the Revised Code of Washington: RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees -- Intent — Limitations, RCW 82.02.060 Impact fees — Local ordinances -- Required provisions, RCW 82.02.070 Impact fees — Retained in special accounts — Limitations on use — Administrative appeals, RCW 82.02.080 Impact fees — Refunds, RCW 82.02.090 Impact fees — Definitions, RCW 82.02.100 Impact fees — Exception, mitigation fees paid under chapter 43.21 C RCW. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 16 Cities must show "concurrency" in their application of a TIF. In broad terms, concurrency in the context of transportation means that transportation improvements to maintain a specified level of service must be available at (or close to) the same time ("concurrent" with) new development occurs (e.g., if a lane on an arterial must be widened to maintained a jurisdiction's adopted level of service, development may need to be curtailed until the widening occurs). Impact fees collected must be used within six years of collection and be based on the six -year capital improvement plan (CIP). If a jurisdiction collects TIF funds but does not complete the planned transportation improvements within the six year limit, the jurisdiction must refund the developer who paid the fee for that portion of the fee that was not used. A jurisdiction must therefore demonstrate a geographic and temporal nexus between the impact fee payers, the payment, and the related investments. For example, fees collected in the TUC should underwrite infrastructure improvements that benefit the property owners of that area as opposed to other areas in Tukwila. Level of service standards The GMA further requires that comprehensive plans include a transportation element that includes LOS standards. Local governments planning under the GMA must establish such LOS standards for their transportation system, primarily roadways, in their comprehensive plans. They may permit new development within their jurisdictions as long as the transportation infrastructure will sustain the required LOS or the developer mitigates circumstances to achieve the LOS. LOS is measured on a range from A to F, as defined by the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Intersections are evaluated for average delays, or average travel speeds on corridors. The City of Tukwila has a minimum LOS standard of E for most intersections and corridor segments. For some arterial segments, the LOS is calculated based on the average for the intersections within the segments. Under the City of Tukwila's existing LOS - standards, there are no existing deficiencies within the proposed system of improvements. This means that all capacity - related traffic improvement projects in Tukwila's CIP are eligible for the TIF without need of adjustment to account for existing deficiencies. Planning In accordance with the GMA, a TIF may only be imposed on transportation improvements that _ are identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan or related reports and updates to the comprehensive plan and transportation CIP. The improvement projects recommended in Tukwila's plan have been developed within the City's standards for concurrency and LOS. A major portion of the new capital costs associated with the proposed improvements in this plan result from projected growth in the area and the need to provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate that growth. Some jurisdictions have reduced their level -of- service standards to avoid this problem. 8 RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans -- Mandatory elements. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 17 The City's comprehensive plan calls for updating the impact fee list at least every two years or in conjunction with the annual update to the CIP. Financing constraints The GMA also requires that reasonable financial assumptions be made when establishing impact fees. A city cannot rely solely on impact fees to finance public facilities and must instead balance the costs between impact fees and other sources of public funds. Cities are required to show what sources of funding will be used to pay for the portion of improvement project costs that are not covered by the impact fee. TIF revenues follow the pace of development and are less stable than revenues tied to utility rates or property taxes. Bonding agencies are less willing to underwrite revenue bonds if impact fees represent a large percentage of the funding package. Ultimately, policymakers must determine the appropriate funding mechanisms and the appropriate rates for impact fees based on the recommendations of staff. Policymakers may choose to set impact fees below the level necessary to fully cover transportation system improvements for new development. A city may choose to charge less than the full costs for policy reasons, including to facilitate affordable housing, for example. A city must still show what other source of public funds will be used to cover the gap between the amount funded by impact fees and the total amount needed. Developers traditionally have been very sensitive to increases to impact fee rates. Put simply, if the impact fees increase the cost of developing Tukwila property higher than the market's willingness to pay, then development will be delayed. If structured appropriately, economists generally view impact fees a fair taxing mechanism. When the City develops infrastructure, the capital investment increases the value of the land that receives the services. The establishment of an impact fee, by increasing the cost of development, lowers the price developers are willing to pay to existing property owners. If the infrastructure is developed efficiently, the increase in land values associated with infrastructure improvements should approximately offset the decrease in land value associated with the implementation of the impact fee. Adjusting the TIF There are several methods to maximize the revenue available under a TIF: • Increase TIF. Some states require an adjustment to TIF levels to net out existing - transportation debt or other costs that the new development would help pay for. - Washington Law is not explicit on this point. Cities may choose to charge for some of these costs and thereby increase the TIF amount. State law does require that cities spread the costs between impact fees and other sources of public funds. • Revise /reduce credits for on -site improvements. The TIF pays for off -site costs imposed by new development. Some cities offer credits based on the cost of on -site improvements. Eliminating or reducing such credits would increase TIF revenue. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 18 • Adjust the proportion of costs attributable to growth. HOW A TIF WOULD WORK IN TUKWILA While Washington state law outlines the intent and requirements for setting impact fees, cities do have choices to make in how to implement the TIF. Zone system The service area used for the TIF is the legal boundaries of the City of Tukwila. The City has chosen to establish a zone system within the City boundaries. Under such a zone system, the location of the development would determine the level of the TIF imposed. Developments would be charged a TIF calculated using the costs for traffic projects in specific zones, rather than total costs for TIF- eligible projects. The four zones are: • Zone 1: South/TUC. From I -5 to the south City limits to the east City limits to north of Southcenter Boulevard. (Zone 1 would include the Tukwila South project upon annexation into the City of Tukwila.) • Zone 2: East/Interurban. From I -5 to north of Southcenter Boulevard to the east City limits to the Duwamish River to the West boundary. • Zone 3: West/TIB. From the west City limits to the south City limits to I -5. to SR 599 to the Duwamish River to the east City limits to the north boundary. • Zone 4: North/MIC. The MIC area plus Ryan Hill. There is also one project (a Signal Interconnect system) that is to be spread across the four zones. The City must ensure that fees collected for a certain zone are spent on the improvement projects in those zones. To accomplish this requirement, the City may consider separate accounts or funds for the TIF revenues for the four zones. Methods for calculating the TIF ECO developed the following methodology for calculating the TIF based on the City's new zone system and the availability of data. Mirai Associates provided forecasts for total future trips for each zone, total through -trips that begin and finish outside of Tukwila, and zone -to -zone trips. The trips were forecasted as one -_ way, PM peak -hour trips. Trips from zone to zone are included in the total future trips. The City then selected transportation improvement projects to meet future demand and maintain a minimum level of service of E. Mirai estimated - the cost of the recommended projects. Fundamental to a defensible TIF is some clear and reasonable method by which to estimate (1) the amount of new trips generated by new development, and (2) the share of costs of the new improvements in the CEP that new growth is responsible for. If, for example, one could demonstrate that an intersection improvement (which would cost $1 million) could maintain DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 19 existing LOS even if 1,000 new PM peak -hour trips occurred, then one would have a way of estimating a fee for new development: • Estimate (using standard ITE factors) the number of new PM peak -hour trips that a new development would generate. Assume the estimate is 5. • Divide that estimate (5) by the total new capacity (1,000). The result (0.5 %) is the percent of the total improvement cost ($1 million), which implies that the new development should pay a fee of $5,000 (= 0.5 * $1M). Reality is more complicated. The fee is typically not based on the specifics of an individual project, but on an aggregation of projects. In the case of the City of Tukwila, the total new projects for the City are divided out into four zones. So, typically, the percentage of a certain improvement that is required to accommodate new development would be calculated by determining the percentage of the total capacity of the facility that would be used by the new trips generated by new development. Because the TIF is being calculated on a zone basis, Mirai provided an estimate of the new trips generated per zone, but not an estimate of the total new capacity provided by the selected improvements. Without the latter, we could not calculate a percentage, because we lacked a denominator for the calculation. We had to use some other method to make an approximation for this zonal system. According to City staff, the proposed improvements to 2020 were developed to allow the system to meet the LOS E standard that the City has adopted. If one makes the assumption (certainly not exactly right, but potentially approximately right) that the improvements in the r'IP will have just enough capacity to meet LOS E standards given the forecasted new trips —and no more —then one has some basis for assuming that the forecast of new trips is simultaneously a forecast of new capacity. In other words, if the system improvements will be able to handle x more trips without exceeding LOS E, then they must have added a capacity of x trips. Thus, for our calculations we assumed that Mirai's forecasts for total future trips would approximate the total capacity. Mirai provided two different measures of future trips. One set of data forecasted the total number of new PM peak -hour trips that would travel within or through the zone, whether or not the trips use the improved transportation facilities. The second set of data forecasted the number of new PM peak -hour trips between and within zones that would actually use the transportation facilities included in the project list for improvements. The two totals vary, in some cases significantly. This difference in the data sets presents a policy choice for setting the TIF rate. Policymakers must decide if they will apply the TIF to the proportion of total new trips resulting from growth or only those trips that will actually use the specific facilities included on the transportation improvements list. r It can be assumed that improvements within a zone will benefit all users of the zone and not just those who use the specific facilities that are improved. For example, if a major thoroughfare is improved and can accommodate more trips, other streets in the zone may experience less delays as traffic moves from those local side streets onto the main thoroughfare. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 20 In the model, we used the total number of new PM peak -hour trips in the zone. ECO subtracted the estimate of new pass - through trips and the proportion of other new trips assumed to result from existing development from the total PM peak -hour volume for each zone. The result is an estimate of trips from new development that is used to determine the percentage of the improvements that is required to accommodate new development for each zone. The percentage of trips from new development to total trips is then applied to the eligible costs. To calculate eligible costs ECO netted out the costs for safety projects because those costs are not eligible TIF funding. 5. CONCLUSIONS' Federal funds are politically popular from a local perspective, but difficult to expand where based on strict allocation•formulas. Some of these sources are also difficult to secure and can come with significant strings attached. Because federal and state funding are typically project - specific, they can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. Other sources that are received annually by Tukwila can fluctuate or disappear for reasons out of the City's control. • The City should continue to pursue federal and state grants on a project basis. The City can also pursue other methods of finding transportation improvements, including the TIF. ECO has prepared a TIF model to calculate an appropriate TIF level to cover unfunded transportation improvement costs. Appendix A to this memorandum contains the model in an excel spreadsheet. However, there are several uncertainties in the recommended project list and methodology that must berleared up before it is possible to calculate a recommended TIF level. • First, the City does=not yet know the schedule for the improvement projects. The project list includes project's to be completed from the current year through 2020. Because Washington law requires cities to use impact fees within six years of collection, the City of Tukwila may noc'begin collecting now for projects that will not be completed by 2011. The City must determine which projects to include in its six -year CIP before calculating the TIF levels. • The second uncertainty is the status of the Tukwila South project. There are no project costs included on the recommended project list that are associated with Tukwila South. The annexation of Tukwila South, however, would increase the number of PM peak -hour trips and therefore impact the fee level for Zone 1. . • A third uncertainty is the amount of funding to be available from federal and state sources. To clarify this, the City could analyze each project's probability of receiving fiiture funding from outside sources. When the City calculates its TIF, it should have more up -to -date funding availability data. Known sources of funds should be subtracted out of the total revenue requirements before calculating the TIF. _ • Fourth, policymakers must decide if they will apply the TIF to the proportion of total new trips resulting from growth or only those trips that will actually use the specific facilities included on the transportation improvements list. Once the City has determined which projects are to be included in its six-year CIP, the TIF levels should be calculated for only those shorter term projects. The model in Appendix A can be updated when the project schedule and other uncertainties are clarified. TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision - making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. Level of Service The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. Capacity is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation • December 5, 2005 151 LOS Delay per Vehicle Signalized Intersections Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds 10 -14 Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds LOS Headway (min) Vehicle /hour Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5-6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15-20 3 -4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Figure 38 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Transit Level of Service Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 d Ed., 2003 Figure 39 —Service Frequency LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service 152 December 5, 2005 LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19-24 Night or owl service provided B 17-18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F 0-3 Very limited or no service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manua4 7° Ed, 2003 Figure 40 — Hours of Service LOS Non - motorized Level of Service A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Streets and Highways Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct traffic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss - crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., and is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation December 5, 2005 153 Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Figure 41). These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govern. *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards Figure 41— Functional Street System Standards The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D, however, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Transit King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide infra- Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional 154 December 5, 2005 Classification Functional Purpose Typical Adjacent Land Use TRANSIT WAY Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service and interregional transit trips. Major private and public developments of regional significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity service, connections between major activity centers, and some interregional trips Major private and public developments of regional or local significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high- density residential land uses. TRANSIT MINOR _ CORRIDOR Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium- density residential areas as well as commercial areas. TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET Provides connections between neighborhoods and area attractions.. Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Depends on location. Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station to areas near Westfield Mall at Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Figures 42 and 43) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County-Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Figure 42 — Transit Corridor Classifications Transportation December 5, 2005 155 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN flans8 P, ionry Corridor Clazsilication Figure 43 — Transit Priority Corridor Classifications 156 December 5, 2005 Non - motorized Transportation A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportation Plan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category I trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle- friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play -field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green/Duwamish high- employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non - motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non- motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC will inventory existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations on improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be financed. Traffic Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation December 5, 2005 157 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation of the project needs are in the TUC area. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila will encourage all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Balance travel efficiency, safety, and quality -of -life in residential areas through creative roadway design. 158 December 5, 2005 13.1.4 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. Policies IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES • Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service ♦ Traffic Calming Program Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use. 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non -residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments. 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings. 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES + Sidewalk ordinance ♦ Subdivision ordinance + Street Network Plan TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation December 5, 2005 159 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies 13.3.1 In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: — The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS Ls described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. — The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The Andover Park E, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. — All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. — The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial — West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC. — SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigatec4 as defined by PSRC. 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions. 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. 160 December 5, 2005 13.3.5 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.6 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.8 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5(15), Interstate 405 (1405), and State Route 518 (SR 518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.9 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries Ls LOS E /Mitigated. Policies IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ♦ Concurrency ordinance + Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy- vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on iL 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation December 5, 2005 161 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Westfield Mall at Southcenter to the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional/rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient - capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1 -405, to a station located east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastern edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then turning east running adjacent to or parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres. 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 162 December 5, 2005 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed -route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode-split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives 13.4.13 13.4.14 — Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea -Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short-term and long-term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. — Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. — Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. Encourage transit - oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property, public property, or public streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY • Commute Trip Reduction Program • Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards f Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation December 5, 2005 163 City of Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan Steve M. Mullet, Mayor City Council Planning Commission Joe Duffle Margaret Bratcher, Chair Joan Hernandez George Malina Pam Carter Alan Ekberg Jim Haggerton Bill Arthur Pam Linder, President Lynn Peterson Dave Fenton Vern Meryhew Dennis Robertson Henry Marvin December 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND 1 TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1 Roadway Level of Service Methodology 1 Transit Level of Service Methodology 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 3 Street Functional Classifications 4 11. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 7 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) 7 { Outside the Tukwila Urban Center 7 Tukwila Urban Center 7 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 12 FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION 12 Train Volumes 12 Truck Transportation 12 NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 14 Ili. 2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS 17 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS 17 BASELINE NETWORK 18 Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis 19 Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network 19 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 24 Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network 24 Urban Center Recommended Network 26 IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 31 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 31 TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE 33 r V. FISCAL ANALYSIS 34 t FUNDING SOURCES 34 Federal funding sources 34 State funding sources 35 Local funding sources 36 HISTORICAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA 36 Federal Grants 36 r State Grants 1 37 Local Funding 37 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 38 Available funding 38 Unmet needs 38 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 38 Zone system 39 TABLE OF FIGURES I. BACKGROUND ERRORI BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. FIGURE I -2: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP 5 11. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 7 FIGURE 11 -1: 2002 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - NORTH 8 FIGURE II -2: 2002 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - SOUTH 9 FIGURE II -3: 2002 EXISTING WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - URBAN CENTER 10 FIGURE 11-4: 2002 SATURDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - URBAN CENTER 11 FIGURE II -5: EXISTING TUKWILA ROUTES 15 FIGURE II-6: CATEGORY I NON - MOTORIZED FACILITIES 16 FIGURE I1 -7: CATEGORY II NON - MOTORIZED FACILITIES 111.2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS 17 FIGURE 111 -1: 2020 BASELINE GROWTH WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - NORTH 20 FIGURE 111-2: 2020 BASELINE GROWTH WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE- SOUTH 21 FIGURE 111 -3: 2020 BASELINE GROWTH WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - URBAN CENTER 22 BASELINE NETWORK FIGURE 111-4: 2020 MAXIMUM GROWTH PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - URBAN CENTER BASELINE 23 NETWORK FIGURE III -5: 2020 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDED NETWORK 25 FIGURE 111-6: EXPANDED GRID NETWORK FIGURE 111 -7: 2020 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE URBAN CENTER RECOMMENDED 30 NETWORK IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 31 FIGURE IV -1: LEVEL OF SERVICE CORRIDORS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER 32 V. FISCAL ANALYSIS 34 FIGURE V -1: IMPACT FEE ZONES 41 I. BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT The state's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes. Level of service standards establish the desired performance of the transportation system and are the measures against which the system's performance is judged. The GMA (specifically in RCW 36.70A.070) further requires that a city's transportation element include specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard. It also requires that system expansion needs be identified for at least ten years, based on traffic forecasts for the adopted land use plan and level of service standards. In 1995, Tukwila adopted its first Comprehensive Land Use Plan in accordance with the GMA. Within that document was the Transportation Element which established level of service standards, identified needed improvements, and presented a funding strategy. In 2004, a minor update was made to the Transportation Element to include new requirements on regionally significant state highways. This document represents a full update to the Transportation Element, including planning for 2020 growth impacts. Under the GMA, if probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the jurisdiction is given two options: to raise additional funding, and /or to reassess the land use assumptions that drive the transportation forecasts. It is also possible to lower the LOS standard to accept more traffic congestion. "Concurrency" is the term used to describe the relationship between the LOS standards; the funding needed to accommodate increased travel, and the land use assumptions. The concept of concurrency is illustrated in Figure 1 -1 as a three - legged stool. The three legs are: growth; traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards); and resources needed to fund new capital facilities. Concurrency is achieved when growth is matched with needed facilities. If one or more of the legs is uneven, the stool is unbalanced and one of the following three actions must be taken: • Reduce growth by denying or delaying land use permit applications • Increase funding for new facilities • Change the level of service standard Figure 1 -1: Three - Legged Concurrency Stool Roadway Level of Service Methodology The state GMA does not select a LOS methodology to be used statewide, but it does require each local jurisdiction to choose a level of service (LOS) methodology and establish standards. 1 LOS Signalized Intersection Dela Per y Vehicle (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Delay Per Vehicle (sec) Descriptions of Level of Service Operations A >10 >10 Highest driver comfort. Little delay. Free flow. B >10 and >20 >10 and >15 High degree of driver comfort. Little delay. C >20 and >35 >15 and >25 Some delays. Acceptable level of driver comfort. Efficient traffic operation. D >35 and >55 >25 and >35 Long cycle length. Some driver frustration. Efficient traffic operation. E >55 and >80 >35 and >50 Approaching capacity. Notable delays. High level of driver frustration. F Qru'r, . >80 ')AAA LJ:..L... -" ^- - - >50 - °i " • •_- -- -_, Flow breaks down. Excessive delays. Level of service is a qualitative measure used to denote intersection - operating conditions. It generally describes levels of traffic congestion at signalized and unsignalized intersections in an urban area. In the City of Tukwila's 1995 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the volume -to- capacity ratio methodology was used to calculate levels of service. This technique is based on the "Critical Movement Summation" concept developed by traffic engineers in the 1970s to calculate intersection capacity. In essence, LOS with this method compares a calculated critical intersection volume against a benchmark intersection capacity that is stratified by level of service. During the past 20 years, transportation researchers have found that the critical volume -to- capacity ratio is only one of several factors that affect the level of service. The quality of signal progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, the roadway grade, pedestrian crossings, availability of on- street parking and the lane width will also influence the level of service. At this time, it is commonly believed among the transportation experts that the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method produces the most useful information by which to effectively understand levels of traffic congestion in an urban street network. The HCM 2000 methodology can calculate level of service for each approach leg of an intersection, whereas the V/C method cannot. For these reasons, this study used the HCM 2000 delay method to calculate intersection levels of service for signalized intersections within the City of Tukwila. As shown in Table 1 -1, level of service is based on the average delay time per vehicle entering the intersection as defined in the HCM 2000. Level of service is represented on a scale ranging from "A" at the highest level, to "F" at the lowest level. The HCM also provides qualitative descriptions of each level of service rating. Intersection delay is the travel time in seconds experienced by a driver traveling through the intersection, compared with a free flow condition. Table 1 -1: Level of Service Definition LOS A and B represent minimal delays, and LOS C represents a generally acceptable delay. LOS D represents an increasing amount of delay and an increasing number of vehicles stopped at the intersection. An intersection with LOS E is approaching capacity and is processing the maximum number of vehicles possible through the intersection. LOS F means that the intersection is operating with excessive delays, meaning that it has a high level of traffic congestion. Vehicles approaching an intersection with LOS F may have to wait for more than one signal cycle to get through the intersection. 2 LOS Headway (min) Vehicle/ hour Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 -20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus/train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 - 24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F 0 -3 Very limited or no service Transit Level of Service Methodology Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. -2 - Service Frequency LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 "° Ed., 2003 Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 2003 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The purpose of a transportation system is to provide safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Tukwila's transporation system includes limited access freeways, state highways, arterial streets, access streets, transit service, trails, neighborhood foot paths, and sidewalks. Additionally, King County International Airport (formerly Boeing Field) provides air transportation, the Duwamish /Green River provides water access, and significant freight s . movement is provided by trucking and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fes Railroads. 1 Freeways serve regional travel. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for freeways and state highways. Responsibilities include funding, design, maintenance and operation of Interstate 5, Interstate 405, State Route 599, State Route 518, State Route 181 (West Valley Highway) and State Route 900 (Martin Luther King Jr. Way S). Boeing Access Road and E Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road are designated on the National Highway System. Tukwila is responsible for all publicly -owned arterials and access streets that are not state highways. Most of Tukwila's arterial travel occurs in the Urban Center and on principal arterials. The Urban Center and principal arterials are where most of the congestion occurs today and is forecasted to increase. Level of Service is not projected to decrease on access streets or most Classificatio n Right of Way Street Width Speed Limit Local Access 50 to 60 ft. 28 - 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 - 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 - 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 - 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Classificat Percent of Network Principal 5 -10% Minor 10 -20% Collector 5 -10% . Local 60 -80% arterials in residential areas. Demand for bicycle and walking facilities is increasing for commuting, shopping, recreation and exercise purposes. Transit services have increased since 1995 but demand is still increasing for bus service and park- and -ride lot parking. Ridership on Sounder, the commuter rail service, is increasing and the Sounder Station will become a significant factor in the future transportation system. Truck traffic is significant on many of Tukwila's street, especially along Interurban Avenue S, E Marginal Way, West Valley Highway, and many of the streets in the Urban Center. The Urban Center area continues evolving from warehousing, assembly and manufacturing to a mix of retail, offices, services, warehousing and light industrial. Future changes are likely to include a significant increase in residential uses. Peak hours are not the traditional morning and evening weekday commutes; the Urban Center has a noon peak equivalent to the evening peak and weekend peaks are higher yet. Street Functional Classifications There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets. These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility and are hierarchical in nature. Freeways serve through traffic with no adjacent land access while access streets provide access to adjoining residential and commercial properties. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. Table 1 Functional Street System Standards (typical — see codes for actual standar 4 Street functional classifications are used to recognize the differences in street uses. Classifications are assigned based on differences in street purpose, street width, traffic volumes, access control, speed limit, traffic control, linkage and other design and operational characteristics. The functional classifications used in this plan defines three arterial classifications: collectors, minors and principals. Freeways and local access streets are also classified. A typical street classification distribution is shown on Table 11 -5. Table 1-5: Typical Functional Classification Distribution Tukwila streets have been assigned functional classifications in accordance with standard practice. The classifications are shown on Figure 1 - Figure 1 -2: Functional Classification Map 5 -' II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Conditions of the transportation network were studied to benchmark how the transportation system functioned in 2002. Roadway Level of Service (LOS) was calculated, an inventory of public transportation options showed options available, pedestrian and other non - motorized uses were studied, and freight movement documented. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) Roadway level of service was calculated at key intersections throughout the city. In total, 41 intersections were analyzed. In most cases, the weekday afternoon peak, generally one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. was the peak of the day. In the Urban Center, a few locations peaked in the noon period but were generally comparable to the afternoon peak. The Urban Center also has a weekend peak due to the dominate nature of the retail core. The peak for the weekend traffic fell between 2 to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Outside the Tukwila Urban Center Figure 11 -1 shows the afternoon peak hour LOS and delays for the northern section of Tukwila. The corresponding information for the southem section of Tukwila is shown in Figure 11 -2 . Under 2002 conditions, one intersection in the study area operates at LOS E, and six intersections operate at LOS D. The intersection of 51s Avenue S and Ryan Way is the only intersection currently operating at LOS E. However, it should be noted that this intersection is under City of Seattle jurisdiction. Tukwila Urban Center The LOS for the afternoon peak hour is shown for the weekday and for the midday peak hour on Saturday in Figures 11-3 through 11-4. During the p.m. peak hour, nearly 80 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. Two intersections on the border of the Urban Center operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour - Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South. Two intersections with South 180th Street, at. Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The intersections at Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue South and at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East also operate at LOS D. Nearly 80 percent of the intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center operate at LOS C or better during the midday Saturday peak hour (the busiest hour on Saturday between 2 and 4 PM). 7 S 112th St S 1241h St EN ' „ ACRE5 • GOLF RAINIER GOLF CLLS i , I COLRSE COI:`JTRY 'CLUB 1 MIL: PARK S 133td;St 8 Figure 11 -1: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service - North SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1 ' t l J S 154th St I `` STOPPINGTOMI WERFIELD SOUINCENTER LAKE WASMINGTCN Legend: FOP: 1 DENT FAR< No rth 0 1 � 1 (- --- S City omit � , 1 Park i 1 1 1 1 Ri i 1 1 1.. L. ./�' Freeway 1 i Railroad i Signalized i m LOS 1 1 24 Delay /Sec 1 Unsignalized A LOS 1 Delay/Sec , 1 '�..✓ Figure 11 -2: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South It KIK LA 1 1UK 19U IDOKD PARK r 1 Legend: ~~' aty unit I Park River I Freeway Railroad Signalized LOS 24 Delay/Sec Unsign LOS 22 Delay/Sec 1 11 1i 11 1 1 1 II 1 North I0 I 1 9 Figure 11 -3: 2002 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center r North 0 Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad r.,;7= River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection �B LOS Delay (Seconds) U Q F 01-1 Woo' 1,VLati , emir WLAPAR 1 A m • WAY 16th ST 10 r ' Figure 11-4: 2002 Saturday Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection © B LOS 1 Delay (Seconds) WES7FIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER RANDER B 7500 B OCK 188TH ST CORPORATE DR S e ER O DR MIDLALD DR TRILAND DR EVANS BUCK D 16th ST 11 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure 11 -5 shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The Southcenter Mall is the focal point of transit service within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this location. Of those, Routes 128 and 155 terminate at the Mall and Route 126 terminates at Tukwila Station. The remaining two routes, Route 140 and Route 150, represent the major east -west and north -south routes through Tukwila. More details on existing public transportation can be found in the Transit Plan. FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION Train Volumes Mainline tracks for the Burlington Northern Santa Fa (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) railroads border the west side of the Urban Center. International and local cargo travels over these two rail networks to inland U.S. markets, including the Midwest, South, and East. BNSF operates approximately 30 trains per day through Tukwila, and UPRR operates approximately 20. In addition, Amtrak operates 8 passenger trains per day through the city, and Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail runs 4 passenger trains per day. Increased Sounder frequency is planned in the near future. Overall, rail traffic is expected to increase significantly in the future. Industrial spurs that are operated and controlled by the railroad companies and private property owners are scattered throughout the Urban Center. Many lines have been closed down, or abandoned, but others are still in use. Some lines still being used are very infrequent, but the decision to deactivate them is made by either the railroads or the property owners. Truck Transportation The City of Tukwila's commercial and warehouse businesses generate a substantial amount of truck traffic throughout the city and particularly in the Urban Center. Heavy vehicles (trucks, buses and recreational vehicles) commonly comprise about two percent of general traffic, but at intersections within the Urban Center, AM peak period heavy traffic volumes average eight percent of general traffic. This figure drops to three percent during the noon and PM peak periods. Additional findings are noted below: • The West Valley Highway carries significant heavy vehicle volumes and high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during AM, noon and PM peak periods • S 180 Street between Andover Park West and the West Valley Highway also shows sustained high volumes of heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day 12 Figure 11 -5: Existing Tukwila Routes t 4 Legend - Rode 110 ▪ Route 110 Partial rt-128 el wee Route /28 e>ARoute 140 ■•••■ Rode 140 Partial o Route 150 le as ea Rode 154 eaeeS Route 155 e Route 180 - Rode 103 • Rode 170 mom Rode 174 t NMI it . t J fi 7 r i 13 • The roadways bordering Southcenter Mali (Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West) experience moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East carries moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Minkler Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West and Andover Park West between Tukwila Parkway and S 180 Street carry a high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic relative to volumes of traffic. NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Similar to the roadway functional classification system, the non - motorized transportation system is classified into two categories: Category I: Bicycle and other types of trips that are regional in the sense of traveling through, to, from Tukwila or significant distance's within Tukwila. These trips can be for commuting, shopping, business, connecting with transit, recreation, or exercise purposes. Category II: Local walking and short bike trips within neighborhoods such as walking to schools, church, libraries, or neighborhood parks. They also include making short trips to the store or to visit, walking between transit stops and work, business or shopping destination, or for recreation or exercise purposes. Figures 11-6 andll -7 show the Category I and II facilities in Tukwila. A more detailed non - motorized plan is scheduled to be developed in 2006. 14 Figure 11 -6: Category I Non - Motorized Facilities Map Date: 0 ctober 2005 Data Date: November 1993 Map Legend BikelPedestrian Trail - - - -{ Bike Friendly Street* To Be Constructed Street Waterbody City Limits O■67p *Sidewalk, Ped Path, Widened outside lane • . 4141 • • 014 i 41{4 G • City of Tukwila Non - Motorized Transportation Plan - Category 1 • 1 • • • a8 c .1044 *BM C•W•I.4.DI0 Ilul Mr 61 d ' Vh NOT TO SCALE -Y t n.• . DI • 144 *. DI cow. Td• .D. I a•ealaoamong ■ �5 Figure 11-7: Category 11 Non-Motorized Facilities Map Date: October 2005 Data Date: November 1993 Map Legend Street Waterbody ".... City Limits Existing Sidewalk ---- Existing Ped Path — Proposed City Rec Path 11,_,7.1 City of Tukwila Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Category NOT TO SCALE Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: - 9 - \\ TUK2\ VOLI \PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fces\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10- 05.doc B. Payment of the impact fee pursuant to this Ordinance shall constitute satisfactory mitigation of those traffic impacts related to the specific improvements identified on the project list. C. Further mitigation in addition to the impact fee shall be required for identified adverse impacts appropriate for mitigation pursuant to SEPA that are not mitigated by an impact fee. D. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to limit the City's authority to deny development permits when a proposal would result in significant adverse traffic impacts identified in an environmental impact statement and reasonable mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the identified impact. Section 18. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 19. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF , 2005. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: Filed with the City Clerk: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullet - 8 - \\ TUK2\ VOLI\PUBWORKS \Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10 -05.doc to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding traffic impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be taken by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has been paid. C. Determinations of the Public Works Director, or his designee with respect to the applicability of traffic impact fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Section. D. An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City a notice of appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions. E. Appeals under this Ordinance will be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in TMC 18.108.020. Section 15. Exemptions. Impact fees are generated from the formula for calculating the fees as set forth in this Ordinance. The amount of an impact fee is determined by the information contained in the adopted transportation element, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new development located in the City that generates net new peak hour trips will be charged a traffic impact fee; provided, that the following exemptions shall apply. A. Single family building permits, multi - family building permits for projects containing four or fewer units, short plats, or any non - residential project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110. The Department shall also waive compliance with this chapter for other projects which will not generate new traffic trips. B. Any development activity or project which has submitted a technically complete building permit application prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be exempt from the payment of impact fees calculated pursuant to this Ordinance. B. Any impact fees resulting from the Development Activities listed in this subsection shall be paid from public funds. Section 16. Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from requiring the feepayer to mitigate adverse and environmental effects of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C RCW and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. Section 17. Relationship to SEPA. A. All development shall be subject to environmental review pursuant to SEPA and other applicable City ordinances and regulations. 7 \\ TUK2\ VOL1\PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fces\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10- 05.doc D. Traffic impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site improvements, engineering and architectural services, permitting, financing, administrative expenses and applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to transportation systems and facilities. E. Traffic impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvement. F. In the event bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for system improvements, impact fees may be used to pay the principal on such bonds. G. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six years. The Public Works Director may recommend to the Council that the City hold fees beyond six years in cases where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist. Such reasons shall be identified in written findings by the Council. H. The Finance Director shall prepare an annual report on the transportation impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received and projects that were financed in whole or in part by transportation impact fees. Section 12. Plan and Fee Update. The impact fee may be updated annually to evaluate the consistency of development density assumptions, estimated project costs and adjustments for awarded grant funding, if any. Updates that result in a change in impact fees will be reviewed by the City Council. Impact fee changes will only occur through an ordinance requiring Council action. Section 13. Refunds. A. A developer may request and shall receive a refund when the developer does not proceed with the development activity for which transportation impact fees were paid, and the developer shows that no impact has resulted. B. The owner must submit a request for a refund to the City in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises. Any transportation impact fees that are not expended or encumbered within the time limitations established, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one -year period, shall be retained and expended on any project identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. C. In the event that transportation impact fees must be refunded for any reason, they shall be refunded with interest earned to the applicant. Section 14. Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance under protest in order 6 \\T UK2\ VOL1\PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concucrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10 -05.doc Section 9. Adjustments. A. The amount of fee to be imposed on a particular development may be adjusted by the Public Works Director giving consideration to studies and other data available to the Director submitted by the developer demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that an adjustment should be made in order to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. B. The Public Works Director shall review the study to determine that the study: 1. Is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies; 2. Uses acceptable data sources and the data used is comparable with the uses and intensities planned for the proposed development activity; 3. Complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees; 4. Is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields; and 5. Shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. C. In reviewing the study, the Public Works Director may require the developer to submit additional or different documentation. If an acceptable study is presented, the Public Works Director may adjust the fee to that appropriate for the particular development activity. If an acceptable study is not presented, the developer shall pay the impact fees required prior to submitting the study. D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or accepting the independent fee calculation. Section 10. Establishment of Impact Fee Account. Impact fees received pursuant to this Ordinance shall be earmarked and retained in special interest - bearing accounts. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were collected. Section 11. Use of Impact Fees. A. Pursuant to this Ordinance, impact fees shall be used for transportation relatedfacilities that will reasonably benefit the City and its residents. B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an existing development. C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel. 5 \\ TUK2\ VOL1\PUBWORKS\C}mdy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10 -05.doc %." to the development are proposed which result in greater direct impacts on transportation facilities than were considered when the development was first approved. Section 6. Calculation of Impact Fees. A. The method of calculating the transportation impact fees in this Ordinance incorporate, among other things, the following: 1. The cost of public streets and roads necessitated by new development; 2. An adjustment to the costs of the public streets and roadways for past or future mitigation payments made by previous development to pay for a particular system improvement that was prorated to the particular street improvement; 3. The availability of other means of funding public street and roadway improvements; and 4. The methods by which public street and roadway improvements were financed. B. Fees for development shall be calculated based on their net new p.m. peak hour trip generation rates as determined by the Public Works Director, or designee, applying the ITE Trip Generation Manual. If the proposed development activity concerns an existing use, the fee shall be based on net new trips generated by the redevelopment. If an existing building has not been used for its intended purpose, as defined by the Public Works Director, for twelve months or more preceding application, no credit for existing trips shall be given. C. If the development does not generate five or more net new p.m. peak hour trips, no mitigation under this section will be required . Section 7. Credit. A credit, not to exceed the impact fee otherwise payable, may be provided for the fair market value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities that are identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and that are required as a condition of approving the development activity. The determination of "value" shall be consistent with the assumptions and methodology used by the City in estimating the capital improvement costs. Section 8. Time of Payment of Impact Fees. A. The impact fees imposed pursuant to this Ordinance shall be assessed by the City at the time of the application for the development permit, and shall be due and payable in whole at the time of issuance of such permit. The fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of the permit issuance. B. Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity. - 4 — \\ TUK2 WOL1\PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10 -05.doc which requires a building permit and creates a demand for additional facilities. H. "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on development activity pursuant to this Ordinance as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the transportation facilities needed to serve new growth and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of the capital facilities that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees do not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, and the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees or cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. I. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the property. J. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost for transportation facility improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development. K. "Public facilities" means the following capital facilities owned or operated by governmental entities: (1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks and open spaces and recreational facilities; (3) school facilities; and (4) fire protection facilities not part of a fire district. Section 5. Imposition of Transportation Impact Fees. A. The City hereby authorizes the assessment and collection of impact fees on development activity at the rates set forth in attachment A, incorporated herein by this reference. B. Transportation impact fees imposed by this Ordinance: 1. Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; 2. Shall not exceed the proportionate fairshare of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; 3. Shall be used for the system improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; 4. May be collected and spent only for system improvements, which are provided for in the transportation element of the Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan; 5. Shall not be used to correct existing transportation system deficiencies as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and 6. Shall be collected only once for each development, unless changes or modifications -3- \\TUK2\VOLI \PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10- 05.doc B. Purpose. The purpose of the financing plan is to: 1. Develop a program consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, the Six Year Transportation Program and the Capital Improvement Plan, for joint public and private financing of transportation improvements necessitated in whole or in part by development within the City of Tukwila; 2. Ensure adequate levels of transportation and traffic service consistent with the level of service identified in the Comprehensive Plan; 3. Create a mechanism to charge and collect fees to ensure that new development bears its proportionate share of the capital costs of transportation facilities necessitated by new development; and 4. Ensure fair collection and administration of such transportation impact fees. C. The provisions of the City of Tukwila's impact fee ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 4. Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this Ordinance, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. A. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended. B. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure. C. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, County of King. D. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for transportation facilities. E. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City, which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity." F. "Letter encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for the provision of transportation facilities. G. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land development activity, -2 \\TUK2\VOL1\PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10- 05.doc CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING TMC 9.48 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ADOPTING A NEW TMC 9.48 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY STANDARDS AND IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington and RCW 36.70A, which includes as part of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan elements relating to traffic impacts and necessary mitigation; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has adopted a transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan, including transportation facilities, and desires to provide funding for said plan through the imposition of development impact fees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 9.48 (Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees) is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. New TMC 9.48 Adopted. A new Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 9.48, Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees, is hereby adopted as set forth in the remaining sections of this Ordinance. Section 3. Authority and Purpose. A. Authority. The City of Tukwila's impact fee financing program has been developed pursuant to the City of Tukwila's police powers, the Growth Management Act as codified in Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the enabling authority in RCW Chapter 82.02, RCW Chapter 58.17 relating to platting and subdivisions and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and RCW Chapter 42.12C. - \\TUK2\VOLI\PUBWORKS\Cyndy\Concurnncy & Impact Fees\Impact Fee Ordinance 11- 10 -05.doc To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: November 9, 2005 Subject: Impact Fees INFORMATION MEMO ISSUE Proposed ordinance modifying the Impact Fee ordinance and establishing a new impact fee schedule. BACKGROUND State law requires the City of Tukwila to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA). A substantial update to the Transportation Element is proposed to be adopted this year which includes an updated transportation impact fee schedule. The impact fee schedule has been developed through identification of future roadway improvements necessary to maintain the City's adopted concurrency standard and a fiscal analysis on how much - funding capability Tukwila will have. Impact fees are one tool allowed under GMA to finance necessary roadway improvements. RCW 82.02.909 defines Impact Fees as "...a means of payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development." Staff has presented basic information on concurrency and impact fees at Transportation Committee meetings on 1/24, 2/14, and 2/23. Additionally, there have been three joint briefings with the City Council and Planning Commission on the proposed Transportation Element, with the last briefing of 10/12 focusing on the impact fee topic. ANALYSIS The first attached matrix show the projects per zone which are identified in the proposed 2006 CIP as having funds expended within the next 6 years. Since impact fees must be calculated after all other sources of funding have been accounted for, the amount being collected under Impact Fee Cost. Further, since the City must pay for the impacts of existing volumes as well as regional growth utilizing city facilities, only those trips which are new to each zone which are associated with new growth in the zone has been identified using the City's EMME /2 model. The second matrix shows the cost per trip amount by zone that can be collected through new development. This matrix also shows adjustments made for new trips associated with development and trip length. By using these adjustments, staff believe the most accurate and true evaluation of actual impacts to the City's street network is achieved. Further discussion during the meeting will be done to explain the nuances of this proposed system. RECOMMENDATION Refer on to the next COW meeting for discussion prior to the December 5, 2005 Public Hearing on the Transportation Element and enacting ordinances. h: \pubworks \cyndy \concurrency & impact fees\information memo - tcc briefing impact fees 11- 14- 05.doc C. Record. The Public Works Department shall transmit to the Hearing Examiner all papers, calculations, plans and other materials constituting the record of the concurrency test, at least 7 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Examiner shall consider the appeal upon the record transmitted, supplemented by any additional competent evidence, which the parties in interest may desire to submit. D. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Public Works Director was in error. Section 13. SEPA Exemption. A determination of concurrency shall be an administrative action of the City of Tukwila that is categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. Section 14. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre- empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre- emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 15. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF , 2005. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: - 9 - \ \TUK2 \VOL1\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/I 1/10/05 CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullet A. Achieve level orvice standards for anticipated future deiopment and redevelopment caused by previously issued and new development and building permits; and B. Repair or replace obsolete or deteriorating facilities. Improvements to the facilities shall be consistent with the transportation element, utilities element and Capital Improvement Program of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 9. Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The City shall include in the capital appropriations of its budget for expenditure during the appropriate fiscal year financial commitments for all capital improvement projects required for level of service standards, except the City may omit from its budget any capital improvements for which a binding agreement has been executed with another party to provide the same project in the same fiscal year. Section 10. Intergovernmental Coordination. A. The City may enter into agreements with other local governments, applicable non -City managed utilities, King County, the state of Washington, and other facility providers to coordinate the imposition of level of service standards and other mitigations for concurrency. B. The City may apply standards and mitigations to development in the City that impacts other local jurisdictions. The City may agree to accept and implement conditions and mitigations that are imposed by other jurisdictions on development in their jurisdiction that impact the City. Section 11. Administrative Rules and Procedures. The Public Works Department shall be authorized to establish administrative rules and procedures for administering the concurrency test system. The administrative rules and procedures shall include but not be limited to application forms, necessary submittal information, processing times, and issuance of the concurrency test notice and the certificate of concurrency. Section 12. Appeals. A. Procedures. The applicant may appeal the results of the concurrency test based on three grounds: (1) a technical error; (2) the applicant provided alternative data or a traffic mitigation plan that was rejected by the City; or (3) delay in review and approval caused solely by the City that allowed capacity to be given to another applicant. The applicant must file a notice of appeal with the Public Works Department within 15 days of the notification of the test results. The notice of appeal must specify the grounds thereof, and must be submitted on the form authorized by the Public Works Department. Each appeal must be submitted with the appeal fee set forth in TMC 18.108.020. B. Hearing Schedule and Notification. When the appeal has been filed within the time prescribed, in proper form, with the appropriate data and payment of the required fee, the Public Works Department shall transmit the appeal to the hearing examiner for scheduling. Notice of the public hearing shall be given to the applicant at least 15 days prior to the hearing date. - 8 - \\ TUK2 \VOL1\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11110/05 1. No associated development permit is required before building permit applications can be submitted; and 2. The application is for an integrated development site plan with multiple buildings that are interdependent for vehicular and pedestrian access and parking. C. A concurrency application for phased development shall follow the same timing and procedure as set forth in this Ordinance, except that: 1. Only one concurrency test notice shall be issued for all buildings proposed for phased development; 2. Each building approved for phased development shall be issued a certificate of concurrency at the same time as the .building permit; 3. The concurrency test notice for an approved phased development shall be valid for five years from the date of its issuance; provided that a certificate of concurrency is issued for a building within one year of the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice or within two years if an extension is timely requested and the request is granted. D. The Public Works Director or his designee may approve an extension of up to one year for obtaining the first certificate of concurrency and the final certificate of concurrency for the phased development, consistent with the terms of this Ordinance. E. In no case shall the concurrency test notice be valid for more than six years from the date of issuance of the notice. The applicant must apply for a new concurrency test for any building approved for phased development that has not been issued a building permit within six years from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. Section 6. Public Notice of Concurrency Test. A. The Public Works Director or his designee shall cause notice of issuance of the concurrency test notice to be given in the same manner and at the same time as the SEPA public notice of TMC 21.04. B. The notice shall include the name of the applicant, the City file number, the address and description of the development and the procedures for filing an appeal. Section 7. Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to single family building permits, multi - family building permits for projects containing four or fewer units, short plats, or any non- residential project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110. The Public Works Department shall also waive compliance with this chapter for other projects which will not generate net new p.m. peak hour traffic trips. Section 8. Improvements to Concurrency Facilities. The City shall provide, or arrange for others to provide, adequate facilities through construction of needed capital improvements in implementing strategies which do the following: - 7 - \ \TUKZ \VOL11PUBWORKS\Jim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11/10/05 • 15. A certificatiowf concurrency shall apply only to the ific land use, density and intensity described in the application for a development permit or building permit. No development shall be required to obtain more than one certificate of concurrency for each building, unless the applicant or subsequent owner proposes changes or modifications to the property location, density, intensity, or land use that creates additional impacts on concurrency facilities. 16. A certificate of concurrency is not transferable to other land, but maybe transferred to new owners of the original land. Section 4. Test. Development applications that would result in a reduction of level of service below the established level of service standard shall not be approved. For potable water and sanitary sewer, only available capacity will be used in conducting the concurrency test. For surface water; water quality, detention, and conveyance capacity standard will be used. A. For water, sewer and surface water, if the capacity of the concurrency facilities with the development application is equal to or better than the capacity required to maintain the established level of service standard, then the concurrency test is passed. For surface water, if water quality and detention standards will be met if the standard described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual are met. B. For roads, the concurrency test compares level of service at intersections or corridors, as defined in the transportation element, both with and without the development at a time 6 years after the estimated occupancy of the development. If the level of service is equal to or better than the level of service standard, the concurrency test is passed. C. If the concurrency test is not passed for water, sewer, surface water, or roads, then the applicant may retest for concurrency after doing one or both of the following: 1. Modifying the application to reduce the need for the concurrency facilities that do not exist. Reduction of need can be through the reduction of the size of the development, reduction of trips generated by original proposed development, or phasing of the development to match future concurrency facility construction; or 2. Arranging to fund the improvements for the additional capacity required for the concurrency facilities, as approved by the Public Works Director. Section 5. Concurrency for Phased Development. A. An applicant may request concurrency for a phased development if the Public Works Director determines that the two criteria described below in Subsection B of this Section are met and the application for concurrency is accompanied by a schedule for construction of the buildings, parking and other improvements and by a written request for the development to be considered in phases. B. The Public Works Director or his designee may approve concurrency for phased development if both of the following criteria are met: - 6 - \\ TUK2 \VOLI\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency ordinance.DOC /G/11/10/05 6. The Public Works Director or his designees shall noticece the applicant of the test results in writing and shall notify other City departments of the test results. The date of written notification to the applicant shall be the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 7. The concurrency test notice shall expire within ninety calendar days of its issuance unless the applicant submits a SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation pursuant to TMC 21.04, together with the site plan, the traffic impact analysis prepared in accordance with the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines and containing the traffic information derived from the concurrency test outcome, and the SEPA review fee. No extensions may be granted for submittal of a complete SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation. 8. If the deadline for submittal of a complete SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation is met as described above in subsection (7) of this section, the concurrency test notice shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 9. The concurrency test notice shall expire unless a certificate of concurrency is issued or an extension of the notice is granted within one year from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 10. An applicant must apply for a new concurrency test if the notice expires or an extension is not granted. 11. The Public Works Director may approve an extension of up to one year if: a. The applicant submits a letter in writing requesting the extension before the expiration date, can show that he /she is not responsible for the delay in issuing the certificate of concurrency, and has acted in good faith to obtain a certificate; and b. If the property is serviced by a non -City managed utility, then the applicant must submit a letter from the utility approving the extension before the expiration date. 12. Once the associated development permit or building permit is approved, the Public Works Department shall issue a final certificate of concurrency. The concurrency certificate is valid for a period of 2 years or as long as the developer possesses a valid building permit for the development. 13. The Public Works Department shall be responsible for accumulating the impacts created by each application and removing any impacts from the City's concurrency records for an expired concurrency test notice, an expired development permit or building permit, a discontinued certificate or other action resulting in an applicant no longer causing impacts which have been accounted for in the City records. 