Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E05-003 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL PROPERITES - TUKWILA STATION TOWNHOMESTUKWILA STATION E05 -003 PROPERTY EXHIBITS 0 PROPOSED PROPERTY EXHIBIT L PACIFIC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC. COMBINED PARCEL aD5 �l PE �►`�` A5 BUILT C TACKS a1 Z • zol z I� olt � 126 ra tg 19 AS BUILT TRACKS 100 200 SCALE: 1" =200' D J g re. I y SO. 158TH ST — --- --r -r -r LOIVGAC Reg -' WAY. CONSTRUCTION STORAGE & STAGING AREA PROPOSED PROPERTY EXHIBIT 11- PACIFIC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC. COMBINED PARCEL Ea °y 10) 5�Q►�„,,014P AS BUILT CL TRACKS 100 SCALE: 1" =200' J• IJ • O I3 SO. 158TH ST 200 LONGACRES -' WAY AS BUILT C TACKS '30'EASEMENT 41,134.17 sct ft PROPOSED PROPERTY EXHIBIT in PACIFIC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC. COMBINED PARCEL E A05 �l 04.1 °'( 43' LAND SWAP 59,187.70 sct ft AS BUILT TRACKS 100 SCALE: 1" =200' IJ • d g PI. 50. 158TH ST 200 111'1 A5 BUILT C TTACKS ■ LONGACRES -' WAY COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 April 11, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED 'APR 11 2005 DEVELOPMENT Re: Tukwila Station Proposal by Pacific Commercial Properties File Numbers: L04 -014, L04 -015 and E05 -003 Dear Department of Community Development: The Boeing Company has serious concerns regarding the traffic impacts to our site that would result from this proposed development and how these impacts will be mitigated. Accordingly, we are retaining a traffic consultant to review the traffic impact analysis submitted by Pacific Commercial Properties for the Tukwila Station project. As soon as our traffic consultant has reviewed the traffic impact analysis documents, we will contact the City to discuss further. Please consider this letter as my request to be a party of record for this matter. I can be reached at (206) 544 -0182 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Shaunta R. Hyde Manager, Local Government Relations The Boeing Company Cc: Jeff Adelson, Boeing Realty Corporation Rick Ford, Facilities Planning, Boeing Laura Whitaker, Perkins Coie Minnie Dahliwahl, City of Tukwila [/Tukwila Station Appeal letter] Laura N. Whitaker PHONE: 206.359.8584 FAX: 206.359.9584 EMAIL: 1whitaker@perkinsoie.com April 14, 2005 RFr''r.rn !APR 14 2005 Co DEVELOP igr BY FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Tukwila Station Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Perkins Coie uoi Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com As you know, we represent the Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), which owns the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila /Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full, buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.' 1 Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003- 0104/SB051040.007] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA PHOENIX • PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 2 As a neighboring property owner and developer, Boeing has the following comments on the proposed Tukwila Station project: 1 The transportation analysis does not appear to account for pipeline projects other than the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. See, Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 7 dated February 24, 2005. But as noted above, the impacts of the LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Tukwila Station transportation analysis.2 The Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips as part of baseline traffic. 2. Moreover, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis appears to rely on the traffic analysis set forth in the Westfield Shoppingtown EIS for methodology and conclusions regarding traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation. See, e.g., Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 11. As Boeing stated in its comment letter on the Westfield DEIS (see, Letter from Laura Whitaker to City, dated July 2004), the Westfield DEIS's traffic analysis failed to account for the LOP development in its assumptions regarding baseline traffic. We are concerned, therefore, that the City not only ignored LOP trips in the Westfield DEIS, but is now using that flawed analysis as the basis for assessing the traffic impacts of other proposed developments in the City. 3. We note that Longacres Way /S. 158th Street appears to be the single point of access to the Tukwila Station project and is characterized as a "dead end" street in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis supplement, dated March 28, 2005. As the City is aware, the Tukwila/Boeing Agreement provides that Boeing has 390 AM and PM peak hour trips over S. 158th Street, as it would serve as a key access point to future development at LOP. It does not appear that the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis takes these Boeing trips into 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. [03003- 0104/SB051040.007) 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 3 account in the evaluation of direct SEPA impacts to Longacres Way /S. 158th Street and the West Valley Highway and Longacres Way /S 158th Street intersection. The Analysis should be modified to ensure adequate intersection and street capacity is provided to support future LOP traffic. 4. Also with respect to use of Longacres Way /S. 158th Street, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis fails to identify the potential for cut - through traffic from Tukwila Station across Boeing private roadways and parking areas as a potential impact of the Tukwila Station project, and also fails to identify potential mitigation measures to control such impacts. The Analysis should be modified accordingly. 5. Contrary to the characterization and discussion of Longacres Way /S. 158th Street in the context of site access and safety in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, Longacres Way /S: 158th Street will not be a dead end street. In addition to the proposed Tukwila Station project, it will also serve future development on LOP properties immediately east of the proposed Tukwila Station site. As such, stopping and entering sight distance provisions should be considered for both left and right turns from the Tukwila Station driveways and unobstructed sight lines in both the eastbound and westbound directions along Longacres Way /S. 158th Street should be provided. Although the actual posted speed on Longacres Way /S. 158th Street is unclear from the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, standard design practice should make provisions for sight distance at a minimum of 5 mph above the posted speed limit, or in this case, 30 mph. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum of 200 feet of stopping sight distance and 330 feet of entering sight distance (to the east and west) be provided at both proposed site driveways (unless permanent turning restrictions are proposed) to meet standard engineering design practice as outlined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001, AASHTO. [03003- 0104/SB051040.007] 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde at 206 -544 -0182 or me. Very truly yours, Laura N. Whitaker LNW:tbh cc: Shaunta R. Hyde, Local Government Relations, Boeing Jeff Adelson, Boeing Realty Corporation Rick Ford, Facilities Planning, Boeing John N. Powers, Boeing Realty Corporation [03003- 0104 /SB051040.007] 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal - RE: FW: Tukwila development From: "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @pse.com> To: "Minnie Dhaliwal" < mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/13/05 9:28AM Subject: RE: FW: Tukwila development Minnie, Thank you kindly for your email and voice mail. Our Senior System Planning Engineer is reviewing the parcel numbers you sent over to determine if they conflict with our facilities. I should hear back from him today or tomorrow. Thank you. Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Minnie Dhaliwal [mailto :mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:25 PM To: Hempstead, Susan B Subject: Re: FW: Tukwila development Hi Susan, I am the planner reviewing Tukwila Station mixed use project. The parcel numbers for the project site are 242304 -9034, 242304 -9137 and 0005800013. .Do you have a sketch showing locations of PSE facilities, so we can determine if there is a conflict? Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 (PH) 206 - 431 -3665 (FAX) mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us »> "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @pse.com> 04/12/05 09:52AM »> Lynn, I understand Moira is out until next Monday. Do you have any information on my question below (regarding the new development at longacres)? Thanks, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Page 1 Minnie Dhaliwal - RE: FW: Tukwila development Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Hempstead, Susan B Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:47 AM To: 'Moira Bradshaw' Cc: Harris, Wayne A Subject: Tukwila development Hi Moira, Would you have any additional information regarding the City's recently approved development for 300 condos and 7,000 feet of retail at Longacres near 405 (near the railroad tracks). I am curious if this might be the property between the two railroad tracks centered somewhat around the old Longacres Wy street - one of the old accesses to the racetrack? PSE has two transmission lines, one is partially underground, and we have a 115kv cable station - which looks like a substation - where the transmission converts from overhead to underground. We would need to see how these facilities are affected by the proposed development if we are thinking of the same location. I'm also surmising that this property prompted our earlier email dialogue! Kindest regards, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Minnie Dhaliwal - FW: Tukwila station site plan Page 1 From: "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @ pse.com> To: <Zsofia @rutledgemaul.com> Date: 4/14/05 9:49AM Subject: FW: Tukwila station site plan Thanks for the additional drawings, Zsofia. We really appreciate your assistance. We're most concerned about the location of our facilities (especially the Nelson cable station) with respect to the development. have cc'd PSE's system planning engineer and land manager on this email as well for them to provide our facility comments directly to you . Joe and Wayne, please see Zsofia's email & attachments below and contact her directly with your comments or if you need additional drawings /information to review for potential conflicts. Thanks, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Zsofia Tantos [mailto:Zsofia @rutledgemaul.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:25 AM To: Hempstead, Susan B Subject: RE: tukwila station site plan Susan, yes, we are aware of the relocation of the railroad tracks. I just didn't want to confuse you right at the beginning with all of our different site plans for the different phases. But I'II send you both of our site plans showing the phases. In phase I we have a 30' easement towards the east which we are going to use as parking. When the railroad dissappears on the west side, we get 43' along that side, and we give up our 30' easement on the east side. Basically the difference between the two phases the location of our outdoor parking area, our building is not going to change. Let me know if you have any more questions, Regards, Zsofia Zsofia Tantos Rutledgemaul Architects 19336 47th Ave. N.E. ' Ntin ie Dhaliwal - FW: Tukwila station site plan Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 440 -0330, FAX: (206) 362 -4381 zsofia @rutledgemaul.com Original Message From: Hempstead, Susan B [mailto:susan.hempstead @pse.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:02 PM To: Zsofia Tantos Subject: RE: tukwila station site plan Zsofia, Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your plans to our system planning engineers to review for conflicts. Do you anticipate the future movement of the railroad tracks will impact the development or are you building with that movement in mind? Kindest regards, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Zsofia Tantos [ mailto:Zsofia @rutledgemaul.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:01 PM To: Hempstead, Susan B Subject: tukwila station site plan Susan, I was asked to send you a site plan of our project in Tukwila which is located south of 405, between the railroads and north of Longacres Way. As far as we know, the site is clear of any structure. Let me know if you have any questions, Zsofia Tantos Rutledgemaul Architects 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 440 -0330, FAX: (206) 362 -4381 zsofia @rutledgemaul.com !I Minnie Dhaliwal - RE: a request From: "Ross Whitney" <ross @whitney - sons.com> To: "'Minnie Dhaliwal "' <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/1/05 6:42PM Subject: RE: a request Thank you very much. Original Message From: Minnie Dhaliwal [mailto :mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 5:22 PM To: ross @whitney - sons.com Cc: Cyndy Knighton Subject: Re: a request Mr. Whitney: sent the Traffic Analysis report that you requested along with the revised report that I received this afternoon from the applicant to you. It went out in the mail this afternoon. Please let me know if you have any questions on the report. As I stated in my cover letter, please contact me directly if you have any questions instead of directly contact Mirai Associates. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us »> "Ross Whitney" <ross @whitney - sons.com> 04/01/05 07:03AM »> Minnie, What I request from the City of Tukwila, and its the only thing I need, is a copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Tukwila Station Housing Development, even though it is not the final draft. From me to drive from Gig Harbor to Tukwila and back during business hours is no trivial task. There is heavy traffic all the way. So thank you for your help. Ross Whitney 4606 131st St. CT NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 253 858 9213 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tukwila Station 2. Name of applicant: Rutledge Maul Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 09 ': PERMIT CENTER Rutledge Maul Architects 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 Bill Rutledge 4. Date checklist prepared: March 8, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Estimated construction start date would be late 2005 with a completion date in late 2006 or early 2007. X05 -003 CLOS -0t4 LOS -O t5 ) P05-o l ct RECEM,ET1 'MAR 09 2805 comm. Y DEVELOPMENT 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes: we will be having a land swap with the city of Tukwila, see attachment A. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or would be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 10. List any government approvals or permits that would be needed for your proposal, if known: Conditional use permit; Bar approved; Building permits; Code Amendments for TUC; Land Exchange agreement w/ City of Tukwila. 11. Give brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The site is located on a 4.6 Acre of land in Tukwila and will have a lower level of parking which will be in the range of 104,849 sf and five storie's of residential. Building one will have a square footage in the range of 66,112. Buildings 2 -3 will have a total square footage in the range of 128,886 and building 4 -5 will have a square footage in the range of 125,247. We will also have some commercial on the forward building 1 at the courtyard level. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is Lot 2 of the City of Tukwila Short Plat # L98 -0007, Recording NO. 9803129013 in King County: The Stie is located just south of I -405 between the Union Pacific R/R and the BNSF Burlington Northern R/R and is just North of Longacres Way. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Site is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approx. 2% or less across the entire site. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The 1973 Soils Conservation Service map identifies the on -site soils as Woodinville Silt Loam (Wo). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of structural fill will need to be brought in to raise the site so that required storm drainage detention and water quality facilities will function and drain to the existing drainage swale on the east side of the site. Source of fill will likely be from sites under construction with export material. All fill brought to the site will be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer for suitability. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Yes. Site is flat however which precludes much detrimental effects from erosion. Silt fencing will be provided along the swale to the east to prevent sediment from entering the waterway. About what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 69% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces (roads, parking, buildings, sidewalks). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fencing, V- ditches, sediment pond(s) and/or trap(s) will be utilized as necessary to collect and settle sediment -laden construction water prior to discharge. A temporary erosion control plan detailing these elements will be submitted to the city for review as part of the construction documents for building permit. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we would expect some levels of dust along with smoke /exhaust from trucks and construction equipment. Possible odors could also result from and during construction such as paints and solvents along with the smell of diesel again from the construction equipment. Once the project is completed we would expect very low levels of dust and odors. Possible vehicle odors would exists in the mornings and evenings while tenants are coming and going. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe? NO. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction dust control will be implemented in either the form of soil dampening or screening. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A storm drainage swale exists to the east of the adjacent property. This swale enters a piped system and is conveyed to Springbrook Creek approx. 1 mile east of the site. Springbrook Creek conveys flows to the north and connects to the Green River north of the site. The Green River is located approx. 0.5 miles west of the site. 2) Would the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters. If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Would the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. Virtually the entire site is shown in the floodplain per FEMA maps. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Ground 1) Would ground water be withdrawn, or would water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that would be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where would this water flow? Would this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff for this site consists of the flows primarily from rainfall on the buildings, roadways, and parking areas. Collection of this runoff is by conventional means including building downspouts and gutters, storm drainage catchbasins, and tightline systems to a storm water detention system. The site is split into two separate systems, one detention system to the north and one detention system to the south. The southerly system collects approximately the southerly one quarter of the site and detains runoff. Similarly the northerly system collects approximately three quarters of the site and detains this runoff in a concrete vault. Runoff from both vaults is directed easterly to a drainage swale along the base of the railroad tracks. This runoff flows northerly and then easterly under the tracks in a 24 inch storm drainage line. This water is conveyed easterly to Springbrook Creek. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Runoff is proposed to be detained and released at a pre developed rate. Water quality measures are provided to clean the runoff prior to discharge to the existing system. The southerly vault employs "dead storage" to accomplish this; the northerly vault employs a "bioswale" to clean the runoff. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation would be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other amphibians and reptiles: frogs, salamanders, snakes, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it would be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric Heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The traffic from I -405 and two Railroad lines to the East and West. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical construction noise would occur during normal working hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Northern portion of the site is currently used by the Dity Public Works Dept. for temporary storage. The balance of the site is not in use. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Would any structures be demolished? If so, what. No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Industrial? The site is within the Transit Development (TOD) area of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) while the new sub area plan has not been officially adopted as yet, the City Council and Planning Commission have approved code criteria to allow the proposed project. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Possible part of Tukwila, waiting for approval, see line E. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 450 residents and 10 -12 retail / commercial workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comprehensive plan policies support mixed use residential in this area. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. We will be providing 294 units which will accommodate all levels of income. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any portion of this structure will be in the range of 75' Exterior bldg walls include brick, stucco, horizontal and vertical siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Nearly 70% of the parking is in a parking garage. The buildings have been designed with substantial vertical and horizontal modulation. Color and materials variety also are used to diminish the overall impact of the buildings. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare would the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project will include lighting that will meet the City of Tukwila lighting requirements. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with the views? NO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are parks in the area along with South center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe: NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will have over 65,000 sf of open space & common and recreation facilities. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on , or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, of any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access is from Longacres way just south of the site and the Sounder train is exists approximately 1500 feet from the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? We will provide 422 parking spaces none will be eliminated. d. Would the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). NO e. Would the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project once finished would use the rail system via the adjacent Sounder Train Station. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 200 to 400 trips per day could be generated although the use of the rail could affect this estimate greatly. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: We are designing with the rail system in mind with hopes that it would be extensively utilized for transportation by the residents. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Nominal increase in public services will occur for Police and Fire protection b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The site will be oriented to provide direct pedestrian access to the Sounder Train Station, thereby reducing transportation impacts. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Circle electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewers, storm drainage system, cable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Sanitary sewers,Storm Sewers, and Water Service- City of Tukwila. Cable TV- Comcast. General construction activities on the site would include extensions or each of these systems onto the site for service. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and com is relying on t em tQ ' . ke it Signature: Date Submitted: to to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency APR 08 '05 ld, :45PM I U W1LH LA.u'rw City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: Applicant Name: P&C% /iCi C04/11/0a/ %�2���►' / /��l' i4 t : Street Address: 1.O• 01(5 61106 City, State, Zip: &I€u , 104 leas Telephone: /Z ' 76� "707 v1 Directions This Screening Checkbsst has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. APR 08 '05 03: 45PM I UKWIL( -1 ULU /rw Part A: Please review and answer each question carefily. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 Continue to Question 1=1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any fonn of ebaring? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-0 YES - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in res ect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 4-0 YES - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington . Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06,Tkwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. C.> Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6-0 Continue to Question 6-0 I-#i telb 0d;4V'M IUKW1LH 1Av'rW Part A (continued) 6-0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the and (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -13). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including., but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer, 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black livers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a rivet or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwarnisb rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. i - Continue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect PPR dB 'tJ5 0.3: 4131-71 IU W1LH L .L /rW the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 1-4 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully; considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2.2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast - height of 2 inches or more .and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. k Continue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary big) water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2.4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Crrecn /Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1 ) APR 08 '05 03 :46PM TUKWILA VLV/Pw YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 r. 1m/ 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3.0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwaruish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue tb Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both annporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults_ Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the APR 08 '05 03:47PM TLU<WILA DCD /PW cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the Left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3.5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not hmitcd to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip-rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response, NO - Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly - waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . I, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing )% , Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public .Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Project Number: 0007 C7 — 003 Official Notice T-11 Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application ' Shoreline Mgmt Permit Person requesting mailing: R N N 1� Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 21- day of year 20 b �� in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: -7---k4cA9, tl P- N-Ju' d - u-a..E_ ,,,,q Project Number: 0007 C7 — 003 T-11 Mailer's Signature: •••-(P-L'`-‘-----i2 s ' Person requesting mailing: R N N 1� ll� P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM COLKI'TE M. TEMMINK BOEING REALTY COMPANY PO BOX 3707 MC 1F -58 SEATTLE,.WA 98124 -2207 BOEING COMPANY THE 100 N RIVERSIDE M/C 5003 -4027 CHICAGO IL 60606 MCLEOD STU 213 LAKE �SOUTH KIRK WA 98033 PUGET SOUND ENERGY /ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 GUST ERIKSON PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY #310 BOTHELL WA 98011 STEFFEN TERRY c/o CSM LODGING 2575 UNIVERSITY AV W #150 ST PAUL MN 55114 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ATTN BILLINGS JIM 1416 DODGE ST #325 OMAHA NE 68179 KAUPAT PETER H P O BOX 88108 SEATTLE WA 98188 MEYERS VE 13911 SE HPL BEL UE WA 98006 TOM KALIL, President INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKAGING INC 15450 NELSON PL S TUKWILA, WA 98188 TOM KALIL, President INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKAGING INC PO BOX 88299 SEATTLE, WA 98138 MRS. CARMEN ARZO 2800 75TH SE #300 /--'1 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 HAUNTA R. HYDE THE BOEING COMPANY PO BOX 3707 MC 14 -49 SEATTLE, WA 98124 -2207 RAINIER BELLS INC 31919 1ST AV S #206 FEDERAL WA 98003 BNSF RWY CO PO BOX 961089 FORT W TX 76161 CITY OF SEATTLE SPU REAL PROP — WTR 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE WA 98104 Hansen Group LL 14405 25th e SW n, WA 98166 NGUYEN STEVE HUNG LIVING TRUST 16620 SE 27TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98008 DONALD MOODY CB RICHARD ELLIS 1420 5TH AVE SUITE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TERESA PATTON CB RICHARD ELLIS 1420 5TH AVE SUITE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Unison Site Management Corp Attn: Lease /contract Admin 6809 D, Bowmans Crossing Frederick, MD 21703 Gull Industri 3404 F rth Ave S Se 1e, WA 98134 JASON HUBBELL BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERS 18215 72ND AVE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 WILLIAM T. VIVIAN GULL OIL CO 240 3404 4TH AVE S PO BOX 24687 SEATTLE WA 98124 CLOSE ROBERT J TRUSTEE 8262 E HWY 106 UNION WA. 98592 Janene Siers C/o Foodmakers, Inc 9330 Balboa Ave San Diego, CA 92123 WENDYS INTERNATIONAL INC POBOX256 DUBLIN OH 43017 rom: To: Date: Subject: Tukwila development "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @ pse.com> "Minnie Dhaliwal" <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/13/05 9:28AM RE: FW: Tukwila development Minnie, Thank you kindly for your email and voice mail. Our Senior System Planning Engineer is reviewing the parcel numbers you sent over to determine if they conflict with our facilities. I should hear back from him today or tomorrow. Thank you. Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 ne: 425-456 - Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @ pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Minnie Dhaliwal [mailto :mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:25 PM To: Hempstead, Susan B Subject: Re: FW: Tukwila development Hi Susan, I am the planner reviewing Tukwila Station mixed use project. The parcel numbers for the project site are 242304 -9034, 242304 -9137 and 0005800013. Do you have a sketch showing locations of PSE facilities, so we can determine if there is a conflict? Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 (PH) 206 - 431 -3665 (FAX) mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us »> "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @pse.com> 04/12/05 09:52AM »> Lynn, I understand Moira is out until next Monday. Do you have any information on my question below (regarding the new development at longacres)? Thanks, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, PSE 12N • RFCrr 'APR 4 2005 ,Laura N. Whitaker 'PHONE: 206.359.8584 FAX: 206.359.9584 MAIL: 1whitaker@perkinscoie.com April 14, 2005 BY FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300.Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Tukwila Station Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com As you know, we represent the Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), which owns the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila/Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.' ' Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003.0104/S B051040.007] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates Jam and Smudge Free Printing . Use Awry® TEMPLATE 526010 • BNSF RWY CO PO Box 961089 Fort Worth TX 76161 -0089 CITY OF TUKWILA 15500 W Valley Hwy T a, WA 98188 OD DEVELOPMEN COMPANY / 91A-0'^r Mc 213 Lake St S Kirkland WA 98033 -6417 HANSEN G' : ' LLC 14405 25 • Ave SW Burie A 98166 -1014 Bros Whitney 4606 131st Street Gig Harbo 98332 -8877 BOEING COMP 5003 -4027 Chicag• i 60606 BOEING COMP s .• • THE 5003 -4027 Chica • • 60606 BOEING COMPANY PO Box 3707 Seattle WA 98124 -2207 UNION PACIFIC ' • I . ' OAD CO 1400 Douglas - .40 Omaha I •8179 -1001 BOEING COMP 100 N Rive '• e M C 5003 -402 Chica: • i 60606 749ZS ®AU3AV www.avery.com 1- 800-GO -AVERY Sound Energy & Eles„PLrget PO Box 90868 Bellevue 98009 -0868 GULL INDUSTRIES 3404 4th Av Seatt • A 98134 -1905 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REG TRA 1100 2nd Ave #500 Seattle WA 98101 -3424 HANSEN GROUP LLC 14405 25th Ave SW Burien WA 98166 -1014 Robert J Close 8262 E e Route 106 Una WA 98592 -9779 BOEING COMP • ►► THE 5003 -4027 Chica s IL 60606 BOEING CO ► ANY THE 5003 -4 C " . go IL 60606 Sound Energy & Elec PO Box 908 Bell - • ' A 98009 -0868 CITY OF TUK 6300 So Tu a WA 98188 -8548 enter Blvd #100 INDUSTRIAL CRAT PACKING PO Box 8: • 9 Tu • WA 98138 -2299 Aa3AV- 09.009 -1, CI AVERY® 5260TM UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO 1400 Douglas St #1640 Omaha NE 68179 -1001 PUGET WESTERN 19515 North Bothell W 98011 -8200 eek Pkwy #310 2000 MEYERS FAMILY LIMITED PAR 13911 SE 45th P1 Bellevue WA 98006 -2240 UNISON SITE MANAGEMENT LLC 400 Madison Ave New York NY 10017 -1909 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chica • _ i 60606 BOEING COMP 5003 -4027 Chica ' • i 60606 TUKWILA HOTEL LLC 600 E Riverpark Ln #205 Boise ID 83706 -6562 L L C Vectra 1400 Monster Rd SW Renton WA 98055 -2964 Sound Energy & Elec Puget PO Box 90868 Bellevue WA 98009 -0868 ,„09Z5 iiiege6 ai zasii4n aoide! a6eunas e is afie»nennue uoissaidwi Architecture & Planning rma Rutledge Maul Architects, PS. Inc. William E. Rutledge, A.I.A„ President 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 440 -0330 (206) 362 -4381 FAX bill@rutledgemaul . com CHECKUST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHOREUNE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 5- 003 () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDI DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DMSION' 0�`�1 re OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS ' SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD O FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () FIRE () FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ()MAYOR () PUBLIC WORKS () POLICE ( ) PLANNING () PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTIUTIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR () K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY OHIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 () WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ISHERIES PROGRAM LDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: WDMIN ISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC ()SS L (906 131 l - "CrNA-) wA 9 6 : w 3 ' 32- UWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE O P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT ( ) DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COAUTION *SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ■2 ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mai! to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record ' send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross - sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ADM INISTRATIVE\FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Minnie Dhaliwal FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: April 21, 2005 RE: Tukwila Station As you know, Mirai Transportation and Planning has been retained by the City to review traffic studies for proposed new development. The qualifications of the firm have been accepted by the City and all comments are reviewed and approved by me prior to issuance. Memoranda from Mirai Transportation and Planning are to be treated as equivalent to comments from the Public Works Department. To wit, several memoranda have been issued as well as several email correspondences between the City and the developer and/or representative for the Tukwila Station project. Further, a letter has been submitted by Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Boeing Corporation. Much of the recent correspondence has focused on addressing Boeing's concerns over this proposed development. The Public Works Department has been trying to ensure that all of Boeing's concerns are addressed in the traffic analysis to ensure that no appeal of a SEPA determination would occur. The applicant, through his representatives, have made this an extremely difficult task. It has never been the intent of Public Works to delay a SEPA determination or cause undue difficulties for this proposed development. It is, however, the responsibility of the department to ensure that adequate capacity and safety continues to be provided for the traveling public. For the SEPA determination, the Public Works Department must require that adequate sight distance be provided at the driveway access points. Barring that, mitigating measures must be taken by the applicant to ensure safe access points. This must include the guaranteed Boeing Longacres Park trips of 390 peak hour volume (as well as assume that the road could be opened to Boeing site traffic in the future). Anything above that number associated with Boeing's development will need to be addressed by Boeing. The site design of the Tukwila Station must be approved only with appropriate measures. 