14. The Public Works Department shall be responsible to coordinate with applicable non -City managed utility operators for maintenance and monitoring of available and planned capacity for these utilities. - 5 - \ \TUK2 \VOLI\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11/10/05 six years and the financial i must be in place at the time L of the certificate of concurrency to complete the improvements within six years. N. "Public Works Official" means Public Works Department employees designated by the Public Works Director to perform the concurrency test. O. "Transportation strategies" means transportation demand management strategies and other techniques or programs that reduce single occupant vehicle travel. P. "Vested" means the right to develop or continue development in accordance with the laws, rules, and other regulations in effect at the time the buidling permit application is deemed complete. Section 3. Concurrency Test. A. Timing. All applicants must apply for the concurrency test and receive notice of passing the test before the City will consider an application for any development permit or building permit to be complete. B. Procedures. 1. Applications for concurrency shall be submitted on forms provided by the Public Works Department and shall be tested in the order that the Public Works Department determines the application is complete. 2. The applicant shall be responsible to provide to the Public Works Department a certificate of availability for water and sewer with the concurrency application submittal if the property is serviced by a non -city managed utility. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project description of the development, including location, vehicular circulation, and gross floor area by use, with the concurrency application and concurrency test fee. 4. A concurrency test shall be performed only for specific property, uses, densities and intensities based on the information provided by the applicant. The applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the uses allowed for the property. If the concurrency test is being requested in conjunction with an application for rezone, the applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the proposed zoning for the property. Changes to the uses, densities and intensities that create additional impacts on concurrency facilities shall be subject to an additional concurrency test. 5. The Public Works Director or his designee shall perform the concurrency test prior to approval of the development permit or building permit. - 4 - \\ TUK2 \VOLI\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11/10/05 1. For water, sewer, surface water, and roads facilities that exist at the time development is approved by the Public Works Department; or 2. For roads: a. Are planned in the Comprehensive Plan at the time development is approved by the Public Works Department; or b. Will be available and complete no later than six years after completion of the development, and the applicant and/or the City provides a financial commitment which is in place at the time the development is approved by the Public Works Department. G. "Concurrency facilities" means facilities for which concurrency is required in accordance with the provision of this Ordinance. They are roads, water, sanitary sewer, and surface water facilities. H. " Concurrency test" means: 1. For water, sewer, and surface water, the comparison of a development's demand to the available capacity of each concurrency facility; and 2. For roads, the comparison of the development's impact on the level of service standards of each effected subarea. A concurrency test must be passed for water, sewer, surface water, and roads, and a notice issued by the Public Works Department in order to obtain a certificate of concurrency. The concurrency test notice shall be valid for one year. I. "Development permit" means a land use permit. Development permits include short plat, preliminary or final rezone /reclassification, zoning permit, master plan, shoreline substantial development permit/conditional use permit, planned unit development, or any other permit or approval under the Zoning Code or Subdivision Ordinance or Shoreline Master Program. J. "Financial commitment" means: 1. Revenue sources anticipated to be available and designated for facilities in the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Unanticipated revenue from federal and state grants for which the City has received notice of approval; 3. Funding that is assured by the applicant in a form approved by the Public Works Department. K. "Level of service standard" means those standards specified in the adopted transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. For water, sewer, and surface water, "level of service standard" also means those standards defined in TMC Title 14. L. " Noncity managed facilities" include any noncity provider of water and sewer. M. "Planned capacity" means road facilities that do not exist but for which the necessary facility construction, expansion, or modification project is contained in the current capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. The improvements must be scheduled to be completed within - 3 - \ \TUK2 \VOL1\PUB WORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11/10/05 The concurrency management system provides the necessary regulatory mechanism for evaluating requests for development to ensure that adequate concurrency facilities can be provided within a reasonable time of the development impact. The concurrency management system also provides a framework for determining facilities and services needs and provides a basis for meeting those needs through capital facilities planning. For water, sewer, and surface water, the facilities must be in place at the time of development impact and for roads; the facilities must be in place within six years of the time of the development impact. Applicants with developments that would cause the level of service on concurrency facilities to decline below City standards can have their developments approved by implementing measures that offset their impacts and would maintain the City's standard for level of service. Section 2. Definitions. The definitions contained in this Ordinance apply throughout this Ordinance unless, from the context, another meaning is clearly intended. A. "Adequate" means equal to or better than the level of service standards specified in the current adopted capital facilities element. B. "Applicant" means a person who applies for any certificate of concurrency under this Ordinance and who is the owner of the subject property or the authorized agent of the property. C. "Available water, sewer, and surface water capacity" means there is adequate capacity, based on adopted level of service standards, for water, sewer, and surface water facilities currently existing without requiring facility construction, expansion, or modification. D. "Building permit" refers to any permit issued under the Uniform Building Code. E. "Certificate of concurrency" means the statement accompanying the Public Works Department's development standards that are issued with an approved development permit or the Public Works Department's conditions of approval that are issued with an approved building permit. The statement shall state that a certificate of concurrency is issued and indicate: 1. For water, sewer, and surface water, the capacity of the concurrency facilities that are available and reserved for the specific uses, densities and intensities as described in the development permit or building permit; and 2. For road facilities assigned to the development for the specific uses, densities and intensities as described in the development permit or building permit; and 3. Conditions of approval, if applicable; and 4. An effective date; and 5. An expiration date. F. "Concurrency" means facilities or strategies that achieve the City's level of service standards and that: - 2 - \\ TUK2 \voL1\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency ordinance.DOC /G/11 /10/05 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REGARDING CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that the City adopt and enforce ordinances "which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); and WHEREAS, on the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington adopted Ordinance No. implementing the concurrency provisions of the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and describing the procedure for the City Public Works Director's evaluation of concurrency of the City's facilities; and WHEREAS, experience implementing the prescribed procedures has indicated a need to revise the evaluation procedures to ensure concurrency is achieved; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Intent. Pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, after the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tukwila is required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e) to ensure that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are provided concurrent with the development. Further, the City is bound by the planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020 to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards, hereinafter "concurrency." The intent of this Ordinance is to establish a concurrency management system to ensure that concurrency facilities and services needed to maintain minimum level of service standards can be provided simultaneous to, or within a reasonable time after, development occupancy or use. Concurrency facilities adopted by the City's Comprehensive Plan are roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm water management. This Ordinance furthers the goals, policies and implementation strategies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. - 1 - \\ TUK2 \VOL1\PUBWORKSUim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /G/11 /10/05 To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: November 10, 2005 Subject: Concurrency Ordinance ISSUE: '01 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM A Concurrency Ordinance is required to implement the level of service polices contained in the Comprehensive Plan update. DISCUSSION: State law requires the City of Tukwila to plan for growth under the Growth Management Act (GMA). One significant update in the City's Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element is the level of service (LOS) standard and the methodology used to calculate it. LOS standards for water, sewer, and surface water are already identified within the Comprehensive Plan and are reiterated in the attached ordinance. Level of service measures the quality of traffic flow on the City's roadways and capacity for water, sewer, and surface water. Level of service is the guiding principle behind the City's Concurrency Program. The GMA requires that an adopted LOS standard be maintained concurrent with growth. Through the planning process, specific new development and normal background growth are projected over a twenty -year period. For traffic, the increased volume of trips is then modeled to determine the impacts upon the City's roadways. From the modeling process, roadway improvements are identified that will maintain the City's adopted LOS standard. For water, sewer, and surface water systems, increases in flows are determined through engineering analysis and compared to the system's current capacity. The attached ordinance codifies the proposed LOS standards contained in the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and the proposed update to the Transportation Element. It also clearly defines the steps new development must take in order to receive a certificate of concurrency for transportation, water, sewer, and surface water systems. RECOMMENDATION: Refer the topic to the next COW meeting for discussion. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Planning Commission0raft-Staff Recommendations — October 27,1ugust 31, 2005 15 1 TUKW LA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as on commercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies. — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations. — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: — Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. — Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. — Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. — Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. Planning CommissionDraft -Staff Recommendations – October 27August 31, 2005 14 Planning CommissionDraft-Staff Recommendations — October 27August41, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Transportation Goal 13.5 Non- motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle- friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non - motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities 13 13.4.10 light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. TUK4LA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient - capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support transportation system management programs and measures developed by Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Metropolitan King County and others, including the private sector, to reduce congestion and serve travel needs. 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Southcenter MallWestfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed- route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall should meet the following objectives: Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and /or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short - term and long - term use of altemative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and /or Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 13.4.13 Encourage transit - oriented uses, development pattems and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high- capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property, public property, or public streets. Planning CommissionDna# Recommendations — October 27August -34, 2005 12 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.5 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.6 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.7 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (I -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.8 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Southcenter MaliWestfield Mall at Southcenter to the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people-carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. Planning CommissionDraft -Staff Recommendations – October 27Aug 1, 2005 11 I Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Policies All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The Andover Park E. between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. — West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC. SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC. 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. Planning CommissionDraftSta# Recommendations – October 27A -ugust-41, 2005 10 Transportation event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES T1 WIVILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments -an of -e-ul -cue -sacs. Whcncvcr- feasible preue noy aE. - _ _ _ - _ . • e hat resit - • - - .: neat through -to the- id system --at -both -ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. Planning Commissioner Recommendations — October 27:x, 2005 Non - motorized Transportation A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportation Plan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category I trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle - friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green /Duwamish high - employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, ' and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non - motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendedatiees improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Transportation TUKIILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be financed. Traffic Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the Planning CommissionDraft Staff Recommendations — October 27A-ugust-34, 2005 N 'transit Priority . Corridor Classification — Transit way -- Transit Principal Contour — + Transit Minor Corridor — Transit Local Access --- Potential Transit Roach./ ay Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications TU COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Planning CommissionDraft-Staff Recommendations — October 27Atigust-34, 2005 7 TUKA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation , l • Map Legend •-•- Freeway - - - Principal - •••••••• Minor Collector r Cit Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map ti rJ Figure 1 (lotto S cale Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map Planning Commissioner Recommendations — October 27August 31, 2005 Table 4: Transit Corridor Classifications Classification TRANSIT WAY TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT MINOR CORRIDOR TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Functional Purpose Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service and interregional transit trips. Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity service, connections between major activity centers, and some interregional trips Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. Provides connections between neighborhoods and area attractions.. Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Typical Adjacent Land Use Major private and public developments of regional significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. Major private and public developments of regional or local significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high - density residential land uses. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium - density residential areas as well as commercial areas. Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods Depends on location. Planning CommissionDraft Staff Recommendations — October 27/l ugust 31, 2005 Tl,•4ILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Transit TUKW LA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Westfield Mall at Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. Planning CommissionDraft Staff Recommendations — October 27/l ugust 31, 2005 ....,... • _..-- - - -- -- -- - -- Functional Classification , - - -- Right of Way - - - Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Streets and Highways Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct traffic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss- crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govern. *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards Planning CommissionDraft Staff Recommendations — October 27Aust 31, 2005 TIIJILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. LOS Delay per Vehicle Signalized Intersections Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and Tess than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and Tess than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds LOS Headway (min) Vehicle/ hour Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 -20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 - 30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F 0 -3 Very limited or no service Transit Level of Service swe Table 1 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. Table 2 - Service Frequency LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2"° Ed., 2003 Table 3 - Hours of Service LOS TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 2003 Non - motorized Level of Service Transportation A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Planning CommissionDraft-Staff Recommendations — October 27August-31, 2005 2 Planning Commission Recommendations — October 27, 2005 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision - making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. LEVEL OF SERVICE The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2005 Page 4 of 5 13.3.1 Change to "...and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor..." Change to "...with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The Andover Park E, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds." 13.4.12 Change to "...The development of any light rail or commuter rail system should meet the following objectives..." 13.4.14 Change to "...Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private or public parking or public streets." Ms. Knighton also drew the commissioner's attention to revised policy 13.4.7 in their work session handout, but not in the agenda packet, as follows: 13.4.7. Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running south from the vicinity of I-405, to a station located east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastern edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then turning east running adjacent to or parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station adjacent to the Tukwila sounder Station at Longacres. It was also suggested that all references to "Southcenter Mall" be changed to "Westfield'. THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT BE FORWARDED TO THE COW WITH THESE CHANGES. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. The Meeting ended at 8:40 p.m. Director's Report Jack Pace reported that there would be no Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 2005. The last meeting for the year will be December 8, 2005. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by: Joyce Trantina Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2005 Page 3 of 5 stated there have been several public invited workshops and several joint Planning Commission and City Council worksessions pertaining.to the proposed updates. He explained there has been opportunity for the public to provide comments and input. He also commented that representatives for Westfield, as well as Segale Properties have attended several of the workshops. He informed the Planning Commission that the City is asking for their input on the policy issues associated with the proposed Transportation Element update. Then the City can proceed to the next step, in determining an actual impact fee and whether or not it should be implemented. Mr. Morrow stated the discussion of the impact fees will take place at the next Transportation Committee meeting, on November 14 Following there will be two additional meetings. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide comments. The Planning Commission deliberated whether to continue the public hearing to allow more review time. Commissioner Arthur stated that there was a difference in presentations, briefings were not complete, and communication was one sided. He expressed the need to have a complete picture of what the Planning Commission is making a decision on. Out of consideration for the public he stated they should be allowed one more opportunity review the proposed policies. Commissioner Arthur is in favor of a continuance of the public hearing. Staff replied that the notice regarding the hearing was published in the Seattle Times, and a copy was sent to the State, per normal process when individual residents are not required to be part of the notification process. Mr. Morrow indicated that formulas would be reviewed on an annual basis for any impact fees as part of the Transportation Element. A public hearing would be included as part of that. Commissioner Meryhew asked questions regarding distribution of policy documentation, when it was distributed, and what was distributed. Other questions were also directed to staff. Commissioner Ekberg suggested that this be forwarded to the COW for further discussion and public hearing. Commissioner Malina requested an additional week to study this more closely. It was also suggested that there be more outreach to the business community (Chamber of Commerce) and others who may have an interest in this ordinance. Mr. Pace reiterated that this ordinance does not really affect those who already have businesses or live in Tukwila. COMMISSIONER MERYHEW MADE A MOTION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE FORWARDED TO THE COW, AND THAT STAFF CONDUCT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. COMMISSIONER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH 4 YES AND 2 NO VOTES. Public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. Planning Commission reviewed the Transportation Element and recommended the following changes: 13.2.1 Change the wording by removing "...and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends." Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2005 Page 2 of 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L04 -084 APPLICANT: Tukwila Public Works REQUEST: Amend Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element policies to address changed conditions and requirements. LOCATION: Citywide Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, gave some background information on the process. The Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year. In July of this year the City Council reviewed the application for the proposed amendments. They forwarded it to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The Public Works Department has jointly briefed the City Council and the Planning Commission on the Transportation Element. The City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation in November, and a public hearing will be held in December. If the amendments are not adopted in 2005, they will carry over to 2006. Ms. Fox also addressed questions from the Commissioners. Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, stated that from public Work's point of view there is a certain amount of urgency in getting the amendments adopted. The Concurrency Ordinance needs to be updated, but it cannot be updated until the Transportation Element is updated. Rebecca Fox entered into the record a letter from Stephen DiJulio of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, representing LaPianta/Segale Properties, and another from Brent Carson of Buck and Gordon, representing Westfield Mall. Brent Carson, Buck and Gordon, representative for Westfield Mall gave testimony. Mr. Carson stated that staff has been doing a great job of studying a complicated topic. He stated that there is a lot of information in the packet of documentation, and that for members of the public who may be affected by the amendments it deserves careful consideration. He commented that there are some significant policy changes being proposed. He addressed the impact fees, calling them an issue. He suggested not rushing into anything, to pause, and have an opportunity to understand the implications and basics of a policy that could lead to millions of dollars in impact fees. He requested that the approval of the proposed policies be postponed and be included in the application for 2006. Sue Carlson, Segale Properties, testified that their position is the same as those that Mr. Carlson testified to. She also expressed that Segale Properties is concerned about how the proposed amendments would affect their project. Segale Properties is concerned that the policy changes may have an impact on all of the work that has taken place between themselves and the City. They understand from the Mayor that it is the City's intention to exempt them from the new concurrency ordinance and impact fee schedule and address Tukwila South traffic mitigation through the Development Agreement, but they have not seen any documentation. It was suggested that the Planning Commission look at everything together as a package and not rush into making any decisions. Ms. Carlson entered into the record a second letter dated October 27, 2005 from Foster Pepper and Shefelman P.L.L.C. Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Department, addressed testimony given by Brent Carson and Sue Carlson. Both requested that the Planning Commission stay any action on the Transportation Element update until the Developers Agreements have been completed. Mr. Morrow stated that they both based their request on allegations that there has been little or no public input or public review. Mr. Morrow Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2005 Page 1 of 5 The work session began at 6:05 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Allen Ekberg, Commissioners Vern Meryhew, George Malina, Bill Arthur, Henry Marvin, and Lynn Peterson. Absent: Chair, Margaret Bratcher The work session ended at 7:00 p.m. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2005 Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Cyndy Knighton, Jim Morrow, Rebecca Fox, Joyce Trantina Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, presented a Powerpoint presentation, `Updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan ". The briefing covered these elements of the Transportation Plan: GMA Requirements, Concurrency, Level of Service, Existing Conditions, 2020 Future Conditions, Finance, and Policy Discussion. The Public Hearing was called to order by Vice - Chair Ekberg at 7:05 PM Present: Vice Chair, Allan Ekberg, Commissioners, Vern Meryhew, George Malina, Bill Arthur, Henry Marvin, and Lynn Peterson Absent: Chair, Margaret Bratcher Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Cyndy Knighton, Jim Morrow, Rebecca Fox, and Joyce Trantina VICE -CHAIR EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 25 2005. COMMISSIONER MALINA SECONDED; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2005. COMMISSIONER MARVIN SECONDED; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Commissioner Arthur made a disclosure that he is employed by Segale Properties, a sizeable land holder in the City. He stated it would not affect his objectivity, but it should be noted in the record. There were no objections to Commissioner Arthur hearing the case. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Transportation Element on October 27, 2005. After public input, the Planning Commission made recommendations, and forwarded them to the City Council for consideration, public hearing and final decision. DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan can be updated once per year, except in case of emergency. If the proposed Transportation Element is not adopted in 2005, it will need to wait for consideration in 2006 with other potential Comprehensive Plan amendments. In its review and decision, the City Council will make the final decision to recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendments based on a clear compliance with the criteria that follow: 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? RECOMMENDATION Forward Planning Commission's recommended Transportation Element to City Council COW meeting on November 28, 2005, and public hearing on December 5, 2005. Attachments: A. Planning Commission Minutes (10/27/07) B. Planning Commission Recommended Transportation Element NOTE: Please bring 11" x 17" format, annotated Draft Staff Recommendations Transportation Element distributed at previous City Council/Planning Commission joint work session. RF Page 2 of 2 11/09/05 11:04 AM \ \TUK2 \VOL3 \HOME \REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \Tran ctte memo 11- 9- 05.doc c To: From: Date: Subject: Department of Community Development Transportation Committee Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development November 9, 2005 Amend/Update Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ISSUE: Review the changes to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element recommended by the Planning Commission, and forward to the City Council for review, public hearing and decision. BACKGROUND: In 1995, Tukwila adopted a Comprehensive Plan in keeping with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element established level of service standards, identified needed improvements, and presented a funding strategy. At various points since 1995, the Transportation Element has had minor updates to accommodate changes to the GMA. In late 2004, the Public Works Department applied to amend and update the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. The Public Works Department has prepared several studies to update information on transportation conditions in Tukwila, including the Tukwila Transit in (4/05), and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (10/05). These studies provide the background for updating Transportation Element policies, including planning for 2020 growth impacts, and for the transportation assumptions used in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Subarea Plan, to be adopted in early 2006. These background materials, as well as the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan and the six -year Capital Improvement Plan are adopted by reference in the Tukwila Transportation Plan. The updated Transportation Element policies guide the City's transportation needs, and provide the framework, basic assumptions, and methodologies for a revised Concurrency Ordinance, and new Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. On July 11, 2005 the City Council COW discussed proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2005. On July 18, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing, and afterwards decided to refer the update to the Transportation Element to the Planning Commission for further review. The Planning Commission and City Council were briefed jointly on the background materials and new policies on June 9, September 8, and October 12, 2005. RF Page 1 of 2 \ \ TUK2 \vOL3 \HOME \REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \Tran ctte memo I I- 9- 05.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director 11/09/05 11:04 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Minutes by LL Committee chair approval Transportation Committee November 14, 2005 each area. Cyndy had revised the charts since they were put into the agenda, and those charts include some but not all the land uses in a reference book she has. One provision in the ordinance says if any one development is exempted, the City must pay what that exempted company does not pay. The Committee members went through the ordinance and suggested some clarifications. Pam C asked for a clarification about using either 6 or 10 years to pay off project costs. Recommend ordinance to COW. 4. Developer Agreement Ordinance This ordinance would formalize developer agreements in the City, and would provide guidance about what should be included in them. One section provided flexibility in requiring adherence to regulations. Steve D'Julio said state law dictates that any developer agreement that comes after adoption of a code must follow that code. The Committee did not have comments on the body of the ordinance. Recommend ordinance to COW. 5. Southcenter Parkway Extension The City contracted with David Evans to design Southcenter Parkway from S. 180 — 200 Comments from Tukwila Valley South (TVS) were included at the beginning of the contract. That work is now 90% complete, and TVS has reviewed the plans and proposed twelve new additions such as traffic signals, bus pullouts, new intersections, a change in the size and level of the roadway, and utility work. This would require additional work from David Evans. Mark Segale reported they are negotiating with the Schoenbachlers, and expect a final answer from them soon. Information. 6. Project Funding Jim M has heard about the federal funding for Klickitat and Southcenter Parkway. The funding for both has been cut 15% for Katrina aid, and the City will only be able to receive 20% reimbursement per year for the promised grant. Therefore, the City will need to fund the projects up front, and later get paid the grant in annual payments. Information. Transportation Committee November 14, 2005 Present: Jim Haggerton, Chair; Joe Duffle, Pam Carter Jim Morrow, Jack Pace, Rebecca Fox, Cyndy Knighton, Derek Speck, Lisa Verner, Lucy Lauterbach; Chuck Parrish, Steve D'Julio- Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Dave Markly, Brent Carson - Gordon & Buck, Sue Carlson, Dave Kautz, Mark Segale 1. Transportation Element Rebecca explained the process of how the Transportation Element is updated as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Updates can only occur once a year. A Transit Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan will be included in this update. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Element. The Transportation Element will guide the City's transportation needs in the next few years, and will provide a framework for implementing ordinances on concurrency and impact fees. Recommend Transportation Comprehensive Plan Element to COW. 2. Concurrency Ordinance The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that an adopted Level of Service standard be maintained as growth occurs. This is done through a Concurrency Ordinance. Concurrency will be required in transportation, water, sewer, and surface water. Not only capacity is required to keep up with growth, but in water, water quality must also be considered. Representatives of Tukwila Valley South (TVS) and the Westfield Shoppingtown(the Mall) requested of the Committee that provisions be put into both the concurrency and the impact fee ordinance to exempt their developments from the new standards. They had suggested language that could be added. Jim Morrow had reservations about naming developments in ordinances that implement the Transportation Element of the Comp Plan. Three options were suggested: inserting language to exempt TVS, the Mall, and the Penney's redevelopment; delaying adoption of the two implementing ordinances; or having a transition time for the new ordinance to be put into full effect. The Concurrency and the Impact Fee ordinances would go into effect at year's end unless a change is made. Jim H expressed concern about the number of "must" and "shall" provisions throughout the Concurrency ordinance. Pam asked that a provision under the Concurrency Test procedures be clarified. The Committee members asked that a clear explanation of how this and the Impact Fee ordinance related to the developer agreements that are in process now, and options for addressing that issue. Recommend ordinance and options to COW. 3. Impact Fee Ordinance Impact fees were discussed in the joint meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. Cyndy said they had decided finally on having four areas for impact fee levels. Zone 1 is the Urban Center; Zones 2 & 3 are residential (though they include TIB and Interurban businesses), and Zone 4 includes Ryan Hill and the industrial area in the north part of the City. Ryan Hill was included in Zone 4 because their main access is through the industrial area. Because most of the projects in the six coming years are known about, Cyndy is able to calculate this into p.m. peak trip costs for each of the four zones. The City will study the improvements needed in each area each year, and from that a chart will estimate impact fees for — SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC 13.3.213.3.1 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. P. 12 The Committee members noted that the Planning Commission minutes showed a revision to Policy 13.4.7, but that the revision had been omitted from their copy of the Planning Commission Recommended Transportation Element. Staff has now made this change. It is included in the Planning Commission Recommended Transportation Element as Policy 13.4.6 as follows. 13.4.6. Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running south from the vicinity of 1 -405, to a station located east of Westfield Southcenter Mall and west of the eastem edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then turning east running adjacent to or parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres. \ \TUK2 \VOL3 \HOME \REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \trans ctte revisions 11- 14-05 a.doc MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Jack Pace Subject: Transportation Committee Revisions to Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Date: November 16, 2005 p. 10 Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Attachment 1 The Transportation Committee reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element at their November 14, 2005 meeting, Committee members suggested the following revisions as follows: p. 3, Paragraph 2 The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is and a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies 13.3.1 13.3.2 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA \2005 Comp Plan amendments \trans ctte revisions 11- 14-05 a.doc TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as oncommercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions an residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. DR4FRET 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: — Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. — Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. — Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concur -ency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 13 C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category 11 trips. Policies TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category 0 and local (Category I1) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle - friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non- motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non- motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities DRA, Transportation Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 12 7 F TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient- capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support transportation system management programs and measures developed by Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Metropolitan King County and others, including the private sector, to reduce congestion and serve travel needs. 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Southcenter Mall, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single - occupant vehicle trips, enhance the. Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial- a- ride'and fixed- route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant. employment; centers which will vary according to. development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: — Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short-term and long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter . rail, and light rail. - Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. — Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi - modal. Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity, of high- capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that.parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 11 Transportation 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.5 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.6 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.7 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (I -5), Interstate_ 405 (1- 405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.8 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with, Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle/transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian /bicycle route linking Southcenter Mall to the Tukwila, Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 10 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent`with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan DRAFT. Policies 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: Goal 13.3 Level -of - Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. The Tukwila Urban. Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. — All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. — The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 9 Transportation event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be 'consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use.. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT Traffic TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Non - motorized Transportation A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportation Plan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category 1 trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle- friendly streets. Category 11 trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green /Duwamish high - employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category 1 improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non- motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks; and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category 1 and 11 improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurtions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the communis willing to accept and whattcan be financed. DRAFT Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 7 N 7tansit Priority Corridor Classification Transit Way Transit Principal Corridor Transit Minor Conitlor Transit Local Access Potential Transit Roadway DR Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation AFT Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 6 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Map Legend • — Freeway Principal - • -• -•• Minor Collector City Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 .r DRAF Not to Scale Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map T. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 5 1 a1JlG t. T 1 al t C orr ido Cassifications Classification Functional Purpose • Typical Adjacent Land Use TRANSIT WAY Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service Major private and public developments of regional and interregional transit trips. significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. TRANSIT PRINCIPAL Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity Major private and public developments of regional or local CORRIDOR service, connections between major activity centers, significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high - and some interregional trips density residential land uses. TRANSIT MINOR Provides connections between local transit Major private and public developments. Generally are CORRIDOR destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce located adjacent to high and medium - density residential major activity centers and residential areas. areas as well as commercial areas. TRANSIT LOCAL Provides connections between neighborhoods and Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, ACCESS STREET area attractions.. businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods POTENTIAL Roadways without existing transit service or service Depends on location. TRANSIT ROADWAY but are potential future transit roadway. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive fa nsportation Plan. r DRAFT_ King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Aubum, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Transit Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the 1 ukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Southcenter Mall. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi- hub Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. • 'l Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 4 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive fa nsportation Plan. r DRAFT_ King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Aubum, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Transit Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the 1 ukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Southcenter Mall. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi- hub Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. • 'l Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 4 Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. . 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Streets and Highways *Standards above are typical; see current City codes f or ac stan TUKWILA COMHENSIVE PLAN Transportation DRAFT Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct traffic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss - crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is be ;ng approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govem. The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 3 LOS D elay per Vehicle Si gnalized Intersections . . ` . Delay per Vehicle; "3 ; Unsignalized.lntersection s; ,h A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and Tess than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and Tess than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds LOS Headway (min) Vehicle/ hour . . Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5 - 6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 - 20 3 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 V ' Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders . w LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided B 17 - 18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime s ervice provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F , 0 - 3 Very limited or no service — Traffic Level of Service Standards Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. - Service Frequency LOS: Urban S cheduled Transit Service TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation DRAFT Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2" E d., 2003 - e�nI!F nr aI [ IE Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Sery ice Manual, Non - motorized Level of Service A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 2 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE rr. r DRAPT b The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision- making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year. Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. LEVEL OF SERVICE The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: September 1, 2005 Subject: Transportation Element Update Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting ISSUE Discuss the draft Transportation Element Update at a joint City Council/Planning Commission work session on-September 8, 2005. BACKGROUND State law requires the City to update its Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. In 2004, major updates were done t� the Land Use element but only minor changes were made to the Transportation Element. Updating the Transportation Element was delayed pending completion of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Subarea Plan (to be adopted by end of 2005). Since most of the projected growth in land use, and traffic, is projected to occur in the TUC area, delaying the major update to the Transportation Element allowed staff to accommodate the full 2020 proj ections. On June 9, 2005, staff presented the overall concept of the Transportation Element update to a joint City Council/Planning Commission work session. The overall requirements and needs were discussed. DISCUSSION The focus of the presentation will center on Level of Service (LOS) standards and calculation methodology. Additional discussion is likely to occur on the recommended draft Transportation Element. That document, attached, is an `executive summary' of the future Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the already distributed Transit Plan. The full Comprehensive Transportation Plan is not yet in a final draft form, ready for distribution. It will be distributed prior to the first Public Hearing. Policy decisions will need to be made on the LOS standard and methodology. For discussion purposes only, the draft document is written using staff recommended standards and methodology. The reasoning behind the staff recommendations, as well as an alternate, will be presented at the joint work session. RECOMMENDATION No action will be requested at the joint meeting. Discussion of issues and questions only in preparation for any future work sessions and public hearings. h: \pubworks \cyndy \transportation element\information memo - joint cc -pc briefing9- 8- 05.doc MEMORANDUM Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: Tukwila City Co 1 From: Steve Lancaster Subj: Annual Compreh ive Plan Amendments 2004/2005 Date: November 16, 2005 Attached with this memo are revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, proposed and prepared by the Tukwila Public Works Department. There will be a briefing on November 28, 2005 to review proposed amendments to the Transportation Element and the Planning Commission's recommendations. A public hearing is scheduled for December 5, 2005 to receive input. After the public hearing, the City Council will make its final decision about whether or not to adopt the proposed changes. The Comprehensive Plan can be amended once each year, except in case of emergency. PROCESS TO DATE Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were submitted by December 31, 2004. The City Council held a public meeting on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element on July 18, 2005, and forwarded the amendments to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission and City Council were briefed jointly on the background materials and new policies on June 9, September 8, and October 12, 2005. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 27, 2005. Following the hearing, the Commission made recommendations and forwarded the issue to the City Council. The Transportation Committee was briefed at its meeting on November 14, 2005, and forwarded the issue to the COW for a briefing on November 28, 2005, a public hearing on December 5, 2005 and a decision. At each stage of the process, staff has tried to encourage public involvement. All public meetings and hearings were advertised in the newspaper and on the City of Tukwila website. Public Works staff addressed the SW King County Chamber of Commerce in an effort to further inform the business community of the update process, and amendments under consideration. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION After holding its hearing on December 5, the City Council will make a final decision on the recommended changes to the Transportation Element. The City Council may: • Adopt the proposed amendments • Adopt a modified version of the proposed amendments; or • Reject the amendments. \ \TUK2 \VOL3 \HOME \REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \CC transmittal memo 11- 16- 05.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment' System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Loca! Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Paymeni System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Implementation Strategy A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. 39 Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: • Enhances Tukwila goals and policies • Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations • Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: • Capacity improvements based upon the Tong -tens 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. • Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. • Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. • Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. • Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. 38 Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Implementation Strategy A. Adopt a non - motorized transportation plan for the City. B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as on commercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 37 PFWV _ w� • Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle - friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. t Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. 36 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.13 Encourage transit - oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property, public property. or public streets Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Implementation Strategy A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area 35 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system should meet the following objectives: • Any commuter or Tight rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle. South King County and/or Sea -Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and Tong -term use of altemative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses. commuter rail, and Tight rail. • Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. • Such systems shall be located In a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development pattems and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. 34 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single - occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded Bial- a -ride and fixed -route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: • Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea -Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -teen and tong -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. • Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. • Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi-modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 33 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi-modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi-modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Westfield Mali at Southcenter to the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people- carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.5Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicyde, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regionaVrapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient-capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1-405, to a station located east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastem edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then tuming east running adjacent to or parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres. 32 Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.8 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (1 -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.9 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Implementation Strategies A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service 31 Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions. • • • - • • • •• • , , 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic .atterns. Policies 13.3.5 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.6 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 30 Goal13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evol land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.1 In general. Level of Service Standards shall vary by differina levels of development patterns. desired character of streets and orowth management otxectives. Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average Is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Is updated annually In the Concurrency Ordinance. The Strander Boulevard corridor average Is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. • The Andover Park E. between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, Is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC Goal13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. 29 Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad'acent and use. Implementation Strategies A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 133.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City Improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average Is not to exceed LOS E. except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS Is described In the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Is updated annually In the Conaarency Ordinance. The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The Andover Park E, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. All other non- residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials In predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181). as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC SR 599, as a stale highway of regional significance, is not 10 exceed LOS E/Mitigated. as defined by PSRC 28 Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad'acent land use. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments end-minimization of - eal -de-sa 4mprfnel 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad "scent land use. Policies 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. November 28.2005 27 Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Implementation Strategies A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad'acent land use. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. 26 Policy Discussion Discussion of proposed policies in Transportation Element Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and oods to, from, within, and throug h Tukwila. • Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. 25 Impact Fee Comparison City Fee Comments Aubum $573.50 Bellevue $469.31 Bothell $2,191.00 Covington - Low $2,600.00 Covington - High $6,745.00 Des Moines $1,948.53 Kirkland $877.00 Maple Valley $3,922.00 Renton $75.00* SeaTac $1,020.00 Rate is twice this, policy decision to lower Half of historic amount due to CIP cuts King County Interlocal agreement shares revenues; based on zone system 70% of $2785; policy decision to phase Adjustment for very small businesses Per ADT, plus annual $50 head tax Parking Tax contributes more to CIP November 28, 2005 Impact Fee Comparison Outside Jurisdictions High Low Tukwila Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 November 28,2005 $6,745.00 $469.31 Average $2,260.70 excluding Renton - based on ADT not PM Peak Hour $1,424.71 $1,345.46 $1,071.73 $807.07 24 Impact Fee Projects ■ 6 year window ■ Zone 1 • Southcenter Urban Access /Klickitat • Andover Park W • Andover Park E/Minkler • West Valley Highway /S 156th St • Andover Park Ellndustry Dr. • Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Signal • W Valley Highway /Strander NB LT Lanes • Interuban Bridge • Minkler Blvd: APW to Southcenter Pkwy November 28, 2005 Impact Fee Projects • Zone 2 • Macadam Rd /53rd Ave /S 144th St • Zone 3 • S 144th Street • S 133rd St/SR 599 SB Off -ramp ■ Zone 4 • Tukwila International Boulevard Phase IV • E Marginal Way • All Zones • Signal Interconnect November 28, 2005 23 • 4 Zone Structure • Unique Impact Fee per Zone Impact Fee Structure Impact Fee Structure ■ Impact Fee •Zone System instead of Project Specific 'Net new P.M. Peak Hour Trips •Adjustments for trip length • Zones •Zone 1 (TUC) = $1,424.71 •Zone 2 (Residential East) = $1,345.46 •Zone 3 (Residential West) = $1,071.73 •Zone 4 (MIC) = $807.07 November 28. 2005 22 Impact Fees • Key principles of impact fees: • Fees imposed on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development • Fees not to exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development • Must benefit the new development November 28, 2005 Impact Fees ■ Impact fees cannot be used for: • Existing Deficiencies • Operating or Maintenance Expenses • Non - Capacity Costs (Le. Pavement Preservation) • On -Site ( "Project ") Improvements • Transit Facilities, Bike and Pedestrian Trails • Facilities Funded by Taxes, Grants, User Fees, etc. (no double dipping) November 28, 2005 21 Financing Funding revenues available • Taxes > Property, sales, parking tax, REET, fuel, etc. • Grants > Federal, state General Obligation Bonds • Local Improvement Districts • Impact Fees • Miscellaneous income — bake sales? November 28, 2005 What are Impact Fees? ■ One time fees paid by developer at time of a project approval • To mitigate transportation system impacts • To fund CIP to support the new development • Growth pays for growth • Easy to use schedule • By development type and size November 28, 2005 20 Span of service • Connections to other transit • Connections to other locations November 28, 2005 I10 FedEraI. Transit Service Recommendations mi Service Improvements • Weekend service Louq•Terrn Proposals for Tukwila Routes Costs of Growth Moderate Growth = $73.4 Million $4.9 million per year • Aggressive Growth = $141 Million $9.4 million per year Recommended Network = $105 Million $7.0 million per year November 28,2005 19 TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Signal Operation Improvements • Optimize signal operation: S 180th St/ Southcenter Pkwy Y S 180"' Street/ West Valley Hwy • Intersection Improvements • Add tum pockets Andover Park E/Minkler Andover Park W /Minkler at 719TATiralmie Transit Capital Recommendations • Southcenter Mall Stop • New bi- directional facility on Andover Park W • Tukwila Station • New, permanent station • Additional Bus Shelters • 9 locations • Implement Transit Signal Priority • 3 corridors • Work with Metro to improve service November 28, 2005 18 TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Widen EB and WB approaches • Extend the existing NB left turn lane TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • S 168th Street • Construct a new three- lane arterial on S 168' Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East ugena: Freeway Ramp immalmos We, Teal 17 TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Southcenter Blvd/ 61St Avenue Overpass • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the I- 5 ramps and 61st Avenue • Re- construct the 61st Avenue overpass with seven lanes • Add a SB one -way inbound entrance to Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue/ Tukwila Parkway intersection. ,.. 3nur..s.. IA TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations Tukwila Parkway/ Andover Park West/ Andover Park East • Add one EB lane on Tukwila • Re- construct the 66th Avenue overpass with 6 lanes • Add a NB right tum lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway 7 Lena: hamar, Ramp f Wow 16 Roadway Improvement Recommendations Outside the TUC • Signalize • 3 locations • Intersection Improvements • 2 locations i Roadway Improvement Recommendations - TUC • Most of the future needs for roadway improvements are in the urban core. 15 2020 Traffic f ,! Conditions — M ` South of SC Blvd 5 • Traffic congestion on SR 99 along western borders • Most of unsignalized intersections — Acceptable Now 2020 Traffic Conditions — TUC • Traffic congestion at many key locations would intensify. ■ LOS F -15 intersections N 14 2020 Baseline Network — TUC • Existing facilities ■ Tukwila Pkwy extension ■ 168th Street (new) • SC Parkway widening so of S 180th St • Strander Blvd extension November 28, 2005 0 • Most of the signalized intersections - acceptable conditions • Several unsignalized intersections — LOS F 13 2020 Future Conditions Two Scenarios • Moderate Growth (Baseline) • Aggressive growth • Tukwila Urban Center Sub -area Plan • Westfield Mall Expansion • Tukwila Valley South • JC Penney's warehouse site • Tukwila Village November 28, 2005 2020 Baseline Network - Outside TUC • Existing facilities • Tukwila Int'I Blvd. improvements • Southcenter Blvd (S 154th Street) improvements N . 12 • Klickitat Dr./ Southcenter Pkwy/ Strander Blvd: ■ 61St Ave Bridge /Southcenter Blvd: ■ 66th Ave/ Southcenter Blvd/ W Valley Hwy: Existing Traffic Congested Areas Existing Transit Conditions • Transit Network Plan • Determine Unmet Needs • Examination of ridership patterns • Review of future development patterns • Create service and capital recommendations Existing LOS — South of SC Blvd • Most of intersections operate at LOS "D" or better ■ No major LOS problem N 1 0 Existing Traffic Conditions • Traffic volumes • Daily • AM peak hour • Levels of service • Qualitative measure of traffic congestion November 28.2005 Existing LOS — North of SC Blvd • Most of intersections operate at LOS "C" or better • No major LOS problem No Level of Service Methodology 'Urban Center Corridors • 11 corridors Existing Conditions What does traffic look like today? November 28, 2005 8 LOS Definition — Delay at Signalized Intersection • LOS D ( -55 seconds of delay) • Noticeable traffic volumes, increased signal cycle length es maxir t thQU ■ LOS F (Greater than 80 seconds of delay) • Unstable flows, high levels of delays, driver discomfort and Margt'l l LOS Methodology ■ Four methodologies considered • Current method (TUC -wide average) • Individual intersections (approximately 40) • TUC sub -area zones • TUC corridor approach • Recommended standard: • LOS E at arterial intersections • LOS E on TUC Corridors except: Strander Boulevard Andover Park East (northem corridor) • LOS D on residential streets November 28, 2005 7 Concurrency Options • If development fails to meet the LOS standard, following options are available: • Deny the development • Reduce the scale of the development • Construct improvements needed to bring LOS to the standard • Change the LOS standard November 28.2005 Level of Service Recommended Method LOS Measuring Method Delay LOS Measuring Period LOS Applied Location PM peak one hour Signalized Intersections (outside Urban Center) Defined intersection averaging by corridors (Urban Center) November 28, 2005 6 GMA Requirements Financing plan must include: • Discussion of how additional funding will be raised • Balancing Growth with Funding with Transportation Projects (Concurrency) November 28, 2005 What is Concurrency? Tukwila established its transportation concurrency standards to: • Ensure that adequate facilities are available. • Ensure that financial commitments are in place to pay for needs. • Promote orderly growth and development. • Transportation facilities built concurrent with development • Balancing a three- legged stool November 28, 2005 GMA Requirements ▪ Facility and service needs must include: • Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan • Specific actions for bringing into compliance transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard November 28, 2005 GMA Requirements • Evaluate financial capabilities, including: • Analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources • Multiyear financing plan Should be coordinated with the six -year improvement program November 28, 2005 4 GMA Requirements Transportation Element must include: • Land use assumptions • Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities • Facilities and services needs • Finance • Intergovernmental coordination efforts • Demand- management strategies November 28, 2005 GMA Requirements • Identify facility and service needs: • Inventory of transportation facilities and services • Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes November 28, 2005 Why Update the Transportation Element? ■ GMA requires every 10 years ■ Address traffic congestion • Provide funding options IN Strengthen concurrency /impact fee relationship November 28, 2005 City Council Committee of the Whole Work Session Updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Pla November 28, 2005 Agenda • Review • GMA Requirements • Concurrency • Level of Service • Existing Conditions • 2020 Future Conditions • Finance • Policy Discussion • Policy Changes in the Transportation Element • Concurrency Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance November 28, 2005 • Alternatives to circular cul -de -sacs to minimize paved area • Sidewalks can be included within the required emergency vehicle turning radius • Sidewalks which include handicap cutouts for handicap access Policy 7.54.5 Design collector arterials for slow but steady speeds IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES • Use a two travel lane, local access road design as the basic collector arterial design to encourage safe speeds • New minor and principal arterials routed around residential neighborhoods • Traffic calming program The following new policy addressing traffic calming has been added to the Transportation Element: 13.1.3 Balance travel efficiency, safety and quality-of -life in residential areas through creative roadway design.. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY • Traffic Calming Program COUNCIL CONSIDERATION After holding its hearing on December 5, the City Council will make a final decision on the recommended changes to the Transportation Element. The City Council may: • Adopt the proposed amendments • Adopt a modified version of the proposed amendments; or • Reject the amendments. 11TUK21V0I.3*IOME"\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments\CC memo 1 2.5.05.doc To: From: Subject: Date: BACKGROUND iy 7 ila Department of Community Development Tukwila City Council Jack Pace, Deputy Director DCD Comprehensive Plan Amendment November 29, 2005 Transportation Element I ti The City Council held a public meeting on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element on July 18, 2005, and forwarded the amendments to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission and City Council were briefed jointly on the background materials and new policies on June 9, September 8, and October 12, 2005. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 27, 2005. Following the hearing, the Commission made recommendations and forwarded the issue to the City Council. The Transportation Committee was briefed at its meeting on November 14, 2005, and forwarded the issue to the COW for a briefing on November 28, 2005, a public hearing on December 5, 2005 and a decision. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES Per your direction on November 28, 2005, staff has incorporated comments from the Planning Commission (10/27/05) and the Transportation Committee (11/14/05) into the recommended Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. (Attachment A with Ordinance). At the November 28 meeting, Councilmember Robertson requested a new policy on traffic calming measures. Please note that the Comprehensive Plan Residential Neighborhoods element currently contains the following policies with implementation strategies for traffic calming: Policy 7.4.4 Design residential local access streets to provide the minimum capacity for emergency access and for slow traffic IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES • Require sidewalk and landscape planter for both sides of residential streets • Street design criteria • Traffic calming program • Require sidewalk and landscape planter in front of all multi - family developments • Priority for neighborhood quality design features (e.g. removal of one lane or parking before removal of sidewalk) when reducing street facilities • Rights -of -way incorporating desired design features • Encourage sidewalks and planters where appropriate on 2 -lane improvements • Emergency vehicle purchasing criteria that accommodate street design standards Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director ' ruh2`.V01.3`•I IObil:'•.REI3ECCA\20 Comp Plan amendments \CC memo 12.5.05.doc Rnnlot /aryl .Cttito 4100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: P:Vim\Impact Fees - ordinance ILDOC /J /11/18/05 Section 1R Relationship to SEPA. A. All development shall be subject to environmental review pursuant to SEPA and other applicable City ordinances and regulations. B. Payment of the impact fee pursuant to this Ordinance shall constitute satisfactory mitigation of those traffic impacts related to the specific improvements identified on the project list. C. Further mitigation in addition to the impact fee shall be required for identified adverse impacts appropriate for mitigation pursuant to SEPA that are not mitigated by an impact fee. D. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to limit the City's authority to deny development permits when a proposal would result in significant adverse traffic impacts identified in an environmental impact statement and reasonable mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the identified impact. Section 19. Severahility. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre- emption'shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 70 F,ffective Tate This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF , 2005. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: P:UimUrnpact Fees - ordinance ILDOC/J /11/18/05 - 8 - CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullet C. Determinations of the Public Works Director, or his designee with respect to the applicability of traffic impact fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Section. D. An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City a notice of appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions. E. Appeals under this Ordinance will be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in TMC 18.108.020. ,Section 15 Exemptions Impact fees are generated from the formula for calculating the fees as set forth in this Ordinance. The amount of an impact fee is determined by the information contained in the adopted transportation element, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new development located in the City that generates net new peak hour trips will be charged a traffic impact fee. The following exemptions shall apply: A. Any non - residential project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110. B. Projects that will not generate net new traffic trips; C. Should the City reduce or waive any impact fees, not subject to Section 9.0 of this Chapter, as part of a negotiated developer's agreement, those waived or reduced fees shall be paid from the City's funds. ,Section 16 Vesting Applicants shall be vested under the laws, rules and other regulations in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance if they have, prior to the effective date of this ordinance: A. Submitted a building permit application that the City has deemed complete; or D. Entered into formal negotiations with the City for a development agreement in accordance with RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210; or E. Have a signed agreement that is still in effect with the City addressing traffic concurrency and impact fees. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from requiring the feepayer to mitigate adverse and environmental effects of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C RCW and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. 1 i r 111. P:Uim\lmpact Fees - ordinance II.DOC /J/11/18/05 -7- E. Traffic impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvement. F. In the event bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for system improvements, impact fees may be used to pay the principal on such bonds. G. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six years. The Public Works Director may recommend to the Council that the City hold fees beyond six years in cases where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist. Such reasons shall be identified in written findings by the Council. H. The Finance Director shall prepare an annual report on the transportation impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received and projects that were financed in whole or in part by transportation impact fees. ,4P,rtion 19 Plan and Fee i Jpc1 to This Plan may be updated annually to evaluate the consistency of development density assumptions, estimated project costs and adjust for awarded grant funding, if any. Plan updates that result in a change in impact fees will be reviewed by the City Council. Impact fee changes will only occur through an ordinance requiring Council action. .4e tinn 11 Refiinds A. A developer may request and shall receive a refund when the developer does not proceed with the development activity for which transportation impact fees were paid, and the developer shows that no impact has resulted. B. The developer must submit a request for a refund to the City in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises. Any transportation impact fees that are not expended or encumbered within the time limitations established, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one -year period, shall be retained and expended on any project identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. C. In the event that transportation impact fees must be refunded for any reason, they shall be refunded with interest earned to the applicant. 4•rtinn 14 Appeals A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding traffic impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be taken by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has been paid. P:UimUmpact Fees - ordinance ILDOC/J/11/18/05 -6- demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that an adjustment should be made in order to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. B. The Public Works Director shall review a study to determine if the adjustment request: 1. Is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies; 2. Uses acceptable data sources and if the data used is comparable with the uses and intensities planned for the proposed development activity; 3. Complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees; 4. Is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields; and 5. Shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. C. In reviewing a study, the Public Works Director may require the developer to submit additional or different documentation. If the Public Works Director agrees with the study's findings, an adjustment to the impact fee will be made. If a compelling case has not been made, the developer shall pay the full impact fee amount. D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or accepting the independent fee calculation. ,Section 10 Establishment of impart Fee Account Impact fees received pursuant to this Ordinance shall be earmarked and retained in special interest- bearing accounts. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were collected. ,Se tinn 11 T lse of impart FeeR A. Pursuant to this Ordinance, impact fees shall be used for facilities that will reasonably benefit the City and its residents. B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an existing development. C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel. D. Traffic impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site improvements, engineering and architectural services, permitting, financing, administrative expenses and applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to transportation systems and facilities. P:Uim\Impact Fees - ordinance ILDOC /J /11/18/05 than were considered when the development was first approved. Section 6 Calculation of Impact Feet A. The method of calculating the transportation impact fees in this Ordinance incorporate, among other things, the following: 1. The cost of public streets and roads necessitated by new development; 2. An adjustment to the costs of the public streets and roadways for past or future mitigation payments made by previous development to pay for a particular system improvement that was prorated to the particular street improvement; 3. The availability of other means of funding public street and roadway improvements; and 4. The methods by which public street and roadway improvements were financed. B. Fees for development shall be calculated based on their trip generation rates as determined by the Public Works Director, or designee, applying the ITE Trip Generation Manual. If the proposed development activity concerns an existing use, the fee shall be based on net new trips generated by the redevelopment. If an existing building has not been used for its intended purpose or has been vacant for twelve months or more preceding application, no credit for existing trips shall be given. Sertinn 7 [:relit A credit, not to exceed the impact fee otherwise payable, shall be provided for the fair market value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities that are identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and that are required as a condition of approving the development activity. The determination of "value" shall be consistent with the assumptions and methodology used by the City in estimating the capital improvement costs. Section R Time of Payment of Impact Fees A. The impact fees imposed pursuant to this Ordinance shall be assessed by the City at the time of the application for the development permit, and shall be due and payable in whole at the time of issuance of such permit. The fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of the permit issuance. B. Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity. Section 9 Adjustments A. The amount of fee to be imposed on a particular development may be adjusted by the Public Works Director giving consideration to studies and other data submitted by the developer P:Uim\Impact Fees - ordinance II.DOGJ /11/18/05 -4- "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land development activity, which requires a building permit and creates a demand for additional facilities. "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on development activity pursuant to this Ordinance as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the transportation facilities needed to serve - new growth and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of the capital facilities that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees do not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, a concurrency test fee, and the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees or cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the property. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost for transportation facility improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development. "Vested" means the right to develop or continue development in accordance with the laws, rules, and other regulations in effect at the time the building permit application is deemed complete. ,Section 5 Imposition of Transportation impact Feet A. The City hereby authorizes the assessment and collection of impact fees on development activity at the rates set forth in attachment A, incorporated herein by this reference. B. Transportation impact fees imposed by this Ordinance: 1. Shall only b a imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; 2. Shall not exceed the proportionate fairshare of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; 3. Shall be used for the system improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; 4. May be collected and spent only for system improvements, which are provided for in the transportation element of the Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan; 5. Shall not be used to correct existing transportation system deficiencies as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and 6. Shall be collected only once for each development, unless changes or modifications to the development are proposed which result in greater direct impacts on transportation facilities P:Vim\Impact Fees - ordinance II.DOC/J /11/18/05 -3- B. Purpose. The purpose of the financing plan is to: 1. Develop a program consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, the Six Year Transportation Program and the Capital Improvement Plan, for joint public and private financing of transportation improvements necessitated in whole or in part by development within the City of Tukwila; 2. Ensure adequate levels of transportation and traffic service consistent with the level of service identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Title _ of the Tukwila Municipal Code; 3. Create a mechanism to charge and collect fees to ensure that new development bears its proportionate share of the capital costs of transportation facilities necessitated by new development; and . 4. Ensure fair collection and administration of such transportation impact fees. C. The provisions of the City of Tukwila's impact fee ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 4 D finitinns The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this Ordinance, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Tukwila, Washington. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for transportation facilities. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City, which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity." "Letter encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for the provision of transportation facilities. P:Uim\Jmpact Fees - ordinance I1.DOC /7/11/18/05 -2- CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE - OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING TMC 9.48 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ADOPTING A NEW TMC 9.48 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY STANDARDS AND IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFN'1✓'CTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington and RCW 36.70A, which includes as part of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan elements relating to traffic impacts and necessary mitigation; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has adopted a transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan, including transportation facilities, and desires to provide funding for said plan through the imposition of development impact fees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ,Seetinn 1 Repealer Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 9.48 (Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees) is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2 New TMC 9 4R Adopted A new Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 9.48, Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees, is hereby adopted as set forth in the remaining sections of this Ordinance. Section 1 Authority and Purpose. A. Authority. The City of Tukwila's impact fee financing program has been developed pursuant to the City of Tukwila's police powers, the Growth Management Act as codified in Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the enabling authority in RCW Chapter 82.02, RCW Chapter 58.17 relating to platting and subdivisions and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and RCW Chapter 42.12C. P:UimWnpact Fees - ordinance II.DOC/1/11/18/05 - 1- Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /J/11/18/05 -10- Public Works Department. Each appeal must be submitted with the appeal fee set forth in TMC 18.108.020. B. Hearing Schedule and Notification. When the appeal has been filed within the time prescribed, in proper form, with the appropriate data and payment of the required fee, the Public Works Department shall transmit the appeal to the hearing examiner for scheduling. Notice of the public hearing shall be given to the applicant at least 15 days prior to the hearing date. C. Record. The Public Works Department shall transmit to the Hearing Examiner all papers, calculations, plans and other materials constituting the record of the concurrency test, at least 7 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Examiner shall consider the appeal upon the record transmitted, supplemented by any additional competent evidence, which the parties in interest may desire to submit. D. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Public Works Director was in error. Section 14. SEPA Exemption. A determination of concurrency shall be an administrative action of the City of Tukwila that is categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. Section 15. Severability. Should any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre- emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 16. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF , 2005. A'I I'EST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /J/11/18/05 - 9 - CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullet C. Have a signed agreement with the City that is still in effect. Section 9. Improvements to Concurrency Facilities. The City shall provide, or arrange for others to provide, adequate facilities through construction of needed capital improvements in implementing strategies which do the following: A. Achieve level of service standards for anticipated future development and redevelopment caused by previously issued and new development and building permits; and B. Repair or replace obsolete or deteriorating facilities. Improvements to the facilities shall be consistent with the transportation element, utilities element and Capital Improvement Program of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 10. Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The City shall include in the capital appropriations of its budget for expenditure during the appropriate fiscal year financial commitments for all capital improvement projects required for level of service standards, except the City may omit from its budget any capital improvements for which a binding agreement has been executed with another party to provide the same project in the same fiscal year. Section 11. Intergovernmental Coordination. A. The City may enter into agreements with other local governments, applicable non -City managed utilities, King County, the state of Washington, and other facility providers to coordinate the imposition of level of service standards and other mitigations for concurrency. B. The City may apply standards and mitigations to development in the City that impacts other local jurisdictions. The City may agree to accept and implement conditions and mitigations that are imposed by other jurisdictions on development in their jurisdiction that impact the City. Section 12. Administrative Rules and Procedures. The Public Works Department shall be authorized to establish administrative rules and procedures for administering the concurrency test system. The administrative rules and procedures shall include but not be limited to application forms, necessary submittal information, processing times, and issuance of the concurrency test notice and the certificate of concurrency. Section 13. Appeals. A. Procedures. The applicant may appeal the results of the concurrency test based on three grounds: (1) a technical error; (2) the applicant provided alternative data or a traffic mitigation plan that was rejected by the City; or (3) delay in review and approval caused solely by the City that allowed capacity to be given to another applicant. The applicant must file a notice of appeal with the Public Works Department within 15 days of the notification of the test results. The notice of appeal must specify the grounds thereof, and must be submitted on the form authorized by the P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC/J /11/18/05 -8- C. A concurrency application for phased development shall follow the same timing and procedure as set forth in this Ordinance, except that: 1. Only one concurrency test notice shall be issued for all buildings proposed for phased development; 2. Each building approved - for phased development shall be issued a certificate of concurrency at the same time as the building permit; 3. The concurrency test notice for an approved phased development shall be valid for five years from the date of its issuance; provided that a certificate of concurrency is issued for a building within one year of the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice or within two years if an extension is timely requested and the request is granted. D. The Public Works Director or his designee may approve an extension of up to one year for obtaining the first certificate of concurrency and the final certificate of concurrency for the phased development, consistent with the terms of this Ordinance. E. In no case shall the concurrency test notice be valid for more than six years from the date of issuance of the notice. The applicant must apply for a new concurrency test for any building approved for phased development that has not been issued a building permit within six years from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. P:\Jim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /J /11/18/05 - 7 - Section 6. Public Notice of Concurrency Test. A. The Public Works Director or his designee shall cause notice of issuance of the concurrency test notice to be given in the same manner and at the same time as the SEPA public notice of TMC 21.04. B. The notice shall include the name of the applicant, the City file number, the address and description of the development and the procedures for filing an appeal. Section 7. Exemptions. The requirement for a concurrency test shall not apply to single family building permits, multi- family building permits for projects containing four or fewer units, short plats, or any non - residential project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110. The Public Works Department shall also waive compliance for a traffic concurrency test for other projects which will not generate more than 30 net new p.m. peak hour traffic trips. Section 8. Vesting. Applicants shall be vested under the laws, rules and other regulations in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance if they have, prior to the effective date of this ordinance: A. Submited a building permit application that the City has deemed complete; or B. Entered into formal negotiations with the City for a development agreement in accordance with RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210; or Section 4. Test. Development applications that would result in a level of service reduction below the established standard shall not be approved. For potable water and sanitary sewer, available system capacity will be used in conducting the concurrency test. For surface water; water quality, amount of detention needed, and the system's conveyance capacity will be . used in conducting the concurrency test. A. For water, sanitary sewer, and the surface water conveyance system, if the capacity of the concurrency facilities with the development application added is equal to or better than the capacity required to maintain the established level of service standard, then the concurrency test is passed. In addition for surface water, the water quality and detention standards described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual must be met. B. For roads, the concurrency test compares level of service at intersections or corridors, as defined in the transportation element, both with and without the development at a time 6 years after the estimated occupancy of the development. If the level of service is equal to or better than the level of service standard, the concurrency test is passed. C. If the concurrency test is not passed for water, sewer, surface water, or roads, then the applicant may retest for concurrency after doing one or both of the following: 1. Modifying the application to reduce the need for the non - existent concurrency facilities. Reduction of need can be through the reduction of the size of the development, reduction of trips generated by original proposed development, or phasing of the development to match future concurrency facility construction; or 2. Arranging to fund the improvements for the additional capacity required for the concurrency facilities, as approved by the Public Works Director. Section 5. Concurrency for Phased Development. A. An applicant may request concurrency for a phased development if the Public Works Director determines that the two criteria described below in Subsection B of this Section are met. The application for concurrency must be accompanied by a schedule for construction of the buildings, parking and other improvements and by a written request for the development to be considered in phases. B. The Public Works Director or his designee may approve concurrency for phased development if both of the following criteria are met: 1. No associated development permit is required before building permit applications can be submitted; and 2. The application is for an integrated development site plan with multiple buildings that are interdependent for vehicular and pedestrian access and parking. P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /J/11/18/05 -6- accordance with the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines and containing the traffic information derived from the concurrency test outcome, and the SEPA review fee. No extensions may be granted for submittal of a complete SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation. 8. If the deadline for submittal of a complete SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation is met as described above in subsection (7) of this section, the concurrency test notice shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 9. The concurrency test notice shall expire unless a certificate of concurrency is issued or an extension of the notice is granted within one year from the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 10. An applicant must apply for a new concurrency test if the notice expires or an extension is not granted. 11. The Public Works Director may approve an extension of up to one year if: a. The applicant submits a letter in writing requesting the extension before the expiration date. The applicant must show that he/she is not responsible for the delay in issuing the certificate of concurrency, and has acted in good faith to obtain a certificate; and b. If the property is serviced by a non -City managed utility, then the applicant must submit a letter from the utility approving the extension before the expiration date. 12. Once the associated development permit or building permit is approved, the Public Works Department shall issue a final certificate of concurrency. The concurrency certificate is valid for a period of 2 years or as long as the developer possesses a valid building permit for the development. 13. The Public Works Department shall be responsible for accumulating the impacts created by each application and removing any impacts from the City's concurrency records for an expired concurrency test notice, an expired development permit or building permit, a discontinued certificate or other action resulting in an applicant no longer causing impacts which have been accounted for in the City records. 14. The Public Works Department shall be responsible to coordinate with applicable non -City managed utility operators for maintenance and monitoring of available and planned capacity for these utilities. 15. A certificate of concurrency shall apply only tb the specific land use, density and intensity described in the application for a development permit or building permit. No development shall be required to obtain more than one certificate of concurrency for each building, unless the applicant or subsequent owner proposes changes or modifications to the property location, density, intensity, or land use that creates additional impacts on concurrency facilities. 16. A certificate of concurrency is not transferable to other land, but may be transferred to new owners of the original land. P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC/J /11/18/05 0. "Transportation strategies" means transportation demand management strategies and other techniques or programs that reduce single occupant vehicle travel. P. "Vested" means the right to develop or continue development in accordance with the laws, rules, and other regulations in effect at the time the building permit application is deemed complete. Section 3. Concurrency Test. A. Timing. All applicants must apply for the concurrency test and receive notice of passing the test before the City will consider an application for any development permit or building permit to be complete. B. Procedures. 1. Applications for concurrency shall be submitted on forms provided by the Public Works Department. The concurrency test shall be done in order of "first in, first out," once the Public Works Department determines the application is complete. 2. The applicant shall be responsible to provide to the Public Works Department a certificate of availability for water and sewer with the concurrency application submittal if the property is serviced by a non -city managed utility. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project description of the development, including location, vehicular circulation, and gross floor area by use, with the concurrency application and concurrency test fee. 4. A concurrency test shall be performed only for specific property, uses, densities and intensities based on the information provided by the applicant. The applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the uses allowed for the property. If the concurrency test is being requested in conjunction with an application for rezone, the applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the proposed zoning for the property. Changes to the uses, densities and intensities that create additional impacts on concurrency facilities shall be subject to an additional concurrency test. 5. The Public Works Director or his designee shall perform the concurrency test. The project must receive a passing grade prior to approval of the development permit or building permit. 6. The Public Works Director or his designees shall notify the applicant of the test results in writing and shall notify other City departments of the test results. The date of written notification to the applicant shall be the date of issuance of the concurrency test notice. 7. The concurrency test notice shall expire within ninety calendar days of its issuance unless the applicant submits a SEPA environmental checklist and all required documentation pursuant to TMC 21.04, together with the site plan, the traffic impact analysis prepared in P:Vim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC/J /11/18/05 - 4 - A concurrency test must be passed for water, sewer, surface water, and roads, and a notice issued by the Public Works Department in order to obtain a certificate of concurrency. The concurrency test notice shall be valid for one year. I. "Development permit" means a land use permit. Development permits include short plat, preliminary or final rezone /reclassification, zoning permit, master plan, shoreline substantial development permit/conditional use permit, planned unit development, or any other permit or approval under the Zoning Code or Subdivision Ordinance or Shoreline Master Program. J. "Financial commitment" means: 1. Revenue sources anticipated to be available and designated for facilities in the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Unanticipated revenue from federal and state grants for which the City has received notice of approval; 3. Funding that is assured by the applicant in a form approved by the Public Works development, and the applicant and/or the City provides a financial commitment which is in place at the time the development is approved by the Public Works Department. G. "Concurrency facilities" means facilities for which concurrency is required in accordance with the provision of this Ordinance. They are roads, water, sanitary sewer, and surface water facilities. H. "Concurrency test" means: 1. For water, sewer, and surface water, the comparison of a development's demand to the available capacity of each concurrency facility; and 2. For roads, the comparison of the development's impact on the level of service standards of each effected subarea. Department. K. "Level of service standard" means those standards specified in the adopted transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. For water, sewer, and surface water, "level of service standard" also means those standards defined in TMC Title 14. L. "Noncity managed facilities" include any noncity provider of water or sewer. M. "Planned capacity" means road facilities that do not exist but for which the necessary facility construction, expansion, or modification project is contained in the current capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. The improvements must be scheduled to be completed within six years and the financial commitment must be in place at the time of approval of the certificate of concurrency to complete the improvements within six years. N. "Public Works Official" means Public Works Department employees designated by the Public Works Director to perform the concurrency test. P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /J/11/18105 -3- For water, sewer, and surface water, the facilities must be in place at the time of development impact and for roads; the facilities must be in place within six years of the time of the development impact. Applicants with developments that would cause the level of service on concurrency facilities to decline below City standards can have their developments approved by implementing measures that offset their impacts and would maintain the City's standard for level of service. Section 2. Definitions. The definitions contained in this Ordinance apply throughout this Ordinance unless, from the context, another meaning is clearly intended. A. "Adequate" means equal to or better than the level of service standards specified in the current adopted capital facilities element. B. "Applicant" means a person who applies for any certificate of concurrency under this Ordinance and who is the owner of the subject property or the authorized agent of the property. C. "Available water, sewer, and surface water capacity" means there is adequate capacity, based on adopted level of service standards, for water, sewer, and surface water facilities currently existing without requiring facility construction, expansion, or modification. D. "Building permit" refers to any permit issued under the Uniform Building Code. E. "Certificate of concurrency" means the statement accompanying the Public Works Department's development standards that are issued with an approved development permit or the Public Works Department's conditions of approval that are issued with an approved building permit. The statement shall state that a certificate of concurrency is issued and indicate: 1. For water, sewer, and surface water, the capacity of the concurrency facilities that are available and reserved for the specific uses, densities and intensities as described in the development permit or building permit; and 2. For road facilities assigned to the development for the specific uses, densities and intensities as described in the development permit or building permit; and 3. Conditions of approval, if applicable; and 4. An effective date; and 5. An expiration date. F. "Concurrency" means facilities or strategies that, achieve the City's level of service standards and that: 1. For water, sewer, surface water, and roads facilities that exist at the time development is approved by the Public Works Department; or 2. For roads: a. Are planned in the Comprehensive Plan at the time development is approved by the Public Works Department or b. Will be available and complete no later than six years after completion of the P:\Jim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC/J /I 1/18/05 -2- CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REGARDING CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that the City adopt and enforce ordinances "which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies . to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); and WHEREAS, experience implementing the prescribed procedures has indicated a need to revise the evaluation procedures to ensure concurrency is achieved; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Intent. Pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, after the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tukwila is required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e) to ensure that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are provided concurrent with the development. Further, the City is bound by the planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020 to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards, hereinafter " concurrency." The intent of this Ordinance is to establish a concurrency management system to ensure that concurrency facilities and services needed to maintain minimum level of service standards can be provided simultaneous to, or within a reasonable time after, development occupancy or use. Concurrency facilities adopted by the City's Comprehensive Plan are roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm water management. This Ordinance' furthers the goals, policies and implementation strategies and objectives of the- Comprehensive Plan. The concurrency management system provides the necessary regulatory mechanism for evaluating requests for development to ensure that adequate concurrency facilities can be provided within a reasonable time of the development impact. The concurrency management system also provides a framework for determining facilities and services needs and provides a basis for meeting those needs through capital facilities planning. P:Uim \Concurrency Ordinance.DOC /7/11/18/05 1 ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Mayor Steven M. Mullet -2 P: \Cyndy \Transportation Element \Transportation Element Adoption Ordinance.doc/C/11/21 /05 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE _ OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila began work on an amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2002; and c)-9 CITY OF TUKWILA - P: \Cyndy \Transportation Element \Transportation Element Adoption Ordinance.doc/C/11/21 /05 WHREREAS, two public hearings on the amendment were held on Nov ei J 4, 2005 and December 5, 2005; and REAS, the Planning Commission made recommendations to the Council after the Novem �4, 2005 public hearing. �� WHEREAS, this update includes new background information and policies that ensure that citywide impacts of growth are assessed and mitigated in a timely, systematic manner, and WHEREAS, this amendment is this years only amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The amendment, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted in its entirety as the findings and conclusion of the City Council adopted and the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be updated accordingly. Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre- empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre- emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF , 2005. Minutes, 12/5/05 Page 5 of 11 INF If the motion carries, the sentence would read "The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following..." *The motion to amend the exhibit to the proposed ordinance carried 7 -0. The exhibit shall be amended. * *The motion to adopt the proposed ordinance, as amended, carried 7 -0. APPROVED ORDINANCE #2108 b. An ordinance adopting the Proposed 2006 Budget AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, read the title of the proposed ordinance. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2006 -2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING MODEL AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY'S ENTERPRISE FUNDS Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, read the title of the proposed resolution. CARTER MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; TO AMEND EXHIBIT A OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE (TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT) POLICY SECTION 13.4.12 — LINE ONE — STRIKE "SHOULD" INSERT "SHALL ".* ROBERTSON MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; TO HAVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE READ BY TITLE ONLY. The motion carried 7 - 0. FENTON MOVED; ROBERTSON SECONDED; TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS READ.* Discussion ensued. Questions were answered. Personal opinions of the Council were presented. *The motion to adopt the proposed ordinance carried 7 -0. APPROVED ORDINANCE #2109 c. A resolution approving the Proposed 2006 -2011 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FENTON MOVED; ROBERTSON SECONDED; TO HAVE THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION READ BY TITLE ONLY. The motion carried 7 -0. http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /clerk/docs05 /rm12 -5.htm 03/02/2006 Minutes, 12/5/05 Page 4 of 11 Comprehensive Plan. Also present to assist in discussions were Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, and Cyndy Knighton, Senior Traffic Engineer. 7:48 p.m. Mayor Mullet opened the public hearing and called for citizen comment. No one spoke. After calling for citizen comment a second time and receiving none, Mayor Mullet sought council discussion on the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Carter questioned staff and sought clarification to several sections of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Morrow and Ms. Knighton provided related answers. Of importance, Ms. Carter questioned the difference between "shall" and "should" when included in proposed ordinances. Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, reported the word "Shall" denotes a requirement to do something or perform a specific action. The word "should" is not as strong in its directive powers. With that stated, Ms. Carter and Councilmember Robertson spoke in favor of making changes (at the appropriate time) to particular sections of the Transportation element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Pla For the benefit of those present, grammatical edits and changes (not substantive in nature) made after Committee of Whole meeting, were reviewed by Ms. Knighton. 8:03 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. Formal action will take place under the heading of Unfinished Business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. An ordinance amending the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FENTON MOVED; DUFFIE SECONDED; TO HAVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE READ BY TITLE ONLY. The motion carried 7 -0. Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, read the title of the proposed ordinance. FENTON MOVED; DUFFIE SECONDED; TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS READ. ** Debate ensued. Motion to amend: http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs05/rm12-5.htm 03/02/2006 Minutes, 12/5/05 Page 3 of 11 Mac McDonald - Position #3 — Term to expire 12 -31 -07 Bruce Fletcher introduced all three members. He said they have been busy this year with community events. Mr. McDonald was present and agreed to serve if reappointed. HAGGERTON MOVED; LINDER SECONDED; TO REAPPOINT ARTHUR "MAC" MCDONALD TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD, POSITION #3, WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE 12- 31 -07. The motion carried 7 -0. Sue King - Position #4 — Term to expire 12 -31 -07 Ms. King stated the Board stays busy and "the City is getting their monies worth from the King County Library System." She agreed to serve if reappointed. CARTER MOVED; ROBERTSON SECONDED; TO REAPPOINT SUE KING TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD, POSITION #4, WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE 12- 31 -07. The motion carried 7 -0. Steve Schneider Position #5 — Term to expire 12 -31 -07 ROBERTSON MOVED; DUFFIE SECONDED; TO REAPPOINT STEVE SCHNEIDER TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD, POSITION #5, WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE 12- 31 -07. The motion carried 7 - 0. CITIZEN COMMENT: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, reported receipt of correspondence regarding contracted jail services with Yakima County Department of Corrections. An executive summary was prepared and distributed for the information of Council which included speaking points on a consultant's report regarding inmate safety and medical care as well as recommendations on those same issues. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Approval of Minutes — 8/29/05 Special; 11/21/05 Regular b. Approval of Vouchers - #319975 - 320246, in the amount of $1,508,508.95 DUFFIE MOVED; HERNANDEZ SECONDED; TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. The motion carried 7 -0. . Tack PacerDeputrDirector 9 Com Planning Commission, Transpo for this public hearin ns ' ortation Element Amendments http://www.ci.tulcwila.wa.us/clerk/docs05/rm12-5.htm ment. reported review of this item by the City's • ole. Presented e ity's 03/02/2006 Review of Regional Growth Center Plan This section of the certification and consistency report incorporates a review of available planning and policy documents, including subarea plans, for designated Regional Growth Centers. This review and certification is part of the policy and plan review process, adopted by the Executive Board in September 2003. The approved process requests cities containing regional growth centers to prepare subarea plans for those centers, after which review and certification of the plan will occur. This certification review contained in this section generally follows the format and content laid out in the Center Plan Checklist, an advisory document that was endorsed by the Growth Management Policy Board in Spring 2003. The review covers seven major categories, including the center plan concept, land use, housing, transportation, public facilities, parks and open space, and air quality. In 2005, the City of Tukwila adopted an updated subarea plan for its Downtown Tukwila Regional Growth Center into the comprehensive plan. The subarea plan, one of ten neighborhood plans maintained by the city, adds detail beyond what is provided by the elements of the comprehensive plan as a whole. This review will cover the body of policy that makes up the city's plan for the Downtown Tukwila Regional Growth Center, portions of which is located in the overall comprehensive plan and transportation master plan. Comments: As noted previously, Puget Sound Regional Council staff will review the City of Tukwila's Urban Growth Center Subarea Plan after the fall 2007 adoption. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 16 of 16 Comment: The City of Tukwila addresses economic development in its comprehensive plan in a way that is consistent with and supportive of VISION 2020. The goals and policies in the economic development element also reinforce many of the policies in other elements within the plan. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 15 of 16 Housing gconomic Development PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 14 of 16 Comment: Tukwila's comprehensive plan policies that guide the efficient provision of public services and reassessment strategy, as well as the referenced capital facilities plans and financing model, are consistent with VISION 2020 policies. The housing element of Tukwila's comprehensive plan describes how the city will satisfy its housing needs through 2022. The goals, policies, and implementation strategies within the plan outline the city's approach to meeting the challenge of revitalizing residential neighborhoods while maintaining affordable housing and meeting the needs of low- income and special -needs households. The following goals summarize the city's commitment to meeting its own and the region's housing needs, as well as enhancing the city's neighborhoods': • Goal 3.1— Continue to provide the city's fair share of regional housing needs • Goal 3.2 – Continue to provide the city's fair share of affordable housing • Goal 3.3—Improve housing stock in support of enhanced neighborhood quality • Goal 3.4 —Offer a full range of housing for persons in all stages of life. The plan also includes a discussion of the overall housing supply and demand within the city. Tukwila's existing housing stock consists of about 7,700 units. The city is planning for an additional 3,200 units, as allocated in the housing targets adopted in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Comment: The City of Tukwila is planning in order to accommodate the household target adopted through the King County Growth Management Planning Council. The plan encourages a diversity of housing types and densities and policies are designed to fulfill the housing needs of all economic and special needs segments of the population. The City of Tukwila's economic development element starts by discussing the city's more recent economic setting, and a number of complex issues the city faces associated with economic enhancement and sustainability. The economic elements then goes on to both highlight the city's goal of enhancing the community's economic well - being and lays out the strategies for dealing with economic variables and unforeseen forces. Also included in the economic development element is the city's focused approach to enhancing the city's economic well -being, which includes: sustain moderate growth, target high salary industries, provide capacity for meeting the city's employment targets set by the King County Countywide Planning Policies, ensure quality growth and land use by effective code enforcement and regulations, encourage growth into certain areas through the use of zoning and development regulations, encourage the retention and growth of existing local firms, and provide efficient and timely administration of city services. The plan outlines potential tools for enhancing its economic activity. Potential tools include: the use of industrial revenues for certain areas; tax - increment financing for specific areas; targeted government and private resources; targeted local, state, and federal funds; the use of infrastructure investment to attract new firms and development to designated areas; and providing funded, staffed and administered code enforcement. 4 Note: The city's housing policies and implementation strategies are detailed and clearly support the goals mentioned above. Compatibility with VISION 2020 The Growth Management Act requires coordination among jurisdictions and agencies where there are common borders or related regional issues. VISION 2020, the adopted regional growth and transportation strategy, provides an integrated framework for transportation and land use planning within the central Puget Sound area. This portion of the report focuses on general growth management and economic development issues that have both local and regional significance. Five issue areas are reviewed here: (1) urban growth and compact, contiguous and orderly development, (2) facilities and services, (3) housing, (4) economic development, and (5) critical areas, resource protection and open space. For each issue, a discussion of how the issue is addressed in the City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update is presented. Urban Growth and Compact. Contiguous and Orderly Development Tukwila's land use element is divided into four sections, including: residential neighborhoods, transportation corridors, urban center, and manufacturing/industrial center. Together, these four sections illustrate the city's commitment to supporting the VISION 2020 policies of compact, contiguous and orderly development. A noteworthy section of the plan is the urban center element, which focuses on encouraging mixed -use growth into the Tukwila Regional Growth Center. As the plan states, Tukwila's vision for the urban center takes into account "the King County Countywide Policies criteria for urban centers and has been formulated by recognizing that the intent... is to encourage the growth of each urban center as a unique, vibrant community that is an attractive place to live and work, will support efficient public services including transit, and responds to local needs and markets for jobs and housing (Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, page 112)." The city's annexation policies within the plan also indicate Tukwila's commitment to compact, contiguous and orderly development. The city's annexation policies address the provision of public services, infrastructure, and interjurisdictional issues. For example, the plan has an entire element on its annexation planning efforts. Within this section, the city includes policies to ensure that annexations do not detract from the city's adopted level - of - service standards. Comment: The city's comprehensive plan policies and goals support VISION 2020 policies associated with urban growth and development. The city's policies support a centers -based concept featuring focused growth and a mix of uses in its urban center and take into account the provision of the efficient use of land, public services, infrastructure, and interjurisdictional issues. Efficient Provision of Facilities and Services The City of Tukwila's updated comprehensive plan continues its commitment to maximizing the use of existing facilities and protecting the community's investment in public infrastructure and services. The city's comprehensive plan includes concurrency policies that ensure public facilities and services are in place and adequate to serve development. The city's also has a concurrency ordinance that implements the concurrency policies in the transportation element. In addition, the city's capital facilities element identifies financial resources and expenditures needed to complete its capital improvements. Included by reference are also reports on the city's proposed financial planning model and capital improvement program that contain a list of improvements, estimated costs, and identified benefits. Finally, the capital facilities element also includes a policy that outlines its strategy in the event of funding shortfalls, which includes the reassessment of planned land uses and the identification of funding alternatives. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 13 of 16 Comment: The plan includes goals and policies that help ensure transportation and land uses are supportive of each other. The land use element plans for a concentration of growth into the city's urban centers, and it has adopted policies to ensure that land use and transportation are well coordinated. Expanding Transportation Capacity to Offer Greater Mobility Options Tukwila's comprehensive plan emphasizes improving the capacity of the region's transportation system to support travel by a variety of modes. The city's transit plan, and the recommendations within, reinforce the comprehensive plan's policies that work towards improving connections between modes of transit travel. The comprehensive plan also contains policies and programs to improve the nonmotorized transportation for local and regional travel, increasing mobility and accessibility to connections and services. Comment: The City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update addresses all of the requirements related to the expansion of transportation capacity and mobility. The plan considers all elements involved in multimodal planning. The plan includes strategies and actions that consider the effects the city's transportation and capital facilities decisions have on mobility and access. Related Issue: Air Quality Conformity PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 12 of 16 Air quality is largely an interjurisdictional issue in which each jurisdiction's travel behaviors, measured through vehicle emissions, affect the regional airshed. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires local transportation elements and plans to include "policies and provisions that promote the reduction of criteria pollutants" for mobile sources (WAC 173 -420 -080). Within the central Puget Sound region, criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (HC and NOx), and particulate matter (PM Many of the policies, provisions, and strategies in Tukwila's transportation element help maintain or improve local and regional air quality. The plan includes one specific policy that illustrates the city's commitment to improving air quality. Policy 13.1.4 states that the city will support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote regional water and air quality. The city's transportation demand management strategies also play a role in improving local air quality. The reduction of automobile vehicle miles traveled outlined in many of the transportation demand policies is a major component to achieving air quality goals. Comment: Tukwila's plan includes both policies and provisions to help meet air quality standards, and it meets the transportation planning requirements for air quality conformity. As a result, the city's plan is consistent with Destination 2030. Transportation Demand Management Coordinating Transportation and Land Use PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 11 of 16 The second element of successfully optimizing and managing existing transportation facilities is the concept of transportation system management. While a number of improvements would require the construction or expansion of transportation facilities, many of the identified improvements would support transportation system management strategies. Furthermore, the city considers major improvement/capacity expansions (street widening, for example) as a last resort (Policy 13.3.6), and instead places a priority on traffic management strategies. For example, the retiming of traffic signals, the more efficient routing of traffic on the current transportation network, and the installation of traffic signals are all included in the recommendations. Lastly, since the city adopted its comprehensive plan in 1995, it updated its transportation system performance standards to comply with Puget Sound Regional Council's level -of- service performance standards for highways of regional significance. Comment: Tukwila's comprehensive plan acknowledges the importance of maintaining the transportation system and other capital facilities in a safe, useable state. The city's prioritized improvements take into account both travel efficiency and the needs of existing and planned land uses. The city's plan also includes strategies to efficiently manage transportation through such improvements as the retiming of traffic signals, the more efficient routing of traffic on the current transportation network, and the installation of traffic signals. Demand management policies in the transportation element are a major part of the comprehensive plan's overall transportation strategy. Tukwila identifies increasing transportation choice as a priority (Policy 13.3.6), with a focus on increasing transit use, rideshare measures such as car- pooling, fixed -ride van service, dial -a -ride, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. One of the city's primary goals is to provide efficient transportation that will reduce single - occupancy vehicle trips to, from, and throughout the city (Goal 13). Many of the city's policies support the development additional demand management strategies. For example, the city plans to continue pursuing amenities and funding in support of pedestrian and bicycle routs. The city's current efforts to demand management strategies are evident in the Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The comprehensive plan and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan both emphasized investing in a transportation system that provides alternatives to the single - occupant vehicle. The plan also states that the city is committed to continuing its efforts involved in the commute trip reduction program. Comment: Strategies to manage transportation demand meet all state and regional requirements. The transportation element includes policies to provide and invest in alternatives to single - occupancy vehicle travel. The city is commended for these efforts. Many of the city's planning strategies support the goals and policies embodied in Destination 2030. Most notably, the plan contains goals and policies that specifically address the connection between land use and transportation. Goal 13.2 outlines the city's desire to create a hierarchical transportation system that takes into account the adjacent land uses. Street functional classifications are assigned based on differences in street purpose, street width, traffic volumes, speed limit, and traffic control and linkage characteristics. The city requires that street improvement projects and development improvements be consistent with these elements of the classification system. The city also encourages the transit- orientated use, development patterns, and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit (Policy 13.4.13). twr Consistency with Destination 2030 The 2001 update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, titled Destination 2030, calls for the development of a regionwide, multimodal transportation system that links urban centers with high capacity transit. Four key policy areas are emphasized in reviewing local transportation elements for consistency with Destination 2030: (1) optimizing and managing the use of existing facilities and services, (2) managing travel demand to address traffic congestion and environmental objectives, (3) coordinating transportation and land use planning in order to support transit and pedestrian- oriented land use patterns, (4) expanding transportation capacity to offer greater mobility options. An additional issue related to transportation planning in the central Puget Sound region and addressed in Destination 2030 is conformity with federal and state air quality requirements. The Regional Council's Certification & Consistency Report on Tukwila's 1996 plan recommended the city consider the following issues in the next plan update: • The city should consider developing additional programs and strategies for system preservation and maintenance to reinforce the policy direction in the transportation element. • The city should consider strategies for improving transit and high- occupancy vehicle facilities, improved access to park- and -ride lots and HOV lanes, and developing preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. • The city should consider additional transportation demand strategies. • The city should add policies and provisions to its plan which commit the city to meeting and maintaining federal and state clean air requirements. Comments: The city worked hard to address the issues mentioned above. The plan now includes a number of policies and programs for improving transit and high - occupancy vehicles and preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. The city also included additional transportation demand strategies and illustrated its commitment to improving local and regional air quality. Optimizing and Managing the Use of Existing Facilities and Services The transportation element of Tukwila's comprehensive plan includes a number of policies to optimize and manage the use of its existing transportation facilities and services. Tukwila's primary transportation goal is to ensure "safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and throughout the city (Goal 13.1)." In order to do so, the city focuses on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program (Policy 13.1.1), as well as focusing on the highest possible transportation efficiency that balances the needs of existing and desired land uses (Policy 13.1.2). Additional policies adopted by the city include: developing a street network plan that enhances the existing system of streets; continuing to improve streets and coordinating them with utility improvements; and establishing a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted level -of- service standards. Tukwila's comprehensive plan also places an emphasis on prioritizing transportation projects according to the planning goals and policies. The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Report, adopted along with the comprehensive plan, provides a prioritized list of transportation improvements for the transportation network throughout the city. The improvements identified in the report were then included in the transportation element. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 10 of 16 Demand Management Strategies PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 9 of 16 drainage, transportation, parks and open space, development review, and public safety (pg. 71)." Implementation strategies include: • Establishing mutually agreed upon development standards with King County for proposed development within potential annexation areas. • Reviewing neighboring jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. • Initiating discussions and negotiations with adjacent and regional jurisdictions to establish mechanisms and procedures to resolve interjurisdictional concerns. • Working with affected citizens and property owners and the neighboring cities of SeaTac, Kent, Renton, and Seattle to develop interlocal agreements providing for mutually agreeable processes to adjust board anomalies. • Participating with King County and Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans. Comment: The City of Tukwila 2005 comprehensive plan update meets requirements for interjurisdictional coordination. The plan includes section that highlights both policies and implementation strategies for coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions. Transportation Demand Management requirements are addressed below in the Consistency with Destination 2030 section. financing Intergovernmental Coordination PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 8 of 16 • Maintain adopted level -of- service standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions (Policy 13.3.3) • When reviewing private development proposals, apply the concurrency ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control (Policy 13.3.5). • Make certain the costs of improvements needed to ensure concurrency is reflected in the annual capital improvement plan update and annual update to the concurrency ordinance and impact fee schedule (Policy 13.7.2). • Require additional mitigation, in accordance with the concurrency ordinance, when development affects locations not meeting concurrency standards (Policy 13.7.2). The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan also includes a detailed discussion of the balance between the city's growth, capital facilities funding, and adopted level -of- service standards. Included in this section is a discussion of the actions the city must take to achieve and maintain concurrency. The actions include: reducing growth by denying or delaying land use permit applications, increasing funding for new facilities, and changing the level -of- service standards. Comment: The transportation element of the City of Tukwila comprehensive plan clearly demonstrates the steps the city has both taken and will take to ensure concurrency. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan also shows the city understanding of potential concurrency issues and methods to deal with such issues. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the analysis of the city's transportation financing capability. This element includes a brief summary and description of each type of revenue source, including federal, state, and local agencies. Included in the summary are individual programs that may potentially help fund transportation projects. The plan includes the city's historical transportation funding from 2000 to 2004, which provides insight into potential funding revenues in the future. Past revenue dollars are broken down to the federal, state, and local level. The city already imposes transportation impact fees for new development. However, as the plan states, if funding falls short of meeting the city's needs, the city will either reduce the growth by denying or delaying land use permits applications or change the level -of- service standards. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan also includes a recommended list of transportation projects that would accommodate the growth used to forecast the 2020 traffic impacts. An estimated cost is provided for each project. Comment: The City of Tukwila's comprehensive plan meets the growth management act requirements for transportation financing. The city is commended for including its historical funding revenues, as well as a finance reassessment strategy. The City of Tukwila and its affiliated urban growth area shares borders with the cities of Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Seattle. The city's comprehensive plan includes an entire section regarding intergovernmental coordination. Included in the section are both interjurisdicational goals and policies. For example, the city plans to "establish interlocal agreements that provide solutions to regional concerns, including but not limited to water, wastewater, storm and surface water outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.' This is a change from the city's 1995 transportation element methodology, which used a volume -to- capacity ratio methodology. The city's level -of- service standards are represented on a scale ranging from `A' at the highest level, to `F' at the lowest level. The plan includes a qualitative description of each level -of- service category. The plan states that "in general, level -of- service standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives (City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, page 160)." Considering these guidelines, the city's urban center corridor is not to exceed `E', all other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed `E', and predominately residential areas are not to exceed `D'. Consistent with the regional level -of- service standards adopted by the Regional Council for Highways of Regional Significance, the city adopted a standard of `E/Mitigated' for both SR -181 and SR -599. However, the plan does not reference the level -of- service standards for the highways of statewide significance established by the Washington State Department of Transportation. While highways of statewide significance are exempt from local concurrency requirements, the level -of- service standards for all state facilities must be referenced, as required by the Growth Management Act. The plan also includes a discussion and table outlining level -of- service standards for transit service. These transit standards are based on the 2003 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. While the city does not operate transit service, the city "will encourage all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum level -of- service `C' and work within Tukwila's transit street classification system (Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, page 158)." The plan also includes a policy to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of its adopted level -of- service standards. Comment: The transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan defines its level - of- service standards required by the Growth Management Act. Furthermore, the city provides justification for its adopted standards for local facilities, as well as references the external standards for SR -181 and SR -599. In its next update, the city needs to reference the level -of- service standards for all state facilities, including 1 -5, 1 -405, and SR -528. The city is commended for including useful transit level -of- service standards and policies to encourage the coordination of these standards with the area's transit providers. While the city references the difficulty associated with developing level -of- service standards for nonmotorized facilities, it does acknowledge the fact that various methodologies exist to do so. The city is encouraged to develop level -of- service standards for its nonmotorized facilities for its next plan update. The Puget Sound Regional Council can provide the city technical assistance and information on the best practices. Concurrency In addition to adopting a concurrency ordinance, the city takes specific steps to ensure local concurrency. The transportation element of the comprehensive plan provides a summary of the numerous policies the city has adopted to ensure concurrency. The following list provides several examples of the city's concurrency policies summarized in the transportation element: • Use adopted level -of- service standards to guide city improvement and development decisions (Policy 13.3.2) Within the designated urban growth center area, levels -of- service are calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard, while level -of- service standards outside the urban growth center (north and central /southwest areas) are calculated by individual key intersection. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 7 of 16 PSRC Cen`ification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 6 of 16 identification of Facility and Service Needs The city uses a functional classification system that is consistent with guidelines developed by Washington State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, and clearly addresses level -of- service standards and concurrency issues. Facility Inventories The city's comprehensive plan includes a thorough inventory of transportation facilities and services. Analysis of the city's transportation system is divided into three distinct areas of traffic and roadway needs, including: (1) the urban center, where the largest volumes of traffic and infrastructure is needed; (2) the north area, where the largest amount of manufacturing uses and infrastructure exists; and (3) the central/southwest area, where most residential uses exist. The comprehensive transportation plan includes a description of its general functional classification system and area maps for all its transportation facilities. The city's inventory includes existing local and state roadway facilities, freight and freight and rail transportation facilities, transit facilities, and nonmotorized facilities throughout all its distinct traffic areas. As the plan clearly discusses, street functional classifications are assigned based on the differences in street purpose, street width, traffic volumes, speed limit, and traffic control and linkage characteristics. Street classifications include: local access, collector arterial, minor arterial and principal arterial. Transit corridors are classified according to function, ideal operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and the support of physical design feature(s) of the public infrastructure. Transit classifications include: transit way, transit principal corridor, transit minor corridor, transit local access street, and potential transit roadway. The plan also includes discussion, maps, and a classification system for its nonmotorized facilities, where type I represents bicycle or other nonmotorized trips that are regional and type II represents local city trips. The city's facility inventory includes additional information relevant to use of its transportation system, both recently and in the past. For example, Appendix A of the Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes maps and charts of 2002 traffic volumes on local and state roadways and growth trends for these transportation facilities. Overall, the plan contains detailed descriptions, tables, maps, and functional classifications that describe the existing local and state roadway facilities, freight and freight and rail transportation facilities, transit facilities, and nonmotorized facilities. Comment: The City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update includes an excellent inventory of its current local and state transportation roadways, transit facilities and services, freight and rail facilities, and the local nonmotorized facilities. The city is commended for including a thorough inventory of designated freight route, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and transit facilities. Level -of- Service Standards The City of Tukwila's comprehensive transportation plan includes intersection -based level - of- service standards. Calculations are based on average delay time per vehicle methodologies Land Use Assumptions The transportation element in the city's comprehensive plan references the traffic forecasting methodologies used in the Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). The transportation analysis identifies the growth forecasts that influence the city's future transportations needs and improvements. The city expects to grow by an additional 3,200 households and 16,150 jobs by year 2020. These projections are consistent with the growth targets adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council. The travel demand model used to calculate 2020 travel forecasts assumes that both the current land use regulations will continue to 2020 and growth will occur according to the adopted growth projections? Moreover, land use assumptions are referenced in the transportation element and are explicitly stated and applied to the travel demand model forecasts in the plan. Comment: The City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update meets the requirement for applying land use assumptions in the development of the transportation element. The land use element also references the household and employment growth targets adopted through the King County Growth Management Planning Council. In the next update, the city should include a brief discussion of the land use assumptions identified in the Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan into the city's comprehensive plan's transportation element, as opposed to simply referencing the CTP. Estimated Traffic Impacts to State Facilities State -owned highways within the City of Tukwila are recognized and categorized by whether they are a highway of state or regional significance. As the plan describes, the state -owned highways within Tukwila designated as highways of state significance by the Washington Department of Transportation include: 1-5, 1-405, and SR -518. Highways of regional significance within Tukwila include: SR -599, and SR -181. In addition to providing a 2020 level -of- service projection for state facilities, the plan documents a substantial amount of information related to the estimated traffic impacts to state facilities. For example, Appendix A of the Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes historical traffic volume growth trends (1988- 2000), 2002 average a.m and p.m weekday traffic volumes on SR -181, projected 2020 traffic volumes with no improvements and proposed improvements, as well as the levels -of- service for both the year 2002 and 2020. The plan thoroughly documents the estimated traffic impacts to state facilities. Comment: The city's transportation element includes a comprehensive analysis of the estimated traffic impacts to state facilities required by the Growth Management Act. The plan also includes additional traffic information helpful for analyzing the traffic impacts to state facilities. 2 The city's comprehensive transportation plan consists of land use assumptions and traffic analysis for both the area in and outside its designated urban growth center. The analysis described above only outlines the city's land use assumptions used to forecast travel in the areas outside of its urban growth center. The urban growth center land use assumption will be discussed in PSRC's review and report of the city's urban growth center subarea plan. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 5 of 16 foro Conformity with Growth Management Act Requirements The Growth Management Act includes the following requirements for transportation elements in local comprehensive plans: (1) use of land use assumptions to estimate travel, (2) estimated traffic impacts to state owned transportation facilities, (3) identification of facility and service needs, including an inventory of facilities and established level -of- service standards, (4) identification of a financing plan for transportation facilities and services, (5) a description of intergovernmental coordination efforts, (6) and demand management strategies. The Regional Council's Certification & Consistency Report on Tukwila's 1995 comprehensive plan recommended the city consider the following issues in the next plan update: • The city should include specific information that demonstrates how the city's growth scenarios and land use assumptions were actually used to develop the transportation element. • The city should consider including a brief discussion of its transportation modeling in the transportation element. • The city should — at minimum — reference in the transportation element the transit level - of- service guidelines developed by Metro Transit. • The city should expand its discussion of potential revenue sources for both the implementation of transportation facilities and services as well as potential funding shortfalls. • The city should consider including references to any analysis it has performed to determine impacts of its transportation policies and provision on adjacent communities. Comments: The city addressed the majority of the issues mentioned above in the 2005 update. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan and its appendixes include detailed information regarding the city's growth scenarios and land use assumptions used in the transportation element, as well as a thorough discussion of its transportation model. While the plan does not specifically mention Metro Transit's level -of- service guidelines, it does provide a qualitative discussion and quantitative table illustrating transit level -of- service standards developed in Metro's Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan also includes the city's potential revenue sources for both the implementation of future transportation projects, as well as its strategies for mitigating potential funding shortfalls. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 4 of 16 PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 3 of 16 Review of the 2005 Transportation Element In December 2005, the Tukwila City Council adopted the updated Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Based on review of the adopted plan the following recommendation is proposed for action. Recommendation for Certification The Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council should certify that the transportation - related provisions in the City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update conforms to the Growth Management Act and are consistent with Destination 2030. ISCUSSION Tukwila updated its comprehensive plan with explicit consideration of state, county and regional planning goals and policies. The city addressed a number of the Regional Council's recommendations in Tukwila's 1996 Certification & Consistency Report. The city adopted its initial comprehensive plan prepared under the Growth Management Act in 1995. The city updated the 2005 comprehensive plan after thorough public participation. A clear introductory vision statement defining the community's vision for the future provides an overarching framework that guides the elements within the plan. The comprehensive plan's transportation element consists of Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for a 20 -year planning period, guiding the city's transportation decisions consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act. TABLE OF CONTENTS Review of the 2005 Transportation Element 3 Recommendation for Certification 3 Conformity with Growth Management Act Requirements 4 Land Use Assumptions 5 Estimated Traffic Impacts to State Facilities 5 Identification of Facility and Service Needs 6 Financing 8 Intergovernmental Coordination 8 Demand Management Strategies 9 Consistency with Destination 2030 10 Optimizing and Managing the Use of Existing Facilities and Services 10 Transportation Demand Management 11 Coordinating Transportation and Land Use 11 Expanding Transportation Capacity to Offer Greater Mobility Options 12 Related Issue: Air Quality Conformity 12 Compatibility with VISION 2020 13 Urban Growth and Compact, Contiguous and Orderly Development 13 Efficient Provision of Facilities and Services 13 Housing 14 Economic Development 14 Review of Regional Growth Center Plan 16 City!, of Tukvila Retort � s } Lr' Seatac , L .�, Kent Bellevue Newcastle r- Regional Growth Canters PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 2 of 16 t• Puget Sound Regional Council PSRC CERTIFICATION & CONSISTENCY REPORT for CITY OF TUKWILA 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN June 7, 2007 ACKGROUND A major emphasis of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) is the need to coordinate local, regional, and state planning efforts. Within the central Puget Sound region, local governments and the Puget Sound Regional Council have worked together to develop an overall process for reviewing local, countywide, regional, and transportation agency policies and plans for compatibility and consistency) This process also provides an opportunity to coordinate and share information related to local and regional planning. This report focuses on the amended provisions in the City of Tukwila's 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The city amended provisions of its comprehensive plan several times since its original adoption in 1995. The city made a minor update to the comprehensive plan's transportation element in 2004 to include regionally significant highway level -of- service standards. In 2005, the city made a significant update to its transportation element, satisfying the GMA's 10 -year review and evaluation requirement. Also in 2005, the city adopted its Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which as the plan states represents the full update of the transportation element and serves as the basis for the policies with in it. In addition, the Tukwila Transit Plan, the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, the City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations (Appendix A to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan), and budget were adopted by reference to the transportation element in the comprehensive plan. In support of its designated regional growth center, the City of Tukwila's is required to develop a subarea plan with goals and polices, background information, and implementation strategies to guide the center's development into a vibrant and successful place. During the plan review and certification process, the Regional Council provides review and evaluation of this subarea plan. Tukwila's comprehensive plan includes an urban center section in the land use element; however this element currently serves as a policy guide for the city's subarea plan. At the time of this review and certification, the City of Tukwila was in the process of completing and adopting a more comprehensive Regional Growth Center subarea plan, with an expected adoption date of fall 2007. As a result, this report does not include a review of the regional growth center plan. Once adopted, Puget Sound Regional Council staff will review the city's subarea plan and present the Board with its recommendations for an additional certification at that time. 1 The certification requirement in the Growth Management Act is described Chapter 47.80, Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The specific requirements for transportation elements in local comprehensive plans are spelled out in Chapter 36.70A.070, RCW. The Regional Council's Interlocal Agreement, Section VII, also provides direction for the review of local comprehensive plans and countywide policies (Resolution A- 91 -01, amended March 1998). The Council's Executive Board Last updated its process for Policy and Plan Review in September 2003. PSRC Certification and Consistency Report City of Tukwila 2005 Comprehensive Plan update Page 1 of 16 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE No. 2110 City of Tukwila, Washington On December 5, 2005, the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, adopted Ordinance No. 2110, the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, regarding Concurrency Management; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. Approved by the City Council at their Special Meeting of December 5, 2005. Published Seattle Times: December 9, 2005 Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Section 1. The Transportation Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No 1757, is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit A (attached), and adopts by reference Tukwila's Transportation Plan and Transit Plan (Exhibit B, attached). Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent Jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published m the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL QF THE CITY QF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this b day of -212 , 2005 ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED 4c ( E. Cantu, AMC, City Clerk C:\ Documents and SettingskAll Users \Desktop\KeiIy \\1SDATA \Ordinances \Comp Plan Amend 2005.doc RF:ksn 12/2/2005 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk. /a-/- U Passed by the City Council. /,? - S- oS Published. % - 9 - O S Effective Date: /a- /4 - 2).5 Ordinance Number: a / D 8 Page 2 of 2 and Washington Ordinance No. ot ! D e City of Tukwila AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are to be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and WHEREAS, per RCW 36.70.A, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall not be considered more frequently than once every year, except m cases of emergency or to amend the Shoreline Master Program, and WHEREAS, work on updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan has been m progress for several years, and an application to amend the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan was submitted in December 2004, and WHEREAS, after draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element were sent to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on September 20, 2005, no comments were received, and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2005, the draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element were determined to have no significant environmental effects, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission, held a public hearing on October 27, 2005, and after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from the public, has recommended the adoption of amendments to the Transportation Element; WHEREAS, notices of a public meeting and a public hearing were published in the Hazelnut, and the Seattle Tunes, and WHEREAS, the City Council held the public meeting on July 18, 2005 and the public hearing on December 5, 2005, and WHEREAS, the amended Transportation Element adopts by reference new background information, including a Transportation Plan and a Transit Plan, and policies that ensure that the City-wide impacts of growth are assessed and mitigated in a timely, systematic manner, and WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are necessary; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: C'\Documents and SettinssWl Users\ Desktop \Kelly W1SDATA \Ordinances'Comp Plan Amend 2005.doc RF:ksn 12/22005 Page 1 of 2 Figure V -1: Impact Fee Zones City of Tukwila Impact Fee Zones 41 development would determine the level of the TIF imposed. Developments would be charged a TIF calculated using the costs for traffic projects in specific zones, rather than total costs for TIF - eligible projects throughout the City. Because the system is divided into zones, it can be assumed that improvements within a zone will benefit all users of the zone and not just those who use the specific facilities. For example, if a major thoroughfare is improved and can accommodate more trips, other streets in the zone may experience less delays as traffic moves from those local side streets onto the main thoroughfare. The four zones are: • Zone 1: South/TUC. From 1 -5 to the south City limits to the east City limits to north of Southcenter Boulevard. (Zone 1 would include the Tukwila South project upon annexation into the City of Tukwila.) • Zone 2: East/Interurban. From 1 -5 to north of Southcenter Boulevard to the east City limits to the Duwamish River to the West boundary. • Zone 3: West/TIB. From the west City limits to the south City limits to 1 -5 to SR 599 to the Duwamish River to the east City limits to the north boundary. • Zone 4: North /MIC. The MIC area plus Ryan Hill. There is also one project (a Signal Interconnect system) that will interconnect all signals throughout the City. Because this is a city -wide project, the costs are shared across the four zones. To develop a zonal fee structure, the total number of net new trips are identified per zone. Factors are made to account for zone -to -zone travel, as well as travel through or outside the City limits. Background growth, or trips not beginning or ending in Tukwila, are excluded as the City has no inter -local agreements with surrounding agencies to collect impact fees for growth in other areas. The next step is to identify project costs by zone. Since impact fees can only be imposed on the project costs not funded by grants, other mitigation, or other funds, only the amount remaining after subtracting existing and projected funding can be considered. The cost per trip fee is then calculated using the un- funded amount divided by the new growth. Necessary projects and project costs will be updated on an annual basis in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Plan and Financial Planning Model. After identifying project costs by zone additional adjustments are made based on typical trip lengths. An average trip length for Tukwila of 3.7 miles per trip is used to compare typical trip lengths for a variety of land uses. This final adjustment is done to ensure the truest assessment of new growth's impacts. 40 F standard for level of service (LOS) is to be maintained. The fee is paid by new development at the time of an application for a building permit. The amount of the fee is based on the impact of the proposed development on transportation systems. The steps for developing a transportation impact fee varies by jurisdiction, but in broad terms they are: • Forecast the demand for transportation capacity (future trips). • Prepare a plan showing what improvements will be built to meet that demand, their cost, and which are eligible for TIF funding • Determine what percentage of the improvements are required to accommodate new development (as opposed to solving problems of existing development or accommodating future through traffic). Use that percentage to estimate the total amount of revenue that TIF must generate from new development over some forecast period. • Divide the total revenue requirement by some measure of the trips the new development will generate. The result is the cost per estimated trip generated. • Apply that cost per trip to each new development project using an estimate of trips to be generated based on the nature of the development. While Washington state law outlines the intent and requirements for establishing impact fees, cities do have choices to make in how to implement the TIF. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that infrastructure be in place within pix years from "the time of development" to accommodate the impacts of new development. In accordance with the GMA, a TIF may only be imposed on transportation improvements that are identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan or related reports and updates to the comprehensive plan and the six -year transportation capital improvement plan (CIP). In addition impact fees collected must be used within six years of collection. The basic premise of a TIF is that new developments pay for expansion of the transportation system, but there are constraints on how much a Tukwila can charge developers. Developments can be charged for expansions in the system, but not for existing deficiencies. Further, Tukwila must demonstrate a geographic and temporal nexus between the impact fee payers, the payment, and the related investments. To plan for future transportation funding and set fee levels, it is necessary to make forecasts for funding availability from federal, state, and local sources. Forecasting how much and which funding sources may be available at some later date is not certain. It involves approximating values and making predictions on behaviors of funding agencies. Grant funding is scarce and competition is intense. Despite the uncertainties involved in forecasting, some assumptions can be made regarding future funding availability in order to calculate an impact fee. While there are several options for approximating future funding, for the purposes of this analysis, the average funding in the past serves as the forecast of future funding. Of the project costs identified above, $95.8 million are eligible for the TIF. The other $6.7 million are safety - related and cannot be paid for with the TIF. Zone system In order to best address the geographic nexus of the impact fee, the City has been divided into four zones, Figure V -1. The zones were identified based on similar land uses and travel patterns. The overall service area used for the TIF is the legal boundaries of the City of Tukwila but there are provisions for future annexations. Under such a zone system, the location of the 39 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Table V - 4 shows federal, state and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2005. Table V-4. Summary Of Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects Federal Sources State Sources Other Intergovernmental Revenue Local Sources Total 38 2000 2001 2002 Actual Actual Actual $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 695,000 1,564,000 3,143,000 28,000 360,000 1,445,000 4,574,000 4,041,000 3,563,000 $7,393,000 $6,731,000 $17,349,000 2003 2004 Actual Actual $9,443,000 2,162,000 0 7,477,000 $19,082,000 2005 Budget $1,200,000 $2,046,000 603,000 6,026,000 664,000 0 1,152,000 4,125,000 $3,619,000 $12,197,000 Available funding Available funding from outside sources is found mostly at the state level, which administers both state programs through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and federally funded TEA - 21 programs. Many of the programs at the state and federal level are oriented towards providing below - market interest rates on loan or partial grants Orith the remainder left to the City. While these low -cost loans reduce the total funded cost to the City, they still require the City to provide an ultimate source of payment. Therefore local sources are critical as they are usually the ultimate source of repayment. In addition to impact fee revenues, the City can use property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and other existing or potential City taxes or fees to pay for the improvements. The City can consider the use of a Local Improvement District (LID) structure to repay any loans required to support the improvements. There are many variables to consider in making projections for future funding availability, including issues as diverse as federal and state transportation legislation, state and local policy changes, population growth in Tukwila and Washington State, inflation, and the price for gasoline. The City has local revenues of about $2.5 million annually. State and federal funding have averaged a combined annual contribution of $6.4 million to transportation improvements revenues. If the City continues to receive state and federal funding at similar levels, the combined federal, state and local funding would be an estimated $8.9 million annually. Unmet needs The City has identified $102.5 million in transportation needs, in 2005 dollars, through 2020. Over a 15 -year period, this project list would result in about $9.9 million in costs. An estimate $1.0 million annually is projected to be needed to fully fund the necessary improvements. New sources must be found to fund the projects, assuming no lessening of growth or Level of Service Standards occurs. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is assessed on new development to pay for improvements to the transportation systems that the traffic from such development is estimated to require if some State Grants Like federal funding, much of state funding for transportation is project - specific and fluctuates significantly from one year to the next. Table V -2 shows actual state funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted state funding for 2005. Table V -2. State Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget State $590,000 $1,449,000 $3,027,000 $2,047,000 $490,000 $5,916,001 Motor Vehicle Fuel 105,000 115,000 116,000 115,000 113,000 110,00( Local Vehicle License Fee 136,000 151,000 156,000 4,000 0 0 Total State $695,000 $1,564,000 $3,143,000 $2,162,000 $603,000 $6,026,00 The budgeted amount for state funding for transportation in Tukwila is $5.9 million for 2005. This is significantly more than for any other year shown here. State funding, however, has not fluctuated as significantly as federal funding. The State's contribution to transportation improvements revenues has averaged $2.4 million annually. The average includes the fuel tax, which has been steady at around $110,000 per year. Local Funding Table V -3 shows actual local funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted local funding for 2005. Table V-3. Local Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects Local Sales Parking REET 2 G.O. Bond Impact Fees Miscellaneou Total Local 2000 Actual $2,946,000 89,000 464,000 0 747,000 328,000 $4,574,000 2001 Actual $2,570,000 86,000 319,000 0 669,000 397,000 $4,041 2002 Actual $2,635,000 82,000 339,000 0 (28,000) 535,000; $3,563,000 2003 Actual $0 138,000 597,000 6,343,000 0 399,000 $7,477,000 2004 Actual $0 192,000 813,000 0 0 147,000 $1,152,000 2005 Budget $3,000,000 175,000 350,000 0 525,000 75,000 $4,125,000 Tukwila uses varying local sources from year to year to fund transportation improvement projects. This is in part because transportation improvement needs are project based. In addition, these funding source tables do not show carryover in funds from previous years, but rather only show new revenues. During the five -year period for which actuals are shown, the City received an average of $277,000 in impact fees annually, but the City did not receive any impact fee revenue for two years and had negative revenue in another. When revenues from the current impact fee and general obligation bond proceeds are not included, Tukwila generates an average of $2.5 million in revenue from local sources annually. 37 Local funding sources Local transportation funding sources are primarily from the property tax for highway projects and the sales tax for transit projects. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The State of Washington levies a 1.28% tax on the full selling price of real estate, including transfers of controlling interests of property. Cities and counties may levy up to 2 %, but statutory limitations dictate that most charge between 0.25 and 0.5 %. Statutes also limit uses for some of the revenues from real estate excise taxes. If a city with population of 5,000 or more that is planning under the GMA imposes the first 0.25 %, often called REET 1, it must use the revenues exclusively for capital projects specified in its capital facilities plan. The second 0.25 %, or REET 2, can only be used for transportation and utility projects. Parking Tax. Cities may charge a commercial parking tax. This has not been a major revenue source for Tukwila, as most parking is provided for free on street or on -site by businesses. Local Improvement District (LID). LIDs are formed for the purpose of assessing local property owners an amount sufficient to pay for a project deemed to be of local benefit. LIDs are a specific type of special assessment district, which more broadly includes any district that is formed within an existing taxing district to assess specific property owners for some service that is not available throughout the larger district. Impact Fees. If new development within a community triggers public costs, impact fees can allocate those costs to the development rather than to the existing residents of the city. In simplest terms, this is sometimes described as "growth pays for growth." HISTORICAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA Federal Grants Table V -1 shows actual federal funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted federal funding for 2005. Table V -1. Federal Funding Sources For Transportation Improvement Projects Federal Sources ti The budgeted amount for federal funding for transportation in Tukwila is $2.0 million for 2005, but has varied from a low of $766,000 to a high of $9.4 million. Because federal funding is typically project - specific, it can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. The City has received federal funding averaging $4 million annually, but in 2004 and 2005, federal funding dropped to about $1.6 million annually. The consequence of this scarcity and fluctuation is that the City cannot rely on federal funds for the bulk of transportation improvement projects and must secure local funding sources while pursuing federal (and state) grants. 36 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,001 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds are distributed to non - attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non - attainment. Some funds for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement are also available to maintenance areas of the State Bridge (BR). The Bridge Replacement/Bridge Rehabilitation Program provides assistance for eligible bridges on public roads. High Priority Projects. The High Priority Projects program provides designated funding for specific projects ('demonstration' or 'Demo' projects) identified by Congress. Nationwide, TEA - 21 includes 1,850 of these projects, each with a specified amount of funding over the 6 years of TEA -21. The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. State funding sources The State of Washington depends on federal funding for much of its transportation system. The largest source of state funds is the motor - vehicle fuel tax, which provides state and local governments with $700 to $800 million per year. Arterial Improvement Program (AIP). This Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)- administered program provides funding for arterial street improvements for cities and portions of counties within urban areas. Motor - Vehicle Fuel Tax. Fuel tax revenues are collected by State of Washington authority. Counties have an option to add an additional 2.3 cents per gallon tax which is collected by the State but then shared with the county who then distributes to local cities based on population. These revenues are often exhausted by maintenance and preservation budgets alone Vehicle License Fees. In the past the state collected a fee in King County of $15 per vehicle license, which was shared with local cities in the same manner as the fuel tax. The vehicle license fee was repealed and Tukwila has not received any revenue from this source since 2003. Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP). This program provides funds to projects that promote pedestrian mobility and safety as a viable transportation choice; e.g. provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities. (TIB administered program.) Transportation Partnerships Program (TPP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for transportation projects in urban counties /cities with populations over 5,000 or in Transportation Benefit Districts that encourage economic development and public /private partnerships. Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). This is a loan program developed by the State Department of Community Development to provide low interest loans to local governments to complete needed infrastructure improvements. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). Provides state funds to be combined with partnership funding from freight mobility and freight mitigation projects along strategic freight corridors. 35 V. FISCAL ANALYSIS A thorough fiscal analysis was conducted as part of this Plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires an analysis of funding capabilities be done to balance the needs against probably funding resources. The GMA further requires a multi -year financing plan to accommodate the growth and maintain a minimum level of service standard. Tukwila's annually update Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program provides the specifics for the multi -year finance plan. FUNDING SOURCES Local government administrators and elected officials have a practical principle regarding funding: current residents pay last. That principle leads them to seek funding, in order, from the following sources: • Federal agencies. • State agencies. • Regional agencies. • Local sources that include others besides existing voters, including: • People passing through (e.g., room taxes, gas taxes), and • Future voters (e.g., by charging developers fees that future households and businesses will pay in upon purchasing property). • Current households and businesses. Federal funding sources Federal funding for transportation systems comes via legislation passed every six years, the most recent being the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA -21). The primary funding source for federal transportation funding is federal fuel taxes. Federal grant sources available to Tukwila include: Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP funds can be used on any Federal -aid highway, public road larger than a local or rural minor collector, bridge projects on any public road, or transit capital projects. Safety (STPS). 10% of STP funds are set aside for safety improvements. The objective of this program is to identify, implement and evaluate cost- effective safety construction projects. These funds are made available to all state and local agencies and tribal nations within Washington and can be applied to all public roadways. Transportation Enhancement Program (STPE). 10% of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancement projects. Eligible transportation enhancement projects must be directly related to the surface transportation system. Regional STP (STPUL, STPUS, STPR). These funds are allocated by formula to the MPO regional transportation planning organization (RTPO), or county lead agency are based on population and road mileage. The PSRC is the MPO /RTPO for Tukwila and selects and prioritizes projects for funding. STP Competitive (STPC). This portion of STP funds can be used in any area of the State. The purpose of the program is to offer multi -modal choices to the public. 34 The Urban Center area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. This Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. Further details are provided in the Tukwila Transit Plan. 33 32 Figure IV -1: Level of Service Corridors in the Tukwila Urban Center Legend: ! ..�...�� Freeway Ramp River Trail ' - - Railroad Note: not to scale IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS According to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Tukwila must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge the performance of the transportation network. State owned facilities, particularly the limited access freeways and highways of state -wide or regional significance, a level of service standard is adopted by the state and reflected in local agency plans. The GMA does not establish a minimum LOS standard but does require that each jurisdiction set a standard and coordinate their standard with adjacent agencies. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. Previously, Tukwila's LOS standard was set at LOS E for all arterial intersections. In some specifically identified corridors, the LOS standard was LOS E for the corridor average. This plan does not recommend changing the standard significantly but creates new corridors specific to the Urban Center. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the Urban Center, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard. Figure IV -1 shows the level of service corridors for the Urban Center. Elsewhere in Tukwila, the level of service is calculated by individual arterial intersections. Specific level of service standards are: • The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park W corridor. • The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of less than 120 seconds. The Andover Park W, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of less than 120 seconds • All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. • The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. • West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC • SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC 31 Figure 111 -7: 2020 Weekday PM Peak hour Levels of Service for the Urban Center Recommended Network Ncrdstront Entrance WE5TF:ELD 5HOPPNGTO'A'N 541MICEATElt North Legend: >... Freeway Ramp I * River Trail — — - Railroad Note: not to scale 41 LTr-1 ILI I 116* ic*" *1:7 t iO V �t S 0 � 0 si NY v Unsignalized 1 Intersection Level of Service I Delay 30 Project Construction with Contingency Right -of- Way Engineering Total Southcenter Blvd: add one westbound lane west of 61st Avenue S $2,502,360 0 $752,000 $3,254,360 Strander Boulevard Improvements $5,992,320 $1,140,000 $1,799,000 $8,931,320 Minkler Boulevard Extension $15,000,000 $1,500,000 $3,750,000 $20,250,000 Total $23,494,680 $2,640,000 $6,301,000 $32,435,680 The following intersections would operate at LOS F under the recommended network and the Maximum Growth land use scenario: • West Valley Corridor — at Southcenter Boulevard, at Strander Boulevard, and at S 180 Street • Andover Park East — at Tukwila Parkway, and at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park West — at Tukwila Parkway and at Strander Boulevard • Southcenter Parkway — at Nordstrom Entrance • Strander Boulevard — at 61 Place S, Andover Park W, Andover Park E, and Strander Boulevard. Certain projects identified through this process were eliminated from the recommended network due to funding constraints. The following projects are still recommended for future consideration should growth or funding opportunities change from the assumptions made in this plan. Southcenter Boulevard • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the 1-5 ramps and 61 Avenue by one lane the westbound direction. Strander Boulevard Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Strander Boulevard from a point 250 feet west of Andover Park East to West Valley Highway. • Add one southbound through lane at the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection Minkler Boulevard Extension Improvements • Extend Minkler Boulevard from Industry Drive to West Valley Highway. • Improve the intersection of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park East. Table 111-4 shows planning level cost estimates for the additional network projects Table III-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Additional Network Projects (2005 Dollars) 29 Project Construction with Contingency Right -of- Way Engineering Total Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project at Klickitat $15,620,000 $1,760,000 $4,620,000 $22,000,000 Southcenter Boulevard: Eastbound lane west of 61st Avenue S $5,282,340 0 $1,586,000 $6,868,340 Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements $1,741,680 $885,000 $524,000 $3,150,680 Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway $3,209,880 $540,000 $963,000 $4,712,880 S 168 Street $6,440,280 $5,300,000 $1,934,000 $13,674,280 Total $32,294,180 $8,485,000 $9,624,000 $50,406,180 S 168 Street • Construct a new 3 -lane arterial from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Signal Operational Improvements • Adjust signal operations for the following intersections: South 180 Street/Southcenter Parkway, and South 180 Street/West Valley Highway. Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Extend the existing northbound left tum lane on West Valley Highway when 1-405 is widened. Table 111 -3 shows planning level cost estimates for the recommended network. Table 111 -3: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Recommended Network (2005 Dollars) ti The PM peak hour 2020 levels of service within the Tukwila Urban Center were calculated with the recommended network. Figure 111 -7 shows the 2020 PM peak hour levels of service and delays with the recommended improvement projects within the Urban Center. 28 Figure 111-6: Expanded Grid Network Legend: 17590 Block r■21.1 Freeway Ramp River Trail — - - - Railroad New Street Street Extension Conversion to 2 lane road with TWLTL* • TWLTL =Two Way LeftTum Lane Note: not to scale 51ra1 Er ei i Tspraila Parkway Beans Black Cr Conversion to 3 lane road with on-street parking Extens'on of Evans Black Drive c- Fcrate pr k Mnter B rst Upland Cr ,• N bard Cr 1 $ a 'Mane or New 2 lane street 27 Urban Center Recommended Network All intersections projected to operate at LOS F in 2020 were evaluated and potential improvements were identified. An initial list of projects was developed that would maintain an LOS E at all intersections with the Mall to Station growth alternative but not including the Tukwila South development. The Tukwila South proposal came after the initial list of potential projects was developed. Additional options were explored in conjunction with the Urban Center Subarea Plan including pursuing a finer network of streets as property redeveloped and narrowing Andover Park E between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard to enhance the subarea's goal of a pedestrian friendly, urban development. The desired finer network of streets to be built as development occurs is shown on Figure 111-6. Resultant levels of service were analyzed with each potential street network and weighed against probable funding availability. The recommended network is the result of that process. Additional projects worthy of consideration are identified but projections on funding limits meant they had to be removed from the recommended network. Should growth pattems or the funding opportunities change, these projects should be reconsidered for inclusion, along with any other projects that would maintain the minimum level of service standard. The recommended network for the Urban Center includes the following projects: Southcenter Urban Access Improvement • Construct a grade- separated structure at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway intersection and associated improvements • This project began design in 2005. Southcenter Parkway Extension • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes from S 180 Street to south City limits. • This project began design in 2004. Southcenter Boulevard • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the 1 -5 ramps and 61 Avenue by one lane in each direction. The eastbound lane is a higher priority improvement than the westbound lane. Southcenter Boulevard /61 Avenue Overpass Improvements • Re- construct the 61 Avenue South overpass with seven lanes, when WSDOT increases the number of lanes on 1-405 below the 61 Avenue overpass. • Add a southbound one -way inbound entrance to Westfield Southcenter Mall at the 61s Avenue South/Tukwila Parkway intersection. Tukwila Parkwav /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Tukwila Parkway from a point 200 to 250 feet west of Andover Park West to Andover Park East. • Re- construct the 66 Avenue South overpass with 6 lanes when WSDOT widens 1 -405. • Add a northbound right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway. 26 Figure 111 -5: 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Recommended Network 1 GLEN . 1 AC RED • CALF •• RAINIER GOLF CLLS I I COL- E �Oi47RY C J5 Sitt2lh St St5411St SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FOSTER , GOLF COURSE. . WESTFIELD SHOPPINGT SOUTHCENTER r7ASiliNGTON Legend: City Limit Park River Freeway Railroad L 25 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 Several options were analyzed to develop the recommended transportation network. The goal was to balance the needs of growth with the funding available to construct necessary capacity improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service. The details of the multiple analyses are included in the Appendix to this plan. At the same time, a level of service standard was established which sets the maximum amount of congestion acceptable to Tukwila, and a detailed financial analysis was made to best project future funding availability. This process is required under the GMA and is generally referred to as "Concurrency." More details on the processes taken are discussed in future sections of the plan. Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action network conditions for the areas outside the Urban Center, a list of needed improvement projects to meet LOS E was developed. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is planned are shown in Figure III -5. Several intersections are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction but the results are presented regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. With these projects, all intersection would operate at LOS E or better. Recommended improvements include: • Retime the existing signal at International Boulevard and S 160 Street. (SeaTac) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. • Add tum lanes at the following intersections: • 42 Avenue S and S 160 Street: provide eastbound and westbound left tum lanes. • Macadam Road S and S 144 Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay • Signalize the following intersections: • • 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • Macadam Road 5/51 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road and S 133 Street (SeaTac) • Southcenter Boulevard: widen to a 3 lane arterial between 1 -5 and International Boulevard. Planning level costs estimates for the recommended improvements are shown in Table III - 2. - 2: Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements Improvements 24 Construction Right -of -way Engineering Total Costs Macadam Rd /51st & S 144th St $361,698 $15,220 $105,495 $483,000 Macadam Rd & S 144th St $252,300 $77,340 $73,588 $404,000 S 124th St & 42nd Ave S $343,824 $22,480 $100,282 $467,000 S 160th St & 42nd Ave S $423,246 $19,600 $123,447 $567,000 East Marginal Way & S 130th St $390,054 $25,960 $113,766 $530,000 Total Costs $2,451,000 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 Several options were analyzed to develop the recommended transportation network. The goal was to balance the needs of growth with the funding available to construct necessary capacity improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service. The details of the multiple analyses are included in the Appendix to this plan. At the same time, a level of service standard was established which sets the maximum amount of congestion acceptable to Tukwila, and a detailed financial analysis was made to best project future funding availability. This process is required under the GMA and is generally referred to as "Concurrency." More details on the processes taken are discussed in future sections of the plan. Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action network conditions for the areas outside the Urban Center, a list of needed improvement projects to meet LOS E was developed. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is planned are shown in Figure III -5. Several intersections are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction but the results are presented regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. With these projects, all intersection would operate at LOS E or better. Recommended improvements include: • Retime the existing signal at International Boulevard and S 160 Street. (SeaTac) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. • Add tum lanes at the following intersections: • 42 Avenue S and S 160 Street: provide eastbound and westbound left tum lanes. • Macadam Road S and S 144 Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay • Signalize the following intersections: • • 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • Macadam Road 5/51 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road and S 133 Street (SeaTac) • Southcenter Boulevard: widen to a 3 lane arterial between 1 -5 and International Boulevard. Planning level costs estimates for the recommended improvements are shown in Table III - 2. - 2: Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements Improvements 24 k Figure 111-4: 2020 Maximum Growth PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Baseline Network North Legend: mmoili rai Freeway Ramp River Trail — - ---- Railroad Note: not to scale m r Unsignal Intersection Level of Service 1 Delay J ffl 23 Figure III -3: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Baseline Network North Legend: .r.mmoormff Freeway Ramp r * Unsignalized I River Intersection I Trail I Railroad - Level of Service I Note: not to scale Q Delay I J 22 »F, Figure III -2: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South 8 !Seth it tl;:.:.£r Fie I SHCPRI Tc 'Tii=G1 � $1G3h fi t i r j 1 II — 81 SEIt.B: I ! 1 F):4-43 i ▪ I i 4.1 i w I I .i: Z1 C 1 1 I sI h p 1 ,-.7 .' I 0 1 1 i 11 North i Legend: (~ Th Ciy LilTit Pa•ic River Freee ay - -� - Railr:,a Sigrait d LOS Delay Sic 1 „ ^siralized 1 a LOS 5 0 play, SSC 21 Figure III -1: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — North S95111 GLEN 1, l k. AGRE� GOLF ' MIME GOLF CLUS 1 I COL9.E 1 ) COUNTRY Si112U: St 'C:UB r SEATTLE TACOMA IHTERNATIORAL AIRPORT 20 z J 6 = WA IGTON Legend: City Lirnit _ ..J Park River Freeway Railroad Signalized LOS 24 Delay/Sec Unsignaliized LOS 22 Delay/Sec North Signalized Intersections The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS F under 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • International Blvd and S 160 Street • International Blvd and S 154 Street (SeaTac) (SeaTac) Figures III-1 and I11 -2 show the LOS and delays for the areas outside of the Urban Center. Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Baseline Growth alternative are shown in Figure 111 -3. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F on the baseline network: • Southcenter Blvd and 61 Avenue S • Southcenter Blvd and West Valley Highway • Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park E • Northbound 1 -5 off -ramp and Southcenter Parkway Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Maximum Growth scenario on the baseline network are shown in Figure III-4. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F with the maximum growth scenario in addition to those listed above: • Minkler Blvd and Andover Park W • S 180 Street and Andover Park W • Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park W • Klickitat Drive and 1 -5 Southbound on- ramp There are 35 intersections in the TUC where levels of service were calculated. Of those, 16 intersections, or about one -half of them would operate at LOS F in 2020 under the Baseline network conditions. • Southcenter Parkway and Strander Blvd • Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance (1 -5 NB Off Ramp) • Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive • Strander Blvd and Andover Park W • Strander Blvd and Andover Park E • Strander Blvd and West Valley Highway • S 180 Street and Southcenter Parkway • S 180 Street and West Valley Highway 19 Details on the multiple growth alternatives are included in the appendix to this plan and are also included, excluding the Tukwila South development, in the Urban Center Subarea Plan. BASELINE NETWORK To determine roadway capacity improvements necessary to accommodate growth, an analysis of growth options on the baseline street network is required. Some projects will be constructed before 2020, based on the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally, some additional improvements were assumed to be in place by 2020. The 2020 baseline network assumes the following improvements would occur by 2020: • 1-405 will be widened by 1 lane in each direction through Tukwila • The 61st Avenue S /66th Avenue S bridges will be reconstructed with the widening of 1-405 • Tukwila Parkway will be extended to the West Valley Highway • Strander Boulevard will be extended to Oakesdale Avenue • Northbound 1-405 slip -ramp on Tukwila Parkway relocated • New 168th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park E • Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street will be widened to 5 lanes 18 • Andover Park West will be widened to 5 lanes between Strander Blvd. and Tukwila Parkway • Andover Park E at Minkler Blvd. will have left turn pockets on all legs • West Valley Highway at S 156 Street • will have an HOV northbound left turn lane • Minkler Boulevard will be widened to 3 lanes • Andover Park E at Industry Drive will be signalized • S 180"' Street at Andover Park W will have left turn pockets on all legs • West Valley Highway will be 7 lanes wide between 1-405 and Strander BlvdOutside the Urban Center Analysis The 2020 LOS show that 28 percent of the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed (11 out of 39) will degrade to LOS F on the baseline network. The intersections with LOS F under the 2020 conditions are listed below. ti Unsionalized Intersections The following unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F for one or more approaches under the 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • 42 Avenue S and S 160 Street • 51 Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 112 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 124 Street • E Marginal Way and S 130 Street • 53 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Macadam Road S and S 144 Street • 42 Avenue S and S 144 Street • Military Road S and S 144 Street (SeaTac) • Military Road S and S 133` Street (SeaTac) III. 2020 FUTURE CO NDITIONS In order to understand the impacts of projected land use, different scenarios were studied. All alternatives are consistent with the adopted land use plan or with the pending Urban Center Subarea Plan. 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS To forecast the 2020 traffic volumes and understand their implication to traffic flow within the City, a 2020 Tukwila travel demand forecast model was developed. The model covered the entire region, but focused on the Urban Center. This model is based upon Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) four - county regional transportation model, and it is refined and customized to represent the City. A Baseline Growth alternative forms the foundation of the modeling analysis. This growth assumption is based on the PSRC regional model and detailed growth potential explicit to Tukwila. In essence, the 2020 Baseline Growth land use scenario assumes that the current land use regulations will continue to 2020 and the past market trends will also continue to the future. This is not to be confused with no new growth occurring in Tukwila but rather that growth will occur along historical patterns. With the exception of the Urban Center area, this is the level of growth being planned for as part of this effort. Land use changes associated with the Urban Center Subarea Plan will change land use patterns from this alternative and are discussed in a later section. The Urban Center area was analyzed for multiple growth alternatives as part of the Urban Center Subarea Plan, to be updated in 2006. Initially, two "catalyst" project alternatives were analyzed: Mall to Pond and Mali to Station. The Mall to Station alternative was selected as the preferred growth alternative. In 2004, a potential large -scale mixed use development, known as Tukwila South, came forward. This potential development of just under 500 acres and up to 14 million square feet, immediately south of the Urban Center, would be highly influential on travel patterns and overall growth in the area. Because of the potential impact to the street system it was subsequently added to the Tukwila Transportation Model. An aggressive development schedule (80 percent of the maximum build -out) was assumed in order to fully understand the magnitude of the impacts possible with the combined growth associated with the Mall to Station alternative and Tukwila South. Demographic data sets, including household and employment forecasts associated with a system of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), form the basis for travel demand forecasting. The Tukwila travel forecasting model used the 2002 households and employment data and the 2020 forecasts for the Baseline Growth, Mall -to -Pond, Mali -to- Station, and Maximum Growth land use scenarios shown in Table III -1. Table III -1: 2002 and 2020 Household and Employment Forecasts 17 Household 1 Employment Citywide 2002 Existing 6,866 49,800 2020 Baseline Growth 10,066 65,950 Urban Center Growth Alternatives 2020 Mall -to -Pond 1,730 29,540 2020 Mall -to- Station 1,573 35,022 2020 Tukwila South 1,510 14,613 III. 2020 FUTURE CO NDITIONS In order to understand the impacts of projected land use, different scenarios were studied. All alternatives are consistent with the adopted land use plan or with the pending Urban Center Subarea Plan. 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS To forecast the 2020 traffic volumes and understand their implication to traffic flow within the City, a 2020 Tukwila travel demand forecast model was developed. The model covered the entire region, but focused on the Urban Center. This model is based upon Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) four - county regional transportation model, and it is refined and customized to represent the City. A Baseline Growth alternative forms the foundation of the modeling analysis. This growth assumption is based on the PSRC regional model and detailed growth potential explicit to Tukwila. In essence, the 2020 Baseline Growth land use scenario assumes that the current land use regulations will continue to 2020 and the past market trends will also continue to the future. This is not to be confused with no new growth occurring in Tukwila but rather that growth will occur along historical patterns. With the exception of the Urban Center area, this is the level of growth being planned for as part of this effort. Land use changes associated with the Urban Center Subarea Plan will change land use patterns from this alternative and are discussed in a later section. The Urban Center area was analyzed for multiple growth alternatives as part of the Urban Center Subarea Plan, to be updated in 2006. Initially, two "catalyst" project alternatives were analyzed: Mall to Pond and Mali to Station. The Mall to Station alternative was selected as the preferred growth alternative. In 2004, a potential large -scale mixed use development, known as Tukwila South, came forward. This potential development of just under 500 acres and up to 14 million square feet, immediately south of the Urban Center, would be highly influential on travel patterns and overall growth in the area. Because of the potential impact to the street system it was subsequently added to the Tukwila Transportation Model. An aggressive development schedule (80 percent of the maximum build -out) was assumed in order to fully understand the magnitude of the impacts possible with the combined growth associated with the Mall to Station alternative and Tukwila South. Demographic data sets, including household and employment forecasts associated with a system of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), form the basis for travel demand forecasting. The Tukwila travel forecasting model used the 2002 households and employment data and the 2020 forecasts for the Baseline Growth, Mall -to -Pond, Mali -to- Station, and Maximum Growth land use scenarios shown in Table III -1. Table III -1: 2002 and 2020 Household and Employment Forecasts 17 City of Tukwila Impact Fee Zones NOT TO SCALE r G'S Tit 11-,: vi Cost of Location of Projects Projects of influence Project 2006 Project Cost Grants, mitigation, LID, other sources Impact Fee Cost Cost of Zone 2006 • Current trip volume Projected trip volume Projected Per Zone new pass- Incremental through trips Volume Southcenter Urban Access /Klickitat $ 17,418,000 $ 17,418,000 $ 13,211,000 $ 4,207,000 • Andover Park W $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Andover Park E/Minkler $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 West Valley Highway /S 156th St $ 725,000 $ 725,000 $ 300,000 $ 425,000 Minkler Boulevard $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000. $ - Andover Park E /Industry Dr. $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ - $ 220,000 S 180th St/Andover Park W $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ - $ 210,000 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Signal $ 259,048 $ 259,048 $ - $ 259,048 Zone 1: SouthITUC W Valley Highway /Strander NB LT Lanes $ 703,560 $ 703,560 $ 505,715 $ 197,845 $ 8,565,404 10,354 23,421 2,972 10,095 Interuban Bridge $ 2,024,250 $ 2,024,250 $ 1,206,384 $ 817,866 Minkler Blvd: APW to Southcenter Pkwy $ 1,228,645 $ 1,228,645 $ - $ 1,228,645 S 168th Street $ 13,700,000 $ 13,700,000 $ - West Valley Highway $ 580,000 $ 580,000 $ - Strander Boulevard Extension $ 761,000 $ 761,000 $ 500,000 Southcenter Boulevard $ 6,868,000 $ 6,868,000 $ - Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park E $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 $ - Southcenter Blvd/West Valley Hwy $ 4,700,000 $ 4,700,000 $ - Lone z: (-act /Inforitrhan Macadam Rd /53rd Ave /S 144th St $ 404,000 $ 404,000 $ - $ 404,000 $404,000 1,185 1,807 62 560 S 144th Street $ 1,373,000 $ 1,373,000 $ 753,000 $ 620,000 S 133rd St/SR 599 SB Off -ramp $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 300,000 $ 50,000 Southcenter Boulevard (1 -5 to TIB) $ 7,600,000 $ 7,600,000 $ 7,600,000 $ - Zone 3: West/TIB Macadam Rd /51st Ave /S 144th St $ 483,000 $ 483,000 $ - $ 670,000 1,732 3,042 478 832 S 124th St/42nd Ave S $ 467,000 $ 467,000 $ - S 160th /42nd Ave S $ 567,000 $ 567,000 $ - E Marginal Way /S 130th St $ 530,000 $ 530,000 $ - Tukwila International Boulevard Phase IV $ 3,083,000 $ 3,083,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 683,000 Zone 4: North /MIC E Marginal Way $ 1,920,000 $ 35,000 $ - $ 35,000 $ 718,000 4,437 6,212 1,218 557 Tukwila Int'I Blvd /S 116th /SR 599 $ 4,675,000 $ 4,675,000 $ 1,900,000 Zone 5: All Zones Signal Interconnect $ 2,472,000 $ 2,472,000 $ 2,171,000 $ 301,000 $ 301,000 17,708 34,482 4,730 12,044 Land Uses Unit of Measure Basic Trip Rate New Trip % New Trip Rate Length (miles) Trip Length Adjustmen t Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Average Cost per Trip 3.7 Trip a Length $1,459.22 $1,345.46 $1,071.73 $807.07 Commercial - Retail Shopping Center up to 9,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 13.70 50% 6.85 1.3 1.37 $13.74 $12.67 $10.09 $7.60 10,000 sq ft- 49,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 9.46 55% 5.20 1.5 1.59 $12.04 $11.10 $8.84 $6.66 50,000 sq ft- 99,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 6.92 55% 3.81 1.5 1.59 $8.81 $8.12 $6.47 $4.87 100,000 sq ft- 199,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 5.47 60% 3.28 1.7 1.80 $8.61 $7.94 $6.32 $4.76 200,000 sq ft- 299,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 4.60 65% 2.99 1.7 1.80 $7.84 $7.23 $5.76 $4.34 300,000 sq ft- 399,999 sq ft sq ft/GLA 4.10 70% 2.87 2.1 2.22 $9.30 $8.57 $6.83 $5.14 over 400,000 sq ft sq ft/GLA 3.77 75% 2.83 2.4 2.54 $10.47 $9.65 $7.69 $5.79 Miscellaneous Retail Sales sq ft/GFA 2.59 70% 1.81 1.7 1.80 $4.75 $4.38 $3.49 $2.63 Supermarket sq ft/GFA 11.51 75% 8.63 2.1 2.22 $27.96 $25.78 $20.54 $15.47 Convenience Market sq ft/GFA 53.73 45% 24.18 1.3 1.37 $48.49 $44.71 $35.61 $26.82 Nursery/Garden Center sq ft/GFA 3.80 70% 2.66 1.7 1.80 $6.98 $6.43 $5.12 $3.86 Fumiture Store sq ft/GFA 0.45 60% 0.27 1.7 1.80 $0.71 $0.65 $0.52 $0.39 Car Sales - New/Used sq ft/GFA 2.80 80% 2.24 4.6 4.86 $15.90 $14.66 $11.67 $8.79 Auto Care Center sq ft/GLA 3.38 70% 2.37 1.7 1.80 $620 $5.72 $4.56 $3.43 Quick Lubrication Vehide Shop Service Bay 5.19 40% 2.08 1.7 1.80 $5,444.17 $5,019.74 $3,998.49 $3,011.08 Auto Parts Sales sq ft/GFA 5.98 70% 4.19 1.7 1.80 $10.98 $10.12. $8.06 $6.07 Pharmacy(with Drive Through) sq ft/GFA 10.40 50% 5.20 1.7 1.80 $13.64 $12.57 $10.02 $7.54 Free Standing Discount Store sq ft/GFA 4.24 70% 2.97 2.1 2.22 $9.61 $8.87 $7.06 $5.32 Hardware/Paint Store sq ft/GFA 4.42 70% 3.09 1.7 1.80 $8.11 $7.48 $5.96 $4.49 Discount Club sq ft/GFA 3.80 70% 2.66 4.0 4.23 $16.41 $15.13 $12.05 $9.08 Video Rental sq ft/GFA 13.60 45% 6.12 1.3 1.37 $12.27 $11.32 $9.01 $6.79 Home Improvement Superstore sq ft/GFA 2.87 70% 2.01 2.1 2.22 $6.51 $6.00 $4.78 $3.60 Tire Store Service Bay 3.47 70% 2.43 1.7 1.80 $6,369.89 $5,873.29 $4,678.39 $3,523.08 Electronics Superstore sq ft/GFA 4.50 70% 3.15 2.1 2.22 $10.20 $9.41 $7.49 $5.64 Commercial Office Administrative Office up to 9,999 sq ft sq ft/GFA 3.76 90% 3.38 5.1 5.39 $26.62 $24.55 $19.55 $14.72 10,000 sq ft- 49,999 sq ft sq ft/GFA 3.76 90% 3.384 5.1 5.39 $26.62 $24.55 $19.55 $14.72 50,000 sq ft- 99,999 sq ft sq ft/GFA 2.18 90% 1.96 5.1 5.39 $15.44 $14.23 $11.34 $8.54 100,000 sq ft- 199,999 sq ft sq ft/GFA 1.65 90% 1.49 5.1 5.39 $11.68 $10.77 $8.58 $6.46 200,000 sq ft- 299,999 sq ft sq ft/GFA 1.44 90% 1.30 5.1 5.39 $10.20 $9.40 $7.49 $5.64 over 300,000 sq ft sq ft/GFA 1.35 90% 1.22 5.1 5.39 $9.56 $8.81 $7.02 $5.29 Medical Office/Clinic sq ft/GFA 4.08 75% 3.06 4.8 5.07 $22.66 $20.89 $16.64 $12.53 GLA= Gross Leasible Area GFA= Gross Floor Area VFP= Vehide Fueling Positions (Maximum numb For uses with Unit of Measure in sq. ft.- trip rate is given as trips per 1000 sq. ft. Hotel/Motel: Assumes 83% room occupancy (per ITE) New Trip % and Trip Lengths for selected uses are based upon characteristics of similar land use types Primary sources for PM Peak Hour Trip Rates, Percent New Trips, & Average Trip Length: 1. ITE's "Trip Generation, 6th Edition" Report 2. Pinellas County (FL) Impact Fee Study 3. City of Tampa (FL) Transportation Impact Fee Update Land Uses Unit of Measure Basic Trip Rate New Trip % New Tri p Rate Tri Length (miles) Trip Len th Ad ustment Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 • Zone 4 Average Cost per Trip Cost per Trip > Trip 3.7 Length $1,459.22 $1,345.46 $1,071.73 $807.07 Residential Single Family dwelling 1.01 100% 1.01 3.5 0.95 $1,394.15 $1,285.46 $1,023.94 $771.08 Multi Family dwelling 0.58 100% 0.58 3.7 1.00 $846.35 $780.37 $621.60 $468.10 Retirement Community dwelling 0.27 100% 0.27 2.8 0.76 $298.15 $274.91 $218.98 $164.90 Nursing Home /Convalescent Center bed 0.20 100% 0.20 2.8 0.76 $220.86 $203.64 $162.21 $122.15 Assisted Living dwelling 0.17 100% 0.17 2.8 0.76 $187.73 $173.09 $137.88 $103.83 Commercial - Services Drive -in Bank sq ft/GFA 54.77 0.6 32.862 1.5 0.41 $19.44 $17.92 $14.28 $10.75 Walk-in Bank sq ft/GFA 33.15 80% 26.52 1.5 0.41 $15.69 $14.47 $11.52 $8.68 Day Care Center sq ft/GFA 13.20 75% 9.90 2.0 0.54 $7.81 $7.20 $5.74 $4.32 Library sq ft/GFA 7.09 75% 5.32 1.7 0.46 $3.57 $3.29 $2.62 $1.97 Post Office sq ft/GFA 10.79 75% 8.09 1.7 0.46 $5.43 $5.00 $3.98 $3.00 Hotel /Motel room 0.59 100% 0.59 4.0 1.08 $930.75 $858.19 $683.59 $514.78 Service Station VFP 14.56 40% 5.82 1.7 0.46 $3,904.73 $3,600.31 $2,867.84 $2,159.64 Service Station /Minimart VFP 13.38 30% 4.01 1.7 0.46 $2,691.20 $2,481.40 $1,976.56 $1,488.46 Service Station/Minimart/Car Wash VFP 13.19 45% 5.94 1.7 0.46 $3,979.48 $3,669.24 $2,922.74 $2,200.99 Carwash (Self -Serve) Stall` 5.79 65% 3.76 1.6 0.43 $2,374.83 $2,189.69 $1,744.20 $1,313.48 Movie Theater Screen 44.53 85% 37.85 2.3 0.62 $34,333.63 $31,656.97 $25,216.45 $18,989.37 Health Club sq ft/GFA" 4.30 75% 3.23 3.1 0.84 $3.94 $3.64 $2.90 $2.18 Racquet Club sq ft/GFA"' 1.83 75% 1.37 3.1 0.84 $1.67 $1.54 $1.23 $0.93 Marina Berth 0.19 90% 0.17 3.1 0.84 _ $207.84 $191.64 $152.65 $114.95 Commercial - Institutional Elementary School /Jr. High School student 0.26 80% 0.21 2.0 0.54 $164.06 $151.27 $120.50 $90.74 High School student 0.15 90% 0.14 2.0 0.54 $110.43 $101.82 $81.10 $61.08 University/College student 0.21 90% 0.19 3.0 0.81 $224.80 $207.27 $165.10 $124.33 Church sq ft/GFA 0.66 100% 0.66 3.7 1.00 $0.96 $0.89 $0.71 $0.53 Hospital sq ft/GFA 0.92 80% 0.74 5.0 1.35 _ $1.45 $1.34 $1.07 $0.80 Commercial - Restaurant Restaurant sq ft/GFA 7.49 80% 5.99 3.4 0.92 $8.03 $7.41 $5.90 $4.44 Fast Food Restaurant w/o drive thru sq ft/GFA 26.15 50% 13.08 2.0 0.54 $10.31 I $9.51 $7.57 $5.70 Fast Food Restaurant w drive /thru sq ft/GFA 33.48 50% 16.74 2.0 0.54 $13.20 $12.17 $9.70 $7.30 industrial Light Industry/High Technology sq ft/GFA 0.98 100% 0.98 5.1 1.38 $1.97 $1.82 $1.45 $1.09 Industrial Park sq ft/GFA 0.92 100% 0.92 5.1 1.38 $1.85 $1.71 $1.36 $1.02 Warehousing /Storage sq ft/GFA 0.51 100% 0.51 5.1 1.38 $1.03 $0.95 $0.75 $0.57 GLA= Gross Leasible Area GFA= Gross Floor Area VFP= Vehide Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously) For uses with Unit of Measure in sq. ft.- trip rate is given as trips per 1000 sq. ft. Hotel/Motel: Assumes 83% room occupancy (per ITE) New Trip % and Trip Lengths for selected uses are based upon characteristics of similar land use types Primary sources for PM Peak Hour Trip Rates, Percent New Trips, & Average Trip Length: 1. ITE's *Trip Generation, 6th Edition" Report 2. Pinellas County (FL) Impact Fee Study 3. City of Tampa (FL) Transportation Impact Fee Update • INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: November 14, 2005 Subject: Development Agreement Ordinance ISSUE Proposed ordinance establishing process and requirements for developing Developer Agreements. BACKGROUND With many new developments, the property owner requests to enter into a Developer Agreement with the City. This agreement clearly establishes expectations and requirements of both the developer and the City. State law (RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210) allows local governments and owners and developers of real property to enter into development agreements. One benefit of the developer agreement is assurance to a development project applicant that upon approval, the project may proceed in accordance with set policies and regulations. The benefit to the City is a clear outline of all requirements of development that must be done by the property owner to gain approval. Having developer agreements available will also strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development. ANALYSIS In certain circumstances, development agreements may be appropriate as a means to consolidate numerous issues involved in complex development projects into a single controlling instrument, benefiting the City, its citizens, and members of the regulated public. However, until this point, staff had no formal guidance on how to establish a developer agreement. The attached ordinance defines the process and requirements to make a developer agreement. RECOMMENDATION Refer on to the next COW meeting for discussion prior to the December 5, 2005 Public Hearing on the Transportation Element and enacting ordinances. h:\pubworks\cyndy\information memo - developer agreement ordinance 11- 14- 05.doc 1995 c 347 § 501; and CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, RCW 36.70B.170 authorizes the City to enter into "development agreements" with persons having ownership or control of real property; and WHEREAS, in adopting such statute, the Washington Legislature made the following finding: The legislature finds that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of public and private resources, escalate housing costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development project applicant that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with existing policies and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, all as set forth in a development agreement, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development. Further, the lack of public facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governments may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for fmancing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature by RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and owners and developers of real property to enter into development agreements. WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the legislative findings referenced above; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that development agreements may be appropriate in certain circumstances as a means to consolidate numerous issues involved in complex development projects into a single controlling instrument, benefiting the City, its citizens, and members of the regulated public; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 C:\Documents and Settings\Iim- M\Local Settings \Temp \development agreement ordinance.DOC /J/11/03/05 4 Section 1 Develcr„ ;nt Agreements - Anthori7ed The Cit} enter into a development agreement with a person havmg ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. The City may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. Section 2 "Development Standards" Defined. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term "development standards" means and includes, but is not limited to: (1) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes; (2) The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, or dedications; (3) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and other requirements under chapter 43.21C RCW; (4) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other development features; (5) Parks and open space preservation; (6) Phasing; (7) Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions; (8) A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and (9) Any other development requirement or procedure deemed appropriate by the City Council. Section 3 Development Standards, Flexihilitiy. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations to the fullest extent possible; provided a development agreement may allow development standards different from those otherwise imposed under the Tukwila Municipal Code in order to provide flexibility to achieve public benefits, respond to changing community needs, or encourage modifications which provide the functional equivalent or adequately achieve the purposes of otherwise applicable City standards. Any approved development standards that differ from those in the Code shall not require any further zoning reclassification, variance from City standards or other City approval apart from development agreement approval. The development standards as approved through a development agreement shall apply to and govem the development and implementation of each covered site in lieu of any conflicting or different standards or requirements elsewhere in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Subsequently adopted standards which differ from those of a development agreement adopted by the City as provided in this Ordinance shall apply to the covered development project only where necessary to address imminent public health and safety hazards or where the development agreement specifies a time period or phase after which certain identified standards can be modified. Determination of the appropriate standards for future phases which are not fully defined during the initial approval process may be postponed. Building permit applications shall be subject to the building codes in effect when the permit is applied for. -2 C:\Documents and Settings\Jim- M\L.ocal Settings \Temp\development agreement ordinance.DOC /J /11/03/05 Section 4 Fxercise of City Police Power and Contract Authnny As provided in RCW 36.70B.170(4), the execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of the City's police power and contract authority. Accordingly, a development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. Section 5 Form - Public Hearing Required. Development agreements shall be consistent with RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210. All development agreements shall be in a form and content as approved by the city attorney and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council after a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to RCW 36.70B.200. Section 6 Conditions of Approval In approving a development agreement, conditions of approval shall at a minimum establish: (1) A site plan for the entire project, showing locations of sensitive areas and buffers, required open spaces, perimeter buffers, location and range of densities for residential development, and location and size of non - residential development; (2) The expected build -out time period for the entire project and the various phases, if proposed; (3) Project phasing, if proposed, and other project - specific conditions to mitigate impacts on the environment, on public facilities and services including transportation, utilities, drainage, police and fire protection, schools, and parks; (4) Road and storm water design standards that shall apply to the various phases, if proposed, of the project; (5) Bulk design and dimensional standards that shall be implemented throughout subsequent development within the project; (6) The size and range of uses authorized for any non - residential development within the project; and (7) Any sewer and/or water comprehensive utility plans or amendments required to be completed before development can occur. Section 7 Discretionary, T.egjslative At The decision of the City Council to approve or reject a request for a development agreement shall be a discretionary, Legislative act. Section R Severability Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre- empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre- emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Seetinn 9 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. -3 C:\Documents and Settings\Jim- M\Local Settings \Temp\development agreement ordinance.DOC/J /11/03/05 ADOPTED BY Tb CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAREETING THEREOF ON ,r. - THE DAY OF , 2005. A'1'1EST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk Approved as to form: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullet -4 C:\Documents and SettingsVim- M\Local Settings \Temp\development agreement ordinance.DOC /J /11/03/05 DISCUSSION INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Directo Date: November 1, 2005 Subject: Southcenter Parkway Extension — S. 180 to S. 200 Design Status Update The City has a grant- funded contract with David Evans to design improvements to Southcenter Parkway from S. 180 Street to the City's southern boundary. Coinciding with the City's plan to improve Southcenter Parkway is a proposed large -scale development. In an attempt to remain sensitive to adjacent property owners and this proposed development project, the City has made every effort to achieve a context - sensitive design by coordinating tasks and incorporating road improvement elements that benefit the community. These efforts have identified and avoided potential conflicts between the design of the roadway and the development. David Evans has completed the 90% plans. La Pianta has reviewed the plans and presented to the City a proposed list of changes to the roadway design. The additional roadway elements include: • 6 new at -grade intersections • 6 bus pullouts • 3 new traffic signals • A revised channelization plan — turn pockets; median layout and landscaping; additional turn lanes at intersections • Make the intersection at S. 200 Street into a complete, four -way intersection • Revised illumination — move from median to behind sidewalk • Design wetland mitigation plans for buffer area west of the roadway from Sta 129+00 to Sta. 139+00 • Realign roadway away from an existing wetland near Sta. 166 +00 • Provide local access to Mitchell Moving and Storage and GACO Western • Extend surface water system from North Detention Pond to the S. 180 Street Pump Station • Add 5 new Pressure Reducing Valve stations for the Highline Water District water main extension. • Add approximately 60 service line connection points to accommodate water, sewer, and surface water utilities Because La Pianta is anticipating a new discharge outfall to the Green River from the proposed South Basin Surface Detention Facility, the facility must detain all of the water from an anticipated 7 -day, 100 -year storm. In an attempt to keep the facility's footprint as small as possible, La Pianta has proposed to increase the rim elevation of the facility to EL 29. This would have a negative impact upon Southcenter Parkway — surface water would back up into the pipes and flood the roadway. This is unacceptable to the City. Therefore, rather than increase the size of the detention pond, La Pianta has requested the City raise the elevation of the roadway approximately 3 to 4 feet for a distance of approximately 1,400 lineal feet. La Pianta has requested the City remove the two, five -foot bicycle lanes from the public roadway. La Pianta has stated that they are only willing to dedicate 83 -feet for the right - of -way. If bicycle lanes are included in the roadway, a total of 93 -feet of right -of -way is needed. In recent discussions with La Pianta, the City has stated that it will not purchase any land for the right -of -way. Therefore, to accommodate La Pianta's request to remove the bike lanes, a complete redesign of the roadway will be required. During La Pianta's discussion with Mr. Schoenbachler to renegotiate the terms of the purchase and sales agreement, Mr. Schoenbachler has requested La Pianta provide several items: A new entrance from Southcenter Parkway; an electric gate; a turn around at the entrance; and a fence along the entire frontage of the Schoenbachler property. La Pianta has requested the City provide these amenities and include them in the roadway contract. La Pianta has requested the City include in the Southcenter Parkway project a new complete, four -way intersection at the future location of a realigned S. 178 Street and Southcenter Parkway. Additionally, La Pianta has requested the intersection be rotated 5 degrees so that it will align with Segale Park Drive C without any conflict to existing buildings. This intersection would serve the future realignment of S. 178 Street. This additional design work, as well as options, is being discussed with La Pianta. In order to accommodate these requests, the David Evans' contract will require modification. The schedule is to complete all discussions with La Pianta as soon as possible and return to the Transportation Committee with a final plan for completing the design. City of Tukwila Transportation Plan Planning Commission Recommendation Prepared by Cyndy Knighton, Senior fzgineer Mirai Transportation and FhgineerinT Perteet, Inc ECONorthwest October 2005 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportatio"n regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Mar, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides for- development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision - making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. %.0 ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. LEVEL OF SERVICE The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). 