200 feet of stopping sight distance and 330 feet of entering sight distance is required per the AASHTO Standards adopted by Tukwila or acceptable mitigation must be done. Public Works does not accept the proposed trip generation. There are.still outstanding issues on trip reduction for the proposed specialty retail as well as general trip reduction for proximity to a commuter rail station. This issue is not one of SEPA concern and can be resolved at another time. The proposed trip distribution is acceptable, now that the consultant has provided further information on his methodology and assignment. h: \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tukwila station 4- 21- 05.doc There are still concerns over the level of service analysis at the intersection of West Valley Highway and Longacres Way. In the initial submittal, certain turning movements were operating at LOS E or LOS F under the "with project" conditions. In the calculations submitted today, which also include the 390 Boeing trips, the turning movements have improved. It is suspected that the Synchro program used to analyze the intersection was allowed to optimize the signal timing. While not opposed to having this presented, it does raise some questions. That signal is under WSDOT jurisdiction and changing signal timing would not be a easy as one maintained by Tukwila. It is possible that the City may require the applicant to assist the City in changing the signal timing plan for this intersection. This is also not a SEPA concern and can be resolved at a later date. Impact Mitigation Fees will be required but cannot be determined until trip generation issues have been resolved. This is also not a SEPA issue and can be addressed at a later time. However, it should be noted that the impact fees will need to be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. I trust this memorandum addresses all the outstanding SEPA and non -SEPA issues so that you may issue your determination. h: \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tukwila station 4- 21- 05.doc Ror 21 05 07:39p Architecture & Planning rma Rutledge Maul Architects, P.S. Inc. April 21, 2005 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Attn: Minnie Dhaliwaf RE: Tukwila Station Dear Minnie 206 - 362 -4381 p.2 We have reviewed the site distance issues that were raised during the project review and will revise the site plan to meet the requirements. The easterly drive will be for "entry only to accommodate the site line requirement. These conditions will remain in force until such time as It is determined that they are no longer required. Thank you again for your help in these matters. Sincerely, Rutledge M ul Architects PS Inc. William E Rutledge Al President 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 440 -0330, FAX (206) 362 -4381 BOE /NG The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Zo 3 ° V � % t September 30, 2004 RECEIVED `r,.I 04 2004' r ;:r:ciU %!1Y • DEVELOPMENT Mr. Steve Lancaster Director, Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Letter of Understanding Regarding the City of Tukwila/Longacres Park Transportation Mitigation Agreement (December 20, 1995) Dear Steve: As you know, Boeing is currently preparing for potential redevelopment of its Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") site. In conjunction with those planning efforts, Boeing has reviewed the terms of the above - referenced Transportation Agreement, which imposes conditions on development designed to mitigate impacts of LOP redevelopment on the Tukwila transportation system. Boeing has also met with you and other members of City staff to discuss the effect of certain of the Agreement's terms. This letter is to clarify and memorialize the Agreement's meaning and the parties' intent with respect to the number of trips addressed by the Agreement, the mitigation payment required, the nature of LOP development that generates trips subject to the Agreement, and the Agreement's duration. In particular: 1. The 'Agreement was established to mitigate the impact of the distribution of 1,831 vehicle trips from LOP into Tukwila, which are considered by the parties to be "vested" trips. LOP vehicle trip distribution to Tukwila in excess of 1,831 could require additional review and mitigation under SEPA. 2. Boeing's transportation mitigation fee obligation under the Agreement is paid incrementally as development occurs, at a cost per vehicle trip established by the Agreement, with a cap on the total fee of $1,029,560. In light of the fact that the intersection improvements that the transportation mitigation fee was based on have largely been completed,.the parties agree that the fee shall be assessed in the amount of $0.38/sq. ft. of future LOP development (i.e., $1,029,560 divided by 2,650,000 sq. ft., which is the amount of remaining buildout previously analyzed . in the 1994 LOP Environmental Impact Statement). Opportunities under the Agreement to pay the transportation mitigation fee as a discounted, lump sum have expired. [03003 -0I04- 000000 /Longacres Trips documentation letter] BOE /NG September 30, 2004 Page 2 3. The parties acknowledge that the Agreement applies to future development of LOP, regardless of whether that development conforms to Boeing's preferred alternative for LOP described in the LOP EIS. 4. The Agreement does not now include a termination date. The parties agree that vesting of the 1,831 vehicle trips and the capped transportation fee amount will remain valid until December 31, 2030. We believe that the points set forth above accurately memorialize our joint interpretation of the Agreement. Please indicate your concurrence by signing this letter as indicated below. Thank you for your continuing support and assistance of the LOP project. Very truly yours, Shaunta R. Hyde, Manager Local Government Relations The Boeing Company cc: Jeffrey R. Adelson, Boeing Realty Laura Whitaker, Esq. (WAY L 1 CITY 0 UKWILA: c219 2 vt'x I cry Steve /Lancaster, Director of Community Development t: 3I ul.40 6-vr [03003 -0104- 000000 /Longacres Trips documentation letter) .50) 1,01 for-. 09/30/04 Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Minnie Dhaliwal FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: April 18, 2005 RE: Tukwila Station Attached to this memorandum is the review comments on the Tukwila Station as provided by our consultant, Mirai Transportation and Planning. That memo recommends several points. However, I am going to require that the LOS analysis include the 390 trips allocated to Boeing Longacres Park and that it be distributed using the attached trip distribution, also provided by Mirai. Further, the applicant's e ngineer m ust e ither u se t he sa me t rip d istribution o r p rovide adequate justification on the pattern he is using today. Boeing has expressed concern over possible cut - through traffic. I am not concerned that this will be an issue given the unknown nature of this future access point. Per my conversation today with Shaunta Hyde and Laura Whitaker of Boeing, they are not sure how major of an a ccess point this will be for the future development, are not sure if the entrance will be gated and/or monitored, and are not sure of the development timeline. I suggest that a condition be placed on the Tukwila Station allowing provision of monitoring cut - through traffic on the Boeing site. Should it become problematic, we should include some sort of provision for the developer to mitigate the negative impacts. However, it is not appropriate for the TIA to include any analysis of trips going east through the Boeing site. The other recommendations in the memo from Mirai should be addressed by the applicant's engineer as well. s Memorandum M i r a i Traneportetion Planning 6. Engineering To: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Tukwila From: Tom Noguchi, Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering Subject: Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis Report: Response Date: April 18, 2005 Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering reviewed a report, entitled Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum, dated March 28, 2005. This report was prepared by Jake Traffic Engineering (JTE) in response to my memorandum dated March 18, 2005. My comments to the March 28th memorandum are outlined below: 1. Trip Generation As acknowledged by the applicant traffic consultant, it is appropriate to use the trip generation equation, instead of the average rate. The applicant insists that the proposed retail would be a specialty retail use and he provides a rationale using a coffee shop as an example. It would be difficult to accept his rationale that a coffee shop or similar uses is specialty retail. The applicant must find more appropriate retail use and a select trip generation rate corresponding to the use. The applicant's traffic consultant has not responded to my following comments in my March 18th memo: "JET applied a 15 percent vehicle trip reduction due to projected mode split increases by residents. The report states that this reduction can be justified due to the proximate location to the Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations. Neither of those is within a walking distance for the proposed development. This reduction is excessive. It is possible that this development could achieve to a 5 percent reduction since it is within a walking distance of the Commuter Rail Station." "JET applied a 34 percent reduction in the retail trip generation due to pass -by trips. This is excessive for specialty retail use." I recommend that a 10 percent reduction for pass -by trips be applied to retail trip generation. Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 1 Mirai Transportation Planning 6 Engineering 2. Trip Distribution: The response report does not provide adequate explanations as to how the traffic consultant obtained the existing trip distribution pattern. I strongly recommend that the Tukwila model be used to obtain the trip distribution. I ran the selected zone assignment for the zone that contains the proposed housing development, which is attached to this memo. It shows the percentage distribution from the proposed development site. The applicant should use the trip distribution percentages to calculate the pro -rata share of the project generated trips to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development. 3. Site Access: The applicant traffic consultant recommends that the project meet "the stopping distance criteria of 155 feet at the eastern access driveway on Longacres Way ". This memorandum does not provide adequate information as to how the traffic consultant determined 155 feet of the site distance adequate at this location. The applicant must assume that there will be developments on the Boeing property east of the railroad in the City of Renton and the access for the property will be provided through Longacres Way. Therefore, the applicant should not assume that the street would continue to be gated as it is today in the future. With this assumption, we need to know what are the adequate stopping and entering site distances. The report must indicate what action the applicant must take to meet the adequate site distance. 4. Agency Traffic Impact Mitigation Requirements: Before the City can accept the traffic mitigation, the applicant must obtain an approval on the total trips generated by the proposed development. Then, the applicant will be required to calculate the tip mitigation fee based on the trip distribution. As indicated above, we strongly suggest that the applicant use the trip distribution, which is attached to this memo. 5. Background Traffic and Level of Service at the Longacres Way /West Valley Highway: There was an agreement between the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company about how to mitigate traffic impacts from Longacres Office Park. According to this agreement, the City allowed 390 AM and PM peak hour trips to use Longacres Way from the Office Park. Because of this agreement, the Tukwila Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 2 Mira' Transportation Planning 6 Engineering Station traffic impact analysis must assume 390 tips as a part of the background traffic. The intersection levels of service should be revised to include these trips. Again, I strongly recommend that the attached trip distribution map be used to distribute these 390 trips. Without the trips from the Longacres Office Park, the delays on the southbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway approaching Longacres Way and the westbound lanes on Longacres Way approaching West Valley Highway are excessive. This problem will be worsened with additional trips from the Office Park. I suggest that the applicant traffic consultant should re- calculate the level of service and optimize the traffic signal at this intersection to see if modifications could be done to improve LOS and demonstrate that modifications can be beneficial. Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 3 PM Vehicle Distribution ( %) To and From TAZ21 Base Year 2003 (03 Network.. 00 LU) Scenario 7007. sl for TAZ 21 2005 -04 -13 1113 (bob) 1Mirai) 7 Transportation Planning & Engineering Memorandum To: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Tukwilj' From: Tom Noguchi, Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering Subject: Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis Report Review Date: March 18, 2005 Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering reviewed the traffic impact analysis report for the 300 -unit Tukwila Station development project, dated February 24, 2005. This report was prepared by Jake Traffic Engineering (JTE). My comments are outlined below: 1. Page 5, Street/Road Improvement Projects — Transportation Improvement Program: It appears that that JTE assumed that some of the CIP projects which do not have full funding for construction. The traffic analysis should assume the following CIP projects to be completed by 2010. • TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect • Southcenter Parkway Improvements • Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd Intersection Improvements • S 168th Street Roadway • West Valley Highway /I -405 NB Access • West Valley Highway Widening • Minkler Blvd Widening It should not assume that the Strander Blvd extension project, which is planned by the City of Renton, would be completed by 2010. 2. Page 8, Trip Generation (Table 8): The trip generation rates used for mid -rise apartment do not match those in the ITE Trip Generation 7`h Edition. Table 2 must be revised with the corrected trip generation rates. The proposed development includes 4,750 square feet of retail. JTE applied the trip generation rates for specialty retail use. The definition of this use in the ITE Trip Generation does not support this kind of retail development. JTE needs to provide clear justifications for this use or apply a more appropriate use for the site. Review on Tukwila Station Traffic Analysis Report Page 1 �M1rail Transportation Planning 6 Engineering JET applied a 15 percent vehicle trip reduction due to projected mode split increases by residents. The report states that this reduction can be justified due to the proximate location to the Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations. Neither of those is within a walking distance for the proposed development. This reduction is excessive. It is possible that this development could achieve to a 5 percent reduction since it is within a walking distance of the Commuter Rail Station. JET applied a 34 percent reduction in the retail trip generation due to pass -by trips. This is excessive for specialty retail use. 3. Page 9, Trip Distribution: The report does not have any text explaining how the trip distribution was obtained. For the PM peak hour, the inbound trip distribution pattern would be different from the outbound trip pattern. The Tukwila model should be used to find the trip distribution to and from the proposed site. It is difficult to trace the trip distribution routes shown in Figure 8. Therefore, the reasonableness of the distribution shown in Figure 8 cannot be adequately evaluated. 4. Page 9, Site Access: No analysis at the driveway serving the development on Longacres Way was conducted. A site distance at this driveway should be analyzed. 5. Pedestrian Access: This report does not contain any discussion related to pedestrian access to the Commuter Rail Station or the Tukwila Urban Center, and whether there are adequate facilities are provided. 6. Page 11, Agency Traffic Impact Mitigation Requirements (Table 3): Table 3 shows how the traffic impact mitigation fees are calculated. The table must be modified with the new trip generation rates and distributions (inbound and outbound) as discussed above. 7. Appendix: The levels of service in the rerport were calculated with PHF of 0.95 for existing and future conditions. JTE needs to discuss how the use of 0.95 can be justified. Also, it needs to explain how the signal timing patterns were obtained. Review on Tukwila Station Traffic Analysis Report Page 2 Laura N. Whitaker PHONE: 206.359.8584 FAX: 206.359.9584 EMAIL: 1whitaker@perkinscoie.com April 14, 2005 RFf`r.pt -r /APR 14 2005 DEvEL5134EMr BY FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Tukwila Station Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Perkins Cole 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com As you know, we represent the Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), which owns the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila /Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.' 1 Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003- 0104/SB051040.007] ANCHORAGE BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER • HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 2 As a neighboring property owner and developer, Boeing has the following comments on the proposed Tukwila Station project: 1. The transportation analysis does not appear to account for pipeline projects other than the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. See, Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 7 dated February 24, 2005: But as noted above, the impacts of the LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project'that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Tukwila Station transportation analysis.2 The Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips as part of baseline traffic. 2. Moreover, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis appears to rely on the traffic analysis set forth in the Westfield Shoppingtown EIS for methodology and conclusions regarding traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation. See, e.g., Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 11. As Boeing stated in its comment letter on the Westfield DEIS (see, Letter from Laura Whitaker to -.City, dated July 2004), the Westfield DEIS's traffic analysis failed to account for the LOP development in its assumptions regarding baseline traffic. We are concerned, therefore, that the City not only ignored LOP trips in the Westfield DEIS, but is now using that flawed analysis as the basis for assessing the traffic impacts of other proposed developments in the City. 3. We note that Longacres Way /S. 158th Street appears to be the single point of access to the Tukwila Station project and is characterized as a "dead end" street in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis supplement, dated March 28, 2005. As the City is aware, the Tukwila/Boeing Agreement provides that Boeing has 390 AM and PM peak hour trips over S. 158th Street, as it would serve as a key access point to future development at LOP. It does not appear that the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis takes these Boeing trips into 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. [03003- 0104/SB051040.007] 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 3 account in the evaluation of direct SEPA impacts to Longacres Way /S. 158th Street and the West Valley Highway and Longacres Way /S 158th Street intersection. The Analysis should be modified to ensure adequate intersection and street capacity is provided to support future LOP traffic. 4. Also with respect to use of Longacres Way /S. 158th Street, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis fails to identify the potential for cut - through traffic from Tukwila Station across Boeing private roadways and parking areas as a potential impact of the Tukwila Station project, and also fails to identify potential mitigation measures to control such impacts. The Analysis should be modified accordingly. 5. Contrary to the characterization and discussion of Longacres Way /S. 158th Street in the context of site access and safety in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, Longacres Way /S. 158th Street will not be a dead end street. In addition to the proposed Tukwila Station project, it will also serve future development on LOP.properties immediately east of the proposed Tukwila Station site. As such, stopping and entering sight distance provisions should be considered for both left and right turns from the Tukwila Station driveways and :unobstructed sight lines in both the eastbound and westbound directions along :Longacres Way /S. 158th Street should be provided. Although the actual posted speed on Longacres Way /S. 158th Street is unclear from the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, standard design practice should make provisions for sight distance at a minimum of 5 mph above the posted speed limit, or in this case, 30.mph. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum of 200 feet of stopping sight distance and 330 feet of entering sight distance (to the east and west) be provided at both proposed site driveways (unless permanent turning restrictions are proposed) to meet standard engineering design practice as outlined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001, AASHTO. [03003 -0104 /SB051040.007] 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde at 206 -544 -0182 or me. Very truly yours, Laura N. Whitaker LNW:tbh cc: Shaunta R. Hyde, Local Government Relations, Boeing Jeff Adelson, Boeing Realty Corporation Rick Ford, Facilities Planning, Boeing John N. Powers, Boeing Realty Corporation [03003 -0104 /SB051040.007] 04/14/05 The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 April 11, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED 'APR 1 1 20051 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Tukwila Station Proposal by Pacific Commercial Properties File Numbers: L04 -014, L04 -015 and E05 -003 Dear Department of Community Development: The Boeing Company has serious concerns regarding the traffic impacts to our site that would result from this proposed development and how these impacts will be mitigated. Accordingly, we are retaining a traffic consultant to review the traffic impact analysis submitted by Pacific Commercial Properties for the Tukwila Station project. As soon as our traffic consultant has reviewed the traffic impact analysis documents, we will contact the City to discuss further. Please consider this letter as my request to be a party of record for this matter. I can be reached at (206) 544 -0182 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Shaunta R. Hyde Manager, Local Government Relations The Boeing Company Cc: Jeff Adelson, Boeing Realty Corporation Rick Ford, Facilities Planning, Boeing Laura Whitaker, Perkins Coie Minnie Dahliwahl, City of Tukwila [/Tukwila Station Appeal letter] City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 1, 2005 Ross Whitney 4606 131st St. CT NW Gig Harbor WA 98332 Re: Tukwila Station Mixed use project. Dear Mr. Whitney: This is in response to your request for a copy of the Traffic Analysis Report for the above referenced project. I have included a copy of their original report, a copy of City's review comments and a revised report that was submitted by the applicant today addressing the review comments. This report will be reviewed by the City's consultant. As per our phone conversation, you were going to email me your list of questions. I have not received any email other than the one requesting a copy of traffic impact analysis.. Also, it was brought to my attention that you have directly contacted Mirai. Please note that Mirai has a specific contract with the City and they are not available to directly address public comments. However, if you have any specific questions, please contact me and we will address your questions and will pass those on to Mirai if needed. Let me know if you need anything other information at this time. Thank you for taking the time to comment on this project. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. L. April 1, 2005 Project No. K.E05127A Pacific Commercial Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 53405 Bellevue, Washington 98015 Attention: Mr. Ken Kester 1 %% Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Findings Tukwila Station Tukwila, Washington Reference: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. November 15, 2000 GeoEngineers, Inc. August 1990 Dear Mr. Kester: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is pleased to present this summary of the preliminary findings of our on -going geotechnical investigation of the proposed Tukwila Station building site. Based on the results of our recent borings, which were extended to depths of 75 to 100 feet, we know that site soils consist of deep deposits of loose to medium dense, saturated, alluvial sediments consisting of sandy silts and fine to medium sands. Ground water is, located approximately 11 feet below existing grades. These conditions are generally consistent with the soil and ground water conditions encountered on adjacent sites, as discussed in the above referenced reports. Given the site soil conditions, heavily loaded foundations supported on conventional spread footings would be vulnerable to differential settlement and seismic liquefaction hazard. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed five -story retail /multi - family residential building and ground floor level parking area should be supported on a pile foundation. It has been our experience that the most efficient means of pile support within similar soil conditions would consist of augercast-piles. The augercast piles would gain the majority of their vertical load capacity from skin friction rather than end bearing. We anticipate the use of piles 18 to 24 inches in diameter extending to depths of 45 to 60 below existing grades. Individual pile load capacities would be on the order of 60 to 100 tons. The driveway and parking areas around the building will be constructed approximately two to three feet above existing grades. The addition of fill to the site will induce settlement within the underlying soils. To mitigate_these settlements, we recommend preloading/surcharging the site with approximately five feet of temporary fill soil. The surcharge fill would be left in place and 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827 -7701 • Fax 425 827 -5424 settlements monitored for a period of approximately 60 days, or until settlement rates reach acceptable levels. Some post surcharge long -term settlement should be expected and will require future maintenance of asphalt pavements, particularly at the connection with the pile supported ground level parking area. These preliminary recommendations will be subject to modification pending the completion of our current engineering analyses. We hope this information meets your current needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G. Associate Engineer cc: Ms. Minnie Dihaliwial City of Tukwila Planning Department Mr. Bill Rutledge Rutledge Maul Architects Mr. Greg Diener Pacific Engineering Design, LLC 2 Gity of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED MARCH 28, 2005 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: OWNER OF THE PROPERTY: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Pacific Commercial Properties The site is located between Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks with Longacres Way along the South. Stuart McLeod L05 -014 (Conditional Use Permit), L05 -015 (Design Review) and E05 -003 (SEPA) To construct a mixed use multi - family residential project with approximately 294 multifamily units and 5,000 square feet of retail space and associated common area facilities and parking. Development Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on the SEPA, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2005. If you have questions about this proposal contact Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner -in- charge of this file at 206 - 431 -3685. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. This project is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 28, 2005. You will be informed in mail when the hearing date is finalized. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 206 - 431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. The Department will provide you with information on appeal if you are interested. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: March 9, 2005 March 24, 2005 March 28, 2003 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PROJECT INFORMATION Unit Ma Mx all PARKING INFORMATION riRequIred Studio & 1 8r. 2 Br. Retail Total Regd. 199X 1 Cor/DU 107 x 2 Ccx/DIJ (4750)5 1 Car/250 189 210 19 418 VICINITY MAP UNION PACIFIC R/R 5ECuRire FENCE TPASH ENCLO5U 0 OPEN SPACE (5% moat° )dmialliatImf inn sccumn OC •RPERIV 3a £A5ES4(NTfl BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R 436S-0M- L-06- 0 5 003 olt\ SITE PLAN SCALE 1' .59 IS RECEIVE!: MAR 0 9 2jef COMNIUN;TY DEVELOPMENT Unit Types Building A Studio 550" • 603 B 1 Bt. .Den ear ../- C 2 Br. • 113a4, coo, 0 2 Br. • 2 Both 1.20Y ./ E 2 85. • Den I To Ws 01 23 . 11 14 a 5 63 02 15 26 5 5 9 60 03 15 26 5 5 0 60 04 15 2J 4 4 9 56 15 15 17 0 5 9 55 Totals 83 106 37 27 41 294 all PARKING INFORMATION riRequIred Studio & 1 8r. 2 Br. Retail Total Regd. 199X 1 Cor/DU 107 x 2 Ccx/DIJ (4750)5 1 Car/250 189 210 19 418 VICINITY MAP UNION PACIFIC R/R 5ECuRire FENCE TPASH ENCLO5U 0 OPEN SPACE (5% moat° )dmialliatImf inn sccumn OC •RPERIV 3a £A5ES4(NTfl BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R 436S-0M- L-06- 0 5 003 olt\ SITE PLAN SCALE 1' .59 IS RECEIVE!: MAR 0 9 2jef COMNIUN;TY DEVELOPMENT Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 day of ,}fin the Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION • I • :3 ' HEREBY DECLARE THAT: bc,s6TA-( B roc-_ Notice of Public Hearing Project Name: � Determination of Non - Significance Project Number: L- _O (L( Notice of Public .Meeting Mailer's Signature: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: V Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda .: Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 . Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 day of ,}fin the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: � C^ icvio. Project Number: L- _O (L( L- 0 l'-'O/5 g OS — 0°3 Mailer's Signature: j 0 , ,givoc Person requesting mailing: V 1, l VLfAL DACL•bc_00-e P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM CHECKUST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHOREUNE PERMIT MAILINGS J.S: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ,FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY FEDERAL AGENCIES A.Q,U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. O NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' (OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL . ' SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE X KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION (.) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC (K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ,(i'TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT N TUKWILA LIBRARY ()'RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY . (4 CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY N QWEST PO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT *TAT CABLE SERVICES et) viALAIk KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) FIRE () FINANCE () BUILDING ()MAYOR ( ) PUBLIC WORKS () POLICE ( ) PLANNING () PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES () HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C. DEV & ENV!R SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL f,%K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES (.FOSTER LIBRARY (9),K C PUBLIC LIBRARY HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT O SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT (tRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1K) OLYMPIC PIPELINE .i3 VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT (4 WATER DISTRICT #20 .Qq WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS Alf BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERIWATER DISTRICT :(TRENTON PLANNING DEPT (rCITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY, COUNCIL MEMBERS '4 CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (S3 CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM (� FISHERIES PROGRAM WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA () SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: ADMINISTRAT IVE\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC C) (pp N(„„(pr DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( P:S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY SOUND TRANSIT (.) DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW l./1..44 4N/„ PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division _ SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross - sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:W DMINISTRATIVE\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5260TM BNSF RWY CO PO Box 961089 Fort Worth TX 76161 -0089 CITY OF TUKWILA 15500 W Valley Hwy Tukwila, WA 98188 MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 213 Lake St S Kirkland WA 98033 -6417 HANSEN GROUP LLC 14405 25th Ave SW Burien WA 98166 -1014 Bros Whitney . 4606 131st Street Ct NW Gig Harbor WA 98332 -8877 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 BOEING COMPANY PO Box 3707 Seattle WA 98124 -2207 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO 1400 Douglas St #1640 Omaha NE 68179 -1001 BOEING COMPANY 100 N Riverside M C 5003 -402 Chicago IL 60606 ,wo9u ®ALI3AV www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Sound Energy & Elec Puget PO Box 90868 Bellevue WA 98009 -0868 GULL INDUSTRIES INC 3404 4th Ave S Seattle WA 98134 -1905 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REG TRA 1100 2nd Ave #500 Seattle WA 98101-3424 HANSEN GROUP LLC 14405 25th Ave SW Burien WA 98166 -1014 Robert J Close 8262 E State Route 106 Union WA 98592 -9779 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 Sound Energy & Elec Puget PO Box 90868 Bellevue WA 98009 -0868 CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100 Tukwila WA 98188 -8548 INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKING PO Box 88299 Tukwila WA 98138 -2299 AtI3AV-09O08-I, wortiane MMM DAVERY® 5260*"" UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO 1400 Douglas St #1640 Omaha NE 68179 -1001 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 North Creek Pkwy #310 Bothell WA 98011 -8200 2000 MEYERS FAMILY LIMITED PAR 13911 SE 45th P1 Bellevue WA 98006 -2240 UNISON SITE MANAGEMENT LLC 400 Madison Ave New York NY 10017 -1909 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 BOEING COMPANY THE 5003 -4027 Chicago IL 60606 TUKWILA HOTEL LLC 600 E Riverpark Ln #205 Boise ID 83706 -6562 LLC Vectra 1400 Monster Rd SW Renton WA 98055 -2964 Sound Energy & Elec Puget PO Box 90868 Bellevue WA 98009 -0868 ,0925 wege6 el zas!IIM apider a6eip9s g ;a a6eJmogilue uoissaldwi Hampton Inn 7200 S. 156th St Tukwila, WA 98188 Wendy's 16300 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 Jack in the Box 16400 W. Valley Hwy Tukwila, WA 98188 Manager - Current Business 15700 Nelson Pl. Tukwila, WA 98188 Taco Bell 16350 W.Valley Hwy Tukwila, WA 98188 Courtyard by Marriot Hotel 16038 W. Valley Hwy Tukwila, WA 98188 Manager - Current Business 15616 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 Manager — Current Business 15666 W.Valley Hwy Tukwila, WA 98188 Porter Seal/Rainier Rubber 15660 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 Manager — Current Business 15701 Nelson Pl Tukwila, WA 98188 Sounder Commuter Rail - Director Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 -5000 Manager — Current Business 15665 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 Manager — Current Business 16200 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 Embassy Suites Hotel 15920 W. Valley Hwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 COLETTE M. TEMMINK BOEING REALTY COMPANY PO BOX 3707 MC 1F -58 SEATTLE, WA 98124 -2207 BOEING COMPANY THE 100 N RIVERSIDE M/C 5003 -4027 CHICAGO IL 60606 MCLEOD STUART 213 LAKE ST SOUTH KIRKLAND WA 98033 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 GUST ERIKSON PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY #310 BOTHELL WA 98011 STEFFEN TERRY c/o CSM LODGING 2575 UNIVERSITY AV W #150 ST PAUL MN 55114 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ATTN BILLINGS JIM 1416 DODGE ST #325 OMAHA NE 68179 KAUPAT PETER H P O BOX 88108 SEATTLE WA 98188 MEYERS VERNON L 13911 SE 45TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98006 TOM KALIL, President INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKAGING INC 15450 NELSON PL S TUKWILA, WA 98188 TOM KALIL, President INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKAGING INC PO BOX 88299 SEATTLE, WA 98138 MRS. CARMEN ARZO 2800 75TH SE #300 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 SHAUNTA R. HYDE THE BOEING COMPANY PO BOX 3707 MC 14 -49 SEATTLE, WA 98124 -2207 RAINIER BELLS INC 31919 1ST AV S #206 FEDERAL WA 98003 BNSF RWY CO PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 CITY OF SEATTLE SPU REAL PROP — WTR 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE WA 98104 Hansen Group LLC 14405 25`'' Ave SW Burien, WA 98166 NGUYEN STEVE HUNG LIVING TRUST 16620 SE 27TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98008 DONALD MOODY CB RICHARD ELLIS 1420 5TH AVE SUITE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TERESA PATTON CB RICHARD ELLIS 1420 5TH AVE SUITE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Unison Site Management Corp Attn: Lease /contract Admin 6809 D, Bowmans Crossing Frederick, MD 21703 Gull Industries 3404 Fourth Ave S .Seattle, WA 98134 JASON HUBBELL BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERS 18215 72ND AVE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 WILLIAM T. VIVIAN GULL OIL CO 240 3404 4TH AVE S PO BOX 24687 SEATTLE WA 98124 CLOSE ROBERT J TRUSTEE 8262 E HWY 106 UNION WA 98592 Janene Siers C/o Foodmakers, Inc 9330 Balboa Ave San Diego, CA 92123 WENDYS INTERNATIONAL INC P O BOX 256 DUBLIN OH 43017 Southcenter Gas Station LLC 2224 Kamber Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 Tukwila Hotel LLC 600 E. River Park Lane Suite 205 Boise, ID...83706 WHITNEY BROS 4606 131ST ST NW GIG HARBOR WA 98332 KOAR - SEATAC PARTNERS LP 201 S LAKE AV #803 PASADENA CA 91101 BNSF Railway Company Mike Cowles 2454 Occidental Ave. S, Ste. IA Seattle, WA 98134 -1439 Union Pacific Railroad John Trumbull 5424 SE McLaughlin Blvd. Portland, OR 97202 -4942 C FDY" iqi CITY OF TUKWILA LONGACRES PARK TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION AGREEMENT This TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION AGREEMENT ( "Agreement "), dated C-J)041y 2,,v 19 9 S T, is made by and between the CITY OF TUKWILA ( "Tukwila "), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington and THE BOEING COMPANY ( "Boeing "), a Delaware corporation. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Boeing Company has proposed to develop an office park ( "Office Park ") at the site of the former Longacres Race Track; and WHEREAS, several alternatives for the Office Park have been evaluated by the City of Renton as lead agency in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "); and WHEREAS, significant environmental impacts of the Office Park were identified in an environmental impact statement for the Office Park issued by the City of Rentpn in August of 1994 ( "Office Park EIS "), including impacts to the Tukwila transportation system; and WHEREAS, measures mitigating the adverse environmental impacts caused by Boeing's preferred alternative for the Office Park ( "Alternative 1 ") are set forth in a Mitigation Document issued by the City of Renton in May, 1995 ( "Renton Mitigation Document "); and WHEREAS, the Renton Mitigation Document states that the terms and conditions for the assessment and collection of mitigation fees for traffic impacts to the Tukwila transportation system shall be established in a separate agreement between Boeing and Tukwila; and WHEREAS, additional evaluation of adverse impacts to the Tukwila transportation system will be required during the environmental review for each specific development phase of Alternative 1; and WHEREAS, significant adverse impacts to the Tukwila transportation system caused by a specific development phase of Alternative 1 and not previously identified by the Office Park EIS may be mitigated as a condition of approval of that specific development phase; Longacres Park Mitigation Agreement 12/6/95 Page 2 AGREEMENT Nu W, THEREFORE, in consideration of this and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. EIS Analysis Mitigation measures set forth in this Agreement ( "Tukwila Mitigation Fees ") are sufficient to mitigate impacts to the Tukwila transportation system of Alternative 1 as analyzed in the Office Park EIS and summarized in the Renton Mitigation Document. 2. Basis of Mitigation/Mitigation Amount The Tukwila Mitigation Fees have been calculated according to the methodology set forth in the Draft Transportation Element in the City of Tukwila Draft Comprehensive Plan (1993): Using this methodology, the vehicle trips, distribution of trips, and corresponding mitigation payments generated by Alternative 1, were calculated as follows: Intersection Location Number of Cost per Mitigation Veh. Trips Vehicle Trip Cost 1) Southcenter Pkwy/ Strander 156 $ 140 $ 21,840 2) Andover Pk E /Strander 234 $ 135 $ 31,590 3) Andover Pk W /Strander 117 $ 377 $ 44,109 4) S 180 /SR 181 117 $ 475 $ 55,575 5) Andover Pk EBaker 0 $ 377 $ 0 6) Andover Pk W/Minkler 117 $ 392.. $ 45,864 7) Southcenter Pkwy /S 168th 117 $ 278 $ 32,526 8) W Valley / Strander 350 $ 283 $ 99,050 9) Interurban Bridge & Interchange 623 $1,122 $ 699,006 TOTAL TRIPS/FEES: 1,831 $1,029,560 3. Payment Because the construction of Altemative 1 is planned over a 10 -15 year period, Tukwila has.established two optional methods for payment of the Tukwila Mitigation Fees. Boeing shall exercise, at its sole discretion, one of these options for payment of the Tukwila Mitigation Fees. Option 1 recognizes the benefits to Tukwila of receiving the total Tukwila Mitigation Fee in a single payment. In addition to the time value of money, a single payment would provide Tukwila with a substantial amount of money at once, thereby (a) avoiding the need to accumulate funds in smaller increments over a long period of time before meaningful construction could begin and (b) facilitating the acquisition of matching funds. Payment under Option 1 is nonrefundable and is not subject to future rate increases. Boeing, as part of its decision to exercise Option 1, may choose to negotiate with Tukwila to establish how, where, and when early payment Longacres Park Mitigation Agreement 12/6/95 Page 3 '' . :;trended. Option 2 provides for incremental payments of the Tukwila Mitigation Fees to mitigate the impacts caused by specific phases of Alternative 1. The two options are as follows: 3.1 Option 1- December 31, 1995 Payment The total Tukwila Mitigation Fee will be discounted from $1,029,560 to $830,000 if the total fee is paid before December 31, 1995. If Boeing chooses to construct an alternative for the Longacres Park office development other than Alternative 1, fees paid under Option 1 will be credited against any fees assessed to mitigate the transportation impact of that alternative. 