1 Au1C 1 — LOS ra 1c Delay per Vehicle Signalized Intersections Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and Tess than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and Tess than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and Tess than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and Tess than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and Tess than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds 1 dI IC G LOS - soul Ylbi 1 Ivyi.wIvy Headway (min) rvv• Vehicle/ hour Comments 000UC I <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules 10 -14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules 15 -20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders _ E 31 -60 >60 1 <1 Service available during hour Service unattractive to all riders F 1 QYIC J '' 1 I1.7 LOS ■ . v.v.. rvv vu .r. vv Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided Late evening service provided Early evening service provided Daytime service provided Peak hour service /limited midday service Very limited or no service B 17 -18 C 14 -16 D 12 -13 E 4 - 11 F 0 -3 T f f Level of Service S tandar ds Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Mahual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. • Urban Scheduled Transi Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of service Manual, Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 Non motorized Level of Service A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. ; 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 :80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Streets and Highways TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation --i ukwila is divided into three areas of distinct traffic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss- crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattem due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which -and is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than he TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govem. *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 3 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed.., The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Transit King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improve Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station to areas near Westfield Mall at Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. Table 4: Transit Corridor Classifications Classification TRANSIT WAY TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT MINOR CORRIDOR TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET Typical Adjacent Land Use Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service Major private and public developments of regional and interregional transit trips. significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity Major private and public developments of regional or local service, connections between major activity centers, significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high - and some interregional trips density residential land uses. Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. _ Provides connections between neighborhoods and Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, area attractions.. businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods Functional Purpose Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium - density residential areas as well as commercial areas. POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Depends on location. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations— November 14, 2005 Map Legend •—•— Freeway - - - Principal - - - -- Minor Collector City Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 IlottoScale Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 5 Transit Priority Corridor Classification • Transit Way Transit Principal Corridor Transit Minor Corridor Transit Local Access Potential Transit RoaWray Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 Traffic TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Non- motorized Transportation non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportation Plan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized - trips: Category I trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle - friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green/Duwamish high - employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non- motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. ,,LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be financed. Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 7 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments system► -at -bath -ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 Transportation 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings - 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 13.3.1 In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park E corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. The Andover Park E, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay not to exceed 120 seconds. — All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC. SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC. 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations – November 14, 2005 9 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. 13.3.5 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.6 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.8 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (1 -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.9 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle/transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking seut-hoent-ef MallWestfield Mall at Southcenter to the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations – November 14, 2005 10 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient - capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1 -405, to a station located east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastem edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then tuming east running adjacent to or parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres. 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, enter- MaliWestfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed - route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system ehall- should meet the following objectives: — Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and long -term use of altemative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 11 13.4.13 13.4.14 Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle - friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non - motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Encourage transit - oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property, public property. or public streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 12 Transportation Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as on commercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies. — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations. — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: — Capacity improvements based upon the long -telm 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. — Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. — Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. — Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations – November 14, 2005 13 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed - projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Planning Commission and Transportation Committee Recommendations — November 14, 2005 14 Staff Presentation Agenda GMA Requirements • Concurrency • Level of Service • Existing Conditions • 2020 Future Conditions • Finance Policy Discussion October 27, 2005 Y � iAU Why Update the Transportation Element? • GMA requires every 10 years ■ Address traffic congestion • Provide funding options • Strengthen concurrency /impact fee relationship October 27, 2005 ( d Transportation Element Community Vision City Regional Growth Growth Streets Transit Pedestrians October 27, 2005 GMA Requirements • Transportation Element must include: • Land use assumptions • Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities • Facilities and services needs • Finance • Intergovernmental coordination efforts • Demand - management strategies October 27, 2005 Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad'acent land use. Implementation Strategies A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and adacent land use. Policies 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. October 27, 2005 Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement and ad'acent land use. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super - blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering study of specific conditions. w - "" : °W ..,- - .. , • ...., I &a:All ""72 • ------- • • •• 4 ,„,...... . ....,.... ....,-;,, i,.., •,,,,.. \ .„.. ,..,.....,....,_ ';,,!,,;:::!'w.177.4n1014;::lr'140,101 , ...i.'"'W":":.: - " , ,.„,.. • .-. - . Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Implementation Strategies A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and • oods to, from, within, and throu • h Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. „ — • ” e . , = . r ,44 " VS Policy Discussion zi Discussion of proposed policies in Transportation Element October 27, 2005 • 4 Zone Structure Unique Impact Fee per Zone City of Tukwila Impact Fee Zones 4 , V t mpact Fees Impact fees cannot be used for: • Existing Deficiencies • Operating or Maintenance Expenses • Non - Capacity Costs (i.e. Pavement Preservation) • On -Site ( "Project ") Improvements • Transit Facilities, Bike and Pedestrian Trails • Facilities Funded by Taxes, Grants, User Fees, etc. (no double dipping) October 27, 2005 Impact Fees • Key principles of impact fees: • Fees imposed on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development Fees not to exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development • Must benefit the new development October 27, 2005 What are Impact Fees? One time fees paid by developer at time of a project approval • To mitigate transportation system impacts • To fund CIP to support the new development • Growth pays for growth • Easy to use schedule • By development type and size October 27, 2005 Financing Funding revenues available • Taxes Property, sales, parking tax, \ REET, fuel, etc. • Grants Federal, state • General Obligation Bonds • Local Improvement Districts • Impact Fees • Miscellaneous income — bake sales? October 27, 2005 Moderate Growth = $73.4 Million >$4.9 million per year • Aggressive Growth = $141 Million $9.4 million per year October 27, 2005 t Transit Service Recommendations Service Improvements • Weekend service • Span of service • Connections to other transit • Connections to other locations October 27, 2005 } To,Burien, Long-Term Proposals for Tukwila Routes To 'at Renton Transit Capital Recommendations • Southcenter Mall Stop • New bi- directional facility on Andover Park W • Tukwila Station • New, permanent station • Additional Bus Shelters • 9 locations • Implement Transit Signal Priority • 3 corridors • Work with Metro to improve service October 27, 2005 • Signal Operation Improvements • Optimize signal operation: • S 180th St/ Southcenter Pkwy > S 180th Street/ West Valley Hwy • Intersection Improvements • Add turn pockets Andover Park E /Minkler • Andover Park W /Minkler North I Add aS Legend: rr.rr Freeway Ramp reemaiartalM River -- .. ---• -- Railroad No1ac nano scale Vftidm FB' Laae WiideuEBIWB Approaches and Extend NB Left TuiaLsne TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • S 168t" Street • Construct a new three- lane arterial on S 168tH Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East 1 North _.. Railroad natio scale TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations Recesfigure to 3 Lanes 181 • Southcenter Boulevard/ West Valley Highway • Widen EB and WB approaches • Extend the existing NB left turn lane North Arld a Sigoal Legend: ..,,...�, Freeway Rarnp Signal .,...,.. �.�.... Trail ----- Railroad Nol0 narta scale Widen ER Lae lirrdea.E111VB Approaches and Extend Nil Left Turn Lane Just s - TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations Tukwila Parkway/ Andover Park West/ Andover Park East • Add one EB lane on Tukwila • Re- construct the 66th Avenue overpass with 6 lanes • Add a NB right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway 1 widenEBJWB Approaches and Extend NB LeftTutnLane North Legend: niemneenno Freeway Ramp River Trail Railroad Notw hat to scale • Southcenter Blvd/ 61St Avenue Overpass • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the I- 5 ramps and 61St Avenue • Re- construct the 61st Avenue overpass with seven lanes • Add a SB one -way inbound entrance to Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue/ Tukwila Parkway intersection. 1 Widers ER/WE Approaches and Extend NB Le&'Elmis ene New 3 -Lames caestect Lanebsidge Legend: ww.www.. Freeway Ramp tit River -- -- -- Railroad No rotas sole • Most of the future needs for roadway improvements are in the urban core. Legend: orrammor Freeway Ramp inaimoSSIN River Trail - • — Railroad Notw not to male %Video 12B Lute Widest F.,B/WB Apprort.hes said Extend NB Litft Miro Lane Roadway - u Improvement Recommendations Outside the TUC • Signalize • 3 locations Intersection Improvements 2 locations • Traffic congestion at many key locations would intensify. • LOS F — 15 intersections 2020 Traffic ret Conditions --= f South of SC Blvd ,_ „pa k F EOM �, ► B 11 111111111 111M1111111P1111 OEM PPRIL IN • Traffic congestion on SR 99 along western borders • Most of unsignalized intersections Acceptable Most of the signalized intersections - acceptable conditions • Several unsignalized intersections - LOS F • Existing facilities • Tukwila Pkwy extension 168t" Street (new) • SC Parkway widening so of S 180t" St • Strander Blvd extension October 27, 2005 2020 Baseline Network - Outside 1:u • Existing facilities • Tukwila Int'I Blvd. improvements • Southcenter Blvd (S 154th Street) improvements 2020 Future Conditions Two Scenarios • Moderate Growth (Baseline) • Aggressive growth • Tukwila Urban Center Sub -area Plan • Westfield Mall Expansion • Tukwila Valley South • JC Penney's warehouse site • Tukwila Village October 27, 2005 Existing Transit Conditions • Transit Network Plan • Determine Unmet Needs • Examination of ridership patterns • Review of future development patterns • Create service and capital recommendations October 27, 2005 Existing Traffic Congested Areas • Klickitat Dr./ Southcenter :72V.JaiLia=t4 Pkwy/ Strander Blvd: • 61st Ave Bridge/Southcenter Blvd: • 66th Ave/ Southcenter Blvd/ W Valley Hwy: October 27, 2005 r Legend: Freeway Rarnp reweeesel River wortrialwmer MIMI= NI CO 0 T.- Most of intersections operate at LOS "D" or better • No major LOS problem Existing LOS — North -of -SG -Blvd • Most of intersections operate at LOS "C" or better • No major LOS problem O ct Existing Traffic Conditions • Traffic volumes • Daily • AM peak hour • Levels of service • Qualitative measure of traffic congestion October 27, 2005 What does traffic look like today? October 27, 2005 LOS Methodology Four methodologies considered • Current method (TUC -wide average) • Individual intersections (approximately 40 • TUC sub -area zones • TUC corridor approach October 27, 2005 LOS Definition — Delay at SignaIizedintersectlon • LOS D (35 -55 seconds of delay) • Noticeable traffic volumes, increased signal cycle length • LOS F (Greater than 80 seconds of delay) • Unstable flows, high levels of delays, driver discomfort and toeMan Level of Service Recommended Method LOS Measuring Method Delay LOS Measuring Period LOS Applied Location PM peak one hour Signalized intersections (outside Urban Center) Defined intersection averaging by corridors (Urban Center) October 27, 2005 Concurrency Options ■ If development fails to meet the LOS standard, following options are available: • Deny the development • Reduce the scale of the development • Construct improvements needed to bring LOS to the standard • Change the LOS standard October 27, 2005 What is Concurrency? • Tukwila established its transportation concurrency standards to: • Ensure that adequate facilities are available. • Ensure that financial commitments are in place to pay for needs. • Promote orderly growth and development. • Transportation facilities built concurrent with development • Balancing a three - legged stool October 27, 2005 GMA Requirements Financing plan must include: • Discussion of how additional funding will be raised • Balancing Growth with Funding with Transportation Projects (Concurrency) October 27, 2005 GMA Requirements Evaluate financial capabilities, including: • Analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources • Multiyear financing plan Should be coordinated with the six -year improvement program October 27, 2005 Facility and service needs must include: • Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan • Specific actions for bringing into compliance transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard October 27, 2005 GMA Requirements Identify facility and service needs: • Inventory of transportation facilities and services • Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes October 27, 2005 Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park W corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. he Strander Boulevard corridor a verag e is notto e xceed L OS F with an a verage delay of lesa than ; 120 secon he Andover Park W, between Tukwila Park a n d•Str nder Boulevar i to exce LOS F with an av era ela)r of less than 120 seconds All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.4 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.5 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.6 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Policies 13.3.7 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.8 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (1 -5), Interstate 405 (I -405), and State Route 518 (SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.9 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E /Mitigated. Goal 13m3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic •atterns. Implementation Strategies A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian /bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian /bicycle route linking Southcenter Mall to the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people- carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. m Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.5Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. 13.4.6Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient- capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center. The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1-405, to a_station located, east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastern edge of Andover Park West and in proximity to the ' nsit Center, then turning east running .adjacent to or parallel to Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Southcenter Mall, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded Bial- a -ride and fixed -route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership • warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: • Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and /or Sea -Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and Tong -term use of altemative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. • Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and /or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. • Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.13 Encourage transit - oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high- capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Implementation Strategy A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle - friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. h 1. • Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non - motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. Goal 13.5 Non - motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category 1 and local Category 11 trips. Implementation Strategy A. Adopt a non - motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as on commercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: • Enhances Tukwila goals and policies • Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations • Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. ti Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: • Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. • Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. • Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. • Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. • Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the Impact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, . deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Implementation Strategy A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Summary of Recommended Policy Changes • Level of Service • Methodology (Delay instead of V /C) • New corridors in Urban Center • Impact Fee • Zone System instead of Project Specific October 27, 2005 Rocky Piro, Ph.D, AICP Principal Planner Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 October 24, 2005 Dear Rocky: Enclosed please find a copy of the staff- recommendations for the Tukwila Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan is the background information used to develop the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. The Tukwila Transportation Plan contains background information that was used to develop the policies contained in the Transportation Element. It will be adopted by ordinance along with the Transportation Element by the end of 2005. Please contact me at 206 -431 -3683 if you have questions. Sincerely, Fe.�cc, ?:k Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director enc "Tr sp °r+ -aiS#n P i�M A pcwd s ws A 8 Rf Page I of I Q:\2005 Comp Plan amendments \PSRC Transportation Plan transmittal.doc 10/24/05 1:42 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ike Nwankwo CTED Growth Management Services Pose Office Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504 -2525 October 24, 2005 Dear Ike: Enclosed please find the Tukwila Transportation Plan. This document is background material that was used to develop policies for the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element that was forwarded to you on September 20, 2005. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Senior Planner .e c , T u rgo-0 h' tk.. A7 pe> c o g �I L Rf Page l of 1 Q:\2005 Comp Plan amendments \CTED transp pin transmittal.doc Steven M Mullet, Mayor 10/24/05 1:45 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 'Nor' VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 FOSTER PEPPER 6? SHEFELMAN PLLC A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW October 27, 2005 Re: Comprehensive Plan/Transportation Element Update Dear Honorable Commission Members: On Friday, October 21, 2005 we wrote to the Planning Commission on behalf of La Pianta regarding proposed Transportation Plan amendments that may be before you at your meeting this evening. We identified particular concerns about the manner in which the proposed amendments had come forward and the lack of clarity or explanation regarding the application of the proposed amendments to projects like La Pianta. As we explained, La Pianta has already been subject to extensive environmental review through a City - approved Environmental Impact Statement. We have subsequently learned that representatives of La Pianta met with Mayor Mullet on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. Mayor Mullet explained that it was not the intent of this City that proposed Transportation Plan amendments, even if adopted, would apply to La Pianta or other projects for which Environmental Impact Statements have been issued. La Pianta particularly appreciates the Mayor's prompt response to its expression of concern and the City's acknowledgement of this point. This letter is submitted to the Planning Commission record to document this background. Additionally, representatives of La Pianta will be present to express this same position. We respectfully respect that at any recommendation to the City Council (following the conclusion of the Planning Commission's consideration of proposed plan amendments) include the condition that the amendments do not apply to those projects for which Environmental Impact Statements have already been completed. Direct Phone (206) 447 -8971 Direct Pectimlie ( 749 -1927 E -Meil d im pelosrer.com 1„1 THIRD Avenus Saire 3400 SEATTLE Washing,on 95,0,-)299 Telephone ( Facsimile ( Website www.POSTER.com Ancnon AGA Alaska POETLAXD OreYoa S Wa,bintion SPOiAne We believe that should there be any question about the application of the draft Washington amendments, the Commission should continue this hearing until such clarification is received from City Administration. Further, because draft ordinances (including impact fee ordinances) to implement the draft plan amendments hay.e n � t been f 7/0 EE IER DATE �d 5 , 597691 PROJECT NAME Compithomaw-e _ Tvau BzJ 5pez = tun at FILE NO - 0 .'f_ Planning Commission October 27, 2005 Page 2 made available for public review and comment, the Commission should consider continuing the hearing until a complete documentation of proposed plan amendments and related regulations is available. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ' � I_ / PSD:sb cc: La Pianta IPPublic Works Director Tanning Director P. Stephen DiJulio 8 Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 50591378.1 FOSTE PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC PLANNING PREDICTABILITY A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW October 21, 2005 Re: Comprehensive Plan/Transportation Element Update Dear Honorable Planning Commission Members: We serve as counsel to La Pianta LLC with regard to its ongoing efforts to work cooperatively with the City of Tukwila for the Tukwila South development. La Pianta has learned that the City intends to present to the Planning Commission a proposal for revisions to the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (comprehensive transportation plan or "CTP "). Currently, the matter is scheduled on the Planning Commission's agenda for October 27, 2005. The City has brought this issue forward with little notice and no opportunity for input from the business community. Further, it is not clear that the proposed CTP amendments apply to Tukwila South. As a result, La Pianta respectfully respects that the Planning Commission take no action on CTP amendments at this time. In the alternative, La Pianta requests that the public hearing, if open, be stayed until issues relating to projects that have already been subject to published Environmental Impact Statements (Tukwila South as an example) be concluded. The foundation for this request is as follows. Fundamentally, the development of a long -term master plan that will bring significant and substantial benefits to a community requires cooperation and predictability to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for both the community and the private sponsor. La Pianta has undertaken and will continue to absorb significant risk and cost in developing the Tukwila South project under existing City standards. Predictability and transparency in land use and transportation planning are particularly important to businesses, which need to have some basic understanding of potential costs and regulatory limitations before embarking on an endeavor that requires significant time and financial investment. Direct Phone (206) 447-8971 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1927 E-Mail dijup @foster.com 1 1 1 1 THIRD AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 9 8101 - 3 2 99 Telephone ( - 44 00 Facsimile ( Website WWW.FOSTER.COM ANCHORAGE Alaska PORTLAND Oregon SEATTLE Washington SPOKANE Washington Planning Commission October 21, 2005 Page 2 TUKWILA SOUTH 50591378.1 *i Orderly planning provides the kind of certainty and predictability that developers, lending institutions and business owners seek. Planning can help outline the future capital improvements and infrastructure a community will require to grow, and identify the means to finance these infrastructure needs. Importantly, good planning requires a relatively stable course once the substantial and necessary preliminary work has begun on a large -scale project. When the ground rules for a project are changed mid - course, the efforts and resources (financial, time and otherwise) utilized in comprehensive planning and in designing a large scale project based on that planning are squandered. Established planning precepts of predictability and cooperation dictate that the City ensure that the ground rules, including transportation planning requirements, remain unchanged when a project has completed an environmental impact analysis to ensure that no party to the project has its energy wasted by late changing requirements. This is particularly so where the City and a private party are collaborating on a long -term project. Having discussed some fundamental planning objectives, it is now appropriate to discuss the course of La Pianta's efforts to work cooperatively with the City to provide for a comprehensive and detailed development of Tukwila South. The Tukwila South project encompasses approximately 492 contiguous acres. The Tukwila South Project Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the City of Tukwila in July 2005 (EIS). The economic analysis prepared for La Pianta shows that, at build out, the Tukwila South project could contribute between $15 — 20 million annually to the City in new tax revenue. And, the Tukwila South project is working with the City to document the commitment to extensive mitigation, including mitigation of transportation improvements, based upon the City's environmental review. The Planning Commission is generally aware of the Tukwila South development. The City's Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2003 in anticipation of the Tukwila South project. The development and master plan are intended to implement the existing City Comprehensive Plan. Scoping for the environmental review commenced in Spring of 2004. The preparation of the draft EIS was delayed at the request of the City in order to permit the City to modify its then - existing traffic model. The City assured La Pianta that the new model would be available in April 2004. However, the traffic model was not functional until September 2004, at which time the draft Environmental Impact Statement was moved forward to completion. During this entire time, there was cooperation between La Pianta and the City with respect to the development of the EIS and the actions analyzed in the EIS, including implementation of a Master Plan and Planning Commission October 21, 2005 Page 3 Development Agreement. In spite of the delay in obtaining the modeling information, La Pianta has always assumed that it would have a signed Development Agreement by this time. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING It appears now that draft comprehensive transportation plan (CTP) amendments are being advanced for your consideration. It is unclear how the City intends the CTP amendments to relate to existing projects like Tukwila South. The proposed CTP amendments do identify a "placeholder" for Tukwila South mitigation (page 30). However, it is unclear whether Tukwila South is exempt from the application of any other new policies set out in the CTP. The placeholder should only provide for the mitigation set out in the Development Agreement in process with the City. And, that Agreement is based on the range of mitigation already fully analyzed in the City's EIS. Mike Read, P.E., of Transportation Engineering Northwest, the Tukwila South EIS traffic consultant, advises that if the City applies the new policies and methodology proposed in the draft CTP to analyze Tukwila South transportation impacts and mitigation, then the technical work in the EIS would all have to be redone. This essentially means all of the time, expense and analysis that went into the transportation section of the City's EIS (funded by La Pianta) would be wasted. All of the scoping and work on the EIS was done with the consent and agreement of the City. Work was delayed to use the City's latest traffic model. It makes no sense that the City would now say this work was for naught. Further, in terms of opportunity for review of what has been proposed, and the technical data supporting the assumptions underlying the proposed CTP Amendment, none of this has been available for public review. It makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to comment on the proposal when fundamental information is not available for review. The entire CTP amendment has been brought forward with no technical backup information and it is unclear what assumptions were used to arrive at the impact fees for the various uses. They do not appear to track the benchmark per trip cost in any kind of rational or objective manner. The public cannot provide meaningful comments /input without reviewing all of the technical materials and other data. REQUESTED RELIEF Based on the forgoing it appears that the CTP proposal is premature. Or, at a minimum, substantial additional work must be accomplished prior to the Planning Commission completing its review. One of the tasks is to clarify the intent of the proposal on projects that have already been subject to environmental review through a published environmental impact statement. And, the foundation and underlying methodology (and other supporting documentation) for the CTP 50591378.1 Planning Commission October 21, 2005 Page 4 proposal must be made available far enough in advance of any public hearing for meaningful review to be accomplished. La Pianta respectfully requests that the Planning Commission defer any consideration of the CTP proposal until these procedural and substantive issues are addressed. Or, if the Commission opens a hearing, following public comment the hearing should not be closed — but, stayed until such time as the public has sufficient time to fully analyze the CTP proposal and prepare meaningful comment. PSD:sb cc: Client Public Works Director Planning Director 50591378.1 La Pianta appreciates the Planning Commission's consideration of this request. Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC P. Stephen DiJulio AP- :p th Anniversary BukO Gordon LLP Attorneys at Law Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Transportation Element Update Y: \W P\ WESTFI ELD \L 10185. BC. DOC October 20, 2005 R,_IVED OCT' 21 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 -3140 206 - 382 -9540 206 -626 -0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com Honorable Planning Commission Members: I am writing on behalf of my client, Westfield Corporation, Inc., to ask that consideration of the draft Transportation Element Update be stayed while Westfield and other property owners have an opportunity to evaluate this complex and critical proposal and provide our specific recommendations. This period of time will also allow Westfield to complete a Development Agreement that it has been working on with staff for six months. The Transportation Element, as drafted, along with implementing regulations that we understand are being prepared, but are not yet available, would establish stringent new Level of Service standards and major new transportation impact fees that would create significant disincentives for Westfield and other major development interests to expand or locate in the City of Tukwila. Before such unintended consequences occur, the Planning Commission must allow the public and third party transportation consultants to critically review all staff's assumptions and proposals before any action is taken on this package. To date, there has been no opportunity for public review and comment on this proposal. The materials produced at the October 12th Joint City Council & Planning Commission meeting were incomplete and provided no details on the traffic modeling, land use growth assumptions, alternatives considered, or calculation methodologies. On the other hand, the draft identifies capital expenditures of nearly one hundred million dollars and significant increases in impact fees to pay for potentially unnecessary infrastructure. There has been no documentation made available of existing deficiencies as required by state law. There has been no documentation made available of the existing and projected sources of revenue, other than impact fees, available to pay for this infrastructure. There has bee no assurances to date that Westfield will be exempt from any new impact fee ordinance. Westfield has been trying since April to reach agreement with city staff on mitigation measures and impact fees for Westfield's mall expansion. Our mitigation proposal is based on analyses in the City's own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion, which was paid for at considerable expense • I Tukwila Planning CommissiN.r 2 °' October 20, 2005 by Westfield. It is fundamentally unfair for the city to enact a new impact fee program applicable to Westfield when Westfield has been working, in good faith, to negotiate a mitigation agreement with the city. As drafted, the proposed impact fees will put Tukwila at a severe competitive disadvantage to surrounding jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are doing what they can to create financial incentives for development to come to their cities. The opposite would occur in Tukwila if this draft is adopted. The draft Transportation Element focuses great attention on future development under the Mall to Station scenario within the Tukwila Urban Center. We would encourage the Planning Commission to conduct realistic economic studies to assess the financial viability of mixed use development in that area before adopting a plan that imposes significant economic costs on existing property owners based upon faulty economic assumptions. While the City's planning consultants have presented a creative planning scenario for a "Santana Row" type mixed use development east of the mall, many have raised serious questions about the financial feasibility of such development. It would be a mistake to impose severe traffic impact fees on others to pay for infrastructure needed to support new mixed use development that will never occur. Moreover, a serious assessment is needed on whether the costs of infrastructure can be afforded by any mixed use project that already faces questionable financial feasibility. There is no reason that the city must rush into adopting a Transportation Element and new impact fee program. The current schedule calls for plan adoption in early December. That time frame will not allow for completion of negotiations on Westfield's Development Agreement. Nor will it provide adequate opportunity for review and comments, serious consideration of alternatives, and thoughtful dialogue between you and affected property owners of the policy implications within this proposal. We ask the Planning Commission to stay the hearing on this proposal. During the stay, the Commission may want to convene a series of workshops, after staff has prepared the complete draft and has made available all assumptions, background analyses and alternatives. At these workshops, the stakeholders of Tukwila, including major property owners and development interests, should be afforded the opportunity for serious policy discussions with the Planning Commission on key issues of growth, transportation infrastructure, and options to pay for needed measures. Through such workshops, we believe the Planning Commission can recommend for adoption a more realistic and effective transportation plan. Very truly yours, 0 Brent Carson BC:BC cc: Jim Morrow Steve Lancaster Dave Kautz Y: \W P\WESTFIELD \L10185.BC.DOC Soo Transportation Engineering NorthWest, Memorandum LLC DATE: October 19, 2005 TO: Sue Carlson, Segale Properties FROM: Michael J. Read, P.E. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC RE: Questions for Consideration by the Planning Commission Proposed Transportation Level of Service Standards Currently within the Urban Center, all corridors and intersections are averaged not to exceed LOS E. The proposed changes include breaking out the Urban Center into different corridors. What are the different corridors or systems specifically? How were these selected? How are they averaged or computed, by speed, average intersection LOS within the corridor, etc.? Why are some corridors allowed to function at LOS F, while other adjacent corridors must maintain LOS E? The proposed standards do not specific which time period, am /pm peak? Land Use Forecasts The information presented in the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan is very limited on base and future year forecasts. In order to compare what is being proposed within the Urban Center, what are the 2002 existing land use estimates within the Urban Center? Does this include the Westfield Mall Expansion? Does the assumption regarding Tukwila South buildout correspond to 80% buildout of the 14 million square -foot scenario or the FEIS recommended 10.3 million square -feet scenario? What does this assumption translate into vehicle trip generation? EXHIBIT DATE PROJECT NAME www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361 -7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 FILE NO Impact Fees October 19, 2005 Page 2 Recommended Roadway Network There are many gaps in information south of S 180` Street in regards to transportation improvements and needs and how they relate to improvements identified in the S 180` Street corridor between the Baseline Network and Recommended Network. Detailed appendix information references in the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan must be provided and reviewed thoroughly before making any decisions. What is the list of projects within each zone used to generate the $cost /trip estimates? What percentage of these project costs are being borne via impact fees versus other funding sources? Are the impact fees based upon pm peak hour trips generated? What are office commercial uses paying approximately 4.5 times the rate per trip within each zone? Why is there a factor of more than double in the cost /trip between different sizes of office buildings within the same zone? Are pass -by trip relationships considered in the impact fees, given that large retail uses would also be charged approximately 3.0 times the tate per trip when considered average pass -by rates? With the exception of residential uses, there does not appear to be a correlation between uses that are indexed to a cost per square -foot basis to the cost per trip rate for each zone? Please provide the detailed backup of all calculations and methodologies used to derive the Impact Fee Schedule. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361 -7333 • Toll Free (888) 220 -7333 INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: October 6, 2005 Subject: Transportation Element Update Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting p: \cyndy \transportation element \information memo - joint cc -pc briefing 10- 12 -05.doc ISSUE Discuss the draft Transportation Element Update at a joint City Council /Planning Commission work session on October 12, 2005. BACKGROUND State law requires the City to update its Comprehensive Plan every ten years. In 2004, major updates were done to the Land Use element but only minor changes were made to the Transportation Element. Updating the Transportation Element was delayed pending completion of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Subarea Plan (to be adopted by end of 2005). Since most of the projected growth in land use, and traffic, is projected to occur in the TUC area, delaying the major update to the Transportation Element allowed staff to accommodate the full 2020 projections. On June 9, 2005, staff presented the overall concept of the Transportation Element update to a joint City Council /Planning Commission work session where the overall requirements and needs were discussed. At the September 8, 2005, meeting, staff addressed the Level of Service (LOS) standards and calculation methodology. During the presentation, staff was requested to make a comparison of the existing Transportation Element with the current proposed one. A comparison of the two documents has been made and is attached to this memorandum. DISCUSSION The focus of the final presentation will center on impact fees. A draft version of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan is also attached to this document. The appendices are not provided and will be included with the Final Draft version of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan prior to the first Public Hearing scheduled with the Planning Commission on October 27, 2005. The Final Draft of the Transit Plan was distributed prior to the June 9, 2005 presentation. RECOMMENDATION Discussion of the impact fee methodology and amount. Joint City Council — Planning Commission Meeting on Updating Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan • Quick Review • Impact Fee • Schedule for Adoption • Questions Why Update the Transportation Element? • GMA requires every 10 years • Plan for growth • Address traffic congestion • Provide funding options October 12, 2005 •:xu,xr, -�-ry Transportation Element Community Vision City Regional Growth Growth Streets Transit Pedestrians October 12, 2005 777.5, 1r; GMA Requirements • Transportation Element must include: • Land use assumptions • Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities • Facilities and services needs r4a • Intergovernmental coordination efforts • Demand - management strategies October 12, 2005 What is Concurrency? • Tukwila established its transportation concurrency standards to: • Ensure that adequate facilities are available. • Ensure that financial commitments are in place to pay for needs. • Promote orderly growth and development. • Transportation facilities built concurrent with development October 12, 2005 Concurrency • Transportation facilities built concurrent with development • Balance a three legged stool October 12, 2005 Level of Service Recommended Method LOS Measuring Method Delay LOS Measuring Period LOS Applied Location PM peak one hour Signalized intersections (outside TUC) Area /corridor average of intersections (TUC) October 12, 2005 • Urban Center Corridors •11 corridors Legend: I. Freeway Ramp I otrontywrn River I • — • — Railroad I Note: nal to wee 911 A .41 1 i 1 i 1 III 81 "-EN____ „,. .0,..,06i Existing Conditions What does traffic look like today? • Average weekday PM peak hour • Not including weekend or holiday peaks October 12, 2005 • Most of intersections operate at LOS "C" or better • No major LOS problem f • • Most of intersections operate at LOS "D" or better • No major LOS problem Legend: 1 Rakroad Park River i 00 ,0 0 ' ; Freeway 9- LQS Oeley+Sae swell lag 1NULMMUIVIN 2020 Future Conditions • Model for growth • 2 scenarios - Aggressive selected • Assumes select improvements already in place • CIP Projects • Others October 12, 2005 • Most of the signalized intersections - acceptable conditions • Several unsignalized intersections - LOS F 2020 Traffic Conditions - South of SC Blvd MEW e,l5 EMMY ,I 111 81lM1B1 III IMO -ur W INIVO AM " TA I Welk • Traffic congestion on SR 99 along western borders • Most of unsignalized intersections — Acceptable Oct legend. OVUM Pail w m+0 •+ 0, Freeway S e Raitroad Delay/Sec fi North 0 7 �1 2020 Traffic Conditions —TUC • Traffic congestion at many key locations would intensify. • LOS F — 15 intersections Oc sua Roadway Improvement $ 4� Recommendations E■. n Outside the TUC • Signalize • 3 locations • Intersection Improvements • 2 locations uan at construct New 3 -Lane Road Adjust Signal Operation Add One WB Approach Lane • Most of the future needs for roadway improvements are in the urban core. 1 North 0 Add a Signal Restrict Movements Allowed Legend: r..r■ Freeway Ramp tumenettwo River Trail Railroad Note: act to scale Widen EB Lane l � ImProve Intersection efk �Clyden EB+D !B Approaches and Extend NB Left Tura Lane Construct 6-Lane Bridge • � Baton o g TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Southcenter Blvd/ 61St Avenue Overpass • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the I- 5 ramps and 61St Avenue • Re- construct the 61st Avenue overpass with seven lanes • Add a SB one -way inbound entrance to Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue/ Tukwila Parkway intersection. 1 North Legend: .u.ssssr... Freeway Ramp mosionot River ..,,.,..•.�.a....., Trail -•�•`•� —•-� Railroad Note: not to scale TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Tukwila Parkway/ Andover Park West/ Andover Park East • Add one EB lane on Tukwila • Re-construct the 66th Avenue overpass with 6 lanes • Add a NB right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway 1 — — — Legend: Freeway Ramp amaamasaa River otanovo.u..nuarsi.. Trail —" Railroad Nobx not to Kele to3Lents • Southcenter Boulevard/ West Valley Highway • Widen EB and WB approaches • Extend the existing NB left turn lane 1 Legend: .■ama Freeway Ramp ttttttttttt•Ittmo River •-- _• --. .— Railroad Note_ not to scale Widen EB/WB Approaches and Eateud NB Left Turn Lane TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • S 1 68th Street • Construct a new three- lane arterial on S 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East Legend: mommommi Freeway Ramp miseiem River Trail Railroad Note: sotto scale TUC Roadway Improvement Recommendations • Signal Operation Improvements • Optimize signal operation: S 180th St/ Southcenter Pkwy • S 180th Street/ West Valley Hwy ■ Intersection Improvements • Add turn pockets • Andover Park E /Minkler • Andover Park W /Minkler 1 North 0 [ Add a sr 1 11 Legend: wiwwwwwiaa Freeway Ramp amooIrMet River Railroad Note: ret o scale Widen EB Line Add One 11IFf Approach Widen EBIWII Approaches nod Extend 1Vft' Tti mLane C 4 • • , • 11.1 .•••1••••tA- p. • Costs of Growth • Moderate Growth = $73.4 Million > $4.9 million per year • Aggressive Growth = $141 Million >$9.4 million per year October 12, 2005 • Funding revenues available • Taxes Property, sales, parking tax, \ REET, fuel, etc. • Grants Federal, state • General Obligation Bonds • Local Improvement Districts • Impact Fees • Miscellaneous income — bake sales? October 12, 2005 What are Impact Fees? • One time fees paid by developer at time of a project approval • To mitigate transportation system impacts • To fund CIP to support the new development • Growth pays for growth October 12, 2005 • Key principles of impact fees: • Fees imposed on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development • Fees not to exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development • Must benefit the new development October 12, 2005 Impact Fees • • Impact fees cannot be used for: • Existing Deficiencies • Operating or Maintenance Expenses • Non - Capacity Costs (i.e. Pavement Preservation) • On -Site ( "Project ") Improvements • Transit Facilities, Bike and Pedestrian Trails • Facilities Funded by Taxes, Grants, User Fees, etc. (no double dipping) October 12, 2005 Impact Fee Development • Four Zones • Financing • 6 years • 10 years • 15 years (to 2020) October 12, 2005 a • 4 Zone Structure • Unique Impact Fee per Zone City of Tukwila Impact Fee Zones mpact Fees 6 years 10 years Zone 1 $2,086.13 Zone 2 $1,687.60 Zone 3 $488.48 $1,148.65 = $1,145.46 $314.66 October 12, 2005 Zone 4 $1,169.72 $765.89 Impact Fees • Easy to use schedule • By development type and size • October 12, 2005 Schedule for Adoption • October 27, 2005 • Planning Commission Public Hearing • Deliberation that night or 11/3 • November 28, 2005 • COW Work Session • December 5, 2005 • City Council Public Hearing • Adoption at end of meeting • Adoption of implementing ordinances October 12, 2005 Conclusion Questions? October 12, 2005 Rocky Piro, Ph.D, AICP Principal Planner Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 October 3, 2005 Dear Rocky: City of Tukwila ila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Enclosed please find a draft copy of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and the Tukwila Transit Plan. The Tukwila Transit Plan contains background information that was used to develop the policies contained in the Transportation Element. It will be adopted by ordinance along with the Transportation Element by the end of 2005. Please contact me at 206 -431 -3683 if you have questions. Sincerely, 9 Rebecca Fox Enc. ff' I17- v►sorfi aei !'o//c4 — 1 - 0.4 , 151 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 September 26, 2005 city of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Review Team Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504 -2525 Dear CTED Review Team: Attached are draft amendments to the Transportation Element of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. This transmittal duplicates supplements the e-mail version forwarded to Ike Nwankwo on September 20, 2005, which met the requirement to notify agencies at least 60 days prior to adoption. The Tukwila City Council and Planning Commission have been briefed jointly on t1 ese recommendations. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in October, and the City Council will hold its hearing in November. We anticipate that amendments will be adopted prior to December 31, 2005 after public input and deliberation. Please contact me at 206 -431 -3683 or rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. Sincerely, i Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. Rf Page 1 of 1 09/26/05 9:10 AM Q:\2005 Comp Plan amendments \60 day transmittal.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic Level of Service trive DRAFT C , The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual bud get. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision- making that is consistent with Washington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually . updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include light rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). LO w -. Srg alit "d Int rsections ' j ' � U nsig a d 1 tersest o A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds 4e q uen y Headway Vehicle/ LOS (min) hour Comments A <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10-14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 -20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Ni • ht or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 =11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F . 0 -3 Very limited or no service Table 1 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service • Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an im ortant aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. - Service Fre cLOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2' ' Ed., - Hours of Serv LOS Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 200 Non - motorized Level of Service Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RAFT Transportation A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Ni • ht or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 =11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F . 0 -3 Very limited or no service Table 1 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service • Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an im ortant aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. - Service Fre cLOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2' ' Ed., - Hours of Serv LOS Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 200 Non - motorized Level of Service Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RAFT Transportation A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Table 1 — Traffic Level of Service Standards Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service • Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an im ortant aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. - Service Fre cLOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2' ' Ed., - Hours of Serv LOS Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 Ed., 200 Non - motorized Level of Service Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RAFT Transportation A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials • ' 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph Streets and Highways Transportation DRAFT, Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct fic patterns and roadway needs. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss- crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govern. Table 3 — Functional Street System Standards TU 141E4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 3 TUKilkik COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. • Transit r King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Aubum;°Seattle, Renton, and West reattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154 Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Southcenter Mall. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County -Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. Table 4: Transit Corridor Classifications • Classification TRANSIT WAY TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT MINOR CORRIDOR TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Functional Purpose Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service and interregional transit trips. Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity service, connections between major activity centers, and some interregional trips Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. Provides connections between neighborhoods and area attractions.. Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Typical Adjacent Land Use Major private and public developments of regional significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. Major private and public developments of regional or local significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high- density residential land uses. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium - density residential areas as well as commercial areas. Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods Depends on location. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 4 Map Legend •—•— Freeway - - - Principal NN•NN Minor Collector City Limits City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 Fr DR/?LF hot to Seale Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Draft Staff Recommendations - August 31, 2005 5 j sew Transit Pdority Corridor Classification Transit Way Transit Principal Condor - Transit Minor Corridor Transit Local Access - Potential Transit Roadway DRA Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications TUKW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FT Transportation Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 6 Traffic Non - motorized Transportation F. TUKWIrA COMPRHENSIVE PLAN Transportation r. DRAFT A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Comprehensive Transportatiorfi lan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category I trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle - friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails, which will provide access to the Green /Duwamish high- employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and other non - motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non- motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be • financed. Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Withinthe TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 7 Transit TllLA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. GOALS AND POLICIES '77- DRA.FT" Goal 13.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent land use.. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super- blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul-de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering • study of speck conditions. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 8 TUKV*A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings saws 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance 'D RA F T C. Street Network Plan Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: — The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. — All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. — The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. — West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mifigated, as defined by PSRC — SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS EJMitigated, as defined by PSRC 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 9 TUKWItA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.5 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street . capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.6 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.7 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (I -5), Interstate 405 (1 -405), and State Route 518.(SR -518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.8 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. sl IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES r' A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 10 Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy- vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian/bicycle /transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Southcenter Mall to the Tukwila Commuter RaiUAmtrak Station. 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to- provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of. Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. KWZA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN D R' tt, Transportation 13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of regional/rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient- capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support transportation system management programs and measures developed by Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Metropolitan King County and others, including the private ct ,_ __ r� �r�to reduce congestion and serve travel b\c -Yck needs. �t a n 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan g County, Southcenter Mall, and surrounding businesses to locate efpedestriar4ffierR71y transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. 13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed - route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: - Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea- Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. — Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. — Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 13.4.13 Encourage transit - oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high - capacity transit stations. 13.4.14 Require that. parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 11 TUKVTL.A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Goal 13.5 Non- motorized Transportation D FL/ FT Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II wrig trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category!) and local (Category II) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle- friendly streets. • 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non- motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bic trails. 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non- motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air. Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 12 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as oncommercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions on residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and policies — Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. l FJ\ Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: — Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and impact Fee Schedule. - Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. — Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. — Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the fr»pact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 13 September 22, 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 - 10= Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 • (360) 725 -4000 Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Fox: Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 725 -3056. Sincerely, Linda Mgt ( Ike Nwankwo Technical & Financial Assistance Manager Growth Management Services RECEIVED SEP 2. 2005 Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Draft update to Tukwila's comprehensive plan Transportation Element These materials were received on 09/22/2005 and processed with the Material ID-1P 9514. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. Rebecca Fox - Tukwila Draft Compreher 'le Plan Transportation Element Page 1 From: Rebecca Fox To: Anne.sharar @wadnr.gov; Billk @parks.wa.gov; Gmacoordination @ecy.wa.gov; Hbeale @psat.wa.gov; lorindaa @iac.wa.gov; Mcnagec @dshs.wa.gov; Nlwinters @doc1.wa.gov; Penlastp @dfw.wa.gov; reviewteam @cted.wa.gov; wiebeb @wsdot.wa.gov Date: 9/21/05 9:49AM Subject: Tukwila Draft Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Reviewers, The City of Tukwila has draft revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element available for review. This transmittal is intended to meet the requirement to notify agencies at least 60 days prior to adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Please reply via e-mail or phone if you would like to receive a copy either electronically or via postal mail. Thank you. Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 206 -431 -3683 (tel) 206 -431 -3665 (fax) rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us • - September 8, 2005 ■ Quick Review ▪ Level of Service - what is it? ■ Recommended Methodology ■ Recommended Standard ■ Next Steps ■ Summary ■ Questions September 8, 2005 • GMA requires every 10 years • Address traffic congestion • Provide funding options • Strengthenconcurrency/impact fee relationship September 8, 2005 City Growth Community Vision J Streets Transit Pedestrians September 8, 2005 Regional Growth ■ Transportation Element must include: • Land use assumptions • Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities = acilties and services needs Inventory of transportation facilities and services evel of service standards for all arterials and transit routes • Finance • Intergovernmental coordination efforts • Demand - management strategies September 8, 2005 ■ Facility and service needs must include: • Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan • Specific actions for bringing into compliance transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard ■ Evaluate financial capabilities, including: • Analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources • Multiyear financing plan - September 8, 2005 ▪ Tukwila established its transportation concurrency standards to: • Ensure that adequate facilities are available. • Ensure that financial commitments are in place to pay for needs. • Promote orderly growth and development. • Transportation facilities built concurrent with development ■ Balance a three legged stool ■ LOS E is current standard September 8, 2005 a LOS D (35 -55 seconds of delay) • Noticeable traffic volumes, increased signal cycle length ■ LOSE (55 -80 seconds of delay) Current • Long cycle length, high levels of traffic Standard volumes and maximum throughput LOS F (Greater than 80 seconds of delay) • Unstable flows, high levels of delays, driver discomfort and frpiontjpp What does traffic look like today? Average weekday PM peak hour Not including weekend or holiday peaks Most of intersections operate at LOS "C" or better ■ No major LOS problem Most of intersections operate at LOS "D" or better e No major LOS problem Legend: r 1 Cityt.:nit Park w j � River Freeway I ---r Rairoad Signalized 4 DelaylSec I Unaignaiiaed 2 LOS 22 Delay/Sec North 0 1 m Two LOS "F" intersections . ..MI ' • North •;•%‘-'. • r - 2 S i Legend: Freeway Ramp momactomo River Trail Railroad Note: notto scale Level of Service Delay 8 B ICY g Model for growth • 2 scenarios > Moderate Aggressive ® Assumes select improvements already in place • CIP Projects • Others September 8, 2005 Most of the signalized intersections - acceptable conditions m Several unsignalized intersections LOS F ■ Traffic congestion on SR 99 along western borders ■ Most of unsignalized intersections Acceptable • Traffic congestion at many key locations would intensify. • LOS F — 15 intersections Legend: ......... Freeway Ramp maimmone River ..... , ....�.. Trail - -- ---- Railroad Not: Mkt scale `}" Delay e Moderate Growth = $73.4 Million • $4.9 million per year ■ Aggressive Growth • $9.4 million per year September 8, 2005 $141 Million Modeled growth Identified cost • Balance a three legged stool September 8, 2005 ■ F considered • Current method (TUC -wide average) • Individual intersections (approximately 40) • TUC sub -area zones • TUC corridor approach September 8, 2005 Current methodology: average of 17 corridors in TUC • Uses v/c ratio • Not currently used by engineering profession • Does not accurately portray true conditions > Either over or under-represents true LOS September 8, 2005 ■ Intersection by Intersection • Up to 40 intersections in the TUC ■ Urban Center Zones. • Matches TUC sub -areas IC - 11TRIA9 - ... TVL 14VgitlIBINI 'z . r e i ‘ x % (7 /\ / 414.4,94;r4 •‘-' v-rielorcapi A s...,orag 4 In a, 4 .....41.11.L.Aleiiii.:Aipi M lliin IL IL 4 r /=1:1 11 Elf mr n i lilism .1, . . . . r ■ , ' ` ... • t ,' t ,, ... 0. :., ,l i r '' , ' t i , 1 •,,, ' ' ' ; -- .' , - , Recommended Method Signalized intersections (outside TUC) Corridor average of key intersections (TUC) September 8, 2005 ■ Project list ■ Impact Fee Schedule September 8, 2005 ■ Return on September 29, 2005 for discussion on funding • Impact Fee Structure ■ Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 20, 2005 ■ Adoption by Council by end of 2005 September 8, 2005 Questions? September 8, 2005 V CITY OF TUKWILA PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2005 July 11, 2005 MEMORANDUM June 30, 2005 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2004 Attached with this memo are the proposed annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 2005. There will be a public meeting on July 11, 2005 to receive input on the proposed amendments. Introduction We received two applications for annual Comprehensive Plan amendments by the December 31, 2004 deadline. The applications are as follows: • Update Transportation Element . Applicant: Tukwila Public Works Department (File #L04 084) — The proposal seeks to update background materials and policies relating to the Transportation Element to incorporate new information, including levels of service, funding capital improvements, and growth impacts. • Designate Property on Orillia Road as Tukwila South (TVS )—Applicant: Rich Buck (File #L04 - 089) –The proposal seeks a Tukwila South designation for approximately one acre at 19607 Orillia Road. The property is in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), adjacent to the Tukwila South/Segale annexation. The subject property, together with the rest of the land in the PAA, will be annexed once the Tukwila South annexation is completed. Staff recommends deferring this request, and considering it when the remainder of the PAA is annexed. Council Consideration The CAP was briefed on both amendments on May 10, 2005. The City Council and Planning Commission were briefed on the Transportation Element update on June 9, 2005. The first step in Council's consideration is to evaluate the proposed amendment according to the following review criteria: • Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? RF Page I of 3 \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \council memo- 2005amend7- 11- 05a.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 07/05/05 1:37 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? • Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? • Will the proposed change result in a new benefit to the community? Following its initial consideration of a proposed amendment, the Council shall take one of the following actions: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer the Planning Commission for further review; • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal. These "threshold" decisions are to be made following the July1 1 public meeting. Summary Transportation Element Update: On June 9, 2005, the City Council and Planning Commission were briefed on issues pertaining to the Transportation Element Update. If the City Council forwards this request to the Planning Commission for further consideration, Public Works staff will conduct a joint briefing on August 25, 2005. Orillia Road Designation: This request affects a small portion of the remaining Potential Annexation Area that the City Council has agreed to annex after the Tukwila South (Segale) annexation is complete. Staff has spoken with the applicant and he agrees to defer consideration of his request until the entire PAA annexation is reviewed. Next Steps After the public meeting, the City Council will decide which proposed amendments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Any proposed amendments that are referred by the Council to the Planning Commission will return before the Council for a final public hearing and a decision at a later date. At that point, the Council may: • Adopt a proposed amendment; • Adopt a modified version of a proposed amendment; or • Reject the amendment. Attachments: A. Update Transportation Element -- Applicant: Tukwila Public Works Department (File #L04 -084) B. Designate Property on Orillia Road as Tukwila South (TVS)— Applicant: Rich Buck (File #L04 -089) RF Page 2 of 3 07/05/05 1:37 PM \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \council memo- 2005amend7- 11- 05a.