3.2 Option 2 - Incremental Payments Tukwila Mitigation Fees will be assessed against each phase of Alternative 1 in accordance with the specific impact resulting from that phase; provided, that the total Tukwila Mitigation Fee shall not exceed $1,029,560, unless, additional fees are imposed pursuant to Section 5 as set forth below. 4. Status of Transportation Projects The parties acknowledge that several projects referenced in Section 2 of this Agreement are currently being designed or constructed and in some cases have already been completed. The current status of such projects shall in no way impact Tukwila's authority to collect mitigation fees under this Agreement. 5. South 158th Street - Limitations, Monitoring, Review The AM and PM peak hour trips for South 158th Street which are attributable to and that may be utilized by the Office Park development shall be limited to 390, which is the "existing condition" for South 158th Street as set forth in the Draft Transportation Element of Tukwila's Draft Comprehensive Plan (1993). Notwithstanding the foregoing, capacity on South 158th Street for AM and PM peak hour trips exceeding 390 that is created as a result of. South 158th Street improvements maybe utilized by, and only by, the entity financing those improvements. Improvements that may be necessary to increase the number of PM peak hour trips on South 158th Street to accommodate additional traffic generated by Alternative 1 shall be identified through the environmental review process for each phase of development. Tukwila shall periodically monitor AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes on South 158th Street to ensure that limitations are not exceeded by any specifically identifiable entity using the right -of -way. Monitoring will occur at least annually and more frequently if volumes approach the maximum peak hour trips. Monitoring methodology shall be consistent with traffic engineering practices and shall be mutually agreed upon by both parties prior to initiating any monitoring effort. In the event that peak hour limitations are exceeded, Tukwila reserves the right to review the need for additional improvements and to assess additional impact mitigation fees against the entity creating the unmitigated traffic impacts and any such additional impact fees shall be in addition to and not withstanding the total fees provided for in Section 3.2 above. ( Longacres Park Mitigation Agreement 12/6/95 Page 4 6. Assignment This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of both parties hereto. 7. Severability In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any please, section, subsection or clause in this Agreement is invalid, all remaining phrases, sections, subsections, or clauses shall remain in full force and effect. AGREED TO THIS day of CITY OF TUKWILA Attest/Authenticated: e E: Cantu, City Clerk THE BOEING COMPANY Title: VP -FAMO BCAG STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On this 6 day of -J e ) ss Approved As to Form: , 19 ?C. Office of the City Attorney , 19 5 , personally appeared before me , to e known to be the VP-59440 i'(V) -,d of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that was duly elected, qualified and acting as said officer of that corporation, that 7i was authorized to Longacre:; ;': ;i k M: igation Agreement 12/6/95 Page 5 ��,....,,. ' ' ::cent and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said Luipw.ation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOi' PUBLIC in and for the State of GU c.' Residing at My commission expires JTE. Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc . Mark J. Jacobs, P.E., P.T.O.E. President 1131 86 Ave SW — Seattle, WA 98106 — 2001 Tel. 206.162.1978 - Cell 206.799.5692 - Facsimile 206.162.1918 E -mail jaketrafc @comcast.net April 20, 2005 /Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Response to April 18th, 2005 Memorandum Dear Ms. Dhaliwal, Enclosed are four copies of the Tukwila Station Response to April 18th. 2005 Memorandum reports dated April 19th, 2005 for your use and submittal to the City of Tukwila. Contact me if you have any comments or questions. Sincerely / 4 Mark J. Ja�%.ii 1 E, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC NGINEERING, INC cc: Mr. Ken Kester (1 - copy) PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION PO Box 53405 Bellevue, WA 98015 Mr. Bill Rutledge (1 - Copy) RUTLEDGE MAUL ARCHITECTS, P.S., INC. 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Waglnam7V \Lacm of Tranammal\Latta Transm al- Minnie Dhaliwal- Tukwila Station aka Tukwila TUKWILA STATION RESPONSE TO APRIL 18TH, 2005 MEMORANDUM Prepared for Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION_ PO Box 53405 Bellevue, WA 98015 April 19, 2005 .ATE, Inc. JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Mark J. Jacobs, P.E., P.T.O.E., President 7731 8th Ave. SW - Seattle, WA98106 - 2007 ' Tel. 206.762.1978; Cell. 206.799.5692 Facsimile 206.762.1978 Email jaketraffic@comcast.net• JTE. Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc . Mark J. Jacobs, P.E„ P.T.O.E. President 1731 8th Ave SW - Seattle, WA 98106 - 2001 TeL 206.762.1978 - Cell 206.799.5692 - Facsimile 206.762.1918 E -mail jaketraffic@comcast.net April 19, 2005 Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION PO Box 53405 Bellevue, WA 98015 Re: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Response to April 18th, 2005 Memorandum Dear Mr. Kester; I have prepared this response to a April 18th, 2005 Memorandum letter to Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Tukwila and Cyndy's April 18th Memorandum to Minnie Dhaliwal. The Memorandum to Cyndy was prepared by Tom Noguchi of Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering based on their review of my Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 24th, 2005 and my Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum dated March 28th, 2005. A copy of the Memorandum is attached. This letter responds to the City's comments. The City comments and our responses follow: 1. Trip Generation The trip generation used in the TIA and as discussed in my follow -up letter is reasonable. The revision to use the trip generation rates (per follow -up letter) ensured that an appropriate number of site trips were analyzed. The site is within walking distance of a Commuter Rail Station. ITE data identifies a,15% reduction in traffic for projects around Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations. A Commuter Rail Station would provide similar trip reduction Light Rail Station. The pass -by rate used in the analysis for the retail portion of the site was 34% based on national data. The trip generation of the retail portion of the site is projected at 28 PM peak hour trips (per. March 28th, 2005 letter). The difference between a 10% and 34% pass -by trip rate is eight PM peak hour trips. 2. Trip Distribution I have reviewed the model trip distribution data provided by Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering. The Traffic Model and the one I derived based on existing traffic volumes are similar; the Traffic Model shows a 67/33 north south split where I believe it to be 60/40. The other distributions are within 5 %. Thus the distribution used is reasonable. \\Engimer2 c —Project Files \ 2005 004 Tuk.ila Station Pacific Commercial: !WA •TukwJa \Tukwila StationRnpo,.e2.E. JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION April 19, 2005 Page -2- 3. Site Access The access is on a dead end street that basically serves the site and the Train Station parking lot. Boeing's Longacres Office Park planning indicates that Longacres Way would provide access for about 390 PM peak hour trips. The access will be constructed per City criteria. The location of the railroad structures needs to be accounted for to ensure adequate sight lines are provided. We understand that the railroad bridge structure on the west side of the site ultimately will disappear when the railroad relocates to the east. Thus the proposed west driveway would need to be temporarily restricted to not allow a southbound left turn movement, not anticipated to occur anyway. The existing bridge structure obscures the outbound motorist's line of sight to the right. Turning right requires a motorist to see to the left that is not obstructed. The location of the eastern driveway needs to account for the bridge structure. Traffic speed in the area is expected to be tame due to the dead end nature of the street, even with Longacres Office Park. Presuming a 25 MPH speed would require a minimum stopping sight distance of 155 feet. This value is per Exhibit 9 -55 in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001. This document is by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Professionals. A second criterion is entering sight distance. This criterion for a 25 MPH speed is 280 feet. This criterion is mitigated do to the low speed, dead end and low traffic volume nature of the street. Many agencies do not apply the ESD criterion to local access type streets. Meeting the stopping sight distance criteria of 155 feet at the eastern access driveway on Longacres Way is recommended. Providing 200 feet of SSD per Boeing's suggestion (based on posted speed + 5 MPH) is reasonable. 4. Agency Traffic Mitigation Requirements Reiterating, the Traffic Impact Fee identified in Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis is based on a site generating 107 net new PM peak hour trips. The trip generation could be less if the site converts to Senior Housing. Tweaking the trip generation (per March 28th, 2005 letter) to reflect the values derived using the trip generation equations would increase the amount of the required traffic impact fee to the City. The following table depicts the traffic impact fee for a site generating 135- PM.peak hour trips. \\Fn % r44/2\< \- Rojo* Files \ 2005.004 - Tukwila Sm00n- Paatic01.111111feilli RIM - TUkwik \TUkw0eStetbnReepage2.dO JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION April 19, 2005 Page -3- Project cost per trip trips cost Interurban bridge $240.00 39 $9,360.00 Andover widening $220.00 0 $ S. 178th /SCP $190.00 0 $ West Valley /Strander $280.00 55 $15,400.00 E. Minker $420.00 0 $ Minkler /APW $610.00 0 $ S. 178th $550.00 0 $ SCP south of 180th $2,300.00 0 $ Southcenter Blvd $2,300.00 0 $ E. Marginal $880.00 0 $ Klickitat $2,420.00 0 $ Total $ 24303 6O$5 Traffic impact fee payments to City street improvements affected by Tess than 5 PM peak hour project generated trips are not required. The Interurban Bridge project and the West Valley at Strander projects appear done based on field review. Thus the City may no longer require payment toward these improvements. The trip distribution variation between the Traffic Model and that derived for the TIA based on existing traffic are consistent with each other. The trip distribution used in the TIA is appropriate. 5. Background Traffic and Level of Service at Longacres Way/West Valley Highway I have run an operational analysis at the Longacres WayWVH intersection adding 390 PM peak hour trips. These trips are related to an Office Park type use, thus -15% enter and 85% exit during the PM peak hour. The LOS analysis was done with both permitted and protected only southbound left turn phasing. The added left turn traffic due to Boeing may necessitate the phasing revision. The intersection LOS with Boeing Longacres would be C with an average delay of -21 to 30 seconds depending on the phasing used. Summary and Conclusions This letter has responded to the April 18th, 1005 Memorandum. No material changes to the traffic operational analysis would result from the City comments. The trip generation used is reasonable, a modest increase in the traffic impact fee required results if the trip generation equations verse rates are used as noted in my March 28th, 2005 response letter. The traffic distribution used in the Traffic Impact Analysis is consistent with the Traffic Model. The initial recommendation to construct the site in conformance to applicable City requirements is augmented to add, provide a minimum of 1.55 feet of stopping sight line at the eastern \\Engtnea2 \c \-Roject Rios \ 2005.004 - Tukwila Station - Pea0c Commetciak RMR- Tukwila \ TukwibStauonRapona2 doc JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION April 19, 2005 Page -4- driveway and a temporary turn movement restriction at the west driveway. Boeings request to provide 200 feet of stopping sight distance is reasonable. If you have any questions you can contact me at (206) 762.1978 or email me at iaketraffic@comcast.com. MJJ: mjj EXPIRES 4/3/0 6' Very truly yours, Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2y. % /.of \\E"nejnec,2\4-pfeiect Files \2005.004. Tukwila StaOon - Pacific Cemmmciat RMA • Tukwia\Tukvila0tationRaapaue2 et. APPENDIX • • • Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Minnie Dhaliwal FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: April 18, 2005 RE: Tukwila Station Attached to this memorandum is the review comments on the Tukwila Station as provided by our consultant, Mirai Transportation and Planning. That memo recommends several points. However, I am going to require that the LOS analysis include the 390 trips allocated to Boeing Longacres Park and that it be distributed using the attached trip distribution, also provided by Mirai. Further, the applicant's engineer must either use the same trip distribution or provide adequate justification on the pattern he is using today. Boeing has expressed concern over possible cut - through traffic. I am not concemed that this will be an issue given the unknown nature of this future access point. Per my conversation today with Shaunta Hyde and Laura Whitaker of Boeing, they are not sure how major of an access point this will be for the future development, are not sure if the entrance will be gated and/or monitored, and are not sure of the development timeline. I suggest that a condition be placed on the Tukwila Station allowing provision of monitoring cut - through traffic on the Boeing site. Should it become problematic, we should include some sort of provision for the developer to mitigate the negative impacts. However, it is not appropriate for the TIA to include any analysis of trips going east through the Boeing site. The other recommendations in the memo from Mirai should be addressed by the applicant's engineer as well. IM i r a i, 7 TrOn®portation Planning Engineari ng Memorandum To: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Tukwila From: Tom Noguchi, Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering Subject: Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis Report: Response Date: April 18, 2005 Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering reviewed a report, entitled Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum, dated March 28, 2005. This report was prepared by Jake Traffic Engineering (JTE) in response to my memorandum dated March 18, 2005. My comments to the March 28th memorandum are outlined below: 1. Trip Generation As acknowledged by the applicant traffic consultant, it is appropriate to use the trip generation equation, instead of the average rate. The applicant insists that the proposed retail would be a specialty retail use and he provides a rationale using a coffee shop as an example. It would be difficult to accept his rationale that a coffee shop or similar uses is specialty retail. The applicant must find more appropriate retail use and a select trip generation rate corresponding to the use. The applicant's traffic consultant has not responded to my following comments in my March 18th memo: "JET applied a 15 percent vehicle trip reduction due to projected mode split increases by residents. The report states that this reduction can be justified due to the proximate location to the Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations. Neither of those is within a walking distance for the proposed development. This reduction is excessive. It is possible that this development could achieve to a 5 percent reduction since it is within a walking distance of the Commuter Rail Station." "JET applied a 34 percent reduction in the retail trip generation due to pass -by trips. This is excessive for specialty retail use." I recommend that a 10 percent reduction for pass -by trips be applied to retail trip generation. Q Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 1 Tranoporbetion Planning 6. En®inaaring 2. Trip Distribution: The response report does not provide adequate explanations as to how the traffic consultant obtained the existing trip distribution pattern. I strongly recommend that the Tukwila model be used to obtain the trip distribution. I ran the selected zone assignment for the zone that contains the proposed housing development, which is attached to this memo. It shows the percentage distribution from the proposed development site. The applicant should use the trip distribution percentages to calculate the pro-rata share of the project generated trips to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development. 3. Site Access: The applicant traffic consultant recommends that the project meet "the stopping distance criteria of 155 feet at the eastern access driveway on Longacres Way ". This memorandum does not provide adequate information as to how the traffic consultant determined 155 feet of the site distance adequate at this location. The applicant must assume that there will be developments on the Boeing property east of the railroad in the City of Renton and the access for the property will be provided through Longacres Way. Therefore, the applicant should not assume that the street would continue to be gated as it is today in the future. With this assumption, we need to know what are the adequate stopping and entering site distances. The report must indicate what action the applicant must take to meet the adequate site distance. 4. Agency Traffic Impact Mitigation Requirements: Before the City can accept the traffic mitigation, the applicant must obtain an approval on the total trips generated by the proposed development. Then, the applicant will be required to calculate the tip mitigation fee based on the trip distribution. As indicated above, we strongly suggest that the applicant use the trip distribution, which is attached to this memo. 5. Background Traffic and Level of Service at the Longacres Way/West Valley Highway: There was an agreement between the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company about how to mitigate traffic impacts from Longacres Office Park. According to this agreement, the City allowed 390 AM and PM peak hour trips to use Longacres Way from the Office Park. Because of this agreement, the Tukwila cs) Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 2 Mirai Treneportetion Planning 6. Engineering Station traffic impact analysis must assume 390 tips as a part of the background traffic. The intersection levels of service should be revised to include these trips. Again, I strongly recommend that the attached trip distribution map be used to distribute these 390 trips. 1 Without the trips from the Longacres Office Park, the delays on the southbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway approaching Longacres Way and the westbound lanes on Longacres Way approaching West Valley Highway are excessive. This problem will be worsened with additional trips from the Office Park. I suggest that the applicant traffic consultant should re- calculate the level of service and optimize the traffic signal at this intersection to see if modifications could be done to improve LOS and demonstrate that modifications can be beneficial. Comments on Tukwila Station Response to March 18th, 2005 Memorandum Page 3 Project Tukwila Station Tukwila - Tukwila Total net new PM peak hour trips: 107 Entering: 61 Exiting: t NORTH JTE, Inc. FIGURE 8 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND DISTRIBUTION z PM Vehicle Distribution ( %) o and From TAZ2 Base Year 2003 (03 Network.. 00 Lt) Seeearto 7007: al for TAZ 71 2005-041313:13 (bob) Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation 1 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 SB Ramps 10071 926 4 55 11 75 60 226 R T 71 70 40 420 R 290 4- 669 iL 582 5 West Valley Hwy/ Strander Blvd. 367 1,251 40 495 71 35 4 540 11 10 E 20 IL 20 R T X 365 1.400 5 2 West Valley Hwy/ Southcenter Blvd. 205 783 275 et 4, u 20071 905 4 21711 R 685 4- 955 1L 351 R T 71 207 651 550 390 Ce..4..f-eeel) S-1 e.-4- '•'- 331 Pico 3 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 NB Ramps 375 1,133 55 g 4 u 35071 10 4 437 �I R 15 E5 IC 10 R T 71 579 1.113 10 6 West Valley Hwy/ S. 180th St. 87 1.059 385 ic 11 12271 645 4 675 11 R T 71 570 936 60 R 326 4- 635 IL 80 aAndover Park W/ Strander Blvd. 175 475 287 185 71 R 217 422 4 E 492 50 11 K 291 R T 71 165 550 167 t NORTH 4 West Valley Hwy/ longacres Way y n 10 1,360 75 it 4. y 10 71 0 4 10 R 57 E1 le 73 R T 77 10 1,450 69 / 9 ®Andover Park E/ Strander Blvd. 140 400 167 g 110 7! 541 4 180 11 R 107 E 570 le 136 R • 71 305 525 201 X - West Valley Highway Corridor - Tukwila Urban Center JTE, Inc. FIGURE 9 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 222. PROJECTED 2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/ PROJECT WVH/Longacres Way With Project + Boeing Tukwila Station 4/19/2005 --lib -NV •- k. 4\ t \* 41 71."411""mr EIVIMMIMI-1.13-E111" 4 r 14 r 44I) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900, 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1695 1774 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5079 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1774 1583 285 3539 1583 235 5079 Volume (vph) 10 0 10 182 1 279 10 1450 88 115 1360 10 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 0 11 192 1 294 11 1526 93 121 1432 11' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 157 0 0 25 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 0 0 193 137 11 1526 68 121 1442 0 Turn Type Split Protected Phases 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) - Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS M.exernerilt Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) terseeti�n Summa 4.5 4.5 0.03 4.0 3.0 54 c0.01 Split Perm Perm Perm Perm 8 8 2 6 8 2 2 6 20.7 20.7 102.8 102.8 102.8 102.8 102.8 20.7 20.7 102.8 102.8 102.8 102.8 102.8 0.15 0.15 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 262 234 209 2599 1162 173 3729 0.11 0.43 0.28 0.19 0.04 0.06 c0.51 0.21 0.74 0.59 0.05 0.59 0.06 0.70 66.0 57.0 55.7 5.1 8.7 5.2 10.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.44 1.32 2.54 2.24 1.9 10.3 3.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 13.1 - 68.0 67.3 59.4 7.7 12.2 13.2 35.9 E E E A B B 68.0 62.5 12.2 E E B - 0.39 6.9 2.14 0.2 15.0 D B 16.6 HCM Average Control Delay 21.0 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% Analysis Period (min) _ . 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 12.0 D JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. ce WVH/Longacres Way With Project + Boeing Move Lane Configurations 4, 4 r ++ r 1 +41) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 . 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Tukwila Station 4/19/2005 Fit Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 - batd. Flow (prot) 1695 1774 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5079 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1695 1774 1583 321 3539 1583 1770 5079 Volume (vph) 10 0 10 182 1 279 10 1450 88 115 1360 10 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 0 11 192 1 294 11 1526 93 121 1432 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 187 0 0 39 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 0 0 193 107 11 1526 54 121 1442 0, Tum Type Split Split _ Perm Perm Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 20.7 20.7 80.9 80.9 80.9 17.9 102.8' Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 20.7 20.7 80.9 80.9 80.9 17.9 102.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 66.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 Delay (s) 68.0 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) 68.0 Approach LOS E flrteiS.ummaiIY HCM Average Control Delay 29.5 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0.15 0.15 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.13 0.73 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 262 234 185 2045 915 226 3729 0.11 c0.43 cO.07 0.28 0.19 0.03 0.06 0.74 0.46 0.06 0.75 0.06 0.54 0.39 57.0 54.5 12.9 21.9 12.9 57.2 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.45 1.22 2.79 0.65 2.64 10.3 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.1 1.4 0.2 67.3 55.9 19.1 28.5 36.2 38.5 18.4 E EBCDDB 60.4 28.9 19.9 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 ICU Level of Service JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Mark Jacobs From: "Mark Jacobs" <jaketraffic @comcast.net> To: "Bill Rutledge" <Bill @rutledgemaul.com> Cc: "Ken Kester, President" <kkester @earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:06 PM Subject: boeing comments Bill I have received comments from Boeing (via Perkins Coie) regarding the Tukwila Station TIA dated April 14, 2005. Boeings comments: 1. A historical growth factor was used to account for general development as well as the inclusion of the Westfield Shoppingtown traffic. 2. The use of the Westfield DEIS transportation document was limited to traffic volume data that was augmented by additional traffic counts for the subject Tukwila Station TIA. The methodology used was pursuant to City criteria and the Conclusions determined were done independent of the Westfield traffic work. The Boeing letter discusses planning for their Longacres project is being done, however no specific building permit is alluded too. 3. S. Longacres Way is a Dead End public street. Boeing comment 4 clarifies this. Ample traffic capacity exists at the WVH /S. Longacres Way VS to accommodate the potential (no identified building permit) added traffic by Boeing Longacres. This I/S is projected to operate at LOS B in 2010. Further, my TIA did not include the WVH widening improvements, thus the analysis is conservative. 4. The Boeing site is fenced off and if ever developed would presumably be signed private property. 5. S. Longacres Way is a low speed Dead End street. Thus stopping sight distance is the appropriate criteria. A minimum stopping sight distance of 155 feet has been recommended. Contact me if you have any questions. Mark Mark J. Jacobs, P.E., P.T.O.E. 7731 8th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98106 -2007 Tel: 206.762.1978 Cell: 206.799.5692 4/20/2005 RFC Prim') !APR 14 2005 Laura N. Whitaker men 206.359.8584 nuc 206.359.9584 arm hvhitakaliperidltacoie.eom April 14, 2005 BY FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Tukwila Station Perkins Cots not Third Aven us, SUite 4800 Seattle, WA 9810%3099 PHONE, 306.359.8000 Lac: ao6.359.9000 www.perkinscole.com Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: As you know, we represent the Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), which owns the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila /Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.' Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003.0104/88051040.007) ANCHORAGE - BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHiCAGO • DENVER • HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • WASHINGTON. O.C• Perkins Cola Ur and affiliates Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 2 As a neighboring property owner and developer, Boeing has the following comments on the proposed Tukwila Station project: 1. The transportation analysis does not appear to account for pipeline projects other than the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. See, Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 7 dated February 24, 2005: But as noted above, the impacts of the LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Tukwila Station transportation analysis.2 The Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips as part of baseline traffic. 2. Moreover, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis appears to rely on the traffic analysis set forth in the Westfield Shoppingtown EIS for methodology and conclusions regarding traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation. See, e.g., Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis at page 11. As Boeing stated in its comment letter on the Westfield DEIS (see, Letter from Laura Whitaker to City, dated July 2004), the Westfield DEIS's traffic analysis failed to account for the LOP development in its assumptions regarding baseline traffic. We are concerned, therefore, that the City not only ignored LOP trips in the Westfield DEIS, but is now using that flawed analysis as the basis for assessing the traffic impacts of other proposed developments in the City. 3. We note that Longacres Way /S. 158th Street appears to be the single point of access to the Tukwila Station project and is characterized as a "dead end" street in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis supplement, dated March 28, 2005. As the City is aware, the Tuicwila/Boeing Agreement provides that Boeing has 390 AM and PM peak hour trips over S. 15 8th Street, as it would serve as a key access point to future development at LOP_ It does not appear that the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis takes these Boeing trips into 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. (03003 -01041S5051040.007) 04/14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 3 account in the evaluation of direct SEPA impacts to Longacres Way /S. 158th Street and the West Valley Highway and Longacres Way /S 158th Street intersection. The Analysis should be modified to ensure adequate intersection and street capacity is provided to support future LOP traffic. 4. Also with respect to use of Longacres Way/S. 158th Street, the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis fails to identify the potential for cut - through traffic from Tukwila Station across Boeing private roadways and parking areas as a potential impact of the Tukwila Station project, and also fails to identify potential mitigation measures to control such impacts. The Analysis should be modified accordingly. 5. Contrary to the characterization and discussion of Longacres Way /S. 158th , Street in the context of site access and safety in the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, Longacres Way /S. 158th Street will not be a dead end street. In addition to the proposed Tukwila Station project, it will also serve future development on LOP properties immediately east of the proposed Tukwila Station site. As such, stopping and entering sight distance provisions should be considered for both left and right turns from the Tukwila Station driveways and unobstructed sight lines in both the eastbound and westbound directions along Longacres Way /S. 158th Street should be provided. Although the actual posted speed on Longacres Way /S. 158th Street is unclear from the Tukwila Station Traffic Impact Analysis, standard design practice should make provisions for sight distance at a minimum of 5 mph above the posted speed limit, or in this case, 30 mph. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum of 200 feet of stopping sight distance and 330 feet of entering sight distance (to the east and west) be provided at both proposed site driveways (unless permanent turning restrictions are proposed) to meet standard engineering design practice as- outlined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001, AASHTO. (03003-010/58051040.007) 04 /14/05 Minnie Dhaliwal April 14, 2005 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde at 206 -544 -0182 or me. Very truly yours, dam". Laura N. Whitaker LNW:tbh cc: Shaunta R. Hyde, Local Government Relations, Boeing . Jeff Adelson, Boeing Realty Corporation Rick Ford, Facilities Planning, Boeing John N. Powers, Boeing Realty Corporation L03003 -01048B051040.007) 04/14/05 To: u.salta,c4 Re: O Urgent 0 For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please RoPIY ❑ Please Recycle - Comments: Q d. " • -Vu.w1 . e 0 5-0403 JjTF. Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc . Mark J. Jacobs, P.E., P.T.O.E. President 1131 8th Ave SW - Seattle, WA 98106 - 2001 Tel. 206.162.1918 - Cell 206.199.5692 - Facsimile 206.162.1918 E -mail jaketraffic @comcast.net February 24, 2005 Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION PO Box 53405 Bellevue, WA 98015 Re: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Kester; We have prepared this Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed 300 unit Tukwila Station project with about 4,750 sq. ft. of retail space in Tukwila. This analysis identifies the traffic impact of the subject project at affected City street intersection, evaluates the impact to City Transportation Concurrency and calculates the likely Traffic Impact Fee of the project .applicant towards identified City Transportation Improvement projects. The site is bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south. Access to the site is provided via a driveway on S. Longacres Way. A Sound Transit Train Station exists on the south side of Longacres Way South. We have conducted a field review of the site and surrounding street system. The City of Tukwila Way requires analysis of signalized and major un- signalized intersections impacted by five or more new PM peak hour trips to be studied in this report. The following intersections are expected to be impacted by five or more new PM peak hour trips and thus are analyzed in this report: ➢ West Valley Highway /I -405 SB Ramps ➢ West Valley Highway /Southcenter Blvd. ➢ West Valley Highway /I -405 NB Ramps D. West Valley Highway /S. Longacres Way ➢ West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd. ➢ West Valley Highway /S. 180th St. ➢ Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd. ➢ Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd. The general format of this report is to describe the proposed project, identify existing traffic conditions (baseline), project future traffic conditions and identify Agency street/road improvements (future baseline), calculate the traffic that would be generated by the project and then add it to the future baseline traffic volumes. Operational analyses are used to determine the specific project traffic impact and appropriate traffic mitigation measures to \Wgmea2\c\ -Project Alas \2005.004. Tukwila Station - %afc Commercial. RIM- Tukwila \ TrffifidmpactnayaWTukwilaSblion.Ex JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -2- reduce the impact. In addition we have conducted a Transportation Currency Analysis for the West Valley Highway Corridor and the Tukwila Urban Center and have determined an estimate of the likely Traffic Impact Fee in this report. The summary and conclusions begin on page eleven of this report. PROJECT INFORMATION Figure 1 is a vicinity map which shows the location of the site and the surrounding street system. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Rutledge Maul Architects, P.S., Inc. The plan shows the site layout of the 300 residential units and 4,750. sq. ft. retail use and parking for 438 vehicles (per phase I) and 468 vehicles (per phase 11). Access to the site is provided via a driveway on S. Longacres Way. The Tukwila Transit Station is located just south of the proposed project. Thus appropriate pedestrian connections should be provided. Figure 3 shows the location of the analysis intersections as identified earlier in this report. Full development and occupancy of the proposed Tukwila Station project is anticipated to occur by 2007, presuming the permits are issued in a timely manner. However to ensure a conservative analysis 2010 is proposed to be used as the horizon year for analysis purposes. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Project Site The project site is presently undeveloped. Street System Figure 4 shows the existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at the intersections and other pertinent information. The primary streets within the study area and their classifications are as follows: D. 1- 5 Freeway ➢ 1- 405 Freeway ➢ Southcenter Blvd. Principal Arterial > W. Valley Hwy. Principal Arterial > Southcenter Parkway Minor Arterial > S. 178th St. - S. 180th St. Minor Arterial ➢ Andover Park W. Minor Arterial > Andover Park E. Minor Arterial ➢ Strander Blvd. Minor Arterial > Tukwila Pkwy Minor Arterial \\Engines 2\c\-Project Flea\2005OO,1. Tukwila StaOan - Nadia Commercial. RIM • Tukwila\ TmlfialmpepMayabTUkwilaStalicn dac JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -3- > Minkler Blvd. Collector Arterial > S. Longacres Way Local Access Traffic Volumes Figure 5 shows the existing PM peak hour traffic volumes for the analysis intersections. The baseline 2004 existing traffic volumes were gleaned from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion 1, City of Tukwila June 2004. Additional traffic data was obtained by Trafficount, a firm that specializes in the collection of traffic data, at the West Valley Highway /S. Longacres Way intersection on January 27, 2005. The count data sheet is attached in the appendix. Alternative Transportation The Metro Transit website.was reviewed for bus routes which serve thevicinity of the :proposed project...Bus route 126 servicethe Tukwila. Station located just south of the proposed. project. 'Additionally. Sound Transit's Tukwila Train. Station is located just south of S. Longacres Way. Information.on these routes can be obtained through the Metro Website (http: / /transit.metrokc.gov) and Sound 'Transit Website (http: / /www.soundtransit.org). 'Intersection Operations Traffic engineers have-developed.criteria for intersection operations called level.of service (LOS). The LOS is A to F.with A and B being very good.and E and Fbeing more congested. LOS C and D correlate to busy traffic conditions with some'restrictions to the ability to choose travel.speed; changeaanes-and the general convenience comfort-and safety. The procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 were used to calculate the level of service at the study intersections. The following table depicts the LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds at signalized and stop control intersections: Intersection Type Level of Service A B - C D E F Signalized <10 >10 and <20 >20 and <35 >35 and <55 >55 and <80 >80 Stop Control <10 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 1- The Transportation. Section of the DEIS was prepared by the The Transpo Group, Inc. \ \En®neer2\a \-Project Rie0OO5. 004 - Tukwila Station . P.CRC Commercial RMA. TUP. a\T refitlmpedM5MisTUkwiteStationdne JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -4- LOS Analysis Criteria The City of Tukwila Ordinance 2043 adopted on May 3, 2004 and modified on July 21, 2004 identifies the City's intersection and street corridor operational standards. The specific code section taken verbatim (the highlighting are the street segments affected by the subject Tukwila Station project) from the Ordinance is as follows: 9.48.070 LOS Standards for Specific Locations A. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of average LOS, for the following arterial segments: 1. E Marginal Way (S. 112th St. to North City Limit) 2.. - Interurban `(Southcenter'Blvd. to 1 -5) 3. _Tukwila International Boulevard (S. 152nd St. to Boeing Access Rd.) 4. - West Valley Highway (1 -405 to S. 180th St.) 5. l.:Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St. B. In the.Central,Business District ( °CBD ") area, a minimum average LOS level of • E shall .be :maintained. _ -1n: they -CBD, :LOS .shall .be determined by using the `link" averages for :the .17 segments ;defined in the Transportation .Element. of the ..Comprehensive Plan. Forpurposes .of this. section, the .CBD- is.the.area.bounded by 1- • :5,1,405, the Green River,.and.S. 180 St. C. A minimum-LOS standard -of :E for, traffic-capacity shall be maintained, based upon_a calculation of LOS for individuakintersections and corridor_segments for all other . minor,: :collector and-principal . arterials principally serving commercially zoned property. D. A minimum LOS standard of D for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas, provided that for the following arterials, LOS shall be calculated based on the average LOS for the arterial: 42nd Ave. S., S. 160th St., S. 164th St., Macadam Rd, S. 124th St., S. 130th St., S. 132nd St., S. 144th St., 53rd Ave. S., and 65th Ave. S. E. Access streets which exceed 1,000 vehicles per day volume will be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine whether traffic improvements or control measures are required to reduce volumes and provide adequate safety. The Traffic Impact Analysis study intersections are all located within the defined West Valley Arterial Segment and the Tukwila Central Business District. These intersections are within specified street segments that are subject to an overall street segment standard. The level of services at these study intersections are provided individually per City request. \\Engmeer2 \c\ -Project Files \ 2005004. Tukwila Station • Peet. Commercial: Rk4 - Tukwila \TreT Ot,peeW.I STUkwi0Statan doe JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -5- Analysis Software and Results The LOS of the study intersections were calculated using the Trafficware SYNCHRO software program. The results of our LOS calculations are summarized in Table 1. Accident Data The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion summarized the accident information for 2000 to 2002 and provided accident rates per million entering vehicles. The Washington State Highway Accident Report 1996 identifies average accident rates (per million vehicle miles of travel) on functional classified streets as follows: Principal Arterial: 2.97 Minor Arterial: 3.44 Collector: 4.27 A direct comparison of the intersection accident rate to the statewide rate is not relevant because the rates do not measure the same thing: ' The Washington State Highway Accident Report does not contain data on average accident rates,per million entering vehicles at -intersections. However, based on ourexperience, an accident rate of less than one is generally considered to:indicate.that:an: intersection is operating satisfactorily, one to two is typical, and-over two requires further review. 'None•of the analysis intersections evaluated in :this -report experience a- rate.of more:thamtwo•and thus appear to be operating satisfactorily. STREET /ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS City of Tukwila The City of Tukwila has "2005 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)" and Section 9.48.150 "Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (TIF)" lists identify a number of street improvement projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. The following street improvements are as follows: Transportation Improvement Program: D Project #9 is the TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect which is to include the installation of hard wired interconnect systems between traffic signals in the TUC coordinating the operations between adjacent traffic signals. Project cost estimate is $1,731,000. Project is expected to be completed by the 2010 horizon year. D Project #15 on Andover Park E at Minkler Blvd. is to add left turn channelization and have signal improvements. The cost of this project is $200,000. This project ties in with the Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd improvement project located in the TIF located below. Project is expected to be completed by the 2010 horizon year. \\Engtn.^2 \c \-Project Files \?00s 009 . Tukwila Station. Pacific CammmtlaI: HIM. To \TfTClmvactan.MuTukONaStation doe JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -6- > Project #16 on S. 168th St. is to add a new east west street. The estimated cost is $775.000. Project is expected to be completed by the 2010 horizon year. > Project #19 is to widen West Valley Highway to seven lanes. Project cost is $580,000. > Project #20 on Minkler Blvd is to widen to 3 lanes. Estimated cost is $425,000. This project ties in with the Minkler Blvd (APW - Southcenter Pkwy) project identified in the TIF. > Project #22 on Andover Park E and Treck Dr. intersection. Project is to add left turn and provide signal improvements. Project cost is $220,000. > Project #25 on Southcenter Pkwy and Klickitat is to provide access improvements. Project cost is $500,000 and ties in with the Klickitat (Southcenter Pkwy - 1 -5) project identified in the TIF. > Project #27 is the Southcenter Blvd. widening project. The project cost is $2,100,000 and ties in with the Southcenter Boulevard (51 S. - TIB) identified in the TIF. ➢ Project #.28 on Andover.Park W. is to complete Two Way. Left Turn. Lane along Andover Park'West. The project cost is $100,000 and ties in with the Andover Pk. W. (T Pkwy - Strander) project identified in the TIF. > Project #29 is the widening of Southcenter Blvd. and 61st Ave. bridge. The estimated cost is $100,000. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule: > -Southcenter Pkwy - Install a signal at the 168th St. intersection. The total cost of this project is #340,000. Project is completed. D W. Valley /Stander -'add NB dual left turn lanes. Project is completed. > Interurban Bridge - widen for dual lefts. Project is completed. ➢ Minkler (APW - Southcenter Pkwy) - construct 3 lane street. Estimated project cost is $1,644,000. ➢ Andover Pk. W. (T Pkwy - Strander) - widen to 5 lanes. Project cost is $800,000. ➢ Southcenter Pkwy (180th - South City limits) - construct 3 and 5 lanes street. Estimated cost is $7,096,000. > Andover Park E at Minkler Boulevard - widen the intersection to 5 lanes. Project cost is $200,000. Project is expected to be completed by the 2010 horizon year. > Southcenter Boulevard (51 S. - TIB) - widen to 3 lanes. Estimated cost is $1,750,000. > East Marginal (BAR - 112) -widen to 3 lanes. Project cost is $1,955,000. ➢ Klickitat (Southcenter Pkwy - 1 -5) - construct a flyover. Estimated cost is $13,300,000. Figure 6 summarizes the proposed City street improvements in the site vicinity. Wnpnen2ke\'Rgera FCea\2005004. Tukwila Station. PacificCOmmefCSt RMA- Tukwila \TratfiWnpeppnatAisTukrmlaSta0on Coe JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -7- King County We have reviewed the King County Capital Improvement Program for road improvement projects within the site vicinity. There are no road improvement projects identified in the vicinity of the proposed project. WSDOT The WSDOT website (www.wsdot.org) lists highway improvement projects within the site vicinity. One WSDOT improvement project is identified in the vicinity of the site per the website. The project is the I - 5 Pavement Reconstruction Project (attached in the appendix). This project is proposed to replace 16 miles of concrete on I - 5 from Tukwila through downtown Seattle to Northgate. This project is still in preliminary planning thus further information will be made available by WSDOT at a later time. HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS "WITHOUT" THE PROJECT Growth Factor A growth factor of 1.5% per .year was.applied to be consistent with -the Draft Environmental .Impact Statement Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. This.growth factor is reasonable for a urbanized mostly built out area. Pipeline Proiects Traffic generated by the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter expansion project was added to the projected 2010 PM peak hour volumes. Traffic Volumes Figure 6 shows the projected 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes "without" the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background growth and adjustments to reflect the S. 168th St. improvement between Southcenter parkway and Andover Park West. Background traffic growth inherently includes traffic generated by development. Therefore, projecting horizon year volumes using both a growth factor and traffic generated by pipeline projects is a conservative approach. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: \\Fnpjnear 2\A- Project Film\2005004. Tukwila Station. Paodic Commertlat FIAR- Tukwila \ TratklmpecWialwia TukwilaStation doe JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -8- Pass -By Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Diverted Link Trips: Captured Trips: Primary (New) Trips: Trip Generation Trips attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi -use development. Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. The proposed Tukwila Station project is-expected torgenerate the vehicular trips during the average:weekday, street traffic AM and-PM peak hours as shown in Table 2. The trip generation for.. the -project isxalculated:using trip generation rates and equations (see Table - 2)'from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003 for Mid-Rise Apartment and Specialty Retail (ITE Land Use Codes.223 and 814,: respectively). All.site;trips-made by all,vehicles.for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, :and service and delivery vehicle:trips are included in the trip generation values. :The proposed:Tukwila Station' is located just north oftheTukwila Transit Station. The ITE Trip _:Generation. Handbook,-March-2001 identifies Transportation -Impact Factor for developments around a transit:center. Table-B.3 "Transportation-Impact Factors" (attached in the appendix) identifies the -trip reduction factors that can be applied for projects served by Transit Centers and Light Rail stations. The proposed project is identified as a residential oriented mixed use development with a minimum of 24 dwelling units thus a 15% vehicle trip reduction is applied. A pass -by trip is an existing trip that comes directly from the traffic flow on a road /street adjacent to the project site and does not require diversion from another road /street. These pass -by trips were deducted from the total trips according to the formulas identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, March 2001. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook does not identify pass -by trips for Specialty Retail. Specialty Retail developments produce pass -by trips similar to that of a Shopping Center, thus for analysis purposes we have used the 34% pass -by trips identified for Shopping Center to that of Specialty Retail. Based on our analysis the proposed Tukwila Station project is projected to generate 107 net new PM peak hour trips. \\Enppwer2\c \-Project Voles \2005.004 • Tukwila Station • PaMw Commercial, RIM- Tukwila \Tr.RitlmpectAneyaisTekwilaSation ciao JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -9- Trip Distribution Figure 7 shows the project generated trips assigned to the adjacent street system. The project generated trip distribution is based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (residential, schools, employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and previous traffic work done in the site vicinity. HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS "WITH" THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes Figure 8 shows the 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes " with" the proposed project at the analysis and site access intersections. .The site.generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 7 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 to obtain the Figure 8 volumes. Intersection Level of Service Table 1 shows the calculated LOS for the horizon year 2010 "with" and "without" project conditions at the pertinent intersections. Our analysis indicates that the analysis intersections would continue to operate similar to the without project conditions. The affect of the Project traffic is the-increase in average delays at the study intersections of one to seconds or so. Site Access Access to the site is provided via a driveway on S. Longacres Way. Based on traffic engineering inspection the Site Access /S. Longacres Way intersection would operate satisfactorily. TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY City Ordinance per 9.48.070 LOS Standards for Specific Locations requires that a minimum average LOS standard of E be maintained in the horizon year 2010 with the subject project. In order to test the Transportation Concurrency we developed a Synchro Traffic Model for the affected West Valley Highway Street corridor and the Central Business District street system. More information on the respective City Concurrency Street Segments follows: West Valley Highway Street Segment The West Valley Highway Corridor is from SR 405 (southbound ramp junction) to S. 180th Street. No material street improvements were added to the existing street intersection geometries along this corridor. The corridor includes six signalized \\Engneer2\c \-Project Files \2005004 • Tukwila Station • Pacific Commercial RUA- TUkWa\TrM impectMeywTUkwileStmion.EOc JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -10- intersections and a long stretch, (a bit over a mile in length of free flow street conditions. The result of our concurrency analysis is follows: Tukwila Business District Modeling the Central Business District was done by combining all 17 segments as we understand them into a single Traffic Model. This system in essence provides the average operation for the CBD directly and thus simplifies the analysis. The CBD system includes all the signalized intersection bounded by the Green River to the east, S. 180th St. to the south, SR 5 to the west (includes ramp junction with Klickitat Drive S.) and SR 405 to the north (including 61st and 68th Avenues South intersections with Southcenter Boulevard). The SR 5 NB off-ramp right turn stop control junction intersection with Southcenter Parkway is also :included.: in. the traffic. model. The CBD.traffic street system.isexpected to include several improvements installed or under construction. by the 2010 horizon year.. The improvements included in the Traffic Model are as follows: ➢ Traffic signal. interconnect and coordination. ➢ -S.-168th . Streetconnection:•Southcenter Parkway.to•Andover Park W. ➢ :Signal- and channelization improvements at Andover.Park.E. at,Minkler.Boulevard. Results: The .Highway: Capacity Manual, 2000 :defines:the:LOS for: Urban Street Corridors. by :average :travel.: speed.. :Exhibit_15.2(copy attached),:of the Highway Capacity Manual identifies the LOS bytravel- speed;and urban-street classification. "The =West ValleyHighway street segment is a Class II facility and the CBD streets are Class III. The following table depicts the Transportation Concurrency results: Street Segment Existing 2004 travel speed 2010 w/o project . system speed 2010 w/ project system speed West Valley Highway NB 33 MPH 21 MPH 2O MPH > 26.5 MPH (C) 18.5 MPH (D) 18 MPH (D) SB 20 MPH 16 MPH 16 MPH Central Business District (system) 16 MPH (D) 15 MPH (D) 15 MPH (D) (x) - Level of service The City LOS standard for both West Valley Highway and Central Business District is E. Thus the City's Transportation Concurrency would be met with development of the project. The \' nglneer2\c \-Project Files \ 2005.004 • Tukwila Station - Pew Commercial: RMS - Tolon loTroTdmpemMSyfTukwilaStoton&c JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -11- pertinent Transportation Concurrency Synchro Model information is contained in the Appendix. AGENCY TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila Municipal Code Title 9 "Vehicles and Traffic" Section 9.48.150 "Transportation Impact Fee Schedule" identifies impact fees of intersections and links to be impacted by five or more PM peak hour trips. Table 3 identifies the City of Tukwila's street improvement projects, cost per trip for each project and projects which are impacted by five or more PM peak hour trips. Based on our analysis the traffic impact fee is calculated to be Rex80. Please note that both of the affected City projects are completed. Thus the imposition of the Traffic Impact may not be applicable. SUMMARY:AND'CONCLUSIONS :This report analyzed the traffic'impactof-the Tukwila Station project. Thesite is bounded by .SR 405. to the:north; railroadtracks to'the:west-and east,and S..Longacres Way to the south in.the. City of Tukwila. Traffic data was gleaned from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion and augmented with data 'collectedspecific :for the Tukwila Station project at the pertinent street/road intersections identified_for:analysis. •Future.horizon year.traffic.volumes were derivedsusing.both a growth factorand adding in traffic generated by the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion • project.. Level of service analyses were performed.for-existing.and projected future. horizon 'traffic volumes. :The evaluation.of the traffic impact of the proposed project included adding projectgenerated traffic-to the future traffic volume projections and calculating the level of service: The "with ". project traffic operations were:then compared to the "without" project operations. The comparison of traffic operations "with and—without" the'project identified that the project would not cause a significant adverse affect on the operation of the study intersections. City Transportation Concurrency was evaluated for the West Valley Highway street corridor and the Tukwila Business District. Our analysis shows the both the evaluated street systems would continue to meet the City's concurrency criteria with the subject Tukwila Station project. Based on our analysis we recommend that the Tukwila Station project be allowed with the following traffic impact mitigation measures. 1. Construct site in accordance with applicable City requirements. 2. Install appropriate pedestrian link between the subject site and the Tukwila Transit Station. \\Engineer3\c \-Project filea\I005004 - Tukwila 51000. - Pacific Commercial; RPM - Tukwik \Tratticimpac0MaipusTukwib510Lon doc JTE, Inc. Mr. Ken Kester PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION February 24, 2005 Page -12- 3. Contribute '$17,280 to the City of Tukwila traffic impact mitigation fee program. This fee may not be applicable; both of the identified street improvements are completed. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. Please contact me at (206) 762 -1978 or email me at iaketraffic @comcast.net if you have any questions. I EXPIRES 4/3/D6' 1 Very truly yours, Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 02.21. \\FnOnxr2\c\ -ROjM FYasVOOS 00 - Tukwila Station • Perth Commercial: RAN- Tukfle\ T..lndmp.cthnbS.TukMlaStatbn.cloc PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE 1 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION APPROACH EXISTING 2010 W/0 PROJECT 2010 W/ PROJECT Interurban Ave. S./ 1-405 SB Ramps Overall D (42.7) D (44.5) D (44.6) West Valley Hwy/ Southcenter Blvd Overall E (56.3) E (74.8) E (76.3) West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 NB Ramps Overall D (43.5) E (59.8) E (62.0) West Valley Hwy/ S. Longacres Way Overall A (7.6) B (10.0) B (12.7) West Valley Hwy/ Strander Blvd Overall D (47.4) E (68.0) E (68.1) West Valley Hwy/ S. 180th St. Overall D (44.0) D (49.6) D (49.8) Andover Park W./ Strander Blvd. Overall D (40.8) E (68.1) E (69.0) Andover Park E./ Strander Blvd. Overall D (35.7) D (54.3) E (55.9) Number shown in parenthesis is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole, which determines the LOS per the Highway Capacity Manual. \Vntpnea2\e\'a lea FNea\20O5O04. Tukwila Station • Ytafrc Commaaal. RIM • TukwibV .etlxtmpa000oalyealukwleStauon Eoc VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION TABLE 2 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TIME PERIOD TRIP RATE TRIPS ENTERING TRIPS EXITING TOTAL PASS- BY NET NEW A. Mid Rise Apartment (ITE Land Use Code 223, 300 unit) Average Weekday - - - - - — AM Peak Hour T = .0.30X 28 (31 %) 62 (69 %) 90 - 90 PM peak,Hour T = 0.39X 68 (58 %) 49 (42 %) 117 - 117 B. Specialty. Retail (ITE Land Use Code 814, 4,750 sq. ft.) Average Weekday T = 44.32X 105 (50 %) 105 (50 %) 210 - - AM Peak Hour - - - - - - PM peak Hour T = 2.71X 6 (44 %) 7 (56 %) 13 34% 9 Total 'A + B Average Weekday - - - - - - AM Peak Hour - - - - - - PM peak Hour - 74 56 130 - 107 2 T =trips X = # of units and 1,000 sq. ft. A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the study site. The above trip generation values account for all the site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips 2 Includes 15% trip reduction to account for the nearby Transit Center \\Enoneer7 p05 . .P.CECCO.nmerdel RMA -Tukrfb \TWitlmp nM•bT k.. StVion doe TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION TABLE 3 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANLAYSIS Project cost per trip trips cost A. Interurban bridge $ 240.00 23 $ 5,520.00 B. Andover widening $ 220.00 0 $ - C. S. 178th /SCP $ 190.00 0 $ - D. West Valley /Strander $ 280.00 42 $ 11,760.00• E. Minker $ 420.00 0 $ - F. Minkler /APW $ 610.00 0 $ - G. S. 178th $ 550.00 0 $ - H. SCP south of 180t $ 2,300.00 0 $ - Southcenter Blvd $ 2,300.00 0 $ - E. Marginal $ 880.00 0 $ - Klickitat $ 2,420.00 .0 $ - Total I,$ 1t7t280 00,E Only projects affected by 5 or more site peak hour trips require payment of a TIF • Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: South of SR 405 north of S. Longacres Way and east of West Valley Hwy Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation NORTH s a■ _ u tislmds/ ►l`b r�r9 % 11 IIY ■ 34t1,-31 V� g r!4 ^Zp MI _ �' B N � . - i, ► J1 � m , .— ni ,�� Sw_,2ans, - St s+y,., LI a, rail s,zmrs `" �� nn, _ ..�� m ��, 1�€ ', y i' V • 4:72.,{k ,mss s_,tas` ,3znd_ -- WO 5 461'N-SI %� .r %`l.rl ... k ;l 9 fjJl S 2nd St r `o if ea mmpp-a / 1 ,mod • 1� —ra! § EC 1 ,la . _ 1at■ �/ ,,,14..--:. ! � s�,a�s, ,¢m,.SL I I_ A ,e — - r' 1 �{,� �... {, ,;ua „an�St pt a 1 , one �� ` Al y 5S r Project Site . � - .. 0 - ' , M,q„¢ooa, ,'s Ian ;. s,saw s e� SI ,, siOM • 8 •1 9w � / � a� z �l x. II( "� 1 I 4,411 ,yam won? ,san'- 11-r r As eery �(r'�t o Surrydde -541, / -``yam' 1 ,� 4., � S r.w ¢ . 0 . _ i OD . 'i`•,�__.5 Q��a vat ��n, _ i s, , jl -�� di �� III 6 �jr^ L .; �.� �, ' j E. • E i. �� - ..rii �f� r � ' , ,. s r �w f%�p - �- 9 el Cm�era . p�Npfg,�r�e,./�+�'1f ' � _ � g�' ! Z i , "'' s,_ I' W _ 7, r�. '� 1 • sawn s_ y L N@, 51 � gg R �.i. x `�' It 0 661 `� st. _ - $0..,,t).., ,, 5, 3 �,79h �. SCI 00-, �1J .. : ,TS,n \ 'I 4 ■■ j 1 i ty �y �� s,eam s 0rl ii. 11` / !{ �.G �.. .. ��!�� ... • ■%►' yr) ` rTio` nil Ldr1s1 7 ( 51 / St- —$ �I''i �J SE ,83tl5f I . ') — ,S�p d� vim'_..""' �ea7ac :r '. ��5 15 5 1 ``Qt_ r �N� ` g4,� 3. blo6ea _ saLst ! Li .. 9. j.]W1157% � S 2AW, S5 KC!itl�V Nd"51 -;jjI n - � I S�,_� ,• _ JTE, Inc. FIGURE 1 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 VICINITY MAP Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: South of SR 405 north of S. Longacres Way and east of West Valley Hwy Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation !E d NORTH JTE, Inc. FIGURE 2 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SITE PLAN Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation t NORTH - West Valley Highway Corridor - Tukwila Urban Center (Intersections impacted by 5 or more project trips, the traffic data at the other I /S's is shown on the Synchro Analysis sheets contained in the appendix) JTE, Inc. FIGURE 3 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LOCATION OF ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation t NORTH 1 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 SB Ramps 2 i West Valley Hwy/ Southcenter Blvd 3 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 NB Ramps 4 West Valley Hwy/ Longacres Way SBR/T SBT /L SBR SBT SBT SBL SBL SBR SBT SBT SBL SBR/T SBT SBT SBL ic y yy ie 4, 9 11 y i< y 4, u ie y + 4, u EBL 71 R EBL 71 R WBR 71 R EBR 71 it WBR EBT • E WBT /R EBT 4 E WBT EBT /L 4 E EBT /L EBL/T/R 4 E WBT /L EBT 4 E WBT EBT 4 E WBT EBR li it y I EBR U it WBL EBR 11 IL WBL IC WBL R T T 71 R T + 71 R T T T NBL NBT NBT NBR NBL NBT NBT NBR RT 71 NBL NBT . NBT NBR NBL/T NBR 5 1 West Valley Hwy / 6 1 West Valley Hwy / pJ Andover Park W/ (} Andover Park E/ Strander Blvd. S. 180th St Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. SBR SBT SBT SBL SBR/T SBT SBL SBL SBR/T SBT SBL SBR/T SBT SBL it 40 9 li Wy y 1I V lc+ 9 11 le 4, 4, u EBL 71 EBL 71 R WBR EBL 71 R EBL 71 R 71 R WBR EBT 4 4 • WBT EBT 4 E WBT /R EBT 4 E WBT /R EBT /L .4 E WBT /L EBT 4 E WBT EBT /R 4 E WBT EBT 4 E WBT EBR U it EBR U it WBL U it WBL EBR 11 it WBL R R T +71 R It T T 71 R T TT R T + NBL NBL NBT NBT /R NBL NBL NBT NBT NBR NBL NBT NBT /R NBL NBT NBT /R Note: West Valley. Hwy runs east/west and 1-405 SB Ramp runs north /south - West Valley Highway Corridor g - Tukwila Urban Center * The above intersections are signalized JTE, Inc. FIGURE 4 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation 1 NORTH 1 West Valley Hwy/ 1 -405 SB Ramps 2 I West Valley Hwy/ Southcenter Blvd. 3 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 NB Ramps 4 West Valley Hwy/ Longacres Way 70 55 205 135 680 250 315 990 50 .5 1,26540 90 71 R 265 160 71 R 625 320 71 R 15 10 71 R 30 820 4 E 585 755 4 E 800 10 4 E 5 0 4 E 1 50 11 IC 525 165 II IC 315 390 lI IC 10 5 y IC 50 R T 71 R 1' 71 R + T R + 71 65 35 330 185 585 500 510 1,000 10 10 1,350 45 5 1 West Valley Hwy/ 6 -West Valley Hwy / V Andover Park W/ 0 Andover Park E/ Strander Blvd. S 180th St. Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. 310 1,130 35 80 950 300 115 375 220 130 365 150 ie 4. y ie 4 u IC 4 V IC 4, u 435 71 R 10 110 71 R 245 125 71 R 165 100 71 R 95 30 4 E 20 580 4 +.570 380 4 E 505 425 4 E 435 440 II IC 20 565 U Of 75 105 11 IC 130 125 11 Ile 125 R + 71 R T T R T 71 R + 71 275 1,265 5 470 835 55 180 470 90 245 480 185 Note: West Valley Hwy runs east/west and 1 -405 SB Ramp runs north /south X - West Valley Highway Corridor - Tukwila Urban Center (Intersections impacted by 5 or more project trips, the traffic data at the other I /S's is shown on the Synchro analysis sheets in the appendix) JTE, Inc. FIGURE 5 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation NORTH r S ast nrS j- � V 1 S t - 1:u. 111 ,....______t, JL J LjJ t - � i n ":� � ` �„.: tt 4n t Ledltn� f In[( F �4)JL :-f- \\I7� t N �rIoam SWI h' & -S- 77th -Si ; S Aa � \ Height. ii ; ;`-'-:7:;------ 11, 3_146th =sI '`�--� \ P -// — C 1 Ill-- NJF{ 4\ . m\ I r- o S 148thrS1 ` _ , <r) � ;_ TIP m, 5®vMmdq, 01.01.2007/09- VE/Q1, 82,100,000 i 1 - _ I amc TIF H4er9aW Way (HM- 112) widen to 3aees, e ,1,955,000, fe0lDed1trb " -•�� J O �e�_ 1 I st 71F • $,,79.Ob. 82,30 - dye, M16LTf0o $2—kIL �Si / �� -.-- ---- �9 ydl 1 ,�W C � I29, when S ®md I � III `0 SW t6tb S= 1Rnd -St 8' it ' 6t 1541 Sc3v —� . 7 �a �up _ ` 6 0AA1.vz,6br- NE. fl,o n. '� ® I III - 3-1 e / 1. 01.01.2010 nu, � )LL4 j � �e` h � n � f1 ° �R.-11 �(1-\\r' � � ' _ /4„S'1WI=5t v11d --Adt' IL C$ N $ ° i4 S1601n� f, 5j U O 6o f :co, , = Pate. I I ULkil '7/ ■R4, I j t 1(L I `°r o PE $ ; ' � _ S /JT---....._ -- t11P S5J ra deBhd r : 1 Lm 1,E 77 13,30,2,020, f2420i0.� T . . ; D IUr En :r - _ = 1 c n , ' ! (' yp, 3 t681Ih, a_ II A : ,�' \ ,i /1� I% TIP m, krt w J fl . . .91.91.20D9.11LL L. m 1 I1r_ J7r.Lm_ �_ �`,�j'- S�/169h a1, rmr P"t __ y J f-� f% 1_simirrllN►bf���- •�ft9o/Peektro 1 a7�1 71P *16, S. 166th 5t. • y 1�' S � II .-�\ .- Im �; r5 � =8 $ st.ea<t,ot.ol.m.au,f77s`000y new east west cF.-�I n �. � _ J SJ m��Cr�,JnUL6S S- 1�Ztrd_S!- `Fo � C'���S173Irtl -3401-S1 .� =St �J w� '' 4�Rk�'8��� s III 7 { 'Q� � . Tr *15, left turn/s1p1d SW 99th:gt� jj'"'p MP' II ( `" J -' DI 175th:,, T1P,EI, Midef �'d., wtlm ro 3lmes, ol.ol.zm9 •�•842',� W IJ vx ^V�. 01.01.2007- �, 8.� - r S —m Q I 1 C rn -5 -776th St �' 0,----_-_... TIP fzoo,o90, f22o/Peek W 1 � a 1�) b �, -Ca- 'l ���fal�1 -c\ �•f1,644,000,f42aPed1 I) II SW= 41St -St JW� ebv / uy� ai �' j7(`'14 6S \\�y tll wli�\ ' ...'~ilea\ i 11 ` P9 � Tel ou 'J L � TIP -S�wNm 0o3151an meat ,,,k,. ood, 8610 /pe (�— S BOthLSi �� / /1� i . -mai �� �?f I� metro �, g 182rd o2002MIcrowwn Per Per /dfy l ''teem_sy� _I -o��' � ---4 a ( EN maul Pork "Q �c 5- 190th:St t�.� —�� -1 if �; =7 ( N A 7 carp. AOrlgt'R reserved —inn ll — �1f'-' _ TIP 2005 - 2010 and City Ordinance TIF Schedule JTE, Inc. FIGURE 6 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation t NORTH 1 I West Valley Hwy/ 1 -405 SB Ramps 75 60 225 2 West Valley Hwy/ Southcenter Blvd. 205 765 275 • 3 West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 NB Ramps 4 West Valley Hwy/ Longacres Way 10 1,360 40 375 1,110 55 100 71 R 290 ' 200 71 R 685 350 71 R 15 10 71 R 30 920 -4 E 665 905 4 4 955 10 4 ' 4 5 0 4 4 1 55 V IC 575 215 II IC 345 425 II IL 10 10 II 1L 55 R T 71 R T 71 R T 71 R T 71 70 40 410 205 640 545 570 1,095 10 10 1,450 45 5 West Valley Hwy/ 6 West Valley Hwy/ V Andover Park W/ Q Andover Park E/ Strander Blvd. S. 180th St. Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. 360 1,240 40 85 1,055 380 .175 475 285 140 400 165 1( 4. s ic 4 s le 4, 11 le 4, s 485 71 R_ 10 120 71 R 320 185 71 R 215 110 71 R 105 35 4 4 20 645 4 4 635 420 4 4 490 535 4 4 565 .540 II IC 20 675 II IC 80 50 II IC'290 180 li le 135 R 4 71 R 4 71 R T' 71. R 4 71 365 1,385 5 570 930 60 165.550 165 305 525 200 - West Valley Highway Corridor - Tukwila Urban Center JTE, Inc. FIGURE 7 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECTED 2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/O PROJECT Project: Tukwila Station Tukwila - Tukwila Total net new PM peak hour trips: 107 Entering: 61 Exiting 46 -7JLr1 ' Ii / S S8t,6h=tSth -4 ,,- t © Simit %5- 52nd= St71 YII /1.31e:4'*; &Y -��.1 5-158th=S1 �' ,,, �S_tsnch N‘ 4[41 Sj 6l�81 11 S- I86th-St 1\ ` JJ LI y 0.7 —4 5- 168th =5t�, jI 9 t6 JL-- S'172rd 6 t, 1 I \17fid S ,7M -SII -- h'r:--t 11:--- 1 NORTH 15%- lip fSW -19th S 175t1r -- -- Seai�\� 5 1761h -St ,\,t---j21E—Thir'"-17 \i\ Tl.s,j iij�- �QiD �, 4 - o 2002dd Cr0s0d Ca All dahts reserved._ Project Site 4 %212 , lr 1F/ 0: ,.12% -2/1 1 //• SW- 94th -St 24 %- 14111 1 )10X. 6/5 1. • 'I (jam L - -S- ;B44th- yt)�� g 11 IL-. SW =8t—, SW= 4,st -St JTE, Inc. FIGURE 8 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND DISTRIBUTION Project: Tukwila Station - Tukwila Location: Bounded by SR 405 to the north, railroad tracks to the west and east and S. Longacres Way to the south Owner: Pacific Commercial Corporation t NORTH 1 I West Valley Hwy/ 1-405 SB Ramps 75 60 226 IC 9 11 T R 290 4 4 669 IC 582 2 l West Southcenter Valley Hwy/ Blvd. 783 275 9 y R 685 4'955 IC 351 3 West Valley Hwy/ 1 -405 NB Ramps 375 1,133 55 ' It 9 U R 15 4- 5 IC 10 4 West Valley Hwy/ Longacres Way 10 —1,360 75 le + u R 57 4 1 It 73 • 100 926 55 II . 205 It 200 T 905 4 217 II 350 T 10 4 437 II 10 T 0 4 10 11 R + T R + T R + T R + T 70 " 40 420 '207 '651 550 579 1,113 10 10 1,450 69 5 West Valley Hwy/ 6 West Valley Hwy/ a Andover Park W/ Q Andover Park E/ • Strander Blvd. S 180th St. Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. 367 1,251 40 87 1,059 385 175 475 287 . .140 400 167 W 9 U le 9 U IC 9 II IL 9 II 495 T R 10 122 T R 326 .185 T R 217 110 T R 107 35 -4 4 20 645 4 4 635 422 4 4- 492 541 4 4 570 540 11 IC 20 675 11 IC 80 50 11 IC 291 180 U It 136 R + T R T T R + T R + T 365 1,400 5 570 936 60 165 550 167 305 525 201 X - West Valley Highway Corridor - Tukwila Urban Center JTE, Inc. FIGURE 9 TUKWILA STATION - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECTED 2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/ PROJECT APPENDIX 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 0x30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprdt % Total % 3 335 5 313 1 315 4 304 13 1267 9 9 9 11 38 1 324 7 1 303 10 1 332 10 3 265 7 6 1224 34 19 0.7 0.4 2491 96.5 46.0 72 2.8 1.3 20 9 12 12 53 10 8 19 7 44 347 327 325 319 1318 332 314 343 275 1264 97 2582 47.7 7 10 6 26 6 12 4 3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 8 11 27 15 14 12 11 52 0 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 6 13 16 17 53 21 26 17 14 78 51 1 79 9 131 38.9 0.8 60.3 0.9 0.0 1.5 2.4 5 7 11 28 10 15 8 7 40 333 302 335 1291 341 346 328 279 1292 0 2 6 11 1 1 3 3 8 11- 7 9 40 5 6 6 9 26 338 311 352 1330 352 362 337 289 1340 68 2583 19 66 2670 2.5 96.7 0.7 1.3 47.7 0.4 49.3 1 0 3 1 0 2 3 0 3 9 1 11 0 2 2 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 21 3 3 4 4 14 17 1 17 0 35 48.6 2.9 48.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 20 21 22 96 17 15 27 17 76 682 655 694 2722 708 705 701 582 2696 702 676 716 2818 725 720 728 599 2772 172 5418 5590 3.1 96.9 staRTime W VALLEY HWY From North RI®d 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total tak Hour From 04 :00PMto05.45PM- Peak 1of1 Ire 04:45 PM Volume 7 1283 Percent 0.5 96.6 05:00 Volume 1 324 Plat Factor High Int. 05:30 PM Volume 1 332 Peak Factor 38 2.9 7 1308 LONGACRES BLVD From East 332 10 343 0.953 1ai1 Hour From 04 :00PMto05:45PM- Peak 1of1 ByAppmadt 04:00 PM Volume 13 1267 38 Percent 1.0 96.1 2.9 High mt. 0400 PM Volume 3 335 9 Peak Factor 1.318 347 0.950 Right 1 Rau 1 left 1 App. Total 28 34.6 6 1 52 1.2 64.2 O 15 21 81 W VALLEY HWY From South RIM 1 Tim 1 Left 1 App. Total LONGACRES BLVD From West Rigt 1 Thud left 1 App. Total Ira. Total 05:15 PM 12 0 14 26 0.779 04:45 PM 28 34.6 05:15 PM 12 1 52 81 1.2 64.2 O 14 26 0.779 44 3.1 10 1348 96.1 341 05:15 PM 15 346 04:45 PM 44 1348 3.1 96.1 0.8 05:15 PM 15 346 11 0.8 1 1403 352 1 362 0.969 11 1403 1 362 0.969 7 43.8 0 0 0.0 0 9 56.3 3 04:45 PM 3 0 3 16 3 6 0.667 04:00 PM 9 1 11 21 42.9 4.8 52.4 041)0 PM 4 1 3 8 0.656 2808 708 0.992 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON W VALLEY HWY LONGACRES BLVD LOC# O1P JTEO5O27M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. PMB 195 4820 YELM HWY SE STE B LACEY, WA 98503 360 -491 -8116 StartTime W VALLEY HWY From North Rigid 1 Thu 1 Left 1 App.Totat Peak How From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1811 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 7 1283 Percent 0.5 96.6 05:00 Volume 1 324 Peak Facer raga Int 05:30 PM Volume 1 332 Peak Factor 38 1308 2.9 7 332 LONGACRES BLVD From East 10 343 0.953 aim Tmu1 Left 1 App. Total 28 34.6 6 1 52 1.2 64.2 0 15 21 81 05:15 PM 12 0 14 W VALLEY HWY From South Riot 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total File Name : JTEO27O1P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 01/27/2005 Page No : 2 LONGACRES BLVD From West Rind I Tmu 1 Left 1 App. Total lutTotal 1 26 0.779 44 1348 11 1403 7 0 3.1 96.1 0.8 43.8 0.0 10 341 1 352 0 0 05:15 PM 04 :45 PM 15 346 1 362 3 0 0.969 t0 to Cr- W VALLEY HWY Out In Total 1 13081 1 ( 71 12631 381 Rhht Thru Left 4 1 1 13851 1 26931 North 1/27/05 4:45:00 PM 1/27/05 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY 4-1 T r Left Thru Right 1 1111 13481 441 1 14031 Out In Total W VALLEY HWY 1 132221 1 27251 m N CO m 'm w 9 56.3 3 16 2808 3 708 0.992 3 6 0.667 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM Southcenter Parkway 17500 Block 2.022 1,235 rn M 193 206 106 68 32 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 2,401 OUT 2,401 Southcenter Parkway 1181904213 /20 93a 2.20 1 Y 1,063 787 1 4& Cr 50) Secs 147 23 127 17500 Block I rO Z S' ( ?o 297 358 N m 52 534 1 77 663 1,726 Southcenter Parkway @ 17500 Block Tukwila, WA COUNTED BY: JC REDUCED BY: CN PHF SB 2% 0.95 NB 1% 0.87 WB 0% 0.85 EB 0% 0.52 INTRS. 1% 0.98 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor xxx 20/0 40+3(6 DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/11/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM DATE: Sun. 4/14/02 WEATHER: Rain 9 TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Southcenter Parkway @ 17500 Block Tukwila, WA DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/11/02 COUNTED BY: JC TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Rain TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Southcenter Parkway FROM SOUTH ON Southcenter Parkway FROM EAST ON 17500 Block FROM WEST ON 17500 Block INTERVAL TOTALS HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 42 152 24 3 7 119 7 2 27 5 27 0 29 5 8 452 04:30 PM 2 48 181 14 1 20 127 7 0 29 3 12 0 5 5 16 487 04:45 PM 5 50 218 25 0 6 134 21 1 39 1 38 1 21 6 6 565 05:00 PM 9 87 198 24 3 17 151 23 0 32 10 45 0 28 3 5 603 05:15 PM 8 47 242 37 2 10 145 23 0 37 3 32 1 25 3 7 611 05:30 PM 5 48 228 28 1 10 110 14 0 30 3 40 0 30 60 10 609 05:45 PM 6 51 238 29 1 15 128 17 0 28 7 30 0 23 2 10 578 06:00 PM 1 59 190 39 1 12 129 22 1 28 1 29 1 29 3 9 550 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 28 213 904 118 7 52 534 77 0 127 23 147 1 106 68 32 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1235 683 297 206 2401 % HV 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.52 0.98 HV Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/14/2002 Feb 11 05 11:48a TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ANDOVER PARK EAST BAKER BLVD LOCO 04PTENW04160M I rafflcount 1.1bUmtU1 lU /b TRAFFICOUNT, INC. PMB 195 4820 YELM HWY SE STE B LACEY, WA 98503 360 -491 -8116 ANDOVER *PARK EAST BAKER BLVD i From North I ROM East I Start Moe RIgtt I ibm 1 left 1 App.Tatal ITitrl_; Pet*Noo1From 04V0 PM to 05:45PM- Peak 1o11 anOmsedlon 0430PM Volume 47 555 32 634 84 Pem 4 7.4 87.5 5.0 38.2 05:15 VaLme 16 140 10 166 19 Peak Factor NI. MR 04:45PM 05:00PM Va4me 7 152 12 171 31 Peak Factor 0.927 42 19.1 I6 App. Total 94 220 42.7 27 56 12 20 63 0273 r File Name : TENW16104P Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 06/09/2004 Page No :2 ANDOVER PARK EAST • BAKER BLVD From South From West sift I Tho !. Lehi App. Total Ries 1 Rau 1 left 18 2.5 6 615 85.9 197 05:15 PM 6 197 83 11.6 22 716 225 AIpp.Ta at •Ip1TOfat I 76 17 e6 159 1729 47.8 10.7 41.5 14 4 16 34 481 0.899 05000 PtM 22 225 23 0.796 3 22 48 0528 0~ W w+ ANDOVER PARK EAST Out In Total _ 766 634j - -1399 r J 475 w3� Right Thru Left s j jl 1-4 No 1i18A4 4:30:00 PM 5:15.00 PM PRIMARY T r left Thru Right 1. ,63.1 .015j _ Jtaj 72s 71sj ; 14411 Out In Total ANDOVER PARK EAST -a N -L 0 W E Feb 11 05 11:48a TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ANDOVER PARK EAST BAKER BLVD LOC# 04P TENW04160M Traff icount LbUL1UFJ TRAFFICOUNT, INC. PMB 195 4820 Valli HWY SE STE B LACEY, WA 98503 360-491-8116 p. 1 File Name : TENW16104P Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 06/09/2004 Page No :1 Grous PrWmi-PRIMMY ANDOVER PARK EAST I South BAKER abio From Sou - ---1 From West I. app. exim arci.-- - --lic.1 RIM 1 Dal I Left I Thicft I yowl I RIVI I Mu I Left i Truck . Total I Tdal I Total Totai -1111;1:11"1.01 -Laftibli:111:01: TatelliPP' - i0 1.0 LO Lti : 1.0 .._1.0...L1.0. ' ___ ___.. . .I 8 22 16 1 46 3 12.6 19 1 148 : 20 7 5 1 32 : 7 431 .-438 8 3 13 1 24 • 6 147 14 6 167 : 17 4 10 3 31 ; 14 392 406 22 11 4 155 24 3 283; 20 7 14 4 41 1 10 428 438 18 3 5 129 24. 2 158 'i 19 3 14 . 1 . 36. 6 408 414 56 39 171 I 18 557 81 12 656 i 76 21 43 9 140 : 37 1659 1696 Menge r-ra 04:l51 MO PM 0445PM Total 0g00 PM 0.Y15 PM Ors.30 Pt4 05t45 PM Total Goaxl Total Aporett% Total % ANDOVER PARK EAST BAKER BLVD From North From East 4141. Met -14 17 12 12 7 48 12 16 14 2 44 92 T.4 2.9 Thou 183 150 128 152 613 135 140 125 92 492 1105 88.4 34.5 Ladt 5 8 5 12 31 4 10 2 6 22 Tack 1.0 4 4 Total 205 170 1 146 2 171 11 692 3 2 2 0 7 151 166 141 100 558 31 12 13 16 9 8 7 4 60 40 53 IS 1250 116 4.2 33.0 1.7 39.0 3.6 79 225 2.5 25 2 58 22 1 43 76 5 20 27 23 10 80 156 44.4 4.9 6 0 0 1 7 63 56 40 21 180 12 351 11.0 3 134 13 5 150 23 3 22 1 48 6 197 22 2 225: 14 4 16 J. 34 ; 2 134 23 5 159 ; 25 2 12 1 39 3 113 17 2 133 10 1 8 2 19 14 578 75 14 667 I 72 10 58 5 140 32 2.4 1.0 1135 85.8 35.4 156 11.8 4.9 26 1323 148 31 52.9 11.1 41.3 4.6 1.0 -ANDOVER- PAFtk EAST BAKER BLVD - . • . ANDOVER PARK EAST - - I . suoime I Rigm I FThurwirti f-Awtio-.1--iiiii-- 117111 ".slIft Ilia:This -ilea" ---FiZr.'974-riiiiTioit: Peak Han Rom 0490 PM to 0545 PM. Pea 1 of 1 Intersedims 04.30 PM trottese 47 555 32 634 84 42 94 . 220 18 615 83 116 1 Peroart 7.4 87.5 5.0 38.2 19.1 42.7 2.5 85.9 11.6 0&15 Volcano 16 140 10 166 13 16 27 56 6 197 22 225 t Ps*Factot HO lot. 0445 PM 05:00 PM 0515 PM i osto vra volume 7 152 12 171 31 12 20 63 6 197 22 225 1 23 Peak Fatly 0.927 0.873 0.786; 15 412 427 5 481 486 379 387 5 273 . 278 33 1545 1578 101 14 280 70 3204 3274 36.1 3.2 97 I 2.1 97.9 BAKER BLVD From West ftei Left I "MI: Tlft?! 76 17 66 159 1729 47.8 10.7 41.5 14 4 16 34 481 0.899 Peat Moor Rom 04.90 PM to 0545 PIR - Peak 10? 1 By Approach 04:00 FM Volume 48 613 31 Percent 6.9 88.6 4.5 Sign tot 04:00 PM Volume 17 183 5 Peak Factor 692 205 0.844 0430 RI 84 38.2 0590 PM 31 42 191 42.7 12 88 220 63 0.873 04:30 PIA 18 2.5 0515PM 6 615 83 85.9 11.6 197 22 716 225 0.796 3 22 48 0.828 04:30 PM 76 17 66 159 47.8 10.7 41.5 05.0088 23 3 22 48 0.820 Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS E D A D C Approach Delay 50.9 40.0 Approach LOS D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 393 2 263 341 Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 441 33 319 393 Internal Link Dist (ft) 676 8.8.3 Turn B ay Length (ft) 175 250 500 Base Capacity (vph) 202 1188 5.6.5 760 1531 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 13 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.73 0.09 0.73 0.58 nte seek, n S, Jm a Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset 23 (16 %), Referenced to phase 2 :NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 42.