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT A MEETING DATE: July 11, 2005 NOTIFICATION: Published Seattle Times -- July 1, 2005 FILE NUMBER: L04 -084 APPLICANT: Tukwila Department of Public Works REQUEST: Update Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element LOCATION: City-wide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONE DESIGNATION: N/A ATTACHMENT: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment application STAFF: Rebecca Fox RF Page I of 4 07/06/05 3:16 PM \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \STAFFREPORT — Transportation policies7- 29 -05b.doc Surrounding Land Uses Various uses throughout the city. THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA FINDINGS DISCUSSION VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The Tukwila Public Works Department requests intends to update the Transportation Element and Background information to include new information on traffic concurrency, levels of service and other issues. Background In recent years, the Public Works Department has amended and updated specific transportation policies and data to address changed circumstances or requirements, such as revisions to the Growth Management Act to include highways of statewide significance. It has not, however, conducted a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan chapters that contain transportation issues, including all pertinent policies and data, since the Plan was first adopted in 1995. Although the Department had hoped to prepare this update along with 2004 Growth Management Act update, the necessary information and data were not available at that time. This year, the Department will thoroughly revise the Transportation Element to incorporate new information and studies. Key policy issues will include: 1) setting and calculating level of service (LOS); 2) funding capital needs; and 3) addressing the impacts of growth. The City Council and Planning Commission were jointly briefed on the primary issues on June 9, 2005. The specific revisions are not known at this point. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a need for it? Transportation issues, including level of service (LOS) and concurrency requirements are primarily covered in Chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 deal respectively with Transportation Corridors, Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center, and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Each includes policies affecting transportation in Tukwila. RF Page 2 of 4 07/06/05 3:16 PM \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \STAFFREPORT — Transportation policies7- 29- 05b.doc Public Works staff is using new data to develop specific policy changes. In order to reflect more accurately current and future conditions, the policy options to be proposed will reflect changes that have occurred since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995. 3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The 2004 update included only specific revisions that were prompted by changes to the Growth Management Act. Reviewing the entire Transportation Element in 2005 is the best means to achieve a comprehensive evaluation of current and future conditions in order to balance the impacts of growth, the need to finance capital facilities and determine how to provide acceptable levels of service. Other options for consideration would be to: • Update only a portion of the Transportation Element for revision i.e. the portion that is most out of date or problematic • Make no changes to the Transportation Element, and rely instead on sub -area plans such as the Tukwila Urban Center Plan and Tukwila South Master Plan to address transportation issues. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of result can be expected and why? The proposed change would bring a net benefit to the community through policies that provide a clearer assessment of existing and anticipated transportation and traffic conditions. Updating transportation data and policies also ensures that the City of Tukwila meets statewide requirements, remains eligible for transportation - related funding and continues to provide and pay for appropriate facilities and levels of service. CONCLUSIONS Alternatives for Action The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review • Modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission for further review; • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. RF Page 3 of 4 07/06/05 3:16 PM \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments \STAFFREPORT — Transportation policies7- 29 -05b.doc FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: Re d {cc - iu -F File Number: t_ D q- _ Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: G APPHANILANDUSE .APP\COMPAPP.doc.06121/00 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ri.tukwila.wa.us ATTACHMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: j ransp✓ .� vi E1cme 4 UpacJi e - LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS CA -CAA C Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. (/ Name: c I+'�L ►' l t'�1 �1%�h j �t e e t' - Gt -Hi 4 ?; Address: 4 4bo cenkr elver , Kwit ivA 9` t cd (3 Phone: . t k(Oc4 FAX: Signature: Date: I k (a)10“ A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: l "1/ 1 ; Proposed: " t B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: t.-)1 A Proposed: '"JI C. LAND USE(S): Existing: PIA Proposed: '" k (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. rd 1 G: APPHANLANDUSE.APP'COMPAPP.doe, 06/2V00 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof to demonstrate that a change to the Comprehensive Plan . or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? 3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010) In addition to the above question, a response to each of the following circumstances is also necessary: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply!) 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. C. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. G:UPPHAMLANDUSE.APPtCOMPAPP doc, 06/26/00 Update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.050) Al. The Transportation Element needs to be updated to include current information per state law. Existing information in the current Comp Plan is from 1993. A2. Conditions have changed which warrant updating the Comp Plan. There is no other option. A3. The benefit to the community is that the City is planning for projected changes based on current information. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.010) B 1. The City is updating the Transportation Element using current information. This is also required to maintain compliance with the state GMA. B2. Impacts are simply that current information will be used to identify transportation needs, both existing and future. B3. The current Transportation Element was drafted using the best information available at that time. The update is designed so that current information continues to be used. B4. Updates to Comp Plan elements are a required part of GMA. B5. Updates to Comp Plan elements are required as part of Countywide Planning Policies. Coordination with surrounding jurisdictions, which are all using current information, is also required. B6. No changes will be made to any other City functional plans. B7. No capital improvements will be made as part of the update to the Transportation Element. Specific capital improvements will be identified as necessary to accommodate growth within the document. B8. The City's Concurrency Ordinance will need to be updated to reflect changes, if any, in concurrency standards and transportation impact fees that result from the update to the Comp Plan. Zoning Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.84.030) No changes to zoning will be proposed with the update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL July 11, 2005 Published Seattle Times, mailing to adjacent property owners July 1, 2005 L04 -089 Rich Buck Designate 1 acre in Potential Annexation Area as "Tukwila Valley South" before it is annexed to Tukwila 19607 Orillia Road South ATTACHMENT B Urban Residential —Low Density (King County ) Urban Residential —Low Density (King County) 1. Application 2. Resolution 1561 3. Map — Subject Property and Annexation Area Rebecca Fox RF Page 1 of 5 \ \TUK2 \VOL3\H0ME\REBECCA\2005 Comp Plan amendments\STAFF REPORT— Buck —for 7- 11 -05.doc 07/07/05 12:39 PM 2 FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The proposal is to designate two lots as Tukwila Valley South (TVS) before they are annexed to Tukwila. The property is approximately one acre, located in Tukwila's South Potential Annexation Area at 19607 Orillia Road S. Surrounding Land Uses The applicant currently uses the lots as a truck retail sales facility. Surrounding land uses are as follows: North: S. 188 Interstate 5 freeway interchange and King County's Bow Lake Transfer Station. South: To the immediate south, is vacant land and several single - family residences which are set into the slope. Farther south at 204 and Orillia Road, the City of SeaTac is considering a request to rezone 53 acres from UL -15000 (Low Density Residential) to UM -3600 (Medium Density Residential) to build 350 town house units. East: Across Orillia Road is residential and undeveloped land owned by La Pianta. This will be part of the Tukwila South Master Plan Area and annexation. West: Interstate 5 and the City of SeaTac. The properties rise steeply to the west. DISCUSSION Background The subject property is in the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Once the adjacent Tukwila South Annexation is finalized in late 2005 or early 2006, the remaining PAA will form an unincorporated "island" of land between Tukwila and SeaTac. Per City of Tukwila Resolution 1561 (Attachment 2), Tukwila commits to initiate annexation of this entire area from King County soon after the Tukwila South annexation is complete King County's Comprehensive Plan now shows the applicant's property, as well as the rest of Tukwila's PAA, as Urban Residential —Low Density. The applicant has requested that his property be considered separate from the rest of PAA for a Tukwila Valley South (TVS) Comprehensive Plan designation before it is annexed to the City of Tukwila. Designation of the remainder of the unincorporated island would need to be taken up at the time of annexation. (Attachment 3) The Tukwila South Master Plan Area, located directly across Orillia Road east and south of the subject area, is also TVS. RF Page 2 of 5 06/30/05 2:24 PM Q:12005 Comp Plan amendments\STAFF REPORT—Buck--for 7- 11 -05.doc 3 THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a need for it? Several policies relate to the potential annexation, including the following: Goal 6.1 A logical and serviceable muncipal boundary. • Policy 6.1.1. Freely make available to persons and areas within the City's annexation and minor boundary adjustment areas, information related to Tukwila's taxes or services, with each annexation process emphasizing public information and clear communication among the Tukwila community, City government, and the area under consideration • Policy 6.1.3 Consider the annexation boundary as the extent of Tukwila's annexation area. The following Tukwila South vision and policies pertain directly to the request. The Tukwila South Vision Statement (amended in November, 2004) describes Tukwila South: "The Tukwila South are currently is a mix of industrial and agricultural uses with a high potential for redevelopment and the ability to transition to a dynamic urban multi -use district while still supporting the existing, lower density uses. This area represents an outstanding opportunity to create major, new employment, commercial and residential areas. The size (approximately 400 acres), location adjacent to the Tukwila Urban Center, consolidated land ownership, and proximity to the airport make this a site that will attract attention from national and international companies looking for expansion opportunities. The development of this area will be a gradual process that should be facilitated by a well - developed master plan. Connections to the airport, local and regional transit facilities, and to the Tukwila Urban Center through improved roadways and new transit initiatives will be important to achieve the maximum potential of this area." 9.1.1 Allow the industrial areas south of 180t Street in order to support business and employment opportunities and minimize the displacement of manufacturing and non- retail uses. RF Page 3 of 5 06/30/05 2:24 PM Q:12005 Comp Plan amendments\STAFF REPORT— Buck —for 7- 11- 05.doc 4 • 9.1.2 Allow commercial uses to compete the mix with industrial uses for sites throughout the sub area. The PAA, including the subject property, is designated low density residential by King County. • Goal 9.2— Unique residential neighborhoods and housing opportunities that serve a broad range of ages, family mixes, lifestyles and incomes. • Policy 9.2.3 –Allow residential development in a variety of densities and configurations. Consider single family detached residences, mixed -use developments, townhomes, zero -lot line developments or stand -alone multifamily developments. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? Staff believes that designating the property as TVS could address a public need for economic development. The property could remain in commercial use legally, and retain significant flexibility for a range of future commercial development. Staff finds, however, that this request to designate two lots should be considered together with the other properties in the proposed annexation. In this way, all property owners could be contacted at once and all properties in the area could be evaluated for cumulative effects. Staff has spoken with the applicant and he is amenable to having his property considered along with the rest of the proposed annexation. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of result can be expected and why? Specifying TVS for a property that now functions as a commercial use, rather than a single family residential use, could be a net benefit to the community. From a planning and staffing perspective, it makes more sense to review the entire annexation area at one time, rather than designating two parcels before annexation and considering the remainder when the annexation occurs. Impacts With a TVS designation, the existing truck leasing use would become a permitted use. A TVS classification provides the potential for more intensive commercial development or redevelopment. There could be a corresponding increase in traffic and noise impacts on adjacent properties, especially felt by those that are currently single- family residential. Land values and tax revenues might also increase with more intensive development. CONCLUSIONS The property lies in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) adjacent to the Segale/La PiantafTukwila South Annexation. Tukwila and the King County agree that Tukwila will initiate annexation of the remaining PAA "island ", including the subject after the RF Page 4 of 5 06/30/05 2:24 PM QA2005 Comp Plan amendments\STAFF REPORT— Buck —for 7- 11- 05.doc 5 Tukwila South annexation is concluded in late 2005 or early 2006. The applicant agrees to defer his request so that it may be considered with the rest of the annexation. Staff concludes that it makes sense to defer consideration until a later time when the whole annexation area is evaluated and designated. Alternatives for Action The. City Council's threshold alternatives include the following: • Defer consideration until a later time; • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review • Modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission for further review; • Reject the proposal RF Page 5 of 5 Q:12005 Comp Plan amendments\STAFF REPORT —Buck —for 7- 11 -05.doc 06/30/05 2:24 PM FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: geb cc e,-- . j vv x. File Number: I/0 9 --° ° 9 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: CITY OF TUKWILA ^. E VED ATTACHMENT 1 Department of Community Development lf ; ,�,, COMPREHENSIVE 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ° - PLAN /ZONING . CODE Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 41/-3466mMUNITY AMENDMENTS E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa,us DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: L4 N 4• nl LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS L -, 74 -s . 1 'LrU�✓ eEEv7 C,e I-40r °03 2 may- 900s` /ciao 7 Oi2ic -, 9 /QA. s. Lar° a 3 Za y - 66 )(ENT; wry . 43$03) Quarter: NO Section: 03 Township: 22 Range: 0 7 (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: C 1-I 13 V � tL. Address: / Phone: 20 ; 39/.. 7 1.9f Signature: D�ILLII�} a aC '4 foie GAAPPHAMLANDUSE .APPICOIMPAPP.doc, 06/25/00 Date: / Map Output E LX '.mriew , King County Home Search Kind County ( GIS Center News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. SP '.rive-Ai[rw�f40TS Page 1 of 1 eiv !MAP Pro a Information Plannin Dtr .. ..i, ilCC2S�:1 = ^. °9?3';•Cr ;. l ' J .c, II II.. Sheets xiawraf maws toot Legend J,/ Unincorporated Area Edge Lakes and Large Rivers Ej Parcels f/ Topo Contours (5ft) Elevation Data (West KC only) information hduded on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is subject to change without notice. 4 County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such nfonnation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, Indirect, Incidental, or consequential damages Including, but not limited to, • - t revenues or last profits resulting from the use or misuse of the Information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or Information on Is ma • Is . rnhhited exce . • written ion of 4 • Coun . http:// www5. metrokc. gov/ servlet/ com. esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName= overview &Cl... 12/29/2004 Miry tPf Map Output " reOPOWA King County H ome 1.223111111=1 Comments Search e information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. 4, • County makes no representations or warranties, express or knotted, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or lights to the use of such. it nformation. King County shaltinot be liable for general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, • St revenues or lost profits resulting from the u or misuse of the information contained on this map. My sale of this map or information on is ma • is • • ibited exce • • written • - - - . of 4 ! Cou • t ; King County I GIS Center I News I Services l Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Page 1 of 1 1,,i4PIT AVIAr baRX S LOPZ http://vvwvv5.metrokc.gov/servletkom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Cl... 12t28/2004 f HE 03 4 = O / ‘4CI:7 P Lancif I ! 7 - .ICX> 1 � ,�/ZS/ /9 'f'1/s • 19_ SS�� p Y s s . ioe 108 doLveC10 I°t Ito 90 ILL.; 79385 SF 1.82 AC 0365 :; 1111.0anNalftliala . t wrivirorammar . 4, • I N8 -2 44 P14 A -4 0 607.42 301.95 SURV LA- /014AvT/¢ •111111M11111 PIRE11•11•..a 1 w- • • rte. � � ; � S :� i� ! =M 1 NMI fi A.:, 1.4. Illir :ii 1 i 111I : i - .�Flinit� ► 1 111 i11/t1111 `1111./M.:11: . � J iII M� sauna: : ►� o': �i�i �i�r1 , r• Nit 11/111111 fi�i / i �i�i i Irz. . I�'' �� Illtl /111111 �1 r.tt �i.t �q ijw r s ' 111 1 - := �' � % `�1- W CIIni 11 =! ' 1 M il „ _\- Ifl -H u►► iMAP - Pro ' e Information Plannin "PI re. ' J 0322049047 0322049.1 I 0322049003 h � 3 22049100 O� 023 , lc) Kiss c•aty p .. _..... 4.03,5mt 0 / / Legend Streets pfr Unincorporated Area Edge 116"tary O Lakes and Large Rivers Parcels f/ Dais II J'! r // Topo Contains (5ft) - information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is subject to change without notice. f .. County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such nformation. King County shall not be table for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, • = t revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on is map Is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Map Output King County Home News Comments Search Page 1 of 1 King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. VNT'O'J cyucy http: / /www5. metrokc. gov /servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName= overview &Cl... 12t29/2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.050) The Tukwila City Council just passed Resolution No. 1561. "A resolution of the city council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, committing to initiate an annexation process for a certain unincoporated island of territory after such island becomes contiguous to the city." The issue of the zoning plan for this area, has not yet been specifically adddressed by the completion of a master plan for all of the properties involved, but I believe the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a whole addresses the future of this area in many ways. I submit that my two parcels and business should be included in the majority designation of Tukwila's new Comprehensive Plan/ for the proposed annexation TVS. Zoning Code: TVS TVS is the planned zoning of the area directly across the street, East and South of my lots. Including my business (property) would allow me to continue the "highest and best" commercial use of the property and building. At " Lease Return Center" I sell (retail) medium duty trucks to local and regional businesses for transport and delivery. The full force of the traffic from 1 -5 and the airport via 188th st. westbound spills past my lots to 200th /196th overpass and 212th st. Both East -West Principal Arterials. The traffic volume and the noise on Orillia is very High...( est.50,000 cars and trucks per day). The following are excerpts from the "City of Tukwila, Comprehensive Land Use Plan" printed 2 -15 -04 that clearly illustrate that Tukwila has addressed the planned zoning amendment I am requesting. Economic Development: The overriding goal of this element is the enhancement of the community's economic well- being. General Philosophy: Sustain moderate growth. Encourage growth into certain areas through the use of zoning and developmental regulations. Encourage the retention and growth of existing local firms. Emphasize business development for existing businesses to expand. Economic Setting: Retail sales provided 25% of Tukwila's jobs. In fact Tukwila accounts for 7.5% of all of King County's retail sales. Issues: To access the regional highway, transit and air transportation system in a way that does not handicap local property development and redevelopment efforts. To continue the strength and growth of the tax base. To form policies, programs, projects and plans that benefit from the diverse groups within the residential and business community. To present an image of cohesion and progress rather than congestion and status quo. To meet the needs of our residential neighborhoods while sow sue maintaining the economic health of our business community. Implementation Strategies: Identification and elimination of counterproductive or inappropriate regulations. Redevelopment encouragement through an informed business and real estate community. Transportation: The transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. Growth scenarios are used in this element to project traffic volumes and levels of service... Issues: Tukwila's transportaion system includes freeways, arterial streets, access streets, transit service, sidewalks, trails and neighborhood footpaths. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Transportation Corridors: Policies: 1.8.1 Restructure zoning ordinances to allow mixed uses along designated transportation corridors. Buck: " orillia Road is a major transportation corridor (Principal Arterial) for goods and services between South Center and Hwy. 99." Annexation: Purpose: The Purpose of the Annexation Element is to ensure a smooth transition from county to city Jurisdiction when unincorporated land is annexed to the City. Annexation of unincorporated land adjacent to the City benefits the City, residents, and property owners. Tukwila is growing and has used the guide lines of the Growth Management Act and King County Planning policies, to establish Potential Annexation Areas. (paraphrased) Annexation Area Policies: 6.1.4 In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies for King County and in the interest of providing effective public services, work with affected citizens and property owners and the neighboring cities...to develop interlocal agreements providing for mutually agreeable processes to adjust border anomalies. Planning and Zoning Policies: Ensure that zoning proposed for an annexation area is consistent with Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan and other land use requirements. 6.1.7 Implementation Strategies: Interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions and negotiation with property owners to eliminate boundary anomalies. Residential Neighborhoods: Goal 7.2 Noise Abatement Policies: Discourage noise levels which are incompatible with current or planned land uses, and discourage the introduction of new land uses into areas where existing noise levels are incompatible with such land uses. Zoning: TVS Tukwila Valley. South A specific area characterized by high - intensity regional uses that include commercial services, offices, light industry, warehousing and retail, with heavy industrial subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Goal: 9.4.4 Pursue additional access to the Tukwila Urban Center through additional entries and exits (ramps) from Interstate 5 at South 200th Street. Tukwila Urban Center Purpose: Urban centers are described in King County's Countywide Planning Policies as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high capacity transit. The policies set forth in this element support and extend the qualities of the existing center that have been reponsible for its economic success in the past, and expand on these characteristics. Land use policies focus on flexibility in use, and diversity. Issues: The goals and policies for the Tukwila Urban Center respond to the area's existing economically vibrant motor - vehicle oriented development pattern and recognizes that its path for higher - density groth will take place beyond the 20- year horizon of the Count;y -wide Policies. While these centers play an integral role in the regional vision, the County wide Policies clearly delineate that the form and function of these centers will be determined at the local level. Vision Statement: Sensitivity to the needs of existing businesses while facilitating the area's market - driven transitions. "Proposed Change: Match planned zoning to existing "highest and best use ". The public in general do and will benefit from having a local source of commercial vehicles for transport, delivery and commercial services.Local businesses will gain access to a convenient source of work vehicles. The general population of Tukwila, and the City will benefit from the thousands of dollars a month in sales tax I collect as well as property taxes from increasing values. I own the land, building, and business. Lease Return Center is a stable long term, permanent business." Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.010) 1. Change proposed zoning of Tax Lots # 0322049005 and #0322049067 to TVS. This is an existing business in a PAA and if the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan are applied fairly the outcome I request is the only one that makes sense for all concerned. 2. The main impact of the change would be growing of the Tax Base for Tukwila, and the convenience of a source for Delivery Trucks to local businesses. My business would also benefit by being apart of a City with leadership and vision for the future and the many changes it will bring. 3. I believe the current Comprehensive Plan supports my request. The proposed zoning for the Tukwila South Annexation is in a state of flux and will be changed to TVS. To avoid repitition please re -read the previous quotes from the Comprehensive Plan above. 4. The Growth Management Act mandates that cities establish a dialogue with their citizens and create a forum for changes in zoning and planning that is fair and open to all. Cities should work with existing businesses to promote moderate growth and use it's knowledge of local market forces to shape it's own economic future. 5. Changing proposed zoning of these two small lots would comply with Countywide policies of letting the local cities that best govern through the application of local knowledge and good judgement do just that. Pocket zoning or letting a city annex a portion of land in order to restrict use is against the GMA. 6. These lots are serviced by the Highline Water District, Kent Sewers are close and surely to be expanded for the 600 acre development across the street. Storm water drains were completed in 1996. Tukwila functional plans would not be affected by my 1.3 acres. 7. No capital improvements will be necessary to support the proposed change. No affect on the capital facilities plans of the City are foreseen, as the use and business are existing. 8. No changes in other city codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change are necessary. Thankyou for your consideration, Rich Buck Lease Return Center A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, COMMTITING TO INITIATE AN ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR A CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND OF TERRITORY AFTER SUCH ISLAND BECOMES CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has received a notice of intention to commence annexation proceedings related to the territory known as the La Pianta annexation area, the boundaries of which are described in Exhibit A, which is attached 'hereto and incorporated as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to authorize the circulation of an annexation petition for the La Pianta annexation area; and WHEREAS, the La Planta annexation area lies within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area identified by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the La Pianta annexation will reduce but not eliminate King County's obligation to provide municipal services to an area that is difficult for the County to serve due to its size and isolation from other County service areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies recognize cities as the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas; and WHEREAS, Kung County has indicated it will support the La Pianta annexation if the City commits to timely annex the remainder of its Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area, the boundaries of said remainder being described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and . WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is willing to annex the area described in Exhibit B, but would like to delay action on this annexation until after a final resolution his been reached with respect to the La Pianta annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: _ . Section 1. Within three weeks after the area described in Exhibit A becomes contiguous to the City of Tukwila, the City Council will adopt a resolution commencing negotiations pursuant to RCW 35A. 14A60 for an interlocal agreement between the City and King County to accomplish the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B to the City, and directing staff to complete said negotiations on an expedited basis. Within six weeks of approval of said negotiated interbcall agreement by the City and King County, the City will adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B, which ordinance shall provide for an effective date of annexation not later than sixty (60) days after adoption of the ordinance. PASSED BY THE CITY Q WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this I.0 7th day of A aye f 2004. A 5 - /AUTHENTICATED: ige J J . Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: 7� y� City of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. l.51 / Office of the City Attorney Annexation Commitment 10/28■4 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council Resolution Number. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, COMMITTING TO INITIATE AN ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR A CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND OF TERRITORY AFTER SUCH ISLAND BECOMES CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has received a notice of intention to commence annexation proceedings related to the territory known as the La Pianta annexation area, the boundaries of which are described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to authorize the circulation of an annexation petition for the La Pianta annexation area; and WHEREAS, the La Pianta annexation area lies within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area identified by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the La Pianta annexation will reduce but not eliminate King County's obligation to provide municipal services to an area that is difficult for the County to serve due to its size and isolation from other County service areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies recognize cities as the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas; and WHEREAS, King County has indicated it will support the La Pianta annexation if the City commits to timely annex the remainder of its Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area, the boundaries of said remainder being described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is willing to annex the area described in Exhibit B, but would like to delay action on this annexation until after a final resolution his been reached with respect to the La Pianta annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Within three weeks after the area described in Exhibit A becomes contiguous to the City of Tukwila, the City Council will adopt a resolution commencing negotiations pursuant to RCW 35A. 14.460 for an interlocal agreement between the City and King County to accomplish the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B to the City, and directing staff to complete said negotiations on an expedited basis. Within six weeks of approval of said negotiated interlocal agreement by the City and King County, the City will adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B, which ordinance shall provide for an effective date of annexation not later than sixty (60) days after adoption of the ordinance. PASSED BY THE CITY cqimaL OF THE OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this I day of /1!tYVPrr1 i)V _ , 2004. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: 41111ki. z Jan / . Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Annexation Commitment 10/29/04 City of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. / Hagge / . until President Filed with the City Cleric Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number. •Z .' �.a Mir RYA ATTACHMENT 2 "EXHIBIT A" (to resolution committing to initiate an annexation process...) THAT PORTION OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY LYING SOUTH OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: "THAT PORTION OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: . • BOUNDED ON THE NORTH ' BY THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY. CITY LIMITS . OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SOUTH 1887" S TREET INTER - CHANGE; BOUNDED ON . THE EAST BY THE WEST.MARGIN OF ORILLIA ROAD SOUTH; ' BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH.204 STREET, EXTENDED WESTERLY ' TO ITS POINT OF: INTERSECTION WITH THE EXISTING EASTERLY CITY 'LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SEATAC; AND BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EXISTING EASTERLY 'CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SEATAC." .. : ' "EXHIBIT B" (to resolution committing to initiate an annexation process...) THAT PORTION OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY LYING SOUTH OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON:. BOUNDED. ON THE NORTH BY THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY." CITY UMITS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA RUNNING EASTERLY FROM THE VICINITY OF THE• SOUTH 188 STREET INTERCHANGE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE CITY LIMITS WITH THE GREEN RIVER; . BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE GREEN RIVER; BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE • NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 204 STREET; AND • BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE WEST MARGIN OF ORILLIA ROAD SOUTH RUNNING NORTH TO THE INTERSECTION OF ORILUA ROAD SOUTH WITH THE • CITY . UMITS • OF THE CITY OF TUKWLLA IN THE VICINITY OF THE SOUTH 188 STREET INTERCHANGE." b �� ATTACHMENT 3 c: \docume -1 \jack \locals — I \temp \inform l .doc INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: June 1, 2005 Subject: Transportation Element Update Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting ISSUE Begin briefing the City Council and the Planning Commission on information and conclusions from studies supporting the future update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND In 1990, the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A) became effective, requiring the City of Tukwila to develop a comprehensive land use plan (Comp Plan) that would encourage urban growth within the City limits at densities that would accommodate twenty -year growth projections. In December 1995, the Tukwila Tomorrow plan was adopted. In 2004, a state - mandated update to the Comp Plan was adopted, where specific sections were updated to reflect changed conditions, policies or goals, or modifications to the plan to maintain compliance with the state law. The Transportation Element of the plan was modified only in a minor way, as much of the studies necessary to update the plan were still underway. At this time, much of the work is complete or nearing completion, and a full update to the Transportation Element is planned to be presented for adoption by the end of 2005. ANALYSIS At this time, only the background study, and its associated report, are complete: the Transit Plan, which is being distributed with this memorandum. As important as quality transit service is to Tukwila, it is only a small portion of the entire transportation network under study. It is the intention of the Public Works Department to share the future reports as they are completed. Meanwhile, because of the large amount of necessary information to be shared, an overview of the key points and information will be presented during the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 2005. Topics to be discussed include: • GMA Requirements • Level of Service Options • Existing Conditions • Future Conditions • Policy Issues • Concurrency, Impact Fee and Funding c: \docume-1 \jack \locals -1 \temp \inform —l.doc RECOMMENDATION No action will be requested at the joint meeting. Discussion of issues and questions only in preparation for future work sessions and public hearings. ueid anisuayaadwoo aye jo Tuauaa13 uon.2podsueal 6uiTepdfl uo 6uiTeev uoissivauaoo 6uiuueId — punoo Tu!or ■ GMA Requirements ■ Concurrency • Level of Service ■ Existing Conditions ■ 2020 Future Conditions ■ Policy Issues ▪ Summary ■ Questions June 9, 2005 • P • • •- i� amils Why Update the Transportation Element? ■ GMA requires every 10 years ■ Address traffic congestion ■ Provide funding options is Strengthen concurrency /impact fee relationship June 9, 2005 , 4 - .• Nttttec Transportation Element 4`. • - . - - • - Community Vision I City Regional Growth Streets Transit Pedestrians June 9, 2005 Growth • GMA Requirements • Transportation Element must include: • Land use assumptions • Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities • Facilities and services needs • Finance • Intergovernmental coordination efforts • Demand - management strategies June 9, 2005 • • GMA Requirements ■ Identify facility and service needs: Inventory of transportation facilities and services � �" �""` ' 4 � • Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes June 9, 2005 0 P Taw i i n • t7k • it4 is • GMA Requirements Facility and service needs must include: • Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan • Specific actions for bringing into compliance transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard June 9, 2005 •... ., K'._ "` i+r .f • a A. .. , h `, -�° f . d. w,r �i iY"'C� � '► .+" a p', ..= d` 'rY^"�` R.t' i} t Evaluate financial capabilities, including: • Analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources • Multiyear financing plan ➢Should be coordinated with the six -year improvement program June 9, 2005 ILL- • ......, - ...,, ....- .... t' "...,,l'":••'24 - 1 ' „e".....-...., . .. • . , t ' _ -i' :..-:::.,-.. -,. - . ., GMA Requirements • Financing plan must include: • Discussion of hoAKadditional funding will be raised ge-tt4-87-r a-ctv-A-7948 * Balancing Growth with Funding with Transportation Projects (Concurrency) June 9, 2005 ( '4 •'' `^ < • . s. • • What is Concurrency? ■ Tukwila established its transportation concurrency standards to: • Ensure that adequate facilities are available. • Ensure that financial commitments are in place to pay for needs. • Promote orderly growth and development. June 9, 2005 • , • , AWN! • Concurrency - m Transportation facilities built concurrent with development ri Balance a three legged stool June 9, 2005 m Tukwila's current Level of Service Standard is LOS E. m Red Light — Green light June 9, 2005 ■ If development fails to meet the LOS standard, following options are available: • Deny the development • Reduce the scale of the development • Construct improvements needed to bring LOS to the standard • Change the LOS standard June 9, 2005 There are many ways to calculate LOS LOS Measuring Method Volume to capacity ratio Delay Average travel time /travel speed LOS Measuring Period LOS Applied Location PM peak one hour AM peak one hour Averaged PM peak two hours Averaged PM peak three hours Signalized intersections Area /corridor average of intersections Screenlines June 9, 2005 • • .1 4‘ ••• • J •■•• ' * • • " • ' • * •••■•. •••.• ' 7.$ -•- . , , - te• ' Level of Service 4,9 Pri Recommended Method tvv) 0 ';;70/ivti" t ' LOS Measuring Method Delay LOS Measuring Period LOS Applied Location tr PM peak one hour ft -to 4-0 S Signalized intersections (outside TUC) Area/corridor average of intersections (TUC) ;IA kr-P w/IL 1 te' June 9, 2005 SA Fm r p r - •.j'..P %S • .....Li . • AVM 1 - LOS Definition — Delay at Signalized Intersection ▪ LOS D (35 -55 seconds of delay) r,; • Noticeable traffic volumes, increased signal cycle length ▪ LOSE (55 -80 seconds of delay) Current • Long cycle length, high levels of traffic Standard volumes and maximum throughput ■ LOS F (Greater than 80 seconds of delay) • Unstable flows, high levels of delays, driver discomfort and frugrAtigp at• Misritifoo — ' _"'""r oe■ • . • • ' • , r a • . _ • ,; "r""" • it — & t Existing Conditions What does traffic look like today? June 9, 2005 i 'i`i 77.,7 F,[ • • • • -te 4 '1 iMY4'!f y Existing Traffic Conditions ■ Traffic volumes • Daily • AM peak hour • PM peak hour ■ Levels of service • Qualitative measure of traffic congestion June 9, 2005 jut Existing Traffic Conditions • Traffic volumes • Daily • AM peak hour • PM peak hour • Levels of service • Qualitative measure of traffic congestion Existing LOS North of SC Blvd - 518 • Most of intersections operate at LOS "C" or better • No major LOS problem 3 SEATTLE ThCONAA INTERNATIERAL. AIRPORT LAKE WASH ROTOR - Legend: City Limit Part River ▪ Freeway Reamed Signerwed e LOS Delay/See Unsignelized e LOS Delay/See N orth 0 • Most of intersections operate at LOS "D" or better • No major LOS problem Existing LOS TUC • Two LOS "F" intersections Legend: Freeway Freeway Ramp River Trail — - • — • Railroad Note: trat to scale North A \ Valir,_ • Ittr ...1•It'4e 6 it iir, "••■• Ec 6 117 Level of Service Delay Existing Traffic Congested Areas Freeway Rare aweameam River Trail Nob: not le scale • Klickitat Dr./ Southcenter Pkwy/ Strander Blvd: • 61st Ave Bridge /Southcenter Blvd: • 66 "' Ave/ Southcenter Blvd/ W Valley Hwy: Existing Transit Conditions Transit Network Plan • Determine Unmet Needs Examination of ridership patterns • Review of future development patterns Create service and capital recommendations S;t is Scv" cep J �°' fr 14 June 9, 2005 2020 Future Conditions .tom. Two Scenarios Moderate Growth (Baseline) Aggressive growth • Tukwila Urban Center Sub -area Plan • Westfield Mall Expansion • Tukwila Valley South • JC Penney's warehouse site Tukwila Village June 9, 2005 2020 Baseline Network - Outside TUC • Existing facilities • Tukwila Intl Blvd. improvements • Southcenter Blvd (S 154th Street) improvements 2020 Baseline Network —TUC Legend: Freeway Ramp River - - - - - -- Railroad Note: not to scale • Existing facilities • Tukwila Pkwy extension • 168th Street (new) • SC Parkway widening so of S 180th St • Strander Blvd extension June 9, 2005 2020 Traffic Conditions — North f Blv GOLF RAINIER GOLF 0.L." COURSE COUNTRY 112B1 s 112B1 at CLUB 11 • Most of the signalized intersections - acceptable conditions • Several unsignalized intersections - LOS F SEATTLE UCOMA RATIVIIKTIONIAL AIRPORT' • Traffic congestion on SR 99 along western borders • Most of unsignalized intersections Acceptable gavvo Oty Uirtt I 151 I 5 Legend: Part River Freeway Railroad Signalzed fl Los Delay /Sec Unsisnalized e Los Delay/Sec North • Traffic congestion at many key locations would intensify. • LOS F — 16 intersections North et; t F A �� E � _ ■� �� F Legend: Freeway Ramp °- River unsignar¢ed Intersection Level of Service I 1 t Delay I - -- -•-- Railroad Note: not to scale r I oo" ■ ► Roadway Improvement Recommendations Add new si • nal Add new si • nal Add new si • nal Outside the TUC ■ Signalize 3 locations ■ Intersection Improvements • 2 locations ° Most of the future needs for roadway improvements are in the urban core. Roadway Improvement Recommendations - TUC Add One "' Add NB EB Lane Right Tars Lane Widen FB/WB Approaches and Extend NB LeR Man Igoe • Signals • 1 new • 2 timing changes • Bridges • Widen 3 bridges • 1 new grade separation • Street Widening • 8 locations • Streets • 1 new street ( ,p u o� fir. Legend: Freeway Ramp River - - - - - -- Railroad Note: not to scale Widen One Lane in Each Directioa Transit Capital Recommendations Southcenter Mall Stop New bi- directional facility on Andover Park W Tukwila Station New, permanent station ■ Additional Bus Shelters 9 locations Implement Transit Signal Priority 3 corridors S4 > f"/ Work with Metro to improve service June 9, 2005 1 11 e • IMP f 11111111r Transit Service Recommendations • Service Improvements • Weekend service r. • Span of service • Connections to other transit • Connections to other locations June 9, 2005 ' tr To FederaINVPY, lge =MOM rt-126 • rt-128 rt-140 - rt rt-154 rt-155 in Balancing Needs, Demands, and Costs June 9, 2005 - " `".." ••■■•••. • I „„, „„ ..t7r4".11 - • . . • . 4 - Policy Issues & Future Discussions frt se..., • LOS Standard • What Level • How to Calculate • Funding Capital Needs • Estimated at $70 million by 2020 • Impact Fees f"° • Impacts on Growth • Ensure Orderly Growth June 9, 2005 ' • rt t.11 19 7 '' .4" ' ' . • - . '''''' . .=,,,.-.. '" ---- ' 1"1"r rIles04 ' Summary m Return on August 25, 2005 for more discussion ) 0 LA9r ef 'Rd 44 7 j l v ez-e , er" ' • Bite-sized chunks • More details • Adoption by Council by end of 2005 June 9, 2005 Questions? r esin- P- /24 75 , .„� 7:is(. 1.4 OAl 9g 0 I I 7 !s1 June 9, 2005 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director INFORMATION MEMO To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee From: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development Date: May 10, 2005 Subject: 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUE The City of Tukwila received two applications for annual Comprehensive Plan amendments for consideration in 2005. c BACKGROUND This memo will provide background information on the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments and the status of this year's review process. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES The applications are as follows: • Update Transportation Element . Applicant: Tukwila Public Works Department (File #L04 084) — The proposal seeks to update background materials and policies relating to the Transportation Element to incorporate new information, including the Concurrency Ordinance. • Designate Property on Orillia Road as Tukwila South (TVS) Applicant: Rich Buck (File #L04 - 089) – The proposal seeks a Tukwila South designation for approximately one acre located just outside the Tukwila South Master Plan area at 19607 Orillia Road. The property is located in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and is scheduled to be annexed into Tukwila once the "Segale" annexation is completed. Staff recommends deferring this request, and considering it with the remainder of the annexation. SCHEDULE To allow sufficient staff enough time to prepare the Transportation Plan, this year's review and consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendments will take place in the third and fourth quarters of 2005. The City Council and Planning Commission will have a joint briefing on the Transportation Element issues on June 9, 2005. RF Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \CAP INFORMATION MEMO 4.doc 05/18/05 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor -l- 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 FINAL TUKWILA TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN For: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Prepared by: La Perteet Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201 425 - 252 - 77001- 800 - 615 -9900 April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW 3 CHAPTER 2: MARKET RESEARCH 5 2.1 2001RIDER / NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS 5 2.2 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 5 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE ANALYSIS DATA 20 3.1 OVERVIEW 20 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS 20 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS 37 3.4 RoUTE ANALYSIS 38 CHAPTER 4: SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.2 ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 59 CHAPTER 5: TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.1 INTRODUCTION 68 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES 69 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 71 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS 75 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2 -1: TRAVEL MODE DISTRIBUTION 8 TABLE 2 -2: DESTINATION Bus ROUTES 10 TABLE 2 -3: TRIP PURPOSE 11 TABLE 2-4: DESTINATION CITY FOR CURRENT TRIP 11 TABLE 2 -5: DESTINATIONS DIFFICULT TO REACH FROM SOUTH' CENTER 14 TABLE 2 -6: SERVICE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED BY EXISTING PASSENGERS 16 TABLE 3 -1: WEEKDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING THE TUC 21 TABLE 3 -2: SATURDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 TABLE 3 -3: SUNDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 TABLE 4 -1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES 59 TABLE 5 -1: BRT LAYERED SERVICE CONCEPT PROJECTED RIDERSHIP 75 TABLE 5 -2: PROJECTED NUMBER OF BUSES SERVING TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER 76 TABLE 5 -3: EVALUATION OF TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER EXPANSION OPTIONS 77 i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 -1: EXISTING TUKWILA ROUTES 2 FIGURE 2 -1: Focus GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY 6 FIGURE 2 -2: ROUTES PASSENGERS WERE WAITING TO TRANSFER To 9 FIGURE 2 -3: ORIGINS OF PEOPLE WALKING TO Bus STOP 9 FIGURE 2-4: Bus RIDERSHIP FREQUENCY 12 FIGURE 2 -5: NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 13 FIGURE 2 -6: RESPONDENT AGE DISTRIBUTION 13 FIGURE 2 -7: TIMES OF POOR TRANSIT SERVICE TO SOUTHCENTER 15 FIGURE 2 -8: TUKWILA STATION MODE SPLIT FOR DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS 17 FIGURE 2 -9: ORIGINS OF TUKWILA SOUNDER PATRONS 17 FIGURE 2 -10: DESTINATIONS FOR SOUNDER PASSENGERS COMING TO TUKWILA STATION 18 FIGURE 2 -11: RESPONDENT SOUNDER USAGE 19 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 24 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 25 FIGURE 3 -2: TUKWILA MEDICAL FACILITIES 28 FIGURE 3 -3: TUKWILA COMMUNITY AGENCIES 2 9 FIGURE 3-4: TUKWILA SCHOOLS 30 FIGURE 3 -5: TUKWILA MAJOR EMPLOYERS 31 FIGURE 3 -6: TUKWILA WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 33 FIGURE 3 -7: TUC WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 34 FIGURE 3 -8: WEEKDAY DAILY PASSENGER LOADS ON TUC STREETS 35 FIGURE 3 -9: WEEKDAY BOARDING ACTIVITY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -10: ROUTE LEVEL RIDERSHIP BY DAY OF WEEK FOR ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -11: ROUTE LEVEL PRODUCTIVITY BY DAY OF WEEK FOR TUKWILA ROUTES 37 FIGURE 4 -1: TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 FIGURE 4 -2: TEMPORARY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION MAP 66 FIGURE 5 -1: Bus STOPS NECESSITATING A Bus SHELTER 70 FIGURE 5 -2: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE 72 FIGURE 5 -3: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE IN TUKWILA 72 FIGURE 5-4: POTENTIAL I-405 BRT ROUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 2004 PRESENTATION 74 APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP REPORT LIST OF APPENDICES ii Chapter l: Introduction 1.1 PROTECT BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila requested technical assistance to conduct a Transit Plan of existing Sound Transit and King County Metro routes within Tukwila in order to better meet the needs of the communities, residents, employers, and employees. The goal was to improve and maximize usage of all transit service in the area, make service faster, more effective, and help Tukwila meet its development potential. In April 2003, The City of Tukwila initiated the Tukwila Transit Plan, which will be a component of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Three different efforts are being addressed by the Tukwila Transit Plan; supporting the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) effort, and developing a short- and long -range transit vision for the City of Tukwila. 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION ' The City of Tukwila is located approximately 11 miles south of downtown Seattle. According to the 2000 census, the City has a population of approximately 17,000 residents. In 2002, Tukwila had over 34,000 jobs. The Tukwila Transit Plan study area is bounded by the city limits. Land uses in Tukwila are a mixture of several different distinct land uses, ranging from residential, warehouse /distribution, office, to retail development. Northern Tukwila is characterized by industrial and manufacturing land uses. Western and eastern Tukwila have residential neighborhoods. In South Tukwila, the Tukwila Urban Center, is one of the regional retail powerhouses and is characterized by a regional mall, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) as well as the supporting retail development surrounding it. The southern portions of the TUC are primarily characterized by warehouse /warehouse - retail types of land uses. There are virtually no current residents in the TUC study area. King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure 1 - shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The Southcenter Mall is the focal point of transit service within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this location. Of those, Routes 128 and 155 terminate at the Mall and Route 126 terminates at Tukwila Station. The remaining two routes, Route 140 and Route 150, represent the major east - west and north -south routes through Tukwila. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 1 April 2005 Legend aaaar Route 110 era Rode 110 Partial ceae rt•17E mi. a. Route 128 •••••& Rode 140 •••••• Rode 140 Partial mow Route 160 • me ' 154 • Rode 155 oa Rode 100 N emmo Route 163 Route 170 ammo Route 174 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 1 -1 Existing Tukwila Routes April 2005 Routes in the Tukwila include: 110 Tukwila Station — North Renton 126 Rainier Beach — Tukwila Station 128 Southcenter — Admiral District 140 Burien — Renton 150 Auburn — Seattle 154 Auburn — Boeing Industrial 155 Fairwood — Southcenter 160 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 163 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 170 McMicken Heights — Seattle 174 Federal Way — SeaTac — Tukwila — Seattle 941 Star Lake — First Hill Sounder Commuter Rail 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Several objectives guided the Tukwila transit planning effort. Those objectives include: • To ensure the compatibility of system planning with other local and regional long -range planning efforts. • To determine the feasibility of implementing expanded transit services and facilities in Tukwila. • To identify approaches to improving system ridership productivity, service cost effectiveness, and cost efficiency. ti • To determine a future route network which will best meet anticipated demand for services. • To improve system connections, transfer options and facilities. • To identify optimal locations for additional system facilities. 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW This section summarizes the information gained and developed during the development of the Tukwila Transit Plan. That effort has resulted in a determination of the existing conditions under which King County Metro currently operates and a documentation of expectations for future service. The remainder of this report is divided into chapters summarizing the results of a task or group of tasks within the project. A number of differing information sources have been employed in compiling this summary of project findings. Among these sources are: • A review of previously- adopted plans, goals and objectives of Tukwila, King County Metro, and Sound Transit, • Three focus groups, • Intercept surveys of Sounder and King County Metro riders, • Boarding and alighting counts of all King County Metro Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday services, • Observations of King County Metro operations, • Community data and observations, and • Public outreach and participation, including five Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) workshops. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 3 April 2005 The remainder of this document is organized into a number of individual chapters, documenting the findings of the tasks comprising the Tukwila Transit Plan. In general, the organization of this report is as follows: • Chapter 1 gives a short overview of the Tukwila Transit Plan, including a short history and background of the area, and describes the organization of the remainder of the Project Report. • Chapter 2 describes the findings and conclusions developed from the market research, including focus groups and intercept surveys. • Chapter 3 summarizes data analysis utilized to support the project recommendations, including the boarding and alighting counts and on -site observations. • Chapter 4 describes the project recommendations based upon the data analyzed as described in Chapter 3, including individual route alignment and schedule changes, additional services required to help meet system service goals and objectives, regional service expansion and system governance. • Chapter 5 summarizes capital analysis used to support project recommendations for capital facilities and infrastructure within Tukwila, including passenger amenities, shelters, bus stop locations, and transit signal priority. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 4 April 2005 Chapter 2: Market Research The Transit Plan included an assessment of the attitudes and awareness of transit operations of its riders and non - riders. Four different were undertaken to understand the existing market and market potential. The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey was reviewed. In addition, the results of three focus groups, a Southcenter intercept survey, and a Tukwila Station intercept survey are described in this section. Full documentation of the focus group survey may be found in Appendix A. 2.1 2001 RIDER/NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey provides valuable insight into the potential transit market for Tukwila. In particular, the origin and destination of travel to /from Tukwila is indicative of how well today's transit service is meeting the needs of commuters. The 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey shows that the number of King County workers commuting to South King County jobs has increased from 17 to 19 percent between 2000 and 2001. The largest destinations are: • Renton (32 %) • Kent (22 %) • Auburn (10 %) • Sea -Tac (12 %) ti • Federal Way (7 %) • Tukwila/Southcenter (7 %) According to the survey, nearly half of South King County residents work in a South King County destination. Destinations for South King County residents include: • South King County (45 %) • Downtown Seattle (17 %) • North King County (19 %) Some of the key findings of the 2001 Rider/Nonrider survey are that: 1. South King County residents tend to work in South King County. 2. Tukwila/Southcenter is one of the largest destinations for commuters in South King County. 3. Intra -South King County connections are crucial in serving the South King County travel market. 2.2 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Public focus group discussions provided a valuable assessment, of local transit needs and opportunities in Tukwila. Three focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Two rider groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers. The brief focus groups helped to identify commuting patterns, satisfaction with current transit operations, suggestions for service improvements in the study area, and perception of transit's image in Tukwila. All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities in Tukwila. Figure 2 - represents the major themes from those discussions. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 5 April 2005 Figure 2 -1 Focus Group Discussion Summary Route Improvements Desired: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. Scheduling Improvements Desired: • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 AM to 5 PM workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Furthermore, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. Other Improvements Desired: • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income areas). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • Provide additional bus stops around the Southcenter Mall. • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be known to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees and if bus stops are conveniently located in relation to their workplaces. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 6 April 2005 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY Perteet conducted an intercept survey of bus riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14 and 15 2003 between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Intercept surveys are not random sample surveys. Care must be exercised in inferring attitudes and travel patterns of the entire ridership, based on responses to this survey. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed and 41 percent of riders at the Tukwila Station were surveyed. Therefore, the intercept surveys should provide a valuable overview of rider opinions. Key Findings from Existing Passengers • The most common trip purposes are other' (24 %), work (21 %), personal errands (18 %), and shopping (17 %). • Approximately 43 percent of those waiting at the Southcenter bus stop are waiting to transfer. Transfers to Routes 140 and 150 were the most common. Many of those waiting for a transfer went to Southcenter Mall to shop while waiting for a bus. • Forty-three percent walked to the Southcenter bus stop from an area destination. Southcenter Mall was the origin of 70 percent of those walking to the Southcenter stop. • Most riders walk, on average, three minutes or less to and from a bus stop. •• Most riders believe King County Metro is providing the right overall level of service to the Southcenter bus stop. Only 18 percent of respondents indicated there were times when bus service was lacking. Evening span, frequency, and weekend service were identified most often by those unhappy about the level of service. • Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated that Southcenter had bus service to the right destinations. Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most frequently identified destinations without service from Southcenter. • The top improvement priorities for Southcenter riders are improved shelters, benches, and associated capital amenities. • The King County Metro VanShare program is crucial in serving the diverse travel patterns of passengers arriving at the Tukwila Sounder Station each morning. 2.3.1 Southcenter Bus Stop Passenger Survey Analysis Perteet conducted an intercept survey of transit riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14 and 15 2003, between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). Based on King County Metro ridership data, a total of 1,244 passengers boarded buses at this location during the survey. Surveys were given to 341 riders, and 193 were returned, yielding an 1 "Other" is defined as all trip purposes except for work, personal errands, shopping, school K -12, college /university, recreation/social, or medical. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 7 April 2005 Mode Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Transfer 115 42.8% 59.6% Walk 115 42.8% 59.6% Drove 4 1.5% .2.1% Dropped Off 18 ' 6.7% 9.3% Motor Vehicle - Other 12 4.5% 6.2% Bicycle 5 1.9% 2.6% Total 269 100.0% 139.4% overall return rate of 56.6 percent. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed. The results, while self - selected, are statistically valid. Transit Accessibility The survey asked waiting passengers how they arrived at the Southcenter bus stop. Passenger transfers (43 %) and walking (43 %) were the two most common responses (Table 2 -1). After transfers and walking, motor vehicle (12.7 %) was the next most frequent mode choice. Bicycle arrivals account for the remainder of survey respondents. It should be noted that some survey respondents selected more than one travel mode, so the total percentages reported total more than 100 percent. Table 2 -1 Travel Mode Distribution Of the passengers who were transferring, approximately half were to Routes 140 and 150 (Figure 2 -2). Metro Routes 39 and 128 also received a significant portion of the transfers, each with more than 10 percent of the transfer activity observed. Riders reported transferring to a total of six different routes (several passengers indicated transferring to routes that do not serve Tukwila; these routes were not counted in the Transfer Analysis). The average transfer passenger waited more than 17 minutes for a connection, with a maximum transfer time of 45 minutes reported. Thirty percent of the transferring survey respondents indicated that they shopped while waiting for a connection. Approximately three- quarters of transferring riders indicated they engaged in retail activity (75.7 %) while waiting. A large number of respondents also indicated that they walked to the Southcenter bus stop. The average trip time for a pedestrian is three minutes. Responses indicate that the majority (70.3 %) of pedestrians were coming from Southcenter Mall while 2.5 percent identified Target as the origin of their trip (Figure 2 -3). The destinations of the remaining 27 percent were unspecified. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 8 April2005 150 32% Figure 2 -2 Routes Passengers Were Waiting to Transfer To ti 32% Figure 2 -3 Origins of People Walking to Bus Stop 128 13% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 9 April 2005 Bus Route Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total 39 15 8.1% 7.8% 128 28 15.1% 14.5% 140 86 46.2% 44.6% 150 45 24.2% 23.3% 155 11 5.9% 5.7% Total 185 100.0% 96.4% Destination Information The survey counted more persons wa at the Southcenter stop for Route 140 than any other bus route (Table 2 -2). It should be noted that Route 150 actually has the highest ridership of any route at the Southcenter stop. According to the survey responses, Routes 150 and 128 both had significant ridership activity. Two other routes (39 and 155) were also identified, although none received more than 10 percent of the boarding activity. Table 2 -2 Destination Bus Routes The survey asked each person to identify his or her trip destination (Table 2 -3). More respondents indicated "Other" for their destination (24.3 %) than any other destination. Work was the most frequently identified specific destination (21.0 %) with personal errands (18.2 %) and shopping (16.6 %) the only other destination types that received more than 10% of riders, although Kindergarten through High School (6.6 %) and College/University (5.0 %) trips collectively account for 11.6 percent of respondent total trips. Renton was the most frequent destination city for survey respondents (Table 2-4). Seattle and Kent were also frequent destinations at 18.2 percent and 14.7 percent, respectively. Less popular destinations included Burien (7.6 %) and SeaTac (7.1 %), while fewer trips were made to smaller or more remote destinations, such as Enumclaw, Boulevard Park, and White Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 10 April 2005 Destination City Responses Counted Percent Responses Counted of Responses of Total Renton 38 ' 22.4% 19.7% Seattle 31 18.2% 16.0% Kent 25 14.7% 13.0% Tukwila 17 10.0% 8.8% Burien 13 7.6% 6.7% SeaTac 12 7.1% 6.2% Auburn 9 5.3% 4.7% Federal Way 6 3.5% 3.1% Southcenter 4 2.4% 2.1% West Seattle 3 1.8% 1.6% Airport 3 1.8% 1.6% Skyway 3 1.8% 1.6% Tacoma 1 0.6% 0.5% Des Moines 1 0.6% 0.5% White Center 1 0.6% 0.5% Boulevard Park 1 0.6% 0.5% Enumclaw 1 0.6% 0.5% Fairwood 1 0.6 % 0.5% Total 170 100.0% 88.1% Activity Responses Counted Percent - of Responses of Total Work 38 21.0% 19.7% Personal Errands 33 18.2% 17.1% Shopping 30 16.6% 15.5% School K -12 12 6.6% 6.2% College/University 9 5.0% 4.7% , Recreation or Social 8 4.4% 4.1% Medical 7 3.9% 3.6% Other 44 24.3% 22.8% Total 181 100.0% 93.8% Table 2-3 rip Purpose Table 2-4 io City for Current Tri Rider Information More than half of survey respondents ride the bus five or more days per week (Figure 2-4). An additional 18.2 percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus three to four times per week. Overall, the overwhelming majority of respondents were regular bus riders. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 11 April 2005 Less than Weekly Once a Week Two Days a Week Three Days a Week Four Days a Week Five Days a Week Six Days a Week Seven Days a Week Figure 2-4 Bus Ridership Frequency 0% 6% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% The average trip length reported by survey respondents was 33.2 minutes. The longest trip time reported was 99 minutes, while the shortest trip was anticipated to take only 2 minutes. Just more than half (50.2 %) of the trips were anticipated to take between 10 and 30 minutes, while 29.5 percent were anticipated to take longer than 30 minutes. Over half (57 %) of respondents indicated that they did not have a current drivers license and more than two thirds (73.3 %) did not have a vehicle available for to make their trips. Based on the responses, the majority of transit users at the Southcenter Mall stop are captive riders. Only about a quarter of riders are choice riders. Slightly more than a third of those responding to the survey had one vehicle available in their households (Figure 2 -5). About 26 percent of respondents indicated they had no vehicle available. This, along with the fact that over half of respondents do not have a driver's license, confirms that few riders at the Southcenter stop are choice riders. 12 April 2005 6 5 4 3 U 3 0 2 0 Figure 2-5 Number of Vehicles in Household , i t.agirMIDMT=AD=Tian:tr 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Respondents 30% 35% 40% There was a fairly even distribution of ages found in the survey (Figure 2 One third of respondents were under the age of 18. Most age brackets had 10 percent representation. Only 9.3 percent of the respondents were 55 or older. Survey respondents tended to be male (56%). This is an interesting result, as the prototypical rider in King County is a female. Figure 2-6 Respondent Age Distribution 25-34 13% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 13 16-17 13% April 2005 Destination City Percent Responses Counted Of Responses of Total Kirkland 5 21.7% 2.6% Tacoma 3 13.0% 1.6% Des Moines 3 13.0% 1.6% Seattle 3 13.0% 1.6% Renton 2 ' 8.7% 1.0% Burien 2 8.7% 1.0% Auburn 1 4.3% 0.5% Federal Way 1 4.3% 0.5% SeaTac 1 4.3% 0.5% Bothell 1 4.3% 0.5% Lakewood 1 4.3% 0.5% Total 23 100.0% 11.9% Areas for Improvement The survey asked in an open -ended question if there were any destinations that were difficult to reach within and from Tukwila. Multiple survey respondents identified Tukwila destinations at Southcenter Parkway, the other side of Southcenter Malt, Allentown, and the existing transit focal point of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (where this survey was conducted) as difficult to reach. Eleven percent of respondents indicated that cities outside of Tukwila were difficult to access. According to them, Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most difficult cities to reach by bus (Table 2 -5). Neither Tacoma, Des Moines, nor Kirkland has direct bus service from Southcenter. Table 2 -5 Destinations Difficult to Reach from Southcenter The survey asked if there were times of the day that bus service was less poor (Figure 2 -7). Only 18 percent of riders indicated that there is a time when bus service is lacking. Among respondents, riders who indicated that there are times that need improved service, late night service after 11 p.m. and evening service after 6 p.m. were the most frequent responses. Weekend and all -day service improvements were identified as potential improvements as well. From the results of the survey, it appears that existing patrons are satisfied with the level of peak hour service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 14 April 2005 Late Night Evening Weekends c F- All Day E Mid Day Afternoon 0% Figure 2 -7 Times of Poor Transit Service to Southcenter 5% 10% 15% 20% Percent of Respondents 25% 30% 35% The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of benches or other seating space at transit stops, with 25 percent of all riders identifying it as an improvement (Table 2 In addition, bus shelters were also identified by an additional 16 percent of respondents for a total of slightly over 40 percent of respondents indicating that capital improvements are desired improvements. Frequency, span of service, and weekend service were much less frequently indicated as an improvement. Usually, in rider surveys, frequency tends to be the most requested improvement desired. The results of the survey confirm that the Southcenter stop capital facilities are less than optimal. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 15 April 2005 Improvement Percent Responses Counted of Responses of Total Seating Space/Benches 12 24.5% 6.2% Shelter 8 16.3% 4.1% More Frequency 4 8.2% 2.1% Sundays 3 6.1% 1.6% Later Hours 3 6.1% 1.6% Transfer Center 3 6.1% 1.6% Trash Control 3 6.1% 1.6% Pay Phones 2 4.1% 1.0% On Time 2 4.1% 1.0% Post Schedule 2 4.1% 1.0% Everything New . 2 4.1% 1.0% New Paint 1 2.0% 0.5% Smoking Area 1 2.0% 0.5% Park and Ride Lots 1 2.0% 0.5% Pedestrian Crossing Light 1 2.0% 0.5% Other 1 2.0% 0.5% Total 49 100.0% 25.4% Table 2 -6 Service and Capital Improvements Desired by Existing Passengers 2.3.2 Longacres Passenger Survey Analysis An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Sounder Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Of the 108 passengers who accessed Sounder at Tukwila Station on May 14, 44 responded to the survey; an effective response rate of 41 percent. It should be noted that care should be given in drawing conclusions from this survey, as the sample size is only 44 respondents. Transit Accessibility Ninety percent of all respondents were traveling from points south of Tukwila to Tukwila Station. Upon arriving at Tukwila Station, the majority of respondents traveled to their destination via vehicles parked at the park- and -ride (Figure 2 -8), i.e., VanShare vehicles. King County Metro operates a VanShare program, which allows 3 or more commuters to share a vanpool vehicle from a park- and -ride to their destination. There were 20 VanShare vehicles parked at the Tukwila Station prior to the arrival of the first train. Only 8 percent of respondents walked to Tukwila Station. The low number of pedestrians accessing the station is no surprise given the location and the distances and walking environment to the closest places of employment. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 16 April 2005 Figure 2 -8 Tukwila Station Mode Split for Disembarking Passengers (how passengers get to their destinations from Tukwila Station) Walk 896 Origin Information The majority of people accessing the Tukwila Station are headed to /from points south, such as Auburn, Tacoma, and Puyallup (Figure 2 -9). Only a small percentage of riders are heading north on Sounder. According to May 2003 Sound Transit passenger counts, approximately 100 passengers arrive in Tukwila on Sounder and 20 depart on Sounder in the morning peak. Tukwila Station is the only Sounder station other than downtown Seattle that is primarily a destination. Figure 2 -9 Origins of Tukwila Sounder Patrons Commuters between Tukwila/Renton to/from North 10% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 17 Commuters between Tukwila/Renton to/from South 90% April 2005 Destination Information Upon arriving in Tukwila, passengers fairly evenly distribute themselves with destinations in Renton, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 2 -10). SeaTac (and the Airport) and Tukwila were the most frequently identified destinations from the Sounder Station: The destination pattern shows the importance of the VanShare program, as regular transit service would be hard pressed to serve this variety of destinations well. Figure 2 -10 Destinations for Sounder Passengers Coming to Tukwila Station Final Tukwila Transit Plan Rider Information Work was identified as the primary trip purpose for 95 percent of all respondents, which is to be expected given the limited train schedule. The majority of passengers surveyed indicated that they rode Sounder five days a week (Figure 2 -11). The number of occasional riders was low. This is not surprising, due to the large dependence on VanShare to get to destinations; the use of VanShare requires an on -going commitment. 1 18 April 2005 Five times a week Four times a week Three times a week Twice a week Once a week 0% 10% Figure 2 -11 Respondent Sounder Usage 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nearly all of surveyed riders (98 %) indicated that they have a current drivers license. Also, nearly all surveyed riders (95 %) had a vehicle available to make this trip. Clearly, the passengers using Sounder to Tukwila Station are overwhelmingly choice riders. The age range of riders was concentrated among the usual employee profile. There were virtually no elderly, pre -teen, or late teen riders. Almost all riders were aged 25 -34 (11 %) and 35 -55 (84 %). Just over half of riders were men (52%). Areas for Improvement The sample size is too small to statistically validate the areas for potential improvement. However, the responses do give a clue as to potential connections and potential improvements. Survey respondents identified Southcenter, Interurban Avenue, the King County Metro South Base, and Group Health on East Marginal Way as difficult to reach. There were no instances of multiple areas being identified, although South Base and Group Health are immediately adjacent to each other. ' The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of shelters at transit stops. Three people (8 %) identified those as an improvement. Specific locations were at the Sounder Station and Route 124 bus stop. Other requests included connection to the southbound Route 154 and better connections with Route 124. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 19 April 2005 3.1 OVERVIEW This chapter summarizes the analysis of existing operations of transit routes in preparation for the development of route and schedule modification options to be described in Chapter 4. Among the subjects covered in this document are: • Ridership by system and individual route; • Service levels by system and individual route; • Ridership productivity analysis; • Service efficiency calculations; and • Existing Service Providers Summary. 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS The analysis of Tukwila routes is based upon information provided by. King County Metro staff. Data concerning the service span, service frequency, hours and miles of service provided, the hourly cost of services and ridership has been collected from a number of sources and consolidated into a number of tables and graphics which are displayed in this section. ti 3.2.1 Service Provided King County Metro provides bus service throughout Tukwila with fourteen different routes. The characteristics of each route are discussed in this section. Span of Service in Tukwila For good availability of service, users must have both an adequate span and frequency of service options. Tables 3 - 1, 3 - 2, and 3 -3 provide an overview of King County Metro's service by time period for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. In these tables, peak hour service is defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., early evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and late evening service is from 9 p.m. to midnight. It is clear that significant amounts of service are concentrated on peak hours and on the regional routes. Because of the strong peak orientation, transit is not regarded as a viable option for many types of trips; for example, major destinations such as the Southcenter Mall have high trip propensities on weekends and evenings, precisely when most local service no longer operates. In the interest of encouraging transit usage among both employees and customers of this facility, • public transit services would need to operate late enough to serve these later hours of operation. Final Tukwila Transit Plan Chapter 3: Service Analysis Data 20 April 2005 Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 110 Tukwila Station; Renton Boeing plant, PACCAR 30 126 Tukwila Station, Southcenter, Gateway Corporate Center, Rainier Beach 30 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 15 30 30 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 15 30 30 60 154 Federal Center South, Duwamish Boeing, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Kent P &R, Auburn 60 160 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Glencarin, Kent East Hill 30 163 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Valley Medical Center, Kent East Hill 30 170 McMicken Heights — Boeing — Seattle 30 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 10 - 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 941 Providence Medical Center, Harborview, Swedish, Virginia Mason, Tukwila P &R, Star Lake P &R, Kent -Des Moines P &R 30 Table 3 -1 Weekday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Final Tukwila Transit Plan 21 April 2005 Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 60 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 60 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 30 60 174 Downtown Seattle, DuwamishBoeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way ,30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 60 60 60 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 ! 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 60 60 174 Downtown Seattle, DuwamishBoeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Table 3 -2 Saturday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Table 3 - Sunday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Final Tukwila Transit Plan 22 April 2005 Service Frequency Access to the transit network must also take account of the frequency of service being provided. As reflected in Figure 3 -1, much of the service in Tukwila, particularly during evenings, operates at average headways in excess of 30 minutes. Based on national transit experience, choice riders can reasonably be expected to use service that operates every 30 minutes or better. Service operating at frequencies longer than every 30 minutes tends to attract only those riders with few other transportation choices. In Figure 3 -1, Peak hour service is defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. In general, service is most frequent during peak commuter times. However, there is one area in particular without adequate service levels; Southcenter Parkway. On Saturday, route coverage deteriorates as large areas within Tukwila have substandard service. On Sunday evenings, only transit service on International Boulevard operates at frequencies that typically attract choice riders. Route Coverage Overall route coverage, i.e., having a bus route within a quarter mile of any location within Tukwila, is quite good during peak hours. Most major streets and destinations have a bus route traveling past it on weekdays; the big exceptions are shown in Figure 3 -2, Tukwila Hill and Duwamish/Allentown (both of which lost bus service September 2004). However, as demonstrated in the "Service Frequency" section, when only routes with adequate service frequencies are accounted for, the actual route coverage within Tukwila diminishes, particularly during weekends and evenings. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 23 April 2005 Weekday Saturday Sunday Figure 3 -1 Areas in Tukwila Lacking 30- Minute Service Peak Peak Peak a 30 Minute Service within City of Tukwila Midday Midday Midday ® City of Tukwila Areas Not Covered by 30 Minute Service Evening Evening Evening Outside City of Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 24 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 3 -2 Neighborhoods Lacking Bus Service 25 April 2005 Interconnectivity to Tukwila Destinations When examined at a route level, interconnectivity between major Tukwila destinations is not well coordinated. The following examples illustrate the lack of a coordinated intra- Tukwila route network. Tukwila Station Tukwila Station is served by both Sounder and AMTRAK services. Connecting bus service to Tukwila Station is provided during peak hours only by three routes. Currently, there is no midday service to Tukwila Station even though AMTRAK trains stop there during those times. During peak hours, there is no direct service from Tukwila Station to the employment areas in North Tukwila. Route 126 provides service between Tukwila Station and the large employment areas along E. Marginal Way; however, the route is so indirect that few Sounder patrons are likely to utilize the route to get between Tukwila Station and North Tukwila. Tukwila Urban Center/Southcenter The Tukwila Urban Center /Southcenter area is one of the commercial powerhouses in King County. Its entertainment and retail activity is expanding further to the south along Southcenter Parkway. Despite the large amount of retail activity, bus service tends to focus on the traditional commuting times, which is more suited for office workers than those working in the service/retail sector. Frequent evening service is restricted to Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding Southcenter Mall. With such limited access, the TUC is not effectively served by transit from most areas of the City. Weekend service is concentrated along Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall. Service exists on Strander Boulevard, but the span and frequency are such that few choice riders would choose the service. The TUC is one of the highest ridership areas in South King County for existing transit services. The ridership in the TUC is all -day, not necessarily focused on peaks, as the retail and service activities are all -day destinations. In order to tap into focused land use areas that will generate ridership throughout the day, and not just during peaks like park - and -ride lots, High Capacity Transit along the I-405 corridor should serve the TUC. Service exists on Southcenter Parkway, but its span (no evening or Sunday service) and frequency (hourly) are such that few choice riders would use the service. The TUC has direct service to all major South King County destinations except for Federal Way. According to the King County 2001 Metro Rider/Nonrider Survey, Federal Way is identified as being the destination for 7 percent of all commuters heading to South King County; no service between Tukwila and Federal Way is a gap. 5.154`h Street LINK Station Site The S. 154 Street LINK Station site is one of the future transit hubs within the city. The existing bus route structure does not effectively provide service to this site, although it should be noted that the route structure will likely change to address some of the connectivity issues. For example, there is no direct bus connection between the TUC and the S. 154 Street LINK Station. There is also no connection to the Burien Urban Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 26 April 2005 Also, adjacent Tukwila neighborhoods are not provided with feeder service to the LINK Station, forcing potential patrons to use scarce park -and -ride stalls. Service to Tukwila Destinations Tukwila has a unique geographic configuration and zoning. The northern part of the city is characterized by industrial areas. The major commercial center surrounding the Southcenter Mall is separated from all residential development by either I -5, I-405, or the BNSF railroad. Residential development occurs predominantly in the areas west of I -5 and on Tukwila Hill, which is bounded by I-405, I -5, and Interurban Boulevard. Transit service to major destinations such as medical facilities, human service agencies, schools, and major employers are discussed below. Medical Facilities Tukwila has only one major medical facility within city limits, Highline Community Hospital (Figure 3 -3). It should be noted that Group Health, a major employer, has administrative offices in Tukwila, not a healthcare facility. Highline Community Hospital is located on the western edge of the City, and there are several ancillary medical businesses surrounding it. Route 128 provides all -day weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service to Highline Community Hospital. Community Agencies Several community resources are located throughout Tukwila (Figure 3-4). Several serve markets greater than just Tukwila. For instance, the King County Housing Authority has one of its offices just north of I -5 on 65 Avenue S. For the most part, community agencies are well served by frequent service. There are several exceptions, however. Neither the Tukwila Library nor the Tukwila Community Center are currently served by transit. Schools Tukwila has three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school (Figure 3- 5). In general, elementary schools are not considered a good transit market. Middle and high schools, however, traditionally have been very good transit markets. Foster High School and Showalter Middle School are both served by Route 128, which operates at 30- minute frequencies throughout the day. Route 128, while serving the schools directly, only serves a limited number of residences in Tukwila. Students, particularly those in East Tukwila on Tukwila Hill, have long walks in order to access Route 128. Major Employers There are 22 major employers (100 plus employees) in Tukwila. In addition, the Tukwila Urban Center has several buildings and developments that house more than 100 employees in separate companies. Figure 3-6 shows the location of major employers in Tukwila. Virtually all major employers are adjacent to an existing bus route. However, some of these routes do not operate throughout the day, and therefore provide only limited mobility to employers. In particular, Group Health on E. Marginal Way and the Boeing Employee Credit Union (Gateway Center) are underserved considering the number of employees. It should be noted that King County Metro has marked buses heading from downtown Seattle to South Base as serving Group Health. During non- peak hours, Gateway Center employees must walk 3 /4 of a mile in a pedestrian hostile environment to the Interurban Park - and -Ride, which is served by all -day service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 27 April 2005 Figure 3-3 Tukwila Medical Facilities Final Tukwila Transit Plan 28 April 2005 Figure 3-4 Tukwila Community Agencies Final Tukwila Transit Plan 29 April 2005 Figure 3 -5 Tukwila Schools Final Tukwila Transit Plan 30 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 3-6 Tukwila Major Employers 31 April 2005 3.2.2 Existing Tukwila Ridership Patterns The Fall 2002 count of transit riders within Tukwila shows an average daily ridership of approximately 9,100 boardings and alightings. The most activity (boardings /alightings) occurs at Southcenter Mall, where 2,200 daily weekday riders use the transit stop at the intersection of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The Interurban Park- and -Ride has an average of 1,850 daily boarding and alighting passengers. Other high ridership stops are located at the intersection of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard, which has 525 daily riders and at International Boulevard and S. 144 Street. Figure 3 -7 shows the highest ridership stops throughout Tukwila. A large proportion of ridership activity takes place within the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 3 - shows actual bus stop level ridership within the Urban Center. The focus of service is reflected in the ridership patterns. Southcenter Parkway ridership is virtually insignificant. Bus routes traversing the TUC carry significant passenger loads. Figure 3 -9 shows the passenger loads on routes heading through the TUC. The heaviest ridership corridors correspond to the alignment of Route 150 and Route 140. The passenger load data confirms that transit passengers are attracted to the TUC from all directions, i.e., loads are consistent, and ridership activity at individual stops is high. As shown in Figure 3 - 10, Routes 128, 140, 150, and 174 are some of the routes with the highest ridership activity within the City of Tukwila. It should be noted that only Route 150 serves a park -and -ride within Tukwila; this high level of ridership is accessing bus service by walking to bus stops, not driving. Figure 3 - 11 shows the total ridership levels by day for bus routes traveling through Tukwila. Ridership is highest on weekdays, and progressively less for Saturdays and Sundays. One interesting element from Figure 3 -11 is that Saturday ridership on Route 140 is only 45 percent less than weekday ridership even though there is approximately two thirds less service; there is latent demand for Saturday service that is unmet on Route 140. One of the methods to measure the productivity and efficiency of bus routes is to calculate the number of passengers that are carried by platform hour Figure 3 - 12 details the productivity of each route that operates through Tukwila. Route 174 is the most productive route in Tukwila. For these routes serving the TUC, Routes 128, 140, and 150 are the most productive: Route 150 is the most productive weekday and Sunday route and Route 140 is most productive Saturday route. 2 Ridership numbers in this section are based on King County Metro Fall 2002 data. They also include two routes that no longer serve Tukwila. In September 2004, as part of a South King County service change, the resources for Routes 39 and 124 were reallocated to create Route 126. Due to the recent nature of this change, no ridership information is available for the new Route 126. 3 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 32 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 3-7 Tukwila Weekday Daily Ridership Map Legend: 0 Total Daily Activity *Urban Center Subarea =I Tukwila City Limits Park and Ride 33 April 2005 Figure 3-8 TUC Weekday Daily Ridership Map 7 T Final Tukwila Transit Plan 34 Legend: • Total Daily Activity � � 'Urban Center Subarea g Park and Ride 0 Tukwila City Limits April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 35 Figure 3 -9 Weekda Dail Passen er Loads on TUC Streets April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 3 -10 Weekday Boarding Activity within the City of Tukwila 1,400 1,200 1,000 to 0 800 600 400 200 0 1,258 --#37 ® 124 129 22 I 52 25 5 Pm" .., 2 1 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route Figure 3 -11 Route Level Ridership by Day of Week for Routes Serving Tukwila 7,000 6,000 a 5,000 s 'a 4,000 it 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route o Weekday ® Saturday o Sunday 36 April 2005 35.0 30.0 L. 25.0 0 • 10.0 5.0 Figure 3 -12 Route Level Productivity by Day of Week for Tukwila Routes o O D 3 o 'b 0 'D tx o ►. N 1 ►.O °■‘ '■‘ P■‘ d 01` P Route to Weekday o Saturday ❑ Sunday 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS Several service themes become apparent when examining each route on a system level and at an individual level. The key fmdings are described below. • Weekend Service is Inadequate in the TUC Weekend car traffic to the TUC is as high, and in some cases/locations is higher than weekday traffic. However, several bus routes serving the TUC do not operate during weekends (e.g., Route 155 does not operate on Sundays), or they operate much less frequently (e.g., Route 140 only operates hourly on weekends). The Saturday ridership levels on Route 140, in particular, clearly show demand for more service. Significant markets are being ignored as a result of not having sufficient weekend service. • Span of Service in the TUC is Inadequate The span of service along International Boulevard is excellent. However, the retail and entertainment opportunities in the TUC are not well served late at night by transit service. Most routes operate infrequently, if at all during evenings and Sundays. • Transit Connections to Tukwila Station are Poor Routes serving Tukwila Station operate only during the peaks. There is no connecting service for midday AMTRAK service. In addition, the peak -only orientation and poor signage results in confusion whether there actually is connecting bus service. There is no direct connecting service to the North Tukwila employment areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 37 April 2005 • Trips Within the TUC are not Well Served by Transit Based on ridership data and the on -board surveys, it appears that few people are using transit to travel within the TUC. Low frequency, a lack of identity and feat of getting on the wrong bus are probable roots of this behavior. An examination of car traffic patterns within the TUC, however, reveals that many cars are making trips internal to the TUC, as people travel from one business to the next. These trips are rarely made on transit. • Bus Connections to S. 154` Street LINK Station are Limited According to Sound Transit, the Tukwila LINK light rail station at 154` Street will open in 2009. There is currently no bus route that directly connects the proposed LINK station to the TUC or to Burien. Neighborhood feeder service has not been planned, either. Direct connecting service is crucial to make LINK an integral part of providing access to the TUC. Neighborhood feeder routes are necessary to reduce demand for scarce parking stalls at the S. 154 Street Station. • 1 -405 Bus Rapid Transit Stop in TUC is Necessary The I Plan recommended that all -day, high -speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. The current planning efforts show an option for service to Tukwila Station and the TUC. Initial ridership projections for the I-405 BRT are approximately 4,500 daily passengers by 2014. Given that there are close to 2,000 daily boardings at the stops immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall today, it is apparent that a major, existing all -day transit destination was being bypassed by the proposed I BRT. Currently, the ridership potential for 1-405 BRT service to the TUC is being examined as a part of the I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Study. • No Direct Connections from the TUC to Federal Way The TUC has direct bus service from Renton, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, SeaTac, and Burien, all of which have large concentrations of transit service. The one major South King County location that does not have direct service to the TUC is Federal Way, even though large amounts of service between Seattle and Federal Way pass by the TUC on I -5, and Federal Way and Tukwila are both major South King County destinations. The new Federal Way Transit Center and the revitalized Federal Way downtown area are both catalysts for potential new service connecting Tukwila and Federal Way. 3.4 ROUTE ANALYSIS King County Metro operates thirteen different bus routes and Sound Transit operates one commuter rail line within the TUC. In addition, a private provider, Seattle Southside Express, runs regularly scheduled service between Tukwila hotels, Southcenter Mall, and downtown Seattle. Hotel shuttles offer non - scheduled service between hotels and Sea -Tac Airport, but due to the proprietary nature of this service, it is not summarized in;this section. Each route has unique operating characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The operating characteristics of each route operating within Tukwila were examined. Each route includes a description and a problem statement which outlines any issues with the route. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 38 April 2005 Route 39 Tukwila — Rainier — Seward Park = Downtown Seattle Route Description Route 39 connects downtown Seattle with Beacon Hill, Rainier, Seward Park, Rainier Beach, and the Southcenter Mall. The only stop within Tukwila was at the Southcenter Mall. Despite only having one stop, it was the sixth highest ridership route in Tukwila. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 39 to serve Tukwila were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section. Route 39 continues to operate in Seattle, but no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement The productivity of the segment to Tukwila was low. Thirty-eight trips traveled to Southcenter, and carried 243 passengers, for an average of 6.4 passengers per trip. Likewise, because the route operates on the freeway, it did not have opportunities to increase access by increasing the number of stops. The majority of ridership to Tukwila accessed the route in Rainier Beach. Route 39 did not extend to the Southcenter Mall during the a.m. peak or evenings. This severely limited its potential to serve non -retail oriented job sites within Tukwila. Service ending prior to 7:00 p.m. also limits the amount of retail employment that can be attracted to this route. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour' 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Trips 1,117 13.0 16.4 30 — pm only 30 N/A 30 60 Service Span (to Tukwila) Weekday 9:30A to 6:00P Saturday 10:30A to 6:00P Sunday 11:OOA to 6:00P 85.7 68 4 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 39 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Route 110 North Renton — Renton Transit Center — Route Description Route 110 provides peak hour service that connects the high density employment sites through Renton. Specific destinations include Renton Boeing Plant, Paccar, the Renton Transit Center, employment areas along N. 7 and during peak times only, the Tukwila Sounder Station. It operates weekday peaks only. Only three morning and three afternoon trips serve the Tukwila Sounder Station. Problem Statement Route 110 has low productivity, which is not surprising given its duplicate routing (with Route 140) and the fact that it only operates during peak hours. Route 110 has extensive duplication with Route 140, which operates more frequently and all day. In addition, Route 110 does not fully maximize its connectivity opportunities with the Sounder trains, particularly during the a.m. peak. The schedule is designed only to take people from the train to Renton sites in the morning, and not vice versa. All layover for the route is at the north end of the route, with none occurring at the Sounder Station. Boeing — Sounder Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 79 5.1 2.8 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6:10A to 9:OOA 2:30P to 6:OOP N/A N/A 15.3 28 MAP LEGEND Sift* A A .bw. Masn.drAl.d bTukel. CNr.r.a.r Red Station • THE PONT Met .Sn d:Pon ..d bao tltaAY sewer= - IRdat IMbpae*re ao4ver1.611.Ale bus erhN and PplblK F `Q THE POM/IPSNBFER PORK aerdtlAa I MC) =IiCN l.ttro RCN TK. lima alb RENTON s 2nd it 3 tam 15W 16mse NA Ej . RRMRA 1 MOP t ri 0 Ungar-pis Wy SOUTHWEST RENTON NORTH RENTON p s+r . a 0 Z N NhIt 0 40 April 2005 Route 124 Southcenter — North Tukwila — Gateway — Route Description Route 124 connected the Southcenter Mall with City Hall, the Gateway office complex, several Tukwila neighborhoods, and the E. Marginal Way employment areas. This was the only route that was wholly within the City of Tukwila. It operated only during peaks and consisted of a huge loop on its northern end. It was one of the weakest routes in Tukwila, with only 41 boardings. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 124 were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section; Route 124 has been deleted — it no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 124's productivity was low. It was one of the worst performing routes in Tukwila. The route operated on several neighborhood streets that have little ridership, yet slowed the route down. The majority of ridership on the route was oriented toward the Southcenter Mall. Route 124 was the only route to provide direct service to the office complex on Gateway Drive. Route 124 had several severe deficiencies. First, the terminal loop at the end of the route provided coverage, yet anyone along the route had to endure out -of- direction travel. The routing on Tukwila Hill between Southcenter and the Interurban Park- and -Ride traveled through a low- medium density neighborhood. Ridership was poor and the routing was time- consuming. Finally, the peak - only and hourly nature of the route combined to prevent all but captive riders from using this route. Final Tukwila Transit Plan E. Marginal Way Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday A 41 6.0 5.1 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6:30A to 9:OOA 3:30P — 6:45P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Trips 6.8 No Route Map is available for this route 7 41 April 2005 Route 126 Tukwila Station — Southcenter — Gateway — E. Route Description . Route 126 is a new route that began service in September 2004. It replaces service and connections formerly provided by Routes 39 and 124. The route connects Tukwila Station with Southcenter Mall and the residential areas in West Tukwila, as well as providing service to employment centers along E. Marginal Way and the Gateway Center. Route 126 also connects the Tukwila employment centers with the population centers around Rainier Beach. Route 126 operates during peak hours only. Problem Statement Route 126 is a new route, so no ridership productivity data are available. Route 126 schedules are designed to provide feeder service for Sounder patrons from South King County wishing to access Tukwila job centers. Route 126 does not provide service to the proposed urban center along International Boulevard or the future S. 154 LINK Station. In one year, after ridership data are available, the impacts of bypassing these ridership generators will be known. Marginal Way — Rainier Beach Route Statistics Riders 2004 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday or Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2004 Plat. Hours 2004 Trips No Data No Data No Data 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6:OOA to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P N/A N/A 22.3 22 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 42 April 2005 Route Description Route Statistics Route 128 connects the Southcenter Mall with West Seattle. Within Tukwila, it provides service to Highline Community Hospital, International Boulevard, Foster High School, and the neighborhoods adjacent to Macadam Road. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fourth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 128 has high productivity and the ridership has been growing. The route's ridership is encouraging especially considering that it does not serve downtown Seattle. The route traverses several areas that have excellent transit demographics. The highest ridership p stops are at the Southcenter Mall, S. 144 Street/Tukwila International Boulevard, White Center transfer point, South Seattle Community College, and along California Avenue SW in West Seattle. This is a good route. Route 128 Southcenter — White Center West Seattle Route 128 ends at the Southcenter Mall and does not connect to the Tukwila Sounder Station. This is a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. In addition, Route 128 has large amounts of layover scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. On weekdays, 30 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. Likewise, on Sundays 44 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. This compares poorly with the national industry standard of 15 percent or less. Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 2,611 26.1 39.0 30 30 30 30 60 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 100.2 67 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 43 April 2005 Route 140 Renton - Tukwila- SeaTac- Burien Route Description Route 140 provides all -day service connecting Renton, Tukwila, Southcenter, Sea -Tac Airport, and Burien. Within Tukwila, Route 140 serves the Sounder Station, Southcenter Mall, and McMicken Heights. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fifth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 140 has high productivity. The highest ridership stops are at the Renton Transit Center, South Renton Park - and -Ride, Southcenter Mall, Sea -Tac Airport, and the Burien Transit Center. This is one of the few east -west routes that connects with several higher frequency north -west routes. Route 140 does not serve Sounder Station on all trips. This leads to the perception that King County Metro does not serve the commuter rail station. Route 140 travels through several high - congestion areas, including the airport, Strander Boulevard, and the area around West Valley Highway /Grady Way, all of which impact on -time performance. Despite traveling through congested areas, Route 140 has large amounts of layover, particularly during the midday and evening. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak, Route 140 has approximately 20 minutes of layover at each end. During the midday and evening, the average layover at each route end is approximately 35 minutes. It is highly unusual and unlikely that on -time performance issues demand longer layover times during the midday than during the peak; the midday layover times are high. In addition, on Saturdays and Sundays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Route 140 spends more than half of its resources in layover. In other words, drivers drive the route one -way for 55 minutes and then sit for 60 minutes prior to their next trip. King County Metro should examine its layover requirements to determine if changes in operating practices can fund 30- minute Saturday service between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Route 140. It appears that this is possible. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 44 Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 2,437 19.9 28.0 15 30 60 60 60 5:30A to 10:OOP 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 122.5 87 April 2005 Route 150 Seattle — Tukwila - Southcenter — Kent - Auburn Route Description Route 150 provides all -day service connecting downtown Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn. Within Tukwila, Route 150 serves the Interurban Park- and -Ride, City Hall, and the Southcenter Mall. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila, with almost double the boardings of any other route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 150 has excellent productivity, and within Tukwila, an almost even distribution of passengers heading north - and southbound. The highest ridership stops are in downtown Seattle, the Interurban Park -and- Ride, Southcenter Mall, Kent Transit Center, and Auburn Sounder Station. Route 150 is an excellent route. According to King County Metro, Route 150 has severe on -time performance issues which are partly caused by traveling on congested streets and by indirect routing. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 5,493 2003 per Plat. Hour 28.1 2003 per Trip 51.3 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 195.3 2003 Weekday Trips 107 1 TUKWILA s BOUTHCENTER /..• &MN. .wl A MAM • 0 Mk. M.o... f .r 01.1.0M.1101•• MOM WAY W. •AHOY A Yaw. Mall • 18110 •tws 1 URA 1- a.. 5:OOA to 2:26A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A • KM Ta INN IN KENT tw. w.. AUBURN Mw•. 11M M. 15 30 30 30 30 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 45 April 2005 Route 154 Federal Center South — Boeing — Tukwila — Kent — Auburn Route Description Route Statistics Route 154 provides peak directional service from Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila to industrial employment sites south of downtown Seattle. There are only two trips in the morning to Seattle and two afternoon trips back to Auburn. This is one of the lowest ridership routes within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 154 has poor productivity considering it is a direct, peak only route. It carries only 12.2 passengers per platform hour. In addition, a quarter of the ridership on this route travel on the segment between Auburn and Tukwila, where all destinations are duplicated by Route 150. The highest ridership stops are at the Kent Transit Center, Tukwila Sounder Station, and the Boeing stops on Marginal Way. Route 154 duplicates the Route 150 alignment over 50 percent of its route length. In the southbound trips, the route does not deviate into Tukwila Station, which reduces the ability to connect with trains and potential passengers from Pierce County. Riders 2003 Daily 99 2003 per Plat. Hour 12.2 2003 per Trip 24.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 2 morning NB trips Peak 2 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday 5:00A to 8:00A 2:30P to 6:50P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips • MMM souls �� 2ii�i. T;l •w+... AY • YONT ECNO10lOM• 1YY BOEING INDUSTRIAL • F �OIp OC A 1Y N AUBURN ••••■•• Or MI v❑ •TA 11W f w. AIM S. MI 11•61• •CMIM•OI MU•OM MO• •imw TUKWILA 8.1 4 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 46 April 2005 Route Description Route 155 provides all -day weekday and Saturday service between the East Kent area and the commercial and employment areas in Tukwila. It is the only route that operates on Southcenter Parkway within Tukwila. Service is hourly throughout weekdays and Saturdays. This is the sixth highest ridership route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 155 productivity is below average. The ridership is oriented to Southcenter. Ridership along Southcenter Parkway is relatively low. The highest ridership stops are at the Southcenter Mall and Valley Medical Center. Route 155 frequencies are inadequate to provide more than basic coverage along the route. Choice riders tend not to use routes that operate at 60- minute frequencies. Route 155 also has a large terminal loop combined with a long layover in the middle, which is detrimental to ridership development. On -time performance has been problematic for Route 155 due to heavy and unpredictable congestion. Route 155 does not connect with Tukwila Station, so it is unable to act as a potential Sounder Feeder Route from the Kent East hill. cormter:trtet SALL 0 Btrander Blvd a 11111th St Tukwlla Pkwy Baker Blvd W d A N MAP LEGEND oin■i■ Makes MI regular stops. • TIME POINT: Street intersection used br lime schedule reference point Tsted at the top of Ow columns b estimate bus arrival and tip fines. p tJ TRANSFER POINT: Rook irdersecton for transferring b the coimectrg route or routes Malted. a THE POINT/TRANSFER POINT combined. ❑ LANDMARK :A significant geographical reference point F CENTER a c ubes ea Final Tukwila Transit Plan Route 155 Southcenter —180 Petrovitsky — Fairwood 47 Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 388 13.7 14.4 60 60 N/A 60 N/A 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 28.4 27 April 2005 Route 160 Seattle — Interurban Park -and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 160 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park- and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 160 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 160 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Loads average 17 passengers per bus prior to the Interurban Park - and -Ride and 33 passengers between the Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Route 160 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 163 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. For instance, on Route 160, there are 120 passengers on 4 trips in the morning and 70 passengers on 3 trips in the afternoon. Route 160 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 192 2003 per Plat. Hour 15.7 2003 per Trip 27.4 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 4 morning NB trips 3 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips N. M IMED ci i. TUVAMA I 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A .E NOM Dr MINOR MnIel S NORTH aro MERIDIAN n MOW 12.2 GLENOARIN sErr. 7 �. 1 in. . VA. w./Mlr Final Tukwila Transit Plan 48 April 2005 Route 163 Seattle - Interurban Park- and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 163 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park- and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 163 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement When compared to other Tukwila routes, Route 163 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Route 163 is a stronger route than Route 160. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Route 163 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 160 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. There are 142 passengers on 4 trips in the morning and 113 passengers on 4 trips in the afternoon. Route 163 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 4 morning NB trips 4 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:30P N/A N/A -twa. ..--* Y..•.rr•r11. .10 namerrwarommor 256 15.6 32 16.4 8 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 49 April 2005 Route 170 Seattle — International Blvd — McMicken Heights Route Description Route 170 provides peak directional weekday service between McMicken Heights, north Tukwila, Airport Way, and downtown Seattle. This route does not take 1 -5 to downtown, and is a relatively slow ride to downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 170 productivity is fair in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Military Road at S. 152 Street is the highest ridership stop within Tukwila. Other high ridership stops are at the King County Airport and downtown Seattle. The routing through Tukwila is relatively circuitous. Route 170 ridership is unbalanced, with 57 passengers in the p.m. peak and 112 in the a.m. peak. MAP MSC MemsamarlIwIlme et. mOVVIrns wrror 'S-Ytwetwrmwn..vv .awr�ur. 1101* /ew■44.w1,•1. 10.01../0..1.14.. =100.,1,.._ 115th* .,s11xath.1t 6144th St /All[m • _ _t Nwfdk it 152nd e t 5155th it Final Tukwila Transit Plan Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Saturday Sunday 169 14.4 21.2 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 5 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 6:OOA to 8:30A 4:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 11.7 2003 Weekday Trips 8 50 April 2005 Route 173 Federal Way — Des Moines — I -5 — Marginal Way — Boeing Route Description Route 173 provides peak directional weekday service between Federal Way and Des Moines and the Boeing and industrial employment sites along Marginal Way. There are only 2 trips per day in each direction and times are geared to meeting shift times. Problem Statement Route 173 productivity is below average in teams of passengers per trip and passengers per platform hour. The highest ridership stops along the route are at the Federal Way Transit Center and at the Federal Center South along Marginal Way. There were few other stops with more than a couple of riders. Peak hour routes should have higher productivity than Route 173. It appears that this market is insufficient to support the level of bus service that it has. Final Tukwila Transit Plan Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Saturday Sunday 67 10.3 16.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 2 morning NB trips Peak 2 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 5:30A to 8:OOA 3:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 6.5 2003 Weekday Trips 4 No Route Map is available for Route 173. 51 April 2005 Route 174 Seattle — Interurban Park - and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 174 provides all -day service between Federal Way, Des Moines, SeaTac, Tukwila, and downtown Seattle via old Highway 99 (known as Tukwila International Boulevard in Tukwila). It operates seven days a week and throughout the night as well. Problem Statement Route 174 is an excellent route. Its productivity is the best of any route operating in Tukwila. Within Tukwila, the highest ridership stops are along Tukwila International Boulevard at S. 144 Street, S. 148 Street, and S. 152 Street. Route 174 has heavy ridership especially considering the frequency throughout the day. Given the high ridership, shorter frequencies would be expected. The span of service is excellent. ti WES SEATTL BURIEN 11110th 1 Tg. DES TOott MOINES •4ffM STAR LAKE ••OM FEDERAL g� /1123rd WAY Final Tukwila Transit Plan Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 6,270 2003 per Plat. Hour 32.4 2003 per Trip 64.0 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 20 30 30 30 30 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 193.7 2003 Weekday Trips 98 52 April 2005 Route Description market very well. Route 941 Federal Way — Tukwila — Seattle FIRST HILL (See detail map) Omar. Mal 158 156 197 159 192 574 162194 q'R MAP LEGEND Makes anted or no stops. • TIME POINT. Street hte radon used for time schedule reference point Bested at fie top or ime columns to stannictuswt end tip limes. "Nit Tnn P O /TRANSFER POINT rsae ZONe Addfond tare required. /;rffn PARK & RIDE Designated tee maw peridngarea with drect bus service to major commends! centers. P4 R 150 154 163 0 'O5+ li wi g R� : PMT MNAL Q8 e STAR ° r AM NAL Pe o ... ` ' ••. 84272nd St sur ....w Baser 162194 574 197 190 197 192 A Final Tukwila Transit Plan 53 Route 941 provides peak directional weekday service between the park- and -ride lots along I -5 between Federal Way and the medical facilities on First Hill in Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Problem Statement Route 941's productivity is among the best of any route in Tukwila. Heavy ridership occurs on all trips. The Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila is one of the highest ridership stops on this route. This is an excellent route that meets a specific niche First Hill Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 7 a.m. trips 5 p.m. trips N/A Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday 5:50A to 8:50A 3:30P to 6:30P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 20.1 2003 Weekday Trips 12 570 28.4 47.5 N/A N/A N/A April 2005 Sounder Tacoma — Puyallup — Sumner — Auburn — Route Description Sounder provides peak directional weekday commuter rail service between Tacoma, the Kent Valley, and downtown Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Tukwila Sounder Station Problem Statement Sounder ridership has been increasing steadily since service inception. In Tukwila, the ridership patterns have been such that approximately 100 passengers deboard in the morning in Tukwila and 20 persons board. In the afternoon, this pattern is reversed. Tukwila is the second most popular destination along the Sounder route, after downtown Seattle. Based on existing marketing conditions, it appears that Tukwila Station is more of a destination than a trip origin. The addition of three more peak oriented trains and off - peak direction trains will further increase the market potential. It appears that the travel time savings of the train between Tukwila Station and King Street Station do not appear enough to attract riders from the much more frequent bus service at either the S. Renton Park -and- Ride or the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Final Tukwila Transit Plan Kent — Tukwila - Seattle Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2737 2003 per Plat. Hour 456 2003 per Trip 456 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday 6:15A to 7:45A 4:55P to 6:35P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 6.0 6 54 April 2005 10.000 9,000 6,000 I 7,000 6,000 5,000 0 4,000 3,000 2.000 1.000 0 AMTRAK — Cascade Service Seattle — Tukwila — Tacoma — Olympia — Chehalis — Vancouver — Portland Route Statistics Route Description - - Six daily AMTRAK trains currently serve Tukwila Station. Southbound trains to Portland depart Tukwila Station at 7:44 a.m., 1:59 p.m., and 5:39 p.m., while northbound trains to Seattle depart at 11:48 a.m., 3:32 p.m., and 9:17 p.m. Problem Statement Service was initiated at Tukwila Station in 2001. Since service inception, ridership has increased more than 300 percent. 2001 Tukwila, Washington 2002 2003 Riders at Tukwila Station 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Weekday Trips 6 25 N/A 4.2 N/A N/A N/A Final Tukwila Transit Plan 55 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Seattle Southside Express SeaTac Hotels — Tukwila Hotels - Southcenter — Seattle Route Description The Seattle Southside Express provides scheduled shuttle service between SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to the Southcenter Mall and downtown Seattle. The shuttle provides door -to -door service to the hotels; passengers must call ahead for the service. The fare to Seattle from Tukwila locations is $12 roundtrip or $7 one -way. There is no fare to travel from SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to Southcenter Mall. The service is provided with 15 and 24 passenger vans. This service has been operating to Southcenter Mall since Fall 2003. The Southcenter Mall provides operating assistance to the private service provider to ensure that hotel guests have an easy way to access shopping opportunities. Additional funding for this route is provided by the Hotel Tax, and the contract is administered by the Tourism and Marketing Departmgnt. Thus far, ridership has been growing on the route, although actual ridership numbers are unavailable. Problem Statement The Seattle Southside Express is a fine example of a private provider filling a transportation niche within Tukwila and caters directly to those unwilling or unaware of the public transportation offered by King County Metro. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Winter Weekday 6 round trips daily Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/a 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Trips 10 56 April 2005 Chapter 4: Service Recommendations Chapter 4 summarizes the project recommendations based upon the data described in Chapters 2 and 3 and the public process. 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS The ridership data has been used to prepare individual activity profiles of each of the routes operated by King County Metro. The data have been aggregated to depict ridership patterns along each route alignment. Often, the gathered and analyzed bus stop -level data does not, in itself, suggest modifications to the route's alignment or schedule, but merely serves to validate the existing operation. In a few instances, this information has directly suggested modifications to meet specific operational needs of that route. Some changes in route alignments or schedules have been proposed to meet a system -wide need, unrelated to a specific route's ridership, productivity, patterns of activity or schedule adherence. In those cases, the ridership data has been used to identify any negative rider impacts expected to result from any proposed modifications. The overall themes guiding the recommendations were the creation of several different focal points for service in Tukwila, including the S. 154 Street Station, Tukwila Station, a Southcenter Transit Center, and a new link connecting Tukwila Station and Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. The service recommendations are not cost- neutral — they will require additional funding. Overall, the immediate service recommendations reflect the desire to improve frequency along the productive routes, serve new destinations, and to improve route directness. Figure 4 -1 shows the overall long -term route restructure recommendations. The corresponding description of the routes shown in Figure 4 - is in the following section. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 57 April 2005 Projected Routes rt-110 it-126 rt-128 it-140 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 4-1 Tukwila Long-Term Route Recommendations 58 April 2005 Route 1 Recommended Changes Short Term Recommendations (2005 -2009 Implementation) 128 Span: Extend Sunday Evening service for one hour. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: None. 140 Frequency: Improve Saturday service to 30- minute service. 150 Span: None. Frequency: Improve weekday frequency to all -day 15- minute service. Routing: None. 154 Span: None. Frequency: None. Routing: Restructure route to serve Tukwila Station and employment sites north. Mid - Term Recommendations (2009 & Changes to Feed LINK & Tukwila Station) 126 Routing: Adjust routing to serve S. 154 Street Station and Tukwila International Boulevard/S. 144 Street. Span: Add midday, evening, and weekend service. Fre uen : Midda evenin . , and weekend service should be 30- minute service. 128 Span: None Frequency: None. Routing: Extend Route 128 to Tukwila Station. 140 Span: Add earlier trips on weekends. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: Restructure route so that it provides a direct route between S. l54a' LINK station and the TUC (it would no longer serve Sea -Tac Airport), and serve Tukwila Station on every trip. Long - Term Recommendations (2010 - 2015 Implementation) 155 Span: Implement Sunday service. Frequency: Improve weekday frequencies to every 30 minutes. Routing: None. BRT Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Ten to 20 minute service weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC to Sea -Tac Airport and Renton, and points beyond. Fed. Way Rte.' Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Every 30 minutes weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC south on Southcenter Parkway to serve new development. TUC Trolley Span: 11:00 a.m. — 8 p.m., weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Frequency: 10 minutes. Routing: Tukwila Station, Baker, Andover Park W., Strander, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180 and return. 4.2 TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following section describes the recommendations for both existing and proposed routes within the TUC. Table 4 -1 summarizes the changes and a full description of each one of the recommendations follows. Table 4 -1 5 The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route or the Federal Way route could be operated by either ST or KCM. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 59 April 2005 128 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:00A to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30, 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 2,000 hours 140 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:OOP 8:00A to 10:OOP 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 30 60 30 60 Additional Cost No Cost Short Term Recommendations (2005 - 2009 Implementation) These recommendations represent the highest priority for improving transit mobility within Tukwila. They do not assume that any additional capital facilities have been constructed. Route 128 Short - Term Recommendations The current span and frequency of Sunday service does not meet the needs of the TUC. While most stores at Southcenter close at 7:00 p.m. on Sundays, some are open past 8:00 p.m. Route 128 should operate to accommodate these employees and shoppers. In addition, Sunday service on Route 128 operates every 60 minutes, which is inadequate to attract choice riders to the TUC. Route 128 should operate every 30 minutes on Sundays'and also operate one hour later. This recommendation will require approximately 2,000 additional service hours. Route 140 Short - Term Recommendations Weekend service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on weekends. Based on an examination of weekday and weekend layover practices on Route 140, some Saturday 30- minute service can be implemented at no net new cost by reducing weekday /Saturday layover and reallocating those resources to Saturday service. Route 150 Short Recommendations Route 150 is a great route that has tremendous additional ridership potential. Route 150 should operate every 15 minutes during the weekday midday. Improved weekday midday frequency would create a new market, not only for service between the TUC, Seattle, and Kent, but also for making trips requiring a midday transfer. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 60 April 2005 150 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 30 30 30 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost 10,500 hours 154 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak 2 morning trips 2 afternoon trips 3 morning trips 3 afternoon trips Additional Cost No Cost Funding for improved midday service has not been identified. This improvement, however, has such great ridership potential that it should be considered for short-term implementation. Route 154 Recommendations In order to address the duplication issues with Route 150 and to provide a direct route from Tukwila Station to north Tukwila employment sites, restructure Route 154 to begin at Tukwila Station and end at Federal Center in South Seattle. The route would operate peak directionally, like today, and provide direct service to Gateway, Grogp Health, and Boeing. The portion of the existing route between Auburn and Kent would continue to be served by Route 150. By deleting the portion between Auburn and Tukwila, three trips in the morning and three trips in the afternoon can be operated, increasing service by 50 percent. This recommendation should be implemented upon initiation of the full Sounder schedule. This recommendation is cost - neutral — existing route resources would be reallocated to the new alignment. Mid - Term Recommendations (LINK Implementation & Tukwila Station) These recommendations should be implemented upon completion of the LINK S. 154 Street Station and the construction of Tukwila Station. Full implementation of 18 Sounder trains is assumed. Route 126 Mid - Term Recommendations The current span of service is three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon peaks. The existing span is inadequate to accommodate travel patterns to /from the TUC. All -day service and weekend service are necessary to provide full access from west Tukwila neighborhoods to the TUC. Route 126 bypasses both Tukwila International Boulevard and the S. 154 Street Station, missing the two potential all -day ridership markets on this route. Route 126 should be realigned to serve Final Tukwila Transit Plan 61 April 2005 126 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 6:OOA to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P 6:OOA to 10:00P 7:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 17,500 hours 128 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:OOP 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost the S. 154 Street Station, so that local residents can access LINK without using the park -and- ride. It is only by realigning this route to serve the S. 154' Street Station that enough ridership demand exists for all -day service on-Route 126. This recommendation should be implemented upon the initiation of LINK service at the S. 154 Street Station. This recommendation will require approximately 17,500 additional service hours. Route 128 Mid - Term Recommendations Upon completion of the Tukwila Station bus facilities, Route 128 should be extended to Tukwila Station. The extension addresses a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. The cost for the extension should be negligible, as it would be paid for with the existing layover hours scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. Route 140 Mid - Term Recommendations Sunday service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on Sundays. Weekend span should also be expanded, particularly for early morning trips. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 62 April 2005 140 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:OOP 8:OOA to 10:OOP 8:OOA to 10:00P 5:30A to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost The routing between Sea -Tac and the TUC is circuitous. In an effort to reduce out -of- direction travel, we recommend realigning Route 140 to use Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154 between the TUC and Burien. Connections between the TUC could be served by either a BRT route between the TUC and Sea -Tac Airport or with a transfer from Route 140 to LINK at Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154 Street. This improvement should be made upon initiation of LINK service to the S. 154 Street Station. This recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources. Existing resources may also be used to improve midday service frequencies to every 15 minutes. Route 140 should be permanently routed to Tukwila Station via Longacres Way and SW 16 Street . This would address three issues. First, it could improve on -time performance as Route 140 would no longer travel through the heavily congested Grady Way/West Valley Highway/I- 405 interchange. Second, it addresses the perception that King County Metro does not serve Tukwila Station; the confusing practice of "some trips stop at Tukwila Station and some do not" would cease. Lastly, it would provide AMTRAK customers the opportunity to transfer to transit service. Currently, three Cascades trains stop at Tukwila Station and there is no connecting transit service. King County Metro intended on implementing this change in 2003, but they were unable to negotiate access with Boeing, which owns a portion of the roadway which this alignment would traverse. Negotiations with Boeing to allow buses to travel from SW 16 Street to Longacres Way should be restarted to better serve Tukwila Station. These recommendations are all possible using existingresources — no net new hours are necessary to implement this recommendation. Long - Term Recommendations (2010 - 2015) These recommendations should be implemented after service has been restructured to account for LINK service and the upgraded Sounder Service. These recommendations assume several new developments. For instance, • Development in Tukwila Valley South will be underway — creating new markets south of the TUC. • The TUC Subarea Plan Long -Tenn redevelopment samples show a new east -west connection between the TUC and Tukwila Station - this new connection includes a new bridge across the Green River, potentially along Baker Boulevard. The new bridge would allow direct connections between the TUC and Sounder service without using the heavily congested Strander Boulevard corridor. Upon completion of this East -West Corridor, it is expected that it becomes the prime link for buses traveling between the TUC and Sounder Station (as shown in Figure 4 -1). Final Tukwila Transit Plan 63 April 2005 155 Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P 5:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 60 60 60 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 12,200 hours Route 155 Long - Term Recommendations Poor frequency severely reduces the effectiveness of Route 155's service on Southcenter Parkway. Route frequency must be improved to every 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends in order for this route to be a realistic option for persons wishing to travel to Southcenter Parkway. In addition, increased frequency could better serve the north side of Tukwila Valley South, tie residential development in Kent to Tukwila Station, and provide a Sounder to Valley Hospital connection. Span should be increased so that the last trips in the evening accommodate the hours of operation of Southcenter Mall. This recommendation should be implemented in the mid -term, between 2010 and 2015 — it is a lower priority improvement than improving access to the TUC with Routes 126, 140, and 150. The cost for increasing span and improving service to 30- minutes during weekdays and Saturdays, as well as adding Sunday service is approximately 12,200 hours. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Long - Term Recommendations Two different BRT processes have been proposed for Tukwila. The King County Metro BRT line outlined in the existing Six-Year Plan would connect Federal Way with Sea -Tac Airport and Tukwila Station. One of the options for the I-405 BRT Study connects Renton and Bellevue with Tukwila Station and the TUC. For the purposes of long -range transportation needs, both alignments are necessary to provide high capacity transit to the TUC and to provide an all-day destination for the BRT. Park -and- rides will not generate all -day ridership for transit lines — active land uses such as the TUC will. Routing for the BRT through the TUC should follow either Strander Boulevard or a new Baker Boulevard between Tukwila Station and Southcenter Mall, and continue north to the Airport via Strander Boulevard, Klickitat, and SR 518. For the purposes of this plan, either Sound Transit or King County Metro can operate either BRT line. Costs for the BRT are wholly dependent on which alignment is chosen by the I-405 BRT Study, therefore, no predictions for costs are made as a part of this plan. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 64 April 2005 Federal Way — Tukwila Long -Term Existing Recommended Span - Weekday Saturday Sunday None 6:OOA to 11 :OOP 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday None 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 26,800 hours Federal Way Route Long -Term Recommendations A new route is proposed that connects the TUC to the proposed development in the Tukwila Valley South annexation (TVS). At this time, plans show up to 14 million square feet of new development in this location, although it should be cautioned that this is exploratory at this point. Bus service is necessary to connect the TVS property to both the TUC as well as points to the south. Given the projected densities, the service should operate, at a minimum, every thirty minutes on weekdays and weekends. This route should begin at Tukwila Station and use Southcenter Parkway to connect to the TVS property. This route could be operated by either Sound Transit or King County Metro. Operating this route at 30- minute headways on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays would require approximately 26,800 hours. TUC Trolley Long -Term Recommendations A rubber tired trolley route connecting Tukwila Station, the TUC core, Southcenter Mall, the Southcenter Parkway commercial area, and the north end of the TVS properties is recommended. The proposed routing would begin at Tukwila Station and follow the following alignment: Baker Boulevard, Andover Park W., Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180 and return. A trolley that is frequent (every 10 minutes or better) plus fun (either a modern futuristic design or a classic wooden trolley replica) will attract people to park once in the TUC and use the trolley to visit other destinations. This approach has been used successfully to carry passengers and enhance the image of lifestyle centers, downtowns, and suburban shopping centers. It is unlikely that a TUC Trolley will rank highly as part of King County Metro's overall South King County transit priorities. Therefore, it is imperative that local businesses within the TUC join in funding the Trolley. The estimated cost for adding a TUC Trolley route is 20,000 hours. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 65 April 2005 TUC Trolley Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday - - Saturday Sunday - None - 7:OOA to 11:00P 10:OOA to 9:30P 10:OOA to 9:30P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday None 10 10 15 15 15 Additional Cost 20,000 hours Sounder Service Long - Term Recommendations Sound Transit's "Sounder" commuter rail service serves the eastern edge of Tukwila's Urban Center area with three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon. The service runs between Tacoma and Downtown Seattle. The ridership pattern is currently such that approximately 100 persons deboard the northbound trains to head to destinations and only 20 people board the northbound trains in the morning. The reverse pattern is observed in the afternoon. The current Tukwila Station is a temporary structure, with very limited facilities (Figure 4 -2). A permanent station is slated for completion in the next four to seven years. The permanent station plan features station platforms with a pedestrian tunnel connecting both sides of the track. Walkways and roadways will also be improved to enhance pedestrian access. Figure 4 -2 Temporary Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Map Parkin i" Parking entrance ,p...2! Accessible parking Bicyde lockers zoom out T Sounder Final Tukwila Transit Plan 66 April 2005 LINK Long -Term Recommendations Construction of the Link Station at S. 154 Street is slated to commence in 2005 and the station is expected to be operational in 2009. The Station will be elevated with side platforms. Projected ridership for the station is 5,000 daily boardings. Connections between the S. 154 Street Station and the TUC are described in the recommendations for Route 140 and the BRT. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 67 Apri12005 Chapter 5: Transit Capital Improvements 5.1 INTRODUCTION Implementing transit service enhancements in Tukwila and creating a service network that supports existing and emerging travel patterns is a key stratagem for attracting and maintaining transit riders. However, other factors beside service availability influence "the decision to ride ". These factors include the speed and reliability of transit service, the convenience of facility and service access, and the overall attractiveness of transit services and facilities. Collaborating with the region's transit providers in investments in infrastructure that can improve transit travel time, reliability, and productivity as well as developing support facilities and amenities for passenger safety, comfort, and convenience is an objective of the City of Tukwila. At this time, millions of dollars worth of LINK and Sounder commuter rail projects are underway in the Tukwila area to support transit operations. However, other investments in the "transit environment" are still needed to optimize the transit service in the City of Tukwila. The level of resources available for capital improvements required by the transit service network in Tukwila is limited and comes from a variety of sources. Further, transit providers —Sound Transit in particular through LINK and Sounder —will, spearhead many of the transit rail improvements undertaken in the City, but be much less involved in the crucial bus connections to /from the rail stations. 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. In order to maximize the effectiveness and utilization of the service improvements, operating costs must be contained. Increasing traffic congestion and the associated reductions in transit travel time and unreliability have detrimental effects on transit ridership. Also, additional congestion has an effect on operating costs. The more buses are delayed, the greater the cost to the operating agency, King County Metro. King County Metro spends tens of thousands of annual service hours (equating to millions of dollars) on maintaining existing service levels on routes that operate on highly congested roadways. For example, a route may need four buses to operate in the morning, midday, and evening, but congestion- related delays require the addition of a fifth bus in order to maintain the same level of service in the afternoon peak. The capital cost ofthe fifth bus and the operating hours necessary to operate it are directly caused by congestion and travel time delays that can potentially be addressed by capital projects. Speed and reliability enhancing capital projects could allow more hours to be used for service expansion and allow areas with transit needs to be served. In addition to saving scarce operating dollars, capital speed and reliability projects will assist in attracting additional ridership. Transit travel times are generally longer than auto travel times. Capital speed and reliability projects can help close this travel time gap, particularly on routes that operate through congested areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 68 April 2005 In addition to bus travel time, the ease of accessing transit service is a prime determinant of ridership. Throughout Tukwila, there are streets with high levels of bus service, yet the supporting infrastructure of sidewalks, curb cuts, or shelters make it impossible to easily access the buses. Moreover, if you can access the bus stops, the waiting environment is unfriendly, and not conducive to extended waiting. For example, portions of Interurban Avenue S. have limited commuter bus service operating on adjacent to the Gateway Center. Interurban Avenue S. in this area has limited sidewalks; bus patrons must walk on a grassy shoulder. In addition, there are no shelters, leaving passengers exposed to the elements. Finally, traffic levels on Interurban Avenue S. are high. The overall experience of a person accessing transit is poor on this segment of Interurban Boulevard. Correspondingly, no matter how much service levels are improved on Interurban Boulevard, ridership response will likely be muted. Capital investments are necessary to improve ridership in this corridor. The Interurban Avenue S. example is repeated throughout Tukwila and shows the need for a comprehensive look at both service and capital improvements to help Tukwila achieve its transit ridership goals. The following sections will outline the recommended capital improvements that both supplement and support the necessary service frequency improvements. The goal of the resulting mix of both service and capital improvements is to maximize the overall return on transit investment and improve system -wide ,transit ridership. 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES King County Metro and Sound Transit maintain capital facilities within Tukwila. King County Metro maintains bus shelters, bus stops, and layover facilities throughout Tukwila. The City of Tukwila assists with maintenance tasks such as garbage pickup and on -going costs such as power for lighting. Currently, there is only one major bus facility located within Tukwila; the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Sound Transit operates Tukwila Station in east Tukwila. Southcenter Bus Stop The focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Avenue W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. Tukwila Station Sound Transit has constructed a temporary structure at Tukwila Station to accommodate AMTRAK and Sounder trains. There are 234 parking stalls at the temporary station. Utilization of the parking is less than 20 percent. Tukwila Station ridership has been such that this is a destination station instead of an origination station; ergo the lower parking utilization. A contributing factor to the low parking utilization is the poor signage to Tukwila Station. The permanent station's projected completion date is within the next ten years. Interurban Park - and -Ride This 255 stall park- and -ride is located in Interurban Avenue just south of I -5. There is a smaller 39 stall lot immediately adjacent to the Interurban Park - and -Ride. These lots are the closest to Seattle of all park -and -rides in the South I -5 corridor. The facilities are chronically above capacity. Due to the proximity to Seattle and the good service levels between these facilities and downtown Seattle, it is very popular with non - Tukwila residents. Hide- and -ride parking on neighborhood streets up the hill from the Park- and -Ride is commonly used for overflow purposes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 69 April 2005 Bus Shelters In suburban environments, as a rule, shelters should be provided if there are 25 or more boardings per day. Within Tukwila, based on Fall 2002 data, there are seven bus stops that have 25 boardings or more, yet no existing or planned shelter. One of these stops is at the Interurban Park - and -Ride, two are on Macadam Road, one is on S. 144 Street, and the remaining three are immediately adjacent to the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park W. (Figure 5- 1). Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 5 -1 Bus Stops Necessitating a Bus Shelter x 1L iii . Minh &AlL R 1E1 "I'M Amor Stops with 25+ hoardings - . Slops with Sh.b Slaps without Sheller W/ Awe Shams by 2005 /7006 70 April 2005 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Several projects are in the planning stage that will have immediate effect on transit in Tukwila. Central LINK Central LINK (LINK) is the initial 14 -mile light rail line that will serve downtown Seattle, the industrial area south of downtown, and residential and commercial neighborhoods in Beacon Hill, the Rainier Valley, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 5-2). Within Tukwila (Figure 5 -3), only one station is planned at S. 154 Street (a second station at Boeing Access Road has been deferred). While not directly in the TUC, connections to /from LINK will play a significant role in improving transit access within the TUC. S. 154` Station The S. 154 Street Station will provide access to residents of Tukwila, SeaTac, and Burien. Major destinations within the vicinity of this stop include the future Tukwila Village, the TUC, and significant amounts of multi- family housing. The station will be elevated and will include approximately 600 parking stalls at opening. It will also include connections to bus services. A shuttle bus will connect passengers from the S. 154th Station to Sea -Tac International Airport until the light rail station is constructed in 2011. A ride on LINK from downtown Seattle to S. 154th Street will take 33 minutes. LINK trains will start service from downtown Seattle to South 154th Street by 2009 and by 2020 are projected to carry at least 42,500 riders a day. Local transit links to the S. 154 Station will be provided by King County Metro, including the connection to the TUC. Some changes in routing are expected upon the opening of the S. 154 Station, but more changes could be expected in 2011 upon extension to the Airport. Tukwila Station A draft design for the permanent Tukwila Station has been completed. However, based on a cursory review of the final design, there are several issues. Over 400 parking stalls have been designed, even though existing utilization of the 250 car lot is less than 20 percent. Due to budget constraints, the actual Station design is functional, yet it is not a placemaking place, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. Any hope for Tukwila Station acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. Also, a clearly defined bus/train transfer area could address the public perceptions that such a connection does not exist. Sound Transit and the City of Tukwila are planning to reexamine the station design in order to accommodate the potential relocation of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and to determine the best access from Strander Boulevard to the station site. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 71 April 2005 Figure 5 -2 Central LINK Route 4 Final Tukwila Transit Plan Figure 5-3 Central LINK Route in Tukwila 72 April 2005 Transit Signal Priority TSP is a technology that allows specially equipped buses to communicate with an approaching traffic signal and ask it to provide additional green light time for the bus. A transponder installed on the bus sends a signal to a controller at the street intersection. King County's TSP system is not the pre - emption system used to serve emergency vehicles. Pre- emption may skip side street signal phases. When TSP is activated, the traffic controller provides the additional green time to the bus by reducing the green time available to the side streets and pedestrian crossing to safety and service minimums. The goals of this project are to improve transit travel time and schedule reliability. Transit riders who experience a smoother and more comfortable ride with fewer stops are more likely to continue riding. Improved service means people who have not taken the bus before may be more likely to try it. Fewer stops also mean reductions in the driver's workload, fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, and maintenance costs. Currently, King County Metro has installed TSP on Aurora Avenue N. in Shoreline and Seattle, Rainier Avenue in Seattle, and at the intersections of NE 8' Street/148' h Avenue & 156 Avenue NE. The results of these projects will be used to improve strategies on other active, funded projects on which King County is collaborating with ideal cities. These projects include the following corridors: • Lake City Way in Seattle • 15th Avenue W. and 1st Avenue South in Seattle • State Route 99/Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila • NE 124th Street in Kirkland • 148th and 156th Avenue NE in Redmond • Downtown Renton There are no existing plans for TSP on Tukwila streets, although the ability to implement TSP will be enhanced throughout Tukwila by the City's Signal Interconnect project, which is scheduled for construction in the TUC in 2006. High Capacity Transit Currently, there are no regional plans to serve the TUC by existing or future high capacity transit systems. However, Sound Transit is currently conducting a study regarding the feasibility of a high capacity transit line that could directly serve the TUC. It should be cautioned, however, that the Sound Transit work is only a feasibility study and is not a commitment on the part of Sound Transit to fund or operate any of the alternatives from the study. I-405 Bus Rapid Transit The I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Concept is currently being studied as part of the overall project to improve mobility along the I-405 corridor. The initial concept recommended that all -day, high- speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. Dedicated HOV lanes and direct access ramps would allow BRT buses to travel at high speeds with a high degree of reliability. Attractively designed buses and stations would make the passengers feel comfortable in riding the BRT buses. BRT fares would be collected off - vehicle, similar to other high capacity transit. The BRT stations would be located along I at key communities in South Snohomish County and East and South King County. According to the Final Tukwila Transit Plan 73 April 2005 August 2003 Concept White Paper, a stop is projected for Tukwila in a future expansion. The August 2003 Concept White Paper 2010 ridership projection for the entire Bus Rapid Transit line was 4,500 daily boardings. Existing are projected to carry 3,500 daily boardings; the I-405 corridor BRT line carries only 1,000 more daily passengers at a cost of $0.5 to $1.5 billion. Since the 2003 Concept White Paper was completed, more detailed routing and ridership analyses have been completed as part of the I -405 BRT Pre -Design Study. Figure 5-4 shows an example network of the layered service concept that is being discussed as part of this effort. The layered service concept is preliminary only and the configuration of the proposed BRT system is still under development. Figure 5-4 Potential I-405 BRT Routes from September 2004 Presentation 1-405 BRT Pre- Design Study Example Network Modeling Purposes Only SeaTacAirport(Th Station \../ Lynnwood Transit Center Kenmore Park-and-Ride m 4 Tukwila �y, , Urban Center • 1 �✓ Totem Lake Station J Houghton Park - and -Ride 111 ) Bellevue Downtown rI Station Newport Hills Station ,i Renton Downkwm f = • Pod landau Station Station' Renton Boeing Station 11 Sth Renton P cth Rote 8 (!) Kent a Station I 0 Everett Station i--4 (.51112th StSW Park- and -Ride Ashway Parkand -Ride ti Canyon Park Station Woodinville Town Center, Woodinville I Park-and-Ride A ( Brickyard Station rw Legend 1-405 EKX -A (Kenmore - Tukwila) 1-405 EKX-B (Lynnwood - SeaTec) 1-405 El0( -C (Everett - Bellevue) 1-405 EKX -D (WoodinvEe - Kent) Tukwila Station and the TUC are two of the route termini for one of the "route layers ". Table 5- 1 shows the predicted a.m. peak ridership for the Tukwila BRT stops. No commitments on which routing alternative should be pursued have been made at this time. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 74 April 2005 Table 5-1 BRT Layered Service Concept Projected Ridership Station Tukwila Station TUC Station 2014 Boardings 90 11 Alightings 6 53 2030 Boardings 103 15 Alightings 7 81 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS Tukwila Transit Center (Southcenter Mall) The existing focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Park W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. King County Metro, Westfield, and the City of Tukwila have held discussions regarding the location of improved facilities for Mall patrons. Four different options were examined on Andover Park West between Tukwila Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The locations on Andover Park West included: 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Acura property. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival /departure capabilities. At this time, a decision has been made to proceed with increasing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure. Increasing the southbound bay size will address some of today's capacity needs — it is inadequate for future service needs, particularly if BRT service is initiated. A further explanation of future capacity needs is discussed below. Future Operational Needs of the Tukwila Transit Center The Tukwila Transit Center, even with the expansion of the southbound bay, cannot accommodate the number of buses that would be operating through the Tukwila Transit Center if all the Long -Range Recommendations are implemented. Today, approximately 300 buses travel through the Tukwila Transit Center area. In the future, this could almost triple to 850 buses — depending on funding availability. 6 Source for routes and ridership projections is I-405 Bus Rapid Transit South Corridor Pre - Design, City of Tukwila Update, September 20, 2004 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 75 April 2005 Table 5-2 Pro jected Number of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 - shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As • shown in Figure 4 - 1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non- passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 Existing Buses per Weekday - Long -Term Buse per Weekday Northbound _ Route Southbound Northbound Southbound 126 11* 11* 34 34 128 34 33 34 33 140 43 44 56 56 150 54 53 66 65 155 14 13 28 29 Fed. Way Rt. 0 0 30 30 TUC Trolley 0 0 90 90 BRT 0 0 90 90 Total 156 154 428 427 Service levels in this commitment by any * Route currently This analysis assumes table assume additional funding sources — it does not represent a transit agency to provide this level of service. does not serve Andover Park W., but instead stays on Strander Boulevard. that Route 126 will be rerouted upon redevelopment of Baker Boulevard. Table 5-2 Pro jected Number of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 - shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As • shown in Figure 4 - 1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non- passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 Southbound Location Northbound Location Capacity Passenger Demand Safety for Buses Cost Passenger Safety Within TUC Vision Total Existing Acura property • G G • O • 6 Existing Fatigue property • O • O O C O North of Baker Fatigue property • O G ' O O O O Expanded Existing Zone None O O • O G 6 O • Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized. • Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long- term.increase in density and activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements should be compatible with the proposed density increases. Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of this evaluation is shown in Table 5-3 and is discussed below. Table 5-3 f Tukwila Transit Center Expansion Options Legend Much worse than Average O Average Much Better than Average • 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall, the redeveloped TUC, and is within'/ mile walking distance of a significant portion of the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the active land uses than all of the other alternatives, which will reduce ridership potential. From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 77 April 2005 Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east -west routes (Routes 126, 140, and 155) that are traveling through the TUC. In order to access the northbound stops, eait -west buses would need to travel all the way to Tukwila Parkway, which would add several minutes of r time. This location is an improvement over today's operation, and is reasonably well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. has the capacity for future service increases, including BRT. It is not located well to accommodate future passenger growth because the center is further removed from active land uses — the passenger draw area shrinks as one approaches I-405. The near side stop in the southbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. This location introduces out -of- direction travel for any bus routes traveling east -west through the TUC, including Routes 126, 140, 155, and any other future east -west route such as BRT or Federal Way route. Out -of- direction travel adds travel time, which reduces ridership potential and adds operating costs. While an improvement over today's operation, this location is not ideally situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. does not have the long -term capacity for future service . increases, including BRT. Expanding the southbound capacity by one bay is an excellent interim solution for the next five or six years. However, it is insufficient, by itself, to accommodate a more than doubling of bus service to the Transit Center, which given the growth in the TUC is projected in the long -term. This location has few safety and reliability issues. It is the easiest of options for most passenger transfers — although anyone transferring to Route 150 in the northbound direction must cross Andover Park W. and walk a long block. This transit center configuration often introduces passenger confusion. Several routes stop in the same area, but they go different directions. For instance, Route 140 heads to both Renton and Burien from the same bus stop. Many passengers do not see the headboard showing the destination and then ask drivers their destinations, which slows down operations and adds costs. ti The routing to serve this location creates out -of- direction loops. Route 140, in particular, has confusing figure 8 alignment around Southcenter Mall as a result of having only southbound bays in the Tukwila Transit Center. Confusing routing patterns inhibit potential ridership. King County Metro currently incurs additional operating costs as a result of out -of- direction travel. The existing site, without a corresponding northbound stop, does not tie into the TUC core development occurring on the east side of Andover Park West. Expansion of the existing Transit Center to three bays is a welcome addition that will address short-term capacity concerns. Additional space will be necessary for higher frequency services desired in the long - term. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 78 April 2005 Joint Development Potential The current bus boarding area is perceived negatively by many of the surrounding business owners. According to them, the bus stop brings vandalism, other crimes, and vagrants into a prime retail area. This perception, whether right or wrong, can only be changed using some of the elements that addressed this issue in other areas. Eyes on the street are essential to reduce this perception. A standalone transit center at the edge of a parking lot, no matter how architecturally appealing, will not entirely remove the perception that transit attracts undesirable elements. Throughout the country, it is becoming apparent that the key to success for transit centers is joint development. Whenever possible, a transit center should be integrated with an active land use such as a coffee shop, restaurant, or something else that could cater to the needs of both people at the transit center and to patrons coming to the Mall. These types of businesses provide the "eyes on the street" security. Businesses adjacent to the transit center can generate revenues from this facility and make this into an asset instead of a perceived liability. A successful transit center will have a supporting business adjacent to it. Relocated transit center plans, no matter the location, should integrate the transit center into active land uses. Tukwila Transit Center Amenities In addition to the recommended joint development features, the existing waiting area should be improved to incorporate the following features: o Widened Sidewalks — During large parts of the day, the existing sidewalk is choked with waiting passengers. Passengers spill into the Mall parking lot to avoid the crowded sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk width should be widened by at least 4 feet to 14 feet wide. o Sitting Areas — Currently, there are few opportunities for waiting passengers to be seated. Visual inspection has showed that waiting passengers often sit on the curb separating the sidewalk and the Mall parking lot. o Shelters — There are two standard sized shelters at the existing Southcenter Mall stop. Given over 1,000 daily patrons at this stop, two shelters provide inadequate shelter. A larger canopy type shelter should be considered in lieu of adding additional standard transit shelters. Given the traffic levels on Andover Park West, pullouts are essential for this transit center. Two bays in each direction should accommodate both existing and future demand. Tukwila Station In 1999, Sound Transit completed a draft design for the Tukwila Sounder Station. The draft design assumes primary access to /from the facility from Longacres Way, with provisions for a roadway extension to the proposed Strander Boulevard. The station design includes parking for over 400 parking stalls, a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks, artwork, two retention ponds, a kiss - and -ride, bus loop, bus driver facilities, and bus shelters. One of the goals of the Tukwila Station design was to be functional, yet not place as much emphasis on place - making as stations in Kent, Auburn, Sumner, and Puyallup. Budget, or lack thereof, has been a prime reason for the reduced place - making emphasis. The draft design of Tukwila Station no longer meets the conditions of the site. The railroad track relocation of the UP railroad, the connection to the Strander overpass, and the sizing of the park - and- ride are all issues that must be incorporated into the final design. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 79 April 2005 Railroad Track Relocation At this time, the Union Pacific (UP) and the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroads • have come to verbal agreements regarding consolidating the rail corridors that are located just east of West Valley Highway. A written agreement is being developed to finalize the details. According to our understanding of the agreement, the BNSF line will remain in its existing configuration and retain its existing right -of -way. Between I-405 and south of Strander Boulevard, the UP line will be relocated to operate immediately adjacent to the BNSF right -of- way. The UP will retain its 100 foot right -of -way. Thus, at the end of the relocation process, there will be a combined 200 foot right -of -way that includes both the BNSF and UP tracks. The City of Tukwila, Sound Transit, and Renton are currently working on a plan to phase the relocation of the UP tracks, construction of the permanent station, and construction of the Strander Boulevard overpass. Parking The draft station design shows approximately 400 parking stalls. Current utilization of the 250 car temporary park- and -ride is less than 20 percent, even though the existing Sounder schedules of three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon serves the peak of the peak market to /from Seattle. Based on visual inspection, a large amount of parking at Tukwila Station is for VanShare vehicles, not for people driving to Tukwila Station to park. Based on the 20 Sounder boardings at Tukwila Station in the northbound direction in the morning peak, about 20 parking spaces are being used by commuters heading to Seattle. Parking utilization is not growing, even as originating ridership at all other stations has grown dramatically. Ridership, and park -and -ride utilization, may increase as Sounder frequencies improve. According to Sound Transit, full operation of Sounder past Tukwila Station will include 18 trains (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). According to Sound Transit, by 2008, there will be six northbound trains and three southbound trains in the morning and six southbound and three northbound trains in the afternoon. Headways will be approximately 30 minutes. An examination of the ridership patterns at Tukwila Station show that the demand for park -and- ride space is very limited. Currently, Tukwila Station is the second largest destination (after downtown Seattle) along the south Sounder Line. There are approximately 25 northbound boardings and 150 alightings in the morning peak. Even if frequencies, span of service, and direction of service were improved, it is unlikely that originating ridership would dramatically increase. One of the best methods to measure ridership potential is to examine the existing ridership patterns and growth. With rail service, a doubling of service could double, triple, or even quadruple existing ridership. Even if ridership to Seattle quadrupled from 25 to 100 passengers, park- and -ride demand would reach around 100 stalls. Based on our experience, it is unlikely that ridership at Tukwila Station would quadruple. Ridership at Tukwila Station has been limited even though parking is available, the peak arrival times for commuters to the Seattle market are being made now, and there are seats available on the existing trains. The ridership pattern at Tukwila Station is a clear example where the market has spoken and the demand for Sounder from Tukwila Station to downtown Seattle is limited. Several factors may contribute to this. Signage to the existing station is poor and the temporary facilities at the station Final Tukwila Transit Plan 80 April 2005 (both parking and platforms) are not inviting. Access to /from residential areas is poor — there is no easy way for potential passengers from South Renton to get to Tukwila Station without significant out -of- direction travel. In addition, there are several competing facilities such as the South Renton and Interurban Park- and - Rides, where bus service is more frequent and has better travel times to downtown Seattle, particularly north downtown, than Sounder service from Tukwila Station. These competing facilities also have a way for passengers to get back to their cars during midday, which Tukwila Station does not. The market for parking demand as a result of AMTRAK service at Tukwila Station is harder to quantify. The Tacoma AMTRAK station has approximately 66 stalls and the Lacey station has approximately 90 stalls. Assuming that the marketplace is similar, the AMTRAK parking demand and the commuter market into Seattle parking demand may be met with 200 stalls. The lack of park -and -ride demand at Tukwila Station is a unique case as it is contrary to both local and national trends regarding the insatiable demand for commuter rail parking. It is also unique in that the two closest bus park- and -rides (Interurban and South Renton) are both over capacity, yet Tukwila Station has not been able to siphon off that demand. Based on the market conditions at Tukwila Station, two- hundred park- and -ride stalls should be sufficient to meet future parking demand. In the unlikely case that additional parking will be needed in the long -term future, the existing station parking access should be configured so that it can be structured in the future. Bus Facilities The draft station design includes a 150 foot long area for buses and passengers, or between two and three bays, depending on bus size. This is enough to handle the large volume of buses that travel through the facility, i.e., routes that do not begin or end at Tukwila Station. It is, however, inadequate for future bus service needs. Long -range plans show potential for up to five routes terminating at Tukwila Station. At a minimum, layover space for an additional three buses is necessary; four spaces are desirable. Pedestrian Amenities Rail station walking draw areas typically extend at least '/z mile. The draft station design incorporates a new walking path from the rail platforms to the existing sidewalk on Longacres Way just west of the UP railroad. No provisions for sidewalks or walking paths have been made from the rail platforms to Strander Boulevard. It is also unclear how the new platforms tie into the Boeing Longacres pedestrian paths, even though this is a walking pattern seen today even with the limited train frequency. Other than Boeing Longacres, there are very few destinations Within easy walking distance of Tukwila Station. However, today's conditions should not form the basis for the pedestrian network within Tukwila Station. At a minimum, the station design should include a pedestrian connection to Strander Boulevard, Boeing Longacres, and a direct connection crossing West Valley Highway, preferably tying into a new river crossing and access into the Tukwila Urban Center. Placemaking Due to budget constraints, the draft Station design is functional, yet it is not a placemaking location, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. The station locations in these other communities are well marked by both signage and a placemaking distinct station. The current Tukwila Station location is not signed well and is virtually invisible. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 81 April 2005 Any hope for the Tukwila Station becoming more visible in the community and acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. A more placemaking, visible station should lead to increased ridership. In addition, a visual connection between Tukwila Station and the Tukwila Urban Center are vital to address the public perceptions that no connections between the two locations exist. Access to Tukwila Station As described in Chapters 3 and 4, the I-405 BRT must stop in ridership generating areas such as the TUC in order to increase its ridership potential. Without additional ridership, the I-405 BRT will likely fail due to insufficient rider potential. One of the critical elements in ensuring that the I-405 BRT serves the TUC and Tukwila Station is determining how to reduce travel times to these locations. One of the ways previously discussed that would improve access to Tukwila Station has been the Tukwila Station I -405 Direct Access Ramps (DAR). While this option would improve transit access to /from Tukwila Station, technical challenges and the associated costs have removed this option from further consideration in the immediate future. A second way to improve access to Tukwila Station is`to provide an access from Strander Boulevard to the Tukwila Station area. Such an access will provide travel time advantages if the 1-405 BRT directly serves the Station (a different service scenario calls for the BRT line to stop directly on Strander Boulevard and not go directly into the Station). The new access from Strander Boulevard into the Tukwila Station area is desirable, but not absolutely necessary from a transit standpoint. The access is much more important to help with vehicular circulation, as shown in the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. Tukwila Station Recommendation The draft station design does not meet the needs of Tukwila as a transportation anchor. It calls for parking that is unnecessary, has inadequate pedestrian facilities, and has no bus facilities. A complete redesign of Tukwila Station is necessary in order to create a community and transportation focal point, resize the parking lot to be in line with actual demand, expand bus facilities to facilitate the transfer to /from trains, and link it to the TUC core. Tukwila Station represents a unique opportunity to create a community focal point. S. 154 Street Station The planned S. 154 Street Station includes provisions for parking expansion if demand warrants. It also includes bus zones on S. 154 Street and within the station itself, which will ease transfers between buses and LINK. A bus zone on northbound Internatibnal Boulevard immediately adjacent to the West Pedestrian Access Stair should be considered to prevent out -of- direction travel for existing bus patrons. Bus Shelters Bus shelters should be installed in high ridership locations. There are seven high ridership locations within Tukwila that warrant new shelters (Figure 5 - 1). The shelters, if part of a transit corridor, should architecturally fit in with the rest of the corridor. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 82 April 2005 Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Bus travel times are extraordinarily dependent on existing traffic conditions, as they share a common street with automobiles. Bus travel times have been increasing as overall congestion has increased, leading to increased operating costs for King County Metro. TSP represents one low - cost way to improve bus speed and reliability. International Boulevard, Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard have the frequency and ridership loads that would warrant TSP implementation. The City of Tukwila is currently in the process of interconnecting signals. As part of this project, in cooperation with King County Metro, the City should incorporate the hardware necessary to upgrade these signals to "TSP - ready ". Final Tukwila Transit Plan 83 April 2005 Appendix A Focus Group Report Focus Group Discussions Concerning Public Transportation Services for the Tukwila Urban Area SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Perteet Engineering, Inc., of Everett, Washington, is working with the City of Tukwila to develop the Tukwila Transit Network Plan. The study reviews all elements of the public transportation system serving the Tukwila Urban Area. As part of this study, focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Carolyn Browne Tamler, principal of Carolyn Browne Associates, a Bellevue marketing research and community involvement consulting firm, facilitated the discussions. Two discussions with riders were held during the evening of Tuesday, September 16, 2003, in the Community Resource Center of the Tukwila Police Department located in the Westfield Southcenter Shopping Mall. Cards were distributed at several bus stop locations and at the Sounder train station to recruit people interested in discussing issues about public transit. Most of the participants were recruited through contacts made at the Interurban Park- and -Ride and at the Sounder train station. Riders were approached at the Southcenter bus stop and at bus stops at the intersection of Highway 99 and S. 144 Street, but many of these riders are non - English speaking and/or low income, and were not comfortable completing the recruitment card. Recruiters used the information on the completed cards to select people to invite to the discussions. The groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers at the Conference Room of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, 16400 Southcenter Boulevard, in Tukwila. This group met from Noon to 1:30 p.m. The business participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce. This report includes summaries of the major themes from the discussions and the participants' comments. Participants who are current users of the transit system are referred to as "riders," while owners and managers of businesses in the Tukwila area are referred to as "business people." The opinions expressed throughout this report are those of the discussion participants. It should also be noted that the comments reflect individuals' perceptions of facts. Although information obtained from focus group discussions is not statistically pi the responses and ideas from the participants do provide a representative portrait of the opinions of the population from which they were drawn, in this case, people who are currently using public transit in or out of Tukwila, and members of the business community in Tukwila. I SIGNIFICANT THEMES FROM THE THREE DISCUSSIONS All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities for the Tukwila Urban Area. The most frequently repeated concerns, included: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Further, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained, and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income areas). • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • Provide additional bus stops around the Southcenter Mall. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be known to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees, and if bus stops are conveniently located to their workplaces. Name Years Riding Local Transit ‘ Occupation Residence Age Kelly 5 Restaurant employee Auburn 22 Sean 3 Manufacturing Auburn 25 Evans 4 Student at BCTI Kent 26 Jeremy 12 Computer Administrator Tacoma 34 RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE TUKWILA - RENTON AREA SUMMARY Eleven people confirmed their intention to participate in the discussion when they were contacted on the morning of September 16. However, only four people were present for the discussion at 5:30 p.m. These four participants engaged in a lively discussion with the moderator. In an effort to learn more about the attitudes of those who did not attend, the recruiters at Consumer Opinion Services were asked to call back those who did not show, as well as others who qualified, but had previously said they could not attend the discussion. The tabulations of those who were contacted for this brief telephone survey are included at the end of this section of the report. Based upon the recruiting cards returned, primarily from the Interurban Park and - Ride and the Sounder Train Station, a high proportion of transit riders traveling to or through Tukwila commute from the south to the north, coming from areas as far away as Tacoma, Puyallup, Bonney Lake and other areas in South King County and Pierce County. Many have access to a car but choose to use transit to avoid the cost and hassle of parking, as well as the inconvenience of driving long distances through heavy traffic. The most important transit improvements desired by the four discussion members and by those who were contacted later by telephone include: • More frequent bus service is needed for the major routes serving Tukwila; many major routes only provide hourly service; • Additional service is needed along Southcenter Parkway; • Bus stops need better maintenance and more bus shelters should be provided; • More East -West routes are needed; and • More express buses are needed in and out of Tukwila, especially to Seattle. There was strong agreement among the participants that Tukwila should market itself as a shopping destination, and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. PARTICIPANTS Only four of the eleven confirmed participants attended the discussion. Three are riding Metro buses only, while one person is riding Sounder. Only one in the group has access to a car; the others use buses for all of their transportation needs, except when friends can provide a lift. uI WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The four riders started the discussion by sharing their positive views of the transit system. These comments included: "The drivers are polite;" "The buses are usually on time;" "There are many routes;" There seem to be enough bus stops and they are generally clean." All agreed they feel safe when riding a bus and that purchasing tickets is easy. They have experienced no difficulties obtaining and using transfers. ARE THERE LOCATIONS NOT CURRENTLY SERVED WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUS , SERVICE ADDED? The Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI) student said there is no direct service to the school at present, which is located at 15445 — 53` Avenue S. He says several students there have commented on the need to provide bus service to the school. Two people who commute from Pacific each day commented that Route 917 runs in a loop on the hour, but not on Sundays, which makes it difficult at times to get to Route 150 that they take into Tukwila. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? There was agreement among all the participants that the buses that go to Bellevue "are newer and nicer quality than the ones that come to Tukwila." They also noted that the Sounder buses are generally nicer than the Metro ones. The major issues identified by the members of the group included: • Lack of bus service on and near Southcenter Parkway, which makes it difficult for people who work in the area to take a bus to the business. The buses that do go there only run hourly. The participants suggested adding local shuttle service that would circulate between the Mall and the other major retail businesses in the Tukwila Urban Area. • Lack of bus shelters. There are few covered bus shelters in the Tukwila area, and many compared this to the abundance and quality of bus shelters they have noticed in Bellevue. • Travel between Tukwila and areas to the West (Highway 99) and East (Kent) is difficult. • Buses need to operate more frequently. As an example, they pointed out that Route 150 runs only once an hour in the early morning and late evening. Many other routes provide only hourly service. Since many people now work hours beyond the normal 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the bus service is not matching the needs of employees, many of whom currently have to choose to arrive early or late to work. It is also not serving the needs of those who might want to take the bus to shop in Tukwila. Iv MARKETING IDEAS Although one person suggested that most people use public transportation out of necessity, there was agreement that using transit for special purposes is a good way to familiarize people with what it is like to use transit. Their ideas included: • Buses for special events, such as Mariners and Seahawks games; • Special buses during the Christmas holiday season from park - and -rides to Southcenter — all agreed this would be a great idea since "holiday traffic is horrible" at Southcenter; and • Sounder service is great from Tacoma and draws people who might otherwise never use public transportation. Someone added that stress and miles driven are great incentives to try using transit. There was also strong agreement that Tukwila needs to market itself as a shopping destination and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jeremy: More frequent buses Covered, better bus stops; improve technology at bus stops (sensors to announce bus is coming/light the stop) Reward riders through incentives with retail stores (shop at a store and get a bus pass) Evans: More frequent buses Cleaner bus stops and shelters Increase frequency of bus service Sean: Provide covered shelters/seating at bus stops More east -west routes; it is difficult to get service from Tukwila to Kent or to the residential areas to the west Increase frequency of service Kelly: Better bus accessibility to stores and businesses on Southcenter Parkway More express buses in and out of Tukwila to major transit centers Special event and seasonal bus service Promotions with retailers to provide free bus use with purchase Name Years Riding Local Transit Occupation Residence Age Dean 20 Engraver Tukwila 52 Toni 5 Legal Secretary Tukwila 60 Dona 5 Pharmacist ! Tukwila 48 Cynthia 5 Administrative Assistant Renton 45 Donna 29 Accountant Tukwila 48 Inez 22 Business Owner Tukwila 47 Kim 4 Engineering Manager Renton 43 Aotham 3 Internet Engineer Tukwila 30 Jason 7 Telecommunications Tukwila 31 RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING WITHIN THE TUKWILA - RENTON AREA SUMMARY Most of the participants are commuting from their homes in Tukwila or Renton to their jobs, most of which are in Seattle. Largely, they are choosing to use transit to avoid parking costs and traffic hassles at their commute destinations. The service and facilities improvements deemed most important by the riders include: • More frequent bus service around Southcenter and to the businesses on and near Southcenter Parkway (such as a shopper's shuttle); • Improving maintenance at bus stop locations in Tukwila; • Extending bus routes serving the Fairwood Area (Routes 155, 148 and 101) past 140 to provide service to the new residential neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road; • More frequent service on the major routes (Routes 150, 174, 101); • Establishing Tukwila as a major transportation hub with links to other areas throughout King County and Pierce County; • Providing facilities (restrooms and drinking fountains) at the major transit centers; and • Extending the hours for express bus service (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240, and 941). Participants noted that there seems to be little marketing of transit. They believe more advertising will promote the key benefits of transit — no parking or traffic hassles — and, hence, will build usage. PARTICIPANTS Nine of the 12 people who confirmed their attendance participated in the discussion. The participants included five women and four men, ranging in age from 31 to 60. Six of the nine have access to a car and are choosing to use transit. All are using the bus to commute to work. Three are using Sounder or Sound Transit in addition to Metro. WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING TO USE TRANSIT IF YOU HAVE A CAR? Most of the participants are traveling from Tukwila and Renton to Downtown Seattle, and most are choosing to use transit. The greatest motivators for using transit are to avoid the cost of parking in Downtown Seattle and avoiding the traffic hassles of driving into the city. They say that taking a bus or train into Seattle is easy and convenient. One person has an employer providing a free bus pass. Another drives to the train station in Tukwila and takes Sounder into Downtown Seattle. One person simply avoids driving because it is "dangerous and expensive." WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The most positive responses concerning transit relate to the variety of good connections between Seattle and Tukwila. Those who can use the Sounder or Express buses say these are good services and save travel time. One person in the group had special praise for the number of bus stops on Route 128 between Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard, claiming it was easy to find a place to catch a bus. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? Those who live in the Fairwood Area of Renton are feeling fiustrated in trying to use transit. One of the discussion participants explained, "From Petrovitsky Road, I can't get to the bus without having to drive; but, there's no place to park at 140 and Petrovitsky where the bus stop is located; if I continue into Downtown Renton, I can't,fmd parking in Downtown Renton." She added bus routes are needed in the neighborhoods to connect with buses going to other locations and to take residents to the Sounder train station. It appears that many people don't know the exact location of the Sounder train station; only four of the nine participants were knowledgeable about where to catch the train. One of the four found the location by accident. Those who knew the location pointed out that the only guide directing people to the Sounder Station is a tiny sign with a logo. Bus connections from the Sounder station are not adequate ( "I get off the train and see the bus leaving and going around the corner; then I have to wait 30 minutes for the next "); at present, there are only a few connections from the Sounder station to buses traveling to other locations. Route 124 only runs three times in the morning and three times in the evening, and only once an hour. A participant commented, "If I miss one of these buses, I am late for work." The buses also do not run on the weekends. Southcenter is a hub, but buses do not go around the Center and there are few bus options that go to businesses on Southcenter Parkway. It was suggested, and all agreed, that it would be nice to have a shopper's shuttle in the Southcenter area similar to one operated in the shopping district of Kent. Bus stops for the Southcenter Mall should be located in the mall to make it safer to go from the bus into the Mall. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. After the list was completed, they were asked to choose . seven items (from the 29 listed) that they believe to be most important. The suggestions are organized below with those receiving the highest priority ratings listed first: VII Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Provide a shopper's shuttle around Southcenter. 5 • Maintain Tukwila bus stops at the same level as those in Bellevue (all agree that bus stops in Bellevue are much nicer than in Tukwila — "they have more money "). 5 • Extend Routes 155,148 and 101 past 140` to provide service to the new neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road. 5 • Provide more frequent service for the main line routes (Routes 150, 174, 101). 4 • Make Tukwila a regional transit hub so it is easier to get from Southcenter to other locations. 3 • Provide maintained restrooms (even if restrooms were coin - operated) and drinking fountains at the major transit centers. 3 • Extend hours for express bus service (Routes 160, 163, 941,140, 240). 3 • Make improvements to bus stops - more seating, more shelters. 3 • Provide air- conditioned buses ( "Why are Sound Transit buses air conditioned ? "). 3 • Improve safety on Route 174 ( "I've heard it's the most dangerous route in Seattle "); especially at night. 2 • Post schedules at the bus stops. 2 • Provide better transfer connections and coordination. 2 • Provide an express bus from Downtown Seattle to the Sounder train station to make up for missed bus service connecting to the train station ( "It takes forever to get from Tukwila to Seattle on the 150 "). 2 • Provide express bus service from Fairwood Area to Downtown Seattle. 2 • Provide direct bus service from Tukwila to the Eastside (currently, it is impossible to get there without going to Downtown Seattle and transferring). 2 • Provide express service on Route 155; it currently takes too long to get to Tukwila from the neighborhoods. 2 • Create more bus stops/bus routes around Southcenter. 2 • Add uniformed security people on the buses; provide &hotline number to report regular problem riders; have bus drivers enforce rules on the bus (radios, cell phones, sleeping across the seats, etc.). 2 • Promote buses going to special events (such as buses to Mariners and Seahawks games). 2 VIII Suggestion Number Giving Priori • Ensure that bus stops are near crosswalks at the transfer points and in busy areas. 2 _ • Review usage of local shuttles to determine why they are not being more fully used (Route 124); are they being marketed? Are they convenient routes? Are they not running often enough? ( "It doesn't go anywhere I need to go "). 1 • Expand Interurban Park - and -Ride ( "It's full before 7 a.m.; it's always full "); South Renton and K -Mart parking lots are full (people are using these locations as a park - and —ride lots). 1 • Provide services for the blind at major bus stops. 1 • Provide more kneeling buses for easier access. 1 • Increase promotions using media other than the Web; use space on the bus. 1 1 • Provide more sidewalks around the transfer points. • Create a Metro route map that is less confusing; Provide route maps on the buses. - IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE There appears to be very little marketing of transit at the present time. Participants had several suggestions to marketing the system: • Increase marketing efforts on the buses themselves; • Market special event service better ( "but don't cram people into the buses. "); • Develop television commercials ( "I have never seen a TV commercial for Metro. "); Develop radio commercials which would be good for people who are stuck in traffic; • Promote how easy it is to get into Seattle using the bus. All agreed that parking costs and traffic are two major incentives for using transit; • Work to improve Metro's image by providing higher quality buses and making them more comfortable. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jason More comfortable, luxurious buses Improve safety so people are not afraid of riding Make bus service more reliable Aothan: More frequent mainline service Better service around Southcenter Better infrastructure around the transfer points Kim: Frequent service around Southcenter and to and from the major park and rides Regional transit facility targeted to Seattle commuters Express routes to Seattle from outlying neighborhoods. Inez: Need shopper's shuttles in the Southcenter area More frequent service Buses need to be on time Dona: Improve safety on the buses Air - conditioned buses & kneeling buses More evening service on the mainlines Cynthia: Better coordination of buses to improve transfer service More express service directly from neighborhoods to Downtown and to the train station Extend peak hour service Donna: Better connections between Sounder and other bus service to the Local areas (Mall, Downtown Renton, etc.) Improve parking at park and rides Expand service from Fairwood Area to Seattle and the train station Toni: Shopper's shuttle; better connections for shoppers in the area Better coordination of bus and train schedules Expand spaces in the park and rides Dean: Make Tukwila a regional hub More buses in Southcenter More bus shelters X RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM BUSINESS OWNERS AND MANAGERS DOING BUSINESS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN AREA SUMMARY The business people who came to the meeting are interested in providing any assistance they can to help improve the public transit services in and out of Tukwila. They pointed out the immense traffic problems around the Southcenter Mall on the weekends (Friday through Sunday) and during the winter holidays. Many of these business professionals currently provide some type of subsidy to employees who commute using transit; others are willing to consider the possibility of doing so. They are also willing to consider promoting other types of transit use to their employees. Bus stop locations at the Southcenter Mall do not provide convenient drop offs for many of the Mall customers; the BECU Gateway employees who use transit must walk a mile from the bus stop to their work location. As a demonstration of their desire to help, all of the participants said they are willing (and eager) to come to another meeting to review suggested alternatives for public transportation. Here are the priorities for improvements that were suggested by the business group: • Provide bus equipment to match the needs of the community; i.e., smaller buses for the neighborhoods and larger, articulated buses for the express routes; • Improve connecting bus service with the Sounder train; more frequent buses, buses going to more destinations from the Sounder station and buses going directly to the local businesses in Tukwila; • Provide more convenient bus service between the Southcenter Mall and other businesses in the Tukwila Area, especially the businesses on Southcenter Parkway; • Provide more frequent service on the major routes; and • Provide more bus information to employers to pass on to their employees. PARTICIPANTS Nine participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest Chamber of Commerce. They included four women and five men, most of whom are owners or managers where they are employed. The participants represented a broad range of types and sizes of businesses, plus the Tukwila School District. All expressed a strong commitment to identifying ways to improve public transportation within the Tukwila Urban Area. XI Name • - Business/Position • Number of Employees Rick Graff Office Depot, Store Manager 30 Michael Silver Tukwila School Dist., Superintendent 350 employees 2,600 students Nancy Damon S.W. King Co. C of C, Executive Director 5 employees 500 business Mike West South Town Auto Rebuild, Owner 7 Jean Christofferson Bon — Macy's, Manager 460 620 in fall Bill Arthur Segale Business Park, Manager On Tukwila Planning Commission; Segale owns retail center in town 24 Teresa Kiekenapp Costco, Human Resources Manager 375 450 for holidays Todd Pietzsch BECU, Manager of Bus. Development 500 Diane Jensen Highline Com. Hospital, Emp. Benefits 300 XII EMPLOYEES TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT Most participants claimed they know of only a few employees who take the bus. Sounder has increased the ability of some employees to get to work (one of the companies provides a vanpool service to and from Sounder), although some employees who might use Sounder cannot get transportation from the train station to work. WHAT IS WORKING WELL FOR TRANSIT NOW? Most notably, those who use transit avoid the parking cost and hassles in Downtown Seattle. Tukwila is a major pass - through area; many people transfer in and out of Southcenter to other places. Public transit provides transportation services for many low- income people who use the buses along Highway 99. The Tukwila Schools Superintendent noted that about 24 students use Metro when they miss regular bus service. Most BECU employees are using vanpools because there is no bus service provided to the Gateway facility. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS & PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. They provided 17 suggestions, from which they were asked to select five they believed to be the most important priorities. • Suggestion Number Giving . Priority 7 _ • Provide bus equipment that matches the needs of the community; smaller buses are needed for the neighborhoods, and large, articulated buses are needed for express routes. • Provide more frequent service between Sounder and bus service to other areas. "Sounder is attractive because it saves a lot of time, but the poor links to other transportation make it not attractive." (The Bon - Macy's manager says that many in administration would like to take Sounder, but can't get connections to Southcenter); "I would hop the train in a minute, but I can't get to work after I get up here." 6 • Provide a shuttle service between Sounder and local businesses; Businesses or individuals may be willing to subsidize shuttle service between Sounder and other businesses in Tukwila. 5 • Make bus service convenient between the Mall and businesses on Southcenter Parkway and other areas. 4 • Provide more frequent service on the major bus lines. 4 • Provide more bus information to local businesses to pass on to their employees. 4 • Improve safety, especially on buses and at bus stops on Highway 99 (Route 174) and on other routes; there are drug sales going on at bus stops; people need to feel safe riding on the buses. "174 is the poster child for bus safety problems." 3 • Locate bus stops more conveniently. 3 • Acknowledge Tukwila as a destination (Boeing, Costco, Bon—Macy's, School District are all major employers); City says 50,000 commute to Tukwila everyday. 3 — • Provide east -west service between S. 144 Street and Pacific Highway to the Tukwila Urban Center/Hwy. as well as Highway 99 to Interurban Ave. _ 2 • Coordinate bus schedules with the needs of retail sales people; Bon - Macy's employees begin work at 6 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m. 1 • Maintain bus stops ( "Some look like trash pits. "). 1 • Provide more direct bus service in and out of Tukwila. 1 • Increase transit use promotions. ; _ 1 • Provide bus service for families who need to travel to social and health service providers. - • Make Southcenter Mall and Southcenter Parkway a more transit- friendly environment — better service, frequency, transit lanes, pullouts. - • Provide more access from residential areas to Tukwila businesses. - During the Christmas shopping time, the area is not a traffic- friendly place. It can take 40 minutes to exit the parking lot in December. A friendlier bus system could help to improve sales by allowing better access to the businesses from transit. In doing so, people could avoid the XIII traffic and parking problems at Southcenter. Locally, it can take an hour to go two miles on the buses. Southcenter is especially busy on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. "Traffic is all about the weekends here." Local people don't come down to the Mall to shop on the weekends. There is no bus service to local neighborhoods, which means local people cannot take a bus to the Mall or the other Southcenter businesses. IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE First, there was consensus that if transit service can be improved, there will be more benefits to promote. Some of the marketing ideas suggested included: • Provide more bus information to local businesses to give to their employees; • Provide maps and information showing the system displayed in major transit centers; • Increase promotions and provide incentives for riding transit; • Six of the nine business participants are either already subsidizing bus travel, or would be willing to provide some kind of subsidized bus pass. They believe this is an excellent incentive to use transit; and • Some businesses might be willing to encourage bus use, but the concept would need to be tested first. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES / IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Diane Mini van to provide service from Sounder to work More direct routes from Tukwila to other areas Todd: Make quick, easy connections from Sounder and Sound Transit coming into Tukwila Match transportation needs of those coming in to and out from Tukwila Teresa: A light rail system in place Shuttle system that runs in the Southcenter area Bill: Plan transportation services based upon the needs of the people Copy what has worked well elsewhere Look at some forms of alternative transportation (Sounder, light rail, people mover, etc.) ti Jean: Recognize that Tukwila is a destination and not just a pass - through area, and identify the needs of the people coming into this hub Mike: I have no confidence in the Metro bus system; it's more of a nuisance on Highway 99 Nancy: Make it quick, convenient and easy intra and inter; people need to know it's there and it's going to move them Michael: People need to think of Tukwila as a hub and identify where the spokes go to increase ridership: South King County, Eastside, etc. Rick: Study the travel patterns of people coming in and out of Tukwila and travel times; suit transportation to travel needs INTEREST IN COMING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES All were willing to come again and help to evaluate proposed improvements. XV ti City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director INFORMATION MEMO To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee From: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development Date: March 22, 2005 Subject: 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUE The City of Tukwila received two applications for annual Comprehensive Plan amendments by the December 31, 2004 deadline. BACKGROUND We would like to brief the CAP on the applications, so that they can be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole for consideration. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES The applications are as follows: • Update Transportation Element . Applicant: Tukwila Public Works Department (File #L04 -084) —The proposal seeks to update background materials and policies relating to the Transportation Element to incorporate new information, including the Concurrency Ordinance. • Designate Property on Orillia Road as Tukwila South (TVS)— Applicant: Rich Buck (File #L04 -089) –The proposal seeks a Tukwila South designation for approximately one acre located just outside the Tukwila South Master Plan area at 19607 Orillia Road. The property is located in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and is scheduled to be annexed into Tukwila once the "Segale" annexation is completed. Staff recommends that this request be deferred so that it can be considered with the remainder of the annexation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Committee forward the amendments to the Committee of the Whole for consideration, including a briefing for the COW on April 25, 2005, and a public meeting on May 2, 2005 to take comments. Afterwards the Council will consider the amendments and decide which proposed amendments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Rebecca Fox - Re: Comp plan update ^^•hedule From: Cyndy Knighton To: Rebecca Fox Date: 2/10/05 11:54AM Subject: Re: Comp plan update schedule Cyndy Thanks! Cyndy just to confirm, I'm not worried about the background report but I want to comply with the formatting of the comp plan for the changes in the Transportation Element. »> Rebecca Fox 02/10/05 11:41AM »> I'II write the staff report with your assistance as needed. Are you updating the Background Report and the Policies, or just the policies? The format for the Background Report is a real mess, and should just be redone, but I'll forward it if you'd like. Rebecca. »> Cyndy Knighton 02/10/05 10:11AM »> Okay. I doubt I'll be done in April. IF all goes well, I could be done by end form for the staff report I need to work within or does somebody in DCD wn April /early May; this report? s there a Also, since I didn't work on the update we did last year, I will need to get the format of the document again. Can you send me the electronic version? »> Rebecca Fox 02/10/05 09:59AM »> It all goes to the Council and Planning Commission together, but as yet there are no specific times. I'm writing staff reports now and hope to go the CAP as soon as possible. With CAP's approval, I'll advertise for the public meeting w /the Council in March. As soon as you can get your changes made, we'll go to the Planning Commission. (I'm assuming that the City Council will give their ok for you to proceed) So, if you're done in April (soon optimistic!), we could schedule you and the comp plan designation request then...etc. »> Cyndy Knighton 02/10/05 09:52AM »> Thanks, this does help. Do you have specific times you've worked up for the one zoning amendment request? »> Rebecca Fox 02/10/05 09:50AM »> Hi Cyndy, The timeline is pretty general...The City Council holds a meeting in March or so to decide which items it wants to pass on to the Planning Commission. There's nothing you need to do for this, except maybe come to the meeting. Next, the Planning Commission ususally considers comp plan amendments sometime between the late spring and mid - summer. You'd need to have your changes ready for them to review by that time, and should attend the meeting to discuss. The info is then transmitted to the City Council a month or so later for a final decision. You'll need to attend that meeting too. This is the general schedule. Earlier is better than later, but the bottom line is that it all needs to be adopted by year's end (and before the budget debate takes over). Hope that this helps. Let's talk. Rebecca. »> Cyndy Knighton 02/09/05 04:44PM »> Rebecca, I need to get from you the schedule necessary for the comp plan update for this year. I understand there is one request for zoning change. I need to factor your timeline requirements into my work program. If at all possible, can you get that to me tomorrow, Thursday, so I can work on my schedule over the weekend? Page 1 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: R _ t Gr✓� FU X File Number: L__ 0 _ p 8 Lam, Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: j r a ✓ l 5 ✓- . - oo Etc 4- Wale_ ale_ LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. C -wt Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with ^ the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. � r Name: ( "1 Vstiq Y l � (1 h j0 i ✓i e e r — Cc ° T3i< W i 1 �, Address: bbb 6 A p S r h Cen-F� 13 ivd T� K wt t 1.0" °1'3 I Q 8 �`� 1 Phone: FAX: Signature: Date: 1 ( (3.4T-4 G :WPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\C0MPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan ®ci.tukwila.wa.us COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS C. LAND USE(S): Existing: /4/1 Proposed: r-14- G: \APPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doe, 06/28/00 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: i1/4 1!4 Proposed: B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: rJ1 A Proposed: ( "114 (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof to demonstrate that a change to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? 3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010) In addition to the above question, a response to each of the following circumstances is also necessary: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply!) 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. C. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. G:I APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 Update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.050) Al. The Transportation Element needs to be updated to include current information per state law. Existing information in the current Comp Plan is from 1993. A2. Conditions have changed which warrant updating the Comp Plan. There is no other option. A3. The benefit to the community is that the City is planning for projected changes based on current information. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.010) B 1. The City is updating the Transportation Element using current information. This is also required to maintain compliance with the state GMA. B2. Impacts are simply that current information will be used to identify transportation needs, both existing and future. B3. The current Transportation Element was drafted using the best information available at that time. The update is designed so that current information continues to be used. B4. Updates to Comp Plan elements are a required part of GMA. B5. Updates to Comp Plan elements are required as part of Countywide Planning Policies. Coordination with surrounding jurisdictions, which are all using current information, is also required. B6. No changes will be made to any other City functional plans. B7. No capital improvements will be made as part of the update to the Transportation Element. Specific capital improvements will be identified as necessary to accommodate growth within the document. B8. The City's Concurrency Ordinance will need to be updated to reflect changes, if any, in concurrency standards and transportation impact fees that result from the update to the Comp Plan. Zoning Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.84.030) No changes to zoning will be proposed with the update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department ofCommunity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanQci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss EXECUTED at (city), (state), on (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents a • are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other . . resentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to co • plete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to pe ' or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the resu of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application witho refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" wi in ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety 90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. On this day personally appeared be re me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument d acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN 0 BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIAI ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS: The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types o development applications. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Two (2) sets of mailing labels listing the property owners of record residents and businesses within 500 feet of the project property lines (not the property center). • One copy of an Assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of e subject property and the 500 foot public notice area. • Property owner names and addresses c • be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of e King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile th= information required: • Obtain the Assessor's map(s) whic contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (see example diagram). Y u may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Dep ent of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purc ; sed maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the Assessor maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment On this form, provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the Assessor' map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. pplicants can request the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. To obtain occupants /resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development, consult the Tukwila Business License data base and do a field survey as directed. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant ", with the proper mailing address, if the specific names are unknown. G: \APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP \COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 Decision Type On-Site Posting Periods Duration of Posting Period I Type 2 derision F. For any project requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit For projects triggering SEPA review, posting shall lake place 14 days after notice of the comment period. Single Farm flings are exempted. For projects triggering SEPA review, posting shall take place within 4 days after notice of completeness until the later of (1) 14 days after the issuance of a decision or (2) the date of any administrative appeal hearing. For all type 3, 4, and 5 decisions, posting shall take place within 14 days after notice of completeness until the date of the public hearing The Public Notice Board shall be posted fora minimum of 30 days Notice of Hearing At least 14 days prior to any public hearing on Type 3, 4, and 5 decisions open record appeal hearings on Type 2 dedsions and closed record appeal hearings on type 4 decisions the Project Planner shall post the Notice of Hearing on any posted notice board(s) 41 . I Type 3, 4, or 5 decision l•—> G:\APPHAN 1 ANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doe, 06/28/00 Removal of Posting Board Applicant is responsible for removing the posting board in a timely manner in accordance with the time Iirrrt described in the 'Duration of Posting Period" section. FIGURE 1 6199 T = 1111'= 1111 = 1111 = lul=l 1111- 11111111 - 1111 -III 1111 E 1111 =131 E 1111 -=1 IIII. 1111 =1111 E. 1111 =111 _1111= 1111 =IIII E. 1111= • 1111 =1111 =101' =1111 = `III Type of A • Project Name: Site Address: Applicant: NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION Site Map 14 "x21" Laminated GAAPPHAN 1LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc. 06211/00 Notice of Application 8.5 "x14" Laminated To Submit comments or obtain additional information Please contact the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 0100 Tukwila, WA 98188 1_1111 =1m =1111 =1111 1111 - 1111 =NI1 e $ IIII� III( =1111 Ili1- 1111=1111 1111 -1111 E 1111 -1111 1111 '- 1111 = 1111_ • 1111 IIII 1111E 1111 E III I. 101 EMI �_1111- 1111 -1111 =1111_1111= 1111 1 11116 i L��e•1111 =1111=1111 =1111 =1111=1111= u1t'_. L� Public Notice 8.5 "x14" Laminated 7 to 9 feet To See Figure 4 for a copy of the City Seal Top of Notice Sign shall be 7 to 9' above grade Sign Materials Use 4'x4'x12' Post Use 4'x4' Plywood Use 1f2 " x 3 " Gamy. Lag Bolts w/washers Sign Lettering Use Helvetica Lettering Black Lettering on White Background for all but the BoardTitle Red Lettering on White Background for the Board Title "Notice of Land Use Action" Logo 8 inch diameter figure 3 for lettering sizes and placement 7 1 Posts should be placed no less than 2'4" below grade Notice Sign shell be located at the Sra nder Bt d midpoint of the site street frontage Public Notice Board Sign Location Example FIGURE 2 G:IAPPHAN\LANDUSE. APPPCOMPAPP.doc. 06/28/00 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT The applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance and removal of the notification sign(s) and the associated cost. The sign(s) shall be erected no later than fourteen (14) days after the Department of Community Development issues the Notice of Completeness and will remain erected until the date specified by the Department. The applicant shall sign an affidavit, stating that the sign(s) were installed and posted in accordance with all City codes and ordinances. The affidavit of posting shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development by the applicant within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. If the sign is made illegible, removed or otherwise destroyed prior to th - :. e of the final Public Hearing or final action by the City of Tukwila, the applicant i - sponsible for the immediate replacement of the sign. Failure to maintain the Notice Bo. • in good condition is cause for the discontinuance of the review of the application until th - 1 otice Board is replaced and remains in place for a specified time period. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT 0 F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Department shall provide the applic •• t with all information necessary for the installation of the Public Notification Board. These erials include a copy of the City logo, size and materials requirements, and illustrated examp - s of a Posting Board. The Department will also determine the type of decision being rendered f , this application and specify to the applicant the duration of the posted period. The Department shall post Notice of Hearing on any posted Notice Board(s) erected pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 at least 1 days prior to any Public Hearings on Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, Open Record Appeal Hearings ► type 2 decision and Closed Appeal Hearings on Type 4 decisions. REQUIRED CLEAR VISION AREA NO SIGNAGE ALLOWED J 10' 4a Fip arty Line FIGURE 3 4' 1.5" (Lettering) TYPE OF ACTION: PROJECT NAME: SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: 8" Dia 2.75" (Lettering, Red) NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTIO 1rd 1.5" (Lettering) TO SUBMI." COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 'LEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 .0" (LETTERING) G: \APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 FIGURE 4 G: APPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 FIGURE 5 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila sign at the property owner's expense, if Notice letter. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanAci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND PO . TING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIG S) I (PRINT NAME) und= stand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no late than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on the • lic Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guid ines were posted on the property located at so as t • • e clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file num er its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the t removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeare before me to me known to be the individual who exec ed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and • ed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND S ORN to before me this day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS: Public Information Signs are intended to make the public aware of land use and development actions which are being considered by the City, to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. SIGN INSTALLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS Sign Size and Placement The sign(s) shall be 4'x4' in size, placed no closer than five (5) feet from right -of -way at the mid -point of the more heavily traveled public street fronting the prop- y (see Figure 1). A minimum of one sign is required on each project site. Additional signs ay be required for larger sites or for properties with several street frontages. The sign(s) c of be located within the required clear vision area depicted in Figure 2. The sign shall b prepared using the official templates provided in this packet or attachable letters. Hand le '-red signs are not acceptable. Signs meeting the established criteria may be obtained from any ' ofessional sign company. Signs Now in Tukwila (206) 271 -5465 and Fast Signs in Seattle (206 368 -7331 are two sign companies providing this service. You may consult the yellow page to obtain quotes from other sign companies. Sign Content • The title "Notice of Land Use Action." • Type of land use or development action which is propos d. • Name of the proposed project. • Address of project site. • Name of the Applicant. • City of Tukwila logo (copy attached). • A graphic or written description of the site boundaries, and space for the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing. • Additional information as the irector of Community Development may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the publi of the pending land use application. G: WPPHAMLANDUSE.APPICOWIPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 X