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity U tilization 67.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: ICU Level of Service C 11: West Valley Hiahwav & SR 405 southbound D 15.7 B 74 0 140 8 9_ 463 65.4 E 153 211 535 250 510 696 468 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.50 0.74 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 4* 06 c03 04 �p yu `L - - -__ i� 12 l �u— �'i —�� 08 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 SB ramp - Fort Dent. Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 f -. (4- 4 g BR SBR Lane Configurations 1 ff r 'j'i +t. 4 r 41) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 17.5 250 500 0 0 250 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50. 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.0.0 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.953 0.850 0.968 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.969 0.970 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3373 0 0 1805 1583 0 3323 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.969 0.970 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3373 0 0 1805 1583 0 3323 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 50 67 347 20 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 756 963 543 615 Travel Time (s) 12.9 16.4 12.3 14.0 Volume (vph) 90 820 50 525 585 265 65 35 330 205 55 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 863 53 553 616 279 68 37 347 216 58 74 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 863 53 553 895 0 0 105 347 0 348 0 Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Split Perm Split Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phases 7 4 4 3 8 2 2 2 6_ 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 51.0 51.0 35.0 66.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 14.3% 36.4% 36.4% 25.0% 47.1% 0.0% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 16.4% 16.4% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 47.0 47.0 31.0 62.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 19.0 19.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode N one None None None None C -Max C -Max C -Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.3 39.2 39.2 26.2 53.1 39.6 39.6 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.87 0.11 0.86 0.68 0.21 0.50 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 61.4 47.9 2.1 55.1 33.3 38.3 0.0 54.7 Control Delay 68.6 51.4 9.6 53.5 31.6 43.3 7.3 65.4 Queue Delay 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.1 51.4 9.6 53.5 31.6 43.3 7.3 65.4 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 - C k '1 t \ 4 d LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue L ength 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 Base Capacity (vph) 266 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 11 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 D 45.2 D.. 149 348 226 426 391 Inteerse Lion Su ma D 62.3 E.. 292 323 372 149 61 . #454 408' 516 m#273 6.95 250 250 240 250 1.0.95 606 392 1378 981 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. 0 133.... 0 0 0 0.73 0.29 1.28 0.61 0.67 0.86 D- 45.4 D 292 405 128 m355 m517 m168 691 E B 71.0 E 323 57 398 m89 883 100 200 230 883 824 589 874 489 0 112 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 364 0 0 0.70 0.74 1.17 0.82 0.29 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 118 (84 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated. Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 56.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. ICU Level of Service D Splits and Phases: 10 SW Grady Way & West Valley Highway 1# m1 V► m2 4\ 03 <� 04 I- 1 r.5 1 A m7 1 1N + 1� m8 1 05 .4F= 06 1 115. 1 2 _J 1- 1 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405/ Southcenter Blvd. Existing Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 SBR li + r 1 ft, r 1 ft r vi r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 250 250 250 240 250 100 200 230 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50 50 5.0 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.8.50 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0 .950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 167 118 66 130 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1_ .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 471 775 771 963 Travel Time (s) 9.2 15.1 13.1 16.4 Volume (vph) 160 755 165 315 800 625 185 585 500 250 680 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. Adj. Flow (vph) 168 795 174 332 842 658 195 616 526 263 716 142 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 795 174 332 842 658 195 616 526 263 716 142 Tum Type P rot Perm Prot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 1 7 4 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 55.0 28.0 22.0 32.0 35.0 28.0 38.0 38.0 Total Split ( %) 17.9% 32.1% 32.1% 25.0% 39.3% 20.0% 15.7% 22.9% 25 .0% 20.0% 27.1% 27.1% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 41.0 41.0 31.0 51.0 24.0 18.0 28.0 31.0 24.0 34.0 34.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max None None Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 1.1.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 17.5 43.4 43.4 28.6 54.5 75.5 17.4 34.9 67.6 17.1 34.6 34.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.39 0.54 0.12 0.25 0.48 0.12 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.73 0.29 0.92 0.61 0.72 0.89 0.70 0.66 0.63 0.82 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 59.2 43.1 1.4 54.4 34.2 19.2 60.3 47.7 23.5 58.4 49.7 3.4 Control Delay 69.7 48.2 7.2 73.9 37.2 23.7 74.9 44.6 34.4 45.1 58.0 18.8 Queue Delay 0.6 0.0 0.0 128.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.3 48.2 7.2 202.7 37.2 23.7 74.9 44.6 35.3 134.4 58.0 18.8 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 NB ramp Existing Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 t -.► `i j '— k- E L' E-BR 9� WiDlr LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio teiiseetion�Su�'mma F 40:2 D 313 #514 507 500 365 1583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.95 0.26 WBR Rya REIV NBR r 4, SBR D B F B A B D B 26.9 57.2 30.2 C E C 11 0 437 383 3 18 247 49 30 19 #646 453 m7 m27 317 _ m94 214 606 691 50 200 75 150 200 3.92 441 585 2214 992 249 1286 711 0 0 0 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 46 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.04 1.19 0.72 0.01 0.21 0.81 0.47 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Le ngth: 140 Offset 39 (28 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6 :SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 43.5 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7: Sr 405 NB ramp & West Valley Highwa lr.._- `►0`�t�a --- '�04 — i� - - �. 05 + �V 08 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 NB ramp Existing ane G Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 E' -BR MIL MIT WBR GEL IffIr NBR SB Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r "I t4. r 1 ++ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 500 0 50 200 75 150 200 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 _ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.85.0 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.954 0.967 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1777 1583 0 1801 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.721 0.775 0.077 0.272 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1343 1.583 0 1.444 1583 143 3539 1583 507 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 411 16 5 213 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 587 294 686 771 Travel Time (s) 13.3 6.7 1.1.7 13.1 Volume (vph) 320 10 390 10 5 15 510 1000 10 50 990 315 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 ✓ 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 337 11 411 11 5 16 537 1053 11 53 1042 332 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 348 411 0 16 16 537 1053 11 53 1042 332 Turn Type P erm Free Perm Perm pm +pt Perm pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial _(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 46.0 89.0 89.0 9.0 52.0 52.0 Total Split ( %) 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 32.9% 63.6% 63.6% 6.4% 37.1% 37.1% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 42.0 85.0 85.0 5.0 48.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ' 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 1.1.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls # /hr ) 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 37.2 140.0 37.2 37.2 94.7 87.6 87.6 56.0 50.9 50.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.40 0.36 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.26 0.04 0.04 0.96 0.48 0.01 0.21 0.81 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 0.0 38.1 0.0 39.6 14.4 5.5 13.8 40.2 11.1 Control Delay 87.3 0.4 38.1 15.7 49.0 17.6 6.2 12.7 37.0 1.1.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 87.3 0.4 38.1 15.7 134.4 18.3 6.2 12.7 37.0 11.6 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Longacres Way Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 / \. 1 d SBR LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 374 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio 49.7 10 35 200 0 0 0 0.04 E 46.7 D'. 48 93 271 3.2 9.4 A A 56 0 21 216 152 m3 m42 295 1685 606 100 100 1000 150 380 364 205 3053 1372 95 4382 0. 0 .. -_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.47 0.03 0.44 0.31 0 ntersectien Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and Natural Cycle: 75 ;Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.47 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.6 �— Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered 6:SBTL, Start of Green intersection LOS: A ICU Level of Service A by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 1: Lon acres Blvd & West Valley Highwa to 02 4. 04 m8 1 13. 1 I:: I ,V 06 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS E E Approach Delay 41.0 Approach LOS D Queue Length 50th (ft) 217 230 100 Queue Length 95th (ft) 304 320 231 Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 3.96 40.0 639 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn - 19 22 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.66 0.72 tersection Summa E C C A 57.2 34.3 E C 38 0 82 0 77 21 m138 m0 203 3732 125 150 208 191 839 2235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0.06 034 0.00 SBR E C 53.5 D 27 581 164 58 660 237 1685 150 105 1441 792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.83 0.41 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuate d Cycle Length: 140 Offset 22 (16 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6 :SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 47.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highwa 01 t m2 4 04 m8 ,:,,,,..z„, 1lR ' ■ iu 05 06 Ala :6:1 ::_ 11■ JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 ane Group Lane Configurations li 4 r 4 ri VI ft 1 ft r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 50 125 150 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.875 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.958 0.976 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1695 1583 0 1818 1583 3433 3097 0 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.958 0.976 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1695 1583 0 1818 1583 3433 3097 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 348 11 907 248 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 593 283 3812 1765 Travel Time (s) 11.6 5.5 65.0 30.1 Volume (vph) 435 30 440 20 20 10 275 1 5 35 1130 310 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 458 32 463 21 21 11 289. 1 5 37 1189 326 Lane Group Flow (vph) 239 251 463 0 42 11 289 6 0 37 1189 326 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 73.0 0.0 10.0 61.0 61.0 Total Split ( %) 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 15.7% 52.1% 0.0% 7.1% 43.6% 43.6% Maximum Green (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 69.0 6.0 57.0 57.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.2 26.2 26.2 8.6 8.6 34.2 84.9 8.2 57.0 57.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.24 0.61 0.06 0.41 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.79 0.80 0.38 0.10 0.34 0.00 0.36 0.83 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 54.0 54.3 12.7 64.2 0.0 43.6 0.0 64.4 37.7 6.4 Control Delay 59.8 60.8 20.1 64.6 28.8 35.0 0.0 57.1 61.6 23.7 Queue Delay 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.2 61.3 20.1 64.6 28.8 35.0 0.0 57.1 61.6 23.7 EBL WBT WBR NBR SBR JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 0- West Valley Hwy /S. 180th St. Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 Queue Length 95th (ft) #206 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 152 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 tere seetion S_um a E 49.9 D 274 414 71 344 552 #145 900 8.28 0 0 0 0.74 175 798 0 0 0 0.75 175 123 0 0 0 0.64 E 51.8 D 274 117 221 345 179 275 984 770 0 0 0 0.78 250 711 0 0 0 0.36 350 760 0 0 -0 0.65 38.7 D 294 23 136 395 56 m155 684 25 350 1630 735 593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0.08 0.53 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated C ycle Length: 140 Offset: 9.1.9 (66 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue Queue shown is m aximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by 6:WBT, Start of Green Intersection LOS: D ICU Level of Service D may be longer. upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highwa ir 01 03 1� 04 02 3� �� 06 l��:F1 �t 07 1��t� 108 '� 05 38.4 D 497 586 1505 1388 0 0 0 0.78 d JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /S. 180th St. Existing Lane Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 I BBR WBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1.58.3 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3497 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1.583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3497 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 62 82 11 7 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1_.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 980 1064 764 1585 Travel Time (s) 19.1 20.7 13.0 27.0 Volume (vph) 110 580 565 75 570 245 470 835 55 300 950 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 116 611 595 79 600 258 495 879 58 316 1000 84 Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 611 595 79 600 258 495 879 , 58 316 1084 0 Turn Type Prot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Detector Phases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8. 8 7 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 21.5 9.5 21.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 36.3 35.0 13.7 34.0 28.2 35.0 61.8 61.8 28.2 55.0 0.0 Total Split ( %) 11.4% 25.9% 25.0% 9.8 %. 24.3% 20.1% 25.0% 44.1% 44.1% 20.1% 39.3% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 12.0 32.3 31.0 9.7 30.0 24.2 31.0 57.8 57.8 24.2 51.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max None - None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 -0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 11.6 32.8 63.4 9.2 30.4 52.0 26.6 64.5 64.5 17.5 55.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.45 0.07 0.22 0.37 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.68 0.78 0.40' 0.76 0.54 0.08 0.73 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 63.1 49.6 28.9 63.9 . 51.5 21.4 53.7 27.1 17.0 59.0 36.7 Control Delay 92.7 56.0 35.4 87.0 59.8 22.5 57.5 29.4 19.3 81.0 26.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 92.7 56.0 35.4 87.0 59.8 22.5 57.5 29.4 19.3 81.0 26.0 1900 200 1 4.0 50 0 15 1.00 44 r 1900 1900 175 1 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 0.95 1.00 0.850 1900 175 1 4.0 50 0 15 1.00 ++ r 1.900 1900 25.0 1 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 0.95 1.00 0.850 ROL AN NBR SBR ++ i~ '' n 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 350 25 350 0 1 1 1 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 15 9 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.850 - 0.988 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd Existing ane Gro Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 EEL La EBR WBT LOS E C Approach Delay 36.4 Approach LOS D Queue Length 50th (ft) 62 182 99 Queue Length 95th (ft) m103 262 161 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1.07.4 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 221 856 266 982 428 1362 295 1187 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn _ 0 0 16 0 0 0 22 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.68 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.51 0.58 0.44 D 42.7 D 189 252 612 WBR t \ 1 d GEL kl:Nr NBR E B D C 30.6 35.3 C D 183 126 115 178 284 165 182 241 2774. 876 lnter� a tioniSu i mary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset 48 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 35.7 t— Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 63 .8% Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. ICU Level of Service B hases: 22: Strander Blvd & Andover Park East 01 t o2 C 03 -1� 04 am' CA 4 06 —J• M t '') 07 ' 1 � 05 1 08 SB JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 e G EEL IgLiuz EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR Lane Configurations ft. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 200 1 0 1 Storage Lanes Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) _ 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.96 6 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3419 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 17.70 34.19 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd_ Flow (RTOR) 30 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 Link Distance (ft) 1154 Travel Time (s) 2.2.5 Volume (vph) 100 425 125 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 447 132 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 579 0 132 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 33.0 0.0 22.0 _ 36.0 0.0 33.0 41.0 Total Split ( %) 15.8% 27.5% 0.0% 18.3% 30.0% 0.0% 27.5% 34.2% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 29.0 18.0 32.0 29.0 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 10.8 27.8 13.8 33.0 21.5 47.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.23 0.12 0.28 0.18 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.71 0.65 0.58 0.81 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 39.4 50.8 36.1 47.3 26.1 Control Delay 62.3 31.7 56.7 39.3 66.3 17.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.3 31.7 57.1 39.3 66.3 17.4 4.0 4.0 50 0 9 15 1.00 1900 1900 . 1900 0 20.0 0 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 15 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.973 0.950 1770 3.444_ 0.950 1770 3444 +t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 200 0 1 0 0, 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 0 0 0 9 15 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.958 0.961 0.950 0.950 _1770 3391 0 1770 3401 0 0.950 0.950 0 1770 3391 0 1770 3401 0 Yes Yes Yes 21 49 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 . -. 35 35 692 2854 956 13.5 55.6 18.6 435 95 245 480 185 150 365 130 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 458 100 258 505 195 158 384 137 558 0 258 700 0 158 .... 521`.. 0 Prot Prot 8 5. _. 2 1 6 1 6 4.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 20.0 28.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 None C- Max 5.0 11.0 0 15.3 41.0 0.13 0.34__ 0.70 0.44 50.1 28.6 43.6 32.6 0.6 0.0 - - - - -- 44.2 32.6 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 'Queue Length 95th,(ft) 162 Intern al Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 236 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio te rrtseeetion Sump i mary D B D D 35.1 48.1 D D.. 161 36 100 289 223 91 159 336 578 1074 100 150 944 501 251 963 0 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 65 0 0.57 0.42 0.22 0.74 0.73 Area Type: _ Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuate d Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 8 (7 %), Referenced to phase 2 :NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84 Intersection Signal Delay: 40.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 D 48.9 29.2 D C 151 201 176 120 228 280 245 170 2741 891 200 200 325 1244 369 1292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36` 0 0 0 0.65 0.47 0.63 0.40 P l I Intersection LOS: D ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West of t o2 • ®3 m4 go r_4 1 WINN= l: 4\ 65 $ o6 f ®7 `- I Li37, I zo I 1 67 11 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd Existing Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 C k t p\* 1 4/ Lane vroup L 5U ttsrc Twin wuu vvorc was wuu rvor� �� Lane Configurations 1 44 j I +I vi +t I +I Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 190.0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.963 0.9.7.6 0.965 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 35.39 1583 1770 3408 0 1770 3454 0 1770 3415 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3408 0 1770 3454 0 1770 3415 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 108 36 18 33 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 658 1154 2821 971 Travel Time (s) 12.8 22.5 55.0 18.9 Volume (vph) 125 380 105 130 505 165 180 470 90 220 375 115 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 400 111 137 532 174 189 495 95 232 395 121 Lane Group Flow 132 400 111 137 706 0 189 590 0 232 516 0 Tum Type _ Pe rm Prot Prot Prot Protected hases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phases 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 37.0 0.0 26.0 34.0 0.0 29.0 37.0 0.0 Total Split ( %) 16.7% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 30.8% 0.0% 21.7% 28.3% 0.0% 24.2% 30.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 - 32.0 32.0 17.0 33.0 22.0 30.0 25.0 33.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 _ 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None N one None C -Max None C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 13.4 28.0 28.0 13.9 28.5 17.4 42.8 19.3 44.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.24 0.15 0.36 0.16 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.48 0.25 0.67 0.84 0.74 0.47 0.81 0.40 Uniform Delay, dl 51.1 39.8 1.0 50.8 41.3 49.1 28.9 48.6 25.8 Control Delay 38.2 39.5 15.2 44.8 47.7 58.9 45.3 55.8 17.2 Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.4 39.5 15.2 49.8 47.7 60.0 45.3 55.8 17.2 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 SB ramp - Fort Dent Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS E D B D C Approach Delay 52.2 40.5 Approach LOS D D Queue Length 50th (ft) . 93 441 6 284 388 Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 511 38 344 459 Internal Link Dist (ft) 676 883 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 250 500 Base Capacity (vph) 202 1188 564 760 1532 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 18 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.81 0.10 0.80 0.66 terse ti_on Sump; mary D B E 22.7 69.7 C E 87 61 170 153 199 #242 463 535 250 446 655 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 0.66 0.81 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Le ngth: 140 Offset: 23 (16 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.5 �- Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. Splits and Phases: 11: West Valley Highway & SR 405 southbound JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. � 06 C ®3 04 1'� �. — ■: �— 1■ 1■ �� _ — 7■ ggill ms JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 SB ramp - Fort Dent Without Project ane Gre Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 EEL EN E- -BR WBR GEL GUT P NBR KIL WIT 4, SBR Lane Configurations 11 ft. r VI +I 4 r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 250 500 0 0 250 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5.0 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.954 0.850 0.969 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.969 0.970 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3376 0 0 1805 1583 0 3327 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 . 0.950 0.969 0 .970 Satd. Flow_(perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3376 0 0 1.805 1583 0 3327 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) _ 49 63 350 20 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 756 963 543 615 Travel Time (s) 12.9 16.4 12.3 14.0 Volume (vph) 100 920 55 575 665 290 70 40 410 225 60 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95' 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 968 58 605 700 305 74 42 432 237 63 79 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 968 58 605 1005 0 • 0 116 432 0 379 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Perm Split Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phases 7 4 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 2b.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 51.0 51.0 35.0 66.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 Total Split ( %) 14.3% 36.4% 36.4% 25.0% 47.1% 0.0% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 16.4% 16.4% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 47.0 47.0 3.1.0 62.0 27.0 27.0 2.7.0 19.0 19.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max C -Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.9 42.6 42.6 27.8 57.5 34.6 34.6 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio _ 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.90 0.11 0.89 0.71 0.26 0.66 0.92dI Uniform Delay, d1 61.3 46.6 5.3 54.6 31.8 42.4 8.1 55.5 Control Delay 70.1 52.6 11.1 53.5 32.7 47.2 16.1 69.7 Queue Delay 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.1 52.6 11.1 53.5 32.7 47.2 16.1 69.7 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Without Project Lane Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 IBM E317 E--BR WBT WBR GEL Mr LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) 188 Queue Length 95th (ft) #314 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 Base Capacity (vph) 266 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 34 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.91 terc section S rn'ma D 56.3 89.3 51.1 E F D 443 31 327 425 497 176 287 #568 100 #518 512 63.0 m #312 m#408 391 695 691 250 250 240 250 100 200 230 1057 599 392 1327 944 228 856 802 589 859 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 161 0 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 0.90 0.38 1.57 0.76 0.76 0.95 0.79 0.82 1.45 0.94 0.42 P fir• NBR SB 97.9 F 409 135 372 86 m571 m162 #505 m119 883 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset 118 (84 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 74.8 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile v olume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Zits and Phases: 10: SW Grad v Way & West Valley Highwa 0 01 04 v 02 a7 - -_'J 1> 08 •444 05 = �06 yr, : ,, J ■wag J■ ? _J■ JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy / 05/ Southcenter Blvd. Without Project Lane Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 EBR WEL MIT WBR EL RIM NBR OIL gOlr d SBR Lane Configurations 1 ft' r 1 ++ r 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 250 240 250 Storage lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 5.0 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.85.0 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3.539 1583 Flt Permitted 0 .950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 35.39 1.583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 180 80 47 176 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 471 775 771 963 Travel Time (s) 9.2 15.1 13.1 16.4 Volume (vph) 200 905 215 345 955 685 205 640 545 275 765 205 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 953 226 363 1005 721 216 674 574 289 805 216 Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 953 226 363 1005 721 216 674 574 289 805 216 Turn Type Pro t Perm Prot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 1 7 4 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 55.0 28.0 22.0 32.0 35.0 28.0 38.0 38.0 Total Split (%) 17.9% 32.1% 32.1% 25.0% 39.3% 20.0% 15.7% 22.9% 25.0% 20.0% 27.1% 27.1% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 41.0 41.0 31.0 51.0 24.0 18.0 28.0 31.0 24.0 3.4.0 34.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max None None Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 19.5 41.8 41.8 30.1 52.5 74.6 18.1 33.8 68.0 18.1 34.0 34.0 Actuated g/C R atio 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.38 0.53 0.13 0.24 0.49 0.13 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio _ 0.90 0.38 0.95 0.76 0.82 0.95 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.94 0.42 Uniform elay, d1 58.9 47.1 7.2 54.2 38.2 23.6 60.5 49.7 25.9 57.8 51.9 7.6 Control Delay 79.8 59.7 11.3 84.0 4.3.0 30.1 91.5 51.1 34.1 44.3 63.7 19.0 Queue Delay 9.4 0.0 0.0 250.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 207.8 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.2 59.7 11.3 334.9 43.0 30.1 91.5 51.1 35.9 252.1 63.7 19.0 1900 4.0 500 r 1900 100 1 4.0 500 9 1.00 0.850 1900 200 2 4.0 50 15 0.97 1900 4.0 50 0.95 r 1900 230 1 4.0 500 9 1.00 0.850 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /S5/ SR 405 NB ramp Without Project Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio te rsection Sum a Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 -; f #- k 4\ CL Ath EBR WBT WBR MIL ROT F A D B F B 49.1 27.0 83.2 D C F —372 0 11 0 —544 340 #576 0 30 19 #784 452 507 214 606 500 50 200 75 150 200 365 1583 36.7 441 584 2194 983 220 1213 691 0 0 0 0 0 685 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 50 0 0 0 0 1.04 0.28 0.04 0.04 1.33 0.76 0.01 0.26 0.96 0.57 NBR SBR B D B 40.4 D 19 294 70 m27 m#633 m104 691 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 39 (28 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated - Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 59.8 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% ICU Level of Service F Ana_ lysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. st Valley Highwa JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 4\ m5 ` -., 06 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /S5/ SR 405 NB ramp Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 *f- 4- t p ► Lane Configurations r 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 19.00 1900 190 1 00 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 500 0 50 200 75 150 200 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.954 0.967 0.950 0 -950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1777 1583 0 1801 1583 1770 3539 1.583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.721 0.726 0.077 0.246 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1343 1583 0 1352 1583 143 3539 1583 458 3539 1583 - Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 447 _ 16 5 226 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00_ _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40. 40 Link Distance (ft) 587 294 686 771 Travel Time (s) 13.3 6.7 11.7 13.1 Volume (vph) 350 10 425 10 5 15 570 1095 10 55 1110 375 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 095 095 0.95 0.9.5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 368 11 447 11 5 16 600 1153 11 58 1168 395 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 379 447 0 16 16 600 1153 11 58 1168 395 Turn Type Pe rm Free Perm Perm pm +pt Perm pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 Free 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector P hases 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 .6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 46.0 89.0 89.0 9.0 52.0 52.0 Total Split ( %) 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 32.9% 63.6% 63.6% 6.4% 37.1% 37.1% Maximum Green (s) _ 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 42.0 85.0 85.0 5.0 48.0 48.0 Yellow T ime (s) 3.5 3.5 15 3.5 3.5 15 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Y es Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min C -Max C -Max No ne C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 37.9 140.0 37.9 37.9 93.9 86.8 86.8 53.1 48.0 48.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.38 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.28 0.04 0.04 1.03 0.53 0_ .01 0.26 0.96 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 40.5 15.4 5.7 15.0 45.1 14.8 Control Delay 10.6.6 0.4 38.3 15.7 84.2 16.4 6.2 13.8 50.3 14.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.9 _ 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 106.6 0.4 38.3 15.7 211.2 17.3 6.2 13.8 50.3 14.9 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR-4A6/-3-- Without Project C 1 HS a c rl/ Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 .f , C ~ 4L 4\ ape ou MIL EDF E- -BR MEL Ng Eg WBR RIN LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 0(0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.50 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.0 E^ Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. D 40.7 D 10 39 200 E 47.5 D 53 99 271 A 7.3 A 0 2 190 34 m5 542 1685 NBR A 10.2 B 3 22 263 m11 m36 m307 606 100 100 1000 150 372 380 364 171 3043 1368 94 4368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.50 0.03 0.45 0.33 SBR ICU Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 1: Lon acres Blvd & West Valley Highwa `I'' ®2 04 f e8 — j ■t!J� _ �� JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2? West Valley Hwy /SR-4@5/4 L 0.-.3 4 c et/ Without Project ane Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 lEt1 ET' Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1694 Fit Permitted 0.976 Satd. ,Flow (perm) 0 1694 Right Tum on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 Link Distance (ft) 280 Travel Time (s) 6.4 Volume (vph) 10 0 Peak Hour Facto r 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 22 Turn Type Split Protected Phases 4 4 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 4 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 34.0 34.0 Total Split ( %) 24.3% 24.3% Maximum Green (s) 3.0.0 30.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max C -Max C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.6 9.7 9.7 120.4 120.4 120.4 120.4 120.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.48 0.23 0.06 0.50 0.03 0.45 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 63.9 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.0 3.2 2.8 Control Delay 40.7 62.9 19.1 6.8 7.4 2.8 36.4 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.7 62.9 19.1 6.8 7.4 2.8 36.4 9.4 EBR 4- WBR KU. NM NBR ROIL WIT 4 r 1 44 r v f +t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 100 100 1000 150 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.8.50 0.850 0.999 0.953 0.950 0.950 0 0 1775 158.3 1770 35.39 1583 1770 5080 0 0.953 0.107 0.059 0 0 1775 1583 199 353.9 1583 110 5080 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 32 47 1 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 40 40 351 1765 686 8.0 30.1 11.7 10 55 1 30 10 1450 45 40 1360 10 0.95 0.95 0.9.5 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 58 1 32 11 1526 47 42 1432 11 0 0 59 32 11 1526 47 42 1443 0 Split Perm Perm Perm Perm 8 8 2 6 8 2 2 6 8 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 0.0 0.0% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 0.0% 30.0 30.0 30.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 SBR JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. CiD West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 SBR LOS E E D E C F C E E C Approach Delay 50 .1 57.2 86.9 59.6 Approach LOS D E F E Queue Length 50th (ft) 234 248 224 38 0 132 588 33 644 197 Queue Length 95th (ft) 342 361 #450 77 21 m210 745 66 #728 279 Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 203 3732 168.5 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 125 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 396 400 635 208 191 760 2056 109 1441 800 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 18 22 0 0 0 524 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.74 0.89 0.20 0.06 1.63 0.71 0.39 0.91 0.47 I.nter' e se t o Su m, a Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 22 (16 %), R eferenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 68.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. lits and Phases: 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highwa I" of t m2 04 08 C1 ms ��yy Lz,,,u.._ ��qII _J1111.E t.a__ - ..__._— ._ _. _. _ 11. JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Without Project ane Group Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 CO Lam» EBR Lane Configurations 4 P Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 5.0 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.958 Satd. Flow rot 1681 1695 1583 •Flt Permitted 0.950 0.958 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1695 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 343 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 Link Distance (ft) 593 Travel Time (s) 11.6 Volume (vph) 485 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 511 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 267 281 Turn Type Split _ Protected Phases 4 4 Permitted Phases Detector P hases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split ( %) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Walk Time (s) 5 0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 29.3 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 52.0 52.4 Control Delay 60.5 62.0 Queue Delay 0.6 0.9 Total Delay 61.1 62.8 1900 50 0 4.0 50 0 15 1.00 4-- NEfir WBR 4 r 190.0 1900 125 1 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.976 0 1818 0.976 0 1818 1.00 1.00 35 283 5.5 540 20 20 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 568 21 21 11 568 0 42 11 Perm Split Perm 8 8 4\ Gra Ii 4'P 1900 1900 150 2 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 15 0.97 0.95 0.999 0.950 15.83 3433 3536 0.950 1583 3433 3536 Yes 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 3812 65.0 365 1385 0.95 0.95 384 1458 384 1463 Prot 5 2 4 4 4 4 8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 33.0 33.0 33.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 8 8 8 5 2 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 22.0 73.0 15.7% 52.1% 18.0 69.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Yes Yes 3.0 _._. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 None None None None Max C -Max 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 1.1.0 11.0 0 0... 0 0 0 29.3 8.6 8.6 31.0 81.4 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.58 0.94 0.38 0.10 0.51 0.71 21.2 64.2 0.0 47.8 22.1 38.5 64.6 28.8 43.4 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 287.3 0.0 38.5 64.6 28.8 330.7 22.9 NBR 1 SBR r 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 150 0 0 1 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 0 0 0 9 15 9 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.850 0.950 0 1770 3539 1583 0.950 0 1770 35.3.9 1583 Yes Yes 263 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 1765 30.1 5 40 1240 360 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 42 1305 379 0 42 1305 379 Prot Perm 1 6 6 1 6 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 61.0 61.0 0.0% 7.1% 43.6% 43.6% 6.0 57.0 57.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 None C -Max C -Max 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 8.6 57.0 57.0 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.91 0.47 64.3 39.7 8.4 59.5 69.1 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.5 69.1 26.9 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /S. 180th St. Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 ane Group LOS -.� C♦— k-4\ EBR WBT WBR GEL EN NBR K2& gli37 SBR Approach Delay 57.7 56.5 43.3 Approach LOS E E D Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 312 553 76 313 184 268 371 Queue Length 95th (ft) #231 387 #820 #156 #414 273 338 454 Internal Link Dist (ft) 900 984 684 Tum B ay Length (ft) 200 175 175 250 350 Base Capacity (vph) 152 82.6 7.91 123 764 696 760 1538 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.90 0.68 0.87 0.48 0.79 0.64 0.09 0.67 0.91 44.0 28 158 564 59 m_ 1.77 m#688 1505 25 350 694 593 1316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inter ec- _tionTSumm j Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 91.9 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6 :WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 49.6 �-- Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highway tr 01 .* 02 t 03 1 04 l K6~ts3 1 s35 s J* [55 s I 'fr 05 ' 07 t o8 06 11i16•I K3T 1 1;2-swammimml 18i1118 1 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Without Project - - -P Lane Configurations Ili +'f' r 1 ++ r 'i' ++ r 11 fl Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1.900 19.00 1.900 1900 190.0 1900 1900 1900 19.00 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 175 175 250 350 25 350 'Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.85.0 0.850 0.989 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3500 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3500 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 50 62 11 7 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 980 1064 764 1585 Travel Time (s) 19.1 20.7 13.0 27.0 Volume (vph) 120 645 675 80 635 320 570 930 60 380 1055 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 126 679 711 84 668 337 600 979 63 400 1111 89 Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 679 711 84 668 337 600 979 63 400 1200 0 Turn Type P rot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Detector P hases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 21.5 9.5 21.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 36.3 35.0 13.7 34.0 28.2 35.0 61.8 61.8 28.2 55.0 0.0 Total Split ( %) 11.4% 25.9% 25.0% 9.8% 24.3% 20.1% 25.0% 44.1% 44.1% 20.1% 39.3% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 12.0 32.3 31.0 9.7 30.0 24.2 31.0 57.8 57.8 24.2 51.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max None None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Waik Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 11.8 32.7 66.3 9.3 30.2 55.4 29.5 60.8 60.8 21.1 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.47 0.07 0.22 0.40 0.21 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.92 0.71 0.87 0.51 0.83 0.64 0.09 0.77 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 50.9 31.8 64.0 53.1 25.5 52.8 30.9 19.1 57.1 41.3 Control Delay 101.2 60.3 47.4 90.6 66.6 27.8 61.0 33.8 20.8 76.0 33.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 101.2 60.3 47.4 90.6 66.6 27.8 61.0 33.8 20.8 76.0 33.3 Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 4- 4, 1900 0 0 4.0 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 -i 'i i' 4- & 4\ p LOS E D C F D E D F D Approach Delay 49.5 97.9 55.3 61.4 Approach LOS D F E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 187 8 226 287 138 293 224 216 Queue Length 95th (ft) #266 246 m51 m#417 353 215 351 #410 337 Internal Link Dist (ft) 578 1074 2741 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 150 Base Capacity (vph) 251 796 397 310 940 Starvation. Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 11 0 0 89 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.56 0.13 1.38 0.79 terseetion Summa 200 295 1019 0 0 0 0 50 0 0.71 0.74 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 63 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.98 Intersection Signal Delay: 68.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West 200 310 1154 0 0 0 0 31 0 1.08 0.59 i.... 01 4\ 03 1 04 02 .5s 2.88s I °:Ll 2.4s I (Ps 1 08 05 06 y 07 e41r1 I35s 025 1.1 l s I''' .,I 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 e Gro P 2211. l EBR WBT WBR G9211, VDT NBR 4, d SBR Lane Configurations _ 414 Ideal Flow_(vphpl) 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 Storage Lanes 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) _5.0 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Tuming Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt Fit Protected 0.950 ,Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 Fit Permitted d 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 17.7.0 Right Tum on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor 1.00 - - -- - - - - -- Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) 185 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split ( %) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? IF 1.900 200 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 9 15 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.850 0.954 0.950 3539 1583 1770 3376 0.950 3539 1583 1770 3376 Yes 53 55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 _M 35 658 1154 12.8 22.5 420 50 290 490 215 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 442 53 305 516 226 442 53 305 742 Perm Prot 2 1 6 'i. +t. 1.900 1900 150 1 190.0 1900 1900 190.0 1.900 0 200 0 200 0 1 0.....1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 9 15 9 15 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.965 0.960 - 0.950 0.950 1770 3415 0 1770 3398 0.950 0.950 1770 3415 0 1770 3398 1900 1900 0 0 4.0 Yes 2 i 2 2 1 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 21.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 35.0 17.5% 21.7% 21.7% 20.8% 29.2% 1__ 7.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 31.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode _ None C -Max C -M ax Min C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Yes 33 1.00 1.00 1.0.0 35 2821 55.0 165 550 165 285 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 174 579 174 300 0 174 753 0 300 Prot Prot 3 8 7 Yes 45 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 971 18.9 475 175 0.95 0.95 500 184 684 3 8 7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 34.0 0.0 25.0 40.0 0.0 0.0% 20.0% 28.3% 0.0% 20.8% 33.3% 0.0% 20.0 30.0 21.0 36.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 i None Max Max Max 5.0 5.0 -- Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian CaIIs ( # /hr) 0 0 0 _ 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 27.0 27.0 21.0 32.0 16.3 35.0 21.0 39.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.27 0.14 0.29 0.18 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.56 0.13 0.98 0.79 0.72 0.74 0.97 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 50.6 41.2 co 49.3 37.6 -_ 49.7 36.5 49.2 31.0 Control Delay 53.6 50.4 20.1 76.7 42.8 58.5 53.9 90.5 35.1 Queue Delay 1.8 0.0 0.0 155.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 30.7 0.0 Total Delay 55.4 50.4 20.1 231.9 42.8 61.1 53.9 121.2 35.1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 LOS Approach Delay 37.4 Approach `LOS - D Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 240 Queue Length 95th (ft) m104 m#308 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1074 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 Base Capacity (vph) 221 956 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio tersectio Summary 0.52 0.79 43.9 107 248 171 331 612 200 _. 266 1031 0 0 16 0 0.57 0.68 C_ 85.1 F 242 267 #352 341 2774 4/ 41.1 D 129 201 204 261 876 200 200 428 1187 295 937 0 0 0 0 187 1.33 0.64 Area Type: / Other Cycle Len9tfi: 1,20_ Actuated'Cycle Length: 120 Offset/102 (85%), Referenced to phase 2 :EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type:. Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 54.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% Analysis,Period (rein) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Intersection LOS: D ICU Level of Service D Splits and Phases: 22: Strander Blvd & Andover Park East 0 26 0 0.65 0.61 01 '� 02 03 1 04 LJ< 1 : 3 p I- I 05 y 07 t 08 06 I .. 1 'z. s 1 ll 1 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. c? Andover Park E./Strander Blvd Without Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Lane Gro L1L3-ut EBR WBT WBR KCIIT NBR KR, @DV SBR Lane Configurations +t) 1 ft, ft) ' +t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 200 0 200 0 200- 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 .. Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuming Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.962 0.976 0.959 0.961 „ , Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3405 0 1770 3454 0 1770 3394 - 0 1770 3401 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3405 0 1770 3454 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3401 0 i Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 36 17 48 38 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 1154 692 2854 956 Travel Time (s) 22.5 13.5 55.6 18.6 Volume (vph) 110 535 180 135 565 105 305 525 200 165 400 140 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 116 563 189 142 595 111 321 553 211 174 421 147 Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 752 0 142 706 0 321 764 0 174 568 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 33.0 0.0 22.0 36.0 0.0 33.0 41.0 0.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 15.8% 27.5% 0.0% 18.3% 30.0% 0.0% 27.5% 34.2% 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 29.0 18.0 32.0 29.0 37.0 20.0 28.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag . Lead Lag ., Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max ,Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) 11.6 32.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 0 0 14.2 35.4 25.0 40.8 16.2 32.1 0.12 0.30 0.21 0.34 0.14 0.27 0.68 0.68 0.87 0.64 50.7 36.4 46.0 31.1 57.6 41.1 52.1 34.1 0.5 0.0 154.2 0.0 58.1 41.1 206.3 34.1 0.10 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 38.3 Control Delay 69.5 32.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.5 32.4 0.73 0.61 49.8 35.6 43.7 40.0 1.0 0.0 44.7 40.0 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 SB ramp - Fort Dent With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 4/ LOS E D B D C Approach Delay 52.4 40.4 Approach LOS D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 443 6 287 388 Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 515 39 348 463 Internal Link Dist (ft) 676 883 Tum Bay Length (ft) 175 250 500 Base Capacity (vph) 202 1188 563 760 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 18 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.82 0.10 0.81 1533 0 0 0 0.66 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset 23 (16 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal. Delay: 44.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis. Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. Splits and Phases: 11: West Valley Highway & SR 405 southbound D 23.8 C 88 72 153 214 463 250 440 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 0.68 E 70.2 E 171 #245 535 468 0 0 0 0.81 4 02 4* 06 c 03 04 Ws 112 :3�1 35s 1 511s 1 08 '.) 07 1--- KITANIIIMI 1:66 1 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. IWest Valley Hwy /SR 405 SB ramp - Fort Dent With Project West Valley Hwy /SR 405 NB ramp With Project LOS Approach Delay 49.2 27.0 86.0 43.2 C Approach LOS D F Queue Length 50th (ft) -372 0 11 0 -561 348 2 20 306 75 Queue Length 95th (ft) #576 0 30 19 #804 462 m6 m26 m#639 m102 Internal Link Dist ft 507 214 606 691 Turn Bay Length (ft) 500 50 200 75 150 200 Base Capacity (vph) 365 1.5.83 367 441 584 2194 983 217 1213 689 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 665 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 135 48 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.29 0.04 0.04 1.36 0.77 0.01 0.27 0.98 0.57 Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 C 4--- k- 4\ t Inters ctio Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 39 (28 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 ;Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 62.0 mac- Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.0 % Analysis Penod,(min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two c_ ycles.� _.___._ _ m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Intersection L OS: E ICU Level of Service F 7 Sr 405 NB ramp & West Valley Highwa �m��2 1 04 Al 1'r 4? l 4\ 05 Gj,e6 V" 08 4 l I: 1 rail JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /SR 405 NB ramp With Project �a e Group Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) , 1900 1900 1900 1.90.0 1_900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 a Length (ft) Stora Len ft 0 500 0 50 200 75 150 200 9 9 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1!. Total Los_ tTime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ftt) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Util. Factor n h ) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.954 0.967 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1777 1583 0 1801 158.3 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.721 0.726 0.077 0.241 Satd Flow (perm) 0 1343 1583 0 1352 1583 143 3539 1583 449 3539 1583, Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 460 16 5 222 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 _ 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 587 294 686 771 Travel Time (s) 13.3 6.7 11_ .7 13.1 Volume (vph) 350 10 437 10 5 15 579 1113 10 55 1133 375 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 368 11 460 11 5 16 609 1172 11 58 1193 395 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 379 460 0 16 16 609 1172 11 58 1193 395 Turn Type Perm Free Perm Perm pm +pt Perm pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phases Free 8 8 2 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 46.0 89.0 89.0 9.0 52.0 52.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 32.9% 63.6% 63.6% 6.4% 37.1% 37.1% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 3.8.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 42.0 85.0 85.0 5.0 48.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Times 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag - Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Y es Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 37.9 140.0 37.9 37.9 93.9 86.8 86.8 53.1 48.0 48.0 Actuated g /C Ratio 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.38 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.29 0.04 0.04 1.04 0.53 0.01 0.27 0.98 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 40.5 15.6 5.7 15.0 45.6 15.2 Control Delay 106.6 0.5 38.3 15.7 87.4 16.4 5.7 13.9 53.9 15.3 Queue Delay 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 132.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.4 0.5 38.3 15.7 219.7 17.2 5.7 13.9 53.9 15.3 Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 SDI. IVO EBR WBT WBR IffE P NBR 4, SBR Storage Lanes 6 6 4.0 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. cq3 West Valley Hwy/S. Longacres Way With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 �� 4— �v . _- �_~ �� h�:o� ��� �mnwnn��p === �~` --' --- E � A A A F B LOS k. 4\ U � ~ Approach LOS _ Queue Length 50th (ft) queue Length 9-5-tfi (ft) ' - -- -- 1�8 4O7 41� mu ��-----�--------��- A --- B / DD _ '-�_ . -'--- - -------- --------2 2D1 4 50 267 iO 70 0 - -__-__-- --- 39 -_---' -- -- --- -'----' - ----- ---'- - ------ '- '- --- 1---2- '-2- ----�-�.�--_---4�'-5_�--�--- - -- m---5�--|�--- -_--- '---�-�5-_� _-x-7 l--'- _ ----�n- �- 18m n #--- _163 nl-.�30 - 4 271 1685 606 - 100 100 1000 150 - - \ 372 380 165 �838 1326 91 421_5 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O u u 0 o O O O _ - — --0 —o —O——O-o —- � 0.06 0.21 0.16 0.07 0.52 0.06 0.87 0i34 • I--`^---`-`--- � � � . _ Base Capacity(vph) Starvation Cap Reductn ' - Spillback Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio ;nte seetio Qummo Area Type: Other pycle Length: 140 - Actuated _ ` Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:BBTL, Cycle �b�t�f{Sroen _' -�� Natural _ Maximum v/c Ratio: 12.7 °��~________ --- Utilization 62.1% 'Analysis Period (min) 15 _ stiown is maiinum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by • Intersection L-_ -_--- _ ICU Level of Service B may ba longer. ______ -_~ upstream signal. Hi hma �� ��m2 � 4. 04 � |� 08 wmm Ir. | ,V 08 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. (9 West Valley Hwy /S. Longacres Way With Project �ane Group IBM ET Lane Configurations 4 r 1 44 r 1$ +1I Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1.900 19.00 19 00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100 100 1000 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.932 0.850 0.850 0.999 Flt Pro tected 0.976 0.953 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow rot 0 1694 0 0 1775 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5080 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.953 0.107 0_.059 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1694 0 0 1775 1583 199 3539 1583 110 5080 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) _ 11 60 73 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -_ _ - - - -- 40 -_ 1.00 40 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 280 351 1765 686 Travel Time (s) 6.4 ... _._ __. 8.0 _ - 30.1 11.7 Volume (vph) 10 0 10 73 1 57 10 1450 69 75 1360 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 0 11 77 1 60 11 1526 73 79 1432 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 22 0 0 78 60 11 1526 73 79 1443 0 Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 2 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 _ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 34.0 34.0 0.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 0.0 Total Split ( %) 24.3% 24.3% 0.0% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 0.0% Maximum Greens 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Yellow T ime (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - -- - - -- -- - Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode _ None N one None None None C -Max C -Max C-Max C -Max C -Max W , alk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) - 11.0 11.0 11.0 11 0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0- Act Effct Green (s) 6.6 11.1 11.1 116.2 116.2 116.2 116.2 116.2 Actuated g)C Ratio 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.55 0.33 0.07 0.52 0.06 0.87 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 33.7 62.1 0.0 2.6 4.3 0.0 8.7 3.4 Control Delay 40.7 62.6 14.5 7.6 8.3 2.8 82.3 10.9 ,Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.7 62.6 14.5 7.6 8.3 2.8 82.3 10.9 Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 EBR C4- k4\ WBT WBR KCIL G�l NBR \* 1 d SBR 19.00 0 0 4.0 Yes 6 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 1 4' LOS E E D E C F C Approach Delay 50.5 57.2 87.3 Approach LOS D E F Queue Length 50th (ft) 240 253 224 38 0 132 596 ;Queue Length 95th (ft) _ 348 366 #450 77 21 m209 753 Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 203 3732 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 125 150 Base Capacity (vph) 396 400 635 208 191 759 2054 109 1441 802 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 19 22 0 0 0 524 0 0 0 0, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.76 0.89 0.20 0.06 1.63 0.72 0.39 0.91 0.48 nter�section Summary 59.3 E _ 32 652 201 67 #747 284 1685 150 1 Area Type: Other ,Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 22 (16 %), Referenced to phase 2NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 • Intersection Signal Delay: 68.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Hiahwa 01 1 o2 4. 04 haul VA 1 OYAIIIMIIIIIIMIIIIIIMIMI 12:OFs'1 _ 05 G1 06 zRIIIIIIIIIIMI Lai I JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 6-,)7 e G Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 CL I EBR Mb Lane Configurations `� ... r 4 r 1�.. 44 1 14` r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 50 125 150 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.8.50 0.8.50 0.999 0.850 Flt Protected . 0.958 0.976 0.950 Satd. -Flow (prot) 1681 1695 1583 0 1818 1583 3433 3536 It Permitted 0.950 0.958 0.976 0.950 8atd. Flow (perm) 1681 1695 1583 0 1818 1583 3433 3536 Right Turn on Red _ Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Times 11.6 5.5 Volume (vph) 495 35 540 20 20 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 521 37 568 21 21 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 286 568 - 0 4.2 11 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm protected Phases 4 4 8 _ 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 73.0 0.0 10.0 61.0 61.0 Total Split ( %) _ 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 15.7% 52.1% 0.0% 7.1% 43.6% 43.6% Maximum Green (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 69.0 6.0 57.0 57.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead /Lag _ Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max y_Valk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Greens 29.4 29.4 29.4 8.6 8.6 30.9 81.4 8.6 _ 57.0 57.0 Actuated g/C Ratio_ _ 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.58 0.06 0.41 0.41'. v/c Ratio 0.77 0.80 0.94 0.38 0.10 0.51 0.72 0.39 0.91 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 52.1 52.5 21.1 64.2 0.0 47.8 22.3 64.3 40.0 8.6 Control Delay 61.1 62.7 38.5 64.6 2.8.8 43.6 23.3 61.8 68.9 _ 26.2 Queue Delay 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 _0.0 290.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.8 63.6 38.5 64.6 28.8 334.0 23.3 61.8 68.9 26.2 1- WBR NBR > SBR Yes 343 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 35 593 283 1.00 1.00 40 3812 65.0 365 1400 0.95 0.95 384 1474 384 1479 Prot 5 2 0.950 0 1770 3539 1583 0.950 0 177.0 35.39 1583 Yes Yes _266 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -- -- 40 ._ 1765 30.1 5 40 1251 367 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 42 1317 386 0 42 1317 386 Prot Perm 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 'OP West Valley Hwy /S. 180th St. With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Lane Group I 12:37 LOS F E Approach Delay 57.9 56 .5 43.4 44.1 Approach LOS E E D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 117 312 553 76 313 189 268 375 28 160 569 Queue Length 95th (ft) #235 387 #820 #156 #414 280 338 457 59 m178 m#687 Internal Link Dist (ft) 90.0 984 684 1505 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 175 175 250 350 25 350 Base Capacity(vph) 152 826 791 123 763 696 760 1535 693 593 1316 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.82 0.90 0.68 0.88 0.49 0.79 0.64 0.09 0.68 0.92 EBR WBT E WBR KUL KIT C NBR @El g07 C In Area Type: Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 91.9 (66 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 49.8 Intersection LOS: D 'Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Other Splits and Phases: 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highway SBR JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. : 03 1 04 0 j' - 02 i1I*71i 003s I 35s I I.55s I 05 r1 06 07 j I> 08 ill6is!! 10 s 1 (28y2 1 661!8 s 1 1 SBR JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy/S. 180th St. With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 4-- Lane Configurations 44 I 44 V 11 14 V II_ •4) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 175 175 250 350 25 350 0 'storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50- -1 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.989 3 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3500 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3500 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 50 61 11 7 1 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.-00 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 40 40 -, Link Distance (ft) 980 1064 764 1585 _ Travel Time (s) ' 19.1 20.7 13.0 27.0 Volume (vph) 122 645 .675 80 635 326 570 936 60 385 1059 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ ._ _ , Adj. Flow (vph) 128 679 711 84 668 343 600 985 63 405 1115 92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 679 711 84 668 343 600 985 63 405 1207 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 • Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Detector Phases 5 2 3 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 9.5 9.5 21.5 21.5 9.5 21.5 , Total Split (s) 16.0 36.3 35.0 13.7 34.0 28.2 35.0 61.8 61.8 28.2 55.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 11.4% 25.9% 25.0% 9.8% 24.3% 20.1% 25.0% 44.1% 44.1% 20.1% 39.3% 0.0%; Maximum Green (s) 12.0 32.3 31.0 9.7 30.0 24.2 31.0 57.8 57.8 24.2 51.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 11.8 32.7 66.3 9.3 30.2 55.5 29.5 60.7 60.7 21.3 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.47 0.07 0.22 0.40 0.21 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.92 0.71 0.88 0.52 0.83 0.64 0.09 0.78 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 50.9 31.8 64.0 53.1 25.7 52.8 31.1 19.2 57.0 41.4 Control Delay 103.2 60.3 47.4 90.6 66.7 28.2 61.0 34.1 20.9 76.0 33.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 103.2 60.3 47.4 90.6 66.7 28.2 61.0 34.1 20.9 76.0 33.5 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. oDa Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd L up Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 0.95 1.00 Frt _ -- 0.850 With Project ane Gre Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 f -• 4\ t p �► 1 1 EBR ++ r 1.900 1900 1900 200 200 1 1 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 WBT WBR Ka Kg +t +I) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 150 0 200 1 0 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.954 0.965 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3376 0 1770 3415 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 177.0 3539 1583 1770 3376 0 1770 3415 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 53 56 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph). 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 658 1154 Travel Time (s) 12.8 22.5 Volume (vph) 185 422 50 291 492 217 Peak Hour Facto r 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 444 53 306 518 228 Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 444 53 ' 306 _ 746 0 Turn Type Prot P erm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split ( %) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 34 1.00 1.00 35 2821 55.0 165 550 0.95 0.95 174 579 174 755 Prot NBR +I. 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 200 - - - - - -- 0 0 1 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 15 9 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.960 0.950 0 1770 -3398 0.950 0 1770 3398 Yes SBR 0 Yes 45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 971 18.9 167 287 475 175 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 176 302 500 184 0 302 684 0 Prot 7 5 2 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 "- 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 21.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 35.0 0.0 24.0 34.0 0.0 25.0 40.0 0.0 17.5% 21.7% 21.7% 20.8% 29.2% 0.0% 20 .0% 28.3% 0.0% 20 .8% 33.3% 0.0% 17.0 22.0 22.0 2.10 31.0 20.0 30.0 21.0 3.6.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max Min C -Max None Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0_ 0 Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 27.0 27.0 21.0 32.0 16.3 35.0 21.0 39.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.23 018 0.27 0.14 0.29 0.18 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.56 0 .13 0.99 0.79 0.72 0.74 0.97 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 50.6 41.2 0.0 49.3 37.6 49.7 36.5 49.2 31.0 Control Delay 53.6 50.5 20.1 77.2 4.4.2 58.6 53.8 92.0 35.1 Queue Delay 1.8 0.0 0.0 159.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 32.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.4 50.5 20.1 236.3 44.2 61.2 53.8 124.0 35.1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd With Project Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 4, LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) D 44.4 46.9 D 107 251 242 268 77 '243 m103 m #315 173 335 #349 342 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1074 612 2774 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 221 887 266 968 428 1282 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 16 0 187 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.85 0.57 0.74 1.33 0.60 ntersectioT Sum a ry 129 201 -205 261 876 200 295 1041 0 0 0- 26 0 0.65 0.55 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120_ Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 48 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6 :SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 _ Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 55.9 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D 'Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. : Strander Blvd & Andover Park East _ __ _ 0y t 02 °i ---► .. , all s I �:1. ■� L 3 s l 05 I 06 07 '_' 08 33 1 102 1 Ifl rs 1 f36s JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy/Southcenter Blvd With Project La e LOS F E B F D C.F D .__ DF E B Approach Delay 56.8 92.2 51.5 99.1 Approach LOS E F D F Queue Length 50th (ft) 188 443 31 334 425 497 179 294 418 136 382 86 Queue Length95th (ft) #314 #568 101 #529 512 636Thi#316 m#420 m578 m160 #525 m118 Internal Link Dist (ft) 391 695 691 883 Turn Bay Length (ft) Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 k- 4\ 250 250 250 240 250 100 200 - 230 Base Capacity (vph) 266 1050 598 392 1327 944 228 856 802 589 859 515 StarvatiOn Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " -105 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 34_ 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.91 0.91 0.38 1.60 0.76 0.76 0.96 0.80 0.83 1.45 0.96 0.42 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other _ Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 118 (84%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green , Natural Cycle: 80 _ pontiolTyrie: Actuated-Coordinated 3 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 76.3 --•—•"' _ Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service -E Analysis Period (min) 18 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. !_-- Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. _ _ _ m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Wav & West VaIIey Hi hwa 0 01 . . 02 4\ 03 A 'V 04 11-7). k.5111MONNIM1 Et5 s 1 mama lis:8 07 t) co8 ...fr 05 06 L. agfM■111•1 1 128-1 1,624S 1 1 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Hwy /Southcenter Blvd With Project ane Gro Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes. Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Tum Type. Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split ( %) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 EEL L3U EBR WBT 1.9 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 250 250 250 1 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 15 9 15 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 Yes Yes Yes 182 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 35 -_ -. 40 471 775 771 9.2 15.1 13.1. 200 905 217 351 955 685 207 651 550 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. 211 953 228 369 1005 721 218 685 579 289 824 216 211 953 228 369 1005 721 218 685 579 289 824 216 Prot Perm Prot pm ov Prot pm+ov Prot Perm 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 1 7 4 WBR 4\ t E1L NBR ft r ++ 1900 1_ 900 190.0 1900 1.900 240 250 100 200 1 1 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 9 • 15 SBR ++ r 1900 1900 230 1: 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 1.00 0.850 1583 1583 Yes 1.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 963 16.4 275 783 205 2 5_.. 2 2 1._ 6 7 3_ 8 1 7 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 55.0 28.0 22.0 32.0 35.0 28.0 38.0 38.0 17.9% 32.1% 32.1% 25.0% 39.3% 20.0% 15.7% 22.9% 25.0% 20.0% 27.1% 27.1% 2.1.0 4.1.0 4.1.0 31.0 5.1.0 24.0 18.0 28.0 31.0 24.0 3.4.0 34.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead ag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max None None Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5 0 5 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 19.5 41.6 41.6 30.4 52.5 74.6 18.1 33.8 68.3 18.1 34.0 34.0 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.38 0.53 0.13 0.24 0.49 0.13 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.91 0.38 0.96 0.76 0.82 0.96 0.80 0.73 0.65 0.96 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 58.9 47.3 7.2 54.2 38.2 23.6 60.6 49.9 25.9 57.8 52.3 8.4 Control Delay - 79.8 60.5 11.2 86.7 43.0 30.1 93.5 51.2 34.2 44.5 66.4 19.0 Queue Delay 9.4 0.0 0.0 260.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 207.8 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.2 60.5 11.2 347.3 43.0 30.1 93.5 51.2 36.2 252.3 66.4 19.0 6 8 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. t Os -11111i __ AMIN Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd With Project Lane G p Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 ( ilk EBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 185 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases Detector P hases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g%C Ratio v/c Ratio_ - Uniform Delay, d1 Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 63 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green - - -- - - - - -- - -- Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay: 69.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 422 50 291 Perm Prot 1 6 2 5 2 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 21.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 35.0 24.0 34.0 25.0 40.0 17.5% 21.7% 21.7% 20.8% 29.2% 20.0% 28.3% 20.8% 33.3% 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C -Max C -Max Min C -Max None Max Max Max 16.0 27.0 27.0 21.0 32.0 16.3 35.0 21.0 39.7 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.27 0.14 0.29 0.18 0.33 0.83 0.56 0.13 0.99 0.79 0.72 - 0.74 0.97 0.59 50.6 41.2 0.0 49.3 37.6 49.7 36.5 49.2 31.0 53.6 5.0.5 20.1 77.2 44.2 58.6 53.8 92.0 35.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 159.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 32.0 0.0 55.4 50.5 20.1 236.3 44.2 61.2 53.8 124.0 35.1 E DC F D ED F D 49.6 100.1 55.2 62.3 D - WBT VEIL GeV ROL @iff ft, 'i 41) 492 165 55.0 287 475 Prot Prot 3 8 7 4 F E E Intersection LOS: E ICU Level of Service D Splits and Phases: i°- 01 -1■ 0111111114- Os 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West 02 R6 ■ 4\ 03 04 07 JTE, INC Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. c)y TITLE 9 – VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC DIVISION II — TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT 9.48.040 Determination of Transportation Concurrency Required A. Any new development or redevelopment that is not categorically exempted under TMC 9.48.030 is required to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. B. No Type 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 decision which is subject to this chapter shall be approved unless a determination is made by the appropriate department that the standards of this chapter have been met. C. For Type 1 and 2 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer the application to the Department of Public Works, which shall deter- mine whether the application complies with City standards regarding transportation concurrency and, if not, what mitigation is required. D. For Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer the application to the Department of Public Works, which shall deter- mine whether the application complies with City standards regarding transportation concurrency and, if not, what mitigation is required. A statement identify- ing the required mitigation, if any, shall be incorporated into the staff report required by TMC 18.112.020. (Ord. 2043 §2(part), 2004) 9.48.050 Level -of- Service Methodology A. Level -of- service ( "LOS ") gradations for corridors shall be graded from LOS A to LOS F, as defined in the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Inter- sections shall be measured in average delays at inter- sections or average travel speeds on corridors, as determined by the Department of Public Works follow- ing the methodology included in the Highway Capacity Manual or other approved methodology. B. The Department of Public Works may, in its discretion, utilize either a standard LOS gradation system or, in the case of intersections that are experi- encing high congestion, an expanded LOS gradation system. The LOS gradations for intersections, based on average delays are: Level of Service Principal Use Standard Expanded A < 7.5 seconds < 7.5 seconds B 1 7.5 - 15 seconds 7.5 - 15 seconds C 1 15.1 - 25 seconds 15.1 - 25 seconds D 25.1 - 40 seconds 25.1 - 40 seconds E 40.1 - 60 seconds 40.1 - 60 seconds F > 60 seconds 60.1 — 120 seconds G 120 —180 seconds H 180 — 240 seconds 1 240 — 300 seconds J > 300 seconds (Ord. 2043 §2(part), 2004) 9.48.060 Arterial Classification System A. The Tukwila Functional Arterial Classification System, which is in accord with required Federal and Washington State arterial standards, is as follows: Street Classification Principal Use Access Access to abutting property Collector Arterial Between access & minor Minor Arterial Between collector Sr principal Principal Arterial I Between communities B. The Department of Public Works shall classify all streets in the City in accordance with the classifica- tions in TMC 9.48.060A. Such classifications shall be reviewed and modified as necessary by the depart- ment from time to time. (Ord. 2043 §2(part), 2004) 9.48.070 LOS Standards for Specific Locations .! — A. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of average LOS, for the following arterial segments: 1. East Marginal Way (S. 112th St. to north city limit) 2. Interurban (Southcenter Blvd. to I -5) 3. Tukwila International Boulevard (S. 152nd St. to Boeing Access Rd.) 4. West Valley Highway (I -405 to S. 180th St.) 5. Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St. B. In the Central Business District ( "CBD ") area, a minimum average LOS level of E shall be maintained. In the CBD, LOS shall be determined by using the "link" averages for the 17 segments defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of this section, the CBD is the area bounded by I -5, I -405, the Green River, and S 180th St. C. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capa- city shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all other minor, collector and principal arterials prin- cipally serving commercially zoned property. D. A minimum LOS standard of D for traffic capa- city shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas, provided that for the following arteri- als, LOS shall be calculated based on the average LOS for the arterial: 42nd Ave. S., S. 160th St., S. 164th St., Macadam Rd., S. 124th St., S. 130th St., S. 132nd St., S. 144th St., 53rd Ave. S., and 65th Ave. S. E. Access streets which exceed 1,000 vehicles per day volume will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine whether traffic improvements or control measures are required to reduce volumes and provide adequate safety. (Ord. 2043 §2(part), 2004) c-D3 Printed May 2004 Page 9-21 fri Washington State Department of Transportation Agency: Tukwila Co. No.: 17 Co. Name: King Co. City No.: 1320 MPO /RTPO: PSRC VIA r♦V4S le / Y•11•71JV••M••v•• 11•••1♦11 V• v•••v••■■ • •••••,•••• From 2005 to 2010 Hearing Date: 6/14/2004 Adoption Date: 6/21/2004 Amend Date: Resolution No.: 1552 a 8 a g C3 Priority I Number rojec entr ca on A. Federal Aid No. B. Bridge No. C. Project Title D. Street/Road Name or Number E. Be Beginning MP or road - Endin MP or road 9 9 Ending F. Describe Work to be Done Improvement I Type(s) j rn a Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Expenditure Schedule (Local Agency) Federally Funded projects Only Project Phase Phase Start (mm/�Yyyy) Fund Source Information Federal Funding State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds Total Funds Envir. Type R /W Required Date (MWyy) Federal Fund Code Federal Cost by Phase 1st 2nd 3rd 4th ThN 6th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 16 1 Overlay and Repair Program Various City Streets from: to: Repair, rehabilitate, and overlay City streets as needed in an annual program. 07 S C G 0 p S T At' 111/2005 7950 7950 1250 1250 1250 4200 No Totals 7950 7950 1250 1250 1250 4200 16 2 CBD Transit Center Central Business District from: to: Construct transit center. 21 P T W p S PE 1 1 /1/2005 I 1 1 1 1 101 101 101 1 1 No Totals 10 10 10 19 u 14‹ s 6 3 Pedestrian Safety Program \Various City Streets � V 1 , from: to: Pave and/or stripe shoulder for walkway and other pedestrian safety improvements. 12 S AL 1 1/1/2005 I 1 ( 1 4201 ago 701 701 701 210 No Totals 420 420 70 70 70 210 4 Bridge Program Various City Streets from: to: Perform load ratings and bi- annual inspections as well as construct necessary repairs and maintenance. 11 S At. 1 1/1/2005 1 1 1 I 1 6001 60001 1001 1001 1001 300 No Totals 600 600 100 100 100 300 - 14 5 08002500 Boeing Access Rd Bridge Replacement from: Airport Way to: 1 -5 Reconstruct bridge. 5. _ 09 P 1.000 Ft T p 0 PE 1 1/1/2005 1 1 1 1 1 1001 1001 1001 I 1 No Totals 100 100 100 6 Green River Valley Signal Coordination 3 from: West Valley Corridor to: S 180 St Corridor Design and construct signal coordination improvements, monitoring equipment, and control upgrages. 12 S Al. 1 1/1/2005 I 1 1001 1 1 161 1161 1161 1 1 CE No Totals 100 16 116 116 RnnarsAries orevious editions • . T A' Washington State Department of Transportation - g'cy: Tukwila Co. No.: 17 Co. Name: King Co. City No.: 1320 MPOIRTPO: PSRC •A • ••A• • • Y• •J f,/V• •M \•V• • ••••t,I• V • v•••v•••• • • vo•w••• From 2005 to 2010 Hearing Date: 6/14/2004 Adoption Date: 6/21/2004 Amend Date: Resolution No.• 1552 Functional Class Priority Number Project ent ca ton A. Federal Aid No. B. Bridge No. C. Project Title D. Street/Road Name or Number E. Beginning MP or road - Ending MP or road 9 9 g F. Describe Work to be Done Improvement I Types) g p r Utility Codes I Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Expenditure Schedule (Local Agency) Federally Funded Projects Only Project Phase Phase Start (mmMd/yyyy) Fund Source Information Federal Fundin Funding State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds Total Funds Envir. Type R/W Required Date (M .y) Federal Fund Code Federal Cost by y Phase 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Thti 6th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 7 Tukwila Int'I Blvd (Phase 2) from: S 116 St to: S 132 St Construct overlay, curb & gutter, sidewalks, illumination, drainage, landscaping, and utility undergrounding. 03 P G 0 P S T w CN 1/1/2005 3686 4200 1400 9286 4386 4900 CE No Totals 3686 4200 1400 9286 4388 4900 17 8 S 144 St (Phase 1) from: Tukwila Intl Blvd to: Military Road Design and construct paving, curb & gutter, sidewalks, drainage, illumination, and utility undergrounding. 03 S 1,650 Ft W T S p G C CN 1 1/12005 1 I 1 1 10161 9391 1955 19551 I 1 No No Totals PE CN 1/1/2005 I 1/1/2008 I 1016 939 1955 1955 180 1 I 801 2601 2601 1 ( 11771 I 1 2941 1471 1 14711 16 9 12 P W T G C P S BDIf'Qnit_ -;3 CBD I u.t JairL•1f iD c a@iti4i••w,u s�,°fc.Gila rl - gna s Ql ( ( l Totals 1357 374 1731 260 1471 16 10 Southcenter Parkway - from: S 180 St to: S City Limits Design and construct widening to 4 lanes and center tum lane including curb & gutter, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping, and 01 P 3,000 Ft W T S p G CN 1 1/1 /2010 1 1 57221 I 1 13741 70961 I 1 I 7096 No Totals 5722 1374 7098 7096 14 11 utility-undergrounding. Interurban Ave from: S 143 St to: Ft Dent Way Construct paving, curb & gutter, drainage, illumination, sidewalk, and landscaping. 03 P 4,500 Ft W T S p G c CN 1/1/2010 50101 7821 57921 5792 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I No Totals 5010 782 5792 5792 No 16 12 S 133 St / SR 599 Ramps Intersection from: 500 Ft on each leg to: 500 Ft on each leg Design and construct intersection improvements including a new traffic signal. 12 P 1,000 Ft W T S G C P PE CN I 1/1/2009 1/1 /2010 1 26 I I 41 301 I 301 1 2741 I 1 461 3201 I 1 1 30 320 Totals 300 50 350 350 Stinarsedes previous editions Washington State Department of Transportation '° "■ % ••• •-•"N-`•"•' •`••r" ""'��' From 2005 to 2010 Agency: Tukwila Co. No.: 17 Co. Name: King Co. City No.: 1320 MPO /RTPO: PSRC Hearing Date: 6/14/2004 Adoption Date: 6/21/2004 Amend Date: Resolution No.: 1552 c 2 8 .a 2 3 0 E Cl. Z Project Identification A. Federal Aid No. B. Bridge No. C. Project Title D. Street/Road Name or Number E. Beginning MP or road - Ending MP or road F. Describe Work to be Done Improvement I TYpels) y � 1 Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Expenditure Schedule (Local Agency) Federally Funded projects Only utility Codes Project Phase Phase Start (mm ddyyyy) Fund Source Information Federal Funding State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds Total Funds Envir. Type RNV Required Date (MMNI) Federal Fund Code Federal Cost by Phase 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Thru 6th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 13 Tukwila Intl Blvd / S 116 St from: SR99 Bridge to: SR599 ' Design and construct widening on Tukwila Intl Blvd and Intersection improvements at T.I.BJS 116 St. 04 P PE 1/1/2010 100 100 100 No Totals 100 100 100 18 14 East Marginal Way from: Boeing Access Rd to: S 112 St Design and construct widening to 3 lanes including curb & gutter, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping. and utility undergrounding. 03 P 1,500 Ft p S T W PE CN 1 1/12008 1/1/2010 1690 I I 1 1 351 1 1 2301 351 351 1 1920 1 1 1 1920 No No Totals AL I 1/1/2007 1690 265 1 I 1 1 2001 1955 35 1920 2001 � 1 200' 16 15 eAndover l� r f O Blvd. 12 P 1,000 Ft tiro r u (20a Oa) itt e c AGEl k�Q J Design OW construct / it,?x1 • • did (i :3 O unpro ements add"izalli itpj align[ b Totals 200 200 200 16 16 a1 Re110 (t1 Andover G -M97 01 P 2,000 Ft P T W S `L 1 1/12007 1 1 I 1 7751 7751 1 1 25 350 No Construct IIIMEEC31Z0 including con-o/ICJIIADMEIDD drainage, IfflaaiDatat, kiK)11- •fl•r•k -- _ Totals 775 775 425 350 14 17 West Valley Hwy / S 156 St from: Southcenter Blvd to: S 158 St Construct additional northbound left tum lane at S 156 St for northbound NOV to northbound 1 -405. 12 P 1,500 Ft T p AL 1 1/1/2009 1 I 6001 1 1 1251 7251 1 1 1 725 No -_ _ Totals 600 125 725 725 14 18 Tukwila Intl Blvd (Phase 3) from: S 132 St to: S 138 St Reconstruct roadway including paving, curb & gutter, sidewalks, Illumination, drainage, and utility undergrounding. 03 P 2,100 Ft G C S p T w CN 1 1/1/2005 1 1 39451 1 30001 4481 73931 35331 38601 1 No Totals 3945 3000 448 7393 3533 3860 Sunarnadas nravinus editions �• Agency: Tukwila Co. No.: 17 Co. Name: King Co. City No.: 1320 MPOIRTPO: PSRC From 2005 to 2010 Hearing Date: 6/14/2004 Adoption Date: 6/21/2004 Amend Date: Resolution No.• 1552 Functional Class Priority Number Pro Project en I teat on A. Federal Aid No. B. Bridge No. C. Project Title D. Street/Road Name or Number E. Beginning MP or road - Ending MP or road F. Describe Work to be Done Improvement Type(s) H g Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Expenditure Schedule (Local Agency) Federally Funded Projects Only ffi _ a Project Phase Phase Start tmm/ddyyyy) Fund Source Information Federal Funding State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds Total Funds Envir. Type RW Required Dale tM ate Federal Fund Code Federal Cost by Phase 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Thti 6th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 19 iMD2i1Mtiy f'tu.t;B11-433 'Design== Highway (I:eC•1MJ rua iOD01:11a30 Gpm3! tter, 05 P 0.5 Mi W T S P G AL 1/1/2010 530 50 580 580 No EROCEIrvfora - Totals 530 50 580 580 16 20 �T ^^ Willy Blvd Ciai • Q GW tng Andover ( tS / eonsnretc,Ihih•-c,([pa ineudingarbOprl7gsidewaik, 04 P 2,000 F1 W T S p AL 1 1/1/2009 1 1 1 1 1 4251 4251 1 1 I 425 No —� drainage eriill •fly Totals 425 425 425 14 21 t) Tukwila Intl Blvd. (Phase 4) from: Boeing Access Rd to: S 116 St Design and construct widening including paving, curb & gutter, sidewalk, drainage, illumination, landscaping, and utility 03 P 3,500 Ft P S W PEI 1/1/2010 I I 1 1 1 1001 1001 1 1 I 100 No Totals 100 100 2201 I 1 1 I 100 220 16 22 undergrounding. ' G t(OIndustryl D 12 P 1,o0o Ft W T S P G AL 1/1/2009 1 I 1 190 I I 1 30 No GimiB c GAiODC I] (%B I.11b1G't3cpcu`1I :g • :iVl(..:)Lb. 30iiw -Ignal =n: ntersectio improvements. Totals 190 30 220 220 17 23 Nelson Place from: S 156 St • to: S 158 st Design and construct paving, curb & gutter, sidewalks, drainage, and illumination. 03 P 500 Ft AL 11 /1/2009 I I 1 1 1 2001 2001 1 1 1 200 No No Totals 1 1 1 200 200 1 301 301 1 1 200 I 30 00 24 CBD - Interurban Trail Connector from: Interurban Trail to: CBD Design and construct trail from Interurban Trail to CBD. 32 P PEI 1/1/2009 1 Totals 30 30 30 SimesimArian nravioi18 editions 71 Washington State Department of Transportation -b- - v ■ v..■ ..+p ■... Agency: Tukwila Co. No.: 17 City No.: 1320 Co. Name: King Co. MPO /RTPO: PSRC From 2005 to 2010 Hearing Date: 6/14/2004 Amend Date: Adoption Date: 6/21/2004 Resolution No.: 1552 To m • D ki Priority I Number Project Fgarlarffil cation A. Federal Aid No. B. Bridge No. C. Project Title D. Street/Road Name or Number E. Beginning MP or road - Ending MP or road g g 9 F. Describe Work to be Done Improvement Ty pe(s) Status 1 �` Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Expenditure Schedule (Local Agency) Federally Funded Projects Onl y Project Phase Phase Start (mrrvddryyyy) Fund Source Information Federal Funding State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds Total Funds Envir. T ype RIW Required Date (MM/Y1� Federal Fund Code Federal Cost by y Phase 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Thru 6th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 16 25 #it /i • • n ai.....-12Cal fk@ Cal G iuy> ti ©Ina _ .: sign CZ construct t --�i•( -p TAP im•rovements.. 05 P 1,500 Ft W T S P PE 1/1/2005 500 500 300 200 No Totals 500 500 300 200 17 26 S 144 St (Phase 2) from 42nd Ave S to: Tukwila Intl Blvd Design and construct paving, curb & gutter, sidewalks, drainage, illumination, and utility undergrounding. 03 P 1000 Feet P T W S G c PE CN 1 /1/2006 I 1/1/2007 1 I 1 1501 1001 250 1 2501 I 1 8401 5601 1400 1 1 14001 No Totals 990 660 1650 250 1400 16 27 O 0 Southcenter Blvd. from: 1-5 to: Tukwila Intl Blvd. Improve roadway to a three -lane urban arterial with medians, tum lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, and drainage. 03 P 1.1 Miles W s T C G p PE CN 1/12007 I 1/12008 1 1 1 1 150 150 ' 1 1 16001 1600 1 1 150 1 1 1 1600 No Totals 1750 1750 150 1600 16 28 Andover Park West from: Tukwila Parkway to: Strander Blvd. Complete widening for center left tum lane. 05 P C G P S T W PEI 1/112006 1 I 1 1 1 1001 1001 1 tool i No Totals 100 100 100 14 29 SC Blvd. / 61st Ave S Bridge Widening . from: 1 -5 to: 62nd Ave S Widen Southcenter Blvd. and the 61st Ave S Bridge to add a Ian e for future traffic growth. 04 P 0.5 Miles C G P S T w PE 1 1/1/2007 I 1 I 1 1 1001 1001 1 1 1001 No Totals 100 100 100 17 30 S 144th St Bridge Sidewalks from: 51st Ave S to: 53rd Ave S Widen existing sidewalks on bridge over 1 -5 between 51st Ave S and 53rd Ave S. 05 P 0.25 Miles C G P S T w PE 1 1/1/2005 1 I 1 1 1 251 251 251 1 I No Totals 25 25 25 Grand Totals for Srrnarapdas nrovious editions by the cost per trip identified in the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. 9.48.150 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The standard Transportation Impact Fees to be imposed are set forth as follows: Intersection or Link 1990 Pk Vol 2010 Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Improvement Cost Cost/ Trip Southcenter Pkwy 168 signal 2,425 3,324 899 $340,000 $190 W Valley /Strander NB dual left turn lanes 3,433 4,316 883 $953,000 $280 Interurban Bridge widen for dual lefts 2,831 3,945 1,114 $1,887,000 $240 Minider (APW — Southcenter Pkwy) construct 3 lane street 0 1,015 1,015 $1,644,000 $420 Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander) widen to 5 lanes 1,112 1,833 721 $800,000 $550 Andover Pk E @ Minider widen to 5 lanes @ ints. 970 1,420 450 $200,000 $220 Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits) construct 3 and 5 lane street 408 1,600 1,192 $7,096,000 $610 Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB) widen to 3 lanes 860 1241 381 $1,750,000 $2,300 E Marginal (BAR -112) widen to 3 lanes 1685 2432 747 $1,955,000 $880 Klickitat (Southcenter Pkwy — I5) Construct flyover 2337 3372 1,035 $13,300,000 $2,420 9.48.160 Credit to Developer A developer is entitled to a credit against a Transportation Impact Fee for the value of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities that are identifed in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving the development activity. 9.48.170 Unusual Circumstances At the time a Transportation Impact Fee is imposed, the city shall be allowed to adjust the standard Transportation Impact Fee to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that a Transportation Impact Fee is imposed fairly. C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Owner\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content1E5\SSCJT9GL\Impact Fee Ordinance.doc WSDOT - I -5 Pavement Reconstruction Projects � Washington Stato 1II/ Department of Transportation PROJECT INFO. • Project Home • Project Area Map • Get Involved • WSDOT Urban Planning Office News 1 Soarch Contact WSDOT 1 WSDOT Hon) TRAFFIC & ROADS WSDOT PROJECTS PROJECTS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL MAPS & DAT 1 -5 Pavement Reconstruction and Bottleneck Improvement Projects Project Status _ February 2005 This project is still in its preliminary planning phase. More information on the project and on opportunities for public involvement will be added as it comes available. Why is WSDOT pursuing this project? Interstate 5, the only north -south interstate freeway in Washington state carries nearly 300,000 vehicles through Seattle per day, and the pavement is wearing out. 1 -5 was built in the '60s, and its use has exceeded its lifespan. The concrete is now 40 years old and needs to be replaced. Today, motorists driving along 1 -5 can see and feel the poor condition of the concrete. Repairing 1 -5 also offers a unique opportunity to fix long- standing traffic bottlenecks. We will evaluate improvements to traffic flow that can be implemented during pavement reconstruction and in the future. WSDOT is planning to replace 16 miles of concrete on Interstate 5 from Tukwila through downtown Seattle to Northgate. The projects will be coordinated with other transportation projects in the area including the Alaskan Way Viaduct project, the SR 520 Bridge Replacement project, Light Rail, and 1 -405 and SR 509 improvements. The End Result WSDOT engineers recommend that the existing nine inch -thick pavement be removed and replaced with thicker pavement reinforced with steel bars at the joints. The thicker concrete will ensure at least another 40 years of service, and the bars will help the roadway behave like a single unit rather than like individual concrete panels. This will help minimize the rough "thump, thump, thump" motorists now hear and feel as they drive on 1 -5 through Seattle. An earlier analysis of the pavement determined that 30% should have been replaced by now, another 25% should be replaced by 2010 and the final 45% before 2015. WSDOT is developing a coordinated series of projects to replace the deteriorating pavement between Tukwila and Northgate while also looking at options to make traffic flow better. Traffic improvements could include restriping, new signage, realigning lanes and ramps to reduce weaving, and adding lanes where possible. PLANNING O:SI+_h :0161RJ I nh View entire map Interstate 5 passing through downtown Seattle. Project Facts • The project area extends along all of 1 -5 from Tukwila to Northgate. • 1 -5 was built in the 1960s. The concrete is now 40 years old, 20 years past its original design life. • 1-5 is the only north -south interstate freeway in Washington state and carries almost 300,000 freight and passenger vehides through Seattle per day. Project Benefits http:// www .wsdot.wa.gov /projects/I5rehab/ 2/21/2005 WSDOT - I -5 Pavement Reconstruction Projects rage L V1 .J • Safety. The new smoother road surface will improve driver safety and will eliminate drivers having to avoid holes and cracks in the roadway. • Road Surface. The reconstructed lanes will improve the roadway surface and provide a smoother ride for drivers. • Pavement Lifespan. This project extends the freeway's lifespan and puts an end to costly and inconvenient temporary repairs. • Traffic Flow. The project will reduce or eliminate traffic bottlenecks and chokepoints where possible, improving the flow of people and goods through the heart of Seattle. What is the project timeline? • 2004 -2007. Environmental analysis and design. • 2009. Construction of pavement replacement. • 2013. Complete construction of first project(s). (Assuming funds are available.) Public Involvement Your thoughts and opinions are important to us, please contact us. Public participation will begin early next year, and will include community group presentations, newsletters, email lists. This Web site will also continue to be updatedthroughout the project. Title VI: WSDOT assures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin and sex in the provision o1 benefits and services. For language interpretation services please. contact WSDOT at 206 -382 -5287. It is necessary to speak limited English so that your request can be appropriately responded to. For information on WSDOT's Title VI Program, please contact the Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705 -7098. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accommodation of any type may contact Jon. Higgins by email or at 206.464.1184. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may call WA State Telecommunications Relay Service (TTY) at 711. Environmental Protection WSDOT and the City make every effort to assess and avoid or minimize environmental impacts from our projects. The project team will take advantage of design opportunities to better manage stormwater runoff. A detailed analysis of the project's environmental impacts will be presented in an initial environmental document and, when necessary, an appropriate plan for mitigation of impacts will be developed and documented as part of the Environmental Documentation and Environmental Permitting processes. Please visit the WSDOT Environmental Services Web site for more information. Increasing safety is one of our priorities The new, smoother road surface will improve driver safety and eliminate the need to avoid holes and cracks in the roadway. Reduced or eliminated traffic chokepoints will also improve traffic safety. Will this project impact tribal resources? At WSDOT we seek to address the concems of the tribal nations using the process outlined in Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act and the WSDOT Tribal Consultation Policy adopted in 2003 by the Transportation Commission as part of the WSDOT Centennial Accord Plan. For more information, visit our WSDOT Tribal Liaison. Financial Information This project is in the early stages of design. The legislature has appropriated $10.3 million for analysis and preliminary design to be completed by 2007. Approximately $13i http:// www .wsdot.wa.gov /projects/I5rehab/ 2/21/2005 W JLV 1 - 1-J ravGju ja 1wNVUODUVUV•a - - �... . million for final design and construction will be available in 2005 -13. These funds are anticipated to only cover the first of many projects needed to replace the worn out pavement. For more information about the Cost Estimate Validation Process and the cost estimate ranges, please visit the CEVPwebsite. Project Funding Expenditures prior to 711/2003 Remaining Funds Tota Pre - existing State, Federal, and Other Partnership Funds $455,657 $44,343 $500,00( 2003 Legislative Transportation Package $0 $144,600,000 $144,600,00( Total Available Funding $455,657 $144,644,343 $145,100,00( Estimated Total Project Cost $145,100,00( Financial data is current as of 8/6/2004 © Printed on: Monday. February 21. 2005 How can I get more information? Contact: Project Manager, Carol Hunter WSDOT 401 Second Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 464 -1219 E -mail: HunterC @wsdot.wa.gov back to top WSDOT PIN(s): 100520L, 800515B, 800515C Note: Program Item Numbers (PINs) are used by the Legislature to keep track of financial data associated with a project or segment of work Copyright WSDOT CO 2005 Traffic & Roads 1 Search 1 Contact WSDOT 1 WSDOT Business 1 Privacy Policy 1 WSDOT Home http:// www .wsdot.wa.gov /projects/I5rehab/ 2/21/2005 Table B.3 Wansportation Impact Factors Development Around Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FACTOR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN DENSITY/INTENSITY PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITIES OTHER CHARACTERISTICS SOURCES 5% Vehicle Trip Reduction Locate commercial and/or fight industrial uses within 1/4 mle of a transit center or fight rail station. Minimum FAR of 1 per gross acre for commerdaUmdus- trial development. Direct, safe connections between commerciaVindustrial uses and transit center or fight rail stations. Preferable if safe and secure bicy- de parking is provided at com- mercial/industrial uses, transit carters, or tight rail stations. Commercial uses located with mini- mal setbacks. Commezcial includes retail and non- retail uses. JHK 6/93 LACMTA, 11/93 10% Vehicle Trip Reduction Locate residential devel- opment wiihin 1/4 mile of a transit center or right rail station. Minimum real density of 24 dwelling units per gross acre. D ec irt, safe connections between resickinces and transit center or fight rail stations. Preferable if safe and secure bicycle parking is pro- vided at transit centers, or fight rail stations. Commercial uses LACMTA, located with mini- 11/93 mal setbacks. Commercial includes retail and non -retail uses. 15% Vehicle Trip Reduction Locate commercial and/or fight industrial uses within 1/4 mile of a transit center or fight rail station. Minimum FAR of 2 per gross acre for commercial/indus- trial development. Direct, safe connections between commercial/industrial uses and transit center or light rail stations. Preferable if safe and secure bicy- de parking is provided at com- mercial/industrial uses, transit centers, or fight rail stations. Commercial uses LACMTA, located with mini- 11/93 mal setbacks. Commercial includes retail and non -retail Ins. 15% Vehide Trip Reduction Locate residential-oriented mixed use development within 1/4 mile of a transit center or light rail station. Mtnimu m 15% of floor area devoted to commer- cial uses oriented toward use by residences. Minimum residential density of 24 dwelling units per gross acre. Direct, safe connections between commercial/industrial uses, resi- dences, and transit center or fight rail stations. Preferable 11 safe and secure bicycle parking is provided at comme cial/tndtstrral uses, transit canters, or fight ral stations. Commercial uses LACMTA, located with mini- . 11/93 man setbacks. Commercial includes retail and non - retail uses. 20% Vehicle Trip Reduction Locate mixed -use cam - medal and light industrial development that includes non-residential uses within 1/4 mile of a transit canter or fight rail station. At least 30% of floor area for residential use. Minimum FAR of 2 per gross acre for commercial/indus- trial development Direct, safe connections between commercial/industrial uses, resi- dences, and transit center or fight rail stations. Preferable if safe and segue bicycle parking is provided at commercial/industrial uses, transit centers, or fight rail stations. Commercial uses LACMTA, located with mini- 11/93 mat setbacks. Commercial includes retail and non-retail uses. Source: ODOT/DLCD Transportation & Growth Management Program. Reprinted with permission. APPENDIX TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 other hand, longer urban street segments comprising heavily Loaded intersections can provide reasonably good LOS, although an individual signalized intersection might be operating at a lower level. The term through vehicle refers to all vehicles passing directly through a street segment and not turning. Exhibit 15 -2 lists urban street LOS criteria based on average travel speed and urban street class. It should be noted that if demand volume exceeds capacity at any point on the facility, the average travel speed might not be a good measure of the LOS. The street classifications identified in Exhibit 15 -2 are defined in the next section. EXHIBIT 15 -2. URBAN STREET LOS BY CLASS Urban Street Class I 11 III N Range of free -flow speeds (FFS) 55 to 45 mi/h 45 to 35 mi/h 35 to 30 mi/h 35 to 25 mi/h Typical FFS 50 mi/h 40 mi/h 35 mi/h 30 mi/h LOS Average Travel Speed (mi/h) Q m U C W L >42 >35 >30 >25 > 34-42 > 28-35 > 24-30 > 19-25 > 27-34 > 22-28 > 18-24 > 13-19 > 21 -27 > 17 -22 > 14-18 > 9-13 > 16-21 > 13-17 > 10-14 > 7-9 516 _ 513 510 57 DETERMINING URBAN STREET CLASS The first step in the analysis is to determine the urban street's class. This can be based on direct field measurement of the FFS or on an assessment of the subject street's functional and design categories. A procedure for measuring the FFS is described in Appendix B. If the FFS measurements are not available, the street's functional and design categories must be used to identify its class. The functional category is identified first, followed by the design category. This identification uses the definitions provided in Chapter 10 and Exhibit 10-4. After determining the functional and design categories, the urban street class can be established using Exhibit 10-3. DETERMINING RUNNING TIME There are two principal components of the total time that a vehicle spends on a segment of an urban street running time and control delay at signalized intersections. To compute the running time for a segment., the analyst must know the street's classification, its segment length, and its FFS. The segment running time then can be found by using Exhibit 15 -3. Within each urban street class there are several influences on actual running time. Exhibit 15 -3 shows the effect of street length. In addition, the presence of parking, side friction, local development, and street use can affect running time. In this chapter, these also are assumed to influence the FFS. Direct observation of the FFS, therefore, includes the effect of these factors and, by implication, their effect on the running speed. If it is not possible to observe the FFS on the actual or a comparable facility, default values are given in a note to Exhibit 15 -3. DETERMINING DELAY Computing the urban street or section speed requires the intersection control delays. Because the function of an urban street is to serve through traffic, the lane group for through traffic is used to characterize the urban street. Travel speed defines LOS on urban streets Running time is estimated using FFS, urban street classification, and arterial segment length 15-3 Chapter 15 - Urban Streets Methodology West Valley Highway Street Corridor Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/21,/2005 Cc 4e o Innyno 12211,0 scre zc; e1,e noucena er annonneeeneocancl Can n.eee.eceeeeeeee �o G� ed ut GI( nano nicOnnt. oo: Ge oP'n ino e -nor nee o 1 00 rrnrrr 'an Onal 2005.004 9 West Valley Highway Street Corridor Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/21/2005 na,noncoanornacra co: our yf conn laac L�� �Si^^ry n,� -'r . agar a. aorta i r � nr " r�� UVIOC :naaoann ,,a rW�� n l .. �W -,�� 0..1. 00t08 ananraoc —anarr -•(•1 nra4a_lL 1, I -v_r. .I'v ■ vc� #�x nazi, unalann aciat Uri -_ _ nv n n JO 10 2005.004 tra West Valley Highway Steet Corridor existing PM peak hour traffic volumes 1: Longacres Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approac EB Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.0 0.1 14.3 0.2 14.7 1.4 29.0 653.0 4.3 1.78.1 0.0 0.2 15.1 1.0 16.2 17 6 30 26 26 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach 2/22/2005 approach E3 GU Gffl Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph)_ 1.5 0.1 0.5 1.9 4.0 33.9 43.0 10.3 31.5 25.4 2.1 0.1 2.4 3.6 8.3 8 4 31 17 19 7: Sr 405 NB ramp & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approac Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.6 34.7 3.1.4 11.7 16.4 20.4 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.7 4.3 8-- -- 5 _ - -_ 17 15 _ - - -13 10: SW Grady Way & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) ED MD MD GyD 2.0 6.8 1.2 40.3 97.7 29.3 2.5 7.9 1.9 6 12 11 2.1 12.0 32.2 53.5 3.2 15.4 11 10 11: West Valley Highway & SR 405 southbound Performance by approach approach Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 2.1 47.5 2.7 8 1.5 3.1.4 2.5 12 0.6 2.8.5 0.9 9 1.1 5.3 69.8 41.0 1.3 7.4 4 9 _. . 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approac IED NE GAD §C3 GYiI Total Delay (hr) 2.1 1.6 2.2 Delay / Veh (s) 39.1 41.9 32.5 Travel Time (hr) 3.2 2.5 3.1 Avg Speed (mph) 12 12 10 1.6 7.5 25.1 33.5 3.3 12.1 19 13 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 1 West Valley Highway Steet Corridor existing PM peak hour traffic volumes Total Network Performance 2/22/2005 Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed: (mph) 48.3 96.6 80.8 18. 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 0.2 13 12.0 24.2 0.1 22 5.4 17.0 0.1 27 35.4 62.0 0.3 19 20.1 44.0 0.3 25 109.7 197.5 1.1 20 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 3 West Valley Highway Street Corridor 2010 w/o project PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/2112005 .000 ID- Clo nonaacOn ' ur t ' :, 1.,.J rt a a a ot a J o � w Y LLa ' u °r' a w t v enonav -00 0 01:0 • 01.1.410 OC IngiLLO a.0 L aun n I.:�, ■oorct'oaon 31.044 10004 - CO' • P•. o'er .C� ^ P oeuc talJa .a _tea n, J R._c• 2005.004 - Tukwila Station West Valley Highway Street Corridor 2010 w/o project PM peak hour traffic volumes 2121/2005 2005.004 - Tukwila Station Ce) West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 without Tukwila Station 1: Longacres Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach 2/22/2005 Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.8 Delay /Veh (s) 37.9 60.1 9.1 8.7 11.6 Travel Time (hr) 0.0 0.6 3.1 1.5 5.1 Avg Speed (mph) 2 3 28 20 23 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.5 0.1 2.6 3.4 7.6 Delay / Veh (s) 29.7 77.1 31.8 46.9 36.8 Travel Time (hr) 2.3 0.1 7.4 5.6 15.3 Avg Speed (mph) 9 2 25 14 19 7: Sr 405 NB ramp & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.3 0.0 3.9 2.2 7.3 Delay / Veh (s) 34.4 3.6 57.0 31.6 41.9 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 0.0 4.7 3.2 9.7 Avg Speed (mph) 9 19 8 10 9 10: SW Grady Way & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 2.7 13.9 2.1 3.6 22.4 Delay / Veh (s) 47.2 210.2 35.5 46.9 85.8 Travel Time (hr) 3.3 15.0 3.0 5.0 26.3 Avg Speed (mph) 5 11 10 9 9 11: West Valley Highway & SR 405 southbound Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 2.9 1.6 0.9 1.2 6.5 Delay / Veh (s) 50.7 31.6 34.8 80.7 44.3 Travel Time (hr) 3.7 2.7 1.2 1.4 9.0 Avg Speed (mph) 7 12 7 4 8 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 5.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 13.2 Delay / Veh (s) 92.4 44.0 35.3 37.3 51.4 Travel Time (hr) 7.0 3.4 3.5 4.6 18.6 Avg Speed (mph) 11 11 10 16 12 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report c-p Page 1 West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 61.8 Delay / Veh (s) 111.6 Travel Time (hr) 104.6 Avg Speed (mph) 17 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 without Tukwila Station Arterial Level of Service: NB West Valley Highway 2/22/2005 Travel gloss auca Delay MN@ () 1:114? (mi) Arterial Speed S. 180th street 27.9 41.4 0.1 13 Strander Blvd 21.5 80.8 0.7 32 Longacres Blvd Sr 405 NB ramp 33.3 44.5 0.1 14 SW Grady Way 36.1 49.3 0.1 11 Fort Dent 27.8 44.9 0.2 15 9.3 37.7 0.3 32 Total 156.0 298 6 1 7 21 . . Arterial Level of Service: SB West Valley Highway Cress al= TliER920 laig/ Delay 76W. (3) (mi) Arterial Speed SW Grady Way 38.9 52.9 0.2 12 26.9 38.4 0.1 14 Longacres Blvd S. 180th Street Total 161.0 251.1 1.1 16 10.5 21.9 0.1 21 53.0 81.0 0.3 - 1-5 31.7 56.9 0.3 19 ------ - - 2005.004 - Tukwila Station SimTraffic Report MJJ 1 Page 3 Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. West Valley Highway Street Corridor 2010 w/ project PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/22/2005 2005.004 - Tukwila Station West Valley Highway Street Corridor 2010 w/ project PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/21 /2005 2005.004 - Tukwila Station CT Approach D3 MD (D RO G.YF West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 1: Longacres Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Total Delay (hr) Delay /Veh (s) _ Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.8 37.7 46.8 6.8 11.2 11.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 1.7 5.2 2 3 30 18 24 2: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Performance by approach &pproac EB �uD [3 G�yD Total Delay (hr) 1.8 0.0 2.8 3.7 8.3 Delay / Veh (s) 34.1 27.1 32.7 48.0 38.4 Travel Time (hr) _ 2.5 0.0 7.7 5.9 16.2 Avg Speed (mph) 8 6 25 14 18 Sr 405 NB ramp & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Epp oae E-B me, GAD 03 GyD Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 1.6 0.0 1.8 2.2 5.7 41.6 5.1 25.0 33.1 31.5 2.2 0.0 2.8 3.2 8.2 8 15 12 10 10 10: SW Grady Way & West Valley Highway Performance by approach Approach K3 MD VD K3 go Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 2.4 13.5 2.9 3.5 22.3 43.3 201.1 47.7 '44.4 84.9 2.9 14.5 3.9 4.9 26.2 6 11 ! 8 9 9 11: West Valley Highway & SR 405 southbound Performance by approach pproae E-B A ap nth Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 3.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 6.8 53.5 29.3 38.2 65.0 43.5 3.9 2.8 1.4 1.3 9.3 16: S. 180th Street & West Valley Highway Performance by approach &pproaeh EB Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 8.7 2.4 2.5 2.8 16.4 143.3 4.3.4 35.7 37.6 63.0 10.0 3.6 3.5 4.8 21.9 11 11 9 16 12 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 1 West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) Delay /AVeh (s) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed_ (mph) 64.1 111.3 107.9 17 J 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 West Valley Highway Steet Corridor 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Arterial Level of Service: NB West Valley Highway Cross Utitaa COA Delay ltru�i -a (mi) Arterial Speed S. 180th street Strander Blvd Longacres Blvd Sr 40. 5 NB ramp SW Grady Way Fort Dent Total 27.3 40.4 24.2 82.1 7.9 36.3 16.3 27.3 59.8 73.1 24.2 41.5 159.8 300.8 Arterial Level of Service: SB West Valley Highway 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 7 0.2 16 1.7 20 13 32 33 19 Cross Jam- - t5 1- Cam? Delay U` is (B) (mi) Arterial Speed SW_Grady Way Longacres Blvd S. 180th Street Total 38.0 27.7 13.0 53.9 31.1 163.6 52.0 39.6 24.5 81.1 56.2 253.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.1 13 13 19 15 19 16 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 3 Tukwila Urban Center Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes JTE, INC 2/21/2005 ,:s,.l5sth= st --1.--- 1. er h St=y, "l ---- s =isotn Jr ° °` cest„te end =St• s Parr{ ,_ - ---- yVS 164th =St-ir `^ ! � = ,-1— ; =r —S 166th- St- ._.__.__ J1 I 11 _. _J ¢-J'!,_- 6131 --11-31--\\ ' I� m r;6,,,.. m rn =-�� -r!? S =170th7. St`= N- -- --a 4r,1 1i i _ , ,_ a Q ,---.A.- .1i 172nd =St ag= __.-_.__ __v 4 i ��172nd =P -1- ; 5-173rd .St =�TaC 1L-V"_-- - -- =5 =175th =St �� ttt- St- -IL__J Oth °St=y $ i( Q :`Lll�� f1"i• n IS ( Microsoft Corp. All rights "reserved Boeing Longacres Industrial Park m co CO CD SW=27thzSt --o ^ Renton I dsvi pnika SW= 34th -St- 111 ii SW-396 °+ I f is SW=41•st =St= t 2005.004 - Tukwila Station Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes Summary of All Intervals 2/22/2005 Stara Time 6e5 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 # of Intervals 2 # of Recorded Intvls 1 Vehs Entered 2281 Vehs Exited 1769 Starting Vehs 0 Ending Vehs 999 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 16 Travel Distance (mi) 2195 Travel Time (hr) 141.6 Total Delay (hr) 68.6 Total Stops 5364 Fuel Used (gal) _ 213.3 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:57 End Time 7 :00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. ehsEntrd Vehs Exited 1769 Starting Vehs 0 Ending Vehs 999 Denied Entry _ Before 0 Denied Entry After 16 Travel Distance (mi) 2195 Travel Time (hr) 141.6 Delay (hr) 68.6 Total Stops 5364 Fuel Used (gal) 213.3 X281 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 69- SimTraffic Report Page 1 Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 1: Strander Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach 2/22/2005 \!k3 RE3 aC3 appmac Total Delay (hr) 1.3 0.8 0.9 3.0 'Stop Delay (hr) 1.1 ... 0.72.3 _ Travel Time (hr) 2.7 2.6 1.4 6.8 'Avg Speed (mph) 15 23 11 17 2: Minkler Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach #ppleacJii WB B SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 _ Travel Time (hr) 0.5 1.0 1.6 3.2 1A7vgSpeed (rnph) 20 26 27 26 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach aro each EB ni3 aC3 Total Delay (hr) 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.3 5.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 4.4 -a i Travel Time (hr) 1.1 2.8 3.1 1.9 8.9 'Avg Speed (mPh) 10 10 17 10 13 4: Klickitat Drive & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach EB NB SB ifl Total Delay (hr) 0.9 1.3 0.7 2.9 Stop Delay(hr) _ 0.6 1.2 0.5 2.3 _ _ • Travel Time (hr) 1.8 1.7 1.3 4.8 AViiipeed (mPh) j.5 6 12 11 5: SR 5 southbound on-ramp & Klickitat Drive Performance by approach L3 SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.5 Stop Delay (hr) _ _ 0.0 0.1 0.2 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 1.2 2.8 rAvg Speed (rnph) _24 29 26 6: Southcenter Blvd & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach EB WB KID All Total Delay (hr) 1.9 1.1 2.0 5.0 Stop- DelaY (hr) 1.2 0.8 1.8 3.8 Travel Time (hr) 3.5 3.5 2.7 9.7 vg Speed (mph) 13 21 5 14 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 NE GE LU ppjh Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.0 Travel Time (hr) 1.3 16 1.9 4.8 Avg Speed (mph) 11 16 13 13 - Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 8: Southcenter Pkwy & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach gLs3 K3 61?13 Total Delay (hr) 1.3 0.3 1.4 3.0 Stop Delay (hr) 0.9 0.2 1.1 2.2 Travel Time (hr) 3.0 0.7 2.7 6.4 Avg Speed (mph) 19 14 10 15 roar 2/22/2005 9: Southcenter Pkwy & SR 405 nb on Performance by approach 11ms Total Delay (hr) 1.1 0.7 0.5 2.2 Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) 1.9 1.3 0.6 3.7 lAyg Speed (mph) 11 13 5 10 Ogi MD KO 10: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park West Performance by approach EB 11: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park East Performance by approach 6P PiLo_a_e Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 13% B 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.6 3.6 19 17 20 19 12: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach p 'lame EB NB SB Al Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 Stop Delay (hr) _ _ 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 Travel Time (hr) 0.4 0.8 0.6 1.8 Avg Speed (mph) 11 19 19 17 16: Southcenter Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach perioach EB VD SW LfU Total Delay (hr) 3.9 0.6 2.3 6.8 Stop Delay (hr) 3.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 Travel Time (hr) 5.4 1.4 3.2 9.9 'Avg Speed (mph) 9 14 10 10 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 3 Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 17: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach Approach EB W3 RD g0 2/22/2005 Al Total Delay (hr) - Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) _ 0.5 0.4 0.6 6 0.8 0.8 0.5 2.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 2.2 1.0 1.2 2.1 5.0 3 11_.. 22 . 14 19: Baker Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop_Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) M[3 GAD SB 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 7 13 0.2 0.2 1-1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 22 22 18 22: Strander Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) EB NB 3 All 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.0 4.9 0.8 1.2 1.2 _ 0.8 4.0 1.7 2.0 3.6 1.6_ 8.8 _ 13 8 18 12 14 27: 168th & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach L413. MD NB gf3 GfU Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 _0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 2.7 3.9 13 8 31 . 29 29 29: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach 14pproa_ch Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr), EB B SB 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.2 2.1 Travel Time (hr) 0.6 0.6 1.3 3.1 5.7 Avg Speed(mph) 17 12 22 17 18 30: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approac h EC MO GD SB GyD Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.9 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.8 0.3 0.7 1.8 2.3 5.1 14 9 19 20 18 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. ``D SimTraffic Report Page 4 Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/22/2005 32: Best Buy & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) r3 B SB 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 2.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.5 0.4 1.7 1.9 4.5 2 4 20 20 17 33: S. 180th St. & Sperry Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) EB YE GD SB 0.4 0.4 0.7 13 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 6._ 16 0.6 0.5 0.7 4 2.2 1.9 3.1 8 36: S. 180th St. & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approae MD GU Re aD Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 1.5 2.0 0.3 2.7 6.5 1.4 1.3 0.3 2.1 5.0 2.1 3.4 0.4 4.5 1.0.4 10 13 7 13 12 39: S. 180th St. & Andover Park East Performance by approach pproaeh EB Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.5 0.7 0.3 14 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.1 1.1 _ 1.2 1.3 3.6 19 14 24 19 40: S. 180th St. & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel lime (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 0.9 0.7 1.7 16 2.1 0.1 0.8 3.9 1.7 0.1 0.5 3.0 3.1 0.2 2.3 7.3 9 10 21 15 42: Strander Blvd & Southcenter/Target Performance by approach al: rloa_ch EB Total Delay (hr) 0.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 Avg Speed (mph) 17 WB NB SB 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.7 1.3 0.5 0.5 3.8 13 2 5 12 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 5 Tukwila Urban Center Street System Existing 2004 PM peak hour traffic volumes 2/22/2005 51: Baker Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) Travel Time (hr) Avg ,Speed (mph) WB NB SB 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.2 6 Total Network Performance 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.3 0.9 3.2 19 20 16 Total Delay (hr) StopFDelay(hr-) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) 68.6 52.8 141.6 16 2005.004 - Tukwila Station SimTraffic Report MJJ 0.? Page 6 Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Tukwila Urban Center 2010 w/o project PM peak hour traffic JTE, INC 2/21/2005 5r152nd•St : - ---rr 618 fl I !� ` ., , ~St . ~`"^ -tea' C S 158th -St= ''' i1 S` jf hrgi `-- ,__.__; ^I-_cn7. - - -` 5 1t th ∎- %IS'162rid =St PIL {l " 1 7i �� c 1i�, ; csi it \•-S- 164th =St•- if .�...-14 _. =.�- ra�S 166th= St' = = =_ 1 1i < LLD —S 168th =St = kj ,m�� ^ =� �t 11 ...„.4-=S-":170th:---St-.-:==r-9w:=--- Q n 1I I r_m_ 1' - -< . 7. _1c m^ ai _.____ S ='172nd =St tn. ._-- _ ,� la i s S,- -172nd =PI =- iS :1,73rti SeaTac,� ' 1 �' j l=-11- .. " .- S= 1.75th =St \'L__ .. 5 =176th St- 7/-- --iL� ;n_ ` �, ,_ f 18� =St=�= '= r' t'� L> > ,c4?-11--.E. _ SII82nd St -- -- , k® 2002 Microsoft Corp. AO rights reserved?`:', ? 'f- =152nd ;St, !i `E i ,R Boeing s Industrial Perk - / 772 1 ikrit-A-0- SW-27th =St --t ti a eC 2005.004 - Tukwila Station Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 Summary of All Intervals Start Time End Time 6:57 7:10 !Total Time (min) 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 of Intervals 2 # of Recorded Intvls s/ehs Entered Vehs Exited Starting Vehs 1 2556 2027 0 Ending Vehs 1124 benied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 90 !Travel Distance (mi) 2382 Travel Time (hr) 164.4 !Total Delay (hr) 87.8 Total Stops 5963 duel Used (gal) 254.8 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time End Time 6:57 7:00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 [total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. �/ehs Entered 2556 Vehs Exited 2027 Starting Vehs 0 Ending Vehs 1124 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 90 [travel Distance (mi) 2382 Travel Time (hr) 164.4 [rota! Delay (hr) 87.8 Total Stops 5963 Fuel Used (gal) 254.8 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 1 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 1: Strander Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach /Approach WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.9 1.0 0.9 2.9 Stop Delay( 0.7 0.6 0.8 2.0 St Del /Veh (s) 17.5 12.0 9.9 12.4 Travel Time (1.2!) 2.2 2.7 1.6 6.4 Avg Speed (mph) 17 21 11 17 2: Minkler Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 Stop Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 St Del /Veh (s) 37.8 3.3 1.4 4.0 Travel Time (hr) 0.5 1.2 1.6 3.2 Avg Speed (mph) 16 23 26 24 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach /Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.2 6.1 Stop Delay (hr) 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.0 4.9 St Del/Veh (s) 32.5 36.9 36.1 27.6 33.5 Travel Time (hr) 1.7 3.1 3.4 1.8 10.0 Avg Speed (mph) 8 10 18 12 13 J 4: Klickitat Drive & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach /Approach EB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.0 1.5 0.8 3.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.7 1.3 0.5 2.6 St Del/Veh (s) 13.9 20.7 9.9 15.2 Travel Time (hr) 2.0 1.9 1.5 5.5 Avg Speed (mph) 15 6 12 11 5: SR 5 southbound on -ramp & Klickitat Drive Performance by approach /Approach NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.5 0.9 Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.4 0.4 St Del /Veh (s) 0.4 7.6 3.3 Travel Time (hr) 2.0 1.6 3.7 Avg Speed (mph) 23 23 23 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 6: Southcenter Blvd & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 5.1 2.4 2.5 10.0 Stop Delay (hr) 4.2 1.9 2.2 8.3 St Del /Veh (s) 39.5 40.2 44.1 40.7 Travel lime (hr) 6.9 4.9 3.3 15.1 Avg Speed (mph) 9 16 5 10 8: Southcenter Pkwy & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.5 0.5 1.5 3.5 Stop Delay (hr) 1.1 0.3 1.0 2.4 St Del/Veh (s) 20.0 8.0 12.0 13.5 Travel Time (hr) 3.6 1.0 3.0 7.6 Avg Speed (mph) 19 13 10 15 9: Southcenter Pkwy & SR 405 nb on Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 1.1 1.0 0.5 2.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.7 0.5 2.0 St Del /Veh (s) 10.9 13.4 27.3 13.8 Travel Time (hr) 2.0 1.8 0.6 4.4 Avg Speed (mph) 11 11 5 10 10: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 1.1 0.9 1.2 3.2 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.7 1.0 2.4 St Del /Veh (s) 14.9 15.9 27.1 18.8 Travel Time (hr) 1.7 1.8 2.1 5.6 Avg Speed (mph) 10 16 14 13 11: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.4 0.5 1.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.1 St Del /Veh (s) 16.8 8.3 6.0 10.4 Travel Time (hr) 1.7 1.0 1.5 4.3 Avg Speed (mph) 17 16 22 18 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 03- SimTraffic Report Page 3 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 12: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach 'Approach EB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 2.1 0.5 0.1 2.7 Stop Delay (hr) 2.1 0.3 0.0 2.4 St Del /Veh (s) 116.9 5.0 0.1 17.0 jrravel Time (hr) 2.4 1.1 0.6 4.0 Avg Speed (mph) 3 15 19 9 16: Southcenter Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach 'Approach EB NB SW All Total Delay (hr) 7.3 0.7 4.2 12.1 Stop Delay (hr) 7.0 0.5 3.9 11.4 St Del /Veh (s) 284.7 11.3 56.0 81.8 Travel Time (hr) 8.7 1.5 5.1 15.4 Avg Speed (mph) 5 15 13 8 17: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach 'Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.7 1.2 2.1 4.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.7 3.9 St Del /Veh (s) 34.5 34.5 23.3 33.1 30.1 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 0.9 1.7 4.3 7.7 Avg Speed (mph) 6 4 8 16 12 19: Baker Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach 'Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 Atop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.0 St Del /Veh (s) 31.0 34.4 3.9 4.7 10.7 Travel Time (hr) 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.1 3.3 Avg Speed (mph) 8 12 24 24 19 22: Strander Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.1 5.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.9 4.5 St DeI/Veh (s) 22.8 31.9 29.9 26.3 27.9 Travel Time (hr) 2.1 2.0 3.7 1.7 9.5 Avg Speed (mph) 14 8 19 12 14 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 4 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 27: 168th & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.6 1.1 0.8 2.5 Stop Delay (OD 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.8 St DeI/Veh (s) 30.0 15.6 7.8 14.0 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 2.2 2.8 5.7 Avg Speed (mph) 5 16 24 19 29: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.1 2.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 2.1 St DeI/Veh (s) 39.4 16.3 30.9 30.0 28.6 Travel lime (hr) 0.8 0.7 1.7 2.6 5.8 Avg Speed (mph) 14 14 21 21 19 30: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 St Dei/Veh (s) 36.1 42.6 3.9 1.7 10.9 Travel Time (hr) 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.8 4.4 Avg Speed (mph) 10 8 31 32 26 32: Best Buy & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB AU Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 St DeI/Veh (s) 40.7 37.8 6.9 1.9 11.4 [Travel Time (hr) 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.3 3.8 Avg Speed (mph) 2 2 24 25 19 33: S. 180th St. & Sperry Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.6 2.4 atop Delay (hr) 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.5 1.9 St Del /Veh (s) 7.7 16.8 13.4 26.4 15.4 [Travel Time (hr) 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.7 3.2 Avg Speed (mph) 15 7 11 4 8 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 5 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station 2/24/2005 36: S. 180th St. & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delayjhr) St Del/Veh (s) EB WB NB SB All 1.1 1.5 0.4 2.4 5.4 1.0 0.9 0.4 1.9 4.1 44.6 22.0 33.4 48.5 36.5 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 2.7 0.5 4.0 8.9 Avg Speed (mph) 12 16 8 13 13 39: S. 180th St. & Andover Park East Performance by approach jpproach EB WB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.3 St Del /Veh (s) 7.4 8.6 20.2 11.2 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 1.2 1.9 4.1 Avg Speed (mph) 23 15 23 21 40: S. 180th St. & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.7 2.4 0.1 0.9 4.2 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 1.9 0.1 0.7 3.2 St Del /Veh (s) 19.8 37.6 15.4 31.6 30.4 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 3.3 0.2 2.1 7.1 Avg Speed (mph) 18 9 12 21 15 42: Strander Blvd & Southcenter/Target Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) }stop Delay (hr) St Del /Veh (s) EB WB NB SB All 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.8 15.6 7.9 40.4 23.0 18.0 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 3.9 Avg Speed (mph) 17 16 2 5 13 51: Baker Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (1,21) St Del /Veh (s) EB WB 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 30.3 32.3 NB 0.5 0.2 5.7 SB All 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.9 3.8 10.6 Travel Time (hr) 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.8 2.9 Avg Speed (mph) 13 6 20 26 18 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 6 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 without Tukwila Station Total Network Performance 2/24/2005 Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (Iiirt) St DeVVeh (s) Avg Speed (mph) 87.8 2665:004 - Tukwila nation MJJ -JakeTrafFtc Engineering, inc. SimTraffic Report Page 7 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 w/ project PM peak hour traffic JTE, INC 2/21/2005 ce.,___1 ___________7;_s-..4160tr‘ crwitn.d., II 1, Park C rr■ ..- (ILL \ \--S-164th-St-ii 3\186th St ---1 hr.St—I —1--S-170th:-St---413--R 21TdzSit---------====-----4 ki$ _Tr; \ \SR172nd:P1-72;_, 75th:St— , -- — ILT -4---11 77-42 ----- n --1 't------Trirvaireir- \ midge 7 'tits Teierveir 2005.004 - Tukwila Station Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Summary of All Intervals Start Time End Time 6:57 7:10 Total Time (min) Time Recorded (min) 13 10 of Intervals 2 # of Recorded Intvls Vehs Entered Vehs Exited Starting Vehs Ending Vehs Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After Travel Distance (mi) Travel Time (hr) Total Delay (hr) Total Stops uel Used gal 1 2670 2029 0 1235 0 78 2349 168.9 90.7 6407 242.1 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time End Time 6:57 7:00 [rota) Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time End Time 7:00 7:10 iTotal Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Vehs Entered Vehs Exited Starting Vehs Ending Vehs Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After jTravel Distance (mi) Travel Time (hr) Total Delay (hr) Total Stops Fuel Used (gal) 2670 2029 0 1235 0 78 2349 168.9 90.7 6407 242.1 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 1 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 1: Strander Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.1 0.8 0.8 2.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.4 0.7 1.9 St Del /Veh (s) 20.8 7.6 9.0 11.4 Travel Time (hr) 2.3 2.6 1.4 6.4 Avg Speed (mph) 16 22 12 17 2: Minkler Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance/ by approach Approach WB NB SB Alf Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 Stop Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 St Del /Veh (s) 41.7 0.9 0.9 2.4 Travel Time (hr) 0.4 1.1 1.5 2.9 Avg Speed (mph) 16 26 27 25 3: Strander Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.0 7.4 top Delayihr 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.8 6.1 St Del /Veh (s) 36.9 34.2 36.9 47.9 38.6 Travel Time (hr) 2.2 3.2 3.5 2.8 11.6 Avg Speed (mph) 7 11 17 8 11 4: Klickitat Drive & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.7 1.2 1.0 2.9 top Delay (hr) 0.5 1.0 0.7 2.2 St Del /Veh (s) 11.8 16.9 13.5 14.4 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 1.6 1.6 4.8 Avg Speed (mph) 16 7 11 11 5: SR 5 southbound on -ramp & Klickitat Drive Performance by approach Approach NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.5 stop Delayjhr) 0.0 0.2 0.2 St Del /Veh (s) 0.4 4.1 1.7 Travel Time (hr) 1.9 1.1 3.1 Avg Speed (mph) 24 27 25 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 2 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 6: Southcenter Blvd & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 8.1 1.9 2.1 12.2 Stop Delay (hr) 6.7 1.6 1.8 10.1 St Del/Veh (s) 63.5 32.1 37.2 49.6 [travel Time (hr) 9.8 4.6 3.0 17.4 Avg Speed (mph) 7 17 6 10 8: Southcenter Pkwy & 61st Ave. S. Performance by approach ;Approach EB WB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.1 0.6 1.9 3.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.3 1.6 2.7 St Del /Veh (s) 17.1 8.1 19.3 15.9 trravel Time (hr) 3.0 1.1 3.3 7.4 Avg Speed (mph) 20 13 9 14 9: Southcenter Pkwy & SR 405 nb on Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) St Del/Veh (s) EB WB NB All 1.0 1.5 0.6 3.2 0.7 1.1 0.6 2.4 9.8 21.0 30.0 16.4 Travel Time (hr) 2.0 2.3 0.8 5.0 Avg Speed (mph) 12 9 5 9 10: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 1.0 0.7 1.7 3.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 0.5 1.4 2.6 St Del/Veh (s) 13.3 14.3 31.8 19.9 [I-ravel Time (h) 1.6 1.5 2.8 5.9 Avg Speed (mph) 11 17 12 13 11: Southcenter Pkwy & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.4 Stop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.0 St Del /Veh (s) 13.0 7.0 7.9 9.3 jrravel lime (hr) 1.4 0.9 1.6 3.9 Avg Speed (mph) 18 17 20 19 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 3 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 12: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.1 0.5 0.1 1.8 Stop Delay (hr) 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.5 St DeI/Veh (s) 59.8 5.0 0.1 10.3 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.1 0.5 3.0 Avg Speed (mph) 4 15 20 11 16: Southcenter Blvd & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach EB NB SW All Total Delay (hr) 7.0 0.5 4.3 11.8 Stop Delay (hr.) 6.7 0.4 4.0 11.1 St Del /Veh (s) 264.6 8.6 54.2 78.0 Travel Time (IV 8.3 1.3 5.4 15.0 Avg Speed (mph) 5 16 12 8 17: Southcenter Pkwy & Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.7 3.0 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 2.5 St DeI/Veh (s) 31.4 39.8 18.3 11.0 21.5 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 1.2 1.1 2.3 5.4 Avg Speed (mph) 6 4 9 22 13 19: Baker Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.5 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 St Del /Veh (s) 33.9 25.1 2.9 7.1 11.4 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 0.3 1.0 1.4 3.7 Avg Speed (mph) 7 14 24 20 17 22: Strander Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 2.3 1.4 1.6 1.0 6.4 Stop Delay (hr) 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.8 5.2 St Del /Veh (s) 47.8 33.8 26.5 22.6 32.5 Travel Time (hr) 3.3 1.9 3.8 1.7 10.7 Avg Speed (mph) 9 8 19 13 13 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. cip SimTraffic Report Page 4 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 27: 168th & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) St Del /Veh (s) EB WB NB SB All 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.0 3.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.7 2.3 1.8 30.7 18.7 12.9 18.0 Travel Time (hr) 0.0 0.9 2.5 3.0 6.4 Avg Speed (mph) 12 5 15 21 17 29: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach Total Delay (hr) Stop Delay (hr) St Del /Veh (s) EB WB NB SB All 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 2.1 46.6 17.8 30.6 28.7 29.3 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 0.6 1.4 3.1 5.8 Avg Speed (mph) 12 14 19 20 18 30: Minkler Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.1 Stop Delay (hr) 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.8 St DeI /Veh (s) 31.8 40.5 1.7 1.7 9.3 Travel Time (hr) 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.9 4.4 Avg Speed (mph) 11 8 28 30 24 32: Best Buy & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 2.1 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.7 St Del/Veh (s) 38.6 32.4 15.6 5.7 16.0 Travel Time (hr) 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.5 4.3 Avg Speed (mph) 2 2 20 22 16 33: S. 180th St. & Sperry Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.6 2.3 'Stop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.8 St Del/Veh (s) 9.8 13.3 9.1 29.8 14.6 Irravel Time (hr) 0.8 1.6 0.1 0.8 3.2 Avg Speed (mph) 13 8 13 4 8 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 5 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) Stop St Del /Veh (s) Travel 0 (6 Avg Speed (mph) Delay 90.7 97.8 168.9 15 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 7 Tukwila Urban Center 2010 with Tukwila Station 2/22/2005 36: S. 180th St. & Southcenter Pkwy Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 1.5 2.2 0.2 3.2 7.1 Stop Delayjhr) 1.3 1.5 0.1 2.5 5.5 St DeI /Veh (s) 50.3 34.1 25.1 59.3 46.3 Travel Time (hr) 2.3 3.6 0.2 4.9 11.1 Avg Speed (mph) 11 13 10 11 12 39: S. 180th St. & Andover Park East Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.9 Stop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.5 St Del/Veh (s) 11.1 11.4 18.4 13.0 jrravel Time (hr) 1.2 1.4 19 4.5 Avg Speed (mph) 19 13 22 18 40: S. 180th St. & Andover Park West Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.0 4.0 Stop Dela (hr) 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.6 2.9 St Del/Veh (s) 14.1 32.1 35.1 26.5 25.6 jrravei Time (hr) 1.8 3.1 0.2 2.4 7.6 Avg Speed (mph) 19 10 8 20 15 42: Strander Blvd & Southcenter/Target Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.1 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.7 St DeI/Veh (s) 14.9 9.8 17.1 31.6 16.7 jrravel Time (hr) 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.8 4.0 Avg Speed (mph) 18 15 4 4 13 51: Baker Blvd & Andover Park East Performance by approach 'Approach EB WB NB SB All Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.0 Stop Delay (hr) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 St Del/Veh (s) 21.1 29.3 5.5 3.9 9.1 jrravel Time (hr) 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.9 2.7 Avg Speed (mph) 14 7 20 24 19 2005.004 - Tukwila Station MJJ Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. SimTraffic Report Page 6 Mar 24 05 10:48a Statz of Wag..1r.gton County of King Ciry of Tukwila 208-362-4281 • CITY OF TUKWIL4 Depadeneni of Community Devdopineai 6300 Southcemer Boulevard. Tukwila. WA 98188 • (10(,1 • tukplarOxituk-wila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING • OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) . ; 1 PPA0110012-- . , . • (PRINT NAME), understand that Section 18.104.110 of, the Tukwila M:inpc; Cod:: requ;r.±7; me to post the property no later than toorteen (14) days following the issuance of the N Itf.,.:otttrf..:ctrgpletenebs. I cif.. that ■-.11 /e. the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance wit ectios 1 104.110 and ti.e other .!:)olicl!):t gui f :ines were posted on the property located at • 1.04.krj14911L15 :,.0 as .1) be clearly ...;... .irom each right-of-way primary vehicular access to the property for app Ica ton file tannbt:.-. - . . I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila ri: lit f.. re,:rffntativ.? to ii:TiVV3 Elikl ■. • -s lately dispose of the sign a'. the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fouttee/4) d. in fa Nctioe letter. Applican " . •... r l'Cle t :Inager's S!fritar.- On this day personally appeared before me tera-die y D ray/o r to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and atknowiedged/ that he4hr signed the same as Liam— voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /31k) day of /9 p ril ,205 Attazt v,.... .....", - NOTARY PUBLIC in and for e State of Washington residing at Renton .17 V. •*010iti k, .. J. it --r,c,•. # .4 , , . • 0 • 0 ‘4,0 I AM). To ' My commission expires on ._ ..p . i 0 ,:; : 4■■• • *NO I ; ,, (P % 11.113 LIG . •Z'' 1' iii.11.4,\•.e..-16-0.•lie& 477 . I I 4 I IC)4Eu .W. .A.S.•‘A■s‘;" A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tukwila Station 2. Name of applicant: Rutledge Maul Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 0 9 '643 PERMIT CENTeR Rutledge Maul Architects 19336 47th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 Bill Rutledge 4. Date checklist prepared: March 8, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Estimated construction start date would be late 2005 with a completion date in late 2006 or early 2007. C05— 003 CLOS- -0 ti4 t.O5 -0 (5- ) Po5-o ( C1 RECE,%, n (MAR 0 9 2005 COMiriUNi i r DEVELOPMENT 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes: we will be having a land swap with the city of Tukwila, see attachment A. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or would be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 10. List any government approvals or permits that would be needed for your proposal, if known: Conditional use permit; Bar approved; Building permits; Code Amendments for TUC; Land Exchange agreement w/ City of Tukwila. 11. Give brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The site is located on a 4.6 Acre of land in Tukwila and will have a lower level of parking which will be in the range of 104,849 sf and five stories of residential. Building one will have a square footage in the range of 66,112. Buildings 2 -3 will have a total square footage in the range of 128,886 and building 4 -5 will have a square footage in the range of 125,247. We will also have some commercial on the forward building 1 at the courtyard level. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is Lot 2 of the City of Tukwila Short Plat # L98 -0007, Recording NO. 9803129013 in King County: The Stie is located just south of I -405 between the Union Pacific R/R and the Burlington Northern R/R and is just North of Longacres Way. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Site is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approx. 2% or less across the entire site. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The 1973 Soils Conservation Service map identifies the on -site soils as Woodinville Silt Loam (Wo). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of structural fill will need to be brought in to raise the site so that required storm drainage detention and water quality facilities will function and drain to the existing drainage swale on the east side of the site. Source of fill will likely be from sites under construction with export material. All fill brought to the site will be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer for suitability. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Yes. Site is flat however which precludes much detrimental effects from erosion. Silt fencing will be provided along the swale to the east to prevent sediment from entering the waterway. About what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 69% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces (roads, parking, buildings, sidewalks). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fencing, V- ditches, sediment pond(s) and/or trap(s) will be utilized as necessary to collect and settle sediment -laden construction water prior to discharge. A temporary erosion control plan detailing these elements will be submitted to the city for review as part of the construction documents for building permit. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we would expect some levels of dust along with smoke /exhaust from trucks and construction equipment. Possible odors could also result from and during construction such as paints and solvents along with the smell of diesel again from the construction equipment. Once the project is completed we would expect very low levels of dust and odors. Possible vehicle odors would exists in the mornings and evenings while tenants are coming and going. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe? NO. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction dust control will be implemented in either the form of soil dampening or screening. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A storm drainage swale exists to the east of the adjacent property. This swale enters a piped system and is conveyed to Springbrook Creek approx. 1 mile east of the site. Springbrook Creek conveys flows to the north and connects to the Green River north of the site. The Green River is located approx. 0.5 miles west of the site. 2) Would the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters. If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Would the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. Virtually the entire site is shown in the floodplain per FEMA maps. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground 1) Would ground water be withdrawn, or would water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that would be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where would this water flow? Would this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff for this site consists of the flows primarily from rainfall on the buildings, roadways, and parking areas. Collection of this runoff is by conventional means including building downspouts and gutters, storm drainage catchbasins, and tightline systems to a storm water detention system. The site is split into two separate systems, one detention system to the north and one detention system to the south. The southerly system collects approximately the southerly one quarter of the site and detains runoff. Similarly the northerly system collects approximately three quarters of the site and detains this runoff in a concrete vault. Runoff from both vaults is directed easterly to a drainage swale along the base of the railroad tracks. This runoff flows northerly and then easterly under the tracks in a 24 inch storm drainage line. This water is conveyed easterly to Springbrook Creek. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Runoff is proposed to be detained and released at a pre developed rate. Water quality measures are provided to clean the runoff prior to discharge to the existing system. The southerly vault employs "dead storage" to accomplish this; the northerly vault employs a "bioswale" to clean the runoff. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation would be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other amphibians and reptiles: frogs, salamanders, snakes, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it would be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric Heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The traffic from I -405 and two Railroad lines to the East and West. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical construction noise would occur during normal working hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Northern portion of the site is currently used by the Dity Public Works Dept. for temporary storage. The balance of the site is not in use. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Would any structures be demolished? If so, what. No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Industrial? The site is within the Transit Development (TOD) area of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) while the new sub area plan has not been officially adopted as yet, the City Council and Planning Commission have approved code criteria to allow the proposed project. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Possible part of Tukwila, waiting for approval, see line E. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 450 residents and 10 -12 retail / commercial workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comprehensive plan policies support mixed use residential in this area. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. We will be providing 294 units which will accommodate all levels of income. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any portion of this structure will be in the range of 75' Exterior bldg walls include brick, stucco, horizontal and vertical siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Nearly 70% of the parking is in a parking garage. The buildings have been designed with substantial vertical and horizontal modulation. Color and materials variety also are used to diminish the overall impact of the buildings. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare would the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project will include lighting that will meet the City of Tukwila lighting requirements. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with the views? NO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are parks in the area along with South center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe: NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will have over 65,000 sf of open space & common and recreation facilities. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on , or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, of any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access is from Longacres way just south of the site and the Sounder train is exists approximately 1500 feet from the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? We will provide 422 parking spaces none will be eliminated. d. Would the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). NO e. Would the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project once finished would use the rail system via the adjacent Sounder Train Station. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 200 to 400 trips per day could be generated although the use of the rail could affect this estimate greatly. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: We are designing with the rail system in mind with hopes that it would be extensively utilized for transportation by the residents. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Nominal increase in public services will occur for Police and Fire protection b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The site will be oriented to provide direct pedestrian access to the Sounder Train Station, thereby reducing transportation impacts. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewers, storm drainage system, cable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Sanitary sewers, Storm Sewers, and Water Service- City of Tukwila. Cable TV- Comcast. General construction activities on the site would include extensions or each of these systems onto the site for service. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: We are designing with the rail system in mind with hopes that it would be extensively utilized for transportation by the residents. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Nominal increase in public services will occur for Police and Fire protection b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The site will be oriented to provide direct pedestrian access to the Sounder Train Station, thereby reducing transportation impacts. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewers, storm drainage system, cable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Sanitary sewers, Storm Sewers, and Water Service- City of Tukwila. Cable TV- Comcast. General construction activities on the site would include extensions or each of these systems onto the site for service. 1 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. S ignature: Date Submitted: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Circle electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewers, storm drainage system, cable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Sanitary sewers,Storm Sewers, and Water Service- City of Tukwila. Cable TV- Comcast. General construction activities on the site would include extensions or each of these systems onto the site for service. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and com to to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on t em tQ ' . e it : ci '. • /A i' Signature: / �[a./ • / ' Date Submitted: II•0 Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 T AAIF,k •L COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." • i • unman 1.1 • • • nil First American Title Insurance Company By: /- President cl Attest: /n,(4,it Secretary By: L—OS'-I4 LP50t5 S05-003 FirstAmer/can Title Insurance Company Countersigned RECEI!!EC MAR 0 9 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment First American Title Insurance Company National Commerria/ Services 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 (206) 728 -0400 - FAX (206) 448 -6348 Judy Fredrickson (206) 615-3276 jrredrickson@firstam.com To: Leibsohn & Company 40 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 270 Bellevue, WA 98005 Attn: Brian Leibsohn SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: February 14, 2005 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 1 Moniqueje Schmitt- Johnson (206) 615-3141 mschmitt- johnson @firstam.com File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Your Ref No.: McLeod AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Short Term Rate Standard Owner's Coverage $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow Easement Charge $ 40.00 $ 3.52 Proposed Insured: Ken Kester, and spouse if married, and /or assigns 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple as to Parcel A and an Easement Interest as to Parcel B, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Stuart McLeod, as his separate estate 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. RECEIVED `MAR 0 9 2005 COMMUNi i Y DEVELOPMENT First American Tide Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 2 Lot 2 of City of Tukwila Short Plat No. L98 -0007, according to Short Plat recorded March 12, 1998 under Recording No. 9803129013, in King County, Washington. Parcel B: A non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress as described in instrument recorded September 13, 1996 under Recording No. 9609130558, In King County, Washington. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REOUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS-145270 -WA1 Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an Interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a Tien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter fumished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges /costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Commitment Page No. 4 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Tukwila is at 1.78 %. Levy /Area Code: 2340 2. General Taxes for the year 2005. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: 242304913708 8,221.39 0.00 8,221.39 668,600.00 0.00 3. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Stuart McLeod, as his separate estate, as to Parcel A, and McLeod Development Company, a Washington Corporation, as to Parcel B Grantee /Beneficiary: First Mutual Bank Trustee: Pacific Northwest Title Company of Washington, Inc. Amount: $750,000.00 Recorded: May 26, 2004 Recording Information: 20040526001166 Affects: 4. Deed of Trust and the terms Grantor/Trustor: Grantee /Beneficiary: Trustee: Amount: Recorded: Recording Information: Affects: The land and other property. and conditions thereof. Stuart McLeod, as his separate estate as to Parcel A, and McLeod Development Company, a Washington Corporation as to Parcel B, and McLeod Development Company, a Washington Corporation, as to an undivided 53% interest; and Stuart M. McLeod, as his separate estate, as to an undivided 47% interest, as to Parcels C, D and E First Mutual Bank Pacific Northwest Title Company of Washington, Inc. $1,400,000.00 November 8, 2004 20041108000754 The land and other property. 5. A document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement ", executed by and between Stuart Mcleod and Mcleod Development Company and Opus Northwest, L.L.C. recorded July 25, 2001, as Instrument No. 20010725000156 of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 5 6. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in Ken Kester. If said party is married and we are to insure title as such, free of any interest of the spouse, we will require a deed of conveyance from the non - participating spouse. 7. Title is also to vest in persons shown as "and /or assigns" on the application for title insurance, whose identity has not been revealed and when so vested will then be subject to matters which may be disclosed by a search of the records against their names. 8. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 337825 For: Water pipes Affects: The legal description contained in said easement is not sufficient to determine its exact location within said premises 9. A document entitled "Release of Damages Agreement", executed by and between James Nelsen, individually and as executor of the estate of Mary Nelsen, and Fred Nelsen and Dora Nelsen and Northern Pacific Railroad Company recorded January 11, 1935, as Instrument No. 2837840 of Official Records. 10. A document entitled "Undercrossing /Underpass Agreement", executed by and between Fred Nelsen and Dora Nelsen and Northern Pacific Railway Company recorded February 3, 1954, as Instrument No. 4416266 of Official Records. 11. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and /or easements: Recorded: October 31, 1990 Recording No.: 9010310530 12. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 9404131436 In Favor of: City of Tukwila For: Storm drainage system consisting of a drain pipe, ditch and associated improvements Affects: The Easterly 15 feet 13. A document entitled "Developers Agreement ", executed by and between City of Tukwila and McLeod Development Company recorded April 13, 1994, as Instrument No. 9404131437 of Official Records. 14. A document entitled ' Reciprocal Access, Parking and Maintenance Agreement ", executed by and between The Boeing Company and Longacres Park, Inc. and McLeod Development Company recorded January 23, 1996, as Instrument No. 9601231152 of Official Records. 15. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Easement serving said premises" recorded September 13, 1996 as Instrument No. 9609130558 of Official Records. 16. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and /or delineated on the face of the Short Plat No. L98 -0007 recorded under Recording No. 9803129013, in King County, Washington. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 6 17. Private access to said premises is across a railroad right of way. This company will require that the "Private Roadway and Crossing Agreement ", and any assignments or modifications thereof which were issued by the Railroad Company, be submitted for examination. The coverage then afforded under any policy(ies) issued, relative to access to said premises, will be limited by the restrictions, conditions and provisions as contained therein. If no "agreement" exists, the forthcoming policy(ies) will contain the following exception: The lack of right of access to and from the land across a railroad right of way. INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is,furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Lot 2, SP No. L98 -0007, Rec 9803129013 APN: 242304913708 Property Address: To Be Determined, Tukwila, WA D. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in Ken Kester. Examination of the records discloses no matters pending against said party(ies). E. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B FirstAmencan Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment w <M '111 40 First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 7 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any Toss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured In the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of Toss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS- 145270 -WA1 Page No. 8 The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concemed about what we will do with such Information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govem the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use Information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govem our use of personal information regardless of Its source. First American calls these gudelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, induding the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such of nonpublic information may al be information any cave to one or more of our affiliated) companies. Such affiliated companies Include f inandal service providers, such as ti l personal as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and Investment advisory companies, or meanies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to our companies that perform marketing services on our tehalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other finandal institutions Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation - All Rights Reserved FirstAmer/can Title Insurance Company